John Dee -EMC (Massachusetts Studies in Early Modern Culture) [Paperback]

William H. Sherman (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Review

John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance presents a major reassessment of the career and cultural background of John Dee (1527-1609), one of Elizabethan England's most interesting figures. Challenging the conventional image of the isolated eccentric philosopher, William Sherman situates Dee in a fresh context, revealing that he was a well-connected adviser to the academic, courtly, and commercial circles of his day. The centerpiece of Dee's life is shown to be the massive library and museum at Mortlake, perhaps the first modern "think tank". There he lived, worked, and entertained some of the period's most influential intellectuals and politicians. Sherman discusses Dee's household arrangements, reading practices, and writings on subjects ranging from calendar reform to imperial policy. He also offers the first detailed account of the broad network of scholars and other experts who, along with Dee, operated behind the political scenes providing textual and technological support during this time of unprecedented intellectual and global expansion. -- Midwest Book Review --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Product Details

• Paperback: 312 pages
• Publisher: University of Massachusetts Press (April 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1558490701
• ISBN-13: 978-1558490703
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.5 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,370,717 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Solid, but not entirely fair, December 10, 2004

By 

Christopher I. Lehrich (Quincy, MA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: John Dee -EMC (Massachusetts Studies in Early Modern Culture) (Paperback)

Sherman reevaluates Dee on the basis of his non-occult writings, especially his marginalia (adervsaria) to various texts and his political writings on navigation and the British Empire (a term he coined). The analysis itself is valuable and important, contributing to an understanding of Dee as a man deeply involved with his political and social environment, as well as clarifying the ways in which Dee read his sources.

Unfortunately, Sherman goes overboard in attacking all previous scholarship on Dee, particularly what he calls the "Yatesian" approaches (in reference to Frances Yates). He never wastes an opportunity to attack, implying at times that his predecessors did not really read Dee but rather constructed a myth (of the magus) about him.

While it is certainly true that Yates overstated her thesis, she saw a good deal in Dee that was accurate. And without a thorough reevaluation of the _Monas hieroglyphica_, the angelic conversations or _Libri mysteriorum_, and such varied works as _Propaedeumata aphoristica_, it is not possible to assess Dee's work as a whole. Sherman seems to think that all the occult works are incidental, irrelevant to who Dee really was. But he never argues this directly, preferring instead to pick out the flaws in Graham Yewbrey and Peter French. In the endnotes, he does note that Nicholas Clulee and Deborah Harkness have done excellent work on understanding Dee the occultist, but he gives them little credit despite his own total incomprehension of those works.

Sherman's account is important and should be read by anyone seriously interested in Dee. But the total project cannot be understood absent Clulee and Harkness. More recently, Szonyi and Hakansson have added important rereadings, not of course available to Sherman. If one takes Sherman alone, one has a wrong impression of Dee -- which is precisely what he accuses his predecessors of. Taken with a grain of salt for all its remarks about other scholarship, including especially the totally wrong-headed misunderstandings of hermeneutics and poststructuralism, and in fact taken strictly as the work of a very narrow historian interpreting a few texts, Sherman is essential. But if you think this book covers the range of Dee, you (like Sherman) are sadly mistaken. Read Clulee and Harkness, then come back to Sherman.