This article is an extract from The Rosicrucian #82 (Nov 2020).

John Dee's Hieroglyphic Monad Part 1: Origins

The intention of the first part of this article is to survey some of the obvious origins of the composite symbol that John Dee calls the Hieroglyphic Monad, an enduring example of his intellect and mystical disposition. The treatise, called Monas Hieroglyphica (Sacred Oneness), within which it is contained, consists of 28 pages (folios) of text and diagrams accompanied by an explanatory commentary that elucidates this enigmatic glyph. The figure is presented as a symbolic representation of the universe, demonstrating divine order and the inherent structure of nature.1  The diagrammatic form employed within the Monas Hieroglyphica, while belonging to the humanistic tradition of pictorial invention, was unusual for its time since contemporary works on alchemy were largely emblematic. For this reason Dee, in presenting his symbolic figure to the reader, goes into great detail by disassembling the glyph into a number of diagrams explained in a series of 24 Theorems. It should be noted that there is much more going on within the Monas Hieroglyphica than these articles present. They will, however, serve as a general introduction to John Dee’s aspirations concerning his ‘child’, as he often called it. ​

After seven years of mental preparation says Dee in the preface and twelve days of writing,2 Monas Hieroglyphica was finally published in Antwerp in 1564 by Willem Silvius (d. 1580), a printer that Dee specifically chose as someone who could: “bring [the Monas] forth and produce it trim and well put together in every way.” 3 He exhorts Silvius to “...imitate my carefulness in [arranging] the variety of letters, the points, the lines, the diagrams, the schemata, the numbers and other things.” 4 Silvius was renowned for his typographic design and expertise in illustration so he was just the sort of printer that Dee was searching for to undertake the production of his diagrammatic treatise. Indeed, Silvius is referred to by Dee as his Amico suo singulari, his ‘singular friend’ (folio 10v.), and lived at the premises of the printer while overseeing its production.

First Appearance

Monas Hieroglyphica is not, however, the first time the glyph was introduced by Dee; it appeared on the title page of his Propaedeumata Aphoristica (‘Preparatory Aphorisms’), six years before in 1558. The hieroglyph is enclosed in a cartouche-like frame and flanked by the initials of John Dee’s name. This work, consisting of 120 aphorisms, was based on the observation of nature and empirical experimentation that is natural philosophy, through the use of optical geometry and mathematics. Its main theme was astrology and alchemy. In it he develops the idea that the terrestrial sphere is affected through the emanation5 of ‘celestial virtues’ (originating in the astrological, i.e. planetary, realm) that propagate in the same way as visible light.6 Light can be studied and manipulated through the science of optics, a method that Dee more than likely derived from natural philosophers such as Al-Kindi (c.801–873), Robert Grosseteste (c.1168-1253) who was the Bishop of Lincoln, and Roger Bacon (c.1214–1292). Through study of the structure and causal mechanism of the universe provided in the Propaedeumata Aphoristica, and subsequent knowledge of the correspondences of the celestial influences and their effects, one is in a position to control and manipulate the emanations of celestial virtues to desired effects.7

This work, then, prepared the way for the development of the later Monas Hieroglyphica in which he states (folio 10) that his “...mind had been pregnant with it [Dee calls the Monas his ‘child’] during the whole course of seven years”, next to which in the margin Dee makes a reference to his Preparatory Aphorisms: “As appears in our Propedeumatic [sic] Aphorisms, printed in London, in the year 1558, from aphorism 52.” In the revised edition of 1567, Aphorism 52 states, regarding mirrors as devices for focussing “celestial rays:”

If you are skilled in Catoptrics [the study of mirrors and reflected light] you will be able to artfully impress the rays of any Star much more strongly upon any given material than Nature does by itself…8​

Furthermore:

The symbols used in Inferior Astronomy [alchemy] are incorporated in a certain MONAD which is derived from our theories…. The diligent Investigator of Secret has this great assistance available to him when examining the particular powers, not only of stars, but of other things that the stars affect with their perceivable rays.9​​

At this time Dee refers to the Monad essentially as an alchemical symbol. Flanking the right side of the figure on the title page of Propaedeumata Aphoristica is a vertical scroll, within which is stated “ΣΤΙΛΒΩΝ [Stilbôn] acumine praeditus est instar omnium planetarum”, meaning, *“Mercury, endowed with a sting is the form of all the planets.”*10 Stilbôn is the Greek name for Mercury and this statement reflects the alchemical nature of the hieroglyph and the primary importance of Mercury in the alchemical process. It was only during the twelve days of writing Monas Hieroglyphica in January 1564 that the full import and nature of the glyph became clear. This is evident in the later Cabalistic and numerological aspects associated with it which Dee was not, it seems, preoccupied with during the production of his Propaedeumata Aphoristica.11

Despite this assertion, however, there are grounds to demonstrate that the Hieroglyphic Monad was more than just at the gestational phase during this period. In 1559 Dee was given a copy of Pantheus’ alchemical and Cabalistic Voarchadumia12 which describes a new theory of the transmutation of metals. Dee’s interest in this work is evident from the copious annotations and drawings in its margins. A study of these marginalia reveals that Dee was using Cabalistic speculation as a means of acquiring knowledge concerning material natural substances and non-spiritual matters. Significantly, he also includes the Monad in the marginalia to support his reflections relating to the text. This perhaps indicates that Dee had already developed some of his main ideas about the Monad, prefiguring the Monas Hieroglyphica five years later.13

Furthermore, we find on the title page of Propaedeumata Aphoristica the hieroglyph centrally framed and exhibiting rays emanating from the monadic point which seem to reflect its power, nature and placement in terms of its construction as a symbolic representation of the universe. And in terms of its potential as a repository of universal knowledge we see written in the scroll to the left of the figure, Est in hac Monade quicquid quaerunt sapientes, meaning ‘There is in this Monad whatever the wise men seek.’ This is a paraphrase of the alchemical aphorism, “Est in Mercurio quicquid quaerunt sapientes”, meaning “There is in Mercury whatever the Wise men seek.” 14

Some Conceptual Aspects

As a polymath, John Dee’s world-view, philosophies and scientific bent had many origins; consequently, we find various periods during which his intellectual outlook and direction changed. His aspiration to present the world with a figure and the concepts that surrounded it encapsulating human knowledge of nature may be found, at least initially, in the work and ideas of Roger Bacon (1214–92) whom Dee came across in 1556.15 As a result, by 1558, Dee came to possess, or had consulted, all of Bacon’s works.16 It is certain then, that Dee was aware of the connection that Bacon had made between alchemy, astrology, natural magic and mathematics which were integral to Bacon’s unified knowledge-programme. This was a consequence of the belief that the terrestrial world is governed by the celestial and the supercelestial worlds. Therefore, knowledge of the occult sciences were directly beneficial to humankind and Dee, as a consequence, was continually engaged in promoting this knowledge.17 In his mind, the nature of the Monad was constantly evolving, from a diagrammatic magical and alchemical figure in the 1550s to an expression of a “universal grammar”, a repository of universal knowledge by the 1560s.

Besides Roger Bacon, Dee was reading the German polymath Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim (1486–1535); particularly his treatise De occulta philosophia libri tres (Three Books on Occult Philosophy). The most relevant part concerning the Monas is in Book 2, Chapter 4, entitled De unitate, & eius scala (Of Unity and its Scale thereof). This scala unitatis (scale of unity) lists the manifestations of essential oneness in the archetypal, intellectual, celestial, elementary, and lesser (microcosm) and infernal worlds.18 Significantly, the elemental world (the earthly realm), according to Agrippa, contains the lapis philosophorum (Philosophers’ Stone) which alchemically equates with Philosophical Mercury, the agent of transmutation. And we find that Dee’s hieroglyph is essentially composed of the symbolic figure of Mercury. In fact, Dee underlines the leading role of the mercurial rather than the solar aspect in his Monas Hieroglyphica.19 This facet is emphasised in the repetition of the Mercurial name Stilbôn in the scroll that flanks the figure on the title page: “ΣΤΙΛΒΩΝ [Stilbôn] acumine stabili consummatus, omnium planetarum parens, et rex fit”, meaning “Mercury becomes the parent and king of all the planets when made perfect by a stable pointed hook.” 20

The German Benedictine abbot and polymath Johannes Trithemius (1462–1516) had a significant influence on Dee’s cosmological and magical world-view. The term that Dee uses in Monas Hieroglyphica for alchemy, inferior astronomy, originates in his reading of Trithemius who regarded alchemy as an astronomia inferior (a lower or terrestrial astronomy) and a branch of natural magic. This was grounded, on the part of Trithemius, in the belief that the text of the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus conveyed a cosmological process alongside that of alchemy.21 There are, indeed, parallels between the Tablet and the Monas; one example being the expression in both of the one or the one thing (una res). The Hieroglyphic Monad reflects the hermetic concept that: “All things were made from the one by the contemplation of the one, so all things are born of this one thing by adaption.” 22

Dee’s passion for the secrets behind the gamut of natural philosophy involving magia stemmed largely from Trithemius, whom he avidly studied, particularly the Steganographia (1499) which is a treatise on cryptography and the transmission of information by occult means. Dee referred to the Steganographia as “the most precious jewel that I have yet recovered...” and undoubtedly laid the foundations of his approach in creating the Monas Hieroglyphica.23

On 20 January 1563, Dee acquired in Antwerp a copy of De Vsu et Mysteriis Notarum Liber (‘Concerning the magical properties of characters’) by Jacques Gohorry (1520–1576) which discussed extensively Trithemius’ numerology. This work is a compilation of occult themes that includes two excerpts of letters by Trithemius: one concerns the qualities required of a ‘true’ magus and the other advises the recipient on the three principles of magic. Dee’s annotations against these letters demonstrate that they had a profound influence on the final form of the Monas Hieroglyphica.24

Other sources include Guillaume Postel (1510–81) skilled in Cabala and the mystical Hebrew alphabet who he met in France around 1548; also the Italian humanist Pico della Mirandola (1463–94) whose mathematical theses influenced Dee. Another influence that should be mentioned is the German humanist and scholar Johannes Reuchlin (1455–1522) and his De Arte Cabalistica (1517) in which he emphasised the intermediate function of mathematics as taught by Pythagoras, who we will come to later.

Geometrical Composition

The geometrical composition of the hieroglyph appears to be of Dee’s own invention, “conceived in London, yet born at Antwerp” in 1557.26  He attributes its initial conception, however, to divine inspiration, where he refers to Mercury (folio 4) as: “an astronomical messenger [sent to us] by our IEOVA [Jehovah].”  It is known that he possessed a copy of De re aedificatoria libri decem (Ten Books on Architecture), 1523 edition, by the humanist scholar Leon Battista Alberti (1404–72) which contained references to the Egyptians’ use of hieroglyphs as sacred writing and which may have influenced him in creating his cosmogram.27  From this geometrical figure Dee derives all of the planetary symbols as well as the Greek, Hebrew and Latin alphabets. Alongside its main alchemical thrust he also incorporates arithmetical and cabalistic extrapolations which overall translates the figure into a cosmogram of universal import. The mercury sign with two half moons at its base (forming the sign for Aries) may have its origins in Pantheus’ Voarchadumia in which there is a diagram of the Cabalistic universe featuring mercury at its centre with a reversed crescent moon at its feet.28

The humanist scholar and philosopher Marsilio Ficino (1433–99) was famous for translating from Greek into Latin the fourteen treatises comprising the Corpus Hermeticum at the behest of his patron Cosimo de Medici (1389–1463), completing the task in 1463 and finally having it printed in 1471. From one of these treatises we read: “But why, then, should we neglect a universal image, an image of the very universe itself?” 29 Ficino thought that mathematical and geometrical figures could be used as a ‘sign repertoire’ for the creation of such a universal image.30 Dee owned works by Ficino, which he heavily annotated, grounding himself in Neoplatonic Hermeticism and acquiring broad knowledge of that philosophy which essentially presents humans as intermediaries between the divine and the terrestrial spheres, and uniquely possessing the capacity to mould their own natures.

The title Monas Hieroglyphica means Sacred Symbol of Oneness, recalling, as C. H. Josten writes, “…the una res [one thing] of the Smaragdine Table [Emerald Tablet]” 31, suggesting that the figure and its geometry has a hermetic connection. In support of this hermetic aspect it will be observed on the title page of Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica, mentioned above, that the hieroglyph is centrally framed within a cartouche. Moreover, we see the initials of John Dee’s name flanking the glyph. This may simply denote ownership in glorification of its author but perhaps a deeper meaning could be implied that has a hermetic source, namely man as the microcosm. In the same way that Adam Kadmon, the archetypal man, is superimposed upon and embodied in the emanatory Cabalistic Tree of Life glyph we might see a similar embodiment of the esoteric aspects of man (astrological and alchemical) within the Hieroglyphic Monad. This is reinforced by observing the rays issuing from the monadic point toward the elements but particularly the sun and moon on the title page of Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica in keeping with the alchemical sexual polarities and their conjunction. Additionally, Dee states in Theorem 13 (folio 14v) of Monas Hieroglyphica:

In this progression Appears another Mercury, who indeed is the Uterine Brother of the first. This is clearly the fully complete Lunar and Solar Magic of the Elements, as the Hieroglyphic Messenger tells us most expressly, if only we fix our eyes upon him and lend him an attentive ear. He is (GOD WILLING) that most Famous Mercury of the Philosophers, the MICROCOSM and ADAM. 32

The other Mercury referred to here is Solar Mercury, the Uterine Brother of Lunar Mercury (see illustration).33 Mercury plays many changeable roles and given its status in alchemy i.e. as “the matter, the method and the result” of the alchemical work, reveals that the alchemist or magus is indeed mercurial man, being both subject and agent of the process.34

In Part 2, I will present the basic structural geometry of the hieroglyph and its planetary and astrological components. This will be followed by an introduction to the numerological and emanatory aspects inherent in the figure.

References

1. See: Hilde Norrgrén, ‘Interpretation and the Hieroglyphic Monad: John Dee’s Reading of Pantheus’ Voarchadumia’, Ambix, 52:3, 2005, pp. 218-219.
2. On the last page (folio 28) of the Monas, Dee states that he began ‘his labours’ which ran from 13th - 25th January, 1564.
3. Manuel Mertens, ‘Willem Silvius: “Typographical Parent” of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica’ in Ambix, 2017.
4. Stephen Clucas, ‘The Royal Typographer and the Alchemist: John Dee, Willem Silvius and the Diagrammatic Alchemy of the Monas Hieroglyphica’ in Ambix, 2017, p. 12.
5. The concept of ‘emanationism’ connecting the celestial and sublunary worlds was not conceived by Dee. It appears to have originated in Aristotelian natural philosophy and found in later Arabic texts, although this was not strictly Aristotelian as there was not a clear differentiation between the ethereal and elemental sphere. The later universal emanationism that loosely connected Neoplatonism, the Hermetica and Arabic Aristotelianism was ultimately of a Neoplatonic interpretation. See: Nicholas H. Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion, Routledge, 2013 (1988), p. 71.
6. Nicholas H. Clulee, ‘Astronomia Inferior: Legacies of Johannes Trithemius and John Dee’ in Newman/Grafton (editors), Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe, 2001, MIT, p. 174.
7. Nicholas H. Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion, Routledge, 2013 (1988), p. 66.
8. Translation by Jim Egan, The Works of John Dee: Modernizations of his Main Mathematical Masterpieces, Cosmopolite Press, 2010, p. 34.
9. Ibid.
10. See: Peter J. Forshaw, ‘The Hermetic Frontispiece: Contextualising John Dee’s Hieroglyphic Monad’ in Ambix, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2017, p. 124.
11. Nicholas H. Clulee, Astrology, Magic and Optics: Facets of John Dee’s Early Natural Philosophy in Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1977, pp. 643-4.
12. Giovanni Agostino Pantheus, Voarchadumia contra alchimiam: ars distincta ab archimia et Sophia: cum Additionibus: Proportionibus: Numeris: et Figuris (Venice, 1530) The term ‘Voarchadumia’ is derived from Hebrew and signifies gold that is thoroughly refined.
13. Norregrén, op.cit., pp. 217-18.
14. Peter J. Forshaw, ‘The Hermetic Frontispiece…’, p. 126
15. Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, p. 121
16. Clulee, Astrology, Magic and Optics’, p. 642.
17. Clulee, John Dees’s Natural Philosophy, p. 126. Dee even went so far as to write a defence, Speculum unitatis… (although unfinished and now lost), against the accusation that Bacon’s ‘science involved the practice of magic and other demonic arts’. Ibid., p.64.
18. C. H Josten, ‘John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica’ in Ambix, Vol. 12, 1964, p. 106.
19. Federico Cavallaro, ‘The Alchemical Significance of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica’ in S. Clucas (ed.), John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies in Renaissance Thought, Springer, 2006, p. 165.
20. Forshaw, ‘The Hermetic Frontispiece…’, p. 132.
21. Clulee, ‘Astronomia Inferior…’, op. cit., pp. 173-4.
22. See Clulee, Ibid., p. 179.
23. Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, p. 136.
24. See further, Stephen Clucas, ‘Pythagorean Number Symbolism, Alchemy, and the Disciplina Noua of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica’ in ARIES 10.2, 2010.
25. Michael & Phyllis Walton, ‘The Geometrical Kabbalahs of John Dee and Johannes Kepler: The Hebrew Tradition and the Mathematical Study of Nature’ in Theerman & Parshall (eds.), Experiencing Nature, University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 58, 1997, p. 46.
26. Norregrén, op. cit., p. 219.
27. György E. Szonyi, John Dee’s Occultism: Magical Exaltation Through Powerful Signs, SUNY, 2004, p. 164.
28. Urzula Szulakowska, ‘John Dee’s Alchemy of Light: The Monas Hieroglyphica and the Cabbalah’ in The Alchemy of Light: Geometry and Optics in Late Renaissance Alchemical Illustration, Brill, 2000, p. 62.
29. Quoted in Szonyi, ibid., p. 167.
30. Ibid.
31. C. H. Josten, p. 106.
32. Translation by Jim Egan, op. cit., The Works of John Dee, p. 94.
33. Jim Egan, The Meaning of the Monas Hieroglyphica with Regards to Geometry, Cosmopolite Press, 2010, p. 35.
34. C.H. Josten, pp. 103-4.