24.10.2012 Views

The Alchemical Patronage of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley

The Alchemical Patronage of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley

The Alchemical Patronage of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Many <strong>of</strong> the distortions in the historiography <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong> can be traced to limitations in<br />

the surviving records. As Principal Secretary to the Queen, and later as <strong>Lord</strong> Treasurer,<br />

<strong>Cecil</strong> received, intercepted, read, responded to, and stored huge volumes <strong>of</strong> incoming<br />

correspondence. A high proportion <strong>of</strong> these letters survive today, scattered across a<br />

number <strong>of</strong> manuscript collections in the British National Archives and elsewhere. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>Cecil</strong> papers in Hatfield House alone comprise more than 900,000 manuscript folios. 57<br />

However, only a small portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s outgoing letters survive, forcing historians to<br />

evaluate much <strong>of</strong> what he wrote by his correspondents‘ replies. This lack <strong>of</strong> direct written<br />

evidence has exacerbated historians‘ tendency to impose their own, rationalist mindset on<br />

<strong>Cecil</strong>. Nowhere is this more evident than in the few discussions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s alchemical<br />

patronage.<br />

<strong>The</strong> dispersal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s papers has also altered historians‘ interpretations. Upon his<br />

death in 1598 one portion <strong>of</strong> his papers remained in the state records; another he left to his<br />

second son Robert; and a third portion was appropriated by his personal secretary Michael<br />

Hickes. 58 That part <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s papers left in state hands forms the majority <strong>of</strong> the domestic<br />

and foreign English State Papers in the National Archives, with part finding their way into<br />

other collections such as the Cotton Manuscripts. 59 Robert <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s share, along with his<br />

own papers, remain in his family home, Hatfield House, and form perhaps the most<br />

important private collection <strong>of</strong> early modern English manuscripts. 60 That portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s<br />

papers obtained by Michael Hickes was acquired by <strong>Lord</strong> Lansdowne, first Earl <strong>of</strong><br />

Shelbourne, in the eighteenth century and now resides in the British Library as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Lansdowne Collection. 61 Whilst these collections differ slightly in their focus, both<br />

thematically and chronologically, records <strong>of</strong> any one important episode in <strong>Cecil</strong>‘s life are<br />

57 Stephen Alford, ‗<strong>The</strong> Collection <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Cecil</strong> Papers, Hatfield House, Hertfordshire‘, State Papers Online,<br />

1509–1714, Cengage Learning EMEA Ltd, Reading, 2009.<br />

58 Stephen Alford, ‗State Papers <strong>of</strong> Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I: the Archives and the Documents‘,<br />

State Papers Online, 1509–1714, Cengage Learning, Reading 2007.<br />

59 Simon Adams, ‗<strong>The</strong> Tudor State Papers in the Yelverton, Cotton and Harleian Manuscript Collections‘,<br />

State Papers Online, 1509–1714, Cengage Learning, Reading, 2009.<br />

60 Stephen Alford, ‗<strong>The</strong> Collection <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Cecil</strong> Papers, Hatfield House, Hertfordshire‘, State Papers Online,<br />

1509–1714, Cengage Learning EMEA Ltd, Reading, 2009.<br />

61 Stephen Alford, ‗State Papers <strong>of</strong> Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I‘.<br />

13

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!