ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: KNOWING THE WORLD: JOHN DEE AND HIS CONTEMPORARY NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS Erin Euzane Wessell, Doctor of Philosophy, 2018 Dissertation Directed by: Dr. Philip Soergel, Professor and Chair, History Department John Dee (1527-1608/9) was an astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I and a philosopher who sought secret knowledge of the natural world. Dee observed the heavens; he argued for a reform of astrology based on accurate measurements of the motions of heavenly bodies; he developed a monad through which an alchemist could read nature; he highlighted the value of mathematics for studying the natural world; he tutored explorers in navigational techniques; he evaluated the Gregorian reform of the calendar; and he spoke with angels. He used every means at his disposal to understand the natural world, yet it was his angel conversations that most influenced Dee’s story and place in history. For centuries after his death, Dee was mentioned primarily as a sorcerer who had lost his way, but historians have recently reconsidered Dee’s work as part of a re-examination of early modern science. I examine John Dee’s variety of approaches to understanding the natural world within the context of the activities of his contemporary natural philosophers, including Gerard Mercator, Gemma Frisius, Girolamo Cardano, Thomas Digges, Jofracus Offusius, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Michael Maestlin, Simon Forman, and Robert Fludd. I consider Dee’s goals for understanding the natural world, the methods that he used to gain that knowledge, and the context in which he worked in an effort to uncover Dee’s scientific contributions and to suggest ways in which Dee’s activity might influence our understanding of the practice of early modern natural philosophy. Dee was a respected philosopher during his time, and his advancements in navigation and his application of mathematics to the study of the natural world were some of his most lasting influences in the development of science. At the same time, his introduction of a monad through which an adept alchemist could “read” nature was received positively in alchemical circles and adopted by other philosophers. I argue that Dee’s varied methodology of understanding the natural world was, indeed, common practice in the sixteenth century. Many of his contemporary philosophers were seeking the same goals and using some of the same methods of natural inquiry as John Dee. KNOWING THE WORLD: JOHN DEE AND HIS CONTEMPORARY NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS by Erin Euzane Wessell Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History 2018 Advisory Committee: Professor Philip Soergel, Chair Associate Professor Janna Bianchini Professor Erika Milam Associate Professor Gerard Passanante Associate Professor Stefano Villani © Copyright by Erin Euzane Wessell 2018 ii Acknowledgements I am grateful to so many individuals and instutitions for their support throughout the process of writing this dissertation. First and foremost, the History Department at the University of Maryland has given me the opportunity to work with outstanding faculty in the fields of early modern history and the history of science. In particular, I greatly appreciate the mentoring that I received from Dr. Philip Soergel, my advisor through this process, Dr. Erika Milam, and Dr. Donald Sutherland. They all taught me to ask new questions and to challenge the purpose and significance of my historical studies. They treated me as a colleague throughout my entire PhD process, and they were nothing but supportive. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Dr. Janna Bianchini, Dr. Gerald Passannante, and Dr. Stefano Villani, for reviewing my work and for suggesting areas for further research. Finally, I want to acknowledge the wonderful support I received from the History department staff, particularly Jodi Hall and Gail Russell. They were always quick to help me any time I had a question or worry. I am grateful to the History Department and to the College of Arts and Humanities for giving me the opportunity to work with such supportive faculty and for providing funding for me to present two papers at conferences during my studies. I received much assistance and encouragement from the librarians and staff at multiple libraries, including the Bodleian Library at Oxford University, the British Library, the Library of Congress, the Folger Shakespeare Library, and, of course, the University of Maryland Libraries. Interlibrary Loan Services at the University of iii Maryland went to great lengths to help me access rare sources, and I am especially appreciative of their quick and dependable service. Writing a dissertation definitely takes an emotional toll on a person, and I could not have finished this work without my circle of wonderful family and friends. I first realized the thrill of conducting research and engaging in intellectual inquiry with colleagues during my undergraduate studies, thanks to the guidance of my mentor and friend, Dr. Edward Chute. My colleagues and friends at Towson University and the University of Maryland showed nothing but support and excitement for me while I worked full-time while pursuing my degree. The writing sessions that I had with my colleague and friend, Amy Chase Martin, were crucial to finishing this project. Finally, my family has always supported my efforts to pursue my education. They gave me the confidence to persist in my work, reminding me what an important accomplishment this would be for me both professionally and personally. I am most grateful for the unwaivering support that my husband, Ian, showed during the highs and lows throughout this process. We were blessed with the birth of our daughter, Emilia, in 2017, and she constantly inspires me to be the best role model I can be. This dissertation, and all of my work hereafter, is for Ian and Emilia. v Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. iii List of Illustrations ............................................................................................................. vi Chapter One: Discovering John Dee ....................................................................................1 The Life of John Dee .......................................................................................................6 John Dee in History .......................................................................................................30 A Comparative Study of John Dee ................................................................................42 Chapter Two: John Dee’s Natural Philosophy ...................................................................47 Propaedeumata Aphoristica (1558) ...............................................................................50 Monas Hieroglyphica (1564) .........................................................................................58 Mathematicall Praeface (1570) ......................................................................................64 John Dee’s Work in Navigation .....................................................................................70 A Playne Discourse (1583) ............................................................................................73 John Dee’s Conversations with Angels .........................................................................81 John Dee’s Natural Philosophy ......................................................................................99 Chapter Three: John Dee and his Colleagues ..................................................................104 John Dee in Louvain ....................................................................................................106 Gemma Frisius (1508-1555) ....................................................................................111 Gerard Mercator (1512-1594) ..................................................................................119 Girolamo Cardano (1501-1576) ...................................................................................132 Jofrancus Offusius (1505-1570) ..................................................................................144 Thomas Digges (c. 1546-1595) ....................................................................................148 John Dee and His Colleagues ......................................................................................158 Chapter Four: John Dee and His Contemporary Philosophers ........................................164 Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) ............................................................................................166 Michael Maestlin (1550-1631) ....................................................................................176 Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) ......................................................................................182 Simon Forman (1552-1611) .........................................................................................199 Robert Fludd (1574-1637) ...........................................................................................208 John Dee in Context .....................................................................................................218 Chapter Five: John Dee’s Legacy ....................................................................................224 John Dee’s Texts ..........................................................................................................225 John Dee and his Network ...........................................................................................228 The Reception of Dee’s Work .....................................................................................235 A True and Faithful Relation and its Influence ...........................................................243 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................250 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................257 Manuscripts ..................................................................................................................257 Printed Sources ............................................................................................................259 Secondary Sources .......................................................................................................264   vi List of Illustrations Figure 1. Self Portrait of John Dee .....................................................................................3 Figure 2. John Dee’s monad from his Monas Hieroglyphica (1564) ................................60 Figure 3. Image from the frontispiece to John Dee’s General and Rare Memorials Pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation (1577) ............................................72 Figure 4. Excerpt from John Dee’s copy of the Book of Soyga ........................................85 1 Chapter One: Discovering John Dee When Pope Gregory XIII declared in 1582 that there would be revisions to the calendar used by Christian Europe, reactions were exactly as one might expect: Catholics adopted the new calendar, while Protestants both resisted it and claimed it was the work of the Anti-Christ.1 England took a moment to evaluate the new calendar, but most English political and religious leaders felt it would be impossible to adopt a calendar created by the head of the Catholic Church after Henry VIII had rejected papal authority in the mid-1520s. When it came to the question of whether England should adopt the new calendar, though, one of Queen Elizabeth I’s (1533-1603) advisors pointed out that the revisions that Pope Gregory XIII’s calendar commission proposed were sound. Her advisor did not recommend adopting the Gregorian calendar outright; instead, he argued, England should present the world with a more accurate calendar that was revised back to the birth of Christ rather than to the Council of Nicaea as the papal bull pronounced. Doing so, he argued, would make England and its queen the natural leaders of the Christian world. Elizabeth’s advisor, John Dee (1527-1608/9), was an astrologer, scientist, mathematician, alchemist, philosopher, scholar, and believer in natural magic. Educated at Cambridge, Dee was a true polymath who spent his life studying the natural world through alchemy, astrology, experiment, observation, and numbers. He traveled to the 1 See H.M. Nobis, “The Reaction of Astronomers to the Gregorian Calendar” and M.A. Hoskin, “The Reception of the Calendar by Other Churches,” in Gregorian Reform of the Calendar: Proceedings of the Vatican Conference to Commemorate its 400th Anniversary (1582-1982), ed. G.V. Coyne, S.J., M.A. Hoskin, and O. Pedersen (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 1983), 243-255 and 255-264. 2 Low Countries in the late 1540s and early 1550s to work with philosophers like Gerard Mercator (1512-1594) and Gemma Frisius (1508-155) to refine and restore astrology based on precise measurements of the movements of heavenly bodies. In 1550, he lectured on Euclid in Paris, which got the attention of several high-powered potentional patrons, including Tsar Ivan the Terrible (1530-1584), Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1500-1558), and King Henry II of France (1519-1559). Dee turned down these opportunities, though, and returned to England in the hopes of gaining the favor of the British monarch. King Edward VI (1537-1553) did not oblige, and Queen Mary I (1516- 1558) imprisoned Dee on charges of conjuring in 1555. Dee was eventually acquitted after undergoing religious examination by Bishop Edmond Bonner (c. 1500-1559), but this was one of many instances in which Dee would have to face accusations of sorcery throughout his lifetime. Before Mary’s reign, Dee had been hired as a tutor a number of powerful families in England, and, through his connections, he did win some favor from Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth made Dee her Royal Astrologer, and she trusted his advice on mathematics, astrology, and navigation. Dee continued his inquiry into the natural world, publishing texts about reforming astrology, reading nature through alchemy, and the usefulness in mathematics in both practical life and in uncovering hidden knowledge in nature. He he built a vast library of ancient and modern sources and continued to take on students. He also advised adventurers like Martin Frobisher (c. 1535-1594) and Richard Chancellor (1521-1556) as they sought new British trade routes to East Asia. 3 John Dee seemed to hold a position of great influence, and he promoted himself as someone who had been specially chosen to receive secret knowledge of the natural world. In the early 1580s, Dee traveled to Eastern Europe to search for a patron who would recognize his talents and give him a position of privilege. During this time, Dee was also heavily involved in communicating with angels with the help of a scryer. After periods of prayer and fasting, Dee would use a showstone or similar object to reach the angels by bending light. He then recorded in his diaries the books of knowledge that the angels dictated to him, speaking through numbers. Dee devoted much of his lifetime to learning the secrets of the natural world from angels, and he encountered potential Figure 1. Self Portrait of John Dee, who is pointing to the monad he presented in his Monas Hieroglyphica (1564). From John Dee, “Genealogical roll of the descent of John Dee … showing his kinship with the Sovereigns of the House of Tudor” (n.d.), British Library Cotton Ch. XIV.1, available online at www.bl.uk/collection-items/john-dees-genealogy-and-self-portrait (accessed 31 May 2018). 4 patrons in Holy Roman Emperor Rudoph II (1552-1612) and in the Bohemian noble Vilém Rozmberk (1535-1592) who were interested in what the angels had to say to Dee. Dee traveled through Eastern Europe with Edward Kelley (1555-1597), his most famous scryer, but Dee and Kelley did not receive the positions that they sought. Kelley became more interested in his alchemy and pursuing the philosopher’s stone. Eventually their relationship came to an end, and Dee returned to England to find that his home and library had been pillaged. He pleaded with Elizabeth and later with King James I (1566- 1625) for his fortunes to be restored, and Dee was granted some small support and positions. Dee died poor in 1608/9, and he was remembered as both a philosopher and an eccentric.2 Dee was not seriously studied as a scientist until the 1950s when scholars such as I.R.F. Calder, Frances Yates, and Peter French highlighted Dee as an example of how Neoplatonic beliefs influenced the development of modern science; hence, the view of John Dee as a Renaissance magus arose. Since that time, historians have paid more attention to John Dee as an individual, and they have produced more nuanced studies of his application of mathematics in studying the natural world, his angel conversations, and his intellectual networks. History has moved away from labeling Dee in a specific manner toward instead examining Dee’s unique arguments and position in natural 2 For decades, scholars tended to focus on John Dee’s angel conversations with his seer, Edward Kelley, while ignoring his contributions to natural philosophy. As a result, Dee was portrayed as a dupe, a conjuror, and a fraud. For a review of some of the earliest literature on John Dee, see I.R.F. Calder “John Dee Studied as an English Neoplatonist,” 2 vols., PhD dissertation (The Warburg Institute, London University, 1952), 166-185, EThOS: Electronic Theses Online Service, British Library (www.bl.uk), Accessed April 4, 2018; and Peter French, John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus (London: Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1972), 9-19. 5 philosophy at a time when philosophers were changing the way they studied and understood the natural world. John Dee’s application of mathematics to the study of the natural world and his close observations of nature situated him centrally within the context of an emerging modern science; however, his pursuit of universal and unifying forces and his confidence that God has revealed secrets through nature demonstrate his more mystical beliefs about human knowledge. To Dee, the tools of observation and mathematics should be employed to gain complete knowledge of the world—including knowledge of how the world functions and the knowledge of its divine plan. My study surveys the many tools that Dee and his contemporary philosophers used to examine the natural world and discover its secrets. Such a comparison reveals that Dee employed some of the same methods of studying the natural world as his contemporary philosophers, and he worked toward some of the very same goals as his colleagues—achieving complete knowledge of the natural world, including secret knowledge. The fact that Dee did share some ideas and practices with some of his contemporary natural philosophers problematizes a number of previous viewpoints of John Dee. First, it refutes the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century view of Dee as a philosopher who was misguided by vanity and therefore contributed little to scientific study. Likewise, it unravels the view of Dee as a major contributor to the development of modern science put forth by Calder, Yates, and French in the mid-twentieth century. Finally, it also suggests that Dee’s “magical” ideas and angel conversations cannot be separated and dismissed from his work in mathematics and astronomy, as historians like J.L Heilbron and Allen Debus preferred to do in the 1970s. In fact, many of Dee’s 6 colleagues engaged in similar studies of the natural world, incorporating occult practices, which makes Dee neither the hero nor villain of modern science. This is not to say that Dee’s activities were not unique or that he contributed nothing new to early modern science. In fact, Dee recorded years of his conversations with angels, and much of those conversations focus on correcting the decay of the natural world. He was a proponent of reforming astrology based on mathematics and precise measurement, and he proposed an alchemical symbol that could explain all of nature. In his commentary on Euclid, Dee gave one of the strongest arguments of his time not only for the application of mathematics in studying the natural world but also for the practical use of mathematics. Furthermore, Dee’s expertise in navigation inspired and instructed multiple voyages of discovery in the mid- to late-sixteenth century. Dee’s particular ideas and accomplishments may seem like small contributions to science, when we may prefer instead to focus on paradigm-shifting developments. However, Dee exemplifies the varied scientific practices of the late sixteenth century, and his work reveals some of the changes that were slowly being adopted in the study of the natural world. The Life of John Dee A brief review of Dee’s education and scholarly activities reveals how Dee developed his particular methods and goals for investigating the natural world. Dee’s life and studies from 1527 to 1608/9 can be broken down into five main stages: (1) his schooling at Cambridge where he first developed his interests in nature; (2) his early travels through Europe through which he made contact with many significant scholars; (3) his stay in Mortlake as he served Elizabeth, built his expansive library, and conversed with angels; (4) his travels through Eastern Europe with his “seer” Edward Kelley and his 7 supporter Albert Laski (1527-1605); and (5) his final years in England which he spent defending his life’s work. Each stage represents a new step in the development of Dee’s particular natural philosophy. Dee entered St. John’s College, Cambridge, in November 1542 after completing school at Chelmsford in Essex. According to his own writings, Dee was a devoted student, spending about eighteen hours per day studying.3 Dee likely would have studied the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric), the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music), and the three philosophies (moral, natural, and divine). Aristotelian philosophy and the medieval dialectic were probably still being taught at Cambridge at this time.4 However, Renaissance humanism had been generating changes in university curriculum for decades, and Dee studied with a group of scholars who promoted the new learning, rejecting logic as the basis for metaphysics and emphasizing grammar and rhetoric. Dee was especially interested in mathematics, though, and he turned to tutors like John Cheke (1514-1557) and Sir Thomas Smith (1513-1577) for instruction. Cheke and Smith had also instructed pupils in astrology and alchemy, and Dee may have learned some occult theories and practices through these tutors.5 3 John Dee, Compendious Rehearsall (1592), British Library Cotton MS Vitellius C VIII, arts 1-6, 4. Of course, Dee could have been exaggerating his study habits for his audience, Queen Elizabeth I. 4 See Nicholas Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion (Routledge, 1998), 23-24; Mark H. Curtis, Oxford and Cambridge in Transition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959), 86-7; and French, 22-23. 5 See Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 26 and French, 23-24. Cheke had Prince Edward write a Latin exercise in praise of astrology and possibly even arranged for Girolamo Cardano to cast Edward’s nativity. Smith instructed Gabriel Harvey in alchemy. Private study of the occult sciences in the universities was not specifically prohibited, as long as illicit and unlawful practices were avoided. See Mordecai Feingold, “The Occult Tradition in the English Universities of the Renaissance: A Reassessment,” in Brian Vickers, ed., Occult and Scientific Mentalities of the Renaissance (Cambridge: 8 While at Cambridge, an incident occurred that would continue to haunt Dee later in his professional career. He created a mechanical beetle for a production of Aristophanes’ Peace. Apparently, the machine was so life-like that Dee’s classmates accused him of using magic.6 This would not be the only time that Dee would be accused of sorcery; in fact, he would spend much of his later life defending his methods of investigating the natural world.7 It is clear that Dee had an interest in astrology, mathematics, and the cosmos early in his education. In 1546, during his final year as an undergraduate, Dee began to make astronomical observations. He recorded that, using a quadrant and a cross-staff, he made “observations (very many to the hour and minute) of the heavenly influences and operations actual in this elemental portion of the world.”8 What is striking in this statement is Dee’s concern with accuracy. He was especially interested in learning why the planets were located in their particular positions throughout the year. Such knowledge was necessary for understanding time and making accurate astrological predictions. Dee Cambridge University Press, 1984), 81; John Strype, The Life of the Learned Sir John Cheke (1705; reprint, New York: Lennox Hill, 1974), 105; Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 343. British Library MS Sloane 325 contains numerous horoscopes of his family and famous people recorded by Smith. 6 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 3. 7 Dee defends his reputation against accusations of being a conjuror in the “Digression Apologeticall” at the end of the Mathematical Praeface. See John Dee, “The Mathematicall Praeface” in Allen G. Debus, ed., The Mathematicall Praeface to Elements of Geometrie of Euclid of Megara (1570) with an Introduction by Allen G. Debus (New York: Science History Publications, 1975), A.j.-A.iij. Furthermore, Dee provides an explanation for his activities over his lifetime in John Dee, John Dee, A Letter, Containing a most Briefe Discourse Apologetical (London, 1599), available through Early English Books Online (www.eebo.chadwyk.com), accessed August 12, 2014, also available in John Dee, Autobiographical Tracts (1600; reprint, 2003). 8 Dee notes, “Of which sort I made some thousands in the years then following.” Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 3. 9 later published his astronomical observations as various “Ephemerides,” diaries in which Dee recorded both heavenly motions and his own life events.9 The diaries reflect Dee’s concern for precise measurements and observations—there are notes throughout the pages and scratches where information needed to be corrected. Dee graduated from Cambridge in 1546 and became a Fellow of St. John’s College. In the same year, Henry VIII established Trinity College and appointed Dee as a founding fellow. Dee seemed anxious to travel to the Continent, though, to discuss natural philosophy and mathematics with learned men from universities in the Low Countries. He spent several months there in 1547, where he formed friendships with Gerard Mercator, Gemma Frisius, and other philosophers. When he returned to Cambridge in 1548, Dee brought with him two globes made by Mercator, an astronomer’s armillary ring, and a brass staff designed by Frisius.10 After receiving his M. A. degree from Cambridge, Dee returned to the Continent and enrolled in the University of Louvain. Before leaving England, Dee turned down positions at Cambridge and Oxford, perhaps because he found the atmosphere uncongenial to his studies.11 On June 24, 1548, Dee arrived in Louvain, where he studied with Frisius and Mercator.12 Mercator became a particularly close friend of Dee. Dee addressed a prefatory letter in his Propaedeumata Aphoristica (1558) to Mercator, in which he noted 9 See John Dee, Diaries of John Dee, Bodleian Library Ashmole 487 and 488. 10 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 7. Dee brought the astronomer’s staff back to England, where Thomas Digges developed it into an accurate astronomical instrument. See John J. Roche, “The Radius Astronomicus in England,” Annals of Science, 38 (1981): 18-23. 11 In a later letter to Sir William Cecil, Dee lamented that universities did not have men well versed in the “science De Numeris formalibus, the science De Ponderibus mysticis, and the science De Mensuris divines (by which three the huge frame of this world is fashioned, compact, rered, established, and preserved).” See John Dee, Letter of Dr. John Dee to Sir William Cecil. 1562-3, ed. R.W. Grey (1854), 6-7. 12 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 7. 10 that their discussions proved the inspiration for much of the work.13 During his time in Louvain, Dee wrote two texts on astronomy that included expositions on mathematical techniques that he used to arrive at calculations like distances between heavenly bodies.14 He also composed a collection of twenty-four books now lost, entitled Mercurius coelestis, presumably a Hermetic text.15 Dee was using mathematics to understand and explain the natural world, and he was building a reputation for learning beyond his years. In his autobiographical Compendious Rehearsall (1592), Dee lists the people who traveled to Louvain to seek his counsel, including members of the courts of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, the Danish King Christian III, and, of course, Edward VI.16 In 1550, 13 Dee, Propaedeumata Aphoristica Ioannis Dee, Londinensis, de praestantioribus quibusdam naturae virtutibus (1558), Early English Books Online, Accessed May 28, 2013, www.eebo.chadwyk.com, n.p. Also available in John Dee, John Dee on Astronomy: Propaedeumata aphoristica (1558 and 1568), ed. J. L. Heilbron and Wayne Shumaker (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978), 110-119. 14 The two texts Dee wrote, presumably while in Louvain, were De Caelestis Globi amplissimis commoditatibus (1550) and De Planetarum, Inerrantium stellarum, Nubiumque a centro terrae distantiis: & stellarum omnium veris inveniedis magnitudinibus (1551). The first text covered the use of the celestial globe, and the second deals with the sizes and distances of heavenly bodies. The second text addresses questions that concerned Mercator and Gemma Frisius, and it is related to Dee’s astrological studies in Louvain. Dee dedicated the texts to King Edward VI in 1550 and 1551, and Edward granted Dee a royal pension. John Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, (1592), 8; John Dee on Astronomy, 116-117; John Dee, Briefe Discourse Apologeticall, n.p. Also available in John Dee, Autobiographical Tracts, 74. See also Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 29-30. 15 Dee refers to the Mercurius coelestis in his Compendious Rehearsall, 8. Peter French argues that the text was likely Hermetic, based on its name. French, 28-29. Given Dee’s tutoring at Cambridge and his interest in astrology, it is likely that Dee had already been studying alchemy, Hermeticism, and maybe even the Cabala for many years at this point. The Cabala was known in England early in the sixteenth century. See Philip Beitchman, Alchemy of the Word: Cabala of the Renaissance (New York: SUNY Press, 1998), 209- 210; and Frances Yates, The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age (1964; reprint, New York: Psychology Press, 2001), 45-46. 16 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 3b. Edward VI sent Sir William Pickering, his English Ambassador to the court of Charles V, to consult with Dee. Dee tutored Pickering in 11 Dee went to Brussells and Antwerp, where he may have met two other scholars who conversed with Frisius and Mercator: Abraham Ortelius (1527-1598), cartographer and geographer and creator of Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1570), and Pedro Nuñes (1502- 1578), a Portuguese scholar who worked in mathematics, geography, physics, and cosmology. Dee was making connections on the Continent that not only built his reputation but also expanded his scholarship. Dee, Mercator, Ortelius, Nuñes, and Frisius were all connected in their interests in geography, cosmography, and history. During his visit to Louvain, Dee was certainly taken with the instruments that Mercator, Ortelius, and Frisius were developing to map more accurately the globe and the cosmos. Dee developed life-long relationships with Ortelius and Mercator that centered on geography, map-making, and understanding the natural world. Over the next thirty years, Dee would correspond with Ortelius and Mercator about geographical and historical research.17 In these early years, though, Dee, Frisius, and Mercator shared an interest in astrology, and they were especially concerned with investigating the physics of celestial influence in the sublunary region.18 To that end, Dee focused his work primarily on the determination of the sizes and the distances of the planets. Ultimately, Dee and his colleagues were interested using natural philosophy to reform the theoretical foundations of astrology. A reformed astrology based on natural mathematics, logic, rhetoric, and the use of astronomical instruments such as the astrolabe and the astronomer’s staff. See Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 27. 17 See Nicholas Crane, Mercator: The Man Who Mapped the Planet (New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2003), 269-280. 18 Mercator, in particular, saw a correspondence between the force of the sun and the stars to the growth of sublunar bodies. See Mercator to H. de Rantzau, May 1585, in, Correspondence mercatorienne, ed. M. Van Durme (Antwerp, 1959), 192 (microform). See also Steven Vanden Broecke, “Dee, Mercator, and Louvain Instrument Making: an Undescribed Astrological Disc by Gerard Mercator (1551),” Annals of Science, 58 (2001), 219-240 and Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 27-29. 12 philosophy could inform scholars about the inner-workings of the universe, especially those forces that appeared to be hidden from human understanding. When Dee traveled to Paris in 1550 to lecture on Euclid’s Elements, he found that his fame had preceded him. It is impossible to know the content of Dee’s lectures in Paris, but historians have theorized from Dee’s writings that he may have presented his theory of numbers operating in three forms: mathematically in their pure geometrical properties, physically in their applications, and speculatively in their philosophical function and importance, much like Henry Cornelius Agrippa’s De occulta philosophia (printed in Paris, 1531).19 Dee may have been formulating and sharing his views on the role numbers play as intermediaries between the natural and supernatural realms. While in Paris, Dee was likely exposed to proponents of universal science and religion like Guillaume Postel (1510-1581) (who often corresponded with Ortelius) and Antoine Mizauld (1510-1578). These scholars sought a unifying theory for nature, one that would bridge the gap between the imperfect world below and the perfect world above.20 Practitioners of universal science, then, could move between the two worlds. Dee sought such mobility,21 19 Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 29 and French, 30-35. French bases his argument on Dee’s Mathematicall Praeface (1570), which opens with a discussion of numbers existing in three worlds, the divine world, the mechanical world, and the elemental world. Dee, Mathematicall Praeface. 20 See Zvi Ben-Dore Benite, The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 148-155; William J. Bouwsma, Concordia Mundi: The Career and Thought of Guillaume Postel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957); Lucien Febvre, The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Problem of Rabelais (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 107-121; and Klaus Vondung, “Millenarianism, Hermeticism, and the Search for a Universal Science,” in Science, Pseudoscience and Utopianism in Early Modern Thought, ed. Stephen A. McKnight (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992), 118-140. 21 Deborah Harkness has argued that by 1580, Dee’s conception of a universal science included optics, mathematics, cabala, angelology, eschatology, and alchemy. Deborah 13 and he focused his studies on the role mathematics could play in understanding the natural world. His ideas caught the attention of important scholars in Paris. In 1551, Dee was offered a position as professor of mathematics in Paris, which he turned down.22 By the 1550s, some specific elements of Dee’s approach to natural philosophy were clear. First, Dee placed a great emphasis on accurate observations of the motions of the heavens. Second, he was interested in using those observations to reform astrology, and he may have been learning about the Cabala at this time as well. Third, he recognized the importance of numbers when operating within the natural and the supernatural worlds. Fourth, he saw connections between the earthly, sub-lunar level and the heavenly realm. To bridge those realms, Dee would use every tool at his disposal, including classical study, mathematics, astrology, astronomical observation, alchemy, and conversations with angels. In 1551, John Dee returned to England, where he was formally introduced to King Edward VI. Through his connections, Dee had opportunities for patronage from other members of the English court besides the monarch. By February 1552, Dee entered the service of William Herbert (1580-1630), the Earl of Pembroke, presumably as a tutor in mathematics.23 Dee also became a tutor to the Dudley family, most notably to Robert Dudley (1532-1588). Dee became an advisor to Richard Chancellor, chief pilot for the Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the End of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 62-97. 22 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 8. 23 Pembroke had a great interest in astronomy and astrology. Dee recorded in his Diaries that Pembroke gave him notes on the Monas Hieroglyhpica and was a guest at Mortlake for a time in the 1580s. Dee noted in his diaries that he received the notes on Monas Hieroglyphica from “William Harbert” on January 16, 1577 and that “William Herbert” was living with him in Mortlake on January 11, 1582. Dee, Diaries, Bodleian Library Ashmole 487. 14 voyage that had searched for a northeast passage to the Indies.24 Dee was suddenly operating among some of the most powerful potential patrons in England. At the same time, he was meeting new scholars; for example, Dee met the mathematician, physician, and astrologer Girolamo Cardano (1501-1576) in London in 1552. The two scholars shared an interest in analyzing celestial forces on the natural world, and both men believed they received instructions from angels that influenced their natural philosophy.25 By the early 1550s, Dee seemed to have a promising future. He was discussing natural philosophy and astrology with a number of different scholars throughout Europe, and he interacted with some powerful members of the English court. When Mary came to the throne in July 1553, though, Dee’s fortunes started to change. The Duke of Northumberland, Dee’s chief patron, and Robert Dudley were imprisoned for their role in supporting the succession of Lady Jane Grey to the throne. The Duke of Northumberland was executed, but Robert Dudley was eventually released. John Cheke was also arrested as a traitor, and, though he was pardoned, he spent his remaining years in exile until his death in 1557.26 William Cecil managed to survive, but he was no longer in a position of influence. Roland Dee, John Dee’s father, was suspected to be a Protestant, and he was arrested in August 1553. Roland Dee was later released after being deprived of all of his financial assets. John Dee had expected to inherit considerable wealth from his father, 24 Chancellor did not discover the passage, but he did reach Muscovy (Russia), and he retuned to England with new trade agreements. Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 31-32. 25 Girolamo Cardano, The Book of My Life (De vita propria liber), trans. Jean Stoner (London: J. M. Deut and Sons, 1931), 240-247. For a list of Cardano’s books owned by Dee, see Roberts and Watson. Unfortunately, only one has been recovered. See also Anthony Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos: The Worlds and Works of a Renaissance Astrologer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 111-112. 26 Strype, 92-95. 15 which would allow him to conduct his scientific studies without worrying about an income. That was no longer a possibility. He might have solved his financial difficulties by accepting a lectureship in mathematics at the University of Oxford in 1554, but the opportunity fell through, for reasons that Dee does not explain in his Compendious Rehearsall.27 On May 28, 1555, John Dee was arrested for “conjuring,” witchcraft, and “calculating” (or casting horoscopes) for Queen Mary and Princess Elizabeth, a charge that was later expanded to treason against Queen Mary.28 Dee was imprisoned, his papers were searched, and his London dwelling was sealed. This incident was a serious blow to Dee’s reputation, especially because George Ferrers, Dee’s accuser, also said Dee and his associates had a “familiar spirit” that killed one of his children and blinded another.29 Dee appeared before the Star Chamber and exonerated himself, but he was turned over to Bishop Edmund Bonner for religious examination. Bonner was a conservative who was unsympathetic to any form of magic and unlikely to favor those associated with the Duke of Northumberland. Yet, in Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, Dee appeared as an ally to 27 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 10. 28 A private letter from Thomas Martyn written on 8 June 1555 asserts that Dee was imprisoned following an accusation by one George Ferrys that Dee was attempting to enchant the Queen by calculating the nativities of the Queen, the King, and Elizabeth. Others arrested at the same time include Christopher Carye, who may have been a student of Dee, and Thomas Benger, who was the servant of Elizabeth for whom Dee worked. John Roche Dasent, ed., Acts of the Privy Council of England, Volume 5 (London: Printed for H.M.S.O. by Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1892), 143 and Robert Lemon, ed., Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, 1547-1580 (London: Longman, 1856), 67, no. 34. 29 Calendar of State Papers,1547-1580, 67, no. 34. 16 Bonner.30 Dee may have been saying anything to avoid further punishment and persecution. He was released without penalty on August 29, 1555. No real conclusion about Dee’s religious beliefs can be drawn from this incident or from any texts that Dee left behind.31 Queen Mary and her supporters were suspicious of Dee, given his close relationships with reformers during King Edward VI’s reign.32 In general, though, it seems that Dee tried to avoid religious controversy altogether. John Dee faced two lasting consequences from this trial. First, Dee’s financial foundation had been dismantled. He would spend his life attempting to secure funds from the British monarch and other wealthy patrons. Second, Dee was publically charged for conjuring, which forever damaged his reputation.33 After his release from prison and examination, Dee quickly tried to win Mary’s favor. He had acquired several books and manuscripts between 1547 and 1556, and on January 15, 1556, Dee presented plans for a national library to Queen Mary. The plan never received official support, but, despite his limited financial resources, Dee set out to 30 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 7. Dee is named as Bonner’s chaplain during the examination of John Philpot on 19 November 1556. John Foxe, Acts and Monuments, ed. Stephen Reed Cattley, (1563, reprint; London: R. Clay, 1838), 7: 638-644. 31 In a recent biography of John Dee, Glyn Parry even states that Dee took the necessary steps to become a Catholic Priest shortly after Mary assumed the throne, presumably to show his loyalty to the Catholic monarch. Parry notes that Dee appears in Edmund Bonner’s ordination register. Glyn Parry, The Arch-Conjuror of England: John Dee (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012), 28-29. 32 Benjamin Woolley has suggested that Dee found favor with Elizabeth so quickly because he was acting as a spy for her while working in the court of Queen Mary. See The Queen’s Conjuror: the Science and Magic of Dr. John Dee, Adviser to Elizabeth I (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001). See also French, 34-35. 33 Dee defends his reputation against accusations of being a conjuror in the long “Digression Apologeticall” at the end of the Mathematical Praeface. Furthermore, Dee provides an explanation for his activities over his lifetime in his Briefe Discourse Apologeticall. 17 create his own library at Mortlake.34 Dee acquired books and manuscripts in England and on the Continent. His collection included works by Euclid, Regiomontanus, Copernicus, Agrippa, Pythagorus, Humphrey Gilbert, Raymond Lull, Porphory, Avicenna, Ptolemy, Nicholas of Cusa, Girolamo Cardano, Savonarola, Gemma Frisius, Lorenzo Valla, Cicero, Roger Bacon, among many others. The topics of Dee’s collection ranged from natural philosophy to navigation, history, English chronicles, various calendars, and astrological tracts.35 It is from Dee’s library that historians have come to understand his interests and the development of his natural philosophy. Dee’s collections between 1547 and 1556 suggest that mathematics and astrology represented his strongest interests at the time. He relied on ancient and modern texts to learn all he could about reading the Book of Nature. He showed a heavy interest in geography, map-making, and history as well as natural philosophy. By 1556, Dee had built up a remarkable collection of astronomical instruments, globes (including one given to him by Mercator), and clocks, all of which were housed in his library. Dee’s library became one of the greatest in England, and it attracted many scholars and patrons, including Elizabeth.36 34 Fragments of Dee’s library can be reconstructed from John Dee, Catalogus librorum Bibliothecne (externae) Mortlakensis. D. Joh. Dee (1583), Bodleian Library Ashmole 1142. The original manuscript of John Dee’s library catalogue (Trinity College, University of Cambridge, MS O.4.20) is available online at trin-sites-pub.trin.cam.ac.uk (accessed 16 July 2018). In the 1970s Richard Julian Roberts and Andrew Watson edited this volume and published a new edition in 1990 (Oxford University Press). They published amendments and corrections in 2009 [Julian Roberts and Andrew G. Watson, John Dee’s Library Catalogue: Additions and Corrections (London: Bibliographic Society, 2009)], and the Bibliographical Society continues to publish additions and corrections (www.bibsoc.org.uk/content/john-dees-library-catalogue, accessed 16 July 2018). See also Charlotte Fell Smith, John Dee, 1527 to 1608 (1909; reprint, Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004), 29-44 and French, 40-61. 35 Dee, Catalogus librorum Bibliothecne (externae) Mortlakensis. 36 In fact, historian Francis R. Johnson has argued that Dee’s home in Mortlake might truly be considered the scientific academy of England during the first half of Elizabeth’s 18 Queen Mary died in 1558, the same year that Dee first published his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, a set of 120 aphorisms for applying mathematics to astronomical and astrological study. In the text, Dee emphasized the measurement of distances and bodies within the universe. Accurate calculations would form part of the reformed astrology that he and his colleagues like Mercator and Frisius had advocated. Within the Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee reinforced two ideas that were consistent throughout his works: that numbers and mathematics were necessary to understanding the natural world and that more natural knowledge could be unveiled through a precise astrology built on solid mathematical foundations. Dee also relied heavily on direct observation to understand the celestial motions; later, however, he would rely less on observation and more on the intermediary power of numbers within his natural philosophy. Dee’s political and professional prospects improved after his publication of Propaedeumata Aphoristica and the rise of Queen Elizabeth. He quickly found favor with the new queen, perhaps through his ongoing connections with Robert Dudley. Elizabeth even asked Dee to use his astrological skills to select the best day for her coronation (January 15, 1559).37 During the next five years, Dee traveled back to Europe, stopping in Antwerp and Zurich. It was during this time that Dee purchased his copy of Trithemius’ Steganographia, a cryptic text that explains how to send messages over great distances through angels. Much of the book is devoted to describing the ranks of angels and various incantations used to summon the angels’ aid. Clearly, Dee was taken with the reign. Francis R. Johnson, Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England: A Study of the English Scientific Writings from 1500 to 1645 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1937), 138-139. 37 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 7. 19 text. In his February 16, 1563 letter to William Cecil, Dee lamented that the kind of learning he encountered in the Steganographia was not available in England, and he wanted to extend his time abroad.38 By the 1550s, Dee was already investigating how he might communicate with angels and learn from them. Dee returned to Antwerp to supervise the printing of his Monas Hieroglyphica on 31 March 1564. The Monas was an interpretation of a symbol that Dee created to read the entirety of nature and to express the unity of creation. The text included a very long and informative letter of dedication to Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II, in which Dee states that he had devoted twenty years of work to the “Hermetic” science and that his mind had been “pregnant” with the Monas for seven years.39 This statement implies that Dee had begun studying the Cabala, alchemy, numerology, and Hermetic magic around the time he entered Cambridge and that he worked on the Monas and the Propaedeumata simultaneously. While the Propaedeumata Aphoristica offered a means for observing nature and theorizing about occult forces, the Monas Hieroglyphica focused on ways to decipher and analyze those observations. Dee wanted to read the messages within the Book of Nature. He developed his monad as a symbol of the unity of divine and natural knowledge, a means to restore the original divine language of creation that serves as a foundation of all human languages. Between 1558 and 1564, Dee became more 38 In his letter to William Cecil, Dee notes that he had already bought a copy of Steganographia Joannis Tritemij and that it was “very full of human knowledge” (9- 10). He goes on to describe how he has transcribed a copy of the book for Sir William Cecil, at the great cost of 20 pounds. Dee, Letter of Dr. John Dee to Sir William Cecil, 9- 11. 39 John Dee, Monas Hieroglyphica (Antwerp: G. Silvius, 1564), C3, also available through the Library of Congress at www.loc.gov, accessed 10 October 2017. See also John Dee, John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica (1564), translated and introduced by C. H. Josten, “A Translation of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica, Antwerp, 1564, with an Introduction and Annotations,” AMBIX 12 (1964): 146-147. 20 preoccupied with mystical communication and his attempts to uncover the divine plan. His monad offered a way of accessing hidden knowledge of nature and the divine plan. Many of Dee’s contemporaries, especially alchemists, held the Monas in high regard.40 In 1568, Dee published a second edition of Propaedeumata Aphoristica and tutored Elizabeth so that she could understand it. In 1570, Dee edited Billingsley’s translation of Euclid’s Elements, and he included a preface to the work that has become famous among historians because it stands out as a clear declaration of the role of mathematics in investigating the natural world. In his “Mathematicall Praeface,” Dee wrote a justification of mathematics: O comfortable allurement, O ravishing persuasion to deal with a science whose subject is so ancient, so pure, so excellent, so surrounding all creatures, so used of the almighty and incomprehensible wisdom of the Creator, in distinct creation of all creatures: in all their distinct parts, properties, natures, and virtues, by order, and most absolute number, brought from nothing to the formality of their being and state.41 Dee not only praised the importance of mathematics, but he also suggested that numbers are a link to divine knowledge. Within the text, Dee emphasized the knowledge to be gained by quantifying nature, and he outlined mathematics’ influence on the other arts and sciences. He even included examples of studies in which mathematics could be the vehicle for learning something new about the structure of the world and the nature of 40 See Peter J. Forshaw, “The Early Alchemical Reception of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica,” AMBIX 52, 3 (2005): 247-269. 41 Dee, The Mathematicall Praeface, j. 21 causal relationships in scientific explanations, especially within astronomy.42 By the time he wrote the Mathematicall Praeface, Dee had fully developed his argument that mathematics could provide access to the divine and, thereby, reveal secret knowledge about the natural world. While the “Mathematicall Praeface” was an exposition on the valuable role mathematics and numbers could play in natural philosophy, it also promoted the application of mathematics to “practical” activities of artisans, technical craftsmen, and mechanics. This pragmatic side of Dee’s work can be seen in a number of utilitarian scientific projects in which Dee was involved through the 1570s. The most notable of these projects involved problems of optics and navigation. Dee served as an advisor to Elizabeth and several adventurers as voyages of discovery were commissioned. He provided critical expertise in navigation, and he advocated for the creation of a “British Empire,” a term that Dee may have been the first to use in writing.43 In 1577, Dee published General and Rare Memorials Pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation, a work that set out his vision of a maritime empire and asserted English territorial claims on the New World. Dee’s advice about navigation won him many patrons and friends connected to the English court. Several of those friends, including Adrian Gilbert, Richard Hakluyt (1553-1616), and Thomas Harriott would continue to consult with Dee throughout his lifetime. 42 The primary example being “Archemastrie,” a superior science that natural philosophers could use to verify their conclusions and discover new pathways of investigation. Ibid., Aiij. 43 Ken MacMillen, “Discourse on History, Geography, and Law: John Dee and the Limits of British Empire,” Canadian Journal of History, 36, no. 1 (April 2001): 1. Dee’s concerns for trade, ethics, and national strength in England were especially apparent in his manuscript Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis (1570), British Library Add 59681. 22 To an outsider, Dee’s future would have looked bright in the 1570s. In 1579, Dee’s mother gave him the house at Mortlake, where he had been living since the 1550s. By 1583, he had built three laboratories at Mortlake in addition to his famous library. In February 1578, Dee married Jane Fromond, a lady-in-waiting at court, which no doubt increased his contact with officials close to Elizabeth. Together they had eight children. Over the years, Elizabeth consulted Dee on a variety of matters, including the appearance of a comet in 1577, her health, and her titles to overseas territories. Despite Elizabeth’s favor, though, Dee never achieved the high status that he sought within her court. Nevertheless, Dee continued his studies of the natural world. Besides simply knowing and understanding the world, Dee was interested in learning the divine plan for humanity, and as a consequence, he began working towards developing a precise chronology that could predict Christ’s return.44 Like many sixteenth-century observers of nature and the cosmos, Dee interpreted that the changes he was witnessing in the heavens, such as the appearances of new stars, as signs of the “end times.” Since nature seemed to be proving to be unreliable, Dee searched for other ways of understanding the natural world, and he came to believe that source resided in the realm of the angels. It is unclear when Dee first started to communicate with angels. Dee’s library contained numerous texts that explained the process of discerning spirits and communicating through them,45 and he was collecting some of those texts by the 1550s. 44 In his Mathematicall Praeface, Dee had argued that mathematics could be used to understand the natural signs mentioned in the “Sacred Prophecies.” Dee, The Mathematicall Praeface, bi.j. 45 Dee was clearly proud of his acquisition of Johann Trithemius’ Stenographia, which describes the use of spirits to communicate over long distances. See Dee, Letter of Dr. John Dee to Sir William Cecil. Dee also owned essential works on the Christian Cabala by Francesco Giorgi, Henry Cornelius Agrippa, and Johannes Reuchlin as well as copies 23 By the early 1580s, Dee started to converse with angels through the use of a “scryer” or crystal-gazer, who could act as an intermediary.46 In March 1582, Dee met Edward Kelley, a medium whose skills seemed to have impressed Dee. Dee’s conversations with angels (through Kelley) dominated his later life. Dee approached the conversations in a methodic and ritualized manner, always after a period of purification, prayer, and fasting. To Dee, conversing with the angels was a deeply religious experience done for the glory of God.47 Dee believed that the angels dictated several books to him through their divine language, Enochian. He and the angels discussed nature, angelic hierarchy, and God’s plan for the universe. They discussed the future of specific individuals whom Dee invited to the conversations. They also talked about matters in Dee’s life and events that were important to him, such as the reform of the calendar. 48 In 1583, upon Elizabeth’s request, Dee published his commentary on the recent calendar reform led by Pope Gregory XIII. Dee was very interested in the accurate measurement of time and chronology as part of his investigations into the natural world. He recognized that the cosmos was changing, corrupting, and declining.49 To Dee, of The Book of Soyga. See Dee, Catalogus librorum Bibliothecne (externae) Mortlakensis. 46 Dee makes reference to his first scryer, Barnabas Saul, in his diaries in 1581 and 1582. John Dee, Diaries of John Dee (1577-1600), Bodleian Library Ashmole 487, October 8 and 9, 1581, and February 12, 1582. 47 For example, Dee’s De Heptarchia Mystica (1582), like many of Dee’s records of his conversations with angels, suggests that the angels and Dee agreed that their conversations were allowed and sanctioned for the glory of God. De Heptarchia Mystica even contains detailed accounts of how the angels appeared (so that Dee could watch for imposters in future conversations) and how they instructed Dee to prepare for the sacred activity. John Dee, De Heptarchia Mystica (1582), Bodleian Library Ashmole 1790. 48 See John Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, ed. Meric Casaubon (London: Printed by D. Maxwell, for T. Garthwait, 1659) Bodleian Library Ashmole 580. This copy belonged to Elias Ashmole. 49 In A Playne Discourse, Dee noted three changes in the cosmos since the time of Christ: there had been a decline in the position of the sun, the sun’s zenith point had moved, and 24 calendar reform was necessary for humans to recognize the correspondence of astronomical phenomena to God’s revelations in the Bible.50 Not only was it in Dee’s best interest as an astrologer to help establish an accurate calendar for Europe, but it would also earn him the gratitude of a queen. Dee could use this opportunity to become the imperial magus that he hoped to be.51 Dee studied Pope Gregory XIII’s plan for reforming the calendar and wrote an evaluation that praised the proposal yet advocated further reform. In A Playne Discourse (1583), Dee outlined the history of the calendrical problem and praised the work of previous scholars like Roger Bacon and Regiomontanus. Dee seemed satisfied that the commission’s work was sound and that the reforms presented a sensible solution.52 However, he also argued for another correction of the calendar, one that was based on his mathematical analysis, his knowledge of mathematics and direct observation, and his strong belief that knowing the world meant knowing God’s plan for it. Dee had one major point of contention with the calendar commission—the restoration of the calendar to the Council of Nicaea in 325. Dee argued at length for a its distance form the center of the earth had changed. John Dee, A playne discourse and humble advise for our gratious Queen Elizabeth, her most Excellent Majestie to peruse and consider, as concerning the needful Reformation of the Vulgar kalendar for the civile years and daies accompting, or verifyeng, according to the time truely spent (1583), Bodleian Library Ashmole 1789, f. 28. The angel Uriel confirmed for Dee that nature was in a state of decline. See Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, 233. 50 See Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 142-144. 51 Robert Poole argues that Dee was undoubtedly trying to convince Elizabeth of his worthiness through A Playne Discourse. Dee compared his role to Caesar’s astronomer, Sosigenes, creator of the Julian calendar. Robert Poole, Time’s Alteration: Calendar Reform in Early Modern England (London: UCL Press, 1998), 65. See also Dee, A Playne Discourse, 35. 52 Dee, A Playne Discourse, 10-22. 25 retroactive reform to the birth of Christ.53 Dee believed that the Gregorian calendar was based on an artificial foundation (the Council of Nicaea) rather than a cosmic foundation. In response, Dee declared that the birth of Christ was the true “Root of Time,”54 and, in the Playne Discourse, Dee argued for the proper restoration of time. A calendar adjustment retroactive to the birth of Christ would require the deletion of eleven, not ten, days from the current calendar year. Dee made this adjustment in his own separate calendar, and he finished the Discourse with a formal petition to the Queen to adopt his “Elizabethan” calendar.55 In Dee’s vision, England would lead a sort of Protestant counter-reformation of the calendar. In the end the bishops of the Church of England argued forcefully against adoption of the calendar because of its origins in a papal bull. Neither the Gregorian reform nor Dee’s new calendar were adopted. Furthermore, Dee’s comments on the calendar reform did not win him greater favor or recognition in Elizabeth’s court. He was no closer to “correcting” time, either. The angels offered Dee confirmation that the earth was, indeed, decaying and that his calendar was correct. They confirmed for Dee that his talents and knowledge would be recognized at the proper time; 56 therefore, Dee continued to consult the angels for advice and knowledge of the natural world. 53 Ibid., 18-35. See also “Report of Thomas Digges, Sir Henry Savile, and Mr. Chambers on the Correction of the Calendar,” reprinted in “Historical Notice of the Attempt Made by the English Government to Rectify the Calendar, A.D. 1584-5,” Gentlemen’s Magazine and Historical Review XXXVI (November 1851): 453. 54 Dee, A Playne Discourse, 18. Dee concluded his treatise with a short poem: “For he, from Christ, Chief Root of time / The time did try, by heavenly wit: / No Councell dan deme this a crime / From CHRIST, to use, tear time to fit” (35). 55 Ibid., 32-33. 56 In May 1583, the angel Murifi told Dee that “The Earth laboureth as sick, yea sick unto death. . . . Thou hast written my name, and I am of thy Kalender, because thy Kalender is 26 In the meantime, Dee continued to seek opportunities for patronage. In 1583, Dee met the visiting Polish nobleman and alchemist Albert Lasky, who invited Dee to accompany him on his return trip to Poland. Dee, Kelley, and their families left for Poland in 1583, but the men soon parted ways with Lasky. Dee and Kelley traveled through Central Europe while continuing their spiritual conversations, which Dee recorded meticulously.57 From 1583 to 1589, Dee and Kelley visited Poland and Bohemia, holding audiences at the courts of Emperor Rudolph II in Prague Castle and King Stefan Batory of Poland.58 Kelley was becoming a prominent alchemist during this time. He gained fame and wealth, and he was knighted. Dee, on the other hand, continued to encounter financial and political turmoil.59 Moreover, his relationship with Kelley could be very unstable at times. In 1587, the angel Uriel reportedly told Kelley that the two men should share their wives. (Kelley might have been trying to use this strange directive as a way to end his partnership with Dee.) Despite his misgivings, Dee went forward with the request but broke off his relationship with Kelley soon after. Dee continued to reach out to the angels after his parting with Kelley, although his records of conversations from this period are scarce.60 of God.” Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, 4. See also John Dee, Mysteriorum Libri (1581-1583), British Library Sloane 3188, 67a-68a. 57 Dee, A True and Faithful Relation. 58 King Stefan was a devout Catholic, and he made it clear that he would meet with Dee and Kelley provided that nothing in the event would counter the teachings of the Catholic Church. Dee was unsuccessful in his search for a patron, but he was made a Doctor of Medicine at Prague University in 1585. 59 News of Dee and Kelley’s angel-summoning aroused the interest of papal nuncios in the region. Pope Sixus V even demanded that Dee and Kelley travel to Rome for examination. See Dee, True and Faithful Relation, 247 ff and French, 121. 60 Dee may have become more careful about with whom he discussed his angel conversations. For example, on July 31, 1590, Dee states in his diary, “I gave Mr. Richard Candish the copy of Paracelsus twelve Lettres written in French with my own 27 The angel conversations represent a pivotal moment in Dee’s career. Dee made no distinction between his study of nature through observation and mathematics and his study of nature through angel conversations. All means of learning about the occult forces in the universe and the divine plan for humanity were valid, and Dee continued to work with various “seers” to communicate with angels throughout the rest of his life. Dee returned to Mortlake in December 1589 to discover that his library had been looted and many of scientific instruments had been stolen. His home had been partially sacked and burned, and his laboratories were pillaged. Despite these troubles, notable figures still sought Dee’s counsel. Around this time, Dee met Thomas Harriott, and the two discussed scientific and mathematical matters. Adrian and Humphrey Gilbert sought Dee’s advice about new voyages throughout the globe, and Elizabeth continued to visit Dee.61 Because of the costs to rebuild his home and to treat a few medical afflictions, Dee went deeper into debt. He may have even published a popular almanac in 1591 under the pseudonym “J.D.” as a means of recovering funds. A Triple Almanack for the yeare of our Lord God 1591 by J.D. contained three different calendars: the Julian calendar that England still followed, the Gregorian calendar, and a third calendar that offered a “true” hand; and he promised me before my wife, never to disclose to any that he hath it and that yf he dye before me he will restore it agaym to me, but if I dy before him, that he shall deliver it to one of my sonnes, most fit among them to have it.” John Dee, Diaries, Bodleian Library Ashmole 487. He also describes spirits troubling his family. On August 22, 1590, Dee recorded that “Anne my nurce had long byn tempted by a wicked Spirit, but this day it was very evident how she was possessed of him.” Aug. 26: “at night I anoynted (in the name of Jesus) Ann Frank with the holy oil.” Aug. 30, two more annointings when “the wycked one did resist a while.” Sept. 8th, “A.F. tried to drown herself (Dee, Diaries, Bodleian Library Ashmole 488). On May 3, 1594, Dee wrote, “betwene 6 and 7 after none the Quene sent for me to her in the privy garden at Grenwich when I delivered in writing the hevenly admonition, and Her Majestie tok it thankfully” (Dee, Diaries, Bodleian Library Ashmole 488). 61 Dee, Diaries of John Dee, Bodleian Library Ashmole 488. 28 accounting of time.62 Dee never gave up on his mission to restore nature and share his knowledge of the natural world. Dee felt he needed more financial support to maintain his lifestyle and continue his work. In an effort to appease Elizabeth for a higher salary and status, Dee completed The Compendious Rehearsall of John Dee in 1592. The text now serves as an important source of information about Dee’s life, but he intended it as a means of garnering royal support. In the text, Dee outlined his steadfast service to the Crown. He highlighted the various offices that were promised to him but never materialized, he described the extensive damage done to his library, and he explained how he had been forced to live off gifts from friends. As a result of Dee’s entreaties, Elizabeth dispatched two royal commissioners to investigate the state of Dee’s affairs, and she sent him a small amount of money.63 Dee’s writings from the 1590s suggest that his reputation, much like his financial status, was suffering. In 1594-5, Dee sent the Archbishop of Canterbury a letter intended to convince the archbishop that Dee was, indeed, a true and zealous Christian and not a conjuror. The letter was later published as A Letter Containing a Briefe Discourse Apologeticall (1599), and it, too, serves as a biographical source of information about John Dee. 62 J.D., A Triple Almanack for 1591 (London: Richard Watkins and James Roberts, 1591), available through Early English Books Online at eebo.chadwyck.com, accessed April 1, 2018. I.R.F. Calder was convinced that the 1591 almanac was written by Dee. See Calder, 837. Nicholas Clulee supported Calder’s conclusion (Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 229). Robert Poole, though, has argued that the almanac was likely written by John Dade, who may have been familiar with Dee’s work. The “true” calendar in the almanac depends on the removal of thirteen days in one year, not eleven as Dee had suggested. See Poole, 68. 63 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 12. 29 In 1595, Elizabeth appointed Dee as Warden of Christ’s College in Manchester, but he seemed to disagree frequently with the Fellows of the college, for unknown reasons.64 Elizabeth died in 1603, and Dee found his financial support waning. In 1604, Dee actually invited King James I to put him on trial for sorcery, perhaps in the hopes of clearing his name one last time.65 He received no satisfaction from the king, though. In 1605, the plague hit Manchester, and Dee’s wife and several of his children died. Dee returned to London, but he remained warden of Christ’s College until his death. He spent his final years at Mortlake in poverty, eventually selling many of his possessions to provide for himself and for his daughter, Katherine, who cared for him until his death. He died in 1608 or early 1609 at the age of 82. There are no surviving records of the exact date of Dee’s death because the parish registers and Dee’s gravestone are missing. During his lifetime, Dee was famous for his work in astronomy, navigation, mathematics, astrology, and alchemy. At the same time, he was infamous for his conversations with angels and the accusations of sorcery and magic that had been levied against him.66 In 1659, Meric Casaubon (1599-1671) published excerpts of Dee’s angel diaries in A True and Faithful Relation of what Passed for Many Years between John Dee and some Spirits. Casaubon claimed in his long preface to the text that he was publishing the diaries in the hopes that others would learn from Dee’s example of the dangers of 64 Fell Smith, 128-135. 65 John Dee, The true Copie of M. John Dee his Petition to the Kings most Excellent Majestie (London: Printed by E. Short, 1603), Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, accessed April 2, 2018. 66 For instance, John Foxe referred to Dee as “Doctor Dee the Great Conjuror” in his 1563 edition of Acts and Monuments (London, 1563, p. 1444). In 1576, Dee issued a plea that Foxe be prohibited from calling Dee a “Caller of Divels” and the “Arche Conjuror” of England. There was no reference to Dee in Foxe’s 1576 edition of Acts and Monuments. See French, 9. 30 pursuing questionable activities like consulting with spirits.67 The negative reputation that Casaubon built for Dee persisted until the early twentieth century,68 when Charlotte Fell Smith published her biography of John Dee in 1909. Even then, historians who did take an interest in Dee’s studies often ignored his activities in alchemy, astrology, and angel- summoning. It took decades for historians to seriously consider Dee’s “occult” practices as part of his natural philosophy. In some ways, the more holistic view of John Dee has made contextualizing him within the framework of the development of modern science even more challenging. John Dee in History John Dee’s goal was to know the world, and to him, observation, alchemical experimentation, astrological interpretations of heavenly movements, and conversations with angels were equally legitimate routes to achieving that goal. Because his methods of investigating nature were so diverse and because he interacted with many other scholars who shared his views and interests, Dee and his networks present an opportunity to explore exactly how science was practiced in early modern England and how it developed over time. The standard narrative of the Scientific Revolution advocated in the early to mid- twentieth century by Edwin Burtt, Herbert Butterfield, Thomas Kuhn, and Alexander Koyré, among others, suggests that modern science and mathematics replaced 67 Meric Casaubon, “Preface,” in Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, I. 68 For example, Thomas Smith adopted Casaubon’s view of Dee in Vita Johannes Dee, in Vitae quorundam eruditissimorum et illustrium virorum (London, 1707). William Godwin included Dee in his Lives of the Necromancers (London, 1834), 390; and F.R. Raines suggested that Dee desecrated graves in order to commune with spirits in The Rectors of Manchester, and the Wardens of the Collegiate Church of that Town, Chetham Society Publications VI, ed. John E. Bailey (Manchester: Chetham Society, 1885), 104. 31 Aristotelian beliefs and occult practices throughout the seventeenth century.69 Burtt, Butterfield, Kuhn, and Koyré examined the development of early modern science in relation to modern scientific practice and discoveries. In other words, they were seeking in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the precursors of modern science. As a result, a common practice among historians emerged in which “revolutionary thinkers” like Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were studied, while other natural philosophers were ignored. Likewise, historians who embraced the standard narrative devoted little to no attention to the activities of occult practitioners like astrologers and alchemists. If a revolutionary scientist engaged in occult practices (Kepler, for instance), that part of his activities was largely ignored or explained away in some fasion. Since the 1980s, though, historians have questioned that traditional narrative of the development of modern science, which has changed the way we view early modern natural philosophy. History of early modern science now includes lesser-known philosophers as well as famous ones, and it includes occultists.70 It is now common to 69 For a few examples of the early standard narrative of the Scientific Revolution, see Edwin A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1925); Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800 (London: Bell, 1949); Alexander Koyré, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957); and Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). 70 There are far too many texts of revisionist history to list, but a few examples of studies that question the standard narrative of the Scientific Revolution by exploring the practice of science among several different types of invididuals in the early modern period (for instance, women, occultists, and technicians) include Deborah Harkness, The Jewel House: Elizabethan London and the Scientific Revolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008); Lisa Jardine, Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution (New York: Nan A. Talese, 1999); David C. Lindberg and Robert S. Westman, eds., Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Bruce T. Moran, Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005); Meredith K. Ray, Daughters of Alchemy: Women and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy (Cambridge, Mass.: 32 view the development of science in the early modern period not in terms of its modern contributions but instead as a moment unique unto itself in which many people shaped the ways in which science was envisioned and practiced. It is through that lens in which John Dee’s goals and methods for exploring the natural world can be best understood. Dee was not remembered for his major contributions to modern science, and he would have no real place in the standard narrative of the scientific revolution; yet, Dee’s scientific ideas and practices, including his occult pursuits, did influence his colleagues and the ways they viewed the natural world. As part of an effort to study early modern science for its own sake, historians have recently re-examined the ways in which “occult” and “scientific” practices co-existed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For example, William Newman and Lawrence Principe have shown that chemistry and alchemy did not develop as two distinct fields of interest in isolation from one another.71 On the contrary, Newman and Principe argued that leading alchemists engaged in attempts to analyze and understand the smallest particles of matter, which was also an objective of seventeenth-century chemists. Harvard University Press, 2015); Charles Webster, From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the Making of Modern Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Further examples of histories that focus on lesser-known early modern scientists and that pertain to this study include: Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy; Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos; William H. Huffman, Robert Fludd and the End of the Renaissance (London and New York: Routledge, 1988); Lauren Kassell, Medicine and Magic in Elizabethan London: Simon Forman, Alchemist, Astrologer, and Physician (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005); and Barbara Howard Traister, The Notorious Astrological Physician of London: Works and Days of Simon Forman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001). 71 See William Newman and Lawrence Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002); William Newman, Gehennial Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press, 1994); and William Newman, Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006). 33 Likewise, Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs and Margaret C. Jacob have suggested that there was unity in Isaac Newton’s alchemical, scriptural, and scientific pursuits.72 Robert Westman, Edward Rosen, and Owen Gingerish further explained the ways in which astrology was a central feature of scholarly inquiry into the heavens, nature, and the structure of the universe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.73 These historians have challenged the idea that a division existed between modern and antiquated, science and occult. It is clear that, to Dee, there was no division or difference between science and the occult—there was only natural philosophy. He learned as much as he could through the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. He recognized, though, that nature was decaying, and he sought absolute, incorruptible knowledge of the natural world. Dee believed that knowledge could be attained through conversations with angels, through the interpretation of numbers as intermediaries between the celestial and terrestrial realms, and through his alchemical interpretation of the unity of nature. While at one time Dee was known primarily for his occult practices, historians have more recently recognized Dee’s contributions to modern science. Scholars of history first began devoting serious inquiry into the scientific activities of John Dee in the early twentieth century. Charlotte Fell Smith’s 1909 biography of Dee presents him as a hard-working, under-valued, highly skilled scientist 72 See Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy (Cambridge: Cambride University Press, 1983); Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton’s Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs and Margaret C. Jacob, Newton and the Culture of Newtonianism (Amherst, New York: Humanity Books, 1995). 73 See, for example, Owen Gingerich, The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Kepler (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1993); Edward Rosen, Copernicus and His Successors, ed. Erna Hilfstein (London: The Hambeldon Press, 1995); and Robert Westman, The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011). 34 who was fooled by Edward Kelley into engaging in nefarious and less-productive activities like conversing with angels. Fell Smith projects Dee’s life as a great tragedy, the story of a highly promising scholar whose life ended in destitution. In the 1930s, E.G.R. Taylor’s Tudor Geography, 1483-1583 and Francis Johnson’s Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England gave more specific attention to Dee’s reputation as a scientist. Taylor explained how Dee was an important advisor to mariners because of his knowledge of geography and scientific instruments, and she argued that his occult activities did not detract from his scientific contributions.74 Johnson, too, saw Dee as a scientist; in fact, she argued that Dee was “the leading mathematical scientist in England and the most influential teacher and advisor in the field after [Robert] Recorde’s death.” Johnson dismissed Dee’s occult activities, claiming that he was duped by Edward Kelley, and focused instead on his astronomical accomplishments, his attitude towards Copernicus, and his particular scientific method.75 In fact, Taylor and Johnson both went to great lengths to emphasize that Dee’s primary work was, indeed, scientific.76 Fell Smith, Taylor, and Johnson revived John Dee’s reputation as a scientist, but, to make their arguments, they felt they needed to explain Dee’s occult practices as an aberration to his study of nature. 74 E.G.R. Taylor, Tudor Geography, 1485-1583 (London: Methuen & Co., 1930), 77. In a later book, the Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), Taylor again emphasized the importance of Dee as a designer of improved scientific instruments. 75 Francis R. Johnson, 135-136. 76 Taylor continued to defend Dee in later articles. In The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England, Taylor provided a biographical entry for John Dee in which she claimed that “the practical applications of astronomy and geometry were foremost in his mind” (170). In her 1995 article “John Dee and the Nautical Triangle, 1575” [Journal of the Institute of Navigation 8 (1955), 318-325] Taylor divides Dee’s career into two sections: his early career as an expert mathematician and navigator, and his later career as a misguided crystal-gazer. 35 Frances Yates, I.R.F. Calder, and Peter French were among the first historians to attempt more complete studies of John Dee, which included both his “scientific” and “occult” pursuits. In the early 1950s, Calder published his doctoral dissertation in which he argued that Dee fit the mold of a Renaissance Neoplantonist. Through his extensive study of Dee, Calder traced the source of many of Dee’s ideas to Renaissance Neoplatonism, which encouraged the application of mathematical analysis to nature, and, in turn, laid the groundwork for the development of modern science. Calder built upon Edwin Burtt’s thesis that the Renaissance Neoplatonists viewed the universe as made up of numbers, and this view was a significant contributor to the development of mathematical science.77 In other words, Calder presented Dee as a modern, forward- looking figure, and he attempted to dissociate Dee from earlier magical traditions as much as possible. Calder’s teacher, Frances Yates, embraced the mystical traditions with which Dee was associated much more fully. To Yates, Dee fit nicely within the framework of Renaissance Hermeticism. Like many Hermeticists, Dee saw a divine world of unity and harmony, one that could be uncovered and corrected by knowing the secrets of nature and how to manipulate them. Dee was intimately connected with the medieval traditions of Christianity that prepared him for his conversations with angels, which, to him, was both a devoutly religious and scientific experience. In her book, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (1964), Yates suggested that the particular Renaissance magic inspired by the Hermetic Corpus translated by Marsilio Ficino in 1463 created the conditions for the rise of modern science because it placed man at the center of the 77 See Calder; and Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science. 36 mystical forces by which the cosmos operated.78 It is no surprise to Yates that Dee would be obsessed with mathematics, time-reckoning, and the secrets of nature. Yates argued that Dee should be understood as a magus inspired by the revived Hermeticism of the Renaissance,79 much like Henry Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535), who explained in his De Occulta Philosophia that the universe is divided into three sections (elemental, celestial, and supercelestial) and the scholar must use certain techniques to access and to understand each section. To Yates, historians were painting an incomplete picture of John Dee as a scientist if they were not considering his mystical beliefs.80 Yates drew John Dee into the history of modern science by explaining Dee as part of a group of philosophers who bridged a gap between ancient and modern, magic and science. Other historians followed suit. Peter French, another of Yates’ pupils, upheld Yates’ argument that John Dee was a true Renaissance magus, a lofty figure who used religion, magic, and natural philosophy to control heavenly operations. French argued that Dee rejected the new humanism, even though he was well aware that he might be more prosperous in academia if he were to embrace it. Instead, French believed, Dee was a misfit in his time, a Neoplatonist who was more interested in mathematics and philosophy than language and rhetoric.81 To French, Dee’s choice to turn away from humanistic studies and instead focus on mathematics and occult practices is just one 78 Yates reinforced her argument in a later article, “The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science” in Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance, ed. Charles S. Singleton (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). 79 Frances Yates, Girodano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 150, 187-188; Yates, “The Hermetic Tradition,” 259, 261-262; Frances A. Yates, Theater of the World (London: Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1969), 5. 80 See Frances A. Yates, “A Great Magus,” New York Review of Books vol. 19, no. 11-12 (January 25, 1973). 81 French, 22-23. 37 example of how Dee fit the mold of a Renaissance magus. As a Renaissance magus, Dee was both scientist and magician. He was curious, learned, and religious. In French’s view, Dee and his fellow magi lived in a unique space in time that straddled boundaries between medieval Christian philosophy and modern science. Calder, Yates, and French placed Dee at the center of the development of modern science. Each of these historians, though, forced Dee into a specific framework designed to explain the progressive movement from “magic” to “science,” and that framework came under increasing scrutiny in the late 1970s and 1980s. Allen Debus warned against viewing Dee’s natural philosophy as a precursor to modern experimental science in his publication of Dee’s “Mathematical Praceface” (1975).82 In their introduction to the translation of Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica (1978), J.L. Heilbron and Wayne Shumaker rejected any idea of a connection between magic and science and dismissed Dee’s angel conversations as part of his move away from mathematics and more toward occult endeavors.83 In his transcription and analysis of John Dee’s angel conversations, Christopher Whitby argued in his 1988 mongraph, John Dee’s Actions with Spirits: 22 December 1581 to 23 May 1583, that a substantial part of Dee’s practices were influenced more by popular medieval magic than by Hermetic and Neoplatonic ideas. Placing Dee in a context that appears half magical and half scientific can also misrepresent Dee’s goals for learning and mastering the natural world. In John Dee’s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion (1988), Nicholas Clulee raised issues with Yates’ and French’s attempts to place Dee within specific categories such as 82 Allen G. Debus, “Introduction” in John Dee’s Mathematicall Praeface, 21-22. 83 J.L. Heilbron and Wayne Shumaker, “Preface,” in John Dee on Astronomy, ix. 38 “Renaissance Neoplatonism” or “Renaissance Hermeticism.”84 Instead, Clulee argued that Dee’s natural philosophy was unique, and it was based on various traditions in medieval and Renaissance natural philosophy, magic, alchemy, and mysticism. Clulee suggested that forcing Dee into a philosophical context creates methodological difficulties that have caused a misunderstanding of some of Dee’s work in natural philosophy.85 He argued that it is the combination of practical and magical issues that makes Dee’s natural philosophy unique to him. Clulee’s endeavor to evaluate the development of Dee’s thought throughout his lifetime rather than placing Dee within a particular intellectual context was further supported by Julian Roberts and Andrew Watson, who reconstructed the contents of John Dee’s extensive library. In John Dee’s Library Catalogue (1990), they listed the books and manuscripts that Dee owned as well as some of the annotations of his readings that Dee left behind. In doing so, Roberts and Watson highlighted the texts that may have been most influential on Dee’s thinking while also displaying just how varied and extensive Dee’s scholarly pursuits were. William Sherman also paid special attention to Dee’s marginal notes and some of his lesser-known writings when analyzing the context of Dee’s activities in John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance (1995). Like Clulee, Sherman disputed the idea that Dee could be made to fit a particular category, especially not that of a Renaissance “magus” or “Neoplatonist,” 84 At one time, Clulee had tried to reconcile Calder’s and Yates’ theses by placing Dee’s mathematical, magical, and scientific interests within the context of both Renaissance Neoplatonism and Hermeticism. See Nicholas H. Clulee, “The Glas of Creation: Renaissance Mathematicism and Natural Philosophy in the Work of John Dee” (Diss. University of Chicago, 1973), 26-27, 52-67. Clulee re-thought his approach in his 1988 monograph. 85 Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 10-18. 39 because such a characterization would imply that Dee existed on the margins of Elizabethan culture.86 On the contrary, Sherman showed that Dee was an active politician and consultant within Elizabeth’s court. Numerous scholars, merchants, and adventurers, including powerful men and women, sought Dee’s counsel and his library. As a result, Dee built an expansive network and solid reputation during his time. In Sherman’s study, Dee does not appear as an isolated or reclusive figure but as an active and well-connected philosopher. While Clulee, Roberts and Watson, and Sherman did not dismiss Dee’s occult activities, particularly his conversations with angels, they also did not thoroughly explain them as part of Dee’s scientific pursuits. Dee was not the only philosopher to seek communion with spirits,87 but he did devote a significant part of his life to the activity, which had discouraged historians from studying Dee as a scientist before the twentieth century. Yates, French, and Clulee changed that, but none of them analyzed Dee’s angel conversations within the context of his natural philosophy. Yates did not address what she referred to as Dee’s “sensational angel-summonings,”88 and French simply noted that Dee’s angel magic “produced no fruitful results.”89 While Clulee pointed out the important links between Dee’s work and the natural philosophy and Cabalistic and alchemical traditions that preceded him, Clulee treated Dee’s conversations with angels 86 William Sherman, John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995), 14. 87 For example, Simon Forman and Richard Napier were known to dabble in astrology, alchemy, and angel conversations. See Kassell; and John Aubrey, Brief Lives, ed. Richard Barber (1681, reprint; London: Penguin Books, 1982). See also Simon Forman, Dr. Simon Forman’s Book of Cabbalah, and Names of Angels and Evil Spirits (Bodleian Library Ashmole 244), 1-22. 88 Yates, Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, 96. 89 French, 14. 40 as an eccentricity.90 Sherman made some reference to the angel conversations, but he did not contextualize the conversations within Dee’s natural philosophy.91 In John Dee’s Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the End of Nature (1999), Deborah Harkness demonstrated that Dee’s conversations with angels supported his natural philosophy. Harkness argued that Dee’s angel conversations should not be studied apart from his scientific works, because to do so would be to create the image of the eccentric Dee that Meric Casaubon promulgated. 92 The angel conversations, Harkness suggests, took into account the particular challenges of Dee’s world and confirmed for Dee that the natural world was analogous to a text—an imperfect text that could be read, deciphered, and rectified with proper tools. Harkness treated Dee’s conversations with angels as honest indications of Dee’s thoughts and beliefs, especially given the research he did to contact the angels, the rituals he demanded of himself as part of the conversations, and the time and energy he devoted to the purpose. Moreover, Harkness convincingly argued that the angel conversations were part and parcel of Dee’s investigations of the natural world, practiced at a time when many thought that nature and the world as they knew it were coming to an end. Harkness showed that they only way to understand Dee’s particular natural philosophy is to examine all of his methods for uncovering the truth of nature. 90 In John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, Clulee labeled the angel conversations “an embarrassment to any attempt to consider Dee as a significant figure in the history of philosophy and science” (203). Clulee went on to state that Dee’s angel diaries “cannot be considered as science or natural philosophy.” Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 203. 91 Sherman, 80. 92 Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 2-3. 41 Historians continue to be fascinated with John Dee. His interests and methods of investigating nature are so varied that he will never be easy to explain or categorize. In 1995, a conference on the “Intellectual History and Identity of John Dee” was held at Birkbeck College, University of London. Stephen Clucas edited the proceedings of the conference, which explored many different area’s of Dee’s work, including Dee’s astrology and astronomy, his work on navigation, his alchemy and Cabalistic practices, his conversations with angels, and his collection of texts. The goal of the conference was to bring together scholars who have encountered Dee from a variety of fields, including history of science, history of medicine, history of mathematics, history of navigation, intellectual history, and manuscript studies. The conference and its proceedings again demonstrate how wide-ranging Dee’s interests and contributions were and how difficult it is to explain Dee’s activity in single synthesis. At the same time, the papers contextualize Dee’s work, explain Dee’s connections to other philosophers of the time, investigate the origins of some of Dee’s interests, and explore the complex political system in which he operated. For example, Stephen Clucas explaind the influence of the Pseudo-Solomonic ars notoria on Dee’s particular understanding of “angel magic”; Stephen Johnston explored the relationship between Thomas Digges (1546-1595) and John Dee and how their activities contributed to the identity of the mathematician in the sixteenth century; and Nicholas Clulee suggested several new avenues for studying John Dee, including “rethinking the Dee canon” to include his many varied writings and the context of those writings.93 93 See Clucas, “John Dee’s Angelic Conversations and the Ars Notoria,” 231-274; Clulee, “John Dee’s Natural Philosophy Revisited,” 23-39; and Johnston, “Like Father, Like Son? John Dee, Thomas Digges, and the Identity of the Mathematician,” 65-84, in John 42 Essentially, the essays in John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies in English Renaissance Thought highlight the importance of contextualizing Dee’s study of the natural world rather than attempting to “place” Dee within a broader narrative about the development of modern science. Some more recent studies have followed suit and focused on the context of Dee’s work and the complexity of his networks. For example, in 2009, Jennifer Rampling and Katie Taylor organized another conference on John Dee to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Dee’s death and to again invite scholars from a wide range of disciplines to present their research on the many facets of Dee’s career, including alchemy, astronomy, navigation, magic, and divination. As Rampling highlighted in the special issue of Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A that contains the conference proceedings, these contextual studies of Dee’s activities have not only enriched our understanding of John Dee, but they have also demonstrated the complexities of various sciences as they were practiced in Elizabethan England.94 To study Dee without accounting for the context of his work would be to create a skewed and incomplete picture of his goals and his contributions to natural philosophy. A Comparative Study of John Dee As part of that goal to re-evaluate Dee and his work within his own time and setting, my study examines Dee’s methods and goals within the intellectual context of his contemporary natural philosophers. By comparing Dee’s practices and goals with those Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies in English Renaissance Thought, ed. Stephen Clucas (Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2006). 94 Jennifer M. Rampling, “John Dee and the Sciences: Early Modern Networks of Knowledge,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (3): 498-508. 43 of his fellow scholars, a few themes arise. First, although historians like Nicholas Clulee and Deborah Harkness have emphasized Dee’s “unique” methods and views, Dee’s methods were not entirely dissimilar from those of his contemporary natural philosophers. For example, Dee, Frisius, and Mercator all took seriously the need to reform the theoretical foundations of astrology based on natural philosophy. Tycho Brahe (1546- 1601) and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), like Dee, treated mathematics both as a scientific tool and as a means of gaining mystical knowledge. Girolamo Cardano, Simon Forman (1552-1611), and Dee engaged in conversations with angels as a means of learning about the world. Dee had his own ways of viewing the world that were particular to him, but, by placing him within the context of his contemporary natural philosophers, Dee stands out neither as an eccentric nor a Renaissance magus. Dee is one of many philosophers seeking truth and patronage during turbulent times. Second, an analysis of John Dee’s approach to studying the natural world within the context of his contemporary natural philosophers brings to light challenges with previous theories about the development of modern science. For example, Dee and his conversations with angels would have no role in the traditional narrative of the Scientific Revolution as proposed by Edwin Burtt, Alexandre Koyré, and Herbert Butterfield. Dee, though, was examining the same questions as some of the other “heroes” of the Scientific Revolution, like Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe. Furthermore, promoting Dee as an exemplar of the way Renaissance Neoplatonism created the conditions for modern science (as Yates, Calder, and French do), forces Dee into particular categories that do not account for the vast range of his interests or investigations into the natural world. Also, by exploring some of the similarities between the activities of other sixteenth- 44 century natural philosophers and John Dee, Dee appears less as a unique “Renaissance magus” and more as a natural philosopher who, like many, were influenced by a range of medieval and Renaissance ideas, not just the Hermetic Corpus. Instead, a study of Dee and his colleagues exemplifies the connections among their ideas and practices as well as their particular idiosyncrasies and the complexities and challenges of conducting science in the sixteenth century. John Dee has earned special attention in the history of science. It is possible to avoid forcing Dee into any preconceived category of natural philosopher or mystic, while, at the same time, contextualizing his inquiries into nature and noting his contributions to science. Dee believed that he was one of the very few in human history to be chosen to communicate with angels and to, thereby, understand and correct nature. To fulfill his role, he would use all of the tools available to him, including mathematics, experimentation, observation, alchemy, and angels, some of the same tools that were common to natural philosophers of his time. The next chapter provides an analysis of the tools that Dee used to study the natural world. Dee’s tools and methods for studying the natural world can be gleaned through a thorough reading of his published texts, especially the Propaedeumata Aphoristica (1558), the Monas Hieroglyphica (1564), the Mathematicall Praeface (1570), and A Playne Discourse (1583), and his diary recordings and notes. Chapter Two includes an examination of Dee’s angel conversations as a part of his natural philosophy. Throughout the conversations, the angels provided support and guidance to Dee as he sought complete knowledge of the natural world. Dee’s writings reveal some basic principles that guided his natural philosophy: that numbers and mathematics were a 45 crucial part of any study of the natural world (and that, indeed, truth could not be attained without them); that secret knowledge of the natural world is attainable, particularly through numbers; and that he was divinely appointed to receive such secret knowledge and correct the imperfections of nature. Chapters Three and Four include comparisons between John Dee’s natural philosophy and that of his contemporary philosophers. Chapter Three focuses on the work of scholars with whom Dee had direct contact, including Gerard Mercator, Gemma Frisius, Girodano Cardano, Thomas Digges, and Jofranus Offusius (1505-1570). Such comparisons highlight the similarities between Dee’s natural philosophy and those of his contemporary scholars while also pointing out his unique ideas about the natural philosopher and the natural world. Furthermore, Chapter Three explains some of Dee’s intellectual connections, portraying Dee not as a lone astrologer or alchemist but as a philosopher operating and forming ideas within a specific network. Chapter Four compares Dee’s work in natural philosophy with that of contemporary scholars with whom he may not have had direct contact, including Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Michael Maestlin (1550-1631), Simon Forman, and Robert Fludd (1574-1634). Many of these astrologers, alchemists, and scholars used the same methodologies as Dee to investigate the natural world, including mathematics, observation, experimentation, astrology, alchemy, and mysticism. The similarities among the philosophers show the practices and methods employed in the sixteenth-century science, while the differences highlight John Dee’s particular form of natural philosophy. The final chapter provides a brief look at how Dee’s ideas were received by both his contemporary scholars and those, like Meric Casaubon, who reviewed Dee’s work 46 after his death. Like his natural philosophy, Dee’s reputation was complicated. His counsel was sought by monarchs, courtiers, and explorers, but, at the same time, his name has always been associated with sorcery and magic. Chapter Five examines the ways in which Dee’s ideas influenced other students of natural philosophy, exemplifying Dee’s particular contributions to an ever-changing science. Even though John Dee has received renewed attention by historians since the mid- twentieth century, a particular definition or categorization of Dee’s scientific activity still eludes us. In fact, such a goal is not particularly useful when evaluating the ideas of early modern philosophers like Dee. Instead, John Dee can offer historians a glimpse into how the practice of science was changing in many ways during a period that we have come to know as the Scientific Revolution. Those changes, though, were gradual, varied, and enacted by diverse individuals. John Dee was one of many philosophers who embraced several means of studying the world, as long as it might lead to truth. 47 Chapter Two: John Dee’s Natural Philosophy In the preface to John Dee on Astrononmy: Propaedeumata Aphoristica (1978), J. L. Heilbron and Wayne Shumaker argued that Dee’s emphasis on mathematics preceded his occult practices and that his later devotion to occult studies moved Dee “off the high road of the scientific revolution.”1 This statement summarizes early assessments of John Dee: he was a skilled philosopher, especially in the area of mathematics, whose occult studies led him astray from science. (Even by the late 1970s, the disjointed view of John Dee as a philosopher who happened to engage in misguided occult pursuits was still prevalent.) Part of the reason that John Dee had been neglected in the history of science is that his interests and methods for learning about the natural world were so varied. Dee pursued astrology, alchemy, mathematics, and conversations with angels all as valid means of understanding the world. The texts that Dee left behind are vague, cryptic, and seemingly incomplete. He used his own code for notes in his personal diaries; his recordings of his angel conversations consist of jumbles of numbers and symbols mixed with sometimes unconnected sentences; and his published texts on astrology and alchemy lack crucial, specific explanations of how elements of the natural world function together. Within such a context, it is difficult to ascertain Dee’s particular approach to natural philosophy. Nevertheless, the common thread through all of Dee’s texts and records is his strong desire to know nature in its full and complete truth. Such a goal would require 1 Heilbron and Shumaker, ix. 48 secret knowledge of the inner-workings and the very existence of the cosmos, and Dee argued that he could achieve just that. For example, Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica (1558) offered a plan for a reformed, accurate astrology based on mathematics. The reformed astrology would provide accurate, predictable explanations for the influences of the conjunctions of heavenly bodies on earthly affairs. In Monas Hieroglyphica (1564) Dee introduced a universal symbol that could encompass all natural knowledge and offer a means of re-interpreting nature. At the same time, he provided an alchemical process for understanding and manipulating the secrets of nature. The “Mathematicall Praeface” that Dee added to Henry Billingsley’s translation of Euclid’s Elements in 1570 declared that numbers could mediate between the terrestrial and celestial realms; therefore, mathematics is a key to understanding nature. Dee’s Playne Discourse (1583), a commentary on the Gregorian calendar reform, emphasized the importance of establishing an accurate calendar based on sound mathematics and “correct” time, which was crucial for knowing the timing of major religious events, such as the return of Christ. Furthermore, his diaries from his conversations with angels reveal an obsession with knowing the divine operations of nature. Dee’s texts and notes demonstrate that he believed that a correct and complete understanding of the natural world could be attained through observation, mathematics, alchemy, and divine knowledge. Dee believed that he was specially chosen by God to receive such complete knowledge, much like Elijah or Jacob were before him. His pursuit of knowledge, then, was a personal, philosophical, and religious quest. Because Dee’s methods for learning about the natural world were so diverse, it has been difficult for historians to rationalize them as a complete form of natural 49 philosophy.2 It seems most appropriate, then, to consider Dee’s methods for understanding the natural world not as a complete system but instead as a continuous exercise, a journey in discovering the system for attaining true knowledge of the natural world. This chapter explores the tools and methods that Dee used for studying the natural world. Several of Dee’s publications and notes, specifically the Propaedeumata Aphoristica (1558), the Monas Hieroglyphica (1564), the Mathematicall Praeface (1570), and A Playne Discourse (1582) represent various stages in Dee’s attempt to gain complete knowledge of the world while also promoting specific tools such as mathematics and precise measurements. It is essential, though, to include Dee’s lesser- known and private diaries, texts, and notes in an overall picture of Dee’s methods for understanding nature. Dee’s angel diaries reveal some of Dee’s more personal desires to understand and manipulate nature and to learn the divine plan, and his notes show the extent to which Dee was obsessed with understanding the hidden truth of nature, a truth that he could reveal. Instead of tracing the origins of Dee’s thought or placing Dee within a specific intellectual category, this chapter describes the methods and goals that Dee developed throughout his life’s work so that they can be compared to those of Dee’s contemporary philosophers. Such a comparison will show that Dee’s methods of knowing nature were not so fundamentally different from his peers. If we are to take John Dee at his word, he produced several texts throughout his lifetime. His Compendious Rehearsall (1592) lists dozens of text that Dee claims to have written but are now lost. Fortunately, a number of his texts still survive, along with his 2 Nicholas Clulee suggested that attempting to explain Dee’s theories and methods as a comprehensive form of natural philosophy (paraphrasing Peter Novick) “may be like trying to nail jelly to a wall.” Clulee, “John Dee’s Natural Philosophy Revisited,” in John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies, 23. 50 diaries and personal notes. Scholars studying John Dee can draw from these texts conclusions about Dee’s astrology, his alchemy, his work in navigation, his daily household concerns, his views on angels and the structure of the super-celestial world, and his concern for the truth of nature. For the purposes of this study, I draw from his texts his goals and methods for studying the natural world. Propaedeumata Aphoristica (1558) One of John Dee’s earliest publications was the Propaedeumata Aphoristica (1558), a collection of aphorisms instructing scholars on the influences of heavenly bodies on earthly affairs. It was not simply a textbook for astrology. Instead, it implored experienced, learned philosophers to gain a more accurate understanding of the movements of the cosmos to better predict and even manipulate their influences within the terrestrial realm. Dee was collecting astronomical data while in Louvain from at least May of 1547 to February of 1551.3 Throughout that time, Dee worked with Gerard Mercator and Gemma Frisius to calculate distances between heavenly bodies and to use that information to produce astrological birth charts. Dee, Mercator, and Frisius were all advocates for a reformed astrology based on precise calculations of heavenly bodies and their motion. After much persuasion from Mercator, Dee decided to record his vision for 3 “A transcript of some Notes [that] Dr. Dee had entered in Stoffler’s Ephemerides beginning 1543, and ending 1556,” Bodliean Library Ashmole 423, 294ab. Only a sample of Dee’s notes on his observations from August 1548 has been preserved. They include astronomical observations as well as weather predictions. Historian Steven Vanden Broecke has proposed that Dee probably intended to compare the atmospheric conditions to astronomical data in his attempt to develop a quantified astrology. See Steven Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence: Pico, Louvain, and the Crisis of Renaissance Astronomy (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishing, 2003), 206-208. 51 a more precise astrology in the Propaedeumata Aphoristica.4 He dedicated the work to his friend Mercator, and, in the dedication, Dee warned readers against the revelation of hidden truths to those unfit to receive it. He saw himself as one of the select few who could know and understand the inner-workings of the cosmos. In the Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee presented a reformed astrology based on mathematics and precise calculations. He directed astrologers to understand and to recognize the influences of 25,000 different arrangements of planetary conjunctions.5 Those influences, Dee argued, should be analyzed through a precise measurement of the distances between bodies, the size of bodies, and the angles of their movement. Dee believed natural occurrences to be constant; therefore, human knowledge of nature depends on the elemental and celestial forces that maintain that continuity. The Propaedeumata Aphoristica offers scholars the tools and mechanisms for understanding those forces. Dee based his astrological aphorisms on an Aristotelian earth-centered universe, finite in size and divided into two distinct regions, the unchanging celestial realm and the corruptible sublunary realm. The earth, together with its oceans, its atmosphere, and its envelope of fire or ether, constitutes the elemental region, where everything is a product, an example, or a reproduction of celestial harmonies, including humans. Dee believed that all things had the power to send forth impressions of themselves, which meant that celestial forces could influence earthly people, things, and events. From each point of an 4 Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 114-115. Dee also noted in the preface that Pedro Nuñes was prepared to protect and complete the work if Dee was unable to finish it. 5 Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, aphorism CXVII, 192-193. 52 object, agent rays would pour forth in all directions.6 Such motion is dependent on light; therefore, it is very important to know when and for how long a given planet will remain above any assigned horizon. Dee argued that accurate astrology depended on both mathematical precision and knowledge of the motions of the universe. This is a central tenant of Propaedeumata Aphoristica and a topic that Dee discussed at length with his colleagues. Because planetary conjunctions occur in the celestial realm, Dee believed their effects to be constant and uniform. Any change that would occur could only be the result of natural processes and causes; therefore, nature, to Dee, is regular and predictable. Dee suggested that forces originate in celestial bodies themselves and propagate through space, as prescribed by the medieval theory of the multiplication of species.7 When received on earth, the species or radiated forces create certain effects that depend largely on the nature of the radiation and on that of its terrestrial absorber. Knowledge of these forces enable the astrologer to understand the their effects on earthly events so that the person influenced by the forces may have the opportunity to prepare accordingly.8 6 Ibid., aphorism IV, 22-123. 7 Roger Bacon argued that the only way that the human mind is able to know the external world is through species that resemble it. Bacon’s theory of the multiplication of species (multiplication specierum) explained causality on the model of optics. Object 1 has an effect on Object 2 through the multiplication of species from Object 1 to Object 2, just as light is multiplied through the air when it illuminates an object. According to Bacon, the species is representative of Object 1 but to a lesser extent. As the species multiplies through air, its causal power is reserved until it arrives at Object 2. The species, then, is both the cause and the likeness of that cause. See Roger Bacon, De multiplictione specierum, in Roger Bacon’s Philosophy of Nature: A Critical Edition, with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes of De multiplictione specierum and De speculus compurentibus, translated by David C. Lindberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983). 8 In aphorism XX, Dee encouraged the astrologer to determine the elemental makeup of each part of the body, thereby discovering the parts’ qualities. For example, because the 53 Furthermore, such knowledge would allow the astrologer to explain the existence of things unseen.9 Dee sought the knowledge of unseen forces in the cosmos so that he and other “true” astrologers could predict, explain, and perhaps even alter earthly events. In the Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee compared the universe to a lyre, whose strings are separate species of the universal whole. Those who know how to play the lyre, Dee suggested, could bring about marvelous harmonies.10 In Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee differentiated true astrologers from false ones by showing how true astrologers would follow his aphorisms, base conclusions on exact measurements of the movement of heavenly bodies, and reveal secret knowledge of nature. Dee also demonstrated that he was an adept philosopher who could access secret knowledge and create harmonies in nature. In Dee’s aphorisms, the central, stationary earth receives the privilege of celestial radiation as the stars and planets move around it.11 The rays of objects obey optical stomach is associated with water, it will be especially affected by the moon, which is to be the chief governess of moist things, according to aphorism XIII. Such knowledge would allow the astrologer to predict the effect of certain positions of the moon on the body and react accordingly. Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, aphorism XX, 213-214. Robert Westman has argued that Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica provided new ways to judge changes in the quantity of the qualities preassigned by Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos, book 1, chapter 4. In August 1551 Dee purchased in Paris and annotated the 1519 Locatelli edition of Tetrabiblos (no. 37 in Dee’s library). Westman suggested that Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica was not a practical manual for the interpretation of birth charts; instead, it was a collection of theoretical aphorisms and an ancillary to the Tetrabiblos itself. Westman, The Copernican Question, 183-184. 9 Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, aphorism III, 122-123. 10 Ibid., aphorism XI, 126-127. 11 Dee was certainly interested in accuracy, but he was also very cautious about drawing unwanted attention to himself. Dee supported the printing of new ephemerides based on the work of Copernicus, but he declined to discuss Copernicus’ hypotheses. He also mentioned Copernicus’ measurements for the length of the year in aphorisms LXII and LXIII. Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 156-157. See also Robert Westman’s argument that Dee was not a proponent of heliocentrism in Robert S. Westman and J.E. McGuire, 54 laws12: stellar rays bounce off the primum mobile, and, as a result, stars and planets just rising or setting may by refraction exert an influence on human affairs. These rays act more strongly the closer the source is to the receiver and as the angle of incidence is closer to the perpendicular. Furthermore, the strength of the rays may be affected by the size of the emanating body and the speed of the ray. Dee accounted for a range of variables that account for the impact of celestial rays, including planetary diameters, their distance from earth, surface illumination, ray angles in relation to the horizon, angular and linear distances, and the duration of the effect. In Dee’s view, then, it is crucial to calculate these variables accurately, especially to predict the moment of greatest impact of the rays.13 Like other philosophers such as Roger Bacon (1220-1292) and Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253) who were interested in the study of causality in nature, Dee emphasized the importance of light in studying the influences of heavenly bodies. Optical theory gave Dee a way to estimate the relative strengths of astrological radiations in different planetary configurations, and it enabled him to project calculations through experiment. The main tool Dee used for such experiments was a burning mirror, which would concentrate all emanations precisely as it intensified light. To Dee, the planets were unalterable sources of exploitable power, and Dee sought to understand that power Hermeticism and the Scientific Revolution. Papers Read at a Clark Library Seminar, March 9, 1974 (Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1977), 46-47. 12 To Dee, circular motion and light were most perfect. Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, aphorism XV, 128-129. 13 See especially aphorisms V, X, and CVIII. Ibid., 123-125 and 187. Dee also follows Roger Bacon’s rules for mixing rays: like qualities will strengthen rays, while dissimilar qualities will weaken rays. 55 through optical instruments.14 Dee felt that parabolic mirrors were especially powerful, and he would use mirrors as a way of learning more about the celestial forces at work in the universe.15 Dee also praised catoptrics, the study of the reflection of light, for being extremely useful for discovering the “hidden virtues of things.”16 To Dee, the astrologer must find by experiment and observation the special bonds between celestial bodies and the peculiar force of each planetary conjunction.17 By manipulating such forces, the philosopher can separate, strengthen, and concentrate particular celestial influences in appropriate receivers, thereby providing an opportunity for study and for making useful talismans, such as the philosopher’s stone. Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica offered a new explanation for the variation in the powers of the stars through astronomy and optics.18 Although celestial influences are unseen, there is nothing mysterious about their operation. The astrologer skilled in mathematics can understand and predict the effects of the emanation of rays. Dee argued that an exact astronomy, one that produces precise measurements of the sizes and distances of all planetary configurations, is necessary for competent astrology. For example, aphorism XXX states that “the true sizes not only of 14 In fact, aphorism XXV states that the power of the rays of all planets is double those of other objects. (Dee used the word “star” to refer to planets. No single fixed start had significant astrological importance.) Ibid., 132-133. 15 Ibid., 67-73. In fact, Dee used mirrors during his conversations with angels because he believed that light could be bent to reveal parts of the celestial realm. 16 In aphorism LII, Dee suggests that those skilled in catoptrics would be able to imprint the rays of any star more strongly upon any matter than nature itself does. Ibid., 148-149. 17 Aphorism LXXIII states that careful observation will reveal connections between earthly objects or happenings and celestial phenomena. Ibid., 158-161. 18 Both Robert Westman and Steven Vanden Broecke have suggested that Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica is likely a reply to Pico della Mirandola’s objections against connecting astral powers with earthly effects. Vanden Broecke notes that Dee would have been exposed to Pico’s Disputations while in Louvain. Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence, 171-174 and Westman, The Copernican Question, 184. 56 the terrestrial globe but also of the planets and all the fixed stars ought to be known to the astrologer.”19 In the next aphorism, Dee went on to declare that the true distances of the stars from each of the planets should also be known. To Dee, the dimensions of planets provide the thickness of the “heavenly place” in which the planets operate, and they contribute to human understanding of celestial influences. In a later text on the appearance of a new star, Dee declared the calculation of planetary distances to be a “beautiful” part of philosophy and “necessary” to man.20 Dee believed strongly in the importance of observations and measurements for the study of nature and for accurate astrological prediction. In 1978, J.L. Heilbron and Wayne Shumaker published a critical edition and English translation of the Propaedeumata Aphoristica that has become the standard text for scholars of John Dee. In his introduction, J.L. Heilbron suggested that the Propaedeumata Aphoristica represents an inclusive, quantitative, physical science, assisted by experiment.21 Indeed, Heilbron celebrated Dee’s “scientific” work but dismissed his more unorthodox methods like Dee’s conversations with angels. It is true that experiment, quantitative analysis, and characteristics of physical science are present in the Propaedeumata Aphoristica, but it is also focused primarily on cosmology and the practice of astrology. In fact, historian Stephen Vanden Broecke has argued that Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica blurred the lines between astrological physics and judicial 19 Translation by Wayne Shumaker, in Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, Aphorism XXX, 136-137. 20 John Dee, Parallaticae commentationis praxeosque nucleus quidam (London, 1573), available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyk.com, accessed 6 August 2014. 21 J.L. Heilbron “Dee’s Role in the Scientific Revolution,” in Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 49. 57 astrology, since it applied mathematical certainty to astrological methods.22 In other words, astrology was an essential part of John Dee’s natural philosophy, a tool for understanding the inner-workings of the universe. Dee’s goal was to understand the hidden processes of nature, and he felt that could be accomplished through accurate calculations, precise understandings of the influences of celestial bodies (often gained through experiment and observation), and study. Moreover, Dee was establishing a division between “true” philosophers who were fit to follow his instruction and receive such hidden knowledge, and those who have claimed to be astrologers with little knowledge or study. The Propaedeumata Aphoristica offered philosophers a way to know the universe and to manipulate it. Such knowledge, Dee felt, should only be available to a select few who were prepared to use it effectively. In his preparing his next major publication,23 the Monas Hieroglyphica, Dee again seemed concerned with protecting the text from falling into the hands of those who were not prepared to receive it. In a letter to his friend and printer Willem Silvius dated 30 January 1564, Dee asked his friend to print the text carefully and make sure that it did not fall into the hands of those that could not understand its mysteries.24 Secrecy was becoming more and more important to Dee, perhaps as a means of ensuring that his ideas were not stolen. It is possible that the lack of detail in both the Propaedeumata Aphoristica and the Monas Hieroglyphica was intentional. Truth would only be revealed 22 Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence, 208-209. Vanden Broecke pointed out that Dee does not appear to have ever applied his complex mathematical methods to any practical effects. 23 In 1562, Dee wrote Cabbalae hebraicae compendiosa tabella, a work which is now lost. It is thought to have been addressed to the Parisians and had a connection to the Monas Hieroglyphica. Dee, A Briefe Discourse Apologeticall. 24 Dee, Monas Hieroglyphica (1564), in Josten, 148-151. 58 to those worthy of receiving it. It is also clear that Dee felt that he was worthy, perhaps even “chosen” to receive such truth and share it. In the Monas Hieroglyphica, Dee offered a means of encompassing all natural knowledge through a single symbol, which, when read correctly, offered processes for understanding and transforming the natural world. Monas Hieroglyphica (1564) In the Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee argued for a reform of astrology based on more accurate observations and exact calculations, especially of the distances between celestial objects. These methods, Dee believed, would allow the astrologer and scholar to understand nature and its secrets. Years later, Dee published the Monas Hieroglyphica, in which he proposed that all of nature could be “read” and understood through the application of a single, all-encompassing symbol. The Monas Hieroglyphica was, undoubtedly, a complex work, and just like in Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee did not explain his concepts entirely. Even though the text enjoyed some popularity, having been cited and reprinted multiple times, some of Dee’s contemporary scholars criticized the work as unintelligible.25 Upon reading the Monas Hieroglyphica, Meric Casaubon, the seventeenth-century classical scholar who criticized and publicized Dee’s conversations with angels, commented that he could “extract no sense nor reason (sound and solid) out of it.”26 C.H. Josten, whose translation and annotation of the Monas Hieroglyphica has become an essential text in the study of John Dee’s alchemy and natural philosophy, 25 The Monas Hieroglyphica was originally printed in 1564, reprinted at Frakfurt in 1591 and was included in both the 1602 and 1659 editions of the Theatrum Chemicum. See C.H. Josten, 84-85. 26 Casaubon did concede that the text did not appear to be “dark or mystical.” Meric Casaubon, “Preface” in Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, E2v. 59 suggested that the ideas Dee presents are so esoteric and most likely engrained in the oral traditions of the time that the original meaning of the text is probably now lost. It is clear, though, that Dee considered it to be a very important work.27 Although the Monas Hieroglyphica was printed by Willem Silvius on 31 March 1564, Dee claimed in the introduction to the text that he first thought of the monad seven years earlier.28 Dee believed that the monad that he introduced, the symbol that encompasses all natural knowledge and serves as a “translator” for the secrets of nature, would rectify the concepts of the grammarians, teach new notions of numbers to arithmeticians, make instruments obsolete, cause geometers to question their science, and show cabbalists that their art is universal.29 Seeking a powerful patron (which had not yet appeared in England), Dee presented this rare gift to Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II, who Dee felt was very knowledgeable about natural philosophy and secret matters.30 In the very first theorem of the Monas Hieroglyphica, Dee stated that the primary and most simple representation of things happens by means of a straight line and a circle. Indeed, the base of his monad is the symbol of mercury, made of straight line and a circle, to which he added the sign of Aries, the first division of the zodiac. (Dee incorporated Aries, the symbol of the element of fire, within his monad to show that fire is required in the alchemical process of transmutation.) The half-circle and the circle forming the upper 27 Josten, 85-88. 28 Dee states in the letter of dedication that he had devoted 20 years’ hard work to the “hermetic” science that that his mind had been “pregnant” with the monad for seven years. This statement implies that Dee may have begun studying the Cabala, alchemy, numerology, and Hermetic magic since 1542, the year he entered Cambridge. It also suggests that and he worked on the Monas Hieroglyphica and Propaedeumata Aphoristica simultaneously. Dee, Monas Hieroglyphica, 146-147. 29 Ibid., 123-135. 30 Ibid., 118-119. 60 part of the Mercury symbol intersect so that they represent a conjunction of the moon and sun. Dee noted that the sun and moon together made one day out of evening and morning by joining the lunar half-circle to its solar complement, yet the moon respects the sun as the king.31 According to the second theorem of the Monas Hieroglyphica, all things must relate to a central point. The central point of the circle symbolizes the Earth around which the sun, the moon, and other planets, revolve; it is what Dee calls the terrestrial center of the monad. Below the circle, Dee presented the mystery of the four elements using four straight lines Figure 2. John Dee’s monad from his emenating from one point into opposite Monas Hieroglyphica (Antwerp: G. Silvius, 1564), 25. George Fabyan directions.32 Dee expressed several ideas Collection, Rare Books and Special Collections Division of the Library of through his monad. First, the monad explains Congress, Washington, DC. the relationship between heavenly bodies (such as the relationship between the sun and the moon.) Second, the monad presents an alchemical process for understanding and manipulating the relationship between elements. Fire is at the base of the monad, instigating changes between the elements represented by straight lines. Third, Dee proposes that the monad represents knowledge of the natural world and the ways in which it might be manipulated. 31 Ibid., 154-161. 32 Ibid., 154-159. 61 The cross at the center of the monad provides an example of how the symbol represents nature, processes, and a linguistic tool all at the same time. In theorems 16 and 17, Dee explains that the cross in the monad represents the number 252. If turned on its axis, the cross creates four occurrences of the Roman numeral V. While turned in that way, the cross as a whole resembles the Roman numeral X, which is also the twenty-first letter of the Latin alphabet. As it is presented upright, the cross creates four occurrences of the Roman numeral L. Finally, as a whole, the cross presents one complete item. The sum of 4 times 5, plus 4 times 50, plus 10, plus 21, plus 1 equals 252. Dee encouraged alchemists to explore that number further because it clearly held a mystical meaning (which Dee does not explain).33 This section is also one instance where Dee differentiates between the “vulgar” Cabala, the exegesis of texts, and the “true” Cabala, or the reading of nature. He stated, “it is quite evident that the Cross is vulgarly used to indicate the number ten, and further, it is the twenty-first letter, following the order of the Latin alphabet,” but he goes on to show how the adept can see that the cross also represents light (LUX). Dee noted, “we should perceive very exactly the construction of our Monad as it is shown to us not only in the LIGHT but also in life and nature, for it discloses explicitly, by its inner movement, the most secret mysteries of this physical analysis.”34 In other words, a skilled alchemist who reads nature through the monad will uncover its secrets. Meanwhile, the basic expression of the monad is an alchemical process. Mercury is activated by alchemical fire, resulting in the philosopher’s stone, represented by the 33 Ibid., 171-175. Josten points out that the number 252 can be expressed as 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 +27, which may have been of some significance to Dee. Josten, 175, note 71. 34 Translated by Josten in Dee, Monas Hieroglyphica, 172-175. 62 number 252, the product of the light of the cross. The monad represents the entire process of Dee’s notion of alchemy, and it reinforces the notion that man is an agent of a divine and mathematical process.35 The monad also captures the transformation of the soul of the adept leading to spiritual ascent, transformation, and knowledge of the natural world. Dee closed the Monas Hieroglyphica by suggesting that Christ is writing these things through him.36 Dee deconstructed his monad to show its cosmological, astronomical, numerological, alchemical, magical, and spiritual meanings. The monad represented to Dee a powerful hieroglyph revealing the unity of created nature and embodying knowledge about creation. Dee suggested that the monad would restore astronomy and alchemy through the knowledge it unveils. He seemed to think that he has reconstructed the original divine language of creation that formed the basis for all human languages.37 The monad has a powerful philosophical meaning: it represents secrets of knowledge contained in one universal, divine language. This new language, he claimed, transcends all scientific knowledge to this point. The alchemical and astrological meaning of the monad could rebuild astronomy.38 Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica is a particularly difficult text to categorize, much like Dee himself. It seems to be intended as a technical manual for alchemists, yet its language and concepts are too vague for practical implementation. Dee defined his 35 Josten, 102-103. 36 Dee, Monas Hieroglyphica, 200-201. 37 Ibid., 124-125. 38 See Nicholas H. Clulee, “Astronomia inferior: Legacies of Johannes Trithemius and John Dee” in Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe, ed. William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2001), 173-181. 63 approach to natural philosophy through the Monas Hieroglyphica as astronomical alchemy. The monad is a symbol of cosmic unity and the unity of natural and divine knowledge, and it implies that alchemy and magic should not be excluded from other disciplines like astronomy. In fact, theorem XVIII states that “celestial astronomy is like a parent and teacher to Astronomia inferior,” or alchemy.39 Dee went on to chastise alchemists who have not studied the lessons of astronomy.40 While the Monas Hieroglyphica does not specifically promote observation like the Propaedeumata Aphoristica, it still highlights the importance of accurate knowledge of the celestial realm. In the Monas Hieroglyphica, Dee proposed a special language for understanding the natural world—a language that had to be used properly by knowledgeable individuals in order to ascertain meaning. That language revealed the true composition of the universe and provided the skilled philosopher with rare knowledge about nature and its operations. That language could unlock secret knowledge and even bring about change. The Monas Hieroglyphica provides an example of Dee’s obsession with knowing the secrets of nature, and it shows the multiple tools he used—language, alchemical processes, and mathematics, to gain that knowledge. The text also emphasizes the unity and harmony that Dee saw in the universe and the power that he believed to be located in the moment of creation. Dee would continue to pursue that power and that harmony through his investigations of the natural world. 39 Translated by C.H. Josten in Dee, Monas Hieroglyphica, 174-175. 40 Ibid., 176-177. 64 Mathematicall Praeface (1570) John Dee’s “Mathematicall Praeface” to Henry Billingsley’s English translation of Euclid’s Elements of Geometry is recognized as his most significant contribution to the development of modern science. The text was reprinted in 1651 and 1661 (though Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica was his most frequently reprinted work). Since the twentieth century, though, historians have hailed the “Mathematicall Praeface” as an example of why Dee’s work should be studied for its scientific achievement. F.R. Johnson, E.G.R. Taylor, and I.R.F. Calder praised the text for the way Dee combined mathematics with the experimental method, or “scientia experimentalis.”41 Peter French fully embraced the idea that Dee “proposed a viable theory of experimental science” in his idea of “Archemastrie.”42 In 1975, Allen G. Debus published the critical edition of John Dee’s “Mathematicall Praeface,” though he argued that Dee’s use of the term “scientia experimentalis” in his section on Archemastrie refers only to experience, not the testing of a hypothesis that is central to modern science.43 In fact, Debus suggested that revised interpretations of John Dee have gone too fair in proclaiming him as a scientific prophet. Debus categorized Dee’s activities primarily as occult, pointing out that Dee was mostly concerned with reforming astrology and alchemy.44 Dee saw no distinction, though, between science and occult. In his “Mathematical Praeface,” Dee lists astrology and 41 Dee, “The Mathematicall Praeface,” Aiij. Francis R. Johnson, Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England, 151-152; E.G.R. Taylor, Tudor Geography,103; and I.R.F. Calder, 640-5. 42 French, 162-163. 43 Allen G. Debus, “Introduction to John Dee” in The Mathematicall Praeface, 21-22, and Allen G. Debus, The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1977), I, 38-43. 44 Debus, “Introduction to John Dee,” 25. 65 alchemy alongside geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy. To Dee, each discipline was legitimate and useful in its specific ways for knowing the world. In his “Mathematicall Praeface,” Dee encouraged the use and improvement of mathematics. At the very beginning of the work, Dee referred to mathematics as the most beautiful art, and he stated that instruction in mathematics cannot be given without knowledge in geometry. Moreover, it is impossible to know geometry without knowing Euclid’s Elements.45 Dee emphasized the use of mathematics for two main reasons. First, he advocated its use in practical matters, thereby improving the study of nature and humans’ manipulation of it. Second, Dee viewed math as existing in the middle world, connecting the celestial and terrestrial realms, and he believed that math could restore divine order. Dee declared, By Numbers propertie therefore, of us, by all possible meanes, (to the perfection of the Science) learned, we may both winde and draw our selves into the inward and deepe search and vew, of all creatures distinct vertues, natures, properties, and Formes: And also, farther, arise, clime, ascend, and mount up (with Speculatiue winges) in spirit, to behold in the Glas of Creation, the Forme of Formes, the Exemplar Number of all thinges Numerable: both visible and inuisible, mortall and immortall, Corporall and Spirituall. 46 Dee proposed that through mathematics, we can understand the mysteries of creation itself, which would lead to a greater knowledge of all things. Moreover, Dee suggested that numbers allow us to gain knowledge of things both terrestrial and spiritual. Dee quoted Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494): “By Numbers, a way is had, to the searchyng 45 Dee, “Translater to the Reader” in The Mathematicall Pareface, ii-iij. 46 Dee, “The Mathematicall Praeface,” i. 66 out, and understandyng of every thyng, hable to be knowen.”47 It is clear that Dee wanted to know the world, and he felt he could achieve complete knowledge through numbers. Although Dee is interested in the power of numbers for explaining the natural world, he in no way diminished the value of mathematics in improving everyday life. Dee explained that the geometrical arts are applied first by the “Mechanicien” or “Mechanicall workman,” who makes sensible objects as faithful as possible to mathematical forms. Then, he pointed out the groups of tradesmen and businessmen who are very familiar with the practical applications of numbers. Merchants, for example, are familiar with the benefits of arithmetic. Goldsmiths and physicians use arithmetic in their measurements. Geometry, the art of measuring magnitudes, their quantities and contents, could be applied in useful purposes such as land measuring. Dee praised the use of mathematics in fields such as astronomy, cosmography, music, astrology, and navigation. Dee was making two important points: (1) that the practical value of mathematics should be recognized and used to our advantage as much as possible, and (2) that mathematics served a valuable role in the study of the natural world. It is precisely for this reason that so many historians have praised Dee and his “The Mathematicall Praeface” for incorporating mathematics into disciplines devoted to studying the natural world. At the same time, Dee suggested that an understanding of mathematics would lead to a true knowledge of both Creation and the Creator. Dee argued that the study of mathematics directs the mind to abandon sense objects and prepares it to conceive intellectual and spiritual things. Specifically, Dee was interested in using mathematics to 47 Ibid. 67 understand the natural signs mentioned in the sacred prophesies. In his Mathematicall Preface, Dee endorsed astronomy because God had made the Sonne, Mone, and Sterres, to be to us, for Signes, and knowledge of Seasons, and for Distinctions of Dayes, and Yeares … without great diligence of Observation, examination and Calculation, their periods and courses (wherby Distinction of Seasons, yeares, and New Mones might precisely be knowne) could not exactely be certified. Which thing to performe, is that Art, which we here have Defined to be Astronomie. Wherby, we may have the distinct Course of Times, dayes, yeares, and Ages: as well for Consideration of Sacred Prophesies, accomplished in due time, foretold . . . Wherin, (verely), would be great incertainty, Confusion, untruth, and brutish Barbarousnes: without the wonderfull diligence and skill of this Arte: continually learning, and determining Times, and periodes of Time, by the Record of the heavenly booke, wherin all times are written.48 In Dee’s view, precise calculations in astronomy offered a means of not only practically tracking the passage of time but also of discovering sacred truths and the divine structure of the universe. Dee discussed astronomy distinctly in terms of understanding “Sacred Prophesies” and predicting human affairs and conditions. Without such knowledge, confusion and “untruth” would ensue, and nature would veer from its divine plan. Instead, astronomy provides a way of learning truth from the celestial realm, “by the Record of the heavenly booke, wherin all times are written.” 48 Ibid., b.ij. 68 Dee also highlighted mathematically-precise astrology as a means of learning the operations and divine order of the natural world. Earlier in the text, Dee described astrology as “an Arte Mathematicall, which reasonably demonstrateth the operations and effectes, of the naturall beames, of light, and secrete influence: of the Sterres and Planets: in every and elementall body: at all times, in any Horizon assigned.”49 Just as he did in the Propaeduemata Aphoristica, Dee emphasized the influence of rays, especially light rays, on objects. To Dee, astrology is a practical science whose purpose it is to discern and predict the consequences of emanations impacting objects, or, more importantly, humans, at specific times. In the “Mathematicall Praeface,” Dee defended works of science and technology that were often confused with magic by disassociating them entirely from any imputation of magic. He stated that even the most marvelous feats of technology were “Naturally, Mathematically, and Mechanically, wroght and contrived.”50 Dee was sensitive to the accusations of sorcery against him,51 and he went to great lengths to defend his methods for gaining true knowledge. Moreover, he believed in the legitimacy of his studies and did not want to be dismissed as a magician. Dee concluded his discussion of the various mathematical arts with an explanation of “Archemastrie,” the sovereign science that builds on and extends all other sciences. Archemastrie moves beyond practical mathematics to include complex concepts that could fulfill the goals of a natural philosopher. It certifies the conclusions of natural philosophy and mathematics, and it leads to experiences beyond the scope of other 49 Ibid., b.j.-b.ij. 50 Ibid., A.j.-A.ij. 51 Dee was accused of sorcery while a student at Cambridge in the mid-1540s and imprisoned for conjuring in 1555, during Queen Mary’s reign. After those experiences, Dee was careful to avoid any suspicion of magical or diabolical activity. 69 sciences. In Dee’s view, it is truly an “experimental science.”52 In typical Dee fashion, this section of his text contains esoteric references and is confusing and vague. However, Dee seemed to be promoting a natural philosophy that incorporated both mathematics and magic in an effort to discover the secrets of nature.53 Dee indicated that he was invited to write the “Praeface” to recommend the value of mathematical arts and to justify the publication of Euclid in the vernacular.54 The preface did just that, but it also explained the essential nature of mathematics. What the “Mathematicall Praeface” reveals about Dee’s approach to natural philosophy is that (1) numbers and mathematics is crucial to understanding nature; (2) there are several methods within natural philosophy that are valuable for uncovering the secrets of nature, including alchemy, astrology, and “archemastrie”; and (3) numbers could provide a bridge between the terrestrial and celestial reams, a bridge that could reveal hidden information about the act of creation and the divine plan. These ideas were not necessarily new. In the text, for example, Dee cited the work of Nicholas Cusanus (1401-1464) and his concept of experimental science.55 Cusanus had also argued that truth could only be obtained through a knowledge of numbers. Roger Bacon defended “true” mathematics from magic, and Pico della Mirandola insisted that astronomy and astrology were merely a part of mathematics and that mathematics was crucial for the study of theology.56 What Dee achieved in his “Mathematical Praeface,” 52 Dee, “The Mathematicall Praeface,” A.iij. 53 See Nicholas H. Clulee, “At the Crossroads of Magic and Science: John Dee’s Archemastrie,” in Brian Vickers, ed., Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 57-71. 54 Dee, “The Mathematicall Praeface,” ii-iij. 55 Ibid., A.iij. 56 Alan G. Debus, “Introduction” in Dee, The Mathematicall Preface, 9-11. 70 though, was a synthesis unlike any other of the ways in which mathematics should be used both in practical terms and in natural philosophy, as well as an argument for the intermediary role numbers could play in accessing divine knowledge of nature. John Dee’s Work in Navigation In 1570, the same year that Dee published his “Mathematicall Praeface,” Robert Dudley and Christopher Hatton (1540-1591), two of Elizabeth’s favorite courtiers, commissioned John Dee to produce a report on the state of the nation’s political, economic, and social affairs. The result was Dee’s Brytannicae Republicae Synopsis, in which Dee outlined the problems facing Britain, suggested possible solutions, and encouraged Elizabeth to embrace more expansionist policies.57 Dee spent the next decade producing a number of “practical” texts that were devoted to the expansion of the British Empire. Dee was very interested in geography, cartography, and navigational instruments, having spent time in Louvain with Gerard Mercator, Gemma Frisius, and Pedro Nuñes (1502-1578) in the late 1540s and early 1550s. Dee assisted Humphrey and Adrian Gilbert, Richard Hakluyt, Thomas Harriott, Martin Frobisher and other explorers in planning fruitful expeditions. He instructed voyagers on the principles of navigation, he prepared maps for their use, and he produced navigational instruments. Dee was a recognized expert in navigation. Dee published his General and Rare Memorials Pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation in 1577, which presented his vision of a British maritime empire and asserted England’s claims to areas of the New World. The illustrated title page, designed by Dee, 57 For instance, Dee explained in the text how expanded trade could increase the national strength of England. John Dee, Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis (1570), British Library Add 59681. 71 shows Elizabeth at the helm of a ship, steering Britain towards its imperial destiny. Dee produced “Of Famous and Rich Discoveries” in 1577 to promote Frobisher’s second voyage and Francis Drake’s (1540-1596) circumnavigation of the globe. In his diary and short autobiography (The Compendious Rehearsall), Dee mentioned other related materials he presented to Queen Elizabeth and her senior advisors, including the queen’s titles to many foreign lands, kingdoms, and provinces.58 Dee established himself as an expert in navigation within the English court. He had adopted a coat of arms by 1570, and he carried a reputation for being ambitious.59 Dee spent much of the 1570s and early 1580s promoting an agenda of British imperialism and trying to win the favor of the queen. Winning financial support and earning the respect of Elizabeth’s trusted advisors would give Dee the time, resources, and clout he needed to study the natural world and instruct others in the divine knowledge he received. 58 These titles included the queen’s “title to Greenland, Estetiland and Friseland” given to Elizabeth and Secretary of State Sir Francis Walsingham in November 1577 [John Dee, Diaries of John Dee (1577-1600), Bodleian Library Ashmole 487.]; “Her Majesties Title Royall, to many forayn countries, Kingdomes, and provinces,” and “Imperium Brytanicum,” both in 1578; and two rolls of the Quene’s Majesties title,” presented to Elizabeth and the Lord Treasurer, William Cecil, Lord Burghley in 1580. Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 4b. John Dee, “Unto your Maiesties Tytle Royall to these forene Regions, & Ilands do appertayne” in Brytanici Imperi Limites (London, 1593), British Library Add 59681, 13-21. 59 John Dee carefully constructed a genealogical chart for himself in which he traced his lineage back to the earliest British kings. He even claimed a family connection with the Welsh and English House of Tudor, which meant that he would be related to Elizabeth. John Dee, “Genealogical roll of the descent of John Dee … showing his kinship with the Sovereigns of the House of Tudor” (n.d.), British Library Cotton Ch. XIV.1, also available online at www.bl.uk/collection-items/john-dees-genealogy-and-self-portrait (accessed 31 May 2018). 72 Figure 3. Image from the frontispiece to John Dee’s General and Rare Memorials Pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation (London, 1577), in which Elizabeth is steering Britian towards imperial expansion. Available online through the British Library at www.bl.uk/collection-items/john-dees-general- and-rare-memorials-bound-with-a-signed-manuscript (accessed 31 May 2018). It is clear from Dee’s “Mathematicall Praeface” and his publications throughout the 1570s that Dee was interested in very practical applications of new knowledge of nature (such as navigation and cartography) as well as more theoretical ideas about how that knowledge might be attained. Moreover, Dee’s interactions with other scholars, with 73 courtiers, and with explorers show just how connected Dee was and how respected he was as an authority on navigation, scientific instruments, astronomy, and astrology. High- ranking and well-connected individuals sought Dee’s advice on a number of topics, including charting new lands, expanding British power, accurately observing astronomical phenomena, and reforming the calendar. While producing texts on navigation and British expansion, Dee continued to pursue his goal of acquiring secret knowledge of nature. In his commentary on the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582, Dee presented a solution to the calendrical problem that was mathematically sound and useful for spreading and strengthening England’s preeminent position in Europe. Moreover, his comments on the calendar reform revealed a desire to actually “correct” time, to adjust the imperfections of the earthly realm so that humans could know and follow the divine plan for the universe. A Playne Discourse (1583) One of the issues that interested Dee as well as many of his contemporary natural philosophers was the measurement of time. Dee wrote a detailed response to the Gregorian calendar reform in A Playne Discourse . . . Concerning the Needful Reformation of the Vulgar Kalendar in 1583, yet few historians have given much attention to the work. Neither Frances Yates nor Peter French made any direct mention of Dee’s response to the Gregorian calendar reform, and Nicholas Clulee highlighted it only briefly as a small part of a more significant period in Dee’s life when he was shifting his attention from the relationship between magic and mathematics to more political and 74 ideological concerns as he sought a better position within the Elizabethan court.60 Other works on John Dee make only passing reference to the calendar as a minor work in the scholar’s vast repertoire. For example, I.R.F. Calder cited the calendar reform as one of the many political affairs to which Dee provided his advice when he returned to England.61 Charlotte Fell Smith referred to the calendar only when making a slight digression about how Dee recorded dates according to the Julian and the Gregorian calendars when he left for Poland.62 Historian Robert Poole has pointed out that scholars have done a disservice to Dee’s biography and the story of the calendar reform by ignoring Dee’s Playne Discourse. Poole analyzed Dee’s forgotten text as part of his larger study of calendar reform in England in Time’s Alteration: Calendar Reform in Early Modern England (1998). Poole placed Dee’s Playne Discourse within the context of his astrology, his mathematics, his nationalism, and his desire to win the favor of Elizabeth. However, Poole did not give equal weight to Dee’s study of the natural world. In fact, Poole stated that “the part of Dee’s Playne Discourse which deals with the astronomical arguments is not the most significant part, and Dee did not pretend to any special expertise in this area.”63 Poole went on to explain that Dee was not concerned with the “astronomical and religious subtleties”64 that plagued the calendar commission; therefore, Dee could write his response quickly and plainly. On the contrary, Dee was very concerned with the movements and changes of the universe (which is especially evident in the 60 Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 177-180. 61 Calder, 725-732. 62 Fell Smith, 132-134. 63 Poole, 57. 64 Ibid., 58. 75 Propaedeumata Aphoristica), and he placed a great emphasis on creating an accurate timeline within his Playne Discourse. Dee’s study of the calendar was part of his overall goal to understand the inner-workings of nature as well as the divine plan for humanity. It also provides a lens through which Dee’s natural philosophy can be analyzed. Dee’s comments on the calendar reform exemplify his emphasis on precise observation, measurement, and mathematical analysis; they highlight dates and events that held an astrological importance to Dee; and they show how Dee believed nature has been corrupted and could be corrected. It was well known by Dee’s time that the Julian calendar year was longer than the actual solar year. That inaccuracy was causing Christians to celebrate Easter at times that did not fall within the parameters set by the Council of Nicea, which decreed that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox but never conflict with Passover. Pope Gregory XIII offered a correction to the Julian calendar by: (1) reducing the number of leap years so that only century years divisible by 400 would be leap years; (2) omitting 10 days in October 1582 to bring the calendar in line with the spring equinox; and (3) constructing new Easter tables that used March 21 as a fixed date for the spring equinox.65 While most Protestants scorned the papal bull as an exercise of suppression,66 Dee carefully considered the calendar problem and 65 Catholic Church, Calendarium Gregorianum Perpetuum, in Clavius, Opera Mathematica: Tomus Quintus (Sumptibus Antonii Hierat, ecudebat Ioannes Volmari, 1611-1612), 13-14. 66 Numerous letters arrived at the Vatican after the publication of the Compendium, several of which proposed other calendar revisions. Some complaints even suggested that nature was rejecting the calendar reform—trees didn’t know when to bud, and birds no longer knew when to sing and when to fly away. See Owen Gingerich, “The Civil Reception of the Gregorian Calendar,” in The Gregorian Reform of the Calendar, 266- 268, and Poole, 40. 76 produced his own solution, one that was based on his interests in establishing the truth of nature and in promoting England and its Queen as leaders of the world. In A Playne Discourse (1583), Dee outlined the calendrical problem and reviewed the attempts taken to correct it. In the beginning of the treatise, he explained how the movement of planets and the sun are measured mathematically, with the sun being the principal point of reference. Dee reviewed how various scholars measured time, starting with Sosigenes, the chief architect of the Julian calendar. Over time, though, “mathematical philosophers”67 like Simon Bredon of Oxford (1300-1372) and Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) recalculated the length of the year. By providing this history of the calendar, Dee situated himself among some of the most important and well-known philosophers in history—philosophers who had the knowledge and influence to improve human understanding of nature. Dee presented a circular timeline of human history on which he noted the birth of Christ, Queen Elizabeth, Copernicus, and other important philosophers who studied the motions of the heavens and the distances between planets. He noted the careful observations these philosophers made “diligently and properly” so as to understand “the mysteries of the heavenly motions.”68 Dee also discussed the difficulty in determining the true length of the year, showing through a series of charts how Ptolemy’s calculation of the length of the year at 365 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes, and 12 seconds was in error and how that error has accumulated over centuries. Dee praised the ways in which Copernicus has improved upon the calculations of Hipparchus, Ptolemy, and Albategnius.69 Dee 67 Dee, A Playne Discourse, 19. 68 Ibid., 22. 69 Ibid., 24-28. 77 emphasized the importance of exact measurements in “correcting” time, and he was setting the stage to propose his own unique solution to the calendar problem. About two-thirds of the way through his treatise, Dee unveiled his main concern about the calendar: it should be corrected back to the birth of Christ. He argued that the proposed Gregorian calendar was “an artificial account of time for the heavenly motions” because it was corrected back to the Council of Nicaea, not the birth of Christ, which no one can dispute as the “Radix, Roote, or . . . Epoche Christi.”70 Dee went to great length to calculate the birth of Christ according to biblical sources and his mathematical reckoning of the motions of the heavens. Then, taking into account the number of revolutions of the sun on the ecliptic since the birth of Christ, Dee argued that eleven days should be removed from the current year to properly restore the calendar. Many of his calculations are based on the work of Erasmus Reinhold (1511-1553), whose Prutenic Tables Dee praised as an improvement on the work of Copernicus.71 Dee also equated the Epochi Christi with the London Meridian, and he calculated where the sun would have been located on the London Meridian at the birth of Christ. Finally, he stated that the Julian calendar should be banished because it is untrue.72 While Dee considered the 70 Ibid., 30. 71 Dee was not about to make any statements about the structure of the universe that could put his tenuous situation in even more peril. He never made any direct statements about the heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus, though he leaned toward the Wittenberg interpretation in not adjusting the ordering of the planets. As late as 1582, Dee still expressly associated himself with Erasmus Reinhold and avoided Copernicus’ theoriecal claims: “Yt notable Mathematician Erasmus Reinoldus Salueldensis, in his Prutenicall tables Astronomicall, did reduce and make perfect Copernicus his most diligent labour and excellent observations of ye heavenly motions . . . Ye said Copernicus his calculation and Phaenomenies: excepting his Hypoteheses Theoricall, not here to be brought into question.” Ibid., 38, 65. 72 Ibid., 30-34. 78 Gregorian reform to be mathematically sound and based on known principles, he presented himself as a sole provider of truth. In the appendix to the text, Dee made a lengthy argument to reform the calendar back to the birth of Christ. He referred to the birth of Christ as a “Natural and Heavenly Concordance,”73 and he suggested that the eleven days be deleted from the calendar gradually rather than all at once. After aligning himself once again with major scholars such as Roger Bacon, Gerard Mercator, Paul of Middelburg (1446-1534), and Nicholas Copernicus, Dee argued that the rest of Europe would follow England’s lead in using a true and correct calendar. Dee suggested the supremacy of Queen Elizabeth and Britain by creating a true calendar that the rest of Europe will surely follow.74 From this text a number of conclusions can be drawn about Dee’s methods and goals for studying the natural world. First, Dee presented himself as interested in truth above all. His desire to correct time reflects his earlier writings about restoring and organizing nature. (For example, in the Monas Hieroglyphica, Dee suggested that such a restoration could happen through the application of his monad to the study of nature.) Dee aimed to not only determine and understand the truth of nature; he felt it was his mission to share it. Second, it is clear that Dee felt that he had knowledge that others did not. He presented himself as a great scholar who deserves to be compared to other great scholars of history. Dee believed he was the possessor of true knowledge—knowledge that could be used to understand and share the divine plan. Third, Dee emphasized the importance of mathematics and observation in determining the true operations of the heavens. A Playne Discourse was, in fact, a 73 Ibid., 36. 74 Ibid., 47. 79 testament to Dee’s knowledge of the natural world: in it, he explained how the movement of heavenly bodies and the length of the year had been calculated over centuries, and he showed why the Julian calendar was incorrect and how it needed to be adjusted. A Playne Discourse also illustrates Dee’s commitment to attaining and using true knowledge of the natural world to correct the imperfections of nature. Dee was serious about the importance of restoring time properly. In his diaries, he made notes of the true days, the “correct” days as if the Julian calendar actually had been properly adjusted to the birth of Christ.75 Fourth, Dee desired not only true knowledge of the natural world but also divine knowledge. In A Playne Discourse, Dee was emphatic about the necessity of correcting the calendar back to the birth of Christ. As an astrologer, Dee was deeply concerned with the accurate measurement of time that was so crucial to understanding the secrets of the divine plan. Accurately measuring time meant restoring it back to its “chief root or radix.” Dee wanted the civil year (the earthly order) and the natural year (the heavenly order) to align. The calendar was the foremost example of a mathematically correct framework as the key to the harmony among the earth and the heavens, the human world, the natural world, and the supernatural world. Dee had faith that humanity could achieve knowledge of the divine order and understand how to maintain the natural world in accordance with divine wishes through a mathematically precise understanding and observation of the heavens. Finally, Dee believed in the supremacy of Britain and the British monarch. One of his goals was to elevate Britain to its dominant place in the world, and he suggested to 75 Dee, Diaries, Bodleian Library Ashmole 487 and 488. 80 Queen Elizabeth that such a goal could be achieved if she followed his advice. Dee argued for an Elizabethan reform of the calendar by adjusting time back to the time of the “true” church, the era of Christ—representing the best instincts of the Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther (1483-1546), Jean Calvin (1509-1564), and Henry VIII. The “Elizabethan” calendar reform would also confirm the historical legitimacy of the English Church by directly aligning itself with the time of the true Church. Thus, Dee argued that the Queen should publish a special calendar for 1583, the “Annus Reformationis,” followed in 1584 by a “Queen Elizabeth’s perpetual Kalendar” for the next century or two. True, England would be out of sync with the Continent, but Dee attributed that to the mistakes in the Gregorian reform. The error, Dee felt, stemmed from the corruption of the Roman Church. Furthermore, he appealed to all other countries to follow England’s example. In Dee’s vision, England would become the new leader in Europe by correcting the calendar.76 Dee may have argued for the implementation of a “true” Elizabethan calendar, but he knew the obstacles facing him: namely, the reluctance of the Church of England to accept a calendar change instigated by Rome and the inconvenience of using a unique calendar. Dee tried to appeal to Elizabeth’s desire for empire-building by declaring that other countries would follow Britain’s example by implementing the true (British) calendar in their own lands.77 Dee’s efforts to establish a unique British calendar, though, were to no avail. Dee sent his treatise and sample calendar to Elizabeth’s advisors on February 26, 1583.78 On March 17, Francis Walsingham (c.1532-1590), Elizabeth’s 76 Dee, A Playne Discourse, 60-62. 77 Ibid., 62. 78 Dee, Diaries, Ashmole 487, February 26, 1583. 81 secretary, explained to Dee that he and other advisors had decided that it would be best to follow the same Gregorian reform as the rest of Europe in order to avoid any confusion in economic and state matters. Therefore, Dee proposed a calendar for 1583 with ten days gradually deleted, calling for three days dropped in May, one in June, and three days each in July and August, at times that avoided important days and holidays. Such a plan, he argued, would be preferable to Pope Gregory XIII’s traumatic deletion of the ten days at one time. The councilors and Elizabeth approved Dee’s new calendar and set a date for its implementation in May of 1583,79 but the new calendar was never actually put in place. In the end, the leaders of the Church of England convinced Elizabeth that it would be politically and religiously devastating to give the appearance that England was following a directive of the Church of Rome. Dee seemed to have given up on his insistence on an accurate, distinct Elizabethan calendar. This decision from Dee is unexpected, given his arguments for the necessity of a true means of marking time. Probably Dee came to the conclusion that he was more likely to gain the good graces of Elizabeth if he cooperated with her advisors. Meanwhile, Dee continued to focus on his goal of gaining secret knowledge of the natural world. To that end, sought the help of divine intermediaries—specifically, angels. John Dee’s Conversations with Angels In late March 1583, John Dee recorded in his diary the following conversation with the angel Michael: Michael asks: “Dee, what wouldst thou have?” 79 “Report of Thomas Digges,” 453. 82 Dee responds: “Recte sapere et intelligere.” (Correctly to know and to understand.) Michael says: “Thy desire is granted thee.”80 Michael goes on to tell Dee how he should make the first of many numerical tables that will reveal the true names of the angels. After Dee deciphers the names, Michael and the angel Uriel reveal to Dee entire books of divine knowledge written in angel language. These books contain knowledge of God, knowledge of the angels, and complete knowledge of nature.81 The angels assure Dee that he has been specially chosen to receive this secret knowledge, and they caution Dee that the books must not be used until the time appointed by God. Several historians who have studied Dee’s natural philosophy, including Nicholas Clulee, Francis Yates, and Peter French, have largely neglected the angel conversations as an eccentricity of the sixteenth-century philosopher, an activity that had little or no influence on his “scientific” pursuits.82 In recent years, scholars have begun to draw more 80 John Dee, Mysteriorum Libri (1581-1583), British Library Sloane MS 3188, 17a. 81 John Dee, Liber Mysteriorum Sextus et Sanctus (1583), Bodleian Library Ashmole 422. 82 In John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, Nicholas Clulee stated that Dee’s angel conversations “cannot be considered as science or natural philosophy” (203). He also labeled the angel conversations “an embarrassment to any attempt to consider Dee as a significant figure in the history of philosophy and science” (203). Francis Yates did not address what she referred to as Dee’s “sensational angel-summonings” [Francis Yates, Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, 96]. Yates made note of Dee’s angel conversations only to point out that Dee’s contemporaries mistook his knowledge of the Cabala and numbers acting as intermediaries for divine knowledge as “conjuring.” See Francis Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Finally, In John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus (New York: Routledge, 1972) Peter French said that Dee’s angel magic “produced no fruitful results” (19). 83 attention to Dee’s conversations with angels,83 thanks largely to the efforts of Deborah Harkness, who argued in her 1999 monograph, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the End of Nature, that Dee’ s angel conversations represent an integral part of his natural philosophy.84 By studying Dee’s marginal notes in his library books, his manuscript diaries of the angel conversations, and a wide range of medieval and early modern treatises regarding nature and the apocalypse, Harkness concluded that the angel conversations confirmed for Dee that he was specially chosen to receive secret knowledge of nature. Moreover, the angels showed Dee that the natural world was analogous to an imperfect text that could be read, decrypted, and repaired with the proper tools. To Dee, those tools included mathematics, observation, alchemy, astrology, and the knowledge revealed to him by the angels. Perhaps as early as the 1550s, Dee began researching the idea of communicating with angels. He collected numerous texts that explained the process of discerning spirits and communicating through them. Dee wrote to William Cecil in 1562-1563 about his acquisition of Johann Trithemius’ Stenographia (c.1499), which describes the use of spirits to communicate over long distances. 85 The text also provides the names, sigils, prayers, and invocations of spirits and gives theological justification for magical 83 See György Szonyi, John Dee’s Occultism: Magical Exaltation Through Powerful Signs (Albany: State University of New York, 2004) and Stephen Clucas, “John Dee’s Angelic Conversations” in John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies, 231-274. 84 To Harkness, Dee’s conversations with angels are part of his unique natural philosophy, one that was practiced during a period when many thought that time, nature, and the world as they knew it was coming to an end. Dee’s diaries show that the corruptibility of nature and true knowledge of the Day of Judgment were common topics of his conversations with the angels. For a further discussion of the apocalyptic fervor of the sixteenth century, see Kocku von Stuckrad, Locations of Knowledge in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (The Netherlands: Brill, 2010), 152-157. 85 See Dee, Letter of Dr. John Dee to Sir William Cecil. 1562-3. 84 operations with spirits, demons, and angels. Additionally, Dee owned essential works on the Christian Cabala by Francesco Giorgi (1466-1540), Henry Cornelius Agrippa (1486- 1535), and Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522) as well as copies of the Book of Soyga, a sixteenth-century Latin text with unidentified author(s) that contains instructions on magic and astrology, the names and geneaologies of angels, and charts of texts that Dee could not decipher without help from the angels.86 Over time, Dee’s library grew to include a collection of Neoplatonic and Hermetic texts edited by Ficino and the complete works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (late fifth to early sixth century) as well as modern commentaries. Dee heavily annotated the works of Ficino and Pseudo-Dionysius in particular, noting how elements from the texts were similar to what the angels revealed to him. Dee also annotated his copy of Pompilius Azalus’ encyclopedia, De omnibus rebus naturalibus (1544), a compendium of the celestial and terrestrial worlds that also drew from the work of Pseudo-Dionysius.87 When he left England for central Europe in the early 1580s, Dee took several of his texts on angels with him.88 Dee took an interest in uncovering hidden truths very early in his career and his interest persisted throughout 86 See John Dee, Catalogus librorum Bibliothecne (externae) Mortlakensis. Deborah Harkness discovered two copies of the Book of Soyga in 1994, one in the British Library (Sloane MS 8) and one in the Bodleian Library (Bodley MS 908) under the title Aldaraia sive Soyga vocor. Dee was convinced that it was an important work, and Uriel seemed to confirm that when he noted that only Michael could interpret the book. See Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 9r; Deborah Harkness, “The Nexus of Angelology, Eschatology and Natural Philosophy in John Dee’s Angel Conversations,” 275-283, and Jim Reeds, “John Dee and the Magic Tables in the Book of Soyga” 177-204, in John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies. 87 See Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 112. Dee’s copy of Azalus’ De omnibus rebus naturalibus is currently held by the University of Cambridge Adams A2356. 88 Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 103-106. 85 his lifetime—that theme is clear in his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, his Monas Hieroglyphica, his “Mathematicall Praeface,” and his Playne Discourse. Figure 4. Excerpt from John Dee’s copy of the Book of Soyga, Bodleian Library Bodley 908, 6. Dee expressed to the angels his strong desire to decipher and understand this text. 86 Dee’s beliefs in the possibility and power of communications with angels were shaped by his study of intellectual traditions in angelology, his understanding of the structure of the cosmos (namely, that divine intervention in the natural world was always possible), and the religious and cultural beliefs about angels in the sixteenth century. Angels were a common topic of study in ancient sources like those of St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Pseudo-Dionysius through the scholastic theology of medieval scholars like St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and St. Bonaventure (1221-1274). In the early modern period, angels continued to appear in art, architecture, drama, literature, and scholarly writings, and Dee was clearly interested in others’ earlier attempts to make contact with them.89 To Dee and many of his contemporaries (including Robert Fludd, Simon Forman, and John Napier), the angels gave humans a means of communicating with God, which humans alone could not achieve because of original sin. Moreover, angels had complete knowledge of nature, and they could influence nature through their hierarchies.90 Dee would have also relied on his knowledge of the angels from the Bible, and he made note of the Biblical precedent for scrying in his records of the angel 89 See, for example, Meredith Gill, Angels and the Order of Heaven in Medieval and Renaissance Italy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014); Elizabeth Klein, Augustine’s Theology of Angels (Cambridge University Press, 2018); Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 101-104; David Keck, Angels and Angeology in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); David Keck, “Bonaventure’s Angelology,” in A Companion to Bonaventure, edited by Jay Hammond, Wayne Hellman, and Jared Goff (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2013), 289-332; Peter Marshall and Alexandra Walsham, eds., Angels in the Early Modern World (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006); and Joad Raymond, Milton and the Angels: The Early-Modern Imagination (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). 90 According to Thomas Aquinas, the angels were infused with knowledge at creation. They do not need to learn through experience, and knowledge is fixed according to their hierarchies. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, ed. Thomas Gilby et al. (Cambridge, 1964-81), vol. 9, 33, 73-165; Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 103-104; and Raymond, Milton and the Angels, 67-86, 300. 87 conversations.91 Dee wrote in 1582 that he was seeking “pure and sownd wisdom and understanding of ^some of^ thy [God’s] truths natural and artificiall.”92 Dee recognized that true wisdom could come only from God, and he believed the angels could bridge the gap between the Book Nature and the Book of Scripture. Morevover, Dee believed that when the angels imparted secret knowledge to him and when they told him to use their teachings at the appropriate time, it would signify the beginning of the apocolpyse.93 According to the Revelation of John, angels would be lead agents in the final days and the return of Christ. Angels played a significant role in human redemption and salvation, acting as role models for humans who did not need food and did not experience sinful desires. As such, angels were very important to Protestants and Catholics alike, and communication with angels (indeed, direct communication with God) was hotly contested during the Reformation. Many followers of the Pseudo-Dionysian corpus, like Dee, believed that at least the lowest hierarchy of angels was created for the specific purpose of communicating with humans. Martin Luther encouraged his followers to shun the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, and Jean Calvin warned against excessive interest in angels, which could lead humans to speculate their own ideas about God.94 Dee, though, 91 Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 7r. In addition to the stories of angels in the Old Testament and the New Testament (such as Jacob’s ladder, the annunciation of Christ’s birth, and the role of the angels in the end times as described in Revelations), angels appear regularly in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, which were printed in Bibles in Dee’s lifetime. Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 99-105. 92 John Dee, John Dee’s Action with Spirits, ed. Christopher Whitby, 2 vols. (New York: Routledge, 1988), vol. 2, 8. 93 Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 7r, 101r, and 118r. See Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 133-156, for further discussion of Dee’s conversations within the context of late sixteenth-century apocolypticism. 94 Karlfried Froelich, “Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century,” in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid, foreword, notes, and 88 sought the wisdom of the angels, despite its dangers. He was convinced that he was specially chosen to restore nature and to understand humanity’s role in the divine plan. Dee was aware of the dangers associated with contacting angels. He was careful to avoid conjuring evil spirits, and he knew that reveling in one’s special talents (like Dee’s perceived special calling to receive divine knowledge) was to be guilty of spiritual pride, an injury to God. The goal of the conversations had to be glory for God, not glory for Dee personally. (In fact, Dee regularly referred to himself throughout the conversations as a “simple servant” of God, and he even claimed that he was more pious than his scryers.95) It is clear from his notes, his library, and his recordings of the angel conversations that John Dee held some basic beliefs about angels. First, Dee believed, like Aquinas, that angels were spiritual beings not limited by material form. They communicated not through physical voice but could still impart their message to humans.96 Second, Dee believed that angelic intellect was superior to human intellect, and, in particular, they had translation collaboration by Paul Rorem (London: SPCK, 1987), 44 and Raymond, Milton and the Angels, 36. 95 Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 7r and Dee, True and Faithful Relation, 21. Dee wrote that he was seeking wisdom not for his benefit but for God’s “honor & glory, & the benefit of thy Servants, my brethren and Sistern” (Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 7r). For a discussion of the religious implications of Dee’s conversations with angels, see Stephen Clucas, “False Illuding Spirits & Cownterfeiting Deuills: John Dee’s Angelic Conversations and Religious Anxiety,” in Conversations with Angels: Essays Toward a History of Spiritual Communication, 1100-1700, ed. Joad Raymond (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillen, 2011), 150-174. Clucas suggests that Dee and Kelley follow a Protestant pattern in the conversations of responding to periods of doubt and uncertainty through acts of penitence and contrition and signs of grace (163). 96 Dee declared that the angels “have no organs or instruments apt for voice: but are mere spirituall and nothing corporall: but . . . [they] have the power and property fro[m] god to insinuate . . . [their] message or meaning to eare or eye.” Dee, John Dee’s Action with Spirits, vol. 2, 330. For a further discussion of the role of the imagination in receiving divine messages, see Gabriela Dragnea Horvath, Theatre, Magic, and Philosophy: William Shakespeare, John Dee, and the Italian Legacy (London: Routledge, 2017). See also Raymond, Milton and the Angels, 284-315. 89 divine knowledge of nature and creation. To Dee, angels had mastery over the natural world.97 Third, Dee conceived of angels as true intermediaries between God and humans, allowing them to know God, to communicate with humans, and to educate humans.98 Finally, Dee adopted the Pseudo-Dionysian celestial order. Dee owned the most current, post-Reformation commentaries on Pseudo-Dionysius that included recent humanistic scholarship and theoglogy.99 He was eager to navigate the angelic hierarchy and access divine knowledge of nature. According to his diaries, Dee was conversing with angels through the use of a seer on a regular basis in the early 1580s.100 Dee himself could not see nor hear the angels, but saw them only “in fayth” while his scryer saw them “in sight.”101 Dee’s most famous (or infamous) seer was Edward Kelley, who worked with Dee from 1582 to 1589. Kelley, 97 See Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 100-114. From the angels, Dee received the true names of God, the names for multitudes of angels, the true names given by God to geographical regions of the earth’s surface, the names of parts of the heavens, and the proper names for stages in the alchemical process. (See p. 100 for a detailed description of the “linguistic genealogy of angels” that Dee received.) The angels revealed their relationships with the signs of the zodiac, the ten spheres, the seven planets, the four elements, and the four winds. Throughout the angel conversations, the angels revealed their particular roles to Dee, but they recognized that only God knows certain mysteries. See, for example, Dee’s conversation with the angle Salamian, who proclaimed himself to be “the worker of worldly actions” while also acknowledging God’s complete knowledge of the world (Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 13). 98 Dee made multiple references to the angels as “schoolmasters.” Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, 102 and 367. See also Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 113-114. 99 See Froelich, 37-38. 100 Dee makes reference to his first seer, Barnabas Saul, in his diaries in 1581 and 1582. The earliest recorded spiritual conference is with Barnabas Saul on 22 December 1581, but Dee had dealings with Saul from as early as October 1581 until March 1582. Dee’s relationships with Saul ended when Saul claimed that he no longer saw spirits, and Dee discovered that Saul was slandering him. Other possible scryers for Dee included John Davis (met in 1579), William Emery (met in 1579), Bartholomew Hickman (met in 1579, served from 1591-1607), and Robert Gardiner (met in 1581). Dee, Diaries, Ashmole 487. 101 Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 80r. 90 under the alias of Edward Talbot, arrived at Morlake on March 9, 1582, just three days after Dee’s previous scryer, Barnabas Saul, told Dee that he no longer heard or saw spiritual creatures and left.102 Kelley seemed to have rich visions, and Kelley sought Dee’s assistance in discovering the secrets of alchemical transmutation.103 Dee’s diaries suggest that he was impressed with Kelley’s skills as a medium, and the two formed a somewhat uneasy partnership. The angel conversations demanded privacy, and Dee created a small oratory next to his study for private devotions and contemplation. Dee treated his conversations with angels as a truly religious experience. Dee and Kelley engaged in a routine of fasting, solemn religious reflection, and prayer to prepare for each angel encounter. Dee’s ability to communicate with angels depended on a showstone that could not work without prayer. Dee used three showstones: a “great Chrystaline Globe,” a “stone in the fram,” and a stone Dee believed had been brought by the angels and left in his oratory window at Mortlake.104 During each conversation, Dee placed the showstone on a large wax seal, which was itself resting on a Holy Table. (The angels gave Dee the original designs for the Holy Table in March 1582.)105 The angels, then, chose to reveal themselves through the showstone, or through the bending of light. Again, Dee’s beliefs about the possibility of communicating with angels were informed by his understanding of the natural world. In his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee described the metaphysical connection between 102 In his angel diaries, Dee claimed that Saul was conversing with evil spirits. Dee, Diaries, Ashmole 487, March 9, 1582. 103 Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 103v. 104 Ibid., 8. One of Dee’s “magic” mirrors is on display at the British Museum. 105 Dee, Liber Mysteriorum, n.p. A copy of Dee’s holy table is on display at the Museum of the History of Science at the University of Oxford. It is thought to have been owned by William Lilly. 91 light and certain “spiritual species” that were able to “flow from things both through light and without light.”106 When they were ready, Kelley gazed into the showstone and described for Dee the spirits that appeared before him. Dee used a series of questions and careful observations that he had learned from his vast library of ancient and modern texts to ensure that he was speaking to true angels and not deceiving spirits.107 Once he was assured of their authenticity—for example, he was assured that the angels were consistent in their appearance108 and responses—Dee engaged in lengthy, complex discussions with the angels about current events, knowledge of the natural world, and revealed secrets of God. Given the amount of time and effort that Dee invested in the angel conversations, it seems that Dee truly believed that he was in communion with angels and that he was fulfilling the will of God. The angels consistently reaffirmed to Dee that he was specially chosen to receive divine knowledge and revelation. Dee recorded minutes of the conversations as well as revelations either dictated by the angels or abstracted from the minutes. It is unlikely that Dee intended this material for publication—he never mentions the records in his public accounts of his writings. His conversations with angels were personal experiences to which Dee and the angels invited only a select few. Dee’s objective was not the attraction of beneficial influences or the manipulation of spirits for specific purposes; it was to learn and to follow God’s will and 106 Dee, Propaedeumata Aphoristica, 127-129. 107 Additionally, Dee heavily annotated his copy of Ficino’s De vita coelitus comparanda (1516), especially the sections that explained how to discern angels from demonic spirits (21-22). Dee’s copy of Ficino’s work is available in the Folger Shakespeare Library, Folio BF1501 .J2. 108 Dee believed, like Thomas Aquinas, belief that angels did not have bodies but could take on corporeal form to appear to humans. Aquinas, Summa, ix, 37, 13. 92 to receive true knowledge of nature. Dee and Kelley received prophetic revelations about great religious and political changes to come (which often suggested that the apocalypse was near) and divine wisdom promising a universal knowledge of creation, which was Dee’s primary motivation. The angels shared with Dee the language of Adam, in which every word signifies the essence of a substance. Essentially, this language contains the secrets and keys to the world because, through it, the true natures of all things are known.109 To express the language of Adam, the angels imparted to Dee a table of letters that embodies all human knowledge; however, those letters had to be selected and arranged according to a mystical and numerical process to reveal their secrets. It appears from Dee’s records that the angels never fully shared that system with Dee. The language of Adam would have given Dee command over nature, just as Adam was given command over all creatures. Dee’s role in the perfection of nature would depend on his mastery of the divine language of creation. This only affirmed Dee’s belief in the Cabalistic reading of nature. The angels confirmed Dee’s belief that the natural world could be understood and rectified, given the proper tools. Central to Dee’s thought was the idea that nature in itself was not a reliable text—it was imperfect and corruptible. To Dee, the changes in the cosmos suggested that he was living in the “end times,” and he believed his role was to 109 Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, 92. Beginning in 1583, the angels introduced Dee to the Book of Enoch, which contained the angelic language of Adam and Enoch. The angels dictated the language to Dee in the form of grid-like tables of forty-nine rows by forty-nine columns in which both letters and numbers appeared, in seemingly random order. Dee recorded these books as Liber mysteriorum sextus et sanctus, and, according to his diaries, the angels directed him to make words and sentences from these tables. The tables, though, and the knowledge that the angels promised to Dee, were never complete. 93 communicate information about the Day of Judgment. The angels confirmed for Dee his belief that a new age was about to begin. For example, the angel Uriel told Dee that The Lord hath chosen you to be Witnesses, through his mercy and sufferance … And behold, the day of this visitation, and of the execution of my judgements, is at hand. In the year eighty eight, shall you see the Sun move contrary to his course. The Stars encrease their light: and some of them fall from heaven. Then shall the Rivers run blood . . . Then shall the time come to passe, that this Prophesie shall be known.110 Uriel provided Dee with personal reassurance that he was specially chosen to receive full knowledge of the world, complete with specific time frames for the coming of Christ. On April 8, 1583, Dee records Uriel saying, “You are chosen by God his mercy to an ende and purpose: Which ende shall be made manifest by the first begynning in knowledg in these Mysteries.”111 Uriel then instructed Dee to write the “Book of Secrets,” a book which Uriel revealed to Dee, in forty days. When Uriel finished sharing the Book of Secrets with Dee, he emphasized that Dee was not to use his knowledge until the divinely-appointed time.112 While receiving divine knowledge of the end of nature, Dee also discussed more practical matters with the angels, such as impending voyages of discovery and even the calendar reform. Dee told the angels that Adrian Gilbert was a man on a quest to recover the peoples of the earth for God, and the angels even invited Gilbert to participate in their 110 Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, 233. 111 Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 89a. 112 Dee, Liber Mysteriorum, n.p. 94 conversations.113 Dee even consulted the angels when he feared that his recommendations for the calendar reform would not be heeded. On March 28, 1583, about one month after Dee delivered his Playne Discourse to Elizabeth’s advisors, Dee recorded a conversation with the angel Michael, in which Dee told Michael, “As concerning the Kalendar to be reformed, I am grieved that her Ma[tie] will not reforme it in the best terms of veritie.”114 Michael responded to Dee with assurance, telling him not to be discomforted, because others would rely on Dee’s knowledge at the proper time. Dee’s conversation with the angel Michael gives the impression that he was seeking reassurance from the angels about his studies of the natural world, his role in correcting nature, and his status in the English court. After Elizabeth rejected Dee’s calendar, the angels encouraged him to turn from her and her court to focus on other potential patrons in Europe who would be more receptive. The angels told Dee to share some of his revelations with some of the most powerful people in early modern Europe so that the “worthy” could fulfill God’s intentions and purpose. One such individual was Count Albert Laski, who Dee met on March 18, 1583.115 Laski was a Polish prince who had a deep interest in the occult, as well as a history of exploiting Polish politics. Dee found in Laski someone who accepted him as a purveyor of secret wisdom and special political revelations, and the angels seemed to give Laski prophecies that became even more favorable as Dee continued to 113 Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 65a. 114 Ibid., 67a-68a. 115 Dee, Diaries, March 18, 1583. Laski first appears in the angel conversations on May 5, 1583. Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, 103b. 95 warm up to him.116 The scene was set for Dee, Laski, and Kelley to travel to Poland, with new hopes for securing patronage abroad.117 Between 13 April 1584 and 14 May 1584, while Dee was in Cracow, the angels revealed to him the forty-nine Gates of Nature and their keys, the thirty Airs governed by the angels of the twelve tribes of Israel, and the Book of Enoch. The Airs were destined to play a crucial part in the final reordering of humanity. The angels described the thirty Airs as “bands” in the heavens distributed at twelve-degree intervals around the 365- degree circumference of the earth. This arrangement provided Dee with a restored zodiac on which to base a reformation of astrology.118 Moreover, the angels shared with Dee a form of alchemy from the days of Adam that would restore the deteriorating world. The angels told Dee that the power in their words was akin to the alchemical properties of medicine, and they gave him several alchemical lessons, in which themes of decay, rebirth, and apocalypse were featured. The last of the alchemical conversations were from 1585, when Kelly began to split from Dee. During their last recorded conversation, Raphael comforted Dee about his philosophical studies, confirmed the merits of the angelic revelations, and promised Dee a long life. The angels assured Dee that his work would be remembered.119 These records suggest that Dee’s conversations with angels were a crucial part of his practice of natural philosophy. The angels gave Dee divine knowledge about the constructs of the cosmos as well as secret alchemical methods from the time of Adam that would effectively alter nature. 116 Laski was first invited to participate in the angel conversations on June 19, 1583. Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, 22-23. 117 Dee, Diaries, Ashmole 487, 21 September 1583. 118 Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, 159. 119 John Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, part II, copy by Raph Jennyngs to Mr. Widdrington (1656), British Library, Cotton Appendix MS 46, 299t. 96 April 1586 marks the beginning of the end of Dee’s recorded communications with angels. He was falling out of favor with Kelley, Rudolph II, and the Catholic Church. While in Prague, Dee worked to gain an audience with Rudolph; however, Rudolph was extremely hesitant. Eventually, the monarch gave in to the demands of the Papal Nuncio that Dee and Kelley be expelled from his territories. Kelley’s interests rested primarily in alchemy, and when he learned to make a facsimile of gold that convinced most observers that he had discovered the secret of transmutation, he became a wealthy man. On July 5, 1586, Dee recorded in his diary that the angels commanded him and Kelley to swap wives.120 This may have been the point where Dee’s and Kelley’s relationship dissolved. Dee and Kelley parted ways in 1589. Rudolph kept Kelley at his court, despite Elizabeth’s attempts to steal him to England.121 John Dee returned to England to find that his library and laboratories had been plundered by former associates, and his other possessions had been dissipated by his brother-in-law. Dee’s financial condition was suffering. Nevertheless, Dee remained dedicated to the angelic conversations for the rest of his life. Shortly after Dee’s separation from Kelley, Dee tried to communicate with the angels through his son, Arthur; however, Dee became quickly frustrated by the lack of information his son was able to receive from the angels. They admitted defeat after three days. Dee’s final scryer, Bartholomew Hickman, worked for Dee between 1591 and 1607, but few of the notes from Hickman’s angel conversations survive.122 120 Dee, Diaries, Ashmole 488, July 5, 1586. 121 Ibid., June 1-3, 1588 and July 10, 1588. 122 See Dee, Diaries, Ahsmole 488. Dee’s final surviving angel conversation with Hickman is recorded in Dee, Mysteriorum Libri, part II, 299t. 97 There have been numerous theories about what was actually happening between Dee and his seer during their sessions. It is difficult to accept, nor can it be proven, that Dee was actually speaking to angels. Meric Casaubon promulgated the idea that Edward Kelley was a charlatan who simply duped Dee (a theory which Nicholas Clulee supports), but it is doubtful that (1) an accomplished scholar like Dee could be so easily duped, (2) that Kelley would have falsified such extensive conversations simply to fool Dee, and (3) that Kelley would have risked his professional well-being and reputation on act of trickery. There is another theory proposed by Robert Hooke (1635-1703) that Dee was a spy for Queen Elizabeth and that his angel diaries are coded messages.123 The diaries, though, match no known code of the time, and Dee spent much of his time consulting with political allies of Elizabeth—he was not known for placing himself in politically dangerous situations. It has been proposed more recently that Kelley entered into altered states of consciousness and genuinely experienced something outside of his immediate conception.124 If one was to take Dee at his word throughout his diaries, it seems that he genuinely believed that he could communicate with angels. The contents of his library suggest that he conducted a great deal of research about angels and the possibility of communicating with them, and he went through extensive religious preparation to make sure his conversations were authentic experiences of a devout Christian serving God. Historian Deborah Harkness has argued that Dee’s angel conversations were just one step towards his ultimate goal of proposing a unifying theory, one that would bridge 123 Robert Hooke, The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke (London: Published by R. Waller, 1705; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1969), 205-206. 124 See James Justin Sledge, “Between Loageth and Consening: Towards and Etiology of John Dee’s Spirit Diaries,” Aries 10.1 (2010): 1-35. 98 the gap between the imperfect world and the perfect celestial world.125 Dee made many attempts in his writings to unify knowledge. His Monas Hierglyphica attempted to encompass the many branches of natural philosophy into a single glyph. In the “Mathematicall Praeface,” Dee considered “archemastrie” to be a superior form of natural philosophy that verified and unified multiple disciplines.126 When used together, these natural philosophical skills and techniques would give the natural philosopher access to celestial truths. Dee was most intent on finding ways to bridge the gap between the natural and celestial realms and to use that knowledge to rectify the decay of nature. Nicholas Clulee has suggested that Dee may have turned to the angels in the 1580s because he was becoming increasingly pessimistic about his own ability to learn the secrets of nature through “scientific” means.127 There are moments in the records of the angel conversations where it is apparent that Dee is dissatisfied by his current knowledge of the natural world; however, there is nothing to suggest that Dee started conversing with angels because of that dissatisfaction. On the contrary, the angels seem to confirm to Dee that he was doing everything right. Christopher Whitby, who edited the full collection of Dee’s angel conversations, argued that Dee’s interactions with the angels were motivated by his disillusionment with the world of man, his hopes of worldly wealth that might be attained through the Philosopher’s Stone, and his anticipation for the new age that might bring about the unification of Christendom.128 While there is evidence to support each of these statements throughout Dee’s angel diaries, Dee seemed most 125 Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 59. 126 For a discussion of how Dee’s angel conversations may have been part of his concept of “archemastrie,” see Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 96. 127 Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 226. 128 Christopher Whitby, “Motives,” in Dee, John Dee’s Action with Spirits, vol. 1, 157- 177. 99 consumed with his goal to receive divine knowledge of the natural world, to communicate that knowledge, and to “correct” the deterioration of nature whenever possible. Historians have attempted to offer a rational explanation for Dee’s seemingly irrational preoccupation with angels. Although conversing with angels may seem to be an unorthodox means of gathering information about the natural world, to Dee it was just one more tool brining him closer to knowing the secret inner-workings of the universe. Dee’s angel conversations reflected themes that were present throughout his previous publication: that he was specially chosen to receive divine knowledge of the natural world; that a precise understanding of natural phenomenon could reveal things unseen (in much the same way that light revealed the presence of angels); and that there existed a harmony in the universe that could be restored by the adept philosopher through alchemy, astrology, observation, mathematics, and experimentation. John Dee’s Natural Philosophy Near the end of his life, John Dee produced two texts that outline his accomplishments in natural philosophy while also making the case for continued and increasing financial support. The texts, The Compendious Rehearsall of John Dee (read to the Queen’s Commissioners in 1592 and printed in 1597) and A Letter Containing a Most Briefe Discourse Apologeticall (1599), fill in some missing pieces about the ways in which Dee’s natural philosophy evolved, although Dee’s accomplishments in these texts are self-reported and possibly embellished to gain the favor of his monarch. In both texts, Dee provided extensive lists of texts that he has written (or was writing) about the natural world, he explained the origin of some of his first interests in astrology while at 100 Cambridge, and he provided examples to show that all of his work has been dedicated to the advancement of England and its queen. Dee’s Compendious Rehearsall and Brief Discourse Apologetical were his pleas to restore not only his fortunes but also his reputation. In his Brief Discourse Apologetical, Dee stated that he was writing not only to demonstrate to Elizabeth and her Privy Council all of the work he had done on their behalf but also to “satisfie the godly and vnpartiall Christian hearer, or reader hereof: That, by his own iudgement . . . That I haue wonderfully labored, to finde, follow, vse, & haunt the true, straight, and most narrow path, leading all true, deuote, zealous, faithfull, and constant Christian students.” To Dee, doing so would “stop the mouthes, and, at length to stay the impudent attemptes, of the rash, and malicious deuisers, and contriuers of most vntrue, foolish, and wicked reports, and fables, of, and concerning my foresaid studious exercises, passed ouer, with great, (yea incredible) paines, trauels, cares, and costs, in the search, and learning of true Philosophie.”129 Indeed, Dee used every tool at his disposal in search of the “true Philosophie,” and he seemed acutely aware of how that search may have damaged his reputation. Although the writings that Dee left behind are diverse, some conclusions can be drawn about Dee’s particular approach to natural philosophy. First, Dee believed he could achieve a complete understanding of nature, including knowledge of the divine structure of nature and the divine plan for humanity. It is also apparent in his writings, especially within the recordings of his angel conversations, that Dee felt he was specially chosen to receive this knowledge. Moreover, he felt it was his obligation to share that knowledge and to use that knowledge to correct nature. In his Propaedeumata 129 Dee, A Briefe Discourse Apologeticall, n.p. 101 Aphoristica, Dee implored astrologers to become knowledgable in how the cosmos operates and to base their practice on precise measurements made through observations. In Monas Hieroglyphica, Dee suggested that the adept alchemist could read nature as a text and unlock its secrets. In A Playne Discourse, Dee argued that the degradation of time could be corrected by restoring the calendar back to the birth of Christ. Knowledge of the natural world was attainable, and Dee felt it his responsibility to share that knowledge and teach others, even if his teachings were often rather vague. Second, Dee wanted to promote the best interests of Britain and Queen Elizabeth, and, in doing so, secure himself a powerful patron that would support his studies of the world and look to him for divine knowledge. These desires appear through his published works on navigation and the expansion of British influence, A Playne Discourse, and his angel diaries. His efforts to promote Britain and his own status influenced his natural philosophy. He offered Elizabeth secret knowledge that he was specially appointed to receive, and he would spend his life seeking that secret knowledge through astrology, mathematics, alchemy, observation, and conversations with angels. It is also important to note the political connections that Dee made through the course of work. Dee interacted with courtiers, astrologers, cartographers, instrument-makers, explorers, and students as part of his efforts to gain complete knowledge of the natural world. In doing so, he shared ideas and at times influenced important voyages and achievements made by others.130 Third, Dee highlighted mathematics as a crucial element for understanding nature. Dee argued for the reform of astrology and alchemy based on mathematical precision and 130 For example, Dee’s colleague, Leonard Digges, developed the theodolite, a surveying tool with a rotating telescope for measuring vertical and horizontal angles. Upon Leonard’s death, Dee cared for his son, Thomas Digges, who went on to develop navigational instruments. 102 accurate observations. In addition, he lauded the power of mathematics for bridging the gap between the celestial and terrestrial realms. An emphasis on numbers and mathematics is present in nearly all of his works, but in the “Mathematicall Praeface” in particular, Dee hailed the importance of mathematics in leading to practical applications and wider philosophical understandings of the cosmos.131 In his conversations with angels, the angels revealed knowledge to Dee through numbers. Moreover, light and optics played a very important role in Dee’s natural philosophy. In Propaeduemata Aphoristica, Dee described how emanating rays from celestial objects behave like light and influence earthly affairs and how those rays could be studied mathematically through an understanding of precise angles of impact. Dee also emphasized the light of the cross within his monad, the genesis of all creation. He used burning mirrors and the bending of light to communicate with angels. Light, to Dee, represented the divine act of creation, and understanding the natural world and its secrets meant understanding light and optics mathematically. Fourth, Dee employed a variety of tools for gaining knowledge of the natural world, including mathematics, observation, astrology, alchemy, and conversations with angels. Like many of his contemporary philosophers, he saw no demarcation between “science” and “occult,” and to try to separate his scientific achievement from his occult practices certainly presents a flawed and incomplete picture of Dee’s work. Dee was neither a scientist who was misdirected by unwise pursuits, nor was he a magus who laid the groundwork for modern science through his unique mix of magic and mathematics. 131 Stephen Johnston has argued that even if Dee did not achieve the elevated position of philosopher that he sought, he played a central role in establishing the identity of the mathematician and in promoting mathematics as practical and public. Johnston, 65-84. 103 Instead, Dee was a philosopher who was using any means at his disposal to achieve true knowledge of nature. While Dee studied the natural world for his own interests and for the advancement of Britain, he also repeatedly noted that all of his work was done for the glory of God. Dee seemed to believe truly the angels’ promise that he would be able to use the divine knowledge specially imparted to him to know and manipulate nature at the appointed time. To achieve that knowledge, Dee would use the tools and methods available to him, and he would teach other philosophers ways of gaining more complete knowledge through mathematics, observation, and precise calculations and measurements. The following chapters will explain how Dee’s methods and goals for understanding the natural world compared to those of his contemporary philosophers. Considering Dee’s interactions with other philosophers and his contributions to natural philosophy, Dee played an important role in the practice of sixteenth-century science. 104 Chapter Three: John Dee and his Colleagues When Meric Casaubon published John Dee’s angel diaries 1657, he portrayed Dee as an eccentric who engaged in dealings with the devil. In the preface to his True and Faithful Relations, Casaubon wrote that Dee “mistook false lying Spirits for Angels of Light, the Divel of Hell (as we commonly term him) for the God of Light.”1 According to Casaubon’s characterization, Dee was a misguided conjuror, and that view influenced the way Dee was portrayed for centuries. The first two chapters of this study have shown, though, that historians have been paying more attention to Dee’s approach to natural philosophy in recent years. Dee’s contact with angels was just one of several methods that he used to gain knowledge of the natural world. Dee relied on ancient authorities, observation, mathematics, astrology, alchemy, conversations with angels, and other tools that could help him understand not only the structure of the universe but God’s plan for it. The problem for historians is that Dee’s wide range of tools for investigating the natural world makes him difficult to categorize, and Dee was overlooked within the narrative of the development of modern science. Compared to other scholars and philosophers of his time, though, Dee used fairly common methods for his investigations of the natural world. Dee collaborated and conversed with many others who were also seeking to understand and to explain the mysteries of nature. Dee’s surviving records provide some clues about the other scholars with whom he conversed, especially about natural philosophy. It is clear, for instance, that Dee met Gemma Frisius and Gerard Mercator, among others, during his visit to 1 Casaubon, “Preface” in Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, 26. 105 Louvain (1548-1551).2 Furthermore, Dee’s notes suggest that he met with Girolamo Cardano and Jofrancus Offusius, and he was likely a mentor to Thomas Digges. This list is not exhaustive, but it does provide a context for studying Dee’s methods as compared to some of his contemporary natural philosophers. By examining their activities and goals and comparing them to those of Dee, a more holistic view of John Dee as a natural philosopher begins to emerge. Dee may not be accurately categorized as only a magus or only an astrologer or only a mathematician, but that is precisely the point. Sixteenth- century methods of investigating the natural world did not fit categories neatly, either. The next chapter of this study will focus on the methods of other scholars who engaged in some of the same studies of the natural world and possibly encountered some of Dee’s written works. Some prominent examples include Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Michael Maestlin, Simon Forman, and Robert Fludd. All of these scholars shared a common goal to understand nature, and throughout their studies they questioned traditional methods. They were making new assumptions and looking in new places, just as Dee was. A comparison between Dee’s activities as a natural philosopher with those of his contemporary scholars provides a more complete view of Dee than Casaubon created, and it brings Dee into the mainstream conversation about changes in natural philosophy in the sixteenth century. While Dee approached natural philosophy in a way that was uniquely his, many of his methods were not so dissimilar from the methods of some of his fellow scholars. Dee does not stand out as an aberration to early modern science; 2 In his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee acknowledged his friends at Louvain, including Mercator, Frisius, Abraham Ortelius, Antonius Gogava, and Pedro Nuñes. Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 54. 106 instead, he provides a case study for understanding how the practices of natural philosophy were changing in the sixteenth century. John Dee in Louvain Dee declared that one of the most formative times in his life was his time was conversing with fellow scholars in Louvain.3 In his “Mathematicall Praeface,” Dee attributed his early formation in astrology to his time in Louvain: “I was, (for *21.yeares ago) by certaine earnest disputations, of the Learned Gerardus Mercator, and Antonius Gogava, (and other,) thereto so prouoked: and (by my constant and invincible zeale to the veritie) in observations of Heauenly Influencies (to the Minute of the time,) than, so diligent.”4 In his Compendious Rehearsall, Dee noted that in 1548, the year he arrived in Louvain, he acquired and annotated two books on astrology, and he began making his own observations.5 He also claimed that while in Louvain in 1549, he completed his twenty-four book Mercurius coelestis, which was supposed to have dealt with astronomy 3 It is still unclear why, exactly, Dee traveled to Louvain. Deborah Harkness has pointed out that Dee may have been attracted to new movements for religious reform and religious unification, especially the ideas of the sect known as the Familists, who promoted universal religion and religious toleration. Among its members were Gerard Mercator, Gemma Frisius, Abraham Ortelius (1527-1598), and the major Antwerp publisher Christophe Plantin (1520-1589). See Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 129-130. Or, Dee may have heard of the work of Mercator and others through Flemish émigrés in London. Robert Westman postulated that Dee may have had contact with someone like the London printer Thomas Gemini, who could have received engraver’s training with Mercator in the workshop of Gaspar van der Heyden in Louvain. Westman, The Copernican Question, 183. 4 Dee, “Mathematicall Praeface, biiij. Dee failed to mention Gemma Frisius or his older student, Johannes Stadius. 5 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 4-5. The Royal College of Physicians, London, holds copies of Yahyá ibn Ghälib Khayyät, Albohali Arabis astrologi antiquissimi, ac clarissimi De iudicijs nativitatum liber unus, antehac non editus (Nuremberg: Johann Vom Berg, 1546) and Ioannes Hispalensis, Epitome Totius Astrologiae (Nuremberg: Johann Vom Berg, 1548) that contain annotations by Dee dated 1548. 107 and astrology.6 Dee’s visit to Louvain was especially important to his development as a natural scholar because it was the time in which he was formulating his methods for reforming astrology. Dee believed that a reformed astrology would lead the scholar to “hidden” knowledge of the natural world. At Louvain, Dee had the opportunity to work with several scholars whose interests and goals closely aligned with his own. Mercator, Frisius, Ortelius, Gaspard van der Heyden (c. 1496-after 1549),7 Pedro Nuñes,8 and Antonius Gogava (1529-1569)9 were all working on cosmographical problems, such as the exact size of the planets, the distances between celestial bodies, and an accurate map of the earth and the cosmos. These scholars, like Dee, were looking for a more accurate understanding of the motions 6 Dee’s Mercurius coelestis did not survive or has not been found. Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 8, and Dee, A Briefe Discourse Apologeticall, n.p. 7 Gaspard van der Heyden was a goldsmith and engraver who built mathematical instruments and carved globes, including three for Gemma Frisius. Gerard Mercator learned to engrave in van der Heyden’s workshop. 8 By the time Dee was in Louvain in the late 1540s, Pedro Nuñes had already published three books, establishing a reputation as a fine mathematician throughout Europe. While working as a cosmographer, Nuñes realized that a lack of mathematical knowledge had resulted in many errors in navigation and therefore claimed that seamen should be trained in mathematics. Nuñes pioneered the use of geometrical and trigonometrical tools to solve navigation problems. He based mathematical explanations on real questions made by real people, expressing his concern to reconcile mathematics with physical reality. Nuñes’ work was highly regarded by Christophe Clavius (1538-1612) and Tycho Brahe. He planned treatises on the astrolabe, proportions or globes, and nautical charts. In 1546, Nuñes published De erratis Orontii Finaei, which revealed errors in the mathematical demonstrations of Oronce Fine (whom Dee met when he was in Paris from 1550 to 1551). See Bruno Almeida, “On the Origins of Dee’s Mathematical Programme: The John Dee—Pedro Nuñes Connection,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 43, no. 3 (Septebmer 2012): 462. 9 Antonius Gogava had just finished a translation of Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos along with two medieval optical treatises when Dee arrived in Louvain. Gemma Frisius endorsed Gogava’s translation of Ptolemy for its up-to-date practical utility. See Heilbron, 54-5, and Nicholas H. Clulee, “Astrology, Magic, and Optics: Facets of John Dee’s Early Natural Philosophy,” in Brian Levack, ed., Renaissance Magic (New York: Routledge, 1992), 9. 108 of the heavens based on observation and mathematical precision. They questioned current understandings of the nature of the celestial and terrestrial realms. In doing so, Dee and the Louvain scholars were working towards a more precise astrology and an understanding of human history that might allow for the prediction of major events, such as the return of Christ.10 Since ancient times, astrologers have attempted to read the language of the stars to reveal hidden information about the cosmos and its impact on earthly events. From astrology’s very beginnings, practitioners have read the meanings that celestial bodies express through their character, including their color, speed, and direction of motion. Each planet has its own qualities, and each planet behaves differently when encountering other planets as it moves through the zodiac—some planets are allies and others are opponents. In ancient times, when scholars were discussing “astronomy” as the study of the movement and relationship between planets, they were referring to modern-day astrology, or the study of the effects of planetary movements on earth.11 Part of the job of the astrologer was to create astronomical tables from which he could predict the movements of the planets and then determine the future influences of those movements.12 From its ancient beginnings, astrology and astronomy were intimately linked, and accurate predictions depended on an understanding of the motions of the heavens and the rules by which those motions affected earthly events. 10 Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 56. 11 Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos described astrology as a means of producing prognostications based on the influence of planetary configurations on earth. See Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence, 7-8. 12 For a short discussion of the development of ancient astrology and astronomy, see Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos, 6-8, and A. Scott, Origen and the Life of the Stars (1991; reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). 109 In the twelfth century, Arabic astrological writings like the Great Introduction to Astrology of Albumasar (787-886) appeared in Western Europe and generated more interest in astrological prognostications. By the fourteenth century, representations of the zodiac man became abundant, and the image assisted surgeons in deciding when to bleed patients or prescribe a diet that would counteract a specific disease. Annual astrological prognostications became part of the printing trade, along with single-leaf wall calendars, almanacs, ephemerides, lunar tables, and eclipse forecasts.13 In addition, astrologers produced horoscopes and genitures, which lay out the positions of the planets at the moment of the client’s birth. The genitures explain what consequences the positions of the planets would have for a client’s health, wealth, travels, marriage, fortune, and death.14 Although astrological practice was based on analysis of motions of the heavens, over time, fewer astrologers were making observations and were instead relying on inaccurate astronomical tables or practices. Judicial astrology, the predictive practice of astrology for the creation of horoscopes and genitures, was in a state of decline by the fourteenth century.15 13 From the 1470s onward, publishers produced ancient and medieval astrological classics and enabled prognosticators to issue their own forecasts independently of universities, where manuscripts were copied. Westman, The Copernican Question, 25-27 and 66. 14 Genitures frequently included “revolutions,” analyses of the positions of the planets at the anniversary of a client’s birth, year by year for fifty or sixty years. Newman and Grafton, Secrets of Nature, 11. 15 Critics of judicial astrology were abundant. Nicole Oresme refuted the idea that making any prognostications was possible, arguing that the ratio of any movement between celestial bodies was impossible to measure (Ad pauca respicientes, printed in Venice in 1505). Moreover, Oresme denied the idea that any person’s path was predetermined, but he did acknowledge that celestial movements could have an impact on some earthly events (Livre de divinacions, 1356). Likewise, Henry of Hesse criticized astrologers who made predictions based on conjunctions, the revolutions of the planets, and eclipses (Contra coniunctionistas, 1373). He pointed out that astrologers predicted a very cold winter when it was, in fact, warm, and they failed to predict some major events for 1373, 110 One of the most vocal opponents to astrology was Pico della Mirandola (1463- 1494). Pico had originally embraced astrology, but he later attacked the ancient astrological traditions on which many of the prognosticators relied to make their predictions. Pico questioned astrology’s theoretical foundations and claimed it to be a falsehood. He argued that the zodiac is a human construction that is simply an arrangement of the stars that is useful for mathematicians. Furthermore, according to Pico, astrologers used unreliable categories like houses, signs, aspects, and retrogradations, and they could not agree among themselves about how planetary influences impact earthly events. He also declared that the shapes of the constellations have no ability to induce effects. Pico pointed out, too, that astrologers could not agree on the length of the year, which generated different interpretations of genitures.16 Pico was criticizing many of the problems that astrologers encountered when “reading” the motions of the heavens, but he was also attacking the very foundations of astrology itself. In response, multiple scholars, including John Dee, argued that the methods for gaining astronomical knowledge could be improved and that the “rules” for interpreting that knowledge could be restored back to its ancient foundations. Many of these scholars were in Louvain in the mid-sixteenth century. Their solution was to create a reformed astrology based on precise observation and measurements of the heavens. including floods in France and Germany. See Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Volume 3 (reprint, 1958; New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 398-423 and 492-496. 16 See Westman, The Copernican Question, 82-87 and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Disputationes adversus Astrologiam Divinatricem, 2 vols., ed. Eugenio Garin (Florence: Vallechi, 1946-1952), 1:27-29, 1:190-196, 2:334, 2:354. The Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola condensed Pico’s arguments for a popular audience. 111 Gemma Frisius (1508-1555) Gemma Frisius showed a special interest in making precise measurements of the movements of the celestial realm. An astrologer, mathematician, and cosmographer, Frisius began his studies of medicine at the University of Louvain in 1525, earning his Master’s degree in 1528 and his MD in 1536. Frisius was heavily involved in cosmography and instrument-making while also practicing medicine and serving on the medical faculty at Louvain from his graduation until his death. In addition, Frisius regularly taught mathematics in his private Louvain home, and the cartographer Gerard Mercator was one of his pupils. Mercator tells us that Frisus’ lessons encompassed both the theorica planetarum (an advanced medieval course in the theory of mathematical astronomy) and the principles of Euclidean geometry.17 Frisius felt that an expertise in mathematics was crucial to studying and understanding cosmography. Frisius also taught his students to use “new” instruments, such as the universal astrolabe.18 Again, to Frisius, the astrologer should make observations and precise measurements so that he could better understand the influence of celestial rays on the terrestrial realm. Frisius was a cosmographer first and foremost. At age 21, he published his first text, a new and corrected edition of Peter Apian’s Cosmographia (February 1529). The book drew on traditional ancient sources but also relied on recent studies, such as Martin Waldseemüller’s world map of 1507 and the transatlantic voyages of Amerigo Vespucci 17 Gerard Mercator, Letter from Mercator to Wolfgang Haller, published in Correspondance Mercatorienne, ed. Van Durme, 164-167. 18 Gemma Frisius, De astrolabo catholico (Antwerp, 1556), 81r. See Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence, 121. 112 and other explorers.19 The text was a guide to the discipline of cosmography, which Apian defined as a description of the world, including the four elements, the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the heavens.20 The Cosmographia covered a wide array of subjects, including circles that divide the Earth (such as the equator) and the heavens (such as the zodiac), eclipses, constellations, units of measurement, towns and cities, the movement of the winds, instrument-making, and much more. It was a practical text for solving problems of astronomy, geography, cartography, and navigation.21 In subsequent editions, Frisius included more information about instrument making and measurements. In the 1533 edition, for instance, Frisius first explained the principle of triangulation for surveying,22 and in the 1545 edition, he discussed the use of a staff for making celestial measurements.23 The text displayed Frisius’ impressive skills in mathematics, but it also reflected his keen interest in making accurate measurements of the distances between bodies and celestial motions, which was also very important to John Dee. In fact, Dee brought Frisius’ model of the cross staff home to England, and where Dee’s pupil, Thomas Digges, made further modifications.24 19 Over the next eighty years, the book went through at least thirty editions in fourteen languages. See Robert Karrow, Mapmakers of the Sixteenth Century and Their Maps: Bio-bibliographies of the Cartographers of Abraham Ortelius, 1570 (Chicago: Speculum Orbis Press, 1993), 205-6. 20 Peter Apian, Cosmographia Petri Apiani (Væneunt Antuerpiæ sub scuto Basiliensi, 1533), 1, available through Sabin Americana (gdc.gale.com/products/sabin-americana- 1500-1926), accessed 24 June 2015. 21 It should be noted that Dee was also very interested in the practical application of mathematics, which he makes clear in his Mathematicall Praeface. See John Dee, “Mathematicall Praeface,” ii-ij. 22 Apian, 52-56. 23 Ibid., 14. 24 For an overview of the development of the cross-staff in England and on the Continent, see Roche, “The Radius Astronomicus in England.” 113 Dee certainly shared some of the same interests and methods as Frisius. Dee, like Frisius, highlighted the importance of applying mathematical study to cosmography. He listed astronomy and cosmography as mathematical arts in his “Mathematical Praeface,” and he defined “cosmographie” as “the whole and perfect description of the heauenly, and also the elementall parte of the world, and their homologall application, and mutuall collation necessarie,” including the equinoctial circle, ecliptic lines, poles, and stars, and their lattitudes, longitudes, and declinations.25 Like Frisius, Dee was trying to gain an understanding of the entire universe. He was interested in the practical application of mathematics in areas like navigation, but he placed a very high importance on measuring distances between celestial bodies and angles of their movements. Such measurements had important applications in cosmography and astrology. Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica encouraged astrologers to establish mathematically precise measurements between celestial bodies so that they could gain a better understanding of the functioning of the cosmos and make accurate astronomical tables and predictions. Frisius, too, argued that astrology should be based on sound mathematics and measurements. In 1530, Frisius published De principiis astronomiae et cosmographiae, a manual for a lost celestial and terrestrial globe that included the stars of the eighth sphere.26 Using the globes and the text, a student could learn the basic principles of winds and meridians, poles, eclipses, and zodiac signs. He could use that knowledge with the globes to solve astronomical and cosmographical problems. Most importantly, the reader could 25 Dee, “Mathematicall Praeface,” biii. 26 The globe was engraved by Gaspard Van der Heyden. Gemma Frisius, De principiis astronomiae et cosmographiae (1530, Coloniæ: Apud Maternum Cholinum, 1578), fol. A2r (microprint). See also Peter Van Der Krogt, Globi Neerlandici: The Production of Globes in the Low Countries (Utrecht: HES, 1993), 48-51. 114 come to understand latitude and longitude. Instead of relying on infrequent lunar eclipses to estimate longitude, Frisius suggested that sailors could determine longitude by keeping track of travel time with a small clock.27 He also described how to use a cross staff to situate celestial bodies on the globe’s surface, which would allow a person to determine the planetary positions as well as the place of stars in the southern hemisphere that were unknown to Ptolemy. The determination of terrestrial longitude increased the accuracy of astronomical tables and ephemerides.28 Frisius was encouraging his students to improve cosmographical knowledge through astronomical observation and calculations. Near the end of his globe manual, Frisius focused specifically on the astrological functions of his instrument, such as the determination of astrological houses.29 Frisius was an avid astrologer who was most interested in the astronomical theory that formed the basis of the practice of astrology.30 In other words, Frisius was not interested in reforming judicial astrology alone; he wanted to gain an accurate understanding of the motions of the cosmos, just like Dee. Frisius’ globes could contribute to a reformed astrology by providing accurate measurements of the timing of celestial events and the positions of celestial bodies, which would allow astrologers to create more accurate astronomical tables. He also suggested that one could calculate and mark planetary positions on the globe, which would be crucial for astrological practice.31 27 Frisius, De principiis astronomiae et cosmographiae, 62-71. 28 Ibid., 61-64. 29 Ibid., 73-81. 30 As a physician, Frisius was particularly interested in the effects of celestial motions and influences on the human body. Mercator to H. de Rantzau, May 1585, in van Durme, Correspondence mercatorienne, 192. 31 Frisius, De principiis astronomiae et cosmographiae, 39. 115 Specifically, Frisius felt that astronomical theory must provide accurate predictions of the angular positions of celestial bodies. To Frisius, the angles of celestial bodies relative to a specific point on earth allowed for a precise measurement of the distances between bodies. Essentially, this is Frisius’ principle of triangulation, which allowed the observer to establish the location of a point or a body by measuring angles to it from other known points. Dee, too, was very interested in the positions of the planets and the angles at which celestial rays struck the earth. To Dee, the angles at which various emanating rays impacted celestial bodies helped to determine the effects of that ray on an individual or on human events. Dee postulated that each planet emenated rays that imparted certain properties to whatever they struck. As the planets moved around the heavens, the relative intensities of their rays on earth changed. This explained a variety of astrological effects and made the time and date of a person’s birth particularly important in producing a geniture. Dee suggested that astrologers should calculate mathematically the force of the rays from each planet at a particular place and time to provide an exact horoscope. To do so, the astrologer would need to know the relative distances to the planets and the angle at which their rays struck the earth (which had an impact on the intensity of the ray).32 Like Frisius, Dee was more interested in the astronomical principles underlying astrology than the practice of producing prognostications themselves. Frisius’ interests in astrology likely motivated his own observations of the heavens. He continued to produce globes and other instruments for measuring distances 32 In the Propaeduemata Aphoristica, see especially aphorisms XXVIII, XXIX, XLIII, and XXXII. Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 216-218 and 221. 116 between celestial bodies.33 Frisius argued that observation and demonstration were sounder criteria for determining planetary positions than the authority of antiquity.34 (Dee, too, believed in the importance of observation in establishing precise measurements between heavenly bodies, noting in his Compendious Rehearsall that he made many observations himself during his time at Cambridge.35) Frisius was finding that the measurements he observed did not match those in the Alphonsine tables. In 1541, Frisius noted that the position of Mars was often three degrees apart from its predicted position in Joannes Stoffler’s Ephemerides for 1532-1552 and the Alphonsine tables. He found such errors severely problematic, and he questioned the computation of planetary positions through Ptolemy’s methods.36 Frisius obtained a copy of Georg Rheticus’ Narratio prima by 1541, and he wrote how excited he was to find solutions to major astronomical (and astrological) problems, such as the angular position of Mars, the size of the moon, the length of the year, the processional motion of the fixed stars and the apogees, and the position of the fixed stars.37 When Frisius received a copy of De Revolutionibus, he made several notations 33 On February 1, 1534, Frisius completed an essay on the use of a new instrument called the “astronomical ring.” That same year, Frisius, Mercartor, and vander Heyden worked together to produce a new terrestrial globe. Frisius produced his own version of the astrolabe, as well as quadrants for telling the time by the Sun or the stars, and armillary spheres, whose concentric rings around a central globe could be used to demonstrate the great circles of the heavens. 34 Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence, 164. 35 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 3. 36 Gemma Frisius, De radio astronomico (Antwerp, 1545), fol. 34v, available through The Bavarian State Library (www.bsb-muenchen.de/index.php) accessed 21 July 2015. In his dedication of the text to Pedro Fernandez de Cordoba, Frisius highlights the importance of astronomical reform. See Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence, 147- 151. 37 Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence, 147-148. For Dee’s concerns with the length of the year, see Dee, A Playne Discourse, 22-28. 117 throughout the text. He readily accepted the practical use of the Copernican model in making precise calculations, but, like Dee and many of his other colleagues, Frisius seemed hesitant to address the question of whether the model represented reality.38 Nevertheless, he was interested in using heliocentrism to solve mathematically the problem of planetary distances. Ptolemaic astronomy offered no conclusive method to determine distances between the earth and other planets, and understanding the true distances between planets would be especially important for promoting a reformed astrology. Dee, too, emphasized the importance of establishing precise distances between heavenly bodies, because the distance between planets made a difference on the impact of their emanating rays on earth.39 Like Frisius, Dee praised Copernicus for improving calculated predictions for the positions of the planets and for arriving at a more precise length of the year; however, Dee did not make any specific mention of Copernicus’ heliocentric universe.40 In fact, in his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee describes the universe in pre-Copernican terms. In Aphorism CVIII, he refers to the diurnal motions of the heavens from east to west as the swiftest of all motions. Aphorism CXVI describs the sun moving through the ecliptic. Aphorism CXXXVIII explains the retrograde motion of 38 See Westman, The Copernican Question, 179-183 for a full discussion of Frisius’ known statements about the Copernican universe. 39 See aphorisms V, X, and CVIII in Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica, in Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 123-125 and 187. 40 Dee, A Playne Discourse, 22-28. See also John Dee’s preface to John Field, Ephemeris anni 1557 currentis iuxta Copernici et Reinholdi canones . . . supputata (London: Thomas Marsh, 1556), Sig. A2, available through Early English Books Online (eebo.chadwyk.com), accessed June 25, 2015. Dee praised Copernicus for his impressive efforts to produce more accurate calculations of the motions of the heavens, but he made no comment on heliocentrism. He specifically states in both texts that this is not the place to discuss Copernicus’ hypotheses. 118 the planets as physical reality, though Copernicus declared retrograde motion to be an optical effect. Dee was a strong advocate of using mathematics to gain knowledge of the natural world, and he was attracted to the usefulness of Copernicus’ model in calculating the distances between the planets,41 but he was reluctant to declare publicly philosophical descriptions of the true order and makeup of the universe. Dee was, after all, very concerned with finding the right patron to support his studies of the natural world. It is not surprising that Dee was drawn to Frisius’ work. Like Frisius, Dee was interested in learning about the natural world through accurate observations and calculations, and both men wanted to use that knowledge to reform astrology. From Frisius, Dee learned to use the cross-staff, astronomical rings, and other astronomical instruments.42 Frisius also shared Dee’s interest in the practical uses of mathematics. Frisius’ most influential work was Arithmeticae Practicae Methodus Facilis, a handbook of practical arithmetic that he first published in 1540. Seventy-five editions were published over the next one hundred years.43 Dee and Frisius were working toward the same goals: a more complete understanding of the natural world. Both were reluctant to embrace Copernicus’ model of the universe as philosophical truth (probably for fear of the consequences), but both were impressed with the accurate measurements that the model produced. To Dee and Frisius, those measurements were crucial to reforming astrology. While Frisius’ surviving texts and instruments suggest that he was focused on creating accurate measurements and calculations, Dee went a step further in his 41 In his “Mathematicall Praeface,” Dee gave Copernicus’ values for solar and lunar distances. Dee, “Mathematicall Praeface,” b.ij. 42 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 7. 43 Karrow, 212. Dee discusses the practical use of mathematics in his “Mathematicall Praeface” (1570). 119 Propaedeumata Aphoristica by providing new rules for the basis of the new astrology. Reforming astrology meant accessing a better understanding of the cosmos, the relationships between the celestial and terrestrial realms, and God’s plan for humanity. Gerard Mercator (1512-1594) Gerard Mercator shared Frisus’ and Dee’s passion for reforming astrology and creating accurate depictions of the natural world. After earning his Masters degree in 1532 from the University of Louvain, Mercator started to question his education when he saw that the creation account in Genesis did not reconcile with Aristotelian principles.44 By 1534, Mercator turned his attention to geography as the best way to study and explain the mystery of God’s creation.45 To become a thriving geographer, Mercator needed to be very well skilled in mathematics. Mercator started attending Gemma Frisius’ lectures on the “theories of the planets.”46 By this time, Frisius had published his De principiis asronomiae et cosmographiae; he was already producing mathematical and scientific instruments; and he was perfecting his new technique of triangulation. At first, Mercator 44 At Louvain, Mercator would have been taught grammar, rhetoric, logic, Aristotelian philosophy, and arithmetic. Although Louvain was revered by humanists, the university’s regulations stipulated that the faculty must teach Aristotelian philosophy. Those who did not comply could be ejected from the faculty. Gerard Mercator, Sententia I, in Gérard Mercator: Sa Vie et ses Oeuvres, ed. J. Van Raemdonck (St. Nicholas: E. Dalschaert- Praet, 1869), 23, note 2. 45 Knowing that his studies might draw the attention of the faculty at Louvain, Mercator decided to travel to Antwerp. In Antwerp, Mercator would have found a thriving community of engravers, cartographers, wood carvers, printers, and bookbinders. See Gerard Mercator, Dedicatory letter, Evangelicae historiae (Duysbergi, 1592), 2, available through Heinrich Heine Universitäts-UND Landesbibliothek, digital.ub.uni- duesseldorf.de, Accessed 3 July 2015; and Gerard Mercator, Tabulae Geographicae Claudii Ptolemaei (Coloniae Agrippinae, 1578), available through the Bavarian State Library (bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de), accessed 27 July 2015. 46 Gerard Mercator, Letter from Mercator to Wolfgang Haller, March 3, 1581, quoted in Van Durme, 1959, 166. 120 struggled in Frisius’ lectures on astronomy because he lacked the mathematical knowledge to grasp the arguments. He had never studied geometry before. On Frisius’ advice, Mercator began studying the Elementale Geometricum (1528) of Joannes Vogelin, the Elements of Euclid, and the works of Oronce Fine.47 Mercator mastered the principles of mathematics, and Frisius invited Mercator to join his instrument workshop. The university gave Mercator permission to tutor students in mathematics, and he was soon supplementing his teaching fees by constructing mathematical instruments, including spheres, astrolabes, and astronomer’s rings.48 To construct celestial and terrestrial globes, Mercator measured the size and positions of planets, and he established the dimensions of regions. He also mastered the new writing style of cancelleresca, a cursive writing that allowed copyists to print words (especially on maps) with no pen-lifts and in a tighter space. His skill with cancelleresca earned him an invitation in 1535 from Frisius and Gaspard Van der Heyden to work with them on a new globe, one with recently discovered lands and an accompanying celestial globe. The project allowed Mercator to practice his new trade, to assist in the production of a new cosmography, and to make a name for himself in mapmaking. Depicting the natural world on a globe was significant to Mercator. He was not satisfied with areas on the globe in which he had too little information or too little space to provide complete detail. He soon set about improving his work, seeking an even more accurate representation of the terrestrial realm. His first map was of the Holy Lands. Printed in 1537, the map soon became the standard for serious students of the Bible. 47 Mercator, Letter from Mercator to Wolfgang Haller, March 3, 1581, quoted in Van Durme, 166. 48 See A.S. Osley, Mercator: A Monograph on the Lettering of Maps, etc. in the Sixteenth Century Netherlands (London: Faber & Faber, 1969), 165. 121 Geography not only allowed Mercator to describe the world, it enabled him to explore it. Mercator produced his map of the Holy Lands by carefully comparing previous maps with recent survey data, mostly from the German humanist Jacob Ziegler (1470/1-1549). He claimed that he published his map of the Holy Land “for the better understanding of the Bible.”49 Mercator could see the glory of God in his studies of the natural world, and, to him, studying it and measuring it was a sort of calling (just as it was to John Dee). His goal was to know the natural world as created by God and to depict it as it truly was. Mercator applied careful mathematical calculations and precise measurements to his representations of the natural world. Dee, too, referred to geography in his “Mathematicall Praeface” as a mathematical art, one that, when combined with astronomy, would produce a complete cosmography, or a full understanding of the natural world, including the terrestrial and the celestial realms.50 Mercator was dedicated to producing such a thorough cosmography. He was constantly working on new, more precise maps and globes. By 1540, Mercator set his sights on a new project, the creation of a new globe. By this time, the globe that Frisius, Van der Heyden, and Mercator created was four years old, and Mercator’s world map was two years old.51 Since the printing of his world map two years earlier, Mercator had devoted many hours to comparing old geography with new knowledge, and he came to the conclusion that currently accepted continental 49 Karrow, 377. For a description of how Mercator’s map of the Holy Land corrected the errors of previous maps and incorporated the findings of Jacob Ziegler, see Crane, 83-93. 50 Dee, “Mathematicall Praeface,” ciiij. 51 Frisius published a new map of the world around 1540, although no copies of Frisius’ “new map” survive. See Karrow, 210-211, for a discussion of Frisius’ “influential” world map. 122 outlines were inaccurate.52 He wanted to correct the planet’s geography (just like John Dee wanted to correct the imperfections of nature). Mercator had also noticed that magnetic north was not truly located at the North Pole. In 1537 Pedro Nuñes had pointed out that navigators would not sail under a straight course by following a constant compass; rather, continuously changing compass bearings were required to plot a straight course and therefore travel the shortest distance between two points. Mercator decided to include on his new globe rhumb lines, hypothetical courses ships could take were they to steer on a constant compass bearing. In addition to terrestrial information, Mercator included on the globe the corresponding positions of stars on the celestial sphere.53 With its grid of rhumb lines, new geographical knowledge, and numerous place-names, the new globe became Mercator’s most enduring work. Charles V learned of the new globe and ordered Mercator to create more terrestrial and celestial globes, a miniature quadrant for navigation and observing the stars, an astronomical ring to show the planets in their orbits, a pocket-sized sundial, and various smaller instruments.54 52 Mercator published his first world map in 1538. He came to the conclusion about the inaccuracy of the continental outlines by reading the works of Marco Polo. See Crane, 90-100 and 118-121; and Gerard Mercator, Letter of 4 August 1540 from Mercator to Perronet, translated by P.J.C. Van der Krogt, Globi Neerlandici, 60. 53 A set of Mercator’s 1541 terrestrial globe and his 1551 celestial globe are on display at the Harvard Map Collection. An online guide with details views of the globes is available at hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/maps/exhibits/mercator/main.html (accessed 24 July 2018). 54 Mercator dedicated his 1541 globe to Antoine Perronet’s father, Nicolas Perronet de Granvelle, Prime Minister to Charles V. (The dedication is visible on the globe in the Harvard Map College at hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/maps/exhibits/mercator/main.html [accessed 24 July 2018].) In turn, Chancellor Granvelle recommended Mercator to Charles V as a builder of mathematical instruments. See Crane, 124 and Andrew Taylor, The World of Gerard Mercator: The Mapmaker who Revolutionized Geography (New York: Walker Books, 2004), 104. 123 Dee was in awe of Mercator’s accomplishments and intellect when he visited Louvain in 1547. During his visit, Dee and Mercator talked about philosophy at length, including, presumably, the reform of astrology.55 At this time, Mercator began working on a celestial globe, and Dee wrote two astronomical texts (Of the Great Conveniences of the Celestial Globe and Concerning the Distances of Planets, Fixed Stars, and Clouds from the Centre of the Earth, and Concerning the Discovery of the True Magnitudes of all the Stars).56 Meanwhile, Mercator was working on a new map of Europe, and Dee might have been helpful in providing geographical information about the British Isles.57 Dee also used this time to travel to Antwerp, where he may have first met Abraham Ortelius, who was selling maps in the city.58 These were important years to Dee. He met several scholars who were working on some of the very same problems that interested him: precise knowledge of the natural world, careful measurements and observations of celestial movements, and a reformed astrology. Dee also acquired texts and instruments that were crucial to his own research. When Dee returned to England in 1551, he brought 55 Dee later wrote to Mercator in astonishment that men like him and Gemma Frisius would write in a single day “matter enough to require the labor of a full year for comprehension while I formerly sat at home.” John Dee, Letter of John Dee to Gerard Mercator, July 20, 1558, translated by William Shumaker in Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 112. Dee also makes note of his conversations with Mercator in the Preface to his Propaedeumata Aphoristica. Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 111, 114-115. 56 Dee listed these texts at the beginning of the Propaedeumata Aphoristica and dedicated them to Mercator. Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 114-115. 57 During his stay in Louvain, Dee began tutoring Sir William Pickering in Brussels, and Pickering began to send Dee books. From Brussels, Dee could have brought back maps of England for Mercator. Dee, Compendious Rehearsal, 7. Gerard Mercator, Letter of 9 October 1544 from Mercator to Perronet, in Van Durme, 26. 58 Abraham Ortelius was admitted to the Guild of St. Luke (the painter’s guild) as an “illuminator of maps” in 1547. Ortelius soon became a dealer in antiques, coins, maps, and books, with the book and map trade gradually becoming his primary occupation. Ortelius worked with Mercator to revise the maps of Ptolemy and create new maps of the world. Dee kept in touch with Ortelius through the late 1570s. 124 back with him Frisius’ astronomer’s staff and astronomer’s ring and two great globes made by Mercator.59 Mercator completed his celestial globe in the months following Dee’s departure in 1550. It was Mercator’s first astronomical work, and it was exemplary in its precision. It included astrological information on the nature of the fixed stars, and, on the globe’s paper horizon ring, Mercator had printed scales to show the signs of the zodiac, the days of the Julian calendar, the twelve wind directions, and various humors and astronomical information that would catch the eye of physicians and astrologers.60 Mercator derived the astrological information he presented on the globe from Ptolemy, the Alphonsine Tables, Alcabitius, John of Seville, and Girolamo Cardano.61 The globe shows both constellations and individual stars, and it depicts the stars’ brightness through different symbols. Mercator’s scale of brightness follows the star catalogue in Ptolemy’s Almagest, and he shows all 1,022 stars listed in the text. However, to the forty-eight Ptolemaic constellations, Mercator added two new ones, Cincinnis and Antinous.62 Furthermore, he 59 When Dee returned from Antwerp in May 1550, he left immediately for Charles’ court, and from there, he left for Paris. Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 3b. 60 Vanden Broecke, “Dee, Mercator, and Louvain Instrument Making,” 225. See also Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence, 131. 61 Alcabitius (d. 967) is the Latinized name of an Arabic astrologer and mathematician who was best known for writing an introductory manual on judicial astrology, translated in Latin as Libellus Isagogus or Introductorius by Johannes Hispalensis, or John of Seville, in the twelfth century. John of Seville translated several Arabic treatises on astrology and wrote some of his own. Mercator also notes the natures that Cardano attributed to the stars through the disc. Mercator’s library catalog mentions the Nurnberg 1547 edition of Cardano’s five astrological treatises and Cardano’s commentary on Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos. Gerard Mercator, “Candido Lectori,” 233 and 235. 62 Images of the two constellations are available through the Harvard Map Collection at hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/maps/exhibits/mercator/main.html (accessed 24 July 2018). 125 listed the star positions calculated for 1550, which Mercator calculated from Copernicus’ work on the precession of the equinoxes.63 Mercator’s celestial globe served both astronomy and astrology. It provided accurate predictions for the positions of heavenly bodies throughout the year, which would allow astrologers to refine their trade. Mercator was very critical of contemporary astrological theory and practice, and, like Dee, he advocated reform based on a better understanding of the motions of the heavens.64 To Dee and Mercator, the problem of astrology rested not with prognostication alone but with astrologers’ unfamiliarity with the make-up and structure of the celestial world, which is Dee’s main focus in the Propaedeumata Aphoristica. To aid such understanding, Mercator produced an astrological disc in 1551, most likely intended to accompany his celestial globe.65 The disc contained almost no references to judicial astrology. According to Mercator’s instructions, the beginner in astrology could use the instrument to contemplate all things in the sky at a certain time and place. By comparing natures of celestial bodies, Mercator suggested that the astrologer could come to understand what a planet signifies, what strengths it has, how other bodies influence it, and in what order the planets succeed each other in power.66 In other words, natural philosophy should provide the conceptual basis for judicial astrology, which had been lost in common astrological practice. 63 Mercator owned a copy of Copernicus’ De revolutionibus. Anne Cherton and Marcel Watelet, “Catalogus,” in Gerardus Mercator Rupelmondanus, ed. Marcel Watelet (Antwerp: Mercatorfonds, 1994), 402-413. 64 Mercator contemplated writing a treatise about the reform of astrology. Clulee, “Astrology, Magic, and Optics,” in Levack, ed., Renaissance Magic, 9. 65 Vanden Broecke, “Dee, Mercator, and Louvain Instrument Making,” 225. 66 Gerard Mercator, “Candido Lectori,” 234 and 239. Vanden Broecke, “Dee, Mercator, and Louvain Instrument Making,” 227-228. 126 Mercator had an Aristotelian view of the universe: the perfect and unchanging sun and stars occupy the chief place in the universe, and they are tied to the sublunary world. What happens to them affects forces on earth. To Mercator, all stars have their own rays that emanate their nature onto inferior bodies. Rays serve as the physical basis of astrological causation, and it is necessary for the astrologer to observe the vigor of such rays.67 The rays, Mercator suggested, are most powerful when they hit an object at or near the center and less so when they are projected elsewhere. Furthermore, Mercator suggested that the angle that the rays hit the celestial body determined the strength of the influence: rays that hit at a perpendicular angle tended to be the strongest.68 Dee proposed very similar ideas in his Propaedeumata Aphoristica. In aphorism VI, he suggested that rays emanated from all things, and all rays had the ability to influence celestial forces and events.69 Furthermore, the angle at which the ray impacted an object helped to determine the strength of the influence of the ray upon the object (aphorism V, X, and CVIII). 70 Dee took these ideas a step further, though, by explaining that the motion of the rays was further dependent on the motion of light (aphorism XV).71 Therefore, Dee introduced a mathematical element into the basis of astrology: it would be crucial to know the distances between bodies and how long a given planet will remain above an assigned horizon so that the astrologer could understand the intensity of the 67 Bartholomew Mercator, Breves in Sphaeram Meditatiunculae (Cologne, 1563), A2v- A3v, available through the Bavarian State Library (bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de), accessed 2 July 2015. This treatise written by Gerard Mercator’s son is mainly based on Gerard Mercator’s lectures at the Duisburg Gymnasium in the early 1560s. See Vanden Broecke, “Dee, Mercator, and Louvain Instrument Making,” 228. 68 Bartholomew Mercator, E7 r/v. 69 Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 22-123. 70 Ibid., 123-125 and 187. 71 Ibid., 128-129. 127 impact of the rays. Like Mercator, Dee suggested that rays act more strongly as the angle of incidence is closer to the perpendicular. Dee’s move towards optics as a model for the mathematical analysis of celestial rays seem to have developed after his return from Louvain to England in the 1550s. Dee and Mercator were both committed to instructing astrologers how to adopt a reformed astrological practice informed by natural philosophy. Throughout the 1550’s, Mercator and Dee continued to converse through letters. In the midst of working on globes, maps, and instruments, Mercator urged Dee to publish his “great demonstrative work” on astrology, the Propaedeumata Aphoristica.72 Meanwhile, Mercator began working on the largest project of his career: a full cosmography, one that addressed the terrestrial and celestial realms, including the revolution of heavenly bodies, their distances, and their sizes. He believed that cosmography was the foremost course of study among all of the principles of natural history, and he aimed to capture the cosmography of the entire universe.73 Furthermore, Mercator concluded that his new cosmography would require a universal history. To Mercator, investigating the origin and creation of the cosmos would lead the way to revealing its truths.74 To create his chronology, Mercator had to reconcile different methods of time- keeping. Mercator synchronized the major calendar systems (Babylonian, Roman, Greek, Christian, and Hebrew) against a single chronology, which began with the creation of the 72 John Dee, Letter of 20 July 1558 from John Dee to Mercator, trans. in Shumaker, 113. Dee also mentions in the preface to his Propaedeumata Aphoristica that his friend Mercator urged him to publish the text. Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 114-115. 73 Gerard Mercator, Chronologia. Hoc est, Temporum demonstration exactissima ab initio mundi, usque ad annum Domini M.D.LXVII et eclipsibus et observationibus astronomicis omnium temporum, sacris quoq[ue] Biblijs, & optimis quibusq[ue] Scriptoribus summa fide concinnata (Cologne, 1569). 74 Mercator, Chronologia, 3. 128 world in Year Zero. The various calendars and their recorded dates for major events did not line up neatly, and Mercator had to consult a number of sources, such as Johannes Annius of Viterbo (Antiquitates, 1498) and Johann Sleidan (Commentariorum de statu religionis et reipublicae, Carolo V. Caesare, 1556). He tried to revise the dates of events by making calculations based on the solar and lunar eclipses mentioned by historians.75 The objective of the Chronologia was to provide an astronomically accurate timeline for human historical events. The text is made up of page after page of columns that contain the year, human events, celestial events, and other celestial configurations at the time. Mercator, like Dee, was a strong believer in bringing harmony to chronology by establishing true dates for important historical events. Indeed, Dee’s Playne Discourse is devoted precisely to that notion. Dee made it clear from the beginning of his treatise that establishing “true” time (by correcting the calendar back to the birth of Christ) is essential for establishing an accurate timeline, one that might allow astrologers to make more accurate predictions.76 Moreover, Dee recorded astronomical events in his diaries alongside human events. Dee and Mercator were both working to reconcile the events of the terrestrial and celestial realms in a consistent timeline. Dee and Mercator shared another interest: navigation and exploration. Mercator learned all he could from voyages of discovery and wanted to inspire more. In 1569 Mercator published Nova et aucta orbis terrae description ad usum navigantium emandatè accommodate, an enormous wall map of the world that could be used by mariners and cartographers alike. He designed it so that a straight line on the map 75 Crane, 200-203. 76 Dee opens the text with the phrase, “That Love of Truth, doth govern me.” Dee, A Playne Discourse, 13. 129 represented a straight line on the sea. Furthermore, the map showed two possible locations of the north magnetic pole based on comparing declinations in the Netherlands with those at the Azores and Cape Verde Islands.77 Mercator’s projection progressively increased the linear value of each degree of latitude and longitude as the map extended north and south. The map was Mercator’s most accurate representation of the world to date, and it provided useful information for those undertaking new voyages of discovery. Many seaman had difficulty using Mercator’s map,78 but it did inspire new expeditions,79 and it captured the interest of John Dee. In the section of the map showing Arctic lands, Mercator attributed his knowledge of the region to a book he called Gestis Arthur Britanni (The Deeds of Arthur) and a medieval Dutch traveller named Jacob Cnoyen. According to Mercator, Cnoyen witnessed in 1364 an unnamed priest explain to the King of Norway that he and other descendants of King Arthur’s knights were living in the polar islands.80 To Dee, this was crucial evidence that King Arthur had conquered lands in the North Atlantic World. It supported Dee’s argument that Elizabeth should grant patents allowing for exploration and territorial possession in North America on the basis that the lands were once British and needed to be “recovered” as part of the British 77 Mercator had abandoned the Ptolemaic prime meridian through the Canary Islands in favor of lines that he believed to be closer to zero magnetic deviation. Karrow, 384-389. 78 Edward Wright published Certaine Errors in Navigation Detected and Corrected in 1599, which explained Mercator’s achievement and allowed navigators to correct the distortions of distance that it produced. 79 Martin Forbisher was especially inspired by Mercator’s new world map. See Crane, 240-214, and James McDermott, Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan Privateer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 95-102. 80 John Dee, Works of John Dee, British Library Cotton MS Vitellius C VIII, 264v-269v. See E.G.R. Taylor, “A Letter Dated 1577 from Mercator to John Dee,” Imago Mundi, 13 (1956): 56-68; and Gerard Mercator, Nova et aucta orbis, trans. in Texts and Legends of the Original Chart of the World by Gerhard Mercator issued in 1569 (Monaco: The Hydrographic Review, 1932), 27. 130 Empire.81 Dee was interested in geography as a means of learning about the natural world, but most of his texts on geography were clearly designed to convince Queen Elizabeth to expand the British Empire. Throughout the 1570s, both Mercator and Dee urged English seaman to find the Northwest Passage that led to Cathay. To Mercator, it was crucial to completing his full, accurate geography of the world. To Dee, it was a matter of British expansion. While both men anxiously awaited such news and worked on their own projects in geography,82 they stayed in touch. By the late 1570s, Dee wrote to Mercator, inquiring about his sources for his depiction of the Arctic islands and his descriptions of the inhabitants. With Mercator’s response, Dee was able to show Elizabeth the words of Cnoyen himself, copied by Mercator. It included a detailed account of how King Arthur had conquered the northern islands and its subjects.83 Dee may have been enthusiastic about expanding the British Empire, but Elizabeth still did not grant him the kind of support that he would have liked. Meanwhile, British voyages of discovery were not successful in finding the Northwest Passage. By the early 1580s, there was still no news about the passage, and Mercator became suspicious that Dee and other English scholars were deliberately 81 Dee, “Unto your Maiesties Tytle Royall to these forene Regions, & Ilands do appertayne,” 13-21. 82 Mercator was busy restoring Ptolemy’s Geography, which had become corrupted over time. He also published his modernized map of Europe in 1572. See Gerard Mercator, “Praefatio” in Tabulae geographicae Cl: Ptolemaei (1578), available through the Bavarian State Library (bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de), n.p., Accessed 2 July 2015. Dee published General and Rare Memorials Pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation in 1576-1577, a detailed and complex explanation of the best means of navigating vessels, which, he hoped, would support Elizabeth’s expansion at sea and lead to the establishment of a “Brytish Impire.” 83 Gerard Mercator, Letter of 20 April 1577 in Dee, Works of John Dee, 266. 131 withholding information from him about newfound lands. There is no known correspondence between Mercator and Dee after 1581.84 Mercator turned his attention to the new maps promised with his cosmography. He published the first sections of his Atlas in 1585, forty-seven years after he had first announced in print that he intended to map the world by regions. (It was completed in stages, with some maps published by his sons after Mercator’s death.) The Atlas has a consistency that was never before seen by cartographers who mapped regions in piecemeal. This consistency optimized accuracy and clarity. The Atlas also contained cartographic overlaps between sheets, so that the places near the margins of each map are repeated in neighboring maps.85 Mercator’s maps would give a harmonized view of the entire globe, providing a mathematical representation of God’s creation. Mercator and Dee clearly shared a number of goals and methods when it came to study of the natural world. Both scholars were interested in truth—truth about the earth, its history, and its surrounding cosmos. Both believed in the importance of establishing accurate mathematical measurements of the celestial realm for gaining more precise knowledge of the natural world and for providing a solid foundation for a reformed astrology. Both men relied on observation and tradition to form their understandings of the natural world. Both questioned Aristotelian philosophy when it did not correspond to 84 By the 1580s, Frobisher’s fruitless quests were finished, and the English were looking to the Northwest Passage, the route to Cathay favored by John Dee. This time, Mercator received multiple geographical inquiries and news of a secret mission led by Arthur Pet to survey the northern coast of Asia. Mercator did not learn of the expedition until it had already started, though, and Mercator lamented at the missed opportunity to offer valuable guidance. By this time, Mercator suspected that the English were feeding him misinformation, and the mistrust was mutual. See Crane, 247-249 and Andrew Taylor, 231-234. 85 Mercator’s 1585 edition of the Atlas is available online through the Library of Congress at www.loc.gov (accessed 24 July 2018). 132 observed findings, but neither were vocal about their opinions on controversial theories (such as whether heliocentrism represented the true order of the universe). Dee appears to fit in almost naturally with his colleagues at Louvain. This is no surprise, considering how crucial Dee’s time in Louvain was to the development of some of his major texts, most notably the Propaedeumata Aphoristica. Dee, though, exchanged ideas with other scholars who were also searching for true knowledge of the natural world. Girolamo Cardano (1501-1576) In his copy of the 1516 edition of Marsilius Ficino’s De vita coelitus, John Dee recorded in the margins that he met Girolamo Cardano and Jofrancus Offusius in 1552 or 1553 at the home of the French consul in Southwark.86 The astrologer, mathematician, and philosopher Girolamo Cardano was in England in 1552, and he cast nativities for King Edward VI and John Cheke,87 who was tutor to both Dee and Cardano. The date of the meeting and the location of the note in the text suggest that one topic of discussion between Dee and Cardano may have been the ability of certain images and objects (such as gems) to draw some of the power of the planets and constellations. Such an activity was risky, because, as Ficino noted, some objects could be possessed or influenced by demons. While visiting the French ambassador’s residence with Cardano and Offusius, Dee believed he witnessed such a gem being moved by evil forces.88 86 Marsilius Ficino, De vita coelitus comparanda (1516). Dee’s copy of Ficino’s text is held by the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC. 87 Cardano drew up an extensive geniture for John Cheke, analyzing his body and his character. Girolamo Cardano, Opera Omnia V (Lyons, 1663), 503 and 512-513 (microprint). 88 John Dee’s notes in Ficino, De vita coelitus comparanda, 160. 133 Cardano collected stones like these and stories about them. He wrote extensively about precious stones in the seventh book of his encyclopedia of natural history, De subtilitate libri XXI (1550). He described the stones in terms of hardness, brightness, color, clarity, and by the signs imprinted on them by heavenly influences. He referred to several of the stones as living, and he explained that some could alleviate sickness or death.89 Cardano constructed his text by relying on a wide range of sources, classical, medieval, Arab, and contemporary. He also described some of his own observations and experiments. Like Dee, Cardano was interested in learning all he could about the natural world through a variety of methods, even by exploring the relationships between the natural and the supernatural realm. He relied on ancient and medieval sources (that he perfected when necessary) as well as observation and experimentation to complete his knowledge of the natural world. Cardano was a prolific scholar who explored a variety of disciplines. He wrote over two hundred texts on medicine, mathematics, astrology, natural history, and other topics. For his primary trade, though, Cardano practiced medicine. He earned a degree in medicine from the University of Padua in 1526. He saw many patients, including cardinals, archbishops, generals, and princes. Cardano tried several times to become a member of the College of Physicians in Milan, but his applications were rejected because he had been born illegitimate (even though his father had recognized him in 1524). Nevertheless, Cardano moved his family to Milan in 1532, and he practiced medicine at a nearby town while also teaching mathematics. His reputation as a successful medical 89 Girolamo Cardano, De subtilitate in Opera Omnia III, 459-479. 134 practitioner spread, and the College of Physicians accepted him in 1539.90 He taught medicine in Pavia and Bologna in the 1540s through the 1560s. In 1571, Cardano went to Rome to become the personal physician to Pope Pius V and then to Pope Gregory XIII. Cardano’s focus on medicine was apparent in many of his other activities, including his study of gems and his astrology. Like Dee, Frisius, and Mercator, Cardano argued for a reform of astrological practice. One way of reforming the corruptions of astrology that had developed over the centuries was to return to ancient sources, such as Ptolemy and Hippocrates. Pico della Mirandola’s criticisms of astrology had been especially harsh against medical astrology. Among many other statements against astrology, Pico argued that people did not fall ill at certain times according to motions of the heavens.91 Cardano refuted Pico’s statements and suggested instead that Galen’s astrology, the typical method for determining “critical days” for an illness, the time in which the illness would start to turn towards death or recovery, needed correcting. Cardano felt that the astrologer should follow the practices of Hippocrates and Ptolemy and determine the critical days based on the motion of the sun, not on the motion of the moon as Galen had.92 Cardano believed in returning to the ancient sources to read the language of the cosmos accurately. He also believed in further developing the knowledge of the ancients to complete his own understanding of the natural world. Hippocrates’ work greatly informed Cardano’s view of the cosmos. In his 90 Cardano, The Book of My Life, 117. In his Pronostico, Cardano’s first astrological treatise published in 1534, he declared himself a “doctor from Milan” in the pamphlet, even though he was not yet a member of the College of Physicians. 91 Pico della Mirandola, 2:322-63. 92 See Anthony Grafton and Nancy Sirasi, “Between the Election and My Hopes: Girolamo Cardano and Medical Astrology” in Newman and Grafton, 87-90 and Nancy G. Sirasi, The Clock and the Mirror: Girolamo Cardano and Renaissance Medicine (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 240-242. 135 commentary on Hippocrates, Cardano refers to Hippocrates’ “celestial heat” as a sort of “soul of the world” which generates and maintains life. It keeps the universe together and operating according to God’s plan. These operations are implemented through the planets first (the higher realm), which, in turn, affects people and affairs on earth. In the terrestrial realm, operations of life and generation are performed by nature, supervised by the soul of the world.93 In other words, to Cardano, the stars were not just signs but causes of future events. At this point, there are a few comparisons that can be made between Cardano’s and Dee’s methods and cosmology. Like Cardano, Dee praised the work of ancient scholars, especially Euclid in his “Mathematicall Praeface” and Hipparchus and Ptolemy in his Playne Discourse. At the same time, both Dee and Cardano were interested in truth, so they did not hesitate to rely on more recent studies and their own observations to correct ancient sources when needed. Cardano rejected the astrology of Galen, and Dee praised the corrections that Copernicus made to Hipparchus’ and Ptolemy’s calculations of the length of the year.94 Furthermore, both Dee and Cardano believed the celestial motions could cause events in the natural world, not just foretell them. To Cardano, celestial heat was a main formative element of nature through which God’s plan was put in motion, both in the celestial realm and in the terrestrial realm. To Dee, the rays emanating from celestial bodies affect earthly affairs. In both accounts, the higher, more perfect celestial realm generates the forces that affect the terrestrial realm, but Dee 93 See the following texts in Cardano’s Opera Omnia: Paralipomena (X, 446b-447a), De subtilitate (III, 360a and 670a), and De arcanis aeternitatis (X, 6a). 94 Dee, A Playne Discourse, 24-28. 136 located the origin of the forces in the natural “virtue” of the bodies themselves95 rather than in a “world soul” as Cardano did. Dee was more interested in creating a system of astrological physics. Through his reformed system of astrological physics, the philosopher could accurately “read” the language of the stars to have a better understanding of the natural world and the divine plan for it. While Dee argued for a reform of astrology based on precise calculations of the celestial motions in his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Cardano did not present a comprehensive program for reforming astrology. Nevertheless, Cardano had very specific ideas of how astrology should be practiced. He placed a strong emphasis on recovering original sources and returning to the foundations of ancient astrology. Furthermore, to Cardano, the astrologer should only practice his art after mastering its mathematical and astronomical bases. Astronomical instruments made it possible to fix the times of births and other vital events with precision, giving the astrologer a powerful tool in perfecting his craft. Cardano believed that horoscopes and genitures should be created after thorough investigations of the individual and of the motions of the heavens. The astrologer, Cardano warned, should only make predictions after carefully considering the client’s condition, family, country, age, and so on. Furthermore, to make accurate prognostications, Cardano believed that the astrologer must let go of his own feelings, such as fear or affection, because they would interfere with the process and cause errors. 95 For a thorough description of John Dee’s concept of celestial “virtues,” especially as they relate to Aristotelian philosophy, see Clulee, “Astrology, Magic, and Optics,” in Levack, ed., Renaissance Magic, 648-660. 137 96 Cardano felt that astrological predictions and interpretations should be based on “facts,” to the extent possible. Cardano was not a determinist; like Ptolemy, Cardano insisted that environment and other factors modified, and sometimes reversed, the judgments of the stars. For instance, Cardano argued that he could not predict the outcome of wars, and he insisted that not all dramatic celestial events caused radical changes on earth.97 He warned against making prognostications in public, making predictions for evil rulers or for people looking to make fun of the craft, and publishing too much. The astrologer, to Cardano, was to lead an exemplary life that honored the craft.98 He argued that astrologers should be prudent, gentle, honest, and cautious. To Cardano, astrologers were philosophers and investigators. They sought truth above all, and to arrive at that truth, they needed to understand the motions of the heavens and their affects on the human body and events on earth. In his second astrological text, Libelli duo (1538), Cardano argued that “one who wishes to attain knowledge of the stars must begin with knowledge of the planets.”99 Cardano described the planets in terms of their physical properties and their movements. He instructed his readers how to use the data provided in an almanac, in conjunction with direct observation of the sky, to work out exactly when a given planet came into conjunction with a particular fixed star. Cardano showed how he used these very methods himself by including his own observations. In the second part to the text, Cardano paid 96 See Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos, 85-86. 97 Ibid., 41. 98 Cardano, De Interrogationibus in Opera Omnia V, 560. 99 His first publication on astrology, the Pronostico published in 1534 or 1535, was aimed at a less educated public. Cardano, De supplement almanac in Opera Omnia V, 576, translated in Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos, 58. 138 more attention to planetary theory. He detailed the problems associated with determining a precise length of the year and provided technical data about the precession of the equinoxes.100 To the end of the Libelli duo, Cardano attached ten genitures of notable scholars and rulers. In further editions of the text, he added as many as one hundred genitures with commentaries and introductory treatises. The genitures offered clear examples of Cardano’s practice of horoscopic astrology. They provided concrete applications and verifications of Ptolemy’s principles 101 Cardano, Dee, and other astrologers commented on some of the main problems facing astrology at the time: how to explain the apparent procession of the equinoxes, the difficulty in determining the length of the year, and reliable sources of astronomical data. Dee focused on resolving some of these issues and correcting nature in his Playne Discourse, in which he proposed an adjustment to the calendar that would correct the procession of the equinoxes and correspond to the true length of the year.102 Cardano reviewed the process of calculating he length of the year and explained the procession of the equinoxes, which showed his astronomical expertise but did not contribute anything new to these two problems. Cardano was more interested in guiding the practicing astrologer on how best to produce reliable genitures. Dee was less interested in judicial astrology and more focused on forming a more accurate and detailed understanding of the motions of the heavens. 100 Cardano, De restitutione temporum et motuum coelestrium in Opera Omnia V, 1-2. 101 As Anthony Grafton has pointed out, some of the genitures that Cardano included came from other astrologers. See Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos, 91-108. 102 Dee did not specify which astronomical tables to use in his Playne Discourse, but many of his calculations in the text are based on Erasmus Reinhold’s Prutenic Tables. 139 In the 1547 edition of the Libelli duo, Cardano published 1173 astrological aphorisms based on his analysis of genitures. He was attempting to establish rules for other astrologers to follow. His rules and observations were very general, and they did not emphasize the precise measurements of planetary influence that Dee had in his Propaedeumata Aphoristica. Cardano’s aphorisms were more a collection of hints: he stressed that astrologers should be “lovers of truth”; he reminded them to observe comets; he pointed out what has been measured (the revolution of the sun) and what has not (the movement of the planets); and he restated general astrological truths, such as Mercury in Libra or Aquarius makes intelligent men.103 Cardano suggested that the craft of astrology was too complex to treat systematically. Interpreting genitures, like interpreting gems, required a unique set of skills that was too difficult to put into words.104 Cardano punctured his aphorisms with individual genitures and anecdotes, and often he took the tone of a prophet that had unique access to divine knowledge. He also appeared to better some of his fellow astrologers in his tales, such as Georg Rheticus (1514-1574) and Luca Guarico (1475-1558).105 Through this text, Cardano emphasized that he had reformed both astronomy and astrology, correcting errors that had accumulated over centuries.106 He emphasized the stars could not determine everything, but celestial bodies did make an imprint on humans in unmistakable ways. He once again made a correlation between celestial events and bodily conditions. 103 Cardano, Aphorismorum Astronomicorum in Opera Omnia V, 29, 40-41. 104 Cardano, De exemplis centum geniturarum in Opera Omnia V, 471. 105 See Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos, 95-105. 106 Cardano, “Operis peroratio,” Aphorismi astronomici, Libelli quinque in Opera Omnia V, 90. 140 Cardano’s astrological aphorisms were very different from those of Dee. Dee’s aphorisms were far more focused on quantitative measurements of natural phenomena, while Cardano’s aphorisms were general rules for astrologers. Cardano provided plenty of technical data and instructions and claimed that he had reformed astrology. Dee, on the other hand, described his theory of astrological causality and explained why astrological affects differed based on the distance between celestial bodies and the angle of the impact of a body’s rays. By comparing Dee’s work to that of an astrologer like Cardano, Dee’s text does appear more mathematical, which has led some historians to argue that Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica is a “scientific” text.107 Both Dee and Cardano, though, were seeking to reform astrology. Like Dee, Cardano used a variety of methods to know the natural world and to predict its future. In his text De secretis (1562), Cardano organized a variety of secrets into different categories and described methods by which the secrets might be uncovered. It was a plan for tackling over one hundred secrets of human knowledge.108 For Cardano, the discovery of secrets was what he called “subtlety,” or the occult causes of phenomena, which were difficult to determine. He dabbled in palmistry and geomancy (although later denied it), explaining how lines or marks on a person’s hands or face might reveal something about their inner character. He trusted dreams as much as planetary motions. He regarded his dreams and other ways of perceiving the future through symbolic interpretation as special gifts that he owed to the daemons.109 Cardano was highly introspective, writing his own horoscope multiple times and applying different techniques 107 See Heilbron, 49. 108 Cardano, “Quid sit secretum” and “De invisis: seu per Daemonas, seu alio modo fiant” in Omnia Opera II, 537, 548-9. 109 Cardano, De rerum varietate in Opera Omnia III, 161. 141 such as dream interpretation and palmistry to his studies of himself.110 In this respect, Cardano and Dee have some similarities as well. Dee did not leave behind medical or psychological analyses of himself, as Cardano did, but he did draw up his own horoscope, and he kept careful notes of his daily activities in his diaries. Furthermore, Dee’s records of his angel conversations were very personal. He frequently discussed his own personal fortunes with the angels as well as his role in disseminating true knowledge of the natural world. Ultimately, Dee and Cardano used whatever means they could to learn about themselves and the natural world. Cardano also discussed the question of spiritual influences at length. He was fascinated with the influence of divine beings on humans and terrestrial affairs. His father, Fazio, believed that he possessed the power to contact God and his angels directly.111 Although Cardano made no claim that he could communicate with spirits himself (nor did he acknowledge that such communication was possible), he described the ways in which he could perceive of spirits through dreams, though bodily changes (such as marks on his fingers), or sometimes through direct sight.112 Cardano further explained the world of spirits in his text, De rerum varietate (1558). He believed the intangible parts of the universe were made of up time and eternity, souls (both human and divine), and God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The “souls” are celestial spheres which Aristotle calls “movers,”113 a form of angels. They 110 See Sirasi, The Clock and the Mirror, 214-224. 111 Cardano, De subtilitate in Omnia Opera III, 656. For a summary of Cardano’s reflections on his father’s claims that he interacted with spirits, see Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos, 166-7. 112 Cardano, De rerum varietate in Opera Omnia III, 161. 113 The idea of spheres and their moves originates in Book XII of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. According to Aristotelian doctrine, the motion of the spheres is directed 142 reside in a realm between the world of God and the physical world, where they act as intermediaries between the two. Cardano did not try to explain the realm of the spheres through a form of numerical mysticism. Instead, he suggested that the concept of three worlds expressed the notion of perfection, moving from the least perfect terrestrial realm to the perfect world of God. He called the true proportion between the three worlds “sublime,” although he never fully explained what that means.114 Cardano believed that there was a hierarchy among the angels, and those of the highest order do not have contact with the physical realm, although angels could influence the affairs of men.115 In his autobiography, Cardano explained how spirits, both good and evil, have influenced the terrestrial realm. In general, the characters of these guardian spirits among the ancients have been manifold and diverse. There have been restraining spirits, as that of Socrates; admonishing as that of Cicero, which appeared to him in death; there have been spirits instructing mortals in what was yet to come, through dreams, through the actions of the lower creatures, through fateful events; influencing us as to where we should go; luring us on; now appealing to one sense, now to several at the same time . . . Likewise there are good and evil spirits.116 There were many times, Cardano claimed, that he could see the future through dreams or through other direct intervention from higher beings. He believed that guardian angels had inspired the work of philosophers such as Socrates and Plotinus, and he ascribed his towards a goal. Cardano expresses the same idea. See Markus Fierz, Girolamo Cardano 1501-1576: Physician, Natural Philosopher, Astrologer, and Interpreter of Dreams (Boston: Birkhauser, 1983), 84. 114 Fierz, 83-84. 115 See Ibid., 78 note 13. 116 Cardano, Book of My Life, translated by Jean Stoner, 242. 143 own success in natural philosophy and astrology to his personal guardian angel.117 In his autobiography, Cardano described how his guardian angel visited him when he was imprisoned in 1570 for creating a geniture for Christ, which suggested that Christ’s human essence was subject to influence by the movement of celestial bodies. Cardano even claimed that others saw his guardian angel, and the angel had helped him escape captivity.118 Cardano provides an example of another scholar of the natural world (besides John Dee) who believed that the realm of the angels and the realm of humans could interact in some way. Cardano did not converse with spirits as Dee did, but he believed in the existence of both good and evil spirits and in their ability to influence events in the natural world. While Cardano believed that angels inspired some of the most learned works in natural philosophy, Dee believed angels provided direct knowledge of the natural world and of the divine plan to the select few who, like him, could communicate with them. An examination of the philosophies and activities of Cardano might seem to support the once-traditional view of occultists acting outside the realm of natural philosophy. Indeed, Cardano was most interested in the relationships between the celestial realm and earthly affairs. However, Cardano emphasized how important it is for the astrologer to know the structure of the cosmos and its operations. Furthermore, Cardano compiled and published enormous amounts of knowledge of the natural world, including geology, mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Like Dee, Cardano was 117 Ibid., 240. 118 Ibid., 241. Cardano was released after promising to no longer teach or publish books during his lifetime. 144 seeking truth about the world and God’s plan for it. Both Dee and Cardano used any means at their disposal to discover that truth, and they made no distinction between “occult” or “scientific” practices. While there are stark differences between some of the philosophies of Dee and Cardano, their methods and goals as investigators of the natural world were very similar. Jofrancus Offusius (1505-1570) When Dee and Cardano were witnessing the movement of a gem in the home of the French ambassador in Southwark in 1552, the German scholar and natural philosopher Jofrancus Offusius was among them.119 Very little is known about Offusius outside of his two main publications on astronomy and astrology and his annotations on Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus. In his Ephemerides anni salutis humanae 1557 ex recenti theoria, eiusque tabulus supputatae, Offusius declared that he had traveled the world in search of a true astrology. He stated he had worked on the problem of planetary influences for fourteen years and that he had come to see the Alphonsine Tables as worthless.120 Therefore, Offusius developed his own astronomical tables for 1557. Although he made no direct reference to the Prutenic Tables, some of Offusius’ data matched the measurements provided in the Prutenic Tables.121 Nevertheless, Offusius 119 In addition to his notes about the observation of the gem with Cardano and Offusius in his copy of Ficino’s De vita, Dee points out in his General and Rare Memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation (1577) that he had conversed with Offusius, probably around 1552 (iij). 120 Owen Gingerich and Jerzy Dobrzycki, “The Master of the 1550 Radices: Jofrancus Offusius,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 24 (November 1993): 237. 121 See Gingerich and Dobrzycki, 245-247. 145 claimed to have made thousands of astronomical observations himself.122 Those observations formed the basis for a new theory of reformed astrology. In 1570, Offusius’ widow published De Divina Astrorum Facultate in Laruatam Astrologia after his death.123 In the text, Offusius addressed Pico’s criticisms of astrology, claiming that, by rejecting astrology entirely, Pico had only spread “false” astrology to the unlearned.124 Offusius went on to criticize Ptolemy’s designation of the elemental qualities in the Tetrabiblos, book 1, chapter 4 (while also expressing his admiration for Ptolemy’s works). The passage connected the planets’ capacities to generate heat and humidity with their mutual interrelations and their proximity to earth. This idea was already generally accepted by many astrologers, including Cardano. However, Offusius rejected the idea that the planets in the celestial realm could not be compared to the terrestrial realm.125 Offusius was proposing a new astrology not by collecting genitures as Cardano had but by studying the cosmos physically and mathematically and developing rules and patterns based on measurements and observations.126 Offusius’ conclusion that astral influences propagate in rays that obey mathematical laws was based on his own observations and on his reading of Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus. He heavily annotated his copy of Copernicus’ text, and he even provided an additional fifty pages of notes at the end. He especially annotated the sections in which Copernicus discussed planetary distances. Offisius praised Copernicus’ 122 Jofrancus Offusius, De Divina Astrorum Facultate in Laruatam Astrologia (Paris, 1570), eij, available through the Hathi Trust Digital Library (catalog.hathitrust.org,) accessed 3 August 2015. 123 Offusius’ Ephemerides makes reference to the work in December 1567, though, which suggests that he began work on it before 1570. Gingerich and Dobrzycki, 243. 124 Offusius, De Divina Astrorum, eiij. 125 Ibid., aiiii. 126 See Westman, The Copernican Question, 185-187. 146 calculations of the motions of heavenly bodies based on his observations.127 Offusius’ model of the universe was still Ptolemaic and Aristotelian, but he made an argument in favor of Copernicus’ placement of Venus closer to Earth than Mercury.128 While Frisius and Dee had praised the calculations that Copernicus provided in his De Revolutionibus, their comments were guarded and limited, and they did not incorporate some parts of Copernicus’ planetary order in their proposals as Offusius did. None of these scholars, though, were prepared to embrace Copernicus’ model of the universe as truth. While the distances between the planets and the earth could be set at arbitrary values within the Ptolemaic system, Offusius, Dee, and Cardano, believed it was necessary to calculate the precise distance between heavenly bodies in order to understand their influence on earthly affairs.129 Offusius proposed a unifying principle that a planet’s mean distance from Earth (expressed in Earth diameters) was exactly 8/3 that of the next closest planet. He also argued that the Sun was 576 Earth diameters from the Earth. Offusius believed 576 to be a divine number because the ancients had found that the total number of triangles that could be contained within the five Platonic solids was 576. He refuted Cardano’s De subtilitate, in which Cardano suggested that the solar distance was 579.130 To Offusius, the precise calculation of a planet’s distance from the 127 Gingerich and Dobrzycki, 239-244. 128 Offusius, De Divina Astrorum, Bij-Biij. 129 Ptolemy estimated the distances for the moon and the sun from earth. For all other planets, Ptolemy used a “nesting” principle by which the uppermost point of one planet’s epicycle coincided with the lowermost point of the next highest planet’s epicycle. The arrangement was entirely arbitrary. For a thorough discussion of Ptolemy’s attempts to determine planetary distances, see Olaf Pedersen, A Survey of the Almagest, with Annotation and a new Commentary by Alexander Jones (New York: Springer, 2011), 391-397. 130 Offusius, De Divina Astrorum, Aiij-B. 147 earth allowed the astrologer to quantify the influence of that planet on earthly affairs.131 Offusius, like Dee, argued that astrology needed to be based on precise computations of celestial influences. Offusius’ De Divina Astrorum seemed to have generated some interest among contemporary scholars. Tycho Brahe commented on Offusius’ use of “mystical numbers” for deriving the planetary distances, and other notable figures such as Henry Savile (Warden of Merton College, Oxford), Lazarus Schoener (editor of Ramus’ mathematical works), and Franciscus Rassius de Noens (the king’s surgeon), owned copies of the text.132 Offusius’ text also caught the attention of John Dee. Dee recognized that the work was too close to his own Propaedeumata Aphoristica.133 After all, Offusius had produced a theory that aimed to quantify astral radiations and to explain the variations in the strengths of the planetary qualities through the planets’ distances from earth, just as Dee had in his Propaedeumata Aphoristica. Aphorism XXX stated that “The true sizes not only of the terrestrial globe but also of the planets and all the fixed stars ought to be known to the astrologer.” Aphorism XXXI reiterated the point: “The true distances of the fixed stars and each of the planets from the center of the earth at any given time should be determined by the astrologer, as also the varying altitudes of clouds or the thicker air above the earth.”134 In his preface to the Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee listed several books that he was working on or planned to undertake, including one entitled “Concerning the distances of the planets, fixed stars and clouds from the center of the earth, and concerning the discovery of the true 131 See Westman, The Copernican Question, 188-189. 132 Ibid., 185. 133 Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, 58. 134 Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 136-137. 148 magnitudes of all the stars: a demonstration in two books.”135 It seems that Dee was working on the problem of the planetary distances, at least in the 1550s and likely even later. Dee mentioned again in his “Mathematicall Praeface” that knowing the distances between planets makes all the difference in understanding the impact of planetary influences on earth.136 While Dee did not provide the exact distances between planets, both Offusius and Cardano had actually offered their own calculations. Did Offusius copy Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica? In 1553, Dee recorded that Offusius had requested of him that he share his “hypotheses for the confirmation of astrology” concerning the “causes of atmospheric changes.”137 Nicholas Clulee has conjectured that these hypotheses refer to the three hundred “Astrological Aphorisms” that Dee claims to have written in 1553, which could have been a draft of his first published work, the Propaedeumata Aphoristica.138 While there is little doubt that Offusius’ De Divina Astrorum is very similar to Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Offusius’ text uniquely criticized Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblios and adopted some of Copernicus’ ordering of the planets. Offusius also provided tables of astronomical data for the astrologer to use, while Dee proposed only guidelines for the astrologer. If Offusius was copying Dee’s work, he added to it data based on his own observations. Thomas Digges (c. 1546-1595) Dee’s influence was also apparent in the work of his pupil and colleague, Thomas Digges. Thomas Digges was the son of Leonard Digges (c. 1515-c. 1559), a 135 Ibid., 116-117. 136 Dee, “Mathematicall Praeface,” bi-ii. 137 Dee, “A Necessary Advertisement,” in Perfect Arte of Navigation, ij.-iijr. 138 Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 36. 149 mathematician and surveyor and acquaintance of John Dee. Leonard Digges is best known for his General Prognostication (1553), a collection of information on astronomy and the weather, complete with a perpetual calendar. When Leonard Digges died, it is likely that John Dee took on a stronger role as a father figure to young Thomas.139 There is little doubt that Thomas Digges learned a great deal about mathematics from Dee, but the two men had their individual ways of approaching mathematics and astronomy. A comparison between them shows Digges’ respect for Dee as a mathematician and astronomer, and it demonstrates the ways in which Dee’s methods and goals, although uniquely his, were in line with most mathematical, astronomical, and astrological studies at the time. Digges was more than an astronomer, he was also a mathematician, a surveyor, and a member of Parliament. Between 1571 and 1576, he published three texts on mathematics, including Pantometria, a book written by Leonard Digges that dealt with the measurements of heights and distances, areas, and volumes. To the text, Thomas Digges added a “Mathematical Discourse” (1571) on Euclid’s Elements in which he explains the properties, dimensions, and interrelations of the five regular Platonic solids. He used algebra to determine the numerical values for the unknown magnitudes of solids and spheres. Digges treated his work as pure mathematics, refusing to “discourse of [the regular solids’] secret or mystical appliances to the elemental regions and frame of the 139 There are a few clues that suggest that the relationship between Dee and Digges may have been closer to father and son rather than teacher and student. In his copy of Archimedes’ Opera, Dee signed his name and left a note stating “Thomas Diggius 1559.” Dee refers to Thomas Digges as “my most worthy mathematical heir,” while Digges repeatedly referred to Dee as a “revered second mathematical father.” Dee, Parallaticae commentationis praxeosque nucleus quidam, Aij and Aiij. Finally, in his diaries on February 21, 1593, Dee notes that he borrowed money from Thomas Digges. Dee, Diaries, Ashmole 488. 150 celestial spheres, as things remote and far distant from the method, nature and certainty of geometrical demonstration.”140 In fact, Digges may have been responding to Offusius’ De divina astrorum facultate (1570), in which Offusius used the regular solids to establish cosmic measurements and elemental proportions. In the “Mathematical Discourse,” Digges was entirely focused on the calculations of the relationships between the circumscribed and inscribed spheres or solids, not on the astronomical or astrological implications of his calculations. In many ways Digges’ “Mathematical Discourse” reflects some of Dee’s thinking. For example, Digges was mostly concerned with solid geometry, which was also the focus of Dee’s annotations on Euclid. Both scholars provided some background on the plane geometry of polygons and circles and their mutual inscription and circumscription. Dee also gave special attention to the geometry of inscribing the Platonic solids in a sphere, just as Digges had in his “Mathematical Discourse.” Furthermore, both Dee and Digges demonstrated mechanical techniques through data problems, rather than providing rigorous proofs.141 Yet the two texts are also very different in one notable way: Dee went to great lengths in his “Mathematicall Praeface” to discuss the utility of mathematics, even dividing mathematics into different fields according to its use (astronomy, cosmography, astrology, navigation, etc.). Dee not only annotated the work of Euclid; he explained its practical use. Digges, on the other hand, discussed the realm of pure 140 Thomas Digges, “Mathematical Discourse of the 5 Plantonicall Regular Solides, and their Metamorphasis into 5 other compound rare Geometricall bodies” in A Geometrical Practical Treatize named Pantometria by Leondard Digges (London, 1591), 97, available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, accessed 12 August 2015. 141 See Johnston, 67-68. Johnston argues that the similarities between Dee’s “Mathematicall Praeface” and Digges’ “Mathematical Discourse” suggests that Dee mentored Digges as he wrote the text. 151 mathematics in his “Mathematical Discourse,” delving into matters “rare and difficult . . . above the common sort.”142 Dee was using mathematics as a means of understanding the natural world and unlocking its secrets, whereas Digges was studying mathematics for the sake of mathematics. Meanwhile, both scholars were working on the problem of parallax, or the difference in the apparent position of an object viewed according to two different lines of sight. Parallax is measured by the angle of inclination between the two lines of sight. Parallax was of central importance because it allowed scholars to determine the position of celestial bodies based on two observations. In 1573, Dee and Digges presented mathematical treatises on parallax, including new methods for measuring parallax without measuring time.143 The timing for the publications was serendipitous, because the famous “new star” appeared in the sky in 1572. The texts could have been written in response to the new phenomenon; however, neither text says much about the nature of the new star, and comments from Dee suggest they were working on the texts for an extended period, probably before the new star appeared.144 Even though both scholars mention the new star (most likely a late addition to the texts), the main focus was the problem of parallax. 142 Thomas Digges, “Mathematical Discourse,” 97. 143 The most common method for measuring parallax at the time came from Johannes Regiomontanus’ De cometis (1531), which required the observer to record the time of each observation. Jane L. Jervis, Cometary Theory in Fifteenth-Century Europe (Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985), 100. 144 Dee says that before he ever mentioned his own treatise (Parallaticae), he and Digges had met frequently at Dee’s house to discuss the new methods for measuring parallax. Dee, Parallaticae, Aiii. See Stephen Pumfrey, “‘Your Astronomer and Ours Differ Exceedingly’: The Controversy over the ‘New Star’ of 1572 in Light of a Newly Discovered Text by Thomas Digges,” The British Journal for the History of Science 44 (March 2011): 31 and R. Goulding, “Parallactice Treatises” in John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies, 41-64. 152 In Alae seu scalae mathematicae (1573), Digges presented a series of twenty-one “Problems” on parallax, suggesting a new method for determining parallax that required at least two observations and multiple measurements of angles, azimuths, epicenters, etc. (measurements made with his new cross-staff), but did not require a measurement of time. He noted that any differences between planetary parallaxes were so small that they could barely be perceived. He believed this resulted from the conventional, low estimates of the distances between planets. Digges was most interested in parallax, though, because the Copernican model of the universe suggested larger variations in planetary distances, and, thus, different parallaxes. Digges seemed to believe that more accurate observations and calculations, using new instruments and his new method of determining parallax, could prove Copernicus correct. In the text, Digges criticized the Ptolemaic philosophy for forcing a theory on reality, resulting in clumsy planetary models, and he created a plan for the reform of astronomy. Digges’ plan was to first find the absolute distances between celestial bodies empirically and individually, using his new parallax techniques, and then construct hypotheses from the facts.145 His emphasis on precise observations and measurements and his curiosity about planetary parallax suggest that Digges believed he could calculate the exact distances of the planets from one another using parallax and establish the physical reality of the Copernican system. It also suggests that Digges was trying to transform astronomy from a discipline focused on making predictions to one that actually explains the reality of the cosmos.146 145 Thomas Digges, “Praefatio” in Alae seu scalae mathematicae (London: Thomas Marsh, 1573), n.p., available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, accessed 11 July 2018. See also Goulding, 49-50. 146 See Goulding, 49-50; Pumfrey, “‘Your Astronomer and Ours Differ Exceedingly,’” 33-34, and Westman, The Copernican Question, 280. 153 Digges’ brief references to the new star appearing in 1572 also show his support for the Copernican system. He noticed that the new appearance did not show any diurnal parallax. Because the moon has a diurnal parallax of about one degree, a smaller parallax would suggest that the phenomenon was farther away, located in the celestial sphere.147 Digges concluded that the phenomenon could not be a comet, but it was, indeed, a new star. That created a problem—here was a new event occurring in the celestial sphere, a realm that was supposed to be unchanging and incapable of producing something new, according to Aristotelian physics. Furthermore, Digges noticed that the new star was growing dimmer, which he believed had to be caused by a growing distance between the star and the earth. In the Praefatio to his Alae, Digges suggested that the increase in distance between the earth and the new star could be explained by the rotation of the earth around the sun. Digges continued to pursue his own observations and to make even stronger statements in support of the physical reality of the Copernican universe. In 1576, Digges published a new edition of his father’s text in which he added several appendices, the most notable of which was entitled Perfit Description of the Celestiall Orbes. It featured a detailed discussion of Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the universe. It was the first publication of the heliocentric model in English, for which historians have generally labeled Thomas Digges as the first public advocate of Copernicanism in England.148 It 147 See Pumfrey, “‘Your Astronomer and Ours Differ Exceedingly,’” 29-60. 148 For example, see Francis R. Johnson and Sanford V. Larkey, “Thomas Digges, the Copernican system, and the idea of the infinity of the universe in 1576,” Huntington Library Bulletin, 5 (1934), 69-117 (which reprints the Perfit Description); Johnson, Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England, esp. ch. 5 and 6; Koyré, 34-9; René Taton and Curtis Wilson, eds., Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics: Tycho Brahe to Newton, General History of Astronomy, vol. 2A 154 should be noted, though, that Digges did not explicitly state that the Copernican model of the universe represented truth, not even in his Perfit Description. Although Digges was proposing bold new ideas based on his study of parallax and the new star, he continued to defer to John Dee as the master mathematician and natural philosopher. Digges suggested that the purpose of his Alae was to explain more fully Dee’s writings on parallax, most likely Dee’s references to the measurement of celestial distances in the Propaedeumata Aphoristica. Digges even declared that he would not write anything further about the new star because John Dee had taken on the task of explaining it further.149 Unfortunately, Dee’s explanation of the new star never appeared. In his treatise published in 1573, Parallaticae commentationis praxeosque nucleus quidam, Dee used parallax as a way to establish his naturalistic, physically- grounded astrology. His treatise provided no opinion on the nature of the new star, but he did respond to Christoph Rothmann’s questions about the phenomenon when Dee met Rothman in 1589. Rothman was court astronomer of the Landgrave of Hessen-Kassel, and Dee passed through the Landgrave’s court on his return to England. Rothmann reported that Dee believed the new star to be located below the fixed stars. In Dee’s opinion, the star had approached the earth, and it was now moving through the planetary regions to a higher position.150 In his Compendious Rehearsal, Dee referred to another book he wrote on the new star (which is now lost): “On the marvelous star in Cassiopeia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 22-3; and A.R. Hall, The Scientific Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954), 104. 149 Digges, Proemium in Alae, A2. 150 The conversation is described by Tycho Brahe in Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata, in John Louis Emil Dreyer, ed., Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera Omnia, 15 vols. (Hven, 1913-1929), III, 204-205. 155 sent down from the heaven all the way to the sphere of Venus, and then drawn up again perpendicularly into the depths of the heavens sixteen months after its first appearance.”151 The title suggests again that the star disappeared because it moved away from the earth, which means that the planetary regions could not be filled with solid spheres as Offusius and Cardano had believed. The body of the Parallaticae commentationis praxeosque nucleus quidam says little about the new star. The text opens with two prefaces, one by Thomas Digges and one by John Dee. Digges’ preface explains that the texts were constructed independently, and he also praises Dee’s learning and skill.152 Dee’s preface explains that the two scholars had discussed the problem of parallax for some time, and they were presenting their work thus far, but there was more to come.153 In his short treatise, Dee explained how the astronomer could distinguish the values of individual parallaxes after determining combined parallax (by unspecified means). In true Dee fashion, he stated only general principles, leaving specifics for a later text.154 Given Dee’s emphasis in determining precise calculations for astrological reform, it seems likely that Dee’s parallax techniques were intended to be the principal tool by which the astrologer could determine the distance between heavenly bodies, which was so crucial to reforming astrology and establishing the causes of celestial influence. While there is no question that Dee was interested in determining precise measurements of the planetary distances and the movements in the celestial sphere, he made no public comments on the Copernican system, or, for that matter, the “true” model 151 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 8. 152 Dee, Parallaticae, Aij. See also Johnston, 65. 153 Dee, Parallaticae, Aiij. 154 Ibid., Diiii. 156 of the universe. Dee was most interested in improving astronomy to make better predictions. He sought another truth as well—the truth of the divine plan for nature and for humanity. Accordingly, Dee was most interested in the new star because it marked the beginning of a new epoch. Dee referred to its appearance as a new “year zero,” comparable to the year of Christ’s birth and the creation of the world.155 He interpreted the new star as a sign, just as he had hinted in the “Mathematicall Praeface.” The appearance of the new star also carried mystical significance to Digges. William Cecil, Lord Burghley, consulted with Digges about the astrological meaning of the new star. Digges, like Dee, was inclined to believe that it was the first new star since the birth of Christ, perhaps foretelling his second coming.156 Digges took great efforts to communicate privately with Lord Burghley about the new star in 1572, and, even then, he was very cautious in describing the new star’s “unknown influence:” “I have waded as farre as auncient groundes of Astrologie and Aucthors preceptes of approved credytt will beare me, to sifte out the unknown influence of this new starre or Comet.”157 The seven astrological conclusions that Digges made in his letter to Burghley are now lost, but his letter points out that he provided only general guidance on the terrestrial significance of the new star. He believed that personal significance could only be deduced from an examination of individuals’ nativities. Digges was far more reserved about his astrology, and, by keeping the astrological meaning of the new star out of the Alae, he could focus 155 Dee dated the “Necessary Advertisement” as “Anno, Stellae (Coelo Demissae, rectaque Reversae) Quinto: Julij vero, Die 4 et Anno Mundi 5540.” Dee, Perfect Arte of Navigation, iiij. 156 Digges, Alae, A2. To Digges, it was very important that the New Star not be dismissed as a comet or other phenomenon, lest humans miss the sign that God had provided. 157 Thomas Digges, “Thomas Digges to Lord Burghley, December 11, 1572,” Calendar of State Papers (Domestic), 1547-80, 454. 157 entirely on astronomy. In 1574 Digges presented to Lord Burghley a treatise (now lost) that included tables to determine the positions of stars in relation to the horizon, meridian, sun, and moon, which allowed for more precise astrological judgments. John Dee had composed a similar work on “The Philosophical and Poetical Original occasions of the Configurations and names of the heavenly Asterismes” and presented it to the Duchess of Northumberland in 1553.158 There is little doubt that Thomas Digges was heavily influenced by his teacher, John Dee. A comparison between the two figures, though, illuminates some important characteristics about Dee. First, it is clear that Dee was respected as a mathematician and scholar. The mathematician and surveyor Leonard Digges was just one of multiple individuals who sought Dee’s tutelage. Furthermore, Digges’ references to Dee as his “mathematical father” and his reluctance to comment extensively on the new star in anticipation of Dee’s forthcoming study show the high esteem that Digges held for Dee. Second, Dee was dedicated to determining precise measurements within the cosmos. Digges’ and Dee’s discussions of parallax show some striking differences— Digges thought his new method of parallax could reform astronomy, whereas Dee was more interested in applying exact measurements of parallax to astrology—but the two were working towards the same goal, a mathematically precise understanding of the cosmos. While Digges separated astrology and astronomy, though, Dee saw a far more complex relationship. In his “Mathematicall Praeface,” Dee considered astrology 158 The treatise was accompanying a garden sundial. See Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 31, and Johnston, 69. Thomas Digges, “Letter from Thomas Digges to Lord Burghley 14 May 1574,” in A Collection of Letters Illustrative of the Progress of Science in England, ed. James Orchard Halliwell (London, 1841), 6-7. The titles of the texts for the Duchess of Northumberland appear in Dee, A Briefe Discourse Apologeticall, n.p. 158 separately from astronomy, but to astronomy he assigned a distinctive purpose, namely to determine the sizes and distances of celestial bodies. Astrology, he then explained, relies on the mastery of many sciences, including perspective (to understand the emanation and impact of rays) and astronomy. The astrologer, he reasoned, must do more than learn the meanings behind the configurations of the planets. He must also understand the causes of the influences of celestial bodies on terrestrial affairs. To do so, the astrologer must be knowledgable in astronomy, natural philosophy, and perspective.159 In the “Mathematicall Praeface” and in his treatise on parallax, Dee reiterated the need for a reformed astrology grounded in natural physics. Digges, though, approached astronomy as a way of determining the precise organization of the cosmos. Digges’ written support for the Copernican model of the universe stands in stark contrast to Dee’s careful avoidance of the new system. While Digges located the new star in the celestial sphere, a realm that was supposed to be unchanging according to Aristotelian philosophy, Dee located it within the planetary sphere. Dee, like many of his contemporary philosophers, was reluctant to comment on such clear, anti-Aristotelian ideas. Memories of his brief imprisonment under the reign of Mary and his desire to win the patronage of Elizabeth most likely caused him to approach such ideas with caution. John Dee and His Colleagues John Dee shared some of the same goals and methods for uncovering the natural world as those of his colleagues. He was clearly not alone in his mission to reform astrology. The same theme is apparent in the work of Frisius, Mercator, Cardano, 159 See Goulding, 56-57. 159 Offusius, Digges (who focused more on reforming astronomy), and other scholars. Dee’s unique contribution to the reform of astrology was his Propaedeumata Aphoristica. While the text is not as specific as historians (or even Dee’s fellow philosophers) might prefer, it is one of the few proposals for the reform of astrology that appears in the sixteenth century, apart, of course, from Offusius’ De Divina Astrorum, which is likely based on Dee’s text. Some of the key components of the astrological reform that Dee presented in the Propaedeumata Aphoristica are also highlighted by his contemporary astrologers and natural philosophers. Dee credited Mercator, for instance, for urging the publication of his text, and he briefly described the conversations the two had about the need for astrology to rely on accurate knowledge of the celestial realm. Frisius argued that the astrologer should have a better understanding of the precise motions of the heavens so that he could know the impact of celestial rays. Cardano, too, believed that the astrologer should have a strong foundation in mathematics and astronomy so that his predictions could be grounded in an accurate understanding of celestial influences. While Cardano seemed most interested in reforming judicial astrology and creating more reliable genitures, Dee, Mercator, and Frisius were trying to create an astrological physics—an exact way of knowing how the motions of the celestial realm influenced other bodies and events in the terrestrial realm. Furthermore, Dee and Cardano believed that the motions in the celestial realm were causes, not simply signs, of events on earth. One of Dee’s goals was to attain true knowledge, even secret knowledge, of the natural world. A reformed astrology based on precise calculations and a true understanding of the causes of celestial influences would certainly support that goal. Although Dee claimed he was interested in truth, though, he was reluctant to make 160 specific reference to a true model of the universe, most notably the heliocentric system proposed by Copernicus. Again, most of Dee’s colleagues (with the exception of Digges) avoided the topic, too. Like many of his colleagues, Dee wanted to avoid imprisonment (or worse) for statements that could have radical religious implications, and he was constantly seeking patronage, preferably royal patronage. In many ways, Dee’s statements (and omissions) about the astrologer’s responsibility to seek precise knowledge of the cosmos fall directly in line with those of his contemporary philosophers. Dee sought truth by applying mathematics to the study of the natural world. He applied mathematics to the study of the cosmos, which is apparent in his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, his Playne Discourse, his “Mathematicall Praeface,” and his Parallaticae commentationis praxeosque nucleus quidam. In addition, Dee saw the practical uses of mathematics in geography and navigation. He described geography as a mathematical art in his “Mathematicall Praeface.” To Dee, geography was a practical art that locates places and events on the earth’s surface and represents them on an accurate scale according to geometric principles of projection. Dee went on to explain that geography joins with astronomy to form cosmology, a mathematical way of understanding the universe as a whole.160 Dee later used geography to produce texts on navigation that simultaneously guided seaman and argued for the expansion of the British Empire. This is very reminiscent of the work of Frisius and Mercator. Both scholars applied mathematics to their geographical work. Mercator was especially preoccupied with projection and providing to seamen accurate routes to follow. Mercator, like Dee, encouraged voyages of discovery, although Mercator wanted expand his knowledge of 160 Dee, “Mathematicall Praeface,” aiij and biii. 161 the natural world and produce a more accurate cosmography. To Mercator, geography was one part of producing an accurate map of the entire cosmos. To Dee, geography was an important mathematical art that contributed to his goal of knowing the truth of nature. This chapter has highlighted similarities and differences between Dee and some of the scholars with whom he worked. Although Dee’s work is uniquely his, his methods and goals are very similar to those of his contemporary natural philosophers. There are two areas, though, in which Dee stands in contrast to his fellow philosophers so far. First, Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica, his attempt to capture the “language” of nature in a single symbol, is unparalleled. That is not to say that there were not other alchemists and astrologers who were trying to decode hidden meanings in nature.161 Dee’s application of one symbol as a means of unlocking all meaning in the Book of Nature, though, is unusual. In the text, Dee applies the exegesis methods of the Cabala not to language but to nature itself, suggesting that the Book of Nature can be read and interpreted through its substances. Dee believed that the scholar who can apply the monad to decoding the secrets of nature will become a spiritual being, suggesting that both nature and the self 161 One such alchemist was Giovanni Agostino Panteo, whose Voarchadumia contra alchemiam ars distincta ab Archemia and Sophia (1530) is thought to have influenced Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica. Dee owned a copy of the text, and his copy along with his annotations are housed in the British Library. Panteo believed in a “Cabala of metals,” by which he analyzed alchemical words numerically in order to determine their secrets, much like in the Hebrew Cabala where combinations of letters in the Hebrew alphabet are analyzed for their numerical significance. The Arab polymath Abu Mūsā Jābir ibn Hayyān (c. 721- c. 815) had attempted something similar, in which he defined the nature and properties of elements through numeric values assigned to the consonants in their names. These are only two brief examples of scholars who applied Cabalistic exegesis to the study of nature, similar to what Dee did in the Monas Hieroglyphica. See Peter Forshaw, “Cabala Chymica or Chemica Cabalistica—Early Modern Alchemists and Cabala,” Ambix 60, issue 4 (November 2013): 361-389. 162 can be transformed through the process.162 Alas, of all of Dee’s writings, his Monas Hieroglyphica is probably the most difficult to understand. Nevertheless, the text exemplifies Dee’s dedication to deciphering the secrets of nature, and it promotes an image of Dee as one who has been specially chosen (by God) for such a task.163 The same theme is present in Dee’s diaries of his angel conversations, the second activity or text that strongly differentiates Dee from his contemporary natural philosophers. Again, there were other scholars, like Marsilio Ficino, Johannes Trithemius, Cardano, and Simon Forman, who believed that angels could make their presence known in the terrestrial realm. Dee, though, left detailed records of his conversations with angels, and those conversations frequently centered on ways in which he could know nature and the divine plan. To Dee, conversing with angels was an extension of his natural philosophy, a means by which he could gain access to the secrets of nature, for which he was divinely appointed (as the angels confirmed). One of Dee’s most unique methods for investigating nature, his conversations with angels, was also the cause of his omission within the standard narrative of the Scientific Revolution. In comparing the methods and texts of scholars like Frisius, Mercator, Cardano, Offusius, and Digges to John Dee highlights many similarities in their thinking. It is easy 162 The process of transformation that occurs by applying the monad to nature is demonstrated in Dee’s diagram of the Arbor raritatis. His monad is at the root of the tree, the lowest level, and the philosopher has the option of following the thicker branches of the tree (the easier paths) or the thinner branches of the tree, the path to deciphering the secrets within in the Monas Hieroglyphica and becoming a mathematicus. Dee, Monas Hieroglyphica, 3. 163 On the frontispiece to Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica and Monas Hieroglyphica, two Latin phrases stand out: “Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat” (“Let he who doesn’t understand remain quiet or learn,” in both texts), and “Est in hac Monad quiquid quarunt sapientis” (“In the monad is what wise men seek,” in the Propaedeumata Aphoristica). Dee portrayed himself as a wise sage delivering knowledge only to those who are most prepared to receive it. 163 to see why Dee was drawn to each of these scholars in one way or another. To get a more complete sense of how Dee’s methods and goals were similar or different to those of his contemporary natural philosophers, one must compare Dee’s work to those with whom Dee had virtually no personal contact. The next chapter continues the comparisons between Dee and his fellow natural philosophers, including some who became central figures within the traditional narrative of the Scientific Revolution. 164 Chapter Four: John Dee and His Contemporary Philosophers For many observers of the heavens, the appearance of a new star in 1572 brought into question what was known of the universe. Some of those observing the star knew that its existence challenged the Aristotelian doctrine of the immutability of the celestial realm. This change in the heavens sparked intrigue about the makeup of the cosmos and generated discussion among those interested in astrology about what events might now unfold. When a comet appeared in the sky just a few years later in 1577, the reaction was very similar. Philosophers raised new questions about the structure of the cosmos, the importance of mathematics and precise measurements in studying the heavens, and the influence of heavenly motions on earthly affairs.1 It was a time of questioning and new possibilities, and John Dee was one of many people who were looking for answers. This chapter continues the comparison between John Dee’s approach to understanding that changing natural world and the methods of some of his contemporary natural philosophers, including Tycho Brahe, Michael Maestlin, Johannes Kepler, Simon 1 Robert Westman points out that many natural philosophers who followed the Aristotelian model of the universe explained the new star and comet as examples of the ways in which God could change nature at a whim. Students of mathematics, astronomy, and astrology (like John Dee, Thomas Digges, and Tycho Brahe), wrote about the meaning of these phenomena in their prognostications and in their texts on astronomy. Westman argued that the new star and the comet gave “mathematical prognosticators” an opportunity to engage not only with fellow astrologers but also within the realms of natural philosophy and theology. This seems to be the case with Dee, who published Parallacticae commentationis praxeosque nucleus quidam in 1573. The text does not actually mention the star, but Dee used the opportunity to discuss methods for measuring the distance between heavenly bodies, which was of utmost importance to astronomers who were trying to determine if the star appeared in the celestial realm. See Westman, The Copernican Question, 257-258. 165 Forman, and Robert Fludd. This list is, by no means, exhaustive, but it highlights some of the questions that Dee and his contemporary philosophers were asking in the late sixteenth century: how does the natural world reveal God and the divine plan? How can the philosopher predict the effects of the motions of the heavens? What is the philosopher’s role in the divine plan? Dee developed his own specific answers to these questions, but the principles on which those answers were based were very similar to those of his contemporary natural philosophers. Those similarities do not detract from the texts and theories produced by Dee alone, but they do show that Dee’s approach to natural philosophy was not so unusual for the sixteenth century. For centuries after his death, John Dee stood out as a conjuror, a mystic, or (perhaps in a more favorable view) a Renaissance magus. Recently historians like Stephen Cluclas, Jennifer Rampling, and Nicholas Clulee have taken a more balanced view of the philosopher, placing Dee’s work in the context of medieval optics, Renaissance mathematics, and networks of scientific knowledge. They explored some of the ideas and trends in scientific thought that might have influenced Dee’s research and some of the political factors that may have motivated his work. My study further explores the intellectual context of Dee’s study of the natural world and demonstrates that many of his methods and fundamental goals were similar to those of other natural philosophers at the time. Though John Dee had some truly unique ideas, most notably, his particular means of communicating with angels through numbers and mathematics, his natural philosophy was generally in line with some of the ideas and practices embraced at the time. Dee demonstrates the complexity of scientific thought in the late sixteenth century and early seventeenth century, and he exemplifies why it is crucial to examine a wide 166 range of investigative practices when attempting to understand the early development of science. Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe was writing an astrological-meteorological calendar when the new star appeared in November 1572. Using his cross staff and sextant to measure distances between the star and other heavenly bodies, he determined that the star was stationary. It was far enough from earth to be above the moon and within the eighth sphere of the fixed stars. To Brahe, the new star opened the possibility for changes in the heavens, changes that could have consequences on events on earth. The only way to understand these changes, Brahe argued, was through precise observations and calculations. In De Nova Stella (1575), Brahe emphasized the need for accurate observations, exact instruments, and conclusions based on careful measurements.2 Although Tycho Brahe and John Dee had some very different views about the new star, they both used the opportunity to emphasize the need for precise measurements in astronomy and astrology. Dee, for instance, had concluded that the star was in the terrestrial realm, which suggests that he subscribed to the idea of an unchanging heavens.3 Dee was not a revolutionary. He wanted to gain as much information as possible about the natural world, but he was also politically prudent, and he chose not to speak out on controversial theories. On the other hand, Brahe argued that the nova appeared in the sphere of the fixed stars, thereby refuting Aristotle’s vision of celestial incorruptibility. He came to the conclusion that there could be changes and new stars in 2 Brahe, Tychonis Brahe Dania Opera Omnia, I, 9 and III, 307-308. 3 Dee’s views are described by Tycho Brahe in Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata in Opera Omnia, III, 204-205. 167 deep space. Moreover, Brahe made his arguments public, whereas Dee was silent on the structure of the universe. Nevertheless, Brahe and Dee shared many commonalities, including their early introductions to astronomical observations, their interest in precise astronomical instruments, and their emphasis on the reform of astrology through astronomical observations and measurements. In fact, the two seemed to respect each other, engaging in some correspondence and an exchange of views on new astronomical texts. For instance, Brahe reported the conversation that Dee and the German astronomer and mathematician Christoph Rothman had about the nature of the new star that appeared in 1572.4 In 1590, Brahe also noted in a letter to Thomas Saville (1590-1659), the first Earl of Sussex, that he would be sending a copy of his latest book, De mundi aetherei recentioribus phaenomenis (1588), to the “most noble and excellent John Dee” for his opinion.5 Furthermore, Brahe critiqued Dee’s and Digges’ works on the new star in his Astromomiae instauratae progymnasmata (1602).6 There is not a complete set of letters or record of visits between Brahe and Dee, but it is clear that the two scholars approached their studies of the natural world in similar ways. Both Brahe and Dee held strong beliefs in the importance of observation, and both began making observations at an early age. Dee spoke in his Compendious Rehearsall 4 Ibid. 5 Tycho Brahe, “Tycho Brahe to Sir Thomas Savelle, December 1st, 1590” in J.O. Halliwell, ed., A Collection of Letters, 33. 6 Tycho Brahe, Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata, in Opera Omnia, III, 167-203. See Jerzy Dobrzycki, ed., The Reception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory (Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1972), especially John L. Russell, “The Copernican System in Great Britain,” 193; Robert S. Westman, “The Comet and the Cosmos: Kepler, Mästlin, and the Copernican Hypothesis,” 18-20, 24 and 25; and Kristian P. Moesgaard, “The Influence of Copernicus on Tycho Brahe,” 31-56. 168 about the observations he made with a cross-staff while he was a student at Cambridge.7 Brahe began keeping records of his astronomical observations in August 1563 at the age of 16.8 Over the next few years, he acquired books on astronomy, astrology, mathematics, and alchemy; a small celestial globe; and the celestial maps of Albrecht Durer (1471- 1528).9 With ephemerides in his collection, he began to keep track of the planets. Brahe kept a special notebook devoted to predicting the various terrestrial effects of celestial influences. He began to cast horoscopes of famous men, beginning with Caspar Peucer (1525-1602), professor of mathematics and medicine at the University of Wittenberg. In August 1563, Brahe recorded his observations of the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, a phenomenon that occurred only at twenty-year intervals and was supposed to have considerable astrological significance. Using two large compasses to measure his sightings, Brahe (at the age of 16) realized that the Ptolemaic ephemerides were off by one month. He set about to correct this error by collecting a large amount of observational data.10 Brahe aimed to completely re-map the heavens based on his observations. Clearly, both Brahe and Dee believed in the importance of direct astronomical observations. Like Brahe, Dee also collected astronomical instruments and made records 7 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 3. 8 In 1564, he started recording the weather. See Kitty Ferguson, Tycho and Kepler: The Unlikely Partnership that Forever Changed our Understanding of the Heavens (New York: Walker & Company, 2002), 29. 9 Brahe collected texts and instruments secretly, because his tutor did not agree with his astronomical studies. His growing library included astrological texts written by Johannes Garcaeus (1502-1558), who published a collection of nativities. See J.L.E. Dreyer, ed., Tycho Brahe: A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in the Sixteenth Century (Edinburgh: Charles and Black, 1890; 2nd edition, New York: Dover, 1963), 21; and Victor E. Thoren, The Lord of Uraniborg: A Biography of Tycho Brahe (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 17. 10 Brahe, Opera Omnia, VII, 127-128. 169 of his observations. While Dee noted astronomical observations in his diaries as a means of informing his horoscopes and astrological studies, Brahe was set on a more systematic diagram of the heavens. He is probably best known for his skill in designing and building astronomical instruments, including sextants, armillary spheres, and quadrants. Measuring and cataloging stellar and planetary positions required the use of large radius sextants and quadrants, but their accuracy was limited. Brahe realized that the quality of his observations depended on improving the accuracy of his instruments. He constructed his first wooden cross staff, his “Radius Astronomicus,” following Gemma Frisius’ guidelines and Johannes Homelius’ (1518-1562) instructions to divide it by transversals.11 His invention of improved sights for sextants and quadrants made it possible to eliminate alignment errors, which he claimed were as large as one-eighth of a degree on the instruments of Copernicus.12 Without a reliable quadrant, it was impossible to derive an exact time or fix any of the cardinal points in the sky, such as latitude, solstices, and equinoxes. In 1570, Brahe built his great quadrant, which allowed him to make observations accurate down to the minute of the arc. The quadrant provided the fundamental vertical angles of bodies, from which the sextants and armillary spheres could measure the horizontals. He kept meticulous records of the manufacture and use of his instruments. When observations with his newer, larger instruments agreed with one 11 Brahe, Opera Omnia, V, 107. Robert Westman argues that Brahe may have even learned of the Copernican model of the universe through Homelius, who was once a student of Erasmus Reinhold and Joachim Rheticus. See Robert Westman, “Three Responses to the Copernican Theory: Johannes Praetorius, Tycho Brahe, and Michael Maestlin” in The Copernican Achievement, ed. Robert Westman (Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1975), 306. 12 See Allan Chapman, “The Accuracy of Angular Measuring Instruments used in Astronomy Between 1500 and 1850,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 14:2, no. 40, 1983: 133-134. 170 another, he was confident that he had achieved an extremely high degree of accuracy. Essentially, Brahe provided a foundation for the reform of astronomy and astrology, a reform based on precise observations. To Brahe, astronomy was a science that allowed humans to construct calendars, forecast the weather, and even predict human events; therefore, astronomy included astrology. Brahe defended astrological weather forecasts, which had fallen into decline. He explained that just as the sun was responsible for the seasons of the year and the moon influenced tides, so, too, did certain stars and planetary configurations lead to specific weather patterns. Furthermore, Brahe defended the notion that the stars could influence not only elements but people as well. He followed Paracelsus’ argument that, because people are made up of the elements, they must also be subject to celestial influences. He even argued that individuals were subject to sidereal influences because the human soul was part of heaven itself, and the human body was a microcosm whose major organs were analogous to the seven planets. He explained how personality and human ability were derived from the planets themselves.13 Brahe believed that the stars had an influence on humans that could be understood if only one could find the correct procedure and knew precisely the positions of the planets. Brahe suggested that, with proper education and discipline, humans could deflect the influence of the stars.14 He offered an astronomical explanation and defense of astrology, an astrology based on precise observations and calculations. 13 Brahe, De Stella Nova in Opera Omnia, I, 158. 14 Ibid., 163. See also Thoren, 82-83 and 216-217; and Westman, The Copernican Question, 230-233. 171 Dee described in his “Mathematical Praeface” a similar relationship between astronomy and astrology. He referred to astrology as an “arte derivative” from geometry and arithmetic, and that it was allied closely to “Perspective, Astronomie, Cosmographie, Naturall Philosophie of the 4 Elementes, the Art of Graduation, and … Musicke.”15 In other words, Dee assigned astrology a high status, in line with the mathematical arts. In his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee provided a mathematical basis for astrology and proposed a reformed astrology based on precise calculations and measurements. He used physical science to explain astrology, arguing in his Propaedeumata Aphoristica and his “Mathematicall Praeface” that all things exude influential rays, similar to light. Dee, like Brahe, paid close attention to weather behavior and made weather predictions in an effort to understand the effects of celestial influences. When Dee returned to England after his visit to Louvain, he brought back with him instruments for making astronomical observations (such as Frisius’ cross staff) and new, more accurate, ephemerides. Much like Brahe, Dee was advocating for a reform of astronomy and astronomy, since the two were so closely related. Like Gerard Mercator, Gemma Frisius, and John Dee, Tycho Brahe promised to put astrology on stronger astronomical foundations. Brahe’s astrology emphasized lunar phases, fixed stars, and planetary configurations. He declared that he intended to restore celestial motions and create new tables, in addition to making careful weather observations and analyzing their causes from the stars.16 In other words, Brahe was making observations to understand the structure of the cosmos, the pattern of celestial 15 John Dee, “The Mathematicall Praeface,” biii. 16 Brahe, Opera Omnia, I, 44, translated by Steven Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence, 264. 172 motions, and the causes of celestial effects on earth. Dee was pursuing the same goals, especially in his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, in which he argues that celestial effects can only be understood in relation to precise knowledge of celestial motion. In 1575, Brahe published his De Nova Stella about the appearance of the new star, and, within the thirty-six page text, the last nine pages were dedicated to astrological interpretation. He made the point that modern practitioners of judicial astrology were doing the art a disservice by relying on authority rather than observation to determine the position of the stars.17 He referenced another text he had written on the topic which is now lost, Against the Astrologers, for Astrology,18 and he promised a new set of observations that would change the foundations of prognostication. Brahe presented himself as a critical astrological reformer, one who was keenly aware of the fallacies of modern astrologers while also concerned about Pico della Mirandola’s dismissal of astrology altogether in his Disputations.19 Brahe was dedicated to the reform of astrology based on precise observations and an accurate understanding of the motions of the heavens, much like Dee. Unlike Dee, though, Brahe’s work drew the attention of a powerful patron. De Stella Nova made Brahe’s astronomical reputation by the time that he was 27. King Frederick II of Denmark invited him to set up his famous laboratory of Uraniborg on the island of Hven, and he invited Brahe to become the court astrologer. 17 Brahe chose not to include the astrological almanac that he was constructing when the new star appeared. He claimed that the almanac was not published because of typographical problems and lack of time (Brahe, Opera Omnia I, 44, and III, 95-96). For a discussion of Brahe’s choice to omit the almanac, see Gábor Almási, “Tycho Brahe and the Separation of Astronomy from Astrology: The Making of a New Scientific Discourse,” Science in Context 26, no. 1 (March 2013): 9-10. 18 Brahe, De Stella Nova in Opera Omnia, I, 34 and 36. 19 Ibid., 168. 173 Brahe made annual predictions for the Danish royal family. He birth charts and predicted the length of life and the characteristics of individuals. When Brahe was asked to cast the horoscope for the infant Prince Christian, he began by using both the Prutenic and Alfonsine Tables to calculate the positions of the planets at the moment of the prince’s birth. He used observations he had made during the past winter to correct the positions for the sun, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter. The resulting horoscope was over sixty pages long. Brahe emphasized in the horoscope that an error of as little as four minutes in the royal clock establishing the time of birth would render the document useless. Brahe’s approach to astrology is reminiscent of that of John Dee (the emphasis on precise measurements and calculations) and Girolamo Cardano (the thorough, careful construction of genitures and horoscopes). Also like Dee and Cardano, Brahe was very cautious about his astrological work. He asserted that the stars affected but did not predetermine the lives of humans because God could countermand their influences at any time, and because sound education and an exertion of individual free will could also counteract adverse astral influences.20 20 See J.R. Christianson, On Tycho’s Island: Tycho Brahe, Science, and Culture in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 62; Ferguson, 88-9 and 98-99; and Thoren, 216. Brahe did not have the best track record with astrological prognostications. His peers ridiculed him in 1566 for his prediction of the demise of a Turkish sultan, a sultan who had died weeks before Brahe cast his horoscope (Brahe, Opera Omnia, I, 135, and X, 13). Shortly thereafter, Brahe began emphasizing the possibility of intervention by God or human free will. When Brahe wrote a report on the new comet of 1577 for Frederick II, he recognized that comets have typically represented a bad omen, and he noted that the comet’s position in the sky indicated even more death and disaster than usual. However, he quickly turned the report to a more optimistic promise by arguing that the heavens do not determine the future. He argued that rational exercise of free will and appropriate action could change the effects of the comet. In fact, Brahe suggested that the bad omen could apply to Russia or Spain, giving Frederick the advantage. Brahe demonstrated to Frederick the value of astronomy and astrology to a 174 Unlike Dee, Brahe steadily lost confidence in horoscope astrology. He turned away from prognostications, weather predictions, and natal charts by the end of the 1580s, but he remained committed to astrological reform. He was not shy about expressing his concerns over the idea that he could be held responsible if events did not occur as foretold. In a letter Brahe wrote to a German nobleman in 1587, Brahe explained that prognostications based on imperfect astronomical tables could not be accurate. He went on to say that he avoided astrological matters and produced prognostications only because King Frederick demanded them.21 Nevertheless, Brahe continued to observe the heavens and analyze phenomena for their celestial meaning. In 1577, a comet appeared in the skies that sparked another astronomical and astrological debate. Brahe argued that the comet was located above the sphere of the moon, confirming his conclusion from the supernova of 1572 that changes could and did occur in the heavens. He also demonstrated through mathematical analysis that the comet cut across the orbits of several planets, proving that planets were not positioned on solid crystalline spheres as Aristotelians had believed. He began to analyze the position of the comet within the planetary system from a Copernican perspective, but he incorporated his own data along with his assumption that the earth stood still in the center of the universe. He gradually began to develop a new understanding of the whole powerful patron while also creating a “buffer” for himself should events unfold contrary to his predictions. 21 Brahe, Opera Omnia, VII, 116-119. Brahe still believed that some kind of astrological prediction was possible. When King Frederick died, Brahe consulted the horoscope that he had constructed for the King for some sign of his death (Brahe, Opera Omnia, I, 132- 135). 175 planetary system.22 Around 1583, Brahe unveiled his new model of the universe in which the sun rotated around the earth, and all other planets rotated around the sun.23 Within the context of the new system, Brahe asserted that the comet moved around the sun with an irregular velocity, in the opposite direction from the planets, on an egg-shaped orbit. His observations suggested that the stars were not fixed, but he noted that there was no direct evidence to suggest that the earth was mobile. These assertions defied all ancient hypotheses about uniform celestial motion, and they were generated by ten years of research on Hven. Staying true to his observations and his desire to reform astronomy and astrology, Brahe’s system demonstrated the geometry of the Copernican system while retaining the Ptolemaic idea of the earth as the center of the of the universe.24 To Brahe, the accuracy of astronomical tables took precedence over the actual arrangement of the planets. Thus, Brahe proposed a system that matched his observations. He proposed a model of the universe acceptable to those who thought that the Ptolemaic geocentric system was problematic yet could not adopt the Copernican hypothesis. While Brahe’s cosmic system was later discredited, the new ideas that he proposed—that the stars were not fixed and the celestial realm was not unchanging—and the unprecedented amount of astronomical data that he gathered earned him a significant place within the unfolding of the Scientific Revolution. Tycho Brahe’s proposal for a new structure for the cosmos is probably bolder and riskier than any idea that John Dee publically proposed in England. The two shared a 22 See J.R. Christianson, “Tycho Brahe’s German Treatise on the Comet of 1577: A Study in Science and Politics,” Isis 70 no. 1 (1979): 128-130. 23 Tycho’s book became the standard work on the topic. See Christianson, On Tycho’s Island, 122. 24 Tycho Brahe, Astronomiae instauratae mechanica (1598; Noribergae, apud L. Hvlsivm, 1602). 176 commitment to gaining accurate knowledge of the universe based on mathematics and observations. From that knowledge, Brahe proposed a new structure for the universe. Dee was more interested in using accurate knowledge of celestial motions to improve astrology and to bolster his own career as a natural philosopher. He showed no interest in proposing a new cosmology; in fact, he shied away from any astrophysics that were too controversial. At the same time, he sought secret knowledge of the inner-workings of the universe and the Divine Plan. Both Brahe and Dee wanted to support their own careers. Brahe did so by collecting astronomical data and improving astronomy and astrology. Dee had similar goals, but he also wanted to become a purveyor of secret knowledge. Perhaps this helps to explain why Dee was traditionally omitted in the standard narrative of the Scientific Revolution. He proposed no bold new world view publically, but he was carrying out some of the same practices and operating with some of the same beliefs as his contemporary natural philosophers. The death of King Frederick II in 1588 complicated Brahe’s political career. Brahe fell out of favor with Frederick’s son, Christian, and he moved to Bohemia, where Rudolph placed him in a castle north of Prague. In Bohemia, Brahe crossed paths with Johannes Kepler, a younger philosopher who would come to work in Brahe’s observatory and propose even more radical ideas based on some of Brahe’s observations. Such a meeting, though, would not have taken place without the intervention of a fellow astronomer and Kepler’s tutor, Michael Maestlin. Michael Maestlin (1550-1631) Michael Maestlin was busy making some of the same astronomical observations as John Dee and Tycho Brahe in the late sixteenth century. Maestlin had studied 177 theology, mathematics, and astronomy at the University of Tübingen, earning his master’s degree in 1571. While studying for his degree, Maestlin purchased a copy of Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus and edited a new edition of the Prutenic Tables, which was published in 1571. In 1577, Maestlin determined the orbit of the recent comet by holding up a taut string to line up reference stars and searching for those stars in the Prutenic Tables to find their positions. Like Dee and Brahe, Maestlin believed that precise measurements, observations, and calculations were the key to understanding the heavens. Maestlin reached the same conclusion as Brahe, that the comet was further away from the earth than the moon, demonstrating the possibility of change in the heavens.25 Furthermore, Maestlin claimed that the comet orbited the sun, supporting Copernicus’ heliocentric system.26 Maestlin did not, though, argue for the physical reality of his model. To Maestlin, astronomy had two distinct parts: one was theoretical, and the other was physical, which addressed the material, formal, efficient, and final causes.27 25 Maestlin used geometrical proofs to show that the comet of 1577 occurred at a further distance from the earth than the moon. Michael Maestlin, Observatio & demonstratio Cometæ aetherei qui anno 1577 et 1578 constitutus in sphæra Veneris apparuit (Tubingæ, 1578), British Library General Reference Collection DRT Digital Store 532.e.61, 20-28. See also Michael Maestlin, De astronomiae hypothesibus sive de circulis sphaericis et orbibus theoricis (Heidelberg: Jacobus Mylius, 1582), available online through the Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek, www.digitale- sammlungen.de, accessed 22 July 2016. 26 Maestlin, Observatio & demonstratio Cometæ aetherei, 20-28. 27 In his own astronomical textbook, Epitome astronomiae (first published in 1582), Maestlin makes a distinction between the astronomical and the physical parts of astronomy. Michael Maestlin, Epitome astronomiæ, qua brevi explicatione omnia, tam ad sphæricam quam theoricam ejus partem pertinentia, ... per questiones traduntur. ... Ab ipso autore ... recognita (Tubingæ, 1597), British Library General Reference Collection DRT Digital Store 531.f.15, 30. See also Jervis, 125, and James R. Voelkel, The Composition of Kepler’s Astronomia Nova (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 69. 178 Maestlin did not avoid controversial theories like Copernicanism (as Dee did). Maestlin, like Dee, believed that the motions of the heavens reflected God himself; therefore, direct observation of the natural world was imperative to understanding God’s creation. Maestlin used Biblical testimony about God’s creation of the heavens to support his astronomical arguments.28 The Bible, he believed, told humans to observe the heavens, but the fundamental principles of astronomy were located in mathematics and physics. Ultimately, knowledge of the heavens was available through nature and mathematics, and Maestlin believed that the study of God’s two books would not produce contradictions.29 Like Dee, Maestlin was convinced by the power of observation and mathematical calculation. He believed that precise measurements, in particular, would allow him to understand the rationale behind the divinely ordained movements of the stars. Dee shared those fundamental beliefs, and he emphasized in his writings the importance of precise calculations in understanding the motions of the heavens. Dee’s objective, though, was not only to understand the divine through the movement of the heavens; he wanted to predict accurately the effects of those motions. Furthermore, Dee demonstrated in his private notes and in his conversations with angels that he believed that he was specially appointed to receive knowledge of the divine plan and to share that knowledge. Maestlin did not make such a declaration. While Maestlin sought knowledge of the divine through astronomy, he did not profess to know the divine plan, and he seemed uninterested in predicting the effects of heavenly motions on earth. Maestlin resisted engaging in astronomical prognostications. 28 Like Philip Melanchthon and Johannes Kepler, Maestlin relied on the Psalms to justify God’s endorsement of astronomy. See, for example, Psalms 19 and 146. 29 Maestlin, Epitome astronomiæ, 6v. 179 In his writings on the supernova of 1572, Maestlin drew no connections between the appearance of the new star and Biblical prophesies about the end of the world or any astrological judgments.30 When the comet appeared in 1577, he criticized scholars who failed to understand the comet’s place, movement, and distance.31 In his own book on the comet, he made it clear in his dedication that he much preferred to engage in astronomy rather than astrology.32 His astronomical textbook, Epitome astronomiae (1582), paid no attention to astrological theory or practice. This represents a stark difference from John Dee’s approach to natural philosophy. Dee saw astrology as essential to understanding the divine structure of the universe and the divine plan. He viewed astrology as an “Arte Mathematicall,” a precise means of studying the movements of the heavens, the impact of light rays, and “secrete influence.”33 Maestlin was less concerned with secret influences and more focused on the construction of accurate astronomical tables. That was his way of understanding God’s creation. Given his interests in accurately measuring the motions of the heavens, Maestlin felt compelled to respond to the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582, just as Dee did. Both Maestlin and Dee emphasized the importance of precise calculations in correcting the calendar problem. Maestlin led the attack on the calendar reform in Protestant Europe, criticizing the reformers for relying on the Prutenic tables instead of creating new tables 30 Michael Maestlin, Demonstratio astronomica loci stellae novae, tum respectu centri mundi, tum respectu signiferi & aequinoctialis (Tübingen, 1573) in Brahe, Opera Omnia III, 58-62. See also Miguel A. Granada, “Michael Maestlin and the New Star of 1572,” Journal of the History of Astronomy 38 (2007): 99-124. For a detailed summary of Maestlin’s views on astrology, see Westman, The Copernican Question, 262-264. 31 Maestlin, Observatio et demonstratio cometae aetherei, 5. See also Charlotte Methuen, Kepler’s Tübingen: Stimulus to Theological Matters (Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 1998), 175-6. 32 Maestlin, Observatio & demonstratio Cometæ aetherei, n.p. 33 Dee, The Mathematicall Preface, biii. 180 based on more recent observations.34 Maestlin, like Dee, pointed to the importance of basing the new calendar on an accurate understanding of the motions of the heavens if humans were to avoid future problems with the calendar. In general, though, Maestlin objected to the new calendar more on philosophical and theological grounds. Maestlin, a Protestant, took issue with the fact that the new calendar was presented by the Pope. To Maestlin, the calendar is a human creation, and the Pope did not have the authority to determine how the movements of the sun and the moon should be described by a new calendar. Furthermore, Maestlin saw little use for the new calendar. Maestlin was fully aware of the astronomical benefits of the Gregorian calendar reform, but he argued instead that the end of the world was near and that mathematicians should not be pressing for a new calendrical system at this point in time. Maestlin was still concerned with the idea of celebrating holy days at the correct time, but he pointed out that at the time of the earliest councils, the Julian calendar was already in error, which meant that the dates of the major festivals were arbitrary. Moreover, Maestlin proclaimed that astronomers and mathematicians were not preoccupied with the error of the calendar because they were only concerned with observed phenomena, not constructed calendars.35 To Maestlin, the tracking of time was a human creation, not something intrinsic in the natural world and created by God, and Maestlin’s primary issue with the Gregorian reform was the idea of giving control of this human creation to the Pope. 34 Michael Maestlin, M. M. Mæstlini ... alterum examen novi Pontificialis Gregoriani Kalendarii, quo ... demonstratur, quod novum Kalendarium ... mendosum ... vitiosum sit (Tubingae, 1586), 4. 35 Maestlin, M. M. Mæstlini ... alterum examen novi Pontificialis Gregoriani Kalendarii, 50. 181 John Dee’s solution to the calendar problem was very different than Michael Maestlin’s. In fact, to Dee, the inaccuracy of the calendar was a paramount importance, specifically because of its impact on astrological prognostications and chronology. To Dee, a true calendar that was corrected back to the birth of Christ would allow scholars to predict accurately the unfolding of God’s plan for humanity. Like Maestlin, Dee believed strongly in the importance of accurate observations and measurements in astronomy. Dee, though, believed those precise measurements were equally as important in astrology, a discipline to which Maestlin ascribed little time or energy. Both scholars were preoccupied with the proper location of truth, and neither felt that it belonged with the Pope. Ultimately, they placed different importance on the human-constructed calendar, but they shared a dedication to astronomical accuracy. Dee and Maestlin shared some of the same goals, but they ultimately had different purposes. Dee’s belief in his status as a special prophet, one who could know and share the Divine Plan, influenced his work in multiple ways. One who felt the need to share the Divine Plan would place a great emphasis on deriving meaning from the motions of the heavens. It was not enough to Dee to attain knowledge of God through precise knowledge of astronomy, as it was for Maestlin. Instead, Dee persisted in his search for the ultimate truth that could be revealed to him and few others. This drive, of course, did not make Dee’s astronomy any less significant or precise. Instead, it encouraged him to derive multiple meanings from heavenly motions. Maestlin’s pupil, Johannes Kepler, also found several meanings hidden in the motions of the universe. Like his teacher, Kepler also emphasized the importance of an exact astronomy that relied on mathematical precision. 182 Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Johannes Kepler was only an infant when the new star appeared in 1572, but he did observe the comet of 1577 with his mother from their home in the Free Imperial City of Weil der Stadt. At age nine, he witnessed a lunar eclipse, although smallpox had crippled his hands and weakened his vision, making astronomical observations difficult.36 Despite these obstacles, in 1589 Kepler enrolled at the University of Tübingen, where he learned from his tutors Jacob Heerbrand (1521-1600) and Michael Maestlin that humans could know God’s creation by studying the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature.37 Astronomy at Tübingen was conducted under the assumption that everything that takes place in nature can, and does, reveal God. Kepler believed that God created the world with knowledge concealed in it, and this knowledge was intended to be sought out by the human mind.38 Kepler argued that the practice of astronomy is natural to humans. Just like John Dee believed he was specially chosen by God to understand the secrets of 36 Johannes Kepler, Joannis Kepleri Astronomi Opera Omnia, ed. Charles Frisch, 8 vols. (Francofurti A.M.; Erlangae: Heyder & Zimmer, 1858-1871), 672-673 (microfilm). 37 Heerbrand, who became chancellor at Tübingen in 1590, was a student of Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon. He argued that the Book of Nature should be read parallel to the Book of Scripture to understand fully God’s works. Heerbrand and Maestlin believed that humans could know and comprehend the Divine Plan. For Maestlin, such a feat was achievable through accurate knowledge of astronomy. See Peter Barker and Bernard R. Goldstein, “Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy,” Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 16, Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions (2001): 96-98. 38 Kepler wrote to his teacher Maestlin that “God wants to be known from the Book of Nature.” Johannes Kepler, Letter to Michael Maestlin, 3 October 1595, in Gesammelte Werke, ed. Wolther von Dyck and Max Caspar, volume XIII (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1937- ), 43. Translated by Kitty Ferguson, Tycho and Kepler, 193. 183 nature, Kepler compared his calling to astronomy to the calling of a priest or preacher in the church.39 Both Dee and Kepler approached natural philosophy as a sacred calling. By studying the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature, they believed they could attain divine knowledge through nature. An examination of their application of mathematics in natural philosophy reveals three main similarities. First, Dee and Kepler made strong arguments for an accurate study of the cosmos through the incorporation of precise calculations. Such a study would reveal astrological, astronomical, and cosmographical knowledge. Second, both scholars believed mathematics could reveal the harmony that existed in nature, which was evidence of God’s plan. Finally, Dee and Kepler believed that divine knowledge was contained in the natural world and accessible through mathematics. Kepler worked diligently to unveil the inherent, perfect plan for the cosmos that was present in nature and discoverable only through mathematics. Dee explained how the adept philosopher might use mathematics not only to gain knowledge of the natural world but also to restore nature to its intended perfect state. Kepler believed that mathematics was key to accessing knowledge of nature. He believed that because God used mathematical values in forming the world and instilled those values in the human soul, humans could know nature through mathematics.40 Kepler saw a close connection between the structures of the human mind, created by 39 Kepler understood the role of the astronomer to be not only that of observer but also that of interpreter, and this role is parallel to that of the preacher who is interpreter of the Bible and expounder of truth. See Methuen, 203-9. 40 Kepler, Gesammelte Werke, vol. XIII, 308. See also Volker Bialis, “Kepler’s Philosophy of Nature,” in Richard Kremer and Jaroslaw Wlodarczyk, eds., Johannes Kepler: From Tübingen to Żagań (Warsaw, Poland: Institut Historii Nauki PAN, 2009), 31. 184 God, and the structures of God’s mind. He believed the human mind could recognize the order of nature. One of Kepler’s biographers, Charlotte Methuen, has argued that Kepler felt the study of the cosmos was especially important because the perfection apparent in the heavens allowed them to reveal God better than can any other natural phenomena.41 Kepler’s purpose for developing a mathematically accurate astronomy to reveal God’s glory in nature permeated all of his work. Kepler moved to Graz and became Provincial Mathematician in 1594 after the death of the previous mathematics teacher and calendar-maker, Georg Stadius (1550-1593).42 As part of his responsibilities of his new role, Kepler constructed astrological almanacs and calendars.43 By the 1550s, new calendars in Zurich offered entries for each day of the year, including the weekday name, the saint’s name, longitude of the midday moon (to the nearest degree), planetary aspects 41 Methuen, 209. Probably one of the strongest examples of how Kepler perceived of the cosmos as a reflection of God’s perfect creation is his proposal in his Mysterium Cosmographicum that the structure of the universe could be explained by “nesting” the five Platonic solids within one another. Johannes Kepler, Mysterium Cosmographicum (Tubingae, 1596), in Gesammelte Werke, vol. I. 42 Kepler’s approach to astrology and calendars was very similar to that of his predecessor, Georg Stadius. Both Kepler and Stadius believed the calendar served as a crucial tool for chronological and meteorological purposes, and they believed that a person’s future could be affected by multiple factors, not just by what astrological predictions foretold. Stadius, like Kepler and Dee, believed that accurate knowledge of the arrangement of the heavens gave the skilled astrologer a more reliable understanding of God’s celestial messages. Stadius also believed that understanding the activities and effects of the stars provided a mathematical means of praising God. Stadius’ calendars consisted of chronological tables listing Sunday Gospel readings and other religious celebrations, remarkable configurations, and weather forecasts. He provided a series of astrological predictions in the areas of agriculture, medicine, and politics. Kepler introduced no notable structural changes to the Graz calendars when he became Provincial Mathematician in 1594. See Patrick J. Boner, “Finding Favour in the Heavens and Earth: Stadius, Kepler, and Astrological Calendars in Early Modern Graz” in Kremer and Wlodarczyk, eds., 160-5. 43 For summary of Kepler’s work with chronology, see Anthony Grafton, “Chronology, Controversy, and Community in the Republic of Letters: The Case of Kepler,” in Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2009), 114-136. 185 to the moon, weather predictions, and astrological advice for the day. In other words, calendar makers required reliable astronomical and astrological knowledge to create accurate calendars, just as John Dee suggested in his Playne Discourse (1583).44 Kepler built a reputation as a reliable astrologer during his time in Tübingen and Graz,45 and, like Brahe and Dee, Kepler argued that astrology and astronomy should be built on accurate knowledge of the celestial motions. When he arrived in Graz, some of the calendars that had been produced were carefully computed from the Prutenic Tables, while others were copied from existing ephemerides. Kepler would carefully compare Alfonsine and Prutenic eclipse times, ensuring that he was providing accurate astronomical information.46 Kepler also began to devise mathematical and physical models to predict the motion of the moon, and he included his predictions in his calendars.47 Kepler was doing exactly what John Dee asked astrologers to do in his Propaeduemata Aphoristica—he was making predictions based on accurate measurements of the cosmos. 44 In his Playne Discourse, Dee went to great lengths to explain the astronomical observations that suggested that the Julian calendar was in error. Furthermore, his argument to reform the calendar is based on modern astronomical observations and calculations. See John Dee, A Playne Discourse, especially 20-23 and 30-34. 45 Kepler accurately predicted a peasants uprising and a Turkish invasion in 1595, and he often predicted the weather accurately using astrology. See Sheila J. Rabin, “Kepler’s Astrology and the Physical Universe,” in Kremer and Wlodarczyk, eds., 179. 46 For a summary of the computational methods used in some of the calendars that existed in Graz before Kepler’s arrival, see Kremer in Kremer and Wlodarczyk, eds., 80- 85. 47 In his calendars, Kepler included his own observations of the magnitudes of eclipses. Kepler discovered that his observations did not match printed ephemerides; therefore, a new lunar theory was needed. He concluded that either the length of the month or the length of the day changed over the course of the year. Kepler was determined not only to provide accurate data but also to learn the causes of the effects that he witnessed in nature. Kremer in Kremer and Wlodarczyk, eds., 87-93. 186 Kepler went one step further, though. He was not only offering prognostications but physical explanations of why and how the motions of the heavens influenced events on earth. In 1596, Kepler published his Mysterium Cosmographicum, a collection of his astronomical and astrological theories. Through the text, Kepler proposed a structure for the universe, he explained the causes of observed phenomena, and he proposed a reformed astrology based on physical astronomy. Mysterium Cosmographicum is most famous for Kepler’s argument for the physical reality of heliocentrism. He proposed a structure to the cosmos in which each of the five Platonic solids could be incased in a sphere and set within one another, creating six layers that corresponded to the six planets. By ordering the solids correctly (octahedron, isosohedron, dodecahedron, tetrahedron, and cube), Kepler argued that the spheres could be placed at intervals corresponding to the relative size of each planet’s orbit, assuming that the planets orbited the sun. The text demonstrated Kepler’s strong belief in the divine celestial order. It seemed significant to him that each Platonic solid could be nested inside a sphere so that every corner of the solid touches the inside surface of the sphere, and a sphere could be nested inside any Platonic solid so that the sphere touches the center of every face of the solid. The five Platonic solids represented mathematical beauty and perfection. To Kepler, the divine order of nature was revealed in the cosmos.48 Kepler goes on in his Mysterium Cosmographicum to test his cosmic structure through astrology and numerology. In chapter IX, Kepler described the distribution of the Platonic solids among the planets, the ways in which the distribution affects the properties of planets, and the impact of the solids on the relationship between planets. He 48 Johannes Kepler, Mysterium Cosmographicum (Tubingae, 1596), in Gesammelte Werke, vol. I. See also Ferguson, 190-1. 187 associated each planet with the polyhedron that determines the spaces between the sphere of the given planet and the sphere of the planet that lies next to it in the direction toward earth (Saturn=cube, Jupiter=tetrahedron, Mars=dodecahedron, Venus=icosahedron, and Mercury=octahedron). He then used the mathematical properties of the polyhedral, described in earlier chapters, to explain the astrological character of the planets. For example, because the cube, the solid of Saturn, is the polyhedron by which all others are measured, the effects of Saturn are to produce measurers, those rigid in temperament, inflexible guardians. In chapter X, he showed how certain numbers that have cosmological significance may be seen as characteristic of the Platonic solids (possibly representing the number of sides or faces or angles on the solids).49 In chapter XII, Kepler explained how the zodiac can be divided into 120 sections when “cut” by the polyhedrons, again demonstrating the mathematical simplicity and harmonies of the universe. He applied the same principles to planetary aspects, the angles formed when the light rays from two planets converge on earth, and shows how perfect harmonies are created from perfect aspects.50 To Kepler, the world has a divine structure that is revealed through mathematics and accurate astronomy. Mathematics reveals the astrological character of celestial bodies, which means that a precise astrology depends on an accurate astronomy. Like Kepler, John Dee believed that astrology based on precise calculations was essential for understanding the natural world. In his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee argued that mathematically-precise measurements of the motions of heavenly bodies was 49 Kepler, Mysterium Cosmographicum, 33-36. 50 Ibid., 41-43. See also Judith V. Field, “A Lutheran Astrologer: Johannes Kepler,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 31, no. 3 (1984): 192-193. 188 essential for understanding how nature functioned and for reading the divine truths revealed through those motions.51 The monad he introduced in his Monas Hieroglyphica offered a mathematical, astrological, and Cabalistic means of reading nature. In his “Mathematicall Praeface,” Dee offered a detailed explanation of how mathematics should be applied to various studies of the natural world, particularly studies of the heavens. He described “Astronomie” as an “Arte Mathematicall,” an art that could certify the distance of the stars and planets from the center of the earth and could describe the “greatness” of any star or planet in comparison to the “greatness” of the earth. Dee listed “Astrologie,” too, as an “Arte Mathematicall” that demonstrates the operations and effects of beams of light and other secret influences.52 To Dee, mathematics not only accurately described nature but also revealed secret knowledge. Kepler’s ideas in his Mysterium Cosmogrpahicum, including his proposed structure for the universe, are far more complex, detailed, and specific than anything John Dee presented. Dee, for instance, clearly avoided statements about the structure of the universe, which could be one reason that his work tends to lack specificity. Dee, too, was less concerned than Kepler with explaining why the cosmos existed the way that it did. For example, Dee focused less on how planetary aspects form and more on how planetary aspects influence events on earth. Kepler, on the other hand, revealed the divine structure of the cosmos as though it were not only necessary for precise astronomy and astrology but also a moral obligation to glorify the work of God. For Kepler, the divine plan was revealed by asking why the cosmos exists and functions as it does. Despite the 51 Aphorisms XXX through XLIIII in particular direct the astrologer to measure the sizes of heavenly bodies, the surfaces at which rays impact the object, and the distances between bodies. Dee, John Dee on Astronomy, 136-143. 52 John Dee, “Mathematicall Praeface,” biii. 189 differences in their approach to sharing knowledge of the natural world, both Dee and Kepler shared a main idea: the divine order and plan is revealed through mathematics and accurate knowledge of the celestial realm. Both scholars also searched for harmony in the universe. In his Propaedeumata Aphoristica, Dee described the cosmos as having a celestial harmony. He compared the universe to a lyre, whose strings are separate species of the universal whole. Those who know how to play the lyre, Dee suggested, could bring about marvelous harmonies.53 Dee was establishing a division between “true” philosophers who were fit to receive such hidden knowledge through precise calculations and those who have claimed to be astrologers with little knowledge or study. He emphasized the same point in his Monas Hieroglyphica, in which he presented a monad that represents secrets of knowledge contained in one universal, divine language. The text demonstrates the unity and harmony that Dee saw in the universe and the power that he believed to be located in the moment of creation. Furthermore, Dee provided a mathematical means of accessing that power for those who are especially prepared and appointed to do so. The harmony that mathematical studies of nature could uncover was also the subject of Dee’s “Mathematicall Praeface” in 1570. The “Mathematicall Praeface” demonstrated that Dee viewed mathematics as existing in the middle world, connecting the celestial and terrestrial realms. Through numbers, Dee argued, we could know “distinct vertues, natures, properties, and Formes,” and behold in that moment of creation the “mortall and immortall, Corporall and Spirituall.”54 In other words, mathematics would allow the 53 John Dee, Propaedeumata aphoristica, aphorism XI, 126-127. 54 Dee, The Mathematicall Preface, i. 190 philosopher to understand the mysteries of creation, which would lead to a greater knowledge of all things. To Dee, harmony existed in the divine plan that was yet to be unearthed, but to Kepler, harmony was apparent in the order of the cosmos. The polyhedral structure of the universe that Kepler presented in the Mysterium Cosmogrpahicum demonstrates the harmony that existed in the natural world. Kepler believed that God had used certain patterns or structures of perfect beauty to make the natural world. He found harmony through the five Platonic solids, but his model for the universe did not explain observed celestial motion.55 Clearly, there was more to discover, and Kepler reached out to other philosophers for feedback, including Michael Maestlin, Galileo Galilei, and Tycho Brahe.56 After some hesitancy, Brahe invited Kepler to work with him at his observatory in Prague. The two started an uneasy partnership,57 but when Brahe died unexpectedly in 55 In fact, Kepler discovered several difficulties with the principles he explained in his Mysterium Cosmogrpahicum. When he tried to reconcile the five solids with the Copernican spheres and the respective motions of the planets, large discrepancies arose. Kepler spent much of his life trying to develop a model of the universe that explained observed phenomenon, but to no avail. He came to the conclusion that observations have their limits. Kepler emphasized the need to study how astronomical instruments function so that one could control the way observations and measurements are made and determine how reliable they are. He also suggested that error could occur simply from the freedom of nature to change, which no mathematics could determine. See Giora Hon, “Kepler’s Conception of Error in Optics and Astronomy: A Comparison with Galileo,” in Kremer and Wlodarczyk, eds., 208-211. 56 Maestlin liked Kepler’s Mysterium Cosmogrpahicum, and Galileo noted that, even though he had read only the preface so far, he was looking forward to reading the rest. Galileo’s letter to Kepler is reprinted and translated in Edward Rosen, “Galileo and Kepler: Their First Two Contacts,” Isis 57, no. 2 (Summer, 1966): 263. Galileo also mentioned to Kepler in his letter that he was a Copernican but he kept that to himself for fear of ridicule. Kepler encouraged him to openly acknowledge it. 57 In 1596, Brahe received from Johannes Kepler a copy of his Mysterium cosmographicum along with a letter requesting his opinions on the work. By this time, Brahe was embroiled in a bitter legal battle with Nicholas Reimers (1551-1600), who called himself Urus, over the idea that Urus had plagiarized his Tychonic system. Ursus 191 1601, Kepler suddenly had access to the observation data that Brahe had been collecting.58 Kepler became especially focused on Brahe’s observations of Mars. The prime example of Kepler’s use of mathematics to explain the natural world is his Astronomia Nova (1609), the culmination of his work on the Mars orbit. In the text, Kepler explained how Mars was driven by uniform angular motion on the eccentric circle around the equant. Kepler did not assume, as Ptolemaic astronomers did, that the center of a planet’s circular eccentric orbit was halfway between the equant point and the earth. Using Brahe’s observations to support his theories, Kepler argued that the earth moved in an elliptical orbit that caused it to speed up when closer to the sun and slow down when had proposed a cosmological model in 1588 (Fundamentum Astronomicum) in which the planets revolved around the sun, but the earth only spun on its axis. In his zeal to participate in intellectual exchange with other astronomers, Kepler had sent Ursus a letter in which he falsely praised Ursus’ work. Without Kepler’s knowledge, Ursus printed Kepler’s letter in an effort to boost his case against Brahe. Brahe replied to Kepler’s gift of his Mysterium Cosmographicum, but the response never reached Kepler. Meanwhile, Brahe had sent Michael Maestlin a copy of his reply but also included some harsh criticism about Kepler’s text and complaints about his support for Urus. Maestlin, Kepler’s teacher, reprimanded Kepler for praising Ursus and gave him a copy of Brahe’s letter. In his response to Kepler, Brahe expressed some reservations about Kepler’s polyhedral theory, but he wrote that he found it ingenious and hoped that Kepler would try applying it to the Tychonic system. Brahe suggested that Copernicus’ measurements for the planetary distances were not accurate enough for Kepler’s purposes, and he might instead want to use his own more accurate observations. Brahe gave Kepler a reprieve and suggested that he may not have been aware that Ursus would use his letter in such a manner. Instead, Brahe asked Kepler to give him a statement of his opinion of Ursus’ behavior, which Brahe could use in legal proceedings. Kepler wrote a long letter of apology to Brahe and eventually came to work for Brahe, but Brahe never gave Kepler access to the data that would support his work. See Ferguson, 231-3 and Thoren, 236, 394-395, and 432. 58 Nevertheless, Kepler had to continue to fight to access Brahe’s observations of Mars. Kepler had to return much of Brahe’s data to Brahe’s assistant and son-in-law, Franz Tengnagel (1576-1622), but he withheld the Mars data for himself. Tengnagel noticed that the Mars data was missing in 1603, and he demanded its return. Tengnagel soon realized, though, that he could not complete the Rudolphine Tables by himself. He made an agreement with Kepler that the two would continue work on the Rudolphine Tables, and Kepler could keep Brahe’s observational journals as long as he sought Tengnagel’s permission before publishing anything in the journals. See Ferguson, 291-295. 192 farther away, just like all of the other planets. By arguing for the planets’ elliptical rather than circular orbit, Kepler was challenging fundamental assumptions when they did not fit the observations. Kepler believed that the rotation of the sun caused the force that moved the planets to sweep around, and he attempted to describe that force mathematically. Thus, Kepler established his distance law: the planet’s speed is inversely proportional to its distance from the sun.59 Kepler added a subtitle to Astronomia Nova to emphasize that his “New Astronomy” was “based on Causes, or Celestial Physics.” The text combined astronomy and cosmology, two areas that were traditionally separated. Kepler’s goal for Astronomia Nova was to reform astronomical theory so that computations from the tables correspond to the celestial phenomena. Through the Astronomia Nova, Kepler defended the Coperican hypothesis based on physical reasoning and argued that the heliocentric system showed the glory of God in His creation. For Kepler, the Copernican heliocentric system was a symbol of God’s simple and perfect design; therefore, it was essential to establish its physical truth.60 In his search for harmony in the structure of the universe, Kepler gained a clearer, mathematical understanding of the operations of the natural world. He went on to publish Harmonices mundi (1619), in which he argued that the movement of the planets along their orbits produced an ethereal harmony, and that the intervals between these orbits had a mathematical relationship that corresponded to the 59 Johannes Kepler, Astronomia Nova (Heidelberg, 1609), also available online at library.si.edu, Accessed 4 October 2017. See also Ferguson, 300-311, and Gingerich, 310-314. 60 See Voelkel, 60. 193 frequencies of the tones of the musical scale. Such musical chords, Kepler argued, reflected the harmony God intended in creating the universe.61 To both Dee and Kepler, there was an inherent harmony in the natural world that mathematics could reveal. Mathematics offered a means of accurately describing or explaining the natural world, but it also acted as a tool for the adept to access hidden divine knowledge within the very fabric of nature. For Dee, numbers and mathematics became a language for reading nature and for communicating with the realm of the angels. For Kepler, mathematical studies of the natural world could reveal causes of celestial events and further explain the perfect underlying structure of the universe. Kepler, like Dee, was frustrated with the declining state of astrology. Kepler believed that the movements of the planets must in some way influence what happened on earth, but probably far more subtly than was commonly supposed. In De Fundamentis Astrologiae Certioribus (1601), he offered a new approach to astrology that focused on planetary aspects, which allowed Kepler to break with the power-distance relationship that had been previously favored by Offusius and Dee. The effects of rays, then, relied less on the distance and intrinsic power of the originating celestial body and more on the angle at which the ray impacted the earth. The cause of the variation of planetary forces was connected to the way in which light was received, particularly how it behaved as it reflected off different kinds of surfaces.62 To Kepler, the effect of celestial rays could be explained and predicted based on a mathematical study of the angle at which the rays impact the celestial body. 61 Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi (Lincii Austriae: sumptibus Godofredi Tampachii, 1619), also available online at library.si.edu, Accessed 4 October 2017. 62 Johannes Kepler, De Fundamentis Astrologiae Certioribus (Prague, 1601), thesis 26, translated by Judith V. Field, “A Lutheran Astrologer,” 243. 194 To both Dee and Kepler, the effects of rays depended on the qualities of the body that generated the rays as well as the qualities of the individual who was affected. Kepler argued that the earth has an “animal faculty” that practices geometry in the image of God and becomes active because of planetary aspects.63 In other words, it was not enough for the rays to simply converge; the earth’s soul had to read the instructions that the rays conveyed, and those instructions were received through the language of geometry. To Kepler, mathematics was a language through which the earth interpreted the impact of celestial rays. Why, then, were there differences among the effects of rays? Dee explained this as a matter of differences between planetary bodies and strength of the rays. Kepler, though, explained that, because the parts of individual bodies have different dispositions, varying with time and place, different effects may be created from the same aspects.64 Planetary aspects were the heart of Kepler’s reformed astrology. Kepler preserved planetary aspects because they were based on the measurable positions of the planets, unlike zodiac signs and houses, which were notational divisions of the sky.65 Though Kepler used the houses and signs of the zodiac in his astrological predictions, he argued that the “celestial imprint” created by planetary aspects were more important. He believed that humans received an image of the heavens at birth, and that image left an impression on the physical body as well as on the character and the personality, and it affected that person’s relationship with other people. As the relationship of the planets to 63 Kepler, De Fundamentis Astrologiae Certioribus, in Field, theses 39 and 40, 251-252. 64 Ibid., thesis 44, 253. 65 Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, trans. F.E. Robbin (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1940), I.13. See also Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology Volume II: The Medieval and Modern Worlds (London: Continuum, 2009), 139, and Rabin in Kremer and Wlodarczyk, eds., 180. 195 each other through their aspects caused certain personality traits to develop, the birth chart would give a description of a person’s character. In this way, geometry became the archetype of the human being, just as Kepler believed it was for the natural world.66 Both Dee and Kepler argued for a reform of astrology based on observable and measurable phenomena. If the birth charts that they and other astrologers had created followed the principles that they suggest, the charts would contain an enormous amount of astronomical data. It should be noted, though, that both Dee and Kepler followed the traditional patterns of judicial astrology when creating birth charts. There are several birth charts in the notes, diaries, and texts of John Dee, and all of them follow the format that was traditional for astrology at the time. For instance, Dee used in his birth charts the symbols for the “pars fortuna” and the lunar nodes, or the head and tail of the dragon. These symbols do not represent specific planets or heavenly bodies but traditional astrological principles.67 The lunar nodes are points in space representing the intersection of the orbits of the sun and moon, while the pars fortuna is an area in the horoscope where the astrologer has determined that good fortune is smiling upon the client. Kepler used the same symbols in his horoscope for General Wallenstein in 1608.68 Perhaps Dee and Kepler were appeasing clients who were looking for traditional horoscopes. (Or perhaps Dee’s reformed astrology required too many unknown variables 66 For a summary of Kepler’s approach to astrology, see Rabin in Kremer and Wlodarczyk, eds., 180. 67 Richard Dunn, “John Dee and Astrology in Elizabethan England,” in Cluclas, ed., John Dee, John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies, 91-92. The pars fortuna and lunar nodes are prevalent in birth charts that Dee created. See, for example, John Dee, Heptarchia Mystica (London, 1588), Bodleian Library Ashmole 1790, 57-58 and John Dee, Manuscripts and list of household expenses (London, n.d.), Bodleian Library Ashmole 337, 20-57 (nativities for the years 1564 to 1566). 68 Klaudia Einhorn and Gunther Wuchterl, “Kepler’s Wallenstein-Horoscopes,” Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Mathematica et Physica 46 (2005): 101-114. 196 for him to put into practice.) In any case, both sought a more accurate astrology based on precise knowledge of the heavens. Kepler did implement some changes in his own practice of astrology. He devised a system of prediction known as secondary progression, in which planetary positions a certain number of days after birth could be used to forecast events in an individual’s life the equivalent number of years after birth. For example, planetary positions 30 days after birth could predict events 30 years after birth. This was a variation on an Aristotelian principle of sympathies, in which all complete periods of time were linked. He found in this doctrine a natural geometric proportion, and he saw it as compatible with the Copernican system of a rotating earth. Kepler believed strongly in the power of numbers and mathematics to explain the operations of the natural world. Dee and Kepler both saw a connection between the physical reality and the celestial realm through mathematics, and both scholars argued for a reform of astrology based on precise mathematics and accurate knowledge of the natural world. While Dee approached mathematics as a means of reaching the terrestrial realm and understanding the secrets of nature, Kepler believed that the mathematical images of the human mind truly reflected divine archetypes because the mathematical images of the mind correspond to measureable relations between physical things.69 To Both Dee and Kepler, mathematics represented the divine, the perfect knowledge of nature and God’s plan for humanity. Each scholar used mathematics in his own way, though. Dee believed numbers and mathematics to be the key for learning from the celestial realm. For example, he believed he could communicate with the angels by bending light through a mirror or a showstone. Furthermore, Dee recorded the secret language of the angels through 69 Westman, “Nature, Art, and Psyche,” 201-7. 197 numbers. Kepler’s approach to mathematics was different. He believed that the divine was present in the natural world and ascertainable through human’s use of mathematics. For instance, he saw mystical meaning in certain patterns and numbers in nature. Kepler was more interested in finding the divine in the physical structure of nature. Kepler continued to apply mathematics to his studies of the natural world throughout his lifetime. In 1613 at the Diet of Regensburg, Kepler commented on the Gregorian calendar reform, which he found to be mathematically sound. The mathematics and the precise observations on which the reform was built were his priorities. Kepler also finished the Rudolfine Tables in 1624, which allowed astronomers to figure out any planet’s position for any time thousands of years into the future or the past. Kepler included logarithm tables (thanks to John Napier), Brahe’s catalog of a thousand stars, and latitudes and longitudes of many cities. Kepler even made Tycho Brahe the primary author of the tables.70 The planetary positions given by the Rudolfine Tables were more accurate than those in the Alfonsine or Prutenic Tables. In 1608, Kepler began working on Somnium (published 1634), a novel about how the earth might look when viewed from the moon. Although the work was fictional, Kepler describes planetary bodies in mathematical terms, and he indicates that the purpose of his work is to correct those who do not believe in the movement of the earth nor the Copernican structure of the universe.71 70 Johannes Kepler, Tabulae Rudophinae (1627), in Gesammelte Werke, vol. X. Ferguson notes that when Kepler learned of John Napier’s work on logarithms in 1617, he realized how much this new invention would simplify the computations that took so much of his time (346-8). 71 Johannes Kepler, Kepler’s Somnium: The Dream, or Posthumous Work on Lunar Astronomy, trans. Edward Rosen (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), 36-38. 198 Over time, Kepler became a hero of the Scientific Revolution. He was recognized for merging mathematics with empirical study, though it could be argued that John Dee attempted to do the same through his “Mathematical Praeface.” Kepler also stood out to historians because of his study of the cause of observed effects in the natural world. Kepler’s laws and principles of natural philosophy clearly affected the development of modern science. Kepler, though, saw a divine order to the world waiting to be uncovered, much as John Dee did. While Kepler’s theories on light, the structure of the cosmos, and the motions of the heavens were more specific than those of John Dee, both believed strongly in the power of mathematics and precise measurements to bring humans new understanding of the natural world and even of the Divine Plan itself. In comparing some of Dee’s techniques to Kepler’s, Dee’s approach to natural philosophy may appear to be less refined, but the underlying principles—the mathematical harmony in the universe, the effects of emanating rays, and the ability of the astrologer to not only make accurate predictions but also have the ability to explain why rays impacted they way they did— were very much consistent. There is one area in particular, though, where Dee’s thought is unique. Dee believed that the adept astrologer could not only understand the impact of rays but could also change that impact. Likewise, the skilled astrologer with the full understanding of the divine plan could change nature. Kepler assigned no such agency to the astrologer or to the natural philosopher. Dee’s practice of natural philosophy was very similar to those of his contemporary philosophers, but his goals clearly showed that he saw himself as more than a philosopher but a specially-appointed messenger of God. 199 Simon Forman (1552-1611) Dee was not the only scholar who believed he was specially appointed to receive secret knowledge. That was a trait shared among many astrologers and alchemists, including Simon Forman and Robert Fludd. In fact, over time, historians had grouped the three philosophers together, treating them either as like-minded eccentrics or Renaissance precursors to modern scientists.72 Like Dee, Forman and Fludd were using multiple methods of investigating the natural world and unlocking hidden knowledge, and some of those methods involved precise astrology, alchemy, and angel-summoning. A brief comparison of Dee’s methods and goals to those of Forman and Fludd reveal not only similarities, but such a comparison also highlights Dee’s particular contributions within the general practice of natural philosophy in London in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Simon Forman was an aspiring doctor, astrologer, and alchemist practicing in late sixteenth-century London. Forman was a healer who mostly taught himself in herbal remedies and medicine, but he did spend a year and a half in Oxford (1573), where he studied medicine and astrology. He drew horoscopes for many different kinds of people, including members of Shakespeare’s troupe, a captain of Elizabeth’s navy, bishops, 72 A.L. Rowse argued that the astrological, alchemical, and magic interests of Dee and Forman were very similar in his Sex and Society in Shakepeare’s Age: Simon Forman the Astrologer (New York: Scribner, 1974). The text highlighted Forman’s sexual appetite and treated him as paranoid, psychotic, and eccentric. Rowse also suggested that Dee was getting too much scholarly respect at the time. Francis Yates highlighted John Dee and Robert Fludd as examples of Renaissance magi whose Neoplatonist ideas and practices were greatly influencing English thought and paving the way for modern science. Charles Webster referred to Dee and Forman as representing “two ends of the social spectrum of London magi” in his 1979 study, “Alchemical and Paracelsian Medicine” in Health, Medicine, and Mortality in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Charles Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 310. 200 knights, merchants, and prostitutes.73 Forman felt strongly that he was gifted with especially high intelligence and occult powers, and he believed, like Dee, that he conducted his work for the glory of God.74 It is not clear that Dee and Forman knew each other, though Forman does mention the work of Edward Kelley in his writings. (Forman did not mention Dee’s work directly.) After his death, Forman was characterized as a fool or a magician in league with the devil.75 What we know of Forman’s life has been gleaned from the manuscripts that he left for his friend, the English astrologer and medical practitioner Richard Napier (1559- 1634), who then passed them to Elias Ashmole (1617-1692).76 Forman was a prolific writer who left behind several books, diaries, and essays that focused on a wide range of topics. He wrote a book on Cako, the mineral substance which he used in the attempt to transmute metals; a book on the Cabala; a book of astronomy (in which he quoted 73 Several examples of his horoscopes are available in Simon Forman, “A book of Nativities set and judged by Simon Forman,” Bodleian Library Ashmole 206, 226-436. 74 It is apparent in his Groundes of Longitude that Forman is impressed with his intelligence. The entire work is a declaration of his secret, superior method of determining longitude, without actually describing the method. Simon Forman, The Groundes of Longitude: With an Admonition to all those that are Incredulous and believe not the Truth of the same. Written by Simon Forman student in Astronomie and Phisique, 1591 (London, 1591), Bodleian Library Ashmole 802. See also Traister, The Notorious Astrological Physician of London, 27. 75 In Ben Johnson’s play, The Devil is an Ass (1616), Simon Forman is one of the magicians that the character Fabian Fitzdottrel consults to find buried treasure. Forman could also have been part of the inspiration for Johnson’s play, The Alchemist (1610). Furthermore, in The Scarlett Letter (1850), Nathaniel Hawthorne associates the villain of his story, Chillingsworth, with Simon Forman. 76 Forman and Napier had exchanged several letters, many of which are available in the Ashmole collection in the Bodleian Library. Historian and Shakespearean scholar A.L. Rowse first dedicated a serious scholarly study to the work of Simon Forman in Sex and Society in Shakespeare’s Age: Simon Forman the Astrologer (1974), in which Forman appears as a sexually voracious eccentric. Barbara Howard Traister attempted to revive Forman’s image in The Notorious Astrological Physician of London, and, in 2005, Lauren Kassell tried to allow Forman to speak for himself through his notes and published texts in Medicine and Magic in Elizabethan London (2005). 201 Cardano and included a table from Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa); tracts on the plague; and plot summaries of several plays, including Shakespeare’s plays. Forman was obsessed with his own self-analysis and left behind autobiographies. He often expressed a fear of being cheated, robbed, jailed, fined, or murdered. Through his writings, Forman magnified his own achievements and minimized anyone and anything that failed to interest him.77 Forman was a scholar who was always searching for more recognition and patronage, who used multiple means of uncovering knowledge about the natural world, and who believed that he was specially appointed to receive secret knowledge about nature. In other words, Forman’s outlook and goals were very similar to those of John Dee. Forman was an astrologer and alchemist like Dee, but Forman applied most of his astrological and alchemical studies to his medical practice. Forman began practicing astrology and medicine in 1579. He set up an unauthorized astrological and medical practice in London, and he was continuously persecuted for it by the London College of Physicians.78 He was arrested and jailed at least twice, once for suspicion of Catholicism, 77 Barbara Howard Traister, one of Simon Forman’s few biographers, argued that Forman interacted with those like Richard Napier that he could instruct, but he kept his distance from those who might make him feel inadequate or inferior. (Richard Napier’s casebooks are set up almost exactly like Forman’s.) Perhaps that explains why Forman made no mention of Dee. Dee and Forman were practicing in London at the same time, but Dee did have a more powerful patron in Queen Elizabeth, and he had contact with other impressive figures, including Adrian Gilbert, Tycho Brahe, and Emperor Rudolph II. It is possible that Dee could have been a threat to Forman, but the philosophers made no mention of one another in their surviving texts. See Traister, 27-30, 58, 98-99. 78 The London College of Physicians pursued Forman from 1594 to 1611. The College had the right to fine or imprison anyone practicing medicine without a license from the College. Forman received an invitation to be examined for a medical license at Cambridge University, and, in 1603, he passed the university’s exams. According to the College’s records, he failed their exam three times. Even though Forman earned his medical license, his diaries show that the College of Physicians continued to harass him, 202 and once for possessing a number of magical books.79 Forman felt strongly that his studies, experience, and talent made him a perfect physician, and he built a successful practice.80 Forman used astrology to determine the cause of disease and the timing of treatment.81 He was convinced in the truth of astrology, just as Dee was, and Forman would do little without astrological consultation. Astrological topics dominate the only group of his personal letters known to survive, dated between 1599 and 1611 and addressed to Napier. Forman believed that God had given him special abilities to read astrological signs.82 He even proposed a unique astrological structure in which he associated the Trinity with the eighth, ninth, and tenth heavens. The three heavens also corresponded to the spirit, soul, and body and to mercury, sulpher, and salt.83 The motions of the eight and ninth spheres factored in astrological calculations and magical operations. The ninth heaven was filled with angels and symbols, and its motions suggesting that Forman may have been competing successfully with the city’s elite physicians. Unlike Dee, Forman earned his living by selling his knowledge directly. See Traister, 94-98. 79 Robert Lemon, ed., Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, 1581-90 (London: Longman, 1856), 394. 80 William Lilly recorded that Forman was worth 1,200 pounds when he died. Lilly also described how Forman accurately predicted his own death. See William Lilly, William Lilly’s History of his Life and Times from the Year 1602 to 1681 (London, 1715), 43-44. 81 See Lauren Kassell, “’The Food of Angels’: Simon Forman’s Alchemical Medicine,” in Newman and Grafton, eds., Secrets of Nature, 367. 82 For a brief overview of Forman’s astrological practices, see Traister, 103-107. 83 The tenth heaven was the primum mobile, the source of all motion in the cosmos (the Father); the ninth sphere was an immobile zodiac (the Son); and the eighth sphere was a mobile zodiac of fixed stars (the Holy Spirit). Simon Forman, “Of the 3 superiall heavens,” “Of the primo mobile,” “Of the 9 heaven,” and “Of the 8th heaven,” Bodleian Library, Ashmole 244, 35r-v, 36-41v, 44-54. See also Kassell, Medicine and Magic in Elizabethan London, 46-48. 203 governed the powers of angelic revelations.84 By understanding these complex motions and relationships, the adept alchemist, astrologer, and physician could predict the effects of celestial events on human bodies and could mitigate those effects. To do so, the philosopher would need to understand astronomy. Forman studied the differences between the motions of the three superior heavens, particularly between the eighth and ninth, and his calculations determined the times to make a variety of magical objects that could be used to cure disease, expel vermin, vanquish one’s enemies, and improve or hinder a man’s fortune.85 Not only did the physician need to understand astrology—he needed to know the exact time of birth in order to create an accurate geniture. Forman relied heavily on astrological charts in his medical diagnoses. He created diagrams of the body, with the signs of the zodiac influencing relevant parts. He argued that astrology should determine all medical diagnoses and therapies. To Forman, astronomy encompassed all of the occult arts, including astrology, astromagic, geomancy, and alchemy. Astrologers had to understand the motions of the heavens to make accurate predictions.86 84 The tenth heaven was God’s first work of creation, and it moved naturally from east to west. Because of its purity and constancy of motion, it was analogous to God and the spirit of man. The ninth heaven had no natural motion of its own, and it was analogous to Chris and the souls of men in its stability and power. The eighth heaven was the “starry firmament” that contained the fixed stars (the “immobile zodiac”), and it had two motions, one “natural” and one “unnatural.” The “unnatural motion was from east to west, carried by the tenth heaven, but the eight degrees of variation of its equinoxes observed by astronomers were caused by its “natural” motion. The eighth heaven, the imperfect realm, corresponded to the body. Forman, “Of the 8th heaven,” 44. 85 Forman, “Of the 8th heaven,” 48. 86 Kassell, Medicine and Magic in Elizabethan London, 52. 204 John Dee made very similar arguments. Dee argued that an exact timeline and precise knowledge of astronomy was necessary to create accurate horoscopes.87 In his “Mathematicall Praeface,” Dee praised the role that astronomy plays in discovering secret truths and unveiling the divine structure of nature. Dee exclaimed that astronomy could help humans understand Sacred Prophesies and predict human affairs and conditions. Without such knowledge, confusion and “untruth” would ensue, and nature would veer from its divine plan. Instead, astronomy provides a way of learning truth from the divine celestial realm, “by the Record of the heavenly booke, wherin all times are written.”88 To Dee, astronomy is a practical, mathematical science. Unlike Forman, Dee avoids any association of astronomy with magic, and he instead highlights the importance of understanding astronomy to determine the impact of celestial rays on earth. Dee also put a much greater emphasis on the importance of mathematics and precise calculations in astronomy. While Forman referred to the importance of understanding astronomy in general (which, for him, meant understanding heavenly motions according to his particular model), Dee argued that a precise understanding of the observed motions of the heavens is necessary to produce accurate astrological insights. Dee was not embracing a model of the universe that differed from the accepted Aristotelian view, and he was not applying astrology primarily to medicine, as Forman did. Instead, Dee applied his astrological principles to a much broader goal of uncovering the secrets of the natural world and correcting the decay of nature. 87 Dee made his argument for the application of accurate astronomy in astrology in Propaedeumata Aphoristica. The horoscopes that he constructed include his notes about the exact time of birth of the subject. See, for example, John Dee’s astronomical annotations in his copy of Girolamo Cardano, Libelli quinque (Nuremburg, 1547), Royal College of Physicians D1/46-b-7. 88 Dee, Mathematicall Preface, biii. 205 Both Dee and Forman also relied on alchemy to achieve their goals of uncovering secret knowledge. From the mid-1580s to 1594, Forman focused his alchemical studies specifically on the creation of remedies, but he spent the rest of his life attempting to manufacture the philosopher’s stone.89 Forman believed that alchemy could unlock the secrets of the relationship between the microcosm (man’s body) and the macrocosm (the universe). Over time, Forman’s ambition for finding the philosopher’s stone only grew. He published his alchemical notes as “Principles of Philosofi” (1597), and he recorded in his diaries several of his attempts to produce the philosopher’s stone. Forman also recorded dreams about the Philosopher’s Stone, just as Dee did.90 Many alchemists were obsessed with creating the philosopher’s stone, and Forman and Dee were no different. Dee transcribed alchemical texts and made notes that suggest that he was trying to understand the alchemical recipes.91 Both Forman and Dee believed they were specially called by God to reveal divine secrets of the natural world. To Forman, those secrets were alchemical, astrological, and medical in nature. Dee, though, was after the divine plan itself. Unlike Forman, Dee believed that, through alchemy and astrology, the adept philosopher (namely, himself) could correct the decay of nature. That process of correcting nature’s decay was contained within the monad he described in Monas Hieroglyphica. Through the monad, 89 See Kassell, Medicine and Magic in Elizabethan London, 173-175. 90 Kassell, 110-111. Dee noted in his diary on August 6, 1600 that “I had a dream after midnight of working on the philosopher’s stone.” John Dee, Diaries of John Dee (1577- 1600), Bodleian Library Ashmole 488. 91 For example, see Bodleian Library MS Ashmole 1486 (Part V), which contains Dee’s own transcriptions of alchemical texts as well as notes from his own laboratory experiments. See also Jennifer M. Rampling, “John Dee and the Alchemists: Practising and Promoting English Alchemy in the Holy Roman Empire,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 43 (3), September 2012: 498-508. 206 Dee could read the language of nature and use the power of alchemy and numbers to change nature. While Forman sought alchemical and astrological knowledge applied primarily to medicine, Dee was in search of a harmonious world that was created by and operated according to a divine plan. In search of their secret knowledge, both Dee and Forman attempted to contact angels. Specifically, Forman asked angels about whether he would achieve the power of necromancy. In 1588, he recorded that he practiced necromancy and called angels and spirits, but his notes say little about how he called angels, what he hoped to achieve, or if he succeeded.92 According to his notes, Forman copied Trithemius’ Steganographia and the Ars notoria, a medieval book of images and operations by which one could achieve knowledge through contemplation and prayer.93 Forman claimed he could not see spirits, but he could hear or sense them. In 1587 Forman took in a medium, much like Edward Kelley. He recorded in his notes one conversation with the angel Raziel, who had given Adam a book of astronomy and magic which was later discovered by Solomon. The two discussed mistletoe and where it grew, but there were no other records of the conversation.94 Forman insisted that the art of calling spirits was divine and not demonic. 92 Forman’s notes on summoning angels are mostly found in Ashmole 208 and Ashmole 244 in the Bodleian Library. See also Lauren Kassell, “’The Food of Angels,” 370. 93 Forman, “Dr. Simon Forman’s tables and calculations,” 62v. See also Clucas, “Dee’s Angelic Conversations and the Ars Notoria” in John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies, 231- 274; on Dee’s reading of Ars Notoria, Stenographia, and Trithemius’ other writings, see Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 128-39. 94 In 1599, Forman transcribed and annotated an English version of the Vita Adae et Evae, the collection of texts known as the Book of Adam and Eve that describes the fall of man and their separation from God. In the text, Forman recorded a note about the angel Raziel. Bodleian Library, Ashmole 244. See also A.L. Rowse, 38 and 41 and Kassell, Medicine and Magic in Elizabethan London, 190 and 221. 207 He distinguished between good and evil magic and worried that his divine pursuits might be mistaken for demonic. Forman’s explanations of the spirits and his claim to be one of the few who could communicate with spirits are very reminiscent of John Dee. Forman defined what he termed “astromagic” (involving the use of amulets and other objects to harness the power of the stars) and “alchemagic” (transmuting metals and making the philosophers’ stone) as the operative components of astronomy. He designed numerous amulets and rings for these purposes and to ward off illness and evil and attract good fortune. In other words, he could influence the workings of nature and intervene in earthly events.95 Like Dee, Forman attempted to put in practice the ideas of philosophers like Ficino. Both Forman and Dee’s conversations with angels were centered on learning practices or languages that were available only to them; however, based on his records, Dee’s conversations had a much stronger emphasis on topics of natural philosophy. Specifically, Dee tried to learn from the angels secrets about the decay of nature and ways in which nature could be restored.96 This is one clear difference between Forman and Dee, and, in this case, it sets Dee apart as a scholar who was not simply pursuing occult practices to increase his own abilities but to understand the natural world and to fulfill his role in God’s plan for the world. It is understandable why Forman came to be seen as following in Dee’s footsteps. Both Forman and Dee felt that they were given special talents and were divinely called to their studies. Both were somewhat cryptic in the information they imparted to others in their published texts, always protecting their gifts of knowledge. Both sought divine 95 Traister, 99. 96 See, for instance, John Dee, Liber Mysteriorum Sextus et Sanctus. 208 knowledge through alchemy, astrology, and conversations with angels. It is just these similarities that can leave the impression that John Dee had more in common with “occultists” like Simon Forman than “scientists” like Tycho Brahe, Michael Maestlin, or Johannes Kepler. Historians have long argued that categories like “occultist” and “scientist” really do not apply to the study of early modern science. All of these scholars were investigating the natural world and using whatever tools they had at their disposal to do so. In such a context, Dee’s methods for investigating the natural world are not so dissimilar from those of his contemporary philosophers, and neither he nor Simon Forman stand out as an aberration to the development of modern science. What a comparison with Simon Forman does highlight, however, is the broad, cosmological view Dee took in his particular natural philosophy. Dee sought nothing less than the secrets of the universe itself. Those secrets, he believed, could be revealed through mathematics, precise astrology based on sound astronomical measurements, and divine knowledge of the language of nature. Robert Fludd (1574-1637) Robert Fludd was another late sixteenth-century to early seventeenth-century physician, astrologer, and alchemist who was interested in learning as much as possible about the natural world. Fludd shared many of John Dee’s methods and goals for investigating nature, and their backgrounds are very similar. Fludd attended St. John’s College at Oxford, but Fludd joined the Arts faculty, graduating with his BA in 1596/7 and his MA in 1589. Fludd must have received some training in astrology, because during his time as at Oxford, he helped his tutor, John Perrin (1558-1615), identify a thief 209 by drawing a horary chart.97 Between 1598 and 1604, Fludd studied chemistry, medicine, and hermeticism in Continental Europe, although little is known of his exact movements. According to his own account, he spent a winter in 1601-1602 in the Pyranees studying theurgy with the Jesuits.98 He returned to England in 1604 and earned an MB and MD from Christ Church, Oxford, one year later. Fludd then moved to London and made repeated attempts to enter the College of Physicians, but his contempt for traditional medical authorities was apparent. He deplored the state of teaching of natural philosophy, medicine, alchemy, mathematics, and the moral arts in the universities, which he believed relied too heavily on the superficiality of Aristotle and Galen while ignoring the true essence of things. Instead, Fludd followed the views of Paracelsus, and he believed, like Pythagoras, that hidden knowledge could be accessed through numbers. Fludd was finally admitted to the College in 1609, and his career improved to the point that he had a secretary and a chemical operator to help him prepare alchemical experiments.99 Like Simon Forman and many other physicians of the time, Fludd incorporated natural magic, astrology, and alchemy into his medical practice. He theorized that disease occurs when a wind controlled by an evil spirit excites lesser evil spirits in the air, and those spirits enter the body through the pores or through breathing. If there is a weakness somewhere in the body, the evil forces 97 Perrin was chaplain of St. John’s College and a lecturer in Greek. Robert Fludd, “De naturae simian” in Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atqve technica historia (Oppenhemii: Aere Johan-Theodori de Bry: Typis Hieronymi Galleri, 1617-1624), 701. See also Andrew Hegarty, A Biographical Register of St. John’s College, Oxford 1555-1660 (Oxford: Boydell & Brewer Ltd., 2011), 115. 98 See Huffman, 12-35. 99 Allen G. Debus, Robert Fludd and his Philosophicall Key: Being a Transcription of the Manuscript at Trinity College, Cambridge (New York, Science History Publications, 1979), 2. 210 will attack the bonds that hold the four humors in balance, which causes a malady. Treatment consists of strengthening angelic forces through a sympathetic compound, restoring the balance among the four humors. To create the compound, herbs had to be gathered under the right astrological influences.100 In other words, an effective treatment depended on a precise understanding of astrological influences, knowledge of alchemy and herbs, and an understanding of how to restore harmony in the body. Like Dee, Fludd believed in the importance of maintaining harmony in the universe. To Fludd, though, it was equally important to maintain harmony in the human body, because he saw the human body and the universe as parallels of one another, both exemplifying the glory of God. To Fludd, the secrets of nature were available through the human understanding of the relationship between the microcosm and macrocosm. In Fludd’s view of the cosmos, man was the microcosm that reflected the universe, the macrocosm, and vice versa. The divine process of creation, the cause and treatment of disease, and the effects of astral influences could all be understood in terms of the microcosm-macrocosm relationship. In his first publication, Apologia Compendiaria (1616), Fludd defended the Rosicrucians against Andreas Libavius (1555-1616), a fellow doctor and alchemist who spoke out against the Rosicrucians’ belief in micro-macrocosm harmony.101 According to 100 Huffman, 17-19. 101 Fludd was not a member of the Rosicrucians, but he defended their principles. The Rosicrucians called for a general intellectual and spiritual reformation of Europe based on a reformed Christianity and the “true ancient wisdom.” They demanded that the universities of Europe drop their blind reliance on the ancient authors; instead, students would be guided by religious truth that could be developed only through a more perfect knowledge of “Jesus Christ and Nature.” They also placed a heavy emphasis on medicine 211 Fludd, the Society of the Rosy Cross possessed knowledge in both divine and natural secrets, secrets that they reveal through their pursuit of harmony between the microcosm and macrocosm. He refuted Libavius’ claims that the Rosicrucians indulged in heresy and diabolical magic. Fludd reminded his readers that God promised there would be men of prophecy, and he described the evidence of the Holy Spirit emanating from men. In Fludd’s view, the defects of natural philosophy could not be corrected without the Holy Spirit.102 An understanding of nature requires that its secrets be revealed according to the will of God. Much like Dee, Fludd believed that divine knowledge was attainable and would be revealed to those specially chosen to receive it. It is easy to see why an historian like Frances Yates might see Fludd as a follower of Dee’s work. There are several parallels. While Dee believed that divine knowledge of the universe could be attained by “reading” nature properly through his monad and by learning from the angels, Fludd believed that divine knowledge was available in the relationship between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Both scholars believed that the divinely-appointed philosopher could both recognize and correct the imperfections of nature. Both were looking for harmony in the universe, and both believed in the integrated nature of the universe and everything in it. They sought the true philosophy that encompasses all disciplines, sciences, and arts.103 Both saw the discovery of the truths of nature as a profound act of worship. Knowledge of nature was knowledge of and the godly basis of natural philosophy. Finally, they believed that reformers of knowledge should announce their intentions through publications. See Debus, Robert Fludd, 4. 102 Robert Fludd, Apologia compendiaria, Fraternitatem de Rosea Croce suspicionis et infamiæ maculis aspersam, veritatis quasi Fluctibus abluens et abstergens (Leydae, 1616), 11-18. 103 Robert Fludd, Declaratio Brevis (ca. 1617) in Robert Fludd, ed. Huffman, 84. 212 God. Fludd believed natural philosophy should be based solidly on “ocular” demonstrations that relied heavily on mathematics and quantification. He was seeking an experimental interpretation of nature that was in harmony with scriptural doctrines.104 Dee also relied on mathematics and experiment in his effort to gain secret knowledge of the natural world and bring harmony to the universe. To Dee and Fludd, harmony in the universe started with the transformation of the philosopher. In Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica atque technica historia (1617-1624), Fludd explains his view of the structure of the cosmos, the corresponding structure of man, and the process of transformation for the adept philosopher. The macrocosm (the universe) is divided into three realms of existence, the spiritual, the celestial, and the physical. According to Fludd, all things are made in the “highest heaven,” the realm of the angels that his also the foundation of light. Below the highest heaven is the quintessence, the middle region which holds the stars and planets. Below the quintessence is the third heaven made up of the elements. Likewise, the microcosm (the human form) is divided into three corresponding sections: the head and the intellect correspond to the spiritual realm; the heart and torso are associated with the celestial realm; and the genitals and intestines are associated with the physical realm. To Fludd, man is a miniature universe; therefore, if one understands the lesser cosmos, one will comprehend the greater. 104 See Michael Thomson Walton, Genesis and the Chemical Philosophy: True Christian Science in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Brooklyn, NY: AMS studies in the Renaissance, 2011), 84-89. Walton gives the example of the weatherglass, which he believed to be understood by Moses but misunderstood by Aristotelians (85). Fludd argued that his philosophical discourse relies on the Scriptures, and he frequently referenced the Bible as proof of physical and metaphysical principles. See Robert Fludd, Mosaicall Philosophy (London: Printed for Humphrey Moseley, 1659), in Robert Fludd, ed. Huffman, 216. 213 In Fludd’s model of the universe, divine light filled the highest realm of existence, the spiritual realm, and all beings in the three realms, from angels to animals, are differentiated by their light content. He argued that the world is the mirror image of the invisible Trinitarian God who reveals Himself in it. To Fludd, the goal of the philosopher was to ascend from the physical world, through contemplation, to the highest realm. Fludd’s main concern was the personal transformation of the philosopher. He believed that the philosopher’s stone was real, that physical transmutations were possible, and that the true philosopher is only concerned with the transmutation of the soul.105 Likewise, Dee believed strongly in the transformation of the soul of the adept. In Monas Hieroglyphica, Dee explained that such transformation occurs when the philosopher receives full knowledge of the world. Specifically, the philosopher would understand the symbolic language that reveals the mathematical structural principles behind the process of creation.106 Both Dee and Fludd were seeking physical transformation through alchemy and personal transformation as philosophers, and both felt that understanding the process of transformation meant knowing the secrets of creation. To Fludd, light and dark were key principles in the act of creation. Fludd believed an uncreated materia prima, or first matter, existed before creation like an infinite mass 105 In his Apologia Compendiaria, Fludd claimed that humans “must contemplate nothing more seriously than true wisdom . . . They must also have a contempt for the world and seek the divine contemplation of natural mysteries as well as an understanding of supernatural mysteries; and seek the pure revelation and admiration of the divine majesty.” Fludd, Apologia compendiaria, 5. Translated by William Huffman in Robert Fludd, ed. Huffman, 46-47. See also Fludd, Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, 60-105; and Huffman, 57-62 and 74-81. 106 See especially Dee, Monas Hieroglyphica, 3. See also Nicholas Clulee, “The Monas Hieroglyphica and the Alchemical Thread of John Dee’s Career,” Ambix 52 (no. 3), November 2005: 197-215 and Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 235. 214 or dark fog. It was transformed by light. To Fludd, divine light is the active agent responsible for creation.107 Fludd tried to understand the process of creation through experimentation. His approach to experiment is explained thoroughly in his Clavis Philosophiæ et Alchimiæ Fluddanæ (1633), or Philosophical Key, which was a defense of his work, an attack on those who had accused him, and a lengthy explanation of the “Excellency of Wheat.”108 Fludd claimed that the section about wheat was an “ocular demonstration, opening and decyfering a great deale of the hidden mysteryes of Nature, partly by an experimental Conclusion, as also by an intellectual speculation.”109 In the opening to the text, Fludd declared, “this contayneth (as it Wer) the Key to unlock and open the meaninge of that Macrocosmicall and Microcosmicall Philosophy.”110 Fludd was approaching this particular experiment, like many, as a means of understanding the harmony between the macrocosm and the microcosm, between the celestial and terrestrial realms. He wanted to use the example of wheat as a means to see the processes of creation found in Genesis, and he makes it clear that his work is done for the glory of God.111 His published work about wheat became the basis for all of his experiments. Fludd began his wheat experiment by declaring that the growth of wheat results in an elemental separation with the quintessential spirit concentrated at the top of the plant and the earthy parts at the bottom. (Much like Fludd’s diagram of the microcosm and the macrocosm: matter was at the bottom, and spirit was at the top.) A chemical analysis by heat quickly revealed the presence of the elements, and Fludd determined which elements 107 Debus, Robert Fludd, 13. 108 Ibid., 26. 109 Walton, Genesis and the Chemical Philosophy, 121; Huffman, 43. 110 Robert Fludd, Philosphicall Key (1633) in Debus, Robert Fludd, 65. 111 Ibid., 67. 215 of the wheat are used for the nourishment of the different parts of the body, which shows true transmutation. Heat or putrefaction, then, separates the elements of the grain to reduce it to a prima materia so that creation or generation might commence. Fludd placed the putrefied matter in a flask and heated it, producing a mist. He collected the mist in a second vessel where it slowly condensed. By applying heat, Fludd separated the air from the water, producing the spirit that was responsible for multiplication in both vegetables and animals, the spirit that would purify other substances.112 For Fludd, the wheat experiment demonstrated how creation could be expressed in chemical terms: from the primal Chaos the “disagreeing and contentious elements” were formed by the universal light on the Third Day of the Creation. Then, as the darkness sank, the lighter elements arose to fill everything. The earth became the base substance while the other elements were stratified above it. Meanwhile, bands of the quintessence tied all matter together.113 Fludd’s explanation of creation is very detailed, and it demonstrates his manner of using experiment to confirm Scripture, particularly the Biblical account of creation.114 Also, his explanation of the creation process through his wheat experiment highlights the relationship he saw between the microcosm and the macrocosm. That relationship could be realized through a single grain of wheat, with the quintessence rising to the top through the application of heat (or divine light) and matter remaining at the bottom. Furthermore, Fludd’s wheat experiment shows the importance he placed on discovering secrets of nature, particularly the creation process. As part of Fludd’s light-dark principle 112 Ibid., 32-5. 113 Fludd also believed that on the first day there was made the highest heaven, on the second, the starry heaven, and on the third, the lower or elementary heaven. Ibid., 36-9. 114 Fludd also pointed to Scriptural references for the spiritual meaning of wheat; for example, Jesus compared his body to bread, and Israelites were provided manna. Ibid., 32-3. 216 of creation, there are two equal but opposite hierarchies at work: one is angelic, carrying out the divine will, and the other is diabolic, acting as a force of darkness. These forces are at work at the moment of an individual’s birth, and they impact the individual’s temperament and future. To Fludd, it was especially important to understand those influences when diagnosing an ill patient, because the illness is likely caused by a discord between the light and dark forces. Fludd was not interested in typical judicial astrology used to find lost objects or predict human events. He used astrology to understand harmonies in the human body and in the cosmos. Just as Dee emphasized the need for a more precise astrology, Fludd, too, believed in the importance of an accurate astronomical chart, especially in diagnosing a patient’s illness. Like Dee, Fludd does not distinguish between a real, material process and a symbolic representation. Fludd favored the search for symbolic and harmonic mysteries while attacking the “quantitative shadows” of the “vulgar mathematicians.” To Fludd, the best proof of the power of symbolism was Dee’s monad.115 Such a belief in symbolism inspired Fludd to engage in a lively dispute with Johannes Kepler, who criticized Fludd for rejecting everything quantitative in preference for the symbolic. Fludd and Kepler shared a Neoplatonist view of the cosmos, that it is exactly proportional and hierarchical in structure and infused with non-material forces and that all of it could be known by the human mind; however, they differed greatly in their approaches.116 Kepler added an Appendix to his own upcoming publication, Harmonices mundi (1619), that rebuked Fludd’s mystical characteristics of his model of the universe. Kepler also refuted Fludd’s 115 Robert Fludd, Veritatis proscenium in Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, II, 33. 116 Huffman, 54. 217 attempts to arrive at cosmic harmonies through Cabalistic processes with what Kepler viewed as the discredited speculative notions of chemists, Hermetics, and Paracelsians.117 Over time, Fludd was remembered for his disagreements with Kepler, and, because Kepler was recognized as a fore-bearer of the Scientific Revolution, Fludd developed a negative reputation in history. Although there are many commonalities between Dee’s and Fludd’s approaches to understanding the natural world, there is little concrete evidence that Fludd was an avid follower of Dee. Fludd himself makes no reference to Dee, but he owned a copy of the Monas Heiroglyphica and had access to the remainder of Dee's library when it was bought by Sir Robert Bruce Cotton (1571-1623), a friend of Fludd’s.118 Nevertheless, it is easy to see why Fludd was associated with Dee. Both scholars believed in a universal harmony and unifying natural philosophy; both sought secret, divine knowledge of the natural world; both believed in the importance of experiment; both believed they were men of prophecy; and both felt strongly about the transformation of the adept, leading to complete knowledge of the natural world. These were not unusual beliefs at the time. Many of these same statements could be made about philosophers like Brahe, Kepler, Forman, and several others. At the same time, each philosopher had his own unique approach to his study of the natural world. Fludd rejected Aristotelianism completely, unlike Dee, and Fludd focused on man as a means of understanding the universe, while Dee believed that man could contact the supernatural realm through numbers and mathematics. Moreover, Dee argued for a reform of astrology based on precise 117 Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi, 253-254. 118 Fludd dedicated the second part of his Medicina Catholica to Cotton. Robert Fludd, Medicina Catholica, seu mysticum artis medicandi sacrarum (Francofurti, 1629), 12-14. 218 measurements. While Dee did not propose a specific model of the universe as Fludd did, Dee did see the celestial realm as a bridge between the human and the divine. Dee believed the celestial realm and its divine constructs and operations could be understood through the application of precise measurements in astrology and astronomy. Finally, while Fludd believed the language of nature could be read by understanding the relationship between the macrocosm and the microcosm, Dee believed nature could be understood through angelic revelation and the application of his monad to alchemical practices.119 Dee’s and Fludd’s ideas and practices remain distinct, but the similarities between the two philosophers provide another example of how Dee’s methods and goals for study the natural world were not so unusual for the time and were, in fact, common among natural philosophers in the sixteenth century. John Dee in Context Since the 1960s, historians like Francis Yates, Nicholas Clulee, Deborah Harkness, Stephen Clucas and others have re-examined John Dee’s natural philosophy. The full picture of John Dee is far more complicated than Yates’ original proposal that Dee was a Renaissance magus, a master of Hermeticism and Cabalistic practices who could reveal the secrets of nature and correct its imperfections. In the late 1980s, Clulee went on to argue that Dee’s natural philosophy was unique, and it was based on various traditions in medieval and Renaissance natural philosophy, magic, alchemy, and 119 Huffman argues that Fludd would have been put off by Dee’s angel summoning. Huffman, 169. 219 mysticism.120 By the late 1990s, Harkness rounded out the picture by explaining Dee’s angel conversations as an extension of his natural philosophy. 121 More recently, Stephan Clucas organized and edited a series of studies about John Dee, his intellectual life, and his courtly and scientific exchanges, highlighting the complexities of Dee and the practice of early modern science.122 These historians, in their own individual ways, have shown how the exclusion of Dee and philosophers like him from the study of the Scientific Revolution creates an incomplete picture of how natural philosophy developed through the sixteenth century. Moreover, their studies have salvaged Dee’s reputation and shown him to be a serious student of nature rather than a crackpot practitioner of the occult. By comparing Dee’s methods for studying the natural world with his contemporary natural philosophers, my study explains the ways in which Dee’s methods of investigating the natural world were similar to the methods commonly used by a variety of sixteenth-century and early seventeenth-century natural philosophers. I clarify further who Dee was, what he was doing, and why he was doing it by placing him in his context of late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century science. Dee developed his own unique theories and made his own individual contributions to natural philosophy, but he was operating under many of the same principles of natural philosophy shared by Brahe, Kepler, Maestlin, Fludd, Forman, and several others. John Dee’s work should be studied as an example of the way natural philosophy was practiced in the sixteenth century. 120 Clulee believed that forcing Dee into a philosophical context creates methodological difficulties that have caused a misunderstanding of some of Dee’s work in natural philosophy. Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 10-18. 121 Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 2-3. 122 See especially Stephen Clucas, “Introduction: Intellectual History and the Identity of John Dee,” in John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies, 1-22. 220 It is clear that employing multiple methods of studying the natural world was commonplace in the sixteenth century. The notion that “occult” practices like astrology and alchemy were separate pursuits from natural philosophy has long been discredited by a wide range of historians, including (but certainly not limited to), William Newman, Lawrence Principe, Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, Anthony Grafton, Nancy Sirasi, and many more. Indeed, all of the natural philosophers in this study had varied approaches to studying the natural world—they believed in mathematical precision, in alchemical truths, in astrological predictions, in observation, and in experimentation. John Dee was no different. The vast range of Dee’s interests, including mathematics, natural philosophy, geography, history, astrology, alchemy, and communicating with angels, has made it difficult to place him in a particular category like “scientist” or “occultist. Being a natural philosopher at that time meant seeking truth (through numbers, through angels, through observation, or other justified means) and seeking patronage, which required natural philosophers to demonstrate particular unique skills or deliver knowledge in the form of practical recommendations, divine secrets, or astrological predictions. John Dee definitely fits within that context. Dee also shared with several of his contemporaries a desire to reform astrology, and, specifically, to base that reformed astrology on accurate observations and measurements of the heavens. Such a project was also important to Kepler, Brahe, Mercator, Frisius, and many others. An astrology based on precise measurements of heavenly motions would provide some consistent standards for the practice and make it more accurate. To Dee, knowing exact measurements would allow the astrologer to better predict the influences of heavenly bodies. Dee believed that certain philosophers were 221 chosen to receive and share such knowledge, and he certainly believed he was one of them. Furthermore, he believed that the adept philosopher could restore the cosmos to its inherent harmony. Those were ideas Dee shared with many of his contemporary natural philosophers. Kepler, Forman, and Fludd all believed they were specially appointed to receive divine knowledge. Brahe, Kepler, Maestlin, Forman, and Fludd also believed in an inherent harmony in nature. That harmony was constantly apparent through the study of nature. In such a context, it is less surprising that a philosopher who believed he was specially selected to receive divine information might attempt to communicate with angels. Although Dee may have shared some of the basic principles of natural philosophy with his peers, his conversations with angels do stand out as a unique means of understanding the natural world. Dee’s records from those conversations are simply fascinating. It is difficult for us to reconcile the image of Dee as a proponent and producer of practical, meticulous measurements of the natural world, as demonstrated in his “Mathematicall Praeface” and his works on navigation, with that of Dee as a mystic who sought out scryers so that he could access divine knowledge. His journals contain pages upon pages of solid blocks of numbers, since the angels used numbers to communicate. Looking at those pages can make a person want to find a pattern, a reason, a rationale for why a scientist would record such information. As Deborah Harkness has shown, Dee’s angel conversations were part of his mission to unveil secret knowledge of the natural world, knowledge that he was appointed to receive and knowledge that could actually stop the decay of nature. Dee left behind one of the most complete records of angel conversations from this time period, and his conversations give us a window into 222 the topics on his mind and his perspectives on the decay of nature, the expansion of the British Empire, and his own future and fortunes. There is no doubt that Dee’s conversations with angels influence his natural philosophy in a unique way, but the conversations themselves do not delegitimize his science. Dee certainly made his own individual contributions to natural philosophy. Dee emphasized precise measurements and calculations and the importance and usefulness of mathematics and numbers in studying the natural world at a time when such ideas were just beginning to become more common, especially among those who wished to reform astrology and astronomy. His “Mathematicall Praeface” highlighted the importance of mathematics in both studying the universe and in solving practical problems like civil planning, construction, and navigation. In Propaedeumata Aphoristica he claimed that his aphorisms on astrology could provide a new method for astrologers to perfect their craft. In Monas Hieroglyphica he introduced a new alchemical symbol, his monad, that would allow adept philosophers to “read” the natural world. Furthermore, he analyzed the Gregorian calendar reform and proposed, in A Playne Discourse, his own unique solution to the calendrical problem by adjusting the calendar back to the birth of Christ rather than back to the Council of Nicaea as Pope Gregory XIII had done. Dee’s contributions to natural philosophy were evident, even if they did not receive the recognition that Dee had hoped.123 We can highlight the ways in which Dee’s methods of investigating the natural world were similar to his peers while at the same time recognizing his original arguments 123 Dee felt strongly that he had published several original texts that had all been in service of Queen Elizabeth. He listed them in his Compendious Rehearsal, one of his last attempts to gain royal favor. 223 and contributions to natural philosophy. In fact, I have shown in this study how Dee supported some of the latest scientific approaches of the time—the application of mathematical precision to astrology and astronomy, for instance. Moreover, I have argued that other philosophers of Dee’s time ascribed to some of the same basic principles of natural philosophy as John Dee: the belief in a universal harmony, the idea that divine secrets of nature could be revealed through mathematics or alchemical practice, and the desire to explain nature as a way of glorifying God. Within this context, John Dee does not stand out as an aberration to early modern science; instead, he provides a case study for understanding how the practices of natural philosophy were developing and changing in the sixteenth century. 224 Chapter Five: John Dee’s Legacy Much of this study has focused on how historians of science have understood John Dee since the 1950s and have fit him within the broader story of the development of modern science. To understand that story and Dee’s place within it, though, it is necessary to consider the political context in which he was operating and the legacy of his work. John Dee’s intellectual activities were driven by his belief that he was specially chosen to access secret knowledge of nature, but they were also influenced by his desire for special titles and financial support, things he felt he deserved for his service to Britain. His natural philosophy did influence others’ ideas about the cosmos and the terrestrial and celestial realm, and he was a topic of discussion among mathematicians and antiquarians alike for centuries after his death. John Dee’s intellectual pursuits made him the subject of both admiration and ridicule during his time and in the decades to follow. It is clear that his ideas influenced those pursuing astrology, alchemy, mathematics, natural philosophy, navigation, and scientific instrument-making, yet there are many examples of scholars who hailed Dee as a misguided figure. Even in the modern day, historians are uncovering Dee’s contributions to natural philosophy, while his more magical beliefs and activities are celebrated through popular culture. It is precisely this complexity that has complicated Dee’s role in the history of science. Placing Dee within his context requires us to peel back the layers of the legends that have been created around John Dee and examine how Dee’s ideas were received in his own time and throughout history. 225 John Dee’s Texts According to his own records, John Dee wrote numerous texts throughout his lifetime. In his Briefe Discourse Apologeticall (1599), Dee listed 49 printed and unprinted texts that he wrote “to pleasure my native Countrey.”1 Not all texts have survived, but modern historians do have access to many of Dee’s notes and texts thanks to the astrologer, politician, and antiquarian Elias Ashmole. Ashmole was born into a prominent family and trained as a lawyer, but he developed a strong interest in alchemy, astrology, and antiquarian studies. He supported the Royalists during the English Civil War and, through his connections, he was given a military post at Oxford. After the Restoration of Charles II, Ashmole was rewarded with high office positions, and he married a wealthy widow, giving him the opportunity to pursue his interests in astrology, alchemy, and antiquities. He also built a substantial library and collected texts written and owned by John Dee. Ashmole started collecting Dee’s texts in the 1640s, while pursuing his interests in alchemy, heraldry, and mathematics, all topics that also fascinated John Dee. In 1649, Ashmole came across a Latin collection of alchemical aphorisms entitled Faciculus Chemicus and discovered that the author of the texts was Arthur Dee (1579-1651), the son of John Dee. Ashmole wrote to Arthur Dee to ask for permission to print his work, stating that “My search into the Mathematicks first brought me to understand, the worth of Doctor John Dee, by his Preface to Euclid . . . you would much pleasure me, might I 1 John Dee, A Briefe Discourse Apologeticall, n.p. 226 also know what relation you had to him, or what else you think fitt for me to say.”2 Arthur Dee agreed and provided Ashmole with a catalogue of other books written by John Dee. Ashmole published the Faciculus Chemicus in 1650 under the pseudonym of James Hasolle. In 1652, Ashmole published his major alchemical work, the Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, an annotated compilation of metaphysical poems in English. Within the collection, he devoted the longest biography to Dee, presenting him as “an absolute and perfect Master” of mathematics.3 By this time, Ashmole had already found Dee’s journal of alchemical experiments performed at Mortlake from 1607 to 1608, and, through Arthur Dee, he had acquired John Dee’s diaries.4 Ashmole published another alchemical text, The Way to Bliss, in 1658, and pursued his passions of collecting and cataloging texts and rare specimens. He became one of the founding fellows of the Royal Society in 1661, though he was not very active in the society. He instead devoted himself to his study of the history of the Order of the Garter, publishing The Institution, Laws and Ceremonies of the Most Noble Order of the Garter in 1672. Ashmole was still interested in the work of John Dee, though, and, in that same year, he acquired more of Dee’s texts when his “good friend Mr. Thomas Wale, one 2 Elias Ashmole, “Letter to Dr. Arthur Dee of Norwich, under the signature of ‘James Hasolle,’ inquiring whether he were the author of the Faciculus Chemicus, of which he (Ashmole) was then printing a translation under that anagrammatic name and what relation he bore to Dr. John Dee (23 Jan. 1649—50),” Bodleian Library Ashmole 1790, 68r. 3 Elias Ashmole, Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum (London: Printed by J. Grismond for Nath: Brooke, at the Angel in Cornhill, 1652), 480, available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyk.com, accessed 28 March 2018. 4 The journal of alchemical experiments is MS Ashmole 1486 Part V, and the diaries became MS Ashmole 487 and 488. Vittoria Feola, “Elias Ashmole’s Collections and Views about John Dee,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 43 (3) September 1, 2012: 531-533. 227 of his majesty’s wardens in the Tower of London,”5 gave him a selection of Dee’s manuscripts, including notes from Dee’s conferences with angels. Wale found that his servant was using Dee’s papers for tasks like lining pie dishes, and he decided to preserve the texts by giving them to Elias Ashmole. Ashmole studied and annotated Dee’s angel conversations and spoke of attaining direct contact with God through the angels. Upon the death of Ashmole in 1692, the University of Oxford acquired an oil portrait of John Dee as well as 42 volumes of texts by or about him. It was the largest collection of Dee’s texts since the dispersal of his library after his death in 1609. Thirty- four volumes are still in the Bodleian Library today, while eight volumes are now in the collection of the British Library, seven in the collections of Sir Hans Sloane and one in the Additional manuscripts collection.6 Because these collections include notes from Dee’s diaries as well as annotated texts that were owned by Dee, they provide great insight into Dee’s natural philosophy and his perceptions of his work. Ashmole was not the only person to acquire Dee’s texts. About ten years after Dee’s death, the antiquarian Robert Cotton bought land around Dee’s home in Mortlake and began looking for papers and artifacts. He discovered several manuscripts, mainly records of Dee’s angel conversations. Cotton’s son, Thomas, gave these papers to the scholar Meric Casaubon, who published them in 1659, together with a long introduction critical of their author, as A True & Faithful Relation of What passed for many Yeers between Dr. John Dee (A Mathematician of Great Fame in Q. Eliz. and King James their 5 Elias Ashmole, Preface to “Dr. John Dee’s conference with angels from December 22, 1581 to May 30, 1583 being what precedes other conferences printed by Dr. Meric Casaubon London 1659 in folio,” British Library Sloane 3188, 2r and 2v. 6 Feola, 530. 228 Reignes) and some spirits.7 Casaubon believed in the existence of spirits, but he portrayed Dee as someone who was easily manipulated by devils. The book sold quickly, and it propagated the image of Dee as a misguided soul. Even though Casaubon painted a rather negative portrait of Dee, it is clear that Dee’s texts were in demand by astrologers and collectors in the seventeenth century. Ashmole was especially interested in learning from Dee’s practice of astrology, his alchemy, and his angel conversations. Dee’s work was highly regarded by his peers, which is evident through a brief exploration into Dee’s reputation and connections during his lifetime. John Dee and his Network It has already been established that Dee’s counsel was sought by sixteenth- century navigators, by his colleagues in natural philosophy, and by high-ranking officials within the Court. From 1553 to 1583, John Dee’s list of students included Thomas Digges, Richard Chancellor, John Davis, Martin Frobisher, Adrian and Humfrey Gilbert, Walter Raleigh (c. 1554-1618), and Sir Philip Sidney, just to name a few. Many more consulted him, including William Camden (1551-1623), Edward Dyer (1543-1607), Richard Hakluyt, Thomas Harriott, Sir Christopher Hatton, Sir William Pickering, and Robert Recorde (c. 1512-1558). These lists are certainly not exhaustive. A closer examination of Dee’s political and intellectual relationships shows that he enjoyed a strong reputation and even considerable influence over major figures at Court, including Elizabeth herself. Dee apparently made a name for himself while visiting Louvain in the late 1540s and lecturing in Paris in 1550. He reported that during his time in Louvain, a number of 7 Casaubon, “Preface,” in A True and Faithful Relation. 229 noblemen and representatives of monarchs (including Holy Roman Emperor Charles V) came to visit him to see his work for themselves. One visitor was Sir William Pickering, the English ambassador to Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and Dee started tutoring Pickering in arithmetic and mathematical instruments. After his Paris lectures, Ivan the Terrible, Charles V, and Henry II of France invited Dee to join their courts,8 but Dee instead returned to London, where he may have been expecting the favor of King Edward VI after dedicating two texts to the monarch, De Caelestis Globi amplissimis commodatibus (1550) and De Planetarum, Inerrantium stellarum, Nubiumque a centro terrae distantiis: & stellarum omnium veris inveniendis magnitudinibus (1551).9 John Cheke, with whom Dee had studied at St. John’s College, Cambridge, and William Cecil, who had also studied with Cheke and had married Cheke’s sister, introduced Dee to Edward and to John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland. According to his own accounts, Dee was well-connected early in his career, and his expertise was recognized and sought after by some of the most powerful men in Europe. While Edward did not give Dee the rewards that he sought, Northumberland did become a major patron of Dee’s services.10 Dee had the opportunity to meet other high- ranking officials through his connections to Northumberland, including William Herbert, the Earl of Pembroke. Thanks to connections through the Duke of Northumberland, Dee also had the opportunity to give advice about voyages of discovery in the early 1550s. In 8 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 3b. 9 Ibid., 8. 10 Dee reported in 1553 that he wrote two texts at the request of Jane, the Duchess of Northumberland, on “The true cause, and account (not vulgar) of Fluds and Ebbs” and one on signs of the zodiac, including their origins, names, and configurations. Nicholas Clulee has postulated that, because these texts were written in English, they were likely texts meant to instruct the Duchess or her children. John Dee, Briefe Discourse Apologeticall, n.p.; Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 31. 230 1551, Dee worked with Richard Chancellor, Hugh Willoughby (d. 1554), and Sebastian Cabot (c. 1474-1557) in preparing various Atlantic ventures and the 1553 voyage to find a northeast passage to the Indies.11 The fact that Dee was invited along with Gerard Mercator, Gemma Frisius, and Pedro Nuñes to consult with Richard Chancellor in planning the voyage shows how valued his opinion had become within the British court. Chancellor did not find a northeast passage to Cathay, but he did reach Russia (Muscovy), and returned with trade agreements that led to the formation of the Muscovy Company in 1555. By 1555, Dee’s fortunes had taken an unexpected turn. He lost many of his patrons when Mary came to the throne in 1553. The Duke of Northumberland was executed, John Cheke was in exile, and William Cecil had no influence over Mary. In 1555 Mary arrested Dee for calculating the nativities of King Philip, Queen Mary, and the Princess Elizabeth.12 Moreover, Dee’s accuser, George Ferrers, declared that Dee was practicing sorcery. Dee was released after being sent to Bishop Bonner for examination, but accusations of conjuring and witchcraft, though, haunted Dee. He felt the need to defend his reputation in his “Mathematicall Praeface,” his Compendious Rehearsall, and his Briefe Discourse Apologeticall that his reputation had been tarnished.13 11 This was an important voyage with major implications for expanding markets for British trade. The goal was to find an “English” route to Cathay north of the North American or Eurasian continent. Members of the government, including Privy Councilors and Cecil, invested in the venture. See Robert Baldwin, “John Dee’s Interest in the Application of Nautical Science, Mathematics, and Law to English Naval Affairs,” in John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies, 97-130. 12 Dee claims that he was arrested because of his service to Elizabeth on the charge that he “endeavored by enchantments to destroy Queene Mary.” Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 7. 13 In the “Mathematicall Praeface,” Dee argued that others were accusing him of conjuring out of jealousy (“Mathematicall Praeface,” Aiv). Decades later, Dee petitioned 231 Dee continued his astronomical observations and philosophical pursuits while trying to gain Mary’s favor. Dee went on to publish his first printed work in 1556, a preface to John Field’s Ephemeris anni 1557, and he wrote his Supplication to Queen Mary, in which he decried the dissolution of the monasteries proposed that he start building a national library.14 His proposal was rejected, but he began to collect texts anyway, eventually building one of the most impressive libraries in England. Dee published his Propaedeumata Aphoristica in 1558 and created a paradoxal compass for the Muscovy Company in 1559.15 Dee remained connected to the Dudleys and the Cecils, and, at Robert Dudley’s request, Dee calculated the most favorable day for the coronation of Elizabeth I.16 Elizabeth was crowned on the day Dee recommended, and she continued to take Dee’s advice during her reign. Also in 1559, Dee became tutor and caretaker for Thomas Digges, the son of Leonard Digges, a mathematician and producer of navigational instruments. According to Thomas, Dee cultivated the seeds of mathematical learning that his father Leonard had planted.17 Thomas went on to publish some of his father’s texts, a treatise on the supernova of 1572, his Mathematical Discourse (1571), and A Perfit Description of the both Elizabeth and James I to clear his name as a “horrible and damnable, and to him, most grievous and damageable Sclaunder.” John Dee, The true Copie of M. John Dee his Petition to the Kings most Excellent Majestie (London: Printed by E. Short, 1603), Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, accessed April 2, 2018. 14 John Dee, “Supplication to Queen Mary,” in John Dee, Autobiographical Tracts of John Dee, ed. James Crossley (Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2003), 46-47. 15 John Dee, “Canon Gubernauticus,” or “A great volume, in which are contained our [sic] Queen Elizabeth her Arithmeticall Tables Gubernatick: for Navigation by Paradoxall Compass (by me invented anno 1557) and Navigation by Great Circles, and for longitudes and latitudes, and the variation of the Compass, finding most easily and speedily etc.” Bodleian Library Ashmole 242, no. 83. 16 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 7. 17 Thomas Digges, Alae (note 1), sigs A2r, B3r. 232 Caelestiall Orbes according to the most aunciente doctrine of the Pythagoreans, latelye revived by Copernicus and by Geometricall Demonstrations approved in 1576, which included a discussion of the Copernican model of the universe. While Digges views are certainly his own, Dee’s influences are apparent. The two men published texts on the issue of parallax, and both published texts on mathematics in the vernacular, making the topic more accessible to readers. Both focused on solid geometry in Euclid’s Elements, and both focused on practical data problems rather than proofs in their mathematical texts.18 Dee’s ideas and skill in mathematics were recognized by those he tutored, and his long-term influence can be seen in some of the work of Thomas Digges. By the end of the 1550s, Dee was once again enjoying the support of the British monarch, which gave him the freedom to travel back to Louvain in 1562 to collect more texts on astrology, alchemy, and natural philosophy. Dee also traveled to Pressburg (Bratislava) to attend the coronation of Maximilian II as King of Hungary. In 1564, Dee published his Monas Hieroglphica and presented a copy to Maximillian II, to whom the work was dedicated. During his travels, he entered the employ of Elizabeth Parr (1526- 1565), the Marchioness of Northampton and sister-in-law to Catherine Parr, and he returned to England with her in 1564. Dee recorded that upon his return to England, Elizabeth I encouraged his philosophical and mathematical studies.19 She granted him the Deanery of Gloucester, but Dee took up residence at Mortlake, which became his home until his death. Dee was once again enjoying the favors of high-ranking nobility and monarchs. 18 See Johnston, 65-84. 19 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 4b-5. 233 After his return to England, Dee presented copies of his Propaedeumata Aphoristica to Elizabeth, Cecil, and Pembroke in 1568, and he became even more involved in voyages of discovery. After Chancellor died in 1556, Dee continued to serve as a consultant to the Muscovy Company, developing new techniques for navigating in the high latitudes of the Northland and providing navigational instruction for the new pilots.20 At the request of Edward Dyer, Dee wrote a text in the late 1560s that he refers to as the “Atlanticall Discourses” dealing with voyages of discovery.21 In 1577, Dee published his General and Rare Memorials pertaining to the Perfect Arte of Navigation, which advocated the creation a maritime British empire. Sir Humphrey Gilbert also visited Dee twice in 1577 once in May and once in November, possibly to discuss the expansion of the British Empire.22 Gilbert was granted a charter for a colonization expedition in June 1578, which was eventually a failure, but Gilbert continued to consult Dee for planning future expeditions. In the meantime, Martin Frobisher had discovered what he believed to be the entrance of a Northwest Passage in Canada in 1577 and brought back a sample of a rock that he thought to be gold, which secured for him financing of two more voyages. The financing was based partially on Dee’s theories on the formation of metals that he published in his Monas Hieroglyphica and “Mathematicall Praeface.” The rock was later determined to be worthless, though, which harmed Dee’s reputation in marine and metallurgical circles.23 Nevertheless, explorers like Humphrey Gilbert, Adrian Gilbert, John Davis, and Thomas Harriott continued to 20 See Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, 31-33. According to Dee, he and Chancellor calculated ephemerides together, and Dee owned navigational instruments made by Chancellor. Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 8. 21 Dee, Perfect Arte of Navigation, A2. 22 Dee, Diaries, Ashmole 487, 26 May 1577 and 6 November 1577. 23 Baldwin, 103. 234 consult Dee for planning new voyages. In 1582, Walsingham also asked Dee for his advice on the reform of the calendar.24 When Dee traveled to the Continent in 1583, he unsuccessfully searched for a patron in Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II or in King Stefan in Poland. Dee did eventually find a patron in the Bohemian noble Vilém Rozmberk, who was very interested in Dee’s ability to converse with angels. Rozmberk invited Dee to South Bohemia where the courts of Český Krumlov were attracting philosophers like the alchemist Nicolas Barnaud (1538-1604) and occultist Heinrich Khunrath (c. 1560-1605). Dee may have made some connections during this time that helped spread his ideas through Europe, but he still did not receive the titles or financial support that he felt he deserved. Dee returned to England in 1589 to find that his library had been pillaged. While some of Dee’s missing manuscripts and navigational instruments were returned to him in 1590 and 1591, Dee pleaded with Elizabeth through his Compendious Rehearsall (1592) for her help in restoring his fortunes. Elizabeth did grant him a pension, but he never received it. Dee made a further appeal to her in 1594, again with little result. In 1595, Dee was offered the wardenship of Manchester, and he moved there shortly thereafter. In 1597, Dee became involved in the affair of the “Lancashire Seven,” a case of alleged demon possession of children. Dee refused to treat the children but the man evaluating the case, Justice Hopwood, borrowed books on witchcraft and demons from Dee.25 Again, Dee was wary of his public association with witchcraft and sorcery, and 24 Dee, Compendious Rehearsall, 5. 25 John Dee, Diaries of John Dee, Bodleian Library Ashmole 488, March 19, 1597. For a detailed discussion of Dee’s involvement in the case of the Lancashire Seven, see Stephen Bowd, “John Dee and the Seven in Lancashire: Possession, Exorcism, and 235 when he returned to Mortlake in 1598 and appealed again to Elizabeth for support (A Briefe Discourse Apologeticall, 1599). He made a point of arguing that he was a devout Christian. Elizabeth still did not give Dee the support he sought. Upon her death in 1603, Dee attempted to gain favor with King James I by sending him a copy of the same letter, but James did not seem to be interested. Dee died in poverty in 1608/1609. For most of his life, Dee was consulted by high-ranking patrons for his advice on navigation, on astrological matters, on the reform of the calendar, on occult practices, and on the current state and future of England. Dee did have to confront accusations that he practiced diabolical magic, and he responded in print to those who tarnished his reputation. Even though he did not gain the exclusive titles and financial support that he sought, his overall reputation was strong, both with those he advised and with fellow philosophers who responded to his work. The Reception of Dee’s Work Dee enjoyed the respect of many of his fellow philosophers during his lifetime. He had positive collegial interactions with philosophers like Mercator, Frisius, and Nuñes. As Dee points out in his preface to Propaedeumata Aphoristica, it was exactly those conversations with Mercator and Frisius that convinced him to publish his text. The publication to receive the strongest response, however, was Dee’s Monas Heiroglyphica. The text was originally published in 1564, reprinted at Frankfurt in 1591, and included in both the 1602 and 1659 editions of Elias Ashmole’s Theatrum Chemicum. It was frequently cited and quoted and ideas were borrowed from it for a century after its Apocalypse in Elizabethan England,” Northern History 47, no. 2 (September 1, 2010): 233-246. 236 publication.26 Dee’s monad appears in texts by alchemists, Paracelsians, and physicians, and his influence can be seen in a number of publications appearing in the late sixteenth century and later. Ideas from the Monas Hieroglyphica appeared in texts throughout Europe shortly after its publication. For example, Giulio Cesare Capaccio printed Dee’s monad in his section on hieroglyphs in Delle imprese (1592). In Scientiarum et artium omnium ferme anacephalaeosis theoretica (l592), Paolo Antonio Foscarini borrowed some of Dee’s ideas on hieroglyphs and referred to the same distinction between the real Cabala and the “vulgar” one as Dee did in Monas Hieroglyphica. Dee’s monad was also referenced in Lazarus Zetzner’s Theatrum Chemicum (1602; 1659–1661) and in Jean-Jacques Manget’s Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa (1702).27 In England, references to Dee appeared in Raph Rabbard’s 1591 edition of George Ripley’s The Compound of Alchymy. In Rabbard’s dedication to Elizabeth, he specifically mentioned John Dee and his Monas Hieroglyphica as an important book of English alchemy.28 The Reverend Thomas Tymme apparently worked on an English translation around 1602 or later, because Elias 26 Nicholas Clulee has listed manuscript copies of the Latin text as well as manuscript translations into German and English, suggesting that the text was valued in certain circles; Clulee, “Astronomia Inferior,” in Secrets of Nature, ed. Newman and Grafton, 226, note 1. Clulee notes that even though the text was cited frequently, it was criticized for its opacity and unintelligibility (173). 27 See Andrew Campbell, “The Reception of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica in Early Modern Italy: The Case of Paolo Antonio Foscarini (c. 1562-1616),” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 43, no. 3 (September 2012): 519-529; Forshaw, “The Early Alchemical Reception of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica,” 247-269. 28 Raph Rabbard, “Epistle to Elizabeth” in George Ripley, The Compound of Alchymy (London: Imprinted by Thomas Orwin, 1591), n.p., Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, Accessed April 3, 2018. See also Jennifer Rampling, “John Dee and the Alchemists” 498-508. 237 Ashmole had within his collection an introduction that Tymme had written for the text.29 Furthermore, Thomas Oliver’s De Sophismatum praestigijs cauendis admonition (1604) referenced the monad and described Dee as an illustrious philosopher promoting truth.30 Dee’s ideas were particularly appealing to two specific groups: Paracelsian philosophers and the Rosicrucians. While Dee did not publish specifically on Paracelsian topics, he owned almost 100 editions of works by Paracelsus in his library plus works by contemporary Paracelsians.31 Nicholas Clulee has suggested that, given the fact that there are several duplicates of these works in Dee’s library, they were likely used for teaching. Some of Dee’s surviving copies list individuals noted as “discipulus,” and his diary notes others studying with him.32 It is clear that Dee’s work had some influence on Paracelsians such as Robert Fludd, Gerhard Dorn (c. 1530-1584), Oswald Croll (c. 1563-1609) and Heinrich Khunrath (c. 1560-1605). Both Dee and Fludd believed in an intrinsic harmony in nature and in knowledge and in the transformation of the philosopher in obtaining divine knowledge. Gerhard Dorn, who edited and translated Paracelsus’ German texts into Latin, included Dee’s monad on the title page of his Chymisticum Artificium Naturae (1568), a discussion of chemical remedies. The Paracelsian Oswald Croll, author of Basilica Chymica (1611), a widely-read alchemical recipe book, referred to the Monas 29 Thomas Tymme, “A Light in Darkness,” Bodleian Library Ashmole 1459. 30 Thomas Oliver, De Sophismatum praestigijs cauendis admonition (Cantabrigiae: Ex officina Iohannis Legat, 1604), 32, Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, Accessed April 3, 2018. See also Forshaw, “The Early Alchemical Reception of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica,” 251-252. 31 Roberts and Watson, 198-200. 32 Nicholas Clulee, “John Dee and the Paracelsians,” in Reading the Book of Nature: The Other Side of the Scientific Revolution, eds. Allen G. Debus and Michael T. Walton (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1998), 116. Clulee suggests that Dee’s interest in Paracelsus dates from the 1560s and shows some relation to his trip to the Continent from 1561 through 1564. During that trip, on April 23, 1563, Dee visited with Konrad Gessner in Zurich (113). 238 Hieroglyphica and how ancient philosophers would conceal their secrets by using hieroglyphs.33 There has been some debate over whether Dee could be considered a Paracelsian himself, but, regardless of whether Dee was a Paracelsian, it is clear that a number of Paracelsian scholars held his work in high regard and referenced his ideas in their writings.34 Heinrich Khunrath in particular was heavily influenced by Dee. Dee recorded in his diary that Khunrath visited him in 1589,35 and, though we do not know the extent of their exchanges, at the very least, Khunrath became familiar with Dee’s work. Khunrath referenced the Monas Hieroglyphica and its distinction between real Cabala and linguistic Cabala.36 In both the 1595 and 1609 editions of the Amphitheatrum, an alchemical text combining Christianity and natural magic, Dee’s monad appears in Khunrath’s circular figure of the “Rebis,” or alchemical hermaphrodite. Khunrath also included Dee’s monad in the Alchemical Citadel engraving that first appears in the 1609 Amphitheatrum. It is located above the archway leading into the inner sanctum, which 33 See Forshaw, “The Early Alchemical Reception of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica,” 249-251. See also Urszula Szulakowska, The Alchemy of Light: Geometry and Optics in Late Renaissance Alchemical Illustration (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 50-53, for a discussion of some of the similarities between Croll’s alchemy and Dee’s alchemy. 34 Clulee does not suggest that Dee is a Paracelsian; instead, he argues that what Dee and the Paracelsians have in common is an interest in the themes inspired by Johannes Trithemius and the Emerald Tablet. Clulee, “John Dee and the Paracelsians,” Reading the Book of Nature, Debus and Walton, eds., 111, 127, 129, and 131. Clulee refutes Urszula Szulakowska, who argues that Dee is a Paracelsian in The Alchemy of Light. 35 Dee, Diaries, Ashmole 488, 6 June 1589. 36 Forshaw, “The Early Alchemical Reception of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica,” 259, and Clulee, “John Dee and the Paracelsians,” in Reading the Book of Nature, Debus and Walton, eds., 130. 239 suggests that Khunrath valued it highly. Khunrath also dedicated his Quaestiones Tres Perutiles (1607) to Dee.37 Dee’s influence on Khurath was very important to Frances Yates. She saw Heinrich Khunrath as a link between the philosophy of John Dee and the Rosicrucians. Yates claimed that Dee was a major influence on the Rosicrucian movement, arguing that his ideas could have easily spread from Bohemia to Germany. She pointed out that the second Rosicrucian manifesto, Philipp à Gabella's Secretioris Philosophiae Consideratio Brevis (1615), is nearly a word for word quotation from the Monas Hieroglyphica. Yates drew the conclusion that Dee was the inspiration for the entire set of manifestoes.38 She also noted the appearance of the monad in Johann Valatin Andreae’s Chymische Hochzeit Christiani Rosencreutz (1616) as a striking example of Dee’s influence.39 The text includes an illustration depicting an angelic being giving Christoph an invitation to the chemical wedding. The invitation is adorned with Dee’s monad.40 Yates was emphasizing the connection between Dee and the Rosicrucian texts as part of her argument that Renaissance magi like Dee set the intellectual scene for the emergence of modern science. 37 Forshaw, “The Early Alchemical Reception of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica,” 259-260. An image of Khunrath’s illustration of the alchemical hermaphrodite is available on the University of Wisconsin-Madison Special Collections website, www.library.wisc.edu/specialcollections, accessed March 31, 2018. 38 Nicholas Clulee disagreed with Yates. In “Astronomia Inferior: Legacies of Johannes Trithemius and John Dee,” Clulee demonstrated the extent to which à Gabella copied text from the Monas Hieroglyphica in his Consideratio Brevis. Clulee argues, though, that à Gabella drew selectively from Dee, showing no interest in Dee’s ideas of the Cabala of the real, the monas as a writing, the reform of the disciplines, the spiritual and religious themes associated with adeptship, or even of astronomy as a celestial alchemy. Clulee, “Astronomia Inferior,” in Secrets of Nature, ed. Newman and Grafton, 225. 39 Frances Yates, Frances Yates, Collected Essays: The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972), vol. 4, 39. 40 A. McLean, ed., The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz, transl. J. Godwin, Magnum Opus Hermetic Sourceworks, 18 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Phanes Press, 1991), 16. 240 Modern science has not developed along a specific linear path as Yates advocated, but the influence of Dee’s ideas on Rosicrucian texts is clear. In the seventeenth century, antiquarians and followers of the occult like Ashmole began associating Dee with the Rosicrucians and even suggested that Dee was a member of the group.41 The 1618 Rosicrucian publication of Roger Bacon’s Epistola de Secretis overibus artis et naturae was supposedly made from a copy of the work owned by Dee, and the publication included Dee’s notes. Furthermore, a late seventeenth or early eighteenth century manuscript, “A treatise of Rosicrucian secrets. Their excellent secrets of making medicine of metalls,” was also determined to be owned by Dee and heavily annotated by him.42 The evidence that Dee was a Rosicrucian is sketchy at best, but it is clear that the Rosicrucians borrowed some of Dee’s ideas. One surprisingly positive review of Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica came from Andreas Libavius, who was decidedly anti-Paracelsian and anti-Rosicrucian. In general, Libavius did not approve of Dee’s work, particularly his tendency to combine disciplines. In 1594, Libavius’ Tractatus duo physici characterized the works of Johannes Pistorius of Nidda, Cornelius Gemma, and Dee’s monad as “fooleries.”43 Specifically, Libavius was referring to Dee’s, “Horizon Aeternitatis,” a diagram demonstrating how few 41 Ashmole recorded that Philip Zieglerus, a member of the brotherhood, confirmed Dee’s membership (Bodleian Library Ashmole 1446, 237). 42 British Library Harley MS 6485 (also available digitized at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts, accessed March 31, 2018). I.R.F. Calder doubted the origins of these manuscripts and was very skeptical of the assertion that Dee himself was a Rosicrucian, claiming that Dee died before the brotherhood was mentioned in texts. Calder, 175. 43 Andreas Libavius, Tractatus Dvo Physici; Prior De Impostoria Vvlnervm per unguentum armarium sanatione Paracelsicis usitata commendataque; Posterior de cruentatione cadaverum in iusta caede factorum praesente, qui occidisse creditor (Frankfurt, 1594), Available through Bayerische StaatsBibliothek digital, reader.digitale- sammlungen.de, accessed March 31, 2018, 41. See also Josten, 96. 241 philosophers actually achieve full spiritual understanding. Dee explained in his Breife Discourse Apologeticall that he planned a rebuttal, but it was never published.44 On the other hand, Libavius seemed to approve of the idea of combining chemical symbols into one monad because a skilled philosopher could deduce that something artificial has been created from the initial chemicals. He even admitted to using the proportions of Dee’s monad for the ground plan for his laboratory.45 Dee’s books were certainly read and his ideas spread by some important alchemists and physicians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Peter Forshaw has noted the appearance of Dee’s monad in the work of several physicians at the time, including Khunrath, Croll, Joseph Duchesne, and Jacob Boehme.46 C.H. Josten, the modern translator of Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica into English, suggested that later alchemists like Johannes Banfi Hunyades, the elder, Athanasius Kircher, and Johann Christoph Steeb, adopted Dee’s monad as a symbol of their calling.47 Jennifer Rampling, too, explained how some of Dee’s alchemical ideas spread through the German alchemist Nicolaus Mai.48 Although the ideas that Dee presented in his Monas Hieroglyphica were generally obscure, his work was respected during his time. The idea of reading nature and performing the “real Cabala” through an alchemical symbol seems to have been particularly appealing to his fellow philosophers. 44 Dee wrote “I have just cause, lately given me to write and publish a Treatise, with Title, De Horizonte Aeternitatis: to make evident, that one Andreas Libavius, in a booke of his, printed the last yeere, hath unduly considered a phrase of my Monas Hieroglyphica: to his misliking: by his own unskilfulness in such matter: and not understanding my apt application thereof, in one of the very principal places, of the whole book.” Dee, A Briefe Discourse Apologeticall, n. p. 45 Forshaw, “The Early Alchemical Reception of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica,” 266-267. 46 Ibid., 260-264. 47 Josten, 98. 48 Rampling, “John Dee and the Alchemists.” 242 Other philosophers also praised Dee’s work in mathematics and astronomy. Physician and astrologer Richard Forster proclaimed that John Dee revived astronomy in England and would hopefully save it from those unskilled in the art.49 Dee’s “Mathematicall Praeface” was reprinted twice, and it was referenced by scholars who clearly admired the work. In referring to the text, mathematician Federico Commandino said Dee was “a man of excellent wit, and singular learning.”50 Mathematician William Bourne included in his Treasure for Travellers (1578) a brief summary of Dee’s discussion of the mathematical sciences in the preface.51 Edward Worsop wrote on surveying and relied heavily on Dee’s discussion of astrology and astronomy. Worsop even called for the Preface to be printed as a manual, relegating Dee’s work to a utilitarian purpose, not treating it as philosophy.52 Neither Bourne nor Worsop mention Dee’s other Latin publications, and they highlight in the particular the utility of Dee’s texts, not his philosophical ideas.53 Thomas Hylles also praised Dee’s “Mathematicall Praeface” in his Arte of Vulgar Arithmetic (1600), and when Thomas Rudd printed his 49 Richard Forster, Ephemerides Meteoregraphicae (London, 1575), G4v, Available through Early English Books Online at eebo.chadwyck.com, Accessed April 1, 2018. 50 Commandino to Francesco Maria II of Urbino, in John Leeke and Geroge Serle, eds., Euclid's Elements of Geometry in XV Books: With a Supplement of Divers Propositions and Corollaries (London: Printed by R. & W. Leybourn for George Sawbridge, 1661), 603-604, available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyk.com, Accessed March 31, 2018. 51 William Bourne, A booke called the treasure for traueilers deuided into fiue bookes or partes, contayning very necessary matters, for all sortes of trauailers, eyther by sea or by lande (London: for Thomas Woodcocke, 1578), ii. 52 Edward Worsop, A discouerie of sundrie errours and faults daily committed by lande- meaters, ignorant of arithmetike and geometrie, to the damage, and preiudice of many her Maiesties subiects with manifest proofe that none ought to be admitted to that function, but the learned practisioners of those sciences (London: Printed by Henrie Middleton for Gregorie Seton, 1582), G3, available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, Accessed March 31, 2018. 53 See Johnston, “Like Father, Like Son?” 80. 243 edition of Euclid’s Elements in six books in 1651, he reprinted the “Mathematicall Praceface” of “that pious and learned Mathematician Mr. John Dee.”54 The text was further praised by John Webster in Academiarum Examen (1654).55 The “Mathematical Praeface” was admired primarily for its argument for the importance of an education in mathematics in practical life. Nevertheless, John Dee was characterized as a skilled mathematician. A True and Faithful Relation and its Influence Despite the positive reception of Dee’s work by alchemists, mathematicians, monarchs, and courtiers, his name was still associated with sorcery and magic. Accusations of sorcery seemed to follow Dee from his early days at Cambridge, despite his efforts to promote himself as a pious Christian scholar. In 1593, Thomas Nashe tried to separate Dee from conjurors and seers who might have used his name.56 In 1657, Gabriel Naudé also cited Dee as an example of a great scholar who had falsely been accused of magic.57 In 1659, the classical scholar Meric Casaubon created an image of Dee as a scholar who was deluded by devils, largely thanks to his pride. Having received some of Dee’s angel diaries from Thomas Cotton, Casaubon published A True and Faithful Relation of what Passed for many Years between Dr. John Dee and Some Spirits (1659). Casaubon added a preface to the text that presents Dee as an example of a 54 Thomas Rudd, ed., Euclides Elements of Geometry the First VI Books, in a Compendious Form Contracted and Demonstrated (London: Printed by Robert and William Leybourn for Richard Tomlins and Robert Boydell, 1651), A3v. 55 See French, 173-176. 56 Thomas Nashe, The Works of Thomas Nashe, ed. Ronald B. McKerrow, 5 vols. (Oxford, 1966), vol. 1, 379. 57 Gabriel Naudé, The Historie of Magick by way of Apology for all the Wise Men who have unjustly been reputed Magicians from the Creation to the present Age, trans. J. Davies (London: Printed for John Streater, 1657), 38. 244 misguided individual who should serve as a warning against “presumptuous unlawfull wishes and desires.”58 Casaubon pointed out that Dee believed that he was acting in service of God, stating that even though Dee believed himself to be “a zealous worshipper of God, and a very free and sincere Christian . . . his only (but great and dreadful) error being that he mistook false and lying Spirits for Angels of Light, the Devil of Hell (as we commonly term him) for the God of Heaven.”59 Casaubon cautioned that Dee was really trying to glorify himself in his pursuits, not God. He said Dee aimed to “become a glorious man in the world, and be admired, yea, adored every where almost, as he might be sure it would be, had he compassed his desire.”60 To Dee, the angels affirmed that he was fulfilling the will of God through his studies of the natural world. To Casaubon, Dee was simply fooling himself and fulfilling his own desires. Casaubon had two purposes in publishing A True and Faithful Relation. First, by establishing the existence of spirits, he was refusing atheism. Second, he was explaining how enthusiasm was caused by the Devil, which he had previously argued in A Treatise Concerning Enthusiasme (1655).61 Frances Yates argued that the publication of Dee’s diary was “part of a general campaign against enthusiasts and illuminati being worked up at the time,”62 but Casaubon seemed to have personal contempt for Dee’s activities. Despite Casaubon’s account, Dee still had quite a few supporters well through the seventeenth century. John Webster refuted Casaubon’s arguments and defended Dee in 58 Casaubon, “Preface,” A True and Faithful Relation, Iv. 59 Ibid., D. 60 Ibid., D4v. 61 Ibid., I. See also Michael G. Spiller, “Concerning Natural Experimental Philosophie:” Meric Casaubon and the Royal Society (Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media, 1980). 62 Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 241. 245 The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft (1677). Webster referred to Dee as “the greatest and ablest Philosopher, Mathematician, and Chymist that his Age (or it may be ever since) produced,” and he accused Casaubon of being a “witchmonger.”63 According to historian Thomas Fuller in his Worthies of England (1662), Dee was a skilled mathematician and astrologer with impressive knowledge of natural philosophy.64 Robert Hooke responded to Casaubon’s publication by arguing that Dee’s angel conversations were ciphers concealing political secrets.65 According to Lilly, Dee “was the most ambitious person living, and most desirous of Fame and Renown.”66 Despite Casaubon’s portrayal of Dee as a conjuror, Dee’s reputation as a mathematician and philosopher survived. Other scholars, though, followed Meric Casaubon’s example and portrayed Dee as a philosopher who made some poor choices.67 In Anthony Wood’s Athenae Oxoniensis (1674), John Dee had no separate entry, but the entry on John Davies describes John Dee’s magical activities.68 Thomas Smith adopted Casaubon’s view of Dee in Vita Johannes Dee, in Vitae quorundam eruditissimorum et illustrium virorum (1707), but he 63 John Webster, The displaying of supposed witchcraft wherein is affirmed that there are many sorts of deceivers and impostors and divers persons under a passive delusion of melancholy and fancy, but that there is a corporeal league made betwixt the Devil and the witch ... is utterly denied and disproved (London: Printed by J.M., 1677), 7-8. 64 Thomas Fuller, The History of the Worthies of England, ed. P. Austin Nuttall, 3 vols. (1662; reprint, London, 1840), vol. 3, 137. 65 Robert Hooke, The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke (London: Published by Richard Waller, 1705), 203-209. 66 Lilly, William Lilly’s History of His Life and Times, 224. 67 I.R.F. Calder gives a very detailed summary of the ways that John Dee was referenced throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. See Calder, 166-185. 68 Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses: an exact history of all the writers and bishops who have had their education in the University of Oxford: to which are added the Fasti, or Annals of the said University (1674; reprint, Oxford: University of Oxford, 1813- 1820), vol. 2, 374-375. 246 still believed that Dee deserved a place with celebrated English mathematicians because of Dee’s scholarship and the way he was celebrated throughout Europe. The editors of Biographia Britannica (1747-1766) saw no reason to exclude Dee, listing him as “a person famous in the XVIth century for his extensive learning, more especially in the Mathematical Sciences,” but they went on to describe Dee as “extreamly credulous, extravagantly vain, and a most deluded enthusiast.”69 This view of Dee as a vain and misguided scholar persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, through the nineteenth century, Dee’s reputation as a magician seemed to overshadow any of his other skills as a mathematician or natural philosopher. In Gentleman’s Magazine in 1815, Dee was described as an honest and well-meaning “wiseman,” like the sort that appear in every village.70 William Godwin described Dee in Lives of the Necromancers (1834) as “a mystic of the most dishonourable sort.”71 In Amenities of Literature (1841), Isaac D’Israeli suggested that Dee was the inspiration for the character of Prospero from Shakespeare’s The Tempest.72 There were also nineteenth- century scholars noting Dee’s work in mathematics and natural philosophy. For example, in 1842, J.O. Halliwell published Dee’s diaries and catalog of books, highlighting some of Dee’s more scientific activities. Likewise, Sir Henry Ellis, portrayed Dee as an eminent mathematician, but, at the same time, Ellis described Dee as an imposter who was easily duped.73 Even though some scholars were recognizing Dee’s skills as a 69 Biographia Britannica, 7 vols. (London, 1747–1766), vol. 3, 1633, 1638. 70 Gentleman’s Magazine 84, no. 2 (July/Dec. 1814): 207-208. 71 Godwin, 390. 72 Isaac D’Israeli, Amenities of Literature (Paris: A. and W. Galignani and C., 1841), vol. 2, 216-237. 73 Henry Ellis, Original Letters of Eminent Literary Men of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries (London: Printed for the Camden Society, 1843), 47. 247 mathematician, Dee was mostly described as a magician and necromancer. Thomas Wright’s Narratives of Sorcery and Magic (1851) includes a chapter entitled “The English Magicians: Dr. Dee and his followers,” and F.R. Raines suggested that Dee desecrated graves in order to commune with spirits in The Rectors of Manchester (1885).74 John Dee even found his way into popular literature. Harrison Ainsworth’s Guy Fawkes or The Gunpowder Treason (1841) told the tale of a sinister Dee paralyzing intruders with a sprinkle of powder, interrogating the dead, and viewing the future through his magic mirror. Dee was even supposed to have resuscitated Guy Fawkes with a magical elixir. Ainsworth’s text is a work of fiction, but it certainly contributed to the reputation of Dee as a sorcerer. Dee was presented in Charles Mackay’s Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions (1841) as an unfortunate fanatic who spent his time crystal-gazing.75 In 1842, a text circulated in London that was supposedly written by Dee and stored in the British Museum, and it declared that multiple disasters that were to come.76 After the prediction did not materialize, Blackwoods described Dee as a “rogue” but perhaps no more gullible than anyone else of his time.77 Likewise, in 1899 a text by “Hippocrates Junior” entitled “Her Majestie Elizabeth's book of Astrologie: Prepared by 74 Thomas Wright, “The English Magicians: Dr. Dee and his Followers,” in Narratives of Sorcery and Magic (1851; reprint, New York: Redfield, 1852), vol. 1, chapter 12. Raines, 104. 75 Charles Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841; London, reprint, 1852), vol. 1, 152-163. 76 Earthquake in London in the Year 1842: The Life of Dr. John Dee (London: T.H. Munday, 1842), part of the digital collection of The British Library, explore.bl.uk, accessed April 3, 2018. 77 “John Dee,” Blackwoods Edinburgh Magazine 51 (May 1842): 626-629. The article declares that Dee “was really a very clever fellow, and if he had not adopted a trade in which cleverness and knavery always go together, he might have been one of the luminaries of England” (626). 248 her Sacred Majesty's very devoted subject and Astrologer Dr. John Dee” popularized magic and astrology using Dee’s name. The author claimed that the text was supposedly hidden in Dr. Dee’s secret papers.78 Charles Dickens even referred to Dee as “the first and cleverest spiritualists of the middle ages.”79 Dee was treated largely as a magician and sorcerer through the early twentieth century. Some examples include G.M. Hort’s Dr. John Dee Elizabethan Mystic and Astrologer (1922), Grillot de Giury’s La Museé des Sorciers (1920), and Gustav Meyrink’s Der Engel des Westlichen Fenster (1927), in which he is entitled Sir John Dee, Baronet of Gladhall, and his secret life is reconstructed with the aid of a trunk full of old papers, and much crystal gazing by a narrator who is both Dee’s descendant and reincarnation. In J.L.E. Dreyer’s publication of Tycho Brahe’s Opera Omnia, Dreyer noted that Dee was an impressive mathematician but also an imposter engaging in crystal-gazing.80 In a biography of Raleigh (1935), Edward Thompson referred to John Dee as “the funny old man who was liable to be visited by a spiritual creature at midnight.”81 Charlotte Fell Smith produced an extensive biography of John Dee in 1909, but it was really F.R. Johnson and E.G.R. Taylor who started turning attention towards Dee as a scientist. Of course, I.R.F. Calder, Peter French, and Frances Yates brought John Dee to the forefront of the history of science in the mid-twentieth century. There is certainly renewed interest today among historians in the scientific, mathematical, and magical works of John Dee, and, at the same time, the story of Dee 78 Hippocrates Junior, “Her Majestie Elizabeth’s book of Astrologie: Prepared by her Sacred Majesty’s very devoted subject and Astrologer Dr. John Dee” (London, 1899). 79 Charles Dickens, “Modern Magic,” All the Year Round 3, no. 66 (July 28, 1860): 370. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com, Accessed April 1, 2018. 80 J.L.E. Dreyer, in Tycho Brahe, Opera Omnia, Vol. 3 (1916), p. 400 note. 81 Edward Thompson, Sir Walter Raleigh (London: MacMillan and Co., 1935), 68. 249 and his conversations with angels still sparks our imaginations. Dee has made many appearances in modern popular culture. For example, Dee has a prominent role in the storyline for the album Imaginos (1988) by the American rock band Blue Oyster Cult. Dee is the main subject and character of Peter Ackroyd’s novel The House of Doctor Dee (1993). The Swords of Albion series (209-2012) by Mark Chadbourn features Dr. Dee as the source of England’s magical defences against “the Enemy.” The series The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel (2007-2012) by Michael Scott tells the story of John Dee as a villain living in modern times. The historian Deborah Harkness even wrote a set of three novels in the All Souls Trilogy (2011-2014) in which John Dee and his texts play a central role. Most notably, Ian Fleming apparently referred to his character, James Bond, as “007” after reading about John Dee. (Dee would often sign his letters as “007.”) Likewise, Benjamin Woolley (The Queen’s Conjuror, 2001), Glyn Parry (The Arch- Conjuror of England: John Dee, 2011), and Jason Louv (John Dee and the Empire of Angels, 2018) have written about the ways in which Dee was an operative of Queen Elizabeth, perhaps starting the British Intelligence Service, and that theme tends to find its way into popular reports about John Dee.82 The Spectator announced a recent exhibit of Dee’s texts at the Royal College of Physicians with the headline, “John Dee thought he could talk to angels using medieval computer technology.”83 (Interestingly, the article presents Dee as a Neoplatonist, much in the style of Frances Yates or Peter French.) Finally, Dr. Dee: An English Opera debuted at the Palace Theater in Manchester in July 82 See, for example, Marissa Fessenden, “A Painting of John Dee, Astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I, Contains a Hidden Ring of Skulls,” Smithsonian.com, January 18, 2016, www.smithsonianmag.com, Accessed April 1, 2018. 83 Christopher Howse, “John Dee thought he could talk to angels using medieval computer technology,” Spectator.co.uk, January 16, 2016, www.spectator.co.uk, Accessed April 1, 2018. 250 2011, and it, too, celebrated Dee’s magical activities. It is, perhaps, little surprise that the Municipal Borough of Richmond named a street near Mortlake “Dee Road.” John Dee and his writings continue to capture our attention both in historical scholarship and in popular culture. Conclusion Historians tend to think of John Dee’s legacy in a linear fashion: he was a natural philosopher and astrologer who was consulted by monarchs and courtiers, then he became an object of ridicule after Meric Casaubon published his angel diaries. Finally, the scientist John Dee was “revived” in the mid-twentieth century, and we’ve been exploring the complexities of his work and his impact on science ever since. It is clear that John Dee does not fit well into limited categories or timelines, though. His reputation encountered highs and lows throughout his lifetime and in the centuries to follow. Dee’s studies and opinions were important to high-ranking officials, navigators, and students of mathematics, astrology, and alchemy, but even during his lifetime he was defending himself against those who accused him of sorcery. Even after Casaubon published his angel diaries, Dee still had defenders, and his work in mathematics in particular was recognized by those who dismissed the “folly” of his magical pursuits. Hence, two John Dees emerged, one a forbearer of modern science, the other a magician, a charlatan, or (perhaps in the best scenario) someone who was easily duped. Even though John Dee’s angel conversations, his alchemy, and his magic still make their way into popular culture, modern historians are trying to grasp the complexities of Dee’s study of the natural world by considering all of his methods for studying nature as well as the political and cultural context of his work. This movement 251 has developed over time out of the work of Calder, Yates, French, and Clulee, and it has been fueled recently by conferences intended to bring together a variety of scholars to comment on Dee’s work. The 1995 conference at Birkbeck College, University of London, produced studies of Dee’s astrology, his relationship with Thomas Digges, his involvement in maritime affairs, his conversations with angels, his particular views of the Cabala, his relationship with Edward Kelley, and his catalogue of texts. The conference did not generate, though, one particular label or explanation for John Dee, and that was the point. Instead, the conference explored the diversity of his interests, the influences on his natural philosophy, and his particular ways of viewing the cosmos. Likewise, a 2009 conference at Cambridge recognized the 400th anniversary of Dee’s death, examined the political, social, religious, and ideological context in which Dee was working, demonstrating how his search for a steady income and important title influenced his work. A 2014 conference in Antwerp celebrating the 450th anniversary of the printing of the Monas Hieroglyphica served as a lens for studying the relationship between early modern alchemy and print culture. There were other conferences in between, one in 1998 at Jozsef Attila University, one in 2001 at the University of Aarhus, one in 2005 at Birkbeck College focusing on John Dee and alchemy, and several other small events at bookshops celebrating Dee’s work. Because Dee’s interests were so varied, there is still a vast range of Dee’s work and influence to explore in multiple areas. Based on these new perspectives of John Dee, historians are also rethinking his particular scientific practice compared to other natural philosophers and re-evaluating his lasting impact on the development of science. 252 My objective through this study is to contextualize Dee’s particular goals and approaches for studying the natural world and to compare them to some of the work of his contemporary natural philosophers, including astrologers, alchemists, and mystics. Through such a comparison, some similarities emerge between Dee’s natural philosophy and the practices of his colleagues. For example, Dee was a proponent of applying accurate measurements and calculations of the movements of the heavens in true astrology, an idea also embraced by Mercator, Frisius, and Cardano. Moreover, philosophers like Kepler, Brahe, and Digges applied mathematics to their work in natural philosophy. Dee also shared with them an emphasis on precise observations in studying the natural world to understand how it operates. With Fludd and Forman, Dee shared a strong desire to uncover hidden secrets of the natural world and achieve the harmony intrinsic in the universe. Finally, one idea that Dee shared with nearly every philosopher within this study is the belief that he was specially appointed by God to receive secret knowledge of the natural world and even to correct the decay of nature. These goals and methods for studying the natural world that Dee shared with his contemporary philosophers demonstrate (1) that Dee’s natural philosophy was not so unusual for his time, refuting the image of Dee as a misguided mystic; (2) that Dee’s study of the natural world deserves our attention in analyzing the development of modern science; and (3) that further investigation into Dee’s natural philosophy can tell us more about how natural philosophy was practiced in the sixteenth century. Contextualizing Dee’s natural philosophy among his intellectual peers also highlights his particular contributions to natural philosophy. Dee’s ideas about numbers 253 and the application of mathematics in the study of the natural world had lasting impact, which is evident in the consistent references to Dee’s “Mathematical Praeface” among mathematicians throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. While it is true that he is most often recognized for arguing for the utility of mathematics and making mathematics more accessible by publishing about it in the vernacular, his ideas about the application of mathematics in astronomy, astrology, cosmography, and several other fields of natural study that he lists, fueled the general trend for applying mathematics in natural philosophy, which was also advocated by Mercator, Frisius, Digges, and Kepler. I am not arguing, as Yates did, that Dee paved the way for modern science by introducing mathematics in natural philosophy, but I am recognizing that Dee embraced and promoted this important development in natural philosophy. Furthermore, Dee presented a unique way of “reading” the natural world through the “real Cabala,” which was praised and spread by alchemists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Historians are only recently recognizing the positive responses to Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica and the influence of the monad in the development of alchemical studies, particularly among the Paracelsians and the Rosicrucians. Unlike Dee’s work in mathematics, the reading of the natural world through a symbol has been regarded as a vanguard of old, mystical beliefs rather than modern science, but it is an important idea that influenced the way the natural world was understood by philosophers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Dee was also highly regarded during his time for his expertise in navigation. He claimed to invent new navigational instruments, he published texts on navigation, and he taught navigational principles and techniques to sailors and explorers. At the same time, 254 his arguments for the building of the British Empire and the discovery of the Northwest Passage influenced important voyages for England that had lasting impact on trade, politics, and geography. His teachings also inspired others, like Leonard and Thomas Digges, to produce even more highly refined navigational instruments and texts. In this context, Dee’s study of the natural world was a catalyst for further scientific advancement and empire-building. Dee proposed some novel ideas in his studies of the natural world that, perhaps because of his political, social, or religious context, did not have lasting impact but were nonetheless important to Dee’s particular view of the world and influential on his other investigations of nature. For example, Dee proposed a correction for the Julian calendar that was unique from any other known proposal from his time. His assertion that the calendar should be adjusted back to the birth of Christ, not to the Council of Nicaea, reflected his belief that he was specially appointed to receive secret knowledge of the divine plan and to correct the decay of nature. It also again demonstrated the emphasis that he placed on precise calculations in understanding the operations of the natural world. His argument, A Playne Discourse, was a testament to his skill in natural philosophy and his political savvy in promoting the British Empire. Finally, the most notable example of Dee’s unique approach to understanding the natural world is his conversations with angels. It is true that others attempted contacting the super-celestial realm and that other natural philosophers (like Brahe, Kepler, and Fludd) believed in the mystical properties of numbers, but Dee’s particular approach to the Cabala and to communicating with angels through numbers, light, and angles, was particular to him. These conversations played a number of roles in his natural philosophy. 255 First, the angels affirmed his view the he was specially chosen to know the secrets of nature and the divine plan and to manipulate nature. Second, his means of contacting angels through crystal-gazing reflected his emphasis on the importance of understanding light and rays and the angle of their impact in order to grasp the influence they have on planetary bodies and human beings. Third, he communicated with angels through numbers because he believed that numbers could serve as an intermediary between the terrestrial and super-celestial realms. Finally, the Cabalistic exegesis that he applied to the angel language was reminiscent of the “Cabala of the real” that he advocated through the application of his monad. John Dee’s angel conversations are probably his greatest mystery. What actually happened during the conversations? What is the meaning of the angel language that he recorded? Was he duped by Kelley and other scryers? These are questions that scholars might continue to discuss over the next centuries. It is little surprise that Dee’s angel conversations continue to vex historians and inspire stories about Dee the sorcerer and the power of magic. Was John Dee a sorcerer, a magus, a scientist, a visionary, or a mystic? He may have been a little of all of those things, and many more. It seems that interest in John Dee is only growing in historical studies, in popular culture, and in occult circles. Historians will continue to study Dee’s mysteries, his political and ideological networks and influences, and his unique place in the development of modern science. In a way, perhaps the angel Raphael’s prophecy to Dee is being fulfilled: “thou shalt die with fame and memory to the end, that such an one was upon the earth, that God by him had wrought great and wonderful Miracles in 256 his service.”84 Although he is such a complex historical figure, we continue to try to uncover John Dee’s “great and wonderful Miracles” and his influence in the development of modern science. 84 Dee, A True and Faithful Relation, 35. 257 Bibliography Manuscripts Ashmole, Elias. “Letter to Dr. Arthur Dee of Norwich, under the signature of ‘James Hasolle,’ inquiring whether he were the author of the Faciculus Chemicus, of which he (Ashmole) was then printing a translation under that anagrammatic name and what relation he bore to Dr. John Dee (23 Jan. 1649—50).” Bodleian Library Ashmole 1790. ---. Preface to “Dr. John Dee’s conference with angels from December 22, 1581 to May 30, 1583 being what precedes other conferences printed by Dr. Meric Casaubon London 1659 in folio.” British Library Sloane 3188. The Book of Soyga. Bodleian Library Bodley 908. Dee, John. Alchemical notes. Bodleian Library MS Ashmole 1486 (Part V). ---. Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis. 1570. British Library Add 59681. ---. “Canon Gubernauticus,” or “A great volume, in which are contained our [sic] Queen Elizabeth her Arithmeticall Tables Gubernatick: for Navigation by Paradoxall Compass (by me invented anno 1557) and Navigation by Great Circles, and for longitudes and latitudes, and the variation of the Compass, finding most easily and speedily etc.” Bodleian Library Ashmole 242 (no. 83). ---. Catalogue of Dr. Dee’s Library. Trinity College, University of Cambridge, MS O.4.20. Available through the Trinity College wesite at trin-sites- pub.trin.cam.ac.uk, accessed 16 July 2018. ---. Compendious Rehearsall. 1592. British Library Cotton MS Vitellius C VIII, arts 1-6. ---. Diaries of John Dee. 1577-1601. Bodleian Library Ashmole 487 and 488. ---. De Heptarchia Mystica. 1582. Bodleian Library Ashmole 1790. ---. Catalogus librorum Bibliothecne (externae) Mortlakensis. D. Joh. Dee. 1583. Bodleian Library Ashmole 1142. ---. “Genealogical roll of the descent of John Dee … showing his kinship with the Sovereigns of the House of Tudor.” n.d. British Library, Cotton Ch. XIV.1, also available online at www.bl.uk/collection-items/john-dees-genealogy-and-self- portrait, accessed 31 May 2018. 258 ---. Liber Mysteriorum Sextus et Sanctus. 1583. Bodleian Library Ashmole 422. ---. Manuscripts and list of household expenses. London, n.d. Bodleian Library Ashmole 337. ---. Mysteriorum Libri. 1581-1583. British Library Sloane 3188. ---. Mysteriorum Libri, part II, copy by Raph Jennyngs to Mr. Widdrington. 1656. British Library, Cotton Appendix MS 46. ---. A playne discourse and humble advise for our gratious Queen Elizabeth, her most Excellent Majestie to peruse and consider, as concerning the needful Reformation of the Vulgar kalendar for the civile years and daies accompting, or verifyeng, according to the time truely spent. 1583. Bodleian Library Ashmole 1789. ---. A True and Faithful Relation of what Passed for Many Years Between Dr. John Dee . . . and some Spirits. Edited by Meric Casaubon. London: Printed by D. Maxwell, for T. Garthwait, 1659. Bodleian Library Ashmole 580. ---. Works of John Dee. British Library Cotton MS Vitellius C VIII. Forman, Simon. “A book of Nativities set and judged by Simon Forman.” Bodleian Library Ashmole 206. ---. The Groundes of Longitude: With an Admonition to all those that are Incredulous and believe not the Truth of the same. Written by Simon Forman student in Astronomie and Phisique, 1591. London, 1591. Bodleian Library Ashmole 802. ---. Dr. Simon Forman’s Book of Cabbalah, and Names of Angels and Evil Spirits. Bodleian Library Ashmole 244. “The Rosie Crucian Secrets Atributed to John Dee.” 1665. British Library Harley MS 6485. Also available digitized at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts, accessed March 31, 2018. Smith, Thomas. Autobiography, with schemes of nativities. 1513-1560. British Library MS Sloane 325. “A transcript of some Notes [that] Dr. Dee had entered in Stoffler’s Ephemerides beginning 1543, and ending 1556.” Bodliean Library Ashmole 423. Tymme, Thomas. “A Light in Darkness.” Bodleian Library Ashmole 1459. 259 Printed Sources Apian, Peter. Cosmographia Petri Apiani. Væneunt Antuerpiæ sub scuto Basiliensi. 1533. Available through Sabin Americana (gdc.gale.com/products/sabin- americana-1500-1926), accessed 24 June 2015. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Edited by Thomas Gilby et al. 61 volumes. Cambridge, 1964-81. Vol. 9. Ashmole, Elias. Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum. London: Printed by J. Grismond for Nath: Brooke, at the Angel in Cornhill, 1652. Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyk.com, accessed 28 March 2018. Bacon, Roger. De multiplictione specierum, in Roger Bacon’s Philosophy of Nature: A Critical Edition, with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes of De multiplictione specierum and De speculus compurentibus. Translated by David C. Lindberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Brahe, Tycho. Astronomiae instauratae mechanica. 1598; Noribergae, apud L. Hvlsivm, 1602. ---. Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera Omnia. Edited by John Louis Emil Dreyer. 15 Volumes. Hven, 1913-1929. Cardano, Girolamo. The Book of My Life (De vita propria liber). Translated by Jean Stoner. London: J. M. Deut and Sons, 1931. ---. Libelli quinque. Nuremburg, 1547. ---. Opera Omnia. 10 Volumes. Lyons, 1663; reprint, London, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1967. Catholic Church. Calendarium Gregorianum Perpetuum, in Clavius, Opera Mathematica: Tomus Quintus. Sumptibus Antonii Hierat, ecudebat Ioannes Volmari, 1611-1612. Dee, John. Autobiographical Tracts of Dr. John Dee. Edited by James Crossley. 1851; reprint, Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2003. ---. General and Rare Memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation (1577). ---. John Dee on Astronomy: Propaedeumata aphoristica (1558 and 1568). Edited by J. L. Heilbron and Wayne Shumaker. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978). 260 ---. A Letter, Containing a most Briefe Discourse Apologetical. London, 1599. Available through Early English Books Online (www.eebo.chadwyk.com), accessed August 12, 2014. ---. Letter of Dr. John Dee to Sir William Cecil. 1562-3. Edited by R.W. Grey. 1854. ---. “The Mathematicall Praeface” in The Mathematicall Praeface to Elements of Geometrie of Euclid of Megara (1570) with an Introduction by Allen G. Debus. Edited by Allen G. Debus. New York: Science History Publications, 1975. ---. Monas Hieroglyphica. Antwerp: G. Silvius, 1564. Also available through the Library of Congress Digitized Collection at www.loc.gov, accessed 10 October 2017. ---. Parallaticae commentationis praxeosque nucleus quidam (London, 1573). Available through Early English Books Online, www.eebo.chadwyk.com, accessed 6 August 2014. ---. Propaedeumata Aphoristica Ioannis Dee, Londinensis, de praestantioribus quibusdam naturae virtutibus. 1558. Available through Early English Books Online, Accessed May 28, 2013, www.eebo.chadwyk.com. ---. The true Copie of M. John Dee his Petition to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. London: Printed by E. Short, 1603. Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, accessed April 2, 2018. Digges, Thomas. “Mathematical Discourse of the 5 Plantonicall Regular Solides, and their Metamorphasis into 5 other compound rare Geometricall bodies” in A Geometrical Practical Treatize named Pantometria by Leondard Digges. London, 1591. Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, accessed 12 August 2015. ---. Alæ seu Scalæ Mathematicæ, quibus visibilium remotissima Cœlorum Theatra conscendi, & Planetarum omnium itinera nouis & inauditis Methodis explorari: tùm huius portentosi Syderis in Mundi Boreali plaga insolito fulgore coruscantis. Londini: Apud Thomam Marsh, 1573. Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, accessed 11 July 2018. Ficino, Marsilio. De vita coelitus comparanda. Venice, 1516. Field, John. Ephemeris anni 1557 currentis iuxta Copernici et Reinholdi canones . . . supputata. London: Thomas Marsh, 1556. Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyk.com, accessed June 25, 2015. Fludd, Robert. Apologia compendiaria, Fraternitatem de Rosea Croce suspicionis et infamiæ maculis aspersam, veritatis quasi Fluctibus abluens et abstergens. Leydae, 1616. 261 ---. Medicina Catholica, seu mysticum artis medicandi sacrarum. Francofurti, 1629. ---. Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atqve technica historia. Oppenhemii: Aere Johan-Theodori de Bry: Typis Hieronymi Galleri, 1617-1624. Available through the Haithi Trust Digital Library, www.haithitrust.org, Accessed April 21, 2018. Richard Forster, Ephemerides Meteoregraphicae. London,1575. Available through Early English Books Online at eebo.chadwyck.com, Accessed April 1, 2018. Foxe, John. Acts and Monuments. Edited by Stephen Reed Cattley. 1563, reprint; London: R. Clay, 1838. Frisius, Gemma. De astrolabo catholico. Antwerp, 1556. ---. De principiis astronomiae et cosmographiae. 1530, Coloniæ: Apud Maternum Cholinum, 1578. Microprint, University of Maryland. ---. De radio astronomico. Antwerp, 1545. Available through The Bavarian State Library, www.bsb-muenchen.de/index.php, accessed 21 July 2015. Lemon, Robert, ed. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, 1547-1580. London: Longman, 1856. ---, ed. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, 1581-1590. London: Longman, 1856. Halliwell, James Orchard, ed. A Collection of Letters Illustrative of the Progress of Science in England. London, 1841. Hooke, Robert. The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke. London: Published by R. Waller, 1705; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1969. J.D. A Triple Almanack for 1591. London: Richard Watkins and James Roberts, 1591. Available through Early English Books Online at eebo.chadwyck.com, Accessed April 1, 2018. Kepler, Johannes. Astronomia Nova. Heidelberg, 1609. Also available online at library.si.edu, Accessed 4 October 2017. ---. De Fundamentis Astrologiae Certioribus. Prague, 1601. British Library General Reference Collection DRT Digital Store 1609/751. ---. Gesammelte Werke. Edited by Von Dyck and Max Caspar. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1937- 2009. 262 ---. Harmonices Mundi. Lincii Austriae: sumptibus Godofredi Tampachii, 1619. Also available online at library.si.edu, Accessed 4 October 2017. ---. Joannis Kepleri Astronomi Opera Omnia. Edited by Charles Frisch, 8 vols. Francofurti A.M.; Erlangae: Heyder & Zimmer, 1858-1871. Readex Master Microform. ---. Kepler’s Somnium: The Dream, or Posthumous Work on Lunar Astronomy, Translated by Edward Rosen. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967. Libavius, Andreas. Tractatus Dvo Physici; Prior De Impostoria Vvlnervm per unguentum armarium sanatione Paracelsicis usitata commendataque; Posterior de cruentatione cadaverum in iusta caede factorum praesente, qui occidisse creditor. Frankfurt, 1594. Available through Bayerische StaatsBibliothek digital, reader.digitale-sammlungen.de, accessed March 31, 2018. Lilly, William. William Lilly’s History of his Life and Times from the Year 1602 to 1681. London, 1715. Maestlin, Michael. De astronomiae hypothesibus sive de circulis sphaericis et orbibus theoricis. Heidelberg: Jacobus Mylius, 1582. Available through the Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek, www.digitale-sammlungen.de, accessed 22 July 2016. ---. Epitome astronomiæ, qua brevi explicatione omnia, tam ad sphæricam quam theoricam ejus partem pertinentia, ... per questiones traduntur. ... Ab ipso autore ... recognita. Tubingæ, 1597. British Library General Reference Collection DRT Digital Store 531.f.15. ---. M. M. Mæstlini ... alterum examen novi Pontificialis Gregoriani Kalendarii, quo ... demonstratur, quod novum Kalendarium ... mendosum ... vitiosum sit. Tubingae, 1586. ---. Observatio & demonstratio Cometæ aetherei qui anno 1577 et 1578 constitutus in sphæra Veneris apparuit. Tubingæ, 1578. British Library General Reference Collection DRT Digital Store 532.e.61. McLean, A. ed. The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz. Translated by J. Godwin. Magnum Opus Hermetic Sourceworks, 18. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Phanes Press, 1991. Mercator, Bartholomew. Breves in Sphaeram Meditatiunculae. Cologne, 1563. Available through the Bavarian State Library, bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de, accessed 2 July 2015. 263 Mercator, Gerard. Chronologia. Hoc est, Temporum demonstration exactissima ab initio mundi, usque ad annum Domini M.D.LXVII et eclipsibus et observationibus astronomicis omnium temporum, sacris quoq[ue] Biblijs, & optimis quibusq[ue] Scriptoribus summa fide concinnata. Cologne, 1569. ---. Dedicatory letter in Evangelicae historiae. Duysbergi, 1592. Available through Heinrich Heine Universitäts-UND Landesbibliothek, digital.ub.uni- duesseldorf.de, accessed 3 July 2015. ---. Nova et aucta orbis. Translated in Texts and Legends of the Original Chart of the World by Gerhard Mercator issued in 1569. Monaco: The Hydrographic Review, 1932. ---. “Praefatio” in Tabulae geographicae Cl: Ptolemaei (1578). Available through the Bavarian State Library, bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de, accessed 2 July 2015. ---. Sententia I, in Gérard Mercator: Sa Vie et ses Oeuvres. Edited by J. Van Raemdonck. St. Nicholas: E. Dalschaert-Praet, 1869. ---. Tabulae Geographicae Claudii Ptolemaei. Coloniae Agrippinae, 1578. Available through the Bavarian State Library, bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de, accessed 27 July 2015. Offusius, Jofrancus. De Divina Astrorum Facultate in Laruatam Astrologia. Paris, 1570. Available through the Hathi Trust Digital Library, catalog.hathitrust.org, accessed 3 August 2015. Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni. Disputationes adversus Astrologiam Divinatricem. 2 Volumes. Edited by Eugenio Garin. Florence: Vallechi, 1946-1952. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works. Translated by Colm Luibheid. Foreword, notes, and translation collaboration by Paul Rorem. London: SPCK, 1987. Ptolemy, Claudius. Tetrabiblos. Translated by F.E. Robbin. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1940. Rabbard, Raph. “Epistle to Elizabeth” in George Ripley, The Compound of Alchymy. London: Imprinted by Thomas Orwin, 1591. Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, Accessed April 3, 2018. “Report of Thomas Digges, Sir Henry Savile, and Mr. Chambers on the Correction of the Calendar,” reprinted in “Historical Notice of the Attempt Made by the English Government to Rectify the Calendar, A.D. 1584-5,” Gentlemen’s Magazine and Historical Review XXXVI (November 1851): 451-459. 264 Roche Dasent, John, ed., Acts of the Privy Council of England. Volume 5. London: Printed for H.M.S.O. by Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1892. Rudd, Thomas, ed., Euclides Elements of Geometry the First VI Books, in a Compendious Form Contracted and Demonstrated. London: Printed by Robert and William Leybourn for Richard Tomlins and Robert Boydell, 1651. Strype, John. The Life of the Learned Sir John Cheke. 1705; reprint, New York: Lennox Hill, 1974. Van Durme, M., ed. Correspondence mercatorienne. Antwerp, 1959. Microform, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Webster, John. The displaying of supposed witchcraft wherein is affirmed that there are many sorts of deceivers and impostors and divers persons under a passive delusion of melancholy and fancy, but that there is a corporeal league made betwixt the Devil and the witch ... is utterly denied and disproved. London: Printed by J.M., 1677. Secondary Sources Almási, Gábor. “Tycho Brahe and the Separation of Astronomy from Astrology: The Making of a New Scientific Discourse,” Science in Context 26, no. 1 (March 2013): 3-30. Almeida, Bruno. “On the Origins of Dee’s Mathematical Programme: The John Dee— Pedro Nuñes Connection,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 43, no. 3 (Septebmer 2012): 460-469. Aubrey, John. Brief Lives. Edited by Richard Barber. 1681, reprint; London: Penguin Books, 1982. Barker, Peter and Bernard R. Goldstein. “Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy,” Osiris, 2nd Series, 16, Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions (2001): 88-113. Beitchman, Philip. Alchemy of the Word: Cabala of the Renaissance. New York: SUNY Press, 1998. Ben-Dore Benite, Zvi. The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Biographia Britannica. 7 Volumes. London, 1747–1766. 265 Bourne, William. A booke called the treasure for traueilers deuided into fiue bookes or partes, contayning very necessary matters, for all sortes of trauailers, eyther by sea or by lande. London: for Thomas Woodcocke, 1578. Bouwsma, William J. Concordia Mundi: The Career and Thought of Guillaume Postel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957. Bowd, Stephen. “John Dee and the Seven in Lancashire: Possession, Exorcism, and Apocalypse in Elizabethan England.” Northern History 47, no. 2 (September 1, 2010): 233-246. Burtt, Edwin A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1925. Butterfield, Herbert. The Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800. London: Bell, 1949. Calder, I.R.F. “John Dee Studied as an English Neoplatonist,” 2 vols., PhD dissertation. The Warburg Institute, London University, 1952. EThOS: Electronic Theses Online Service, British Library, www.bl.uk, accessed April 4, 2018. Campbell, Andrew. “The Reception of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica in Early Modern Italy: The Case of Paolo Antonio Foscarini (c. 1562-1616),” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 43, no. 3 (September 2012): 519-529. Campion, Nicholas. A History of Western Astrology Volume II: The Medieval and Modern Worlds. London: Continuum, 2009. Chapman, Allan. “The Accuracy of Angular Measuring Instruments used in Astronomy Between 1500 and 1850,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 14:2, no. 40 (1983): 133-136. Cherton, Anne and Marcel Watelet. “Catalogues,” in Gerardus Mercator Rupelmondanus. Edited by Marcel Watelet. Antwerp: Mercatorfonds, 1994. 402- 413. Christianson, J.R. On Tycho’s Island: Tycho Brahe, Science, and Culture in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ---. “Tycho Brahe’s German Treatise on the Comet of 1577: A Study in Science and Politics,” Isis 70, no. 1 (1979): 110-140. Clucas, Stephen, ed. John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies in English Renaissance Thought. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2006. 266 Clulee, Nicholas H. “The Glas of Creation: Renaissance Mathematicism and Natural Philosophy in the Work of John Dee.” PhD dissertation. University of Chicago, 1973. ---. John Dee’s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion. London: Routledge, 1998. ---. “The Monas Hieroglyphica and the Alchemical Thread of John Dee’s Career,” AMBIX 52, no. 3 (November 2005): 197-215. Coyne, G.V., S.J., Hoskin, M.A. and Pedersen, O., eds. Gregorian Reform of the Calendar: Proceedings of the Vatican Conference to Commemorate its 400th Anniversary (1582-1982). Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 1983. Crane, Nicholas. Mercator: The Man Who Mapped the Planet. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2003. Curtis, Mark H. Oxford and Cambridge in Transition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959. Debus, Allen G. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1977. ---. Robert Fludd and his Philosophicall Key: Being a Transcription of the Manuscript at Trinity College, Cambridge. New York, Science History Publications, 1979. Debus, Allen G. and Michael T. Walton, eds. Reading the Book of Nature: The Other Side of the Scientific Revolution. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1998. Dickens, Charles. “Modern Magic,” All the Year Round 3, no. 66 (July 28, 1860): 370. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com, Accessed April 1, 2018. D’Israeli, Isaac. Amenities of Literature. Paris: A. and W. Galignani and C., 1841. Dobrzycki, Jerzy, ed. The Reception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1972. Dreyer, J.L.E., ed. Tycho Brahe: A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in the Sixteenth Century. Edinburgh: Charles and Black, 1890; second edition, New York: Dover, 1963. Earthquake in London in the Year 1842: The Life of Dr. John Dee. London: T.H. Munday, 1842. Part of the digital collection of The British Library, explore.bl.uk, accessed April 3, 2018. 267 Einhorn, Klaudia and Gunther Wuchterl. “Kepler’s Wallenstein-Horoscopes,” Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Mathematica et Physica 46 (2005): 101-114. Ellis, Henry. Original Letters of Eminent Literary Men of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries. London: Printed for the Camden Society, 1843. Febvre, Lucien. The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Problem of Rabelais. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Fell Smith, Charlotte. John Dee, 1527 to 1608. 1909; reprint, Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Feola, Vittoria. “Elias Ashmole’s Collections and Views about John Dee,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43, no. 3 (September 1, 2012): 530- 538. Ferguson, Kitty. Tycho and Kepler: The Unlikely Partnership that Forever Changed our Understanding of the Heavens. New York: Walker & Company, 2002. Fessenden, Marissa. “A Painting of John Dee, Astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I, Contains a Hidden Ring of Skulls.” Smithsonian.com. January 18, 2016. www.smithsonianmag.com, Accessed April 1, 2018. Field, Judith V. “A Lutheran Astrologer: Johannes Kepler,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 31, no. 3 (1984): 189-272. Fierz, Markus. Girolamo Cardano 1501-1576: Physician, Natural Philosopher, Astrologer, and Interpreter of Dreams. Boston: Birkhauser, 1983. Forshaw, Peter J. “Cabala Chymica or Chemica Cabalistica—Early Modern Alchemists and Cabala,” AMBIX 60, no. 4 (November 2013): 361-389. ---. “The Early Alchemical Reception of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica,” AMBIX 52, no. 3 (2005): 247-269. French, Peter. John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1972. Fuller, Thomas. The History of the Worthies of England. Edited by P. Austin Nuttall. 3 Volumes. 1662; reprint, London, 1840. Gentleman’s Magazine 84, no. 2 (July/Dec. 1814): 207-208. Gill, Meredith. Angels and the Order of Heaven in Medieval and Renaissance Italy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 268 Gingerich, Owen. The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Kepler. New York: American Institute of Physics, 1993. Gingerich, Owen and Jerzy Dobrzycki. “The Master of the 1550 Radices: Jofrancus Offusius,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 24 (November 1993): 235-253. Godwin, William. Lives of the Necromancers. London, 1834. Grafton, Anthony. Cardano’s Cosmos: The Worlds and Works of a Renaissance Astrologer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. ---. “Chronology, Controversy, and Community in the Republic of Letters: The Case of Kepler” in Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2009. 114-136. Granada, Miguel A. “Michael Maestlin and the New Star of 1572,” Journal of the History of Astronomy 38 (2007): 99-124. Hall, A.R. The Scientific Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954. Harkenss, Deborah. The Jewel House: Elizabethan London and the Scientific Revolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. ---. John Dee’s Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the End of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Hegarty, Andrew. A Biographical Register of St. John’s College, Oxford 1555-1660. Oxford: Boydell & Brewer Ltd., 2011. Hippocrates Junior. “Her Majestie Elizabeth’s book of Astrologie: Prepared by her Sacred Majesty’s very devoted subject and Astrologer Dr. John Dee.” London, 1899. Hooke, Robert. The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke. London: Published by Richard Waller, 1705. Horvath, Gabriela Dragnea. Theatre, Magic, and Philosophy: William Shakespeare, John Dee, and the Italian Legacy. London: Routledge, 2017. Howse, Christopher. “John Dee thought he could talk to angels using medieval computer technology.” Spectator.co.uk. January 16, 2016. www.spectator.co.uk, accessed April 1, 2018. Huffman, William H. Robert Fludd and the End of the Renaissance. London and New York: Routledge, 1988. 269 Jardine, Lisa. Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution. New York: Nan A. Talese, 1999. Jervis, Jane E. Cometary Theory in Fifteenth-Century Europe. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985. “John Dee,” Blackwoods Edinburgh Magazine 51 (May 1842): 626-629. Johnson, Francis R. Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England: A Study of the English Scientific Writings from 1500 to 1645. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1937. Johnson, Francis R. and Sanford V. Larkey. “Thomas Digges, the Copernican system, and the idea of the infinity of the universe in 1576,” Huntington Library Bulletin, 5 (1934), 69-117. Josten, C.H. “A Translation of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica, Antwerp, 1564, with an Introduction and Annotations,” AMBIX 12 (1964): 84-221. Karrow, Robert. Mapmakers of the Sixteenth Century and Their Maps: Bio- bibliographies of the Cartographers of Abraham Ortelius, 1570. Chicago: Speculum Orbis Press, 1993. Kassell, Lauren. Medicine and Magic in Elizabethan London: Simon Forman, Alchemist, Astrologer, and Physician. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005. Keck, David. Angels and Angeology in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. ---. “Bonaventure’s Angelology” in A Companion to Bonaventure. Edited by Jay Hammond, Wayne Hellman, and Jared Goff. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2013. 289-332. Klein, Elizabeth. Augustine’s Theology of Angels. Cambridge University Press, 2018. Koyré, Alexander. From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957. Kremer, Richard and Jaroslaw Wlodarczyk, eds. Johannes Kepler: From Tübingen to Żagań. Warsaw, Poland: Institut Historii Nauki PAN, 2009. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Leeke, John and Geroge Serle, eds. Euclid's Elements of Geometry in XV Books: With a Supplement of Divers Propositions and Corollaries. London: Printed by R. & W. 270 Leybourn for George Sawbridge, 1661. Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyk.com, accessed March 31, 2018. Levack, Brian, ed. Renaissance Magic. New York: Routledge, 1992. Lindberg, David C. and Robert S. Westman, eds. Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Mackay, Charles. Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. 1841; London, reprint, 1852. MacMillen, Ken. “Discourse on History, Geography, and Law: John Dee and the Limits of British Empire,” Canadian Journal of History 36, no. 1 (April 2001): 1-25. Marshall Peter and Alexandra Walsham, eds. Angels in the Early Modern World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. McDermott, James. Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan Privateer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. McKnight, Stephen A., ed. Science, Pseudoscience and Utopianism in Early Modern Thought. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992. Methuen, Charlotte. Kepler’s Tübingen: Stimulus to Theological Matters. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 1998. Moran, Bruce T. Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. Nashe, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Nashe. Edited by Ronald B. McKerrow. 5 Volumes. Oxford, 1966. Naudé, Gabriel. The Historie of Magick by way of Apology for all the Wise Men who have unjustly been reputed Magicians from the Creation to the present Age. Translated by J. Davies. London: Printed for John Streater, 1657. Newman, William. Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. ---. Gehennial Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press, 1994. Newman, William and Anthony Grafton, eds. Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2001. 271 Newman, William and Lawrence Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Oliver, Thomas. De Sophismatum praestigijs cauendis admonition. Cantabrigiae: Ex officina Iohannis Legat, 1604. Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, Accessed April 3, 2018. Osley, A.S. Mercator: A Monograph on the Lettering of Maps, etc. in the Sixteenth Century Netherlands. London: Faber & Faber, 1969. Parry, Glyn. The Arch-Conjuror of England: John Dee. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012. Pedersen, Olaf. A Survey of the Almagest, with Annotation and a new Commentary by Alexander Jones. New York: Springer, 2011. Poole, Robert. Time’s Alteration: Calendar Reform in Early Modern England. London: UCL Press, 1998. Pumfrey, Stephen. “‘Your Astronomer and Ours Differ Exceedingly’: The Controversy over the ‘New Star’ of 1572 in Light of a Newly Discovered Text by Thomas Digges,”The British Journal for the History of Science 44 (March 2011): 29-60. Raines, F.R. The Rectors of Manchester, and the Wardens of the Collegiate Church of that Town, Chetham Society Publications VI. Edited by John E. Bailey. Manchester: Chetham Society, 1885. Rampling, Jennifer M. “John Dee and the Alchemists: Practising and Promoting English Alchemy in the Holy Roman Empire.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 43, no. 3 (September 2012): 498-508. ---. “John Dee and the Sciences: Early Modern Networks of Knowledge,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43, no. 3 (September 2012): 432-436. Ray, Meredith K. Daughters of Alchemy: Women and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2015. Raymond, Joad, ed. Conversations with Angels: Essays Toward a History of Spiritual Communication, 1100-1700. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillen, 2011. ---. Milton and the Agnels: The Early-Modern Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Roberts, R.J. and Andrew G. Watson, eds. John Dee’s Library Catalogue. London: Bibliographical Society, 1990. 272 ---. John Dee’s Library Catalogue: Additions and Corrections. London: Bibliographic Society, 2009. Roche, John J. “The Radius Astronomicus in England,” Annals of Science 38 (1981): 1- 32. Rosen, Edward. Copernicus and His Successors. Edited by Erna Hilfstein. London: The Hambeldon Press, 1995. ---. “Galileo and Kepler: Their First Two Contacts,” Isis 57, no. 2 (Summer, 1966): 262- 264. Rowse, A.L. Sex and Society in Shakepeare’s Age: Simon Forman the Astrologer. New York: Scribner, 1974. Scott, A. Origen and the Life of the Stars. 1991; reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Sherman, William. John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995. Sirasi, Nancy G. The Clock and the Mirror: Girolamo Cardano and Renaissance Medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001. Sledge, James Justin. “Between Loageth and Consening: Towards and Etiology of John Dee’s Spirit Diaries,” Aries 10.1 (2010): 1-35. Smith, Thomas. Vita Johannes Dee, in Vitae quorundam eruditissimorum et illustrium virorum. London, 1707. Spiller, Michael G. “Concerning Natural Experimental Philosophie:” Meric Casaubon and the Royal Society. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media, 1980. Szulakowska, Urszula. The Alchemy of Light: Geometry and Optics in Late Renaissance Alchemical Illustration. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Szonyi, György. John Dee’s Occultism: Magical Exaltation Through Powerful Signs. Albany: State University of New York, 2004. Taton, René and Curtis Wilson, eds. Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics: Tycho Brahe to Newton, General History of Astronomy, vol. 2A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Taylor, Andrew. The World of Gerard Mercator: The Mapmaker who Revolutionized Geography. New York: Walker Books, 2004. 273 Taylor, E.G.R. “John Dee and the Nautical Triangle, 1575,” Journal of the Institute of Navigation 8 (1955): 318-325. ---. “A Letter Dated 1577 from Mercator to John Dee,” Imago Mundi 13 (1956): 56-68. ---. Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954. ---. Tudor Geography, 1485-1583. London: Methuen & Co., 1930. Teeter Dobbs, Betty Jo. The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy. Cambridge: Cambride University Press, 1983. Teeter Dobbs, Betty Jo. The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton’s Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Teeter Dobbs, Betty Jo, and Margaret C. Jacob, Newton and the Culture of Newtonianism. Amherst, New York: Humanity Books, 1995. Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Thompson, Edward. Sir Walter Raleigh. London: MacMillan and Co., 1935. Thoren, Victor E. The Lord of Uraniborg: A Biography of Tycho Brahe. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Thorndike, Lynn. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. Volume 3. 1958; reprint, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. Traister, Barbara Howard. The Notorious Astrological Physician of London: Works and Days of Simon Forman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Van Der Krogt, Peter. Globi Neerlandici: The Production of Globes in the Low Countries. Utrecht: HES, 1993. Vanden Broecke, Steven. “Dee, Mercator, and Louvain Instrument Making: an Undescribed Astrological Disc by Gerard Mercator (1551),” Annals of Science 58 (2001), 219-240. ---. The Limits of Influence: Pico, Louvain, and the Crisis of Renaissance Astronomy. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishing, 2003. Vickers, Brian, ed. Occult and Scientific Mentalities of the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. 274 Voelkel, James R. The Composition of Kepler’s Astronomia Nova. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Von Stuckrad, Kocku. Locations of Knowledge in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. The Netherlands: Brill, 2010. Walton, Michael Thomson. Genesis and the Chemical Philosophy: True Christian Science in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Brooklyn, NY: AMS studies in the Renaissance, 2011. Webster, Charles. From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the Making of Modern Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. ---, ed. Health, Medicine, and Mortality in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Westman, Robert, ed. The Copernican Achievement. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1975. ---. The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Westman, Robert and J.E. McGuire. Hermeticism and the Scientific Revolution. Papers Read at a Clark Library Seminar, March 9, 1974. Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1977. Whitby, Christohper. “Motives,” in John Dee, John Dee’s Action with Spirits. Edited by Christopher Whitby. 2 Volumes. New York: Routledge, 1988. Wood, Anthony. Athenae Oxonienses: an exact history of all the writers and bishops who have had their education in the University of Oxford: to which are added the Fasti, or Annals of the said University. 1674; reprint, Oxford: University of Oxford, 1813-1820. Woolley, Benjamin. The Queen’s Conjuror: the Science and Magic of Dr. John Dee, Adviser to Elizabeth I. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001. Worsop, Edward. A discouerie of sundrie errours and faults daily committed by lande- meaters, ignorant of arithmetike and geometrie, to the damage, and preiudice of many her Maiesties subiects with manifest proofe that none ought to be admitted to that function, but the learned practisioners of those sciences. London: Printed by Henrie Middleton for Gregorie Seton, 1582. Available through Early English Books Online, eebo.chadwyck.com, Accessed March 31, 2018. 275 Wright, Thomas. “The English Magicians: Dr. Dee and his Followers,” in Narratives of Sorcery and Magic. 1851; reprint, New York: Redfield, 1852. Yates, Frances. Frances Yates, Collected Essays: The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972. ---. Girodano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. ---. “A Great Magus,” New York Review of Books 19, no. 11-12 (January 25, 1973): 39- 41. ---. “The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science” in Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance, edited by Charles S. Singleton. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967. ---. The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age. 1964; reprint, New York: Psychology Press, 2001. ---. Theater of the World. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1969.