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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
to involve cementation rather than precipitation. 63 M. B Donald in Elizabethan Monopolies<br />
(1961) discussed the involvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s technical expert, <strong>William</strong> Humfrey, in the<br />
scheme. 64 While Donald correctly understood Medley‘s chemical process, he provided little<br />
detail or context for the project, and continued to describe <strong>William</strong> Medley as a charlatan. 65<br />
Recent examinations <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s patronage have also failed to examine <strong>William</strong><br />
Medley or the Society <strong>of</strong> the New Art in any detail. Felicity Heal and Clive Holmes, who<br />
only mention the project in a footnote, state that <strong>Cecil</strong> was more cautious in investing than<br />
the rest <strong>of</strong> the partners and refer the reader to Mary Dewar‘s work. 66 Stephen Pumfrey and<br />
Frances Dawbarn‘s article ‗Science and <strong>Patronage</strong> in England, 1570–1625‘ describes the<br />
Society <strong>of</strong> the New Art as ―the most extraordinary <strong>of</strong> <strong>Burghley</strong>‘s projects‖, yet dismisses it<br />
in a few sentences. 67 Incorrectly dating the project to 1579, they argue that it was another<br />
example <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s utilitarian patronage that concerned him because <strong>of</strong> its implications on<br />
coinage. 68 As evidence they cite John Strype‘s seventeenth century account. 69 Although<br />
Deborah Harkness‘ <strong>The</strong> Jewel House does put the scheme in the context <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s<br />
involvement with the Frobisher voyages and Cornelius de Lannoy, her coverage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
project is superficial and she provides no real analysis <strong>of</strong> the project‘s importance. 70<br />
Historians have thus constantly reiterated either John Strype or Mary Dewar‘s account <strong>of</strong><br />
the project, revealing that the topic has yet to be properly researched.<br />
As an alchemical project on an industrial scale, the Society <strong>of</strong> the New Art<br />
demonstrates how far <strong>Cecil</strong> would back his assumptions about nature with his own money<br />
and influence. <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s role in the creation, funding and support <strong>of</strong> the Society <strong>of</strong> the New<br />
Art has numerous important parallels to his patronage <strong>of</strong> other schemes designed to reduce<br />
63 Ibid., p. 183.<br />
64 M. B. Donald, Elizabethan Monopolies: <strong>The</strong> History <strong>of</strong> the Company <strong>of</strong> Mineral and Battery Works 1568–1604,<br />
Edinburgh, 1961, pp. 30-33.<br />
65 Ibid., p. 32.<br />
66 Heal and Holmes, ‗<strong>The</strong> Economic <strong>Patronage</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>William</strong>‘, p. 229n.<br />
67 Pumfrey and Dawbarn, ‗Science and <strong>Patronage</strong> in England‘, p. 159.<br />
68 Ibid., p. 160.<br />
69 Ibid., p. 185n.<br />
70 Harkness, <strong>The</strong> Jewel House, pp. 170, 173-74.<br />
131