The Alchemical Patronage of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley
The Alchemical Patronage of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley
The Alchemical Patronage of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
to ingratiate himself with <strong>Cecil</strong> and blaming the project‘s setbacks on <strong>Sir</strong> Humphrey<br />
Gilbert. <strong>The</strong> letter she cites in support <strong>of</strong> this claim, however, was written over three years<br />
before the end <strong>of</strong> the project. 58 Moreover, Dewar failed to uncover anything about<br />
Medley‘s background or subsequent career in <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s service, and instead accepted Strype‘s<br />
depiction <strong>of</strong> him as a deluded and marginal figure. Dewar and other historians have<br />
emphasised Medley‘s imprisonment as a natural result <strong>of</strong> his ‗wild‘ schemes, ignoring the<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> a much more interesting and significant background struggle for alchemical<br />
patronage. This evidence suggests that Medley was the victim <strong>of</strong> a campaign <strong>of</strong> subterfuge<br />
set in motion by those jealous <strong>of</strong> his monopoly over alchemical patronage.<br />
As biographers <strong>of</strong> Smith, Strype and Dewar naturally focussed on Smith‘s role in<br />
the scheme, discussing <strong>Cecil</strong> only tangentially. Biographers <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong> have relegated Medley<br />
and the Society <strong>of</strong> the New Art to little more than a footnote. To Conyers Read the<br />
project ―came <strong>of</strong> course to nothing‖ showing only ―that like all his fellows even <strong>Burghley</strong><br />
succumbed on occasion to the alluring promises <strong>of</strong> the alchemists‖. 59 B. W. Beckingsale‘s<br />
mentions only that <strong>Cecil</strong> was a shareholder in the Society, a company ―concerned with new<br />
techniques in mining and metallurgy‖. 60 <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s two most recent biographers, Michael<br />
Graves and Stephen Alford, completely omit <strong>William</strong> Medley and the Society <strong>of</strong> the New<br />
Art. 61<br />
Medley‘s process has attracted more attention from historians <strong>of</strong> science and<br />
industry. J. W. Gough‘s <strong>The</strong> Rise <strong>of</strong> the Entrepreneur (1969) briefly outlined the project and<br />
put it into the context <strong>of</strong> the various schemes to created alum (hydrated aluminium<br />
potassium sulphate). 62 Gough, however, was not interested in <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s involvement in the<br />
scheme, and in fact misunderstood Medley‘s second ‗transmutational‘ process, believing it<br />
58 Ibid., p. 155.<br />
59 Read, <strong>Lord</strong> <strong>Burghley</strong>, p. 145.<br />
60 Beckingsale, <strong>Burghley</strong>, p. 261.<br />
61 Graves, <strong>Burghley</strong>; Alford, <strong>Burghley</strong>.<br />
62 J. W. Gough, <strong>The</strong> Rise <strong>of</strong> the Entrepreneur, New York, 1969, pp. 181-183.<br />
130