En:The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Aus Freimaurer-Wiki
K
 
(4 dazwischenliegende Versionen von 2 Benutzern werden nicht angezeigt)
Zeile 1: Zeile 1:
 +
[[Datei:Isaak Newtonwww.jpg|thumb|350px|[[Isaac Newton]]]]
 +
 
== The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism ==
 
== The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism ==
 
Source: Frigyes Hausz
 
Source: Frigyes Hausz
  
 
+
[[Alain Bauer]] y [[Ariel Godwin]]: Isaac Newton’s Freemasonry: The Alchemy of
Alain Bauer y Ariel Godwin: Isaac Newton’s Freemasonry: The Alchemy of
 
 
Science and Mysticism (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2007), xii+146 pp.,
 
Science and Mysticism (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2007), xii+146 pp.,
  
Zeile 9: Zeile 10:
  
 
Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica was undoubtedly one of the
 
Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica was undoubtedly one of the
 
 
most important scientific texts in the age of Enlightenment. Newton’s philosophy
 
most important scientific texts in the age of Enlightenment. Newton’s philosophy
 +
exerted profound influence on the intellectual life of the eighteenth century.
  
exerted profound influence on the intellectual life of the eighteenth century. As
+
As the official birth of freemasonry was almost coincident with the emergence of Newtonianism, it is not surprising that efforts were made to establish a connection between the figure of Newton and freemasonry.  
 
 
the official birth of freemasonry was almost coincident with the emergence of
 
 
 
Newtonianism, it is not surprising that efforts were made to establish a connection
 
 
 
between the figure of Newton and freemasonry. Judging by its title alone, Alain
 
 
 
Bauer’s Isaac Newton’s Freemasonry: The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism also tries to
 
 
 
discuss the possibility of such a connection. The back cover depicts freemasonry as an
 
 
 
indispensable element of the Enlightenment project: ‘Freemasonry […] emerged in
 
 
 
the seventeenth century and represented something new—an amalgam of alchemy
 
 
 
and science that allowed the creative genius of Isaac Newton and his contemporaries
 
 
 
to flourish.’ Unfortunately, the title and the cover are somewhat misleading, as the
 
 
 
author does not uncover a direct link between the figure of Newton and Freemasonry,
 
 
 
and does not discuss the indirect connection in detail either.
 
 
 
The actual body of the text is not longer than 86 pages, which does not give much
 
 
 
opportunity to examine an issue of such magnitude in detail, but this is not the intent
 
 
 
here, as the book has the modest objective of drawing attention to the topic.
 
 
 
Bauer’s work begins with a nice summary of the different approaches to masonic
 
 
 
historiography. The author rightfully states that the mythological, romantic view
 
 
 
on freemasonry that mixes legend with factual data is no longer acceptable and
 
 
 
advocates scientific criteria in the writing of masonic history. In the light of this
 
 
 
statement it is somewhat surprising that he should claim that Robert Lomas’ views
 
 
 
on the doubtful connection between freemasonry and the Knight Templars ‘still
 
 
 
merit examination’ (p. 34).
 
 
 
It is evident that the research on the genesis of freemasonry cannot be imagined
 
 
 
without the analysis of its intellectual environment, namely the seventeenth and
 
 
 
eighteenth centuries. In his short book Bauer intends to present ‘the swirl of historical,
 
 
 
sociological and religious influences that sparked the spiritual ferment and
 
 
 
transformation of that time.’ Considering the objective of the book, it is easy to understand
 
 
 
that the description of the social context of the seventeenth and eighteenth
 
 
 
centuries is not really detailed. It cannot be overlooked, however, that Bauer overemphasizes
 
 
 
the role of freemasonry in shaping the contemporary intellectual milieu.
 
 
 
The book, for instance, exaggerates Sir Robert Moray’s and Elias Ashmole’s importance
 
 
 
in the establishment of the Royal Society (p. 41), and suggests that the organization
 
 
 
borrowed rules from masonic lodges (p. 50). When discussing the possible precursors
 
 
 
of the Society, Bauer mentions the Invisible College, the Society of Antiquarians and
 
 
 
the Gresham College but fails to recognize the importance of Samuel Hartlib’s circle.
 
  
The author could have used Michael Hunter’s books more extensively as points of
+
Judging by its title alone, Alain Bauer’s Isaac Newton’s Freemasonry: The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism also tries to discuss the possibility of such a connection. The back cover depicts freemasonry as an indispensable element of the Enlightenment project: ‘Freemasonry […] emerged in the seventeenth century and represented something new—an amalgam of alchemy and science that allowed the creative genius of Isaac Newton and his contemporaries to flourish.’
  
reference instead of citing popular best-sellers.
+
Unfortunately, the title and the cover are somewhat misleading, as the author does not uncover a direct link between the figure of Newton and Freemasonry, and does not discuss the indirect connection in detail either.
  
134 Journal for Research into Freemasonry and Fraternalism
+
The actual body of the text is not longer than 86 pages, which does not give much opportunity to examine an issue of such magnitude in detail, but this is not the intent here, as the book has the modest objective of drawing attention to the topic.
  
© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
+
Bauer’s work begins with a nice summary of the different approaches to masonic historiography. The author rightfully states that the mythological, romantic view on freemasonry that mixes legend with factual data is no longer acceptable and advocates scientific criteria in the writing of masonic history. In the light of this statement it is somewhat surprising that he should claim that Robert Lomas’ views on the doubtful connection between freemasonry and the Knight Templars ‘still merit examination’ (p. 34).
  
Although the book proposes to clarify the connection between Newton and
+
It is evident that the research on the genesis of freemasonry cannot be imagined without the analysis of its intellectual environment, namely the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In his short book Bauer intends to present ‘the swirl of historical, sociological and religious influences that sparked the spiritual ferment and transformation of that time.’ Considering the objective of the book, it is easy to understand that the description of the social context of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is not really detailed. It cannot be overlooked, however, that Bauer overemphasizes the role of freemasonry in shaping the contemporary intellectual milieu.
  
Freemasonry, it does not present any substantial biographical element of Newton’s
+
The book, for instance, exaggerates Sir Robert Moray’s and Elias Ashmole’s importance in the establishment of the Royal Society (p. 41), and suggests that the organization borrowed rules from masonic lodges (p. 50). When discussing the possible precursors of the Society, Bauer mentions the Invisible College, the Society of Antiquarians and the Gresham College but fails to recognize the importance of Samuel Hartlib’s circle.
  
life, which could be associated with freemasonry. Bauer offers little more than a
+
The author could have used Michael Hunter’s books more extensively as points of reference instead of citing popular best-sellers.
  
listing of the most important events of Newton’s life over three pages (pp. 53–56.).
+
134 Journal for Research into Freemasonry and Fraternalism © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
  
He could have provided a more detailed account of Newton’s possible masonic affiliations
+
Although the book proposes to clarify the connection between Newton and Freemasonry, it does not present any substantial biographical element of Newton’s life, which could be associated with freemasonry. Bauer offers little more than a listing of the most important events of Newton’s life over three pages (pp. 53–56.).
  
by referring to his friendship with John Desaguliers—a luminary of modern
+
He could have provided a more detailed account of Newton’s possible masonic affiliations by referring to his friendship with John Desaguliers—a luminary of modern freemasonry. However, this is discussed only in a few passing sentences. It is also strange that although listed in the bibliography, Bauer does not cite Margaret Jacob’s Newtonians and the English Revolution 1689–1720.
  
freemasonry. However, this is discussed only in a few passing sentences. It is also
+
The illustration of Newton’s attitude towards Rosicrucianism is also problematic. Bauer states that the Rosicrucian philosophy had some influence on Newton’s intellectual pursuits (p. 69). Although Newton’s library contained copies of the Rosicrucian manifestos, it does not follow from this that he was sympathetic towards the movement. In his writings Newton devoted only a small passage to the group, in which he comments on the myth of Christian Rosenkreuz as the ‘history of that imposture.
  
strange that although listed in the bibliography, Bauer does not cite Margaret Jacob’s
+
Some of the numerous appendices attached to the text are apparently irrelevant regarding the purpose of the book. For instance, there is no obvious reason to include the timeline of the development of French freemasonry. The text also contains some unfortunate spelling mistakes, for example, the seventeenth-century antiquarian William Camden, is incorrectly spelled more than once as William Cambden. Closer editing should have caught such errors.
  
Newtonians and the English Revolution 1689–1720.
+
To sum up, in spite of its exaggerations and hasty conclusions the book more or less accomplishes its main objective of directing attention to this intriguing topic. Bauer’s work leaves much room for further research.
 
 
The illustration of Newton’s attitude towards Rosicrucianism is also problematic.
 
 
 
Bauer states that the Rosicrucian philosophy had some influence on Newton’s
 
 
 
intellectual pursuits (p. 69). Although Newton’s library contained copies of the
 
 
 
Rosicrucian manifestos, it does not follow from this that he was sympathetic towards
 
 
 
the movement. In his writings Newton devoted only a small passage to the group,
 
 
 
in which he comments on the myth of Christian Rosenkreuz as the ‘history of that
 
 
 
imposture.’
 
 
 
Some of the numerous appendices attached to the text are apparently irrelevant
 
 
 
regarding the purpose of the book. For instance, there is no obvious reason to include
 
 
 
the timeline of the development of French freemasonry. The text also contains some
 
 
 
unfortunate spelling mistakes, for example, the seventeenth-century antiquarian
 
 
 
William Camden, is incorrectly spelled more than once as William Cambden. Closer
 
 
 
editing should have caught such errors.
 
 
 
To sum up, in spite of its exaggerations and hasty conclusions the book more or
 
 
 
less accomplishes its main objective of directing attention to this intriguing topic.
 
 
 
Bauer’s work leaves much room for further research.
 
  
 
FRIGYES HAUSZ
 
FRIGYES HAUSZ
Zeile 147: Zeile 48:
  
 
E-mail: frigyes.hausz@gmail.com
 
E-mail: frigyes.hausz@gmail.com
 +
 +
{{SORTIERUNG:AlchemyofScienceandMysticism}}
 +
[[Kategorie:English|Alchemy of Science and Mysticism]]

Aktuelle Version vom 4. September 2015, 07:33 Uhr

The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism

Source: Frigyes Hausz

Alain Bauer y Ariel Godwin: Isaac Newton’s Freemasonry: The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2007), xii+146 pp.,

$14.95, Pbk, ISBN: 1-59477-172-3.

Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica was undoubtedly one of the most important scientific texts in the age of Enlightenment. Newton’s philosophy exerted profound influence on the intellectual life of the eighteenth century.

As the official birth of freemasonry was almost coincident with the emergence of Newtonianism, it is not surprising that efforts were made to establish a connection between the figure of Newton and freemasonry.

Judging by its title alone, Alain Bauer’s Isaac Newton’s Freemasonry: The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism also tries to discuss the possibility of such a connection. The back cover depicts freemasonry as an indispensable element of the Enlightenment project: ‘Freemasonry […] emerged in the seventeenth century and represented something new—an amalgam of alchemy and science that allowed the creative genius of Isaac Newton and his contemporaries to flourish.’

Unfortunately, the title and the cover are somewhat misleading, as the author does not uncover a direct link between the figure of Newton and Freemasonry, and does not discuss the indirect connection in detail either.

The actual body of the text is not longer than 86 pages, which does not give much opportunity to examine an issue of such magnitude in detail, but this is not the intent here, as the book has the modest objective of drawing attention to the topic.

Bauer’s work begins with a nice summary of the different approaches to masonic historiography. The author rightfully states that the mythological, romantic view on freemasonry that mixes legend with factual data is no longer acceptable and advocates scientific criteria in the writing of masonic history. In the light of this statement it is somewhat surprising that he should claim that Robert Lomas’ views on the doubtful connection between freemasonry and the Knight Templars ‘still merit examination’ (p. 34).

It is evident that the research on the genesis of freemasonry cannot be imagined without the analysis of its intellectual environment, namely the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In his short book Bauer intends to present ‘the swirl of historical, sociological and religious influences that sparked the spiritual ferment and transformation of that time.’ Considering the objective of the book, it is easy to understand that the description of the social context of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is not really detailed. It cannot be overlooked, however, that Bauer overemphasizes the role of freemasonry in shaping the contemporary intellectual milieu.

The book, for instance, exaggerates Sir Robert Moray’s and Elias Ashmole’s importance in the establishment of the Royal Society (p. 41), and suggests that the organization borrowed rules from masonic lodges (p. 50). When discussing the possible precursors of the Society, Bauer mentions the Invisible College, the Society of Antiquarians and the Gresham College but fails to recognize the importance of Samuel Hartlib’s circle.

The author could have used Michael Hunter’s books more extensively as points of reference instead of citing popular best-sellers.

134 Journal for Research into Freemasonry and Fraternalism © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

Although the book proposes to clarify the connection between Newton and Freemasonry, it does not present any substantial biographical element of Newton’s life, which could be associated with freemasonry. Bauer offers little more than a listing of the most important events of Newton’s life over three pages (pp. 53–56.).

He could have provided a more detailed account of Newton’s possible masonic affiliations by referring to his friendship with John Desaguliers—a luminary of modern freemasonry. However, this is discussed only in a few passing sentences. It is also strange that although listed in the bibliography, Bauer does not cite Margaret Jacob’s Newtonians and the English Revolution 1689–1720.

The illustration of Newton’s attitude towards Rosicrucianism is also problematic. Bauer states that the Rosicrucian philosophy had some influence on Newton’s intellectual pursuits (p. 69). Although Newton’s library contained copies of the Rosicrucian manifestos, it does not follow from this that he was sympathetic towards the movement. In his writings Newton devoted only a small passage to the group, in which he comments on the myth of Christian Rosenkreuz as the ‘history of that imposture.’

Some of the numerous appendices attached to the text are apparently irrelevant regarding the purpose of the book. For instance, there is no obvious reason to include the timeline of the development of French freemasonry. The text also contains some unfortunate spelling mistakes, for example, the seventeenth-century antiquarian William Camden, is incorrectly spelled more than once as William Cambden. Closer editing should have caught such errors.

To sum up, in spite of its exaggerations and hasty conclusions the book more or less accomplishes its main objective of directing attention to this intriguing topic. Bauer’s work leaves much room for further research.

FRIGYES HAUSZ

Frigyes Hausz is a graduate student, Department of English Studies, University of Szeged

Szeged, Egyetem u. 2, H-6722, Hungary

E-mail: frigyes.hausz@gmail.com