Zetterberg - Hermetic Geocentricity

8/10/2019 Zetterberg - Hermetic Geocentricity

1/12


2/12

Text source: Isis, Vol. 70, No. 3, (Sep., 1979), pp. 385-393


3/12

ermet ic

Geocentricity

J o h n

D e e s

e l e s t i a l

g g

By J. Peter Zetterberg*

IN

THIS PAPER

I

will

reconsider

John

Dee's opinion

of the

Copernican hypothe-

sis, especially

the claim that Dee's

Hermeticismpredisposed

him

toward heliocen-

tricity.

I

grant at the outset that Dee may have been a Copernican,

since

it is

always

possible that

he

may have held

in

private

what he would not advocate

in

print.

However,

I

believe that Dee never

accepted Copernican cosmology.

And

I

will

argue

that he

never accepted

it because he

was instead deeply committed-and

the

commit-

ment

was Hermetically inspired-to what

he

believed

to

be

the

geocentric cosmology

of

the

ancient

magi.

Not

until

1573,

when

Thomas

Digges,

in

his Alae seu scalae

mathematicae,

accepted

the

Copernican system

as

a

physical theory,

did

any Englishman

openly

defend the new

system

as

something

more than a useful

mathematical device

or,

as

Osiander had

cautioned,

a

hypothesis,

which need not be

true

nor even

probable. 1

Robert Recorde had

included a brief discussion of the Copernican system in his

Castle of Knowledge (1556), letting any examination of the cosmology of the theory

passe tyll some other

time, 2

and several of

Recorde's

English contemporaries

were

undoubtedly

familiar with the work of

Copernicus.

But as a

physical

theory,

the

novel

hypothesis

of De

revolutionibus generated no debate

in

England prior to

Digges' work. Even Dee, who

tutored Digges

in

mathematics and astronomy, never

expressed

an

opinion

regarding

the

cosmology

of the new

system.

Despite Dee's silence, a number of historians have speculated that

Dee may have

been a true

Copernican.

As

evidence

they commonly

cite the

laudatory

references to

the mathematical achievement of De

revolutionibus

that

Dee makes

in

his earliest

extant work, a preface to John Feild's Ephemerisanni 1557 (London), and also Dee's

association with

Digges. Lynn

Thorndike,

for

example, grudgingly

concedes that Dee

may

have

quietly accepted

the

Copernican cosmology, although

he adds that Dee

believed

in

so

many things

that were

wrong,

that we could not

give

him

personally

any high credit,

even

if in

this one

instance

he believed

in

something

that

happened

to

be

right. 3

More

recently

Peter French has drawn attention to another factor that he

regards

as

relevant

to the

question

of

Dee and the

Copernican hypothesis-Dee's

Hermeti-

*Department

of History, Saint

Louis

University,

Saint

Louis, Missouri 63103.

1 To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work, trans. Edward Rosen, in ThreeCopernican

Treatises (New York:

Dover, 1959),

p. 25. On Digges

see F. R.

Johnson and S. V.

Larkey, Thomas

Digges, the

Copernican

System, and the Idea of

the Infinity of the

Universe in

1576, Huntington

Library

Bulletin, 1934, 5:69-117.

See also F.

R. Johnson,

Astronomical Thought in

Renaissance

England (1937;

reprint New York:

Octagon Books,

1968), Chs.

5

and

6.

2Castle of

Knowledge (London,

1556), pp. 164-165.

3A

History of

Magic

and Experimental

Science, Vol.

VI

(New

York: Columbia

University

Press, 1941),

p. 26. On Dee

and the Copernican

hypothesis

see also, e.g.,

Johnson, Astronomical

Thought, p.

135 and

Richard Deacon, John

Dee (London:

Frederick Muller,

1968), pp. 36-37.

ISIS, 1979, 70 (No.

253)

385


4/12

386

J.

PETER ZETTERBERG

cism. French

believes

that Renaissance magi like

Dee, far from

retardingthe rise of

science in

the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries, may actually

have stimulated

the

movement.

He cites

Dee's supposed Copernicanism

in support of this view,

arguing

that

...

magic did not impede the acceptance

of heliocentricity.

Indeed, the Renaissance magus

was ready and willing

to embrace the Copernican

hypothesis. Dee apparently

did so, but

without fanfare. Thus, we come

to the conclusion that, although

the Renaissance magus

worked his magic within a geocentric

system,

he had a spiritual affinity with

heliocentric-

ity....

In

this case,

then, scientific

advance was spurred by

the renewed interest in the

magical Hermetic religion

of the world.4

As

I

will

demonstrate,

the

geocentric

system

in

which Dee worked his magic was

far

from conventional.

According

to Dee, ancient magi had

known the true

structure

of the heavens

and

preserved

their

knowledge

for

subsequent generations

in

the

common planetary signs that they carefully designed not only to represent the

heavenly

bodies but also

to reveal cryptically

what was true of them. In

the Monas

hieroglyphica (1564),

his

principal

Hermetic work, Dee claims

to have

discovered

the

truth of geocentric cosmology by

deciphering

these ancient

signs

and other hiero-

glyphs and symbols.

In

this ancient

cosmology,

the sun

occupies

a

very special place.

Indeed, the

sun may well be the body

about which

one planet turns, for

Dee suggests

in

a

veiled

way

that Mercury's deferent

is sun-centered.

The sun itself, however, orbits

the earth,

which

retains its position as

the true center

of the universe.

When

Dee

first

learned of the work

of

Copernicus

is not

known;

however,

it

must

certainly have been no later than May of 1547, when he traveled to the Continent to

study

with Gemma Frisius

among

others.

Frisius,

in his

Epistola

to

the

Ephemer-

ides

novae

(1556)

of Joannes Stadius,

was among

the first

to comment

favorably

on

the

work

of

Copernicus,

although

he

never

accepted Copernican

cosmology.5

Dee's first published

reference to

the work of Copernicus

was

in

1557,

several years

after his returnto England.

In

1555

he had been arrested

with

John

Feild

and

charged

with

endeavoring by

enchantmentes

to

destroy Queen Mary. 6

Feild was

planning

an

ephemeris,

and

Dee, evidently

during

their confinement

together, suggested

that

he base

it on the work

of Copernicus

and Reinhold.

Feild

accepted

the

suggestion

and

asked Dee

to write a

preface

to the work.

The preface itself is brief. Dee begins by explaining that there were many errors in

the old astronomical

tables-a

theme

of the

Epistola

of

Frisius,

who

like Dee cites

errors

in

the

position

of

Mercury

as an

example.

These had been

corrected

by

the

Herculean

labors

of

Copernicus,

Reinhold,

and

Rheticus,

whom he lauds

as

restorers

of the

heavenly discipline,

especially

the

god-like Copernicus,

whose

splendor

blinds

the

eye. 7

Dee

concludes

by urging

his

countrymen

to use the

work

4Peter

French, John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,

1972), p. 103. French shares this view with Frances Yates; see her Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic

Tradition (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964), Ch. 8. See also Yates, The HermeticTradition

in

Renaissance Science, in Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance, ed. Charles S. Singleton (Balti-

more: Johns Hopkins Press, 1967), pp. 255-274.

5See Grant McColley,

An

Early Friend of

the

Copernican Theory:

Gemma

Frisius,

Isis, 1937, 26:

322-325. On Frisius see also John D. North, The Reluctant Revolutionaries,

in

Studia Copernicana,

Vol. VIII: Colloquia Copernicana

III

(Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1975), p. 173, and Owen Gingerich, The

Role of Erasmus Reinhold and the Prutenic Tables

in

the Dissemination of Copernican Theory,

in Studia

Copernicana, Vol.

VI:

Colloquia Copernicana

II

(Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1973), pp.

51-52.

6This is how Dee recalls the charge

in

his Compendious Rehearsall,

in

Autobiographical

Tracts

of Dr.

John Dee, ed.

J.

Crossley (London:

Chetham

Society, 1851), p.

20. The official

charge

was

lewde and

vayne practices of calculing and conjuring (Acts of the Privy Council,

Vol.

V, p. 137).

7Ephemeris anni 1557, sigs.

Aiir-Aiiv.

On

Frisius and the

Mercury problem

see

McColley,

Gemma


5/12

JOHN DEE'S

CELESTIAL EGG

387

of these

reformers, noting

that

it

was he who had convinced Feild

to base his

tables

on their

work. Dee

does

speak highly

of the work

of

Copernicus.

However,

he

defers

from any discussion of

the heliocentric hypothesis, claiming that

the

preface

is not the

proper place to consider

such things. Dee's support

of

Copernican

planetary

theory

is

thus qualified and limited, as it is also in his proposal for calendar reform, which was

written

twenty-five years

later

and contains

his

only

other

significant

reference

to

Copernicus.

It

was at Queen Elizabeth's request in

1582 that

Dee

submitted a proposal for

calendar

reform.

In the

proposal

he relies on what he

regards

as

the

most

accurate

astronomical data

available:

the

Calculationand

Phaenomenies of

Copernicus

and

the

Prutenic Tables

of

Reinhold. As

in

the

preface

to Feild's

Ephemeris,

Dee

accepts

the

work

of

Copernicus

in

this

proposal,

but

again only

in

a

qualified

way.

For after

acknowledging

his

dependence

on the Calculation and

Phaenomenies

of

Coperni-

cus,

Dee

hastens to

add

that this is

excepting

his

Hypotheses

Theoricall:

not

here

to

be brought in

question. 8

The works

considered above contain

Dee's only discussions

of

Copernican plane-

tary theory.

In

neither

is there any indication that he

accepted

the

heliocentric

hypothesis as

anything more than a useful

mathematical fiction. Both works

deal

with

practical concerns,

and

in

both the

Prutenic

Tables of

Reinhold,

who

never

accepted

heliocentricity,

are as

much

the

object

of

Dee's

support as

the

planetary

theory used in their

computation.9

Dee and

Digges

were closely associated as master and pupil for

a period of time

after Dee had written his

preface to Feild's

Ephemeris and well before he

composed

his calendar reform proposal. That Dee's qualified acceptance of Copernican theory

is

markedly similar

in

both works

suggests that Dee did not share his

student's

enthusiasm

for

heliocentric

cosmology.

So too do

the known facts of their

associa-

tion,

the

decisive event of which

was the

appearance of a supernova in the

constella-

tion

of

Cassiopeia

in

November of 1572.

Both

studied the

nova carefully and established that it was

a phenomenon

located

in

the

supposedly unchangeable celestial

region of the universe. Dee's

contribution to

the

literature

on

the nova

was a book of

trigonometric

theorems for use

in

determin-

ing

stellar

parallax.10

Among Dee's unpublished treatises is

another work on

the

nova,

now

lost,

in

which he evidently

discussed the star's diminishing

appearance.'1

Frisius, p. 323. Dee lists

among his

unpublished

works

Mercurius

caelestis,

which

he

claims to have

written while

at

Louvain

in

1549 and is now lost.

Perhaps

Dee

explored

the

problem

of

calculating

Mercury'sorbit in this

work. It is item 17

in

Dee's

unprinted Bookes and

Treatises, which he included

in

A Letter

Containing a

most

briefe Discourse

Apologeticall,

in

Autobiographical

Tracts,

p. 74.

8Quoted

in

Robert Westman,

Magical Reform and

Astronomical Reform: The Yates

Thesis

Reconsid-

ered,

in

Hermeticism

and the

Scientific

Revolution

(Los Angeles:

William

Andrews Clark

Memorial

Library,

1977), p. 47. The best

discussion of this proposal is

by I. R.

F. Calder

in

his

unpublished doctoral

dissertation

John

Dee

Studied

as an

English Neoplatonist

(University

of

London, 1952),

pp. 725-733.

90n

the

importance of the

Prutenic Tables

in

the

early years of the

Copernican Revolution see

Gingerich, The Role of Erasmus Reinhold and the Prutenic Tables. Gingerich also explores at length

Reinhold's

cosmological

beliefs

(esp. pp.

55-62).

From what little

Dee

says,

his

interpretation

of

Coperni-

can

planetary theory

seems

similar

to the

conservative

interpretation

of the

Melancthon

circle,

which

tended

to

ignore

the cosmological

implications

of De

revolutionibus. See Robert

Westman,

The Melanc-

thon

Circle,

Rheticus,

and the

Wittenberg

Interpretation

of

the

Copernican

Theory, Isis, 1975,

66:

165-193.

10Parallaticae commentationis

praxeosq; nucleus

quidam

(London, 1573).

On Dee, Digges, and

their

study

of the nova

see

Johnson, Astronomical

Thought, pp.

154-160.

1

1

De stella

admiranda in

Cassiopeiae

Asterismo, coelitus demissa ad orbem

usque Veneris,

iterumque

in

coeli penetralia

perpendiculariter retracta

(1573).

This is item 37 in

Dee's list

in

his A

Letter

Containing

a

most briefe

Discourse

Apologeticall, p. 76.


6/12

388

J. PETER

ZETTERBERG

The title of this work indicates that he believed the nova to be moving perpendicu-

larly away from the earth ( in coeli penetralia perpendiculariter retracta ). Digges

parted company with

Dee on this

issue and

considered another

possibility.

In

the

Alae

he

wondered

whether the

motion of the Earth set forth

in

the

Copernican

theory is the sole reason why this star is diminishing in magnitude. 12His attempts to

verify

this

supposition

were inconclusive

and

confused.13

Nonetheless, Digges

was

clearly willing to treat the heliocentric hypothesis

as a

physical theory,

while

Dee,

who from

all

indications

left the earth

at rest and assumed instead

that the star

was

moving, was evidently not.

Several years after his

work

on

the nova, Digges published an English translation

of the

principal sections

of

the first book of

De

revolutionibus.'4 Included with the

translation were arguments offered by Digges

in

support of heliocentric cosmology.

Digges gives no indication in either of the works in which he defends the Copernican

system that Dee shared his

views. References to Dee are limited to an apology to him

in

the Alae,

in

which

Digges explains why he is issuing his work on the nova prior to

Dee's Parallaticae commentationis, and a note of indebtedness to Dee, whom Digges

refers to as his second

parent

in

Mathematics and Astronomy. '5

As in both of the works

in which Dee briefly refers to Copernicus, nothing in his

association with

Digges justifies the conclusion that he was a true

Copernican.

Nor

does a remark by

the

Elizabethan Richard Forster

in his

Ephemerides meteorogra-

phicae (1575)

lend itself to such a conclusion:

Astronomy,

which

in

England,

first

began to revive and emerge from

darkness

into

light through

the

efforts

of

John Dee,

Keen

champion of new hypotheses and Ptolemaic Theory, will, as a result of the

interference of unskilled persons, go to ruin with the heavens of Copernicus and

Rheinhold unless Dee again

interposes

his

Atlantean shoulders. '6 The remark is

admittedly ambiguous,

but

it

seems to be based

on

nothing

more than what Dee

says

in

his preface to Feild's Ephemeris. 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.

For

only

in

his

occult works,

in

particular the Monas

hieroglyphica,

the

subject of

which is

alchemy, does

Dee

reveal a

cosmology.

In

the Mathematicall

Preface,

the

work

in

which

Dee's interest

in

both

practical

and occult science is evident, Cosmographie is defined to be thewhole and perfect

description

of the

heavenly,

and also

elementall

parte

of the

world,

and

their

homologall application, and

mutuall

collation necessarie. '7

With

other

Renaissance

alchemists,

Dee believed that there was a

direct

correspondence

between

celestial

bodies and

terrestrial

bodies,

and

he

claimed

to

have a

Globe

Cosmographical

that

demonstrated

this

by

matching Heaven,

and the

Earth,

in

one

frame,

and

aptly

applieth parts Correspondent. '8

Through study

of

the

relations

among

celestial

12Quoted

in

Johnson, Astronomical Thought, pp. 158-159.

130n

the confused nature of Digges' argument see John L. Russell, The Copernican System in Great

Britain,

in

Studia Copernicana, Vol. V: Colloquia Copernicana

I

(Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1973),

pp.

192-193.

14 A

Perfit Description of the Caelestial Orbes according to the most aunciente doctrine of the

Pythagoreans,

Latelye revised by Copernicus and by

Geometricall Demonstrations approved (1576). This

was

included as a supplement

to a

revised edition

of

his

father's

(Leonard) Prognostication

Everlasting.

15AIae, sig. Aiir.

16Quotedin Deacon, John Dee, p. 37.

17 MathematicallPreface to The Elements of

Geometrie of the Most Aunciente Philosopher Euclide of

Megara, trans. Henry Billingsley (London, 1570),

sig. biiir.

18Ibid.

Dee

deals

with

these correspondences most fully in his Propaedeumata aphoristica (1558), a work

on astrology. N. H. Clulee explores the sources and

character

of

Dee's astrological physics

in

Astrology,


7/12

JOHN

DEE'S CELESTIAL EGG

389

bodies,

one

could

learn of the

relations

among

terrestrial

bodies.

In

particular, one

could

learn

of alchemical

processes through

study of the

heavens,

provided that the

correspondences between

the celestial

and terrestrial

realms

were known. As

defined

by

Dee,

cosmography

was,

in

part, the

study of such

correspondences, and

hence

cosmological considerations play an important part in the Monas hieroglyphica and

its alchemical

mysteries.

In

the Monas

Dee

claims to disclose

the

secrets of alchemy

by means of a

special

hieroglyph:

the

hieroglyphic

monad (Fig.

1).19

Throughout the work he

analyzes

this

hieroglyph

mathematically,

magically,

cabbalistically, and

anagogically,

as he

outlines his

scheme

in

a

subtitle.20 Dee

cautions the

reader

in

a

prefatory

letter that as

there is

a differ-

ence

between a

body and its

shadow, so

too is there a

difference

between

what

words and

symbols

appear to mean

and what

they

really mean. He adds: The ignorant, rash, and presumptuous

apes grasp mere

shadows,

naked and

inane, while the

wiser

philosophers enjoy

the solid

doctrine and

very pleasing

effects of

the

[real] bodies. '21

Students of

the

Monas are thus advised

by

Dee

to search

deeply for

the mysterious

truths

that he claims

to

reveal.

The

caution to

readers of

this difficult and

abstruse work

applies not

only to the work

itself but

also to

all symbols and

,.

signs

in

it.

They too

may have

multiple, hidden

meanings.

In-

deed, at least one

thing is

clear

in

the

Monas, and that

is Dee's

Figure

1.

Dee's

belief that the common planetary signs have hidden meanings.

monad.

They are

cryptic representations of cosmic

truths,

carefully crafted by

ancient magi

to

preserve

God-given truths

through

time. 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) .

.

. [are

really]

characters imbued

with

immortal life

and

should now

be able to

express

their especial

meanings most

eloquently

in

any

tongue

and

to

any nation. 22

Dee demonstrates

in

the Monas that

the

planetary

signs

are

each

composed

of

[elements derived from] the symbols of Moon [ )] and Sun [0] and [from] the

hieroglyphic

sign[s]

of the elements

[+]

and of Aries

[T]. 23

These are the

four

special signs

or

symbols

that

combine to form

the

hieroglyphic

monad. The

powers,

virtues,

and

place

of each

planet

in

the

universe are

supposedly

evident

in

the

symbols

of which

it

is made.

Jupiter (2t),

for

example,

is

somehow under

the

influence

of the

moon

and Venus

( y)

the

sun,

since

the former contains

the

symbol

of the

moon,

the

latter that

of

the

sun.

Magic, and Optics:

Facets of John

Dee's Early

Natural Philosophy,

Renaissance

Quarterly,

1977, 30:

632-680.

19C.

H.

Josten,

A Translation of John

Dee's 'Monas Hieroglyphica'

(Antwerp, 1564),

With an

Introduction

and Annotations,

Ambix, 1964,

12:84-220,

p. 206. This

symbol, which appears

throughout

the Monas hieroglyphica,

also

appears

on the title page

of the Propaedeumata

aphoristica.

On the

symbol

and

its

subsequent

history see

Josten's introduction,

pp.

90-99.

All

subsequent

references

to the Monas

are

to Josten's

translation (pp.

112-219),

and unless otherwise

indicated

all brackets are

his.

2OIbid.,p.

155.

21Ibid., p.

145.

22Ibid., p. 121; brackets

are

mine.

23Ibid., p.

161.

I

have added the symbols;

the other

brackets are

Josten's.


8/12


9/12

JOHN

DEE'S CELESTIAL

EGG

391

which he

scolded those who

merely

looke

upon

the

Heaven,

Sterres,

and

Planets,

as

an Oxe and an Asse doth.

The heavens are

instead

a

cryptic

message

to man

from

God,

who made the

Sonne,

Mone,

and

Sterres,

to be to

us,

for

Signes....

I

wish

every

man

should

way

this

word, Signes. 28

But neither Dee's

view that

the

heavens

are a cosmic hieroglyph nor the reverence for the sun that, to some degree at least, is

evident

in

the

Monas

is

in

any

way proof

of

heliocentric convictions on

his

part.

Dee

may have

had a

spiritual

affinity

with the

sun,

but

that does not

mean,

as

French

argues,

that he had a

spiritual

affinity

with

heliocentricity. 29

Both Ficino

and

Fludd,

for

example,

while

singing

eulogies

to the

sun,

were

perfectly

content

with

its

traditional

place

in

the middle

of the

heavens,

which

they regarded

as

special.30

This

seems to have

been Dee's

position,

although

he

gave

a

unique

rationale

for

the

traditional

ordering of

the

planets

and made

the

sun's

place

in the

center of

the

heavens an even

more

special one.

Dee's

cosmological diagram in the Monas is a curious celestial egg (Fig.

2).31

The

egg,

which

represented the

primordial chaos

out of

which

the ordered

world had

emerged,

was a

favorite

symbol of

alchemists.

In

the

Monas

the

egg

in

which

Dee

places the

planets

serves as a

reminder t

to the

reader that

knowledge of the

heavens must

precede

...

.....

knowledge of

alchemical

mysteries-that,

as Dee

teaches,

celestial

astronomy

is like a

parent and

teacher

to Astro-

;'

nomia

inferior [sc.

alchemy]. 32

t is more

than a

reminder,

however. It

is this

diagram of the

heavens

that

supposedly

will

reveal

alchemical

truths to

those who

can

decipher it,

*

/

and therefore the cosmology expressed in it cannot be re-

garded as

merely

conventional.

Indeed, the

diagram, al-

though

geocentric, has

unique

features.

In

Dee's

figure

the sun,

moon, and

planets

circle the

earth,

Figure

2.

Dee's celestial

as

clearly indicated

by

the

dotted lines

depicting

their

orbits.

egg.

The

cosmology

revealed is

geocentric

and

consistent with

the

first

three

theorems of

the

work. The

sun is in

the

middle of

the egg, in

the center of

the

yolk. This,

and not

the

center

of the

universe, is its

special

place.

Planets

most subject

to a lunar

influence-as

indicated by

the

(D

) in

their

symbols-are placed in

the white

of the

egg with the moon; those most subject to a solar influence-as indicated by the (0) in

their

symbols-are

placed

in

the

yolk of the

egg

with the sun.

After

presenting

his di-

agram,

Dee

addresses other

alchemists.

May

those

very

inexperienced

imposters, in

their

desperation,

hereby

understand

what is the

water

of the white

of eggs,

what the

oil

from the

yolks,

[and]

what

the chalk

of

eggs [sc.

egg-shell],

and many more

things

like

these. 33

He

explains that

the

white of the

egg is the

aqueous

moisture

of the

Moon and that

the

yolk is the

fieryliquid

of the

Sun, both

of which

infuse

their

corporeal

virtues into all

inferior

bodies. 34

The

rationale for

the order of

the planets

within

the

white

and the

yolk, as

explained above,

is

clear, and their

orderfrom

moon

outward

to

Saturn is

the

usual one,

needing no

explanation. Only

the

eggshell or

chalk is left

unexplained, although

Dee

does hint at

an

interpretation.

28 Mathematicall

Preface,

sig.

biiv.

29John

Dee, p. 103.

30See

Westman,

Magical

Reform and

Astronomical

Reform, pp.

15-18

(Ficino)

and

pp.

59-68

(Fludd).

3IMonas,

p.

174.

32Ibid., p.

175.

33Ibid.,

p.

177.

34Ibid.,

p.

181.


10/12


11/12

JOHN DEE'S CELESTIAL

EGG

393

celestial

and terrestrial realms. Such a

geocentric

cosmology, unique

in

its

features,

and not

heliocentricity,

is,

I

contend,

the

revelation of the Monas

hieroglyphica,

a

revelation

from the

ancient magi who, according to

Dee, devised the planetary

signs

to be cryptic

messengers of such truths.41

In a prefatory letter to the Monas, Dee ridiculed the strenuous labors of the

common

astronomer,

writing

of

the geocentric

cosmology he was to reveal:

And will

not the astronomerbe

verysorry or the cold he suffered nder he

opensky, for

[all his]

vigils

and

labours,

when

here,

with

no discomfort o be

suffered

rom

the

air,

he

maymost exactly

observewith

his

eyes

the orbitsof theheavenly

bodiesunder hisown]

roof, with windows

and doors shut on all sides, at

any given time,

and withoutany

mechanical nstruments

made of wood or brass?42

It

was

in

ancient

signs and

symbols,

not

in

the

naked heavens, that

Dee,

the

Hermetic

magus, searched for cosmological truths. And I would argue, in conclusion, that the

geocentric

cosmology

he claimed

to have

discovered

by deciphering

the

planetary

signs-a

Hermetic

activity-was the one which he

believed

in

throughout his life. For

the Monas

hieroglyphica was the work

Dee was most

proud

of. He

seems never to

have lost faith in the

truths he

claimed

to have revealed

in

this

work.

In

the

Compendious

Rehearsall

(1592),

a

rambling

autobiographical

account of his

achievements,

Dee

singled

out the

Monas as the most

significant product of

his

active

and

diverse

career,

even

though

it

was never

appreciated

by

his

countrymen,

includ-

ing, he lamented,

University graduates

of high degree, and other

Gentlemen who ...

dispraysed

it

because

they

understood

it

not. 43

As Robert Westman has argued, there is no indication that Hermeticphilosophers,

with the

exception

of

Bruno, accepted a heliocentric

cosmology, although

some like

Dee

did

appreciate the work of

Copernicus and did

welcome

the

derivative Prutenic

Tables

of

Reinhold.44

In

Dee's

case, at

least,

Hermetic interests seem on

the

contrary

to

have reinforced a belief

in

geocentric

cosmology. And,

importantly,

Dee's ex-

pressed

reverence for

the

sun, even granting it to have been

deep and

Hermetically

inspired, was in no way

incompatible with this

geocentric cosmology. For the

sun,

the

center of the

yolk

of

Dee's celestial

egg,

was not denied

its

very special place.

41Dee's views regarding the planet Mercury are deserving of further study. The interpretation I have

given,

which Dee certainly

suggests,

is complicated

by one fact.

Throughout

the Monas, Dee

refers to two

Mercuries. One

of these, which Dee

represents

with the usual

planetary sign

( ),

is the hieroglyphic

messenger ;

the

other, which Dee represents

with an obscure sign

(Y ), is the uterine

brother of the

first

(p.

165-on the latter

sign see

Josten's remarks,

p.

1

10n). With

regard

to alchemy the

presence of two

Mercuries (or

forms of mercury) is

readily explainable.

The

uterine brother

is common

mercury;

the

hieroglyphic

messenger

is

philosophical mercury

or the stone.

With

regard to astronomy,

the

presence

of two Mercuries

is

problematic.

Dee may

have

dealt with these

matters in his

Mercurius

caelestis

(see

above, n. 7).

42Monas,

p. 131.

43 Compendious

Rehearsall, p.

10. Dee also speaks

highly

of the Monas in

A

Letter, Containing

a

most briefe Discourse

Apologeticall

(1595),

pp. 77-78.

As Josten notes,

this letter demonstrates

that

some thirty

years after the

first publication of the

Monas

Hieroglyphica,

to Dee the

message

of

that work

had lost none of its importance (Monas, p. 97).

44 Magical

Reform

and Astronomical

Reform.

Westman,

who does not

consider the Monas

hierogly-

phica

in

his

brief discussion

of

Dee (pp.

45-47), concludes:

It

seems

that

Elizabethan

England's

greatest

magus [Dee]

had no need

of a heliocentric

system,

whether magical

or astronomical

(p. 47).


12/12

Documents

Zetterberg - Hermetic Geocentricity