INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North! Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 9001921

The reputation of John Dee: A critical appraisal

Barone, Robert William, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1989

Copyright ©1989 by Barone, Robert William. All rights reserved.

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

The Reputation of John Dee: A Critical Appraisal

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Robert William Barone, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1989

Dissertation Committee Approved by

Clayton Roberts

James Kittelson Adviser

Franklin Pegues Department of History Copyright by Robert William Barone 1989 DEDICATED TO:

Marie A. and R. Robert Consununatuin Est!

11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My interest in John Dee, and the broader world of

Early Modern social and intellectual history was awakened

5 years ago while I was doing research at Oxford. When

at Oxford I was taught paleography by Fred Landsberry

(from the University of Kent at Canterbury). It was he

who introduced me to the figure of John Dee. To him I

owe the first thanks for providing me with a direction

for my intellectual energies.

I also owe great thanks to my friend and teacher

Michael Hunter, under whom I studied at the University of

London. His seminar on Science and Society, as well as many enjoyable hours of discussion, helped me greatly in

ironirg out my understanding of Early Modern Science, and

John Dee's role within that drama. To Nicholas Smedley,

also a student of Dr. Hunter's, I owe thanks for letting me read his B.A. thesis on John Dee. It is from Mr.

Smedley's work that I gained the insight into Dee's negative role in court circles.

Any acknowledgment would be incomplete without a profound expression of thanks to my doctral adviser at

The Ohio State University, Professor Clayton Roberts.

Professor Roberts nurtured my intellectual appetite and

firmly grounded me in Tudor-Stuart history. This work is

iii largely a result of his generous and perceptive guidance.

I also wish to express my thanks to Professors James

Kittelson and Franklin Pegues of The Ohio State

University. They too helped in the refining of my intellect. I also need to go back to my undergraduate adviser, Professor Charles Daniel; he had faith in me those many years ago, and what I have completed here had its first beginnings in his classes.

Finally, I need to express the single greatest thanks to my parents. I would not be where I am now had it not been for the faith and love that they had for me, and for the support they have given me throughout my life. It is to them that I dedicate this work.

IV VITA

May 29, 1959...... Born-New Haven, Connecticut

198 1 ...... B.A., University of Rhode Island

198 2 ...... M.A., University of Rhode Island

1984-1986...... Graduate Associate, Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, The Ohio State University

Summer, 1985...... Graduate Assistant, History Department, The Ohio State University

1986-198 7 ...... Graduate Student, The University of London

1987-198 8 ...... Graduate Associate, History Department, The Ohio State University

1988-Presen t ...... Instructor, History Department, Wright State University

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Tudor-Stuart History— Clayton Roberts

Minor Fields: Renaissance-Reformation History— James M. Kittelson

Medieval History— Franklin Pegues TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii

VITA...... V

PREFACE...... vii

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

II. THE CAREER OF JOHN DEE...... 31

III. THE INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE: VIEWS ON SCIENCE, MAGIC AND RELIGION...... 63

IV. THE REPUTATION OF JOHN DEE: A NEGATIVE APPRAISAL...... 94

V. THE REPUTATION OF JOHN DEE: A POSITIVE APPRAISAL...... 141

VI. THE POSTHUMOUS REPUTATION OF JOHN DEE...... 165

CONCLUSION...... 184

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 186

VI PREFACE

The period of the Renaissance is one that has facinated historians and scholars for a wide variety of reasons, not least of which is the nature of Renaissance thought, and more specifically Renaissance scientific thought. There has, over the last sixty or seventy years, been an ongoing debate as to the nature of

Renaissance scientific thought. More specifically stated: Did this thought lead to the scientific revolution of the 17th century? And what was the exact nature of the intellectual patterns at work within

Renaissance science?

It has, since the mid-20th century, been established that the intellectual climate of the Renaissance was tempered by Neoplatonic philosophy. Neoplatonism acted as a crucial framework in which Renaissance intellectual patterns were developed and implemented. Scholars investigating Neoplatonism have also ventured to assert that the more mystical studies of hermeticism, cabalism, and general numbers mysticism also fell under the basic mandates of Neoplatonism.

Such authors as Frances Yates hold that Neoplatonism, based on hermeticism and cabalism, was the intellectual

vii backbone of Renaissance scientific thought. She went on to state that this thought pattern paved the way for the scientific revolution of the 17th century. Scholars such as I. R. F. Calder and Peter French, both of whom studied under Yates, subscribed to her thesis in their studies of

John Dee. They saw Dee as a crucial link in the continuity of a hermetic-cabalistic tradition (we can broadly term it a magical tradition) which led to the development of modern physical science.

Other scholars, such as Brian Vickers, Nicholas

Clulee, J.L. Heilbron and Wayne Shumaker, do not place as much emphasis on this connection (i.e. of hermeticism as a necessary link to the development of modern physical science). For these authors 17th century physical science succeeded despite the earlier Neoplatonic scheme.

They saw the Renaissance science of the Yatesian model as looking back to an earlier tradition, a tradition not concerned with the modern concepts of measuring, labelling, quantifying, and experimenting . To these scholars the Neoplatonic system was incongruous with modern investigation.

A principal reason for the ongoing debate over the nature of these two mutually exclusive systems of thought is that, for a brief period at least, they were able to exist simultaneously. One way that scholars have sought to unravel this maze is by the systematic investigation

viii of the careers of the particular individuals involved in this drama. In this respect John Dee proves an invaluable test case. A study of his career allows one to investigate the various and diverse aspects of pre-

Newtonian scientific thought.

The complexity of Dee's personality and reputation revolves around these issues of science and magic, and their relationship to the intellectual world of the

Renaissance.

This work will seek to investigate the reputation of

John Dee. This is an aspect of Dee scholarship that has been overlooked as a method of approach. One can see that the question of Dee's reputation looms large; yet it is an aspect of Dee scholarship which has been overlooked.

It is also my purpose to resolve some of the questions in debate concerning Dee's role in the Renaissance intellectual world, and perhaps come a step closer to a true evaluation of this man and his place in history.

IX Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Opinions held about John Dee, the Elizabethan scientist and curiosa (1527-1608), both contemporary and later, are as varied and diffuse as Dee's own sundry studies were. Dee himself was a Renaissance man exhibiting diverse interests and a wide breadth of scholarship. It is, in fact, this very diffuse nature of

Dee's thought that has made him such an interesting figure for historical, philosophical, and scientific research and speculation. Authors and scholars have found in Dee a forerunner of modern experimental science, an influential court figure, a mathematician of unsurpassed talent and a key link in the continuity of the magical and mystical traditions from ancient to modern times — a so-called magus, as well as a schemer, a charlatan, a credulous fool, and an anachronism. In short, it seems as though writers have found in Dee what they want to find in order to satisfy their own intellectual appetites. John Dee, the polymath, the mystic, the sage, the antiquarian provides what appears an easy entry into many diverse realms of thought. In this diversity is found the source of many conflicting

1 2 interpretations of Dee's place in the Elizabethan intellectual world. Dee's outpouring of words in books and manuscripts is the root cause of the difficulty in assessing Dee and his role within the intellectual world of the 16th century. The variety and diversity are vast.

One can view Dee as a learned astronomer and mathematician, teaching navigation and geography and working on such problems as calendar reform — all the while consulting with the great minds of his age. Or he can be appraised as a magician or magus, gazing into his crystal-ball in search of angels, hidden powers, wealth, and a general self aggrandizement; either a figure looming at the periphery of modern scientific thought or a figure belonging to the darker recesses of human endeavour. The source of these (seemingly) mutually exclusive avenues of interpretation is to be found in the nature of the age in which Dee lived and in Dee's temperament. The Renaissance, in many areas of thought, was both pre-modern and proto-modern, both magical and scientific, and Dee markedly exemplifies the diverse nature of that age.

The complexity of Dee's personality revolves around these issues of science and magic and their connection within the intellectual world of the Renaissance. The enigmatic nature of Dee and his work has led to much speculation as to Dee's place in 16th century thought. 3

From the onset the varied opinions contemporaries held regarding science and magic bore heavily upon the reception given to Dee and his work. Because of the pronounced esoteric system in which Dee's science was embedded, there were and are scholars who believe in its premises, scholars who deny its premises, and scholars who simply do not understand them. This fact has contributed much to the variety of opinion exhibited towards Dee and his studies throughout the last four centuries.

There are as many ways of viewing Dee as there are authors who write about him. Within Dee's own lifetime, two diametrically opposed views regarding Dee developed.

The first portrayed him as a utilitarian scientist, and the second as an evil practitioner of the darker occult studies.! Dee wrote of himself: "... that I have a mervailous zeale, taken very great care, endured great travayle and toy le, both of mynde and body; and spent very many hundred powndes, only for the attayning some good and certayn knowledg in the best and rarest matters mathematicall and philosophicall".^ Others,

! Walter Trattner, "God and Expansion in Elizabethan England: John Dee 1527-1583." Journal of the Historv of Ideas. XXV (1964), pp. 17-34.

2 British Library, Lansdowne MS.19 f. 81. This was dated 30 October 1574 in a letter from Dee to Lord Burghley. See also James O. Halliwell, Letters on 4

contemporaries as well, spoke highly of Dee. Edward

Worsop wrote: "...M.J. Dee who is accounted of the

learned mathematicians of this age...".3 Michael Lok,

writing an account of the preparation for Martin

Frobisher's first north-west passage voyage (1577), for which Dee acted as an advisor, refers to Dee as "The

learned man Mr. John Dee"; he goes on to say how Dee

"deserved much commendation".4

Opposed to the idea of Dee as an eminent scientist

stands the view of Dee as an evil conjurer. Dee's pursuit of occult knowledge led many to judge him as a magician of dubious reputation. In Dee's General and

Rare Memorials Pertavnina to Perfect Arte of Navigation

(1577), he defends his reputation against what he terms

"malicious slander". He states how people saw him as

"not only a conjurer ... but a great doer therin ... the arche conjurer of the whole kingdom".^ Dee's reputation as a dabbler in occult studies stemmed from his college days at Cambridge, where in 1547, while engineering the

Science (1841), pp. 11, 13; and John Strype, Annals of the Reformation (1824), vol. II, Appendix XLV.

3 Edward Worsop, A Discoverie of Sundrie Errours and Faults Dailv committed bv Landemeaters (London, 1582). Quote taken from E.G.R. Taylor's Tudor Geography: 1485-1583 (London, 1930), p. 254.

4 British Library, Cotton MS. Otho. E. VIII.

^ John Dee, General and Rare Memorials (London, 1577) sig.iii r-v. 5

staging of a scene in Aristophanes' play Peace, he had a

scarabaeid beetle ascend to Jupiter's palace, "whereat

was great wondring and many vaine reportes spread abroad

of the meanes how that was effected".® Finally, one

learns from Dee's Private Diary that numerous cases of

slander were brought against Dee. For example, on the

28th of April, 1578, Dee wrote how "I caused Sir Rowland

Haywood to examyn Frances Baily of his sklandering me, which he utterly denyed."? Or how on 5 November 1580

Dee "delivered Mr. Williams ... a letter of a Hurney against one White of Colchester, for a sklaunder".® Or how he was accused of being a "conviver" by the Bishop of

Leightyn.9 Dee gained the reputation of being a magician; and when he left for the continent in 1583, a mob sacked his home at Mortlake.l® John Aubrey, writing seventy years after Dee's death, conversed with goodwife

Faldo of Mortlake, who knew Dee when she was a child, and related how children feared Dee because he was accounted

® John Dee, Autobiographical Tracts of Dr. John Dee. Warden of the College of Manchester, ed. James Crossley, Chetham Society Publications. Vol. XXIV (Manchester, 1851) pp. 5-6.

^ John Dee, The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee, ed. James Orchard Halliwell, Camden Society Publications. Vol. XIX (1842), p. 4.

® ibid, p. 8.

^ ibid, p. 43.

Dee, Autobiographical Traces, pp. 27-28. 6

a conjurer.11 Until his last days Dee found himself

continually haunted by charges of conjuring and invoking

devils.12 To King James I he wrote in 1604 asking to be

cleared of charges of slander; "namely that he (Dee) is;

or hath bin a conjurer, or caller, or invocator of divels...".13

These brief contemporary accounts of Dee illustrate the ambivalence with which Dee's life can be viewed. One can see that the question of Dee's reputation looms large; yet it is an aspect of Dee scholarship which has been overlooked as a method of approach in its own right.

Over the past three and one half centuries authors have run the gamut in their evaluations of Dee and his importance to the intellectual milieu of his day: The scientific revolution. The terms science and the occult act as battle lines demarcating what appears as two opposing intellectual forces. Was Dee a great scientist?

Or was Dee a great magician or conjurer? Did his magic lead to science? Or did it distract him from the path of true scientific enquiry?

Disagreement as to the interrelationship of occult

11 John Aubrey, "Brief Lives", chiefIv of contemporaries set down bv John Aubrev. between the vears 1669-1696. Ed. Andrew Clark, Vol. I, p. 213.

12 John Dee, To the Kings most Excellent Maiestie (London, 1604).

13 ibid. 7

and scientific mentalities^'^ places Dee at the center of

a great and ongoing debate. The simple division of Dee

as a good scientist and/or a bad-good occultist (bad in

the sense that occult study can be implied to denote

demonic worship or the summoning of demonic powers) has

been greatly expanded, by scholars studying Dee, in terms

of a method of evaluating Dee. From Dee's own lifetime

until the present, few have refuted his reputation as a

good scientist— as a figure important in the English

scientific tradition of the latter 16th c e n t u r y . 15 Dee's

work in mathematics, navigation, and geography placed him

in the avant-garde of early English scientific thought.

Assaults on Dee were continually directed against his

occult studies— his conjuring, which was criticized as

being of a demonic nature.

Writing fifty years after Dee's death. Meric

Casaubon launched the first pointed criticism of Dee as a good and competent scientist who was deluded by d e v i l s . 1^

1'^ This phrase is taken from the title of Brian Vickers, ed.. Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance.

15 Such authors as E.G.R. Taylor (Tudor Geography and The English Mathmatical Practitioners) and Francis Johnson (Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England) are two of the more important scholars writing on Dee as an important scientist.

15 Meric Casaubon, ed. A True and Faithful Relation of what passed for many veers Between Dr. John Dee...and some Spirits (London, 1659). 8

Casuabon viewed the occult studies pursued by Dee as

evil, and argued that Dee wasted the better part of his

genius in such work. Dee, therefore, comes to light as a

qualified scientist who was led astray by vain promises

of wealth, fame, and secret knowledge— the philosopher's

stone and the elixir of life.l? This criticism of Dee

was religious in nature and, structured as such, took

little notice of Dee's scientific achievements or the

relationship between Dee's science and his occult

practice. The two topics are separated as contradictory methods of investigation; Dee abandoned his science

having tapped all the possible avenues therein and

futilely set out to unlock nature's mysteries via the help of angels— angels as seen in Dee's deluded mentality but which were really, argues Casaubon, devils. This

impression of Dee was later capitalized upon by Thomas

Smith, who wrote the first biography of Dee (1707).

Smith followed Casaubon's lead in assessing Dee as an able scientist who was led astray by his own vain quest

for power. The critical year was 1582-83, when Dee performed his last legitimate work of science on calendar

reform. Thereafter, "Dee was occupied in investigating

ibid. Casaubon's Preface follows this theme of the deluded scientist vainly seeking what legitimate science cannot attain for him.

Thomas Smith, Vita Joanis Dee, translated as The Life of John Dee by William Ayton. 9 curious arts and hunting after the innmost secrets of natural philosophy,... above what it is lawful for mortals to aspire to..."19 For Smith and Casaubon Dee sought not to glorify God but rather to glorify himself.

He had an "unlawful and impious ambition to surpass the powers of the human mind", and both authors viewed him as possessed of "incurable insanity and abstinacy". In opposition to the view of Dee put forth by Casaubon and

Smith stood that of Elias Ashmole and John Aubrey, who both saw Dee's occult studies as good and important in their own right.21 Aubrey, in fact, was a distant relative of Dee's for his grandfather (William Aubrey) and Dee were cousins. Aubrey wrote how Dee and William

Aubrey were often together and consulted each other on scientific and other matters.22 in speaking of Dee,

Aubrey claimed: "a mighty good man he was."23 Aubrey's brief information on Dee was then passed on to Elias

Ashmole. Ashmole held Dee in high regard, owing mostly

19 ibid, p. 41.

29 ibid, p. 70.

21 Aubrey,"Brief Lives". Elias Ashmole, Theaturm Chemicum Britannicum and C.H. Josten, ed. Elias Ashmole, His Autobiographical and Historical Notes...to his life and works. 5 volumes.

22 Aubrey, Brief Lives, p. 89.

2 3 ibid. 10

to Ashmole's own bent towards occult studies. Ashmole

wrote that "his (Dee's) great ability in astrology, and

the more secret parts of learning (to which he had a

strong propensity and unwearyed fancy), drew from the

envious and vulgar, many rash, lewd, lying scandals upon

his most honest and justifiable philosophical

studies..."24 Ashmole's appraisal of Dee ignored the

attacks of the religious community, who saw only the

demonic quality of Dee's studies and instead gave great

credence to Dee's occult pursuits. Modern occultists

follow in this evaluation of Dee and revere Ashmole for

restoring Dee to a place of dignity in the annals of

occult history.25

These two appraisals of Dee's occult studies

predominated until the 20th century. It was, of course,

the views of Casaubon and Smith that remained the more

forceful, and Dee's reputation as a black magician seemed

established.

The 20th century has witnessed a resurgence in Dee

studies. The opening of the 20th century heralded the

first full length biographical defense of Dee, written by

24 Elias Ashmole, Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum. p. 80.

25 Robert Turner, ed. The Heptarchia Mvstica of John Dee, p. 18. 11

Charlette Fell-Smith.Fell-Smith wrote that "...there

is perhaps no learned author in history who has been so persistently misjudged by posterity..."2? as John Dee.

Fell-Smith grounded her study of Dee on his solid achievements in the realms of history and s c i e n c e . 28 she did so in an attempt to offset the by then familiar view of Dee as an infamous cad. In respect to that opinion of

Dee, Fell-Smith wrote; "The popular idea of Dee in league with evil powers was, of course, the natural result of ignorance and dull understanding."29 she thereby defused any meaningful assessment of Dee as a demonic occultist in a Casaubonian or Smithian mode. For her part, Fell-Smith transformed the appraisal of Dee's occult studies, writing that "the sole object of Dee's ambition was the attainment of legitimate wisdom."20

Fell-Smith, however, never sufficiently addressed the question of what Dee hoped to gain through his angelic conversations or what connection these occult studies had with his scientific ones. Her work, in fact, is done more along the lines of a popular historical

28 Charlotte Fell-Smith, John Dee ri527-1608K

2^ ibid, p. 1.

28 ibid, p. 2.

29 ibid, p. 61.

20 ibid, p. 88, 12 novel than of a ground breaking historical monograph.

Aside from Fell-Smith's rather jejune defense of

Dee, the 20th century has witnessed support for Dee and his work coming from two angles. The first was to conduct a thorough evaluation of Dee's science, especially his navigation and astronomy. The second was to see Dee's occult approach to the study of nature as being crucial to the formation of modern physical science. As with any historical analysis, there were also attacks mounted against both these premises.

The first scientific evaluation and defense of Dee came in the realms of geography and navigation. The works of E.G.R. Taylor did much to portray Dee as not only a legitimate scientist, but also one of the most important scientists in later Tudor England. Taylor, in her assessment of early Tudor exploration placed Dee among the leading figures in the English search for

Cathay.32 The skills Dee exhibited in the mathematical arts made him highly regarded by navigators and explorers. Taylor views Dee as a premier mathematician, one at the forefront of a new age; she also depicts Dee as an eminent figure in contemporary minds. Taylor lists

31 See especially E.G.R. Taylor, Tudor Geography; 1485-1583 ; Late Tudor and Early Stuart Geography 1583- 1650 ; The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England.

32 Taylor, Tudor Geography, p. 19. 13

extensively all the scientists, explorers, and political

figures that consulted with Dee, and demonscrates how Dee

was highly regarded among court circles.33 In Taylor's

final appraisal of Dee, she describes a man possessed of

intellectual honesty and genuine patriotism, one whose

work in geography and navigation deserves closer

examination.34 As far as Dee's occult studies are

concerned, Taylor dipicts Dee as a secretive man, one who

saw knowledge as a prerogative of the initiate,35 and a

man who believed in the occult or "new arts", as Dee's

friend Mercator termed it.36 Taylor does go so far as to

point out that Dee was always involved in the more magical arts, which occupied more and more of his

energies as he grew older; but she disarms the onslaught

of criticism centered on Dee's occult works by stressing his more acceptable scientific works. When one judges

Dee, she maintains, one should not allow his more occult practices to overshadow his sound and important

contributions to science. In this sense, Taylor's works

are important for first opening the door to Dee

the scientist. Taylor's praise of Dee's works in

33 Taylor, Tudor Geography, p. 76; Taylor, Mathematical Practitioners. p. 18.

34 ibid, p. 77.

35 ibid, p. 24.

35 Taylor, Mathematical Practitioners, p. 24, 14 geography and navigation (as well as the mathematics which went with them) was followed by Francis Johnson's work, praising Dee as an astronomer and mathematician.3?

Johnson's thesis holds that Renaissance science in

England had a paticularly practical and experimental nature to it.^® Johnson fits Dee nicely into his picture of English science, viewing Dee as a leading mathematician who acted as the guiding spirit of the

English school of mathematics in the third quarter of the

16th century.39 Johnson's work shows Dee's mathematical work as being of an experimental nature and, therefore, as paving the way for 17th century experimental science.

As well as this experimental aspect of science, Johnson also contends that English scientists, such as Dee, had a clear Vision of the practical utili^-y of science^O- an almost modern utilitarian outlook. Concerning Dee's occultism, Johnson, like Taylor, points out that it was only in Dee's later career, when he was sommoning angels, that his real merits as a scientist were obscured.41

3^ Francis Johnson, Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England.

38 ibid, p. 173.

39 ibid, p. 135.

40 ibid, p. 173.

41 ibid, pp. 135-136. 15

This type of argument falls precisely into the same mode

as Taylor's. Both authors attest to Dee's scientific merits, his importance in varying scientific fields, and brush aside his occult practices as either being

sensationalism, as seen by others writing about such practices, or as simply the frustrated hopes of an old man who had not received the rewards he felt he deserved.

For them, the occultist material distorts Dee's real importance as a scientist. For Casaubon and Smith, Dee's occult endeavours consumed his science, while showing the true twisted nature of Dee as a man who had lost his hold on sanity.

Both Taylor's and Johnson's works are important for their rectification of Dee's reputation as a scientist and for alleviating the sheer sensationalism of Dee as a black magician. The drawback in these two authors' works is that no attempts were made to comprehend the relation between Dee's science and his occultism. As with

Cassaubon and Smith, Taylor and Johnson made no attempt to work out the relation between these two seemingly separate intellectual endeavours. By trying to fit Dee into a modern scientific context, both Taylor and Johnson overlooked the diversity and incogruity between Dee's world view and that of the post-Newtonian centuries.

By the middle of the 20th century an impass had seemingly developed separating the diverse aspects of 16

John Dee's life into neatly compartmentalized sets of

unrelated studies and topics. To view Dee as an angelic

correspondent dabbling in the darker arts, by its

implications, negated Dee's work as a scientist. By the

same reasoning, to view Dee as an eminent and even singularly important scientist was to neglect his work as an adept occultist.

By the end of the first quarter of the 20th century scholarly work directed towards understanding the metaphysical nature of early modern science had begun.

E.A. Burtt led the way in attempting to understand the relationship between science and the o c c u l t . 42 His thesis is that at the dawn of modern science science had direct connections with occult studies. He argues that the mathematical aspects of 17th century physical science were the outgrowth of the platonic conceptions of mathematics that were revived and further amplified in the Renaissance. Neither Taylor nor Johnson, both of whom looked for a more direct connection with modern science in Dee's works, considered this arument.

Frances Yates in the second half of the 20th century expanded Burtt's thesis and applied it to the study of

42 E.A. Burtt, The Metanhvsical Foundations of Modern Phvsical Science. 17

Renaissance science.43 Her main thesis revolves around

the belief that the neoplatonic occult philosophy of the

Renaissance was composed in essence of hermeticism, and

that hermeticism involved the use of operative m a g i c . 4 4

Yates went on to argue that it was precisely this

hermetic occultism that was an undercurrent within or the

underpinning of the philosophy of the Elizabethan A g e . 4 5

Thus Dee, as one who sought to penetrate the more

profound spheres of knowledge both scientific and

spiritual, fits neatly into that age. Yates easily shows

how Dee, with the powers of a magus, could be not only an

eminent scientist but a sage as well, with the ability to

tap the store of hidden knowledge beyond the physical.

Dee could do both because the two arts, magic and

science, were one and the same intellectual searching for wisdom. Yates's thesis further asserts that not only was

occultism fundamental to Renaissance science, but that

Renaissance science paved the way for the scientific

revolution of the 17th century. Dee can thus be viewed

as a case study for this thesis.

43 See especially Frances Yates, Giorgiano Bruno and The Hermetic Tradition; "The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science" in Art. Science, and Historv in the Renaissance, ed. Charles Singleton; The Occult Philosophv in the Elizabethan Age.

44 Yates.Occult Philosophv. pp. 18-24.

45 ibid, p. 75. 18

I.R.F. Calder, a student of Yates's, was the first to

apply Yates's thesis to a study of D e e . 46 calder views

Dee's science as a product of a neoplatonic form of

reasoning, thus linking the formation of his science with

a magical method of reasoning. Calder maintains that

Dee, as a devotee of Renaissance neoplatonism, promoted a

new approach to the philosophical and metaphysical study

of nature, an approach which inevitably paved the way to

the experimental method of modern physical science.

Dee's importance for the growth of modern physical

science was "due chiefly to the fact that he became one

of the principal propagandists in England for an approach to nature which proved of immense value in the hands of

later experimentalists and laid the foundations for the methods of modern physical s c i e n c e " . 4? Calder goes on to soften the occult practices of Dee by commenting that

"many of the apparent eccentricities of Dee's thought... were no more than rigourously derived consequences of the general philosophy (neoplatonic- hermeticism) he so heartily embraced". Calder argues that such rescuing "...provided the framework for the

46 I.R.F. Calder, "John Dee Studied as an English Neoplatonist", unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.

4^ I.R.F. Calder, "John Dee Studied as an English Neoplatonist". 19

ordered world of Newton".48 with mathematics as the key

to nature. Dee endeavoured to unlock nature's mysteries

and assert the reality of all phenomena. For Yates and

Calder, neoplatonic and hermetic philosophy thus

functioned as the fundamental core for the understanding

of all Renaissance mathematical sciences. The important

questions to be asked are how Calder addresses the

problem of Dee's more seedy understakings as a magician

(i.e. in terms conjuring angels and searching for hidden

treasures) and how he evaluates Dee's later works, which would appear to have no connection to applied mechanical

practices. It must first be made clear that the

separation between various branches of knowledge (i.e.

both magical and scientific) was not, in Dee's lifetime,

clearly defined. The separation was only slowly beginning to occur and would not be completed for several generations. This being the case, it is easy to argue that there was nothing odd in Dee's more occult pursuits.

However, the line between legitimate and forbidden knowledge was always a fine one, and it was the continual argument of Dee's critics that he went beyond the realm of the acceptable. It was not that the studies he undertook were in themselves forbidden; it was simply the degree to which he pursued them that led to his being

48 ibid. Vol.I, p. 11. 20 viewed with s u s p i c i o n . 49 Yet it was only in Dee's later life, when he forsook his earlier mathematical practices for a total immersion into the occult, that Calder sees his real fall. Calder maintains that Dee abandoned the exact sciences simply because he had exhausted their s t u d y . 50 In the end. Dee's former fame was obscured by the dark rumors attached to his later life, and thus we witness the sad demise of an eminent scientist who had outlived his fame and usefulness. 51

The Yates-Calder thesis set the tone for Dee scholarship until the present day; the quarter century since Calder's seminal work has witnessed the adoption, modification, and reappraisal of that thesis. As late as

1 9 7 2 , Peter F r e n c h 5 2 wrote that Dee operated in the tradition of the hermetic-cabalistic magus, a tradition which he asserted was the operative philosophy in the

Elizabethan Age. One can clearly see that French owed much to Yates's work. For French, Dee was the pinnacle of the "scientist-magician”, the devotee of a type of scholarship which was "half magical and half

4^ ibid.

59 ibid, vol.I., p. 7 7 7 .

51 ibid, vol.I, p. 8 5 8 .

52 Peter French.John Dee; The World of an Elizabethan Magus. 21 scientific".53 Further, it was through the work of men such as Dee that the modern views of science were d e v e l o p e d . 54 As French stated: "For Dee everything was worth exploring". 55 This comprehensive approach certainly left much room for interpreting all of Dee's work as being valuable to the formation of modern science.

As for Dee's supposed conversations with the spirit world, French easily tied them in with the hermetic model. In other words Dee did not confine the quest for knowledge to the physical realm alone, but allowed for the metaphysical to be tapped as well. Dee was simply a gnostic, ascending in a spiritual transformation to the majesty of G o d . 56 To French, John Dee was the all inclusive man who, through his scientific as well as occult studies (the two were of course combined in

French's mind), was able to form a universal vision for the future of m a n . 5?

One can see that the Yatesian camp viewed the occult studies of Dee as meritorious; for these scholars, such

55 ibid, p. 1.

54 ibid, p. 2.

55 ibid, p. 2.

56 ibid, p. 77.

5^ ibid, p. 125. 22

studies paved the way for modern science. This view

stands diametrically opposed to Casaubon's and Smith's

views of Dee as an evil and misguided conjurer. It also

attempts to explain the connection between science and

the occult, a fact overlooked by Taylor and Johnson.

Two important works which test the Yatesian thesis are

Nicholas Clulee's work on John Dee's mathematics and

Wayne Shumaker's and J.L. Heilbron's editing of Dee's

Propaedeumata Aohoristica.58 ciulee seeks to study "the

relationship of Renaissance intellectual development and

the mathematical implications of Renaissance neoplatonism

and pythagorianism to the emergence of a mathematical

natural science in the 16th and 17th centuries". By

studying Dee's mathematics, Ciulee hoped to arrive at a

closer understanding of its place in Renaissance natural

philosophy. The problem with using the term neoplatonism

to describe the philosophy underlying the advent of

experimental science is that Renaissance neoplatonism was highly pluralistic, drawing its ideas from a variety of

sources.GO Through his study of Dee's Preface to

Euclid's geometry and his Propaedeumata Aohoristica (i.e.

Nicholas Ciulee."The Glas of Creation; Renaissance Mathematicism and Natural Philosophy in the work of John Dee", unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Wayne Shumaker and J.L. Heilbron,ed., John Dee on Astronomv.

ciulee, "The Glas of Creation...", p. ii.

GO ibid, p. 3. 23 his mathematical works), Ciulee hoped to clarify the connection that Yates and French made between Dee's science and occultism. In Clulee's study, Dee is depicted as a scholar seeking to find the metaphysical causes and arcane principles of nature, a far cry from the 17rh century's concept of science, which held that the goal of science was the establishment of laws and the description of the relations between phenomena.61 m other words, Dee's concept of nature and the cosmos was not to be equated with the mechanical universe of the

17th century. Instead, what Dee actually sought was spiritual ascent and the attainment of heavenly wisdom; and through mathematics. Dee believed he had the means to achieve that g o a l . 62 Thus in Clulee's judgement the so- called mechanistic aspects of Dee's works were in reality only a concern for those occult and scientific forces that made possible his own quest for wisdom, a far cry from 17th century mechanics as carried out by Galileo or

Newton.63 As for Dee's later life, when his more spiritual wanderings became more pronounced, Ciulee has no trouble showing how Dee, guided by his own philosophical concept of nature and his own personal

61 ibid, p. 242

62 ibid, p. 59.

63 ibid, p. 72. 24 desires for wisdom, abandoned his more practical endeavours for a more esoteric and spiritual path. Such practices, in the neoplatonic and hermetic traditions, did not in any way aid in the advance of modern physical science; they only aided in darkening his reputation for posterity, while not achieving anything for him within his own lifetime.

Heilbron's and Shumaker's edition of Dee's

Propaedeumata Aohoristica also adderesses the whole issue of the relation of Dee's occult philosophy to the scientific revolution. They play down the belief that the magician's "frame of mind" was the necessary preliminary for the rise of modern s c i e n c e . Dee's role as a mathematician is not denied; Heilbron comments:

"...there is no doubt that Dee was an important and knowledgeable mathematician and that he played an important part in making the mathematics of the continental Renaissance known in England". He goes on to say that "several of the mathematical masters active in

London at the end of the 16th century learned their art either directly from Dee or from others inspired by him.

All this gives Dee a modest place in the intellectual history of Tudor England".65 However, Heilbron questions

64 Shumaker, John Dee, p. 35.

65 ibid, p. 34. 25

Dee's place as a prime mover and necessary forerunner of the scientific revolution, a place where Calder, Yates, and French had placed him.

Heilbron contends that Dee's studies of magic and hermeticism led to his ultimate d e c l i n e , ^6 not to the foundation of modern physical science. In actuality

Dee's whole outlook was, by modern usage, non-scientific.

Dee's use and application of mathematics, therefore, never rested on the use of mathematics to secure results which could be weighed and measured; rather, he sought to use mathematics as a means of manipulating divine or supernatural powers in the hope of gaining a revelation.

For Heilbron, Galileo's experimentalism is not to be seen as the natural development of hermeticism, but rather as something quite separate from that earlier development.

Ultimately, Heilbron sees Dee's angelic conversations as the last hope of a desperate man.^? Dee did not achieve illumination through his devotion to hermetic philosophy and cabalistic lore; rather he became an anomaly. As

Heilbron puts it: "He (Dee) presently lost his compass

(which perhaps was never tightly secured) and wandered through Europe without reason or direction asking

G6 ibid, p. 12.

ibid, p. 15. 26 recalcitratant angels for revelations that never c a m e " . 68

Heilbron's work does much to clarify the "science" of

John Dee and to place that science within an historical context. Credit is gi-"^en to Dee's minor achievements as a mathematician and geographer, while just criticism is placed on Dee's esoteric pursuits (denying that such pursuits were a protomodern science). Dee can thus be vividly seen as one who sought his own aggrandizement and claimed his occult arts as the basis for such elevation.

Shumaker expanded Heilbron's essay in another work he did several years later, a work in which he addressed the topic of Dee's spiritual diaries and angelic conversations. 69 He maintains that it is a mistake to suppose that Dee's relations with spirits in any way turned him sharply away from his earlier interests.He stresses that Dee always functioned within an occult frame of mind. Such conversations were a mere extrapolation of beliefs he had held throughout his career as a magus.In other words, Heilbron and

Shumaker view Dee's occultism as continuous throughout his career, and argue this hindered him from greater

68 ibid, p. 43.

69 Wayne Shumaker, Renaissance Curiosa.

ibid, p. 20.

ibid, p. 50. 27

scientific achievements. This view is diametrically

opposed to a Yatesian view which sees the occult as

leading to science, as well as to a Casaubonian view of

Dee as a deluded conjurer, or even to a Taylorian view of

Dee as a great scientist. To Heilbron and Shumaker Dee's

science was mediocre and his occultism was the governing

principle for that "science" in its own right.

One of the main problems facing scholars who study

John Dee is the attitude they assume regarding magic and

the occult and science. To the 20th century mind these

seemingly distinct and separate branches of mental

endeavour seem strangely incompatible as realms of understanding. One either "does" science to achieve some graspable results, or one "does" magic in an attempt to achieve some higher plane of consciousness. For Dee, and men of Dee's era or temperament, these two realms of knowledge were meshed together into one complete system of thought. Both scientific endeavours and cosmological speculation were treated within a similar frame of reference, a frame of reference that neoplatonism, hermeticism, and cabalism provided. The idea of scientific and sapiential knowledge were combined in a wholistic pursuit of philosophical enlightenment.

The role Dee played within the Elizabethan world, as a scientist and intellectual, needs to be kept in mind in order to gain a clearer understanding of what was meant 28

by science in Elizabethan England and what exactly Dee's

role was in that world. In large measure the issue of

the relation of magic and the occult to science is a

paradoxical one. It is one thing to speculate as to the metaphysical, mystical, or even occult truths found in

nature; it is guite another to engage in an active effort

to gain control or supremacy over such powers, to manipulate them to one's personal ends. (E.g. Newton was profoundly interested in revelation; yet at the same time he clearly separated these two realms of thought.) John

Dee, on the other hand, attempted to fuse the two for enlightenment and undoubtedly for personal gain.

For the study of John Dee and his works, few new facts are likely to come to light; what is needed instead is a new analysis and a new approach to the study of this complex figure. To this end this work seeks to question and map out Dee's reputation, how that reputation was formed and how it inevitably evolved. To this end I will look at contemporary views of Dee as well as later ones.

This introduction has briefly attempted to outline the problems and issues involved. The question of Dee's reputation looms large and yet is an aspect of Dee scholarship which has been overlooked as an approach in its own right. It is my purpose to remedy this deficiency in the study of John Dee, and to come to a clearer understanding of his place in Early Modern 29

England.

Finally, I would like to lay out the presuppositions which this work will follow as regards science and the occult.72 I will contend that they are two separate thought processes, yet they were able to co-exist (for a while at least) within the work of certain Renaissance scientists-such as John Dee. The differences which exist between science and occult studies are as follows. The occult tradition sought to find a prisca theoloaia. the origins of which lay in the remote past. The occultists sought to unlock the secrets of Hermes Trismegistus and

Orpheus; to tap a mystical, divine lore, a lore locked in arcane studies. Such studies as astrology, alchemy and numbers mysticism, pursued under the guiding philosophical mandates of neoplatonism, hermeticism, and cabalistic studies, were the key to occultism. The occultists were by their very nature secretive and their studies were meant for the eyes of the adept only; they cultivated obscurity and were résistent to change. Occult studies had magical elements associated with them, elements which could inevitably explain everything and

72 For a good analysis of occult and scientific themes see Vickers, Occult and Scientific Mentalities, especially the introduction; Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic; Charles Schmitt, "Reappraisals in Renaissance Science", in Historv of Science. 16 (1978) pp. 200-214; D.P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella. 30 anything. In particular, occult studies were not progressive and were unable to be empirically verified; in a word, they were static and unprovable.

Science, on the other hand, is allied with the idea of progress. Scientific knowledge is general knowledge that is cooperative and open for all to see. Science is ready to consider alternatives and to revive its general theories. Most of all, scientific investigation is based on experimental repeatability and empirical verifability.

Part of the difficulty in studying Dee and the relation between science and the occult is that the era was marked by the ability to live with these otherwise incompatible mental categories.

Vickers, ed. Occult and Scientific Mentalities. p. 33. CHAPTER II

The Career of John Dee

To understand the argument of the later chapters of

this dissertation, it is useful to have in mind a brief

sketch of John Dee's life. John Dee lived a long and

colorful life during one of the most vibrant periods of

English history. It was a period marked by rapid

transformation and anxiety, an age in which a new world

picture was being formed.

John Dee's own account gives his birth as occurring

two minutes past the hour of four on the afternoon of the

13th of July 1527.1

He was born in London, the son of Rowland Dee and

Johanna Wild.2 The Dee family claimed ancestry from the

1 Sloane MS.1782, f. 31, Dee's own horoscope. His interest in astrology and nativities undoubtedly attests to the validity of this dating. Dee's life is well summarized in the DNB.

2 see Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 1; Dee, Diary, p. 5; John Strype, Annals of the Reformation, vol.2, part 1, p. 523; Harleian MS. 7177, ff. 169 r-172 v; Anthony a' Wood, Athenea Oxoniensis. ed. Phillip Bliss, vol.l, pp. 240-242; Cotton Charter XIV, art.l; Cotton Charter XIII,art. 38; Harleian MS.5835,art. 2, 3.

31 32

Dees of Nant-y-Groes in Radnorshire, Wales.^ Throughout

John Dee's lifetime he kept in contact with his Welsh

relatives, as well as making several journeys to W a l e s . 4

As an antiquarian. Dee traced his lineage back to

Roderick the Great, a ninth century Welsh prince, and

even further back to ancient Welsh kings in the sixth

century.5 He claimed a Welsh genealogy older than that

of the Tudors; he likewise claimed a distant relationship

to the Tudor monarchs themselves. His own family settled

in England with the Welsh migration following the

accession of Henry VII. John's grandfather, Bedo Dee, was a standard-bearer for the Griffiths, and his own

father, Rowland, was a gentleman server to Henry VIII.&

John Dee himself served the three children of Henry VIII- the nature and extent of that service is in part what this work seeks to investigate.

In truth little is known of Dee's parents. His father,

^ Cambrobrvtannica Cvmraecaeve Linguae Institutiones. (London, 1592), p. 60.

4 see Harleian MS. 473 for some notes by Dee on a trip through Wales; Transactions of the Radnorshire Society, vol. Ill, pp. 10-15; vol. XXI, pp. 42- 46; vol. XXV, pp. 15-16; vol. XXVI, pp. 15-16.

^ see Cotton Charter XIII, art. 38; and Cotton Charter XIV, art. 1.

® Harleian MS. 5835, art. 2, 3. 33

Rowland, served in some menial capacity to Henry VIII

his mother acquired enough money to have a cottage in

Mortlake by the 1560's at least, where she died in 1580

at the age of 77.®

Nothing is known of Dee's early years except that he

was grounded in the study of the Latin tongue. As he

recounted: "I had before, in London, and at Chelmsford,

been metely well furnished with understanding of the

Latine tongue".^ This early schooling lasted until 1542

when, at the age of 15, he entered St.John's College,

Cambridge; there to study "logick, and so to proceeds in

the learning of good artes and sciences".When Dee,

writing his Compendious Rehearsal to Queen Elizabeth in

1592, recounted his student days at St. John's, he stated

that: "In the years 1543, 1544, 1545, I was so vehemently

bent to studie, that for those years I did inviolably

^ Strype mentions in his Annales that Rowland was a servant to King Henry VIII, not a "gentleman server", as the DNB alleges. I.R.F. Calder, "John Dee Studied as an English Neoplatonist", 2 vols., unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of London, 1952, shows how Rowland Dee enjoyed a monopoly in freight fowarding, and was also awarded income from confiscated monastic lands.(vol. II, pp. 90-91).

® Dee, Diary, pp. 5, 7, 9-10. In Dee's Preface to Billingsley's Euclid (1570) Dee gives Mortlake as his place of residence. Johanna Dee surrendered the house at Mortlake to John Dee on 15 June 1579.(see Diarv. p. 5); on 31 October 1579 Dee had to pay a 20 shilling fine for the house.(Diarv. p. 7).

^ Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, pp. 4-5.

10 ibid, p. 4. 34

keepe this order; only to sleepe four houres every night; to allow to meate and drink...two houres everyday; and the other eighteen houres all (except the tyme of going to and being at divine services) was spent in my studies and learning".Whether this account is a true reflection of Dee's life at Cambridge, or merely a fabrication written fifty years after the event by a man whose luck and fame were waning, can only be speculated upon. What can be said is that however much time Dee did devote to his studies, he attained mastery of them. He went on to receive the B.A. in 1544-45 and become one of the original founding fellows of Trinity College in 1546.

At Trinity College he was appointed under-reader of Greek to Mr.Pember.12

Dee made his first trip accross the sea to Flanders in

1547, where he met with Gemma Frisius, the mathematician and cosmographer, and Gerard Mercator, the cartographer.il Both these men taught at the University of Louvain, and Frisius was the cosmographer to Charles

V. After some months in these men's company. Dee

11 ibid, p. 5.

12 John Venn,ed., "Grace Book: Containing the Records of the Universitv of Cambridge for the Years 1542-1589. pp. 31, 48, 51; John Venn and J.A. Venn, ed., Alumni Cantabrigienses. part 1, vol. II, p. 28; C.H. Cooper and T. Cooper,ed., Athenae Cantabrigienses. vol. II, pp. 497-510.

11 see E.G.R. Taylor, Tudor Geogranhv: 1485-1583. pp. 76—83, 85—86. 35

returned to Cambridge, bringing with him "the first

astronomer's staff of brass that was made of Gemma

Frisius' devising, the two great globes of Gerardus

Mercator's making, and the astronomer's ring of b r a s s . ..".14 These were new instruments never before seen in England, and from this point on Dee's interest in mathematics and navigation was fixed. A year later, in

1548, Dee received the M.A. degree from Cambridge, then shortly after he left England for an extended period of study at the University of Louvain, from mid-summer 1548 until 15 July 1550. While at Louvain, Dee studied mathematics and cartography under Frisius and Mercator, and perhaps read in civil l a w . 15 He also acted in some tutorial capacity as the instructor to Sir William

Pickering, teaching him "logick, rhetorick, arithmetick, in the use of the astronomer's staff, the use of the astronomer's ringe, the astrolabe, in the use of both

14 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, p. 5.

15 ibid, pp. 6-7. It is not known if Dee ever received his doctorate degree; even though the title is frequently associated with his name. There is no record of his receiving a doctorate from Louvain. C.H. Josten, "An Unknown Chapter in the Life of John Dee", JWCI. 28 (1965), pp. 229, 236, n.22, implies that Dee received a doctor of medicine degree sometime in 1586-87 while in Prague. Walter J. Trattner, in his article, "God and Expansion in Elizabethan England: John Dee, 1527-1583", JHI, 25 (1964), p. 17, n.2, probably comes nearest to the truth by stating that the title "doctus" was used in honoring Dee as a learned man. Dee himself never gives a degree higher than M.A. in his signiture. 36 globes,etc.”, as well as instructing several others in mathematics.16 the summer of 1550 Dee travelled to

Paris, where, by his own account, "I did undertake to read freely and publiquely Euclide's Elements

Geometricall...a thing never done publiquely in any

University of Christiandome.”!? Shortly after this event

Dee returned once again to England.

The rising star of Dee's fortune shown brightly upon his return to England in 1551. Sir John Cheke, a fellow

Cambridge man and schoolmaster to Edward VI, introduced him to Secretary Cecil and to the court.1® Soon after.

Dee met with the king himself, to whom he dedicated two works on the use of celestial globes and one on astronomy.19 Edward rewarded Dee two years later with a gift of one hundred crowns a year. Shortly therafter Dee exchanged that gift for the rectory of Upton-upon-Severn, in Worchestershire.29 Aside from the income Dee received

16 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 7.

1^ ibid, pp. 7, 25.

19 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, p. 9; Taylor, Tudor Geography, p. 89; French, Dee, p. 32.

19 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, pp. 25-26. Both of these works, along with most of the other works Dee claimed to have written, are now lost. These works were favorably received, but there is no knowledge of the impact they had within the intellectual world of the 16th century.

29 ibid, pp. 10, 12. At some point between 1553 and 1563 Dee also received the rectory of Longleadenham, Lincoln. See Charlotte Fell-Smith, John Dee, pp. 13-14. 37

from the rectories of Upton and Longleadenham, he also

acted as a tutor to the Duke of Northumberland's

children, especially John and Robert D u d l e y . He also

served in an advisory capacity to Richard Chancellor in preparation for the North-East Passage Expedition of

1553, an expedition sponsored by Northumberland and the

Muscovy Company. Dee taught Chancellor navigational practices and the mathematical sciences associated with sailing and navigation. In 1556 Dee acted in a similar capacity to Stephen Borough, also of the Muscovy

Company.22 It was the skills Dee had learned while at

Louvain with Frisius and Mercator that made him such a valuable asset to such ventures. For the next thirty years of his life Dee would always find himself close to

In his Diary (p. 7-25 November 1579) Dee mentions "the Lord Clinton came to me and offered Shirbeck by Boston for Longleadenham". These rectories provided Dee with an income of 80 pounds a year. See Shumaker, ed., John Dee, p. 8. This salary was twice what Cheke made as a Cambridge don. See Strype, Life of Cheke. pp. 22-26. See also Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 273 where Thomas refers to Dee as a "beneficed Anglican clergyman". Strvoe.(Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. 2, part 2, p. 272), gives 15 September as the date Dee was presented the parsonage of Upton.

21 See Barrett Beer, Northumberland; The political career of John Dudlev. Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland. p. 194. Taylor, Tudor Geography, p. 89. French. Dee. pp. 126-127. It is not known in precisely what capacity Dee served the Dudleys beyond the simple tutoring of the Duke's children.

22 Taylor, Tudor Geography, pp. 89-95, 253-254. Taylor's works on geography and navigation, and Dee's role in these arts has never been surpassed. 38

the English voyages of exploration.

It was during this time (1554) that Dee was also

offered a position at Oxford University to teach the mathematical sciences. He refused the offer. Apparently

the income from his rectories of Upton and Longleadenham

and the fees he received for tutoring Dudley's sons and his work for the Muscovy Company was enough to satisfy him.23 I would also suggest that Dee wished to foster a career that placed him close to court circles, rather than pursue an obscure career at some Oxford college.

Possibly it would mean a loss in income compared to what he received for tutoring the sons of nobles or from the fee that the Muscovy Company paid him. Aside from these conjectures, no definitive reasons can be given for why he refused such an offer.

With the accession of Queen Mary came a waning of

Dee's fortunes. His sponsor, Northumberland, had fallen with Mary's rise. Northumberland was charged with treason and beheaded, and his friends and clients suffered also during the rest of Mary's reign. Dee thus lost at least one source of income and perhaps was viewed with a suspicious eye by Mary. In 1555 Dee found himself accused of attempting to take Mary's life by magical

23 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, p. 10. 39 m e a n s . 24 He was acquitted of charges of treason, but

found himself placed under the surveillance of Bonner,

Bishop of London. The Bishop of London, in fact, served the monarch as the crown agent for the suppression of the city's religious nonconformity. 25 The actual course of events in this incident are somewhat shrouded. All that is certain is that Dee was apprehended in June of 1555, on charges of conjuring (which may or may not have had implications of treason involved), was held and questioned until August of 1555, at which point he was turned over to Bonner for further observation until the early winter of 1556, at which time he was released. The following chapter will go into greater depth in analyzing these events, and the implications that they had upon his reputation.

Mary's reign also saw the publication of Dee's earliest surviving works. The first was a "Supplication" to Mary for the recovery of Books and Manuscripts lost at the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII, as well as pleading for the creation of a royally endowed l i b r a r y . 26 He wrote how a Nationally endowed library

24 CSP. Domestic Series 1547-1580, 8 June 1555. Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, p. 20.

25 Michael Mullett, Radical Religious Movements in Early Modern Europe, p. 23.

26 The "Supplication" is printed in Dee, Autobiographica1 Tracts. pp. 46-49. 40 could be created under royal backing and how this would glorify both the British nation and Mary. But to Dee's disappointment nothing was ever made of this scheme. The other surviving work that Dee produced during Mary's reign was an introductory epistle for John Field's

Ephemeris.27 In this work Dee commented on Copernicanism but failed to come out in whole hearted support of

Copernicus's theory. He merely refers to it in terms of planetary calculations.

Dee's first major surviving work, his Propaedeumatia

Aphoristica. appeared in these years. First published in

1558 it marks the first expression of Dee's scientific outlook.28 In brief, the aphorisms attempt to map out a scientific approach for the study of a s t r o l o g y . 29 The work itself is somewhat enigmatic, reflecting closely

Dee's own conviction that certain fields of knowledge were meant for initiates only. It is also the first

2^ John Feild, Ephemeris Anni 1557. See DNB, pp. 1270-1271, for biographical material on Feild. His works were the first in England in which the principles of Copernicus's philosophy were recognized and asserted. This would tend to throw Dee into the Copernican camp of astronomy— but Dee himself never came out in written support of the Copernican hypothesis.

28 This work has recently been translated by Wayne Shumaker in his and J.L. Heilbron's ed., John Dee on Astronomy. The original work was first published in 1558 and later reprinted in 1568 with some minor alterations. Shumaker's translation is from the 1568 edition.

29 Peter French describes Dee's aphorisms as accounting "for the functioning of the physical universe according to magical principles", French, John Dee, p. 93. 41

major work of Dee's that points in the direction of the

occult studies which were to become so pronounced in his

later life.

Elizabeth's accession to the throne marked an

improvement in Dee's condition. Dee was introduced to

the Queen by his former pupil, Robert Dudley, and by the

Earl of Pembroke.30 Elizabeth apparently was pleased to meet Dee; as Dee recounts; "Her majestie very gratiously

took me to her service, at Whitehall before her

Coronation...". Elizabeth then went on to promise Dee,

"where my brother hath give him [Dee] a crown I will give him a noble".31 The Queen must have placed credence in

Dee's astrological calculations, for Dee, upon Dudley's

instruction, astrologically calculated a propitious day

for the coronation.32 it was most likely at this time

3 0 Dee, Autobioqrphical Tracts. p. 12.

31 ibid, pp. 1 1 - 1 2 . A noble is roughly double the value of a crown.

32 ibid, p. 2 1 . Dee wrote; "Before her majesties coronation I wrote at large, and delivered it for her majesties use by commandment of the Lord Robert, after Earle of Leicester, what in my judgement the ancient astrologers would determine of the election day of such a tyme, as was appointed for her majestie to be crowned in". This is a good example of Dee's early learning in judicial astrology. This also ties in neatly with Dee's role in preparing Feild's Ephemeries. which of course were astrological calculatory devices for casting horoscopes. See Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 2 8 3 - 3 8 9 for a discussion of such devices. Other authors writing of Dee (such as Yates, French, Calder, Taylor, et al.) view this event as Dee would have wished, as a 42

that Dee received his second benefice, the rectory of

Longleadenham, Lincoln.33 As far as can be surmized from

available records Dee held only these two rectories until

the mid 1590's. They were undoubtedly his major source

of income. Other funds were also gained through his

tutoring of private students- the Dudley's standing out

as the brightest example of this. There were also gifts

from benefactors- the Queen being the best example of

this, altough the number of such gifts is not known.

Elizabeth's early years as queen also revealed a phenomenon that was to occur more and more frequently in

Dee's life-his being promised church livings only to be passed over in the end. The first such occurrence was when he wrote how the queen had promised him the mastership of St. Katherine's-by-the-Tower, but the position actually went to a Thomas Wilson, L L . D . 3 4

The early 1560's again saw Dee on the continent, first in the Low countries, then in Germany and Italy, and finally in Hungary. The publication of Dee's second major surviving work occurred in 1564, in Antwerp, his patriotic subject seirving his queen; it should also be seen as proof of Dee's belief in occult principles and forces, and perhaps as a reason for his later persecution as a conjurer. It must always be kept in mind that Dee was in religious orders, which made such practice all the more suspect.

3 3 see above note 20.

34 See DNB, V, p. 723; Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 11. 43

famed Monas Hieroqlvphica. This work is even more arcane

than his Aphoristica of 1558, and is shrouded in

s e c r e c y . 35 The key to the monas was the symbol ,

through the use of which one could unlock nature's

secrets. This work can be seen as a further extension of the ideas expounded upon in his Propaedeumata

Aphoristica. Because of the cryptic format of the monas a cry of magic was raised against it.36 yet Dee had

Elizabeth on his side; as he wrote; "I must highly esteeme her Majestie's most gracious defending of my credit, in my absence beyond the seas, as concerning my booke, titled Monas Hieroqlvphica (dedicated to the

Emperour Maximilian, A.1564) against such Universitie-

Graduates of high degree, and other gentlemen, who therefore dispraised it, because they understood it not.

Whereupon her most excellent Majestie (after coming home from beyond the seas; when also I brought the Lady

Marquess of Northampton from Antwerp by sea to

Greenewich) did vouchsafe to read that book obiter, with me at Greenewich".3? Elizabeth was apparently interested

35 John Dee, Monas Hieroqlvphica. Also see C.H. Josten, "A Translation of John Dee's 'Monas Hieroglyphica', with an introduction and annotations", AMBIX. vol. 12 (1964), pp. 84-221. The introduction is especially helpful for gaining insight into this most abstruse work.

35 i.R.F. Calder, John Dee, vol. I, p. 543.

3^ Cotton MS., Vitellius C. VII, f. 4.; Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, p. 10. 44 in this work, and Dee conversed with her for several hours on the monas, disclosing the secrets that it contained, but she was unable to understand its more erudite mysteries. As Dee wrote; "After my retorne from the Emperors' court, her Majestie, very gratiously vouchsafed to account herselfe my schollar in my booke, written to the Emperor Maximilian, intituled, Monas

Hieroqlvphica; and said, whereas I had prefixed the forefront of the book; Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat: if I would disclose unto her the secretes of the booke, she would et discere et facere; whereupon her

Majestie had a litle perusin of the same with me, and then in most heroicall and princely wise did comfort me and encourage me in my studies philosophicall and mathematicall,&c".38

This period also found Dee corresponding with

Secretary Cecil, specifically on obtaining a rare work,

Steqanoqraphy. by Trithemius.3^ This work deals with the art of ciphering, and more specifically it deals with the application of ciphering to the occult sciences. Dee's interest in this secretive study, and his communicating that intrest to the Lord Secretary, has led Richard

38 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 19; Cotton MS., Vitellius C. VII, f. 6 V.

39 CSP., Elizabeth, 1563, vol. 27, no.63. This is reprinted in John Barley, "Dee and Trithemius's Steqanoqraphy". Notes and Queries. 5th series, vol. II (1879), pp. 401-02; 422-23. 45

Deacon to speculate that Dee undertook espionage work for

the Queen (due to the highly secretive nature of the art

of ciphering).40 His analysis is somewhat weak, and is a

good example of conjecture running ahead of fact. D.P.

Walker in fact comes closer to the truth in suggesting

that the Steaanoaraphia was a code really meant to

conceal mystical angelic magic or cabalistic lore, a

study which was to occupy more and more of Dee's time.41

In the letter Dee complains how such knowledge was not

available in England, thereby stressing the importance of such work.

In the mid 1560's Dee suffered two disappointments: a promise of the deanery of Gloucester came to naught and the provostship of Eton escaped h i m . 42 Apparently Dee was not at the top rung of those clients who looked for preferment from the crown. As the article on Dee in the

DNB puts it: "Dee was most persistent in his endeavours to obtain a substantial pecuniary reward for his studies.

4® Richard Deacon, John Dee; Scientist. Geographer. Astrologer and Secret Agent to Elizabeth I. In this work Deacon tries to show that Dee did intelligence work for the Queen. He writes, however, more as a sensational author and does little to unlock the problems surrounding this aspect of John Dee's life and works.

41 D.P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella. pp. 86-90.

42 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. pp. 12, 22. Here Dee records how fair promises were made to him, but in both instances he was passed over in favor of others. 46 but he was usually put off with fair promises that were

never fulfilled". 43 it should be kept in mind that the two rectories, of Upton and Longleadenham, were the only benefices Dee held until the 1590's. And even so he lost the income from them by the late 1580's or early

1 5 9 0 ' s . 44 The fact that Dee was so easily passed over when preferments were given should lead one to question his exact place in court circles.

In 1568 Dee published an updated version of his

Propaedeumata Aphoristica. a work which superseded the earlier edition in terms both of the rewriting and of the expansion of the aphorisms - although the general content and theory were unchanged.45 This again is an outward sign of Dee's deep interest in astrology and the occult, as well as a further expression of the secretive nature of Dee's studies.

One can only speculate that in these years Dee continued to take in students, continued his research in the diverse studies he had gravitated towards, and continued his hope for preferment. It is also most likely that by the late 1560's Dee had moved from London

43 DNB, V, p. 723.

44 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. pp. 12-13, 35. Dee, Diary, p. 37, where Dee notes for 21 January 1591 "utterly put out of hope for recovering the two parsonages".

45 Shumaker, ed., John Dee on Astronomy, p. 106. 47 to Mortlake, in Surrey, to the house his mother o w n e d . 46

It is not known how she acquired the funds to purchase such a house - nevertheless they were established in

Mortlake by 1570 at the latest, for with the publication of Dee's Preface to Billingsley's Euclid. Mortlake is cited as his place of residence.4? Many of the intellectuals living in the Thames Valley undoubtedly called upon Dee to discuss the various scientific and occult topics in which he was knowledgeable, and especially to consult his library, which was judged to be one of the largest in E u r o p e . 48 Dee records that he was visited on several occasions by court figures, as well as the Queen herself, all seeking to utilize his vast holdings and knowledge.49

The 1570's stand out as the most important decade for

4® See above p. 27. No metion is made of Dee's father, Rowland, after the mid 1550's; it must be assumed that he had died by the time of Elizabeth's accession.

47 See Dee, "Mathematicall Preface" to The Elements of Geometrie of the most auncient Philosopher Euclide of Meqara. tr. Sir Henry Billingsley.

48 See French, John Dee, pp. 40-61. Dee drew up a catalogue for his library, which is now in the British Library, Harleian MS. 1879, ff. 20-85. In his "Compendious Rehearsal" Dee claims that his library held 4000 books and manuscripts. "The divers bookes of my late library...were all neere 4000, the fourth part of which were written bookes". Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 27.

4® Dee, Diary, see especially pages 2-3; 5-6; 8-9; 11. These are but a few examples - the Diary is full of references to court figures, scientists, and explorer's coming to Mortlake to consult with Dee and use his library. 48

Dee as a scientist and court figure. That decade opened with Dee's publication of his Preface to Billingsley's edition of Euclid's Geometry. This introductory preface is marked not only by Dee's taxonomy of the sciences, but also by a long polemic defending himself against charges of c o n j u r i n g . 50 This latter charge was one that had been with him since the late 1540's, and was destined to haunt him for the remainder of his d a y s . 51

In 1572 Dee speculated upon a new star that had appeared in Cassiopeia52, but again his conclusions in no way tell us whether he was a Copernican or not. They do however display his knowledge of astronomical phenomenon.

Dee wrote on 10 March 1574-5, how the Queen stopped to visit him at Mortlake, to see his library and his curious magical glass, an event that again reveals the close ties he had with the c o u r t . 53 This same occasion also reveals another interesting side to Dee's personal life - the

50 See Dee, "Preface", sig. A j v-A i j v. Also see Allen Debus, ed., The Mathematicall Praeface to the Elements of Geometrie of Euclid of Megara.

53- It is in part the purpose of this work to investigate the origin and the ramifications of such charges,

52 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, p .25 gives reference to Dee's work (now lost) on the new star that appeared in Cassiopeia. See DNB, V, p. 723.

53 ibid, p. 17. Apparently Dee's explanation of the magical glass was to the Queen's satisfaction. 49

death of his w i f e . 54

Apparently this was not his first wife, but his

second. Dee had previously been married to one Katherine

Constable, the widow of a London grocer, who passed away

at some unknown date in the late 1560's or early

1 5 7 0 's.55 Dee married for the third time, to one Jane

Fromond, on 5 February 1578.56 was with Jane that Dee had all seven of his children; Arthur, the eldest was born on 13 July 1579 and Francis, the youngest was born on 1 January 1592.5?

The 1 5 7 0 's also found Dee occupied with a massive study of Elizabeth's title to foreign lands, as well as his work for the formation of a nationally funded navy - his so-called Petty-Navy R o y a l l . 5 8 This work no doubt was done in connection with Martin Frobisher's Voyages of

54 ibid, p. 17. Dee relates that "...finding my wife was within four houres before buried out of the house, her Majestie refused to come in, but willed me to fetch my glass so famous..."

55 See Chancery Proceedings, Series II, Bundle 49, no. 44. This fact was overlooked by Dee's earlier biographers, and did rot come to light until the 20th century. See E.G.R. Taylor, Tudor Geoaraphv. p. 107; French, Dee, p. 10, n.3.

56 Dee, Diary, p. 4.

5? ibid, p p . 6, 39, 49.

56 See Cotton MS., Augustus I, I, i - which outlines Elizabeth's rights to foreign lands. See also Dee, General and Rare Memorials Pertavninq to the Perfect Arte of Navigation. 50

1576, 1577, and 1578, voyages taken in an attempt to find

a northwest passage to China. As with his earlier work

on navigation and exploration Dee worked through the

Muscovy Company. This was Dee's most outwardly nationalistic period; it is at this time that he supposedly coined the term "British Empire" to describe

Elizabeth's dominion, and traced through his antiquarian studies British rights to foreign lands.59 This propaganda campaign led to court favor being shown towards Dee - or such was Dee's h o p e . 50 Further, it is most likely that his own constant awarness of his Welsh background led him to incorporate Wales into a greater

British hegemony. He most likely wrote in this nationalistic spirit in order to offset the charges of slander and conjuring which were continually raised against him.

The great comet of 1577 was yet another occasion that

59 See Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, p. 18; Cotton MS., Augustus I, I, i, in which Dee claims most of North America and northern lands for Elizabeth. Also see Harleian MS. 249, ff. 104-105. As far as the term "British Empire" is concerned it has been argued that Dee did not originate the term, but rather Humphrey Llwyd used it by at least 1572. See Bruce Henry, "John Dee, Humphrey Llwyd, and the name 'British Empire'", The Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 35 (1971-2), pp. 189- 90.

59 In his "Compendious Rehearsal" Dee observes how both the Queen and Burghley "...greatly commended my doings for her [Elizabeth's] title royall, which he [Burghley] had to examine". Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. pp. 18-19; Dee, Diary, p. 9. 51 called for Dee's talents in such matters. He was called to Elizabeth's court at Windsor, where he lectured for three days on the significance of the comet. As a reward for his lectures Elizabeth..."promised unto me [Dee] great security against any in her kingdome that would, by reason of any my rare studies and philosophical exercises, unduly seeke my overthrow."61 Again there is no trace that his analysis of the comet would place him as a Copernican. The year 1577 also saw Dee called to court to explain the meaning of a waxen image of Queen Elizabeth, with a pin in its chest, which was found at Lincoln's Inn f i e l d s . 62 once again Dee satisfied the Queen's and the Council's anxieties that mischief was being done against her majesty, although again no record remains that gives the details of this episode-

In the year 1571 Dee traveled to Lorraine63, and in

1578 to Germany in order to "consult with the learned physitians and philosophers beyond the sea for her

Majesties health-recovering and preserving..."; apparently Elizabeth was suffering from a tooth ache and she sent Dee to enquire as to the most judicious way of

61 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, p. 21.

62 ibid, pp. 21-22.

63 ibid, p. 12. 52 alleviating her p a i n . 64 Little is known about the specific events occurring in these travels; Dee provides the only fleeting mentions of these t r a v e l s . 65

The 1570's ended with the birth of Dee's first son

(Arthur on 13 July 1579), and the surrender of the house at Mortlake to both him and Jane by his mother (on 31

October 1 5 7 9 ).66 The 1580's opened with the death of

Dee's mother Johanna Dee on 10 October 1580, and with

Dee's further work for the Muscovy h o u s e . 6? This decade stands out as a crucial one in understanding the psyche of John Dee. It began with Dee working on exploration and navigation and ended with his abandoning these studies in favor of magical and angelic studies. He now engaged in mystical pursuits with the seedy and elusive figure Edward Kelley. Kelley was enthralled with the darker aspects of the occult— necromancy and black magic— or at least this was how he was viewed by

64 ibid, p. 22; Dee, Diary, p. 5.

66 The actual significance of these travels has been wildly speculated upon by Richard Deacon, Who in his work, John Dee: Scientist. Geographer.Astrologer and Secret Agent to Elizabeth I . asserts that Dee was a secret agent working for the Queen.(pp.7, 24, 61).

65 Dee, Diarv. pp. 6-7. It is interesting here to note that Dee chose to name his first son Arthur, showing both his attachment to the Arthurian legend and to the Tudor's (after all Henry VII himself named his eldest son Arthur as well.)

6^ Dee, Diary, p. 10. Jane Dee was 77 years of age on the date of her death. 53 o t h e r s . 68 i t has been a continually intriguing question why Dee put such faith in Kelley's arts. Dee's two important scientific pursuits in the early 1580's were his continued work for the Muscovy Company for the discovery of a passage to Cathay, and his work on the reform of the Julian calendar in 1582-83. The first voyage was the 1580 expedition of William Borough, Arthur

Pet, and Charles Jackman. Borough directed the voyage and Pet and Jackman were commander and second in command respectively— Dee again functioned in an advisory capacity for the voyage. He instructed the pilots in the use of navigational instruments and helped map out the most judicious route the voyage should f o l l o w . 6 9 This voyage attempted a North-East passage to Cathay— which was the direction Dee had favored since the Willoughby-

Chancellor voyage of 1553. Part of what this expedition set out to accomplish was to rendezvous with Drake and then lead him back via the North-East passage.76 The

68 See John Weaver, Discourse of Ancient Funeral Monuments ; Stuart Watkins, The Alchemical Writings of Edward Kelley.

69 Lansdowne MS., 122, ff. 22 r-30 v; this gives Dee's instructions to Jackman and Pet for the voyage. See E.G.R. Taylor, Tudor Geoaraphv. pp. 126-134. See also Cotton MS., Otho. E, VIII, f. 32.

76 E.G.R.Taylor, Tudor Geography, pp. 127-130. It was Dee's belief that after the North Cape was passed, at 72 degrees north, the coast then turned south-east to a latitude of 50 degrees-52 degrees north. 54

expedition, however, ran into ice and was forced to turn

back. During this same period Dee was also involved in

John Davis's plan for a North-west passage. This, in

fact, is the last time Dee was to be involved in works of

navigation and exploration. This voyage is of interest

in that it was not only an attempt to reach Cathay, but

also to colonize new lands. The crown granted to Adrian

Gilbert (the planner of the voyage) , Davis, and Dee all new lands discovered in North America.Again, like all previous voyages for northerly passages, this one came to naught. Dee's third scientific venture of the 1580's was his attempted reform of the Julian calendar in

1582.72 Calendar reform was needed because the Julian calendar was beginning to "gain time" due to a defect in calculating the time involved in earthly rotation (both daily and yearly). Reform of the calendar was initiated by Pope Gregory XIII, and thus bears the name Gregorian calendar, which after 1582-3 became the official calendar used by all Catholic countries. In this new calendar ten days were eliminated in order to bring the calendar in line with planetary motions. The Catholic reformers of the calendar based their calculations on the planetary

71 CSP. Domestic Series. Elizabeth. 1581-1590. p.114; dated June 1583. Also see CSP, Domestic Serie. Addenda 1580-1625. pp. 103, 104; dated January 1584

72 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. pp. 22-23; Dee. Diarv. p. 19. Additional MS., 32092, ff. 26-33. Lansdowne MS., 109, ff. 20-21; Lansdowne MS., 39, f. 14. 55 positions at the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Dee's reform called for the elimination of eleven days, based on calculations that dated from the birth of

Christ. His reform, although soundly based on mathematical calculation, was rejected by the bishops for religious reasons.Dee's plan, though highly admired by mathematicians, and even the queen, smelled too much of Popish practices and was therefore never a p p r o v e d .

This was Dee's last purely scientific endeavour. After

1582-3 Dee became emersed in occult practices to the exclusion of any practical scientific pursuits.

The latter period of Dee's life was marked by magical practices, angelic summonings, and desperate cries for preferment. Apparently Dee had not received either the intellectual fulfillment or pecuniary rewards he felt he deserved through his scientific work; thus with the

See Additional MS. 32092, ff. 29-33. This letter of the bishops to Walsingham is dated 4 April 1583.

See Lansdowne MS. 39, f. 22; this gives Burghley's comments on Dee's calendar reform. Charlotte Fel1-Smith in her biography of Dee states that when the English reformed the calendar in 1752 the number of days dropped was eleven, thus she sees this as a postmortem victory for Dee's calculating of the calendar. She however failed to realize that by the Gregorian calendar's method of calculating a day was gained in the year 1700— thus adding one day to the ten which had been dropped in 1582. Thus when eleven days were dropped in 1752 it was to bring Britain in line with the Gregorian Calendar. If in fact it was Dee's plan that had been adopted in 1752 twelve, not eleven, days would need to be omitted. Fell-Smith, John Dee, p. 134. 56 rejection of his calendar reform he turned whole heartedly to mystical pursuits in the hope he could unlock nature's secrets and gain a glimpse of the supernatural realm— and thus through angelic aid gain his rightful rewards as a magus or adept.

Dee's first attempts at angelic magic occurred at the same time he was pursuing the search for passage to the east and the calendar reform. His first recorded conference with the supernatural is dated 22 December

1581; this date is significant in that it shows that

Dee's interest in the occult coexisted with his purely scientific works.Dee's "relations", as he termed them, with spirits was to continue until at least 1607, which is the date of his last recorded contact with the supernatural.76 Dee's interest in the supernatural, or spiritual, is in fact a theme that is consistent throughout his life, and an early example of this, of course, is seen in his Monas and in his Preface. The question of whether Dee pursue his science and his occult practices along mutually exclusive lines, or was there a continuous interplay between these two modes of reasoning, has plagued scholars for years. In my

75 sloane MS., 3188, f. 8.

76 See Meric Casaubon, ed., A True and Faithful Relation. And Cotton MS., Appendix XLVI, part 1 and 2. It is Cotton's copy of Dee's diary from which Casaubon got his material. 57

opinion, I believe many 16th and 17th century

"scientists", including Dee, were able to function with

these two separate mental categories— as Dee himself

divided the universe (or reality) into three distinct

categories— the supernatural, natural, and neutral— so

too were the mental activities that explained them

divided in order to account for these diverse planes of

thought.

As far as Dee's angelic conversations were concerned,

he himself never claimed to see any of the spirits that

his "skryer"^^, or medium, conjured up, but nevertheless

he earnestly believed such spirits to be present at such meetings— he placed full faith in his mediums. In 1582

he came into contact with Edward Kelley, his most famous

"skryer", and with him he had what he considered to be his best results at angelic contact.It was with

Kelley that Dee became totally intrenched in angelic

summoning and magic, forever giving up the more

experimental sciences for the occult. By 1583 Dee saw

that he could pursue these new endeavours more fruitfully

on the Continent. Dee and Kelley and their families left

This term was apparently devised by Dee himself to refer to his mediums. The most famos of his mediums was the elusive Edward Kelley (or Kelly).

Dee, Diarv. pp. 15 ff. Also see Casaubon, A True and Faithful Relation, which tells of Dee's and Kelley's exploits. 58

for the Continent on 21 September 1583,79 accompanying

Albert a' Laski, a Polish prince who had met them several

months earlier when he had first come to England.

A'Laski in fact had an interest in the occult and had sat

in on several of Dee's and Kelley's seances; when a'Laski

left for Poland, Dee and Kelley went with him. For the

next six years Dee wandered throughout eastern Europe—

from Prague to Leipzig to Cracow, finally ending up for a

time at Trebon castle, the seat of the Lord Rosenberg.

During the whole time he was involved with Kelly in

angelic magic and alchemy.

Shortly after Dee left for the Continent his house at

Mortlake was sacked. His library and his scientific

instruments were stolen or destroyed. Dee maintained

that it was because of his secretive and mystical practices that people feared him and thus sacked his house. No other explanation has yet been given for why this happened at precisely this moment in time.^l

While Dee was on the Continent he met the Emperor

79 Dee, Diarv. p. 21.

^9 For the best account of Dee's and Kelley's Continental period see Casaubon, A True and Faithful Relation. Also see Dee's diary for those years, as well as C.H. Josten, "An Unknown Chapter in the Life of John Dee", Journal of the Warberg and Courtauld Institute, vol. 28, pp. 223-257 (1965).

Dee, Autobioqraphicl Tracts. pp. 27-32. 59

Rudolf Il82 and King Stephen of Poland, both of whom were interested in the occult, but neither of whom gave Dee a second glance. Rudolf in fact expelled Dee and Kelley from his dominion in 1586.83 Apparently neither Rudolf nor Stephen were interested in what Dee had to offer them. But Dee was not discouraged by their reception of his studies and faithfully continued to record Kelley's contact with spirits. This contact was said to be fruitful, for they claimed to have unlocked the philosopher's stone and to have discovered how to transmute base metals into g o l d . 84 This event aroused slight interest within certain circles, but skepticism from those whom Dee and Kelley sought to convince of their skills. This skepticism prevented their attaining any monetary rewards. Dee's hope of unlocking the secrets of nature and attaining the fame and fiscal rewards that went with it was seemingly foiled at each turn by recalcitrant angels and those mortals who remained skeptical of his achievements. Certainly Dee's own fate on his return to England (in 1589), the loss of

82 See R.J.W. Evans, Rudolf II and His World; A Studv in Intellectual History 1576-1612. pp. 218-228.

82 Casaubon, A True and Faithful Relation, pp. 420 ff.; Josten, "An Unknown Chapter in the Life of John Dee", JWCI.28. pp. 223-257 (1965). Also Ashmole MS., 1790, ff. 1-10; and Cotton MS. Appendix XLVI parts 1 and 2.

84 Elias Ashmole, Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, p. 481; gives an account of this event. 60

his rectories, and his later poverty, are proof that he

never attained the financial security or preferment that

he always craved. The contact he had with angels never

helped him in any way.

After wandering through the Empire for six years. Dee

and his family finally returned to England on 2 December

1589.85 Their reception was courteous at first, but Dee was not to"receive the monetary rewards he believed his unique studies entitled him to receive. On top of this.

Dee was no longer receiving an income from the Upton or

Longleadenham rectories,8® which had apparently lapsed.

The early 1590's found Dee constantly petitioning for

financial aid from the Queen and o t h e r s . 87 He continued his petitions to the Queen, who promised him such posts as the Mastership of St. Cross, the deanery of

Gloucester, or the provostship of Eton -none of which he ever g a i n e d . 88 He d i d persuade the Queen to supply him with an income from the bishopric of Oxford, and he did receive small financial gifts from the Queen and others

85 Dee, Diarv. p. 32.

8^ This source of income had apparently lapsed at some point in the late 1580's. See Dee's diary for 21 January 1591 where Dee writes "utterly put out of hope for recovering the two parsonages by the Lord Archbishop and Lord Threasorer." Diarv. p. 37.

87 See Dee, Diarv. pp. 37 ff.

88 ibid, p. 41; Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. pp. 12, 15-16, 39-41. 61 at court. Dee was also given, in 1592, a small income from St. David's diocese in Wales.89 Finally, in 1596

Dee was awarded the Wardenship of Manchester College, and from 1596 to 1604 he resided with his family in

Manchester. These years were marked by contiuous friction between himself and the fellows of the College, and when he departed in 1604 at the age of 77 he was worn out by the pressures of life at Manchester.^9 in 1601

Dee received the rectorship of Tenby, in Pembrokeshire,

Wales, which he apparently held until 1608.91

With the accesion of James I, in 1603, Dee found the charges of sorcery and conjuring again plaguing him, and he petitioned the King and the House of Commons to try him so that he might defend h i m s e l f . 92 Nothing ever came of this request. Dee lived in poverty for the next four years of his life in his home at Mortlake. He died

89 ibid, p. 15; W. Gwyn Thomas, "An Episode in the Later Life of John Dee", Welsh Historical Review. V, no. 3 (1971), pp. 250-256.

99 See John Bailey, Diarv for the vears 1595-1601, of John Dee. Warden of Manchester from 1595-1608. It should be noted that, although Dee was technically warden until his death in 1608, he stopped receiving an income when he left in 1604.

91 P.R.O. E. 331/8 M 5; Also see Thomas, "An Episode in the Later Life of John Dee", Welsh Historicl Review, pp. 255-56.

92 See John Dee, To the Kings Most Excellent Majestie; and To the Honorable House of Commons. 62 ignominiously in December 1608, poverty stricken and forgotten. Chapter III

The Intellectual Climate:

Views on science, magic and religion

The century 1550 to 1650 is unique in the history of science. It was the period when old ideas and cosmologies were being questioned and re-evaluated, where new ideas and discoveries were surfacing, and a period when speculation and paradigm change far outran the common masses' ability to grasp or accept such paramount changes or re-interprétâtions of age old beliefs. In other words Aristotle's cosmology and Ptolomy's astronomy did not die quick or painless deaths, but struggled on for decades before being finally ousted by a Newtonian cosmology. The period then from Copernicus to Newton was a lively one, beginning with Copernicus's lifting the earth from its central place of glory and replacing it with the sun, through Kepler's destruction of circular planetary orbits, to Newton's discovery of the laws of universal gravitation, which tied Copernicus's and

Kepler's universal visions together, bringing heaven and earth together; this was a period marked by frustration

(see for example the case of Galileo), anxiety (see for example the church's reaction to such changes), and

63 64

failed speculation. (Here especially the work of John Dee

is apparent as a member of that scientific circle which

attempted a scientific revolution in astrology

and alchemy)^ In the popular mind the period was just as

confused. It was a period that often (if not

exclusively) involved the mistaking of mathematics for

magic.2 This problem becomes even more complicated when

one realizes that the scientists and mathematicians

themselves often crossed the line between science and

magic— as the numerous studies in astrology and alchemy

reveal throughout the period 1550 to 1650.

If one opens John Aubrey's Brief Lives, and turns to

the lives of the scientists and intellectuals of his

time, this confusion between science and magic becomes

apparent. In the life of Thomas Allen, a mathematician

and contemporary of Dee's, Aubrey wrote how "In those

dark times, astrologer, mathematician, and conjurer were

accounted the same thing; and the vulgar did verily

beleeve him [Allen] to be a conjurer".3 Aubrey goes on

in his life of Allen, telling of how, when Allen went to

^ See Mary Ellen Bowden, "The Scientific Revolution in Astrology", unpublished doctral dissertation, Yale University, 1973. Her thesis is that there was a failed scientific revolution in astrology; and Dee was part of that failure.

2 Zetterburg, "The Mistaking of 'The Mathematicks' for Magic in Tudor and Stuart England", 16th Centurv Journal. vol. 11 (1980), p. 85.

^ Aubrey, Brief Lives, p. 5. 65

visit an "... old Acquantance and patrone, to whom his

great learning, mixt with much sweetnesse of humour,

rentered him very welcome..."; Aubrey related one

experience in which:

... he [Allen] happened to leave his watch in the chamber windowe, (watches were then rarities). The maydes came in to make the bed, and hearing a thing in a case cry Tick, Tick, Tick, presently concluded that that was his Devill, and took it by the string with the tongues, and threw it out of the windowe into the moote (to drown the devill) It so happened that the string hung on a sprig of an elder that grew out of the mote, and this confered them that 'twas the devill.4

This incident described by Allen bears a striking

resemblance to Dee's performance at Trinity College—

when there was great wondering at his mechanical feat of

making the scareabeetle fly.5

An even better example of the confusion of science and

magic— as witnessed in the practitioners themselves— can

be seen in Aubrey's life of Henry Briggs, mathematician,

Gresham Professor of Geometry, and Savile Professor of

Astronomy, who died in 1630; and Richard Napier,

astrologer and inventor of logarithms, who died in 1634.

Briggs, who admired Napiers work with logarithms,

criticized his work in astrology, which he considered to

be "... a system of groundless conceits". Lilly, writing

to Aubrey, declares that Briggs was "the most saterical

^ ibid.

^ See below page 66

man against it [astrology] that hath been known".^ (This

is all well and good, but one should remember that Lilly

himself was deeply involved in astrology and has been

called the last of the magicians.) Napier, on the other hand, was a great lover of astrology, who had studied

that art under Simon Forman (an astrologer with a large

and disreputable practice chiefly amoung court ladies,

for which he was frequently imprisoned— showing the

sometimes shaky legal ground on which astrology was balanced). Aubrey relates a story told to him by

Ashmole, concerning Napier and a minister, from which one can sense the animosity between religion and magic. As

Aubrey writes:

Mr Ashmole told me, that a woman made use of a spell to cure an Agae, by the advise of Dr. Nepier. A minister came to her and severly repreraanded her for making use of a diabolical help, and told her, she was in danger of damnation for it, and commanded her to burn it. She did so, and her distemper returned severly; insomuch that she was importunate with the doctor to use the same again: She used it, and had ease. But the Parson hearing of it, came to her again, and thundered Hell and Damnation and frightened her so, that she burnet it again. Whereupon she fell extremely ill, and would have had it a thrid time, but the doctor refused, saying, that she had contemmed and slighted the power and goodness of the Blessed Spirit (or Angels) and so she died.?

This story shows how religious figures scorned and condemed certain scientific practices, which they saw as

^ Aubrey, Brief Lives, p., 38.

? ibid, p. 217. 67 demonic. It also shows how a scientist and doctor believed that the ultimate cause of the woman's suffering was her contempt for angelic power and goodness— a clear indication of an animistic world view. One last example of the scientist/magician in Aubrey's Brief Lives is the figure William Oughtred, a mathematician and ordained minister, who died in 1660 at the age of 86. Aubrey writes how:

He was an Astrologer, and very lucky in giving Judgements on nativities; he confessed that he was not satisfied how it came about that one might foretell by the Starres, but so it was that it fell out true as he did often by his experience find; he did beleeve that some genious or spirit did help.

Aubrey describes what Oughtred's neighbours thought of him:

The Country people did beleeve that he could conjure, and 'tis like enough that he might be well enough contented to have them think so.®

This is an even more remarkable case, in that Oughtred was an ordained minister engaged in the practice of judicial astrology— the casting of horoscopes (which, as we shall see, got Dee into so much trouble in Queen

Mary's reign)— an activity that the established church frowned upon.® Also remarkable is Oughtred's secrecy

(again reminding us of Dee), expressing how his

[Oughtred's] studies were best reserved for the adept.

® ibid, p. 223.

® Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 253-283; 358-388. 68

Yet his reputation as a scholar was impressive, and "He was more famous abroad for learning, and more esteemed, then at home. Several1 Great mathematicians came over into England on purpose to converse with him. His country neighbours (though they understood not his worth) knew that there must be extraordinary worth in him, that he was so visited by foreigners". Dee perhaps did not enjoy such good account by his neighbours, who sacked his home in 1583, and from the children who feared him because he was accounted a conjurer.

The confusion between what modern usage terms astronomy and astrology, science and the occult, was even more pronounced in the early modern period. Not only did the intelligensia vary in their understanding of scientia and sapientia, in terms of where scholastic emphasis should be placed, but the atmosphere grew even more complicated when religious figures voiced their opinions on the whole complex matter of the new science.

Criticism of magicians, mathematicians, and scientists intellectuals took two forms. Firstly, those men who delved into science, (seen often under the broad term of magic), were accused of advocating demonic arts. The wonders performed by the scientific practitioners were

Aubrey, Brief Lives, pp. 222-223.

ibid, pp. 90-91; Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, pp. 5-23. 69

viewed as suspect. The source of the scientist's power,

if not coming from God, then surely came from the

Devil.12 Secondly, practitioners of mathematical arts

were viewed as misguided in their understanding of the

cosmos, (i.e. see the criticism of astrological

prediction). An example of the first view is seen in

George Gifford's work. Discourse of the Subtill Practices

of Devills. Here Gifford goes into a discourse on

witchcraft, where his definition of a witch is:

...one that worketh by the Devill, or by some develish or curious art, either burning or heating, revealing thinges secrete, or foretelling things to come, which the devill hath devised to entangle and snare mens soules withal unto damnation. The conjurer, the enchaunter, the sorcerer, the deviner, and whatsoever other sort there are in deede compassed within this circle.13

This passage reveals how religious figures could lump many arts under the heading of witchcraft. Dee here is a

case in point— for he often had many stills and glass

beakers heating in his laboratory.14 Also when one

peruses his works, such as the Monas, which was for the

adept's eyes only, and his even more erudite work about

angelic summoning, one can see that it was the exact same

12 See Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp.223-230; 253-279; 469-501.

13 George Gifford, Discourse of the Subtill Practices of Devills. sig. b. ii. r.

14 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 1 1 - 2 4 ; Aubrey, Brief Lives, pp. 9 0 - 9 1 . 70 kind of work that Gifford was condemning. Gifford goes on in his discourse to label the Judicial Astrologer in a similar light. He states, "...Judicial Astrology, which from the course of the heavens, and the starres did take upon them to foreshew warres, pestilences, sedicious treasons, and the death of great princes".15 The problem with such predictions is that they allowed no place for

God. A magician or astrologer could, using secret formulae, enact the stars to do his bidding. This type of art clearly went counter to religious sensitivities. 1®

Gifford's conclusion about astrological practices is that the "Astrologians are little better than witches".1?

Gifford also comments on conjurers. He defines a conjurer as "...one that hath a mind addicted to curiousity and vaine estimation: he taketh him selfe by deep skill and power to rule over devils...".!® It should be remembered that Dee often laments how he was accused, because of his secretive studies, of being a conjurer.

An even more biting criticism of witchcraft and demonic magic came from the English and Scottish king.

15 Gifford, Discourse. sig. b. 4 r.

15 See Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 469-501. See also Capp, English Almanacs, pp. 131-179,

1^ Gifford, Discourse. sig. c. 1. r.

1® ibid, sig. i. 2. r. 71

James I, in his book, Demonoloaie. Again the same arguments used by Gifford are apparent. As James states:

The learned have their curiousitie wakened uppe; and fedde by that which I call his [the Devil's] scholle: Astrologie Judicial... where they are at last entised, where lawful1 artes and sciences failed, to satisfie their restless mindes, even to seeke that black and unlawful science of magic...

Again astrology is seen as counter to acceptable studies, only pursued by the vain and unpious.^O such vanity and impiety is seen in their desire to amass "...worldly riches", and where "their whole practices are either to hurte men...for satisfying of their cruel mindes...or to satisfie their greedie d e s i r e " . Again we see how the inability of the religious to comprehend the new arts led to those arts being viewed as suspect and demonic.

Francis Coxe wrote in 1561, in his work entitled The

Wickednesse of Maoicall Sciences, how he "...thought it

[his] part manifestly to declare and open the wickednesse of those artes and sciences, which have of late time to the pronocation of God's wrath and almightie displeasure, ben had in such estimation...that not onely they iudged the course of naturall thinges therby to be governed, but also that part which God hath and doth reserve to

James I, Demonoloaie. sig. c. 1. v.

It is also curious to note that James I, as well as others, label astrology as a science.

ibid, sig. f. 2. r. 72 himselfe...".22 He goes on to state how " in these sciences Astrologie, Geometrie, Nécromancie and such like infinite, contayned under the general name Magick...is one thing promised, but another performed, for why lest they seke ryches: they find beggerye, for hope of good reporte: they have evel fame and open s h a m e . . . ”.23 Here one becomes vividly aware of two facts— that all the sciences were often lumped under the single heading of magic, and that the practitioners themselves often sought one thing and attained another. For the second of these facts Dee's life affords an example. He sought fame and high reputation, but was overlooked for preferments and ended his life in a state of abject poverty.

For the certain problem with these studies, in Coxe's mind at least, was "...never was there any that could yet hold himselfe content with the simple knowledge of astrologie: but wolde wade further in these sciences of prediction, having as a ground worke to fer hygher matters".24 Dee's life's work, going from mathematics, geometry, and astronomy to astrology, alchemy and finally angelic summoning is an instance which proves

Coxe's point.

22 Francis Coxe, The Wickednesse of Maqicall Sciences, sig. A. iiij. v.

22 ibid, sig. A. 5. r-v.

24 ibid, sig. A. 6. v. 73

There are other writings which also exemplify the

opposition of religion to magic and astrology. George

Carleton, in his book The Madnesse of Astrologers, wrote how "...the illusions of Judicial Astrologie have long bene maintained by the pollicies of Sathan...".^5 And how "...Astrology is not part of the mathematics, because

it proceedeth not by demonstrations from the certaine and knowne principles". Whereas "...the principles wittich the Astrologer cometh to his conclusions, are no naturall principles, but sorcery".26 Carleton's objections to astrology and his defining of magic is slightly more specific than either Coxe's or Grifford's. He makes a distinction between astronomy and astrology; the first he sees as part of mathematics, while the latter is not.2?

He is also perceptive in his observation that the astrologer deals with hidden knowledge: "For curious men wandering after the knowledge of hid and unknowne thinges, seeke the cloake and pretence of art, and have called it astrologie; which they seek to bring within the bounds of naturall philosophie: when their principles have no affinity with naturall causes; but with the

2^ George Carleton, The Madnesse of Astrologers, pp. 2-3.

26 ibid, p. 9.

2*7 See Carleton, The Madnesse of Astrologers, pp. 4- 11. 74

illusions [of] Sathan.. . " . Science on the other hand

is open to criticism and public scrutiny, where all can become involved in its study, where it is not reserved for the initiates only.

There were of course advocates and defenders of astrology [or the magical arts as they were termed].

Christopher Heydon stands out as a defender of judicial astrology. In his magnus opus, A Defense of Judicial

Astrology;, he takes a very different view from Carleton and counts astrology and astronomy as one in the same.

He asserts that...Astronomy and Astrology are

"indifferently taken and used by the learned for one and the selfsame Arte".29 Heydon goes on— and here is where the astrologer and the religious figure would find their crucial point of divergence— to "expressedly renounce to be of that opinion, which doeth ascribe true religion unto the starres...".30 It is obviously clear that this view flies directly in the face of orthodox religious sensitivities. Heydon, of course, considers astrology to be "...within the bounds of natural philosophie and reason...".31

23 ibid, pp. 9-10.

29 Christopher Heydon, A Defense of Judicial Astrologie, p. 2.

30 ibid, p. 94.

31 ibid, p. 18. 75

The most important single figure who wrote a defense of astrology and magic was Henry Cornelious Agrippa. In his three books of Occult Philosophy he sets out his whole heuristic for the defining of the occult sciences.

In his judgment "...a magician doth not, among learned men signify a sorcerer or one that is superstitious or devilish; but a wise man, a priest, a prophet...".3%

Agrippa goes on to explain his conception of the cosmos and man's ability to interpret divine signs in nature.

For Agrippa (and Dee follows this view— see above p.

), "...there is a three-fold world— Elementary, Celestial and Intellectual...[and] wise men [magus] conceive it no way unrational that it should be possible for us to ascend by the same degrees through each world, to the...maker of all things and First Cause".33 Each of these three worlds is then within the domain of a specific branch of science. The elemental world is understood through physics and the use of natural philosophy (here meaning mathematics); the celestial world is understood through the use of astrology, which studies rays and their influences, through certain mathematical rules. Finally the third branch of of this world view, the intelligent, is deciphered via the use of

3 2 Henry Cornelius Agrippa, Three Books of Occult Philosophy or Magic, p. 25.

33 ibid, p. 33. 76 ceremonial magic (or through the sacred ceremonies of religious ritual— the two are the same for A g r i p p a ) . 34

Once again we see how the role of a sixteenth century intelligensia— delving into many varied arts— often comprehends those diverse studies under a single universal conceptualization. The animistic is not necessarily separated from the mechanical world views.

Again, as with other scholars so disposed towards the scientific arts, we see the usual conflict with religious doctrines. For the magician/scientist claims to be able by non-established doctrine to ascend on a scale of being, to tap hidden powers, and to touch the divine. In other words, the magician/scientist's world view could be seen as easily surplanting r e l i g i o n . 35

A final example of a Continental supporter and advocate of the magical arts is seen in John Baptista della

Porta's, Natural Maaick. Porta clearly recognizes the close affinity between magic and religion when he writes that "...a magickian is nothing else but one that expounds and studies divine things".36 The close affinity between magic and religion suggests a conflict.

The magician can supplant the role of the priest— and the

34 ibid, p. 34.

35 See Thomas, Religion and thr Decline of Magic, pp. 253-281; 358-388; 469-501.

36 John Baptista della Porta, Natural Magick. sig. d. 1. r. 77 established church certainly would not stand for that.

Porta, like Agrippa and Heydon, equates magic with natural philosophy. For Porta "Magick...is a practical part of natural philosophy...".3? Porta also makes an insightful observation when he shows how alchemy is an important science, and how rude and unskilled men, drawn by the hope of gain, have slandered the art and those true practitioners who legitimately practice the said art.

Dee, of course, found himself caught up directly in the heated struggles of the new age. He was viewed as a learned mathematician and navigator by some, as a necromancer and dabbler in forbidden arts by others. It becomes imperative, therefore, to unlock exactly what it was that Dee was trying to accomplish through his unique studies. The key to understanding Dee, and his conception of science, is the Renaissance revival of the mystical hermetic arts and cabbalistic lore. Frances

Yates and Peter French have stressed this point in their works on Renaissance mysticism, showing the importance of hermeticism and cabbalism in the formation of fifteenth and sixteenth century thought.38 The problem with these two scholars' appraisal of the hermetic tradition is that

37 ibid, sig. d. 2. r

33 See FrancFrances Yates, Giordano Bruno; and Peter French, John Dee. 78

they see it as leading to modern physical science, which

it probably did not. Their thesis has come under heavy

criticism from Robert Westman and J. E. McGuire, in their

work, Hermeticism and the Scientific Revolution. These

authors contend that Yates is mistaken in her view that

hermeticism led to modern science. Although hermeticism

played a role in the thinking of the fifteenth and

sixteenth century intelligensia, its premises were in

conflict with those of true scientific enquiry.39 Yet

another author who views early modern science in a

different light from Yates or French is Mary Ellen

Bowden. In her unpublished doctoral dissertation. The

Scientific Revolution in Astroloav; The English

Reformers. she investigates what she terms the attempted

scientific revolution in astrology— a revolution she views ultimately as a failure.40 Dee of course has a

central place in her work, as one who attempted a reform

of astrology. The final assesment for Bowden is that

astrologers were attacking problems that could not be

solved— astronomical developments destroyed astrological premises. One last author who also disagrees with Yates

and French is A.G. Molland, who holds that "...the magician's secrecy, obscurity, credulity, irrationalism

39 Robert Westman and J.E. McGuire, Hermenticism and the Scientific Revolution, pp. 5-68.

4 9 Bowden, "The Scientific Revolution", pp.1-28; 62- 74; 218. 79

were antithical to the ideas of modern science".In my

own judgment, too, hermeticism did not lead to modern

experimental science. The view that it did lead to

modern science only reflects a mistaken appraisal. For

Dee and his contemporaries there was a fine and hazy line

of demarcation between science and magic; those scholars

who followed more in the path of mathematics— by

investigation through experimentation— led the way to

modern science; those scholars who placed their emphasis

on secret powers and hidden virtues— whose world view was

animistic and not mechanical— did not lead to modern

scientific investigation. In the end Dee was part of the

failed tradition— hermeticism, cabbalism, astrology and alchemy all fell by the wayside as mathematics, astronomy and the modern scientific method answered the call for change and reform in a way that worked— it was successful.

But what of Mr. Dee? An overview of his science is now called for in order to show how he thought and felt about these intellectual pursuits, and how his thought developed. It will serve as the basis for a later examination of how Dee achieved the diverse reputations he did among his contemporaries and with posterity.

Dee's interest in astrology emerged as early as the

A.G. Molland, "Mathematical and Angelic Astronomy", The British Journal for the History of Science. vol. Xll, 1980, p. 255. 80 mid 1540's, while he was a student at Cambridge

University. As he stated in 1547, "I began to make observations (very many to the houre and minute) of heavenly influences and operations actuall in this elementall portion of the w o r l d " ; 4 2 this is a clear indication of where his interests lay. This statement reveals some crucial facts about Dee and the early modern intellectual conceptions of science and the cosmos.

Firstly, Dee makes no separation between observation and measuring (which are the tools of modern scientific investigation, on the one hand and the influences and operations such planetary configurations had upon man on the other, which clearly reveals an animistic, neo- platonic, conception of nature). Modern scientific investigation, based on observation and mathematical quantification, does not attempt to observe or quantify the occult forces of nature— if in fact such forces are even believed to exist. Dee's view of science, as revealed in the above quote, also incorporated another element in its investigations: Surely, the study of the effects of the movements of the heavens upon man.43 in fact the term "elemental portion" reveals that Dee, like all pre-Keplerians, treated the elemental and stellar

42 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 5.

43 Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 288; Capp, English Almanacs, pp. 180-181; 187-199. 81

regions as separate realms, with the latter influencing

the former, and with the adept, through secret study,

discovering those influences.

Dee first expressed this conception of astrology in

his Propaedeumata Aphoristica (1558 and 1568). In this

work Dee set out to furnish a mathematical method for

astrological investigation.44 As he later stated in his

Mathematical Preface he "wished to mathematically furnish

up the whole method of astrology".45 in other words Dee

wished to make astrology a science by precisely computing

astrological influences. Thus Dee did not think

astrology a science prior to his Aphoristica. In the

aphorisms Dee sets out to compute the strength of the rays emitted by celestial bodies at diverse times and places.46 oee makes the point that the purpose of the aphorisms is to "search out the true virtues of nature: virtues which are great and barely credible to a few wise men, but known only to a very few". Dee goes on to declare that "no 'incautious person' should strive to

fish out and draw forth from them [the aphorisms]...

44 See Heilbron's Introduction which gives a thourough analysis of the nature of the Aphorisms.

45 Dee, Mathematicall Preface, sig. b. iij. r.

46 See Heilbron, "Introduction", p. 88; also see Aphorism's iv and xii. 82

thinges that are not written for him".'^^ Thus stressing

that this work was for the adept alone.

The whole course of the aphorisms investigates what

Dee refers to as "not only those things to be said to

exist which are plainly evident and known by their

actions in the natural order, but also those which,

seminally present, as it were, in the hidden corners of

nature wise men can demonstrate to exist".48 Dee goes on

to argue that "everyplace in the universe contains rays

of all the things that have active existence", and that these rays "...differ in their power of affecting and in the causing of their effects so long as they act wholly upon the same object".49 in the aphorisms Dee emphasizes the complexity of astrological influences, and seeks to show how differing astronomical bodies have differing astrological influences.50 Throughout the aphoristica Dee constantly refers to "sensible rays".51

Such rays are then able to be analyzed and utilized by the adept. As Dee asserts in the corollary to aphorism

LII, "By this means obscure, weak, and, as it were,

4^ Dee, Propaedeumata Aphoristica. (Edit. Wayne Shumaker), pp. 113, 121.

48 ibid, p. 123; Aphorism III.

49 ibid, pp. 123-124; Aphorism's IV and VI.

50 See Shumaker's "General Notes", pp. 207, 215.

51 See for example Aphorism's XIII or XXVIII. 83 hidden virtues of things, when strengthened by catoptric art [the study of the reflection of light], may become quite manifest to our senses. The industrious investigator of secrets has great help offered to him from this source in testing the peculiar powers not merely of the stars but also of other things which they work upon through their sensible rays".52 The problem which Dee faced in trying to make astrology a science is that astrology was in essence concerned with secret truths, able to be unlocked by the adept alone. It was not a course of study available to the publions, nor did it show any productive and progressive effects for mankind. The aphorisms are concerned with the working out of how cosmic sympathies worked on man— For "Nothing happens to man without cosmic sympathy".54 Dee, in the course of the Propaedeumatia Aphoristica. mapped out a study of astrology, or the operation of stellar rays55, in the hope of uniting celestial power with human capacity for advancement. As Mary Bowden has pointed out, "It seemed to contemporaries that astrology had the potential of becoming a modern sience, and they pursued

52 Dee, Propaedeumata Aphoristica. p. 149.

53 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 55.

54 Dee, Propaedeumata Aphoristica. p. 199; Aphorism CXIX.

55 ibid, p. 189; Aphorism CXIII. 84

this goal accordingly”. For Dee, and the astrologers,

however, they were simply attacking problems that could

not be solved; or even if they could be solved, the means

of measuring required to make those astrological laws

successful were generally absent.5?

Six years after the first publication of the

Aphoristia Dee published his second major work, his famed

Monas Hieroqlvphica. This work, even more than the

former, reveals Dee's true mystical interests. The Monas

is principally concerned with alchemy — although the

true mystical erudite nature of the work is now lost to

us. Perhaps this work truly was meant for the initiate's

eyes alone, in that to gain the true meaning behind the

Monas one has to be a believer.

When one reads through the Monas several points become

clear, points which aid in our analysis of Dee's beliefs

concerning science. Firstly, the work is steeped in

cabbalistic numbers mysticism, with reference also to

Pythagorean numerology. As Dee states, "...we will show

that there exist within Nature certain useful functions

determined by God by means of numbers, which we have happily obtained and which are explained either in this

Bowden, "The Scientific Revolution", p. 218.

ibid, p. 62.

Dee, The Hieroalvphic Monad, p. 67. 85 theorem, or in others, contained in this little b o o k " . 5 9

Secondly, the key to unlocking these secret mysteries revolves around the symbol of the monas,^^ ,which when used properly by the initiate could unlock many wonders and secrets. Finally one sees that Dee was engrossed in the "magic of the four elements", or, as he terms it,

"the science of the elements".GO All of this art is constantly refered to by Dee as "this most secret mystery" of the monas. These mysteries "can be understood only by those who have become the absolute

Pontiffs of the mysteries".G1 in other words by the adept alone. This statement by Dee leaves one wondering just how much secret knowledge Dee actually meant to depart on the reader. It seems more likely that he sought to lift the cloak of secrecy only so high, only high enough for the adept to peer inside, while the common sort were left to wonder at Dee's mystical arts.

What Dee is ultimately attempting in the Monas is a reformation of the art of alchemy, just as the

Propaedeumata Aphoristica attemps a reformation in the art of astrology. Dee makes reference to "the miserable alchemists [who] must learn to recognize their numerous

59 ibid, p. 47.

G9 ibid, pp. 13, 15.

ibid, p. 19. 86 errours..." , and then proposes analysis of the said art, where for the first time he will truly "speak of these supreme mysteries of nature".^3 Dee, however, is not totally unwilling to share his knowledge with others, so long as the student has the patience to learn. As Dee explains,"...we have no wish to hide the philosophical treasures of our Monad, we have taken a resolution to give a reason by which the position of the Monad is by this manner displaced...listen to these other great secrets, which I know and will disclose...".^4 And again how he expresses how "I have here placed before your eyes an infinitude of mysteries..."; yet he concludes with"...these mysteries iuusL not be revealed to any but the initiate". Dee concludes the Monas with the statement that "Here the vulgar eye will see nothing but obscurity and will dispair considerably",66 revealing how only a select few could make any sense out of the Monas.

62 ibid, p. 25.

63 ibid, p. 27.

64 ibid, pp. 32-33.

66 ibid, pp. 36-37. What I believe Dee means by the term "initiate" is a person whose mind is open to the more erudite mysteries of nature. In other words one who seeks to go beyond the bounds of the physical in an attempt to attain almost divine illumination. I also believe that any knowledge or wisdom so attained is for personal use and not for the greater furtherence of mankind in any collective sense.

66 ibid, p. 53. 87

Such a great mystery, as Dee points out, "in my writing which all may read, but I believe that only those truly worthy will understand".6?

In the end the Monas was a work of great mystery and confusion, understood by only a very few. Even Queen

Elizabeth, who had an intrest in such arts, did not quite grasp the Monas's workings— as Dee sat for several hours trying to disclose its workings to h e r . 68 The Monas is obviously not a work of science, but rather a study of ancient mysteries, which, as Dee pointed out, is the key to all things, where "...nothing is able to exist without the virtue of our heiroglyphica Monad".69 And which Dee even apologises to God for having published. As he laments, "0 God! pardon me if I have sinned against thy majesty in revealing such a great mystery in my writing which all may read, but I believe only those who are truly worthy will understand".

One can clearly see that in this work Dee was in no way a forunner of modern scientific thought, but rather

6^ ibid, p. 29. Dee's use of the term "worthy" seems to emply intellectual worthiness, rather than a strict moral worth. Take for example Dee's medium, Edward Kelly, a man of questionable morality, yet intellectually worthy to unlock nature's secrets. See Casaubon, A True and Faithful Relation.

68 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. ; and Diary. p. 69 Dee, Monad, p. 28.

"79 ibid, p. 29. 88 one who looked back to ancient mysteries in an ongoing guest to unlock nature's secrets, and attempt to control those powers. Even his vision of the cosmos was pre­ modern in that he clung to a tri-part division of the cosmos into elemental, celestial and supercelestial realms— the Monas then acts in tapping the powers and influences of these realms.

In the final analysis the working of the Monas is nothing short of a miracle of divine proportion. The

Monas, then, provides a brilliantly clear expression of

Dee's intellectual appetite. As far as Dee's reputation is concerned it would remain as Dee's most famous work, going through five editions (1554-1659) in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Although one has to wonder if anyone, aside from Dee himself, understood the Monas, let alone how to use it in unlocking nature's secrets.

Dee's final published work on science came in 1570 with his Preface to Billingsly's Euclid. (Dee did publish several work's after 1570, but they did not deal with science per se. There are also several MSS. after 1570.

See for example his work on Calendar reform.) At first glance one would imagine that here surely Dee was on firmer ground in dealing with true science (no longer delving into secretive arts shrouded in mystery); this however is only partially true. The Preface, like the

ibid, p. 51. 89

Propaedeumatia Aphoristica. and the Monas Heiroglyphica before, deals with aspects of astrology and other

"wondersous arts". The Preface is addressed to "The unfamed lovers of truthe and constant students of noble sciences...";72 yet Dee's definition of mathematics is much broader than a post-Newtonian definition. Within mathematics alone Dee lists not only "Geometrie" and

"Arithmetike", but also goes on to list "Astronomie",

"Musike", "Cosmographie", "Architecture", "Navigation", and a group of other studies particular to Dee—

"Thaumaturgike", "Archemastrie", and "Menadrie", to name a few, as studies which fell under the umbrella of mathematics.

The Preface deals with "Thynges Mathematicall", which is divided into number and magnitude.The key to this whole study is number, for "by numbers, a way is had, to the searchyng out, and understandyng of everything, hable to be k n o w n " . 74 Yet this use of number goes far beyond simple computation. Number for Dee is an almost spiritual proposition. As Dee refers to the "perfect science of arithmetic" of all sciences being "next to theology, it is the most divine, most pure, most ample.

72 Dee, The Mathematicall Praeface. sig. iii. r .

72 ibid, sig. *j . r.

74 ibid, sig. *j . v. 90

and generally, most profounde...and most necessary"^^;

clearly Dee makes little mental separation between

mathematics and religion— for him mathematics is

religion— it is God's language. This goes beyond a

comparison between science and religion to a substitution

of science for religion — as Dee states; "I am hable to

prove and testifie, that the 1itérai1 text, and order of

divine law, oracles, and mysteries, require more skill in

numbers and magnitudes: then [commonly] the expoitors

have uttered: but rather onely (at the most) so warned:

and shewed their own want therein".

Dee also goes into long explanations and definitions

of a variety of studies he terms mathematical, but when

closly scrutinized and investigated have little to do with mathematics, or what would even turn into modern

science.

Astrology, for example, is listed by Dee as a mathematical art which, "reasonably demonstrateth the

operations and effects, of the natural beams of light,

and secret influences of starres and planets: in every

element and elementall body, at all times".?? As we have

already seen with the Propaedeumatia Aphoristica Dee held that he had funished a mathematical method for doing

ibid, sig. a. j. v.

ibid, sig. a. iij. r.

ibid, sig. b. iii. r-v. 91 astrology. Here, in the Mathematicall Preface, under the heading of astrology. Dee speaks of "Heavenly influences", and "Spiritual influences", through which the "Modest and sober student will find truth".It is obvious that Dee's perception of mathematics went far beyond science; it was a religious undertaking to tap nature's secrets.

Several other arts listed by Dee as being part of the mathematical sciences are even more erudite than astrology. Thaumaturgike, for example, seeks to "giveth certaine order to make straunge workes, of the sense to be perceived and of men to be wondered at"This art appears to be an exercise in sense perception, through which a practitioner can produce many marvels through the application of supposed mathematical knowledge. This art would be better listed under natural magic (in the hermetic renaissance sense of science) than under any modern application of such an art. Archemistrie is yet another of the strange arts listed by Dee under the heading of mathematics. Dee explains Archemistrie as a rare art which seeks to "teacheth to bryng to actuall experience sensible, all worthy conclusions by all the artes mathematically purposed, and by naturall philosophie concluded: And both addeth to them a farder

ibid, sig. b. iiij. r.

ibid, sig. A. j. r. 92

Scope, in terms of the same Artes: and also, by his proper method, and in peculiar terms, procedeth, with helpe of the forsayd Artes, to the performance of complete Experiences: which, of all particular Arte, are hable (Formally) to be challenged."80 This art in Dee's scheme of things is the end all for the mathematical arts. Dee concludes the section on Archemistrie thus: "I have forewarned you. I have done the part of a frende: I have discharged my duety toward God: for my small Talent, at hys most mercyfull handes received."81 Thus we can see again the conection Dee makes between religion and science, in that it was his duty to God to share this knowledge with others— almost as a religious duty.

The reader of Dee's scientific works will note that these works did not pave the way towards the scientific revolution, while Dee himself stands in direct contrast to the key figures of that revolution. He did not attempt to bury the ancients, but to further exalt them.

He was deeply influenced by the mysticism of Lull,

Agrippa, and Roger Bacon, and the whole macrocosm- microcosm thesis of the hermeticists. Finally one must remember that Dee was never looked to by later scientists as a forerunner. Both Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle ignored Dee's work, nor does Newton owe anything to Dee's

80 ibid, sig. A. iij. r.

81 ibid, sig. A. iij. v. 93 scholarship. Dee was no prophet of the scientific revolution. Chapter IV

The Reputation of John Dee: A Negative Appraisal

Public feelings about science, magic, and occult studies were ambiguous at best; no general system of belief formulated any real distinction between science and magic in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

The main difficulty being that few understood the operating premises by which these arcane studies were carried out. The fact that public sentiment clung to an animistic view of nature and a universe composed of mysterious hidden powers (such as God, angels, devils, good and bad spirits, and other specters) added credence to these studies. The truth needs to be asserted that what we in the modern world view as magic was often viewed by early modern man as a purely physical explanation of phenomenon, and this fact is often the source of modern man's inability to understand earlier modes of thought.^ Yet on the other hand suspicion was often cast upon practitioners because of their failures, as well as because of religious hostility toward such

^ See Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 189 ff.

94 95

p r a c t i t i o n e r s . 2 so, on one hand, many people had their

horoscopes cast and frequently consulted wise and cunning men or women on a variety of problems or ailments^ ? on

the other hand, when things went badly, when crops

failed, or loved ones took sick or died, such practitioners were the first to have suspicion cast upon them and to take the blame.4

There also existed a close connection in the public mind between astrology, alchemy, sorcery, conjuration, witchcraft, and enchantment. To quell any public hysteria, laws were enacted against such practitioners.

Such laws were passed during the reigns of both Henry

VIII and Elizabeth. These laws were specifically enacted against;

persons [who] have devised and practised invocations and conjurations of spirits...to the intent to get or find money or treasure, or to waste, consume or destroy any person in his body, members or goods, or...for any other unlawful intent or purpose...shall be deemed accepted, and adjuged a felon...and [shall] suffer such pain of death, loss or forfeiture of lands, tenants, goods and chattels...by course of the

2 As Keith Thomas has pointed out, the ultimate means of telling if magic was being used was to refer to the authority used— i.e. church law, ancient text (hermetic, cabalistic). See, Religion and the Decline of Magic, D. 192.

3 ibid, pp. 212-252,

4 ibid, pp. 189-253, 96

common law of the realm.^

In Mary's reign there existed a constant fear of ill being done towards the Queen, and in 1555 a witchcraft commission was established to deal with persons caught practicing hidden or secret arts.

In 1555 John Dee found himself caught up in these very same investigations. His esoteric and occult studies cast him in an uncomfortable and unfavorable light. His actions during the early years of Mary's reign were to place him in an inauspicious position through which, I will contend, all the stereotyping of him as a conjurer of questionable loyalty would take root and grow.

As far as we can tell from surviving records and documents, before Mary's reign Dee seemed to have lived a quiet and comfortable life, a life free from over-weighty responsibilities or overly harsh criticism of his studies.G with the death of Edward VI, however, and che accession of Mary, Dee's brief period of untroubled study and responsibility quickly came to an end.

^ See 33 Henry VIII, c. 8-1542, printed in Statutes of the Realm, vol. Ill, p. 837; reprinted in Barbara Rosen (ed.) Witchcraft, pp. 53-55. This law also appeared in 5 Elizabeth 1563, c. 16 and 23 Elizabeth 1580-1, c. 2. Even though this law had been repealed under Edward VI, in I Edward VI, c. 12 in 1547, it never fell out of the public mind as a way of dealing with such practitioners.

® It should be remembered, however, that Dee's studies were marvelled at (or feared) during his student days at Cambridge. See above p. 97

In the spring of 1555 John Dee met with the first of the major misfortunes of his life— his arrest and imprisonment under Mary.? This event was to sweep Dee, a budding young intellectual, from his life of repose and thrust him headlong into a new role as a dubious conjurer, of questionable religious loyalty. Later, after his term of imprisonment, and in light of the

Protestant reaction, he would further be branded as, not only a conjurer, but a man of questionable religious and political loyalties to the Protestant settlement. How did this strange turn of fate come about for John Dee?

On 28 May 1555, Sir Francis Englefield was directed by the Privy Council:

to make search for one John Dye [Dee], dwelling in London, and tapprehend him and send him hither, and make search for such papers and books as he maye thinke maye touche the same Dye [Dee]...®

Why did the Privy Council want Dee apprehended? What were they suspicious of? It is interesting to note that

Englefield himself was a Privy Councillor and a devout

Roman Catholic, who in 1555 had been appointed by Mary to lead the witchcraft commission which had just been

? Acts of the Privv Council 1554-56, pp. 137, 143; Calendar of State Paoers-Domestic Series 1547-80. p. 64; See also Calder, John Dee, p. 310; and French, John Dee, p. 6.

® Acts of the Privv Council 1554-56, p. 137. 98 established. ^

Was Dee guilty, then, of conjuration or sorcery? As stated above, most people believed in an animistic world order— a view which allowed for the functioning of supernatural powers, both those of darkness and those of light. This systematic scheme of nature and the universe was simply taken as a given. To gain a clearer view of

Dee's predicament one must be aware of the distinctions between natural and judicial astrology. The former branch of astrological lore was always accepted as a mysterious given, the latter was seen as an unholy union-

-one inevitably having a connection with the manipulation of demonic forces. Astrology in this sense always bore close affinity to sorcery, and astrological prediction was often associated with conspiracy and rebellion, and later with popish plots.Support for the fact that it was judicial astrology (also seen as witchcraft or sorcery) that Dee was apprehended for comes on 8 June

1555, when:

Dee, Cary and Butler, who calculated the nativities of the King and Queen, and Princess Elizabeth, are apprehended on the accusation of one Ferrys, whose children thereupon had been struck, one

^ See DNB for biographical information on Englefield.

See Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 283-385, for the section on astrology. 99

with death, the other with blindness.

What was wrong with Dee's calculating nativities— aristocrats were notorious for having their horoscopes cast.12 As Keith Thomas points out, "Most Tudor monarchs and their advisors encouraged astrologers and drew upon their advise".H Apparently what was calculated was not supportive of the King and Queen. Furthermore, Ferrys, whose own children's misfortunes he attributed to these mysterious arts, came forth, no doubt aware of

Englefield's commission against witchcraft, to accuse

Dee. In his Autobiographical Tracts Dee states that he was accused by "George Ferrys and another Prideaux, of endeavouring by enchantment to destroy Queen Mary".14

Enchanting to destroy an annointed monarch brings with it the greater charge of treason. In other words. Dee not only sought to calculate nativities— which in itself would only foretell the future— but apparently sought (as he attests in his retelling of the charge by Ferrys and

Prideaux) the active overthrow of an annointed monarch.

Nothing is known concerning the actual litigation

11 Calender of State Papers-Domestic 1547-80. p. 67.

12 See Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 286-90.

11 ibid, p. 289.

14 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 20. It is not clear what Prideaux's involvement in the incident was. See French, Dee, p. 34, n. 4. 100

involved with these charges, except that Dee found himself being questioned first by the Privy Council, then by the Court of Common Pleas, and finally by the Star

Chamber. The only judgment that can be made from this is that apparently the charges were serious enough that Dee had to have at least three separate hearings on those charges before being finally held at Hampton Court. Dee was held at Hampton Court for a time, and there questioned by Mr. Secretary Bourne of the Privy Council.

On 5 June 1555, in a letter from the Privy Council to

Lord North and Mr. Bourne a clearer glimpse of these events can be g a i n e d . 15 The letter requested North and

Bourne :

to procédé to a further examination of Benger, Carye,Dye [Dee], and Felde, uppon such poyntes as by their wisdome shall gather out of thier former confessions towching thier lewed and vayne practices of calculating and conjuring...and requesting them further as they shall by thier examinations perceive any other man or woman towched in thies or like matters, to cause them to be forthwith apprehended and committed to be futher ordered according to justice.15

15 Edward Lord North was created Baron North in 1554 and made a Privy Councilor that same year. See DNB for biographical information on both North and Bourne.

15 Acts of the Privv Council 1554-56. p. 143. Felde [Feild] was the editor of a work on astrological calculations, Ephemeris Anni 1557. for which Dee wrote the preface. Feild was also a proto- Copernican whose works were the first in England in which the principles of the Copernican philosophy were recognized and asserted. See DNB. VI, pp. 270-1, for Feild. Dee for his part never came out in written support for the Copernican thesis. He 101

This makes it clear that it was for calculating and

conjuring that Dee was in fact held; it futher shows that

they were 'advised' to implicate others dealing in such practices. Nothing further is known about this, however.

Dee's questioning did not end with his appearance before the Privy Council; in the course of the summer of 1555

Dee also appeared before Lord Chief Justice Brooke of

Common Pleas and before the Star Chamber.1? Again one can only speculate as to the type of questioning Dee underwent during these various proceedings. These questions would have undoubtedly addressed the whole issue of conjuring and judicial astrology. Seeing that early modern man held a view of nature in which such forces were "real" and able to be manipulated, the questioning would center on the question; were such powers being used for malicious ends? Apparently Dee and the others being questioned satisfied their inquisitors with their answers, for they were not immediately executed as traitors. Dee, however, did not get off scot-free. He was placed under further observation

simply utilized the calculations as being more accurate for astrological measurmements.

Dee, Autobioqraphica Tracts, pp. 20-1; Brooke [Broke] was Chief Justice of Common Pleas in 1554 and was knighted in 1555, he too was known to be a zealous Catholic. See DNB. Broke, Sir Robert; See also Wood, Athenae Oxoniensis, vol. 1, p. 267. 102 regarding his religious practices.Dee was released from all charges of treason, and was placed under the custody of Edmund Bonner, Bishop or London, for further observation, "...remayning in his custody to be baounde for his goode ahearing betwist this Christmas next, and forthcoming whence he shall be called and thereupon set at libertie". This memorandum was dated 29 August

1555.19

Bonner apparently was to observe Dee and to attest (or deny) his religious orthodoxy. Considering that Bonner was a reactionary "catholic" bishop, whose solemn duty under the Marian regime was to seek England's reunion with Rome (in both faith and doctrine), and to persecute and prosecute those who created the schismatic church under Henry VIII and Edward VI; and considering that Dee had served the Dudley family— who actively sought Mary's exclusion from the succession— it is remarkable that John

Dee managed to stay in one piece. It can safely be surmised that Dee adopted the Catholic faith whilst under

Bonner's care— out of a sense of urgency if nothing else.

Obviously Dee's religious persuasions, or conscience, was flexible enough for him to live with the changes in religious policy under Mary's rule. (One often wonders.

1® Here it is good to remember that Dee was of course an ordained clergyman seeing that he was granted ecclesiastical livings under Edward VI.

^9 Acts of the Privv Council 1554-56. p. 176. 103 as no doubt Dee's own contemporaries did, where Dee's religious allegiance in fact lay? This question, of course, is crucial for an accurate assessment of Dee's reputation.) The events of November 1555— while Dee was in Bonner's custody— sealed John Dee's reputation as a man of dubious character, not only as a practitioner of forbidden acts, but as one who actively participated in the Marian persecutions. There is no mention of Dee between September and November 1555; undoubtedly he was maintaining a low profile under Bonner's watchful eye.

Dee played an active role in the examination of John

Philpot, on the 19th of November 1555. Aside from the cases of the most important English Protestants— the cases of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer— the case of John

Philpot is one of the most important and most fully documented in John Foxe's Actes and Monuments. Foxe's

"Book of Martyrs", as it is more commonly referred to, is the best and most thorough report of the Marian persecutions.20 Philpot's case exemplifies the kind of

20 John Foxe, Actes and Monuments (first English edition, London, 1563.) The best modern works on Foxe and his role in retelling the persecutions are J.F. Mozley, John Foxe and His Book and William Haller, Foxe's Book of Martvers and the Elect Nation. Both these works show how Foxe's work set the political and religious tone in England throughout Elizabeth's reign and beyond. With Foxe's flowing prose the English destiny would be linked to the Protestant cause, and the martyers would be the avant-garde of a new faith and a new Protestant English destiny. 104

stiff-necked, sophisticated, religiously unbending

resistance that the Marian government faced. Philpot, who was the Archdeacon of Winchester, was brought up for examination more than a dozen times by a varied assortment of bishops, privy councilors, and learned disputants (brought up from the universities) in the hope of persuading him to conform to the accepted religious practices then in force under the Marian government.^1

Philpot, like the other martyrs, was unbending in his faith— he ultimately went to his death at the stake on 18

December 1555 as a representative of the "true faith".

In the seventh examination of Philpot, on the 19th of

November, John Dee's name appears on the list of examiners who were to question him.22 Dee is listed,

(along with the Bishops of London and Rochester, the

Chancellor of Lichfield, and Dr. Chedsey), as Master Dee,

See Foxe, Actes and Monuments (p. 1412 f ., 1563 edition; p. 1978 f ., 1570 edition; p. 1704 f ., 1576 edition; and 1811 f., 1583 edition) for the actual events in the Philpot case. For other accounts of Philpot's case see Robert Eden, (ed.), The Examinations and Writings of John Philpot. B.C.L.. pp. 69-80. Also see John Day, (ed.). Letters of the Reformation, p. 216 f; The Examination of Jonn Philpot the Martvr. sig. 11 v-12 r: and The Letters of the Martvrs. pp. 229-245; 649. All these accounts of Philpot's case are identical to that given by Foxe.

Foxe, Actes and Monuments (1563 edition, p. 1412 f; 1570 edition, p. 1978 f.). Dee's name does appear in Townsend's 19th century edition of Foxe's work as well. 105

Bachelor of Divinity.^3 The questioning followed the

standard form used in all cases of supposed heretics

being brought before these inquisitional tribunals. The

central method of argumentation hinged on two crucial

points, both theological and doctrinal in nature and

exegetical in substance. The first concerns the definition of transubstantiation. The Catholic Church holds that the bread and wine changes into the substance and essence of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist by a priest— this belief is central to Roman Catholic teaching and dogma. The different Protestant faiths, on the other hand, deny that a priest possesses this "magical" power, and to differing degrees hold that the act was in fact only a commemoration of Christ's Last Supper (though certain protestant sects, particularly the Lutherans, hold that

Christ is present in the Eucharist, but reject the transubstatiation of the elements by the priest). These theological distinctions are subtle, yet of vital importance to all groups involved. By denying the priest's ability to enact this "miracle" the protestant

The fact that Dee is listed as a Bachelor of Divinity presents a curious historical problem. There is no other reference available to support the claim that Dee ever received the Bachelor of Divinity degree from either cf the English universitites. The only two degrees Dee was known to hold were the B.A. and M.A. degrees from Cambridge University. 106 creeds in one step swept away the necessity of priests as mediators between man and God, as well as removing any supernatural powers a priest held. The second question, a question which is crucial to the Roman Catholic

Church's raison d 'etre. centers on the doctrine of

Petrine Supremacy. Again a fundamental divide is created between the opposing faiths. The Roman Catholic Church rests squarely on its interpretation of Matthew 16:13-19, where Christ is understood to place his earthly church in

Peter and his successors, as bishops of Rome. The protestants, naturally enough, held that the Roman Church had no such pre-eminence as a religious institution. The questioning of Philpot, for the seventh examination, revolved around the second of these two points— the issue of Petrine Supremacy. The questioning was highly technical and exegetical; it exhibited a command of

Biblical history and a high level of scholarship. It also demonstrated the unbending convictions that each side held with a burning fervor concerning the truth of their beliefs. In each case the salvation of any individual rested upon the truth of their convictions, or at least what they perceived that truth to be. Within this controversy John Dee was placed on the side of the

Roman faith attacking one of God's chosen— John Philpot.

The account given by Foxe of Philpot's examination 107

places Dee in a rather awkward position.The exchange

between Dee and Philpot revolves around the issue of

Petrine Supremacy, especially as put forth by Saint

Cyprian, a third century theologian.25 philpot, of

course, denied the theory of Petrine supremacy and

further maintained that Dee did not understand the

argument used by Saint Cyprian. The high point of their

dialogue went as follows; "Dee: What? Wyll you

understand S. Cyprian so? That were good indeed."

"Philpot: I thinke you cannot understand S. Cyprian

better, than he doth declare himself." Here there is a pause as Bishop Bonner interrupts to tell of his having

to leave to go to a meeting of Parliament— the dialogue then resumes. "Philpot: [here he is addressing the

reader] Then M. Dee tooke agayne hys former authority in hand for want of another, and would have made a farther

circumstance, digressing from hys purpose. To whom I

sayed, he knew not where about he went, and there wytall he laughed. And sayd, hys divinity was nothing but

scoffing." Dee responded; "Yea? Then I have done with

2"^ The actual dialogue between Dee and Philpot is identical in all four editions of Actes and Monuments (i.e. those editions published prior to Foxe's own death in 1587)— see pp. 1414 f ., in the 1563 edition; pp. 1978 f ., in the 1570 edition; pp. 1704 f ., in the 1576 edition; and pp. 1811 f ., in the 1583 edition.

25 For details in this debate see below. For reference to Saint Cyprian consult the Catholic Encyclopedia. 108 you: and so went away." (In a marginal note here Foxe wrote "M. Dee slipped away.") Philot then went on; "M.

Dee, you are to yonge in divinity to teach me in the matters of my faith..." Philpot's questioning then continued with the remaining examiners.

In the 1563 and 1570 editions of Foxe's book Dee's name is clearly placed, both in the heading for the seventh examination of John Philpot, and in the m a r g i n . 2^

A curious alteration does occur in the 1576 and 1583 editions, however. In these two editions the dialogue itself is identical with that of the 1563 and 1570 editions, but instead of Dee's name being used in these two later editions the title "A doctour" is substituted and no mention of Dee is made in the introductory h e a d i n g s . 27 what is one to make of these alterations?

Peter French, in his work on Dee, and Dee himself, would have the reader believe that these alterations were

Foxe's way of making up for the great wrong done to the character of John D e e . 28 This much can be accepted, that by 1576 Dee did manage to have his name removed from

28 See Foxe, Actes and Monuments. 1563 edition, p. 1412; 1570 edition, p. 1978.

27 See Foxe, Actes and Monuments. 1576 edition, p. 1704; 1583 edition, p. 1811 for a comparison with note 26.

28 See French, John Dee, pp. 8-9. In the bibliography French lists only the 1563 and 1570 editions of Foxe's Actes and Monuments as having references to Dee. 109

Foxe's text, thus seemingly removing the implications which placed him in an unfavorable light as a catholic persecutor of one of the Marian martyrs. Yet the wording remains identical in all four of Foxe's premortem editions. Upon closer examination one realizes that in fact "A doctour" must refer to "Doctor Dee". Two reasons prove this point beyond a reasonable doubt. In the first place, at the point where "Dee slipped away" appears the marginal notes revealing that "A doctour" is Dee. They reveal this because Foxe wrote in the 1576 edition, "M.

Dee slipped away"; and in the 1583 edition the initals

"M.D."— for Master Dee— appear.29 More conclusive yet is the fact that if Dee were not present the only other possible "doctour" would have been "Doctour Chadsey".^^

This could not have been the case— firstly, because

Chadsey was still present for the questioning of Philpot after "A doctour" slipped away, and secondly, because of

Philpot's comment that Dee (or "A doctour") was too young in divinity to teach him in the matters of his faith, which implies that Dee must have been the mysterious

"doctour", since Dee in 1555 would have been twenty-eight

29 See Foxe, Actes and Monuments. 1576 edition, p. 1705; 1583 edition, p. 1811.

29 William Chadsy, 1510-1579, was a Doctor of Divinity and a Chaplin to Bonner. He was also a zealous Catholic, and spent the last years of his life imprisoned under Elizabeth. See Chadsey, William in the DNB. 110

years of age, while Chadsey was in his forties, the same

age as Philpot. Philpot would not have supposed that Dr.

Chadsey was too young in divinity (he in fact held the

D.D. degree); Dee on the other hand could very easily have been seen as too young to have earned a degree in

divinity, a degree which took up to nine years beyond the normal course of study to acquire. At twenty-eight Dee

indeed would have been too young! The fact that Dee's name was (partially) removed from the two later editions does little to conceal Dee's role in the proceedings— as contemporaries would have known. The fact that Dee after

1576 continually complained of charges of "slander" is proof enough that the slight change from 1570 to the 1576 editions of Actes and Monuments did little to alter or improve Dee's condition.The other reference to Dee in the Actes and Monuments (which also can be found in all four editions) concerns the case of one Bartlet Grene

(or Greene).32 Dee was a "bedfellow" of Grene in his

31 For some examples of this protestation and defense on Dee's part see: Preface to Billingsley's Euclide; Dee's General and Rare Memorials, sig. * r-E iij r; Dee's tract To the King's Most Excellent Maiestie; and finally Dee's Autobiographical Tracts. and Diary, where it can be seen that a continual theme of Dee's life is his refutation of charges of slander.

32 See Foxe, Actes and Monuments. 1563 edition p. 1470; 1570 edition p. 2024; 1576 edition pp. 1744- 51; and 1583 edition pp. 1852-53. Also see John Dee, The Perfect Arte of Navigation, sig., delta iiij. r., where Dee again refers to his stay with Grene. Ill stay with Bonner (at least for the night of 17 November

1555).33 Dee constantly brings this point up in order to show his critics that he too was under Bonner's care— an innocent victim of unjustified persecution and malicious slander.34 Actes and Monuments would still see Dee as acting in a "papist" role in the proceedings of 19

November 1555 against Philpot. Furthermore, anyone who was familiar with Dee's case realized that he was being held for his conjuring practices which possibly were treasonous, not for his religious beliefs, as the martyrs undoubtedly were. In other words the fact that Dee was being detained under Bonner, or that he shared a cell with Grene, does not put him in the same category as

Grene or Philpot.35

33 I have interpreted the phrase "bedfellow" metaphorically as simply having shared the same room. The reader should also remember that Dee himself was also being held by Bonner for observation concerning Dee's questionable loyalties. It is not clear to me whether Dee on the night of 17 November was planted by Bonner to exact information from Grene in order to incriminate him, or he simply shared the same room as a delinquent in Bonner's custody.

34 See for example Dee's Autobiographical Tracts. p. 2 0 where Dee laments the plight of his being questioned by the Privy Council and Star Chamber and then tells of his stay with Bonner: "...I was discharged of the suspicion of treason, and was sent to the examining and custody of Byshop Bonner for religious matters. Where also I was prisoner long, and bedfellow with Bartlet Grene, who was burnt...".

35 Both Philpot and Grene were in fact burned as heretics not long after this, in the winter of 1555-1556. 112

On the other hand it also should be realized that Dee was not of the same caliber as the Bishops of London or

Rochester, or as Dr. Chedsey. All three of these men were later convicted of crimes under Mary's rule, and all three died in prison,victims of their catholic fanaticism. Dee's position was never pushed quite that far. What does however remain crystal clear, and of paramount importance for the understanding of Dee's reputation, is the fact that the returning Marian exiles

(and English Protestants in general) were swayed by

Foxe's book, and reacted accordingly.^^ Dee would go through the remainder of his days hounded by attacks on his reputation, which began right after the first edition of Actes and Monuments in 1563.

The prominence which Dee had apparently held in Edward

Vi's reign was lost sight of, and all that Dee did from that point onwards was watched with suspicious eyes.

That it was Foxe and his book that created the situation that Dee found himself in is apparent from the comments that Dee made after Foxe's editions appeared. Dee's publication of the Propaedeumatia Aphoristica in 1558,

Foxe's Actes and Monuments was popular reading and every Cathedral and many churches had a copy. Next to the Bible it was the most popular book in England, and was the main instrument that formulated in the English perception of Mary's reign. See Haller, Foxe's Book of Martvrs and Mozley, John Foxe and His Book, both of these works state the importance of Foxe in shaping the English identity. 113

and the Monas Hieroalvphica in 1564, contain no defense by Dee against the slanders mounted against him. (This

should be closely noted by those who study John Dee, for both these early works are esoteric in makeup, and both possess the fundamentals of neoplatonic and hermetic mysticism, and were abtruse to all but a select few. In the Introduction to the second edition of the

Aphoristica. written in 1568, Dee states; "...you must not reveal openly to unworthy and profane persons what— driven by yearning to illuminate and broaden truth so it might be fully apparent only to you [the initiate]— I have stretched the sinews of my poor wit to provide, least to your shame and mine, it should be turned to great harm". This shows Dee's secretive nature and his fear of attacks of slander and conjuring.)

Dee's published works after 1564— his "Mathematical

Preface" to The Elements of Euclid's Geometry

(Billingsley edition 1570)— his General and Rare

Memorials Pertavnino to the Perfect Arte of Navigation

(1577)— A Letter...of a Certain Studious Gentleman (1599) and his tract. To the Kings Most Excellent Maiestie

(1604)— all have large sections devoted to the defense and rectification of his reputation— a reputation which

Dee always held was damaged by unfounded prejudice and

John Dee, Propaedeumata Aphoristica. The quotation is taken from Wayne Shumaker's translation in John Dee on Astronomy, p. 121. 114

slander. As he states in the "Mathematical Preface":

Shall the folly of Idiotes, and the Mallice of the Scornfull, so much prevails, that He, who seeketh no worldly gaine or glory at their handes: But onely, of god, the threasor of Heavenly wisdoms, & knowledge of pure veritie: Shall he (I say) in the means space, be robbed and spoiled of his honest name and fame?

He continues with his defense:

...Shall that man, be (in hugger mugger) condemned, as a Companion of Helhoundes, and a Caller, and Coniurer of wicked and damned Spirits? He that bewaileth his great want of time, sufficient (to his contenation) for learning of Godly wisdoms, and Godly Verities in: and onely therin setteth all his delight...

Dee laments of the great time and energy his works have

taken over the last 20 or 25 years of his life. He then

goes on in his apologetic lamentations:

...And, so, doth the Malicious skorner, secretly wishe, & brauely and boldly face down, behinde my back...0 (you such) my vnkinde Countryment. O vnnaturall Countryment. 0 vnthankful Countryment. 0 Brainsicke, Rashe, Spitefull, and Distainfull Countrymen. Why oppresse you me, thus violently, with your slaundering of me...And in the end (in your iudgemet) am I become, worse, then when I began...A dangerous Member in the Common Wealth: and no Member of the Church of Christ? Call you this, to be Learned?

He goes on to list the four types of men who are

slandering him:

The first, I may name. Vaine pratling busiebodies: The second, Fond Frendes: The third. Imperfectly zelous: and the 115

fourth, Malicious Ignorant.

To all four types Dee's response is; "Quia faciet Dominus ludicium afficti: & vindictam pauperum". [Since the Lord will make a judgement of the afflicted one, and vengeance for the poor.] Appealing to them to refrain from their slandering of his reputation. He concludes with a general appeal:

And (to conclude) most of all, let them be ashamed of Man, and afraide of the dreadfull and Juste Judge: both Folishly or Maqliciously to dauise: and then, deuilishly to father their new fond Monsters on me: Innocent in hand and hart: for trespacing either against the lawe of God, or Man, in any my Studies or Exercises, Philosophicall, or Mathematical!: As in due time, I hope, will be more manifest.^®

This was simply the first in a steady stream of apologetical defenses of his reputation. The second such defense came seven years later with the publication of his work titled: The Perfect Arte of Navigation. This work has an even longer section devoted to a defense of his reputation— twenty-three full pages of text. This lengthy diatribe is an even greater lamentation than the apology seen in the earlier work. In it Dee (writing in the third person of himself) continues with a defense of his reputation:

And, so, hath the Feende Infernal!, most craftily, and vnduly, gotten the honest

Dee, "Mathematical! Preface", (edited by Allen G. Debus, 1975 [1570]), sig., A. j r-A. ij v. 116

Name and Fame, of one extraordiary Studious lentleman, of this land, [i.e. Dee] within his Claws:...by wicked and vngodly Arte, to be framed: and, by the help of Sathan, or Beelzebub, to be finished; vnleast, the wise, or the peculiarly chief Authorized, will vse due, Carefull, and Charitable Discretion, From henceforth, to repres, abolish, and vtterly extinguish this very Iniurious Report... Spread & Credited, all this Realm over: it is to wete. That the Forsaid lentleman, is, or was. Not Onely, a Coniurer, or Caller of Deuils: but, A Great doer therin: Yea, The Great Coniurer: & so, (as some would say) The Arche Coniurer, of the whole kingdom.39

Dee, throughout this advertisement, continually refers to the "great hurt", "malicious injury" and "dammage of the lentleman", who is "harmles", done to him by most malicious slander. Dee also goes on to defend his studies (which in part are the reason for the bad reputation he suffers):

Nerer to pres this matter in particular, it is nedeles. But, by this, and such like foule oversight of Man, & Cruell despite of the hellish Enemy, it is come to pas...that, wheras the said Studious lentleman, hath at god his most mercifull handes, receyued a great Talent of Knowledge and Sciences: (after his long, painfull, and Costly Trauails, susteyned for the same:)...vndertaken chiefly, for the Advancement of the Wonderful1 Veritie Philosophicall: And also, for the State

39 John Dee, The Perfect Arte of Navigation, sig. [ ] iij r-v. Dee also comments in a side note; "Oh, A damnable sklander: vtterly untrue, in the whole, & in every worde and part, therof...". 117

Publik of this Brytish Monarchie...^®

In this work we also see that attacks against Dee were coming from several different directions— Not only for his dubious position while under Bonner's care (which he also tries to rectify in this work, see sig., s ij r-v.)-

-but also for his work on scientific topics, especially his Propaedeumata Aphoristica. His main accuser is one

Joannes Offhuysius, who claimed Dee stole the basic theory of the aphorisms from his work. De Divina Astrorum facultate.41 Again Dee refutes these charges and defends his reputation:

...and spitefull false devies: yet (most obstinately and impudently) they still auouch to divers lentlemen, and certaine Noble Men, that some other, or (in effect) any Man els, was the Author therof: rather, than they would honestly acknowledge the Truthe, of onely this lentleman his peculiar Industry,and no small skill, vsed in the contriuing and framing of that Booke: [i.e. Propaedeumata Aphoristica1 containing the chief Crop and Roote, of Ten yeres his Outlandish & Homish Studies and exercises Philosophicall...42

Dee's ultimate refutation of these "slanderous charges" can be seen in the substance of this work as a whole. Dee's goal is of course the promotion of a

4 0 ibid, sig., iiij r-v.

41 See ibid, sig. siij r-v. Dee was also accused of having gotten the aphorisms from Mercator. See Heilbron's "Introduction", for a further account of these accusations.

42 ibid, sig., s j v- s ij r. 118

"Brytish Imperial designs", where the "Perpetval Politik

Securitie and better preseruation of this famous Kingdom,

from all Forrein danger...to be the chiefest: and most

needfull Publik Benefit..."43 Dee states the purpose of

publishing this work:

...both for the Honor and Wealth of England, and no little furderance of the Glory of God:...

To which Dee adds:

Seeing, the same, conteineth in it, such Fragments of Instruction, received from the foresaid Philosopher: being, hitherto (almost) a Freendless freend. Why say I, freendless? Seeing, a lentleman, of great Experience in this world, sayd vnto him, in my hearing, within these few dayes: Tu certe Infoelix, at multos inter Amicos. [You are really unluckly, but you are among alot of friends.]

To which Dee's response is:

But, for all that, betwene a cold freend,and a faint harted Enemy, is small diversity.44

Dee concludes his "Advertisement to the Reader" with a

final statement of the importance of this work, which is

of "great Benefit and Commodity P u b l i k " . 45 He also

includes one last flurry of defense stating:

I trust that this my syncere, blunt, and simple Advise, shall be some Occasion,

43 ibid, sig. s iij v.

44 ibid, sig. s ij r-v

45 ibid, sig., e * iij r. 119

that hensforward, this honest lentleman, shal be fully restored to the Integrity of his deserued honest Name and Fame: and, also receyue great Publik Thanks, Comfort & Ayde of the Whole Brytish State.46

One can see that between the two publications, of 1570

and 1577, Dee felt his reputation to be getting worse, as

seen in the more extensive apology in the work of 1577.

(In fact the work as a whole can be considered a defense

of Dee's reputation.) In fact it was in the 1570's that

Dee went through his second great period of navigational work, being especially concerned with the British claims to foreign lands.4? i believe he did this, in part, to show his patriotism, thus softening the attacks being thrown against him, as well as to gain the queen's eye

for his valuable service in her name, and finally, in order to gain financially from any trading ventures that were created as a result of exploration.48

Dee's appeals continued throughout the 1570's and early 1580's. His continued involvement in the English voyages of exploration and expansion are further examples

46 ibid, sig., e iij v.

47 See for example Cotton MS., Augustus, 1,1,i. For Dee's map concerning Elizabeth's rights to foreign territories.

48 An example of possible financial gain by Dee in these ventures can be seen in CSP Domestic Elizabeth 1581-1590. p. 114. Here Dee is granted the rights (along with Adrian Gilbert and John Davis) to settle Novis Orbis (i.e. Canada), and to be exempt from all customs duties for life. 120

of Dee's belief in imperial expansion. By 1580 he was

still involved in the voyages of Pett and Jackman, and that of Davis in 1582— both of which came to n a u g h t . 4 9

In 1582 Dee was also deeply involved in the plans for calendar reform, to which he devoted considerable effort.

Yet this too did not materialize as he would have hoped; the objections by the Anglican Bishops, led by Archbishop

Grindal, were too strong, and anti-catholic sentiment too dominant for the plan to s u c c e e d . 50 This was Dee's last truly scientific work. By 1583 he had become deeply involved in his true love— occult studies— hoping to gain insight and knowledge through the more esoteric modes of investigation. Also in 1583 appeared the fourth edition of Foxe's Actes and Monuments. More than twenty years of attempting to refute the accusations brought against him had failed in a cloud of inglorious disgust. Dee in 1583 sought greener pastures for his studies on the continent-

-where he hoped his talents would be more appreciated.

In September 1583 he set out for Poland in the company of

Prince Albert a Laski, for the court of King S t e p h e n . 5 1

Dee eventually ended up in Bohemia at the court of

4^ See Lansdowne MS. 122 arts., 4 and 5 for Dee's instructions to Pett and Jackman. See also note 48 above.

59 See Additional MS. 32 092 and Lansdowne MS. 109, for this debate among the bishops. Their objections were religious— they did not want to seem too catholic.

51 Dee, Diary, p. 21. 121

Emperor Rudolph II, to whom Dee sought to sell his services. Nothing came of this, and Dee spent the majority of his continental stay at the castle of Trebone under Count Rosenberg of Bohemia, a known occultist. It is now to Dee's continental period I shall turn.

It is interesting to note that while Dee was on the continent he always found himself within the catholic sphere of influence. This, of course, is important since the cause of Dee's problems in part, stemmed from his supposed Catholicism. An interesting incident took place for Dee and his dubious side kick Kelley during the spring of 1586, which shows that in fact both men did foster catholic leanings. While he and Kelley were at the Emperors court in Prague they had dealings with the papal nuncio, a Jesuit confessor. (Because of their dabblings in occult arts they were viewed as suspect by the authorities and the papal representatives). Their catholic leanings were quite apparent; Kelly, in fact, expressed an interest in receiving the sacraments (i.e. the Eucharist) according to the Roman Catholic rite.52

Dee then wrote of his catholic bretheren as being truly

Christian, and speaks of the catholics as having undoubted pre-eminence. He goes on to speak of the

52 See c.H. Josten, "An Unknown Chapter in the Life of John Dee", Journal of the Warberg and Courtauld Institute. 1965, pp. 223-257.

ibid. p. 227. 122

lamentable condition of the Catholic Church, and how he

has tried ways to bring succour to the Christian

Religion, which "was in so mornful a condition". 54

at one point refers to himself and Kelley as being "truly

catholic and quiet, who lead an almost monastic life...to

our most chaste mother Catholic C h u r c h " . 55 Kelley then went on to take the sacrament according to the Roman

Catholic ritual. Dee concludes by stating that "we do not teach or write or indeed believe, or shall ever believe any doctrine contrary or repugnant to the catholic, apostolic, orthodox religion".56

In my opinion. Dee was in fact a crypto-catholic in his religious leanings, or at least ecumenical. His discussion with the papal nuncio (although brought about because of Dee's and Kelley's occult arts) was amiable and not strained.

A decade after this event, while Dee was Warden of

Manchester College, he was involved in a conflict with the fellows of the College. The conflict revolved around

Dee's crypto-catholic beliefs and practices. The awkward position in which Dee found himself was heightened by the

54 ibid, pp. 231-232,

55 ibid, p. 234.

56 ibid, p. 236. 123

strong puritan leanings of the fellows of Manchester.5?

As Bailey commented in his edition of Dee's diary, "he

[Dee] never seems to have been one with the determined

Protestantism of the Fellows of the C o l l e g e " . 58 Dee

himself had little sympathy for the puritan elements of

the College. Dee's main antagonist at Manchester was one

of the Fellows, Oliver Carter, an avowed puritan and an

able writer against Roman C a t h o l i c s . 59 Carter viewed Dee with suspicion, and many quarrels occurred between the two men.GO

By the turn of the century Dee once again wrote an apologetical tract in his own defense. G1 Here, as with his previous tracts, he goes to great lengths to show the validity of his varied and diverse studies; showing how he had "...wonderfully labored, to finde, follow, use, and haunt the true, straight, and most narrow path, leading all true, devout, zealous, faithfull, and constant Christian students...".G2 And how it was God

57 John Dee, Diary, for the vears 1595-1601. of John Dee. Warden of Manchester, edited, John E. Bailey (1880).

58 ibid, p. 42.

59 ibid, p. 21.

GO ibid, pp. 24, 59 give examples of this.

Gi John Dee, A Letter Containing a Most briefe Discourse Apolooeticall...The apology itself is directed to the Archbishop of Canturbury.

G2 ibid, sig. A 2 v. 124 who had "...insinuated into my hart, an insatiable zeale, and desire, to knowe his truth..."; again defending these studies against the "...rash, and malicious devisers, and contrivers of most untrue, foolish, and wicked reports, and fables, of, and concerning my foresaid studious exercises...and learning of true Philosophie...".63 Dee goes on to lament "...the great losses and dammages which in sundry sorts I have sustained...as the rash, lewede, fond, and most untrue fables and reports of me and my studies philosophicall, have d o n e . . . ".64 And how;

"...from my youth hitherto, I have used, and still use, good, lawfull, honest, Christian, and divinely prescribed meanes, to attaine to the knowledge of those truthes...".

An interesting comment is also made by Dee at this point that possibly showed further his catholic leaning: he says of himself, "...and true symetricall fellow member, of the holy and mysticall body, Catholicklie extended and placed...on the earth..."66 Perhaps English Protestant attacks against Dee were not totally unwarranted, and

Dee's own defense along patriotic lines not totally helpful in justifying his position.

Dee's final published protestations attempting to redeem his reputation came towards the end of his life in

63 ibid.

64 ibid, sig. B 3 r.

66 ibid, sig. B 3 v. 125

1604. Two published tracts, to the King and to the House of Commons, show the continued plight of John Dee. In his petition to King James I Dee asks once again "... to be cleared of charges of s l a n d e r " . ^6 Apparently by 1604

Dee was at his wits end attempting to clear himself of charges which had been plaguing himn since 1564. He even goes so far as to beg the king to be tried on these charges (and hoping to vindicate himself). As he states:

... to cause your Highnesse sayd Servant, to be tryed and cleared of that horrible and damnable, and to him, most grievous and dammageable Sclaunder: generally, and for these many yeers last past, in his kingdoms raysed, and continued, by report, and print, against him: Namely, That he is, or hath bin a Coniurer, or Caller, or Invocator of divels: upon which most ungodly, and false report, so boldly constantly, and impudently avouched...

He continues with his call for a trial:

...to be tryed, in the premisses: who offereth himselfe [Dee] willingly, to the punishment of Death:...If by any due, true, and just meanes, the said name of Coniurer, or Caller, or Invocator of Divels, or damned Spirits, can be proved, to have beene, or to be, duely or iustly reported of him, or attributed unto him...

Dee ends the petition with high praise for the King;

"...the most blessed and Triumphant Monarch that ever this Brytish Empire, enioyed".^? Dee's final tract, to

John Dee, To the Kings Most Excellent Maiestie.

ibid. 126

the House of Commons, followed several days later. It

too follows the same format as Dee's other petitions. He

complains of the "fowle slanderous tongues” and "divelish

hate" heaped against him, and how for "Halfe hundred

yeeres, which hath had wrong, by false light tongues...",

he had suffered. He begged the House of Commons: "Your

helpe, therefore, by wisdome lore, and by your power, so

great and sure, I humbly crave, that never more, this

hellish wound, I shall e n d u r e " . ^8 His petitions were

never answered. The last four years of Dee's life found

him poverty striken and forgotten; he died in 1608 never having had the charges against him dropped.

II.

In this section on the negative aspects of Dee's reputation I shall investigate Dee's reputation at Court, attempting to show how Dee was not a significant Court

figure (as Peter French, and Dee himself, have claimed).

In fact I shall try and prove that Dee's pleas for recognition were his attempts to show his importance, and thus defend his reputation. Dee's autobiographical writings are filled with the names of Courtiers, such as

Burghley, Leicester, Walsingham, as well as Elizabeth herself, and Dee would lead us to believe that his role

John Dee, To the Honorable Assemblie of the Commons in the present Parlement. 127

at court was a significant one. In his early career Dee

claimed to have been the tutor of Robert Dudley, and

attached to the household of the Duke of

Northumberland.69 However if we are to look at the

standard work on Leicester we find little reference to

John Dee.70 Peter French in his work on Dee misleadingly

guotes Anthony a Wood to demonstrate Dee's intimacy with

Leicester, and his role as teacher in the realm of

science. Wood does write that no one was more familiar

with Leicester than Dee, but this is in a passage about

Dee's "figuring and conjuring for procuring the said

Earl's designs" and trying to bring about a marriage

between Leicester and the Queen "by black art".71

Rosenberg's study of those "writers and scholars

protected by the Earl of Leicester", in its omission of

John Dee, calls into question French's claim that

Leicester "supported" D e e . 72 when French writes that Dee

"must have encouraged Robert Dudley's special concern with math...and geometry" we find no such evidence in

69 See for example French, Dee, pp. 32-33, where French makes reference to Dee as tutor to the future earl.

70 See Eleanor Rosenberg, Leicester. Patron of Letters.

71 Anthony a Wood, Athenae Oxoniensis. Vol. II, p. 542.

72 Rosenberg, Leicester, p. xviii. 128

Rosenberg or in Beer,?^ although both have sections on

Dudley's education. Dee's Diary shows us that Leicester did occasionally visit him, but the evidence does not show the intimacy suggested by F r e n c h .

It has also been assumed that Dee's circle of intimates extended to include Philip Sydney, and the

Sydney family. Both Peter French and E.G.R. Taylor have argued, from the meager evidence Dee provides in his

Diary, that there was an intimacy between Dee and the

Sydney f a m i l y . upon further investigation we can see that these claims are not totally truthful.

Firstly, a preliminary comment on the use of Dee's

Diarv to demonstrate "intimacy" between Dee and his visitors to Mortlake, is necessary. We have already seen how Leicester's rare and fleeting appearances in the

Diarv were interpreted by such authors as French as evidence of close friendship. As with Leicester the same misleading approach is used in showing Dee's close friendship with Sydney. Dee's Diarv. in fact, shows only two visits by Sydney, and both times in company of other

Barrett Beer, Northumberland; The Political Career of John Dudlev. Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland.

Dee, Diary, pp. 2, 21.

See Dee, Diarv. pp. 2, 20. Also Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 11. 129

men.

French's use of E.G.R. Taylor's works on Tudor

Navigation is also misleading. Taylor does make

reference to Dee as being highly thought of by the

Sydneys, using Dee's Diarv as her source. But her

summary of Dee's influence is merely a list of all the

famous people mentioned by Dee in the Diarv. who have

then been elevated by Taylor, and French, to "part of

[Dee's] intimate domestic circle".??

Reference to Dee's letters to Sydney's mother, notably

those of 1571, is entirely misleading yet again. In this

section of his Autobiographical Tracts. Dee lists any

eminent people who have written to him, as proof of his

importance in court circles.78 Sydney's mother is one of these: "The honourable Lady Sydneys most courteous and many letters unto me, and inviting me to court, etc. A.

1571". Dee with his eagerness to ingratiate himself with

any member of the nobility, records this fact with a certain pompous pride, and for him "many" letters could

easily be two or three. There is, of course, no

suggestion of any letters in any other year save 1571.

Reference to Thomas Moffett's work, Noblis. or a view of the Life and Death of a Sidnev. can also be misleading

78 ibid.

77 Taylor, Tudor Geographv. pp. 76-77.

78 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, pp. 9-11. 130

in analyzing Dee's intimacy with Sydney. Moffett's work provides the sole source of the myth of Dee's teaching

Philip chemistry.79 No doubt Moffett, in his attempts to

show that Philip was learned and keen on science from an early age, would have been only too willing to seize upon a rather well known mathematician, whom Sydney had visited at least once, and retrospectively insert him into Sydney's formative years. To accept the passing reference unhesitatingly, although convenient, is not very sensible. We can see, for example, in Fulke

Greville's "Life of Sidney"^®, any reference at all to

Dee as Sydney's tutor.

In J.M. Osborn's book on Sydney's formative years, which examines very closely Sydney's education and his patrons, there is no reference to Dee as either tutor or intimate friend of Philip.Dee is first mentioned in a letter from Sydney to Languet, in which Sydney makes a satarical pun on Dee and his "Monas Hieroglyphica". The reference pokes fun at Dee's pretensions— "he may perhpas brandish his hieroglyphic monad at you like Jove's lightening bolt-for such is the wrath of heavenly spirits". As Osborn points out, "Undoubtedly Sidney and

79 Moffett, Noblis. p. 75.

Fulke Greville, Sir Fulke Greville "Life of Sir Philip Sidnev etc.

J.M. Osborn, Young Philip Sidnev. 1572-1577. 131

Languet had joked on some previous occasion about Dee's arcane volume".82 This is hardly the reverence one would expect from a Sydney in awe of his great master John Dee!

Osborn later dismisses the assertion that Sydney's visit to Dee in 1577, recorded by Dee in his Diarv^^. was for an astrological consultation, in order to determine an auspicious moment for Sydney's embassy to Germany.84 The evidence available, argues Osborn, suggests that the decision for Sydney to go abroad had not yet been reached.85 Moffett points out Sydney's hatred of astrology "with a certain innate loathing", again showing the tenuous claims of Dee as Sydney's tutor.86

Peter French also writes that Edward Dyer was a close disciple of Dee's, and quotes P.M. Sargent to substain his claim.87 Needless to say, Sargent's book88 contains no mention of Dee's teaching any thing to Dyer. Dee first appears in the 1577 visit recorded in Dee's Diarv. and Sargent depicts a casual friendship based on Dee as

82 ibid, pp. 146-147.

88 Dee, Diarv, p. 2.

84 See French, Dee, p. 126, where his assertation is made.

85 Osborn, Young Philip Sidnev. p. 449.

86 Moffett, Noblis. p. 75.

87 French, Dee, p. 128.

88 R.M. Sargent, At the Court of Queen Elizabeth; The Life and Lvrics of Sir Edward Dyer. 132 an astrologer.89 From Sargent's summary of Dyer's relationship with Dee, a picture emerges of Dyer as a client and acquantance, fascinated by and intensely inquisitive about Dee's mysterious activities. Dyer, visiting Dee along with the various other gentlemen ostentatiously referred to by Dee in his Diarv. would be confronted by Dee, "the seer in his long robes, surronded by the mysterious apparatus cf his studies...jars, skulls, talismen, divining rods, gazing globes...an experience likely to impress even the most sceptical beholder with the importance of Dee's activities". 90

Sargent's narrative of Dyer's contact with Dee shows quite clearly that the motivating factor behind

Elizabeth's and Dyer's interest was their acceptance of

Dee's claim to have transmuted base metals into gold.91

Dee wrote to Dyer in 1588, and Dyer went out to Bohemia, where he was more impressed with Kelley's extravagant claims than Dee's modest converting of pewter and brass into silver. Dee entered sadly in his Diarv. "Mr. Edward

Dier did injure me u n k i n d l y " . 92 A reconciliation occured once Dee had returned to England,93 and the Queen sent

89 ibid, p. 40.

90 ibid, pp. 100-101, 99-106.

91 See Dee, Diarv. p. 22.

92 ibid, pp. 26, 28.

93 ibid, pp. 26, 28. 133

Dee 200 angels, urging him to proceed with his alchemical l a b o r s . 94 Alchemy, a weakness of both the Queen and

Burghley, seemed a potential new source of revenue, and

Dee had probably hinted at his expertise in this realm of

"great secrets".95 The picture was very similar on the

Continent; Dee's usefulness in the area of renumeration was undoubtedly what had given him any reputation he had at the Court of Rudolf II. As a secretary of the Emperor commented, "I am indeed of the opinion that [Rudolf and friends] prefer one philosopher's stone to ten visions of a n g e l s " . 96 once Elizabeth had seen Dee's work to be useless, her attention rapidly shifted to Kelley, who still was on the Continent, leaving the mob to talk darkly of "Maister Dee's...fabulous divinations". 97

Dee's reputation on the Continent was not marvellously high, as Dee would lead us to believe, nor was he regarded as some sort of intellectual savior. Indeed, his attempts to impress Rudolf II with his alchemical

94 See Wood, Athenae Oxoniensis. vol. II. p. 290. "... in 1592, [Elizabeth] sent [Dee] 200 marks and words...that he do what he would in alchemy and philosophy and none should controul or molest him". See Dee, Diarv. p. 37.

95 See Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. pp. 13, 19, 21.

95 c. H. Josten, "An Unknown Chapter in the Life of John Dee", Journal of the Warberg and Courtauld Institute, vol. 28 (1965), p. 229.

9^ Thomas Nash, Christ's Tears Over Jerusalem, p. 90, 134 knowledge came to naught, and finally resulted in his expulsion from bohemia by Imperial decree. Dee's own record of one of his seances shows clearly that he was receiving no financial aid from England, that rumors denying the integrity of his actions were spreading, that

Kelley's "possession" by angels sent by God was a farcical sham in which Dee reached new levels of gullibility and credulity, and, finally, that his reputation at home was not all it should be: a priest, referring to Dee and Kelley's standing in England,

"asserted that there indeed we were accounted very odious men"Dee had been invited abroad orignally by the

Polish Prince Albert a Laski, in 1583. Laski, described by a historian of Rudolf II as "a great patron of alchemists...heavily involved in occult or magical speculation of all kinds",99 had visited Dee at Mortlake to make the proposition to him, and Dee, with characteristic reverential pride records that Laski "cam of purpose to do me honor, for which god be praysed"!^®®

Dee's sojourn on the Continent was in truth a minor episode for all concerned, and if, as Wood writes. Dee was "more admired and reverenced beyond, than within, the

92 Josten, "An Unknown Chapter in the Life of John Dee", JWCI. vol. 28. (1965), pp. 227-230.

99 R. J. w. Evans, Rudolf II and his World: A study in Intellectual History. 1576-1612. p. 220.

^90 Dee, Diarv. p. 20. 135 seas", his complete failure to achieve anything in his alchemical studies soon changed that. In fact, here, as in all other spheres touched by Dee, we begin to pick out the increasingly familiar characteristics of John Dee— the vanity, the embellishment, the self-publicity-what one might describe as "reputation-mongering". Wood, forgetting that he was "extolling the virtues of John Dee in the previous volume, inconsistently lapses into a most perceptive summary of Dee the man; he was "the most ambitious person ever lived, and none more desirous of fame and renown than ne, being never so well pleased as wehen he heard himself stiled most excellent or most l e a r n e d " . 101 it would be well to remember Wood's description, and to bear in mind a more recent observation on Dee's "insufferable vanity that duped both himself and his latter-day admirers into inflating his importance".102

By examining Dee's relation with Elizabeth it is possible to see both the true significance of the garrulous doctor, and the process by which Dee deluded himself, and many historians and writers since. Most of the writings on which Dee's reputation has been based would never have been set down if Dee had been as

101 Wood, Athenes Oxoniensis. vol. II, pp. 288-292.

102 Shumaker and Heilbron, (ed.), John Dee on Astronomy. p. ix. 136 proficient at fooling his contemporaries as he has been successful in conning his 20th century admirers. Dee claimed an intimacy with Elizabeth, where Elizabeth promised him protection aga?nst those who "would by reason of any my [Dee] rare studies and philosophicall exercises unduely seeke my overthrow".In fact, this is a totally inaccurate portrayal of what really happened between Dee and Elizabeth. We have already seen how the

Queen merely used Dee, in the hope that his excursions into alchemy would bring forth gold, and how she discarded him once it became clear how empty were his promises of revealing the great secret of transmutation.

Dee was repeatedly to find out how empty Elizabeth's promises would turn out to be in his relentless quest for rewards and recognition. In his Autobiographical Tracts

Dee talks of his promise of great importance to the

Queen, "the first part whereof, God is my witnes, I have truly, and sincerely performed though it be not yet evident, how truly, or of what incredible value: The second part by God his great mercyes and helpes may in due tyme be performed, if my plat for the meanes be not misused or defaced"The last sentence is a clear hint that if Elizabeth wishes Dee to keep his promise, she had to make sure he was protected. In this case, where money

Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 21.

Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, p. 21. 137 is at stake, she was only too happy to help; in countless other instances, where the Crown had nothing to gain.

Dee's pleas were to fall on deaf ears.

Elizabeth's promises to Dee may have been a figment of

Dee's mind, or they may have been polite, diplomatic brush-offs. It is certain, however that they were never transformed into reality.

There is no need to spend a great deal of time proving the inadequacy of Elizabeth's promises, and there is certainly not enough room to include all, or even half, of Dee's references to his disappointments. Most of his "Autobiographical Tracts" are variations on a theme, that theme being his great sacrifices in the cause of learning, and the great neglect shown to him by his ungrateful country.

Dee's "Compendious Rehearsal" is a grand exercise in martyrdom, revealing Dee's persecution complex, and showing exactly how "Her Majesty's Specially Gracious and

Very Bountifull Favours", operated.Dee's chapter on

Elizabeth's favors towards himself is in fact a record of disappointment after disappointment, culminating in Dee's being still deprived of a living, thus spurring him into writing this very supplication. He may be at pain to demonstrate the great favor shown to him by the Queen;

105 See Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, pp. 11-20, For a selection of examples of promises broken see pp. 12-17, 35, 35, 39, etc. 138 yet if he could be believed, and Elizabeth did smile so benignly on him, he would never have had to write the

"Rehearsal" in the first place. W. Gwyn Thomas, has shown that Dee did obtain a small parish benefice in

Wales before he was granted the Wardenship of Manchester

College in 1596, but she also quite plainly demonstrates that Dee was always at the bottom of the list.

Originally promised five lowly parishes, three were denied him, and one was successfully contested by one

Richard Vaughn, notwithstanding the Queen's promise to the contrary, and Dee's subsequent appeals.^®® In the end. Dee managed to obtain one, but only one, and he was almost excluded from that.^^^ Further evidence of Dee's lack of maintenance can be found in a letter he wrote to

Burghley in 1574, in which he complained of lack of support, despite promises from the Queen and various counsellors, and offers his services as a treasure hunter in a seemingly desperate bid to ingratiate himself with

Elizabeth. His sparse support at Court is attested to by this plaintive lament: "Of which sûtes [that Dee has made] no-one (hiterto) hath taken the wished for success.

106 See Dee, Diary, p. 49.

See W. Gwyn Thomas, "An Episode in the Later Life of John Dee", The Welsh Historical Review, vol. 5 (1971), pp. 250-256. 139

for any of my behofe".108

It is, then, obvious that we are not dealing with a

Court favorite, nor an influencial, intellectually

vibrant character, nor a dominant, forceful personality

who was at the center of Elizabethan intellectual

development and a prominant figure in the higher social

scene. We are dealing with an eccentric, a sociable

curiosity on the fringe of the Court circle, whose skill

in publicising himself and his supposedly unlimited

knowledge has deceived later readers.

This picture of Dee takes us a step closer to the real

figure who cowers somewhere behind his wall of arrogant propaganda. Making a reputation out of knowing, or at

least seeming to know more about the mysterious affairs

of the spiritual world, he attracted courtiers much as the elephant man attracted Victorians. Certainly there was a mind there, and Dee was consulted as a scientist, mathematician, navigator, and astrologer, but also as one of the curiosities of his age. With his collection of books and instruments, his aura of magical wizardry and his off-beat ideas, it is no wonder that some resorted to him as the local cunning-man, who could diagnose

J.O. Halliwell-Phillips (ed.), A Collection of Letters Illustrative of the Progress of Science in England, from the Reign of cmeen Elizabeth to that of Charles I I . pp. 13-16. 140

witchcraft,109 and that others visited him as one of the

colorful eccentrics of the age. Far from being the

vital, influencial Hermeticist, indoctrinating the

members of the so-called "Sidney Circle", and advising

the Queen on matters of state. Dee was a peripheral

oddball and a perennial source of entertainment,

curiosity and, no doubt, amusement.

Perhaps the last words should be left to Dee himself, who wished that he might "be found and undoubtedly acknowledged of the wise and just to have beene a zealous

and faithful student in the Schoole of 'Verity' and an

Ancient Graduate of the Schoole of 'Charity'".110 Sadly, one gets the impression that it was all just wishful thinking.

109 Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 663,

110 Dee, Autobiographical Tracts. p. 83. CHAPTER V

The Reputation of John Dee: A positive appraisal

The positive side of Dee's reputation was formed in large measure by his work as a scientist, and as a teacher of the scientific arts. Here I am especially refering to Dee's work in navigation, calendar reform, and mathematics. It was his work in these areas of science that placed him in a position of high regard by other members of the Elizabethan intellectual community.

The England of the mid-sixteenth century found itself caught in a rapidly shrinking world. Already Spain and

Portugal had been engaged in voyages of epic proportion for more than half a century. Those exploits were of such profound impact that the world was divided between those two nation states. The English, on their isolated island, wanted to get in on the new world markets that were being exploited by others. They too wanted the wealth of Cathay and Cimpangu, as well as the vast resources that the North American continent had to offer.1 With the Willoughby-Chancellor expediton of

^ See Kenneth Andrews, Trade. Plunder and Settlement: Maritime enterprise and the genesis of the British Empire. 1480-1630. It is interesting to note

141 142

1553 the race was begun for the English to gain their

share of the world's wealth.

Dee's work on navigation stands out as Dee's first

purely scientific application of his mathematical studies

for practical ends. His connection with the Dudley

family in the early 1550's provided the first opportunity

for Dee to apply his skills in the navigational arts. It

was under the rule of Northumberland that Dee's services

were first sought for instruction in navigation.% (It

must always be kept in mind that Dee's Continental

training in these arts at Louvain, under the renowned

Frisius and Mercator, made Dee the ideal choice for that undertaking— i.e. teaching the navigational arts to

English seamen.)3 that the English were not overly concerned with whether the voyages of exploration went east or west, either way provided opportunity for the English to capitalize on. For example, when a north east passage was attemted, and failed, the English settled down to a lucrative trade with Russia. When the attempts at a north west passage proved fruitless the English settled for monopolizing the fisheries of the north Atlantic. The wealth of the Orient could wait as long as there were other sources available for exploitation.

3 See Barrettt Beer, Northumberland; The Political career of John Dudlev. Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland. pp. 170, 193-194. And also Heilbron's "Introduction" to Wayne Shumaker's John Dee on Astroloqv. pp. (11, 12, 14-15).

3 See Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, pp. 6-7, 8-9, 21. Also see Taylor, Tudor Geoaraphv. pp.73, 89. French, Dee, pp. 177-83. I.R.F. Calder, Dee, pp. 303- 310, 615-658. 143

The Willoughby-Chancellor venture for a north-east

passage in 1553 is the first occasion we see Dee in this

light, as a consultant, teacher, and advisor for voyages

of exploration.4 Unfortunately for anybody studying

John Dee and his relation with the voyages of exploration

little is actually known of what the exact role of Dee was as teacher, or what he precisely taught to these

seamen. One assumes that his role was to lecture the pilots on the use of new navigational tools— such as the

Mercator projection, as well as his own Paralax Compass which was used to chart a course when sailing in areas of high latitude— in order better to prepare them for their travels. He no doubt was also to give a sense of authority to the ultimate design the voyages had. His talents were sought specifically for instruction in matters of cartography and navigation.5 Chancellor, in

4 Here one sould note that Dee's father, Rowland, was connected with the Mercers Company, and that the Mercers Company in turn was connected to the Muscovy Company. This should shed some light on why Dee was chosen for this work. For Dee's involvement with the Mercers Company see Calder, Dee ; for the connection of the Mercer Company to the Muscovy Company see Douglas Bisson, "The Merchant Adventurers and the Tudor Commonwealth: the formulation of a trade policy, 1485-1565", unpuplished Ph.D. dissertation The Ohio State University, 1987.

^ See for example his letter to Pet and Jackman instructing them in matters of navigating in high latitudes. Even though this is a latter example it still serves to highlight Dee's role as adviser in such voyages. 144

this first of the voyages for a north-east passage, no

doubt also consulted with Dee for his speculation on a

propitious route for such a p a s s a g e . & For Dee such

consultation was largely a matter of guess work, based on

earlier speculations on the position of such a route.

The expedition of 1553 (in which Willoughby died) did

manage to establish trade relations with Russia.

Chancellor died in 1556, soon after commercial

argreements were made between the two countries, drowning

off the coast of Scotland. The immediate financial

success of this enterprise— the opening up of trade with

Russia— suited the Muscovy Company well, and Dee was undoubtedly praised for his efforts. Yet this short term economic gain fell short of Dee's ultimate desire for establishing contact with the far east. Dee's ultimate desire was to unlock the mysteries that the east had to offer.

Chancellor's death in 1556 provided a momentary lapse

in Dee's services to the Muscovy Company. When the

financial success of the trade relation with Russia began to pay off the Muscovy Company again enlisted Dee's services in the continued hope of establishing contact with the east. In 1559-60 Stephen Bourne, another of the seamen trained by Dee, set out with the hope of completing the voyages begun by Willoughby and

® See Taylor, Tudor Geoaraphv. pp. 89-97, 253-254. 145

Chancellor. Bourne got as far as Novaya Zealya and the

Kara Straight where heavy ice and cold forced him to

retreat to warmer havens. It was at that point that the

voyages in search of a north-east passage stopped. By

1560 the Muscovy Company settled down to a lucrative

trade with Russia, and any designs to tap the wealth of

the orient were put on the back burner. Fifteen years were to lapse before Dee's services were again needed for voyages of exploration.? During this absence frcm

consulting with the Muscovy Company Dee was primarily

engaged in his more arcane endeavours, such as his work

in astrology and alchemy. The 1560's were the time when

Dee published his Monas Hieroqlvphica and a second edition of his Propaedeumata Aphoristica. his two most

famous published works dealing with the more mystical arts of Alchemy and Astrology. By the 1570's, however.

Dee's thoughts once again turned to navigation and exploration. This time as a propagandist rather than as a consultant. In 1577 Dee published the first part of his projected four part General and Rare Memorials pertavninq to the perfect Arte of Navigation entitled

"The Petty Navy R o y a l l " . ^ This work in general was a cry

? See Heilbron, "Introduction" pp. 9-10; and Taylor, Tudor Geoqraphv. 89-97.

® Dee, General and Rare Memorials.... The Petty Navy royall was the only part of this work to be published part 3 exists in badly chared MS and the other two parts have long since vanised. 146

to the English Nation to be aware of its greatest

resource— its connection with the sea. The Petty Navy

Royall is Dee's plea for the creation of a navy run and

operated by the crown and financially supported by the

nation as a whole. This Navy would have a dual purpose

of defending the realm and promoting commerce. It would

promote commerce by protecting the English monopoly of

the cod fisheries. An added bonus would be the continued

exploration of the northern seas. Unfortunately this

massive work was never fully published, nor was Dee's

call for a Petty Navy Royall ever implemented by the

crown, although it was favorablly received by the queen.

The second purpose behind the General and Rare Memorials

was the assertion of British claims to foreign lands, as

well as to make antiquarian claims concerning the legends

of the British past. Here especially we see Dee's

attempts to trace the lineage of the Tudor monarchs back

to the legendary King Arthur and to the Trojan, Brutus, whom Dee fancied as the founder of his self proclaimed

British Empire. With this work one sees Dee's polemical

and promotional talents in full swing, as Dee hoped to

proclaim his patriotism and loyalty to the Tudor monarchy

in the hope of advancing his own position.9

Dee's services as a navigator and geographer were

^ For Dee's comments on Arthur and British claims to foreign lands see General and Rare Memorials, and Cotton MS vitellius. C. VII, ff. 201 ff. 147 called for again in the late 1570's, when the search for a northern sea route to the Orient was again undertaken.

This time it was a north-west passage that was sought in the race for the Orient. The voyage was under the joint direction of Martin Frobisher and Christopher Hall.

(Here it is curious to note that Dee apparently had no firm belief whether the north-east or north-west passage was the better route to the Orient, or for that matter whether the Orient could be reached at all by a northern sea route. Dee was simply one of many who speculated that such ventures were posible and would be ultimately profitable— ultimately navigators advised by Dee failed in their attempts to locate any of the passages to the

Orient that he had put such faith in.) In three separate voyages Frobisher managed to penetrate into the

Davis strait and Baffin Bay, but he found no passage to the east, although he did return with ships ladden with an ore which he claimed contained gold and with eskimos he claimed were Asiatics. Dee's advise to Frobisher was similar to the advise he gave to Chancellor— navigational and geographical advise concerning travel in areas of high latitude.10

Frobisher and Hall spoke highly of Dee's service to them and wrote Dee a letter of thanks for his his part in their venture. They addressed their letter:

10 See Taylor, Tudor Geoqraphv. pp. 89 ff. 148

To the worshipful and our approved good friend M. Dee, give these with speed.[They are writing the letter from Scotland enroute on their voyage of 1576] I and M. Hall make our dutiful Commendations to you, with many thanks as we can wish, till we be better furnished with farder matters to satisfy our duties for your frendly Instruction: which when we use we do remember you, and hold ourselves bound to you as poor disciples, not able to be Scholars but in good will for want of learning, and that we will furnish with good will and diligence to the uttermost of our powers. The cause of our stay here was to stop a leake...Your loving frend to use and command, Martin Frobisher. Yours to command, Christopher Hall.^l

Dee's role was that of instructor "in the Rules of

Geometry and Cosmography", as well as "in the better use

of Instruments".12

Michael Lok, the financial backer for the Frobisher-

Hall voyages, also spoke highly of Dee's services to these ventures. As he commented in his account of the preparation for the voyage:

The learned man Mr. John Dee hearing the common report of this new enterprise, and understanding of the preparation for furniture of the ships, being thereby persuaded that it would now proceed, and having not been acquainted with our purpose in any part before,about the 20th day of May, A* 1576 of his own good nature favouring the enterprise in respect of the service and commodity of his natural country, came unto me desiring to know of me the reasons of my foundation and purpose in this enterprise, and offering his furtherance therof, with such instructions and advice as by his learning he could give therin. Whereupon I conceived a great good

11 Taylor, Tudor Geoqraphv. p. 202.

12 Taylor, Tudor Geography, p. 108. 149

opinion of him, and therefore appointed a time of meeting at my house, whereat were present Martin Frobisher, Steven Burrough, Christopher Hall, with others. [Lok then laid out his purpose and his desire to find a north-west route to the orient. Des responded] Upon which matters when he had thus heard and seen, he answered that he was right glad to know of me this much of this matter, and that he was greatly satisfied in his desire above his expectation, and that I was so well grounded in this.... Likewise he shewed me all his books and writings of his own: and also showed me his instruments which I did very well like. And afterwards...he took pains to demonstrate the Rules of Geography and Cosmography for the better instruction of the Masters and Mariners in the use of Instruments for Navigation in their voyages-..whereby he deserves much commendation.

No doubt Lok and Dee were optimistic about these

voyages when Frobisher brought back his account of

finding a navigable straight to the East. Dee certainly

found Frobisher's account convincing, seeing that it was

backed by Dee's own chart.These ventures came to a

rapid close, however, when no great wealth was uncovered

(the ore discovered by Frobisher contained no gold), and

the voyages were terminated in 1579.

The quest for a northern route to the Orient on the

other hand went on as fervently as ever. In 1579 Dee was

already in contact with Adrian Gilbert and John Davis, proposing further plans for a north-west voyage, while at the same time being involved with further plans by the

Cotton MS. Otho E. VIII, f. 27 r-v.

14 See Taylor, Tudor Geoqraphv. p. 119. 150

Muscovy Company for a north-east voyage. The planner behind the north-east voyage was William Borough; he waz commisioned by the Muscovy Company for this voyage.

Borough had appointed Arthur Pet as commander for this venture with Charles Jackman as his second in command.

Dee again acted in the role of adviser and instructor.

Dee laid down his instructions for the best route to the east in a "new chart made by his own hand, expressing ther Cathay voyage more expertly than any other yet published". 15 pet and Jackman, like Frobisher and Hall before them, expressed their thanks to Dee for his service to them.

Dee's instructions and chart for this venture expressed "more exactly than any other yet published" his conception of a north-easterly route to Asia. Dee in his mapping of the north-easterly route never imagined that

Russia extended as far north as it did. As he wrote to

Pet and Jackman:

When you are past Tabin, or come to the longitude of 142, or 143, or 144, or 145 degrees farder easterly, yt is probable, that you shall fynde the land on your right hand running much Southerly and Easterly.1^

Here one can see that Dee made the assumption that the coast slopped sharply to the south allowing for easy warm water sailing. This assumption of Dee's was accepted by

1-5 Cotton MS. Otho E. VIII. f. 79 r.

15 Lansdowne MS. 122, f.30 r-v. 151

other geographers as being correct. As Mercator, the

famous cartographer wrote, "the voyage to the Cathais by the East is doubtless very easy and short, and I have oftentimes marvelledd, that being so happily begun, it hath been left off, and the course changed into the West, after more than half of your voyage was discovered".

From this one can see that Dee was valued for his geographical and navigational knowledge, although much of the actual exploring was simply a matter of guess work and trial and error. In the end the Pet-Jackman voyage, like others before it, did not discover a north-east passage to the Orient, but only the ice of the Artie ocean.

The failure of the Pet-Jackman venture, however, in no way lessened Dee's desire to find a northerly passage to the Orient. That same year, 1580, also saw Dee involved in the Davis-Gilbert venture for yet another north-west passage. Dee's interest in this venture might, however, have been motivated by more than just the desire to discover a northerly passage to the Orient. In the design for the voyage Dee was to obtain a grant for the royalties of all the lands discovered above the 50th degree of latitude— which, if carried out, would have

Taken from Taylor, Tudor Geoaraphv. p. 130. 152 given Dee most of modern C a n a d a . 18 Before the Davis voyage was ended Dee found himself engaged in other more mystical activities on the continent with his slippery side-kick Edward Kelley. He would not return again to his navigational studies. The last 25 years of Dee's life saw his interests shift to the more mystical pursuits of angelic summoning. Apparently Dee had exhausted his desire to find a passage to the east.

Dee's positive reputation was also built upon his work as a mathematician and as a popularizer of the mathematical arts. Commentary by some of the leading mathematicians of the day attest to Dee's importance in the realm of mathematics. Thomas Digges, the son of Leonard Digges, and Dee's ward after the death of his father, commented in his "Preface" to his Alae seu scalae mathematicae that

Dee "was his mathematical father".1^ Dee tutored Digges in geometry and arithmatic, providing the ground work for

Digges's own interest in those studies. Dee was also praised by William Bourne, who refered to Dee as "that famous and learneed man, who hath made mention therof in

18 Calendar of State Papers; Domestic. Elizabeth 1581-1596. p. 114. The entry for June 1583 reads: "Heads of the grant to Adrian Gilbert to discover and settle the Northerly parts of Atlantis, called Novus Orbis. Not inhabited or discovered by any Christian hitherto but by him. The said Adrian Gilbert, John Dee, and John Davis to be exempt from all customs for ever".

1^ Thomas Digges, Alae seu scalae mathematcae. sig. A 2. 153

his Mathematicall Preface, wherein I haue hadde my

principall introductions, as touching that Arte or

Science". Bourne also praised Dee for his work in

o p t i c s . 20 Edward Worsop in his book entitled, A

Discoverie of sundrie erreurs and faults committed by

Landemeaters. accounted Dee "ye Prince of Mathematicians

of this a g e " . 21 Finally, Thomas Hylles in The Arte of

Vulgar Arithmetic, publised as late as 1600, praised

Dee's "Preface" to E u c l i d . 22 Even the great Danish

astronomer, Tycho Brahe, praised Dee's work in mathematics and astronomy. As he stated in a letter to

Sir Thomas Savelle, in 1590:

Saluta quoque meo nomine officiose nobilissimum et excellentissum dominum Johannem Dee, quem in patriam feliciter reversum audivi, ipsique hoc nomine congratuler, omniaque prospéra opto. [Curtious greetings to my noble and excellent friend John Dee, who I have heard has happily returned to his native land. To him I offer congradulations and all s u c c e s s . ] 23

But it also must be noted that, aside from these positive affirmations of Dee's importance as a

Mathematician, scarcely another word is said by anyone of

20 William Bourne, Treasure for Traveilers, sig. Aaaa.ii. r. Taylor, Tudor Geography, p. 254.

21 Edward Worsop, A Discoverie of sundrie errours and faults committed bv Landemeaters. sig. G 3.

22 Thomas Hylles, The Arte of Vulgar Arithmetic, sig. B 4 V.

23 Harlian MS. 6995, f. 40. 154 any importance within the world of s c i e n c e . 24 Much of the praise that we read of Dee's role as a mathematician, in fact, comes from Dee's own pen. Dee was an expert at self aggrandizement, although this should not belittle the role that Dee did play within the Elizabethan intellectual world. The positive role Dee did play was as a popularizer of mathematics, rather than an innovative instructor on the cutting edge of the new sciences.25

Dee's role as a popularizer of mathematics is seen principally in his editing of Robert Recorde's Ground of

Artes. and especially in his own Preface for the

24 It is interesting to note how Dee was not included in van Roomen's book on Mathematicians. See A. van Roomen, Ideae Mathematicae pars prima. (Antwerp, 1593), quoted by P. Gilbert, " Les sciences exactes dans l'ancienne Université de Louvain", Revue des questions scientifiques. 16 (1884) pp. 438-453.

25 j.L. Heilbron has pointed out that Dee's contributions [to science] "were promotional and pedagogical: he advertised the uses and beauties of mathematics, collected books and manuscripts, and assisted in saving and circulating ancient texts; he attempted to interest and instruct artisans, mechanics, and navigators, and strove to ease the beginner's entry into arithmetic and geometry. It is in this last role, as [teacher], that Dee displayed his competence, and made his occasional small contributions...to the study of mathematics". From J.L. Heilbron's "Introduction" in Wayne Shumaker (ed.), John Dee on Astronomy, p. 17. Dee certainly did not posses the "profundity" as a mathematician that Peter French suggests. See French, John Dee, p. 168. 155

Billingsly edition of Euclide's Geometry."^ Recorde's

work, the first mathematical work done in English, was

aimed primarily at educating those people not versed in

Latin— especially seamen and mechanics. (Again one can

see Dee's mathematical connection with navigation coming

into play.) Undoubtedly Recorde wished to remove the

veil of mystery that surrounded the mathematical arts.

Dee, in a somewhat ostentatious tone, stated, in the

introduction to the Ground of Artes. that "such work is

good for the simpler ignorant sort (which needeth the

most help) it may be a good furtherance and means to

knowledge".27 Again one can clearly see that Dee's role

in the editing of Recorde's work was a promotional one,

attempting to make mathematics available to a wider

audience, and thus Dee can be viewed more as a

popularizer than an actual initiator. Dee produced

another edition of Recorde's Ground of Artes in 1582. In

this edition, done after the publication of his preface

to Euclide. Dee included some verses addressed to "the

earnest Arithmeticians". In these verses Dee expressed

his conception of the relationship between geometry and

arithmetic:

2® Robert Recorde, Ground of Arte, the 1561 and 1582 editions were edited by Dee. And Dee, "Mathematicall Praeface", (1570).

27 Recorde, Ground of Arte. 1561 edition, sig. v. Also see French, John Dee, p. 164. 156

My loving friend to Science bent, Something thou hast by this booke woone But if thou wilt be excellent. Another race thou must yet runne....

The famous Greeke of Platoes lore, Euclide I meane Geometer; So true, so plaine, so fraught with store, (as in our speach) is yet no where.

A treasure straunge, that booke wil prove. With numbers skil, matcht in due sort. This I thee warn of sincere love. And to proceede do thee exhort.^8

Dee's other great work for the popularization of mathematics was his Praeface to Billingsly's 1570 edition of Euclids Geometry. Once again Dee stated that such work was necessary in order to educate those unfamiliar with the mathematical arts. As he stated, "...that, which I know to be most commendable: and (in the first bringyng into common handling, the Artes Mathematicall) to be most necessary: is full of great difficulty and sundrey daungers".^^ Again, as with his edition of

Recorde's work, the reader can see Dee's role as a popularizer for the mathematical arts. Upon further reflection of this statement one is puzzled at what Dee meant by the statement, "full of great difficulty and sundry daunger". It is easy enough to understand the difficulty a student might have when confronted by mathematics, especially when one considers the type of

John Dee and John Mellis (eds.). Grounds of Arte, by Robert Recorde, sig Yy. vi v.

29 Dee, Praeface. sig. iiij r. 157

general, uneducated, audience Dee was addressing. Even a

university student, educated primarily for service to the

state or the church, might not be too comfortable with

the mathematical arts.30 But one is immediately struck

by the phrase "sundry daungers". Most likely Dee was

refering to the common suspicion with which such arts

were viewed. We have already seen how it was because of

Dee's dabbling in strange arts that got him into trouble

in Queen Mary's reign. Of course in Dee's own mind any

real distinction between the mathematical arts per se and

more mystical studies was minimal. In fact within Dee's

great blueprint of nature mathematics was only a tool

used for the unlocking of more erudite mysteries. Dee

divided nature into three principle parts, the

supernatural, the natural, and things mathematical, as

the part connecting the other two. As he stated in his

Praeface;

All thinges which are, & haue beyng, are found vnder a triple diuersitie generall. For, either, they are deemed Supernaturall, Naturall, or, of a third beyng... Thinges Supernaturall, are, of the minde onely, comprehended:... But in thinges Supernaturall, chief demonstration, & most sure Science is to be had...[here one can easily see Dee's conception of true science]...those thinges, which, we before termed of a third beyng: which, by a peculiar name also, are called Thynges Mathematicall. [Here it is interesting to note that Dee is

3 0 See Morti Feingold, The Mathematicians' Apprenticeship: Science. Universities, and Societv in England 1560-1640. 158

making a clear distinction between what he terms "Science" and what he terms "Mathematical".] For, these, beyng... middle, betwene thinges supernaturall and naturall are not so absolute and excellent, as thinges supernaturall: Nor yet so base and grosse, as thinges naturall...A meruaylous newtrality haue these thinges Mathematical. And also a Straunge participation betwene thinges supernaturall...and thinges Naturall.

His true estimation of those arts are seen when he

commented that it was in the supernatural that most sure

science is to be found.Mathematics for Dee was a

tool, to "behold in the Glas of Creation, the Forme of

Formes, the Exemplar Number of all thinges Numerable:

both visable and invisable: mortall and immortall,

corporall and spiritual".33 He goes on with his

summation of the mathematical arts:

But, in any case, I would wish that those Conclusions were red diligently, and perceiued of such, as are earnest Observers and Considerers of the constant law of numbers: which is planted in thynges Naturall and Supernaturall: and is, prescribed to all Creatures, inviolably to be kept. For, so, besides many other thinges, in those Conclusions to be marked, it would apeare, how sincerely, & within my boundes, I disclose the wonderful1 mysteries, by numbers, to be atteyned.34

Dee continues expounding on the mathematical arts, and

3 3- ibid, sig. i. v.

32 See for example sig. iiij. v.

33 ibid, sig. *j. r-v. See also Clulee, "The Glas of Creation...", unpublished Ph.D. thesis (1973).

34 ibid, sig. *j v. 159

as he continues one gets a clearer picture of Dee's

perception of these arts. As he states of "the perfect

Science of Arithmetic: That of all Sciences, next to

Theologie, it is the most divine, most pure, most ample

and generall, most profounde, most subtile, most

commodious and most necessary". 35 one can easily see

that Dee's perception of mathematics is far broader than

modern perceptions. Dee makes this point again when he

states:

That Geometrie is learned, for the knowyng of that, which is ever: and not of that, which, in tyme, both is bred and is brought to an ende.&c. Geometrie is the knowledge of that which is everlastyng. It will lift up therfore (O Gentle Syr) our mynde to the veritie: and by that meanes, it will prepare the Thought, to the Philosophical love of wisdome: that we may turne or convert, toward heavenly thinges (both mynde and thought) which now, otherwise then becommeth us, we cast down on base or inferior thinges. &c.36

One can easily see from these excerpts that Dee sought to use mathematics for more than just navigational or mechanical reform. He was, in fact, presenting a manifesto of his mystical conception of nature which was unlocked and understood by means of the mathematical

arts. Only on the most rudimentary level were mathematics perceptible to the common sort. To truly perceive the magnitude of the mathematical arts one

35 ibid, sig. a.j. v.

35 ibid, sig. a.ij. v. 160

needed to be listed among the ranks of the adept.

Dee's last important work as a scientist came in 1582

with his work on calendar reform. Dee received a

commission from Elizabeth, in 1582, to draw up a scheme

for the reformation of the Julian calendar. Dee

apparently saw this as his great opportunity to utilize

his talents for the great service of his country—

similar, in Dee's mind, to the service he rendered to the

Muscovy Company; to the mathematical community with his

preface to Euclid; and to the nation as a whole with his

monumental study of Elizabeth's right's to foreign lands.

He was optimistically confident in the outcome of this

work, and produced, in 1582, a tract on the reformation

of the Julian calendar.3? The reform of the Julian

calendar was scientifically desireable, and an issue of

which no scientist was in doubt. The great stummbling

block was the fact that it was the Roman Catholic Church

which had initiated the reform under Pope Gregory XIII in

1581. The reform so imposed was thus religiously suspect

by the protestant countries of Europe. Calendar reform

was needed since the Julian calendar had fixed the year

at 365 1/4 days, which was 11 minutes 8 seconds too long.

3^ This text, entitled. An Advise and Discourse for her maiestie about the Reformation of the Vulgar Julian Yere. bv her Maiestie and the Right honorable Council.... has been lost, but Dee's comments can be found in Ashmole MS. 1789 ff. 1-35, and Corpus Christi MS. 254 f. 147. 161

and had considered the lunar and solar cycles as

coinciding every 19 years, which was in error by 1 hour,

28 minutes, 11 seconds. The need for reform had long

been recognized— seeing that moveable feast days were no

longer falling in the seasons they were supposed to. For

example Easter, which is reckoned to occur sometime in

late March or early April, was occuring further and

further towards the summer. The Roman Church had

recalculated the calendar based on the planetary positions seen at the time of the Council of Nicaea, in

325, this accounted for the elimination of 10 days to bring the calendar in line with actual planetary position. Dee, on the other hand, based his calculations on the planetary positions seen at the birth of Christ— his calculations required the elimination of 11 days from the Julian calendar. He observed "that Christ was conceived at the Suns entrance into Aries, and was borne on the shortest day of the year when the sun enters

Capricorn"; he continues his explanation for his calculations by stating that "I have not attempted this as a new fangle, and lover of novilties (that which I have always hated) but as a furtherer of the trueth, which I have always loved".The work is largely an expression of Dee's astronomical calculations, and his

Ashmole MS. 1789, f. 10 r. 162

work initially received a favorable response. The

commission set up to consider Dee's work (Thomas Digges,

Henry Saville, and John Chancellor) reported favorablly

on Dee's proposed calculations; however the plan was

ultimately rejected by the Bishops on religious grounds—

they declared it might breed a new schism, and offend the

the reformed churches abroad which had not yet accepted

the Gregorian calendar.39

By 1583 Dee's thoughts turned from the seemingly more

practical endeavours in mathematics to the more

mysterious occult studies of alchemy and angelic

summoning. Apparently Dee's work in navigation and mathematics did not bring him the reward or notoriety he

felt that he deserved. In September 1583 he and Edward

Kelley, along with their families, departed from England

for a six year tour of Poland and Bohemia. While in

eastern Europe Dee spent most of his time in Prague, a

39 See Corpus Christi MS. 254, ff. 182-188 and Landsdowne MS. 39, ff. 28-29, for the favorable reception given to Dee's plans. See Additional MS. 32092, f. 33, for the Bishops response. Also see Dee, Diary, p. 18. Here Dee, in his entry for Dec. 15th, states: "the 15th day being cownted the 25, 50, 10 dayes are imagined spent, which have crept in betwene the day of Crist his birth regarding the place of the sonne, and the sonnes place not the 25th day of this month, whiche is civile aequation, but mathematically and religiously to be substantiated to be for the true term of the periods of annuall revolutions of the sonne sinse the day of Christ his birth". See Calder, John Dee, pp. 725-733. 163 city noted for its alchemists and astrologers. 40 it was there in Prague that Dee believed his talents as a

Renaissance magus41 would be of the greatest value, both for himself and whoever patronized his work. It was in that light that he courted the patronage of Rudolf II.

As we have seen. Dee did not acquire the fame cr monetary rewards he felt his unique talents entitled him to. Upon his return to England in December 1589 he grovelled for the next six years at court pleading his case, assuring skeptical courtiers of the merits of his talents and studies. In the end he did manage to secure the position as Warden of Manchester College. Dee lived at Manchester for the next nine years of his life, 1595 to 1604. These years were marked by frustration for Dee and hostility from the fellows of the College. With the accession of the new king in 1603 Dee's fortunes t'.'ck a turn for the worse— he lost his benefice at Manchester, and was suspected by the new monarch of dabbling in demonic arts.42 Dee died four years later, in 1608, a forgotten, impoverished, and beaten man. His unique

40 See Evans, Rudolf II. for a fasinating account of an Emperor who put much credence in the occult sciences.

41 See French, Dee, here French proposes the thesis that Dee functioned as a magus, or wise man, and all the studies Dee engaged in were for the sole purpose of enlightenment and union with the divine.

42 See above p. 115, where Dee pleads his case to the King and House of Commons. 164 studies, never in the mainstream of scientific thought, perished with him.

The final chapter will investigate the posthumous reputation of John Dee, following his reputation through the seventeenth century— again weighing both the positive and negative aspects of that reputation. CHAPTER VI

The Posthumous Reputation of John Dee

John Aubrey wrote in his Brief Lives that John Dee was

said to have frightened the children of Mortlake because

"he was accounted a Conjurer". Yet in the same work

Aubrey wrote of Dee: "...a mighty good man was he".^

One can see that Dee's posthumous reputation was as

varied as the reputation he gained during his own

lifetime.

Dee's posthumous reputation had its origins with

scholars citing Dee's "Preface" to Billingsley's Euclide.

In 1648 John Wilkins wrote, in his work entitled

Mathematical Maqick; or. the wonders that mav be

performed by mechanical geometry:

It is related by our Country-man I. Dee, that he and Cardan being both together in their travels, they did see an instrument which was at first sold for 20 talents of g o l d . . .2

This excerpt also notes in the margin that Dee was the

author of the Preface to Euclid. Dee, although only

mentioned this one time, fits in nicely with Wilkins

^ Aubrey, Brief Lives, pp. 89-90.

2 John Wilkins, Mathematicall Maqick; or. the wonders that mav be performed by mechanical geometry, p.112. It is not clear what this instrument was.

165 166 grand design of mathematics. As Wilkins wrote in his

Preface to the Reader:

This whole Disconrse [sic] I call Mathematicall Maqick because the art of such Mechanicall inventions as are here chiefly insisted upon, hath been formerly styled; and in allusion to vulgar opinion, which doth commonly attribute all such strange operations unto the powers of Magick.^

One can easily see that Wilkins was making the same complaints that Dee had made seventy years earlier: that vulgar opinion was not very receptive to the varied uses mathematics had.

Two publications done six years after Wilkins also mention Dee in reference to his work on Euclid. John

Webster refers to Dee several times in his work,

Academiarum Examen. For example when Webster writes of the mathematical sciences he cites Dee's "Preface":

...I say of Geometry, Astronomy, Opticks, Geography, and all those other contained under them, as they are reconed up by that myrror of manifold learning Dr. John Dee in his Preface before Euclid? it were but to hold a candle to give the Sun light, to deny that they are practical.

He goes on several pages later referring to Dee "as that expert and learned man", again citing Dee's work on

E u c l i d . 4 Webster speaks highly of Dee because Webster himself placed such importance on the mathematical sciences. As he wrote in the chapter on the Mathematical

^ ibid, sig. A 5 r-v.

^ John Webster, Academiarum Examen, pp. 20, 52 167

Sciences:

For the Mathematical sciences,- the superlative excellency of which transcends the most of all other Sciences, in their perspicuity, veritude and certitude, and also in their uses and manifold benefits; yet in the general they are but either slightly and superficially handled in definitions, divisions, axiomes, and argumentations, without any solid practice, or true demonstrations, either artificial or mechanical: or else the most abstruse, beneficial, and noble parts we altogether passed by, and neglected, we shall discover in the tracing done over some of the several parts thereof.5

Again one can easily see how Dee's work on Euclid supports such a perception of mathematics.

In 1654 Dee was mentioned in Seth Ward's work entitled, Vindiciae Academiarum. This work was, in fact, an attack on Webster's Academiarum Examen. In spite of the conflict existing between these two authors, both mention Dee's work on Euclid. Webster, however, makes only a passing reference to Dee's Preface.^

Dee's more occult studies were commented on by Elias

Ashmole in his Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum. published in 1652. In this work Ashmole places great credence and faith in hermetic learning. As he wrote:

The subject of this ensuing work, is a Philosophicall account of the Eminent Secret treasur'd up in the bosom of Nature; which has been sought of many, but found by a few, notwithstanding Experienc'd Antiguity hath afforded faithful (though not frequent)

^ ibid, pp. 40-41.

® Seth Ward, Vindiciae Academiarum. pp. 25, 28, 42. 168

Discoveries...?

This work is an arcane study of occult studies from alchemy and astrology to hermetics in general. Ashmole devoted four pages in the appendix to John Dee. For

Ashmole Dee is representative of the more occult branches of learning, branches in which Ashmole had great faith. ®

Once again the twofold nature of Dee's studies in mathematics is blatantly apparent: mathematics as practical science and mathematics as the key to unlocking occult powers.

The first full length study of John Dee came in 1659 with Meric Casaubon's edition of Dee's Spiritual Diaries, entitled A True and Faithful Relation of what passed for manv veers Between Dr. John Dee...and some Spirits.9

This work was to set the tempo and temper for the public opinion and appraisal of Dee.

Casaubon's reflections on Dee were to become the standard evaluation of Dee's life until the 20th century.

By using the Spiritual Diaries as a focal point for an

^ Elias Ashmole, Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum. sig. A 2 r.

® ibid, see pp. 480-483 for commentary on Dee.

^ Meric Casaubon (ed.) John Dee, A True and Faithful Relation of what passed for manv veers between Dr. John Dee...and some Spirits. It should be noted here that this work was publisged amidst the political and religious tension of the final days of the Cromwellian Protectorate— a time witnessing the decay of the rule of the saints. 169 assessment of Dee, Casaubon concluded that Dee was an accomplished scientist who was led astray by his own vain desires for fame and glory. Casaubon points out:

...that for divers years he [Dee] had been an earnest suter unto God in prayer for Wisdom; that is, as he interprets himself, that he might understand the secrets of nature that had not been revealed unto men hitherto...

Any credibility Dee had, prior to Casaubon's work, was brushed aside as Casaubon's work set the pace and direction for an assessment of Dee's life and works. At this point, an analysis of Casaubon's Preface will prove useful in outlining the nature and direction of the posthumous criticism mounted against Dee.

Casaubon saw Dee's quest for the discovery and application of unrevealed secrets as the key to an assessment of Dee. Any search for such knowledge was, in

Casaubon's opinion, an attempt at self-aggrandizement.

Dee's earnest prayers and desires to glorify God were actually undertaken for his own selfish ends. His own deceitful heart, suggests Casaubon, made him believe he was glorifying God, but the certain aim was that he himself might become a glorious man in this world.

Casaubon's Preface has two central aims: the first is to declare that the existence of devils and spirits is a

ibid, sig. D iv r.

ibid. 170

simple truism— as true as the existence of God and

angels. As he states; "...I cannot satisfie my self how any Learned man, sober and rational, can entertain such an opinion...that there be no Divels nor Spirits

&c...".12 Thus Dee's fantastic, even preposterous, dealings with spirits is never at issue. Tt is simply accepted that these proceedings took place as Dee reported they did. What is at issue is whether the spirits with whom Dee dealt were devils and evil spirits, or the angels of God, as Dee reported them to be. It was

Casaubon's second aim to show that Dee, in his vainglorious attempts at unleashing new realms of wisdom and inquiry, had dealt with evil spirits and so had fallen into a perilous position— a position which placed his own immortal soul at the brink of damnation.

Casaubon's Preface, and subsequent editions of Dee's

Spiritual Diaries, offer therefore a case study of one man's delusion and ruin, a case study furnishing a moral lesson to others to avoid such dangerous arts. The purpose is to show how Dee, a devout Christian and accomplished scientist, was led astray by his own vanity, into a quest for wisdom and power through a direct contact with the supernatural world. In other words, Dee strove for "more than ordinary wisdom"he desperately

ibid, sig. Civ.

ibid, sig. A v. 171

sought to go beyond the terrestrial and mundane to seek

out knowledge in the celestial and supernatural realms.

With such goals, he was compelled to set aside human

invention and to enlist the aid of evil spirits in his

search for wisdom, power, and ultimately glory. With

this picture in mind it is easy to see why Aubrey wrote

that Ben Johnson modeled his Doctor Faustus after John

Dee.14

Casaubon goes on to point out where Dee is in error,

and thus unfolds the central theme of the Preface. As

Casaubon writes, "...his [Dee's] only (but great and

dreadful) error being that he mistook false lying Spirits

for Angels of Light, the Divel of Hell...for the God of

Heaven...".15 At this point in the Perface Casaubon displays a hint of pity for Dee, who he was confident

"did not know or think himself to be a Conjurer, but a

zealous worshipper of God and a very free and sincere

Christian".1® Dee at this point is called a man of humility, piety, and patience. To these qualities

Casaubon adds, "0 what pity that such a man should fall

into such dilusion".17 This delusion, as Casaubon sees

14 See Aubrey, Brief Lives, p. 90.

15 ibid, sig. D v.

15 ibid, sig. D r.

1^ ibid, sig. D iii v. 172 it, was the result of Dee's credulous belief in his skyer, or medium, Edward Kelley. It is in Kelley that the corruption of Dee is seen. Kelley himself "was agreat conjurer, one that daily conversed by such art as used by ordinary magicians, with evil Spirits, and knew them to be so". Casaubon goes on;

...although tis very probably that Dr. Dee himself dealt simply and sincerely; yet since he himself saw nothing...but by Kelly's eyes, and hear nothing but with his [Kelley's] ears. It is not posible that Kelly being a cunning man and well practiced in these things might impose upon the credulity of Dr. Dee....

He goes on further,

... it doth clearly appear throughout all the book that Kelly...has generally no other opinion of these apparitions but that they were meer illusions of the Divel and evil spirits such as he himself could command by his art.19

This passage exemplifies Casaubon's opinion of both Dee and Kelley and sets the tone for an appraisal of both men for the next three hundred years: Dee as a credulous megalomaniac; Kelley as manipulative and evil.

In Casaubon's final assessment he makes clear the utter futility of Dee's more mystical and occult pursuits. He states:

...I profess to believe that it is so little that can be known by man in the subject [ie. the occult], and subject to so much illusion, as that I think no study is more vain and

1® ibid, sig. D iii r.

19 ibid, sig. D iii v. 173

foolish.... 20

He goes on to give a final blast against Dee and all men

who would follow a similar path to knowledge:

In the last place all men may take warning by the example, how they put themselves out of the protection of Almighty God, either by presumptous unlawful wishes and desires, or by seeking not unto Divels only...but unto them that have next relation unto Divels, as witches, wizzards, conjurers...and all books of that subject, which were a great occasion of Dr. Dee's delusion...

The final point is made:

...wretched people that will not, dare not, trust God, who as He is the onely fountain of goodness, so onely knows what is good for every man.21

With Casaubon's Preface and subsequent edition of

Dee's Spiritual Diaries in print, the assessment of Dee and the mood for Dee scholarship was set. The advent of modern physical sciences, juxtaposed with the decay of magic and the occult sciences, left Dee behind as a representative of the older modes of thought. The older modes of thought were not able to weather the onslaught from such scientific empiricists as Galileo and Newton, whose scientific method of enquiry superseded Dee's occult quest for final causes and inner essences. An age in which the occult was the highest form of science (i.e. search for truth) gave way to one in which science and

20 ibid, sig. F I v.

21 ibid, sig. I v. 174

magic were separated and magic opposed in many instances.

Dee was not, however, without his supportors. John

Webster, for example, in his work The Displaying of

Supposed Witchcraft set out to refute Casaubon's

appraisal of the supernatural.2% As he commented on John

Dee:

Another of our Country-men Dr. John Dee, the greatest and ablest Philosoper, Mathematician, and Chymist that his Age (or it may be ever since) produced, could not evade the censure of the Monster-headed multitude, but even in his lifetime was accounted a Conjurer, of which he most sadly (and not without cause) complauneth in his most Learned Preface to Euclid. Englished by Mr. Billingsley, and there strongly apologized for himself, with that zeal and fervency, that may satisfie any rational Christian, that he was no such wicked person, as to have visible and familiar converse (if any such thing can be now adays) with the Devil, the known Enemy of Mankind...

Webster went on to criticize Casaubon's "unjust censure" of Dee; as he states:

For Dr. Casaubon near fifty years after Dr. Dees death, hath in the year 1659. published a large Book in Folio of Dees conversing for many years with Spirits (wicked ones he meaneth). But how Christian-like this was done, to wound the mans reputation so many years after his death, and with that horrid and wicked slander of having familiarity with Devils for many years in his lifetime, which tends to the loss both of body and soul, and to register him amongst the damned, how Christian-like this is, I leave all Christians to judge.23

22 John Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft.

23 ibid, pp. 8, 12. 175

Dee's Spiritual Diaries were also commented on by

Robert Hooke. Hooke's appraisal is not quite as harsh as

Casaubon's, and he states, like Webster, that Dee:

...had used good, lawful, honest, Christian, and Divinely prescribed Means, to attain the Knowledge of those Matters which were meet and necessary for him to know, and wherewith to do his Divine Majesty such Service, as he had, did or should call him unto during his Life, for advancing his Honour and Glory, and for the Benefit and Commodity Publick of this Kingdom, so much as by the Will and Purpose of God should lie in his Skill and Ability to perform, and of his Profession of being a Christian.24

Hooke goes on in his commentary on Dee stating that "he

seemingly to be an extrodinary Man, both for Learning,

Ingenuity and Industry". Dee stated further that he:

...had a desire to pursue the Book [Spiritual Diaries] with a little more Attention than I had formerly Thoughts of; to see if by the contents thereof it might have contained any of those Subjects, which he,...had afferted himself to have written concerning. Nor was I frightened from this my purpose, either by the six pretended Conjurers prefixt to the title, Mahomet, Apollonius, Tyaneus, Kelly, Friar Bacon, Paracelsus, and Dr. Dee himself; nor by the title, viz. A True and full Relation of what passed for manv years between Dr. Dee fa Mathematician of great Fame)...and some Spirits.... Since I conceive both these to have been the Ingenuity of the Publisher, to make the Book sell better: No, nor thirdly by the long and frightening Preface of the Publisher, Dr. Meric Casaubon, who certainly did believe him the said Dee, to be a Conjurer or Witch, and to have dealt with the Devil all along.... 25

24 Robert Hooke, Posthumous Works, (ed. Richard Westfall), p. 203.

2^ ibid. 176

Hooke goes on at this point to extract what he sees as

the true meaning and significance of the Spiritual

Diaries. As Hooke explains:

To come to the Book itself. Upon turning it over, and comparing several Particulars in it one with another, and with other writings of the said Dr. Dee, and considering also the History of the Life, Actions and Estate of the said Author, so far as I can be informed, I do conceive that the greatest part of the said Book, especially all that which relates to the Spirits and Apparations, together with their Names, Speeches, Shews, Noises, Clothing, Actions, and the Prayers and Doxologies, &c. are all Cryptography, and that some parts also of that which seems to be a Journal of his Voyages and Travels into several Parts of Germany, are also Cryptographical; that is, that under those feigned Stories, which he there seems to relate as Matters of fact, he hath concealed Relations of quite another thing;...that he might the more securely escape discovery, if he should fall under suspicion as to the true Designs of his Travels,... if would be more gentle for a pretended Enthusiast, than for a real Spy.^G

Hooke is the only author commenting on Dee, in the seventeenth century, to suggest this interpretation of the Spiritual Diaries,2? that is, to suggest that they were in fact secret codes. Because of the arcane nature of the Spiritual Diaries we have no definitive way of assessing if in fact this is true. We can, however, because of the intellectual temperament of Dee and the

2® ibid, p. 206.

2^ Richard Deacon in his work on Dee uses this as his thesis— i.e. that Dee was a secret agent for Queen Elizabeth. See Deacon, John Dee: Scientist. Geographer. Astrologer and Secret Acrent to Elizabeth I . 177

hermetic nature of his studies in general, be relatively

sure that Hooke was mistaken in his interpretation of the

Spiritual Diaries as secret coded messages to the Queen.

Hooke, although critical of Casaubon, does not come any

closer to unlocking the true nature of Dee's studies.

The multifaceted nature of Dee's work was also seen by

other astrologers in the seventeenth century. William

Lilly, the famed astrologer, for example commented that

Dee;

...was a very great investigator of the more secret Hermetical learning, a perfect astronomer, a curious astrologer, a serious geometrician; to speack truth, he was excellent in all kinds of l e a r n i n g . ^8

Lilly here appears to present Dee in a very positive

light, yet several lines later he writes:

With all this, he [Dee] was the most ambitious person living, and the most desirous of fame and renown, and was never so well pleased as when he heard himself stiled Most Excellent.

Lilly also went on to comment on the Spiritual Diaries.

As he wrote:

I have read over his [Dee's] book of Conference with Spirits, and thereby perceive many weaknesses in the manage of that way of Mosaical learning: but I conceive, the reason why he had not more plain resolutions, and more to the purpose, was, because Kelly was very vicious, unto whom the angels were not obedient, or willingly did declare the questions propounded; but I could give other

William Lilly, History of his Life and Times. p. 224.

ibid. 178

reasons; but those are not for paper.30

It is obvious that Lilly did, in fact, believe Dee and

Kelley had contact with Spirits. But he saw these angels as being uncooperative, due primarily, it would seem, to

Kelley's mistaken ways of dealing with them. Dee, then, was deceived by Kelley.

The seventeenth century thus interpreted John Dee, the man and his works, in various ways— as legitimate hermetical philosopher and mathematician, as deluded megalomaniac deceived by the very spirits he saw as the key to unlocking ancient wisdom, and as a legitimate astrologer and occultist whose proceedure in these studies was mistaken. In the end, however, it was

Casaubon's appraisal that held out, and Dee was to be labelled a deluded scientist and evil conjurer.

The first full length biography of John Dee, written by Thomas Smith in 1707, follows the analysis set down by

Casaubon and equates Dee as an eminent mathematician who had been deluded by others (i.e. Kelley) and through his own vain quest for an immoderate desire for w i s d o m . 3 1

In actuality there was little, if any, distinct separation between Dee's mathematics and his more occult

3° ibid, p. 227.

31 See Thomas Smith, Vita Joannis Dee, in his larger work. Vitae guoundam eruditissimorum et illustrium visotum. The note used here are taken from William Ayton's translation of Smith's work, entitled. The Life of John Dee. 179 activities in terms of methodology. These realms of thought, which at present are held as separate and distinct studies, were understood by Dee to be the same avenue in the search for a universal wisdom. The fact that mathematics and the occult were often inseparable, in the sense that both were seen as strange and frightfully wonderous endeavors by the mass of the non­ adept, led to both a fear of these studies and of the men that practiced them. Such studies were equated with sorcery, magic, and the use of supernatural powers.

Smith pinpointed 1547 as the year when Dee first appeared as a sorcerer or magician. In that year Dee created a flying mechanism for a Trinity College (Cantab.) production of the play Pax.

It was here that Dee's skill as a clever mechanic caused him to be an adept in the magical arts. As Smith points out: "So that from youth, whether rightly or wrongly, he

(Dee) drew upon himself the evil report of sorcery and magic".32 From this date, 1547, onwards the suspicion of

Dee as a sorcerer and magician, who utilized unlawful arts in his craft, was to be a constant and always visible theme in any view of Dee, both by contemporaries and later biographers.

Yet the view Smith holds of Dee, as a deluded scientist and magician, goes beyond the mere mechanical

32 ibid, p. 5. 180

feat of 1547, which only acts as the first outward sign

of a deeper belief in magic. As Smith sees it. Dee

hoped to "attain pure truth and the discovery of the

treasury of Celestial wisdom".Dee, as analyzed by

Smith, thus hoped to employ the study of mathematics in

an attempt to penetrate the mysteries and secrets in the workings of nature and ultimately to gain union with the

divine. It is in such a quest that Smith and others see

the vanity and the blasphemous purpose and nature of

Dee's work. For by such study Dee hoped to gain an advantage for himself. A desire for personal gain and glory thus led him to fall victim to diabolical designs.

The course of Dee's life is thus seen as a consistent path from mathematics to magic— from the terrestrial to the celestial and supernatural— always using the former to fulfill the search for the latter, eventually forsaking the first and reaching final condemnation for the second.

The theme is thus established of a legitimate scientist who had gone astray. Smith applauds Dee's work in geometry and astronomy, and observes that Dee was offered academic positions and was sought for consultation on matters of astronomy, navigation, and geography. He mentions such well documented events as

Dee's being offered a position at Oxford to teach

ibid. 181 mathematics, which Dee declined;^'^ consultation about the new star of 1572;^^ consultation about the comet of

1577;3G and finally his work on the attempted calendar reform of 1582.3? These events illustrate the more sound and acceptable side of Dee's life and works. Yet, and

Smith continually returns to this point, during the whole period of Dee's "legitimate" scientific pursuits (c.l551-

1582) there is a consistent and highly visible occultism at work, visible enough to draw the attention of the non­ adepts to a criticism and fear of Dee's undertakings.

This point is illustrated by the fact that Dee, in his

Preface to Euclid's geometry (Billingsley's edition,

1570), has a long section vindicating his scientific works. As Smith writes;

...being chosen for vindicating his (Dee's) fame from the suspicion of illicit and infamous arts...he exclaims against the railers, who, through lack of knowledge or manevolence, or malignity of mind, as he contends, had accused him of magic.38

From 1582 until his death in 1608 Dee dealt only with his more occult and mystical studies— neglecting his more mathematical and astronomical works for what could be,

34 ibid, p. 14.

35 ibid, p. 25.

35 ibid, p. 34.

3? ibid, pp. 37-40,

38 ibid, p. 22. 182

and was often considered, a quest for a vain illusion.

It is in the latter phase of Dee's life that one is

confronted with the Spiritual Diaries, with the efforts

of Dee and Kelley to summon spirits, and it is about this

phase that criticism of Dee is most pronounced. Smith

describes Dee at that point in his life by such phrases

as "mentally wearied and agitated by a troubled mind", or

"as possessed of incurable insanity and obstinancy".^^

This criticism closely resembles Casaubon's charges that

Dee, in fact, had contact with demons not angels and that

Dee sought personal glory and fame rather than the elevation of his soul and for the glory and praise of

God.^û Dee's true quest was to find the Philosopher's

Stone in an attempt to gain worldly wealth, power, and

fame.41 in such an endeavour any concept of divine glorification is negligible at best. As Casaubon pointed out and Smith concurs, "...the Philosoper's Stone is certainly a meer cheat, the first author and inventor whereof was no other than the d i v e l " . 42 This type of reasoning is crucial in sealing Dee's posthumous fate.

He is seen not only as a deluded charlatan, but as one

ibid, pp. 23, 69.

4(^ ibid, p. 44.

41 ibid, p. 62.

42 Casaubon (ed.), A True and Faithful Relation, sig. E iv V. 183 whose very soul risked utter condemnation because of his

darker studies.

Smith's final assessment clearly illustates both the varied opinions held about Dee and the reasons for what he sees as Dee's errors. Because of the varied nature and complexity of Dee's works, he earned a reputation in three distinct camps: the first camp, honoring and praising him on account of his skillful and advanced mathematical studies as an eminent scientist, the second pitying him on account of the gullibility and credibility he displayed in his more occult endeavours, and finally, the third, condemning him for his impious zeal, vain illusion, and deceitful studies leaving him to be cast into the realm of darkness, devils, and damnation.43

Smith's final words sum up both his own opinion of Dee and that of biographers until our own day. Smith states,

"He (Dee) clearly sinking and deprived of all sense and intelligence of Divine things, was hardened in his fatal errors to the very last".44 Thus the mold was cast, the printed word set for posterity's sake, and Dee's reputation sealed.

43 Smith, Dee, pp. 88-89.

44 ibid, p. 102. CONCLUSION

In my preface I stated that I hoped to resolve some of

the questions in debate concerning John Dee, and to come

a step closer to the true historical figure and to the

nature of Renaissance science in general. This was a

journey that was filled with pitfalls— the arcane nature

of Dee's surviving works, the limited amount of direct

accounts, and the obscurity of the philosophy behind

these studies— all acted as trying hurdles for any

student to overcome. I would hope that my investigation

into the varied reputations of John Dee has made it clear

that Dee, although having modest success as a scholar and mathematician, in no way heralded modern scientific

thought. Dee's pattern of thought was based on an

earlier mystical tradition— a tradition juxtaposed to modern scientific enquiry. Dee was, as pointed out by

Mary Bowden in her doctral thesis, part of a failed

scientific revolution in astrology and in the more arcane

studies centered around hermeticism and Neoplatonism. We have also seen that within Dee's own lifetime more negative comments were made concerning his studies than positive affirmations. As to Dee's role at court, he

184 185 proved to be a peripheral figure, cowering under the cloak of a man claiming to know more than he really did.

Yet his cries for advancement and recognition based on his intellectual powers fell, more often than not, on deaf ears. Modern defenders of Dee would be well advised to pay closer attention to the negative aspects of Dee's reputation, rather than blindly trying to shove Dee and his studies into a preconceived package.

Although this work is by no means the final statement on John Dee, it is a work which seeks to redirect any final appraisals of Dee. I would hope also that this work will lead to the replacement of the previous paradigm of Dee as a Renaissance scientist pointing the way towards the future, with a new paradigm of Dee as a mystic and occultist chained to the past. Bibliography

Primary Sources-Manuscripts

London : British Library,

Additional MS. 32092, ff. 26, 28, 29, 31, 33

Appendix MS. XVLI, parts 1 and 2.

Cotton MS. Augustus. I, 1, i.

Cotton Charter XIV, f. 1.

Cotton MS. Otho. E. VIII, ff. 80-81.

Cotton MS. Vitellius. C. VII, ff. 35-86.

Harleian MS. 249, ff. 104-105.

Lansdowne Ms. 19, ff. 34, 38.

Lansdowne MS. 39, ff. 28-29.

Lansdowne MS. 94, f. 51.

Lansdowne MS. 109, ff. 27-28.

Lansdowne MS. 121, f. 121.

Lansdowne MS. 122, ff. 22-30.

Sloane MS. 3188.

Sloane MS. 3677.

Oxford: Bodleian Library,

Ashmole MS. 421, ff. 178-222.

Ashmole MS. 1788, ff. 1-18.

Ashmole MS. 1789, I-V.

Corpus Christi MS. 254, ff. 182-188.

186 187

Smith MS. 96, ff. 66-133.

Primary Sources-Published Works

Acts of the Privy Council

Agrippa, Henry Cornelius. Three Books of Occult Philosophy, tr. James French. London, 1651.

Bourne, William. A Hooke called the Treasure for Travellers. London 1578.

A Regiment for the Sea. London 1592.

Calendar of State Papers. Domestic.

Calendar of State Papers. Foreign.

Coxe,i Francis. A Short Treatise declarinqe the detestable wickednesses of Magical Sciences. London, 1561.

Davis, John. The Seamans Secrets. London, 1595.

Dee, John. Autobiographical Tracts of Dr. John Dee. Warden of the College of Manchester, ed. James Crossley. Chetham Society Publications. Vol. XXIV. Manchester, 1851.

Diary for the years 1595-1601. ed. John E. Bailey. Privately printed, 1880.

"Mathematicall Preface" to The Elements of Geometrie of the most ancient Philosopher Euclide of Megara. ed. Allen Debus. London, 1970.

General and Rare Memorials pertavning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation. London, 1577.

ed. and augmented. Grounde of Artes. Robert Recorde. London, 1561. and with John Mellis, eds. Grounde of Artes. Robert Recorde. London, 1582.

A Letter. Containing a Most Briefe Discourse Apologeticall. with a Plaine Demonstration, and Fervent Protestation, for the Lawfull. Sincere, Very Faithfull and Christian Course, of the Philosophicall Studies and Exercises, of a Certaine Studious Gentleman. London, 1599. 188

The Monas Hieroalvchica. tr^ J.W. Hamilton-Jones. London, 1947.

"Preface" to Epheitieris Anni 1557 by John Feild. London, 1556.

The Private Diarv of John Dee, ed. James O. Halliwell. Camden Society Publications. Vol. XIX. London, 1842.

Propaedeumata Aphoristica. tr. Walter Shumaker in John Dee on Astrology, ed. Walter Shumaker and J.L. Heilbron. Berkeley, 1978.

To The Honorable Assemblie of the Commons in the present Parliament. London, 1604.

To the Kino's most excellent Mai estie. London, 1604.

A True and Faithful Relation of what passed for many Yeers Between Dr. John Dee...and Some Spirits, ed. Meric Casaubon. London, 1659.

"An Unknown Chapter in the Life of John Dee", ed. C.H. Josten, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute. XVIII (1965), 223-257. della Porta, Giambattista. Maaiae naturalis libri XX. Naples, 1589. Translated and reprinted as Natural Magick, London, 1658.

Digges, Thomas. Alae seu scalae mathematicae. London, 1573.

Foxe, John. Actes and Monuments. London, 1563.

Actes and Monuments. London, 1570.

Actes and Monuments. London, 1576.

Actes and Monuments. London, 1582.

Gifford, George. Discourse of the subtill Practices of Devills. London, 1587.

Gilbert, Humphrey. A Discourse of Discoverie for a new passage to Cataia. ed. George Gascoigne. London, 1576.

Hakluyt, Richard. The Principal Navigations. Voiaaes Traffigues and Discoveries of the English Nation. 3 vols. London, 1598-1600. 189

Heydon, Christopher. A Defence of Judicial} Astroloie. Cambridge, 1603.

Hylles, Thomas. The Arte of Vulgar Arithmetic. London, 1600.

James I, Demonoloaiea. London, 1604.

Nashe, Thomas. Christs Tears Over Jerusalem. London, 1593.

Scot, Reginald. The Discoverie of Witchcraft. London, 1584.

Worsop, Edward. A Discoverie of Sundrie Errours and faults daily committed by Landemeaters. London, 1582.

Secondary Sources

Allen, Don C. The Star Crossed Renaissance. Durham, NC., 1941.

Andrews, Kenneth. Trade. Plunder and Settlement; Maritime enterprise and the genesis of the British Empire. Cambridge, 1984.

Ashmole, Elias. Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum. London, 1552. ed. His Autobiographical and Historical Notes, his Correspondence, and other Contemporary Sources relating to his Life and Work, ed. C.H.Josten. 5 vols. Oxford, 1966.

Aubrey, John. Brief Lives, ed. Oliver Lawson Dick. London, 1949.

Bailey, John. "Dee and Trithemius's 'Steganoraphy'", Notes and Oueries. 5th series (1879) pp. 401-02, 422-23.

Bowden, Mary Ellen. "The Scientific Revolution in Astrology: The English Reformers, 1558-1686". Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Yale, 1974.

Brooks, Eric St. John. Sir Christopher Hatton. London, 1956.

Burtt, E.A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern 190

Physical Science. 2nd éd.. New York, 1932.

Butler, E.M. The Myth of the Magus. Cambridge, 1948.

Butler, Samuel. Hudibras. ed. Alfred Waller. Cambridge, 1905.

Buxton, John. Sir Philip Sidney and the English Renaissance. London, 1954.

Calder, I.R.F. "John Dee Studied as an English Neo- Platonist". Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Uniyersity of London, 1952.

Carleton, George. The Madnesse of Astrologers. London, 1624.

Capp, Bernard. Astrology and the Popular Press; English Almanacs 1500-1800. London, 1979.

Carre, Meyrick H. "Visitors to Mortlake: The Life and Misfortunes of John Dee", History Today. XII (1962).

Clulee, Nicholas. "The Glas of Creation; Renaissance Mathematicism and Natural Philosophy in the work of John Dee". Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Chicago, 1973.

"At the Crossroads of Magic and Science: John Dee's Archemastrie", in Brian Vicker ed. Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge, 1984.

Cooper, Charles Henry, and Cooper, Thompson. Athenae Cantabrigiensis. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1858-1913.

Cooper,Thomas. The Mysteries of Witchcraft. London, 1617.

Curtis, Mark. Oxford and Cambridge in Transition. 1558- 1642. Oxford, 1959.

Deacon, Richard. John Dee: Scientist. Geographer. Astrologer and Secret Agent to Elizabeth I. London, 1968.

Debus, Allen. The English Paracelsians. London, 1965.

Science and Education in the 17th Century; The Webster-Ward Debate. London, 1970.

D'Israeli, Issac. The Amenities of Literature, ed. Earl of Beaconsfield. London, n.d. 191

Easlea, Brian. Witch Hunting. Magic and the New Philosophy. Brighton, 1980.

Evans, R.J.W. Rudolf II and his World; A study in the Intellectual History 1576-1612. Oxford, 1973.

Feingold, Mortechai. The Mathematicians' Apprenticeship; Science. Universities. And Society in Enalana 1560- 1640. Oxford, 1986.

French, Peter. John Dee; The world of an Elizabethan Magus. London, 1972.

Fuller, Thomas. The History of the Worthies of England, ed. Austin Nuttall. 3 vols. London, 1840.

Gunther, R.T. Early Science in Oxford. Oxford, 1932.

Haller, William. Foxe's Book of Martvers and the Elect of the Nation. London, 1963.

Halliwell-Phillipps, James Orchard. Rara Mathematica. London, 1841.

Haydn, Hiram The Counter-Renaissance. New York, 1950.

Henry, Bruce Ward. "John Dee, Humphery Llwyd, and the Name 'British Empire'", The Huntington Library Ouarterlv vol. 35 (1971-72) pp. 189-190.

Hillyer, Anthony. Elizabeth's Merlin. Los Angeles, 1947.

Hooke, Robert. The Posthumous Works. London, 1705.

Hort, Gertrude. Dr. John Dee: Elizabethan Astrologer and Mystic. London, 1922.

Hunter, Michael. Science and Society in Restoration England. Cambridge, 1981.

John Aubrey and the Realm of Learning. London, 1975.

James, Montague. Mansucripts formerly owned by Dr. John Dee, with Preface and Identifications. Supplement to the Bibliographical Society's Transactions. London, 1921.

Johnson, Francis. Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England. Baltimore, 1937.

Jonson, Ben. The Alchemist. London, 1612. 192

Kocher, Paul. Science and Religion in Elizabethan England. San Marino, California, 1953.

Lilly, William. The History of His Life and Times. London, 1714.

McCulloch, Samuel C. "John Dee: Elizabethan Doctor of Science and Magic", South Atlantic Ouarterlv L (1951) pp. 72-81.

McLean, Antonia. Humanism and the rise of Science in Tudor England. London, 1972.

Holland, A. G. "Mathematical and Angelic Astronomy", The Journal for the History of Science. XIII (1980) pp. 255-257.

Mozley, J.F. John Foxe and his Book. London, 1940.

Nauert, Charles. Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought. Urbana, 1965.

Nicolas, Harris. Memoiries of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton. London, 1847.

Osbron, James M. Young Philip Sidney. New Haven, Conneceticut, 1972.

Penrose, Boies. Tudor and Early Stuart Voyaging. Amherst, 1962.

Rogers, Thomas. Leicesters' Ghost, ed. Franklin Williams. Chicago, 1972.

Rosen, Barbara, ed. Witchcraft. London, 19 69.

Rosenburg, Eleanor. Leicester Patron of Letters. New York, 1955.

Russell, Jeffery. A History of Witchcraft. London, 1980.

Sargent, Ralph. At the Court of Queen Elizabeth: The Life and Lyrics of Sir Edward Dyer. London, 1935.

Shumaker, Wayne, The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance. Berkeley, 1972.

Renaissance Curiosa; John Dee's conversations with angels. Girolamo Cardano's horoscope of Christ. Johannes Trithemius and cryptography. George Dalgarno's Universal Language. Binghamton, New York, 193

1982.

Smith, Charlotte Fell. John Dee (1527-1608). London, 1909.

Smith, Thomas. Vita Joannis Dee, in Vitae ouorundam eruditissimorum et illustrium virorum. London, 1707. The Life of John Dee, tr. William Ayton. London, 1908.

Strong, F.W. Procedures and Metaphysics. Berkeley, 1936.

Suster, Gerald, ed. John Dee; Essential Readings. London, 1986.

Taylor, E. G. R. Tudor Geography; 1485-1583. London, 1930.

Late Tudor and Early Stuart Geography: 1583-1650. London, 1934.

The Mathematical Practictioners of Tudor and Stuart England. London, 1967.

Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic. New York, 1971.

Thomas, W. Gwyn. "An Episode in the Later Life of John Dee". Welsh Historical Review 5 (1971) 250-256.

Tillyard, E.M.W. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York, 1944.

Trattner, Walter I. "God and Expansion in Elizabethan England: JohnDee, 1527-1583", Journal of the History of Ideas. XXV (1964), pp. 17-34.

Turner, Robert, ed. The Heptarchia Mvstica of John Dee. Wellingborough, Northhamptonshire, 1986.

Vern, John, ed. Alumni Cantabridgienses. Cambridge, 1922. ed. Grace Book: Containing the records of the University of Cambridge for the years 1542-1589. Cambridge, 1910.

Vickers, Brian ed. Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge, 1984.

Walker, D.P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficini to Campanella. London, 1958.

Ward, Seth. Vindiciae Academiarum. Oxford, 1654. 194

Webster, Charles. From Paracelsus to Newton; Maaic and the making of modern science. Cambridge, 1982.

Webster, John. Academiarum Examen. London, 1654.

The Display of Supposed Witchcraft. London, 1677.

Westman, Robert S. and McGuire, J.E. Hermeticism and the Scientific Revolution. Los Angeles, 1977.

Wernham, R.B. The Making of Elizabethan Foreign Policy. California, 1980.

Wightman, W.P.D. Science and the Renaissance: an Introduction to the study of the Emergence of Science in the Sixteenth Century. 2 vols. London, 1962.

Wilkins, John. Mathematicall Maaick; or. the wonders that may performed by mechanical geometry. London, 1648.

Wood, Anthony a. Athenae Oxoniensis. ed. Philip Bliss. 4 vols. London, 1813-1820.

Yates, Frances. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. London, 1964.

The Art of Memory. London, 1966.

Theatre of the World. London, 1969.

"The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science", in Art. Science, and History in the Renaissance, ed. Charles S. Singleton. Baltimore, 1968.

Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age. London, 1979.

Yeandle, W.H. The Ouadricentennial of the Birth of Dr. John Dee. London, 1927.

Zetterberg, J. Peter. "The Mistaking of 'The Mathematicks' for Magic in Tudor and Stuart England", 16th Century Journal 11 (1980) pp. 83-97.