Read between the lines the account of his friendship with a certain “Fatio”.
None of this is conclusive, but we must ask after all this time what does it mean when a reasonably good looking, well appointed genius eschews offers of romance from the beauties of his day and suffers an emotional breakdown over the separation of a male friend? Couple that with the fact that if he was (sshhhhh) g-a-y, it certainly wouldn’t be spelled out in bold letters for us today.
While I’m not a radical fearie proponent that all geniuses were actually gay (in fact an anachonistic designation), and also recognize that in a less homophobic (if only by virtue of a mind set that pretended it didn’t exist) time, not all intense male-male friendships were erotic, nonetheless, sometimes what it looks like is just what it is…
I disagree. In today’s society, that is just the sort of thing that the purient, scholarly mudslingers would revel in. For instance, it’s no secret, today, that Alan Turing was homosexual. This is a well known fact and well documented. The fact that we don’t KNOW Newton was gay suggests that there is not a shred of evidence to support this theory. There are a number of letters between Newton and Fatio that do not seem to indicate anything other than a great friendship…
But Turing lived in the 20th century - of
course there’s more known about his personal
life.
A much better parallel could be found in
Chris Marlowe, who, although the term is
anachronistic, could fairly be called gay
today. But Marlowe probably flaunted it.
A ‘gay’ man who wanted to keep it a secret
back then could have done so easily, and
there would be no more than circumstantial
threads of evidence for us today.
A man who preferred men seems more likely
to me than a man who was asexual.
To you, but do you think the Pope would view the probabilities similarly?
Of course, if you believe that Newton could keep a homosexual affair a secret, why not a heterosexual affair? Perhaps he was in love with a girl that, for various possible reasons, he had to keep that relationship a secret. Alternatively, perhaps he had some sexual disfunction. He was clearly an emotional basketcase in many ways. Or maybe, knowing that he was the type to get completely absorbed in scientific study and couldn’t devote an appropriate portion of his time to kids, he decided to insure that he never did to anyone what was done to him.
I think the fact that Newton and Fatio lived in separate cities, particularly once Fatio became ill, is a pretty good sign that they were not lovers. Not conclusive, of course.
Intelligent comments here. The obsession with his scientific work or a sexual dysfunction seem to be plausible explanations as well.
The heterosexual affair is a possibility - but I would expect some evidence to surface after a few years - this from an age of titled bastard heirs and attitudes about fidelity that shock us even know.
As far as the Pope’s opinion on it… I think there are celibate religious, but the numbers of actively homosexual men in the orders is probably great judging by the press that does surface.
It is interesting that one respondent above picked up what I did as well. The writer of the Britannica piece seems to be hinting. This is similar to a show by the classical music afficionado I heard once where he talked of the “special relationship” between Bernstein and Copeland… Copeland? I always knew about Bernstein, but Aaron Copeland. Well a friend of mine was not surprised and commented on the commentator in this case as well…
There are vast numbers of closeted and not so closeted famous people in history - probably no more or less than in the general population. That leaves the question where are they? Even the exhaustive lists that run from DaVinci to Wilde and Hawthorne (yes Hawthorne was Melville’s main squeeze - torrid letters to prove it), Whitman, etc. don’t adequately illuminate the truth.
Not to mention the curious lack of homosexuals in modern times, especially, ironically, in Hollywood and amoung African Americans. It is common knowledge that Billy Strayhorn was gay, but be careful what you say about the Duke…
For what it’s worth, that’s exactly what happened with Sir Arthur Sullivan. Until the 1980’s, most 20th-century biographies assumed he was gay. Then his diaries were finally made available, and it turned out that he had been having a long-term affair with a married woman.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
This reminds me of the gossip that sourrounded Hardy, the famous number theorist. He was never tied romantically to either boyr or girls. This led some folks to claim that he was a “non-practicism homosexual”. I don’t see the logic of it. He was plain asexual. Many mathematicians are this way.
well, i think we can all agree on one thing at least: Isaac Newton was HOT-- let’s weave this up with the great debate over the best swimsuit: newton in a dental floss monokini, now that’s a good thread.