Avello Publishing Journal

Avello Publishing Journal

ISSN: 2049 - 498X

Issue 1 Volume 3:

Principia Mathematica

Isaac Newton and Solomon's Temple: A Fifty Year Study

Tessa Morrison

University of Newcastle, Australia.

For over 50 years Isaac Newton studied the Temple of Solomon. It is often intimated that his study of the Temple was the work of his old age. In fact the converse proves to be the case. His study began in the late 1670s and continued to his death in 1727. He had a clear knowledge of architecture and architectural norms as prescribed by the Roman theorist Vitruvius. He reconstructed the Temple, in the manuscript Babson Ms 434, from biblical sources, mainly the text of the Book of Ezekiel, using mathematics, ancient sources, contemporary reconstructions of the Temple and architectural theory to justify his reconstruction. However, over his 50 years of study his work on the Temple did not become more informed and erudite; instead, by 1727 his work on the Temple had become a small chapter in his book on chronology. This chapter consists of mainly quotes on the description of the Temple from the Book of Ezekiel. From this text of this final work it is impossible to reconstruct the Temple without the plans that were supplied by the editor, which were not by Newton. In addition, the editor’s plans are only ground plans, there is no three-dimensional description of the Temple in the text. This paper examines Newton’s 50 year study on the Temple, up to his final description of the Temple in Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, posthumously published in 1728, and it places his study of the Temple into context with contemporary academic and public opinion.

Background

It is close to 300 years since Newton’s death, yet his reputation as a scientist still looms today as one of the greatest scientists we have ever produced. Considering the rapidly changing technology and evolving scientific philosophy in this period, this is testament to his great achievements. Yet he published very little in his lifetime. Apart from Reports as Master of the Mint, which were published between 1701 and 1725, Newton published only scientific manuscripts in his lifetime. The Principia was first published in 1687, Newton added material and revised the Principia in 1713 and 1726. His second significant contribution to science was Opticks, which was published in 1704. These two books established Newton’s reputation as a remarkable scientist. However, science was not his only interest and in fact Newton’s library consisted of only 52 volumes, or 3% of the whole library, on mathematics, physics and optics (Harrison: 1974). This was reflected in his writing, with science being a small component of his literary output.

The majority of his work was in unpublished manuscripts, some of which date back to his arrival at Trinity College, Cambridge in 1661. The bulk of his manuscripts were on theology, particularly in the 1680s and early 1690s, which was his most productive period in chronology, alchemy, natural philosophy, and theology (Morrison: 2011, Table 3). His heirs invited Thomas Pellett to examine the manuscripts and report on their suitability for publication. After just three days of examining these hundreds of manuscripts, Pellett, a qualified physician and member of the Royal Society, dismissed the majority of the manuscripts as being ‘not fit to be printed’, ‘of no scientific value’ and ‘loose and foul papers’ (Manuel; 1974, 14).

These manuscripts remained in the Portsmouth Collection until 1936, when they were auctioned and dispersed into collections all around the world.The auction was held in July in 1936 at Sotheby’s. The manuscripts were divided up into three-hundred and thirty lots and sold to thirty-three buyers. Thus Newton’s manuscripts were scattered all over the world. It is surprising that these manuscripts were allowed to leave England. Josè Faur considered that the reason for this was because of the contents of the manuscripts. Manuscripts on prophecy, alchemy and Newton’s unorthodox theology did shock some scholars of the time. It was “to protect Newton’s ‘good name,’ [that] the importance of the manuscripts were denied” (Faur: 2003, 229).

One of the buyers of these works was the imminent economist John Maynard Keynes. In the paper entitled ‘Newton the Man’ Keynes exclaimed the famous quote “Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians (Keynes: 1972, 363).” As more and more of Newton’s papers became available to scholars, Keynes’ words seem increasingly insightful and revealing. Keynes considered that there were two sides to Newton’s character, “Copernicus and Faustus in one (Keynes: 1972, 374)”. They were the same man working to one purpose and whose achievements were seemingly beyond his era but at the same time founded in the knowledge of the ancients.

Later biographies assumed that there were two Newtons; the Copernicus – the great scientist of his youth and the Faustus – the ageing Newton who had lost his taste and ability for science and turned to the study of chronology, prophecy and religion as a result of the nervous breakdown he suffered in 1693 (Gjertsen: 1986, 88-90; Manuel: 1968, 213-225; White: 1998, 222-253). However, these two separate and diverse personas are not supported or divided by any such date and Newton did continue to research and continued to add to the science of his day as well as being Master of the Mint and overseeing the recoinage of Britain. Furthermore, his papers and interest in chronology and prophecy date back to his earliest days in Cambridge in the 1660s. Two of the earliest purchases Newton made on arriving at Cambridge University in 1661 were Hall’s Chronicles and Johann Sleidan’s Four Monarchies (Newton, c1659, fol. V) which remained in his library for the rest of his life (Harrison:1978). Chronology, particularly associated with prophecies, remained a life-long interest and in his chronology of kings was the Temple of Solomon.

The Temple of Solomon

Newton’s interest in the Temple was not an isolated one. Reconstructions of the Temple of Solomon were ubiquitous by the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century. There had been major reconstructions of the Temple; for example, the 12th century Jewish philosopher Rabbi Moses Maimonides (Lewittes: 1957) and 13th century theologian Nicholas of Lyra (Smith et al: 2012). However, the first significant reconstruction that stimulated the imagination of theologians, architects and the general public was architect and Jesuit priest Juan Battista Villalpando’s In Ezechielem Explanationes et Apparatus Vrbis Templi Hierosolymitani published in 1604 (Villalpando: 1604). It was a three volume Scriptural exegesis of the Book of Ezekiel. The entire second volume was a reconstruction of Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple of Jerusalem, which Villalpando claimed was a vision of the Temple of Solomon. Ezechielem Explanationes is elaborately illustrated with some of the engravings folding out to over a metre in width. The plan of the Temple was square, symmetrical and was laid out to a celestial plan and built to musical, therefore divine, proportions (see Figure 1 and 2) – the plan was the microcosm of the macrocosm (Morrison: 2008).

With the notoriety of Villalpando’s work came both support and criticism for his reconstruction. There were six main points of debate stimulated by Ezechielem Explanationes. First, the Divine origins of the Temple were questioned: was God the architect of the Temple? If it was a God-given plan, did the Temple constitute the origins of architecture? Second, Villalpando’s reconstruction had no historic basis. It was far too elaborate for the tenth century BC and it would not have been built in the classical style. Third, the Temple’s architecture was not the pinnacle of architecture and the design would be surpassed by subsequent designs, in particular Herod’s Temple which was larger and grander than Solomon’s Temple. Fourth, the interpretation of the Biblical measurements, the sacred cubit, by Villalpando was wrong and the result of this was that Villalpando’s plan exceeded the site of the Temple at Mount Morion. Fifth, there was a lack of Jewish sources in Villalpando’s work, such as the Torah and the works of Maimonides. Finally Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple was not the same as the Temple of Solomon. It was the last two points regarding the sources of the Temple that generated the most criticism and generated a large number of reconstructions in response. The sources of the reconstructions were the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Kings or Torah. Many of these reconstructions were published,[1] some were built as scale models and some remained unpublished.

Figure 1: Villalpando’s plan of the Temple as microcosm of the universe (Drawn by the author from (Villalpando and Prado: 1604, 470)).

Figure 2: Villalpando’s floor plan of the Temple of Solomon (Drawn by the author from (Villalpando and Prado: 1604, unpaginated)).

There was a great deal of diversity in the reconstructions of the Temple of Solomon in the seventeenth and eighteenth century which derived from the debate on the plan of the Temple. At first the debate appears to be a continental European debate. However, there were English reconstructions. Non-conformist minister and natural philosopher, Samuel Lee published Orbis miraculum, or, The temple of Solomon pourtraied by Scripture-light in 1659 with a second edition in 1665. There were also unpublished reconstructions such as Newton’s Prolegomena ad Lexici Propretici partem Secundam: De Forma Sanctuary Judaici (Babson Ms 434), and William Stukeley’s manuscript entitled The Creation, Music of the Spheres K[ing] S[olomon’s] Temple Microco[sm] - and Macrocosm Compared &C written between 1721-24. There was not a theological divide between Protestant and Catholic; it was architectural criticism. In fact Villalpando was praised. Lee claimed that Villalpando was “the learned and worth publishers of the splendid work” and he was “the most learned and laborious student, that ever proceeded into public light”, who has unravelled “the profound and mysterious visions of the Prophet Ezekiel (Lee: 1659, unpaginated)”. In Newton’s unpublished manuscripts he mixed praise and criticism and he claimed that “Villalpando, although the best [and] the most eminent commentator on Ezekiel’s Temple: yet [he is] out in many things (Newton: undated, 32v).” He also claimed that the Villalpanda’s reconstruction was a “fantasy” that was “lacking in reason (Newton: 2011, 155).” While Stukeley claimed that Villalpando was

the learned Spaniard… we can never illustrate architecture so well as by strictly considering this completest work & most perfect example of all others, of whose measures & forms throughout description in very different places of the holy scripture we can never illustrate architecture so well as by strictly considering this completest work & most perfect example of all others, of whose measures & forms throughout description in very different places of the holy scripture (Stukeley: 1721 – 24, 73).

Despite his praise, Stukeley believed that Villalpando had not “hit the white” and he reconstructed the Temple to a far more modest design.

There was also a public face to this debate in England, which outweighed the theological and academic debate. Two exhibitions of architectural models of the Temple were displayed in London in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, to great acclaim (anonymous: 1724a, 1724b & 1725). The first was created by Rabbi Jacob Judah Leon from Amsterdam whose model came to London between 1675 and 1680, and reappeared in 1778. The second was a model that was commissioned by Gerhard Schott from Hamburg and was exhibited in London between 1724 and 1731. The Schott model was built to the plan of Villalpando’s interpretation of the Book of Ezekiel while the Leon model was built to the plans preserved in Jewish sacred texts. The Schott model remained in London over the seven years with exhibition, and although it is not known exactly how long the Leon model remained in London contemporary reports claim that it was “commonly to be seen in London (Shane: 1983).”

These two architectural models drew large crowds who paid to see the models, when the Schott model exhibition first opened it cost a staggering half guinea entrance fee (Anonymous: 1724a, 2). In addition, guidebooks of the Temple were sold at both the Leon and Schott exhibitions (Leon: 1675; Anonymous: 1725). Broadsheets of the Temple were also sold at the Leon exhibition. (Offenberg: 1994). Some surviving guide-books have images of other reconstructions bound up with them,[2] revealing that the viewer was not just satisfied with the one reconstruction. Their amazing popularity was a phenomenon of the time.

It was in the late 1670s when the Leon model was in London that Newton’s interest in Solomon’s Temple begun. Newton does not mention Leon or his Temple; however, there was a heightened awareness and interest in the Temple of Solomon at this time at all levels of society.

When the Schott model arrived in London in 1724 Newton lived in central London. Both the Leon and Schott models could have stimulated Newton’s interest in the Temple, but he would not have agreed with either one. The Schott model was built to the plan of Villalpando, a plan that Newton disagreed with. He pointed out that, although Villalpando’s main source was the Book of Ezekiel, his gridded-plan contradicted some of the main features that Ezekiel described. At the same time Newton strongly agreed with Villalpando’s rational and theological underpinnings, which saw the Temple as the microcosm of the macrocosm. At Christmas time 1725, Stukeley and Newton discussed their respective plans of the Temple of Solomon (Stukeley: 1936, 18), and it does seem inconceivable that they did not discuss the Schott model, given the fanfare that it had received in the year when it had arrived in London, and its ongoing exhibition.