John Dee Such an Enigmatic

¶ … John Dee such an enigmatic figure in Western Europe?

The character of 16th century mathematician and philosopher John Dee presents an intriguing conjunction of science, magic, and imperial patronage seemingly hand-crafted for his time. In order to fully understand the range of Dee's influence on both Elizabethan imperialism and the advance of the sciences, it will be necessary to examine some of the key events of his life as well as the philosophy he formulated through years of mathematical and magical thinking. Although Dee's particular blend of the scientific and spiritual may at first glance appear to be almost anachronistic even in his own time, in truth Dee demonstrates the confluence of seemingly disparate historical and cultural forces that initiated an expansion of thought and empire beyond anything that had been previously been considered.

To begin an analysis of John Dee, it will be useful to briefly examine points in his life that may serve as temporal landmarks, placing the development of his thought into its proper context. Therefore, for this study, one need not concern oneself with the entirety of Dee's biography, but rather only those details which may serve to illuminate Dee's fascinating continuum of scientific spirituality. The word continuum is used here explicitly, because, as will be shown, Dee saw no necessary distinction between the two. In fact, one may consider Dee's mathematical and scientific work to be an embodiment of Arthur C. Clarke's third law of prediction, which states that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The veracity of Clarke's law is seen at the point where Dee first gains his reputation as a magician. In 1547, Dee provided stage effects for a production of Aristophanes' "Peace" that so astounded the audience that whatever mechanism was used to produce Trygaeus' "miraculous ascent onto the roof of Trinity Hall" was, quite literally, "indistinguishable from magic." (John Dee Chronology, Heppel 40, Strathmann 369) There is no evidence to suggest Dee worked to dispel this notion among the audience, and indeed, it seems he was quite content to maintain an air of secrecy and mystery as long as it did not bring him negative attention from the authorities, which it certainly did and with relative frequency. In these situations he argued his own case vigorously, and in one instance, perhaps a little too much. Thus, before moving on to Dee's influence during the majority of his life, it will be helpful leap ahead to the end, when Dee petitioned James I to clear him "of the slander of conjuring."

In his essay "John Dee as Ralegh's Conjurer," Ernest Strathmann argues that John Dee (likely erroneously) identified himself as the "conjuror" mentioned by Robert Parsons in the latter man's screed against Walter Raleigh and his possible elevation to the Queen's council. Strathmann points out that Dee's assumption lies in opposition to the majority of historians and commentators of the time, who almost unanimously agree that the "conjuror" label was more likely meant to ensnare Thomas Harriot, another scientist and mathematician, and close acquaintance of Raleigh. (Strathmann 365) Nevertheless, Strathmann offers some evidence that, while perhaps not correct, Dee's assumption that he was the "conjuror" mentioned was not entirely unfounded. Aside from Dee's already well established reputation as something of a mystic, Strathmann points out Dee's "long and prominent association with powerful officials and courtiers (including Ralegh) whom Parsons attacked by name." In addition, Strathmann sums up the various evidence which may have convinced Dee he was one of the targets of Parsons' screed:

"first, that he seems to refer to this attack when he addresses King James in 1604; second, that his long association with members of the Court and his reputation as a magician make him a likely candidate for the role of "adviser" to the Council; third, that his prominence would make Parsons' knowledge of him very probably indeed." (Strathmann 370-371)

Strathmann, like most historians, still does not find these reasons convincing further than explaining why Dee may have thought himself the target, but he does offer one bit of analysis that sheds light on the entire trajectory of Dee's life, especially in relation to his shifting fortunes in regard to the Crown.

"Finally, there is a note of desperation in these published appeals by John Dee in 1603 and 1604. The old man, vain of his reputation, had long smarted under the slanders of his countrymen. When the word "conjuror" appeared, he was likely to read after it: 'John Dee.'" (Strathmann 371)

Indeed, Dee's petition is almost comically strained in that he is sure to point out that no one could provide evidence of him having conjured damned sprits; he himself had provided plenty of evidence for conjuring in his work on the numerical language of angels. (Rattansi 82) Thus, Strathmann offers an explanation for Dee's somewhat unnecessary appeal to James, made all the more so considering it likely would have been in Dee's best interest not to continue reminding everyone about past accusations against him (especially in light of James' animosity, or at least ambivalence, regarding the mystical.)

"…yet some impudent and malicious foreign enemy, or English traitor to the flourishing state and honor of this kingdom, hath in print (Anno 1592. 7. Januarii) affirmed your Majesty's said suppliant to the conjuror belonging to the most honorable Privy Council of your Majesty's most famous last predecessor (Queen Elizabeth), so that, seeing the said abominable slander is become so highly heinous and disgraceful, that it pretendeth great discredit and disliking to be had, also, of the said most honorable Lords of your Majesty's Privy Council (as to use any conjuror's advice: and your said suppliant to be the man)." (Dee 1604)

Dee's "shaky logic" that tries to make a possible slander against him extend into slander against James and his Council further demonstrates Strathmann's point, and shows the almost tragic (in the dramatic sense) fall of Dee from favored polymath of the Crown to groveling old man. However, Dee's tragic flaw (aside from the obvious vanity noted by Strathmann) was in fact his dedication to his own personal conception of the sciences, and specifically, his insistence as to the connection between the verifiable, objective sciences and the murky assumptions of magic and alchemy.

Having examined the practical beginning and end of Dee's career as a magician (while acknowledging that this title was both externally imposed and reinforced by Dee himself), it will now be possible to look at his activities in the intervening years to see how, for instance, Dee rose to such prominence that he could assume Parsons' "conjuror" to be himself, or that an attack on him was attack on two heads of English monarchy. Dee's contributions can largely be divided into two categories, although of course there is some overlap between the two: his scientific/mathematical/alchemical writings, and his imperial/cartographical works. As is obvious now, a large swath of Dee's work was fantastically incorrect (he was an alchemist, after all) but this does not necessarily render his "scientific" works useless. Rather, they offer an insight into the tension between religion and science, and show how Dee, a devout follower of both, blended the two together into his particular brand of flawed cosmology. This thinking, in turn, likely informed his imperial arguments, for it is no large leap to assume that one who thinks the earth is the center of the universe would also assume that his home country is the destined ruler of that earth.

In his review of John Dee's Propaedeumata Aphoristica, a.G. Molland succinctly evaluates the motivating factors, and resultant implications, of Dee's scientific-spiritual thought. Molland argues that initially, Dee thought himself capable of creating a kind of astrological physics with the application of magical thought to a consideration of astronomy, so that he might have access to all the tools of the astrologer without recourse to demons or conjured spirits. To aid in this endeavor, Molland notes that Propaedeumata Aphoristica contains "the odd picture of [Dee] apparently trying to appropriate as a collateral another Englishman" by claiming to have written,

"Mirror of Unity, or Apologia for Friar Bacon the Englishman, in which it is shown that he did nothing by aid of demons, but was a most great philosopher, and performed naturally and in ways allowable to a Christian man the great things which the unlearned crowd is won't to ascribe to the actions of demons." (Molland 256)

Molland points out that despite this appeal to Bacon and natural reason, Dee's work is still obviously astrological, and that for the most part, Dee simply replaces demonic information with angelic. In Propaedeumata Aphoristica this takes the form of a discussion of "the supernatural influence of the Star of Jacob," which Molland illuminates by relating a Biblical prophecy regarding "a star out of Jacob" and noting that "in the exegetical tradition this was often tied up with the star that led the Magi to Bethlehem. According to Aquinas some 'say that the angel that appeared to the shepherds in human form appeared to the Magi in the form of the star.'" (Molland 257) of course, this kind of thinking would eventually lead Dee to argue that "at length I perceived onely God (and by his good Angels) could satisfy my desire," and ultimately resulted in his extensive travels with the medium and alchemist Edward Kelley. Furthermore, this insistence on an astrological interpretation of cosmology directly influenced his other "scientific" works, something that is taken up in J. Peter Zetterberg's analysis of what he calls Dee's "hermetic geocentricity."

After discussing the somewhat limited commentary on Copernicus' theory of heliocentrism present in Dee's strictly scientific works, Zetterberg suggests that "to resolve the general ambiguity that surrounds the question of Dee's cosmological views it is necessary to leave his works on practical science and turn instead to his occult interests." In Monas hieroglyphica, the only work in which Dee "reveal[s] a cosmology," Zetterberg identifies a kind of hidden meaning Dee proposes to exist in all earlier astronomical and astrological work. For Dee, understanding the functioning of cosmological bodies is less a strictly mathematical proposition and one that relies more on interpreting symbols, because:

"according to Dee, to understand the universe one need only decipher the signs of the heavenly bodies, for 'the common astronomical symbols of the planets (instead of being dead, dumb, or up to the present hour at least, quasi-barbaric signs) & #8230; [are really] characters imbued with immortal life and should now be able to express their special meanings most elegantly in any tongue and to any nation.'" (Zetterberg 389)

Dee constructs a glyph made out of a combination of symbols related to the classical planets, and in turn uses this glyph to argue for the geocentricity of the universe. It is not worth the time to point out the obviously flawed logic and process of argumentation Dee employs, any more than it would be worth debunking the claim that all matter is composed of one of four fundamental elements, or that personality is dictated by the balance of internal humours. Rather, this discussion of Dee's cosmology is relevant because it is precisely his work as a cosmologist and astrologer that gained him such favor from Queen Elizabeth and allowed him to gain an audience with Rudolph II.