Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Robert Hooke book ::::::Re: John Dee's 007 signature/ update

Expand Messages
  • noaell
    Terri &/or Aaron ~ 4When you have a chance to read this.. Discovered a quote from Robert Hooke s Book Of Spirits re: Dee in Adrian Gilbert s book The New
    Message 1 of 22 , Feb 8 6:50 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Terri &/or Aaron ~ 4When you have a chance to read this..

      Discovered a quote from Robert Hooke's Book Of Spirits re: Dee in Adrian Gilbert's book The New Jerusalem (page 83). So searched out author here knowing I would find him.
      Will type out that quote and see where it fits in with any thread you all have had here...
      Betsy

      --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, "tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb" <burnst@...> wrote:
      >
      > Predictably, I ordered in Richard Deacon's book via interlibrary loan. Here on page three is the 007 signature, as Alan Thorogood said it would be.
      >
      > Deacon is an entertaining writer, and certainly had friends who could be even more entertaining—as Alan mentioned, he was a friend of Ian Fleming, author of the James Bond/007 books.
      >
      > Deacon's other books include The History of British Secret Service, and another on The Silent War (history of naval intelligence), so he obviously was very interested in British espionage, and his elder friend Fleming, in addition to writing about James Bond, was himself an officer with British naval intelligence.
      >
      > Curiously, though, Deacon does give his alleged sources for the claim that Dee signed his name 007. More on this in a minute. First, to give a flavor of what reading this is like, I'll quote in someone else's experience reading Deacon:
      >
      > http://swan-tower.livejournal.com/99242.html
      >
      > "I'm not entirely certain what to do with Deacon's claims. He's not as good as he might be about telling you the basis for his conclusions about Dee's activities, so I can't be sure when the missions he outlines are things we definitely know happened, and when they're educated speculation. That Dee occasionally passed information along to Walsingham and/or Burghley and/or Leicester, I can believe with no problem, but Deacon's biography more or less positions that as the overarching purpose of his life. Dee, according to him, refused jobs he might have taken because they would have limited his ability to engage in intelligence work. His trips overseas were as much for spying as for anything else. And the angelic conversations . . . in Deacon's view, Dee's work with Kelley is most easily explained by assuming that much of it was used as a cover, a ciphered means of passing information to those who could act on it. Who would look for intelligence reports in the middle of one of those?"
      >
      > Peter French, author of the first scholarly bio on Dee, doesn't think much of Deacon, and notes that the book is "riddled with factual inaccuracies" (16).
      >
      > But what I find most odd in Deacon, seriously, is that the plot line, or part of it, reads like a bad echo in my head. While Deacon makes many claims that one could easily and supportably say are not true, he makes others, like that about Christopher Plantin and his press for instance, which are ones I have researched and argued are *likely* true… but let me tell you, finding the connections was difficult and involved lots of database research that wasn't possible in Deacon's time, as well as hitting on friends to help me read passages in German and Dutch.
      >
      > Maybe it was just easier to guess and get away with it in 1968.
      >
      > Deacon's book on Dee also often bumps into observations about Aleister Crowley, and he declares that Crowley worked for British Intelligence... something we now know is true, but which he could not know from records at the time (late 1960s). (Unless, I suppose, his friend Fleming, who worked for British intelligence but died in 1964, told him. But wait, wouldn't that be compromising intelligence...?)
      >
      > Strange.
      >
      > This raises the question of where beyond Fleming this odd take comes from, and the easy guess is Crowley himself, who reputedly went drinking with Fleming more than a few times. Crowley, we might guess, was pulling on his own personal narrative, which of course connects us to back to Edward Kelley more than Dee. Interestingly Crowley has in the past ten years or so been outed as a spy for British intelligence (where one of his tasks was to break up the original Golden Dawn, something he seemed to succeed at doing quite well.)
      >
      > When Ian Fleming was director of Naval Intelligence and involved in pulling in witnesses who understood the connections between he occult and espionage, Crowley was one of those he pulled in (this was for the interrogation of Rudolf Hess, of all people: see www.redflame93.com/Fleming.html )
      >
      > Anyway its not hard to spin the story as going Crowley --> Fleming --> Deacon. Three tiers of good storytellers, two of which had first-hand experience with espionage.
      >
      > OK, back to the 007 signature: Deacon does give what masquerades as evidence, and back in the late 60s it would be rather hard for anyone without a university library to check some of his claims. His alleged source for the Dee/007 story was Robert Hooke (of Hooke's Law fame, 18 July 1635 – 3 March 1703): wiki him and you'll see he's a polymath much life Dee, and associated with Boyle.
      >
      > Deacon claims (216) that Hooke believed the angelic coversations were works of crptography, and gives a quote from a speech Hooke allegedly gave to the British Royal society, then footnotes a book but gives no page number—I just requested that book from interlibrary loan as well. Deacon claims Hooke refers to Enochian chess, and somehow works that into a discussion of using the sign of Pisces to record orgasms, and implies this technique comes from Dee as well. See 223-224.
      >
      > Then, Deacon tells us that "it was Hooke who revealed that Dee gave his secret signature as 007, explaining that what looked like a giant square root sign was really a gigantic 7. Of course he does not cite this or explain where Hooke says it, but he does list three books of Hooke's in his bibliography, all of which I've requested by interlibrary loan, just for kicks.
      >
      > All of this begs the question of why, if Hooke said it, we should believe it.
      >
      > LVX,
      >
      > Terri
      >
    • noaell
      Terri & Aaron, And thanks to Alan Thorogood in your thread from a year ago, here is the exact quote (paragraph one) that I found in Gilbert s book The New
      Message 2 of 22 , Feb 8 6:59 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Terri & Aaron,

        And thanks to Alan Thorogood in your thread from a year ago, here is the exact quote (paragraph one) that I found in Gilbert's book The New Jerusalem.
        Also not sure if this page has been posted ...
        http://www.rod.beavon.clara.net/leonardo.htm
        ---
        England's Leonardo: Robert

        Hooke (1635-1703) and the

        art of experiment in

        Restoration England

        ALLAN CHAPMAN
        ---

        Betsy

        --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thorogood <alan_thorogood@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- On Fri, 3/9/10, tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb <burnst@...> wrote:
        > <snip>
        >
        >
        >
        > Deacon claims (216) that Hooke believed the angelic coversations were
        > works of crptography, and gives a quote from a speech Hooke allegedly
        > gave to the British Royal society, then footnotes a book but gives no
        > page numberâ€"I just requested that book from interlibrary loan as well.
        > Deacon claims Hooke refers to Enochian chess, and somehow works that
        > into a discussion of using the sign of Pisces to record orgasms, and
        > implies this technique comes from Dee as well. See 223-224.
        >
        >
        >
        > Then, Deacon tells us that "it was Hooke who revealed that Dee gave his
        > secret signature as 007, explaining that what looked like a giant square
        > root sign was really a gigantic 7. Of course he does not cite this or
        > explain where Hooke says it, but he does list three books of Hooke's in
        > his bibliography, all of which I've requested by interlibrary loan, just
        > for kicks.
        > Terri,
        > I believe Hooke was the first to suggest that Dee's spiritual diaries were a form of cryptography, in a lecture delivered to the Royal Society in 1690. This was published in his 'Posthumous Works' (1705) as 'Of Dr Dee's Book of Spirits'. I have reproduced the relevant passages below; a complete transcript with corrections and additional information based on my research in the Royal Society archives will appear as an adjunct to my long-delayed (but still forthcoming) work on liber Loagaeth. As I've mentioned to you off-list, Deacon also refers to a work by Hooke titled 'An Ingenious Cryptographical System' as a source for his more suspect claims. This does not exist and is entirely Deacon's invention.
        >
        > **********
        > 'To come then to the Book it self. Upon turning it over, and comparing several Particulars in it one with another, and with other Writings of the said Dr. Dee, and considering also the History of the Life, Actions and Estate of the said Author, so far as I can be informed, I do conceive that the greatest part of the said Book, especially all that which relates to the Spirits and Apparitions, together with their Names, Speeches, Shews, Noises, Clothing, Actions, and the Prayers and Doxologies, &c. are all Cryptography, and that some Parts also of that which seems to be a Journal of his Voyage and Travels into several Parts of Germany, are also Cryptographical; that is, that under those feigned Stories, which he there seems to relate as Matters of Fact, he hath concealed Relations of quite another thing; and that he made use of this way of absconding it, that he might the more securely escape discovery, if he should fall under suspicion as to the true
        > Designs of his Travels, or that the same should fall into the hands of any Spies, or such as might be imployed to betray him or his Intentions; conceiving the Inquisition that should be made, or Prosecution, if discovered, would be more gentle for a Pretended Enthusiast, than for a real Spy.
        > […]
        > That a great part of this Treatise is Cryptography, I conceive is very probable from these and diverse other Considerations: First, for that he took such care to preserve the Book of Enoch, which I conjecture to contain the Methods and Keys of what was concealed in this Book. Next, for that the Method and Manner thereof is so like to that of Trithemius his Cryptography, that I conceive (were it worth while) it would not be difficult to decipher a great part of it, by analogy thereunto. Now tho’ at that time the Key or Method of that Book were not so well and commonly known, yet I do not doubt but this inquisitive Man had got Knowledge of it in his Travels and Enquiries in Germany, possibly when he presented his Monas Hieroglyphica to the Emperor Maximillian 1564; and possibly it might bear upon the same account, that he made choice of this way of Invocations and Revelations to conceal his Meaning, that I shewed before Trithemius had done in his.
        > Trithemius also pretended to Revelation, as may be seen in the History of his Life, tho’ not so frequent as this Author has done in this Book, at least if the Sense thereof be understood literally; but that I conceive to be nothing but the outward Form, Appearance or Dress of the Substance and Subject of the Book, which lay absconded from common Discovery under that Mask or Disguise; tho’ yet I am apt believe he had some artificial Contrivances to perform this also, when he saw cause. Thirdly, for that there are very many plain Instances of Cryptography, both by changing and putting some Letters for others, and Numbers for Letters, and Numbers also for Words, and Tables for disposing or placing Letters according to several Orders and Methods, to be seen in the Book it self: And the Book which he calls the Book of Enoch, seems to be nothing else. Besides, the Words that he sets down, as delivered by his Spirits, are many of them inarticulate,
        > according to the commonly accepted Sounds or Pronunciation of those Characters they are written with, and therefore were not put to signify those Letters. It would be too long to give Instances out of the Book it self of these Particulars, and ‘tis needless, since they are so very many and frequent in every part of the Book. He hath likewise divers Polygonal Figures, as I conceive, for the same purpose, and many other such Indications of Cryptography.
        >
        > And to conclude for the present, any one that does without prejudice peruse the Libri Mystici Apertorii Cracoviensis Sabbatici, pag. 115. will see a hundred Arguments to convince him of the Probability, if not Certainty of this my Conjecture: And some other time I shall give some other Arguments, which may possibly give fuller Satisfaction. But I would not detain too long upon this subject.'
        > **********
        >
        > It's not too difficult to pick holes in Hooke's argument: for example, as Isaac D'Israeli  rightly points out when referring to Hooke in his section on Dee in 'Amenities of Literature' (1841):
        > 'There is one fatal objection to this ingenious theory of cryptography; this astounding diary opens long before Dee went abroad, and was continued long after his return, when it does not appear he was employed in affairs of state.'
        >
        > Regards,
        > Alan
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.