Learn how and why Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were crafted during Renaissance. What if the Old Testament was a rendition of events of Middle Ages written after the New Testament? Did the crusaders really wait for 1000 years to punish the tormentors of the Messiah? What if Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD?
Sounds unbelievable? Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?" by Anatoly Fomenko, leading mathematician of our time. He follows in steps of Sir Isaac Newton and finds clear evidence of falsification of History. Armed with logic, astronomy and computers he proves the history of humankind to be both dramatically different and drastically shorter than generally presumed.
Archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts are both non-exact and contradictory, therefore there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artifact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century.
The consensual chronology we live with was essentially crafted in the XVI century from the contradictory mix of innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts (all originals have mysteriously disappeared) and the "proofs" delivered by the late mediaeval astronomers, cemented by the authority of writings of the Church Fathers.
In fact, for the last 300 years, the whole class of historians created, researched, perfected and polished a world of phantom universal history and classical civilization artfully constructed by their predecessors in the course of XVI-XVIII centuries at the command of powers of that time. They have polished the real world history into oblivion!
"History: Fiction or Science?", leads You step by step to the inevitable conclusion that the classical chronology is false and therefore, that the history of ancient and medieval world, is also FALSE. After reading this book you will certainly have a fresh and very suspicious outlook on "ancient" and "enigmatic" Roman, Greek and Egyptian, mediaeval as well as all other "lost and found" civilizations.
This book crowns over 30 of meticulous and extensive research.
Henry Ford once said: "History is more or less bunk!"
Prominent mathematician Anatoly Fomenko proves it.
Contents
Chapter 1 The problems of historical chronology
1. Roman chronology as the foundation of European chronology
2. Scaliger, Petavius, and other clerical chronologers.
The creation of contemporary chronology of the ancient times in the XVI-XVII century a.d.
3. The veracity of the Scaliger-Petavius chronology was questioned as early as the XVI century
3.1. Who criticized Scaliger's chronology and where.
3.1.1. De Arcilla, Robert Baldauf, Jean Hardouin, Edwin Johnson, Wilhelm Kammeyer
3.1.2. Sir Isaac Newton
3.1.3. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov
3.1.4. Recent publications of German scientists containing criticisms of Scaliger's chronologY.
3.2. The questionnable veracity of the Roman chronology and history.
The hypercritical school of the XIX century
4. The problems in establishing a correct chronology of "ancient" Egypt
5. The problem in dating the "ancient" sources.Tacitus and Poggio
Cicero and Barzizza. Vitruvius and Alberti
6. Timekeeping in the Middle Ages. Historians discuss the "chaos reigning
in the mediaeval datings."
Peculiar mediaeval anachronisms
7. The chronology and the dating of Biblical texts
8. Difficulties and contradictions arising from the reading of old texts
8.1. How does one read a text written in consonants exclusively? The vocalization problem
9. Problems in the Scaligerian geography of Biblical events
9.1. Archaeology and the Old Testament
9.2. Archaeology and the New Testament
10. Ancient historical events: geographic localization issues
10.1. The locations of Troy and Babylon.
13.3. The alleged acceleration of the destruction of the "ancient" monuments
10.2. The geography of Herodotus is at odds with the Scaligerian version
10.3. The inverted maps of the Middle Ages
11. A modern analysis of Biblical geography
12. The mysterious Renaissance epoch as a product of the Scaligerian chronology
13. The foundations of archaeological methods have been based
on the Scaligerian
chronology from the very beginning
13.4. When did the construction of the Cologne Cathedral really begin?
13.5. Archaeological methods are most often based on Scaliger's datings
13.6. One of the numerous problems of the Scaligerian history
the problem
of bronze manufacture before the discovery of tin.
14. The problems and deficiencies of dendrochronology and several other dating methods
14.1. The consequent scale of dendrochronological datings does not extend
further back in time than the X century a.d.
14.2. Sedimentary layer datings. The methods of radium-uranium and radium-actinium analysis
15. Are radiocarbon datings to be trusted?
15.1. The radiocarbon datings of ancient, mediaeval, and modern specimens are scattered chaotically
15.1.1. Libby's initial idea. The first failures
15.1.2. A criticism of the application of the radiocarbon method to historical specimens
15.2. The dating of the Shroud of Turin
15.3 Modern radiocarbon analysis of Egyptian artefacts demonstrates serious contradictions
16. Critical analysis of the hypotheses on which the radiocarbon method is based. By A. S. Mishchenko
16.1. W. F. Libby's initial idea
16.2. Physical basics of the radiocarbon method
16.3. The hypotheses that the radiocarbon method is based upon
16.4. The moment of the object's departure from the exchange reservoir
16.5. Radiocarbon content variations in the exchange reservoir
16.6. Variations in radiocarbon content of living bodies
18. Numismatic datings
Chapter 2 Astronomical datings
1. The strange leap of parameter D" in the Theory of Lunar Motion
2. Are the "ancient" and mediaeval eclipses dated correctly?
2.1. Some astronomical data
2.2. The discovery of an interesting effect: an unprejudiced astronomical dating
shifts the dates of the "ancient" eclipses to the Middle Ages
2.3. Three eclipses described by the "ancient" Thucydides
2.4. The eclipses described by the "ancient" Titus Livy
3. Transferring the dates of the "ancient" eclipses forward in time into
the Middle Ages
eliminates the enigmatic behaviour of the parameter D".
4. Astronomy moves the "ancient" horoscopes into the Middle Ages
4.1. The mediaeval astronomy
4.2. The method of unprejudiced astronomical dating
4.3. Many "ancient astronomical observations" may have been theoretically
calculated
by late mediaeval astronomers and then included into the "ancient"
chronicles as "real observations"
4.4. Which astronomical "observations of the ancients" could have been
a result
of late mediaeval theoretic calculations?
5. A brief account of several examples of Egyptian Zodiacs
5.1. Some general observations
5.2. The Dendera Zodiacs
5.3. The horoscopes of Brugsch and Flinders Petrie
5.4. Finite datings of the Egyptian Zodiacs based on their complete deciphering,
as obtained by A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy in 2001
5.5. On the errors of E. S. Goloubtsova and Y. A. Zavenyagin 6. Astronomy in the New Testament
Chapter 3 The new dating of the astronomical horoscope as described in the Apocalypse
By A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy
1. The proposed research method
2. General information about the Apocalypse and the time of its creation
3. Ursa Major and the throne
4. The events took place on the Isle of Patmos
5. The constellations of Cassiopeia and the throne were drawn as Christ
sitting on his throne in the Middle Ages
6. The Milky Way
7. Twenty-four sidereal hours and the constellation of the Northern Crown
8. Leo, Taurus, Sagittarius, Pegasus
9. The daily rotation of the Northern Crown
10. Equine planetary images in mediaeval astronomy
11. Jupiter is in Sagittarius
12. Mars is beneath Perseus in either Gemini or Taurus
13. Mercury is in Libra
14. Saturn is in Scorpio
15. The Sun is in Virgo with the Moon underneath the feet of the latter
16. Venus is in Leo
17. The astronomical dating of the Apocalypse by the horoscope it contains
18. Our reconstruction of the initial content of the Apocalypse
Chapter 4 Astronomy in the Old Testament
1. Mediaeval astronomy in the Old Testament Book of Ezekiel
1.1. The title of the book
1.2. The description of the Milky Way and the Ophiuchus constellation
1.3. The Biblical description of the astronomical sectors, or "wings," on the celestial sphere
1.4. The constellations of Leo, Taurus and Aquila
1.5. The Biblical description of the mediaeval "wheels," or planetary orbits
1.6. Parallels with the astronomical symbolism of the Apocalypse
1.7. Biblical cherubim, chariots, and mediaeval planetary orbital wheels
1.8. The Biblical description of mediaeval cosmology as a celestial temple
2. The Biblical prophecy of Zechariah and the date of its creation
3. The Biblical prophecy of Jeremiah and the date of its creation
4. The Biblical prophecy of Isaiah and the date of its creation
5. The Biblical prophecy of Daniel and the date of its creation
Chapter 5 The methods of dating the ancient events offered by mathematical statistics
1. The local maxima method
1.1. The historical text volume function
1.2. The maxima correlation principle
1.3. Statistical model
1.4. Experimental test of the maxima correlation principle.
Examples of dependent and independent historical texts
1.5. Method of dating the historical events
2. Volume functions of historical texts and the amplitude correlation principle.
By A. T. Fomenko and S. T. Rachev
2.1. Dependent and independent chronicles. Volume function maxima correlletions
2.2. Rich and poor chronicles and chronicle zones
2.3. Significant and insignificant zeroes of volume functions
2.4. The information respect principles
2.5. The amplitude correlation principle of volume graphs in the poor zones of chronicles
2.6. Description of statistical model and formalization
2.7. The hypothesis about the increase of the "form" parameter of a chronicle in the course of times
2.8. The list and characteristics of the Russian chronicles we investigated
2.9. The final table of the numeric experiment
2.10. Interesting consequences of the numeric experiment.
The confirmation of the statistical model
2.11. Comparison of a priori dependent Russian chronicles
2.12. Comparison of a priori independent Russian chronicles
2.13. Growth of form parameter in the course of time
for the Russian chronicles after the XIII century
2.14. Growth of the average form parameter over the course of time
for groups
of Russian chronicles of the XIII-XVI century
2.15. Growth of the average parameter of form over the course of time
for the groups
of Russian chronicles of the alleged IX-XIII century
2.16. Chronological shift by 300 or 400 years in Russian history
2.17. Conclusions
3. The maxima correlation principle on the material of the sources pertinent
to
the epoch of Strife in the History of Russia (1584-1619)
By A. T. Fomenko, N. S. Kellin and L. E. Morozova
4. The method for the recognition and dating of the dynasties of rulers.
The small dynastic distortions principle
4.1. The formulation of the small dynastic distortions principle
4.2. The statistical model
4.3. Refinement of the model and the computation experimens
4.4. Result of the experiment: coefficient c(a, b) positively distinguishes
between the dependent and independent dynasties of kings
4.5. The method of dating the royal dynasties and the method
detecting the phantom dynastic duplicates
5. The frequency damping principle.The method of ordering of historical texts in time
6. Application of the method to some concrete historical texts
7. Method of dating of the events
8. The frequencies duplication principle. The duplicate detection method
9. Statistical analysis of the Bible
9.1. Partition of the Bible into 218 "generation chapters"
9.2. Detection of the previously known duplicates in the Bible
with the aid of the frequency dumping principle
9.3. New, previously unknown duplicates we discovered in the Bible.
General scheme of their distribution within the Bible
9.4. A representative example: the new statistical dating of the Apocalypse,
which moves from the New Testament into the Old Testament
10. The method of form-codes. The comparison of two long currents of regal biographies
11. Correct chronological ordering method and dating of ancient geographical maps
Chapter 6 The construction of a global chronological map and the results of applying
mathematical procedures of dating to the Scaligerian version of the ancient history
1. Textbook of ancient and mediaeval history in the consensual Scaliger-Petavius datings
2. Mysterious duplicate chronicles inside the "Scaliger-Petavius textbook"
3. Mysterious duplicate regal dynasties inside the "textbook by Scaliger-Petavius"
4. Brief tables of some astonishing dynastic parallelisms
5. Conformity of results obtained by different methods
5.1. General assertion
5.2. The agreement of the different methods on the example of the identification
of the Biblical Judaic reign with the Holy Roman Empire of allegedly X-XIII century a.d.
6. The general layout of duplicates in "the textbook by Scaliger-Petavius".
The discovery of the three basic chronological shifts
7. The Scaligerian textbook of the ancient history glued together
four duplicates of the short original chronicle
8. The list of phantom "ancient" events which are phantom duplicates,
or reflections of the mediaeval originals
9. Identification of the "ancient" Biblical history with the mediaeval European history
10. Our hypothesis: history as described in surviving chronicles only begins in ca. the X century a.d.
We know nothing of the events that took place before the X century a.d.
11. Authentic history only begins in XVII century a.d.
The history of the XI-XVI century is largely distorted.
Many dates of the XI-XVI century require correction
12. The radical distinction of our chronological concept from the version of N. A. Morozov
13. The hypothesis about the cause of the fallacious chronological
shifts
in the creation of the history of antiquity
13.1. Chronological shift of a thousand years as the consequence of the fallacious dating of Jesus Christ's life
13.2. The letter "X" formerly denoted the name of Christ,
but was later proclaimed to stand for the figure of ten.
The letter "I" formerly denoted the name of Jesus, but
was later proclaimed to be the indication of one thousand
13.3. Until the XVIII century, the Latin letters "I" or "J" - i.e. the
first letters of the name of Jesus -
were still used in several
European regions to denote "one" in recording of dates
13.4. How the chronological shift by 330 or 360 years could have occured
13.5. What latin letters "M", "D", "C" in Roman dates meant originally, in the Middle Ages
13.5.1. General idea
13.5.2. Example: the date on the tomb of Empress Gisela
13.5.3. Another example: the date on the headstone of Emperor Rudolf Habsburg
13.5.4. Recording of mediaeval dates was not unified everywhere even in the XVIII century
13.5.5. Some datings of printed books and manuscripts dating
from the XV-XVII century
will apparently have to be moved
forwards in time by at least fifty more years
13.6. The foundation date of Rome of Italy
13.7. A later confusion of foundation dates of the two Romes,
on the Bosporus and in Italy.
13.8. Scaliger and the Council of Trent. Creation of the Scaligerian
chronology
of antiquity in the XVI-XVII century
13.9. Two phantom "ancient" reflections of Dionysius Petavius,
a mediaeval chronologist of the XVII century
14. A stratified structure of the Scaligerian textbook of ancient history
15. The coordination of a new astronomical dating with a dynastic parallel
16. A strange lapse in the Scaligerian chronology near "the beginning of the new era"
Chapter 7 "Dark Ages" in mediaeval history
1. The mysterious Renaissance of the "Classical Age" in mediaeval Rome
1.1. The lugubrious "Dark Ages" in Europe that presumably succeeded
the beauteous "Classical Age"
1.2. Parallels between "antiquity" and the Middle Ages that are known
to historians, but misinterpreted by them
1.3. Mediaeval Roman legislators convene in the presumably destroyed "ancient" Capitol
1.4. The real date when the famous "ancient" statue of Marcus Aurelius
was manufactured
1.5. Could the "ancient" Emperor Vitellius have posed for the mediaeval
artist Tintoretto?
1.6. The amount of time required for the manufacture of one sheet of parchment
1.7. The "ancient" Roman Emperor Augustus had been Christian, since
he wore a mediaeval crown with a Christian cross
2. The "ancient" historian Tacitus and the well-known Renaissance writer Poggio Bracciolini
3. The mediaeval Western European Christian cult and the "ancient" pagan
Bacchic celebrations
4. Petrarch (= Plutarch?) and the "Renaissance of antiquity"
4.1. How Petrarch created the legend of the glory of Italian Rome out of nothing
4.2. Petrarch's private correspondence with people considered
"ancient characters" nowadays
5. "Ancient" Greece and mediaeval Greece of the XIII-XVI century
5.1. The history of the mediaeval Athens is supposed to be obscured by darkness
up until the XVI century
5.2. Greece and the Crusades
5.3. The history of Greek and Athenian archaeology is relatively short
5.4. The tendentious distortion of the image of mediaeval Athens in
the "restoration works"
of the XIX-XX century
6. Strange parallels in the Scaligerian history of religions
6.1. Mediaeval Christianity and its reflection in the Scaligerian "pagan antiquity"
6.2. Mediaeval Christianity and "ancient" Mithraism
6.3. References to Jesus Christ contained in "ancient" Egyptian artefacts
6.4. Researchers of the ancient religions commenting on the strange similarities
between the cults of "antiquity" and those of the Middle Ages
6.5. Moses, Aaron and their sister Virgin Mary on the pages of the Koran
6.6. The XI century as the apparent epoch of St. Mark's lifetime.
The history of St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice
7. The "ancient" Egypt and the Middle Ages
7.1. The odd graph of demotic text datings
7.2. The enigmatic "revival periods" in the history of "ancient" Egypt
7.3. The ancient Hittites and the mediaeval Goths
8. Problems inherent in the Scaligerian chronology of India
9. Was the artificial elongation of ancient history deliberate?
Annexes
2.1. (to chapter 2) Grammatical analysis of an eclipse description
in History by Thucydides. By Y. V. 471
5.1. (to chapter 5) Per annum volume distribution in some Russian chronicles
5.2. (to chapter 5) Frequency matrix of names and parallels in the Bible
By V. P. Fomenko and T. G. Fomenko
6.1. (to chapter 6) Per annum volume distribution in The History of the City
of Rome
in the Middle Ages by F. Gregorovius
6.2. (to chapter 6) Per annum volume distribution in The Roman History
from
the Foundation of the City by Titus Livy
6.3. (to chapter 6) Per annum volume distribution in the book by Baronius
describing mediaeval Rome
6.4. (to chapter 6) The "double entry" of the Biblical royal reigns of Israel and Judah
6.5. (to chapter 6) Armenian history. Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire
of the alleged X-XIII century a.d., a.k.a. the Kings of Judah, a.k.a. the
mediaeval Armenian Catholicoses
1. Three phantom reflections of the same mediaeval dynasty
2. The parallelism between the mediaeval Armenian history
and the phantom Roman Empire according to Scaliges
6.6. (to chapter 6) The identification of the "ancient" Kingdom of Judah
with the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century a.d.
The correlation between reign durations and biographical volumes
Isaac Newton
Isaac Newton's life can be divided into three quite distinct periods. The first is his boyhood days from 1643 up to his appointment to a chair in 1669. The second period from 1669 to 1687 was the highly productive period in which he was Lucasian professor at Cambridge. The third period (nearly as long as the other two combined) saw Newton as a highly paid government official in London with little further interest in mathematical research.
Isaac Newton was born in the manor house of Woolsthorpe, near Grantham in Lincolnshire. Although by the calendar in use at the time of his birth he was born on Christmas Day 1642, we give the date of 4 January 1643 in this biography which is the "corrected" Gregorian calendar date bringing it into line with our present calendar. (The Gregorian calendar was not adopted in England until 1752.) Isaac Newton came from a family of farmers but never knew his father, also named Isaac Newton, who died in October 1642, three months before his son was born. Although Isaac's father owned property and animals which made him quite a wealthy man, he was completely uneducated and could not sign his own name.
Isaac's mother Hannah Ayscough remarried Barnabas Smith the minister of the church at North Witham, a nearby village, when Isaac was two years old. The young child was then left in the care of his grandmother Margery Ayscough at Woolsthorpe. Basically treated as an orphan, Isaac did not have a happy childhood. His grandfather James Ayscough was never mentioned by Isaac in later life and the fact that James left nothing to Isaac in his will, made when the boy was ten years old, suggests that there was no love lost between the two. There is no doubt that Isaac felt very bitter towards his mother and his step-father Barnabas Smith. When examining his sins at age nineteen, Isaac listed:-
Threatening my father and mother Smith to burn them and the house over them.
Upon the death of his stepfather in 1653, Newton lived in an extended family consisting of his mother, his grandmother, one half-brother, and two half-sisters. From shortly after this time Isaac began attending the Free Grammar School in Grantham. Although this was only five miles from his home, Isaac lodged with the Clark family at Grantham. However he seems to have shown little promise in academic work. His school reports described him as 'idle' and 'inattentive'. His mother, by now a lady of reasonable wealth and property, thought that her eldest son was the right person to manage her affairs and her estate. Isaac was taken away from school but soon showed that he had no talent, or interest, in managing an estate.
An uncle, William Ayscough, decided that Isaac should prepare for entering university and, having persuaded his mother that this was the right thing to do, Isaac was allowed to return to the Free Grammar School in Grantham in 1660 to complete his school education. This time he lodged with Stokes, who was the headmaster of the school, and it would appear that, despite suggestions that he had previously shown no academic promise, Isaac must have convinced some of those around him that he had academic promise. Some evidence points to Stokes also persuading Isaac's mother to let him enter university, so it is likely that Isaac had shown more promise in his first spell at the school than the school reports suggest. Another piece of evidence comes from Isaac's list of sins referred to above. He lists one of his sins as:-
... setting my heart on money, learning, and pleasure more than Thee ...
which tells us that Isaac must have had a passion for learning.
We know nothing about what Isaac learnt in preparation for university, but Stokes was an able man and almost certainly gave Isaac private coaching and a good grounding. There is no evidence that he learnt any mathematics, but we cannot rule out Stokes introducing him to Euclid's Elements which he was well capable of teaching (although there is evidence mentioned below that Newton did not read Euclid before 1663). Anecdotes abound about a mechanical ability which Isaac displayed at the school and stories are told of his skill in making models of machines, in particular of clocks and windmills. However, when biographers seek information about famous people there is always a tendency for people to report what they think is expected of them, and these anecdotes may simply be made up later by those who felt that the most famous scientist in the world ought to have had these skills at school.
Newton entered his uncle's old College, Trinity College Cambridge, on 5 June 1661. He was older than most of his fellow students but, despite the fact that his mother was financially well off, he entered as a sizar. A sizar at Cambridge was a student who received an allowance toward college expenses in exchange for acting as a servant to other students. There is certainly some ambiguity in his position as a sizar, for he seems to have associated with "better class" students rather than other sizars. Westfall (see [23] or [24]) has suggested that Newton may have had Humphrey Babington, a distant relative who was a Fellow of Trinity, as his patron. This reasonable explanation would fit well with what is known and mean that his mother did not subject him unnecessarily to hardship as some of his biographers claim.
Newton's aim at Cambridge was a law degree. Instruction at Cambridge was dominated by the philosophy of Aristotle but some freedom of study was allowed in the third year of the course. Newton studied the philosophy of Descartes, Gassendi, Hobbes, and in particular Boyle. The mechanics of the Copernican astronomy of Galileo attracted him and he also studied Kepler's Optics. He recorded his thoughts in a book which he entitled Quaestiones Quaedam Philosophicae (Certain Philosophical Questions). It is a fascinating account of how Newton's ideas were already forming around 1664. He headed the text with a Latin statement meaning "Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth" showing himself a free thinker from an early stage.
How Newton was introduced to the most advanced mathematical texts of his day is slightly less clear. According to de Moivre, Newton's interest in mathematics began in the autumn of 1663 when he bought an astrology book at a fair in Cambridge and found that he could not understand the mathematics in it. Attempting to read a trigonometry book, he found that he lacked knowledge of geometry and so decided to read Barrow's edition of Euclid's Elements. The first few results were so easy that he almost gave up but he:-
... changed his mind when he read that parallelograms upon the same base and between the same parallels are equal.
Returning to the beginning, Newton read the whole book with a new respect. He then turned to Oughtred's Clavis Mathematica and Descartes' La Géométrie. The new algebra and analytical geometry of Viète was read by Newton from Frans van Schooten's edition of Viète's collected works published in 1646. Other major works of mathematics which he studied around this time was the newly published major work by van Schooten Geometria a Renato Des Cartes which appeared in two volumes in 1659-1661. The book contained important appendices by three of van Schooten disciples, Jan de Witt, Johan Hudde, and Hendrick van Heuraet. Newton also studied Wallis's Algebra and it appears that his first original mathematical work came from his study of this text. He read Wallis's method for finding a square of equal area to a parabola and a hyperbola which used indivisibles. Newton made notes on Wallis's treatment of series but also devised his own proofs of the theorems writing:-
Thus Wallis doth it, but it may be done thus ...
It would be easy to think that Newton's talent began to emerge on the arrival of Barrow to the Lucasian chair at Cambridge in 1663 when he became a Fellow at Trinity College. Certainly the date matches the beginnings of Newton's deep mathematical studies. However, it would appear that the 1663 date is merely a coincidence and that it was only some years later that Barrow recognised the mathematical genius among his students.
Despite some evidence that his progress had not been particularly good, Newton was elected a scholar on 28 April 1664 and received his bachelor's degree in April 1665. It would appear that his scientific genius had still not emerged, but it did so suddenly when the plague closed the University in the summer of 1665 and he had to return to Lincolnshire. There, in a period of less than two years, while Newton was still under 25 years old, he began revolutionary advances in mathematics, optics, physics, and astronomy.
While Newton remained at home he laid the foundations for differential and integral calculus, several years before its independent discovery by Leibniz. The 'method of fluxions', as he termed it, was based on his crucial insight that the integration of a function is merely the inverse procedure to differentiating it. Taking differentiation as the basic operation, Newton produced simple analytical methods that unified many separate techniques previously developed to solve apparently unrelated problems such as finding areas, tangents, the lengths of curves and the maxima and minima of functions. Newton's De Methodis Serierum et Fluxionum was written in 1671 but Newton failed to get it published and it did not appear in print until John Colson produced an English translation in 1736.
When the University of Cambridge reopened after the plague in 1667, Newton put himself forward as a candidate for a fellowship. In October he was elected to a minor fellowship at Trinity College but, after being awarded his Master's Degree, he was elected to a major fellowship in July 1668 which allowed him to dine at the Fellows' Table. In July 1669 Barrow tried to ensure that Newton's mathematical achievements became known to the world. He sent Newton's text De Analysi to Collins in London writing:-
[Newton] brought me the other day some papers, wherein he set down methods of calculating the dimensions of magnitudes like that of Mr Mercator concerning the hyperbola, but very general; as also of resolving equations; which I suppose will please you; and I shall send you them by the next.
Collins corresponded with all the leading mathematicians of the day so Barrow's action should have led to quick recognition. Collins showed Brouncker, the President of the Royal Society, Newton's results (with the author's permission) but after this Newton requested that his manuscript be returned. Collins could not give a detailed account but de Sluze and Gregory learnt something of Newton's work through Collins. Barrow resigned the Lucasian chair in 1669 to devote himself to divinity, recommending that Newton (still only 27 years old) be appointed in his place. Shortly after this Newton visited London and twice met with Collins but, as he wrote to Gregory:-
... having no more acquaintance with him I did not think it becoming to urge him to communicate anything.
Newton's first work as Lucasian Professor was on optics and this was the topic of his first lecture course begun in January 1670. He had reached the conclusion during the two plague years that white light is not a simple entity. Every scientist since Aristotle had believed that white light was a basic single entity, but the chromatic aberration in a telescope lens convinced Newton otherwise. When he passed a thin beam of sunlight through a glass prism Newton noted the spectrum of colours that was formed.
He argued that white light is really a mixture of many different types of rays which are refracted at slightly different angles, and that each different type of ray produces a different spectral colour. Newton was led by this reasoning to the erroneous conclusion that telescopes using refracting lenses would always suffer chromatic aberration. He therefore proposed and constructed a reflecting telescope.
In 1672 Newton was elected a fellow of the Royal Society after donating a reflecting telescope. Also in 1672 Newton published his first scientific paper on light and colour in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. The paper was generally well received but Hooke and Huygens objected to Newton's attempt to prove, by experiment alone, that light consists of the motion of small particles rather than waves. The reception that his publication received did nothing to improve Newton's attitude to making his results known to the world. He was always pulled in two directions, there was something in his nature which wanted fame and recognition yet another side of him feared criticism and the easiest way to avoid being criticised was to publish nothing. Certainly one could say that his reaction to criticism was irrational, and certainly his aim to humiliate Hooke in public because of his opinions was abnormal. However, perhaps because of Newton's already high reputation, his corpuscular theory reigned until the wave theory was revived in the 19th century.
Newton's relations with Hooke deteriorated further when, in 1675, Hooke claimed that Newton had stolen some of his optical results. Although the two men made their peace with an exchange of polite letters, Newton turned in on himself and away from the Royal Society which he associated with Hooke as one of its leaders. He delayed the publication of a full account of his optical researches until after the death of Hooke in 1703. Newton's Opticks appeared in 1704.
Another argument, this time with the English Jesuits in Liège over his theory of colour, led to a violent exchange of letters, then in 1678 Newton appears to have suffered a nervous breakdown. His mother died in the following year and he withdrew further into his shell, mixing as little as possible with people for a number of years.
Newton's greatest achievement was his work in physics and celestial mechanics, which culminated in the theory of universal gravitation. By 1666 Newton had early versions of his three laws of motion. He had also discovered the law giving the centrifugal force on a body moving uniformly in a circular path. However he did not have a correct understanding of the mechanics of circular motion.
Newton's novel idea of 1666 was to imagine that the Earth's gravity influenced the Moon, counter- balancing its centrifugal force. From his law of centrifugal force and Kepler's third law of planetary motion, Newton deduced the inverse-square law.
In 1679 Newton corresponded with Hooke who had written to Newton claiming:-
... that the Attraction always is in a duplicate proportion to the Distance from the Center Reciprocall ...
M Nauenberg writes an account of the next events:-
After his 1679 correspondence with Hooke, Newton, by his own account, found a proof that Kepler's areal law was a consequence of centripetal forces, and he also showed that if the orbital curve is an ellipse under the action of central forces then the radial dependence of the force is inverse square with the distance from the centre.
This discovery showed the physical significance of Kepler's second law.
In 1684 Halley, tired of Hooke's boasting [M Nauenberg]:-
... asked Newton what orbit a body followed under an inverse square force, and Newton replied immediately that it would be an ellipse. However in De Motu.. he only gave a proof of the converse theorem that if the orbit is an ellipse the force is inverse square. The proof that inverse square forces imply conic section orbits is sketched in Cor. 1 to Prop. 13 in Book 1 of the second and third editions of the Principia, but not in the first edition.
Halley persuaded Newton to write a full treatment of his new physics and its application to astronomy. Over a year later (1687) Newton published the Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica or Principia as it is always known.
The Principia is recognised as the greatest scientific book ever written. Newton analysed the motion of bodies in resisting and non-resisting media under the action of centripetal forces. The results were applied to orbiting bodies, projectiles, pendulums, and free-fall near the Earth. He further demonstrated that the planets were attracted toward the Sun by a force varying as the inverse square of the distance and generalised that all heavenly bodies mutually attract one another.
Further generalisation led Newton to the law of universal gravitation:-
... all matter attracts all other matter with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Newton explained a wide range of previously unrelated phenomena: the eccentric orbits of comets, the tides and their variations, the precession of the Earth's axis, and motion of the Moon as perturbed by the gravity of the Sun. This work made Newton an international leader in scientific research. The Continental scientists certainly did not accept the idea of action at a distance and continued to believe in Descartes' vortex theory where forces work through contact. However this did not stop the universal admiration for Newton's technical expertise.
James II became king of Great Britain on 6 February 1685. He had become a convert to the Roman Catholic church in 1669 but when he came to the throne he had strong support from Anglicans as well as Catholics. However rebellions arose, which James put down but he began to distrust Protestants and began to appoint Roman Catholic officers to the army. He then went further, appointing only Catholics as judges and officers of state. Whenever a position at Oxford or Cambridge became vacant, the king appointed a Roman Catholic to fill it. Newton was a staunch Protestant and strongly opposed to what he saw as an attack on the University of Cambridge.
When the King tried to insist that a Benedictine monk be given a degree without taking any examinations or swearing the required oaths, Newton wrote to the Vice-Chancellor:-
Be courageous and steady to the Laws and you cannot fail.
The Vice-Chancellor took Newton's advice and was dismissed from his post. However Newton continued to argue the case strongly preparing documents to be used by the University in its defence. However William of Orange had been invited by many leaders to bring an army to England to defeat James. William landed in November 1688 and James, finding that Protestants had left his army, fled to France. The University of Cambridge elected Newton, now famous for his strong defence of the university, as one of their two members to the Convention Parliament on 15 January 1689. This Parliament declared that James had abdicated and in February 1689 offered the crown to William and Mary. Newton was at the height of his standing - seen as a leader of the university and one of the most eminent mathematicians in the world. However, his election to Parliament may have been the event which let him see that there was a life in London which might appeal to him more than the academic world in Cambridge.
After suffering a second nervous breakdown in 1693, Newton retired from research. The reasons for this breakdown have been discussed by his biographers and many theories have been proposed: chemical poisoning as a result of his alchemy experiments; frustration with his researches; the ending of a personal friendship with Fatio de Duillier, a Swiss-born mathematician resident in London; and problems resulting from his religious beliefs. Newton himself blamed lack of sleep but this was almost certainly a symptom of the illness rather than the cause of it. There seems little reason to suppose that the illness was anything other than depression, a mental illness he must have suffered from throughout most of his life, perhaps made worse by some of the events we have just listed.
Newton decided to leave Cambridge to take up a government position in London becoming Warden of the Royal Mint in 1696 and Master in 1699. However, he did not resign his positions at Cambridge until 1701. As Master of the Mint, adding the income from his estates, we see that Newton became a very rich man. For many people a position such as Master of the Mint would have been treated as simply a reward for their scientific achievements. Newton did not treat it as such and he made a strong contribution to the work of the Mint. He led it through the difficult period of recoinage and he was particularly active in measures to prevent counterfeiting of the coinage.
In 1703 he was elected president of the Royal Society and was re-elected each year until his death. He was knighted in 1705 by Queen Anne, the first scientist to be so honoured for his work. However the last portion of his life was not an easy one, dominated in many ways with the controversy with Leibniz over which had invented the calculus.
Given the rage that Newton had shown throughout his life when criticised, it is not surprising that he flew into an irrational temper directed against Leibniz. We have given details of this controversy in Leibniz's biography and refer the reader to that article for details. Perhaps all that is worth relating here is how Newton used his position as President of the Royal Society. In this capacity he appointed an "impartial" committee to decide whether he or Leibniz was the inventor of the calculus. He wrote the official report of the committee (although of course it did not appear under his name) which was published by the Royal Society, and he then wrote a review (again anonymously) which appeared in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
Newton's assistant Whiston had seen his rage at first hand. He wrote:-
Newton was of the most fearful, cautious and suspicious temper that I ever knew.