Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle_(novel) – which features Sir Isaac Newton as a major character, assumes (or at least very, very strongly implies) that he was homosexual; it’s an important plot point in his relations with some other male characters. This is something I’ve never before read about Newton. His Wikipedia bio – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton – doesn’t mention it; OTOH, it does not mention Newton every having been married. Newton is not listed on the “List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people” page – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay%2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people – neither in the “confirmed” nor “debated” section; and it does cover historical figures. Was Newton gay?
Cecil’s column on whether he died a virgin or not:http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_208.html)
If he was gay, he wasn’t “practicing”.
He wore wigs and lace.
There is no factual answer to this question.
Newton was a weird dude, certainly. It’s not surprising that someone explained Newton’s famed celibacy as arising from his closet homosexuality. It’s possible, presumably, although given Newton’s religious views, if he was gay, I think it’s even more likely that he never partook.
–Cliffy
While Newton was very religious, he privately engaged in the extreme heresy of denying Christ’s divinity. As he wasn’t above questioning such firmly established dogma, it’s anybody’s guess what he might have felt or done about Rule One, No Poufters.
(Presuming, of course, he was one.)
Interesting.
–Cliffy
Based on what I know of Newton’s life, he was asexual. The man didn’t even have any close friendships, he lived like a recluse. Most “presumed gay” people of the past had close relationships with people of the same sex, either physical or not. Based on his weird, obsessive behavior, and his nonsocialness, I think it’s far more likely he had autistic tendencies, which can lead to asexuality.
As John Mace said. “Gay” is a modern society concept. Buggering was an accepted practice in Merry Old England.
The question of whether he had a homosexual relationship is a factual question, with odds leaning toward “no.”
It wasn’t particularly accepted in 17th-18th century England. In fact, it was pretty much frowned upon, and, in theory, at least, punishable by death. (See the Earl of Castlehaven case, where the Earl was executed for sodomy with a servant and in assisting in the rape of his wife. Both the servant and the rapist were also executed.)
And the wife got off scot free? Those cads!
Not really. It was punishable by death from 1533 to 1861.
So can we conclude that there’s approximately zero evidence that Newton was gay? And that this speculation is simply a plot device in a piece of fiction?
Yes, we can conclude the latter. Newton’s mind was on more universal matters than human sexuality. Not that human sexuality is any less a cosmic matter than the laws of motion, but Newton‘s mind was on physics. Somewhat less complex, IMO, than attempting to negotiate a pleasing relationship with the opposite sex. He chose simpler matters to tackle.
He said himself, toward the end of his life, words to the effect that he felt all of his accomplishments amounted to being a child on the beach who had happened to find some shinier stones than the other children.
He weren’t no fag. He just got stuck on certain matters before women could take hold.
Would someone explain to me what is the point of this?
Read the OP.
I should add, if you haven’t read the Baroque Cycle – it’s not really made clear whether Newton actually has a physical relationship with anybody. But there is some jealousy and rivalry between a couple of younger men (savants, alchemists) as to who gets to be Newton’s closest companion and confidante. This is important to the plot, because who is in Newton’s life seems to affect the course of his scientific researches – when he is intimate with an alchemist he focuses on alchemy. Which Newton did, by the way, seeing no contradiction between that and what we today think of as “hard science.” At that time, the distinction between alchemy and scientific chemistry was only beginning to be drawn – Robert Boyle published his seminal [heh-heh] book The Skeptical Chymist in 1661. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chemistry
Also, in the early part of the first book, Quicksilver, the protagonist Daniel Waterhouse, rooming with young Newton at Cambridge University where they are both students, finds Newton has made some very artistic (and thoroughly decent) drawings of Daniel and some other beautiful young men; his heart really seems to be in it; and it is implied he feels morally guilty over that. (Newton had a lifelong obsession with religion.)
Newton’s difficulty in social interaction, legendary feats of endurance in terms of concentration on a single problem or detail, and eccentric (even reckless) application of logical consequences to his everyday life (eg. nearly blinding himself with a knitting needle as an optical experiment) have led some to suggest that he may have had Asperger’s syndrome or some other form of high-functioning autism. Such a condition makes it difficult to interact with another human being to such an extent that sexual relations develop.
In a reversal of the old adage, the flesh may have been willing (towards either gender), but the mind incapable.