Who Really Wrote the Monas Hieroglyphica?
The Forgotten Friar Who Claimed It Was His by Kate Cassidy
|
|
This article is a long read, so you can listen here if preferred. Do scroll to see images and footnotes though.
In the annals of Renaissance magic and mysticism, few symbols are as enigmatic as the glyph at the centre of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica. Composed of alchemical, astrological and cabalistic symbolism, it has fascinated historians and occultists for over 460 years.
But what if Dee didn’t create it?
That’s the intriguing claim I discovered in a passage from The Life and Times of William Lilly, the famous 17th-century astrologer. This book, written by Lilly and published posthumously in 1715, was addressed to “His Worthy Friend, Elias Ashmole, Esq.”
It also appears in a dual biographical volume, The lives of those eminent antiquaries Elias Ashmole, Esquire, and William Lilly, printed in 1774.
I will tell you what the passage said shortly, but first, a bit of background as I wish to demonstrate the interconnections and circles through which knowledge passed - veiled, coded and obscured.
Though trained as a lawyer and better known as an antiquarian (his collections form The Ashmolean Museum in Oxford), by his late twenties Elias Ashmole had developed a profound interest in occult philosophy. The long-running friendship between Lilly and Ashmole is well documented; both men shared a passion for astrology and as such they were familiar and deeply engaged with the works of John Dee.
"Astrologie, is 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 euery element and elementall body: at all times, in any Horizon assigned. This Arte is furnished with many other great Artes and experiences: As with perfecte Perspectiue, Astronomie, Cosmographie, Naturall Philosophie of the 4. Elementes, the Arte of Graduation, and some good vnderstãding in Musike..." - John Dee (Preface to Euclid's Elements)
While Lilly had been too young to know John Dee personally, and Ashmole was born after Dee’s time, Ashmole avidly collected Dee’s books, and their shared interests brought them into contact with his eldest son, Arthur.
As a young boy, Arthur had travelled with his father during the Mathematical Magus’ six-year journey (1583–1589) in Bohemia. Later, he pursued his own esoteric and alchemical studies, but by 1621, Arthur had moved to Russia to take up the role of Imperial Physician to Tsar Michael I.
In 1629, Arthur Dee had travelled from Moscow to Paris to organise the printing of one of his alchemical works: Fasciculus Chemicus (A Small Bundle/Bouquet of Alchemical Writings). It is an intriguing story.
Though trained as a lawyer and better known as an antiquarian (his collections form The Ashmolean Museum in Oxford), by his late twenties Elias Ashmole had developed a profound interest in occult philosophy. The long-running friendship between Lilly and Ashmole is well documented; both men shared a passion for astrology and as such they were familiar and deeply engaged with the works of John Dee.
"Astrologie, is 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 euery element and elementall body: at all times, in any Horizon assigned. This Arte is furnished with many other great Artes and experiences: As with perfecte Perspectiue, Astronomie, Cosmographie, Naturall Philosophie of the 4. Elementes, the Arte of Graduation, and some good vnderstãding in Musike..." - John Dee (Preface to Euclid's Elements)
While Lilly had been too young to know John Dee personally, and Ashmole was born after Dee’s time, Ashmole avidly collected Dee’s books, and their shared interests brought them into contact with his eldest son, Arthur.
As a young boy, Arthur had travelled with his father during the Mathematical Magus’ six-year journey (1583–1589) in Bohemia. Later, he pursued his own esoteric and alchemical studies, but by 1621, Arthur had moved to Russia to take up the role of Imperial Physician to Tsar Michael I.
In 1629, Arthur Dee had travelled from Moscow to Paris to organise the printing of one of his alchemical works: Fasciculus Chemicus (A Small Bundle/Bouquet of Alchemical Writings). It is an intriguing story.
Handwritten title page of Arthur Dee's Fasciculus Chemicus, 1631.
Like the two imprints of the cover of Shakespeare’s sonnets, one of which likely held symbolic esoteric significance, Fasciculus Chemicus had one edition but with different formats at the front. Eventually printed in Paris in 1631 (and reprinted in 1644 - see Piorko in footnote), one print run bore conventional front matter, while the other carried a dedication, signed by Dee, to the Brothers of the Rosy Cross.
This dedication makes it certain that Arthur Dee was aware of or engaged with Rosicrucian circles, even if he never publicly identified as a Rosicrucian himself. Given the timing (1629/1631) and the ongoing influence of Rosicrucian manifestos in Europe, it's possible the second edition was meant for select readers and was assisting in the worldwide reformation of knowledge, for those with the eyes to see.
As the years progressed, Lilly, Ashmole, and Arthur Dee moved in the same circles. Lilly was acquainted with a wealthy English philosopher and astrologer, William Backhouse. He was a secretive man known for avoiding publicity. It’s believed that it was Lilly who introduced him to Ashmole. Backhouse was a Rosicrucian, and Ashmole, who had been admitted as a Freemason in 1646, perhaps shared this affiliation. Whatever the truth, their relationship was intense and close, and we know Backhouse asked Ashmole to call him "Father" - a term that seems to me like it is a master-pupil bond.
It was William Backhouse who is thought to have encouraged and helped Ashmole to translate this alchemical treatise (The Fasciculus Chemicus) authored by Arthur Dee into English. The book was published in 1650 and on the cover, Ashmole had concealed his own name in the form of an anagram. I and J were interchangeable letters in the alphabet of that period, and the name he chose was James Hasolle. Simple anagrams were a cryptological device used more often than many may suspect.
This dedication makes it certain that Arthur Dee was aware of or engaged with Rosicrucian circles, even if he never publicly identified as a Rosicrucian himself. Given the timing (1629/1631) and the ongoing influence of Rosicrucian manifestos in Europe, it's possible the second edition was meant for select readers and was assisting in the worldwide reformation of knowledge, for those with the eyes to see.
As the years progressed, Lilly, Ashmole, and Arthur Dee moved in the same circles. Lilly was acquainted with a wealthy English philosopher and astrologer, William Backhouse. He was a secretive man known for avoiding publicity. It’s believed that it was Lilly who introduced him to Ashmole. Backhouse was a Rosicrucian, and Ashmole, who had been admitted as a Freemason in 1646, perhaps shared this affiliation. Whatever the truth, their relationship was intense and close, and we know Backhouse asked Ashmole to call him "Father" - a term that seems to me like it is a master-pupil bond.
It was William Backhouse who is thought to have encouraged and helped Ashmole to translate this alchemical treatise (The Fasciculus Chemicus) authored by Arthur Dee into English. The book was published in 1650 and on the cover, Ashmole had concealed his own name in the form of an anagram. I and J were interchangeable letters in the alphabet of that period, and the name he chose was James Hasolle. Simple anagrams were a cryptological device used more often than many may suspect.
Backhouse produced no original works that can be outwardly attributed to him, just one poem The Magistery which carried only the initials WB. Ashmole never publicly mentioned his name, only privately, but Backhouse was a prolific translator of esoteric texts, including The Flower of Treasures - flowers were a common theme - (also called The Golden Fleece) by Solomon Trismosin (which is another glaringly obvious pseudonym for someone) and many other translations.
In 1635, Arthur Dee had left Moscow, but in 1634 he had completed a new work, Arca Arcanorum (literally - A Chest, or box/container, of Secrets - see footnote) which was a compilation of alchemical secrets from notebooks shared between Arthur and his late father, John. It contains alchemical instructions from various authors to which he added an overview at the end of each chapter. Except for these overviews and a few other entries, one called the 'Hermeticae Philosophia Medulla', which is about the Philosopher's Stone and can be linked back to George Ripley in 1476 (see excerpt below)...
In 1635, Arthur Dee had left Moscow, but in 1634 he had completed a new work, Arca Arcanorum (literally - A Chest, or box/container, of Secrets - see footnote) which was a compilation of alchemical secrets from notebooks shared between Arthur and his late father, John. It contains alchemical instructions from various authors to which he added an overview at the end of each chapter. Except for these overviews and a few other entries, one called the 'Hermeticae Philosophia Medulla', which is about the Philosopher's Stone and can be linked back to George Ripley in 1476 (see excerpt below)...
Facsimile of a hand-painted picture by Arthur Dee (1634) A part of the Ripley Scroll. Picture my own via Aula Lucis Books
|
"This stone divine of which I write, is known as one, and it is three..." Unitate in Trinitas
|
...the Arca Arcanorum appears very similar to a work called the Hermetic Arcanum. I mention this because Elias Ashmole appended the Hermetic Arcanum (Hermetic Secrets) to the 1650 version of Arthur’s Fasciculus book, keeping the author anonymous.
It was later claimed to be written by a French alchemist called Jean D’Espagnet. However, I have to say that as soon as you look at this name, it screams Jean D’E (John Dee).
This must surely just be a coincidence though, because all the evidence does point to it being the work of Jean D'Espagnet. However, the use of pseudonyms and borrowing the identity of others (with or without their knowledge) was common in this field, where secrecy was not just preferred but sometimes vital. Nothing can be taken at face value - even the word Medulla has layered meaning (as those who read my book will discover).
The important point here is that, amongst this group of people, taking credit was not a top priority; distribution of the information was. It was usually done through secret books which were deliberately kept from the eyes of the 'vulgar', or through works which were heavily encoded so that knowledge would only be understood by those with the ‘eyes to see’. The "mission" was the transmission of the information - sometimes referred to as the transmission of the flame - as any reference to light is a veiled term for Divine knowledge.
Which brings me back to…
The Forgotten Friar and the Monas
Returning to Lilly’s account, it provides a startling anecdote. While John Dee and Edward Kelly (along with family members) were on their travels between the territories of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Bohemia, and Hungary (a hot bed of alchemists seeking the secrets of Nature and its forces) an old friar knocked on Dee’s door. Dee refused to see him - twice.
When the friar was finally turned away, he left a message:
"Tell thy master I came to speak with him and to do him good, because he is a great scholar and famous. But now tell him, he put forth a book and dedicated it to the Emperor, it’s called *Monas Hieroglyphicas: he understands it not. I wrote it myself. I came to instruct him therein, and in some other more profound things. Do thou, Kelley, come along with me, I will make thee more famous than Master Dee."
It was later claimed to be written by a French alchemist called Jean D’Espagnet. However, I have to say that as soon as you look at this name, it screams Jean D’E (John Dee).
This must surely just be a coincidence though, because all the evidence does point to it being the work of Jean D'Espagnet. However, the use of pseudonyms and borrowing the identity of others (with or without their knowledge) was common in this field, where secrecy was not just preferred but sometimes vital. Nothing can be taken at face value - even the word Medulla has layered meaning (as those who read my book will discover).
The important point here is that, amongst this group of people, taking credit was not a top priority; distribution of the information was. It was usually done through secret books which were deliberately kept from the eyes of the 'vulgar', or through works which were heavily encoded so that knowledge would only be understood by those with the ‘eyes to see’. The "mission" was the transmission of the information - sometimes referred to as the transmission of the flame - as any reference to light is a veiled term for Divine knowledge.
Which brings me back to…
The Forgotten Friar and the Monas
Returning to Lilly’s account, it provides a startling anecdote. While John Dee and Edward Kelly (along with family members) were on their travels between the territories of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Bohemia, and Hungary (a hot bed of alchemists seeking the secrets of Nature and its forces) an old friar knocked on Dee’s door. Dee refused to see him - twice.
When the friar was finally turned away, he left a message:
"Tell thy master I came to speak with him and to do him good, because he is a great scholar and famous. But now tell him, he put forth a book and dedicated it to the Emperor, it’s called *Monas Hieroglyphicas: he understands it not. I wrote it myself. I came to instruct him therein, and in some other more profound things. Do thou, Kelley, come along with me, I will make thee more famous than Master Dee."
Via Gutenberg.org
The use of Kelley or Kelly are equally common
So this passage unveils a remarkable historical curiosity: nearly two decades after Monas Hieroglyphica was published, an unidentified friar appeared in Prague, asserting ownership of Dee’s most esoteric work.
But who was he?
Was he a member of a monastic Hermetic order in Prague? Could he have been a former collaborator of Dee’s or someone nursing an envious grudge at Dee's intellect? Was this a tall tale framed as a visitation because Dee and Kelly were said to regularly commune with apparitions? Maybe, but why would Lilly preserve this strange anecdote? He knew it would last beyond his death.
We do know that since a book by Meric Causabon entitled, True & Faithful Relation of What Passed for Many Years Between Dr. John Dee and Some Spirits had been published. Lilly may have been trying to distance himself from Kelly. The book by Causabon had heavily (and wrongly) traduced the character of both John Dee and Edward Kelly but specifically Kelly and, arguably, it was that book above all else that shifted the public narrative about them forever. Recording merchant gossip to show how easily Kelly would switch allegiances was perhaps one way of Lilly publicly creating distance.
Whatever the truth or reasoning, Lilly's tale casts doubt on the authorship of Dee’s most complex and symbolic work. All that said, in my view, far from Monas Hieroglyphica being a plagiarised work that Dee falsely claimed as his own, we should instead see it as part of the aforementioned Transmission of the Flame - a lineage of Hermetic knowledge passed down through the ages, which Dee built upon and crafted into a book of 24 Theorems to assist in the preservation of wisdom. In that respect, no knowledge is ever completely new knowledge. It is core truths realised, built upon and expanded in successive generations.
The Monas and Its Lineage
At the heart of Dee’s famous treatise lies a single glyph. It is a deceptively simple symbol resembling the astrological and alchemical sign for Mercury. But Dee indicates that the Monas contained the entire mystery of the cosmos, uniting the point, line and circle, the seven planets, the four elements, zodiacal signs, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, arithmology and alchemical correspondences, all within a single monas, a primordial One-Thing from which all multiplicity emerges.
We know that in early 1564, in order to complete the manuscript of Monas Hieroglyphica and oversee its production, John Dee was living in Antwerp, staying at the home of Willem Silvius, the printer who closely collaborated with Dee on the project. Shortly before that, in 1563, Dee had obtained and obsessively studied a copy of Johannes Trithemius’ Steganographia; a book that was later revealed to contain hidden cryptographic techniques i.e., methods to conceal secret information in writing or images in ways that would not register with someone who didn't have the key.
Although Steganographia does include the astrological/alchemical glyph of Mercury in its pages, it lacks the additions in Trithemius' book that Dee made to his Monas symbol.
It is interesting to notice though that Meric Causabon had added an image of Edward Kelly in his book, showing him holding a copy of Trithemius! See below.
So this passage unveils a remarkable historical curiosity: nearly two decades after Monas Hieroglyphica was published, an unidentified friar appeared in Prague, asserting ownership of Dee’s most esoteric work.
But who was he?
Was he a member of a monastic Hermetic order in Prague? Could he have been a former collaborator of Dee’s or someone nursing an envious grudge at Dee's intellect? Was this a tall tale framed as a visitation because Dee and Kelly were said to regularly commune with apparitions? Maybe, but why would Lilly preserve this strange anecdote? He knew it would last beyond his death.
We do know that since a book by Meric Causabon entitled, True & Faithful Relation of What Passed for Many Years Between Dr. John Dee and Some Spirits had been published. Lilly may have been trying to distance himself from Kelly. The book by Causabon had heavily (and wrongly) traduced the character of both John Dee and Edward Kelly but specifically Kelly and, arguably, it was that book above all else that shifted the public narrative about them forever. Recording merchant gossip to show how easily Kelly would switch allegiances was perhaps one way of Lilly publicly creating distance.
Whatever the truth or reasoning, Lilly's tale casts doubt on the authorship of Dee’s most complex and symbolic work. All that said, in my view, far from Monas Hieroglyphica being a plagiarised work that Dee falsely claimed as his own, we should instead see it as part of the aforementioned Transmission of the Flame - a lineage of Hermetic knowledge passed down through the ages, which Dee built upon and crafted into a book of 24 Theorems to assist in the preservation of wisdom. In that respect, no knowledge is ever completely new knowledge. It is core truths realised, built upon and expanded in successive generations.
The Monas and Its Lineage
At the heart of Dee’s famous treatise lies a single glyph. It is a deceptively simple symbol resembling the astrological and alchemical sign for Mercury. But Dee indicates that the Monas contained the entire mystery of the cosmos, uniting the point, line and circle, the seven planets, the four elements, zodiacal signs, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, arithmology and alchemical correspondences, all within a single monas, a primordial One-Thing from which all multiplicity emerges.
We know that in early 1564, in order to complete the manuscript of Monas Hieroglyphica and oversee its production, John Dee was living in Antwerp, staying at the home of Willem Silvius, the printer who closely collaborated with Dee on the project. Shortly before that, in 1563, Dee had obtained and obsessively studied a copy of Johannes Trithemius’ Steganographia; a book that was later revealed to contain hidden cryptographic techniques i.e., methods to conceal secret information in writing or images in ways that would not register with someone who didn't have the key.
Although Steganographia does include the astrological/alchemical glyph of Mercury in its pages, it lacks the additions in Trithemius' book that Dee made to his Monas symbol.
It is interesting to notice though that Meric Causabon had added an image of Edward Kelly in his book, showing him holding a copy of Trithemius! See below.
However, Trithemius had been an Abbot, not a friar.
Other friars who may have shaped Dee’s thinking before 1564 who were distinct possibilities were people like Albertus Magnus (Dominican, 1200–1280) or Ramon Llull (Franciscan c. 1232–1315/16).
All these people were, however, long dead at the time of the 'visitation' and the friar was said to be living (although Lilly says he died shortly afterwards) yet if this was some form of allegorical story, my thoughts kept returning to another figure, the most famous Franciscan friar of them all: Roger Bacon.
Dee was as obsessed with Roger Bacon as he was with Trithemius (and Trithemius' student, Agrippa), keeping over 20 copies of Bacon’s works in his personal library. They lived in different eras but both Roger Bacon and John Dee were polymaths and shared an interest in optics, astrology, mathematics, and all aspects of alchemy. Like Dee, Bacon had been mischaracterised and ostracised for his efforts to discover the secrets of Nature. He had been wrongly viewed as a magician due to his early experiments with gunpowder, at a time when few in England understood its power. HIs work with light, mirrors (including the early use of what became the Camera Obscura) and reflection were both marvelled at and derided. He was also known for his work with metals (including brass) glass (magnifying) and stones and crystals. Many strange stories and legends surrounded him from those ignorant about his experiments.
Roger Bacon also appears on the frontispiece of Causabon's book, right next to Kelly and above John Dee and another 'muse' of Dee's - Paracelsus.
Other friars who may have shaped Dee’s thinking before 1564 who were distinct possibilities were people like Albertus Magnus (Dominican, 1200–1280) or Ramon Llull (Franciscan c. 1232–1315/16).
All these people were, however, long dead at the time of the 'visitation' and the friar was said to be living (although Lilly says he died shortly afterwards) yet if this was some form of allegorical story, my thoughts kept returning to another figure, the most famous Franciscan friar of them all: Roger Bacon.
Dee was as obsessed with Roger Bacon as he was with Trithemius (and Trithemius' student, Agrippa), keeping over 20 copies of Bacon’s works in his personal library. They lived in different eras but both Roger Bacon and John Dee were polymaths and shared an interest in optics, astrology, mathematics, and all aspects of alchemy. Like Dee, Bacon had been mischaracterised and ostracised for his efforts to discover the secrets of Nature. He had been wrongly viewed as a magician due to his early experiments with gunpowder, at a time when few in England understood its power. HIs work with light, mirrors (including the early use of what became the Camera Obscura) and reflection were both marvelled at and derided. He was also known for his work with metals (including brass) glass (magnifying) and stones and crystals. Many strange stories and legends surrounded him from those ignorant about his experiments.
Roger Bacon also appears on the frontispiece of Causabon's book, right next to Kelly and above John Dee and another 'muse' of Dee's - Paracelsus.
Here Bacon is reading a book on alchemy showing the complementary opposites, the Sun and Moon, which must be united in the Great Work
Ashmole’s Perspective
Even prior to Causabon's traducement, Elias Ashmole had offered an extensive defence of Kelly and the Dee-Kelly relationship in his Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum (1652). He argued that Dee and Kelly were serious philosophers, misrepresented by ignorant contemporaries. Crucially, in the lengthy notes at the back of the book, Ashmole linked Dee's work including the Monas Hieroglyphica to Roger Bacon, framing it not as a stolen work, but as a continuation of misunderstood wisdom.
He explicitly referred to Dee's Monas Hieroglyphica and Propaedeumata Aphoristica as “an apology to Roger Bacon.” This reference is significant. While most writers in this field acknowledge Roger Bacon’s major influence on Dee, Ashmole’s direct connection between Bacon and the Monas suggests a lineage. Indeed, Ashmole regularly absolutely raved about Roger Bacon. If you read my article on the Philosopher's Egg you will see a quote that Arthur Dee used which has been attributed to Basil Valentine's 12 Keys, but it clearly stems from Roger Bacon's work translated by John Dee.
So, we may never know if the friar who confronted Dee in Prague was real or apocryphal. It is a mystery we must continue to unravel, but one thing is for sure: it is the perpetuation of the light that is important, not the name attached to it. Nowadays, all these 'secret' books are being decoded and labyrinthine interconnections and secret knowledge are coming to light - but here’s the thing, whoever originally penned or translated them, they will always remain veiled to those who approach them without the three-in-one balance of mind, heart, and soul.
Trinitas in Unitate!
If you would like to understand how to read the secrets hidden in allegory, code, symbols and numbers, please see my book.
Elias Ashmole talking about how philosophers' words were veiled
1) Passage by William Lilly The History of His Life and Times, Written by Himself, as published by Elias Ashmole (1715), p. 100. The anecdote is recounted as part of Lilly’s reflection on John Dee’s legacy and reputation. William Lilly sometimes adopted the name Merlinus Anglicus.
2) Chymical Collections - Megan Piorko. The Arca Arcanorum is available to purchase from Watkins Bookshop, London. Aula Lucis press.
3) See Dee’s Mathematicall Praeface to Euclid (1570). This will help understand the basis behind the Monas and cast out any doubt that Dee was a mere 'conjurer'.
4) Jean D'Espagnet 'Enchiridion physicae restitutae. The Hermetic Arcanum (1623)
5) Arca Arcanorum has been translated as Secret of Secrets by Arthur himself. The etymology of the word Arca is aligned with 'chest' or 'box' suggesting the idea of something locked away or concealed. Ashmole references a cabinet of secrets. Secretum is the word for 'secret,' and Secretum Secretorum is a book that was the Latin translation of Kitāb Sirr al-Asrār, later studied and expanded upon by none other than...Roger Bacon and later Dee!.
6) Note: Roger Bacon is not a blood relation of Francis Bacon. They are separated by over 300 years but the links between them are uncanny. John Dee can be seen as a bridge between the two Bacons - but all that is for a different article. Roger Bacon is suspected of being the author of theVoynich Manuscript, of which at one juncture Dee had the manuscript. I will also write more about the interpretation of the Monas Hieroglyphica.
7) This image appeared in 1623. It is from Nucleus sophicus - Benedictus Liberius, but also linked to a Rosicrucian called Haslmayr. It looks to be a form of reworking of the Monas but could indeed predate it IF (emphasised) it came from an older source. With AI the ability to search out old images and also to translate old texts in nanoseconds is going to revolutionise our understanding.
2) Chymical Collections - Megan Piorko. The Arca Arcanorum is available to purchase from Watkins Bookshop, London. Aula Lucis press.
3) See Dee’s Mathematicall Praeface to Euclid (1570). This will help understand the basis behind the Monas and cast out any doubt that Dee was a mere 'conjurer'.
4) Jean D'Espagnet 'Enchiridion physicae restitutae. The Hermetic Arcanum (1623)
5) Arca Arcanorum has been translated as Secret of Secrets by Arthur himself. The etymology of the word Arca is aligned with 'chest' or 'box' suggesting the idea of something locked away or concealed. Ashmole references a cabinet of secrets. Secretum is the word for 'secret,' and Secretum Secretorum is a book that was the Latin translation of Kitāb Sirr al-Asrār, later studied and expanded upon by none other than...Roger Bacon and later Dee!.
6) Note: Roger Bacon is not a blood relation of Francis Bacon. They are separated by over 300 years but the links between them are uncanny. John Dee can be seen as a bridge between the two Bacons - but all that is for a different article. Roger Bacon is suspected of being the author of the
7) This image appeared in 1623. It is from
