In this two-part blog series, I will be covering the last derivative texts of the Ars Notoria from the Early Modern period. The two main texts that will be examined here is the Ars Notoria, quam Creator Altissimus Salomoni revelavit (The Notory Art, which the Almighty Creator Revealed to Solomon) and the Tractatus artis notoriae inaestimabilum et propositiones eius (The Treatise of the Inestimable Ars Notoria and Its Propositions, abbreviated according to the Latin as TANIEPE). Here in Part I I begin with the Ars Notoria, quam Creator Altissimus Salomoni revelavit (The Notory Art, which the Almighty Creator Revealed to Solomon). For the Tractatus artis notoriae, see Part II. However, before I speak about the Ars Notoria, quam Creator Altissimus Salomoni revelavit (The Notory Art, which the Almighty Creator Revealed to Solomon, abbreviated according to the Latin hereafter as ANQCASR), it is necessary to mention the different versions of the Ars Notoria.
Julien Véronèse, the French scholar who constructed a semi-critical edition of the Ars Notoria, is credited with classifying the textual traditions of the Ars Notoria into three classes – Version A, Version A2, and Version B. (For more on these these classes, see my other blog entry entitled “Where are the Original Latin Texts of the Ars Notoria Tradition?”.) Here I propose to add a fourth class of the Ars Notoria called Version C. By my definition, Version C is characterized by the following: (1) new and special material not found in the previous three versions, (2) omits the original pictorial figures of the Ars Notoria, (3) may present Christian Kabbalistic figures or thought to be associated with Christian Kabbalism, and (4) redacts and rearranges the sections of the Ars Notoria. Version C, as a newly proposed classification, is nascent, requiring ongoing research, and perhaps future amendments to its definition. So far, the following extant manuscripts, some of which I have not had the privilege to examine yet, are classed or could be classed as Version C:
1. London, British Library, Harley 181, f. 1-74v (composite), Version B or C?
2. Prague, National Library, 1866, f. 52-55v (fragment), Version B or C?
3. Halle, Landesbibliothek, Sachsen-Anhalt, 14. B. 36, f. 307r-343v (composite of Ars Notoria and Ars Brevis).
4. Raleigh, North Carolina, 39; Rev. A. B. Hunter, f. 1-24 (composite), Version B or C?
5. Agrippa, Henry Cornelius, Opera Omnia, (multiple editions, including those from Lyons, Vienna, and Strasburg), pages 603-60 (composite of Ars Notoria and Ars Brevis).
6. London, British Library, Sloane 3648, f. 33-47 (composite of Ars Notoria and Ars Brevis).
7. London, British Library, Harley 6483, f. 280 (composite; English, Robert Turner trans.).
8. London, British Library, Sloane 3825, f. 148-179 (composite; English).
9. Glasgow, University Library, Ferguson 50, p. 1-138 (composite; French), Version B or C?
10. Amsterdam, Stichting het Wereldhart, Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica (BPH), M 242, f. 1-153 (composite of Ars Notoria and Ars Brevis).
The most popularly known edition of the Ars Notoria is a seventeenth-century Latin abridgment published in the Opera Omnia (Collected Works, c. 1620), vol. 2 (pages 603-660) of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim (1486 – 1535), the German occult writer. This Latin abridgment, Ars Notoria, quam Creator Altissimus Salomoni revelavit (The Notory Art, which the Almighty Creator Revealed to Solomon), (abbreviated according to the Latin hereafter as ANQCASR) was not authored by Agrippa; in fact, its authorship is unknown. This Latin abridgment was edited by the Beringos brothers, Godefroy and Marcellin, along with other assorted works, which was probably printed in Strasburg by Zetzner.[1] The multiplicity of editions and careless work of the Beringos brothers has made it impossible to track down the original manuscript used for this Latin edition of the Ars Notoria, quam Creator Altissimus Salomoni revelavit (ANQCASR). The ANQCASR is thought to have been composed between the late 16th century and the first quarter of the 17th century. For an explanation on this assessment, see my other blog entry entitled “Agrippa’s Latin Edition of the Ars Notoria and Robert Turner’s 1657 English Translation Thereof.”
In 1657, Robert Turner of Holshott (c. 1626-1666) translated the ANQCASR into English, and he titled it as Ars Notoria: The Notory Art of Solomon, Shewing the Cabalistical Key of Magical Operations, The liberal Sciences, Divine Revelation, and The Art of Memory. Apparently, Robert Turner draws his own conclusions about the Ars Notoria, associating it with Christian Kabbalism and the ancient art of memory. His English translation is not always faithful to the ANQCASR.
NOTICE: Before I go further, I would like to mention that this is a work in progress. I plan to make edits and revisions to this blog series on "The Early Modern Composites of the Ars Notoria."
Also, the reader will want to consult the ANQCASR here (part 1) and here (part 2). Plus, the Robert Turner translation is found here (part 1) and here (part 2).
An Analysis of the ANQCASR
The ANQCASR is a poor and imperfect composite of the Ars Notoria (Version B) and the Ars Brevis dated to 17th century. It also has its own special blended material of the two works. Specifically, the ANQCASR draws upon the fourteenth-century Ars Notoria (Version B). The Ars Notoria itself inspired the mid-fourteenth century derivative text of angelic magic called the Ars Brevis. The present article will take a deep dive into the study of the ANQCASR and its composition, identifying all its parts, which conclusively demonstrates it to be highly derivative, redacted, and incomplete.
On Version B
It is important to note that one of the key differences between Version A and Version B of the Ars Notoria is that the scribe of Version B sought to rearrange the material in order to make the work practical, following the original instructions much like a how-to manual and then enhanced it with lengthy glosses for each section. Now the 14th century Version B scribe had harmonized the two-month ritual model of the Flores Aurei (Golden Flowers), the central ritual magic text falsely attributed to Apollonius of Tyana, with the ritual model of the Ars Nova (The New Art), its first derivative text of ten prayers, thereby creating a new four-month ritual model. Essentially, the present form of the Ars Notoria consists of the Flores Aurei and the Ars Nova (for more details on the topic of textual composition, see Castle, 2023). In the process of editing and harmonizing these two ritual models, problems arose in the step-by-step description of the greater ritual of Version B, creating inconsistencies and errors, such as omissions and doubling of ritual formulas. The matter of ritual procedures is detailed in Chapter 6 of my book, Ars Notoria: The Notory Art of Solomon, (Inner Traditions, 2023).
These problems are compounded, and new ones arose, in the Ars Notoria, quam Creator Altissimus Salomoni revelavit, because the ANQCASR scribe also made small reconfigurations to Version B. Such small changes resulted in confusion to the original text’s references to certain prayers. Only a close comparsion of the Ars Notoria (Version B) against the Ars Notoria, quam Creator Altissimus Salomoni revelavit will reveal the late 16th- early 17th scribe’s method for revision. I am in the process of marking each of these differences; only a few have been marked.
On the Ars Brevis
The Ars Brevis, the mid-fourteenth century derivative text of the ars notoria tradition, a text of angelic magic and dream incubation drew its material and inspiration from its predecessors – the Ars Notoria (Version B, the long-glossed version), the Opus Operum, and John of Morigny’s Liber Florum Caelestis Doctrinae. Between the 15th and 17th centuries, a Protestant scribe omitted the Catholic elements from the Ars Brevis. Who and how many such Protestant scribes did these omissions is uncertain, but even Robert Turner in his English translation carried out these same omissions, although his efforts were quite minor in comparison. In all likelihood, there were originally four magical figures belonging to the Ars Brevis, however, the redacted version that would later appear in the ANQCASR bore only one figure labeled as the figure of memory. (The original composition of the Ars Brevis remains understudied but at least two versions have been identified so far.)
As mentioned above, the basic outline of the ANQCASR can be summed up in three main parts:
1. The Ars Notoria (Version B), omitting nearly all the glosses and missing all the magical figures
2. An incomplete form of the Ars Brevis highly adapted to the tastes of Protestant doctrine, including a special addendum, omitting three of the magical figures and leaving only one, the figure of memory
3. Its own special blended material of the Ars Notoria (Version B) and the Ars Brevis.
The first part comes from the Ars Notoria (Version B). The versions and section numbers for the Ars Notoria (Versions A, A2, and B; sections 1, 2, 3, etc.) material have been established by the French scholar Julien Véronèse. The ANQCASR partially presents the Ars Notoria (Version B) material in the following manner:
· Prologue – Section 15
· Section 19
· Sections 16-18
· Sections 20-21
· Section 22, 24
· Sections 23 – 53
· Sections 54 – 68
· Sections 71 – 81
· Section 147
· Sections 132 – 134
· Section 82
· Sections 128 – 130
· Sections 135 – 143
· Section 146
· Section 116
· Sections 83 – 117
· Sections 119 – 125
Generally speaking, the scribe of the ANQCASR often inserted his own rubric headings. In some cases, he paraphrased or rewrote certain sections, so they are not entirely faithful to the original Ars Notoria. Indeed, in some instances, the original meaning became lost, altered, or corrupted in the ANQCASR. Most importantly, the pictorial figures called notae, the nine prayers called novem termini, and most of the lengthy glosses of Version B are missing from the text.
The ANQCASR presents its own special blended material, which might reveal something about the earlier transitional period of the written transmission of Version A2 to Version B and the early development of the Ars Brevis. It is also around this same 100-year period, between the mid-13th century to the mid-14th century, in which the Opus Operum (The Work of Works) shows influence upon Version A2 and Version B. The special blended material of the ANQCASR is ordered as follows:
· A special rubric regarding the prayers Alpha et Omega and Helyschemat
· Ars Notoria, sections 10-11 (same as Ars Brevis, sections 42-43).
· Ars Notoria (Versions A and B), section 16.
· Ars Notoria (Version B), Variations 3-4.
· Ars Notoria, (Version A) section 24; Ars Brevis, section 6 and L2.12 (modified).
· Ars Notoria, (Version A) section 25; (Version B), NS 67; Ars Brevis, section 7.
· Special rubric (General prayers are to be offered for the lunar month whose auspicious days are: 4, 8, 10, 12, 20, 24, 28, and 30; then the following prayers are to be offered: Alpha et Omega (Version B, Variation 1), Helyschemat (section 7), which are the opening preambles, then the Ars Nova prayers follow which are: Omnipotens incomprehensibilis (section 115), Adoro te rex regum (section 116), Confiteor (section 117), O Theos Hazamagiel (i.e., Otheos Athamaziel, section 118), Pie Deus misericors (section 119), Extollo sensus (section 121), Omnium regnorum (section 122), Deus vivorum (section 123), Confiteor hodie tibi Domine (i.e., Profiteor, section 124) Domine quia ego servus tuus (section 125) to be prayed on the ordinary days). Notice that Pie Deus (section 120) is omitted, perhaps accidentally, from the list. This special rubric parallels a small portion of the exhaustive rubric presented in the glosses of the Ars Notoria (Version B).
· Ars Notoria (Version B), Variations 12-13.
· Benedic Domine domum istam (an adapted fourteenth-century chant which is sung in dedication of a church). The lectisternium, a plain cloth which draped the sacred space within the church, would have been laid out in preparation for the offering of the chant and related liturgy for the dedication of the church. The lectisternium is used in the ritual of the Ars Brevis.
· Exaudi me Domine sancte Pater omnipotens aeterne Deus (the asperges adapted from the ordinary of the Tridentine Mass).
· Astrological timing of the ritual in which the Sun rules in Gemini, Scorpio, Aries, Leo, Libra, and Taurus. This passage parallels section 147 which was already given above.
· A rewrite and abridgement of four sections of Ars Notoria (Version B), that is, the Prologue, 5 Gloss, Variation 1 Gloss (which itself draws upon Opus Operum), and 16 Gloss.
· Ars Brevis, sections 4-5.
· A special prayer, Et Introibo ad Invocationem
· A special prayer, Aperi Domine
· Ars Notoria, section 51.
· A special rubric which begins, “Now in the name of Christ, etc.”
· Ars Notoria (Version B, Variation 1).
· Ars Notoria (Version B, section 7)
· A new variant of Ars Notoria (Version B, section 118)
Finally, the ANQCASR presents a heavily redacted recension of the first book of the Ars Brevis which is called the Blessed Book of John. The distinctly Catholic elements have been omitted by an unknown Protestant scribe, even before Robert Turner made his English edition. The second book of the Ars Brevis which is called the Book of Divine Revelation containing mostly prayers from the Ars Notoria is completely missing from the ANQCASR. The section numbers for the Ars Brevis material have been newly assigned by myself and their corresponding passages can be found in my book, Ars Notoria: The Notory Art of Solomon (Inner Traditions, 2023). The ANQCASR has the following sections from the Ars Brevis:
· Sections 1-2
· Sections 4-5
· Section 46
· Sections 6-11
· Sections 13-15
· Sections 26-33
· Sections 35-41
· Special material which somewhat resembles section 42.
· Section 44-52
· Ars Notoria, section 144
· Special material about the four-day ritual variant of the Ars Brevis and the consecration of the figure of memory. The prayer incipit, O Pater creaturarum omnium Solis & Lunae, indicates that other portions of the Ars Brevis may be lost.
· Section 56
· Section V2.1
· Sections 57-60 (Summe Deus Pater piissime, the preamble of Opus Operum, C)
· Section L2.1
· Ars Notoria (Version B, NS 138, Domine Sancte Pater […reparator])
· Ars Notoria (Version B, NS 146, Ecce Domine Deus […empticius])
· Special addendum
[1] See the work of Frank Klaassen. Thanks to Joseph Peterson for pointing this out.
コメント