To Be Born (Again) from God: Scriptural Obscurity as a Theological Way Out for Cornelius Agrippa

To Be Born (Again) from God: Scriptural Obscurity
as a Theolog ical Way Out for Cornelius Agrippa
Noel Putn i k
l n some of the works of Agrippa von Nettesheim, a Renaissance thinker
who was as unorthodox as he was controversial in his blending of various
Christian and non-Christian doctrines, one finds a curious phenomenon
which might be termed „orthodoxy building.“ ln this paper I examine
the phenomenon in the context of Agrippa’s rhetorical strategies as weil
as his theological preferences and interpretations. The main argument is
that Agrippa’s construction of „orthodoxy“ was necessary for his attempted
theological synthesis and that, among other means, his interpretation
of scriptural obscurities played a significant role in that process.
A well-known humanist, occultist, and theologian of his time, Heinrich
Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim ( 1 486-1535) was one of the
most i m portant German representatives of a broad philosophical current
often labeled Renaissance Neoplatonism.1 This highly eclectic intellectual
trend of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was based on several major
developments of the time:
1 . the rediscovery of late antique Hermetic and Neoplatonic writings
that were later translated into Latin by Marsi l i o Ficino;
2. the reevaluation and recognition of various previously suppressed
or neglected forms of medieval magic, Christian, Jewish, and Musl
i m a l i ke;
3. a new intellectual cl imate marked by the emergence of various reform
ideas and movements.
For a summary discussion of Agrippa’s role in Renaissance Neoplatonism see
Charles Nauert, Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought (Urbana: University
of l l l i nois Press, 1 965), 8-1 1 5. See also Cornelius Agrippa, Oe occu/ta philosophia
libri tres, ed. Vittoria Perrene Compagni (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1-10;
Mare V an der Poel, Corne/ius Agrippa, the Humanist Theologian and his Dec/amations
(Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1 5-49; and Christopher I. Lehrich, The Language of
Demans and Angels. Cornelius Agrippa’s Occult Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
25-32.
146 NOELPuTNIK
Within this contextual framework, Agrippa wrote his numerous treatises
and shaped his doctrines with the single purpese of affering crisisstricken
Western Christianity his own version of spiritual reform. ln a
nutshel l , he merged various elements of the Kabbalah, late antique Hermetic
and Neoplatonic doctrines, and medieval magic with Christian
teachings, „enriching“ them with some elements of these traditions.2
Such an approach to the crisis of Western Christianity was hardly
surprising. Agrippa belonged to a generation of human ists immediately
following that of Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola. He was a
younger contemporary of Johann Reuch lin, Abbat Johann Trithemius,
Francesco Zorzi, and Lodovico Lazzare l l i , to mention only a few wel l known
names. H e shared with these humanists, to a greater o r lesser degree,
a peculiar worldview marked by their attempts to construct syncretic
philosophical and theological systems that would unify or reconc
i l e Christianity with the above-mentioned traditions. All such attempts
were fundamentally heterodox and eclectic i n nature.J On the other
hand, Agrippa was also a contemporary of Desiderius Erasmus, John
Colet, Martin Luther, and many others who also sought to reform Western
Christianity, but without the aid of non-Christian or heterodox doctrines.
Agrippa self-consciously a l igned himself with these thinkers as
weil and this double allegiance presents a major problem for interpreting
the German humanist’s work and ideas.4
For a comprehensive overview of the intermingling of these traditions see
György E. Szonyi, lohn Dee’s Occultism: Magical Exaltation Through Powerful Signs
(New York: State University of New York Press, 2004), 4 1 – 1 5 1 .
F rom a huge body o f Iiterature treating the peculiar syncretism o f these humanists
I mention only a few works most directly related to the topic of this paper:
Noel L. Brann, Trithemius and Magica/ Theology. A Chapter in the Controversy over
Occult Studies in Early Modern Europe (New York: SUNY Press, 1999): Stephen A.
Farmer, Syncretism in the West: Pico’s 900 Theses {1486). The Evolution of Traditional
Religious and Philosophical Systems (Tempe, Arizona: Medieval & Renaissance
Texts and Studies, 1 998); Wayne Shumaker, The Occult Science in the Renaissance.
A Study in lntellectual Patterns (Berkeley: University of California Press,
197 2): Wouter Hanegraaff and R. M. Bouthoorn, Lodovico Lazzarelli {1447-1500):
The Hermetic Writings and Related Documents (T empe: Arizona Center for Medieval
and Renaissance Studies, 2005); Michael J. B. Allen and Valery Rees, eds.,
Marsilio Ficino: His Theo/ogy, His Philosophy, His Legacy (Leiden: Brill, 2002);
Paola Zambelli, White Magie, 8/ack Magie in the European Renaissance. From
Ficino, Pico, Oe/la Porta to Trithemius, Agrippa, Bruno (Leiden: Brill, 2007).
V an der Poel’s above-mentioned study (see note 1 ) discusses this „other side“ of
Agrippa’s thought exceptionally weil. See also Lewis Spitz, The Religious Renaissance
of the German Humanists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 963);
SCRIPTURAL ÜBSCURITY IN CORNELIUS AGRIPPA 1 47
Agrippa von Nettesheim i s best known as one of the great Renaissance
magi. lf not a practicing magician (the available biographical data
reveal too little i n this respect), he was certainly one of the most important
theorists of magic of his time. His main work, the farnaus Oe occulta
philosophia libri tres (Three Books of Occult Philosophy), can be described
as a kind of encyclopedia of magic and occultism interpreted
within a philosophical framewerk usually defined as Neoplatonic. The
chief goal of the magus, as the author formulates it, is to achieve spiritual
ascension, that is, to enter the rea lm of God and his powers and restore
man’s prelapsarian divine position.s Furthermore, Agrippa proposes
magic as the best means to achieve this lofty goal. ln articulating his religio-
magical program, he relied significantly on the Corpus Hermeticum,
a well-known late antique collection of theosophical treatises attributed
to the legendary figure Hermes Trismegistus. Given the „other side“ of
Agrippa’s thought (that is, the „orthodox“ Christian side), one wonders
how Christianity fits into this highly unorthodox conceptual framework.
Although intellectual history has granted Agrippa the role of a Renaissance
magus (a failed and disappoi nted one, I should add), a number
of his works show distinctly Christian theological features, and some are
even purely exegetical.6 Recent schalarship has done a Iot to bring to
light this previously neglected or misi nterpreted theological component
of Agrippa’s thought, which is strongly Christian in argument and tone.7
Even his main work, the Oe occulta philosophia, is permeated with instances
of biblical exegesis peculiar to his syncretic and eclectic thought.
The claim that Agrippa resorted to Christian doctrine i nstrumentally,
using it merely as a „facade“ or a „safety-device“ for his heretical teach-
Paola Zambelli, „Magie and Radical Reformation in Agrippa of Nettesheim,“ Journal
of the Warburg and Courtautd Institutes 39 (1976): 69-103; and Amos Edelheit,
Ficino, Pico and Savonarota: the Evolution of Humanist Theology 146712-
14g8 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).
This is the thesis I argue for in my work The Pious lmpiety of Agrippa’s Magie:
Two Conflicting Notions of Ascension in the Works of Cornelius Agrippa (Saarbrücken:
VOM Verlag Dr. Muller, 2010). See also Szönyi’s concept of exaltatton in
his lohn Oee’s Occultism, 1 9-37.
Same examples of Agrippa’s exegetical works are his Oe originati peccato and
Oiatogus de homine, as weil as the now unfortunately lost commentary an the
Epistle to the Romans.
Mare V an der Poel and Vittoria Perrene Compagni are currently the main proponents
of the „re-Christianization“ of Agrippa‘ s thought; see V an der Poel, Cornelius
Agrippa, the Humanist Theologian, passim, and Perrene Compagni’s l ntroduction
in Agrippa, Oeoccu/ta phitosophia, 1-53.
1 48 NOEL PUTNIK
ings, has long been discarded in schalarship as overly simpl istic and inadequate
for a number of reasons. ln the process of building his
attempted synthesis, the German humanist was seriously concerned
with the question of orthodoxy. I maintain that, for Agrippa, constructing
a whole new mode of Christian orthodoxy, rather thanjust making his
heterodoxy „sound“ or „seem“ orthodox, was the crucial requirement for
h i s synthesis to work at a11.a
What are the basic features of Agrippa’s „new orthodoxy“? First and
foremost, it is based on the standard Ficinian notion of multiple revelations.
The revelation of Jesus Christ wasjust the most recent and, admittedly,
most sublime confirmation of the original twofold revelation given
to Moses and to Hermes Trismegistus.9 ln several i nstances Agrippa a l most
explicitly equated Christ’s miracle-working with that o f magicians,
for the simple reason that he saw magical wonder-working as an i n dicator
of one’s spiritual advancement. For a truly i lluminated soul, Agrippa
believed, it is only natural to perform works of magic and this is the only
proper way to understand the mi racles of the prophets and the apostles.
ln other words, magic and Christianity emerged as complementary forms
of a single, universal. and primeval spiritual tradition. Furthermore, what
goes for Christianity goes for l iterally every other religious tradition:
they all share a common supernatural origin with magic, being nothing
but d i fferent branches of one and the same ancient revelation.
This bold religio-magical syncretism was the backbone of Agrippa’s
call for the rehabilitation of magic in the eyes of his Christian audience,
but also for the rehabilitation of Christianity itself, which in the eyes of
Agrippa and many of his contemporaries had suffered tremendous degradation.
With many other fellow humanists, he was convinced that,
due mostly to the centuries-long influence of rigid Aristotelian scholasti-
The „safety-device“ argument goes back to Lynn Thondike’s History of Magie and
Experimenta l Science, 8 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1923-58).
5:1 29-38, and was influentially echoed in Frances Yates’s early works, but even
she abandoned it in her Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1 979), 37-47. Nowadays it is almost entirely rejected;
see, for instance, Lehr ich. The Language of Demans and Angels, 4 1 , and Michael H.
Keefer, „Agrippa’s Dilemma: Hermetic ‚Rebirth‘ and the Ambivalences of Oe vanitate
and Oe occulta philosophia,“ Rennaisance Quarterly 4 1 .4 (1991 ) : 61 4-53.
However, Paola Zambelli still adheres to this line of interpretation (see below).
This „myth of a continuous esoteric tradition,“ as Charles G. Nauert puts it. is analyzed
minutely in his „Magie and Skepticism in Agrippa’s Thought,“ Journal of the
History of ldeas 18.2 (1957): 1 6 1 -82.
SCRIPTURAL ÜBSCURITY IN CORNELIUS AGRIPPA 149
cism, Western Christianity had a lmost lost tauch with its spiritual
roots.1o One of the symptoms of this lass was the common Christian
scornful rejection of magic. Agrippa’s intention was to reanimate this
nearly-collapsed Christianity, to bring tt back to its suppressed “ i dentity,“
a task that required quite a bit of creative exegesis. As one reads i n
Agrippa’s Oehortatio gentilis theologiae ( A Oissuasion against Pagan Theology,
c. 1 5 1 8) , his goal was „to enrich the Church of God with the
cleansed writings of the pagans.“1 1 The „cleansing“ of these writings was
the starting point of Agrippa’s exegesis. ln much simplified terms, it i m plied
making Hermes Trismegistus theologically compatible with Christ
and the apostles a lthough Arippa was not especially concerned as to
whether the doctors of the Church would accept this compatibility.
There is a need for an important remark here. in my view, what
Agrippa meant by „enriching the Church of God with the cleansed writings
of the pagans“ was not Christianizing Hermetism, as is often argued,
but rather “ Hermeticizing“ Christianity. This seemingly minor d ifference
in emphasis conceals an important difference in perspective. The idea
that Agrippa sought to Christianize Hermetism impl ies that the backbone
of his religious identification was Hermetic, which would make his allegiance
to Christianity a sort of outer layer or protective facade. l n other
words, this way of thinking would make Agrippa a Nicodemite, an intentionally
false Christian, which is what some scholars believe.12 On the
other hand, the idea that Agrippa sought to Hermeticize Christianity i m plies
that h e identified with Christianity-that, indeed, h e feit hirnself to
be profoundly Christian-even though his understand ing of Christianity
was highly unconventional and problematic from the standard theological
point of view.13 The difference pertains to the long-debated question
of his religious and intellectual identities. Nowadays there seems to be a
considerable scholarly consensus that Agrippa’s a llegiance to Christianity
went far beyond mere declarations and attempts to mask his heretical
10 V an der Poet, Cornelius Agrippa, ehe Humanist Theologian, 50-93.
11 „ecclesiam Dei locupletare repurgatis literis ethnicorum“ (Henriei Cornelii
Agrippa ab Nettesheim, armacae militiae equitis auraci ec iuris ucriusque ae medicinae
doecoris operum pars posterior [Lyon: per Beringos fratres, n.d.], 489-90).
12 Zambelli, Whice Magie, Blaek Magie, 1 1 5-88. Her thesis on Agrippa’s Nicodemitism
echoes Thorndike’s position, although in a very different context, by
linking Agrippa to Radical Reformation. See also Van der Poet, Agrippa, the Humanist
Theologian, 1 33-36, on Agrippa’s explicit allegiance to Rome.
13 See footnote 4.
1 50 NOELPU-NIK
doctrines.1 4
With this del icate disti nction i n mind, I move o n to a close examination
of some of the rhetorical approaches the German human ist uses in
his treatment of Scripture. When, in the pursuit of his synthesis, Agrippa
refers to Christian and non-Christian authorities, both camps appear to
be on equal terms, that is, to confirm and support each other. ln this context
it is particularly interesting to examine Agrippa’s treatment of certain
bibl ical obscurities (or what he sees as such) as these could provide
him with the opportunity to construct new meanings by selecting and
reinterpreting certai n passages or phrases.
The two main modes of Agrippa’s approach to the Bible are recontextualizing
and misquoting. Recontextualizing involves taking a quotation
out of its original context and transplanting it into a new context to support
one’s claim or argument. What follows is both a simple and i nteresting
example of recontextualizing taken from Agrippa’s Oe occu/ta
philosophia, a work which at first glance deals solely with magic and occultism.
ln the fourth chapter of Book 1 1 1, the German humanist quotes
the Apostle Paul:
Therefore those who are more religiously instructed do not undertake even
the smallest work without divine invocation, as the Doctor of Nations commands
i n Goiossians saying: Whatever you sha/1 do in word or deed, do a/1 in the
name ofthe Lord Jesus Christ giving thanks to God the Father through him.15
Agrippa thus refers to Colossians 3:1 7 in a passage on how to practice
magic. Agrippa takes the Apostle’s words literally-he quite clearly says
„whatever you do“-even though the author of the epistle most certainly
could not have had i n mind the magical practices Agrippa advocates it in
his third book (including, among other forbidden procedures, conjurations
and necromancy). Notwithstanding this incongruence, and even
,. in my opinion, this is the position of Van der Poel, Perrene Compagni, and, to
some extent, Lehrich, although he is not primarily concerned with the problern of
Agrippa’s orthodoxy. On the other hand, scholars like Keefer and Szonyi tend to
emphasize the unsolvable. paradoxical character of Agrippa’s intellectual and religious
identity. 15 „lccirco qui religiosius eruditi sunt nec modicum quodvis opus absque divina
invocatione adgrediuntur, sicut ad Co ossenses praecipit Doctor gentium inquiens:
Quaecumque feceritis in verbo aut apere. omnia in nomine Domini Jesu
Christi facite, gratias agentes Deo patri per ipsum“ (Agrippa, Oe occulta phi/osophia,
409). The English translation is taken from Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa,
Three Books of Occult Philosophy. trans. James Freake, with a commentary by
Donald Tyson (St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications, 1997). 450. Paul’s words are italicized
both m Latin and in English.
SCRIPTURAL ÜBSCURITY IN CORNELIUS AGRIPPA 1 5 1
though this quotation appears a t the beginning o f Book I I I , i n which he
discusses the forms of magic most strongly condemned by the Church,
Agrippa concludes that it is perfectly legitimate to practice magic as long
as one does it in the name of Jesus Christ-dixit Paulus! Thus Agrippa
supports his problematic argument with scriptural authority, which
plays a crucial role in the rhetorical strategy of his works. This simple
example shows the general pattern of theological „cherry-picking“ common
to all Renaissance eclecticists.
Quatations with minor changes are already interpretations if the
changes are significant enough and if one has reason to suspect that they
are i ntentional. No doubt, mistakes are often accidental as medieval and
Renaissance authors tend to quote from memory. However, sometimes it
is evident that what Iooks like a Iapsus memoriae could weil be a deliberate
alteration.
ln Agrippa’s case, the matter is further complicated by the fact that,
unlike many other humanists of his day, he d i d not know Greek well.16
Consequently his studies of the Bible were based on the Vulgate in the
same way his readings of Plato and Corpus Hermeticum were largely
confined to Ficino’s translations. Neither Agrippa’s works and
correspondence nor any known biographical data reveal anything,
moreover, about what version or versions of the Vulgate the German
humanist read n lt may thus be that what in some cases Iooks l ike
deliberate misquotation is i n fact an alternative reading from one of the
numerous copies of the Vulgate circulating in Europe at the time. Any
analysis of Agrippa’s use of biblical references will therefore be tinged
with a certai n degree of speculation. I believe, however, that we can
reduce this element of speculation to an acceptable minimum if the
analysis is carefully contextualised and, where possible, strenghtened by
16 This was aptly demonstrated by Nauen, Agrippa, 1 19, who concludes: „For all
practical purposes Agrippa’s significant readings were confined to books available
in Latin, though he may have been able to draw on Hebrew and Greek texts
to a limited extent.“ Agrippa admits this hirnself in his work Oe beatissimae Annae
monogamia, as also shown by Nauert.
17 See Nauert, Agrippa, 1 1 6-19. Neither Keefer nor V an der Poel provides any data
of this kind in their examinations of Agrippa’s use of Biblical references. Even
Perrone Compagni’s critical editions of the Oe occulta philosophia and Oe triplici
ratione cognoscendi Oeum provide no help. V an der Poel cuts this Gordian knot by
proposing that „since we don’t know which text Agrippa used and since we may
assume that he usually (or. at least, occasionally) quoted from memory, it seems
best to me to use a modern edition of the Vulgate as point of reference“ (personal
correspondence, January 28, 201 0).
1 5 2 NOEL PUTNIK
ind irect philological evidence. This uncertainty must nevertheless be
kept in mind when discussing Agrippa’s references to the Bible.
One possible example of creative exegesis hidden in a misquotation is
to be found in Agrippa’s reference to another famous statement by the
Apostle Paul. ln the peroration of his second major work, the Oe incertitudine
et vanitate scientiarum atque artium, atque excellentia verbi Dei
declamatio (Declamation on the Uncertainty and Vanity of Seiences and
Arts, and the Excellence of the Word of God), Agrippa paraphrases Paul’s
words as follows: „Therefore remove the vei I of your i ntel lect . . . and
soon with unveiled face you w i l l climb from glory to glory.“1B However, I I
Corinthians 3 : 1 8 reads slightly d i fferently: „But we a l l , with unveiled face
. . . are being transformed into the same image from glory to g lory.“19
Apart from some obviously insignificant changes caused by paraphrasing,
one notices that Paul’s passive verb transformamur („we are being
transformed“) is replaced by an act1ve one, transcendetis („you w i l l
cli mb“) .20 Thus the whole passage acquires a subtly Hermetic-and even
Pelagian-tona lity. lnstead of being transformed by God, it is we, by virtue
of our own efforts, who climb or transcend to glory. This difference
corresponds closely to the main incongruity between the Christian and
the Hermetic paradigms of spiritual ascension-in fact, so closely that
one must think of a deliberate alteration, or at least of a semi-conscious
18 „Amovete ergo nunc velamen intel lectus vestri . . . et mox revelata facie transcendetis
de claritate in claritatem“ (Agrippa, Operum pars posterior, 312). The
translation is taken from Keefer, „Agrippa’s Dilemma,“ 640. Keefer was the first
to bring up this particular example.
19 „Nos vero omnes, revelata facie . . . in eandem imaginem transformamur a claritate
in claritatem“ (Biblical text here and elsewhere is taken from Vulgata Clementina,
http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/htmi/2Cor.html [last accessed: December
27, 2012)). The translation here and elsewhere is taken from the New American
Standard Bible, http://nasb.scripturetext.com (last accessed: December 27.
2012), wh1ch conveniently renders the Lat1n transformamur as „we are being
transformed.“
20 Transformamur is the Latin translation of Paul’s verb JlETaJlOpcpovJlEfJa, which
exhibits only the passive meaning in New Testament Greek (see Frederick William
Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of ehe New Testament and other Early
Christian Literature [Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000).
639-40). Agrippa’s alteration cannot therefore be a philological criticism of the
Vulgate based on his insight into the Greek original, especially given his limited
knowledge of Greek. For the same reason it seems far-fetched to suppose that
any available version of the Vulgate would render the strongly passive verb
Jl<WJlOPCfJOOJlat the way Agrippa did.
SCRIPTURAL ÜBSCURITY IN CORNELIUS AGRIPPA 153
adj ustment t o the author’s own worldview.21
One of the most interesting cases of misquotation, or at least dubious
quotation, is l i nked to Agrippa’s Hermetic interpretation of the Christian
mystery of spiritual rebirth or regeneration. As M. H. Keefer rightly
points out, the Hermetic-Christian doctrine of spiritual rebirth is a central
tenet of Agrippa’s faith. lt is the nucleus to which a l l the other elements
of his synthesis were added subsequently. His exegesis of this
relatively frequent and relatively obscure notion from the New Testament
undoubtedly revea ls Hermetic and magical i m p l ications.
ln his early treatise titled Oe triplici ratione cognoscendi Deum (On the
Three ways of Knowing God, 1 5 1 6) , which is usually regarded as the first
autonomaus expression of his theological views, Agrippa examines the
notion that we can know God only through faith. ln the course of a lang
series of quotations and references to biblical and patristic texts, he refers
to the expression „to be born (again) from God“ used by the Apostle
John. There is a curious textual confusion about this reference. ln the
margin of the 1529 Opera edition, published in Antwerp,22 Agrippa
writes: „Therefore, John says that such a soul is born again from God.“23
He refers the reader to 1 John 3:9, which i n fact reads: „No one who i s
born o f God practices sin.“24 Since Agrippa personally oversaw the
preparations for the printing of the 1 529 edition of his Opera, this is not
likely to be a pri nter’s error. On the basis of this minor a lterati on Mare
V an der Poel seems to suggest that the German human ist added the word
iterum (again) in order to adjust this biblical reference to the conceptual
framewerk of Neoplatonism and the Hermetic doctrine of spiritua I rebirth.
zs
l n deed, the Johannine reference mentioned i n the margin does not
contai n the ward iterum, but does the addition of this ward really mean
that Agrippa was trying to change the theological sense of the quotation?
No doubt, such an effort would be in accordance with the general practice
of the time, but in this case, I do not think that the alteration was
necessarily intentional. There are a few passages in the Gospel of John
21 See Keefer, „Agrippa’s Dilemma,“ 639-40.
n The Hague, Royal Library, 229 G 41.
23 „ldeo huiusmodi animam loannes ait nasci iterum ex Deo“ (Oe triplici ratione
cognoscendi Deum 5, ed. i n Vittoria Perrone Compagni, Ermetismo e Cristianesimo
in Agrippa. II Oe triplici ratione cognoscendi Deum [Fiorence: Edizioni Polistampa,
2005], 144; my translation).
24 „omnis qui natus est ex Deo peccatum non facit.“
25 V an der Poel, CorneliusAgrippa, the Humanist Theologian, 73.
1 54 NOEL PUTNIK
that do contain the word again, although in the form denuo. The best
known is John 3:3: „Jesus answered and said to him, ‚Truly, truly, I say to
you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.“’26 This
is in reply to Nieodemus the Pharisee, who wonders how can a man enter
his mother’s womb and be born again. Jesus explains that it means
being born of the Spirit and concludes (John 3:7): „Do not marvel that I
said to you: ‚You must be born again.“’27 One finds a similar expressi o n i n
1 Peter 1 :23: „for you have been born again not of seed which i s perishable
but imperishable, that is, through the word of God.“28 Thus it might
weil be that Agrippa had in mind another biblical passage, which d i d
contain the word again. l n that case, the mistaken reference o n the margin
remains enigmatic. ln other words, it is not a lways easy to distinguish
a m istake from intentional misquotation. However, although the
German humanist may have deliberately misquoted less often than
thought, some examples clearly reveal such an approach.
The way Agrippa comments on the Johannine reference is explicitly
Hermetic and Neoplatonic:
Therefore, John says that such a soul is „born again from God,“ inasmuch as the
light or the supreme God-just like the ray of the Sun, which diminishes its
body and turns into a fiery nature-rtows down through angeilc minds alt the
way to our soul merged in the body and stimulates it to strip orr alt its carnality
and become a son or God.29
The way Agrippa interprets John’s words is remarkable. in nuce, the
standard Christian understanding of spiritual rebirth impl ies starting a
new life marked by Holy Communion. To be born again is to begin anew
in Christ; it implies developing a new nature, new principles, new affections,
and new a i ms. A Christian is born again ävo8Ev, that is both denuo
(again) and desuper (from above). A classical reference for this notion is
found in Colossians 3:9:
you laid aside the old self and have put on the new self who is being renewed
to a true knowledge according to the image or the One who created him.30
26 „Respondit lesus et dixit ei: amen amen dico tibi nisi quis natus fuerit denuo non
potest videre regnum Dei.“
27 „Non mireris quia dixi tibi oportet vos nasci denuo.“
28 „Renati non ex semine corruptibili sed incorruptibili per verbum Dei.“
29 „ldeo huiusmodi animam loannes ait ’nasci iterum ex Deo,‘ siquidem Dei summi
Iumen – quemadmodum radius solis, corpus attenuans et in igneam convertens
naturam – per mentes angelicas usque ad animam nostram defluens, instigat
animam carni immersam ut denudata ab omni carnalitate fiat Dei filius“ (Oe triplici
ratione cognoscendi Deum 5, 1 4 4-46 [my translation)).
30 „Expoliantes vos veterem hominem et induentes novum eum qui renovatur in
SCRIPTURAL ÜBSCURITY IN CO􀀿NELIUS ÄGRIPPA 1 5 5
One could also think i n this connection of Romans 1 2:2: „do not be conformed
to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your
mind .“31
ln other words, the standard doctrinal understanding of spiritual rebirth
impl ies an imitatio Christi so strong that it ulti mately changes one’s
nature. What remains theologically obscure, however, is how far this
change goes. What does it imply, in anthropological and eschatological
terms, to become the novus homo of Saint Paul? lt w i l l suffice here to
mention the early theologica I controversies over the issue of the Resurrection
and Paul’s alZl11a rrvEV/laTLK6v (spiritual body) from 1 Corinthians
1 5:44 to suggest that from the very beg i n n i ng the Christian concept of
rebirth has been veiled with certain obscurities.32
lt is these obscurities that Agrippa exploits in order to import and legitimize
the Hermetic notion of spiritual rebirth, which differs significantly,
if not fundamentally, from that of doctrinal Christianity. This
Hermetic idea, especially as found i n discourses I, IV, VII, and XI I I ofthe
Corpus Hermeticum, is rigidly dual istic. What needs to be born again is
the soul, whereas the body i s the principal cause of ignorance and suffering.
lt is „the odious tunic that strangles you and drags you down,“
„the garment of ignorance, the foundation of vice, the bonds of corruption,
the dark cage, the I ivi ng death, the sentient corpse, the portable
tomb,“33 and one must rip it off i n order to achieve regeneration. Moreover,
one finds in d i scourse X I I I an explicit d iscussion on the immaterial
body that closely resembles Paul’s „spiritual body,“ a body that is not
d i fferent from the soul.34
Another crucial d i fference between the Christian paradigm and the
Hermetic one is that in the latter regeneration serves one sole purpose:
that of the soul’s becoming god. Hence Agrippa reinterprets John’s concept
of rebirth by emphasizing the bodily enslavement of the soul and
the necessity of stripping off a l l its carnal ity. This is why he employs light
agnitionem secund um imaginem eius qui creavit eum.“
31 „Nol ite conformari huic saeculo sed reformamini i n novitate sensus vestri.“
32 See, for instance, Carotine Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western
Christianity, 200-1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 3-6, and
Charles Francis Digby Maule, „St. Paul and Dualism: the Pauline Conception of
Resurrection,“ New Testament Studies 1 3 (1 965-66): 1 06-23.
33 Hermetica. The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a New English
Translation, with Notes and lntroduction,“ ed. and trans. Brian P. Copenhaver
(Cambridge: Garnbridge University Press, 1 992), 24 (discourse VII).
34 Hermetica, 49-54.
1 5 6 NOEL PUTNIK
i magery like AI-Kindi’s ray-theory and Piotinus’s analogy of the Sun
(‚just like the ray of the Sun, which diminishes its body and turns into a
fiery nature“35) in order to describe the emanation of God’s mercy. i n
other words, Agrippa’s exegesis results i n a compound of theological opposites
so complex that it could easily Iead readers into utter confusion-
or, on the other hand, provoke them into revisiting some old anthropological
obscurities and reopening some early Christian theological
controversies. Agrippa certainly hoped for the latter. Whether he managed
to avoid the former is an entirely different problem.
35 See the quotation above, footnote 26.
Obscurity in Medieval Texts
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XXX
Obscurity in Medieval Texts
edited by
Lucie Dolezalova, Jeff Rider,
and Alessandro Zironi
Krems 2013
Reviewed by
Tamas Visi
and Myriam White-Le Goff
Cover designed by Petr Dolezal with the use of a photo of the interior of
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (photo Lucie Dolezalova)
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG
DER
CHARLES UNIVERSITY RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
„UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF ÄNCIENT AND MEDIEVAL
INTELLECTUAL TRADITIONS“
UND
„PHENOMENOLOGY AND SEMIOTICS“ (PRVOUK 1 8)
80TH AT THE FACULTY O F HUMANITIES, CHARLES UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE
UNDDER
CZECH SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITHIN THE RESEARCH PROJECT
„INTERPRETING AND APPROPRIATING ÜBSCURITY
IN MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPT CULTURE“
(GACR P405/1 0/Pl 1 2)
A l l e Rechte vorbehalten
-ISBN 978-3-901094-32-13‘.3
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen
Kultur des Mittelalters. Körnermarkt 1 3. 3500 Krems, Österreich. Fur den
Inhalt verantwortlich zeichnet die Autorin, ohne deren ausdruckliehe Zustimmung
jeglicher Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. Druck: KOPITU Ges. m. b.
.• iedner Hauptstraße 8-10, 1 050 Wien, Österreich.
,s \i !.Ut ‚o ,… ….
Acknowledgements
List of Figures
T able of Contents
Textual Obscurity in the Middle Ages (lntroduction)
Lucie Dole2alov􀭟. Jeff Rider. and Alessandro Zironi
„Ciarifications“ of Obscurity:
Conditions for Proclus’s Allegorical Reading of Plato’s Parmenides 1 5
Florin George Cäl ian
Lucifica nigris tune nuntio regna figuris. Po!!tique textuelle de I‘ obscuritas
dans I es recueils d‘!!nigmes latines du Haut moyen Age (V He-V I I I • s.) 3 2
Christiane Veyrard-Cosme
The Enigmatic Style in Twelfth-Century French Literature 49
Jeff Rider
Mise en abyme in Marie de France’s „Laüstic“ 63
Susan Small
Perturbations of the Soul: Alexander of Ashby and Aegidius of Paris an
Understanding Biblical Obscuritas 75
Greti Dinkova-Bruun
Versus obscuri nella poesia didascalica grammatocale del X I I I sec. 87
Carla Piccone
Disclosing Secrets: Vorgil on Middle High German Poems 1 1 0
Alessandro Zironi
Obscuritas tegum: Traditional Law. Learned Jurisprudence, and Territorial
Legislation (The Example of Sachsenspiegel and fus Municipale Maideburgense) 124
Hiram Kümper
Ta Be Born (Aga in) from God:
Scriptural Obscurity as a Theological Way Out for Cornelius Agrippa 1 45
Noel Putnik
Obscuritas in Medoeval and Humanist Translation Theories 157
R!!ka Forrai
The Darkness Within:
First-person Speakers and the Unrepresentable 1 72
Päivi M. Mehtonen
Contributors 1 90
Index nominum 1 94
Index rerum 197
Acknowledgements
This volume grew out of a conference held in Prague in October 6-8. 201 1 .
The conference and the book were supported by a post-doctoral research
grant from the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, “ l nterpreting and
Appropriating Obscurity i n Medieval Manuscript Culture“ no. P405/1 0/
P1 1 2 undertaken at the Faculty of Arts at the Charles University in Prague,
by The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports through l nstitutional
Support for Longterm Development of Research Organizations to the
Faculty of Humanities of the same university (PRVOUK 1 8 and UNCE
204002), and by the European Research Council under the European
Community’s Seventh Framewerk Programme ( FPJ/2007-2013) I ERC
grant agreement No. 263672. We are much grateful to these i nstitutions.
Further thanks goes to the individual contributors to this volume who have
been very quick and patient during the process, as weil as to Petr Dolezal
for the cover design and Adela Novakova for the index.
List of Figures
Figure 1 : Scene from one of the Saxon Mirror’s codices picturati (Wolfenbuttel, HerzogAugust-
Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 3.1 . Aug. 2°, fol. 34r).
Figure 2: Index for a manuscript of the Richtsteig Landrecht (Göttweig, Sti ftsbibliothek,
Cod. 364rot, fol. 526r).
Figure 3: Printed text of a Saxon Mirror with Gloss (Christi an Zobel, Leipzig, 1 569).
Figure 4: A remissorium from a Saxon Mirror edited tn 1536 by Chistoph Zobel (Leipzig).
Figure 5: Editorial report for a Saxon Mirror pri nted in 1545 by Nikolaus Wolrab
(Leipzig).
Figure 6: Sebastian Stelbagius, Epitome sive summa universae doctrinae iusticiae legalis
(Bautzen, 1 564 ).
Figures 7 and 8: Melchior Kling, Das Gantze Sechsisch Landrecht mit Text und Gloß in eine
richtige Ordnung gebracht (Leipzig 1 572).