1. Dee had a book written in hieroglyphics while in Bohemia.
2. Rudolf II was in close contact with Dee.
3. Dee had 630 ducats in October 1586 and Rudolf paid 600 for VMS.
4. Foliation numbers in VMS are in Dee's hand.

The book in hieroglyphics

The only reference to that book appears in a letter written by Sir Thomas Browne to Elias Ashmole in 1675, in which he quotes reminiscences of Arthur Dee from Bohemia [1]. Arthur was born on 13 July 1579 at Mortlake [Halliwell], so he was almost exactly 5 years old when they arrived in Bohemia and 9 and 3/4 when they departed for England, as can be seen from this shorter version of Dee's itinerary in Central Europe.

place	arrived	departed	notes
Prague	9-08-1584	after 8-10-1584	at Hajek's house -- to Cracow
Prague	30-12-1584	27-02-1585	at Salt Street -- to or towards Wroc aw/Vratislavia
Prague	14-03-1585	5-04-1585	to Cracow
Prague	before 6-08-1585	6-05-1586	to Leipzig
Prague	21-05-1586 [?]	after 29-05-1586	banished from all Rudolf's lands -- to Erfurt and Kassel
T ebo	end of August 1586	11-03-1589	back home

It is obvious that Arthur could not start his education before coming to Bohemia. He may have learned to read and write -- and thus to distinguish letters from "hieroglyphics" -- by 1587, when his father forced him to learn Latin grammar. His teachers, however, were rather curious characters and the quality of their work may be doubted [2].

The selling of VMS to Rudolf II is usually dated to late summer of 1586 when Arthur was just 7 and his education had barely (if at all) started. It is therefore quite certain that one or both of these assumptions must be wrong. Even in 1588 or 1589 Arthur may have seen a book in Greek or Hebrew which he later rationalised as "hieroglyphics". This is, however, also unlikely, because the term "hieroglyphics" should be understood as "ideograms" rather than "unknown script" or "cypher".

Arthur Dee spent a long time in Moscow and returned to England in or about 1634, when he settled in Norwich near his friend Sir Thomas Browne. He died in 1651 [Fell-Smith]. Seven years later -- in 1658 -- Elias Ashmole started corresponding with Browne about Dee, and another 17 years later -- in 1675 -- Browne wrote him about the book with "nothing but" hieroglyphics. So the alleged facts from that letter represent what Browne remembered from his conversations with Arthur Dee some 30 years earlier about what the latter remembered from his childhood in Bohemia almost half a century before.

But even if it is assumed that both had perfect memories and did not change or invent anything, the wider context of the letter [3] makes it clear that it was the alchemical Book of St. Dunstan (often mentioned by Dee in his diaries) and not one by Roger Bacon (as he would have believed if it was Dee who sold VMS to Rudolf II). But the Book of St. Dunstan was not written in hieroglyphics, as Edward Kelley made notes from it, so something is clearly wrong here. And the scene of young Arthur playing "silver quoits made by projection" certainly does not improve the credibility of the whole letter.

The statement that the book contained "nothing but" hieroglyphics cannot refer to VMS for one more reason. To a 7-9 years old boy VMS would surely be more interesting for its colourful pictures and -- obviously -- naked women than rather dull strings of letter-like characters.

Can the inconsistency in Browne's letter be explained? It is actually quite easy. John Dee himself mentions in his diary the book containing nothing but hieroglyphics -- not a cypher, however, but alchemical images, which are more consistent with Arthur Dee's relation. The book was Angelicum Opus -- "all in pictures of the work from the beginning to the end" [4]. The young Arthur remembered the book of pictures (which must have appealed to his imagination) and his father's and Kelley's conversations about an alchemical book found "in an old place" together with the powder they used for transmutations. After half a century, when he talked about it with Browne, those two books became one -- or after another 30 years Browne confused the two.

It must, therefore, be concluded that Arthur Dee's remark does not refer to VMS and therefore cannot be used as an argument for John Dee's possession of it before Emperor Rudolf II obtained it for his collection. If it was so, this fact cannot be confirmed by available sources.

John Dee's contacts with Rudolf II

Many popular -- and some scholarly -- publications present Dee's journey to Poland and Bohemia as a great success which stirred all intellectuals in Continental Europe and resulted in the later Rosicrucian furore [Yates]. The truth, as it appears from Dee's diaries, is quite different. The whole expedition proved to be a total failure -- the two monarchs were not convinced about the importance of his (or rather Kelley's) visions and prophecies, and he had to live for three years in a small provincial town, deprived of contacts with the learned men in Prague and Cracow universities. The picture of Rudolf II and Dee discussing Roger Bacon and other mysteries of this and other worlds is definitely just a literary myth.

The only documented meeting of John Dee and Emperor Rudolf took place on 3 September 1584, less than a month after his arrival in Prague. Dee had sent Rudolph a letter and a copy of his Monas Hieroglyphica (dedicated to his father Maximilian II), and was soon summoned to the Prague castle [5]. He gave a rather pompous speech, explaining how he found the wisdom and the Emperor promised his protection to him. It was "a large hour audience of his Majesty" but Rudolf was clearly bored and uninterested in witnessing the seances. He told him that both the book and his presentation were too difficult for him to understand -- but he need not kneel down so often -- and that maybe some time later he would understand more [6]. In modern terms, Dee heard nothing but "we'll call you".

On the next day Dee sent a letter to the Emperor, enquiring about another audience -- but Rudolf had gone away from Prague (or so he was told). Then on 12 September 1584 he received a reply stating that the Emperor is too busy but will send him his counsellor Dr. Kurtz so that they can discuss the things of interest to Dee. After several attempts to contact Kurtz he was eventually invited to his house on 15 September 1584 and they had a conversation, and Dee showed him his records of angelic visions. On the following days he also dined with the Spanish ambassador and likewise showed him the records and "the Stone brought me by an Angel".

On 27 September 1584 Dr. Kurtz visited him at Dr. Hajek's house and reported that the Emperor had not made a decision about the things they discussed yet but he "thinketh them almost either incredible, or impossible" and would like to see his books. Dee's answer was that he would never depart with his books -- which is quite meaningful in the context of VMS [7].

All the time Dee kept writing letters to Rudolf but then was told by Kurtz that they were kept by the Spanish ambassador. Kurtz promised to help deliver them to the Emperor and suggested it would be good to show him the glass about which Dee had told him. That glass was left in Cracow -- so Dee and Kelley went back there to bring it to Prague.

On their return there is little record of further attempts to see Rudolf again. One short note by Dee says that according to Kelley the Emperor was melancholic and did not speak to anyone. It is, however, possible that there was one more audience granted to Dee, at which he showed him the glass brought from Cracow, because much later he mentions the fact that Rudolf admired it (though it is also possible that he referred to it being given to the Emperor by Ro mberk later) [8]. If it was so, the meeting must have been equally inconclusive or even negative for Dee's case, as the company decided to go to Cracow and try to convert king Stephen Bathori of Poland.

Back in Prague again, Dee or Kelley interested Vil m Ro mberk in their work but the Emperor himself was not favourable towards them and on 29 May 1586 issued a decree banishing John Dee from all his lands. It was later withdrawn and he was allowed to stay in Bohemia but only within the estates of Ro mberk. It seems he made no more attempts to contact Rudolf II.

It is, therefore, quite certain that Dee was not in close contacts with Emperor Rudolf II. He met him once (possibly twice) but did not impress him at all.

Rudolf paid 600 ducats for VMS and Dee had 630 ducats

According to the testimony of Raphael Mni ovsky as related by Joannes Marcus Marci the original "bearer" of VMS who gave it to Rudolf II received 600 ducats. Some researchers suggested that it was an enormous sum and the fact that John Dee mentions having 630 ducats on 17 October 1586 suggests he received the 600 shortly before. This would mean that the transaction would have taken place at the most unlikely time, when Dee was banished from Prague (late May 1586), went to Erfurt and Kassel, and then returned to T ebo (late August 1586). It is simply impossible that Dee would have any audience granted by Rudolf at that time, especially as the Pope and the Inquisition were involved.

The "memorandum" made by Dee seems (my Latin is very poor -- I will have to confirm my reading) to make it clear that it was a quarrel with Francesco Pucci about the money he wanted from Dee and Kelley. He had already received 630 ducats but apparently expected another 800. That sum was finally paid to him from "two large sacks" containing 2,000 ducats and counted on the table ("numerabantur supra mensam" in the presence of the latter's scribe -- Paul Wolf -- which Pucci confirmed in writing [9].

Dee uses synonymous monetary units which may be confusing.

1 marc or dollar (silver) = 2 ducats or florins or zlaty (gold)

So it appears that the sum in question was 800 "Floreni" or 400 "Doleri" and Pucci had got 630 ducats earlier. The money was (if my reading is correct) to be given to church ("Deo oblatas") so it was not what Dee had -- he may have been given the 2,000 ducats by Vil m Ro mberk.

Thus the 630 ducats mentioned by Dee cannot be the sum paid by Rudolf II for VMS. If, however, Dee indeed sold the manuscript to the Emperor at some other (earlier) time, was the sum really so incredibly large for him? We have no records of Dee's finances but there are occassional notes which do not confirm that view. In 1587 his wife Jane received a nacklace worth 300 ducats from Vil m Ro mberk and two month later Kelley gave him 300 ducats out of 3,300 he had obtained from Ro mberk, and then -- after two weeks -- he received another 170 ducats and mentioned 200 ducats he must have got earlier. In 1588, when Dee gave his glass to Kelley, he apparently hoped to get half a million ducats for it! [10].

Earlier, in 1585, Dee was received by king Stephen Bathori, who also participated in one seance in the presence of Olbracht aski on 27 May. Even though the angelic messages were not nice or favourable for the King, he was not offended and granted Dee another farewell audience, giving him 800 florins through aski [11].

The prices of books at that time varied immensly. About 1600 in Poland an elementary school primer could be bought for 1/3 of a ducat or florin, a popular calendar cost 1 florin, but scholarly and scientific books were often very expensive. The herbal by Szymon Syreniusz published in Cracow in 1613 had the publisher's price of 100 florins [12], so 600 florins for a rare and curious manuscript bought by the Holy Roman Emperor was not really that much.

John Dee himself is known to have bought an "Arabik boke" for 600 pounds which was roughly equivalent to 100 ducats [13].

Finally, the next (or at least later) possible owner of VMS -- Jakub Hor ick z Tepence -- in his last will left 50,000 ducats to the Jesuit College of St. Clement in Prague. So 600 was not so much for him, either [14].

Foliation in VMS is in Dee's hand

This last argument is very serious, especially as Dee's handwriting was identified for the Yale library by Andrew G. Watson [15]. He is an authority on medieval and early modern manuscripts and coauthor of a book on Dee's library, in which the identification of Dee's hand in VMS foliation was also confirmed [16].

The evolution of Arabic numerals in medieval Europe (based on Central European sources) is shown in the table below.

It is clear that the foliation cannot be older than the 16th century. But are the numbers really in Dee's hand? Ron Carter pointed to several features of Dee's digits which are considerably different from those in VMS foliation [17].

I have tabulated some VMS folio numbers, numbers from Dee's 1583 book catalogue and two year numbers from a church manuscript written in central Poland for comparison. I belive the most important is the digit 8. In Dee's caligraphic handwriting it is almost twice as high as other numbers (as in his letter to Queen Elizabeth), but in quick cursive it is the same size (as in the catalogue). Most importantly, however, the formation of number 8 by Dee is already modern -- starting at the top and going to the left -- while the foliator of VMS formed his 8 in the medieval way -- starting at the bottom left, going to the right, creating an S and then going down across. The 8's in the "control" examples from the Polish manuscript are formed in the same way as in VMS. It is a habit which is not easy to change and once learned at school remains the same for the whole life.

The other interesting digit (besides those mentioned by Ron Carter) is 7. In Dee's manuscript it is very modern -- even with a small serif at the beginning of the horizontal stroke -- and in VMS both strokes are practically equal and sometimes it looks like the "greater than" symbol.

All those features clearly suggest that the VMS foliator either belonged to an earlier generation or learned his writing skills at a provincial school, and that it definitely was not John Dee.

Conclusion

Thus all arguements in favour of Dee's ownership of VMS can be shown to be based on false assumptions -- either lack of evidence or wrong conclusions. This does not, however, rule out the possibility that it was Edward Kelley who sold VMS to Rudolf II. He was certainly capable of producing a "practical joke" of such complexity and length. It would be interesting to compare samples of his handwriting with VMS for any similarity in both foliation numbers and the text itself [18].