So I just finished an interesting biography about John Dee. For those who (understandably) have not heard of Dr. Dee, he was a 16th century philosopher/scientist/sorcerer/astrologer under Elizabeth I. Lately, I've taken a fascination with early modern era science, that is, the beginning of what we consider science. Prior to this, the ideas of "natural philosophy" (as it was called until the 18th century) was largely indistinguishable from magic. Astronomy grew from astrology; chemistry grew from alchemy; this transition I find personally fascinating, and much of the builders of early science had one foot in the rigorous method of experimentation which we recognize today and the other in ancient mysticism which has its roots deep into Antiquity.

The Queen's Conjurer by Benjamin Woolley (2001) is Dee's story, trying to show his roots as both an early scientist and the fount of much modern-day mysticism in the West. It seems to me that John Dee's biggest issue is that he longed to have a full, comprehensive knowledge of Creation, both physical and spiritual (remember, no distinction in the 1500s of natural and supernatural), but never seemed to completely get out of the old ways. This is exemplary of English society of the time, split in a transition from Medieval to Modern, Catholic to Protestant, and even from Old Style calendars to New Style (unlike the Continent, England stuck to the Julian mode). The Jacobean Era beginning in 1604 arouse a different world which would be that of flourishing Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, who while they all had mage-like qualities, were explorers of the new age.

Much like Dee, who seems to see disappointment after disappointment, Woolley doesn't seem to quite get there. I went into this really looking forward to an engaging, mysterious figure who straddled the Old and the New of science and sorcery, but this book is so much more mired in Renaissance politics and the personal failings of Dr. Dee that I felt about halfway through, I was reading more to get the book done. Perhaps it's my interests when reading this sort of history, but the author tends to avoid the science which could have been marvelously interesting.

Dee's life itself is a bit of a disappointment. A true Renaissance man who seemed to be a wonderful polymath, truly devoted to the intoxication of pure knowledge seems like he should have had a much more interesting life. It starts off well, as a young man negotiating his survival in Mary Tutor's court, and early success with Queen Elizabeth. He travels, corresponds with Brahe and others, and begins his journey (I particularly love the story of his ill-fated great library). By middle age, he seems to abandon science for speaking to God's emissaries directly via crystalomancy. For reasons not quite described, he cannot do this himself, so he falls in with a scryer, Edward Kelley, who in my view, appears to be a world class scheister. Kelley sadly seems to control the otherwise brilliant Dr. Dee in the latter half of his life, largely controlling Dee's movements and career decisions, the majority of which appear to be disastrous.

While I certainly understand that writing a biography of a man born nearly 500 years ago, that sources are scantly few and far between, making this sort of work frustratingly difficult (not that I wouldn't be opposed to trying this myself someday), Woolley appears to rely a great deal on his own interpretations and reading between the lines. Don't let this make you think that the work is poorly researched-- indeed, I have a great respect for the book, has an exhaustively wonderful 43 page notes/bibliography section. So much just feels disappointing in that like John Dee himself, The Queen's Conjurer is something that was destined for wonderful things but sadly fell short.

On the other hand, I am now very interested in finding another Dee bio just to have a look at what else it out there.