Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 530–538

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa

Elias Ashmole’s collections and views about

Vittoria Feola

Department and Collections, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringerstrasse 25, 1090 Vienna, Austria article info abstract

Article history: In this paper I discuss ’s collections and views about John Dee. I consider Dee as an object of Available online 20 January 2012 collection against the broader background of Ashmole’s collecting practices. I also look at the uses to which Ashmole put some of his collections relating to Dee, as well as those which he envisaged for pos- Keywords: terity. I argue that Ashmole’s interest in Dee stemmed from his ideas about the uses of antiquity in the Elias Ashmole reconstruction and transmission of knowledge. They partly reflected Ashmole’s interpretation of Francis Collections Bacon’s Advancement of learning as well as the influence of and ’s Antiquarianism ideas about publishing natural philosophy in English. Natural history Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Ashmolean Baconianism

When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

1. Introduction to which Ashmole put his Dee-related collections reflected his be- lief that English should replace Latin as a scholarly language. Ash- In 1692, the in the University of ac- mole viewed his collections of Dee material as useful sources for quired an oil portrait and forty-two volumes of material by and the pursuit of three projects to be carried out, either by himself about John Dee, which Elias Ashmole (1617–1692) had spent his or by posterity, in the vernacular. These were, first, the production life collecting.1 It was the largest collection of ‘Dee-ana’ since the of lives of English worthies; second, data for the history of the Eng- dispersal of the ’s library following his death in lish weather; and third, magical experiments. Dee’s angelic manu- 1609. Of Ashmole’s original Dee collections, thirty-four volumes scripts had special significance for Ashmole because he regarded are kept today in the .2 Eight volumes have mysteri- them both as evidence of the possibility for the elect to communi- ously found their way into the British Library: seven into the collec- cate with angels, and as sources for the history of magic. tions of Sir Hans Sloane and one among the Additional manuscripts.3 This article supports Mordechai Feingold’s observation (2005, pp. Even if more Dee material has resurfaced since the seventeenth cen- 555–558) that seventeenth-century antiquaries such as Ashmole, as tury, Ashmole’s collections continue to provide the basis for any re- well as his friends and , were interested search into Dee to this day. Yet neither Ashmole’s collections nor his in Dee for his universal learning and not only for his ‘occult’ leanings. views about Dee have been properly assessed. Conversely, Dee as an Further, this article complements past scholarship on Dee’s library object of seventeenth-century collecting has not been considered. by considering him as the object of collecting practices (Roberts & This article aims to fill such gaps. Watson, 1990). Elias Ashmole’s collections and views about John I will argue that Ashmole’s interest in Dee stemmed from his Dee offer a window into the mind of a seventeenth-century English ideas about antiquity and natural philosophy, which in turn re- antiquary, and thereby concern historians of science as well as flected his reading of Francis Bacon. Moreover, the printed uses intellectual historians, and historians of the book.

E-mail address: [email protected] 1 In 1687 Ashmole wrote a catalogue of 23 of Dee’s manuscripts which he had collected thus far, now Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Ashmole 1790, Part III, item 13, fols. 52–53. 2 They are MSS Ashmole 1819, 1459, 424, 1486, 487, 423, 1423, 1442, 1492, 972, 356, 1788, 1789, 1440, 1488, 204, 1506, 488, 422, 1131, 242, 1790, 1446, 1451, 1457, 1142, 174, 440, 369, 1426, 580, 1492, 1471430–432. For full descriptions, see Black, 1845; also MSS Ashmole 133, 153, 580 (for full descriptions, there is an anonymous handlist of Ashmole’s printed books in the Bodleian Library). 3 They are London, British Library MSS Sloane 3822, 3188, 3189, 3191, 78, 2599, 3678; Add. MS 36674.

0039-3681/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.12.011 V. Feola / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 530–538 531

2. Ashmole’s milieu of vernacular natural philosophy pursued experimental knowledge in all fields, putting their pride in being English to the service of vernacular scientific translations. Elias Ashmole was born on 23 May 1617 in Lichfield, Stafford- By entering Backhouse’s circle, Ashmole found himself among con- shire, the only son of an impoverished saddler.4 His mother became genial colleagues who gave him his first manuscripts to collect, a widower when Elias was just a child, and it was only thanks to the and stimulated him to cultivate, among other subjects, mathematics, help of a wealthy relative that Ashmole was able to study law at the , alchemical medicine and natural magic. It was in this mili- Temple and become a barrister. His legal career was soon inter- eu of vernacular editions of natural philosophical texts that Ashmole rupted when the Civil War broke out. Ashmole fought for Charles I became a collector and an editor himself. at Worcester and Oxford, where he also began to study mathematics, astrology, botany, medicine and English history. 3. Early collections and views about Dee: the Fasciculus In the early 1640s, Ashmole began to attend public lectures at chemicus Gresham College, following the advice of his tutor William Ough- tred (1674–1660).5 It was through Oughtred’s contacts at the College Ashmole became interested in Dee at the end of the 1640s, that Ashmole become a member of the Society of Astrologers of Lon- while he was beginning to collect manuscripts about don by the end of the 1640s.6 Two of the Fellows of the College were and , and studying mathematics and alchemy with Ough- Oughtred’s former pupils: the mathematician (1617– tred and Backhouse. During this period Ashmole acquired all the 1679) and Charles Scarborough (1616–1694), editor of Oughtred’s papers that now comprise MS Ashmole 1459. This manuscript con- Opuscula mathematica (London, 1634). Ashmole, Moore and Scarbor- tains his earliest alchemical collections, including Thomas Tym- ough participated in the meetings at Wadham College, Oxford, to- me’s preface to his English translation of John Dee’s Monas gether with Seth Ward (1617–1689), (1616–1703), and hieroglyphica, which Ashmole used to extract information about several other former students of Oughtred’s, that eventually led to the alchemist Geber (MS Ashmole 1440, fols. 170–171). Ashmole the foundation of the Royal Society (Hunter, 1995, passim). acquired it in 1648 from a ‘chirurgeon from Reading’, probably The late 1640s marked a significant period in Ashmole’s life. 8 an acquaintance of Oughtred’s. In 1649, Ashmole came across an July 1648 marks his earliest recorded acquisition of an alchemi- anonymous Latin collection of alchemical aphorisms entitled Fas- co-medical manuscript (MS Ashmole 1459, fols. 3v–26v). His first ciculus chemicus, and the Latin text of the anonymous Arcanum Her- recorded attendance at the annual dinner of the Society of Astrol- meticae philosophiae (actually written by the French lawyer and ogers was on 1 August 1649, and he attended his first anatomical amateur natural philosopher, Jean d’Espagnet).10 He translated dissection later in the same year (MS Ashmole 1136, fol. 22). It ap- both into English, and was about to publish them when he learned pears that Ashmole’s mathematical and medical interests were that the author of the Fasciculus was , the son of John developing in a congenial milieu. Dee. Hastily Ashmole wrote to him to ask for permission to print Around this time Ashmole also acquired Francis Bacon’s his work, adding: Advancement of learning in the Oxford English translation of My search into the Mathematicks first brought me to vnder- 1640, which would shape much of his thinking, as well as his col- stand, the worth of Doctor John Dee, by his Preface to Euclid, lecting practices. In 1649 he married the wealthy Lady Mary For- &c; & you would much pleasure me, might I also know what ster, twenty years his senior. The marriage granted Ashmole the relation you had to him, or what else you think fitt for me to leisure to pursue his two main interests: English antiquity and nat- say. (MS Ashmole 1790, fol. 68r) ural philosophy. Following his move to Swallowfield, , in 1650, he joined the circle of his new neighbour, the Oxford-edu- Arthur Dee obliged Ashmole with a polite letter full of biographical cated antiquary and natural philosopher, William Backhouse information about his father, in addition to a (1593–1662).7 Backhouse organised a workshop in his house, where Ashmole Catalogue of the bookes he wrot, I have sent you herein and other members of the Society of Astrologers, including Nicho- enclosed, whereof I was totally depriued hee dying at his house las Fiske, Richard Saunders and George Wharton, translated Latin at Mortlak when I was beyond sea Ao. 1609.11 and French texts into English, and then published them in London.8 Backhouse’s circle was also linked to Gresham College and Samuel This is the earliest evidence of Ashmole’s interest in Dee, though at Hartlib’s network, and shared their goal of propagating useful exper- this stage he had not yet conceived of actively researching him. In imental knowledge in the vernacular.9 Backhouse and his friends the Prolegomena to the Fasciculus, Ashmole praised Dee as,

4 This biographical account is based on Josten (1966). 5 Ashmole’s natural philosophical milieu is discussed in more detail in Feola (2008, pp. 322–325). On William Oughtred, see Willmoth (2004), Clark (1898, pp. 227–231). Ashmole’s earliest evidence of his acquaintance with Oughtred is recorded in MS Ashmole, 242, fol. 125r and dates from 22 May 1643. Josten is uncertain whether Ashmole actually knew Oughtred before 1657, when they became neighbours: Josten (1966), 345. It seems certain that he did, however, because by 1652 Oughtred was already exchanging astronomical and mathematical information with Ashmole’s London group, the Society of Astrologers (MS Ashmole, 394, fols. 56r–57r). Moreover, MS Ashmole 826, fol. 4r contains Ashmole’s notes on Oughtred’s works. MS Ashmole 342 (Part V, item 3, fols. 138–83) is a De arte arithmetica which Ashmole studied in 1649. MS Ashmole 371, fols. 2–39 is a treatise in his hand from the early 1650s on the mathematical part of astrology. 6 The account that follows is based on Curry (1989, pp. 40–91) and Feola (2005a, 2005b, pp. 123–159). 7 Josten (1966, Vol. 1, pp. 76–77). On Backhouse, see Josten (1949). 8 Ashmole owned two copies of Fiske’s translation of Heydon, An astrological discourse: MS Ashmole 242, a grand copy that was Saunders’s gift to his patron Ashmole, and MS Ashmole 297, published more modestly in 12°. Ashmole also owned the original manuscript by Christopher Heydon (MS Ashmole 242), which he obtained in 1657 (see marginal note on fol. 61r). Wharton’s Keiromantia is MS Ashmole 120, which Ashmole received as a gift from the astrologer who in turn had obtained it as a free copy from the publisher Nathaniel Brook. On Fiske, Saunders and Lilly: Capp (2004), Curry (2004), Porter (2004). Ann Geneva (1995) has written Lilly’s biography, although this is overwhelmingly concerned with the 1650s. The result is an unconvincingly ‘Puritan’ Lilly, even though he spent twice as long working for Charles II. Primary sources on Fiske, Saunders, Wharton and Lilly are all in Ashmole’s manuscripts: see Black (1845), especially on MSS Ashmole 339, 421, 391, 394 (Fiske), 176, 240, 423, 350, 242, 1443, 1489 (Saunders), 339, 137, 423, 242, 1445, 1420, 186 (Wharton), 186, 290, 121, 241, 1501, 240, 241, 243 (Lilly). 9 Josten (1966, pp. 565, 576, 643, 671, 684). 10 For the biographies of Arthur Dee and : Appleby (2004) and Robbins (2004). On Browne, see Schnapp (1993, p. 198) and Cunningham & Grell (1996). 11 Northampton Record Office, Isham Family Letters 1563–1669, I. C., fol. 272r. From a letter of Arthur Dee to an unidentified ‘Mr Aldrich’, dated ‘ this 15 Decb. 1649’, and meant for Ashmole. Ashmole never received the catalogue mentioned by Arthur Dee, whose letter to Aldrich ended up with his neighbour Sir Thomas Browne, who later claimed to be unable to find the catalogue he had been given: Josten (1966, p. 662). 532 V. Feola / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 530–538

that excellent Physitian, Doctor John Dee (whose fame survives We are not a little beholding to the industry of our Ancestors, for his many learned and precious Works, but chiefly celebrated for collecting into Books this Elemental Water falling from Hea- amongst us for that his incomparable Mathematical Preface to ven, as into so many several Vessels or Cisterns. (Ibid., sig. A4v) Euclid’s Elements. (Ashmole, 1650, p. 26) This is a paraphrase of Bacon’s Advancement of learning, where Ba- However, he did not include any of the other information supplied con maintained that, by Arthur Dee. Dee was not yet an object of Ashmole’s collecting endeavours. For as water, whether it be the dewe of heaven, or the springs of In the ‘Prolegomena’ to the Fasciculus, Ashmole explained that the earth, doth scatter and leese it selfe in the ground, except it he intended it as a ‘Catalogue of Authors that have treated of this be collected into some Receptacle, where it may by union, com- sacred Learning’ (ibid., sig. ⁄⁄1v), and gave his own definition of fort and sustaine it selfe: And for that cause the Industry of Man natural philosophy as encompassing: hath made & framed Spring-heads, Conduits, Cesterns, and Poo- the concatenation of Spirits, their working without a Body, the les....So this excellent liquor of knowledge, whether it descend Weapon Salve, the Sympathetic Powder, the Vertues of the Load- from diuine inspiration, or spring from human sense, would stone, the wonderful and never to be enough admired Secrets of soon perishe and vanishe to oblivion, if it were not preserved Magnetick Philosophy, and Natural Magick: As also what Art it in Bookes, Traditions, Conferences and Places appoynted. self is able to perform, by the power of Mathematical conclusions, (Bacon, 1640, sig. 2A2r) in Geometry, Numbers, both mysterious and vulgar, Perspective Ashmole’s reading of Bacon can also be detected in a passage Opticks, &c. What famous and accurate Works, industrious where he argued against natural philosophical ‘Fictions’, as op- Artists have furnished these latter Ages with, and by Weighs, posed to the reality of the work which he had edited, in which Wheels, Springs or Strings, have imitated lively Motion as Regio- he paraphrased Bacon’s metaphor of Pygmalion (Ashmole, 1650, montanus his Eagle, and Fly, Drebler’s perpetual Motion, the sig. ⁄⁄2r; cf. Bacon, 1640, p. 28). Ashmole’s ideas about knowledge, Spring in a Watch, and such like Self-Movers....The Arts of Nav- its utility, its means of acquisition and transmission, were shaped igation, Printing, and making of Gunpowder....(Ibid., sig. ⁄⁄2 r–v) by his own reflections on the teachings of Backhouse, Oughtred Not all of Ashmole’s contemporaries would have agreed to list al- and Bacon. Ashmole’s collections and views about John Dee are chemy and natural magic alongside navigation and printing. If we best understood if viewed in relation to his ideas about knowledge. consider the publications of all the seventeenth-century Savilian professors of astronomy and geometry at Oxford, for instance, we 4. First (and only) biography: the find that they reflected a particular Oxford tradition of thinking Britannicum about mathematical subjects, which was spelt out in the Savilian Statutes and which excluded alchemy, astrology and magic from Soon after the publication of the Fasciculus, Ashmole developed its definition. Sir Henry Savile and subsequent Savilians remained the idea of a much grander enterprise, namely, the first volume of a faithful to their understanding of mathematical subjects as strictly British counterpart to the Theatrum chemicum, which was being including those which could be worked out mathematically, and published in Strasbourg by Lazarus Zetzner (1601–1661). Thanks which had first developed above all by ancient Greek scholars (Feola, to the help of Backhouse’s circle and of several members of the in press-a, passim). In contrast, in Ashmole’s definition we see Back- Society of Astrologers whom he now actively patronised, including house’s influence on Ashmole’s definition of natural philosophy, Wharton, Lilly, and Fiske, Ashmole acquired all the texts which which we need to bear in mind if we are to get to grips with his views formed his Theatrum chemicum Britannicum, published in London about Dee. Ashmole and Backhouse had a very special intellectual in 1652. As we might expect given Ashmole’s interest in publishing relationship: at thirty minutes past midnight, on 3 April 1651, Back- natural philosophical texts in the vernacular, the Theatrum con- house adopted Ashmole as his alchemical son (Josten, 1966, p. 567). tained thirty-nine alchemical poems in English. Among these, Ash- From then on, Ashmole could consider himself as the elected son of a mole included a short poem by Dee, Dee’s so-called ‘Alchemical master who would teach him the secrets of nature. testament’ (MS Ashmole 1442, Part I, p. 37). This qualified for In the Fasciculus, Ashmole pleaded for the importance of publish- inclusion because it was in English: unusual for Dee, who had ing works of natural philosophy in the vernacular, thus echoing the mostly published in Latin.12 Unlike the Fasciculus, in which Ash- insistence of his tutor, Oughtred, on the utility of vernacular works: mole’s role had been primarily that of translator (although he had al- It is no disparagement to the Subject that it appears in an Eng- ready put forward the importance of his role as a collector and lish dress, no more then it was when habited in Greek, Latin, editor), the Theatrum was Ashmole’s first properly Arabick, &c. among the ancient Grecians, Romans, and Arabians, undertaking. He actually called the alchemical poems ‘collected for to each of them it was their vulgar Tongue: And had not antiquities’ (Ashmole, 1652, sig. A4v). He collected, where possible, those Nations, to whom Learning (in her progress through the several copies of the same texts, collated them one against another, world) came, taken the pains of Translation, and so communi- amended them, and wrote a critical apparatus in the twofold form of cated to their own Countries the benefit of several Faculties; a fourteen-page Prolegomena and a substantially longer essay, enti- we had yet lived in much ignorance of Divinity, Philosophy, tled ‘Final Annotations’ (sixty-three pages). Physick, History, and all other Arts. (Ashmole, 1650, p. 28) The latter was a catalogue of lives of eminent English natural philosophers, and reflected Ashmole’s will to contribute to the viris Stressing the importance of his own work as a collector, translator, illustribus tradition in his own distinctive way (Eichel-Lojkine, editor and, as such, preserver of useful natural philosophical texts, 2001, pp. 64–69). Starting with the Italian Renaissance, a prosopo- Ashmole observed, graphical tradition of lives of eminent men had become well rooted

12 British Library MS Harley 2407 includes the original Testament in Dee’s hand, entitled, in Latin, ‘Joannis Dee Testamentum, ad Jo.Gwynn transmissum, anno1568.’ Ashmole also used this manuscript as the source for the engravings in the Theatrum, and even refers to it in his notes at the end: Corbett (1983, pp. 326–336). I am very grateful to Jennifer Rampling for drawing these references to my attention and suggesting that, since Dee often transcribed alchemical works in English, he might have viewed the Testament as contributing to this genre as well. V. Feola / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 530–538 533 in Western European literary production. The recovery of ancient our knowledge: with divers and many Annotations, and Inven- texts, such as Plutarch’s Lives, had triggered a renewed interest in tions, Mathematicall, added in sundry places of the said Booke: the biographical genre. Those men were considered eminent who Together with severall Pieces of Navigation, Perspective, and had ornamented their country through either military or scholarly other Mathematicall works of his in Manuscript. (Ashmole, achievement. Models from antiquity, like Alexander the Great and 1652, p. 480) Aristotle (already a medieval topos stemming from the ‘arms vs. This passage presents Dee as an accomplished mathematician. letters’ debate) were soon to be flanked by a wealth of illustrious It also points to the importance of Dee’s works which he has left contemporaries (Cole, 1995, passim; Cerquiglini-Toulet, 2010, pp. in manuscripts—manuscripts, therefore, which must be worth col- 1–12). Scholars and even learned artisans figured increasingly in lecting and preserving, as Ashmole was beginning to do himself. catalogues of illustrious men. Ashmole deliberately chose to con- Indeed, Ashmole’s life of Dee in the Theatrum served partly as an tribute to this genre, citing sixteenth-century scholars such as Le- example to illustrate the importance of book collections and their land, Bale and Pitts as his sources for British catalogues of learned too often unsafe repositories. Ashmole noted that Dee could not men (Ashmole, 1652, sig. A2v). Ashmole’s decision to make one such catalogue out of the lives of writers of alchemical poems, enjoy Tranquillity in his Studies, but was oftentimes disquieted however, was rather peculiar. It was both a consequence of this and vexed with the sower dispositions of such as most Injouri- tradition on which he built, and a novelty which he added to it. ously Scandalized both him and them, insomuch that the year Among the authors of his poems he included Chaucer, Gower and he went beyond Sea his Library was seized on, wherein was Lydgate, whose positions as eminent English scholars none would 4000 Books and 700 of them Manuscripts (a Caveat for all Inge- have disputed, together with alchemists such as John Dee, George nious and eminent Philosophers to be more wise then to keep Ripley (d. c. 1490) and Thomas Norton (c. 1433–c. 1513). Ashmole’s any dear or Excellent Books in their own Houses.). (Ibid.) claim for grouping them all together was that they had all writ- Here, as elsewhere in the Theatrum, Ashmole deprecated the ten—in English—about alchemy, a branch of natural philosophy ravages of libraries by mobs, during both the turbulent Henrician as already explained in the Fasciculus (ibid., sigs. A2v–A3r). Ash- years and the recent Civil War. Although Roberts and Watson are mole was the first English writer to consider authors of alchemical sceptical about the myth of a mob breaking into Dee’s library poems as eminent men. In fact, in this way he innovated the viris (1990, p. 52), we should bear in mind the rhetorical effect that illustribus tradition. One might suggest that mid-seventeenth cen- Ashmole sought to convey by citing this episode from Dee’s life. tury natural philosophy was developing, also thanks to Ashmole, If the lives of eminent men were worth reading for the examples an awareness of its own history. I discuss elsewhere the choro- that posterity could draw from them, Dee’s life thus provided an graphical, heraldic, and philological work which Ashmole under- example for all those great collectors who kept their valuable col- took in order to write the lives in his ‘Final Annotations’ (Feola, lections at the mercy of fate. This is an early hint of Ashmole’s in press-b, Forthcoming). What interests me here is Ashmole’s life ideas about safekeeping of books, which would later materialise of Dee. in his foundation of the Ashmolean Museum, with its secure anti- Just before publishing the Theatrum, Ashmole had found Dee’s quarian and scientific library in which Ashmole’s collections con- journal of alchemical experiments performed at be- cerning Dee would eventually find a haven (Feola, 2005a, 2005b, tween 4 December 1607 and 21 January 1608 (MS Ashmole passim). 1486, Part V). Moreover, through Arthur Dee he had acquired Concerning Dee’s alchemy, Ashmole stated: ‘Some time He be- Dee’s so-called diaries (MSS Ashmole 487–488): the ephemerides stowed in vulgar Chemistry, and was therein Master of divers Se- of Stadius for 1554–1600 (Cologne, 1570) and those of Maginus crets’ (Ashmole, 1652, p. 480). And, for 1581–1620 (Venice, 1582). These were annotated by Dee, in typically early modern fashion, and contain much biographical ’Tis generally reported that Doctor Dee, and Sir Edward Kelly information from January 1577 until December 1600, and from were so strangely fortunate, as to finde a very large quantity September 1586 until April 1601. Ashmole transcribed all of Dee’s of the Elixir in some part of the Ruines of Glastenbury-Abbey, notes into MS Ashmole 423, Art. 22, which would serve him as a which was so incredibly Rich in vertue....that they lost much working tool (and sole source) for the life of Dee that he pub- in making Triall; before they found out the true height of the lished in the Theatrum. Medicine. (Ibid., p. 481) Of all the poems, Dee’s very short Testament is one of the least He continued: ‘During their abode at Trebona, they tried many significant ones as a piece of either scientific poetry or properly Chemicall Experiments....yet I cannot heare that ever they accom- alchemical verses.13 Yet Ashmole still devoted the longest biography plished any thing.’ Nevertheless, Dee’s expressions of joy in his to Dee: simply due to the fact that he had much more information ‘diaries’ convinced Ashmole that he had indeed managed to find about Dee from his diaries than about any other author of his poems. the stone (ibid., p. 482). In fact, one must bear in mind that Ashmole only owned a handful of Ashmole was perhaps not the best person to assess Dee’s abili- alchemical manuscripts when he published the Theatrum; he ac- ties as a practising alchemist, given that in the Theatrum he admit- quired the vast majority of his alchemical material much later, in ted, ‘I have not yet set myself onto the Manuall Practice’ (ibid., sig. the and 1680s, primarily thanks to the acquisitions of libraries B2v). Although this sentence might be read as indicating his inten- of his protégés from the Society of Astrologers. As we shall see, the tion to do so, there is little evidence that he ever practised. Among same chronology is true of the bulk of Ashmole’s collections related Ashmole’s c. 300 volumes of alchemical manuscripts we find a few to Dee. practical recipes for making the philosophers’ stone and several In his life of Dee, Ashmole stated: poems on the same topic. There is very little evidence that he used he chiefly bent his Studies to the Mathematicks; in all parts of those recipes for his own alchemical experiments, nor is there any which he was an absolute and perfect Master. Witness his recipe written by him. The only possible evidence for any actual Mathematicall Preface to Euclids Elements, wherein are enu- practice of alchemy is found in Ashmole’s own interleaved copy merated many Arts of him wholly Invented....more then of his third alchemical edition, The way to bliss (1658), where he either the Grecian or Romane have left to noted the effects of some alchemical experiments suggested by

13 On the poetry of the Theatrum chemicum Britannicum, see Feola (2008). Schuler has called the Theatrum poems ‘scientific poetry’: Schuler (1980, pp. 293–318). 534 V. Feola / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 530–538 an unidentified French practitioner in his manuscript work.14 Nor In a manuscript now in the British Library, Ashmole wrote: is there any evidence of his having owned a laboratory for the per- Be it remembered that the 20th of August 1672. I received by formance of alchemical experiments. Significantly, Ashmole did not the hande of my Servant Story, a parcel of Dr: Dees Manuscripts, add a single annotation to any of Dee’s alchemical papers.15 The fact all written with his own hand; vizt: his Conferences with that Ashmole may never have performed an alchemical experiment angels, which first began the 22th of dec: an°: 1581. & contin- does not mean, however, that he did not value them as means to im- ued to the end of May an°: 1583. where the printed Booke of prove chemical knowledge. On the contrary, in the Theatrum he cited the remaining Conferences (published by Dr: Casaubon) Francis Bacon on the importance of experiments: begins....(British Library MS Sloane 3188, fol. 2r) It has proved a great Errour in some Practitioners, who (tum- Overleaf, Ashmole explained that he had obtained the manuscripts, bling up and downe their owne Speculations) seek out for Truth in the Little world, and withdrawing themselves from the Con- by my good friend Mr. Thomas Wale, one of his Ma:ties War- templation of Experimentall Naturall Observations, neglect to dens in the Tower of London....for a coppy of my’ History of look for it in the great and common World.16 the . (Ibid., fol. 2v) Three decades down the line, the Ashmolean Museum—which Ben- Wale had found that his servant was using Dee’s papers to line pie nett, Johnson, and Simcock (2000) have rightly dubbed ‘Solomon’s dishes and for other domestic activities, so he rescued them and House in Oxford’, emphasising the Baconian nature of Ashmole’s gave them to the man who, from then on, would become the greatest institution—would furnish the with its first collector of materials related to Dee. By 1687, Ashmole had amassed: laboratory for the performance of alchemical experiments, although 1. Mysteriorum Liber primus. 1581 & 1582. it was Ashmole’s contemporary fellow of the Royal Society, Robert 2. Mysteriorum Liber secundus. Boyle, who designed its apparatus, rather than Ashmole himself. 3. Mysteriorum Liber tertius. It appears, however, that Ashmole’s early collections and views 4. Liber Mysteriorum quarto about Dee had little to do with experiments. They were meagre, 5. Liber Mysteriorum quintus. like all other alchemical collections in Ashmole’s hand by 1652, 6. Quinti Libri Mysteriorum Appendix and Ashmole only really exploited one item of them, Dee’s ‘diaries’, when writing Dee’s life in the Theatrum. There he expressed his Note that some other of his Bookes were set forth by Dr: Casaubon views, which described Dee as an accomplished mathematician, a 1659. & the first Action of the aforesaid Appendix, vizt: 28 May great book collector, and a successful alchemist. The next wave 1583. which are these that follow. of collections concerning Dee, which shaped Ashmole’s later views 7. Liber Sexti Mysteriorum (&Sancti) parallelus Novalisq about him, would take place twenty years later. 8. Liber peregrinationis primae (Sexte Mystici prodromus) 9. Mensio Mysticus Saobaticus. 5. Ashmole’s renewed interest in Dee: 1672–1680s 10. Liber Mystici Apertorij Cracoviensis Sabbatici. 1584 But in Dr: Dee MS (from which it was printed) it hath this Title In March 1654, Ashmole received a letter from his regular cor- respondent and lender of alchemical manuscripts, Sir Thomas Libri Septimi Apertorij Cracoviensis, Mystici Sabbatici, pars tertia a Browne (1605–1682), the Norwich antiquary and natural philoso- 1584 pher, and author of the successful Religio medici (London, 1644) 11. Libri Septimi Apertorij Cracoviensis Mystici Sabbatici p. (Josten, 1966, p. 661–662). He related the life of his late neighbour, quarta Dr Arthur Dee, and informed Ashmole of a few episodes of John 12. Libri Cracoviensis Mysticus Apertorius. Dee’s life. Apart from this, there is no other evidence of Ashmole’s 13. Mysteriorum Pragensium Liber prim Caesaresq research on Dee until 1672. For the remainder of the 1650s, Ash- 14. Mysteriorum Pragensium Confermatio. mole was involved in time-consuming legal suits with his wife, 15. Mysteriorum Pragensium Confermatorum Liber. which forced him to abandon his project of issuing further volumes 16. Vnica Actio; quae Pucciana vocetur (A. 1585. Aug: 6) of the Theatrum chemicum Britannicum. From the Restoration until 17. Liber Resurrectionis 1672, his appointments as Controller of the Excise and Windsor 18. Mysteriorum divinorum memorabilia allowed him very little free time. When available, he used it to research the legal, ceremonial, and historical past of the Order Thus far from the printed books. Other Manuscripts. of the Garter, studies which culminated in his Institution, laws and 19. 48 Claves Angelicae. This booke is written in the Angelick ceremonies of the most noble Order of the Garter (London, 1672). Just Language. Interlened with an English translation. Cracoviae, after the publication of his in May, Ashmole acquired ab Aprilis 13. ad July 13. a colleague with whom to share the burden of his post at the Excise 20. Liber Scientiae, Auxilij et Victoriae Terestris. office. This was more than welcome, because it coincided with a 21. De Heptarchia Mystica Collectaneorum, Lib: primus classic example of how serendipitous circumstances can rekindle a dormant interest.

14 Ashmole’s notes on practical alchemy are in MS Ashmole 537, interleaved pages between pp. 192 and 219. Ashmole quoted from various known alchemists, such as , (pseudo) Llull, Morienus and Flamel, whose works were available in print and in manuscript, both in Latin and in English, and from two unidentified French alchemists who do not appear to have ever published. One of these, ‘H.R. de Linthout sieur de Montelyon’ and ‘Jehan Luoge de Baur en Languedoc’ (interleaved page before p. 219), was cited by Ashmole in French. However, even these passages on practical alchemy (which mention the operations needed to obtain the stone, the chemicals needed, what reactions they would produce, and so on) leave open the possibility that Ashmole was in fact just checking the textual accuracy of these passages, which all refer to the same operation, namely the production of the red stone. This scant evidence may therefore merely reflect Ashmole’s intellectual interest in alchemy, rather than any concern with trying it out himself. 15 MS Ashmole 1492, Part I contains Dee’s handwritten Latin notes: Ashmole has only numbered the first seven pages. MS Ashmole 1451 is a fifteenth-century alchemical manuscript which Dee annotated throughout with comments about alchemical operations: Ashmole did not write anything on it. MS Ashmole 204, Part 18 contains a list of alchemical drugs written by Dee, but no notes by Ashmole. MS Ashmole 1486, Part V contains Dee’s laboratory notes, which Ashmole did not annotate. 16 Ashmole (1652, p. 462); the quote corresponds to Bacon (1640, p. 37). V. Feola / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 530–538 535

22. Liber Enoch. I suppose Liber Logaeth & this are also in the course. For example, he added a lengthy note to his copy of Casau- MS: I copied from (which I borrowed from Sir John Cotton) bon’s edition of Dee’s angelic dealings: it hath this Title. Liber Mysteriorum, Sextus & Sanctus. In these 5 Bookes the Angells tought them how to make ye holy 23. A Book of Supplications, & Invitations. Table, the Sigillum dei (which in all Actions lay vnder the Shew-stone) how to Governe themselues, to obteyne Confer- (MS Ashmole 1790, Part III, Item 13, fols. 52–53) ence, & many other things. (‘Preface’, MS Ashmole 580, p. 43) In a cipher note which he added to Lilly’s autobiography, Ashmole Interestingly, Ashmole entitled this list ‘A Catalogue of Dr: Dees recorded, M.S: as are come to my handes.’ However, he had collected far more than just this, both in manuscript and in print. In addition to the What were the reasons why the Angells were not obedient or material Ashmole had acquired in the early 1650s, for instance, his did not willing declare their answers to kellys questions/For protégé Saunders gave him a fourteenth-century Mr. Lilly saith/I could give another reason beside his viscious- on vellum.17 His friend and protégé Lilly gave him Dee’s Propaedeu- ness but they are not for paper. (Cited in Josten, 1966, p. 1114) mata aphoristica (London, 1558) (MS Ashmole 153). Of a completely There is also ample evidence that Ashmole successfully found the different nature was Dee’s ‘Supplicacion to Q: Mary’, copied by Ash- key to reading Dee’s tables, with angels’ names hidden among let- mole with the ‘Articles concerning the recovery and preservation of ters and numbers.20 In the Theatrum he spoke of the possibility of the ancient Monuments & old excellente writers, & also concerning attaining direct contact with God through angelic mediation: the the erecting of a Library.’18 He even copied Dee’s classification scheme of books, and his Mortlake library catalogue.19 The latter two items Angelicall Stone....endowes the possessor with Divine Gifts. It testified to Ashmole’s lifelong interest in the cataloguing and safe- affords the Apparition of Angells, and gives a power of convers- keeping of books, which we find reflected even in his Dee collections. ing with them, by Dreames and Revelations. (Ashmole, 1652, However, Ashmole’s list really focused on the kind of material which sigs. A4v–B1v) especially interested him, namely the angelic works. It is uncertain whether Ashmole ever attempted to conjure an- In the previous section, I noted that Ashmole was probably not a gels on the basis of Dee’s manuscripts. Although Ashmole collected practising alchemist, although he appreciated the importance of Dee’s prayers under the heading ‘Notes for Practise’ (MS Ashmole experiments. Now we turn to those experiments which Ashmole 1790, fol. 39r), this heading may simply refer to Dee’s own practice. did perform, and which bear some resemblance to Dee’s crystallo- All that can be safely said is that he managed to collect a great deal mancy. The evidence for Ashmole’s magical experiments, which in- of Dee’s angelic material, and that he studied it at least from a phil- volved casting sigils and talismans, dates back to his entry into ological point of view. Backhouse’s circle. For instance, as early as 1649 Ashmole copied This approach can be identified elsewhere: for instance, in Ash- Dr Roger French’s English translation of Cornelius Agrippa’s De occ- mole’s note, ‘obserue whether Annael, which is praepositus orbis ulta philosophia, which was published in London in 1651 and dedi- veneris, be not there written with a double n page 4’ (MS Ashmole cated to another acquaintance of Backhouse’s, the Hartlibian 1790, fol. 54b). MS Ashmole 580 contains his corrections to his reformer Dr Robert Childe (British Library MS Sloane 3824). The copy of Meric Casaubon’s Faithful relation. In fact, as I show else- 1651 edition, moreover, contained a poem written by Ashmole’s where, Ashmole applied this kind of philological work to most of protégé John Booker (just before Ch. I, Book I). In the Sloane manu- his alchemical, astrological, magical, medical, heraldic, historical, script, Ashmole transcribed a section on crystallomancy (MS Sloane and legal papers.21 Ashmole’s approach to his manuscripts was 3824, fols. 54v–70r), while the subsequent folios are devoted to sig- more philological than practical. In other words, he collated and ils. In the Theatrum, Ashmole had quoted extensively from Agrippa amended manuscripts, rather than using them in the laboratory or to explain his ideas about magic (Ashmole, 1652, esp. 443–449). in front of a crystal ball, for experiments. The only documented The evidence for Ashmole’s casting of sigils runs continuously experiments which he carried out, as noted above, were those from the late 1640s until his death in 1692 (Black, 1845, passim). involving sigils. Even these triggered his antiquarian curiosity so For example, in his copy of French’s Agrippa, Ashmole drew several much so that he corresponded with the orientalist Thomas Hyde, sigils (MS Sloane 3824, fols. 100v–117r) and wrote next to two of Bodley’s librarian, in order to obtain English translations of medieval them, ‘by me’ (the seals of the spirits ‘Vassago’ and ‘Agares’, at fols. Arabic and Persian works on sigils (MSS Ashmole 430–432, fols. 111v and 112v respectively). In order for a sigil (usually a piece of 154–186). Lauren Kassell (2005, p. 48, 2006, p. 122) hypothesises lead) to become infused with magical powers—for instance, to heal that Ashmole, like his fellow antiquary John Aubrey, who helped a wound, or to bind someone to behave in a certain way—Ashmole, Ashmole in his quest for Dee’s manuscripts (Clark, 1898, Vol. I, pp. like all good natural magicians of his time (and of the past) had to 210–214), might have been collecting sources for a history of magic. conduct several operations. These could vary, from brandishing a This seems plausible, at least in view of one of the letters which sword, wearing a priest’s garments and sprinkling the lead with Hyde wrote to Ashmole: ‘When I met with any more Bookes which baptismal holy water, to invoking supernatural creatures, such as may probably contain any things to your purpose, I will endeavour to angels and demons (and sometimes even invoking Adam, the first search out what may be found’ (MSS Ashmole 430–432, fol. 187r; my man) to intercede with God; that God might elect the conjurer to emphasis). Was that purpose a history of magical experiments be a magician, thus infusing his lead with magical powers. Invoca- involving sigils and angel conjuring? tions and prayers might vary, but the help of angels was always Ashmole collected other documents concerning sigils and mag- required. ical operations involving angels, such as the manuscripts of Simon Ashmole studied Dee’s angelic manuscripts closely, and his Forman and . He both repeated Forman’s experi- annotations show that he trusted Dee’s accounts of angelic inter-

17 MS Ashmole 1471 bears Dee’s, Saunders’s and Ashmole’s possession signatures. 18 MS Ashmole 1788, fols. 80–82. Quotation from fol. 81r, dated 15 January 1556. 19 Ibid., fol. 134; MS Ashmole 1142, fols. 1–74. 20 MS Ashmole 422, Ashmole’s transcript of the Liber Mysteriorum Sextus et Sanctus. On fol. 15r, Ashmole has written: ‘from Dr Dees transcript.’ 21 For instance, MS Ashmole 971–972 is Ashmole’s interleaved copy of the Theatrum. It contains his philological marginalia which he kept adding to it since 1652 until the late 1680s. I give a fuller treatment of Ashmole’s philological work in Feola (in press-b). 536 V. Feola / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 530–538 ments involving sigils, and annotated his manuscripts (MS Ashmole interest. It seems that this interest only really manifested as an ac- 421, fol. 171r–v). Even here, however, Ashmole’s observations are tive collecting policy years later, as we have already seen in the case primarily philological. For example, MS Ashmole 244 contains of Ashmole’s Theatrum. Forman’s ‘Boke of giantes and huge and monstrose formes’, a work Besides the acquisition of astrological material in manuscript on ‘Adam and Eve’, Napier’s prayers for conjuring angels, and For- form, Ashmole simultaneously collected some four hundred vol- man’s book of Cabala ‘and names of Angels and evil Spirits.’ On umes of English almanacs, dating from the late sixteenth century fol. 33v, Forman recorded the age of the world according to his cal- until his death in 1692. These illustrate the formation of an English culation. Ashmole noted alongside that another computation was astrological printing market in the vernacular—a subject close to also possible, and gave a different result. On fol. 50r, Ashmole sup- Ashmole’s heart since his youth. They also contain much informa- plemented Forman’s astrological explanation of a horoscope with tion on the history of the English weather and its astrological prog- an alternative way of casting it, while Ashmole’s annotations to For- nostication.24 Indeed, Ashmole meticulously recorded the weather man’s angelic papers recall those he added to Dee’s. In each case, every day for eight and a half years, from 6 July 1677 to 31 December Ashmole used the manuscripts both as a basis for experiments of si- 1685. He added a preface, in which he regretted the little time that he gil-making, and as texts with antiquarian value. could devote to recording data about the wind, rain, and tempera- tures: ‘nevertheless, for so much as is set downe, I haue endeavoured 6. Beyond the angels to render it exact’ (MS Ashmole 438, p. 2). This suggests that he had collected those data for others to use: for example, in order to build a In 1685, Ashmole wrote to his fellow antiquary, the Oxford database for terrestrial astrology. We should note his use of the ther- scholar Anthony Wood, that mometer for this undertaking. Simultaneously, from July 1677 until September 1689, Ashmole received John Goad’s monthly weather ’Tis probable I may say something of Doctor Arthur Dee, in the prognostications (Josten, 1966, p. 220). A later account mentions Ash- lyfe of his Father, because it will fall in proper enough; but what mole’s participation in a committee of the Royal Society, ‘for collect- that will be, I cannot yet determine. Neuertheless I would haue ing all the phenomena of nature hitherto observed, and all you to make as much use of my papers, as will serue your experiments made and recorded’ (Birch, 1756, Vol. I, p. 407). It is pos- Tourne. (‘28. Mar. 1685’, MS Wood F. 39, fols. 85–86v) sible that the weather data collection related to this. Similarly, Ash- By then Ashmole had sufficient material to provide the basis for a mole copied Napier’s own observations on the weather from 20 book-length biography of Dee, although his chronic lack of time July 1598 to 16 August 1635 (MS Ashmole 423, fols. 1–25). would eventually prevent him from achieving this goal. This major Given this interest, we can see why Ashmole welcomed his project, a life of Dee, can be related to other developments in Ash- acquisition of ‘Dee’s observations of the Weather from May 1547. 25 mole’s collecting habits. In another letter to Wood, dated ‘Jan. 16. to 16 Feb. 1551’, noting that ‘they are very exact and particular.’ 1685/6’, Ashmole explained, ‘what great use you could make of Although only a single example, this note on Dee’s weather records the Accidents relating to the Nativities of Persons, where they are still compares favourably with the lack of any annotation by Ash- collected together; which is seldome done’ (cited in Josten, 1966, mole in Dee’s alchemical manuscripts. Ashmole may have collected p. 1810). Ashmole had been painstakingly collecting nativities— Dee’s alchemical manuscripts and books—as indeed the rest of his astrological schemes in which biographical data of an individuals alchemical works—for posterity, to keep as records of English are recorded (Curry, 1989, pp. 8–13)—since the 1640s. But it was alchemical practice and poetry. On the other hand, Ashmole’s weath- only in the 1670s and early 1680s that he acquired a treasure trove er notes, including his short one on Dee’s observations, indicate that of nativities, thanks to the legacies of his astrologer-protégés. These he actually worked on them. included Dee’s own nativity, obtained from Thomas Browne.22 The natural history of was certainly one of Ashmole’s Moreover, in 1676 he received several volumes of astrological manu- main intellectual preoccupations. In the ‘Statutes and Rules’ which scripts from Thomas Napier, containing biographical data on hun- he wrote for the Ashmolean Museum, he declared: dreds of seventeenth-century Englishmen and women (Black, Because the knowledge of Nature is very necessarie to Humaine 1845). Ashmole bound them with other nativities, and in 1681 al- life, health, & the conveniences thereof, & because that knowl- lowed Aubrey to work on them in order to extract biographical data edge cannot be soe well & usefully attain’d, except the history on behalf of Anthony Wood (Josten, 1966, p. 1697). Aubrey also used of Nature be knowne & considered; and to this, is requisite information that he found in Ashmole’s manuscripts for his own the inspection of Particulars, especially those as are extraordi- 23 prosopographical work, Brief lives. Ashmole planned to compile a nary in their Fabrick, or usefull in Medicine, or applied to Man- catalogue of biographies of of the Garter, and collected a ufacture or Trade: I Elias Ashmole, out of my affection to this wealth of biographical data about them (in MSS Ashmole 1097– sort of Learning, wherein my selfe haue taken, & still doe take 1135). It is possible that he intended to write a prosopography of the greatest delight....(MS Rawl. D.864, fols. 187v–188r) eminent loyal subjects of English monarchs, since Knights of the Gar- ter were assumed to be the most loyal of subjects (Begent, 1999, pas- We can detect echoes of Francis Bacon’s Advancement once more. sim). He also collected, but managed to print only an abridged version through lack of time, the lives of all the Garter Kings of Arms 7. Conclusion (cf. MSS Ashmole 1097–1135). The astrological nativities section of Ashmole’s library testifies to his efforts to collect material for a study I have argued that Ashmole’s collections and views about Dee of England’s most illustrious men, and his own collection of material should be viewed against the broader background of Ashmole’s on John Dee, must, therefore, be considered as an example of this collecting activities, and in the context of the uses to which he

22 MS Ashmole 1788, fols. 136a and 137a contain two horoscopes set on Dee’s nativity, partly by Ashmole and partly by his friend, the astrologer and book collector William Lilly. MS Ashmole 1790, Part III, item 19. MS Ashmole 1788, fol. 140a is Kelly’s nativity, whereas MS Ashmole 1790, fol. 59b is also Kelly’s nativity, reproduced in Ashmole (1652, p. 479). 23 Clark (1898). Aubrey acknowledged Ashmole’s help in Vol. I of his Brief lives, pp. 26, 33, 44, 146, 162, 210, 285, 318; vol. II, pp. 33, 91, 201, and 203. Anthony Grafton has drawn attention to the antiquarian uses of astrological material: Grafton (1999), esp. pp. 56–70. 24 On early modern weather collections, see Golinski (2007). 25 MS Ashmole 1788, fol. 10b. Ashmole had obtained another copy of Dee’s ‘diary’, Stoffer’s ephemerides, from a Dr Francis Bernard. V. Feola / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 530–538 537 wished to put his collections. Material about Dee interested 1443, 1489 (on Saunders); MSS Ashmole 137, 186, 242, 339, 423, 1420, 1445 Ashmole because it provided information, first, for an exemplary (on Wharton); MSS Ashmole 242, 297, 342, 371, 394, 423, 438, 826, 537, 971– 972, 1097–1135; MS Rawlinson D.864; MS Wood. F.39 (other). life of an eminent Englishman. Second, it constituted evidence for London, British Library MSS Sloane 78, 3188, 3189, 3191, 2599, 3678, 3822, 3824; English alchemical and angelological practices. It is indeed possible Additional MS 36674; MS.Harley.2407. that Ashmole collected alchemical and angelical manuscripts, Northampton, Northampton Record Office, Isham Family Letters 1563–1669, I. C. fol. 272r. including Dee’s, in order to document the history of those disci- plines in England. It is also possible that he used Dee’s angelic pa- Printed sources pers for his own experiments with magical sigils and angelic invocations. He certainly worked philologically on the angelic pa- Anonymous (Duncan, P. B.?). Handlist of Elias Ashmole’s manuscripts. pers, whereas Dee’s alchemical ones remained untouched. Finally, Appleby, J. (2004). Dee, Arthur (1579–1651). In Oxford Dictionary of National Ashmole was pleased to have Dee’s weather records within his col- Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. doi: 10.1093/ref:odnb/7415. Accessed 30.05.11. lections for a natural history of the English weather. Ashmole, E. (1650). Fasciculus chemicus: or, chymical collections. Expressing the Ashmole’s understanding of Bacon’s empiricism shaped his ingress, progress, and egress, of the secret Hermetick science, out of the choicest and ideas about experiments, as well as about the importance of the most famous authors. London: J. B. Fletcher for Richard Mynne. Ashmole, E. (1652). Theatrum chemicum Britannicum....The first part. London: J. antiquary’s role as a gatherer and preserver of useful evidence Grismond for Nathan Brooke. about natural and political history. However, while Bacon had tried Bacon, F. (1640). Of the advancement and proficience of learning or the partitions of to exclude alchemy, astrology and magic from respectable natural sciences IX Bookes (G. Wats, Trans.). Oxford: Leonard Lichfield, Printer to the philosophical practices, Ashmole argued for their inclusion. Hunter University. Begent, P. J. (1999). The most noble Order of the Garter: 650 years. London: Spink & Son. and Hoppen have suggested that there were several different kinds Bennett, J., Johnston, S., & Simcock, A. V. (2000). Solomon’s house in Oxford. New finds of Baconianism at work among the early fellows of the Royal Soci- from the first Museum. Oxford: Museum of the History of Science. ety.26 Ashmole’s collections and views about Dee reflected one such Birch, T. (1756). History of the Royal Society of London for improving of natural knowledge: from its first rise. In which the most considerable of those papers kind, however unlikely this might appear at first sight. communicated to the Society, which have hitherto not been published, are inserted We might imagine Ashmole at his desk, with all the relevant pa- in their proper order, as a supplement to the philosophical transactions (4 Vols.). pers from his Dee collections well arranged in chronological order London: Printed for A. Millar. Black, W. H. (1845–1866). A descriptive, analytical, and critical catalogue of the before him, as he diligently picks out those that he will use to illus- manuscripts bequeathed unto the University of Oxford by Elias Ashmole: Also of trate the importance of Dee as an English worthy, or to amend some additional MSS. Contributed by Kingsley, Lhuyd, Borlase and others. Oxford: Casaubon’s work, or to compare his weather records with those Oxford University Press. Capp, B. (2004). Fiske, Nicholas (1579–1659). In Oxford dictionary of national in the printed almanacs for the same years. Collecting, comparing, biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/ref:odnb/53670. translating, working philologically on texts, compiling indexes, and Accessed 27.05.11. amending erroneous words, dates and calculations: that was the Casaubon, M. (1659). A true and faithful relation of what passed for many years between Dr John Dee and some spirits. London: Garthwait. work of Ashmole, the Baconian-bent antiquary. We can also imag- Cerquiglini-Toulet, J. (2010). Penser la littérature médiévale: par-dela le binarisme. ine another side to Ashmole. In his study, perhaps with his friend French Studies, 64(1), 1–12. Lilly, with whom he had tried to conjure fairies in a crystal ball, Clark, A. (1898). ‘‘Brief lives’’: chiefly of contemporaries/set down by John Aubrey he may have attempted to reproduce Dee’s angelic invocations, between the years 1669 and 1696. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cole, A. (1995). Virtue and magnificence: Art of the Italian renaissance. New York: which he had transcribed as ‘Notes for Practise.’ Here, we embark Abrams. on speculation. The only safe conclusion regarding Ashmole’s col- Cooke, A. (2001). Royal weather. Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond., 55(1), 119–127. lections and views about John Dee is that they reflected Ashmole’s Corbett, M. K. (1983). Ashmole and the pursuit of alchemy: The illustrations to the Theatrum chemicum Britannicum, 1652. Antiquaries Journal, 63, 326–336. personal reading of Bacon, as well as the influences of Backhouse Cunningham, A., & Grell, O. P. (1996). Religio medici: Medicine and religion in the and Oughtred’s circles in which natural philosophy very broadly seventeenth century. Aldershot: Ashgate. defined mingled with antiquarian practices. Curry, P. (1989). Prophecy and power: Astrology in early modern England. Cambridge: Polity. Curry, P. (2004). Lilly, William (1602–1681). In Oxford dictionary of national Acknowledgements biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/ref:odnb/16661. Accessed 27.05.11. Eichel-Lojkine, P. (2001). Le siècle des grands hommes. Les recueils de vie d’hommes I am grateful to Murray Edwards College, Cambridge, to the illustres avec portraits du XVIe siècle. Louvain: Peeters. Lightfoot Fund of the History Faculty of Cambridge University, to Feola, V. (2005). Elias Ashmole and the uses of antiquity. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge the British Federation of Women Graduates, and to the Fondation University. Feola, V. (2005b). Elias Ashmole’s library for the Ashmolean Museum. Bibliotheca, 1, Wiener-Anspach, for funding this research, which I mostly carried 259–278. out during my doctoral studies at Cambridge University. I thank Feola, V. (2008). Elias Ashmole’s Theatrum chemicum Britannicum (1652): The Scott Mandelbrote and John Morrill for their inspiring comments. relation of antiquarianism and science in seventeenth-century England. In K. I thank the staff of Duke Humfrey’s for letting me consult Ash- Eisenbichler (Ed.), Renaissance medievalisms (pp. 322–325). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. mole’s material over and over again since 2000. I thank my anon- Feola, V. (in press-a). The learned press: mathematics, astronomy, botany, ymous reviewers and Jennifer Rampling for making many helpful geography, and natural history, 1584–1780s. In I. Gadd (Ed.), The History of recommendations. Oxford University Press (Vol. I). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Feola, V. (in press-b). Elias Ashmole and the uses of antiquity in seventeenth-century England. Brussels & Lyon: E.M.E. References Golinski, I. (2007). British weather and the climate of Enlightenment. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Grafton, A. (1999). Cardano’s cosmos: the world and works of a renaissance astrologer. Manuscripts Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Josten, C. H. (1949). William Backhouse of Swallowfield. Ambix, 4, 1–33. Oxford, Bodleian Library MSS Ashmole 174, 204, 242, 488, 356, 369, 422–424, 430– Josten, C. H. (1966). Elias Ashmole (1617–1692): His autobiographical and historical 432, 440, 487–580, 972, 1131, 1142, 1423, 1426, 1440, 1442, 1446, 1451, 1457, notes, his correspondence, and other contemporary sources relating to his life and 1459, 1471, 1486, 1488, 1492, 1788–1790, 1506, 1819 (on Dee); MSS Ashmole work (5 Vols.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 36, 178, 180, 184, 185, 240, 243, 321, 339, 368, 421, 423, 770, 784, 826, 972, Geneva, A. (1995). Astrology and the seventeenth-century mind: William Lilly and the 1131, 1139, 1400, 1447, 1457, 1458, 1463, 1489, 1506, 1731, 1788 (on Society language of the stars. Manchester: Manchester University Press. of Astrologers); MSS Ashmole 339, 391, 394, 421 (on Fiske); MSS Ashmole 121, Hoppen, K. T. (1976). The nature of the early Royal Society. Part II. The British Journal 186, 240, 241, 243, 290, 1501 (on Lilly); MSS Ashmole 176, 240, 242, 350, 423, for the History of Science, 9(3), 243–273.

26 Hoppen (1976, pp. 243–273) and Hunter (2007, pp. 1–23). Also, see Cook (2001, p. 119), on the early Society’s interest in weather records. 538 V. Feola / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 530–538

Kassell, L. (2005). The economy of magic in early modern England. In M. Pelling & S. Robbins, R. H. (2004). Browne, Sir Thomas (1605–1682). In Oxford dictionary of Mandelbrote (Eds.), The practice of reform in health, medicine, and science national biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/ref:odnb/ (pp. 43–57). Aldershot: Ashgate. 3702. Accessed 30.05.11. Kassell, L. (2006). ‘‘All was this land full fill’d of Faerie’’, or magic and the past in Roberts, J. R., & Watson, A. G. (Eds.). (1990). John Dee’s library catalogue. London: The early modern England. Journal of the History of Ideas, 67(1), 107–122. Bibliographical Society. Hunter, M. (1995). Science and the shape of orthodoxy. Intellectual change in late Schnapp, A. (1993). La conquête du passé. Aux origins de l’archéologie. Paris: Editions seventeenth-century England. Woodbridge: Boydell. Carré. Hunter, M. (2007). and the early Royal Society. A reciprocal exchange Schuler, R. M. (1980). Some spiritual alchemies of seventeenth-century England. in the making of Baconian science. The British Journal for the History of Science, Journal of the History of Ideas, 41(2), 293–318. 40(1), 1–23. Willmoth, F. (2004). Oughtred, William (bap. 1575, d. 1660). In Oxford dictionary of Oughtred, W. (1634). To The English gentrie and all the others studious of the national biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb. Mathematicks. London: A. Mathewes. com/view/article/20950. Accessed 27.05.11. Porter, M. H. (2004). Saunders, Richard (1613–1675). In Oxford dictionary of national Zetzner, L. (1601–1661). Theatrum chemicum. Praecipuos selectorum auctorum biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/ref:odnb/24702. tractatus de chemiae et lapüidis philosophici (9 Vols.). Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner. Accessed 27.05.11.