Forensic Analysis of Newton’s Notes, Part 6

[Proposition] 5 The 1290 days did not commence before the year [blotted scribble mark] 842 [AD]
[Proposition] 6 They did not commence after the reign of Pope Gregory 7th. 1084 [AD]

see facsimile of Newton’s Notes

In considering Propositions 5 & 6 for the 1,290 days, Newton is setting the outside perimeters. It does not represent a commitment on his part that one or the other is the better choice.

Consequently, my statement in Part 5 is not entirely correct, that Newton might have believed that the 1,260 days and the 1,290 days started with the same event. It was propositional. However, my inference was justified because his conclusion is all messed up:

The 1290 days do not begin before 2090[entry partially illegible because of crease in the parchment] nor after 1374 [AD]

It is a calculation that obviously needs correction, but how? There is nothing which ends before it begins.

To reconcile it with the propositions 5 & 6, it does not seem possible. First, either 1374 must be 2374 or 2090 must be 1090. You cannot begin something at a date after its ending.

Second, the conclusion bears no relation to propositions 5 & 6. If it did, as did the conclusions for the 2,300 days and the 1,260 days (“time, times & half time”), then the conclusion should have been 2132 AD (from the 842 AD starting point) and 2374 AD (from the reign of Pope Gregory 7th in 1084 AD).

Considering that 2374 AD matches the conclusion to Proposition 6, I think it is safe to say that Newton merely made an entry error and meant to write “2374” instead of “1374.”

But matching the first half of the conclusion to Proposition 5 is not so easily done. The entry is partially illegible. Is it possible that he meant to write “2132”? I think the numbers 2090 are legible enough and the crease only potentially hides the first 0, but enough of it can be seen that we can only surmise that the only number it could be hiding would be a “9,” which would make it 2990 AD, completely unrelated to anything in the propositions.

Rather, I think the error lies in the word “begin” when it should read “end.” The previous two conclusions refer to the “end” of the 2,300 days, and the “end” of the 1,260 days. It only makes sense that the final conclusion would also be for the “end” of the 1,290 days, as well.

So, a corrected statement would read thus:

The 1290 days do not [end] before 2090 nor after 2374 [AD]

If he meant to say that the 1,290 ends in 2090 AD, then that would be 30 days (years) after the end of the 1,260 days, which he surmises would be 2060 AD. This is the foundation for my belief that Newton might be starting both time periods at the same time, even though it contradicts his 5th Proposition. Although he does not discuss it in the published version of his Observations, I have used Wikipedia sources (to be discussed later) to find that Newton changed the time period from the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 AD to the Donation of Pepin in 756 AD. That would result in the 2016 AD and the 2046 AD fulfillments of the 1,260 day and 1,290 day periods, respectively.

2060 AD would be off the table, unless the 1,290 days began at a different time period than the 1,260 days.

But what is the significance of 842 AD? In our previous installment, it was stated that 2132 AD could have not only prophetic significance as the end of the 2,300 day/year period, but also one of cosmological significance with the peak of a new Gleissberg Cycle.

The only known historical events of note in 842 AD would be the new alliances made by the sons of Charlemagne and the restoration of icons by Church Council in Constantinople. While to us, such events seem inconsequential, they would have been seen as such to Newton. He places much weight to what he calls the “Mahuzzim” heresy of the Antichrist. He regarded the veneration of saints, especially iconography and statuary, as integral aspects of that heresy.

Likewise with the shifting alliances among Charlemagne’s successors, Newton might have seen the merging of kingdoms as prophetic, especially in the descriptions found in Daniel.

However, this 9th Century period represented one of intense anxiety over signs in the sky. In the previous century, the Sun flared impressively in what became known as “the Charlemagne Event.” In 837 AD, Halley’s Comet made its closest approach to Earth in 2000 years to within 0.0334 astronomical units.

Measuring the Gleissberg Cycle, it should have peaked somewhere around 814 AD and Whiston’s “He-Goat” Comet calculations should have had an appearance in 845 AD (to be discussed later).

But we might never know, as Newton did not speak directly to this question in his known published papers.

Regardless, adding 1,290 to 842 brings us to 2132 AD for a “hard” stop to those prophetic periods. It is left now to decide what hard stop their might be for the 1,335 day/years . . .

to be continued

(Author’s Note: There are nine or ten parts planned for this series. After which, a dedicated section to the Navigation Bar for “All things Newton” will be added. For now, use this website’s Search function to find the previous parts to this series, or click on the Archives at the bottom of the page.)