The Modelling of the Magus
The Impact of the ‘Vulgar Mind’ in Northern Renaissance Fame and Defamation. The case of ‘Dr.’ Johann Faust and ‘Dr.’ John Dee
Jan Bäcklund
2012-12-04
Aarhus: Center for Cultural Research (Work in Progess 71-98), 1998. 30 pp.
Piet Bruel and John e
1551, wn Piet Bruel t El was accepted as vrÿmeest in t . cas
ild in Antrp, to 1559, his known œuv cons inly, if n cluly, of ints and awings r ints. 1559 onwds, Bruel’s oduion of ints ems to
ca while his oduion of panel painngs incangly rms t in pt of his œuv. is shi cones up to 1562, wn Bruel ems to ha oed odung
awings r ints altotr.¹ e e hor two cepons to this nal shi in his ic oduio As te as 1564, Hionymus Co ceis t two awings
by Bruel to oduced as ints, int Jes d e gici rmoges and
e of e gici.² th engd by Piet van Heyn and iued by Co’s shop “x ae nts” in 1565.
e ye , in 1563–64, t faus Ezathan polyth John e is in Antrp
r t cond me, now to n r t shing of his ‘esic Eucd’, s Hioglyphica, whi was sd by Wiem Silus in Antrp 1564, and by that me
e ems to ha acquid t ints and t intol fame worthy of a Reiance Mas.
e sub of t two ints—as as tir eatment—is tr uncented, and no t hioans ha yet ded to nte any inton or su any pie
1. a e oduion ten 1555 and 1562; only two ints e oduced in 1563 (e t and Le
Kits), th obay awn in 1562. 1564 no ints ae, and in 1565 t two ints St. Jes
d e gici rmoges and e of e gici ae, th awn in 1564. Tihy A. s,
“Bruel and his sr” et Bruegel und sei Welt, eds. Oo von Simson and Mahias Wi
(Bn: Ge. Ma rg, 1979), 170–71. 2. s, “Bruel and his sr”, 168.
Fe 1 Piet Bruel: of e gici. 1564 Pen, ht and dk own ink;
contos innted r ansf, 23,3 × 29,6 cm. dam, jksmuum.
Fe 2 Piet Bruel: S. Jes d e gici rmoges, sc. Piet van Heyn 1565. Engng, 32,9 × 38,9 cm., w York, opon Muum of Art
Fe 3 John e: s Hioglyphica. Antrn 1564. Titlepa.
key r an into³ Any iconogphic ‘ogm’ of t ints thus i ins to uned, and wi so in also t this udy. e ob wi mely to point o a few ils whi ght of levance in a discuion of Reiance fame and fao Conquently, an aempt wi to ash wtr t ints conin fences to t faus of t Reiance gi in Bruel’s me, i.e. John
e.
At fir gnce t ems to no coeion ten t two, en though ty e a t same a: e was rn in 1527, Bruel sew ten 1525 and 1530,
3. e ten discuion of t ints to date cons of t short nes owing t enies in René van e’s and uis Le’s caloes: René van e, Les Estpes Pet Bruegel l’Anci
(Bruxees: G. van O. & Co./Liai Naole d’Art & Hioi, 1908), no. 117–18; uis Le, Cogue raisonné s estpes Bruegel l’Anci (Bruxees: Bihèque yale Alrt I, 1969), no.
57–58), and se nes in his “Les ams Pi Bruel l’Anen” Bruegel. U dystie peints, eds. Phie rts-Jones et al. (Bruxees: Eopa 1980), 132. e ‘lence’ sunding t two
ints is a t tng gin t fa that t r tc ints by Bruel—i.e. t rtues and
ces es, t Seasons, or his indiual tc ints, i.e. e Alest or e Beekeeps—e ry
cmented and en intted, n to menon t Alpine Landscas or t ‘ t len’ ints and awings.
obay 1527 or 1528.⁴ e e no fences whatsoer to Bruel in any e biog-
phy, nor do find any fence to e in t contt of Bruel.⁵ ite of tir contemponeity and conity in l rds, tir ei contts em to tay pated. On t r hand, it is ue that Bruel’s fe is emely poorly documented, as is e’s ior to 1570. Hor, l of t same rsons and rcum-
ances fi in t s and works of e and Bruel, suing a cin finity
t d 1550s and onwds.
One rson in pcur pys a gnificant le in t s of th men: t Antrp ctogpr Aaham Orteus (1528–1598). Se biogprs ate that e met Or- teus wn t rm udied in uvain ten 1548 and 1550.⁶ is is n unkely, b
t is no eence of su a meeng. Orteus did n rsue any unirty udies at a, and if ty met in uvain or Antrp ding t yes, it is kely cau th of tm inted in ctogphy and ps, eas in whi uvain and Antrp
t cenes at t me. B ty eently met ea r in Orteus’ y, at t t
in 1571, b obay in 1563–64, and rhaps en e.⁷ favo of t hyps that e and Orteus alady iends by 1564 (or e) eaks, apt e’s
udies and als in t 1540s and 50s, tir cn int in ogphy and ctog- phy, and thus tir cn acquainnces rcator, Gea ius and rhaps Once
4. J. B. Bedaux and A. van Gool e that Bruel’s birth ye is 1527 or 1528 in an as inte as connng ain of ments bad on t porait 1606 of Bruel by Egidius Sal of Pe,
a in an aegory by rtholeus Sanr. J. B. Bedaux & A. van Gool, “Bruel’s Birthye, Mi
of an Ars/Nata ansmaon” Si, vol. , no. 3 (1974), . 133–156. 5. On John e e:
I.R.F. Cal, hn e Stu Engsh Neoptonist. Ph.D. ts (e Wbg ite, iv.
of ndon, 1952); Pet en, hn e. e World of Ezabe g (ndon: RKP, 1972);
ances A. Yates, e Occult Phisophy in e Ezabe Age (ndon: RKP, 1979); Nios H. Clulee,
hn e’s tur Phisophy: Bet Scice d Region (ndon: led, 1988) and Wiiam H.
Srn, hn e. e Pitics of Reing d Wting in e Engsh Raisnce (r: irty of Maaus P, 1995). e nogphs on Bruel e too mous to ed , one of t cent and t uful concning t documents on Bruel’s fe ing Phie & ançoi
rts-Jones: Bruegel l’Anci (s: Fion, 1997). 6. For inance: Srn, Pitics of Reing d Wting, 5 and R.J. rts in Raisnce n: e Reconstruct braes of Europe
Sars, 1450–1700. Sies O: e Books d ncpts of hn e, 1527–1608. Part O: ncpts
e Bodlei brary, Oxford. A sting d Gui to e Microfilm ection (Mlugh, Wiltshi:
Adam Maw Pu., 1993), 155. e one, en though obay n t soce of t r, cfies hor, how t r was oduced: “John e als to s w lees on Eucd’s Elements.
e meets Once Finé (Orteus) and Antoine Mizauld at a this me”. Once Finé (Onus Fieus) is n incal with Aaham Ortels (Orteus), b th to ce faus r tir ei world
ps, Finé r his ‘t shad’ p and Orteus r his Ats bad on rcator’s syem of oio 7.
a l to Orteus, dated 16 y 1577, Mortke—t only nt eence of tir iendship totr with e’s eny in Orteus’ Album icorum t t same ye wn Orteus ted e at Mortke—e thanks Orteus “r t kindne with whi you ceid me, wn I came to e yo y se yes ago” (Gasque bi ha inntes ob Candom ium tuum, et hunis offi quibus me ces, Bicam tuam dum ante aqu aos inm …), Abrahi Ortei ... Epistue, J. H. Heels, ed. (ü: Oo Ze, 1969), . 23–24. Face imion of Ecclesiae Lonno-Bavae Arivum, vol. (ndon 1887). is can eitr f to t joney to rin and s in 1571 (Raisnce
n, 158), on whi it y au that e paed Antrp, or it can f to his mu e ay in Antrp in 1563–64.
Finé as . En if Orteus’ erum Ors Trarum was n sd unl 1570,
rly aend t ankft ok fair in or to iue t and ogphy
impornt ps, whi tn coloed and coted in Antrp.⁸ would ined
n if e hadn’t paid a t to this ctogpr wn was in Antrp. At t
a of 20, Orteus was accepted as aughtsn and iutor of ps in t .
cas ild in Antrp in 1547, yes Bruel. was in 1554 that Orteus met
rcator,⁹ an acquainnce of e nce 1548.¹⁰ 1560 Orteus and rcator aed to ance, w ty ted a uidic one in Pois and engd tir mes on it.¹¹
is diys an anquian int in t Arthian lends and uidic mes whi e shed with and (at lea t) discued with Orteus and rcator.¹²
As ely as 1547, e met and came iends with Ga à Mica, engr, n- ufa of anl inruments and goldsth.¹³ t contt of Bruel, Ga
à Mica is known in t rcur as Ca van Heyn, who was t r of Piet van Heyn. 1556 onwds, and thugho Bruel’s ce, this Piet
van Heyn engd t in pt of his awings and was also t engr of t
two ints discued. Accpanying Orteus and rcator on t a-menoned an- quian joney to Pois in 1560 also Phip Gae, ans Hon and n Sa. e a clo coeaes of Bruel in t . cas ild, and Phip Gae was t engr of se of his ints.
Iediately t Bruel was accepted as ee- in t . cas ild,
aed thugh Lyon and Sily to me, w worked in 1552 and 1553. e e
ng indons that Aaham Orteus joined him on this joney, or at lea met him in
aly.¹⁴ any ca, as ely as 1550 Orteus and Bruel inte iends. By that
me, e—according to himlf—was eoying a cin ge of fame, and ates that vious noemen came to t him t cot of Chles V, tn tuated in Bruels.¹⁵
1563 and 1564 e was in Antrp once ain, with t in rpo of surng t shing of t s hioglyphica in 1564.¹⁶ is was n sd by Pnn, b by Wiem Sylus, who by 1560 was a iend of Orteus.¹⁷ If e was invold in Wiiam Cel’s and Wiiam Piing’s diplac ions in t w Counies,
8. us Mü-Hofe, “Z ton von Piet Bruels Landt. Ä Landts-
gff und oie Weltatung” et Bruegel und sei Welt, p. 127. 9. Aaham Orteus, “Album acorum” Guln Ps vol. XLV, no. 1–3 (1967) & 46 (1968), . 4–5. 10. an rts &
Anew G. Watson, hn e’s brary Cogue (ndon: e Biogphl Soety: 1990), p. 31.
11. Album icorum: 5. 12. Clulee, hn e, 182–85, eeay p. 183. 13. Clulee, hn e, p. 27. Cf.
“e Cndious Resa of John e … unto t two Honoe Cions … 1592”, hn
e, Autoographic Tracts, ed. mes Cley (Ctham Soety 1851 =Reins Hiocal and Lity of Lanca and C Counes. 1), p. 5. 14. is is ed by Mü-Hofe, “Z ton
…”, . 127–128. 15. mps Rehear, . 7–8; Cal, hn e, vol. , . 295–96; Clulee,
hn e, p. 29. Alady ding t ely 1550s, e tod Wiiam Piing, t Engsh ambaador in t cot of Chles V (Srn, Pitics of Reing d Wting, p. 6). 16. Cal, hn e, vol.
, p. 543. 17. Cf. t l Johaes Temus, aas Vryfin to Aaham Orteus, dated in Lisn, Sunday, 15 ne 1561, concning se ’smung’ bune of oks, pies and engngs.
Temus gis Orteus inruions on how to pa t things so that t quion would n find it.
e l ends with gengs to Sylus. Cf. Abrahi Ortei ... Epistue, . 23–24.
obay met or d of cdil Gne, Bruel’s porful paon—and ce rsa;
if so, Bruel obay d of e, n only a Orteus, b rhaps also a Gne, t van Heyns or Phip Gae. Ftr, along with Orteus, Chopr Pnn, Arnold Bir and Joha Ra, ang rs, th Bruel and e ha
en—july or uuly—sueed of entining fai ias, or of ing sympatc to fais.¹⁸
t ht of t congruies, I find it asoe to aume that Bruel had d of John e, b n that ty er met or neceily had anhing in c Bruel was no ogpr or tan hor, so if this hyps is pue, it was anr ae of e whi ems to ha caught his int, and to su a ge that ain
tned to t por ium of ints and to t ptly ‘rcur’ yle of Hionymus .¹⁹ e ae whi ght ha caught Bruel’s int I wi in t owing tm t “vulr nd”.
e Vulr Mind and Reiance Fame and faon
t rtoc of occult and rmec wng, t s, t apt, or t wi e always ood to ‘t opinion of t vulr’, as Ttus t it, whi did n, inn-
y, clu acacs and men of lening. is opinion is t inscd ‘oonent’ of t iniated disco: a conrued “vulr nd”, nont of and unfit r t cts of rmec t and tal sence. Clulee es this ttual tegy clely in his biogphy on e wn wtes:
e s shes ny of t aiics cn to occult wng in its dion of its penal audience into t vulr, wh t cts of t
tt mu eed, and t wi and rtuous, to wh t tt tends to disclo gat myies nted, hor, in a nzingly obsce and myiing way to nt disclose to t unworthy. e rtoc of occult wng ts its as un t bn of ageing that ty unand t tt l ty md ang t vulr and cates t padoxl
18. Concning Bruel, e eeay H. ein-Snei, “Piet Bruel: ine que, iute
du mea faie” Gazee s Beaux-Arts, 107 (1986), . 71–74. Concning Orteus, e René
uns, “e Reious ews of Aaham Orteus” url of Warburg d uruld Institutes,
(1954), . 374–377. Concning e, e rts & Watson, hn e’s brary Cogue, p. 13 and
n Hei, “John e and Sect Soees” e rmetic url (1992), and Clulee, John e, .
273–75. On t fais, cf. J.A. van Doren, e Ric Arts (Lein-ndon: Pucaons of t Sir
as Bwne ite. Sal es. 4, 1970) and Aair ton, e ly of Lo (Camid:
Camid UP, 1981). e connng document to nk ny of t a rsons to this cal
, ly rced by t Spanish ahoes, is a l Guiaume Poel to Aaham Orteus, 19. Bruel’s onship to a ‘rcur’ yle as ood to a ‘nized’ yle—n witho paels to t diy opod ten “vulr” and “iniated”—is discued in Mk A. adow, “Bruel’s Pceion to Calvy, Æmuo and t Space of rcur yle” Nnds kunsthistos jaarboek,
(1996), . 181–205.
tuaon that t tt is ang, thugh a disco inteie only to iniates, myies and cts t iniates alady pe.²⁰
On t r hand, a conae pt of t “vulr” n only rd tal philos- ophy, alogy and r occult sences as gic, b ty also coned tcs, opcs, and t conruion of meanl ces as cloly ted to a gic, nec-
n or coing.
As is known, e en had to fend himlf ain accusaons of aing
gic, necn and a kinds of imor ts, b, as Cal ned: “e’s own
‘apologies’ em only to ha ld ftr to t s, and towds t end of his ce is ported in ance as hang ungone c ial r witc.”²¹ Usuay Key is a r hang ceid e and leading him into t alms of luon and a gic, and if n Key, tn Casaun is a r pong tir itual conrsaons in an unholy and n .²² e and his biogprs e of co
ght that e in no way was invold in necn and a gic, b I e can in se inght into t typology of t Reiance s if inead of looking at t con t point of ew of ople sympatc to e’s enquies, or t
point of ew of his lened ccs (su as c Casaun), look at it t point of ew of this or le ptly inscd “vulr nd”. Ratr than fng to t bad influence of Key or to t nont cmenes of Casaun, I would say on t
cony that e’s on as a Mas (r t “iniates” as as r t “vulr”)
ted long met Key and thus long t anc ions, and ems to ha en—consouy or n—a or le calcuted tegy that took advan of t diae meanisms of iing inquions and cdulous surions to nefit his inteeual ce.
e accusaons e said to ha ted as ely as t d-1540s with e’s Camid
oduion of Aophanes’ “Peace”, r whi e conrued t meanl ce that
t scab fly up to t top of Tnity with t aor pying Tryeus. is
20. Clulee, hn e, . 79–80. 21. Cal, hn e, vol. , p. 171. Cal wtes in a ne to this: “us Flond Raend, discuing t abity of tans to thus fally accud by por judice, cords, t a lengthy fence of Syl II (L’Antist, Lyons, 1597, Chap. 14, p.
204) ”On scait que no temps, Ioaes nis ceent Maten, a e conainto peie calnie, cme on l dans sa ffence qu’el fit imim l’an 1570 ayant luy meme pi sa cau
à nes.” e fence is clely to e’s ‘gion Apoloca’ in t Eucd Pface (Ajv et
q). e atement is ated, e i disid as John nis, in Naudé’s Apogy (p. 33).” (Cal, op. cit., vol. , p. 69). 22. c Casaun, A true & faiful tion on of wh ps for ny years bet Dr. hn e d se spits, ed. n Milo Due (w York: Magial Chil, 1992 [1659]).
On t opinions of Key, e Anthony à Wood, Aæ Oxonisis, ed. Phip i (ndon 1813–1820 [1691–92]), vol. , . 639–643, vol. , p. 286, and pson Coor, “Keey, Edwd” Dictiory of tiol Biography, ed. Sidney Lee (ndon: ith, El, & Co., 1908), vol. , . 1230–1232. this ad r inance: “Leang Oxrd ‘auptly,’ Keey aes at ndon as a audulent scn
or aorney (Du esnoy, Hist. Phisophie Hérmetique, . 307). A 1580 had his es ced in t piory at Lanca r ing se anent tle-eds (Nash, , 446); or, according to anr account, r coining ba ney. Weer, in his ‘Funa Moments’ (p.46), s him in aion with hang dug up a corp in Walton-le-Dale rk r t rpo of quioning t ad.” (ibid., , p. 1231).
aently oduced mu azement and e t on of a co r t
cdulous or ous-toned.²³ Phaps it did. We do n know, as ha no r
port of this innt than e’s own 1592.²⁴ I think ked t ory, and in his
etic Pface 1570 gis it a oa rei wn scs t
“autgike”, t t of king “un workes, of t n to rceid, and of men gatly to woned at.”²⁵ He e has in nd t is of Aras’ flying woon do and aa. ‘Cn ople’ fai with t. ey had
d a lking atues, r con and Alrt t Gat’s azen eaking ads, Alan t Gat’s flying ce, Sin Mas’s por of flying, and cinly r
oes. e “vulr nd” thus knew that e’s innious ac was gic, and I think
knew that t vulr nd would con it gic.
would n si me if e eoyed scbing this innt—and t azement of t nont in pcur—to his lened coeaes or feow unts in Antrp or
uvain, cau it imptly pced himlf ang t same senfic avant-r as t
ieval giants r con, Alrt t Gat and Peus Abano.²⁶ En if e fend tm, and eeay con, nont accusaons, ought to ha nd that tir fame could n due to tir senfic mits only. e mu ha known that fame is a vulr and por pnenon, and that t vulr and cn cwd—in this ca
including t gat pt of t lened world—was inted in “r con t
gian” than in r con t or. One could thus tn e’s oem with t
n accusaons t r way und: if you not accud of fang lking
ads, flying ines, ons with ns and t ke, you could se that you
n yet a faus ta²⁷ my ew, e’s ce t owing yes, up unl t caon of t s, nsates that e mu ha en or le
awe of this.
23. e e se uncines as to whi ye this oduion took pce. Cal, hn e, vol. ,
. 193–941; Clulee, hn e, 160–61; Srn, Pitics of Reing d Wting, p. 11; J.H. Heilon,
“oduory Eay” hn e on Astrony. Propaeu Aphostica (1558 and 1568), Lan and En- gsh, ed. Wayne Shuk (Bkeley - s Anles - ndon: iv. of Carnia P, 1978), p. 33.
24. mps Rehear, 5–6. 25. John e, “Matca Peface”, e Elemts of Geete of Eucd of Megara. Tnated by Henry Biingey. (ndon 1570), g ☛,b.j rso. ed Heil-
on, “oduory Eay”, p. 33. t etic Præface, in whi e scs dispnes ke
“Anthpogphie”, “Tike”, “Hecosophie”, “Pneuthe”, “ie”, “Hypoiodie”, “Hy- agogie” and “Aritee” ang rs, one can ealy unand how t vulr nd came to confu
t “Matca Artes” with t gl ts. 26. “[D] paduanie Fau s Tcento”, as Aby Wbg caed him in “aenie Kun und intole Alogie im z Sifano zu F”, Gemmelte S (Leipz: Teubn, 1932), vol. 2, . 465 ff. 27. “Les plus ceens Mat-
ens ont toujos été soupçoez Magie,” says Naudé, poinng to Po Syl, r con, Miael Sc, Alrt t Gat, and “ce Jean nys [i.e. John e] ceent Maten nôe temps, qui fit imim une apologie po sa fence, l’an 1570” (Heilon, “oduory Eay”, p. 33n).
‘Dr.’ Johaes Fau and t Moing of t Mas
Ben Jonson’s fences to e and Key in e Alest 1610 e known, and as ty inly concn e’s and Key’s doings in I sha n ftr a
tm . Relevant in this coeion, hor, is that Jonson fs to Fau twice. e fir me is wn t impoor and i Dr. Subtle—that is, Dr. e—scs how
is going to eat Kal:
Why, ha ’em up, and sw ’em se fuian ok, or t dk g.²⁸
“Fuian ok” ing of co any ok on gic, ke t one ing ad by t
gian on t l in Bruel’s int “Saint mes and t Magian Hnes”, and
“t dk g” ing John e’s faus a obdian rr. t xth scene of t
th a, wn t m Sly discors Face’s and Dr. Subtle’s auds, kens Face’s “soy, sky-d c”, Dr. Subtle, with
[…] t Fauus, / at caeth fis and can coe, ces / Pes, piles, and x, by t epmis, / And hold inteence with a t bawds […].²⁹
e Alest, Jonson is n only inid by t oes sunding John e, b by Chopr Mlo’s e Tragic History of Dr. t as . is was
sd pohuuy in two rons, t fir in 1604 and t cond in 1616, b was alady wen a 1590.³⁰
Mlo’s Dr. t is, in tn, id an Engsh anaon ³¹ of t fir
Gn ok on Fau 1587.³² Mlo oduces this t ory of how Fau
t Duke of Anhalt’s rn gw in t le of t wint, a cle whi is
adioy ascd to Alrt t Gat.³³ B en if nnt upon its ogil, M- lo’s t diys se ogity in tms of its hiocal acca with rd to surious oes: Wn Dr. Fauus is to len how to “ai gic and concealed
28. Ben Jonson, “e Ale” e mies. Vpo. e Alest. Barew ir, ed. M.
eson (ndon &c.: Penin, 1972 [1966]), 272. A , scene ii, . 57–58. 29. 29 Ibid., A
, scene , . 46–50. 30. Chopr Mlo, Doctor t. A‑ d B‑texts (1604, 1616), eds.
Da Bengton and Ec Rasmuen (Man and w York: Man UP, 1993), 198. 31. e Histoe of e dble fe, d su h of Doctor Iohn t, Newly impnt, in conuit pces impfect d: accorng to e true pie pnt Frfort, d trst into Engsh by P. F. Gt (ndon: as Orwin, 1592). Any e edion has n en paed down to us, b it is asoe to aume at lea one ftr edion ten 1587 and 1592. 32. Histoa von D. hn t, m itbesyt Zaub und Srkünstl, Wie si geg m Teuffel auff ei bdte zeit rseb […] (ankft am Main: Joha Spieß, 1587). Anr edion with t
tle: Ein rhafe und söe Gesit: Von D. hn t, m itbesit Zaub vnd Srkünstl, wie si m Teuffel t Leib vnd Seel, […] (p.: e., d.[1587?]). 33. See r inance: Arth Edwd Waite, Alests r e Ages. s of Alemystic Phisophs e Year 850 to e Cse of e 18 Ctury […]. (w York: Samuel Weir, 1974 [1888]), p. 59.
Fe 4 (a) John e’s ”Obdian Mirr”. ø 18,4 cm. ndon, Bsh Muum. (b) Ch[opr] Ml[o]: e Tragic History of e fe h of Door Fauus.
ndon: John Wght, 1616. Bsh Liy.
ts”, it is cmend r t rpo of his udies that ing with him to his so-
ry g “wi con’s and Albas’ works”, “Albas” ing Peus Abano.³⁴ Dr.
t, Mlo n only aus to t oes to whi gl ts and necnc
is aoated, also infies t hiocal mes of t gians (Alrt, - con and Abano) and ftr inoduces a contempory me in this iumte of suod ieval gians wn Dr. t cs that t rpo of aing
gic and necn is “to as cuing as Aga was, / Who shadows a
Eo hono him”.³⁵
Only a a dozen contempory documents i with fences to a rson caed
“Fau”, and it is f obae that t documents f to t same rso dging
t mr and t a of t documents, it is eent that this Geo or Jo- haes Fau did n ha any contempory impa whatsoer. En though t hiocal Fau—whoer y —is n Wien, it is nertle eent, owing
ank n’s elent menon, that t Fau who had su a gat impa on ely
n Eoan culte ems in Mn tr and Phip nton’s Wien
ten 1533 and 1577.³⁶
34. is paa does only occ in t A-tt: Mlo, Dr. t, p. 121. 35. Ibid., p. 119. 36.
ank n: t. Gesite, ge, Ditung (Münen: Win rg, 1982), . 49 ff.
What tr does is to ke t me Fau, whi had aed his aenon, and pce this fi in a oa contt in whi t tempons of t l, eed of wi, t iorty of t soul and mephycal quions e eated. a
es of lees gin ten 1554 and 1557, nton cones tr’s u of t
Fauian lend, b ices t tologl ments with se entining oes, one of whi is how in nice Fau ied to fly to an with t aid of t l, b fe ba
to t gund wn t l lead his gp. As did Ttus him, nton also ked to scoff at Fau: “e s Fauus says that is t ince of philosopr
would tr say that is, by God, t ince of ols”; and, nton cones, Fau was “an infaus e who led a disorly and baued fe”, who aed
ound and lked ofuly a diffent cts. e ory of Fau’s ath was also innted by nto He counts how a can goes into Fau’s t faing to e him at di, only to find him lying on his d with his ad tned und by t
l.³⁷
e ory a Fau’s aoac ments is obouy ken t lend in whi Sin Mas and . Pet cted in tir surtal pors t -
r in me.³⁸ Sin Mas did succeed in ing himlf, b wn Pet ayed to God to ke him fa down in or to show t ople t vanity and uncinty of t
gl ts, t Mas entuay fe down and oke his ne.
t nton, that is, t t 1570s, t lends of Sin Mas and Fauus
e so inttwined that it hdly kes any n to y to i tm ain, and it is this fuon whi pas t way r t succe of t biogphies of t succeeding cas.
is Fau, as menoned, has nhing to do with t Geo or Joha Kninn or Helma or wr; Reiance Eo was n short of this ty of cep and ingnificant gians and necncs, and e also met se of tm. No, this Fau
is up cluly by the n faus ors, and I am of co eaking of
celsus, Aga and Ttus, t iumte succeeding t ieval one of Alrt,
con and Abano.
e coeions ten celsus and Fau cmence alady in 1539, wn t
ty phyan of Worms iues a conmon ain celsus and Fau r t same cmes.³⁹ is ty of mulneous faon cones with Cond Gesn, who in a l to Cto von Cfftim dated t 16th of 1561 wtes:
[Joha] Opon l, a rm pil of celsus, tes wonful things a t ’s intco with ns. Su men aice file
37. Phi nton, corum cmunium coeane a Joae Mano r multos aos plaque tum
leionibus D. Phii nthonis, tum aorum doiirum rum onibus cp, et r in ordinem ab eom da 1590, 38. Cl e, t in r Gesite und Tri- tion. Mit besonr Büsitung s okkult Phänism und s elt Zaubss […]. Geheime Wisssa. Ei mmlung selt ält und u S üb Astrogie, gie, Kabbah, Roskuei, Fiui, x‑ und Teufelss w. […], ed. A. V. D. Lin
(Bn: H rsdorf rg, 1921), vol. 1, p. 29; n: t, p. 55. 38. On Sin Mas, e E. M. Bl, e My of e g (Camid-w York-ndon-lne: Camid UP, 1979), 73–83. 39. 40 Phi Berdi, Inx nitis (Worms, 1539), p. xi; qued n, t, 43.
alogy, an, necn and ts. I aume that ty e t
scendants of t uids, who ught a ns by t Celts r
ny ye this teaing is i ing done today in t ty of Sanca in Spai this ool ems t so-caed waning ors, of wh
t cently cead Fau is ry faus.⁴⁰
e paels ten Fau and celsus e mous, and it is yond doubt that t oes a celsus did fnish a new dimenon and a to t nebulous fi of Fau. is pael to a udy by a Guav Oe, who advanced t
ts that Fau and celsus e one and t same rso is ts has en cd by hioans, b en if hiocay untee, it is f impue. e quion
mu a in this coeion should wtr t documents rining to a “Fau”
1533 and tt e in aty documents fng to celsus and his doings and conores concning him thugho t connent. celsus was n alone, hor, in fnishing Fau with a a; and, as ed: ke celsus, “Dr.” Hein
Corneus Aga of esim (1486–1535), also aed wily thugho Eo
while aing, inking, and cing invold in quls on a r bas. 1510
ted Engnd, w his ias wily ad. Lat udied and leed in ance and in aly, d in Antrp and Bruxees in t te 1520s and ely 1530s, b his on as t rt contempory gian had long nce en firmly
asd.⁴¹ short, this along with his wngs and conoral a
Aga equay suited as a l r Fauian lends.
e fir of t “vulrs” on t scene was t aan hioan ulo oo, who ad t ory that wn Aga was lying on his d in an i and felt his ath aaing,
caed his a dog, whi had rrted his soul, and cnd it to disae, wupon t dog ansr itlf into wat. oo does n te to in this
a dog with t l himlf.⁴² a scpt ne dated 1668 on t tle-pa of a copy of Aga’s occul phisophia, a cin Johaes Säf ats this ory al rbam:
Fauus Knin uens adhuc habat cum canem, qui at a-
lu c ie nebulo Corneus Aga qui scpt uanite um et
40. “Alogiam vam, Geanam, cnam, et huiusdi tes cent. Equim suicor ios Druidum quiis ee, qui ad Cels tes in subtneis los a daenibus aqu an- nis udiebant: quod no mea in Hiania adhuc Sancae faitum conat. Ex ia o
odiunt, quos vulgo oicos vantes ninibant, int quos Fauus quidam non i im r- tuus celeat.” Epistarum micium nri Ges, Phisophi et Mici Tuni b III.
Ti 1577. l. A1v. ed Geo Witkowi, “r hioe Fau” utse Zeits für Gesitswisssa, 1 (1896–1897), p. 300; cf. also n, t, p. 82. is Cto von Cim was also a iend of Orteus, cf. Album icorum, . 18, 21. 41. itz Mahn, “Einleitung”, Aga von esim, Die Eitelkeit und Unsiheit r Wisssa und e Vteigungssu (Münen:
Geo Mü, 1913), . –xlv. 42. n, t, . 59–60. As was t ca r t advocates of
e, Aga’s inent ely advocate, his ‘pil’ Joha Wi is ghtly upt a tho nt rus concning Aga and his a dog. Wi cpined that had himlf en t dog in
and knew it ry , and that Aga d it with an al ildish lo.
senum; eam habat canem cum cntem, qui at alus. Hic Corneus Aga agonem rs, uocuit ad canem, quicumque orcumui
[=d ke his y to e Unrworld?], eumque his ubis aoquis: Ab à me rdi i quæ me rdidii. Sic am cenis ab et discens, in aqua æpiuit.⁴³
e gtesque thing is, hor, that Johaes Ttus, who was t fir
to conmn Fau with t rdant csm, came aoated with t Fauian lend. e shpne of Ttus’ naon is obay due to t fa that a lf-
i ke Fau umes onto an ea danuy clo to his ow e is also awe of this wn wns of t “vulbus sos”: “who n only rsue early t shadows of gat ts, b also fal and countfeit tm in a wied way”.⁴⁴
a l 1507 ts e-ke cpints a t confuon ten this kind of i and his own sophited aies in t field of “tal gic”. He wtes:
I ha ner done anhing saclegiou nertle, I ha to with t opinion of t vulr, whi look upon me as a wizd, as ty e of t opinion that I am ae to i t ad, evoke t subtnean its,
di t fe, and with invocaons cat thies and brs.⁴⁵
Of co t vulr nd had difficules in diinishing ten Fau’s oodings and Ttus’ ions, th of tm nding, as e in Bruel’s int, or tir ny oks and n as. On t r hand, along with n mu
adt that Ttus himlf oud t vulr nd wn in 1499 wte in a l
that was ping a work whi would aound t world. e fir oks would
eat ct wng, b t sub of t fih ok was of su a te that it could n sd. Ttus inined that it was n gic, b philosophy, and that t knowled had en gin to him in a eam.⁴⁶ Ttus mu ha anpated that t contents of this l would entuay end in t hands of t ambaadors of t
vulr nd, and of co this l did n only ou a gat al of cioty ang t lf-yled “iniates”, b ang t “vulbus” as ; and, on half of t vulr
nd, I can n lp sueing that as f as ing oks is concned, Ttus was uly a gia
e work to whi Ttus fs, Stegographia, was n to sd unl as te as 1621, although it rcuted in scpt copies at lea half a centy
tn, thus longing to t e of a ang Reiance ors with an int in “tal gic” and “t cts of te”. One of tm was John e, who
43. e copy in irty Liy of eibg i. Br., Mahal, t, 336. 44. 45 John
e, s Hioglyphica (Antrp: W. Sylus, 1564), p. 9. He : C.H. Joen, “A anaon of John e’s ‘Mos Hioglyph’ (Antrp, 1564), with an inoduion and aaons” Amx, 12 (1964), p. 143. 45. ”… hil fe undum, & men vulgi opinionem paor, dum gm me plique
biant, auantes me suse rtuos, euocae ab infis dænes, ædixie f fesque
duxie cnibus & ae ones”. Opa histoca, vol. , p. 356. ed n, t, p.
125. 46. n, t, p. 22.
in a faus l dated 16 Feuy 1563, wte to Wiiam Cel Antrp that had located and was end in copying o a scpt of this work.⁴⁷
Be t d-1550s e ems to ha discod r con, “a discory”, Clulee wtes, “that eted a ly int on e’s pt. […] While con’s works e few in e’s holdings ior to 1556, by 1558 e peed or had consulted a of con’s
jor works.”⁴⁸ 1563, e aed Antrp to Zi, w was inoduced to t ias of celsus—obay thugh Joha Opon—and ted Cond Gesn, who only two yes ouy had oaed Opon, celsus and Fau r aing
“necn and suke ts”.⁴⁹
e tn ced t Alps to aly, and t aending t coon of Maxiian II in Pbg, tned to Antrp. e don to Maxiian in his s Hioglyphica is dated 29 y Antrp. e ayed in Antrp at lea unl t su of 1564, at whi me tned to Engnd.⁵⁰ my opinion, Clulee
es connngly wn es a gnificant shi in e’s thoughts t d-1550s up unl t caon of s, a shi a dintly Aean phycs to a neo-ptonic rmesm.⁵¹ dging by this shi towds a neo-ptonic rmesm as
as by his eadily gwing int in t tal philosophy of r con and his
cent find of t “wonfu dine and ct sences”—as e wte in his l to Cel—of Ttus’s Stegographia (“t ous jue that I ha yet of r mens availes cod”),⁵² tn it ought to ha en this enthuaic e that Bruel would ha d of.
‘Dr’ e: e Engsh Mas in Antrp
e tle St. Jes d e gici rmoges⁵³ indtes that t if is bad on a
ory in cobus Vogine’s Legda aua, b cept r . mes in t le,
anding with his f, no ils coronding to this ory e to en in Bruel’s pie. . mes is ealy infiae by his nimbu Hnes is difficult to
, b a gnce at t r int als that mu t d n in a et.
is a is en in a typl “Fauian” po, ing in a air at l, ading “se fuian ok” and sund by se ian ns. Hor, t aions rr
by two r gians at ght em eitr to r incons of Hnes or
nons of his r aies. e fi in t ght legund is ing on a
ipod in a rcle, menocay ooding or se gl and hioglyphl gns.
e gian at lor ght is also in a gl rcle, w is anding with a sword and aing se subances t h of a ske, obay in or to i se
47. Cf. Clulee, hn e, 103–04. rts & Watson, hn e’s brary Cogue, p. 183. 48. Clulee,
hn e, . 37–38. 49. 50 n, t, . 59–60. is Opon is, by t way, t same one to wh Guiaume Poel fd as eaking a t Fay of in his l to Aaham Orteus.
50. Clulee, hn e, 123 and 17. 51. Cf. Clulee, hn e, . 37 ff. and . 116–142. 52. L to Sir Wiiam Cel, 16 Feuy 1562, Phibon ciety. Bibographic d Histoc Misceies, 1/12 (1854), p. 11. ed Clulee, hn e, p. 136. 53. e, Les Estpes, no. 117. Le, Cogue, no. 57.
subtnean its, sued by t hole in t gund of t pie. A of t
aies t to aoated with Fau, b at t me of Bruel ty
nay aoated with celsus, Aga and Ttus. En if i noous, ty
nertle a ad Bruel ted his ce. is was n t ca r
e, who was t new incon of t Fauian gian in t vulr nd, hailed as t “w Aga” nce t d-1550s, whi Bruel would ha d a, en if ty did n meet rsoy.
any ca, t if of Sin Mas’ fight ain a n of t Chian Ch is, as f as I know, enly new in Nortrn Reiance t,⁵⁴ and ftr
it is than tnty yes t fir caon of t hiory of Fau and
x yes t caon of nton’s lees in Wien.
Fe 5 Piet Bruel: e of e gici. Piet van Heyn 1565. En- gng, 22,4 × 29 cm., dam, Muum yns-van Beunin
54. e tme “e ath of Sin Mas” is nted in a tay diffent by Benoz Goz, who pis Sin flying and lying on t gund t r and S. Pet (mpton Cot). I ha also ned one (and t cinly i of tm) Byzanne saic piing “e Fa of Sin Mas”, b in this ca t is no fight ten him and S. Pet, ju Sin Mas faing t y.
Concning t r int, t is a painng abed to Hionymus in t muum of Valenees (no. P 46.1.44, with e Temptions of int Anony on its r) piing St. Jes of mpostea
d e gici. e cpoon is, hor, ry diffent t awing by Bruel fd to .
e r int, e of e gici—or, as t tt un t pie ads:
“ugh t of God . mes kes t Mas to torn to pieces by t
ns”—ems to t iediate conaon of t ory of . mes and H-
nes. Two ates of this int (Le 58.iii and iv) e sued with a new p un t tle with the diis in en, Flesh and Lan eily, whi ad:
“e ath of Sin Mas. ey ha en aen to him as long as has tm insane with his t”.⁵⁵ En though phycay incal with Hnes in t r
int, t gian is now ptly infied as Sin Mas. If is to infied with Sin Mas, tn t Ch n should . Pet and n . mes.
B t Ch n is finitely . mes—whi is ptly ated and eas- ily en t ass in his hat and t f—and s none of t adiol and
-known abes of . Pet. is confuon indtes that t bagund of t
ints ght n t wen soces Legda Aua or t Ch fatrs, b
tr t confud and inttwined lends and rus owing t Reiance gi;
n Fau, Ag e or any r indiual rson, b ly t -mhl conglate of t “Door” of Hmes’ kin: rmoges.
this int ne t same rson, Hnes or Sin Mas, in t et.
. mes is anding o t porl to t ght in t pie, cnding t ns to or ju wating tm aa t Mas, who fas to t gund ju as Sin Mas did in me. e ambuity concning o and in is ined re in t pie: with . mes at lor ght e finitely odoors, whi is en t g on t gund and t tior of a wa and porl;
with t gians and acbats, ngled as ty e with a tys of incdie ns in this orcwd cpoon, e ju as eently indoors, as indted by t
ansron of t gund into a floor, by t fnite and, nay, by t intior corn and t window. is aging is ftr ed by t ‘eators’, who e looking at t gtesque scene t window. And ined, it is as if t scene is ad with t
cedians, muans and aors rrng a py, ju ke t ete is rrng with his et. l legund is a co à with an e on his ad and a il in his no, aing, it would em, se gl cups and bas me as if Bruel looked upon gic in t same way as Jonson looked upon alemy. t ’s
e-inid py 1610, e Alest, Dr. Subtle’s cpanion Face (n witho
niscences of Edwd Key) says:
Ratr than I’ ayed, r, I’ e / at Alemy is a y kind of
me, / Sewhat ke is o’ t cds, to eat a n / With ng.⁵⁶ A y kind of me, and one whi ems to t aity of t aiant a
gian in t lor ght-hand corn of Bruel’s int.
55. | Aenbant eum quod multo tempo | Magis suis bus eos menet Aoru .8 | | Estint ttifs a luij pr ce ques ng temps il les avoit sorcelez d’tmts par ses temts | ō | Sy hoorn hem d hyse n
tijdt met | sijn tooj rdelt eet h. 56. Jonson, e Alest, A II, scene iii, .
179–182
Fe 6 (a) Piet Bruel: of e gici. 1565. il of t fi at t
lor ght; (b) Piet Bruel: of e gici. 1564. il of t neous dang in t lor l.
cona to t fir int, i ha Bruel’s ogil awing r t of
e gici, neouy dated 1544 ( ) inead of 1564 ( ). B I am n altotr connced that this neous date was unintend. Coning that this is his e gned awing dated with n mals, and coning t ceful inscpon-ke duus, I am tempted to e that t two as and as if ty in a cups and bas me tmls.
e impornce of dangs and gtes in t intons of Bruel’s awings has en nted in an empry by Jee Sys in a udy of Bruel’s
awing e Beekeeps.⁵⁷ this udy Sys connngly es that Bruel -
tely c t awing so that t dang was and 1568 () to 1565 (), whi, due to t pocal ents ten 1565 and 1568, gnificantly ans t contt in whi t awing could piy intted. Ftr, is it n - aly at t date, tr than at t cups and bas, that t cate in t awing—now at lor l—cas a look? If this dang is no ip of t n, t quion mu tn what Bruel asoy could ha intend by this fal date.⁵⁸
1544 was kely t ye wn Bruel ented Piet Coee van Ael’s udio as an ance, b, impornt, it was se me ound this ye that e aied in t aging of Aophanes’ Pax and in a n n his ce as a gian in t nd of t vulr, a on, it wi caed, that e ked to ke o as bale, as t
“y of Idies and t Maice of t Scornfu.”⁵⁹ I find it hhly obae that e n
only menoned this pt of his ce in his wngs, b also ked to menon it rbay.
is aging and t subquent faons by e’s advocates or adrsies y thus ha en cmunted to Bruel, rhaps by t engr, Phi Gae, who mu t, in 1585, engd a kind of porait of e in t suit of ints caed Nova
57. Jete Sys, “e Recepon of Bruel’s ‘Beekeers’: A Ma of Choice” Art Buetin, vol. , no. 3 (1991), . 467–478. 58. Jete Sys, “e Recepon of Bruel’s ‘Beekeers’: A Ma of Choice” Art Buetin, vol. , no. 3 (1991): 467–478. 59. e, qued Heilon, “oduory Eay”, p. 33.
p, awings by Johaes das (n van et, 1523–1604)
a 1570.⁶⁰ is ght tn pin t n ing in Bruel’s awing (and t
subquent int), w t n of t Ch is anding odoors while t
aic scenes with t gians and ns e ad as if ty indoors. was in t oduion of Aophanes’ Pax, or “Peace”, that e aied with his lent r
ac, b Bruel’s awing is anhing b aceful, nor is t any fence to this py in t awing. Pbay obining his inron thugh ru and ol
ansion, Bruel ght ha en incorly inr of t a me of t py by Aophanes r whi e his meanl ces and ‘gl is’, and
y ha confud “Peace” with “e Was”, whi in tn ght pin t ins flying o of t two umts at t top of t awing.
e py, kely died by t gian faing o of his air, ems to a t n who succeeds in aing t clouds or of at t u ght, b tn
tay eaks his ne on a sword, as if t aor pying Tryeus flying on t
scab up to t top of Tnity . e sult of his huis-ke aing r t ans is to en at lor l, w a capited dy es on t e with t nogm of Piet van Heyn.
Fe 7 Piet Bruel: of e gici. 1565. il of t capited fi in t lor l.
is is ry clo to t oes know t inttwined lends of Si-
n Mas, Fauus and Aga. If this nal ading is cor, tn it is inting
60. is engng is oduced in Srn, Pitics of Reing d Wting, p. 113, as as on t
du-et.
to ne that t faing s in t ght legund ems to t dior of t
pied py and at t same me also a im of his own innious ac ruing
, king him ke a ang cau it is bad on t same or “gl
is” as tho aid by t i at t e. And yes, e himlf rr
“gic” an audience of “vulrs”. 1550 aed t trnds to
s, and “at t qu of se Engsh ntlemen”⁶¹ n a es of c lees on Eucd’s Elem, “Matcè, Phycè, et Phagocè”, at t Coe of Rims in s. e kes a gat diy of t lees in his Cndious Resa … w counts how his audience “was so gat, and t pt el than my lfe, that t tca ooles could n hold tm; r ny faine, witho t
ooles at t windos, to auditors and eators, as ty could lp tm-
ls tto.”⁶² e lees, e cones, cated gat aonishment than en his scabaeus unng up to t top of Tnity in Camid. If my hyps is tee, tn Bruel would ha d of t aonishment cated in s as as t
wonful ac in Camid and md tm totr in his int, w in fa
e a gup of eators early obrng t a a hh-t window.
e scene ty obr is n only aordily cwd, it is noisy as ; at t
top, t e two rsons pying umts whi swms of uninfiae ins em, a ol is ang a um, and it ems as if ery n is yeing, scang or
king se r noi; only t s and t acbats e lent in tir ai of a
kinds of eakne ts. Also lent is t i at t e; and lent e finitely t two cates witho unks in t gund corns of t pie: t one at l
with a il thugh his tone and t one at ght with a c in his h. e is obouy a podl countpt to t hu gian, pying t same cups and bas
me and ying to bance an e on his ad with t pointed down (though lping himlf with a bance cone) in t same way as t e is ing banced on t ad of t unoporoy hu i, who is t a-ke cate ies to itate.
th es fi in gnificant pts of t int and th e shown with t pointed
down, in aly t same way as t e conining t hioglyphl d is pied on t tle-pa of e’s 1564-caon, as t “celial e” is pied in t tt, and as it is pied in t end pa of t same ok in a coat-of-ms-ke cpoo
is celial e was also to ud on t tle-pa of e’s Propæu Aphostica in 1568.
a udy by Lian M.C. Randa on t hating of es by as or ols in a mr of te thirteenth centy il iuons,⁶³ this hating is en nted by t a or ol holding an e up ain t sun to eed up t hating oce. En if this is n t ca r Bruel’s a-ke cate, t e is clo enough to its antecents to r ftr aeno Wn this if aeed in a ief val in Flesh ints at t end of t xteenth centy, its coaons firmly asd as t ety of y. Randa menons an engng in whi Foy is hating le
61. mps Rehear, p. 7, qued Heilon, “oduory Eay”, p. 6. 62. Ibid. 63.
Lian M.C. Randa, “A dieval Sn” Art Buetin, vol. (1960), . 25–38.
Fe 8 (a) ”Celial E”, John e: s Hioglyphica, Antrn 1564, p. 17;
(b) ”Celial E”, John e: s Hioglyphica, Antrn 1564, end g
ols in a tent while in t gund one of t hated ols is lening t e dance
an ol ol.⁶⁴ A tme is en in one of t engngs t anonyus
es of Tl Flesh Prorbs, whi pis a unrd hating an enorus ced e in whi es a ol.⁶⁵ “For a ol in hating yo es”, wtes Randa, “wi b
oduce ols nce ea e conins a ‘door’ (Flesh r ol, intanae with ‘dooi’ meaning yolk)”.⁶⁶
B t impornt iue in Randa’s udy, and that whi concns us , is that this
“fleion of hun y in nal”⁶⁷ of t te xteenth centy trndish ints did n ha t ieval meaning of ols or as hating es. Randa aces t ogin of t if in t ins of t te thirteenth centy scpts to t cons ten Edwd I and Phip le Bel leading up to t ned Yes’ Ws. is con
to a e wa of Anglophobia in en tate, whi tay came eeay
valent in t anco-Flesh onces. e y of t tme was t otory aeaon of Engshmen as “iled”—Ang caudi—(in n tms: is), whi
is documented nce t le of t tlh centy. According to cques y, wng in t thirteenth centy, t Engshmen caed potos (unrds) and caudi (iled) by tir feow unts at t irty of s.⁶⁸ By means of a long que a olent diai ain ng Edwd I by a Norn munk of Sii, Randa
64. Randa, “A dieval Sn”, p. 29. Iuon in: uis Maetn, Le g tique ds
peintu fn (Bruxees: G. van O, 1907), pte XXXI, t p. 272. 65. e, Les Estpes, no. 182. Le, Cogue, no. 73. 66. Randa, “A dieval Sn”, p. 29. 67. Ibid., p. 37. 68. Ibid., p. 33.
