John Dee's Natural Philosophy

Between Science and Religion

Nicholas Clulee

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415752671
• eBook ISBN: 9781136183065
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: European Renaissance History

This is the definitive study of John Dee and his intellectual career. Originally published in 1988, this interpretation is far more detailed than any that came before and is an authoritative account for anyone interested in the history, literature and scientific developments of the Renaissance, or the occult.

John Dee has fascinated successive generations. Mathematician, scientist, astrologer and magus at the court of Elizabeth I, he still provokes controversy. To some he is the genius whose contributions to navigation made possible the feats of Elizabethan explorers and colonists, to others an alchemist and charlatan.

Thoroughly examining Dee's natural philosophy, this book provides a balanced evaluation of his place, and the role of the occult, in sixteenth-century intellectual history. It brings together insights from a study of Dee's writings, the available biographical material, and his sources as reflected in his extensive library and, more importantly, numerous surviving annotated volumes from it.

Part One

THE PROPAEDEUMATA APHORISTICA, 1558

II

‘OUTLANDISH AND HOMISH STUDIES AND EXERCISES PHILOSOPHICALL’

The first work of any significance in natural philosophy that Dee published was the Propaedeumata aphoristica that appeared in 1558.¹ Dee’s 120 aphorisms make a very slim volume, although the claims Dee makes for the content are not unpretentious. The subtitle indicates that the treatise concerns ‘certain preeminent virtues of nature’, and the title-page engraving shows the qualities of heat and humidity and the elements earth and water joined to the sun and the moon under the starry vault of the heavens through a symbol that will become Dee’s famous ‘hieroglyphic monad’ (figure 2.1). While the nearest subject matter of the Propaedeumata is astrology, the term ‘astrology’ did not have a simple, unambiguous meaning in the sixteenth century, or earlier for that matter. It could mean, as it does presently, judicial astrology – that is, predicting the influence of heavenly bodies on human affairs, an aspect of the subject that Dee also practised – but it could also mean mathematical astronomy, or simply mathematics.² The Propaedeumata is concerned less with the issues of astrological practice than with the cosmology, the natural philosophy, and the scientific method of astrology. I will argue that in the Propaedeumata Dee was addressing himself to astrology primarily as the theoretical and mathematical study of the influences operating on all things in the natural world in the spirit of his later definition of astrology as ‘an Arte Mathematicall, which reasonably demonstrateth the operations and effects, of the natural beames, of light, and secret influence: of the Sterres and Planets: in every element and elementall body …’ (MP, b.iij). He represented the ideas that comprised the Propaedeumata as ‘hypotheses for the confirmation of astrology’, indicating that they were nothing less than a contribution to establishing the foundations and certitude of astrological theories (NA, 58–9).

Despite all this, the interpretation of the Propaedeumata is not an easy task. Besides the non-systematic format, Dee admits that poor health prevented him from preparing a full exposition of his ideas (PA, 112/3). Not all of the aphorisms are lucid in themselves, many being brief and cryptic, and the aphoristic nature of the entire work often obscures the general connections between particular aphorisms and the meaning of the entire work. Dee rarely, if ever, cites authorities or sources for his ideas, thereby offering very little help in filling out his thoughts or penetrating his intentions.

Dee does, however, indicate that the Propaedeumata drew upon a considerable period of his intellectual development when he spoke of those aphorisms as the ‘chief Crop and Roote, of Ten yeres his first Outlandish & Homish studies and Exercises Philosophicall’ (NA, 56). Although there is very little substantial material dealing with Dee’s career before 1558, what does exist does contribute to clarifying what interests and ideas contributed to the making of the Propaedeumata. This evidence indicates that astrology was one if not the major focus of Dee’s natural philosophy from as early as 1548 and that Dee’s aphorisms involve a convergence of previous intellectual interests focussed upon the problems of astrology. Before actually examining the Propaedeumata, therefore, I propose to examine what is known of Dee’s intellectual career to that point by reviewing his education and social situation as well as his studies and ideas in natural philosophy and astrology prior to 1558.

CAMBRIDGE AND LOUVAIN

Dee himself leaves us in some uncertainty about when the ‘Outlandish & Homish studies’ that led to the Propaedeumata actually began. His comment that these studies began ten years before the Propaedeumata would exclude his studies at Cambridge, but in the Monas hieroglyphica he implies that he had begun the studies leading to that work as early as 1542, the year he entered Cambridge (MH, 7^v). Despite the possibility that Dee was not very precise in his references or that he traced different aspects of his work to different influences, this last comment has led most scholars to attribute all of Dee’s ideas and interests, including Neoplatonism, Hermetism, and the kabbalah, to his university days.³ Dee’s opinion of the English universities is also not clear, discussing them warmly in some contexts and highlighting their failings in others.⁴ Some discussion of the role of his university studies in his intellectual formation may, therefore, be of some value.

After instruction in Latin, first in London and then at Chelmsford, Dee went up to Cambridge in November 1542 where he entered St John’s College. Whatever he later thought of his education there, he claims to have pursued his education so enthusiastically that he studied eighteen hours a day. This claim, however, may have been designed more to impress an audience in 1592 with his extraordinary learning than to reflect his former experience (CR,5). There is little direct evidence of what Dee might have studied at Cambridge, either for the BA he received in 1546 or for the MA which he received in 1548 (CR,5–6). Not only does Dee not tell us much about his studies, but there is considerable uncertainty in modern scholarship regarding the curriculum and intellectual milieu at Cambridge while Dee was there in the 1540s, coming as it did during the English Reformation, the growing influence of humanism in education, and the transformation of the social role of the universities in England.⁵ Without pretending to make a significant contribution to the study of university education in the period before 1560, I would nonetheless like to venture some suggestions regarding what the curriculum was in its formal outlines and what was available to Dee as a student. I say available to Dee, because without direct evidence from his own perspective or contemporary lecture notes it is impossible to determine the actual content of his studies.

All indications suggest that the study of logic and Aristotle’s philosophy remained the core of instruction in the arts curriculum while Dee was at Cambridge. Dee himself says that he went there ‘to begin logic and so to proceede in the learning of good arts and sciences’, and on another occasion associates the universities with the study of ‘Academicall, or Peripateticall’ philosophy (CR,5; MP,A.iiij).⁶ The Cambridge statutes nearest in time to when Dee was there specified two years study of Terence, one year of logic, and one year in either natural philosophy or metaphysics.⁷ The substitution of Terence for Priscian and the allotment of two years to its study reflect the encroachment of humanism into the traditional scholastic curriculum that accompanied the establishment of salaried university lectures in classics, logic, and philosophy in the late fifteenth century.⁸ Otherwise, the curriculum seems quite traditional. Where specific texts are indicated in logic and philosophy, these are still Aristotle. For logic we find the mention of the De sophisticis elenchis, Topica, Analytica Prioria, and Analytica Posteriora encompassing both the old and the new logics. For natural philosophy the texts mentioned are the Physica, De anima, and De generatione. The Metaphysica had become an optional alternative to Aristotle’s natural philosophy.⁹

How seriously the growth of humanism affected the curriculum is less than clear. The study of languages certainly prospered, with the establishment during the early decades of the century of a public university lecture in either Greek or Hebrew and the requirement that the colleges have lecturers in both Greek and Latin.¹⁰ Humanism also led to the replacement of the medieval scholastic approach to dialectic, focussed on syllogistic and the analysis of terms and propositions as they applied to formal disputation, with humanist dialectic, emphasizing the rules of natural language more appropriate to the analysis of texts, spoken discourse, and persuasive argumentation.¹¹ This shift seems to have been in progress between 1530 and 1550, so that some teaching of medieval dialectic most likely persisted while Dee was at Cambridge.¹² ‘The Art of Logicke’ and ‘The 13 Sophisticall Fallacias’ that Dee claims to have written in 1547 and 1548 were undoubtedly related to Dee’s studies at Cambridge, but whether they were medieval or humanistic in approach is uncertain (LA,74). Dee may well have been exposed to both the late medieval scholastic approach to dialectic and humanist dialectic.

The fate of scientific teaching during this period was also quite mixed. While there may have been some erosion of the natural scientific core of Aristotelian teaching for undergraduates, it did not disappear and was considerably supplemented by instruction in the mathematical sciences.¹³ From the early sixteenth century there was a provision for a mathematical lecturer at Cambridge who was to cover in successive years arithmetic and music, geometry and perspective, and astronomy. These lectures were to be attended by both undergraduates and students for the MA.¹⁴ Although the early English humanists may not have made original contributions in the sciences, they did contribute to making Greek scientific works available in new Latin translations and were solicitous about improving the quality of scientific and mathematical teaching.¹⁵ Important with regard to Dee’s education was John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who was a patron of Erasmus, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge from 1503 to 1535, and instrumental in completing the foundation of St John’s College.¹⁶ The St John’s statutes in effect during Dee’s studies, those drawn up by Fisher in 1530, provide for college lecturers in Greek and Hebrew, and four mathematical lecturers, one each in arithmetic, geometry, perspective, and cosmography.¹⁷ The statutes specify that all fellows and scholars are to attend both college and university lectures. Not only were there fines for non-attendance at these lectures, but St John’s appointed four examiners, one each in classics, logic, mathematics, and philosophy, who were to examine pupils daily on the public lectures and on days when there were no lectures the examiners set exercises for the students. Combined with the provision that students devote their first seven months of study to arithmetic and geometry, these provisions seem to assure a respectable exposure of undergraduates and masters to instruction in the mathematical sciences, including astronomy.¹⁸ In 1545 St John’s received a new set of statutes from Henry VIII that were drawn up by John Cheke, a fellow of St John’s with whom Dee was closely associated as a student and the first holder of the Regius Professorship in Greek established in 1540.¹⁹ What is noteworthy is that these new statutes differ hardly at all from Fisher’s 1530 statutes, the main changes in the curriculum being the elimination of quaestiones drawn from Duns Scotus. The place of Aristotle in the curriculum and the emphasis on languages and mathematics remain almost identical to the previous statutes.²⁰ Since one of the most progressive and humanistic minded members of the University and of St John’s saw fit to tamper very little with Fisher’s work, we can have some confidence that while Dee was studying at St John’s these provisions represent the curriculum he was expected and encouraged to fulfil.

The education available to Dee was therefore highly eclectic. As an undergraduate, he certainly studied Aristotelian logic and natural philosophy and possibly the new humanistic approach to dialectic. He studied Greek, and through that may have been introduced to Plato and other ancient platonic works as well as Aristotle’s works in the Greek. He would also have been required to do some elementary work in arithmetic and geometry and expected to follow the university and college lectures in arithmetic, geometry, perspective, music, cosmography, and astronomy. Dee also took an MA at Cambridge in 1548, and this curriculum would have reinforced the predominant Aristotelian influence in his education, requiring further study of the Analytica Posteriora and considerable additional work in the natural scientific works, the ethics, and the metaphysics, as well as additional studies in mathematics, including Euclid, and astronomy.²¹

In addition to the formal curriculum there was private instruction carried on with individual tutors.²² It is in this context that Dee may have been introduced to some of the ‘occult’ sciences through his association with Cheke and Smith. Both men had more than a casual interest in astrology, Cheke having Prince Edward write a Latin exercise in praise of astrology and perhaps even arranging for Girolamo Cardano to cast Edward’s nativity, and Smith is recorded as having instructed Gabriel Harvey in alchemy.²³ Mordechai Feingold has clearly shown both that there was no official prohibition of private study of the occult sciences in the universities as long as illicit and unlawful practices were avoided and that ‘numerous university men studied and practiced various components of the occult tradition.’²⁴ Dee’s claim that he had been working in the ‘hermetic science’ since 1542 most likely refers to some informal studies at Cambridge. What cannot be determined, however, is the philosophical content of these studies. The ‘hermetic science’ was a generic term for alchemy in the sixteenth century and should not lead us to conclude that he had been introduced to the ‘Hermetism’ that Yates associates with Ficino and Pico or any fully developed ‘Hermetic tradition’. Nothing of what is known of Cambridge in the 1540s and of Cheke and Smith indicate that Dee had been introduced as a student to any specifically Renaissance variety of Neoplatonism or Hermetism or as yet to the kabbalah. Roger Ascham, who was a student of Cheke’s at St John’s from 1530 and remained at Cambridge until 1542, when Dee was there, reports in his Toxophilus (1545) that the texts Cheke read privately with students were Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Isocrates, and Plato.²⁵ Whatever the extent of his exposure to alchemy and astrology, it was most likely in the form that these traditionally had in the Middle Ages and continued to have throughout the sixteenth century.

Dee leaves no uncertainty about the importance of his foreign studies in contributing to the formation of the Propaedeumata. In the prefatory letter to the Propaedeumata, addressed to Gerard Mercator, Dee offers the work to Mercator as ‘the first fruits of my labors while abroad’, where ‘from your discussions with me my whole system of philosophizing in the foreign manner laid down its first and deepest roots’ (PA,110/11; cf. MP,b.iij^v–b.iiij). Dee actually made two ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• I John Dee and Renaissance Intellectual History
• Part One: The Propaedeumata Aphoristica, 1558
• Part Two: The Monas Hieroglyphica, 1564
• Part Three: The Mathematicall Praeface, 1570
• Part Four: The Libri Mysteriorum, 1583–1589
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index