AMBIX, Vol. 52, No.

3, November 2005, 271–284

Lady Margaret Clifford’s Alchemical

Receipt Book and the John Dee Circle
PENNY BAYER
University of Warwick

This first detailed analysis of “Lady Margaret Clifford’s Alchemical Receipt Book,” held in
the Cumbrian Record Office, examines the basis for its association with Lady Margaret
Clifford (1560–1616), placing particular emphasis on the connections in the manuscript
book with the John Dee circle. After a brief introduction to the manuscript, which for
brevity is referred to as The Margaret Manuscript, I describe the external evidence for its
association with Lady Margaret, and discuss internal evidence within the manuscript that
suggests links with the John Dee circle, in several ways — by source of receipts, signs of
ownership and possible authorship, and access to Paracelsian books. Finally, I examine
Lady Margaret’s connections with John Dee, and suggest that she had the opportunity
to obtain receipts and access to library material for the manuscript during her visit to Dee’s
Mortlake home in 1593 and through intermediaries with Dee at Manchester during the
period 1597–1600. A hypothesis for one of the main hands in the manuscript is put forward:
that the alchemist–vicar Christopher Taylour compiled the receipt book for Lady Margaret
by liasing on her behalf with members of the Dee–Kelley circle.

The Manuscript

“Lady Margaret Clifford’s Alchemical Receipt Book” (referred to subsequently as The

Margaret Manuscript) is a quarto volume of 138 folios, bound in leather in 1920, with
embossed gold lettering emphasising the title: “Receipts of Lady Margaret Wife of George,
3rd Earl of Cumberland for Elixirs, Tinctures, Electuaries, Cordials, Waters, etc., MS circa
(1550) with Her Annotations.” When it was deposited with the Cumbrian Archive in 1986,
it had a description stating that the annotations in Lady Margaret’s own hand were made
in 1598.1 This description was probably written in the 1920s by George Williamson, a biog-
rapher of other members of the Clifford family.2 None of the hands in the receipt book,
including the annotating hand, match Lady Margaret’s handwriting as demonstrated in her

1
Letter from Richard Hall, Archivist, Cumbria County Council, 20 October 1998. The manuscript
was bound by Rivière and Sons, London.
2
Description attached to a letter from Anne Rowe, Assistant County Archivist, Cumbria Record
Office (Kendal), 22 May 1998. Dr. George C. Williamson was the author of George, Third Earl
of Cumberland (1558–1605). His Life and His Voyages: a Study From Original Documents (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920), and Lady Anne Clifford Countess of Dorset, Pembroke
and Montgomery. 1590–1676. Her Life, Letters and Work (Kendal: T. Wilson & Son, 1922; repr.
1967).

© Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry 2005 DOI 10.1179/000269805X77754
272 PENNY BAYER

letters, of which a substantial number are extant.3 These letters show a spiky, unjoined,
secretary hand that matches the style of her signature, while the annotating hand displays
a quite different irregular italic with rounded clubbed “r”s and “t”s. There is a possible
alternative and more rounded hand for Lady Margaret, but there are questions over
whether it is actually hers.4
The main text has two main hands.5 Hand A, which opens and closes the manuscript,
is middle to late sixteenth century in style.6 Hand B, from the late sixteenth or early
seventeenth century, has written most of the manuscript, using secretary and italic writing,
varying from a slow, careful style to a faster, excited and more disintegrated one.7 The
annotating hand is found throughout the manuscript, and in places becomes congruent with
Hand B.8 The annotating hand appears to belong to Hand B, that of the scribe of the
majority of the receipt book, who also may well have compiled, copied, and annotated the
whole manuscript.
Hand B most probably belongs to an alchemist called Christopher Taylour, who is
mentioned in The Margaret Manuscript. There are strong similarities with a hand that
William Black, the cataloguer of the Ashmole collection, states to be the hand of Christo-
pher Taylour.9 I have found the same combination of hands in other manuscripts associated
with Christopher Taylour, and a signature that is apparently his in the Ashmole manuscript
collection shows the same letter formations as Hand B.10 The name “Robarte Clarke”

3
See the Hothman papers at the Cumbria Record Office in Kendal. Williamson, who made extensive
studies of the Clifford family archives, described “the strange, cramped and irregular handwriting
of the letters from the Countess” (i.e. Countess Margaret), and also stated that “Her Ladyship
spelled as she liked, in various phonetic or partially phonetic forms, and thought nothing of varying
the spelling of a word three or four times, in the same letter” (George, Third Earl of Cumberland,
xii). This description does not apply to the annotating hand in The Margaret Manuscript, which
displays consistent and accurate spelling.
4
Kendal, Cumbrian Record Office, WD Hoth Box 44 (10).
5
The advice of Heather Ummel, palaeographer, is gratefully acknowledged. There may be more
than two hands.
6
Hand A is shown on fols. 1r–5r and 77r–95v. Characteristic features are “d”s sloping strongly to the
left, and “b”s with looped ascenders and pointed bottom left bowl.
7
Hand B is shown on fols. 6v–77r, 95v–130r and 137r–138r.
8
For example, on fols. 43–44; Hand B becomes less regular, and, when writing the names of authors
in italics, becomes similar to the annotating hand.
9
W. Black, A Descriptive, Analytical and Critical Catalogue of the Manuscripts Bequeathed unto the
University of Oxford by Elias Ashmole Esq MD FRS, Windsor Herald, Also of some additional mss
contributed by Kingsley Lhuyd, Borlase and others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1845), 1174;
see Oxford, Bodelian Library, Ashmole MS 1447, Item 6.
10
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole MS 1450 shows the annotation “Liber Christopheri Taylour”
against a main hand displaying many similarities to the first main hand in the Margaret manuscript.
The ascenders of the “d”s slope steeply to the left; the “s”s have a curved top with straight stem; and
the spacing and regular layout are similar. There is an annotation in the same annotating italic
hand as in The Margaret Manuscript, making the same sort of dismissive comment: “But a vayne
worckeinge in this maner.” In Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole MSS 1447 VI and VII (cata-
logued as owned by, and by, Christopher Taylour, respectively), the layout is more untidy but
the “f,” “d,” capital “T,” “s,” and “b”s are similar. The apparent signature is at Ashmole MS 1392,
fol. 59.
 LADY MARGARET CLIFFORD’S ALCHEMICAL RECEIPT BOOK 273

occurs frequently within the text of Hand B, and in one case is written in such a way that it
might be a signature,11 but it is more likely to be an acknowledgement of the source of the
receipt, with the normal preceding “pro” omitted.12
While Hand A is stylistically consistent with a date from 1550 (the date suggested on
the twentieth-century cover for the main text), most of the manuscript, in Hand B, is from
the 1590s (or later). An extensive reading list of printed books and manuscripts on alchemy
includes a substantial number published well after 1550:13 works by the Paracelsians
Alexander von Suchten,14 Blaise de Vigenère,15 and “B. G. a Portu” (i.e. Bernardus Georgius
Penotus),16 and works published in the 1590s by Jodocus Greverus (Grewer)17 and Ewald
Vogel.18 Hand B also writes about the circle of alchemists around Edward Kelley at Prague,
and from cross-references between these and other mentions in the receipt book with entries
in John Dee’s diaries, dates in the 1590s also emerge: these are discussed below.
The archive dating of the annotations to 1598 is confirmed in two places, most
conspicuously on folio 35, where “C. T.” is annotated against the title “The preparation of

11
The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 24r.
12
Two other alchemical manuscripts associated with a Robart Clarke do not show the same hands:
London: British Library, Harley MS 1818; and Copenhagen, Royal Library, MS 245, fol. 2r.
13
The Margaret Manuscript, fols. 42v–44r; written in Hand B in the treatise “The preparation or
makeinge of the drawne stone,” annotated C. T.
14
The work of Alexander von Suchten is referred to many times in the main hand, with two sources,
one printed and one in manuscript: “a booke made by Alixsander A Suchten of [antimony] and
is printed,” and another by him “unto his freend Mr John Baptista de Seepach and was never
printed,” which is “bound together herein” (The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 37r). The earliest
version of Suchten’s work on antimony, Liber unus de secretis antimonij, ed. Michael Toxites, was
printed at Strassburg in 1570, with later versions being produced at Basil in 1575 and 1598, and
versions in German in 1604. Other works by Suchten were published in the seventeenth century.
15
A date-specific reference is made to “the Books made by Blaise Vigenere printed in the French
tongue, att Paris 1587 there are foure or 3 volumes of them, they are most excellent Bookes, looke
well unto them for they are cabalistical” (The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 43v). Blaise de Vigenère
published De la Penitère in 1587 at Paris.
16
On Penotus, see J. Ferguson, Bibliotheca Chemica: a Catalogue of the Alchemical, Chemical and
Pharmaceutical Books in the Collection of the Late James Young of Kelly and Durris, 2 vols.
(Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1906; repr. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York: Georg Olms
Verlag, 2003), II, 180. One of Penotus’s books is suggested reading: “yo muste allsoe peruse
the Regina seu Canones aliquot philosophici de lapide philosophico: sett foorth in printe by B. G.
L. a Portu” (The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 43v). This is presumably a reference to Penotus’s
Quinquaginta septem Canones de opera Physico, later published by Zeztner in the Theatrum
Chemicum. In 1596 at London, John Hester published an English compilation of works attributed
to Paracelsus and other authors, which included Isaac Holland and “B. G. a Portu Aquitano.” The
Bodleian Library has an earlier version, dated possibly at 1583, and published in London by
H. Middleton (see Ferguson, Bibliotheca Chemica, II, 180).
17
The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 43r. “Petrus Bonus . . . in a littell Booke made by one and lately
printed called Jodoci Greveri presbyteri secretu et Alani philosophi.” Jodocus Grewer’s Alani
philosophi dicta de lapide philosophico was published in 1599.
18
The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 43v. “Ewaldo Vogelio Belga, where he makes an expositione
on Geber and Raimonde Lulli. It is a good booke.” Vogel’s De lapidis physici conditionibus liber.
Quo decorum abditissimorum auctorem Gebri et Raimundi Lulli metto dua continetur explicatio was
published in 1595.
274 PENNY BAYER

the drawne stone,” with the date 1598 under the title. An annotation also refers to the text
Aureum Vellus, which was first published in 1598.19

External Evidence that Lady Margaret was an Alchemist

Leaving aside the question of the hands, there are good reasons to assume that an alchemi-
cal receipt book found in Skipton Castle along with other Clifford family papers and anno-
tated in the late 1590s would have belonged to Lady Margaret. Her daughter, Lady Anne,
has provided two sets of evidence for her mother’s practice as an alchemist. In the Appleby
Great Picture, which was painted to Lady Anne’s close instructions in 1646, Lady Margaret
is closely associated with four books: in her hand, the psalms of David; and on the shelf
behind her, the Bible, an English translation of Seneca, and “a written hand Booke of
Alkumiste Apstracions of Distillation & Excellent Medicines.”20 The cataloguer of The
Margaret Manuscript may well have thought that it was the same manuscript as the one
shown in the Appleby Great Picture, a point still worth considering. Six years later, in 1652,
Lady Anne reinforced the suggestion that her mother had been an alchemist in the Great
Book of Records of the Cliffords, where she wrote that her mother:
was a lover of the Study and practice of Alchimy, by which she found out excellent
Medicines, that did much good to many; she delighted in the Distilling of waters, and other
Chymical extractions, for she had some knowledge in most kinds of Minerals, herbs, flowers
and plants.
This extended to philosophical inquiry “into the disposition of humane creatures and
natural causes.”21 Lady Margaret was clearly practising and theorising about alchemy
during her daughter’s lifetime, and, significantly, her daughter was proud of it.
A third piece of external, and in this case contemporary, evidence comes from Lord
Willoughby, an honoured and trusted servant of Queen Elizabeth. Around 1599–1600,
he wrote to Lady Margaret, praising her as an alchemist.22 He was near the end of his
distinguished life, in which he had had close contact with intellectual Paracelsians such as

19
There is a textual reference in the annotating hand to “Aureum vellus printed in Duche wth picters”
(The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 48v, also on fol. 44v with similar wording). Aureum Vellus was
printed in German (High Dutch) in Basel, 1604, with pictures in the style of the famous Splendor
Solis series): an earlier version, printed in 1598 at Rorschach, is cited by Adam McLean in the
Introduction to his edition of Splendor Solis (Michigan: Phanes Press, 1991).
20
See the Appleby Great Picture, on the shelf behind Lady Margaret, and Kendal, Cumbria Record
Office, Hothman MS JAC 332, Inscriptions on the Great Picture at Appleby Castle.
21
J. P. Gilson, Lives of Lady Anne Clifford Countess of Dorset, Pembroke and Montgomery
(1590–1676) and of Her Parents Summarised by Herself (London: The Roxburghe Club, 1916),
19–20.
22
Lord Willoughby was Governor of Berwick from 1597 to his death in 1601. Lord George’s infidel-
ity, which is alluded to in the letter, appears to have been public knowledge by 1599, when Samuel
Daniel, in A Letter from Octavia to Marcus Antonius, whose theme is the virtue of the constant
wife, describes Lady Margaret in the dedication as “a great afflicted Lady” (see A. B. Grosart, The
Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Samuel Daniel (London: Hazell Watson and Viney for
private circulation, 1885), 115–17.
 LADY MARGARET CLIFFORD’S ALCHEMICAL RECEIPT BOOK 275

Thomas Muffet,23 and with the Dee–Kelley circles in Prague, where Queen Elizabeth had
sent him with Edward Dyer to check whether metals were being transmuted into gold.24
Despite his courtly, diplomatic way with words, it was therefore not idle flattery when he
wrote to Lady Margaret from Berwick, where he was Governor, describing her as a “noble
philosophysing lady” who has “learned the art of separation, to draw ye spirit from ye body
to add to it agayne, things dead to live, livinge things apparent dead, yet having in concealed
beinge a multiplied \life/.”25 This, he claims, is “wisdom’s works, of a lyttle red sand to make
a Great deale of gold,” as did Hermes, Solomon, Ripley, and Kelley. He places Lady
Margaret in this line of sages, and praises her ability to bring dead metal to life. He writes:
And now comes my La: of Cumberland knowinge how of dissolved putrefied bodies no
good can be looked for wthout sublimatinge. She brings \a dead body/ into ye Alembic head
of fine conceit, then disgests, then revives it, and lastly proiects that rectefied oyle of
Gratiousnes upon an old bowed plate of Saturne, and by her artifice makes ye old mans selfe
beleave he is not metall mutch inferiour to his grandchild Sol.
Lord Willoughby’s account therefore reinforces Lady Anne’s. It is probably also
relevant that the patriarchal line in Lady Margaret’s birth and marriage family favoured
alchemy. Her father, Lord Russell, received the dedication of an English translation of the
Secretes of Alessio Piemontese, in 1558, and there was a long tradition of alchemy in the
Clifford family, notably by Henry, tenth Lord Clifford (c. 1455–1523), and the second Earl
of Cumberland, Henry Clifford (c. 1517–1570), whose manuscripts and books were prob-
ably available to Lady Margaret at Skipton Castle.26 In these particular families, alchemical
studies may not have conflicted with the role of the virtuous wife in supporting her
husband’s interests.
The unusually broad range of Lady Margaret’s other interests also supports the notion
that she could have been an alchemist and a patron of alchemists: during the 1590s, she
not only engaged in literary patronage, but also invested in mining and metallurgy, and
sponsored New World voyages.27

23
Mouffet accompanied Willoughby on an embassy to Denmark, where they met Severinus. See
H. Trevor-Roper, “The Court Physician and Paracelsianism,” in Medicine at the Courts of Europe,
1500–1837, ed. V. Nutton (London and New York: Routledge, 1990), 91.
24
Northamptonshire Record Office, Isham Papers, IC 272, “Arthur Dee to Mr Aldrich,” Norwich,
15 December 1649, Autograph.
25
Kendal, Cumbria Record Office, WD/Hoth/Box 44/4.
26
Kendal, Cumbria Record Office, Hothfield MS 2. The second Earl was reported by his grand-
daughter, Lady Anne, to be an alchemist and distiller of waters, and the owner of a good library of
books, both printed and manuscript, “to which he was addicted exceedingly well towards the latter
end.” See: Gilson, Lives of Lady Anne Clifford, xxii; and R. T. Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, Countess
of Pembroke, Dorset and Montgomery (1590–1676) (Thrupp: Sutton Publishing, 1997), 257.
27
She was associated with noted Elizabethan writers such as Edmund Spenser, Henry Constable,
Samuel Daniel, and Fulke Greville. Translations commissioned for her own use include a manu-
script translation of Boethius: his Philosophical Comfort by Thomas Ryther. Lady Margaret also
put money into voyages of the East India Company (in 1601) and the Virginia Company (in 1612).
She may have been associated with William Peterson, who obtained a patent to smelt iron, steel,
and lead in 1589. In 1594 and 1595, she corresponded with Lord Burghley and Sir Robert Cecil
regarding patents for mining sea coal, and iron smelting. See: Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 7–13;
and R. T. Spence, “Mining and Smelting in Yorkshire by the Cliffords, Earls of Cumberland, in the
Tudor and Early Stuart Period,” Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 64 (1992): 157–82.
276 PENNY BAYER

Connections to the Dee–Kelley Circle Indicated Within the Manuscript

Internal connections within The Margaret Manuscript suggest not just contact with the
John Dee Circle, but a keen and informed interest in obtaining alchemical knowledge from
those around John Dee and Edward Kelley.
Although John Dee is not named in The Margaret Manuscript, Hand B alludes several
times to receipts had of “Sr Edward Kelles brother,” i.e. Thomas Kelley,28 and of Edward
Kelley himself,29 including a receipt obtained from Edward Kelley in his house near Prague.
The reference to “Sir” Edward Kelley suggests a date later than 1589, when Edward Kelley
was made a Golden Knight by Rudolf II. It is not necessary to rehearse here the close con-
nections between Dee and Edward and Thomas Kelley, which continued after Dee returned
to England.
Hand B also writes about the two courtiers known to have been sent by Elizabeth to
check on Kelley in Prague, whose reports back in England confirming Kelley’s alchemical
skill must have been significant in the promotion of his legend: Sir Edward Dyer and Lord
Peregrine Willoughby. Sir Edward Dyer’s trips to Prague and his stay in the Kelley house-
hold are well known. Dyer’s fascination with alchemy led Ralph Sargeant to call him the
foremost amateur alchemical practitioner in Elizabethan England.30 He knew Dee from the
1560s, although, in this manuscript, the repeated use of the title “Sir” in the annotations
suggests a date later than 1596, when Dyer was knighted. The thinker behind Hand B is well
acquainted with Edward Dyer’s views on alchemy, which are recorded with some respect,
but also questioned critically against experience and the alternative advice in printed books.
An annotation against the recipe for an oil made of the “waters of Saturne” to dissolve
pearls for medicinal use explains that “Sr Ed: Dya he did see it downe, wth the said Spirite,
and that it did all the worcke as is said, but he knewe not howe the precipitate was made.”31
A treatise Opus longum longum phisicum Antiquorum is annotated as follows:
This a foresaid worcke wch was taught unto Sir Ed. Dyar is a moste longe tediouse worcke of
three yeares tyme att the leaste, And at the beginning of the worcke . . . he meanes common
Latton, But I thinck it better yf you take of the best Copper . . . I thinck Blaise Vigenere
teacheth in one of his Bookes howe he graduate copper moste excellent well.32
A further annotation adds “that this Opus longum longum aforesaid was taught unto
Sr Ed: Dyar by a frenche gentleman, that Mr Webb brought over sea into Englande: And Sr
Ed: did give him 200 [l.?] for ye worcke.”33 Whoever wrote this knew Edward Dyer well
enough to know what he paid his courier. Thomas Webb had a history of liaison between
the court and overseas philosopher–alchemists. He was employed by Lord Burghley to take

28
The instructions “To make the excellent waters out of Saturne to Dysolve Perle for Medicyne: And
to open the Bodies of Mettales” were “hadd of Sr Edward Kelles brother” (fols. 19r–20r), as was
“An excellent Turbith & oyle” for provoking sweat and vomits” (fols. 20v–21r).
29
A receipt “for the falling sickness” (fols. 25r–26r) and “A worcke of the Smerell stone” (also
referred to as the Emerell stone in the text) is “pro Sr Ed Kelle” (fol. 63v).
30
R. Sargeant, At the Court of Queen Elizabeth: The Life and Lyrics of Sir Edward Dyer (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1935), 99.
31
The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 19v.
32
The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 6r.
33
The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 5v.
 LADY MARGARET CLIFFORD’S ALCHEMICAL RECEIPT BOOK 277

letters from Queen Elizabeth to Prague for the release of Edward Dyer when under house
arrest with Lady Kelley, and to report back.34 John Dee’s diary records that during the early
1590s Webb worked both for Dyer and Dee and as an intermediary between them.35 It also
records that in 1593 Thomas Webb brought a philosopher to Dee’s home at Mortlake. It
does not seem unlikely that this was the same French gentleman who taught Edward Dyer
the Opus longum longum, as described in The Margaret Manuscript.
The visit of Lord Willoughby to Prague to check on Kelley on behalf of Elizabeth is less
well known, although Arthur Dee has left one account of his presence at Prague, witnessing
a perceived transmutation.36 The Margaret Manuscript provides contemporary evidence
that Lord Willoughby not only visited Prague as a diplomat, but was genuinely fascinated
by alchemy. Hand B describes “An excellent preparation of Silver for paynes in the Heade
and other Diseases, called by my L: Willoughby the Vitrioll of Luna,”37 and also, and signifi-
cantly for this study, “A Mercuriall Water to dysolve Sol and to make an Elixer thereof
given by Sr Ed: Kellye unto the Lorde Willobye att his departure from him att his house neer
Prage.”38 I am not aware of any other evidence that Lord Willoughby collected alchemical
receipts from Edward Kelley, a significant point that I will return to below.
Another possible allusion to a member of the Dee–Kelley circle in Prague in The
Margaret Manuscript is a method “To make a golden or silver tree to growe in a glasse
from mercury” from the Duke of Brunswick.39 Given the context, this probably refers to
Heinrich Julius, Duke of Brunswick, a significant figure close to Rudolf II at Prague, with
an established interest in alchemy and cabbala, who would have been known to Dee and
Kelley, since his agent, Johann Leon, married Elizabeth Jane Weston, Edward Kelley’s
stepdaughter.40
All the names discussed up to this point can be explained purely in relation to the circle
of Edward Kelley. However, a reference in The Margaret Manuscript to “Mr Digges his
Booke of his owne gatherings” may shift the focus towards John Dee. This book of Mr
Digges is part of a list of recommended alchemical reading, and has been crossed out.41
It may refer to Thomas Digges (1546–1595) the mathematician, a close friend of Dee.
Although Thomas Digges is not normally associated with alchemy, he did compile and
annotate one alchemical manuscript, probably under Dee’s influence, which was acquired

34
London, British Library, Lansdowne MS 93, fols. 210–11, reproduced in full in M. Wilding,
“Edward Kelly: A Life,” Cauda Pavonis 18 (1999): 1–26, on 15.
35
In 1591, Dyer sent Dee 20 angels by Thomas Webb (28 July). See E. Fenton (ed.), The Diaries of
John Dee (Oxfordshire: Day Books, 1998), 253. In 1592, Dee records he met his brother-in-law
at Mr Webb’s twice (10 and 11 April) (Fenton, Diaries, 255), and met Mr Webb at Tooting (27
December) (Fenton, Diaries, 258). In 1593, Dee met Sir Thomas Chaloner by the means of Thomas
Webb (17 March) (Fenton, Diaries, 259), and records a payment to him of ten shillings, with ten
more due (1 May) (Fenton, Diaries, 260).
36
Northamptonshire Record Office, Isham Papers, IC 272, “Arthur Dee to Mr Aldrich,” Norwich,
15 December 1649.
37
The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 20r.
38
The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 21v.
39
The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 57r.
40
R. J. W. Evans, Rudolf II and His World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973; repr. London: Thames
and Hudson, 1997), 151, 238.
41
The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 44r.
278 PENNY BAYER

by Simon Forman in 1594.42 The crossing out of this reference might therefore reflect its
departure from the Dee–Kelley circle frequented by the author of The Margaret Manu-
script. Jan Bäcklund has identified mentions of Digges in a Copenhagen manuscript of
alchemy bearing the signature of Christopher Taylour, where “the bookes of mr digges” and
“A note of mr digges his worke, after the preparation of his two Materials Sol and Mercury”
seem to be references to items owned in 1595, the year of the death of Thomas Digges.43 An
alternative identity for Mr Digges might be the otherwise unknown William Digges, with
whom Dee enjoyed “his philosophical courtesy: all day” on 2 August 1591.
There are also names in The Margaret Manuscript that are not, to my knowledge,
related to the Dee–Kelley circle. “Dr Neander” and “Mr La[c]inius” may be the internation-
ally known alchemical authorities.44 The rest are mostly English and largely unknown:
“Robarte Clarke,” “Mr Eden,” a gentlewoman of York, an anonymous daughter, “Mr
Crompton,” “John Ritell,” and “John Missant.” There is also a recipe credited to one
“W. W.”
A connection between The Margaret Manuscript and the Dee–Kelley circle arises in a
different way through the name of Christopher Taylour, which is associated with the two
longer and more philosophical treatises in The Margaret Manuscript. The first of these is “A
Treatise on Cachelah” (a phrase interpreted within the text as “the vegetable work”), which
is annotated “Liber Christopheri Taylour.”45 The second, “The preparation or makeinge
of the drawne stone, the wch in my writings i have so manye severall ways wrought out
and made triall on,” is emphatically annotated “C. T.” The interpretation of these initials
as Christopher Taylour is supported by the mention of a little known alchemical text,
Stella Complexionis, within this treatise.46 An English version of Stella Complexionis, by
J. Bubelem, dated 1384, is also the subject of an Ashmole manuscript that ends “by me
Christopher Taylour 1584,” probably indicating that he was the translator, especially since

42
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole MS 1478, fols. 1–60. See S. Johnston, “Like Father, Like son?
John Dee, Thomas Digges and the Identity of the Mathematician,” in John Dee: Interdisciplinary
Studies in English Renaissance Thought, ed. S. Clucas, International Archive of the History of Ideas,
193 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006): 65–84.
43
Copenhagen, Royal Library, MS 1727, fols. 18v and 21; cited in J. Bäcklund, “In the Footsteps
of Edward Kelley: some MSS References at the Royal Library Copenhagen Concerning an
Alchemical Circle around John Dee and Edward Kelley,” in Clucas, John Dee: Interdisciplinary
Studies: 295–330.
44
The Margaret Manuscript, fols. 22r and 54v. Michael Neander’s Physice, sive potius syllogae was
published in Leipzig in 1591. As well as reference to “A stronge water called Aqua Belgica wch
was given me by Mr La[v]inius,” the books of Janus Lacinius of Calabria are recommended (The
Margaret Manuscript, fol. 115r). These include: Praeciosa ac nobilissima artis chymiae collectanea
de occultissimo ac praeciosissimo Philosophorum Lapide . . . Per Ioanum Lacinium Calabrum
(Nuremberg, 1554); and Pretiosa margarita novella de thesauro, ac pretiosissimo philosophorum
lapide. Collectanea ex Arnaldo, Rhaymundo, Rhasi, Alberto, Michael Scoto; per Ianum Lacinium
Calabrum (Venice, 1546 and 1557).
45
The Margaret Manuscript, fols. 77r–95r. See also fol. 77r, where Cachelah is interpreted as
spitzglasse.
46
Stella Complexionis is not listed in Dorothea Waley Singer’s Catalogue of Latin and Vernacular
Alchemical Manuscripts in Great Britain and Ireland dating before the XV1 Century (Brussels:
M. Lamertin, 1928–1931).
 LADY MARGARET CLIFFORD’S ALCHEMICAL RECEIPT BOOK 279

Christopher Taylour also owned a copy of the Latin original.47 Further support for the
association with Christopher Taylour derives from the same mentions of texts in this part of
The Margaret Manuscript and in a Copenhagen manuscript inscribed “Liber Christopher
Taylour.”48 These include English versions of work by Isaac Holland, Raymund Lull, and
Benardus Georgius Penotus.
Jan Bäcklund has suggested that manuscripts associated with Christopher Taylour,
now in the Royal Library, Copenhagen, seem to have a connection to either Edward Kelley
or to an English alchemical circle around him and John Dee.49 A copy of The Philosophical
Effects of Mercury in his Tryumphe that Taylour owned includes a series of volumes
inscribed with the monas sign, and two of the volumes bear the signature of Edward
Kelley.50 Another manuscript, inscribed “Liber Christopher Taylour,” includes “Carmen
Edwardii Kelle.”51
Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, suggest that, like the Dee–Kelley circle,
Taylour owned works indicating an interest in the mystical meaning of number, geometrical
patterns, cabbala, and a secret alchemical alphabet, as well as traditional alchemical texts.52
From these manuscripts, it appears that Taylour was active as an alchemical manuscript
writer, translator, and collector from c. 1579–1600.53
Jan Bäcklund ends his discussion of the circle around Kelley or Dee as represented
in the Copenhagen manuscripts by raising the problem of the identity of Christopher
Taylour.54 I would like to put forward one possibility. In the lists of alumni of the University
of Oxford is a Christopher Taylo(u)r of Yorkshire, plebeii filius, who matriculated from
Oriel College on 2 July 1585, aged twenty.55 A will of Christopher Tailer, a vicar of
Bradford, dated 1598, is held by the Borthwick Instititute of Historical Research, York. It is
credible that the Christopher Taylo(u)r who was accepted at the University of Oxford as a
plebeii filius could have found employment in his home area of Yorkshire, in the church. The
will provides no conclusive evidence, although this Christopher Tailer leaves a substantial
number of books, to be divided into three, two parts for his son Nathaniell, and one to
be divided between two daughters, Marie and Alice. It is possible that the parts of the

47
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole MS 1459; Black, A Descriptive, Analytical and Critical
Catalogue.
48
“The preparation or makeinge of the drawne stone,” in The Margaret Manuscript, fol. 38r;
Copenhagen, Royal Collection, Copenhagen, MS 240.
49
Bäcklund, “In the Footsteps of Edward Kelley.”
50
Copenhagen, Royal Library, MS GKS 247; cited on “The Alchemy Web Site”:
http://www.levity.com/alchemy (available on CD-rom, version 6). Accessed August 2005.
51
Copenhagen, Royal Library, MS 242; cited on “The Alchemy Web Site.”
52
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole MS 1392, item 1; Ashmole MS 1406, item 2; Ashmole MS
1434; Ashmole MS 1447, items 6, 7 and 9; Ashmole MS 1450; Ashmole MS 1459, item 7; Ashmole
MS 1482, item 2; Ashmole MS 1492, item 9.
53
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole MS 1406, annotated “Liber Christopher Taylour 1600”;
Ashmole MS 1410, signed and dated 1585 by Christopher Taylour; Ashmole MS 1434, “Liber mei
Christopher Taylour 1586”; Ashmole MS 1459, “by me Christopher Taylour 1584”; Copenhagen,
Royal Library, MS 242, dated 1579.
54
Bäcklund, “In the Footsteps of Edward Kelley.”
55
J. Foster, Alumni Oxoniensis: the Members of the University of Oxford 1500–1714 (Oxford and
London: Parker and Co., 1891–1892) lists “Taylor”; Oriel College have “Taylour” (letter from Mrs.
E. Boardman, Archivist, Oriel College, 14 December 1998).
280 PENNY BAYER

manuscript associated with Christopher Taylour came to Lady Margaret in 1598, possibly
after his death.
However, the alchemist Christopher Taylour has left evidence that he had a noble lady
as a patron. Both his initials and full name are at the end of a manuscript with the title A
mystical treatise of occult philosophy or the philosopher’s stone addressed to a lady.56 If he
was the Vicar of Bradford, he very likely knew Lady Margaret, whose main residence was
nearby at Skipton. It may be pure coincidence that the Cliffords employed several other
Taylours: the governess that Lady Margaret chose for her daughter was Mrs Anne Taylour,
wife of William Taylour, and Stephen and John Taylour were among Earl George’s trusted
officers.57 Consequently, the possibility of patronage cannot be ruled out. However, this
hypothesis is complicated by an apparent expression of loyalty by Christopher Taylour in A
mystical treatise of occult philosophy to “ye holy Catholicke Church.”58
Another possible connection between The Margaret Manuscript and the Dee circle is
the wide range of literature to which it refers. The voice behind Hand B has access to and
owns a wide range of alchemical and Paracelsian books, both printed and in manuscript,
indicating the sort of educated, high-brow Paracelsianism which Andrew Watson and
Julian Roberts suggest that John Dee promoted through his library.59
Twenty-seven titles or authors are named: some works are by medieval authorities
such as Raymund Lull, John Pontanus, John Dastin, and Bernard of Trevisan; ten are by
Paracelsus; and others are by Paracelsians such as Alexander von Suchten, Bernardus
Georgius Penotus, and Isaac Holland. Many of the works published before 1583 are listed in
Dee’s library catalogue of that date, e.g. the work of Philip Rousillasco, Raymund Lull,
Arnold de Villa Nova, Geber, Petrus Bonus, and John Pontanus, Alexander von Suchten’s
book on antimony, many of the writings of Paracelsus (including De Tinctura Phisica, which
has numerous mentions in The Margaret Manuscript), Thomas Aquinas’s Secreta Chemica,
and all the works of John Dastin.60 Dee is likely to have read or owned the other or later
works, such as “Jodeci Greweri presbyter, Secreti,”61 the exposition of Ewald Vogel on
Geber and Lull,62 and the Aureum Vellus of 1598.63 He definitely saw the work of Blaise de
Vigenère,64 and his assistant Roger Cook owned an English translation of the works of
Paracelsus, Isaac Holland, and Bernardus Georgius Penotus, which seems a likely source
for Hand B.65

56
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole MS 1392, Item 1. This is a copy in Ashmole’s hand.
57
Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 12, 188.
58
Oxford, Ashmole MS 1392, fol. 54.
59
See, in particular, The Margaret Manuscript, fols. 43r–v; J. Roberts and A. G. Watson, John Dee’s
Library Catalogue (London: The Bibliographic Society, 1990), 69.
60
Many works attributed to John Dastin circulated in manuscript, including his Vision, the Donum
Dei, the Rosarium, and works on alchemy, metals, and the philosopher’s stone. See, for example,
London, British Library, Sloane MSS 2476, 288, 693.
61
Probably Iodocus Grewer, Secretum; et Alani philosophi dicta de lapide philosophico (Leiden, 1599).
62
E. Vogel, De lapidis physici conditionibus liber. Quo duorum abditissimorum auctorum Gebri et
Raimundi Lulli methodica continetur explicatio (Cologne, 1595).
63
S. Trismosin, Aureum Vellus, oder Guldin Schatz Kunstkammer (Rorschach am Bodensee and Basel,
1598).
64
Dee saw a copy of de Vigenère’s Traicté de Chiffres (Paris, 1586). See Bodleian Library Record 14
(1991–1994): 530.
65
A hundred and fourteeen experiments & cures; translated out of the Germane tongue into the Latin
(H. Middleton, possibly 1583), now in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and owned by Cook in 1587.
 LADY MARGARET CLIFFORD’S ALCHEMICAL RECEIPT BOOK 281

Charles Webster has argued that the educated classes had little difficulty in accessing
medieval alchemical writings in Latin, or manuscripts in circulation, and notes various
Paracelsian collectors other than Dee.66 However, I am not aware of any other library with
catalogued evidence that so closely matches the references in The Margaret Manuscript as
that of John Dee.67 It is true that Margaret Clifford had access to some of the older texts
inherited at Skipton Castle, and also had ready access to European travellers who could
obtain contemporary continental literature.68 However, the number and type of books
referred to, and the probability that this manuscript book has some relationship to Lady
Margaret, make it highly likely that Dee’s own library was consulted by whoever compiled
this high-level Paracelsian working manual. This is further reinforced by the large number
of recorded contacts between John Dee and Lady Margaret’s circle, as well as their own
meeting.

Lady Margaret and John Dee

Lady Margaret’s connections with John Dee mean that the possibility of her personal
involvement, possibly as patron, in the production of this manuscript cannot be discounted.
Her family of birth, the Russells, had close links with John Dee. Her father, Frances Russell,
Earl of Bedford (1527–1585), visited Dee at Mortlake on 22 January 1577, possibly to seek
advice for the sea voyage of his godson Francis Drake.69 Lady Margaret’s brother, Lord
John Russell, with other gentlemen, including Philip Sidney, accompanied Prince Lasky in
the Queen’s barge from Bisham to Dee’s house in 1583.70 Lady Margaret was very close to
her elder sister Lady Anne, Countess of Warwick, who was a crucial intermediary between
Queen Elizabeth and Dee between 1592 and 1595, and remained loyal to Dee even when his
move to Manchester was being arranged and it might not have been prudent to help him.71

66
C. Webster, “Alchemical and Paracelsian Medicine”, in Health, Medicine and Mortality in the
Sixteenth Century, ed. C. Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 301–33.
67
See: G. R. Batho, “The Library of the ‘Wizard’ Earl: Henry Percy Ninth Earl of Northumberland
(1564–1632),” The Library, fifth series, 15 (1960): 246–61; and W. Oakeshott, “Sir Walter Raleigh’s
Library,” The Library, fifth series, 23 (1968): 285–327.
68
Her husband Earl George spent most of his life travelling; her friend Lord Willoughby was
frequently in Europe; she knew Lord Zouche, the patron of Henry Wotton, who collected magical
books in Europe and was also probably the first source of information about the capture of Edward
Kelley. Her husband’s servant John Davis had some expertise in the capture of alchemical books,
following his part in the ransacking of Dee’s library, possibly on her behalf, and the local vicar
Christopher Taylour might also have been a source.
69
Fenton, Diaries, 1, 320.
70
Fenton, Diaries, 92, 15 June 1583. Lord John Russell had lived at Bisham since his marriage to
Lady Elizabeth Hoby in 1574.
71
In his diary, Dee records that Lady Warwick arranged for the commissioners to visit Dee (9
November 1592) (Fenton, Diaries, 257); she sent word to him of the Queen’s grant of a hundred
marks (December 1592) (Fenton, Diaries, 257–81); she was present with Sir Robert Cecil when Dee
petitioned Elizabeth at Greenwich, and she carried a letter from Edward Kelley from the Queen
to Dee (3 and 18 May 1594) (Fenton, Diaries, 265); and she accepted the gift of Wardenship of
Manchester University from the Queen on Dee’s behalf (31 July 1595) (Fenton, Diaries, 275). See
also Fenton, Diaries, 342.
282 PENNY BAYER

As a long-serving lady of the bedchamber, and trusted confidante of Queen Elizabeth, Lady
Warwick was a powerful influence at court, and was often lobbied by courtiers, sometimes
in conjunction with Lady Margaret. Dee would undoubtedly have sought to repay Lady
Warwick’s help by assisting her sister, if such help were ever asked for.
Lady Margaret could have met Dee through her attendance at court during the 1580s
and 1590s. We can speculate that she was one of the group of women courtiers envisaged by
H. G. Glindoni (1852–1913) as witnessing “John Dee demonstrating an experiment before
Queen Elizabeth I.”72 When away from court, she kept contact through her sister, Lady
Anne, and husband, Earl George. She had other contacts, such as Lord Burghley, who
shared her interest in mining, which, for both of them, may have overlapped with alchemical
concerns.73 Lady Margaret’s own place in the inner circle of Elizabeth’s female courtiers is
illustrated by her status as one of the Ladies who watched over the body of Queen Elizabeth
after her death in 1603; her sister Anne had been with the Queen as she died.74 As one of that
inner circle, Lady Margaret would undoubtedly have had opportunities to meet Edward
Dyer, although I have no evidence of any particular contact between them.
Another connection between Lady Margaret and John Dee arises through her business
associate Richard Cavendish, and adds credence to Richard T. Spence’s speculation that
Lady Margaret’s investment in mining may have been closely allied to her alchemical
interests.75 In 1589, Lady Margaret and Cavendish signed a twenty-one-year lease of mines
of lead, lead ore, and other metals at Gib Moor near Skipton.76 In the following year, 1590,
Dee records Richard Cavendish’s name five times in his diary. On 31 July, Dee lent him a
copy of Zacharius’s twelve letters “written in French with my own hand.” This is the work of
the alchemist Denis Zachaire, which Dee considered potentially dangerous to own, as he
made Cavendish promise “never to disclose to any that he hath it.”77 Another copy of this
work was burnt in Kelley’s alchemical experiment in 1587, when Dee describes it as “the
book of Zacharias . . . that I translated out of French for him by spiritual commandment.”78
On 16 December, “Mr Candish” brought word from the Queen to Dee that he should do
what he would in philosophy and alchemy, without check.79
In 1605, a Mr Leigh had his own closet at Skipton Castle, in which were troy weights, a
still head, and a trunk of books and manuscripts.80 Richard T. Spence describes one Robert
Leigh as a local man who was an old friend of Lady Margaret.81 John Dee records visits to
his Manchester home between 1597 and 1600 by Charles Leigh, who became Receiver of

72
Wellcome Institute Library, London.
73
For Burghley’s interest, see: R. Sargeant, At the Court of Queen Elizabeth, 97–122; and Humphrey
Locke’s poetical epistle to Burghley on alchemy (British Library, Sloane MS 299, Item 5). For Lady
Margaret’s interest, see Spence, “Mining and Smelting in Yorkshire.”
74
Williamson, Lady Anne Clifford, 67.
75
Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 8.
76
Spence, “Mining and Smelting in Yorkshire,” 167–68.
77
Fenton, Diaries, 250, 31 July 1590.
78
Fenton, Diaries, 231, 12 December 1587.
79
Fenton, Diaries, 252, 16 December 1590. Fenton believes “Mr Candish” to be Richard Cavendish.
80
Williamson, George, Third Earl, 306. Troy weights were a system of weights used for precious
metals and gems.
81
Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 27.
 LADY MARGARET CLIFFORD’S ALCHEMICAL RECEIPT BOOK 283

Manchester College where Dee worked, and his brother Robert Leigh.82 If Robert Leigh
lived in Lady Margaret’s home, performing distillation, while also meeting Dee at Manches-
ter at the time when the annotations were made, he must be considered for a possible role
in The Margaret Manuscript. Lady Margaret’s patronage of and friendship with Thomas
Tymme also links her to the John Dee circle. Thomas Tymme was a friend of John Dee, and
planned to, or did, translate his Monas Hieroglyphica, for which he wrote an introduction.83
He was a significant figure in the English Paracelsian movement, and also translated the
work of the French Hermetic physician Joseph du Chesne.84 He appears to have been a close
friend of Lady Margaret, as the manuscript of his translation of Dudley Fenner’s Sacred
Divinitie or the Truth which is according to Pietie is inscribed “Your lovinge friend T. T.”85
The strong cabbalistic and magical emphasis in the Monas Hieroglyphica, which Tymme
discusses in his introduction, finds resonance in the cabbala, magic, and number symbolism
in The Margaret Manuscript.
Most importantly, in 1593 Lady Margaret made personal contact with John Dee,
which he records in his diary. Earlier that year, Dee met Lady Margaret’s preacher, Mr
Gray, noting in his diary his surprise that the preacher wrangled with him and denied and
despised “alchemical philosophers.”86 Dee’s surprise was no doubt the result of his knowl-
edge of Lady Margaret’s own alchemical leanings. On 26 November, Dee recorded that
“John . . . came to me from the Lady Countess of Cumberland.”87 “John” may have been
the John Davis employed by the Cumberlands and involved in the loss of books from Dee’s
library; these had by now been mostly returned, and good relations restored.88 Then, a few
days later on 3 December 1593, Lady Margaret visited Dee at his house in Mortlake with the
Countess of Kent, sister of Lord Willoughby, who himself visited Dee that day. Alchemy
may not have been the only subject that Lady Margaret discussed with Dee, who had a wide
range of other knowledge to impart, including the astrological consultation that he appears
to have given at some point, for he notes her exact time of birth.89 A warm relationship
appears to have developed, as when Dee’s Daughter Margarite was baptised on 27 August
1595, the Countess, after whom the child was probably named, was a godparent, with a
Mistress Davis, perhaps John Davis’s wife, standing in as proxy.

82
J. E. Bailey, Diary, for the Years 1595–1601, of Dr. Dee, Warden of Manchester from 1595 to 1608
(privately published, 1880), 43, 71.
83
T. Tymme, A Light in Darkness Which Illumineth for all the Monas Hieroglyphica of the famous and
profound Dr John Dee, discovering Nature’s closet and revealing the true Christian secrets of Alchimy,
ed. S. K. Heninger (Oxford: New Bodleian Library, 1963).
84
A Breefe Aunswere of Josephus Quercetanus Armeniacus, Doctor of Phisicke, to the exposition of
Jacobus Aubertus Vindonis, concerning the original, and causes of Mettales. Set foorth against
chimists. Another exquisite and plaine Treatise of the same Josephus, concerning the Spagericall
preparations, and vse of minerall, animall, and vegitable Medicines (London, 1591).
85
Williamson, George, Third Earl, 292–93.
86
Fenton, Diaries, 262, 25 October 1593.
87
Fenton, Diaries, 263.
88
Roberts and Watson, John Dee’s Library Catalogue, 55.
89
“1560, July 8th, hora 2 min of Exoniae mane.” See J. O. Halliwell (ed.), The Private Diary of Dr
John Dee, and the Catalogue of his Library of Manuscripts, from the Original Manuscripts in
the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford and Trinity College Library, Cambridge, Camden Society
Publications, 19 (London: The Camden Society, 1842), 1.
284 PENNY BAYER

When Lady Margaret visited Dee with the Willoughbys on 3 December 1593, Edward
Kelley was still generally highly regarded, and his transmutation claims were taken seri-
ously. Given Lady Margaret’s known interest in alchemy, it is most likely that she discussed
Kelley’s alchemical practice with Dee, who was in a position to show her receipts from both
Edward and Thomas Kelley, Edward Dyer, the French gentleman brought from overseas
by Mr Webb who had recently visited, and the Duke of Brunswick, who was an old friend
of Dee.90 Lord Willoughby was present in person. On the day that Lady Margaret and the
Willoughbys visited Dee at Mortlake, Dee records “The Lord Willoughby, his bountiful
promise to me.” James Halliday suggested that Lord Willoughby brought Dee a present:91
in the context of The Margaret Manuscript, I suggest that Lord Willoughby’s “bountiful
promise” may have had an alchemical content. If Lord Willoughby brought back alchemi-
cal secrets from Edward Kelley in Prague, as The Margaret Manuscript suggests, might not
the bountiful promise have been to supply to John Dee the secret of “the mercurial water to
dissolve Sol and make an elixir thereof”? This interpretation would date parts of the manu-
script at 1593 or later, with annotations in 1598. It links Lady Margaret more directly with
the receipt book by her presence on the day when Lord Willoughby fulfilled his “bountiful
promise” by passing an alchemical present from Edward Kelly in Prague to John Dee
in London, and it explains how she may have obtained other receipts from the Dee circle
dating from 1593–1594. In 1598, Dee lived in Manchester, and Lady Margaret had the
opportunity to contact him through her close friend Robert Leigh, whose brother worked
with Dee.
The hypothesis that the alchemist–vicar Christopher Taylour compiled the receipt
book for Lady Margaret by liasing on her behalf with members of the Dee–Kelley circle
remains just that — a hypothesis that awaits further testing.

90
Heinrich Julius, Duke of Brunswick, moved in the circles around Rudolf II in Prague, including
the Kelley circle. The exiled poetess, Elizabeth Jane Weston, who Susan Bassnett has argued
was Edward Kelley’s stepdaughter, married the Duke’s agent, Johann Leon. Brunswick had
alchemical works dedicated to him, such as Martin Ruland’s Lexicon Alchemiae sive Dictionarium
Alchemistarum (Frankfurt, 1612). Dee’s diary records a visit in 1587 by “Nicholas du Haut, French-
man of Lorrayn,” who “had byn lackay to my frende Otho Henrick Duke of Brunswik and
Lienburgh.”
91
Halliwell, The Private Diary of Dr John Dee, 101.