Oedipus Censored: Censurae of Athanasius Kircher’s Works in the Roman Archive of the Society of Jesus (2004)

Daniel Stolzenberg

This chapter sketches the origins and development of the debate over the notion of a uniform and solid doctrine and its impact on Jesuit philosophy. More precisely, it outlines how Jesuits thought about and actually exercised censorship in philosophy, how much liberty of philosophizing they allowed for, and what institutional means they established to enforce solidity and uniformity in doctrine.

During the middle ages and renaissance, Western attitudes to censorship were determined principally by Christianity, the hegemonic religious and political discourse in Europe. While the religions of the Hellenistic and Roman world, within which Christianity was born and developed, were concerned for the proper performance of religious ritual, the earliest documents of Christianity – like those of Judaism, from which it sprang – were even more deeply motivated by a concern to identify, articulate and maintain correct beliefs (“orthodoxy”). Accordingly, Christian censorship represents an attempt to control both inward beliefs and their outward expression. The word “censorship” can refer to customs or laws that prohibit the expression of certain opinions, to the legal processes through which conformity to such norms is achieved (whether before or after publication), or to the punishments imposed on those who refuse to conform. It is essentially an imposition of authority for the purpose of creating agreement or silencing dissent. This article first explores medieval mechanisms of censorship, then describes the new institutions and practices of censorship developed in response to the invention of printing and the Protestant Reformation. Finally, it briefly describes some important medieval and renaissance thinkers and writers whose work was subject to ecclesiastical or state censorship.

This chapter discusses one of the manifestations of crude intolerance in Late Antiquity, the proscription of sacred texts, a phenomenon that could be analyzed by means of the paradigms of confrontation and interaction. I use here the term “proscription” to refer to a variety of actions aimed at controlling book circulation by political and ecclesiastical authorities. This control may include censorship, banning, confiscation, and ceremonial burning. The word comes from the Latin proscriptio, plural proscriptiones, posted lists with the names of citizens who were declared outlaws during the civil wars of the late Republic. Proscribed citizens were killed or sent into exile and their properties confiscated, while those who sheltered them were severely punished. By extension, the term is used to denote violent forms of political repression, and I would extend it to the field of religion, which, in Antiquity, is inseparable from the political sphere. As will be shown in this chapter, the suppression of sacred texts, which involved the conviction of their authors and severe penalties for those who harbored them, formed part of a coordinated strategy between Church and state to eliminate religious– political rivals. Conflict and competition involved books both as instruments and as victims of intolerance, implicating several actors (political and ecclesiastical authorities, intellectuals, and common people), and showing that the methods of repression were shared among various religious groups in their attempt to eliminate the “other.” As will be seen, osmosis and continuity dominate in this facet of late antique religious conflict.

Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu (2004): 3-52. OEDIPUS CENSORED: CENSURAE OF ATHANASIUS KIRCHER'S WORKS IN THE ARCHIVUM ROMANUM SOCIETATIS IESU Daniel Stolzenberg• I. Introduction In 1601, in order to maintain the "soundness and uniformity of doctrine"' required by the Constitutions of the Society ofJesus,2 General 3 Claudio Acquaviva established the College of Revisors, a panel of five theologians charged with overseeing the review of all prospective publications by Jesuit authors. In the middle decades of that century, the The author is a post-doctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin. His doctoral dissertation for the Department of History at Stanford Unviersity was entitled "Egyptian Oedipus: Antiquarianism, Oriental Studies, and Occult Philosophy in Athanasius Kircher's Hieroglyphic Studies." He is also the editor of 11,e Great Art ofKnowing: 1be Baroque Encyclopedia ofAthanasius Kircher (Stanford: Stanford University Libraries, 2001). This article uses the following abbreviations: APUG • Archive of the Pontifical University Gregoriana, Rome; BNP • Bibliotheque Nationale Paris; BNVE - Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emanuele, Rome; OA • Athanasius Kircher, Oedipus Aegyptiacus, 3 vols. in 4 parts (Rome, 1652-54); OP - Athanasius Kircher, Obeliscus Pamphilius (Rome, 1650). 1 On the use of this expression see Ugo Baldini, Legem Impone Subactis. Studi su filosofza e scienza dei Gesuiti in Italia 1540-1632 (Rome: Bulzoni, 1992), eh. 2 (originally published as "Una Fonte poco utilizzata per la storia intellettuale: le 'censurae librorum' e 'opinionum' nell'antica Compagnia di Gesu," Annali dell'Istituto Storico Italo-Germanico in Trento 11 [1985] 19-67) p. 105, n. 6. 2 See Ignatius Loyola, The Constitutions of the Society ofJesus, ed. and trans. George E. Ganss, S.J. (St. Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1970) [273], p. 161. 3 ,.14.ix.1543 Atri; SJ 22.vii.1567 Rome; elected general 19.ii.1581; t31.i.1615 Rome (DHC], II, 1614-15). 3 4 OEDIPUS CENSORED 4 German scholar Athanasius Kircher became one of the Society's most famous members, achieving success primarily through his role as author. Of the more than thirty works that he published in the course of his eclectic authorial career, documents relating to sixteen survive among the Censurae Librorum in the Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu. 5 This article prints the judgments (censurae) of two of these works, Obeliscus Pamphilius (1650} and Oedipus Aegyptiacus (1652-54}, followed by excerpts from two letters by Kircher to Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc from the 1630s, in which he describes the influence that the threat of ecclesiastical censorship had on the conception of the Oedipus. I analyse this material in another 6 study, which the present article is intended to complement. Born in 1601 or 1602 in Geisa, a village in the central German principality of Fulda, Kircher studied and later taught at Jesuit schools in 7 Fulda, Mainz, Paderborn, Koblenz, and Wiirzburg. In 1631 he fled the Protestant armies then invading Wiirzburg and found refuge in Avignon, teaching at the local Jesuit college for two years, until he was transferred to the Collegio Romano in Rome, where he remained until his death in 1680. Kircher, who taught both mathematics and Oriental languages, is famous for the vast range of his scholarly interests. E gyp t and the 8 hieroglyphs were arguably his most enduring intellectual passion, 4 5 2.v.1601/02 Geisa; SJ 2.x.1618 Paderborn; t27.xi.1680 Rome (DHC], m, 2196). See the appendix for an inventory. To arrive at this figure, I count the multi-volume Musurgia Universalis, Oedipus Aegyptiacus, and Mundus Subterraneus as single works, but count the Itinerarium Exstaticum and Iter Extaticum II separately. Judgments are extant of both the first edition of the Magnes and the revised edition of 1654, which I count as separate works. One of the censored works, Aegyptiacae Antiquae sive Coptae Linguae Thesaurus, is an outline of Kircher's forthcoming Lingua Aegyptiaca (for which judgments do not survive). It appeared as an appendix to the 1636 Prodromus Coptus, but I count it as a separate work. 6 Daniel Stolzenberg, "Utility, Edification, and Superstition: Jesuit Censorship and Athanasius Kircher's Oedipus Aegyptiacus," in 1beJesuits IL· Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts J 5401713, ed. John O'Malley, S.J., et. al. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, forthcoming). 7 There is ambiguity concerning the year of Kircher's birth: his autobiography and much of the recent literature give 1602, but the records at ARSI give 1601 (e.g. ARSI, Rom. 57, f. 153•; Rom. 58, f. ts•; Rom. 59, ff. 12', 1981, as does Kircher himself in Magnes, sive, De Arte Magnetica (Cologne, 1643), after index. On Kircher's life, the main source is his autobiography, Vita, in Athanasius Kircher, Fasciculus Epistolarum, ed. H. Langenmantel (Augusburg, 1684), which forms the basis of the biography by Conor Reilly, Athanasius Kircher: A Master ofa Hundred Arts, 1602-1680 (Wiesbaden: Edizioni de! Mondo, 197 4). 8 His first E5Yptian works focused on Coptic: Prodromus Coptus (Rome, 1636) and Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta (Rome, 1643). Kircher returned to hieroglyphs and Egyptian antiquities in two books published after ObeliscusPamphilius and Oedipus Aegyptiacus: Obelisci Aegyptiaci DANIEL STOLZENBERG 5 occupying his attention from his youth in Germany until the last decade of his life. But magnetism, musicology, geology, Lullism, medicine, chronology, antiquities, and linguistics are only a sample of the other subjects to which he devoted studies. In his diverse endeavors, Kircher combined innovation and tradition and sought a balance between his often unconventional ideas and the demands of onhodoxy-with mixed success. As much a creative compiler as an original thinker, and inclined more toward bold conjecture than critical analysis, Kircher has not been universally esteemed by posterity {although currently his stock is rising).9 Without question, however, he was one of the most successful intellectuals of his time: his fame was worldwide, as was his readership, which embraced leading scholars, as well as a broad audience of popular and elite amateurs; in 1661 he entered into a lucrative, long-term publishing contract with the Amsterdam firm of Jansson and Weyerstraet; a visit to his museum at the Collegio Romano became obligatory for curiosi touring Rome; and his patrons included some of Europe's most powerful princes. 10 The Oedipus and its companion volume, Obeliscus Pamphilius, were Kircher's solution to the riddle of the hieroglyphs: they presented "translations" of hieroglyphic inscriptions {utterly mistaken, as subsequent Egyptology revealed) and claimed to recover the "hieroglyp hic doctrine" supposedly encoded by the enigmatic symbols. Kircher argued that hieroglyphs had been invented after the biblical flood by Hermes Trismegistus to encode and preserve the pure wisdom of the antediluvian Patriarchs; but later Egyptian priests polluted the hermetic wisdom with magic and superstition, creating a mixed legacy, which was then .•• Interpretatio Hieroglyphica (Rome, 1666) and Sphinx Mystagoga (Amsterdam, 1676). 9 For a survey of three centuries of opinion about Kircher, ending in 1982, prior to the current renaissance in Kircher studies, see Fred Brauen, •Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680)," Journal ofthe History ofIdeas 43 (1982) 129-34. to On Kircher, the most recent books are: Paula Findlen, ed., Athanasius Kircher: The Last Man Who Knew Everything (London: Routledge, forthcoming); Eugenio Lo Sardo, ed., Athanasius Kircher: II Museo del Mondo (Rome: Edizioni de Luca, 2001); Ingrid Rowland, The Ecstatic Journey: Athanasius Kircher in Baroque Rome (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); Stolzenberg, ed., The Great Art of Knowing. Also see Dino Pastine, La nascita dell'idolatria: L 'Oriente religioso di Athanasius Kircher (Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1978); Thomas Leinkauf,Mundus Combinatus: Studien zur Struktur der barocken Universalwissensd,aft am Beispiel Athanasius Kircher SJ (1602-1680} (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1993); Valerio Rivosecchi, Esotismo in Roma Barocca: Studi sul Padre Kircher (Rome: Bulzoni, 1982); John Fletcher, ed., Athanasius Kircher und seine Beziehungen zum gelehrten Europa seiner Zeit (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998); M. Casciato, et al., eds., Enciclopedismo in Roma barocca: Athanasius Kircher e ii museo del Collegio Romano tra Wunderkammer e museo scientifico (Venice: Marsilio, 1986). OEDIPUS CENSORED 6 transmitted to different civilizations. Kircher proposed to translate the hieroglyp hs by comparing the Egyptian inscriptions with texts from the far-flung traditions that he believed to contain the same teachings. To a great extent these were the esoteric traditions associated with Renaissance occult sciences and Neoplatonism: the Chaldean Oracles, the O rphic verses, the Kabbalah, the Corpus Hermeticum, and so forth. But Kircher gave pride of place to Oriental sources and claimed that he had been able to crack the hieroglyphs because of his use of hitherto untapped sources in Near Eastern languages. Thus, by their very nature, the Oedipus and Obeliscus contained lengthy discussions of "superstitious" beliefs and practices and made ample use of sources by pagans, Moslems, and Jews. 11 In the course of explaining the hieroglyphs, Kircher discussed the teachings of ancient pagan sages in terms that were often more positive than Catholic doctrine allowed and described illicit magical practices in minute detail. The reader cannot help but wonder, how was it possible for a Jesuit writer to publish such a work in Rome in the middle of the seventeenth century? The lengthy censors' reports on these works-among the most extensive that survive for any of Kircher's books-show that their contents were indeed found troubling. The documents printed here open a window affording an exceptional view of how ecclesiastical censors-in this case the Jesuit College of Revisors-viewed material pertaining to magic and non-Christian "superstitions," and how such censorship affected the author and his publication. More generally, the documents printed here may serve as an example of the form and content of Jesuit censorship; while the books in question are in many respects atypical of Jesuit literature, the judgments are representative of the range of concerns and the kinds of interventions that characterized the work of the Jesuit revisors. The documents are prefaced by a brief account of the Jesuit censorship system and relevant details pertaining to the review of the Oedipus Aegyptiacus and Obeliscus Pamphilius. An appendix gives an inventory of all documents concerning the censorship of Kircher's works among the Censurae Librorum in the Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu. Jesuit Censorship "As far as possible," Ignatius wrote in the Constitutions, Jesuits "should 11 w The terms "superstition and "superstitious,W in the early modern sense used throughout this article, refer to the moral status of beliefs and practices, not necessarily to their irrationality or inefficacy. See Stuart Clark, Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) ch. 32, esp. pp. 474-79. 7 DANIEL STOLZENBERG 12 all speak and act alike," "following one same doctrine." Thus the Society of Jesus was charged to maintain doctrinal uniformity-represented b 3 Aquinas in theology and Aristotle in philosophy-among its members. 14 Although the Jesuits practiced internal censorship since the sixteenth century {in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent, which required all members of religious orders to submit theological works to their superiors for approval), the College of Revisors was founded only in 15 1601. The rules governing the censorship of Jesuit books evolved over the 16 following decades, growing more extensive and precise. The following description describes the rules in effect at the time when Obeliscus Pamphilius and Oedipus Aegyptiacus were judged. 17 6 12 1 Loyola, Constitutions, [273], p. 161; [821], p. 336. 3 On Jesuit doctrine see Anita Mancia, •n concetto di 'dottrina' fra gli Esercizi Spirituali (1539) e la Ratio Studiorum (1599)," AHSI 61 (1992) 3-70; Baldini, Legem; Romano, "Pratiques"; See also Marcus Hellyer, •The Construction of the Ordinatio pro Studiis Superioribus of 1651; AHS/72 (2003) 3-43. 14 On Jesuit censorship, see Baldini, Legem; Marcus Hellyer,••Because the Authority of My Superior Commands': Censorship, Physics and the German Jesuits,• Early Science and Medicine 1 (1996) 319-54; Michael John Gorman, •A Matter of Faith? Christoph Scheiner, Jesuit Censorship, and the Trial of Galileo," Perspectives on Science 4 (1996) 283-320; Antonella Romano,•Pratiques d'enseignement et onhodoxie intellectuelle en milieu jesuite (deuxieme moitie du XVIe siecle)" in Orthodoxie, Christianisme, Histoire, ed. S. Elm, et al. (Rome: Ecole Fran�aise de Rome, 2000) pp. 241-60; eadem, La contre-reforme mathhnatique: constitution et diffusion d'uneculture mathbnatique jesuite la Renaissance(l 540-1640} (Rome: Ecole Fran�aise de Rome, 1999) pp. 511-15. On Kircher, see the following works that discuss the censorship of his ltinerarium Exstaticum: Carlos Ziller Camenietzk.i, •L'extase interplanetaire d' Athanasius Kircher: philosophie, cosmologie et discipline dans la Compagnie de Jesus au XVIIe siecle," Nuncius (1995) 3-32; Hellyer, ••Because the Authority of My Superior Commands'"; cf. Ingrid Rowland,•Athanasius Kircher, Giordano Bruno, and the Panspermia of the Infinite Universe," in Findlen, Athanasius Kircher, fonhcoming. Harald Sieben, •Kircher and His Critics: Censorial Practice and Pragmatic Disregard in the Society of Jesus,• in Findlen, Athanasius Kircher, fonhcoming, came to my attention as I was finishing this anicle. a 15 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, S.J., 2 vols. (Washington, nd D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990) II, 665, 8 April 1546, 2 decree. Cf. Loyola, Constitutions, [273], p. 161. Acquaviva officially established the College in 1597, but its actual formation docs not seem to have been realized until 1601. See Baldini, Legem, pp. 78, 84. 16 See Baldini, Legem, p. 87 and passim. Baldini prints the original 1601 rules of the Roman Censors at p. 85. 17 These were essentially the fifteen•Regulae Revisorum Generalum" enacted at the Tenth General Congregation in 1652, which became definitive and are printed in lnstitutum Societatis lesu (Florence, 1892-93) ID, 65-68, which is the basis for the following description. These are identical to the rules passed at the Eighth General Congregation (1645-46), with the exception 8 OEDIPUS CENSORED The College of Revisors was composed of five theologians, one representing each of the assistancies of Italy, France, Germany, Spain, and Ponugal. In addition, Jesuits who were not official members of the College of Revisors sometimes served as revisors for panicular books. 11 Works dealing with theology or controversies were treated most seriously, with the Rules of the Revisors General stipulating that such texts be read in their entirety by four revisors (with allowance for the Father General to make exceptions when fewer revisors were available). Commentaries on Holy Scripture not involving controversies, public addresses (condones ad populum}, and philosophical questions had to be read in their entirety by three revisors. Books dealing with "lighter" subjects could be read in their entirety by only two censors and panially by three others. 19 The revisors' task was to determine if a book was suitable for publication by the Society and, if so, whether it first needed to be corrected.20 When the censors agreed about a given work, they were permitted to co-sign a single opinion. But if a revisor disagreed with his colleagues or wished to add something, he could write a separate judgment. (Of the judgments printed here, the Obeliscus Pamphilius was reviewed separately by three revisors, while the different pans of the Oedipus each received a single judgment co-signed by between three and five revisors.} All judgments were addressed to the Father General, who, in cases where revisions were requested, could communicate the judgment to the author. 21 The Father General had the 22 sole authority to determine whether or not to permit publication. of the fifteenth rule, which was modified. See Baldini, Legem, p. 109, n. 42. Due to difficulties caused by geographical distance, censorship in the provinces came to be practiced differently, with the reviewing taking place locally, rather than in Rome, as recognized formally in the revised fifteenth rule; see Hellyer, "'Because the Authority of My Superior Commands,'• 324. The description I give here describes the process experienced by an author like Kircher who resided in Rome. For the congregational decrees themselves, see John W. Padbe rg, S.J., et al., For Matters ofGreater Moment: 11,eFirst ThirtyJesuit General Congregations. A BriefHistory and a Translation ofthe Decrees (St. Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1994) decree 11, p. 317. 18 In particular, technical books on subjects not dealing with theology or philosophy, such as mathematics or history, could be sent to competent outside revisors, as could literary works not touching on doctrine (Baldini, Legem, p. 86). These particulars were not, however, codified in the Rules of the Revisors General. 19 20 21 22 Rule 2, /nstitutum, m, 66. Rule 3, lnstitutum, m, 66. Baldini, Legem, p. 86. Rule 5, /nstitutum, m, 66. DANIEL STOLZENBERG 9 In judging the orthodoxy of submitted works, the Rules instructed the revisors especially to observe the Ratio Studiorum, but familiarity with papal bulls and briefs, decrees of the Holy Office, other congregations, and the Master of the Sacred Palace, as well as opinions of inquisitors and universities, were also deemed necessary to their enterprise. Nothing was to be allowed that did not agree with the common sense of the schools and doctors, was "not entirely congruent with Christian faith and piety," might cause offence, or harm the reputation of the Society. Thus, in theory, no "new opinions disagreeing with common doctrine" or anything that "overturns the common reasons which theologians confirm about Christian dogma" were permitted. In particular, theological matters could not diverge from St. Thomas.23 The Rules explicitly state that the revisors were only to judge whether propositions could be taught in the Society's schools or published in books by its members; they were not to infringe on the territory of the Holy Office by declaring opinions to be heretical.24 After internal approval, Jesuit books, like all others, had to be approved by the regular censors, in the case of Rome by the Master of the Sacred Palace:5 In order to maintain the Society's reputation, the revisors were also to monitor the quality of Jesuit books and enforce a code of authorial decorum. The Rules required that books be useful and edifying, that authors should not seem to be merely repeating things that others have alreadr written, and that books should be "better than average" in their kind.2 They also restricted works on certain topics that might offend princes, and instructed that authors writing against heretics should control their tone so that it was neither too harsh nor too mild.27 (This principle could also be applied to scientific "heresies," as when the revisor Honore 23 Rules 6-7, 12, lnstitutum, m, 66-68. The various studies of Jesuit censorship of natural philosophy cited in this article (see above, n. 14) collectively demonstrate the tremendous difficulty that the Society faced, both in defining concretely the orthodox doctrine that its Constitution required its members to uphold, and in enforcing that orthodoxy by means of censorship. In reality, the range of expression permitted to Jesuit authors was broader than these rules suggest. 24 Rule 4, lnstitutum, m, 66. 25 See Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Appleton, 1911) X, 39-40, s.v. "Master of the Sacred Palace" (R. Walsh). 26 Rule 8, Jnstitutum, III, 67. 27 Rule 7, lnstitutum, ill, 67. 10 OEDIPUS CENSORED 21 Fabri asked Kircher to soften the overly sharp language with which he reproved a thcorrof Descartes's, since it might offend readers who adhered to that theory.6') In particular, Jesuit writers were to be polite and respectful toward other Jesuit authors, as well as to Catholic doctors from 30 outside the order. The reviewing of the Oedipus and Obeliscus coincided with the formulation and implementation of the Ordinatw pro studiis superioribus of 1651, which contained a list of propositions that were banned from being defended in Jesuit schools, and which were used as a guide by the Father Revisors.31 There was little direct overlap, however, between the opinions in the Ordinatw and the contents of the Oedipus and Obe/iscus-which unlike many Jesuit scholarly publications had no relation to the Jesuit curriculum-and the Ordinatu, was never invoked by the revisors in their reports on these works. As the first rule of the Revisors General makes clear, the fundamental purpose of Jesuit censorship was to maintain the "soundness and uniformity of doctrine,• in other words, to police the theological and philosophical orthodoxy of Jesuit publications. But scholarly quality and authorial decorum were hardly secondary maners, as can be seen in the documents printed here, which evince as much concern for these issues as for the maintenance of orthodoxy. Kircher's works that generated the most controversy due to heterodox material-the anti-Aristotelian ltinerarium Exstaticum and the Oedipus Aegyptiacus with its detailed descriptions of illicit magical practices and overly enthusiastic accounts of pagan 21 •8.iv.1608 Virieu-le-Grand; SJ 9.x.1626 Avignon; t8.iii.l688 Rome (DHCJ, II, 1368). 29 Honore Fabri, judgment of new edition of Kircher's Mapes, 14 August 1652, ARSI, Fondo Gcsuitico 668, f. 393' (Appendix, 21): •paulo acrius appellat D. Des Chutes pag. 63. dum ait ilium opinionem quandam ab inferis suscitasse, hie loquendi modus nonnullos, offendet, qui huic opinioni forte adhaerent. • Fabri may have been thinking of himself, as he accepted some Cartesian ideas in his own work, which consequently engendered controversy. See Diction,,ry ofScientific Biography (New York: Scribner's, 1970-90) IV, 505-07, s.v. •Fabri, Honore• (E.A. Fellmann). Kircher himself was better disposed toward Descartes elsewhere, as in his ltinerariNm Exsr,,tic1'm, where he adopted the Cartesian notion of vortices to explain the planetary ether and cited Descartes's Principes as a work that confirmed his own astronomical theories. See Ziller Cameoietz.i, •L'extase: 14. 30 Rule 9, lnstitutum, m, 67. 31 On the Ordinatio, see Hellyer, •Construction of the Ordioatio•; Hellyer, ••Because the Authority of My Superior Commands;• 328ff; Claudio Costantini, Baliani t i Gtsuiti (Florence: Giusti Barbera, 1969) PP· 106ff. The Ordinatio is printed in G. M. Pachder 1 Ratio Studiorum et lnstitutiones Scholasticae Societatis Jesu, 4 vols. (Berlin: A. Hoffman & Comp., 1887-94) m, 77-98; and lnstitutum, m, 235-49. DANIEL STOLZENBERG 11 theologies-ultimately were allowed to be published with most of their questionable material intact. The four works by Kircher that we know to have been rejected, at least upon their initial submission, were all condemned for non-doctrinal reasons. In 1657 Kircher's plague treatise Scrutinium Pestis was declared unfit for print "since the most part of the things contained in it are common and obvious enough" and because it treated medicine, on which Kircher was not qualified to write.32 The Ars Magna Sciendi was unanimously rejected by five revisors in 1660 because "the author does not seem to fulfill the very maner that he promises .... For it does not seem that by this art, as is proposed by the author, it is possible to completely, much less easily, attain [knowledge of] any science: since the art itself can only be understood by an already learned man. Indeed," continued the revisors, "certain things in it are said so obscurely and perplexingly that they cannot even be understood by learned men. "33 The revisors ruled that the publication of the Di.atribe de Prodigiis Crucibus should be postponed since the phenomenon that it considered (apparitions of crosses in Naples following an eruption of Vesuvius) was too recent to allow Kircher to make a satisfactory analysis.34 Finally, Kircher's antiquarian study of Tuscany, lter Etruria, was declared irreparably flawed due to shoddy 32 Judgment of Scrutinium Pestis, 4 May 1657, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 661, f. 31' (Appendix, 27). The work was subsequently allowed to be printed after it had been approved by medical experts from outside the order, as had been proposed by a dissenting revisor; see ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 133' (Appendix, 31). Athanasius Kircher, Scrutinium Physico Medicum Contagiosae Luis, Quae Pestis Dicitur (Rome, 1658). 33 •0pus P. Athansii Kirkeri [sic], inscriptum {Ars magna sciendj} quod P ... V[ost]ra nobis revidendum commisit, non censemus expectationi respondere, aut cum Soc.'" autorisve [sic] existimatione in lucem edi posse. [1] �: quia reipsa non videtur praestare, quod eo in opere Mundo pollicetur autor [sic]. Neque enim apparet, per eam artem, ut ab autore [sic] proponitur, posse quenquam absolute, multo facile, ad ullam pervenire scientiam: ars ipsa nisi ab homine iam erudito possit intelligi; immo quaedam in ea tam obscure ac perplexe dicantur, ut ne quidem a doctis intelligantur.• Judgment of Ars Magna Sciendi, 15 May 1660, ARSI, Fondo Gesutico 663, f. 135' (Appendix, 32). Ars Magna Sciendi was later approved (the judgment does not survive at ARSI; according to the imprimaturs published in the book, General Gian paolo Oliva approved the first half on 1 September 1665, the second on 19 July 1666) and it was published in 1669. At the front of the published work, Kircher included two judgments (iudicia) by outsiders in praise of the work, which he may have solicited in an effort to appeal the revisors' original verdict. Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Scimdi (Amsterdam, 1669). minus cum 34 ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, ff. 306"" (Appendix, 33). The revisors allowed that Kircher misht ignore their recommendation and decide to publish risht away, and in this event requested specific changes. Kircher did just that and the book appeared in 1661. Athanasius Kircher, Diatribe de Prodigiosis Crucibus (Rome, 1661). 12 OEDIPUS CENSORED scholarship. "Not only does the work not surpass [the level of] mediocrity," one revisor declared with reference to the eighth Rule, "it does not even attain [that level].•35 The Judgments of Obeliscus Pamphilius and Oedipus Aegyptiacus Obe/iscus Pamphilius was submitted for review and approved in 1649. Oedipus Aegyptiacus, which was published in three pans and sent to the press over a period of several years, was submitted to the Father Revisors in four installments between 1652 and 1654. In addition a synopsis of the entire work called "Idea Oedipi" was submitted for review in December of 1651. All the judgments approve the works in question but require many changes to make them fit for publication, with the unique exception of one judgment of Obeliscus Pamphilius, which granted unconditional approval.36 Although it is possible to identify the handwriting of the jointly signed judgments, one may not infer that they were composed by that revisor and merely co-signed by others, rather than synthesized from opinions supplied by different revisors. Nine revisors, in various combinations, reviewed the different volumes of the Obe/iscus Pamphilius and Oedipus Aegyptiacus, and 35 •Libcr P. Athanasii Kircheri inscriptus lter Hetruscum meo iudicio non solum non superat mediocritatem, sed neque ad illam pervenire mihi videtur ...Ex quibus omnibus cum libcr appareat, in multis falsus, mutilus, rerum inverisimilium descriptor, et tanta offensiones procreaturus, cogor affirmare, quod ab initio dixi, librum non assequi mediocritatem: ltaque eius editionem nocivam fore etiam societat� et potissimum ipsi Patri Athanasio viro de universa Republica Literaria adeo bcnemerito, qui non solum se ipsum sed Religionem nostram, sed praeter hoc s[a]eculum tot editis de rebus arcanis libris tam glorise illustravit.• Domenico Ottolini, Judgment of lier Etruria, 12 November 1660: ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 3 14' (Appendix, 34). Nick Wilding has called anention to a lener from Kircher to Leopoldo de' Medici {16 April 1661, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Firenze, Ms. Galileiano, 276, f. 128, printed in Alfonso Mino, •Le Lenere di Athanasius Kircher della Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze; Atti e Memorie dell'Aroulemia Toscana di Scienze e Lmn-e La Colombaria, [1989] LIV, (Nuove Serie, 40), pp.140-41) stating that the work, •fmalmente e assoluto ed approvato doppo una rigorosa e longa censura,• which suggestS that even this work may have been subsequently approved, though no such judgment survives. Although Kircher continued his effons to see the work published until the last years of his life, and apparently sent the text to his publisher in Amsterdam in 1678, it never appeared. For additional references to this saga see Nick Wilding, •writing the Book of Nature: Natural Philosophy and Communication in Early Modern Europe• (Unpublished Ph.D. diss.: European University Institute, Florence, 2000) ch. 3, n.92; ch. 4, n. 9 1; cf.John Fletcher, •Athanasius Kircher: A Man Under Pressure; in Athanasius Kircher 11nd seine Bezieh11ngen z11m gelehrten Europa seiner Zeit, ed.John Fletcher (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1988) p. 4. Also see Kircher's letters to Langenmantel, 24 June 1670 and 29 March 1676, in Kircher, Fasciadus Epistolarum, pp. 39, 67, In the 1676 letter, Kircher refers to the work by the title Atlas 11,ufs}cus sive Universalis Hetruriae Descriptio. 36 ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, f.395' (Document 2). See details below. 13 DANIELSTOUENBERG three Generals, Florent de Montmorency,37 Alessandro Gottifredi,38 and Goswin Nickel,39 approved the works for publication. Although individual personalities and private relationships without doub1 played a significant role in the process, the overall character of most of the judgments, as well as the decisions made by the different generals, is notably consistent. These judgments demonstrate the great care and seriousness of purpose that could characterize the work of the Father Revisors; but, at the same time, they betray the limits of the censorship process. Comparing the judgments to the printed works, for example, one can see that while sections of a book were read and commented on meticulously, other equally problematic sections were not, perhaps due to limitations of time.«> Furthermore, it was one thing for the revisors to request changes to a manuscript and quite another to make the author obey-at least in the case of an author like Kircher, who was favored by the leadership of the Society and enjoyed relations with powerful patrons, such as Pope Innocent X and Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand m (the respective supporters of Obeliscus Pamphilius and the Oedipus). Kircher was highly selective in following the orders of the Father Revisors and, apparently protected by the Father General, sent his works to press without addressing many of their most serious concerns.41 The second volume of OedipusAegyptiacus, which was sent to the revisors and then to the press in two parts, offers a unique opportunity to view precisely how Kircher reacted to the revisors' requests for changes, since its manuscript survives at the National Library in 37 m, •18.ix.1580 Douai;SJ 25.iii.1599 Toumai; t12.viii.1659 Lille (DHC], 2733}. He was Vicar General between 8 June and 3 December 1649. 38 •3.iv.1595 Rome; SJ 26.ii.1609 Rome; elected general 21.i.1652; t12.iii.1652 Rome (DHCJ, Il, 1630-31). 39 •t.v.1584 Koslar; SJ 3.iv.1604 Trier; elected general 17.iii.1652; t31.vi.1664 Rome (DHC], Il, 1631). 40 More generally, it should be understood that not every book was reviewed as carefully as the ones treated here. For example, Kircher's Mus11,gia Univenalis and M11ndm S11bterraneus (at least the sections for which censorship documents survive) were approved perfunctorily, without corrections (see citations in Appendix). While these books were less problematic than the Oedipus, they nonetheless contained material that one might expect to have raised the censors' eyebrows-for example, the Paracelsian recipe (accompanied, of course, by a condemnation) for fabricating a hom11nadus or anificial man. See Athanasius Kircher, M11ndus Subtma�1 (AmsterdAm, H,65) II, 279. 41 See Stolzenberg, •utility, Edification, and Supersition.n 14 OEDIPUS CENSORED 2 Rome.◄ This manuscript bears the changes that Kircher made after the revisors issued their opinions, and in the notes to the judgments of these two volumes I describe Kircher's revisions by comparing the judgments, the manuscript, and the printed books. After a work had been corrected by an author, the revisors would review the corrections and, if they found them satisfactory, sign a statement cenifying their final approval. In the case of Obeliscus Pamphilius and Oedipus Aegyptiacus, despite the apparently complete series of judgments, only one such attestation about revisions survives (for Oedipus I). When the Father General received such an attestation, he would issue his imprimatur stating that, since the work had been read and approved by 3 theologians of the order, it could be published.◄ While previous studies of Jesuit censorship, including those that treat Kircher, have focused mostly on the domain of natural science, the case documented here shows how the Society responded to the exposition of heterodox ideas from the realms of magic, esoteric literature, and non Christian teachings and rituals. Such topics were permitted, but the revisors expressed grave concerns about the manner in which they were presented. In panicular, they demanded that Kircher obey cenain linguistic rules when discussing heterodox material, in order to make clear to the reader that these beliefs were false and dangerous and that he did not 42 BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235. This consists of the fair copies of pans 1 and 2 of OA II that were submitted to the revison and subsequently corrected and sent to the printer. (It also includes a few loose, unidentified sheets from the otherwise lost manuscript of 0A m.) Some pans are missing but the majority of the manuscript is intaet. The ten is in the hand of an amanuensis, with corrections added by Kircher. A note deposited with the manuscript, signed by Boleslaw Szcezniak in 1952, erroneously describes it as a post-publication copy from "ca. 1670, •evidently prepared for the second edition of Oedip,u Aegyptiaau.• (To my knowledge, no such reprint was ever projected, much less carried out.) Unfonunately this mistake has been carried over into bibliographies, such as that in Lo Sardo, Museo dd Mondo. The manuscript bean page numben corresponding exactly to the revison' judgments and printer's marks corresponding to the signatures of the printed edition, demonstrating beyond doubt its true identity. Ms. Ges. 1235, which is unbound, currently bean three different foliations: the original foliation of the individual treatises iclassesj that make up the two volumes; the foliation of the complete volumes in the state in which they were sent to the printer; and the foliation given in pencil by the modem collator of the codex at the Biblioteca Nazionale, which corresponds to the current imperfect state of the manuscript. The citations given by the revison refer sometimes to the first of these, sometimes to the second. The citations in this anicle employ the last, unless othewise indicated. 0 Although the different parts of the Oedip,u Aegyptwc,u were reviewed and approved independently between 1652 and 16541 the printed book bean a single imprimatur from General Goswin Nickel, applying to all three books, dated 1655, and placed in the fint volume. DANIELSTOUENBERG 15 subscribe to them. A notewonhy distinction is visible between the revisors' reactions to heterodox beliefs and their reactions to heterodox practices. In general, they were more tolerant toward the former, allowing such beliefs to be discussed so long as the appropriate disclaimers were present. When it came to superstitious practices, on the other hand, they repeatedly ruled that such matters could only be treated in a cursory manner and in cenain cases were unfit for publication in any form. 44 All of the judgments printed below are found in volume 668 of the series Censurae Librorum in the Fondo Gesuitico of the Archivum Romanum Societatis lesu, although not in the order in which they were issued. They are presented below chronologically. II. The Documents45 1. Judgment of Obeliscus Pamphilius, Honore Fabri, 2 November 1649, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, f. 394'"•. Comments: Honore Fabri taught philosophy and mathematics at Lyon before being called to Rome as theologian of the Sacred Penitentiary and was a prolific author.46 He was not a member of the College of Revisors. (Obeliscus Pamphilius, which was also reviewed by non-member Leone Santi47 and member Nicolaus Wysing,48 is the only one of the volumes in question to be reviewed by readers who did not hold the position of Revisor General.) Fabri describes the book as "stuffed with much erudition and choice literature" and wonhy to be published, but asks for significant modifications. In panicular, Fabri expresses concern that Kircher attributes too much to non-Christian sources, such as rabbis, Arabs, and the Egyptians. 44 This is a summary of conclusions discussed at greater length inStolzenberg, •utility, Edification, and Superstition.• 45 A note on the transcriptions:Shorthand for•pert •pro,• and final m's and n's have been silently expanded; j has been transcribed as i; and u's and v's have been normalized. The punctuation and capitalization of the originals have been preserved. The following notations are used: < ... > - illegible; <text> - uncertain reading; [text] - interpolation.Sometimes the documents employ brackets to indicate quotation; I have used the symbols { } to avoid confusion with the notation for interpolated text. m, 46 Sommerwgel, cols. 511-21; DHC], II, 1368; E. Caruso, •Honore Fabri, gesuita e scienzato• in Miscella1U!a ser:entesca. Saggi su Descartes, Fabri, White (Milan: Universita di Milano, 1987) pp. 85-126. 47 ,.1585 Siena: SJ 17.xii.1601: t3/4.ii.1652 (SommmJOgel, VD, col. 590). 8 4 •26.ii.1601 Lucerne;SJ 13.x.1616 Landsberg; t22.ix.1672 Munich (DHC], IV, 4055). 16 OEDIPUS CENSORED Ego infrascriptus, admodum R.di Patris nostri vicarii generalis iussu, legi librum (cui titulus Obe liscus Pamphil ius etc.) a R.c1o Patre Athanasio Kircherio scriptum, eumque multa eruditone, et selecta literatura ubertim refertum esse comperi, ac proinde dignum censeo, qui in lucem edatur, nonnulla tamen vel mollienda, vel castiganda, vel penitus expungenda esse existimo. Primo desiderarem ut paulo modestius de se, ac de suo opere autor [sic] loqueretur, qui passim sed potissimum in Epistola ad Lectorem, immo in ipso operis titulo, m olimen insolens esse dicit. reshu mano inwuo hactenus impervias. i&notas fuisse hucusq.µe hiem&bdicas [sic] now, etc. Secundo nollem tantum tribueret, rabinis [sic] atque arabibus quorum scripta nihil nisi fabulas olent (si philosophos, medicos, ac mathematicos excipias) quos tamen ipse non raro aliis authoribus primae notae praeferre videtur, ut Ruffino, Gretsero, Lypsio, etc. praesertim in Hieroglyphico • cruets ansatae.49 Tertio quaedam ut recta ac indubitata proponit, quae satis esset adstruere probabilia v. g. Chamum eundem esse cum Zoroastre; Noemum in Italiam venisse; Trismegistum regnasse in Italia, eumque lovis Pici esse filium; ab Ibide didicisse non modo literarum [in the margin: "hierog. 14"] conformationem, verum etiam subtiliores artes, v. g. arithmeticam, Geometriam, etc. 1. 5. c. 2. Quarto plus iusto tribuere videtur, tum Aegyptiis, tum symbolicae arti, tum etiam ipsis notis et symbolis; ridebit forte aliquis, dum audiet, Aristotelem ab obeliscis suam philosophiam accepisse; unius obelisci, qui pauca symbola continet, expositionem, vix tribus iustis voluminibus [in the margin: "hierog. 15"] comprehendi posse; upupam, hoc est foedissimam volucrem, [3941; [in the margin: "hierog. 16"] tot laudibus cumulatam; scarabeum, vile insectum [in the margin: "in anaceph. "] Mavorti homerico anteponendum; etc. Quinto nonnulla tantulum molliri peroptarem; nempe durius est, audire toties, anima mundi; numen triforme; Trismegistum per revelationem multa accepisse, solem moderatorem orbis; novas stellas et cometas marti esse tribuendas:, [sic] coelum esse animal, quod authoritate Aristotelis confirmat: circa Deum omnia esse; spiritum sanctum mentem Dici; nos non agere, sed � a Deo; Trismegistum sanctum fuisse, quantumvis authorem multarum superstitionum magicarum; ab eo Mosem didicisse, 49 Tyrannius Rufinus (c. 34s-410)1 Ecclesiastical History; Jacob Gre�r, S.J. 1 Opcr11 Omnia de Sanct,:, Cruce Accurate Recognir,:, (Ingolstadt, 1616); Justus Lipsius, De Cruce Libri Tres ad Sacram Profanamque Historiam Utiles (Rome, 1595). See OP, pp. 364-78. DANIELSTOUENBERG 17 quae de verbo incamando tenuit: Deum fieri sensibilem; coelum lunae non esse planetarium; plures mundos pro diversis eiusdem partibus usurpari; lucem dici servatorem mundi etc. Sexto, aliqua prorsus expungenda esse indico; scilicet [in the margin: "hierog. 13."] quod dicit, per columbam singificari hominem invidum, sceleratum, benefactoribus suis infestum, etc. quod dicit thyrsum in bembina tabula sexies positum esse mysterium maximum in rerum natura: quod ponit coelum empyreum in medio mundo coelesti; quod elicit verum esse omnia in omnibus esse; quod lineam curvam concavae opponit. 2. Nov. 1649. ita censeo Honoratus Fabri Societatis Jesu. 2. Judgment of Obeliscus Pamphilius, Leone Santi, 11 November 1649, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, f. 395•. Comments: Leone Santi taught grammar, philosophy, mathematics, and dogmatic theology in Rome. From 1643 to 1652 he was prefect of studies 0 at the Collegio Romano. 5 This is the only one of the judgments in question that grants unconditional approval, requiring no revisions before publication. Santi and Kircher were colleagues on friendly terms. They had recently collaborated on barometric experiments,5 1 and in 1650, after the Obeliscus Pamphilius had been approved, Santi wrote to Kircher regarding the planning of a festival celebrating the Pamphilian obelisk.52 This censure was printed by Kircher with the frontmatter of the Obeliscus Pamphilius, the only judgment (for obvious reasons) to receive such treatment. Kircher thanked Santi for his support in the acknowledgments to the Obeliscus Pamphilius.53 Legi librum, qui inscribitur Obeliscus Panfilius [sic] auctore P. Athanasio Kircherio Socie. Iesu, eumque iudico publica luce dignissimum propter admirabilem abstrusissimarum rerum eruditionem, linguarumque peritiam, et erutam e sepulcris secretiorem sapientiam Aegyptiorum. novum saeculi nostri repertum. 11. nov. 1649 Leo Sanctius Societ. Iesu. so Sommerwgel, VII, cols. 590.94, who is unsui:e of the date of his death; Ricardo Garcia Villoslada, S.J., Storia del Collegio Romano dal suo inizio (1 JJ 1) alJa suppressione della Compagnia di (1773} (Rome: Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 1954) p. 323. Gesu SI sz S) Nicolo Zucchi, Now de Machinis Philosophia (Rome, 1649) pp. 103-04 . Santi to Kircher in Rome, Frascati 21 February 1650, APUG, 567, ff. 43'"'. OP, p. c1'. OEDIPUS CENSORED 18 3. Judgment of Obeliscus Pamphilius, Nicolaus Wysing, 17 November 1649, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 390•·•. Comments: Nicolaus Wysing taught grammar, philosophy, theology, Holy Scripture, controversies, and ethics. In 1647 he was called to Rome as the German revisor, a post he held until late 1652 or early 1653, when he left to become the rector of the Jesuit colleges first at Dillingen and then at Altotting. He published works on theology as well as Aristotelian natural philosophy.S4 In his judgment, Wysing writes that the Obeliscus Pamphilius may be published "for the benefit of philologists and the honor of the Society, as it is cenainly a treasure-trove, and stuffed with every [kind of] recondite erudition and marvelous knowledge of strange things." But he calls first for significant revisions. His criticisms run the gamut from the author's lack of modesty and mistakes in the text (such as inadequate Latin translations of quotations from Oriental languages) to worries about heterodox material and concern not to offend a princely family. Panicularly interesting is the advice that Wysing gives Kircher about the correct language that he should use to describe superstitious and heterodox material in a manner that can be approved for publication, including a list of disclaimers to be placed at the beginning of the work. At the beginning of the judgment, Wysing refers to the changes called for in the text as "beyond those which I have discussed personally with the author," giving evidence of a face-to-face dimension of the censorship process and suggesting a relative openness between revisors and authors at the Collegio Romano, despite the secrecy required by the eleventh Rule of the Revisors General. Legi librum, qui inscribitur Obeliscus Pamphilius, a Athanasio Kirchero compositum, iudicoque omnino dignum qui in bonum Lineratorum, ac pro honore societatis, imprimatur: tanquam nimirum opus praedarum, atque omni eruditione recondita, rerumque peregrinarum admiranda peritia refenum; quoque auctor intentum tam abstrusae, atque in hoc orbe hactenus nunquam cognitae lnterpretationis Hieroglyphicae perquam feliciter assequatur. Habet quidem liber aliquam, ex tanta rerum variarum allegatione, confusionem; sed quae neque facile possit emendari neque similibus philologis sit inusitata, neque librum ipsum vehementer commaculet. Re reliquo, ut ea cum estimatione liber prodeat qua dignus est, animadvenenda quaedam hoc loco duxi, praeter ea quae cum auctore 54 Som merwgel, VIII, cols. 1309-11; DHCJ, IV1 4055; BNVE, Ms. Ges. 16661 ff. 11 •-12•, This last manuscript is a list of office-holders, including the Revisors Genenl, at the Collegio Romano during the time of the old Society. DANIEL STOLZENBERG 19 privatim contuli. Sunt autem sequentia: plurimis locis deest sensus, et alicubi apparet notabilem aliquam partem ab amanuente omissam. Frequenter deficit Latina versio eorum quae ex linguis orientalibus adducuntur, qualia tamen quivis intelligere decideret. Nimius est subinde auctor in repetendis quae iam prius, etiam non longo intervallo dixerat. In epist. dedicator ad Papam fa. 1. fi. dicit, Innocentium ordinatum ad nocentium extirpationem. Mallem hie oppositionem aliam, ne quis malevolus suspicetur auctorem male ominari 55 Domui Farnes... Epistola ad lectorem est aequo magis gloriabunda. Videtur ostendendum etiam pluribus, quod auctor omnia Deo tribuat, quodque contra spem viam priores lucubrationes a Doctis tantopere fuerint commendatae. a Trismegistum alicubi e:xtollit, tanquam purum superstitione; alibi vero ostendit ritus vanissimos ab eodem commendari, Deos sensibiles admitti. u•56 Li. 1 fo. 4 fa. 1. fin. putat periculosum in fide, dubitare an Enoch libros scripserit. Videndum quo fundamento nitatur haec opinio. Eodem lib. a fo. 17. ad 23. et fo. 32. fa. 1. Item lib. 2. fo. 105. fa. 2 fin. et fo. 106. et 107. u•. lntricatius loquitur de tribus Ilcnod1 Zoroastris et tribus Mercuriis; de primo inventore obelisci; de progenie Misraim; ut iam appareat fuisse illum Chame posteriorem, iam vero priorem. u •. lsta confusio videtur nasci partim ex varietate auctorum qui citatur, partim ex diversis nominibus propriis quae in eundem quandoque conveniunt. Opus erit ut auctor haec evolvat, comparate ad cap. 1. lib. 2di. 55 This comment presumably refers to the Wars of Castro between the Farnese of Parma and the papacy, which had begun under Urban VIII in 1641. The original conflict had ended in 1644 with the Farnese reinstated as rulers of Castro, representing a humiliation for the pope, whose forces suffered heavy losses. In 1649, after the assassination of Castro's new bishop, Innocent X sent in troops, and on September 2 of that year (two months prior to the composition of this judgment) the town was razed to the ground by order of Innocent X, who then erected a column among the ruins declaring, "Here was Castro.• Enciclopedia ltaliana (Rome, 1951) IX, 388-9, s.v."Castro" (0. Masnovo); Domenico Sella, Italy in the Seventeenth Cent11ry (New York: Longman, 1997) p. 10. 56 This shon hand, which I render •u•,n is used fre quendy by Wysing and resembles the letter u with a loop around it in the manner of"@." From context it seems most likely to mean •etc.• and is perhaps an abbreviation of the German "und so fon.• 20 OEDIPUS CENSORED Li. 4°. fo. 10. fa. 1. post med. Psellum57 adducit sentientem, animas ex semine productas. Indicandum quod iste sit error in fide. Li. 5. fo. 15 fa. 1. ante fin. Verba ilia, Nullo attributorum amictu aut proprietatum vestitu, videtur omittenda; cum non appareat quomodo hie recte possint usurpari. Demum, quia tot in hoc opere, tamque diversorum auctorum, adferuntur allegationes, ut fieri non possit quin aliqua incidenter, non solum contra mentem auctoris, verum etiam contra veritatem admisceantur; quae tamen ob rerum probandarum intentum in ipso contextu, necessitate quadam, toleranda sunt: idcirco iudico lectorem initio operis [390'] de sequentibus admonendum. 1°. Quae circa Genealogiam, aut Chronologiam varie adferuntur, habenda sunt tantum incidenter dicta, nisi conveniunt cum ea chronologia, quem auctor ex sua mente apponit. 2°. Indicandum quid auctoritatis tribui possit libro Thalmud et Cabalae Hebraeorum et quibusdam Rabbinis; tum ut satisfiat iis qui pleraque Rabbinorum praesumunt esse fabulosa; tum vero maxime ob reverentiam Clementis VIII cuius mens exprimitur in Iodice Trident. observatione circa 4o_ regul. ss 3°. Quo ad alios quoque auctores praemonendum, illis auctoritatem tribui eatenus tantum, quatenus faciunt ad probandum id pro quo citantur; quidquid forte incongruum aliquid iuxta admisceant. 57 58 Michael Psellus (1018-1078), Byzantine scholar. The entry "De Thalmud, & aliis libris Hebracorum; which reproduces Pope Clement Vlll's bull of 1592, appears at the beginning of the 1596 edition of the Tridentine Index. It declares: "Quamvis in tenia classe Indicis praedicti Pii Papae Illl. sub littera T. Thalmud Hebraeorum, eiusque glossac, annotationes, interpretationes, & expositiones omnes prohibeantur; sed quod si absque nomine Thalmud, & sine iniuriis & calumniis in Religionem Christianam aliquando prodiissent, tolerarentur: quia tamen Sanctissimus Dominus Noster Dominus Clemens Papa Vlll. per suam constitutionem contra impia scripta & libros Hebraeorum, sub Datum Romac apud Sanetum Petrum anno Incarnationis Dominicac M.D. LXXXII pridie Kai. Manii Pontificat sui anno secundo, illos prohibuit atque damnavit: mens ipsius non est, eos propterea ullatenus etiam sub illis conditionibus permittendi, aut tolerandi; sed specialiter & expresse statuit & vult, ut huiusmodi impii Thalmudici, Cabalistici, aliique nefarii Hebraeorum libri omino damnati & prohibiti maneant censeantur, atque super eis, & aliis libris huiusmodi, praedicta constitutio perpetuo & inviolabilter observetur: Index Librorum Prohibitorum ... Clementis PP. VIII (Rome, 1596), pp. d5'-d6' (facsimile printed in Index des Livm lnterdits. Index de Rome 1590, 1593, 1596, ed. J. M. De Bujanda, et. al. [Sherbrooke; Centre d'Etudes de la Renaissance, 1994] P · 930). The prior 1564 Index had no such general policy about Jewish books, but banned the Talmud, with the described exceptions. DANIEL STOLZENBERG 21 4°. In modo quoque loquendi, ab auctoribus antiquis quandoque usurpato, non putandum quo auctor in tam apertis (praesentia fidei, quae subinde occurrunt) rebus aliter sentiat quam in Ecclesia receptum sit. Usurpat vero ipsa auctorum verba, etiam a vero aliena, tum ut appareat quousque illi in rebus tam occultis pervenerint, tum quia nimis operosum foret, molestumque modos illos loquendi, toties repetitos, ad voces hodie usitatas reducere. Exempla sunt, ubi cum antiquis sermo est de anima mundi, coeli, solis. u•. de forma Trinitatis, de triformi Deo, de dependentia in divinis, de secunda in Deo substantia, quod in divinis unum parit duo, quod personae sint congenitae. u•. Haec enim et similia licet sanum aliquando sensum habere possint, ab auctoribus tamen illis videntur quandoque sinistre intellecta, possentque in similem suspicionem quosdam trahere, qui ea sine adiuncta animadversione legerent. Ex collegio Romano. 17. Novemb. 1649 Nicolaus Wysing. S. I. 4. Judgment of "Idea Oedipi," Sebastiao d'Abreu,59 Celidionio Arbicio,60 Wysing, Giovanni Battista Rossi,61 Honore Nicquet,62 2 December 1649, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 3g9•·•. Comments: Sebastiao d'Abreu taught philosophy and theology at Evora, where he was also chancellor, before being called to Rome to serve as Portuguese revisor from 1644 to 1652.63 Celidonio Arbicio was Spanish revisor from 1651 to 1657.64 Giovanni Battista Rossi was the Italian revisor from 1634 to 1656.65 Honore Nicquet was the French revisor from 1644 to 1652; he wrote a work on physiognomy that was used by Kircher's disciple Kaspar Schott.66 The judgment is in Wysing's hand. The "Idea of the 59 60 ,.1595 Crato; SJ 2.i.1610 Evora; t18.x.1674 Evora (DHCJ, I, 8). •1614; SJ 1626; t1695 (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1666, ff. 11'-12'; ARSI, Arag. 12, f. 54'; ARSI, Hist. Soc. 49, f. 491, 61 •xii.1576 Mondovi; SJ 1593; t6116.vi.1656 Rome (Sommervogel, VII, col. 171). 62 •15/29.viii.1585 Avignon; SJ 13.x.1602 Nancy; t22.v.1667 Rouen (Sommervogel, V, col. 1712). 63 Sommeroogel, I, cols. 23-25; BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1666, ff. 11•-12•. 64 BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1666, ff. 11'-12'; ARSI, Arag. 12, f. 54'; ARSI, Hist. Soc. 49, f. 49'. 65 Sommeroogel, VII, cols. 171-73; BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1666, ff. 11•-12•. 66 Honore Nicquet1 Pbysiognomia Humana Libris IV Distincta (Lyon, 1648); Sommerw& el, V, cols. 1712-14; BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1666, ff. 11•-12•. Schott: •5.ii.1607 Konigshofen; SJ 30.x.1627 Trier; t22.v.1666 Wiirzburg (DHC], IV, 3531) . 22 OEDIPUS CENSORED Oedipus," which was submined to the revisors a month before the text of Oedipus I, seems to refer to the shon synopses that appear at the front of the individual volumes of the Oedipus.67 It is approved with corrections, mostly concerning the author's lack of modesty and his exaggerated claims. Admodum Rev[erende] in Chr{isto] P[ater] Ideam Oedipi Aegyptiaci P. Athanasii Kircherii censent PP. Revisores posse imprimi; facta tamen prius moderatione quo ad exaggeratum alicubi modum loquendi: magis enim honorificum erit auctori plus praestare quam promittere; et lecturo gratias accidet, si plura reperiat in opere, quam desideret in expectatione. ltaque Tomo 1°. Syta.• 1°. dicit se detecturum Nili ongmem, hue usque incoinitam: melius diceret; non ita exacte perspectam. To. 2°. Classe 4. ait lectorem repenurum ibi multa, hue usque a nemine intellecta: dici posset; non ita facile intellecta. Ibid. Classe 5. Nova et hue usque inaudita: recte addetur panicula, fonassis. Tom. 3°. ver. ult. Usui lectoris, ad interpretandum qµidQ.Uid volverit. u•. utique interpretationem bane volet auctor limitatam ad ea quae praemisit; igitur perspicuam rem faciet eandem limitationem exprimat. 2. Xbris [sc: Decembr'is] 1651. Sebastianus d'Abreu Celidonius Arbicio Nicolaus Wysing Jo[hannes] Bapt[ist]a Rossi Honoratus Nicquetus 5. Judgment of Oedipus Aegyptiacus, tome 1, d'Abreu, Rossi, Wysing, Nicquet, 31 January 1652; with appended letter from Wysing to Father General Gonifredi, Rome 1 February 1652, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico, 668 ff. 398'-399'. Comments: The revisors find the work "abounding in much erudition and things wonhy of publication, but nevenheless still unpolished," and call for many changes, in the form both of general remarks penaining to the work as a whole and requests to amend specific passages. After the signatures of the four revisors, Wysing (in whose hand the judgment is written) has written a personal note to Father General Gottifredi. 67 The synopsis of tome 3 was not published. DANIEL STOLZENBERG 23 Apparently stung by Kircher's failure to comply with the revisions called for in the judgments of the Obeliscus Pamphilius and the "Idea Oedipi," Wysing accuses Kircher of having deliberately deceived and ignored the revisors in the past and pleads with the Father General to prevent him from doing so again with the present book. The note is powerful testimony to the limits of the revisors' powers, at least with an author like Kircher, and of the decisive role played by the Father General in the approval of books. Admodum Reverende in Chr{ist]o Pater Pax Chr{ist]i Tomum 1.llffl Oedipi Aegytiaci, P. Athanasii Kircherii, iudicunt Patres Revisores Generales esse multa eruditione, eaque typis digna, abundans; esse tamen hactenus impolitum: ad cuius proinde maiorem culturam iidem PP. RR. observarunt quaedam tum generalia, tum specialia. Genralia sunt ista: 1.0 Auctor non habet magnum delectum rerum quas assert: sintne iam dictae, aut communiter notae: sed quaedam obvia congerit; alia nimis fuse prosequitur; multa iam dicta repetit. 2.0 Quandoque ita negligenter res describuntur, ut nequeat satis colligi quis sit sensus verborum, minus de re ipsa iudicari. 3.0 Saepe ea, quae affert Graece, non reddit Latine; tanquam omnes essent linguae Graecae periti: Alias ea, quae ex aliis linguis peregrinis propo proponit, [sic] tantum verbatim explicat: cum tamen, ad plenam rerum intelligentiam, quandoque necessarium foret sensum sensu, non verbum verbo reddere. 4.0 Subinde nimis honorifice citat Thalmud et Hebraeos alios, quae sunt exosa nomina, seu capita, ut videre est in Concil. Trident. 0 post regul. 10.am Indicis.68 Rectissime auctor faciet, si circa tales id observet quod circa A verroem . u •. observare iubentur professores philosophiae reg. 3. 4. 5.69 61 See above, n. 58. 69 The Ratio Studiorum prescribes the following rules for the teaching of Averroes and other theologically problematic interpreten of Aristotle (interpmes male de cbristiana religione mmtos): the teacher is to be extremely discriminating in teaching such authon in order to protect his students from the peril of their influence; anything good taken from such authon should be presented without praise, and if the same teaching can be demoll5trated from a different source that is preferable; the erron of such authon and their followen should not be concealed but rather their authority should be sharply denounced. See rules 3-5 of the 24 OEDIPUS CENSORED 5.0 Quaedam absona refen, absque eo ut ostendat fabulosa, vel falsa; ut est illud fol. 198. u. 13. de materia, ex qua componantur daemones. Item. illud fol. 297. atergo, de genitis ab Adamo daemonibus. u•. 6.0 Aliquando in modo loquendi minus cautum se praebet, ut cum fo. 3. a v. 4. sibi Deorum promittit auxilia. Item cum fol. 68. ater. v. 1. ait, Quod videatur non sine ratione cultum, agentilibus, Nilum. Similia sunt fo. 138. v. 6. an. fi. et alibi. 7.0 Pere universim nimis crude loquitur, ubi ex occasione proponuntur turpia, praecipue quae concernunt ritus circa idola inhoneste exercitos. [398v] 8.0 Passim auctores citat sine certis allegationibus, ad quas lector possit recurrere. 9.0 Maxime frequens est in laudando hoc suo opere, atque aucupanda fama singularis peritiae, ac nomine primi inventoris rerum abstrusarum, ut infra in specie plus satis apparebit. In paniculari vero PP. RR. notarunt sequentia: Fol. 1. in fi. tituli; ommitenda ilia: Denique scientiae hactenus abolitae restaurationem hisce temporibus reservatam esse, luculentis rationibus monstratur. Fol. 2 ater. v. 4. usque ad v. 5. an. fin. iterum nimis gloriose loquitur. Fol. 3. terg. v. 4. Fingit sibi invidos gloriae, quam ipse expectat. Emendanda usque ad fol. 5.um Fol. 5. usque ad 6. lterum auctor multum pro gloriae vanitate loquitur. Fol. 6. Hk av. 11. incipi posset totum prooemium, omissis prioribus, et eorum loco paucis de ratione instituti praemissis. Est enim prooemium eo usque nimis humile, fabulosum et contentiosum. Fol. 14. v. 7 Multa similia, cum ab aliis hoc saeculo adinventa, tum mei (Deo laus) ingenii panu edita, commemorare possem. u•. deleantur. Fol. 15. terg. 11. Quemadmodum u•. usque fol. 16. v. 3. an fi. Probat, aDeo mitti homines singulares pro restaurandis scientiis, sicut pro fide certis temporibus sustinenda. Ubi auctorem de seipso magnifice locutum nemo prudens non praesumet. ltaque omittenda. Fol. 24. terg. v. 2. an. fi. Nam praeter diversa et distincta sedecim linguarum ut idiomatum genera, quae misericors Deus et Pater luminum mihi hominum infimo. u•. Delenda usque ad fin. •Regulae Professoris Philosophiae• (Instit11t11m, m, 189-90). DANIEL STOUENBERG 25 Fo. 76. terg. v. 4. Dicit Rhodanum per medium lacum Tigurianum transire, quod falsum esse norunt qui tabulas geographicas vel obiter inspexerunt.70 Ibid. med. Meditullium Helvetiae vult esse originem tot fluminorum quos postea enumerat; neque tamen rem, per se incredibilem, ulla etiam rationibili coniectura roborat: contra se vero habet, quod quorundam fluminorum (ex recensitis) fontes longissime distent ab Helvetia. Fol. 78. v. 6. an. fi. Gloriatur se primum, ab hominum memoria, veritatem edoctum de Nile origine, per P. Carvaglium71 oculariter inspecta: quam tamen rem, satis gloriose propositam, postmodum reipsa refutat, dicendo verum Nili principium a P. Pais72 repertum, ut videre est duobus foliis seqq. et in charta depinta f. 81. [3991 111 . Fol. 104 v. 6. an fi. Delenda illa: Rerum, quae hue usque latuerunt, inquirendarum insita mihi a natura propensio et cl>tloµ<i8eta insatiabilis. u. Fol. 197. v. 11. Illud 120. Cubitorum refugit concipere animus, quapropter omnino ommitendum. 70 Lacus Tigurianus is Lake Geneva. Wysing was from Switzerland. Kircher was similarly caught out on his geographical knowledge when Domenico Ottolini reviewed lter Etruria, which included a section on his native Lucca. Ottolini appended a long list of that section's errors to his negative judgment of the book, fearing for quality of the rest of the book if that one section had so many errors. See ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, ff. 312'-15' and 317'-18' (Appendix, 34-35). 71 Francisco Carvalho, S. J. was a Portuguese missionary to Goa. In 1623 he went to Ethiopia, arriving in January 1624 (Afonso Mendes, S. J. ExpeditionesAethiopicae, book 2, ch. 1, n. 12; in C. Beccari, ed., RerumAethiopicarum Scriptom Occidenta/es, 15 vols. [Rome: C. de Luigi, 1903-17] VIIl, 110). According to Mendes he then returned to Goa, where he directed several colleges, before being sent to Rome to attend the Eighth General Congregation General (Beccari, Rerum Aethiopicarum, bk. 2, ch. 1, n. 4, p. 141) at which point he would have met Kircher. •Francisco Corvallius• of Goa is listed among the participants in Padberg, et al., For Matters ofGmiter Moment, p. 719. 72 Pedro Paez (•1564 Olmeda de las Fuentes; SJ 1582 Coimbra; t22.v.1622 Gorgora [DHCJ, 2946), a.k.a. Pero Pais, was a missionary first in Goa and then, from 1603 to his death, in Ethiopia. Cf. Dauril Alden, The Making of an Enterprise: The Society ofJes,,s in Pormgal, Its Empire, and Beyond (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996) pp. 154-56. He wrote a Histori4Aethiopiae (printed in Beccari, RerumAethiopiCArum, 0-III) in which he described the source of the Nile, which he claimed to have viewed on 21 April 1618. Kircher translated his account from Portuguese into Latin and published it for the first time in OA I, 57-59. See Beccari, Rerum Aethiopicarum, I, 269-91, with Paez's original Portu guese, an Italian translation, Kircher's Latin1 and Sir James Bruce's English translation of Kirchcr's Latin. In the printed text, Kircher writes that, as he was puzzling over the Nile's origin, Carvalho arrived in Rome bearing Paez's manuscript. m, 26 OEDIPUS CENSORED Fol. 294 terg. cap. 5.um prorsus expurgandum a pluribus quae de cultu priapaeo turpissima afferuntur; quamvis dicantur sumpta ex probatis auctoribus, vel ipsis etiam sanctis patribus: praesertim cum pro hoc instituto necessaria non sint, et apud quosdam propterea offensionem non immerito parere possint. Ex Coll.0 Rom.0 31. Jan. 1652. Sebastianus d'Abreu Jo[hannes] Baptista Rossi Nicolaus Wysing Honoratus Nicquetus Admod. Rev(eren]de P[ate]r Timeo ne labor, a PP. Revisoribus in censuram huius libri impensus, parum apud P. Athanasium profuturus sit: nam etiam nuper, in Synopsi ilia, censuram eorundem patrum secutus est non nisi quantum ipse, et quomodo voluit. Deinde ipsemet mihi aliquando dixit, se librum de Obelisco Pamphilo [sic] post censuram, notabili parte auxisse; atque etiam alibi gloriatum audio, se eiusmodi praxi, ob harum rerum experientiam, secure uti posse. Denique expertus quoque sum, res in opere imprimendo (id est tempore impressionis) a P. Athanasio, saltem quo ad ordinem, aliquando ita immutari, ut non facile deprehendi possit, an obsecutus censurae fuerit, an vero illam neglexerit. Quae quidem uti mihi videntur censurae nostrae plurimum praeiudicare posse, ita iudicavi ad paternitatis vestrae providentiam deferenda: privato id quidem nomine, cum haec ab aliis rescivi nihil ad modum attineret. Patemae benevolentiae P. N... me perquam humillime commendo. Ex Colleg.0 Rom.0 1.° Fehr. 1652. Adm. Rev. P[ater]nit(atis] V[est]rae Indigniss[im]us in Chr[ist]o filius accensus Nicolaus Wysing 6. Approval of the corrections of the manuscript of Oedipus Aegyptiacus, tome 1, Wysing, Nicquet, Rossi, d'Abreu, 9 February 1652, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, f. 397•_ Commentary: This document attests that Kircher has adequately corrected the manuscript of Oedipus I. It was signed ten days after the initial judgment and is in Wysing's hand. Consultation of the printed work reveals that, despite Wysing's plea to the Father General, Kircher did not make all the required changes, leaving intact, at a minimum, his description DANIEL STOUENBERG 27 of the shameful cult of Priapus.73 It is possible that Kircher in some way deceived the revisors when he returned them the revised manuscript, as Wysing insinuated he had done on previous occasions. In the case of Oedipus II, however, the extant revised manuscript is of such a nature that I believe that the revisors must have been aware of Kircher's disobedience, although they approved the revisions anyway;74 and I suspect the same was the case with the other volumes. It would appear that the Father General failed to come to the defense of the revisors, as Wysing had hoped, and knowingly permitted Kircher to publish these works without having made all the requested revisions.75 Admodum Reverende Pater Quod proxime Pater Secretarium perscripsi, correctionem Tomi primi Oedipi Aegyptiaci P. Athanasii Kircherii factam esse ad mentem Patrum Revisorum, in data super eo censura expressam, id hisce una mecum iidem attestantur. Ex Coll.0 Rom. 9.° Febr. 1652. Nicolaus Wysing Honoratus Nicquetus Jo[hannes] Bapt[ist]a Rossi Sebastianus d' Abreu 7. Judgment of Oedipus Aegyptiacus, tome 2, part 1, Wysing, Arbicio, d'Abreu, Rossi, 5 May 1652, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 391•-392•. Comments: This is by a significant margin the longest of the judgments of these works. It seems to represent the nadir of the relationship between Kircher and the Father Revisors with regard to the Oedipus, following Kircher's disregard of earlier judgments and Wysing's evidently futile appeal to General Gottifredi. Unlike the judgments of the previous volumes, it does not begin with general praise for Kircher's erudition. Instead the revisors declare only that the volume may be printed "in order to preserve the structure of the work established in the earlier synopsis" (i.e. the "Idea Oedipi"), but demand that the author first amend mos_t of it. 73 See 74 Oedipus I, 227ff., 265ff. The approvals of the corrections of OA II, pans 1 and 2, do not survive. (Such approvals are extant only for OA I, ltinerarium Exstaticum, lter Extaticum II, and Scrutinium Pestis. See Appendix 19, 25, 30, 31.) But the Father Revisors should have approved the corrected manuscripts of all works before the Father General granted his imprimatur. 75 I discuss this matter at greater length in Stolzenberg, •Utility, Edification and Superstition.• 28 OEDIPUS CENSORED In addition to the usual complaints of errors, repetitions, and boasting, this judgment devotes more attention than usual to the treatment of dangerous, heterodox material (a reflection of the more heterodox content of Oedipus Il). The most serious concerns regard the sections on the Jewish Kabbalah and Arabic magic, which are supposed to be completely rewritten and large sections altogether deleted. Comparison of this judgment (and the next) with the extant manuscript of Oedipus IT, which bears the revisions made by Kircher in response to the revisors, reveals that he did not comply with many of their most serious demands.76 The division of Oedipus IT as it was submitted for review does not correspond to the division in which it was published. The Oedipus Aegyptiacus "tomus 2, pars 1" described here consists only of Classes 1-5. Class 6, "Systematica Mundorum," which appears in part 1 of the printed book, belongs to part 2 of the manuscript. The judgment is in Wysing's hand. Admodum Reverende in Chr[ist]o Pater Pax Chr[ist]i Expenderunt PP. Revisores accurate 1.am partem tomi 2di Oedipi Aegyptiaci P. Athanasii Kircher, iudicantque imprimi posse; ad salvandam totius operis distributionem, impressl iam Synopsi consignatam. Ut tamen pars ista in lucem prodeat cum ea Societatis existimatione, quam sexta PP. Revisorum reg.• in fi. desiderat, necessarium erit eandem magna cui parte reformare, atque passim quaedam emendare; pro ut sequitur: Fol. 1. usque ad 5. Praefatio non videtur multum facere ad propositum: Auctor in ea se nimis impendit laudi propriae, et repetitioni obiectionum t,i tomi allatarum . Fol. 33. a v. 11. Magnifice promittet probare, quod Adam fuerit auctor litterarum et scriptionis; plus tamen non praestat, quam ut ostendat voces esse ab Adamo inventas. Ibidem. a tergo post med. Dicit, de fide certum, :,uod Adam auctor omnis literaturae fuerit: sufficit dicere certum esse. u·. 76 In the notes on this and the subsequent judgment, when I say that Kircher changed the text, I mean that, in the manuscript, the text in question appears in Kircher's hand as an addition to the original text, which was wrinen by an amanuensis. One may not assume that all such additions necessarily were made after the judgments of the revisors; but when the changes deal with material that the revisors asked to be changed and address their criticisms, I make this assumption. 77 43). Kircher deleted the offending words, "de fide• (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 24'; OA 11.1, DANIEL STOUENBERG 29 Fol. 54. usque ad 58. item f. 69 usque ad 90. Auctor repetit ad verbum omnia, quae iam nuper in Obelisco Pamph.0, foliis plus quam triginta . . eadem hoc 1 oco repetere.78 . v·d 1 eat an e' re sua futurum sit, 1mpress1t. Fol. 57. v. 11. Ait periculosum in fide, si quis dubitet an Enoch libros scripserit. Sed ex Epistola Judae Ap[osto]li nee etiam librum (ne dum libros) sed solam prophetiam vocalem eliciet.79 Fol. 124. terg. ante fin. Ait oracula Zoroastris (utique in adiunctis eiusdem Effatis expressa) divini numinis afflatu pronuntiata; cum tamen in Effatis plurima absurda reperiantur. 80 Fol. 127. usque 145. Afferuntur explicationes Effatorum Zoroastraeorum, quae tamen ut plurimum adeo obscurae, vel alias parum aptae sunt, ut imprimi non possint, nisi alia forma conscriptae, ac iterum revisae. 81 Eodem fol. 127. post med. Ait, quod principium divinarum emanationum sit solus pater. Tamquam spiritus sanctus a Filio non procederet.82 Fol. 138. a v. 12. Dicit quosdam daemones esse materiales; alios vero praeditos facultate cognoscendi futura: Utrumque periculose dicitur, nisi 78 Kircher removed the passages in question.A few of the crossed-out pages are preserved (BNVE, Ms. Ges.1235, ff. 42'-44•, 89"'). The deleted sections seem to have corresponded to OP, p.3ff. and book 1, ch.3.Kircher added text to the preface of the following class, •sphinx Mystagoga,• explaining the necessity of repeating material from OP (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f.79'; cf. OA II.1, 124). '/'9 Before crossing out the whole section in which this passage is found, in order to comply with the request not to repeat what he had written in OP, Kircher crossed out the words, •ut de ea dubitare periculosum in fide putem"; but he !eh untouched the claim that "Enoch vero scripsisse libros cenum est; cum huius mentionem facta S. Judae in Episotla sua canonica" (BNVE, Ms.Ges.1235, f. 441- Kircher had already attempted to make this claim in OP and been forced to remove it by the revisors; see above ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, f. 390' (Document 3). 80 Kircher changed his words from".•. unde et oracula sive loy(u vocantur, utpote divini Numinis afflatu pronunciata" to:•... unde et oracula sive loyCu vocantur, a Platonicis, eo quod, ut ipsi putant, divini Numinis afflatu pronunciata essent" (BNVE, Ms. Ges.1235, f.84•; cf. OA II.I, 130). 81 Kircher made considerable revisions to this section of the manuscript, deleting pans, rewriting others, adding scholia, and more clearly distin guishing the opinions of Psellus and Pletho from his own (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, ff. 89•-96'; cf. OA II.I, 129-50). 82 Kircher responded by insening the word"originaliter" in the phrase, ". , , principium divinarum emanationum originaliter non sit nisi Pater" (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f.87'; OA II.1, 133}. 30 OEDIPUS CENSORED certa ratione explicetur.83 Idem de materialibus daemonibus indicat ibid. a terg.n.20.Et f.144.n.38.f.155.a n.1. Fol. 139.n.24.Ait animas e patemo semine productas; licet f.141.n. 31 contrarium innuat.84 Fol. 141. n. 31. Videtur supponere quod animae creentur ante unionem cum co rpore. Lector facile attribuet interpreti omnia, quae in explicationibus effatorum dicuntur, nisi refutentur. Imo hunc errorem videtur.'5 < ...non> 86 approbare fol.200 terg. av.2.Item f.201. terg.a v.3.fol.etiam 303. Fol. 146. med. Auctor relatis quibusdam erroribus Orp hei de creatione mundi, subiungit; Orp heum verosimiliter [sic - verisimiliter] omnia ista hausisse ex libro Moysis.17 [3911 Ibidem terg. ante fin. Dicitur, Deus triplex.88 Dicendum Trinus, ex communi usu Ecclesiae: prius enim est contra Concil. Toletan. et PP.ac Scholasticos, apud Ruiz de Trio.cl.38.s.4.89 Fol.149.usque 151.Obscurior est ea versuum Orphaicorum inte rpretatio, quam ut possit imprimi emendetur.90 I) The offending lines are a quotation from Psellus.Kircher added the statement.•Innuit hoc effatum, nocivum quoddam daemonum genus, materia constans, quos canes terrestres dicunt, fallax, & pemitiosum, quod homines cum primis infestet, deceptionibus, & imposturis deditum.• He also added a scholium after the effatum, which states: •Alludit hie lnterpres cum onhodoxis ad Cacangelos Luciferi socios ...sed tamen cum magna differentia id sentiunt; onhodoxi siquidem, Angelos lapsos, non materiales, aut terrestres esse, sed pure intellectuales substantias, in omnibus, si naturam spectes, bonis Angelis similes asserunt; quod ipsis negare videntur• (BNVE, Ms.Ges. 1235, f.98'; cf.OA 11.1, 144). 84 Kircher added a parenthetical anributing the offending phrase to Psellus: "Etenim non animae tantum e patemo semine (ut loquitur Psellus) productae sunt ...• (BNVE, Ms.Ges. 1235, f.99'; cf.OA 11.1, 146).No change was made to Effatum 3 1 (29 in the printed version) to remove the contradiction referred to by the revisors. as Kircher added a sentence that anributes this belief to the Egyptians and Chaldeans (BNVE, Ms.Ges. 1235, f. 10 1'; cf.OA 11.1, 148). 86 Manuscript damaged. 7 8 Kircher did not change this (BNVE, Ms.Ges. 1235, f.105'; OA 11.1, 151) . 88 Kircher changed nothing.The offending language is pan of a marked quotation from Pico, however (BNVE, Ms.Ges. 1235, f. 105'; OA 11.1, 151). 89 Diego Ruiz de Montoya, S. J., Commentaria ac Disp11tationes in Primam Partem Sancti Thomae Trinitate (Lyon, 1625) . 90 Kircher added a few words, but overall changed very little in this section. de 31 DANIELSTOUENBERG Fol. 150. an. fi. Absurde refert, per nuditas priapaeam, ab antiquis fuisse repraesentatam foecunditatem Dei in creaturas.9 Fol. 152. v. 10. an. fi. Dicitur Pythagoricos caelestem in terris vitam egisse; . corngendum.92 Fol. 161. n. 4. Magis explicanda sunt, quae dicuntur de dispositione hominis ad gratiam; alioquin verba, ut iacent, Semipelagianis favent.93 Fol. 163. c. 8 usque f. 180. c. 8. Agitur de interpretatione Effatorum Cabalisticorum, quae cum sit obscurissima, multasque absurditates contineat, idea permitti non potest ut imprimatur, nisi de novo rectius • • conscnpta, et postea rev1sa.94 Fol. 180. terg. c. 8. et deinceps usque ad 217. Auctor passim ita confuse et inculte res tractat, ut ea pertractatione legentibus parum satisfacturus esse videatur.95 Fol. 189. v. 3. an. fi. Emendandus est ille modus loquendi, quae videtur Deum facere auctorem peccati.96 Fol. 190. med. Tribuit animabus quibusdam, nescio quam, materialitatem, et conditionem mortalem.97 91 Kircher changed nothing in this section, except to add at one point the Greek phrase "Kutu tTIY cill11yopi'uv• (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 109'; cf. OA Il.1, 155). 92 Kircher changed the phrase •caelestem quandam in terris vitam• to "miram quandam in terris vitam• (BNVE, Ges. 1235, f. 111'; cf. OA Il.1, 157). 93 Kircher did not change the main text, but in the marginal heading, "Dona supema omnibus affluunt, sed non omnibus prosunt,■ the phrase "sed non omnibus prosunt• is an addition to the manuscript, probably added to address the revisors' concern (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 120'; cf. OA Il.1, 167). The anti-Augustinian d0ctrine of semi-Pelagianism emphasizes the role of free will relative to divine grace in salvation. It is a derogatory term, in as much as it invokes the Pelagian heresy (which semi-Pelagianism in fact repudiates), and was first used by critics to describe the Molinist doctrine of divine grace advocated by Jesuiu. See Nl!'III Catholic Encyclopedia, 16 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-1974) 75-76, s.v. •semi Pelagianism,• (S.J. McKenna). xm, 94 Kircher deleted this entire section. 95 No major changes seem to have been made to this section, apart from certain passages deleted at the end, which were repetitions from OP and which Kircher replaced with a cross reference to that work. Ff. 190-200 (according to the old foliation used by the revisors) are missing from the manuscript• 96 Kircher may have added the marginal heading, "Deus permittit peccatores cadere, non iubet aut iuvat,• as a response (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 131'; cf. OA Il.1, 178). 97 The manuscript page is not intact. In the printed text it is clear that Kircher is reporting someone else's opinion (OA Il.1, 179). 32 OEDIPUS CENSORED Fol. 191. med. Specialiter describit, quo pacto a veteribus, per fabulosas Deorum Dearumque commixtiones, significatus fuerit Dei erga res creatos affectus: cautius hoc auctor indicet, solum obiter et in genere.98 Fol. 197. terg. Auctor sibi gloriose arrogat explicationem quorundam effatorum Pici; quam tamen haud satis praestat, nisi forte circa effatum septimum: caetera solitam habent obscuritatem.99 Quae a fol. 218. usque ad f. 387. de Hebraeorum ac Saracenorum Cabala fuisissime [sic • fusissime] scribuntur, ilia ut ad praescriptum reg... octavae PP. Revisorum, cum aedificatione ac utilitate possit imprimi, prorsus aliter scribenda, et postea denuo Revisorum censurae committenda erunt. In eorundem vero emndatione sufficiet (pro auctoris instituto) rem omnem tanquam nimirum magna ex �arte inutilem, si non etiam noxiam, multo paucioribus comprehendere. 1 De reliquo observanda erunt sequentia: 1.0 Ostendat auctor dare, quae Cabala sit legitima, quae prohibita; ne videa�ur contravenire Bullae Clem. VIII. relatae post re�. 10. Indicis Concil. Trid.1 et ipsi quoque Indici librorum prohibitorum; 1 1 in quo continetur etiam Cabala Ioannis Reuchlini (seu Capnionis) quidquid ilium antea conatus fuerit defendere Petrus Galatinus de Arcan. Cathol. .. verit.i•. 102 Distinguat igitur Auctor, cum Bonfrerio praeloq.;. ad Pentat.um c. 21. et 98 The corresponding pages of the manuscript are lost. The printed text (OA 11.1, ch. 10, •concubitus Deorum cum Deabus mystica intepretatio, ex mente Proclij contains many details of the •commixtiones" of the gods, such as why it was necessary for Venus, though conson of Vulcan, to commit adultery with Mars. 99 The manuscript pages are missing. Cf. OA Ill, 186-89. The reference is to Givoanni Pico della Mirandola's (1463-94) "kabbalistic conclusions" that form pan of his nine hundred Conclusiones (1486). 100 Kircher did not make the major changes that the revisors requested; the sections in the printed text are as long and detailed as in the original manuscript. Rather than removing offensive material, Kircher added additional disclaimers and reproachful phrases to those already present in the original text. These often took the form of marginal notes characterizing the unaltered body of the text in terms such as, "Vanus labor Rabbinorum" (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 1871101 102 See above, n. 58. Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522) was a pioneering Christian Hebraist and kabbalist. His two works on the Kabbalah, De Verbo Mirifico (Basie, 1494) and De Arte Cabalistica (Hagenau, 1517) were included in the 1596 Tridentine Index, as was his defense of Hebrew studies, Der Augenspiegel (Tiibingen, 1511). Pietro Galatino, O.F.M. (1460-1540), a.k.a. Pietro Colonna, was a Franciscan who defended Reuchlin and the study of the Kabbalah in OpllS Toti Christianae Reipublicae Maxime Utile, de Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis (Onona, 1518), composed at the request of Pope Leo X. DANIEL STOLZENBERG 33 cum aliis, inter cabalam bonam, indifferentem, et malam. 103 Quod si mala constituitur ex tribus illis speciebus, quas Auctor damnat f. 226. et 227. et passim etiam execratur a f. 256. post med. usque 259. tune omittenda erunt omnia quae habet auctor fusissime de nominibus Dei; tam 42. quam 72. litterarum, a f. 248. usque 280. 104 Cum omnia fu < nden > tur 105 in tribus illis Cabalae speciebus, ut seipsa monstrat auctor: cum tamen ea re magnum quid se praestitisse autumet, ut habetur fol. 269. Imo licet tres illas species ex se sint indifferenter (quod non advenit auctor) nihilominus, ex ipsius etiam auctoris confessione, f. 226. et 256. cin.i•, nullius [392'] £ere ingenii sunt, vel momenti, nee inde aliquid solidi concludi potest. Unde etiam Bonfrer. 1. 1. s. 3 15.0 antepen. ait; nil £ere solidi, quo ad sensum scripturae, ex tali Cabala elici posse, praeter ilia (paucissima) quae apud PP. aut in ipsa scriptura reperiuntur. Hine patet inutilem ab auctore operam in Cabala tam fuse explicanda, collocatam: inutiliorem quoque in eiusdem impressione collocandam, nisi tota angustissimis terminis coarctetur. Haec visum est auctori ob oculos ponere, ne sua putet sine cena ratione corrigi. 2.0 Non maiorem utilitatem habent, et insuper multum obscuritatis, ac fabulosae nugacitatis continent, quae a f. 287 usque 334. afferuntur de canalibus sephiroticis, de 32. semitis saElentiae, de 50. ponis intelligentiae, de 30. dextris potestatibus, et similia. Speciatim vero de Sephirot male introductis videri potest Genebrard. apud Bonfrer. 1. 1. s. 3. fi. 107 3.° Cabala practica, a f. 334. usque 357. prorsus ommitenda est; utpote plena periculosis superstitionibus. Et haec ipsa cabala haud dubie damnata est in 103 Jacques Bonfrere, S. ]., Pent4teudnu M<TJsis Commenf4rio /Uustratus; Praemissis, fJ114e ad Totius Scripturae InteUigentiam Manuducant, Praeloquiis Perutilibus (Antwerp, 1625). On Bonfrere's treatment of the Kabbalah, see Fran�ois Secret, •tes Jesuites et le kabbalisme chretien a la renaissance; Bibliotheque d'humanisme et renaissance 20 (1958) 543-55. 104 These passages were not removed. 105 Manuscript damaged. 106 The section (ch. 8) remained with no substantial alterations. 107 Gilbert Genebrard, Chronographia in Duo Libras Distinctos (Louvain, 1570). Although Bonfrere thought that Genebrard's blanket condemnation of the Kabbalah was too harsh, he shared his disapproval of the doctrine of the sefirot (interpreted by many Christian kabbalists as a recognition of the Trinity) because it introduces multiplicity into God. Kircher did not significantly alter his discussions of these topics. 34 OEDIPUS CENSORED Reuchlino, seu Cag,nione, de quo supra, et consentit Sixtus Senensis 108 apud Bonfrer. 1. 1. s. 4. 4.0 Saracenica etiam Cabala, a f. 358. usque 386. valide castiganda est, cum plane sit in Alcorano fundata; adeoque vel mere inutilia, vel prorsus fabulosa, ac supenitiosa contineat. Imo, cum auctor passim ostendat quo pacto singula practice ordinentur ad superstitionem et magiam, idcirco non apparet quid in iisdem tuto vulgari possit: non enim sufficit dicere quid sint superstitiosa et vitanda, ut curiosi ea non amplectantur. Hae ergo in re plus quam satis fuerit, si Cabalae Saracenae [sic] modus praecise in genere et speculative, absque a�plicatione ad usum, idque brevissime, delibetur potius quam penractetur. 1 0 5.0 Nomina peregrina Angelorum (quae adducit auctor f. 232. 268. 273. et alibi pluries) ut permitti possint, necesse est respondere ad id, iuod contra ponentosa haec nomina refen Serrar. in Tob. c. 12. a q.' 11. 1 1 nimirum damnata fer Zachariam papam, in Concilio Romano, tempore S. Bonifacii. 1 2 6.0 Allegationes auctorum quandoque tam fuse afferuntur ut ipsos magnam panem descripsisse videntur, uti est Pardes.1 13 Alias describuntur aliena 101 Sisto da Siena (a.k..a. Sinus Senensius), O.P., Biblioth«a Sancta (Venice, 1574-75). It is ironic that the rcvisors appealed to Reuchlin's authority, when, as they had just noted, Reuchlin's works on the Kabbalah had been condemned by the Index. 109 The section was printed without significant changes. 110 Kircher did not significantly alter the section. He added some invective, disclaimers, and phrases that distanced him from the opinions he described (for example, adding the phrase •cum refutatione• to many of the chapter tides). But he did not change the substance or remove the details of magical practices. 111 Nicolaus Serarius, S. J., Commmtarii in Sacros Bibliorum Libros Macabaeo111m (Paris, 1611). Tobiae, Judith, Esther, 112 Kircher added marginal notes explaining that the said angel names were •ex mente Rabbinorum.• The Catholic Church only recognizes the names of three angels, Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, and views all others with suspicion due to the possibility that they may rather refer to demons. The case referred to by the rcvisors-<oncerning a certain Aldebertus, who was condemned to death for heresy in 745 by Pope Zachary and the Council of Rome for invoking the non-canonical angels Uriel, Raguel, Tubuel, Adimis, Tubuas, Sabaoth, and Simihel-was the common reference point for this matter, especially after iu description in Baronio's Anna/es (see under 745 A.D.; vol. 12, pp. 530-31 of the 1742 Lucca edition). 113 Moses Cordovero, Pardes Rimmonim, was one of Kircher's chief sources for his treatise on the Kabbalah. Kircher, who consulted the manuscript of the text at the College of Neophytes (now Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ms. Neofiti 28) did not know the author's name and referred to the work simply as •Pardes.• DANIEL STOUENBERG 35 quasi compendio, neque citatur eorum auctor, ut factum in Archangelo Burgonovensi, praecipue circa effata Cabalistica, de quibus supra a f. 163. 114 Caeterum auctor citat PP ... et sacram scripturam neque tamen vel raro, imo vix unquam, addit quo libro aut capite. u-_ citata inveniri possint. Tandem quidam auctores tum Hebraei, tum Arabes citantur, quos, ob assertas superstitiones, praestaret ne quidem nominari; cum ii curiosis non sine periculo sic exponantur. 7.0 Magis in specie loquendo, auctor f. 233. ter. n. 20. videtur facere caelos animatos.115 Fol. 297. et 298. ac alibi indicat, quasi astra ab angeli creentur, sicut Deus creat angelos.116 Fol. 299. terg. f. 300. terg. f. 302. terg. Assignat decem choros angelorum. 117 Fol. 338. et 340. terg. De quibusdam Cabalistarum superstitionibus loquitur, tanquam eas aliquando ab Ecclesia approbari posse supponeret. 114 Arcangelo da Borgonovo, O.P., Cabalisticarum Selectioria Obsa,rioraq,,e Dogmata (Venice, 1569). Kircher deleted this section (which originally ran from ff. 163'-180'), of which consequently only the first and last page are preserved. From the first of these pages, one can see that Kircher, after announcing that he would explain abstruse kabbalistic sayings that scarcely anyone had yet penetrated, proceeded to lift his explanations wholesale from Borogonovo, as the rcvisors keenly noticed (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, ff. 122 "'; d. Borgonovo, Dogmata, pp. 1-2). Before deciding to remove the entire chapter, Kircher added two references to Borgonovo, including the parenthetical qualification in the following phrase: "Quia vero abstrusissima sunt, et vix ab ullo (si Archangelum Novoburgensem excipias, qui integro ea opusculo explicat) rccte penetrata; mearum partium esse ratus sum, Oedipus fidelem agerc, et Sphyngem illam perplexam quibusvis modis expugnandam adoriri, quod ut luculentius fiat, paulo fusioribus verbis mentem meam aperiam.• The rcvisors, who spell Borognovo's name correctly (unlike Kircher, who repeatedly writes •Novoburgensisj, could have consulted one of the two copies of his work that belonged to the libary of the Collegio Romano, which were likely also used by Kircher (currently BNVE, 14.4.K.37 and 12.28.A.6). Borgonovo had himself plagiarized many of his interpretations of Pico's conclusions from the work of his late teacher Francesco Giorgi, O.P. See Chaim Wirszubski, "Francesco Giorgi's Commentary on Pico's Kabbalistic Theses," Journal oftht Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 37 (1974) 145-56; d. Fran�ois Secret, "Notes sur quelques kabbalistes chretiens," Bibliotheque d'humanisme et renaissance 36 (1974) 71-74. 5 Kircher deleted the offending passage, which contained the phrase, "tam in sphaeris, quam in stellis, et in omnibus animatis superioribus" (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 161'). 116 Kircher did not change this passage (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, ff. 197'-98'). 11 117 Ff. 300 and 302 (old foliation) arc missing, but the printed text includes parenthetical statements anributin i; the unorthodox tally of the heavens to the kabbalists: "tot enim Cabalistae statuunt" and "Cabalistae enim decem statuunt"(OA II.l, 301, 304). No change was made to f. 299 (f. 199 of the new foliation). OEDIPUS CENSORED 36 Haec omnia necessario emendanda sunt.118 8.0 Denique auctor diligenter cavere debet, ne in hac opere, quidquid ex Platonicis, Pythagoricis, Cabalisticis, Thalmudicis, similisque farinae aliis auctoribus hausit, id omne temere in chanam effundat, [3921 orbique obtrudat dudum etiam sepulta, semperque sepelienda. Hos ergo auctores ita adducat, ubi opus est, ut dubia dilucide exponat, improbanda improbet, superstitiosa vel magica in specie non afferat, allegationibus cenum finem statuat, sibique persaudeat, ab harum rerum tractatione haud tantum utilitatis apud universos expectari posse, quantum apud curiosos aliquos periculi timeri debet. Ex Coll.0 Rom.0 5.0 Maii. 1652. Sebastianus d'Abreu Jo[hannes] Bapt[ist]a Rossi. Nicolaus Wysing. Celidonius Arbicio. 8. Judgment of Oedipus Aegypticus, tome 2, pan 2, Fran�ois le Roy,119 Arbicio, Rossi, 20 July 1653, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 396'"v. Comments: After the judgment of tome 2, part 1, Wysing left Rome to become rector of the Jesuit college in Dillingen and was replaced by Fran�ois le Roy, who had previously taught philosophy and theology in Douai. Le Roy remained a Revisor General until 1677. 120 This judgment returns to the formula of first praising the work's "great and uncommon erudition," prior to requiring extensive revisions before publication. The criticisms are similar in kind to-though significantly shorter than-those of the preceding volume, and the wording with which the revisors condemn Kircher's descriptions of magical practices (see item 2, below) suggests that the similar passage concerning the "Saracenic Kabbalah" in the previous judgment, perhaps formulated by Wysing, was used as a template. It is noteworthy that none of the comments specifically address the sections on "hieroglyphic" alchemy, magic, or theology and barely touch on the section on medicine. This confirms the impression that, although the revisors were meticulous in correcting pans of Kircher's works, they often chose to focus on certain sections, while leaving other equally problematic sections unadressed. The judgment is in Arbicio's hand. 118 Kircher left the description at f. 338 (f. 222', new foliation; cf. OA Il.1, 341) intact but added the phrase Msine cuius [sc. the Church's] authoritate nullo nunquam tempore exercenda sunt, aut usurpanda, utpote innumeris cliabolicis illusionibus exposita." F. 340 is missing. 11 9 120 •16.xii.1592 Lille; SJ 10.x.1611; t2.viii.1679 Rome (Sommervoge/, VII, cols. 255-56) Sommervogel, vn, cols. 255-56; BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1666, ff. l 1'-12•. DANIELSTOUENBERG Admodum R..i. Pater N." Generalis 37 Legimus et expendimus secundam partem Tomi 2.; Oedipi Aegyptiaci P."' Athanasii Kircher. eamque iudicamus luce dignam ob multam et non vulgarem eruditionem quam continet: Censemus tamen debere in aliquibus perfici et corrigi. 1.0 Plura repetit iterum iterumque tum ex dictis in Obelisco Pamphilio; tum ex scriptis in prima parte huius Tomi; tum etiam ex scriptis in hac eadem garte, repetendo illa in variis scientiis Aegyptiorum de quibus 122 tractat: 1 Saepius proponuntur eadem figura Hori Panos < & c. > Efatum [sic] illud Cabalisticum {non est herba seu planta aliqua quae non stellam habeat in firmamento quae percutiat eam et dicat cresce [sic]} relatum Classe 6.0 paf 21. iterum repetitur pag. 30. et clasi [sic] 7.0 pag. 14 et pag 100 < &c. > 1 3 et sic de aliquibus aliis: abstinendum videtur tam frequentibus repetitionibus. 2.0 Plura ex Arabibus transcribit vana et superstitiosa; praecipue dum tractat de Aritmetica [sic] Astrologia et Medicina Aegyptiorum sive Arabum; quae nobis videntur non posse satis tuto vulgari cum valde probabile sit in illis contineri paetum implicitum imo (ut ipse Auctor fatetur Clasi [sic] 7.' pag. 124 62;) apertum cum demone [sic]: Unde non videtur permittendum auctori ut ostendat quomodo singula sigilla superstitiosa practice componantur et ordinentur ad superstitionem et magiam. 125 121 Kircher deleted numerous sections that were repetitions, but also left many others intact 122 This is wrincn in an unusual shonhand, which, judging from context, may mean •etc.� 123 Sec previous note. The first two instances of the kabbalistic maxim were deleted; see BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 370'. Class 6, p. 21 is missing in the manuscript, but the quotation is absent from the corresponding section of the printed version (OA 11.2, 417-19). The other two instances were left intact (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 291'; OA 11.2, 18, and BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 358'; OA 11.2, 130). 124 125 Sec OA 11.2, 78. Kircher continued to lay out the details of these practices, but added new reproachful commentary, such as: •undc satis mirari non possum, aliquos qui Christiani & nominc & religionc haberi volunt, stolidissimam hanc Mahumedanorum cbaractcrolatriam, uti Diabolicis fundamcntis nixam, ita innumcris supcrstitionibus cxpositam, tam anxie sectari, tam studiose inquirere, tanti dcDique faccre, ut cam sacris Christianorum amulctis multis parasangis antcponcrc DOD crubescant. Ex quo capitc mcrito in huiusmodi usurpantcs, tanquam in Idolatras, Magos, impios, indignos qui commuDi aura fruantur, ignc animadvcncre solct sancta Mater Ecclesia. Nee sufficit occultam hie naturae vim nescio quo practenu obtruderc1 cum nulla Magica operatio, quantumvis horrenda & impia, assignari possit, quac non virus suum sacro occultioris naturae vclaminc amiciat, tanto utiquc pcriculosiori, quanto maiorcm 38 OEDIPUS CENSORED Nee satisfacit auctor dum praedicta sigilla reprehendit ut superstitiosa et vitanda cum aliqui curiosi et parum timorati possint ilia amplecti et experiri; nam ut fatetur ipse auctor clasi [sic] 7.1 pag. 61. haec aeternis tenebris supprimere quam luci dare pressaret.126 3.0 Varia dicit ex sententia Aegyptiorum quae videntur interse contrariari [sic] ex . 2.° Clasi [sic] 6.0 pag 16. et sequentibus fuse probat Aegyptios veteres Solem infra Venerem et Mercurium et proxime supra lunam collocasse; et tamen postea pag. 31. proponens systema Mundanum ex eorundem Aegyptiorum mente ponit Osirim seu Solem supra Venerem; sive in medio planetarum. 127 [3961 Similiter rursum in Astrologia Aegyptiorum pag. 24. dicit Mercurium ex doctrina Aegyptiorum posuisse Solem et Lunam medios inter elementa et reliquas superiores planetas; et tamen in eodem tractatu pag 56. significat Aegyptios dedisse Soli locum medium inter planeta: quod etiam expresius [sic • expressius] tradit tractatu de Alchimia pag 157. 128 cnacium, sacrorumque nominum suppellectilem exhibet. Cum itaque complura huius farinae Sigilla undique ad me tanquam ad interpmem nullo non tempore transmittantur, visum fuit, ea hoc loco peculiari indagine examinata, luci publicae exponere . . . • (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 332'; OA II.2, 8 1). The text that immediately follows this passage in the printed book, describing a kind of natural magic based on numben according to the an combinatiw (•Est ars combinativa ...• until end of chapter), does not appear in the manuscript, and may have been added after the approval of the revison. n: 126 The revisor is quoting Kircher's words at OA Il.2, •verl>o, innumera alia deliramenta circa vires huius amuleti proferunt, quae aetemis tenebris supprimere, quam ea luci dare praestaret.• The revison' criticism here repeau that made in the judgment of Oedip,u Il.1 regarding the Saracenic Kabbalah. 127 These commenu concern Class 6, which appears in pan 1 of the printed book. The section originally containing f. 16 was a repetition of OP, pp. 172-78, and Kircher removed it, substituting a brief section, •oe Graecorum, & Hebraeorum Systemate• (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, ff. 263'-264•; cf.OA Il. 1, 4 12). The diagram at f.31 (f. 271', current foliation; cf. OA Il.1, 43 1) in fact places Osiris/Sun below Venus, between the planets and the earth. 128 Kircher made no changes to these passages, but it is unclear that there was in fact a contradiction. F. 24 (f. 301 ', current foliation), which is an explanation of the hieroglyphic monad, does not give an order of the planets; however, in the more detailed printed venion of the diagram of the monad (OA Il.2, p.29), the sun is placed in the middle of the planets, not between the planets and the elemenu. The revison may have misunderstood Kircher's discussion of the meaning of the shapes of the sun and the moon that are contained in the figure of the hieroglyphic monad, taking it to refer to the order of the planets. The di agram at f.56 (f.382', current foliation; cf. OA 11.1, 232), which does place the sun and moon before the other planets, depicts the planetary ho\ll'Si not the planets themselve,, F. 157 of the treatix on alchemy (f. 464', current foliation; cf. OA II. 1, 407) places the sun and the moon in the middle of the planeu. DANIEL STOLZENBERG 39 Item Clase [sic] 7. pag 18 elicit ex diodoro [sic] Aegyptios annum in tres partes divisisse. et tamen supra pag 23 agens de misteriis quaternarii ex eorum mente quatuor vulgatas anni partes recenset. 129 4. Plura refert de Placitis et sententiis Aegyptiorum sine Auctore: quae magnum reciperent splendorem; si citaret auctores, qui docuerunt talia placita et sententias fuisse Aegyptiorum. 0 5. In allegandis Auctoribus tam sacris quam profanis frequenter non citat caput neque partem libri in qua ilia quae refert continentur. 0 6.0 Iudicamus necessarium ut quoties ex Aegyptiorum sententia et non ex propria loquitur; id faciat in tertia persona; vel addat {inquiunt} nam sepe [sic - saege] dubitat lector an ex propria an ex Aegyptiorum sen[tent]ia loquatur. 0 7.0 Pag 649. Vocat Ezechiam regem Israel cum non fuerit rex Israel sed Iuda ut constat ex sacro textu. In Collegio Romano 20 Iulii 1653. Franciscus Le Roy. Celidonius Arbicio Jo[hannes] Bapt[ist]a Rossi 9. Judgment of Oedipus Aegyptiacus, tome 3, le Roy, Rossi, Fran�ois Duneau,m Arbicio, 25 April 1654, with Kircher's responses. The original judgment is ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 400" and is written in Arbicio's hand. F. 40r is an unsigned copy of the judgment in a different hand, with responses written by Kircher after each item. The following transcription follows the original judgment, with Kircher's responses added from the copy. Kircher's comments are indicated by a "K." v Comments: Fran�ois Duneau, who had previously taught philosophy, mathematics, and theology, and served as rector of the College of Auxerre, replaced Nicquet as the French revisor in 1652 or 1653 and served in that 129 Kircher changed nothing. See BNVE, Ms. Ges. ff. 300', 348'; cf. OA 11.2, 27, 103. It is a testament to how closely the revisors read at least pans of the work that this minor contradiction between passages separated by almost one hundred pages was noticed. 130 Kircher obligingly added many such phrases, for example, placing •ex mente Aegyptiorum• at the end of the title of Class 6, ch. 5 (BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1235, f. 269'; OA 11.1, 429). m •1599 Chatillon-sur-Seine; SJ 9.x.1616 Nancy; t26.vii.1684 Rome (DHC], II, 1166). 40 OEDIPUS CENSORED capacity until his death. He was also an advisor to Giulio, Cardinal Mazarin. m This judgment is relatively concise and its criticisms pertain entirely to style, clarity, modesty, accuracy, and consistency, rather than to maners of orthodoxy. An unsigned copy of the judgment was made for Kircher, who responded to the revisors' comments in his own hand between the lines of the original text; this is the only document of its kind (pertaining to Kircher) that survives in the archive . Admodum R.c1e Pater N."' Generalis Legimus Tomum 3um Oedipi Aegiptiaci Patris Athanasii Kircher; et illum iudicamus luce dignum. Censemus tamen debere in aliquibus perfici et corrigi. 1.0 Continere videtur in stilo notabilem inaequalitatem iam enim eleganter; iam nimis humiliter loquitur. m [K.:) Quantum decursu opens fieri poterit, praestitimus desideratam emendationem. 2. Authoritates Grecorum [sic] interdum solum Latine refert, ut pag. 268. Platonis verba. et pag. 345 verba Dionisii Areopagitae: lnterdum solum graece illas refert; melius se geret author si eas et grece et latine simul reponat. 0 [K.:] factum est quod praeceperant censores. 3.° Citationes et remissiones ad Obeliscum Pamphilium; et repetitiones ex ipso sunt pene [sic• paene] innumerae in hoc tomo: posset in his adhibere aliquis modus; ne tedium parerent lectoribus. [K.:] Alius modus non est nisi ut citentur loca Obelisci Pamphilii; si ita visum fuerit censoribus quibus tamen in praecedentibus censuris non placuit tantarum ex Obelisco Pamphilio authoritatum repetitio. m 4.0 In Titulo et Praefatione ad Imperatorem et in operis decursu aliqua inserit Author in sui commendationem quae videntur redolere iactantiam; in quibus innuit se supra reliquos omnes mortales in hac rerum notitia excellere. 1 32 Sommervogel, m, cols. 279-80; DHCJ, II, 1166-67; BNVE, Ms. Ges. 1666, ff. 11'-12'. 1 33 The "unevenness in style• is due at least in part to the fact that Kircher's text is ohen a pastiche of passages lihed from uncited authors. 134 Kin:her, who, in accordance with the revisors' earlier judsments (sec ff. 398', 391'1 3961, had replaced many passages repeated from OP with cross-references, was frustrated then to be chastised for citing his earlier work too frequently. DANIEL STOLZENBERG 41 [K:] Omissa sunt quae iactantiam redolent. 5.0 Titulus est longior et intricatior quam par sit. [K:] emendabitur 6.° Fol. 4. Hieroglyp hicum definit {sacrae rei simbolum saxis insculptum} [K. adds above line: "et sacris Aegyptiorum monumentis"] Non apparet cur Hieroglifica [sic] ad saxa restringi debeant in definitione. [K:] dico me definisse hoc loco hieroglyphicum pro communi sensu philologorum; neque eorum definitio logica est[.] emendavimus tamen uti apparet. 7.0 fol. 6 Trismegistum ait fuisse regem maximum Aegipti; et tamen subiungit floruisse tempore Abrahae [4001 Primo Pharaone rerum in Aegipto potiente. [K:] haec vera sunt uti fuse in Obelisco Pamphilio docuimus fol. 35 & 97 alibique. 8. 0 fol. 7 dicit nullam esse gentem tam barbaram quae non utatur characteribus. contrarium liquet ex Canadensibus et aliis. [K:] moderabitur assertio; hisce praepositio. Vix ulla natio. 9.0 fol. 8 Ubi de filiis Noe et de Cham loquitur sensus est obscurior, nee satis videtur coherens. [K:] locus totus emendatus est. 10.0 fol 20. Magna videtur polliceri de Bracmanum [sic] Characteribus; cum postea quae de illis scribit non respondeant promissis. [K:] emendatus est locus. 11. fol 159. Ex mente Aegiptiorum dicit crucem ansatam esse potissimum 0 contra adversos potestates noctu dominantes amuletum; idque alias repetit. Digna est haec eruditio ut alicuiius [sic] scriptoris authoritate roboretur. [K:] vide Obelisc. Pamphil. lib. 4. hierogrammatismo 20, ubi ex Mars. Ficino aliisque assertam eruditionem confirmamus. 12.0 Oum agit de characteribus Sinicis dicit se ilia quae tradit accepisse R.' Michaele Boim legato misso ad summum Pontificem ab imperatrice et duabus reginis Christianis et ab imperatore Sinarum Catechumeno. 42 OEDIPUS CENSORED Reminimus ludicio Paternitatis vestrae an expediat ista scribi ab authore? m [K:] Omnia omissa sunt, circa legationem P. Boym Romae in Collegio Romano 25 Aprilis 1654 Franciscus Le Roy. Jo[hannes] Bap[tis]ta Rossi Franciscus Dunellus Celidonius Abricio 10. Excerpt from a letter by Athanasius Kircher in Rome to Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc in Aix, Rome 8 Febru� 1635, BNP, NAFr 5173, ff. 25'-27"; BNP, FF 9362 ff. lJ'-15• (copy).' 6 Commentary: The aristocrat and antiquarian, Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580-1637) of Aix, became Kircher's patron during the latter's residence in Avignon (1631-33) and used his influence to arrange Kircher's subsequent transfer to Rome. Since their first meeting in 1632, Peiresc actively encouraged Kircher to translate and publish an Arabic manuscript concerning Egypt and the hieroglyphs, attributed to an Arab Jew called Rabbi Barachias Nephi. In this excerpt, after responding to criticisms that Peiresc had made about his lack of care in providing textual evidence for his assertions, Kircher expresses his fear that neither the Jesuit censors nor the Holy Office will allow the Barachias text to be published in its entirety 135 Michal Boym, S. J. (•1612 Lvov; SJ 16.viii.1631 Krakow; t22.viii.1659 frontier of Guangxi/Kwangsi [DHCJ, I, 517]) was born in Poland and went to China as a missionary in 1645. At the end of 1650 the empress dowager of the beleaguered Ming dynasty (who bad converted to Catholicism) sent Boym to Rome on a diplomatic mission. Boym's behavior upon bis initial arrival in Venice-presenting himself to the Doge as an ambassador of the Ming without the General's permission-angered General Goswin Nickel; and upon his subsequent arrival in Rome rumors circulated that Boym's supposed imperial mission was a Jesuit fabrication. Hence the revisors' concern over Kircher's description of the mission. Boym passed three years in Rome waiting for the maner to be cleared up, during which time be served as one of Kircber's principal informants on China, not only for this section of OA, but especially for the Chin,, lllustrata (Amsterdam, 1667). See George H. Dunne, S. J., Generation of Giants: The Story ofthe Jesuits in Chin,, in the Last Decades ofthe Ming Dynasty (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1962) pp. 345-47; David E. Mungello, Curious Land: Jesuit Accomodation and the Origim of Sinology (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1985) Studia Leibnitian,, Supplementa v. 2.S, pp. 138-50 and passim. 136 The copy (BNP, FF 9362) is considerably more legible than the original (BNP, NAFr 5173), and I have used it as the basis for the transcription. However there are some mistakes in the copy, which I have corrected from the original. The text and foliation given here thus reflect the original, but some of the punctuation, capitalization, and diacritical marks may differ. DANIEL STOLZENBERG 43 "since it treats many magical things, and in many places entirely concerns incantations." On this account, Kircher writes, the text will need to be abbreviated. Et primum quidem quod me admonet de cautela in citationibus adhibendis, et de fideli auctoritatum exhibitione, omnino prudenter monet, sciatque me in hoc principalem studiorum meorum curam hactenus ponere, ut omnia fideliter per authores classicos ostendantur; imo ita meum natura comparatum esse, existimet, ut ignorantiam meam centies fateri malim, quam vagis coniecturis aut leviusculis persuasionibus insistendo, aliquid temere ac sine fundamento asserere. Eandem ob causam, numquam prodire volui nee volo cum Barachia, antequam certus sim ex infinita prope authorum lectione, quos volvo et volvi hucusque [251 de fundamentis, quibus insistit in hieroglyphicorum quorundam enucleatione. Quae quidem si vestigiis authorum veterum relictis correspondeant, admiri poterit; si non, valde dubito utrum eum luci dare debeam, maxime ea in quibus a communi antiquorum traditione discrepare videtur. Certum est eum totum lucem aspicere non posse, cum multa magica tradat, et totus in incantationibus multis in locis sit, quae nee sanctum officium, nee societas nostra, ob scandalum quod inde animabus accedere posset, perminet, et haec est causa quoque cur nulli libenter monstrem, decurtandus itaque erit. Quare multi id mihi consilium dederunt, ut ea quae praecise tantum Aegyptiorum hieroglyphica concernunt, ederem, aliis, quae vel noxia essent, vel non congruerent omissis; sed in hac consiliorum diversitate, ego D. V. sententiam solam, veluti ultimae difficultatis decisivam, exspecto. 11. Excerpt from a lener by Athanasius Kircher in Rome to Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc in Aix, Rome 3 December 1636, BNP, FF 9538, ff. 236'238". Commentary: In his answer to Kircher's above letter, Peiresc urged Kircher to publish as much of the Barachias text as possible. 137 Kircher now responds with a much longer discussion of his fear of censorship, "especially here in Rome, where the judgment of all books is so strict that not even the least straw of error or false opinion is tolerated," on which 8 account no edition of his Arabic authors now seems possible to him. 13 To 137 Peiresc to Kircher, 30 March 1635, APUG, 568, ff. 364'-365'. us In addition to Barachias Nephi, other Arabic manuscripts had now entered the picture. In a letter to Kircher dated 1 February- 1636 (APUG, 568, ff. 219'j Peiresc referred to a letter lrom Kircher (now lost) describing the discovery- ol a manuscript on "Saracenic Kabbalah• (Cabale sarrasine). In addition, Kircher was studying an Arabic history- of Egypt by Gelaldinus 44 OEDIPUS CENSORED justify his worry, he recounts the case of another Arabic book, printed in Rome in 1585, all copies of which were confiscated and burned after it was found to contain "superstitions and errors." Kircher now rejects the idea of publishing an expurgated text, since it is precisely the superstitious passages that are valuable for his study of the "errors of the ancients." To overcome these problems he has decided instead to publish excerpts from the text in his Oedipus Aegyptiacus. In the framework of the larger, interpretative work, Kircher explains, he will be able to accompany quotations from the Arabic texts with refutations of their superstitions, thereby rendering them acceptable to the censors. Despite the concerns voiced in this letter, one month later Kircher wrote to Peiresc announcing that, in collaboration with the Maronite scholar Abram Ecchellense (16051664}, he would publish a work containing not only parts of Barachias and the Arabic historian Gelaldinus, but also Salamas, the very Arabic treatise printed in 1585 and burned by the Holy Office. ll9 Ad Authores Arabes de quorum editione praemittenda me sollicitat D V. quod attinet non negarem consilium D. V. esse optimum si alia non obstarent, quae mox proponam; Cum huiusmodi libri pleni sint superstitionum magicarum sculptarum, aliarumque opinionum iam dudum ab Ecclesia damnatarum; magicae artes Authoris ita hieroglyphicis operibus permistae sint, ut eas non recitare sed docere, immo viam ad antiquorum necromantiam rescuscitandam sternere videantur; easque non uno loco tantum, sed et per totum passim librum interserere soleant. veluti erroneas opiniones de s. scriptura, de generatione Angelorum & daemonum; ea certe nequaquam permittentur nee permitti possunt; praesertim hie Romae, ubi tam rigorosa librorum omnium censura, ut vel festuca minima erroris aut erroneae opinioni [sic • opinionis] non toleratur, u[t] sileam errores dictos. [236v] Verum exemplo unico ad manifestum facio. Impressum librum Arabicum nuper ab amico accepi, cuius titulus est iste [Arabic title] hoc est liber seu hortus mirabilium orbis terrae, scriptus per [Arabic name] Salamas Ben Kandati; impressus autem est Romae apud Domincam Bassam anno 0alal al-Din al-Suyun), brought to Rome in 1636 by Abram Ecchellense. Kircher sent Peiresc an outline of the manuscript; see Peiresc to Golius, 29 November 1636 (Carpentras, Bibi. Ing. ms. 1876, ff. 84'-85'; printed (including the outline) in Peiresc, Letms a Claude Saumaise et a son entourage{1620-1637}, ed. Agnes Bresson (Florence: Olschki, 1992) pp. 340-43. 9 13 Kircher to Peiresc, 7 January 1636 (BNP, FF 9538, ff. 240'j. On Gelaldinus see the previous note; on Salamas, see the following note. The proposed edition was never carried out, although Ecchellense published a translation of a different treatise by Gelaldinus: Abramo Ecchellense, De Proprietatibus ac Virtutibus Medici Animalium, Plantarum, ac Gemmarum, Tractatus Triplex. Auctore Habd4rrahmano Asiutensi Aegyptio (Paris, 1647). 45 DANIEL STOLZENBERG 1585 140 dividiturque in 7 tractatus quorum primus, uti ex proemio patet, tractat de astronomia et theoria orbitarum caelestium. 2 de geographia et habitabili orbe et ratione mensurandi eum, 3. de maribus et insulis, stagnis fontibus, fluminibus eorumque mirabilibus 4. De montibus et desertis et mirabilibus lapidum 5. de regionibus et omnibus populis. 6. de Animalibus et demonibus et plantis eorumque mirabilibus, usuque eorum in amuletis . 7. de Antiquorum monumentorum vestigiis, uti aedificium, fabricarum, obeliscorum pyramidum Amphitheatrorum, de regum magnificentia, & lapidibus praegravidibus quos exigebant, &c. Ecce hie est synopsis libri memorati, in quo omnia prope ea quae Gelaldinus in 3 primis partibus narrat, reperi; curiosissima quaevis, latinis authoribus omnino incomperita, sed cognitis aliquot post editionem annis superstitionibus et erroribus variis, omnia exemplaria confiscata aeternis tenebris damnatae sunt, quidam dicunt omnia cum quibusdam Hebraeorum libris combusta, quicquid sit, certe summa cura mea librum inquisivi, quae tamen nullibi reperire libuit nisi unica exemplum ita mancum et mutilum, ut ex 7 tractatibus non nisi primus & ultimus supersint. doleo ego vehementer librum eum perisse, non quod contenta in eo approbem, sed quia utilissimus mihi erat futurus, ad antiquorum ostendenda fundamenta superstitionis ... Quod si hoc libro forsan non adeo pernicioso, et quibusdam tantum erroribus scatente contigerit; quam meos authores impressos et latinati donatos exitum sortituros D V. putabit? Si Alcoranus ita severe prohibeatur hie Romae, ut simpliciter nulli eius permittatur lectio, cum 140 Salamis ibn Kiindogdu as-Salihi (according to Schnurrer, de Sacy, et al.) or Ibn al-'Abbas Ahmad ben Haggi as-Salihi (according to Vervliet), Ki.tab al./mstan 'ajab al-ardh wa'I biWhain (Book of the garden of marvels of the world and regions) (Rome: Domenico Basa, 1585). This book-among the first books printed in Arabic (and the first non-religious treatise printed in that language)-is exceedingly rare. Only three copies are known to be extant, at the Bibliotheca Laurentiana in Florence, the Naniana (now pan of the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana) in Venice, and at the Bodleian Library. It was printed for Basa by Rohen Granjon. The condemnation and burning of the book described by Kircher in this letter, which accounts for its rarity, has not been known to any of its bibliographers. The copy at the Bodleian is apparently incomplete, raising the intriguing possibility that it may be the same copy formerly possessed by Kircher. See H. D. L. Vervliet, •Rohen Granjon a Rome (15781589), • Bulletin de l'institut historique de Beige de Rome 38 (1967) 221-23; Christian Frederic Schnurrer, Bibliotheca Arabica (Halae ad Salam, 1811) pp. 174-76; Silvestre de Sacy's review of Schnurrer in Magasin Encyclopedique 1 (1814) 192-94. Cf. Jacques-Charles Brunet, Manuel du librairt et de /'amateur de livm, 6 vols. (Paris, 1864) V, 68; J. Th. Zenker, Bibliotheca Orientalis (Leipzig, 1846) p. 120; Stefano Evodio Assemani, Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae et Palatinae Codicum Mms. Orientalium Catalogus (Florence, 1742) p. 147; Simone Assemani, Cato/ego de' Codici Manoscritti de/la Biblioteca Naniana, 2 vols. (Padua, 1787-92) I, 151-72. fi 46 OEDIPUS CENSORED tamen, quid ille tractet, passim constet, coniecturam faciat D.V. de meis libris. certe ego nullo quantumvis amicissimo libenter ostendo, sileo ut edam. Sed dicet D. V.edantur illa quae bona sunt, relinquanda scandalosa; R[espon]deo.eos libros eius naturae esse, ut nullibi melius mihi inservire queant, quam ubi (2371 pessima tractant.nee enim ego in huiusmodi libris quaero vertiates catholicas, quas infiniti alii authores suppeditare possint. Sed errores quorum antiquorum, et placita seu opiniones qualescumque hieroglyphicis notis expressas earumque usum. Ne igitur e dictis Authoribus fructus speratus periret quid feci? Oedipum Aegyptiacum condidi, cui omnes dictos authores ita ordine inferuntur, ut verba Authorum sincere et fideliter allegarentur, scandalosa vero prudenter et discrete refutata, errori priscorum veluti testimonia essent, nihilque quod antiquitatibus emendis usui esse posset, ex citatibus authoribus omitteretur. 14 1 Sed dicet iterum hoc non debere fieri in Oedipo sed paritculari libello in quo breviter refutarentur. R[espondeo] neque sic me profuturum Reip: literaria, cum scopus meus sit, veterum sapientiam et disciplinas sacras eruere, id vero sine infinita prope rerum cognitione fieri non possit. certe inutilem operam novabo in eis rebus <... > ex se et sua natura a <... > refutabilia sunt refutandis <diutius> insistera <...> credat mihi omnis Arabum sci(entia] in hisce libris contenta nisi aliis aliorum authoritatibus <s...> roboretur fulciaturque, prodesse poterit. quod cum in Oedipo meo ex professo facere cogitem, supervacuum esse reor, tempus dictis scholiis inutiliter. & sine fructu perdere. Communicavi hoc meum consilium cum opttmts am1c1S et vms literatissimis; qui vehementer laudant illud et aliter fieri nee posse nee debere. et hanc unicam 'ftffl't hosce Authores ab aeternis tenebri forsan etiam flammis vindicandi viam esse omnes prudentes indicant. Spero D. V. non in malem partem accepturum hoc meum hisce literis patefactum consilium. Quod si modus ullus possibilis esset, quo illi sine nocumento & scandalo edi possent, aut integri edi permittuntur, certe <or>tus relictis aliis ego unicum satagerem, ut desiderio D.V. ex integro satisfieret. Nee consultum est ut sub meo nomine latinitati donati libri imprimantur, cum id superiores mei nequemquam sint permissuri. Nullus igitur modus securior erit et latior, quam, quern hucusque proposui, interserendo videlicet eos Oedipo meo cum refutatione scandalosorum. Sic enim veritas latens manifestabitur scopuli et petrae scandali evitabuntur et Reip. l[ite]rar{ia]e, quod maxime intendo, maius inde emolumentum accedet. 141 ' ' ' ' ' h an md1cat1on that ' • ally 'in the margin of the I etter wit vert11; Th"IS paragraph'IS wntten it should be inserted in this place. DANIELSTOUENBERG 47 III. Appendix Inventory of documents relating to the censorship of Athanasius Kircher's works in the Censurae Librorum at the Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu. 142 1. Judgment of Prodromus Coptus, 143 Guilielmus Kapfel, 144 23 April 1635, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 656, f. 195'. Approved. 2. Judgment of Prodromus Coptus, Jacobus Bidermanus Qakob Bider mann), 145 22 April 1635, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 656, f. 194', Approved. 3. Judgment of Prodromus Coptus, Antonius Jordinus {Antoine Jordin), 146 12 April 1635, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 656, f. 196'. Approved. 4. Judgment of Aegyptiacae Antiquae sive Coptae Linguae Tbesaurus (i.e. the outline of Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta published in Prodromus Coptus}, Ignatius Lomellinus [Ignazio Lomellini],147 6 February 1636, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 667, f. 619'. Approved. 5. Judgment of Magnes ("de arte magneticaj, 148 Giovanni Battista Rossi, 28 November 1639, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 667, f. 609'. Approved. 6. Judgment of Magnes, J.B. (Giovanni Battista} Giattini, 149 28 November 1639, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 667, f. 610'. Approved. 142 The revison' names typically appear in the documents in Latinized forms. The vernacular forms are given here in parentheses, with the exception of those whose vernacular forms could not be identified. For items 10-12 and 24, I am indebted to Harald Siebert who shared his notes with me. I wish to thank Thomas M. McCoog, S.J., for providing information on a number of the revisors whom I had been unable to identify. 10 Athanasius Kircher, Prodromus Coptus sive Aegyptiacus (Rome, 1636). 144 t23.viii.1636 Annonay 0oseph Fej�r, S.J., Defanai primi saecu/i Societatis lesu {15401640), 2 vols. (Rome: Institutum HistoricumSocietatis Iesu, 1971-76) D, 115. m •1578 Ehingen;SJ 23.ii.1594 Landsberg; t20.viii.1639 Rome (DHC], I, 44�7). 146 •1562 Saint-Flour;SJ 21.v.1580; t23.viii.1636 Annonay (Sommeroogel, IV, col. 820). 147 Lomellini (•1560/1; t1645), who was a scholar of Oriental languages, was probably tapped as an expert to review this work. He also served as a censor for Orientalist studies by non-Jesuits, including Abram Ecchellense, LinguM Syriacae, sive Chadaicae Perbrevis lnstitutio (Rome, 1628) and Filippo Guadagnoli, C.R.M., Considerationes ad MahomettAnos (Rome, 1645). See Giorgio Levi Della Vida, Aneddoti e vaghi arabi e non arabi (Milan and Naples: Ricciardi, 1959) p. 205. 148 Athanasill5 Kircher, siue, De Ane Magneika Opus Tripaniium (Rome, 16-+ 1), 149 •1601 Palermo; SJ 13.x.1615 Messina; t19.xi.1672 Rome (DHCJ, D, 1726). Magnes, 48 OEDIPUS CENSORED 7. Judgment of Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae, 150 Melchior Inchofer,151 18 September 1644, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 667, f. 612'. Approved. 8. Judgment of Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae, Joannes Crispius (John Cripps),152 17 December 1644, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 667, f. 611'. Approved. 9. Judgment of Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae, Rossi, 17 December 1644, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 667, f. 613'. Approved. 10. Judgment of Musurgia Universalis,153 last part of second tome, Honore Nicquet, 6 June 1648, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 667, f. 616'. Approved. 11. Judgment of Musurgia Universalis ("de consono et dissono•), Honore Fabri, 8 June 1648, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 667, f. 618'. Approved. 12. Judgment of Musurgia Universalis (•De Musica"), tomes 1 and 3, Crispius {Cripps), 9 June 1648, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 667, f. 615'. Approved. 13. Judgment of Musurgia Universalis, tome 1 (books 1-4), Antonius Peres 4 {Antonio Perez),15 19 June 1648, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 667, ff. 617...,_ Approved 14. Judgment of Obeliscus Pamphilius,155 Nicolaus Wysing, 17 November 1649, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 390'.y, Approved with corrections. 15. Judgment of Obeliscus Pamphilius, Leone Santi, 11 November 1649, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, f. 395'. Approved. 16. Judgment of Obeliscus Pamphilius, Fabri, 2 November 1649, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 394••Y. Approved with corrections. ISO Athanasius Kircher, An Magna Lucis et Umbrae in Decem Libros Digest,, (Rome, 1646). 151 • c. 1585 Koszeg; SJ 26.iii.1607 Rome; t28.ix.1648 Milan (DHCJ, II, 1999). 152 •19.iv.1590 Kirby; SJ 15.vii.1615 Liege; tl6.x.1657 St. Omers. John Cripps (vere Heathcote) was an English Jesuit serving in Rome at the English College. He had taught mathematics in Liege. See Thomas M. McCoog, S.J., English and Welsh Jesuits 15$$-1650, 2 vols. (London: Catholic Record Society, 1994-95) I, 150-51. m Athanasius Kircher, MUSll1'fia Uniuenalis, siw, An Magna Consoni et Dissoni in X Libros Di�tA (Rome, 1650). 154 *19.iii.1599 Puenta la Reina; SJ 19.iii.1613 Villagarcla de Campos; t2.iii.1649 Corral de Almaguer (DliCJ, 3089), m, m Athanasius Kircher, Obeliscus Pamphilius (Rome, 1650). DANIEL STOLZENBERG 49 17. Judgment of "Idea Oedipi," Sebastiao d'Abreu, Celidonius Arbicio, Wysing, Rossi, Nicquet, 5 December 1651, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 389'-v. Approved with corrections. 18. Judgment of Oedipus Aegyptiacus, 156 tome 1, d'Abreu, Wysing, Rossi, Nicquet, 30 January 1652 (with note at end from Wysing to General Gottifredi, dated 1 February 1652), ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 398'99'. Approved with corrections. 19. Approval of corrections of Oedipus Aegyptiacus, tome 1, Wysing, Nicquet, Rossi, d'Abreu, 9 February 1652, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, f. 397'. 20. Judgment of Oedipus Aegyptiacus, tome 2, part 1, Wysing, Arbicio, d'Abreu, Rossi, 5 May 1652, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 391'-39iv. Approved with corrections. 21. Judgment of new edition of Magnes, 157 Fabri, 14 August 1652, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, f. 393'. Approved with corrections. 22. Judgment of Oedipus Aegyptiacus, tome 2 part 2, Fran�ois le Roy, Arbicio, Rossi, 20 July 1653, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 668, ff. 396'-v. Approved with corrections . 23. Judgment of Oedipus Aegyptiacus, tome 3, le Roy, Fran�ois Duneau, Rossi, Abricio, 25 April 1654. ARSI Fondo Gesuitico 668, f. 40o•·•. Approved with corrections. 24. Judgment of Itinerari.um Exstaticum, 158 Duneau, le Roy, Arbicio, Rossi, 7 November 1655. ARSI Fondo Gesuitico 661, f. 29•-v. Approved with corrections. 25. Approval of corrections of Itinerari.um Exstaticum, Arbicio, 13 November 1655, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 661, f. 33'. 26. Defense of Itinerari.um Exstaticum and its approval, le Roy, no date (c. 1656-1660), ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 675, ff. 247'-48'. 159 156 157 1654). 158 IS9 Athanasius Kircher, Oedipus Aegyptiacus, 4 vols. (Rome, 1652-54) . Athanasius Kircher, Magnes, sive, De Ane Magnetica Opus Tripanitum, ed. tertia (Rome, Athanasius Kircher, ltinerarium Exstaticum (Rome, 1656). This is a defense, signed by le Roy, of Kircher's ltinerarium Exstaticum against an anonymous attack charging the work with violating the 1651 Ordinatio. Although it is not dated it must have been written between the book's publication in 1656 and Kaspar Schott's revised edition of 1660. See zaler Camenietzki, "L'extase," 24, who also adduces manuscripts outside of ARSI related to this episode. 50 OEDIPUS CENSORED 27. Judgment of Scrutinium Pestis, 160 le Roy, Duneau, Arbicio, 4 May 1657, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 661, f. 31'. This contains two judgments on a single page. The first, signed by le Roy and Duneau, does not approve the book for publication. The second, signed by Arbicio without a date, allows the parts of the work dealing with physics to be published with corrections and the parts dealing with medicine to be published if th ey are first approved by "some wonhy physician." 28. Judgment of Iter Extaticum II,161 le Roy, Duneau, Arbicio, 4 May 1657, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 661, f. 32'. Approved with corrections. 29. Judgment of Iter Extaticum II, Duneau, 7 May 1657, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 661, ff. 30', 34'. Not approved.'62 30. Appoval of corrections of Iter Extaticum II, le Roy, Duneau, Arbicio, 23 July 1657, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 134'. 31. Approval of corrections of Scrutinium Pestis (•de Peste"), le Roy, Duneau, 23 October 1657, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 133'. 32. Judgment of A rs Ma� Sciendi,163 Michael < Bassanus > ,164 Duneau, Maninus Leytanus,'6 Franciscus de Sotelo,'66 le Roy, 15 May 1660, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, ff. 135r-•. Rejected. 160 Athanasius Kircher, ScT11tinium Physico-Medicum Contagiosae Luis, Quae Pestis Dicitur (Rome, 1658). 161 1657). 162 Athanasius Kircher, lter extaticum IL qui & Mundi Subterranei Prodromus Dicitur (Rome, In this judgment, signed three days after he had co-signed a judgment approving the lter II with corrections, Duneau retracted his prior verdict and aruged that the work should not be published. Duneau also told the Father General that he was against the publication of the first ltinerarium Exstaticum and only approved it because of pressure from his colleagues. He expressed concern that, as a result of the approval of the first ltinerarium Exstaticum, the College of Revisors, and Rome in general, were in disrepute among Jesuits in the provinces. (See Ziller Camenietzki, •L'extase,• 26-27.) Nonetheless, after the General evidently sided with the other revisors (and Kircher), Duneau approved the corrected manuscript. This episode offers further confirmation that the revisors' approval of a work did not alwa ys reflect their considered opinion, but could be influenced by pressure from above. 163 164 Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi in XII Libras Digesta (Amsterdam, 1669) . Perhaps to be identified with Michele Bassani or Bossani (•19.ii.1610 Fraine; SJ 20.x.1624; tlB.ii.1697 Palermo [Sommerwgel, col. ln4D. 16s I have not been able to identify this Jesuit, 166 vm, I have not been able to identify this Jesuit. 51 DANIEL STOLZENBERG 167 33. Judgment of Diatribe de Prodigiosis Crucibus, Antonius Richeomus, 168 Fabri, Michael Estmor, 7 October 1660, ARSI Fondo Gesuitico 663, 169 ff. 306'·'. Recommended to postpone publication. 170 34. Judgment of lter Etruria, Dominicus Ottolinus (Domenico Ottolini), 12 November 1660, ARSI Fondo Gesuitico 663, ff. 314'-15'. Rejected. 35. List of errors and problems in Book 2 of lter Etruria describing Lucca, Ottolinus (Ottolini), no date (the list was submitted with Ottolini's judgment of the book), ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, ff. 317'-18'; copy at ff. 312'-13'. 36. Judgment of lter Etruria, Ant[oniu]s Casilius, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 316'. Approved. 171 27 November 1660, 172 37. Judgment of Mundus Subterraneus, tome 1, Phillipus Rochaeus (Philip 173 Roche), 25 March 1662, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 319'. Approved. 38. Judgment of Mundus Subterraneus, tome 1, Sylvester Maurus (Silvestro 174 Mauro), 16 April 1662, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 320'. Approved. 39. Judgment of Mundus Subterraneus, Franciscus (Francesco) Maria 175 Leone, undated, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 321; copy at f. 322'. Approved. 167 t25.ii.1675 Rome 0osephus Fejer, S.J., Defancti secundi saeculi Societatis]esu 1641-1740, 5 vols. [Rome: Curia Generalitia S.J./Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 1985-90) IV, 237). 168 t4.v.1671 Judenburg (Fejer, Defancti secundi saeadi, Il, 91). 169 See above, section I, for a description of this judgment, which recommends that the work should not be published, but, nonetheless specifies corrections in the event that it is published. The judgment does not mention Kircher by name and thus does not appear in the index of ARSI Fondo Gesuitico 663 as a judgment of a work by Kircher. 170 •17.v.1623 Lucca; SJ 3.x.1648; t22.i.1694 Rome (Sommeruogel, VI, cols. 8-9). 171 Perhaps to be indentified with Antonio Casiglio (•1589 Naples; SJ 1604; t6.ix.1670 Rome [Sommerwgel, Il, col. 806D, 172 Athanasius Kircher, Mundus Subterraneus, in Xll Libros Digestus (Amsterdam, 1665). 173 •c. 1619 Ireland; SJ c. 1648; tll.vi.1667 Rome. Roche was rector of the Irish College, Rome, in 1664. See Henry Foley, S.J., Records ofthe English Province ofthe Society ofJesus, 7 vols. in 8 parts (Roehampton/London: Manresa Press/Burns and Oates, 18n-83) VIl/2, •chronological Catalogue of the Irish Province," p. 47; Fejer, Defuncti secundi saeculi, IV, 254 . 174 ITS •31.xii.1619 Espoleto; SJ 21.iv.1636 Rome; t13.i.1687 Rome (DHCJ, m, 2583). •2.viii.1623 Messina; SJ 11.x.1637; t9.i.1693 Spoleto (?) (Sommerwgel, IV, col. 1703; Fejer, Defuncti, ill, 150). 52 OEDIPUS CENSORED 1 40. Judgment of Polygraphia Nova, 76 Martinus Esparza (Martin de Esparza 177 Arteida), 24 November 1662, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 323'"•. Approved with corrections. 41. Judgment of Polygraphia Nova, Daniel Bartolus (Daniello Bartoli),178 24 November 1662, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 324'. Approved. 42. Judgment of Mundus Subterraneus, books 6, 7, Rochaeus (Roche}, 25 June 1663, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 326'. Approved. 43. Judgment of Mundus Subterraneus, books 6-10, Maurus (Mauro}, 27 June 1663, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 325'. Approved. 44. Judgment of Mundus Subterraneus, books 7-9, Gilben Talbot,1 79 3 July 1663, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 327'. Approved. 45. Judgment of Mundus Subterraneus, book 8, Rochaeus (Roche}, 20 July 1663, ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 663, f. 327'. Approved. Sumario En este articulo se publican los juicios (cmsurae} emitidos por los censores jesuitas de los estudios de Athanasius Kircher sobre los jeroglificos, Obeliscus Pamphilius {1650} y Oedipus Aegyptiacus {1652-54/5), seguidos de extractos de dos canas de Kircher a Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc de los aiios 30 del s. XVIl, en las cuales Kircher describe el influjo que la amenaza de la censura eclesiastica ejerci6 en la concepcion del Oedipus Aegyptiacus. Los documentos ofrecen un testimonio palpitante de hasta que punto los censores eclesiasticos velaban el material peneneciente a la magia y a las "supersticiones• no cristianas, y hasta que grado esta censura afect6 al autor y a su obra. De modo mas general, ofrecen un ejemplo de la forma y contenido de la censura jesuita, y muestran una serie de preocupaciones, que incluyen la calidad cientifica y la correccion profesional, asi como tambien la conservacion de la onodoxia, todas ellas notas caracteristicas del trabajo de los Padres censores. Los documentos van precedidos de una breve exposicion del sistema de censura jesuita, y de algunos pormenores relacionados con la revision del Oedipus Aegyptiacus y el Obeliscus Pamphilius. Un apendice apona un inventario de todos los documentos referentes a la censura de las obras de Kircher que se conservan en el Archivo Romano de la Compaiiia. 176 Athanasius Kircher, Pofygraphia Nova et Uni'IJfmaiis ex Combinatoria Arte Detecta (Rome, 1663). tn •1606 Ezcaroz; SJ 1621 Villagarda; t21.iv.1689 Rome (DHC], II, 1312). 178 179 •iz.ii.1608 Ferrara; SJ 10.xii.1623 Novcllara; tlJ.i.1685 Rome t28.viii.1682 Rome (Fejer, Defancti, V, 167). (DHCJ, I, 360-61).

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Oedipus Censored: Censurae of Athanasius Kircher’s Works in the Roman Archive of the Society of Jesus (2004)

Oedipus Censored: Censurae of Athanasius Kircher’s Works in the Roman Archive of the Society of Jesus (2004)

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS