campanini2014 a sefirotic tree from a miscellany of christian kabbalistic texts

DOI 10.1484/M.BIB.1.102101

Manuscrits hébreux et arabes: Mélanges en l’honneur de Colette Sirat, édité par Nicholas de LANGe et Judith OLszOwy-schLANGer, Turnhout, 2014 (BIBLIOLOGIA, 38), p. 387-401© BREPOLS H PUBLISHERS

A Sefirotic tree from a miscellany of Christian Kabbalistic texts

Saverio CampaniniQuomodo radix non est pulchra, sed intus habet vim pulchritudinis suae.

The contents of the miscellaneous Latin manuscript bearing the signature Piancastelli O VII 57, pre-served at the Biblioteca Comunale of Forlì, have been already the object of some partial surveys, in particular by Chaim Wirzsubski1, Paola Zambelli2, and, more recently, by the author of the present article.3 Nevertheless, although some elements of uncertainty or sheer errors in the evaluation of the origin, the date and the nature of the heterogeneous materials bound together in it have been clarified or dispelled, there are still numerous points which deserve a closer look. After having shown, I believe, with conclu-sive evidence, that the “Christophorus” appearing in the manuscript as the copyist could not be identified with the cardinal Cristoforo Numai, for obvious chronological reasons, one can at least have a terminus post quem for the dating of the major part of the materials present in this miscellany: it is the year 1540, when Francesco Giorgio Veneto, also known as Zorzi, died in Asolo. The manuscript, in which the pages of the printed edition of the Giorgio’s Problemata (Venice 1536) are repeatedly quoted, refers to him clearly as already dead: it stands therefore to reason that the main bulk of the manuscript was produced, within the Franciscan Observance, possibly at the Franciscan Convent of Villa Verucchio (Rimini)4, around the middle of the 16th century. It contains, among other things, a version of the reportatio of the Commentary on the Conclusiones cabalisticae by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, a fragment of a kab-balistic commentary on the Canticle, an Hexameron mysticum, the text of the Conclusiones themselves, various documents concerning the much debated problem of the royal divorce of Henry VIII of England and the reform of the Franciscan Observance. Towards the middle of the miscellany, on ff. 111r-112r

1. Ch. wIrszuBskI, “Francesco Giorgio’s Commentary on Giovanni Pico’s kabbalistic theses”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 37 (1974), [pp. 145-156], p. 148.

2. P. zAMBeLLI, “Pico, la Cabala e l’Osservanza Francescana. Un inedito commento alle «Tesi» di Pico scampato al Sacco di Roma”, Archivio Storico Italiano 152 (1994), p. 735-766; see also the abbreviated version in P. zAMBeLLI, L’apprendista stregone. Astrologia, cabala e arte lulliana in Pico della Mirandola e seguaci, Venice, 1995, p. 173-200.

3. S. cAMPANINI, “Ein unbekannter Kommentar zum „Hohelied“ aus der kabbalistischen Schule von Francesco Zorzi: Edi-tion und Kommentar”, in G. frANk, A. hALLAcker and S. LALLA (eds), Erzählende Vernunft, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 2006, pp. 265-281; IdeM, “Il commento alle conclusiones cabalisticae nel Cinquecento”, in F. Lelli (ed.), Giovanni Pico e la qabbalah, in print.

4. As I have shown elsewhere (“Il commento alle conclusiones”), the evidence of the manuscripts testifies to the existence of three versions of Zorzi’s commentary on Pico’s conclusiones: 1) the shortest, that is the reportatio of the mss. Piancastelli and of MS. Yahuda Var. 24 of the National Library of Israel; 2) an intermediate version, larger then the preceding one, but much shorter than 3) the commentary published under his own name by Zorzi’s pupil Arcangelo da Borgonovo. It is far from being devoid of interest that a copy of the intermediate version of the Commentary on the conclusiones is preserved at the Biblioteca Gambalunghiana of Rimini (sign. SC-MS 110).

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 387 13/10/14 13:50

388 A SEFIROTIC TREE FROM A MISCELLANY OF CHRISTIAN KABBALISTIC TEXTS

(whereas f. 112v is blank), that is to say, between the end of the Exameron mysticum and the beginning of the Commentary on the Canticle, one finds the text of a short commentary on the sefirot followed, but it should be remarked right away, on a different kind of paper, more robust, and written only on the recto, by a singular representation of the tree of the sefirot with circles representing the various sefirot with some words for each sefirah, inscribed partly in Latin and partly in vocalized Hebrew (Plate 1).

The most striking feature of this peculiar tree, besides the twigs connecting the seventh and the eighth sefirah (Netzach and Hod), with the tenth (Malkut), which confers to the whole diagram a remarkable circular bent, is the realistic representation of what is usually reduced to an abstract diagram as a proper tree or rather a thornbush, which is quite rare (not to say virtually absent5) in the Jewish tradition6, but will be one of the most widespread features in the representation of the sefirotic tree in the Christian tradition. I will dedicate to this aspect a few more words when describing the tree in its visual and textual aspects.

The first question that arises is whether there is any connection between the commentary and the tree beyond their mere justaposition. It is evident that the subject of the two textual/visual units is common, but the factors separating them, such as the already mentioned quality of the writing support and the script, which seems to belong to a significanly later hand (datable, if I am not mistaken, to the second half of the 16th or rather to the 17th century), are prevalent. Moreover, the very fact that the sheet contai-ning the tree has been cut to fit the dimensions of the booklet, with a marginal but not insignificant loss of text on the right margin and the presence of vocalized Hebrew words, written by an untrained, quite awkward hand, certainly by a pupil with only rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew (as the wrong rendition of the word צבאות, written twice as צבהת makes abundantly clear), as opposed to the fact that the rest of the manuscript does not contain a single word in Hebrew characters (whereas the frequent Hebrew words recalled in the text are invariably transcribed in Latin characters) leave no room for doubt that the picture of the sefirotic tree has been added to the original manuscript at a later point. Finally, as we will see further on, the contents of the two pieces are only partly compatible. In order to examine the problem of the relationship between the two units, a closer look is needed.

To start with the first textual unit, that is the commentary on the sefirot, one can easily remark that it is written by the same hand as the main bulk of the manuscript. Moreover one should emphasize a pecu-liar feature of this brief explanation of the sefirot: the last name (nomen), referring to the sefirah Malkut is written, since the copyist had used all the space available on f. 111v, on a blank space at the end of f. 110v. This should be an indication that the text has been copied from some model rather than being an original composition, and that the copyist had slightly overestimated the space at his disposal, and, not wanting to begin a new page, simply completed the task by utilizing a free space at the end of the previous textual unit. As remarked above, on f. 113v one finds the incipit of the Commentary on the Canticle, also

5. I am grateful to Giulio Busi, who confirmed with his vaste visual erudition my impression that, although the expression -is authentic, and used, as early as in the Sefer ha-Temunah, to identify it with the tamarisk (eshel), a realistic repre אילן הספירותsentation of the sefirot as a tree or a shrub seems utterly unknown.

6. One is reminded of a highly stylized, and quite rare, “tree of wisdom” (Ilan ha-ḥokmah) in a manuscript of the Biblio-thèque Nationale de France (héb. 763), written in Rome in the XIIIth century (1286). A very similar drawing is preserved also in MS Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, parm. 2784, f. 97r. See G. BusI, Qabbalah visiva, Einaudi, Torino, 2005, p. 128. A reproduc-tion of the tree had alrady been used for the cover of G. schOLeM, Les origines de la Kabbale, trans. by G. Vajda, Aubier Mon-taigne, Paris, 1966 and in A. ABécAssIs, G. NAtAf, Encyclopédie de la mystique juïve, Berg, Paris, 1977, p. 698.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 388 13/10/14 13:50

SAVERIO CAMPANINI 389

written by the same hand (that is Christophorus’), responsible for the vast majority of the manuscript, and perhaps the copyist did not want to begin writing on a new page the few lines left in his antigraphus. Be that as it may, it seems useful to publish here the text of the commentary on the sefirot in order to proceed to its identification.

[111r] Hebreorum mecubales ponunt 10 primaria nomina divina quae per 10 sephiroth veluti per exemplaria archetypi in omnia creata ordine quodam influunt. Nam primo influunt in 9 angelorum ordines et animarum beatarum chorum. Et per illos in caelestes sphaeras et planetas et homines, a quibus deinde res singulae accipiunt vim atque virtutem. Primum horum est nomen ehie, nomen divinae essentiae. Eius numeratio vocata est Cheter, quae interpretatur corona, vel diadema supremum, et significat esse simplicissimum divinitatis et attribuitur patri et influit per ordinem seraphin, vel ut vocant Hebraei haioth hacadoscim, hoc est animalia sanctitatis, et exinde per primum mobile omnibusque essendi munus largitur, ipsum universum per totam circumferentiam et centrum replens, cuius intelligentia particularis nuncupatur Metatron sar hapanim idest princeps facierum, cuius officium est alios introducere ad faciem principis. Et per hunc locutus est dominus Moysi. Nomen est Jod i sive Tetragrammaton cum iod coniunctum, et eius numeratio Cocma sive Hochma hoc est sapientia et significat divinitatem plenam ideis et primogenitum, et attribuitur filio, et influit per ordinem cherubim sive prout vocant hebraei ophanim hoc est formae vel rotae, et exinde coelum stellatum, totidem illic fabricans figuras quot in se continet ideas. Ipsum Chaos creaturarum distinguens per intelligentiam particularem nomine Razielem, qui fuit praefectus Adam. Nomen vocatum est tetragrammaton Elohim, numeratio eius dicitur Bina hoc est providentia seu intelligentia, et significat remissionem, quietem, Jubilaeum poenitentialem, conversionem, tubam magnam, redemptionem mundi et vitam venturi saeculi, et attribuitur Spiritui sancto et per ordinem thronorum influit7 sive quos haebrei vocant Aralim hoc est angeli fortes et robusti. Atque exinde per sphaeram Saturni formam fluxae materiae ministrans, cuius intelligentia particularis Zaphchiel prefectus Nohe. Et alia intelligentia Jophiel prefectus Sem. Et haec sunt 3 numerationes summae et supremae veluti sedes divinarum personarum quarum iussu omnia fiunt, sed per reliquas 7 exequuntur quae iccirco numerationes fabricae. Nomen est El, cuius numeratio haesed idest clementia sive bonitas, et significat gratiam, misericordiam, pietatem, magnificentiam, sceptrum et dextram manum, et influit per ordinem dominationum sive ut aiunt hebraei hasmalim, per sphaeram Jovis effingens corporum effigies clementiam et iustitiam pacificam omnibus donans, et intelligentia eius particularis Zadchiel prefectus Abrae. [111v]Nomen elohim gibor, hoc est deus robustus, puniens culpas improborum, et eius numeratio vocatur geburach idest potentia, fortitudo, securitas, iudicium puniens per strages et bella, et coaptatur ad tribunal dei, et cingulum dei et gladium et brachium sinistrum, et vocatur etiam pachad, quod est timor, et influit per ordinem potestatum, sive quem dicunt hebraei seraphim, et exinde per sphaeram martis cuius est fortitudo, afflictio, bellum, et eius intelligentia particularis Camael prefectus Sampsonis. Nomen est Eloha et numeratio eius Tiphereth idest ornatus pulchritudo gloria voluptas et significat lignum vitae, et influit per ordinem virtutum, sive ut aiunt hebraei Malachim idest angeli in sphaeram solis, claritatem illi, et vitam donans, et exinde metalla producens, et intelligentia eius particularis Raphael, qui fuit praefectus Jsahac8 et Thobiae iunioris, atque angelus Peliel praefectus Jahacob.

7. At first the copyist wrote “induit”, subsequently erased. 8. At first the copyist wrote Isaac and then erased it.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 389 13/10/14 13:50


Nomen est Adonai Zebaoth idest deus exercituum et numeratio eius neza idest triumphus et victoria et applicatur ei columna dextra, et significat aeternitatem et iustitiam dei ulciscentis et influit per ordinem principatum, sive quem vocant hebraei elohim in sphaeram Veneris zelum et amorem iusticiae et producit vegetabilia et eius intelligentia haniel et angelus ceruiel praefectus David. Nomen dicitur elohim Zebaoth, quod etiam interpretatur deus exercituum non belli et iustitiae sed pietatis et consonantiae. Numeratio eius vocatur hod, quod interpretatur laus, confessio, decor, et celebritas, et adtribuitur sibi columna sinistra. Et influit per ordinem archangelorum sive ut vocant hebraei bene Elohim idest filios deorum in sphaeram Mercurii ornatus, elegantiam, et consonantiam, producens animalia. Et intelligentia eius Michael qui fuit praefectus Salomonis. Nomen dicitur Sadai idest omnibus satisfaciens sive omnipotens, et etiam Elahi idest Deus vivus et numeratio eius Josed hoc est fundamentum et significat intellectum bonum foedus redemptionem et quietem et influit per ordinem angelorum sive quem vocant Judaei cherubim, in sphaeram lunae rerum omnium incrementum et decrementum hominumque genios et custodes curat, atque distribuit. Et intelligentia eius Gabriel, qui fuit praefectus Joseph Josue et Danielis. [110v] Nomen dicitur Adonai melech idest Dominus et rex, et numeratio eius malchuth, quod est regnum et imperium, et significat ecclesiam, templum dei, et ianuam, et influit per ordinem animasticum, animarum scilicet beatarum, qui ab hebraeis dicitur Jssim idest nobiles, heroes, et principes. Suntque hyerarchiis inferiores, et influunt filiis hominum cognitionem, scientiam, industriam, et prophetiam, et praesidet illis anima messiae, sive, ut alii aiunt, Metatron, quae dicitur prima creatura ut supra.

What is immediately evident is that the commentary on the sefirot is of Christian origin and not a direct translation of a Jewish source. A certain haste in the execution of the copy is visible from the fact that the divine names, and the sefirot related to them, are not numbered as would be expected, although they reflect correctly one of the two possible dispositions of the sefirot, the classical descending order, from Keter to Malkut. Moreover, the peculiar terminology used for indicating the kabbalists restricts greatly the scope of our search for a possible source. To the best of my knowledge, the first Christian author who used the term “mecubales” in order to describe the kabbalists, clearly adapting the Hebrew mequbbalim (מקובלים) to Latin morphology, was the Spanish poet Pero Guillén de Segovia, in his decir “Oyd maravillas del siglo presente”9, who in turn was deeply influencd by the very widespread Visión deleytable of Alfonso de Torre10, in which one reads the deformed term “necubalini”, but which was probably based on the standard form mecubalim.11 The latter was the usual form attested in the 15th century polemical literature, especially the tracts authored by Jewish converts, for example the Mostrador de Justicia of Alfonso de Valladolid12 and the Zelus Christi of Pedro de la Caballeria (who has, at least in

9. P. GuILLéN de seGOVIA, Obra poética, ed. by C. MOreNO herNáNdez, Fundación Universitaria Española, Madrid, 1989, p. 366.

10. F. J. dOMéNech, “El decir Oyd maravillas derl siglo presente de Pero Guillén de Sevilla: contribución al estudio de sus fuentes litérarias”, Dicenda 5 (1986), [pp. 13-45], p. 36. More generally see L. M. GIróN-NeGróN, Alfonso de la Torre’s Visión deleytable. Philosophical Rationalism and the Religious Imagination in 15th Century Spain, Brill, Leiden – Boston, 2001, p. 216.

11. But other variants are attested, see A. de LA tOrre, Visión deleytable, ed. by J. GArcíA LóPez, Universidad de Salaman-ca, Salamanca, 1991, p. 246, who lists: mecubalim, macubalyn, methubalim, necubalim, mecabalim, necabalim, necubalini.

12. Cfr. I. LOeB, “Polémistes chrétiens et juifs en France et en Espagne”, REJ 18 (1889), [pp. 43-70], p. 61; F. secret, “Pico della Mirandola e gli inizi della cabala cristiana”, Convivium 25 (1957), [pp. 31-47], p. 44; Alfonso de VALLAdOLId (Abner of Burgos), Mostrador de justicia, ed. by W. Mettmann, vol. I, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, 1994, p. 165.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 390 13/10/14 13:50


the printed version, the form “mecubalini”).13 The first Christian Kabbalist to use the term “mecubales” was Ludovico Lazzarelli, in his Crater Hermetis (written before 1494, but published in 150514) and also in his Fasti Christianae religionis.15 Much closer to our context, that is to say already speaking of the names and the functions of the sefirot, was then the Jewish convert Paulus Ricius, who, in his Isagoge (150916), has many expressions which coincide with the ones found in our commentary. One could suppose a certain degree of dependence of our piece on Ricius, but it would be an error of perspective: the fact that our list partly coincides with the one presented by Ricius in his Isagoge and, later on, in a condensed form, in his Symbolum17, can be better explained by considering that Ricius, among others, was the mediated source of this passage, which is to be found almost exactly (we will examine further on the minor discrepancies and we will try to offer an explanation) in Cornelius Agrippa’s De occulta philosophia.18 In considering the strict affinity, not to say identity, between the two texts, one could term the excerpt present in MS Piancastelli a mere extract from the book, published for the first time in Cologne in the years 1530-31. Before pronouncing a verdict on this question, I reproduce here the relevant passage from Agrippa’s De occulta philosophia (italics have been used where there is a complete coincidence between the two texts):

Verum Hebraeorum mecubales, rerum divinarum eruditissimi, decem principalia nomina divina veluti numina quaedam ceu Dei membra acceperunt, quae per decem numerationes, quae Sephiroth vocant, veluti per vestimenta sive instrumenta vel exemplaria archetypi influunt in omnia quae creata sunt, per singula superiora usque in infima, ordine tamen quodam: nam primo et proxime influunt in novem angelorum ordines et animarum beatarum chorum et per illos in coelestes sphaeras et planetas et homines, a quibus deinde res singulae accipiunt vim atque virtutem. Primum horum est nomen Ehie, nomen divinae essentiae; numeratio eius vocata est Cether, quod interpretatur ‘corona’ seu ‘diadema’ et significat esse simplicissimum divinitatis et vocatur ‘quod oculus non vidit’ et attribuitur Deo patri et influit per ordinem Seraphim (vel, ut vocant Hebraei, Haioth Hacadosch, hoc est ‘animalia sanctitatis’) et exinde per Primum Mobile omnibusque essendi

13. Cfr. Tractatus Zelus Christi contra Iudaeos, Sarracenos, et Infideles ab Illust. Doct. Petro de la Cavaleria, Hispano ec Civitate Caesaraugusta, anno 1450 compositus, nec umquam impressus, Apud Baretium de Baretiis, Venetiis, 1592, p. 34.

14. Paris 1505, f. 60v-81v: 72r; see also W. J. hAANeGrAAf, R. M. BOuthOOrN (eds), Ludovico Lazzarelli (1447-1500), The Hermetic Writings ans Related Documents, Arizona Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Tempe, 2005; C. MOreschI-NI, Dall’Asclepius al Crater Hermetis. Studi sull’ermetismo latino tardo-antico e rinascimentale, Giardini, Pisa, 1989.

15. Lazzarelli writes: Mecubales cedant Hebraei, nanque magistro / clarius a Christo Cabala aperta fuit. I owe this obser-vation to F. BAccheLLI, Giovanni Pico e Pier Leone da Spoleto. Tra filosofia d’amore e tradizione cabbalistica, Olschki, Firen-ze, 2001, p. 157, who quotes from the MS 207 of the Biblioteca Comunale of San Severino Marche, the latest version, dedica-ted to Charles VIII and composed not before 1494; see G. ArBIzzONI, art. “Lazzarelli, Ludovico”, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 64, Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, Roma, 2005, p. 180; A. frItseN, “Ludovico Lazzarelli’s Fasti Christianae Religionis: Recipient and Context of an Ovidian Poem”, in D. sAcré, G. tOurNOy, Myricae. Essays on Neo-Latin Literature in Memory of Jozef Ijsewijn, Leuven University Press, Leuven, 2000, pp. 115-132: 117; see especially C. MOreschINI, “La poesia cristiana di Ludovico Lazzarelli. I Fasti christianae religionis”, Academia 5 (2003), [pp. 39-59], p 57; IdeM, “L’ermetismo del rinascimento da Marsilio Ficino a Ludovico Lazzarelli”, Aries 5 (2005), [pp. 33-60], p. 57.

16. Pauli Ricii israelitae aphoristicae in cabalistarum eruditionem cum digressionibus isagogae, apud Bernardinum de Garaldis, Papiae, 1509, f. bIv.

17. P. rIcIus, In Apostolorum Symbolum dialogus, Augsburg, 1514, f. biiiv-bivr. 18. C. AGrIPPA, De occulta philosophia, III, 10. See V. PerrONe cOMPAGNI (ed.), Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia

libri tres, Brill, Leiden, 1992, pp. 424-427.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 391 13/10/14 13:50


munus largitur, ipsum universum per totam circunferentiam et centrum replens; cuius intelligentia particularis nuncupatur Metatron, hoc est ‘princeps facierum’, cuius officium est introducere alios ad faciem principis: et per hunc loquutus est Dominus Moysi. Secundum nomen est Iod sive Tetragrammaton cum Iod coniunctum; numeratio eius Hochma, hoc est ‘sapientia’; et significat divinitatem plenam idearum et primogenitum et attribuitur Filio et influit per ordinem Cherubin (sive quem vocant Hebraei Ophanim, hoc est ‘formae’ vel ‘rotae’) et exinde in coelum stellatum, totidem illic fabricans figuras quot in se continet ideas, ipsum chaos creaturarum distinguens per intelligentiam particularem nomine Razielem, qui fuit praefectus Adam. Tertium nomen vocatum est Tetragrammaton Elohim; numeratio eius vocatur Bina, hoc est ‘providentia’ seu ‘intelligentia’; et significat remissionem et quietem, iubileum, poenitentialem conversionem, tubam magnam, redemptionem mundi et vitam venturi seculi et adtribuitur Spiritui Sancto et influit per ordinem Thronorum (sive quos Hebraei vocant Aralim, hoc est ‘angeli magni, fortes et robusti’) atque exinde per sphaeram Saturni, formam fluxae materiae ministrans; cuius intelligentia particularis Zaphchiel, praefectus Nohe, et alia intelligentia Iophiel, praefectus Sem. Et hae sunt tres numerationes summae et supremae, veluti sedes divinarum personarum; quarum iussu fiunt omnia, sed per reliquas septem exequuntur, quae iccirco dicuntur numerationes fabricae. Est itaque quartum nomen El, cuius numeratio Haesed, quod est ‘clementia’ sive ‘bonitas’, et significat gratiam, misericordiam, pietatem, magnificentiam, sceptrum et dextram manum et influit per ordinem Dominationum (sive quem vocant Hebraei Hasmalim) per sphaeram Iovis, effingens corporum effigies, clementiam et pacificam iustitiam omnibus donans; et intelligentia eius particularis Zadkiel, praefectus Abrahae. Quintum nomen Elohim Gibor, hoc est ‘Deus robustus puniens culpas improborum’; et numeratio eius vocatur Geburach, quod est ‘potentia, gravitas, fortitudo, securitas, iudicium, puniens per strages et bella’; et coaptatur ad tribunal Dei et cingulum Dei et gladium et brachium sinistrum; et vocatur etiam Pachad, quod est ‘timor’, et influit per ordinem Potestatum (sive quem dicunt Hebraei Seraphim) et exinde per sphaeram Martis, cuius est fortitudo et bellum et afflictio, elementa depromit; et intelligentia eius particularis Camaël, praefectus Samsonis. Sextum nomen Eloha, sive nomen quadriliterum coniunctum cum Vaudahat; et numeratio eius Tiphereth, hoc est ‘ornatus, pulchritudo, gloria, voluptas’; et significat lignum vitae et influit per ordinem Virtutum (sive quem vocant Hebraei Malachim, hoc est ‘angeli’) in sphaeram Solis, claritatem illi et vitam donans et exinde metalla producens; et intelligentia eius particularis Raphaël, qui fuit praefectus Isahac et Tobiae iunioris, atque angelus Peliel, praefectus Iacob. Septimum nomen Tetragrammaton Sabaoth, sive Adonai Sabaoth, hoc est ‘Deus exercituum’; et numeratio eius Nezah, hoc est ‘triumphus et victoria’; et applicatur ei columna dextra et significat aeternitatem et iustitiam Dei ulciscentis et influit per ordinem Principatuum (sive quem vocant Hebraei Elohim, hoc est ‘deorum’) in sphaeram Veneris zelum et amorem iustitiae et producit vegetabilia; et intelligentia eius Haniel et angelus Cerviel, praefectus David. Octavum nomen dicitur Elohim Sabaoth, quod etiam interpretatur ‘Deus exercituum, non belli et iustitiae, sed pietatis et consonantiae’ (habet enim utrunque nomen, hoc et praecedens, suum exercitum); numeratio huius vocatur Hod, quod interpretatur ‘laus et confessio et decor et celebritas’; et adtribuitur sibi columna sinistra et influit per ordinem Archangelorum (sive quem Hebraei vocant Bne Elohim, id est ‘filios deorum’) in sphaeram Mercurii ornatus elegantiam et consonantiam, producens animalia; et intelligentia eius Michaël, qui fuit praefectus Salomonis. Nonum nomen dicitur Sadai, hoc est ‘omnipotens et omnibus satisfaciens’, et Elhai, quod est ‘Deus vivus’; et numeratio eius Iesod, hoc est ‘fundamentum’; et significat intellectum bonum, foedus, redemptionem et quietem et influit per ordinem Angelorum (sive quem Hebraei vocant Cherubim) in sphaream Lunae rerum omnium incrementum et decrementum hominumque genios et custodes curat atque distribuit; et intelligentia eius Gabriel, qui fuit praefectus Ioseph et Iosue et Danielis. Decimum nomen est Adonai Melech, hoc est ‘dominus et rex’; et numeratio eius Malchuth, quod est ‘regnum et imperium’, et significat

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 392 13/10/14 13:50


ecclesiam et templum Dei et ianuam et influit per ordinem animasticum, animarum videlicet beatarum (qui ab Hebraeis dicitur Issim, hoc est ‘nobiles heroës et principes’) suntque hierarchiis inferiores et influunt filiis hominum cognitionem mirificamque rerum scientiam et industriam et prophetiam largiuntur; et praesidet illis anima Messihae sive, ut alii dicunt, intelligentia Matattron, quae dicitur prima creatura sive anima mundi et praefectus Mosae.

It seems, at a first glance, that no serious doubt can be cast on the evidence that the excerpt of MS Piancastelli should be derived from Agrippa. The discrepancies between the two texts are almost always the result of an abbreviation, of the choice of a synonymous expression or of a different turn of the phrase. There is only one instance where the derivative text seems to expand beyond the materials given in the supposed original: it is the Hebrew name of Metatron, called in MS Piancastelli “Sar hapanim”, a term, at the most, implicit in the text published by Agrippa, who only cites the Latin translation of the epithet. This discrepancy is too marginal, and could have been very well introduced ope ingenii by the copyist to suppose that his source was different from Agrippa’s printed version, which had been, all things consi-dered, already in print for at least a decade before MS Piancastelli was written. It is known from the correspondence of Agrippa, that at least on one occasion, the latter was in indirect contact with Francesco Giorgio and that he encouraged his correspondent to copy a kabbalistic work he had at his disposal in the convent of San Francesco Della Vigna19, but it is all the more surprising to see a disciple of Giorgio, as the copyist of MS Piancastelli must have been, using materials obviously derived, among others, from Giorgio and utilised, in his peculiar mixture, adding Ricius and Reuchlin, to form a spurious synthesis, which was to be normative in later esoteric traditions. It is all the more noteworthy that precisely some passages, for example the reference to “oculus non videt”, clearly derived from Giorgio20, are not copied in the fragment of MS Piancastelli. On the other hand, a serious objection against the hypothesis that the fragment we are examining could be an intermediate version copied for Agrippa is represented by the simple fact that the use made by Agrippa of Francesco Giorgio’s work is rather systematic and certainly not limited to this central passage.21 It seems rather a sign of the decadence of the school of Giorgio, in which even Agrippa could be used as a confirmation, et pour cause, of Giorgio’s teaching. As far as I know, Giorgio himself never mentioned Agrippa and was very well aware of the derivative nature of his teachings, but already his pupils, in some isolated convent, could only gather whatever scraps of material they were able to put their hands on in order to pursue, among great difficulties (this is already the case for the best among them, Arcangelo da Borgonovo) the difficult heritage they received from their vene-rated master.

One should rather consider the enormous diffusion of this Agrippa’s synthetic commentary on the sefirot and regard the fragment of MS Piancastelli as an early confirmation of the diffusion of this mélange

19. See the letter by Bernardo Paltrinieri to C. Agrippa (1532), in C. AGrIPPA, Opera, Lyon s. d., vol. II, pp. 1030-1033, in part. p. 1030-1031 e 1033. I have expanded on this document in F. zOrzI, L’armonia del mondo, ed. S. cAMPANINI, Bompiani, Milan, 2010, pp. XVIII and n. 39.

20. See De harmonia mundi 1, 8, 21. On this chapter of the De harmonia mundi, see S. Campanini, “Francesco Zorzi: armonia del mondo e filosofia simbolica”, in A. ANGeLINI, P. cAye (eds), Il pensiero simbolico nella prima età moderna, Olschki, Firenze, 2007, pp. 225-246.

21. See V. PerrONe cOMPAGNI, “Una fonte di Cornelio Agrippa, il “De Harmonia Mundi” di Francesco Zorzi”, Annali dell’Istituto di Filosofia dell’Università di Firenze 4 (1982), pp. 45-74; F. secret, “L’originalité du De occulta philosophia”, Charis. Archives de l’Unicorne 2 (1990), pp. 57-87.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 393 13/10/14 13:50


of different and only partly compatible traditions. Concerning the fortunes of Agrippa’s synthesis, one should recall Giordano Bruno, quoting it verbatim in his De magia mathematica22 and again in his De monade numero et figura23, but also Maurizio Fieschi’s Decas de fato, as late as 166524.

As to the term mecubales, which is used also in Agrippa’s De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum25, it has become, at least for the historian, a caracteristic trait enabling us to detect Agrippa’s influence, as it resurfaces in Robert Fludd’s Monas Hieroglyphica26, Blaise de Vigenère’s Traicté des cometes27, Les images28, Traité des chiffres29 and Traité du feu et du sel, Roch le Bailiff30, C. de Remond31, Claude Desternod32, Pietro Bongo33, Claude Duret34, Polycarpe De la Rivière35, Léon de Saint-Jean36, Peter Friedrich Arpe.37 The previous list is certainly not complete, but its purpose is rather to convey how fashionable it became to refer to the authority of the “mecubales”, which in turn, given that the vast majority of the mentioned authors depended directly or indirectly on the works of Agrippa, reveals the amplitude of the latter’s influence long before his consecration as one of the absolutely central sources of 19th century esoterics and in particular of the theosophical movement. Should we, then, ascribe this fragment/excerpt to the large chapter of the fortune of Agrippa’s synthesis? The elements gathered seem to allow, in my view, at least a reasonable doubt: we could be also confronted with one of possibly many fragments testifying to the circulation of what would become Agrippa’s heterogeneous mixture, that is a testimony to the formation of his revised and greatly enlarged version of the De occulta philosophia. Instead of deciding about this difficult point, which could only be solved, I believe, in the wider context of a still to be attempted history of the formation of the De occulta philosophia, we can add a further

22. G. BruNO, Opere magiche, Adelphi, Milano, 2000, p. 45.23. BruNO, Opere magiche, p. 96. 24. M. fIeschI, Decas de fato annisque fatalibus tam hominibus quam regnis mundi, Apud J. Baptistam Schönwetter, Fran-

cofurti, 1665, p. 171-173. The identification of Arcangelo da Borgonovo as the source of Fieschi’s passage on the mecubales suggested by F. secret,“Notes sur quelques kabbalistes chrétiens”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 36 (1974), pp. 70-71, should be corrected: Fieschi’s source is far more precisely Agrippa.

25. C. AGrIPPA, De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum, Köln, 1531, p. Z iir. 26. R. fLudd, Monas Hieroglyphica, Johann Wechel, Peter Fischer, Frankfurt, 1591, p. 59. 27. B. de VIGeNère, Traicté des cometes ou estoiles chevelues apparoissantes extraordinairement au ciel avec leurs causes

et effects, chez Nicolas Chesenau, Paris, 1578, p. 104; see F. secret, “De quelques courants prophétiques et religieux sous le règne de Henri III”, Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, 172 (1967), [pp. 1-32], p. 17.

28. Les images ou tableaux de platte-peinture de Philostrate Lemnien sophiste grec, par B. de VIGeNère, Nicolas Chesneau, Paris, 1578, pp. 58; 270; 430.

29. B. de VIGeNère, Traicté des chiffres, Abel L’Angelier, Paris, 1587, p. 114. 30. R. de BAILIff, Premier traicté de l’homme, et son essentielle anatomie, Abel L’Angelier, Paris, 1580, p. 29v. See also

D. de PLANIs cAMPy, Bouquet composé des plus belles fleurs chimiques, Pierre Billaine, Paris, 1629, p. 79. 31. C. de reMONd, Le sacre et couronnement du roy Loys XIII, Charles Sevestre, Paris, 1610, p. 60v. 32. C. desterNOd, Le franc Bourguignon, Gillebert le Veau, 1615, p. 164. 33. P. BONGO, De numerorum mysteria, Apud Laurentium Somnum, Paris, 1618, p. 557. 34. C. duret, Thresor de l’histoire des langues de cest Univers, Yverdon, 1619, p. 265. 35. P. de LA rIVIère, L’adieu du monde ou le mespris de ses vaines grandeurs et plaisirs perissables, Antoine Pillehotte,

Lyon, 1631, p. 4636. L. de sAINt-JeAN, Antoine Padeloup, Studium sapientiae universalis, Antoine Padeloup, Paris, 1657, p. 25.37. P. F. ArPe, De prodigiosis naturae et artis operibus, talismanes et amuleta dictis, Christian Liebezeit, Hamburg, 1717,

p. 177.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 394 13/10/14 13:50


object to our puzzled philological contemplation: the sefirotic tree facing the commentary in MS Piancastelli.

We will follow the same pattern chosen for the commentary presenting, beside the photographic reproduction of the tree, the textual evidence it offers:

אהיה כתרDiadema supremum,Privatio, pater, mens

יה אלהים Spiritus dei, Iubileus tu- Sapientia, primogeni- ba magna, formatrix tus, essentia informe penitentialis conversio Cocma redemptio mundi vita venientis seculi

אל Elohim gebura for- Tiphereth Gratia, magnificen- titudo, Iudicium Gloria, linea media tia dextrum miser[icordie] sinistrum, Jsahac voluptas, lignum vitae aquae superiores Timor Jahacob Abraham Zaphchiel Christus Pietas Michael Zadchiel Saturnus Sol Jupiter

Raphaelאלהים צבהת שדי יהוה צבהת

Confessio, columna Fundamentum iustus Eternum columna

Sinistra Israhel, Joseph dextra Samael intellectus bonus saba- Uriel Mars tum quies redemptio fedus Venus

circumcisionisMercurius

אדוניRegnum Ecclesia Js-rahel, templum regis spon-sa regina celi, virgo, israhel, dei ianua do-mus david, hortus david. GabrielLuna

The image of the tree can be, at least partly, traced back to its source, here more directly to the very first author publishing a sefirotic tree in a Christian context: the two trees published, once with the names

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 395 13/10/14 13:50


of the sefirot in Hebrew and once in Latin translation in Paulus Ricius’ Latin partial translation of Gikatilla’s Sha‘are Orah (Augsburg 151638). As a matter of fact already in 1509 Ricius announced that his commented translation was ready for publication but he decided, when he still was in Italy, to postpone its appearance in print. On the other hand, all the names attributed to the various sefirot are taken from Paulus Ricius’ Isagoge, first published in 1509 (Pavia), and then again in 1510, and afterwards again in Augsburg in 1515 (and also reprinted in the De caelesti agricultura, 1541, and in Johannes Pistorius’ anthology of 1587). This can easily be proved by listing the attributes of the sefirot as given by Ricius, who explicitly declares his sources: the already mentioned Sha‘are Orah by Gikatilla and the anonymous Ma‘arekhet ha-Elohut. Here follow the thesis, which underwent only minor changes39 through the various editions of the Isagoge, with the complete series of the attributes of the sefirot:

3940. Prima sphira41: eheie, diadema supremum42, privatio, pater, mens. 40. Secunda: ioh43, sapientia, primogenitus, essentia, informe. 41. Tertia44: tetragramaton prolatum45 elohim46, spiritus dei, iubileus, tuba magna, formatrix, penitentialis47 conversio, redemptio mundi, vita venientis seculi. 42. Quarta48: el, gratia, magnificentia, dextrum, misericordiae, aquae superiores. 43. Quinta49: elohim, fortitudo, iudicium, sinistrum. 44. Sexta50: eloha, gloria, linea media, voluptas, lignum vitae. 45. Septima: tetragramaton51 zevaos, eternum, columna dextra. 46. Octava52: elohim zevaos, confessio, columna sinistra. 47. Nona: sadai53, fundamentum, iustus, israel, ioseph, intellectus bonus, sabatum54, quies, redemptio, foedus circuncisionis55.

38. Since the title page is not reproduced in P. rIcIus, De caelesti agricultura, per Henricum Stayner, Augsburg, 1541, only the Latin tree appears there and in the reprint of the leter appearing in J. PIstOrIus, Artis cabalisticae scriptores, per Sebastianum Henricpetri, Basileae, 1587.

39. I have noted all the significant changes in the notes, adding the year of the edition where they appear. 40. The ordinal numbers of the theses are, in the 1541 edition, XXIX through XXXVIII. 41. Primae Sephirae adscribitur nomen (ed. 1541). 42. supremum diadema (ed. 1541). 43. iah (ed. 1515); secundae adscribitur nomen Iah (ed. 1541).44. Tertiae (ed. 1541). 45. Tetragrammaton pronunciatum (ed. 1541). 46. elohim, prudentia (ed. 1541). 47. om. ed. 1541. 48. Quartae (ed. 1541). 49. Quintae (ed. 1541). 50. Sextae (ed. 1541). 51. Septimae adscribitur Tetragrammaton (ed. 1541). 52. Octavae (ed. 1541). 53. sadaii (ed. 1515); Nonae adscribitur nomen Schadai (ed. 1541).54. sabbathum (ed. 1541). 55. circumcisionis (ed. 1515; ed. 1541).

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 396 13/10/14 13:50


48. Decima: edonai56, regnum, ecclesia israel, templum regis, sponsa, regina coeli, virgo israel, dei ianua57, regnum domus david, hortus david.

As one can easily notice, the most precise analogies are with the three first editions rather than with the abridged and more thoroughly revised 1541 edition. However, the names of the archangels, the names of the patriarchs and the planets attributed to the single sefirot are hardly derived from the same source, partly because Ricius does not explicitly associate the sefirot with the planets58, partly because the names of the archangels do not coincide with the ones recurring in Ricius’ Isagoge59. For this aspect of the tree we need to search for another source. In this case Francesco Giorgio cannot be identified with the source for this peculiar association, the list of the angels and their correspondence to the planets being as follows: Saturnus Zaphchiel, Jupiter Zadchiel, Mars Camael60, Sol Raphael, Venus Honiel, Mercurius Michael, Luna Gabriel61. Moreover, the original cosmologic system we find in this tree does not coincide with the very peculiar one found in the works of Giorgio, nor in the works of Pico, whom Giorgio commented. It is certain, as a quick comparison will show, that the names of the angelic intelligences presiding over the planets do not correspond to the ones present in the commentary on f. 111r-v [and 110v]: for example Haniel stands as the angelic intelligence presiding over Venus as opposed to Uriel. Agrippa (although he recalls the name of the angel Uriel, but in a different context and with no connection whatsoever with Venus) can also be excluded from the sources of this tree62. However, the peculiarity of this tree resides far more in the proposed correspondence between the planets and the sefirot, which is not to be found, in this particular form, as far as I know, in any of the numerous attempts at reconciling two systems, the ten sefirot and the spheres of the heavens, which are not completely compatible. As I have pointed out elsewhere63, the only way to present the two series, planets and sefirot, in parallel, associating one planet to a single sefirah, is to break the traditional order of one or both series. In fact, this is what, starting with Pico della Mirandola, all the Christian Kabbalists of the Renaissance did, as can be seen clearly from the following table of comparison of the different cosmological-metaphysical systems.

56. edonay (ed. 1510); edonaii (ed. 1515); Decimae adscribitur nomen Aedonai (ed. 1541). 57. Dei ianua, virgo Israel (ed. 1541). 58. See S. cAMPANINI, “Shaping the Body of the Godhead. The Adaptation of the Androgynous Motif in Early Christian

Kabbalah”, in M. Diemling, G. Veltri (eds), The Jewish Body. Corporeality, Society, and Identity in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period, Brill, Leiden – Boston, 2009, pp. 355-376.

59. Here follows the list of the names of the archangels according to the first editions of the Isagoge (they are missing from the last edition and, of course, also from Pistorius’ anthology): “65. Accessit enim (ut cabalistae, talmudistaque, et magnus formationis libelli interpres rabi Isaac proferunt) per angelum raziel, qui ipsum edocuit Adam, accessit filius Noe per angelum iofiel, per zadchiel abraam, per raphael ysaac, per piliel iacob, per gabriel ioseph, per metatron mose, per maltiel elia, quid et de pluribus iudicandum”.

60. On another occasion, Zorzi spells the name as Samael (De harmonia mundi 1, 7, 32), and in yet another passage (1, 4, 19) he has Zamael. Already the French translator of the De harmonia mundi, Guy Le Fèvre de la Boderie, noticed that the form Zaphchiel does not correspond to the Jewish sources he had at his disposal and, surmising a printing mistake, corrected Zaphchiel into Cazpiel, see G. Le fèVre de LA BOderIe, L’harmonie du monde, Paris, 1579, p. 84.

61. See De harmonia mundi 1, 3, 6. 62. AGrIPPA, De occulta philosophia 3, 24, has two lists, one derived from the De harmonia mundi and the other from J.

Trithemius’ De septem secundeis: Orifiel/Saturnus; Anael/Venus; Zachariel/Jupiter; Raphael/Mercurius; Samael/Mars; Gabriel/Luna; Michael/Sol. As one can easily see, none of them corresponds exactly with the equivalents of the Piancastelli tree.

63. S. cAMPANINI, “Il de divinis attributis di Cesare Evoli”, Materia Giudaica 15-16 (2010-2011), pp. 339-355.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 397 13/10/14 13:50


Sefirot Pico della Mirandola65

Cesare Evoli66

Francesco Zorzi, Agrippa, Arcangelo da Borgonovo, Giordano Bruno67

Giulio Camillo68

Piancastelli Tree Paulus Ricius, Isagoge

Keter Empireus Keter (Primum mobile)

Keter Coelum intellectuale

Chokmah Primum mobile

Chokmah (nonum coelum)

Cocma Primum mobile

Binah Coelum stellatum

Binah (coelum stellatum)

Saturnus Saturno (Bina ; Zaphchiel)

Bina Orbis stellarum

Chesed Jupiter Chesed (Saturnus)

Jupiter Giove (Chased ; Zadchiel)

Gratia (Jupiter) Saturnus

Gevurah Mars Netzach (Jupiter)

Mars Marte (Gabiarah69; Camael)

Gebura (Saturnus)

Jupiter

Tif’eret Sol Gevurah (Mars)

Sol Tipheret (Sol) Mars

Netzach Saturnus Tif’eret (Sol) Venus Eternum (Venus) Sol Hod Venus Hod (Venus) Mercurius Venere (Hod ;

Nizach ; Honiel)

Confessio (Mars) Venus

Yesod Mercurius Yesod (Mercurius)

Luna Mercurio (Iesod; Michael)

Fundamentum (Mercurius)

Mercurius

Malkut Luna Malkut (Luna)

Luna Luna (Marcut70; Gabriel)

Regnum (Luna) Luna

If we keep the traditional oder of the sefirot, the natural order of the planets of the solar system is violated twice: Jupiter precedes instead of following Saturn and Mars is located under the Sun, instead of taking place where it should, that is immediately above the sphere of the Sun. The second alteration of the natural order of the spheres is much more relevant, because, if one is prepared to invert the prece-

64. Conclusiones II,48.65. Caesaris AEVOLI NEAPOLITANI, De divinis attributis quae Sephroth ab Haebreis nuncupata, ad Maximilianum II,

Imperatorem Romanum, Apud Georgium Melantrichum ab Aventino, Pragae, 1571 (further editions Venice, 1573; 1580 and 1589).

66. Cabala del cavallo pegaseo, 1585.67. G. CAMILLO, L’Idea del Theatro, Appresso Lorenzo Torrentino, Firenze, 1550, p. 47.68. Sic.69. Sic.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 398 13/10/14 13:50


dence between Chesed and Gevurah, Saturn and Jupiter would be in the right order, but this would not help in solving the problem of Mars-Hod. Among the other solutions suggested for this problem, the most authoritative, the one by Pico, moving Saturn under the sphere of the Sun, and the one by Zorzi, asso-ciating the Moon with two sefirot (Yesod and Malkut) in order to respect the succession of the other sefirot, but bringing the conspicuous difficulty to move Saturn within the inner circle of the first three sefirot, which is probaly derived from the peculiar cosmology of the Sefer ha-Peli’ah, the closest one is that of Cesare Evoli, who kept the order of the planets but altered significantly the order of the sefirot.

I cannot point to a single earlier source for the connection, which was to become in later times quite wide-spread, between Uriel and Venus, but the variants, in the spelling of the names of the archangels and in their association with the heavenly spheres are, already in the Jewish tradition, almost innume-rable70, only to proliferate beyond control in the Christian tradition.71

A further interesting feature of this tree, well integrated in the Christian attempts at adapting the Jewish lore of Kabbalah to their own basic tenets of faith, shows that, to the identification of the first three sefi-rot, with the personae of the Trinity, already suggested by Ricius with the choice of the three attributes, respectively “pater”, “primogenitus”, “spiritus”, the author of the tree has also added the name “Christus” in correspondence with the sixth sefirah that is tif’eret, an idea fully developed, once again, by Francesco Giorgio72. A further connection, underlined by Zorzi especially in his Problemata, is the one, confirmed or represented by the Piancastelli tree, between the Christ and the archangel Michael.73

One last feature of this sefirotic tree which will have, especially in the 17th century, an interesting development, deserves to be specially emphasized. As in the case of one of the most famous archetypes of the arboreal representation of any abstraction, the arbor Porphyriana, the image of the tree, in the course of history, tends to disappear or to be reduced to a mere schema in the abstract idea of some sort of rami-fication, but especially in the Christian world, the figurative respresentation of a tree, always in the back-ground (at least on a linguistic level, the tree is called after all also in Hebrew אילן), tends to resurface. Many representations of the tree of the sefirot in a Christian environment, especially the ones by Robert Fludd74, Philippe d’Aquin75 and, clearly influenced by the latter, in Christian Knorr von Rosenroth’s Kabbala Denudata, depict the tree with very realistic traits. The very first sefirotic tree published among

70. See, for example J. trAchteNBerG, Jewish Magic and Superstition. A Study in Folk Religion, Behrman’s Jewish Book House, New York, 1939, p. 250-251. One can add the list of correspondences between archangels and planets found in Judah ben Barzilay al-Barceloni’s Commentary on the Sefer Yezirah (ed. Halberstam 1885, p. 247): Raphael/Sun; Anael/Venus; Michael/Mercury; Gabriel/Moon; Qafziel/Saturn; Zadkiel/Jupiter; Samael/Mars. The very same list is found also in El‘azar of Worms’ Sode Razayya.

71. PerrONe cOMPAGNI (ed.), Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia, p. 469, indicates, for example, the Latin transla-tion of Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Liber rationum (Venezia 1507, f. 43v), who has yet a different list: Cassiel, Satkiel, Samael, Micha-el, Annael, Raphael, Gavriel.

72. See, in particular, De harmonia mundi 2, 6, 6; see also 3, 6, 3. From a theological point of view it seems clear that the double nature of the Son allows his appearance among the three superior sefirot and, as the Christ, in correspondence with the sefirah of the patriarch Jacob, that is tif’eret.

73. See in particular Problemata 5, 3, 295: Christo autem, non dicam in tutelam, sed in principem militiae datus fuit Michael, qui (teste Iohanne) pugnavit contra serpentem antiquum, Christi praecipuum hostem.

74. R. fLudd, Utriusque cosmi Historia, vol. II, Erasmus Kempffer, Frankfurt am Main, 1621. 75. Ph. d’AQuIN (before his conversion Mordekay Crescas), Interprétation de l’arbre de la cabale enrichy de sa figure tirée

de plus anciens auteurs hébrieux, J. Laguehay, Paris, 1625. The illustration accompanying the booklet is missing from all its known copies, but it has been retrieved, in the form of a broadsheet, at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France and published by

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 399 13/10/14 13:50


the Christians, the one appearing twice in Paulus Ricius’ commented translation of Gikatilla’s Porta Lucis, however, is rather abstract, reminding us, if anything, of the schematic representation of molecules or atoms from chemistry or physics76 and, precisely for its abstractness, revealing its higher degree of fidelity to the Jewish tradition, although the author was also a converted Jew. I was not able to date the Piancastelli tree with absolute certainty, but if it was produced in the second half of the 16th century, then it is the earliest occurrence of a “realistic” sefirotic tree in the Christian Kabbalistic tradition. The Piancastelli tree, besides tending towards a circular form, shows the connections between the sefirot in the form of branches with what appears as broken twigs, leaf scars or even thorns. It is perhaps not necessary to underline that this visual pattern does not conform very well with the original Kabbalistic idea of the ramification of the influx so much so that the very idea of “cutting the branches” is widely used in Kabbalistic doctrines to describe the sin of Adam or that of the “heretic” Elisha ben Abuya. The thorns we witness here seem rather to stem from a completely different visual culture: to name two possible references, on a rather impres-sionistic mode, the mystical “crown of thorns” or the chastising shrubs of so many lives of the Franciscan saints77. It is all the more remarkable that the adaptation of an original (?) Jewish motive, such as the names and attributes of the sefirot undergoes a triple process of synchretistic adjustement: of linguistic nature (the translation of the names and of the attributes), of cosmologic import (the adaptation of the position of the planets) and of iconic impact.

The question of the relationship between the two textual units now bound in sequence in MS Piancastelli could be answered, rather promptly, by saying that they are only very loosely connected: related in sub-ject, the ten sefirot, the two texts bear no significant reciprocal relationship at a closer look, they come from kindred but distinct chains of tradition and they are fundamentally incompatible. Perhaps, however, the visual fact we were pointing to, the novel presentation of the sefirot tree as an arcane object offered to pious contemplation for a friar in a convent of the Franciscan Observance, might suggest a different approach, which I only surmise here: the mere jsutaposition of two alternative presentations of the sefi-rotic system offers itself in turn as an object of contemplation. This inevitably recalls to mind the philo-logic examinatio of variants, equally legitimate, about which the point is beyond choosing the “right” one, and rather keeping open the rhizomatic nature of philological “contemplation” of variant readings without endangering the readability, that is to say, the intelligibility of the text and of the image. The text is linear, the image is spatial: is it by chance that the schematic reproduction of the philogical reconstruc-tion of textual transmission assumes also the form of a tree, the stemma? All of them, the arbor Porphyriana, the sefirotic tree and the stemma codicum are rooted, if the metaphor is allowed, in a com-mon Neo-platonic view of emanation as the key of reality, in the common recurse to deictical evidence to summarize, anticipate, complement or even substitute diegetical or dialectical explanation. The variants point to an ideal Archetype of unity and nevertheless they can claim for themselves the discrete but persistent appeal of uniqueness as it is appropriate for irreductible individuals.

D. stOLzeNBerG, “Four Trees, Some Amulets, and the Seventy-two Names of God: Kircher Reveals the Kabbalah”, in P. fINdLeN (ed.), Athanasius Kircher. The Last Man Who Knew Everything, Routledge, New York – London, 2004, [pp. 149-169], p. 152.

76. I have expanded on this topic, offering a comprehensive collection of specimina in S. cAMPANINI, “Der Sefirotbaum. Ein Topos der christlichen Kabbala der Renaissance”, in A. eusterschuLte (ed.), Kritik der Topik, Topik als Kritik, in print.

77. It should be remarked, of course, that if the representation of the tree was added much later to the miscellany, it could derive from a completely different esoteric context, when MS Piancastelli had already left its original Franciscan environment. Until new evidence emerges, this will remain one of the unanswered questions raised by this puzzling document.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 400 13/10/14 13:50


Plate 1Forlì, Biblioteca Comunale, MS Piancastelli O VII 57, f. 112r.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 401 13/10/14 13:50

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 402 13/10/14 13:50