Solomon's Secret Arts (72 page)

27.
Meric Casaubon,
Of Credulity and Incredulity in Things Natural, Civil and Divine
(London, 1668), pp. 16–17; Harold J. Cook,
The Decline of the Old Medical Regime in Stuart London
(Ithaca, N.Y., 1986).

28.
Figala and Petzold, “Alchemy in the Newtonian Circle,” p. 182.

29.
This appears in the Getty Library copy of Elias Ashmole,
The Way to Bliss
(London, 1658), p. 26.

30.
Rudrum, “Biographical Introduction,” p. 12; Stephen Clucas, “The Correspondence of a XVII-Century ‘Chymicall Gentleman’: Sir Cheney Culpeper and the Chemical Interests
of the Hartlib Circle,”
Ambix
, 40, 3 (Nov. 1993), p. 149. “Mistress Ogelby” may have been the wife of John Ogilby, Charles II's cosmographer; her death in 1677 was noted by Ashmole: Josten, ed.,
Ashmole
, vol. iv, p. 1507.

31.
Newman,
Gehennical Fire
, pp. 82–3.

32.
J. Kent Clark,
Goodwin Wharton
(Oxford, 1984), pp. 7–9, ch. 4. No mention of alchemy is found in Maurice Ashley,
Major John Wildman, Plotter and Postmaster: A Study of the English Republican Movement in the Seventeenth Century
(London, 1947).

33.
Josten, ed.,
Ashmole
, vol. 1,
passim
; also, Michael Hunter, “Elias Ashmole, 1617–1692: The Founder of the Ashmolean Museum and his World,” in his
Science and the Shape of Orthodoxy: Intellectual Change in Late Seventeenth-Century Britain
(Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1995), pp. 21–42.

34.
Robert Latham, ed.,
The Shorter Pepys
(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985), pp. 89, 136.

35.
Josten, ed.,
Ashmole
, vol. 2, p. 505.

36.
Jason Peacey,
Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum
(Aldershot, 2004), ch. 4.

37.
Lois Schwoerer, “Liberty of the Press and Public Opinion, 1660–1695,” in J.R. Jones, ed.,
Liberty Secured? Britain before and after 1688
(Stanford, 1982), pp. 199–230. The best overall account of censorship in the early-modern period remains Frederick Seaton Siebert,
Freedom of the Press in England, 1476–1776
(Urbana, Ill., 1965), pp. 219–33.

38.
Simon Thurley,
Whitehall Palace: An Architectural History of the Royal Apartments, 1240–1690
(New Haven, 1999), p. 114; M.L. Wolbarscht and D.S. Sax, “Charles II: A Royal Martyr?”
Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London
, 16, 2 (1961), pp. 154–7; Antonia Fraser,
Royal Charles: Charles II and the Restoration
(New York, 1979), p. 450.

39.
“James Hasolle” [Elias Ashmole], “Prolegomena,” in Arthur Dee,
Fasciculus Chemicus: or Chymical Collections
(London, 1650), pp. [viii–ix].

40.
George Thor,
An Easie Introduction to the Philosophers Magical Gold: To Which Is Added Zorasters Cave; As Also John Pontanus Epistle upon the Mineral Fire; Otherwise Called, The Philosophers Stone
(London, 1667), p. [i].

41.
J[ohn] W[ilkins],
Mathematicall Magick
(London, 1648), p. 226.

42.
This is not the view of William R. Newman and Lawrence M. Principe, who have argued that alchemy was primarily a practical pursuit. While they acknowledge a separate strain of alchemy, which they call “mystical,” they do not give it much attention. This chapter takes a different approach, but Newman and Principe deserve enormous credit for reviving interest in seventeenth-century alchemy.

43.
Keith Thomas,
Religion and the Decline of Magic
(New York, 1970), pp. 270–1; Christopher Hill,
The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution
(Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1991), p. 185; Nicolson and Hutton, eds,
Conway Letters
, p. 42.

44.
Hermes Trismegistus,
The Divine Pymander
, trans. John Everard (London, 1650). A 1657 reissue of this work added the short tract known as the
Asclepius
, which had been known in a Latin version throughout the Middle Ages.

45.
Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa,
Three Books of Occult Philosophy
, trans. J. F[reake] (London, 1651), sigs A
^v
₁
-A
₂
, b
₁
-b
₂
. For Child, see Newman,
Gehennical Fire
, pp. 41–2, and Wilkinson, “Hartlib Papers, Part II,” pp. 99–100.

46.
Agrippa,
Three Books
, book 1, ch. 2, pp. 2–3.

47.
D.P. Walker,
Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella
(London, 1958), pp. 90–6; also, Wayne Shumaker,
Occult Sciences in the Renaissance: A Study in Intellectual Patterns
(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972), pp. 134–56; John S. Mebane,
Renaissance Magic and the Return of the Golden Age: The Occult Traditions of Marlowe, Jonson and Shakespeare
(Lincoln, Nebraska, 1989), ch. 4.

48.
The best overall treatment of the phenomenon is Brian Levack,
The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe
(3rd ed., London, 2006). For England, see James Sharp,
Instruments of Darkness: Wichcraft in Early Modern England
(Philadelphia, 1997).

49.
ODNB
; Robert Turner,
Ars Notoria: The Notory Art of Solomon
(London, 1657), p. 136. See also S. Liddell MacGregor Mathers, ed.,
The Key of Solomon the King (Clavicula Salomonis)
(London, 1888, repr. 1972).

50.
Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa,
His Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy
, trans. Robert Turner (London, 1664).

51.
Elias Ashmole,
Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum
(London, 1652), sig. A
₂
, p. 436. The comparison between England and ancient nations was first made by Ashmole in the preface to
Fasciculus Chemicus
.

52.
Josten, ed.,
Ashmole
, vol. 1, pp. 76–8, vol. 2, pp. 567–9, 588–9, 643. A detailed discussion of Ashmole's alchemy can be found in Bruce Janacek,
Alchemical Belief: Occultism in the Religious Culture of Early Modern England
(University Park, Pa., 2012), ch. 5.

53.
Robert Turner, trans.,
Paracelsus: Of the Chymical Transmutation, Genealogy and Generation of Metals and Minerals
(London, 1657), sig. A
₂
. Turner also translated
Paracelsus: Of the Supreme Mysteries of Nature. Of the Spirits of the Planets. Of Occult Philosophy
(London, 1655), which shows that he was not just interested in iatrochemical medicines.

54.
Josten, ed.,
Ashmole
, vol. 2, pp. 733–4, citing an allusion to Everard in the preface to Elias Ashmole, ed.,
The Way to Bliss
(London, 1658), that is clarified in Bodl. Lib., Ashmole Ms. 537.

55.
Lauren Kassell, “Reading for the Philosopher's Stone,” in Marina Frasca-Spada and Nick Jardine, eds,
Books and the Sciences in History
(Cambridge, 2000), pp. 135–42. Ashmole's copy of this manuscript is in Bodl. Lib., Ashmole Ms. 1419, ff. 57–82. Isaac Newton also had a copy, which is in KCL, Keynes Ms 22,
M&P
, reel 18.

56.
Ashmole,
Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum
, sigs A
^v
₃
-B
₁
.

57.
Ashmole,
Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum
, p. 444; Josten, ed.,
Ashmole
, vol. 1, pp. 72, 226–7, and references in index under “Sigils,” “Talismans” and “Telesmes.”

58.
Arthur Dee,
Fasciculus Chemicus: or Chymical Collections
, ed. James Hasolle [Elias Ashmole] (London, 1650), pp. x–xi.

59.
Ashmole,
Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum
, pp. 444–7.

60.
“Eirenaeus Philalethes” [George Starkey],
Ripley Reviv'd; or, An Exposition upon Sir George Ripley's Hermetico-Poetical Works
(London, 1678), Advertisement.

61.
This is the central premise of Lawrence M. Principe and William R. Newman, “Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy,” in William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton, eds,
Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe
(Cambridge, Mass., 2001), pp. 385–431.

62.
KCL, Keynes Ms 22,
M&P
, reel 18; Principe,
The Aspiring Adept
, pp. 191–200, 310–16.

63.
[George Starkey],
Ripley Reviv'd
, pp. 4, 7, 46, 107. “
Chalybs
” denotes iron or steel.

64.
For his advice to doctors, see George Starkey,
Nature's Explication and Helmont's Vindication
(London, 1658). Newman's treatment of Starkey's life in
Gehennical Fire
is exhaustive, but he tends to discount the cryptic language of Starkey's alchemy as a mere convention.

65.
All of these tracts are superbly edited, with copious annotations, in the 1984 edition of Vaughan's
Works
by Alan Rudrum, which supersedes the previous editions by A.E. Waite.

66.
Wilkinson, “Hartlib Papers, Part I,” p. 63; Rudrum, “Biographical Introduction,” pp. 11–13. Henshaw hinted at his clandestine activities during the Commonwealth period, and expressed his passionate hatred of Cromwell, in his
Vindication of Thomas Henshaw, Esquire
(The Spaw, 1654).

67.
Recent works on the early Rosicrucians include Carlos Gilly.
Cimelia Rhodostaurotica: Die Rosenkreuzer im Spiegel der zwischen 1610 und 1660 entstandenen Handschriften und Drucke
(Amsterdam, 1995), an exhibition catalogue from the Ritman Library; Friedrich Niewöhner and Carlos Gilly, eds,
Rosenkreuz als europäisches Phänomen im 17. Jahrhundert
(Amsterdam, 2001); Didier Kahn,“The Rosicrucian Hoax in France,” in Newman and Grafton, eds,
Secrets of Nature
, pp. 235–344.

68.
Theophilus Schweighardt,
Speculum Sophium Rhodo-Stauraticum Das ist: Weitläuffige Entdeckung des Collegii und axiomatum von der sondern erleuchen Fraternitat Christ-RosenCreutz
(1618), p. 3.

69.
“Eugenius Philalethes” [Thomas Vaughan], “Preface,”
The Fame and Confession of the Fraternity of R: C: Commonly, of the Rosie Cross
(London, 1653), in Rudrum,
Works
, pp. 479–510. For Rosenkreuz on alchemy, see
Fama Fraternitatis oder Entdeckung der Bruderschafft des löblichen Ordens des Rosenkreuzes
(Danzig, 1615), pp. 47–9. Rosenkreuz's opposition to gold-making may be a joke, as his name suggests the “rosebud-on-cross” symbol that is associated with mercury, the alchemist's favourite substance.

70.
Frances Yates,
The Rosicrucian Enlightenment
(London, 1972); Hutchinson,
Henry Vaughan
, pp. 148–9.

71.
“Eugenius Philalethes” [Thomas Vaughan],
Magia Adamica: or, The Antiquitie of Magic, and The Descent Thereof from Adam Downwards, Proved
(London, 1650), in Rudrum, ed.,
Works
, p. 150.

72.
[Vaughan],
Magia Adamica
, p. 215, and note on p. 652 (an unclear reference in the text seems to imply that Vaughan saw Boehme as a fellow Rosicrucian); see also the note on p. 677 to a possible reference to Boehme in “Eugenius Philalethes” [Thomas Vaughan],
Lumen de Lumine
(London, 1651), p. 313. Blunden's publications are discussed in Philip West,
Henry Vaughan's “Silex Scintillans”: Scripture Uses
(Oxford, 2001), p. 63. For Vaughan and Boehme, see Serge Hutin,
Les Disciples Anglais de Jacob Boehme au XVII et XVIII Siècles
(Paris, 1960), p. 77, and B.J. Gibbons,
Gender in Mystical and Occult Thought: Behmenism and its Development in England
(Cambridge, 1996), ch. 3.

73.
“Eugenius Philalethes” [Thomas Vaughan],
Anthroposophia Theomagica
(London, 1650), p. 53; Jacob Boehme,
The Epistles of Jacob Behmen, aliter, Teutonicus Philosophus
(London, 1649), pp. 1–17.

74.
These ideas appear in
Anthroposophia Theomagica
, pp. 66–8, 78, and throughout
Magia Adamica
.

75.
Heinrich Khunrath,
Ampitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae
([Vienna], 1602), p. 147. For Hartlib and Khunrath, see Clucas, “Correspondence of a ‘Chymical Gentleman,’” p. 149.

76.
Boehme's “Sophia” appears in ch. 52 of his
Mysterium Magnum
. Humphrey Blunden published parts of this work, but not this particular chapter, in a 1649 English compilation entitled
Mercurius Teutonicus
. A full translation of
Mysterium Magnum
was published by Blunden in 1654. It is possible that Vaughan did not read Boehme's whole work until after his own discussion of the passage from Genesis was published in
Anthroposophia Theomagica
, pp. 58–63. Fludd's version of the scene is graphically depicted in the “First Treatise” of
Utriusque Cosmi Maioris
(2 vols, Oppenheim, 1617), vol. i, p. 49.

77.
[Vaughan],
Magia Adamica
, pp. 180–1. See also Wolf-Dieter Müller-Jahncke, “Agrippa von Nettelsheim et la Kabbale,” in Antoine Faivre and Frédérick Tristan, eds,
Kabbalistes Chrétiens
(Paris, 1979), pp. 197–209.

78.
As with almost every aspect of the history of this period, there is disagreement about how to interpret the divisions within the Church of England. For conflicting views, see Nicholas Tyacke,
Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism, c. 1590–1640
(Oxford, 1987), and Julian Davies,
The Caroline Captivity of the Church: Charles I and the Remoulding of Anglicanism, 1625–1641
(Oxford, 1992).

79.
Henry More,
Enthusiasmus Triumphantus
(London, 1655). More saw Jacob Boehme as a naive enthusiast, and he may have put Vaughan in the same category: see Sarah Hutton, “Henry More and Jacob Boehme,” in Sarah Hutton, ed.,
Henry More (1614–1687): Tercentenary Essays
(Dordrecht, 1990), pp. 157–68. Vaughan admitted that his “
Revelations
” might be counted among those of “
Ranters
and
Anabaptists
” in
Euphrates, or The Waters of the East
(London, 1655), p. 515. An interpretation of Vaughan's debate with More that emphasizes its importance for empirical science is found in Frederic B. Burnham, “The More-Vaughan Controversy: The Revolt against Philosophical Enthusiasm,”
Journal of the History of Ideas
, 35, 1 (1974), pp. 33–49.