a list compiled by Alex Kasman (College of Charleston)

Home All New Browse Search About

Calculus (Newton's Whores) (2004)
Carl Djerassi
(click on names to see more mathematical fiction by the same author)

The credit for the invention of calculus has long been contested, being claimed by both Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz. A committee established by the Royal Society in 1712 concluded that Newton was not guilty of plagiarism in his work on calculus, but rather was its true inventor. In this play-within-a-play, we go behind the scenes of a play that is being produced in 1725 which suggests (as many now believe) that Newton unreasonably influenced the outcome of this committee in his favor.

Note added 2010: The play was rewritten and re-released as Verrechnet, which has a separate entry.

I like the way the play moves back and forth between the "playwrights" working on their play about Newton in 1725 and the scenes that they are writing that take place in 1712. Most of the irony and humor work as well, although a couple of the jokes (e.g. when one author thinks to call the play "Newton's Whores" and the other mistakenly thinks he said "Newton's Horse") were not quite to my taste. Overall, as a work of art I must say that it is quite good. I am not at all certain how historically accurate it is, but I can say that it paints a much "darker" picture of Newton's personality than anything else I have read. Here we see none of his genius or positive attributes of any kind and instead only see him as a completely amoral self-promoter. Perhaps Djerassi is saved from having to take any potential charges of slander too seriously by being able to explain that he does not claim this actually happened, but rather that Cibber and Vanbrugh (the authors in the play) might have said so. Nevertheless, reading this play (and probably more so seeing it) leave one with a very negative opinion of Newton. (Again, I admit that it may be an accurate negative opinion...I am not really qualified to say.)

I would like to briefly comment on the following passage:

(quoted from Calculus (Newton's Whores))

Cibber: I know...I know: no sex in this one. (Pause) Yet you could suggest that sex is akin to mathematics.

VanBrugh: (Sarcastic) I must admit that such resemblance has escaped far. I know of your competence in one endeavor...but both?

Cibber: If competence in mathematics is required for a playwright, no plays will ever be written about mathematicians.

VanBrugh: (Amused) In that case, enlighten me about the kinship between sex and mathematics.

Cibber: Both can lead to practical results...even unexpected ones...but that is not foremost in the practitioners' minds then they indulge in it. Most often it is pleasure.

I agree with the sentiment of the last remark, and thought that some visitors to this site might similarly appreciate this analogy. However, I also include this quote here to demonstrate a sort of self referential irony that runs throughout the play. When Cibber discusses their lack of competence in mathematics (despite undertaking the task of writing a play about Newton), it is as if Djerassi is apologizing to the reader for his own lack of mathematical ability.

Perhaps it is for this reason that there really is relatively little mathematics in the play at all. What little appears is rather broadly stated, such as in this one scene in the play that actually features Newton and Leibniz (portrayed by Cibber and VanBrugh).

(quoted from Calculus (Newton's Whores))

Leibniz: Are you accusing me of poaching...of trespassing...on English turf? Or perhaps stealling?

Newton: Call it what you wish! I first bit into this English apple...and expected to eat it at my leisure.

Leibniz: An apple already bitten...especially an English one...does not attact me. I made German that others could taste it! Whatever we call it...fluxions or will be the crown jewel of all mathematics.

Newton: Indeed it will.

Leibniz: So for once we agree! But how will that jewel be described? Must I remind you that when you finally chose to launch your "method of fluxions" in print, few equated it with my "infinitesmal [sic] calculus". Your terminology was a jargon of flowing points and lines...your so-called fluents. And their rate of called "fluxions". Your adding or subtracting dots over letters to represent (derisive) "fluxions of fluxions or fluents of fluents" is the clumsiest of clumsy notations. (Forcefully) Mine was algebraical; my language fresh and clear using the words "differential"..."integral" and "function". I do not find these in your writings!

The only mathematical objections I have to the play are when Bonet is able to guess what integral calculus is after only the barest introduction to differential calculus (it is not that obvious) and when Arbuthnot defends Newton by pointing out how many of his great achievements would stand without calculus ("Consider the laws of motion and of gravitation, of light and color....and his work on celestial mechanics. Calculus was not needed for any of them. Even without the calculus, Newton would be our greatest.") I think that of these, only his work on light and color would be possible without calculus.

We actually see quite a bit more of Abraham de Moivre than we see of Newton or Leibniz in this play. But the focus is always on Newton and his manipulative ways. Having read this, I will never think of Newton in the same way again. (I hope he is deserving of this new viewpoint, since if it is only slander, it is still effective enough to have an impact.)

Djerassi, best known as a chemist for his role in the invention of ``the pill', is also the author of many works of fiction. Although the title of his Bourbaki Gambit sounds mathematical, I think this may be his first work of mathematical fiction. (Note: Bourbaki was the pseudonym used by a group of French mathematicians to promote a particular viewpoint on mathematics. Djerassi uses the name in the title as a reference, but does not actually discusss mathematics in the book.)

An earlier version of the play was read and performed in California in 2002 and 2003, but it officially opened in London in the summer of 2004. The script appears in a book bundled together with the play Newton's Hooke by David Pinner.

Note that the novel Quicksilver also addresses the historical relationship between Newton, Hooke and Leibniz.

Contributed by Lewis Griffin

At last the line "so vee meet at last Herr Newton!" has been uttered.

More information about this work can be found at
(Note: This is just one work of mathematical fiction from the list. To see the entire list or to see more works of mathematical fiction, return to the Homepage.)

Works Similar to Calculus (Newton's Whores)
According to my `secret formula', the following works of mathematical fiction are similar to this one:
  1. Leap by Lauren Gunderson
  2. D'Alembert's Principle: A Novel in Three Panels by Andrew Crumey
  3. Newton's Hooke by David Pinner
  4. Verrechnet by Carl Djerassi / Isabella Gregor
  5. Quicksilver: The Baroque Cycle Volume 1 by Neal Stephenson
  6. Galileo by Bertolt Brecht
  7. Partition by Ira Hauptman
  8. Shooting the Sun by Max Byrd
  9. Lord Byron's Novel: The Evening Land by John Crowley
  10. A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines by Janna Levin
Ratings for Calculus (Newton's Whores):
RatingsHave you seen/read this work of mathematical fiction? Then click here to enter your own votes on its mathematical content and literary quality or send me comments to post on this Webpage.
Mathematical Content:
2.75/5 (4 votes)
Literary Quality:
3.25/5 (4 votes)

GenreHistorical Fiction,
MotifReal Mathematicians, Religion, Isaac Newton,

Home All New Browse Search About

Exciting News: The 1,600th entry was recently added to this database of mathematical fiction! Also, for those of you interested in non-fictional math books let me (shamelessly) plug the recent release of the second edition of my soliton theory textbook.

(Maintained by Alex Kasman, College of Charleston)