The Reception of the Lullian Art, 1450-1530

Author(s): Mark D. Johnston

Source: The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring, 1981), pp. 31-48
Published by: The Sixteenth Century Journal
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3003701 .
Accessed: 12/06/2014 17:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Sixteenth Century Journal is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Sixteenth Century Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Sixteenth CenturyJournal
XII, No. 1 (1981)

The Receptionof the LullianArt,1450-1530

Mark D. Johnston
WashingtonUniversity

IN A RECENT STUDY on sixteenth-century logicE. J. Ashworthhas ob-

servedthat"a fewfollowers ofRamonLlullwereto be foundthrough-
outthepost-medieval period,but theirworkseemsto offernothingto
thoseinterested in formallogic,semantics,or scientificmethod."'IThe
validityofsucha sweepingassertionshouldseemimmediately suspect
to anyoneawareof the 32 incunabulaand 148 sixteenth-century edi-
tionsdevotedto Llull's philosophy,an outpouringof printedworks
whichculminatedin thesevenvolumesofIvo Salzinger'sgreatMainz
editionof 1721.2 This proliferationof texts reflectsthe considerable
rolewhichLlull's philosophy playedinthepansophistic, cabbalist,and
alchemicalinterestspursuedby such prominentRenaissancefigures
as Cusanus, Pico, Agrippa,and Bruno.3Accordingto Bishop John
Prideauxin his Heptades logicae (1639),the Lullian Art constituted
oneofthesevengreatsystemsoflogicthenknown.4 Moreover,Llull's
Art providedan exampleforthe earlyattemptsof Leibniztowarda

'Language and Logic in the Post-Medieval Period (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1974), p. 20.
Ashworthsupportsthis claimwitha footnotereferring to Paolo Rossi's Clavis uni-
versalis(see note3 below).
2Thefundamental reference
workon Lullian bibliography is Elies Rogentand
Estanislau Duran, Bibliografia de les impressions luLlianes, Estudis de bibliografia
lul.lianano. 2 (Barcelona:Institutd'EstudisCatalans,1915).On theMainzedition,see
Adam Gottron,L'edici6 maguntina de Ramon Llull, Estudis de bibliografialul.liana no.
1 (Barcelona:Institutd'Estudis Catalans,1915).
3Theterm"Renaissance"is employedherebroadlyina chronological senseto des-
ignatetheperiodfromthemid-fourteenth centuryto theendof the sixteenthin Italy
and therestofEurope.The mostimportant studiesdealingwithRenaissanceLullism
are Jocelyn N. Hillgarth,Ramon Lull and Lullism in Fourteenth CenturyFrance (Ox-
ford:OxfordUniversity
Press,1971);Paolo Rossi,"Clavis universalis":Artimnemon-
iche e logica combinatoria da Lullo a Leibniz (Milan: Ricciardi, 1960); Francis Yates,
TheArtofMemory(Chicago:University ofChicagoPress,1966);and Paola Zambelli,Ii
'De auditu Kabbalistico' e la tradizione lulliana nel Rinascimento, Atti dell'Accademia
Toscana di Scienze e Lettere 'La Colombiana' 30 (1965), 113-247. The most compre-
hensivestudyof Llull and LullismremainsJoaquin and Tomas Carrerasy Artau,
Historia de la filosofraespahola filosofracristiana de los siglos xiii al xiv, 2 vols.
(Madrid:Asociaci6nEspahola para el Progresode las Ciencias,1939-1943).Theirac-
countof Lullismhas been supersededin manyrespectsby morerecentworks;fora
completerecentbibliography, see MiguelCruz Hernandez,El pensamientode Ramon
Llull(Madrid:Castalia,1977).Unlessotherwise
indicated,all translations
ofquotations
fromprimary and secondarysourcesin thisarticleare myown.
4CitedinWilburSamuelHowell,Logic andRhetoricinEngland,1500-1700(1956;
rprt.New York:Russelland Russell,1961),p. 311.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32 TheSixteenthCentury
Journal

characteristicsuniversalisand otherprojectsfora universallanguage.5

The possiblecontributions ofRenaissanceLulliststo thedevelopment
of"formallogic,semantics,or scientific method"cannotbe dismissed
any morelightlythanthoseofAgricola,Ramus,or Bruno.
This articlewillexamineonefacetoftherolewhichLullismplayed
in Renaissancephilosophy:the approachof severalfifteenth and six-
teenth-century thinkersto theArt ofRamonLlull as an encyclopedic
art of discourse.It will be suggestedthat Llull's sixteenth-century
devoteeswereprincipally interestedin adaptingand reformulatinghis
schemesas a rhetoricalor dialecticalpracticepossessingunlimited
heuristicpowers.The following remarksare specifically restrictedto
thosedevelopments whichoccurredduringthelast decades ofthefif-
teenthand firstof the sixteenthcenturies.A muchmoreexhaustive
studywouldof coursebe possible,but Carrerasy Artau,Rossi, and
Yates havealreadytreatedthelateruses ofLlull's workin somedepth.
Moreover,theperiodaround1500 deservesespecialattentionbecause
it marksan importantchangein the typeof interestdirectedtoward
Llull'sArt. This changeinvolvedtheappreciationofthe"exemplarist
metaphysics"6 and universalsymbolismwhichconstituted"the basis
and premise"of Llull's Art, accordingto Paolo Rossi.7As Rossi has
noted-and thisarticlewillemphasize-,it was thesecondofthesetwo
aspects,theuniversalsymbolism, whichespeciallyattractedtheatten-
tionofLlull's earlysixteenth-century readers;"theinterestin thecab-
bala, inuniversaland artificial
writing, in thediscoveryoftheprimary
constituent principlesofall possibleknowledge, in theartofmemory,
and the continualappeal to logic understoodas the 'key' capable of
openingthe secretsof reality:all thesethemesappearedinextricably
connectedwiththerevivalofLullismin theRenaissance.''8 It is possi-
ble to be moreexact thanRossi,perhaps:these"themes"did notsim-
ply appear "inextricablyconnected" with the sixteenth-century
revivalof Lullism,but ratherdefinedthe contextsor limitswithin
whichthe LullianArt was receivedand studied.Pre-eminent among
these contextswerethe standardsof rhetoricaland logicalpractices
5J.Carreras y Artau, De Ram6n Lull a los modernos ensayos de formaci6nde una
lenguauniversal(Barcelona:ConsejoSuperiorde Investigaciones 1946)and
Cientificas,
E. W. Platzeck,"GottfriedWilhelmLeibnizy RaimundoLlull,"Estudios lulianos16
(1972),129-193.
6Thistermis used hereto designatea metaphysics inwhichall beingsareassumed
to be projectionsor copiesofideal exemplars,suchas theideae existingin theDivine
Mind. In Llull's Art all beingsare said to be projectionsofninefundamental Divine
"Principles"or "Dignities,"whichwillbe discussedbelow.
7Rossi, Clavis universalis, p. 46.
8Ibid., p. 41.
9Theseincludeboththemedievaldisciplines
ofrhetoric
and logic-thearspoetriae,
ars praedicand4 ars dictandi and logicae vetus, nova, and moderna-and the works of
Cicero,Quintilian,and otherclassical authoritiesnewlyrecoveredby the fifteenth-
centuryhumanists.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Receptionof theLullianArt 33

whichlate fifteenth and earlysixteenth-century thinkersapplied to

Llull's work.The processby whichthesecontextswereelaboratedcan
be dividedintothreephasesor aspects.The firstwas characterized by
an interestin the universalsymbolismor "naturalsemiotic"which
Llull'sArt offered as a kindoflibernaturae;it is representedby early
fifteenth-century figuressuch as Nicholas of Cusa and Ramon de
Sibiuda. This interestcontinuedto characterizesixteenth-century
Lullism in all its later manifestations to some degree.The second
phaseis moreproperly "humanistic"'0 orliteraryintenorand includes
theresponseto Llull's philosophyand mysticaltheologyexpressedby
Jacques Lefevred'Etaples at Paris or BernatBoil in Barcelona.The
thirdphase was that whichcame to dominatenearlyall sixteenth-
centurytreatments ofLlull's Art in the formof variousprogramsof
universalknowledge, suchas thoseofBernardode LavinhetaorHenri-
cus CorneliusAgrippa.
The particularinterestin the universalsymbolismof the Lullian
Art whichappearedduringthe earlyfifteenth centurywas a develop-
mentofattemptsto foundtheologicalspeculationon extremeRealist
(or at least anti-Nominalist)metaphysics."This developmentis ap-
parentintheworkofbothNicholasofCusa and histeacherat Cologne,
Emmerichvan den Velde (ca. 1390-1460),whoapparentlyintroduced
him to Llull's doctrines.The evidenceof theirrelationship, and of
Cusanus' readingsin Llull,includinghis notes and marginalannota-
tions,has beenpreservedin thelibrarywhichCusanusleftto theHos-
pitalat Cusa, and to whichEusebio Colomerhas dedicatedan exhaus-
tive study.'2Cusanus' use of the Lullian "correlatives"and "Divine
Dignities"has longbeenknown;it is clearfromhis notesthathe rec-

'IThe term"humanist"is used hereapproximately in thesensedefinedbyProfes-

sorPaul 0. Kristeller:
to indicatethosethinkerswhopursued"a clearlydefinedcycleof
scholarlydisciplines,
namelygrammar, rhetoric,
history,
poetry,and moralphilosophy,"
and who maintainedthat "the studyof each of thesesubjectswas understoodto in-
cludethereadingand interpretation ofits standardancientwritersin Latin,and to a
lesser extent, in Greek;" quoted fromRenaissance Thought. The Classic, Scholastic,
and HumanistStrains(NewYork:Harperand Row,HarperTorchbooks,1961),p. 10.
In thissensetheterm"humanist"is notsynonymous with"Renaissance,"and many
RenaissanceLullistswerenot strictlyhumanists.
"Gordon Leffdiscusses such speculation in The Dissolution of the Medieval Out-
look: An Essay on Intellectual and Spiritual Change in the Fourteenth Century (New
York:Harperand Row,1976).
'2Nikolaus von Kues und Raimund Llull: aus Handschriftender kueser Bibliothek
(Berlin:de Gruyter, 1961);theconclusionsofthisworkaresummarized in"RamonLlull
i Nicolaude Cusa (a la llumdels manuscrits
lul.liansde la BibliotecaCusana),"Estudios
lulianos4 (1960),129-150;Colomerhas also discussedtheirrelationship in a morere-
cent work,De la edad media al renacimiento.Ramon Llull-Nicolas de Cusa-Juan Pico
deltaMirandola(Barcelona:Herder,1975).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34 TheSixteenthCentury
Journal

ognizedand appreciatedtheexemplarist basis ofLlull's Art.'3Perhaps

becauseofhisown"symbolic"accountofthediscourseofhumanintel-
lection,Cusanus was also attractedto, and acquired,variousLullian
textsexpoundingan exemplarist approachto naturallanguage:Retho-
rica nova, De condicionibus significacionis(an extract fromthe Prima
Distinctio of the Liber de significatione),Liber de predicatione (two
copies), Investigatio VI sensus quem appellamus affatum,and Liber
de centumsignisDei. One ofCusanus' fewdirectreferences to Llull in
his writingsis a mentionof the vir religiosuswho had composeda
workon thesixthsenseofspeechcalledaffatus. 14 Despite thisevident

interestin Llull's accountof language,the only specificallylogical

worksamongCusanus' collectionof overfiftytitleswereapparently
theLogica nova (inextracts)andLiber de syllogismiscontradictoriis.15
This slightinterestin Llull's logicaldoctrinesdistinguishesCusanus'
approachsharplyfromthat of the sixteenth-century thinkerswho
adapted and publishedmanyof Llull's treatiseson logic as part of
theirprogramsfora pansophisticdialectic.
Ramonde Sibiuda(orSebonde,d. 1436),a Catalanmasterinmedi-
cine and theologyat Toulouse,was anotherearly fifteenth-century
figurewho seems to have been especiallyinterestedin the support
whichthe universalsymbolismof Llull's exemplaristmetaphysics
mightlendto theology.J.-H.Probsthas arguedthatSibiudadrewex-
tensivelyupon Llull in composinghis Liber creaturarum (afterwards
calledtheTheologianaturalisand translatedby Montaigne),although
thisis not certainsinceSibiuda citesno sourcesor authoritiesin his
work.'6His writingswere,however,consideredan adaptationof the
Lullian Art by early sixteenth-century Lullists. The Prefaceto the
Libercreaturarum, bannedby Pope ClementIV, explainstheworkas
an attempted"naturaltheology,"foundedon a readingoftheprimal
libernaturae,ratherthanthetextofScripture;forSibiudatheentities

"3Forexample:"Sicut primumens est mensuracuiuslibetentis,ita et prima

veritasest mensuraomnisveritatis"and "Primumfundamentum artisest quod omnia
quae Deus creavitet fecit,creavitet fecitad similitudinem suarumdignitatum"
(quotedin E. Colomer,"RamonLlulli Nicolaude Cusa," p. 138).
'Carreras y Artau, Historia de la filosofiaespahola, 2, 183.
'5Cusanusdid,nonetheless,
describetheLullianArtas a systemoflogicsuperior
to thatoftheScholasticlogicamoderna:"Aliusveroadhucpraecisioremspeciemmagis-
que fecundamreperireposset,uti ille,qui ex novemspeciebusprincipiorumspeciem
unamArtisgeneralisomniumscibiliumnisusest extrahere"(quotedin Carrerasy Ar-
tau, Historia de la filosofiaespanola, 2, 183).
'6Le Lullisme de Raymond de Sebonde (Toulouse:Privat,1912).TomAsCarrerasy
Artau argues otherwisein Ongenes de la filosofiade Raimundo Sibiuda (Sabonde) (Bar-
celona:Real Academiade Buenas Letras,1928).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Receptionof theLullianArt 35

ofCreationarelikethelettersofthealphabetin a book.'7If hisdebtto

Llull is genuine,thenSibiuda's workdemonstrates clearlythepercep-
tionofLlull's Art as a schemeofuniversalsymbolismin thisperiod.
Cusanus and Sibiuda studiedthe universalsymbolismwhichthe
LullianArt suggestedwithoutassociatingits devicesor termswith
those of the contemporary logica modernaand its doctrines.In a
marginalnoteon Llull's Ars magna,Cusanus discussedthe extrava-
gant Lullian terminology whichhad been denouncedby authorities
such as ChancellorJean Gerson,who waged a stridentanti-Lullist
campaign at the Universityof Paris between 1402 and 1426.18
Cusanus' remarkssuggestthathe believedit possibleto reformulate
Llull's doctrinesin thelanguageof conventional philosophy.'9In this
respectCusanus'positionis verydifferent fromthatofthosethinkers
whocomprisethesecondphase ofRenaissanceLullism.The universal
symbolismor naturalsemioticofLlull's philosophycontinuedto be a
basic elementin all treatmentsofit throughout thefifteenth and six-
teenthcenturies.But thosewhoconfronted Llull's workinthelaterfif-
teenthcenturybeganto articulateone ofthemostinfluential facetsof
RenaissanceLullism:the criticismofLlull's languageand learning.
The criticismswhichcharacterizedthis secondphase werebased
on standardsofclassicalliteraryand rhetoricaldoctrinewhichmaybe
conventionally labelledas "humanistic;"theydisplayan especialcon-
cernforthe relationshipof philosophyto rhetoric,the unionof elo-
quenceand wisdom,in thetraditionofthehumanistsofthefourteenth
and fifteenthcenturies.20These criticismswereresponsibleforone of
the most importantaccomplishmentsof the sixteenth-century
Lullists-the re-writingand reformulationofLlull's logical,rhetorical,
and encyclopedic works.An exampleofthesecriticismsfromSpain is
theworkofFernandode Cordoba(1425?-1486?),emissaryofJuanII
and confessor to AlfonsoV theMagnanimous;Fernando'sstupendous
eruditionand prodigious memory(reputedlybased on artificial
17' Immoista [scientia]
est incorporatainlibrissed nonapparet;sicutalphabetum
est incorporatum in omnibuslibris.Ita ista scientiaest sicutalphabetumomniumDoc-
torumet ideo sicutalphabetumprimodebet sciri"(quotedin Probst,Raymondede
Sebonde, p. 18).
'8Gerson'sarguments werepublishedby E. Vansteenberghe, "Un Traiteinconnu
de Gerson'Sur la doctrinede RaymondLulle',"Revue des SciencesReligieuses26
(1936),441-473.
19"Praedictorumprincipiorum nominasuntapud philosophosinusitataet tamen
juxta figmentum inventoris propositaeartisresverassignificantia. Ergo,cumpropter
nostramaffirmationem vel negationem nihilmuteturin re . . . et omneverumverocon-
sonet. . . , praefataars nonest repudiandaproptersuorumnominum improprietatem;
quinpotius,utpossetconcordari cumscientiisaliis,est ad eorumterminos exfiguranda"
(quoted in Carreras y Artau, Historia de la filosofiaespanola, 2, 185 n. 42).
20SeeJerrold E. Seigel,Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism: The
Union of Eloquence and Wisdom, Petrarch to Valla (Princeton: Princeton University
Press,1968).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 The Sixteenth CenturyJournal

recourses)made him notoriousthroughoutEurope in his day.2'

Despite his associationswithmanyofthemosteminenthumanistsof
Italy,his culturalfoundation was, in the wordsof his moderneditor,
"manifestlymedieval,and in no way like that characteristic of the
Renaissance.''22 His Latin stylewas poor,accordingto LorenzoValla.
Fernandocomposedsomefourteen opusculaon astronomy, theology,
biblicalexegesis,canon law, poetics,philosophy,medicine,and the
naturalsciences,and even an anthologyof praises to Plato (whose
workshe probablyknewonlyslightly).Fernandoattackedthequality
and extentofLlull's learninginhismostimportant treatise,theDe ar-
tificioomnis.et investigandi et inveniendi natura scibilis. This work
presentsan extremeRealist schemeof universalknowledge,largely
based on Aristotelianlogic,but also employingvariousdevicesfrom
theLullianArt.In his Introduction, addressedto CardinalBessarion,
Fernandodefinedtheproblemofuniversalsin relationto theneedfor
oneuniversalartofknowledge.Then,in discussingtheenormousdiffi-
he dedicatedseveralparagraphsto ex-
cultiesof such an enterprise,
ecratingthe previousattemptof Ramon Llull. His criticismsbegin
with an indictmentof Llull's competencein the rudimentsof the
trivium.Fernandoespeciallycondemned Llull's lackofrhetorical
skill,
asking"whatis moreridiculousthanthathe,whodoes notevenknow
how-I cannotsay eloquently-tospeak,shouldpromisean artofelo-
quence?"23The arts of rhetoriccomposedby Llull (presumablythe
Rethorica nova and Liber de predicatione) will make their readers
mute,ratherthaneloquent,Fernandocharged,and in Llull's logical
works,"afterthose thingswhichhe seemedto have excerptedfrom
Aristotle,and thosewhichare usuallyallottedwithscornto children,
the restare so ineptand so littlerelevantto the art ofdialectic,that
you mightthinkhimderanged."24 Fernandocontinuedby attacking
Llull's audacityin proposinga sixthsense and decryingtheinnumer-
able errorswhichLlull's doctrinesintroducedinto the quadrivium.
Afterridiculingthe alphabeticand combinatory mechanicsofLlull's
Art,and its purporteddivineinspiration, Fernandoconcludedhis in-
vectiveagainstLlull by remarking that "this man was merelya lay-
man,and whollyignorantofletters,butpossessedofa weakminddue
2IFernando'sLullianaffinities are discussedbyMiguelBatllori,"El grancardenal
d'Espanya i el lul.listaantilul.liaFernandode C6rdoba,"Estudios lulianos2 (1958),
313-316 and A. Bonilla y San Martin. Fernando de C6rdoba (p1425-1486?)y los origenes
del Renacimiento filos6ficoen Espaha (Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1911).
22Bonillay San Martin,Fernando de C6rdoba, p. 51.
23"Namquid magisridiculum, quod eum,qui nondicoeloquio,sed necloquisciat,
eloquentiaeartempolliceri?"(ibid.,p. vii).
fonteexcerpsissevisus est,et ea quidem,quae
24" Praeterea, quae ex Aristotelis
puerispercontemptum excideresolent,reliquatamineptasunt,et tamparumad scien-
tiamDialecticaepertinentia, ut eumdelirareputes" (ibid.,p. vii).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Receptionof theLullianArt 37

to a melancholy humor."25Fernando de Cordoba considered Ramon

Llull a crazed ignoramus, especially in the pursuit of rhetorical and
logical argumentation.Fernando's attentionto these aspects of Llull's
philosophysuggests the futureinterestin the dialectical applications of
the Art and Fernando's wide-rangingeruditionthe pansophistic pro-
grams of later Lullists. The encyclopedic aims of Fernando's Artific-
ium are, in fact, little differentfrom those of Llull's Art, many of
whose devices, moreover, Fernando clearly adapted. Nonetheless,
Llull's unorthodox handling of logical and metaphysical doctrines,
along with the turgidand labored language of his Art, were unaccept-
able to Fernando. Despite his contemptforLlull's philosophy (or per-
haps because of it), Fernando was apparently considered an authority
on Llull's work,forhe was one of six examiners who approved the pub-
lication of the Janua artis Magistri Raymundi Lulli of the Barcelona
Lullist Pere Dagui at Rome in 1485.
Opinions similar to those of Fernando de Cordoba were expressed
by his better-knowncontemporary,Rudolphus Agricola, in Book 2 of
his De inventionedialecticae (1479). In the Proem, entitled "How Cor-
rupt Every Practice of Dialectic Is Today," Agricola concluded his
survey of the degeneration of dialectical doctrine with a mention of
Llull and his Art. Agricola noted that Llull gave some indications of
genius, "but since ... he knew no letters, he did not offerany other
knowledge worthyof the name of a learned man;" anyone who exam-
ines the Art will find "it is thus enormouslyobscure forlearning and
rudely unpolished."26Llull's intentions are laudable, but his lack of
learning and barbarous language prevented him from intelligibly
realizing their expression. Therefore,Agricola cautioned, only the
most acute minds should even attempt to understand Llull's Art. The
severityof Agricola's deprecations was augmented by his sixteenth-
centuryannotator, Alardus of Amsterdam, with even more damning
abuse. The criticismsof Fernando de Cordoba and Rudolphus Agricola
exemplifya fundamentalcharacteristicof the response to Llull's phi-
losophyin this second phase: the unacceptable Scholastic tenorofboth
its language and its doctrines.
Other late fifteenth-century critics of Llull's Art, however, were
able to reconcileits barbarous diction with the value which they per-
ceived in it. These were theologians who accepted Llull's bizarre ter-
minology and inelegant prose as an indication of divine inspiration.
25"Virumhunc laicum mere fuisse, et omnium literarum expertem, sed per
humoremmalenconicumelevatum habuisse ingenium" (ibid., p. ix).
26"Sed quoniam . . . non literas sciebat, non ullam aliam dignam docti viri nomine
perceperat doctrinam;" "Obscuritas ergo ingens est in discendo et horrorincultus;"
Rudolphi Agricolae Phrisii de inventionedialecticae ... (s. 1., 1539; rprt.Frankfurt-on-
Main: Minerva, 1967), p. 181.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38 The Sixteenth CenturyJournal

One testimonyto this view appears in the writingsof Bernat Boil (ca.
1450-after 1510), a Catalan courtierwho, while a monk at Montserrat,
came into contact with the Lullist schools which had begun to flourish
at Barcelona, Mallorca, and Valencia during the latter half of the fif-
teenth century.27 Boil was an importantfigureof his day in Spain and
is best known as the firstapostle to the Americas, who accompanied
Columbus on his second voyage. Boil's correspondencewith the Mal-
lorcan Lullist Arnau Descos has left a detailed account of his interest
in the Lullian Art, forwhich he sought a tutor fromDescos and Pere
Dagui.28Boil was attracted to Llull's work principallyforits spiritual
teachings; "the doctrines of Ramon Llull interested Bernat Boil as a
means of approaching God. Newly converted, and having decided to
spend his lifein contemplation,he had littleinterestin metaphysics.''29
Boil's literarytraining was extensive (he had served as secretary to
Ferdinand the Catholic), and his correspondence displays the famili-
arity with the classical auctores typical of late medieval eruditionin
the arts. Boil's correspondent Descos praised his Latin style ef-
fusively,but Boil's firstreaction to the language of Ramon Llull was
apparently very unfavorable. His criticisms have not survived, but
theirtone may be inferredfromDescos' reply,whichbegins "I ask that
you not be offendedby anything which seems less embellished, pol-
ished, and ornate to you in the style of Ramon."30Descos cited Cicero
and Quintilian in support of Augustine's argument that things are to
be valued over signs (De doctrina christiana 1.2-3) and recommends
that Boil seek the "majesty and sublimity of ideas rather than the
elegance of words alone."'3' The opposition which Augustine suggests
between the "superficial" language and the true,"hidden" meaning of
a text was characteristicof both "Christian humanist" hermeneutics32
27PereDagui was one of the chief figuresof this revival; his Janua artis Magistri
Raymundi Lulli (1473), mentioned above, became one of the most popular early Lullist
works, and was reprintedeight times between 1482 and 1500, despite Inquisitorial op-
position. The especial logico-encyclopedicorientationof these Lullist schools is evident
fromthe editions which they sponsored in Spain and Italy of the Ars generalis ultima
(Venice, 1480), Logica brevis et nova (Venice, 1480), Ars brevis (Barcelona, 1481 &
1489), Arbor scientiae (Barcelona, 1482), Logica brevis et nova (Barcelona, 1489), and
Ars generalis (Barcelona, 1501).
28J. Anselm M. Albareda discusses Boil's role in "Lul.lisme a Montserrat al segle
XVe: L'ermitABernat Boil," Estudios lulianos 9 (1965), 5-21. Boil's correspondencewas
edited by Fidel Fita in the Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia 19 (1891),
173-233, 267-348, 377-446, 557-560 and 20 (1892), 160-77, 179-205, 573-615; the
followingreferencesare to volume 19.
29Albareda,"Lul.lisme a Montserrat," p. 17.
30"Quaeso non te offendantsiqua minus compta, polita, atque ornata in ipsa com-
positione Raymundi tibi videbuntur" (ed. Fita, p. 318).
31''Majestatem ac sublimitatem sententiarum potius quam solam verborum ele-
gantiam" (ibid.,p. 319).
32See the discussions by Kristeller,Renaissance Thought, pp. 82-87, and Seigel,
Rhetoric and Philosophy, passim.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Receptionof theLullianArt 39

and Scholastic exegesis, and Descos' arguments recall Boccaccio's de-

fenseofpoetryinDe genealogia deorumgentilium14.7-10. The recom-
mendations of Descos to Boil exemplifythe kind of response to Llull's
Art which learned and literate inquirers of the late fifteenthcentury
adopted in their effortsto relate its unconventionalcharacter to con-
ventional philosophical discourse and to classical models of literary
style.
Descos' argumentswere not unique. A similardefenseof Llull was
advanced by the humanist theologian Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples, per-
haps the single most importantfigurein the historyof sixteenth-cen-
turyLullism. Along withhis one-timepupil Charles de Bovelles (1479-
1553), Lefevrewas responsible forthe resurgenceof Lullist studies at
Paris between 1499 and 1516.33Both Lefevre and Bovelles cultivated a
wide range ofphilosophical and theological interests,and the doctrines
of Ramon Llull were only one of these. Lefevre,who was interestedal-
most exclusively in Llull's mystical and contemplative programs,
described Llull as a divinely inspired idiota, whose rude style is an
especially apt vehicle for divine truths.34The argument with which
Lefevre,like Arnau Descos, defendedthe barbarityof Llull's language
was superseded by another,more syncreticapproach to his A rt.Llull's
theological and contemplative doctrines never ceased to attract ad-
herents during the sixteenth century;but the more typical response
which his philosophy elicited is that expressed by one of Lefevre and
Bovelles' associates, the Catalan theologian Bernardo de Lavinheta (d.
ca. 1530?), who taught in Paris fromlate 1514 (or early 1515) to 1516
as the firstLullist theologian at the Sorbonne. With the publication of
his masterwork,the Explanatio compendiosaque applicatio artis Ray-
mundi Lulli, at Lyon in 1523, Lavinheta propagated throughout
Europe the logico-encyclopedicfocus which characterized the Lullist
schools of Barcelona and Valencia. Lavinheta's work marks the begin-
ning of the thirdphase or aspect of the Renaissance response to Llull's
work-the reformulationof theArt as a pansophistic programemploy-
ing conventionalrhetoricaland dialectical doctrines.
Lavinheta's Explanatio is an eclectic compilation of materials by
himselfand others, offeredas an encyclopedic instrumentumuniver-
33Thetheological and devotional works which he published were especially im-
portant stimulito the diffusionof Llull's philosophy in Europe: Primum volumen con-
templationumRemundi (Paris: Jean Petit, 1505) and Proverbia Raemundi (Paris: J.
Badius, 1516). Joseph Victor treats the activities of Lefevre and his circle in "Charles de
Bovelles and Nicholas de Pax: Two Sixteenth Century Biographies of Ramon Lull,"
Traditio 32 (1976), 313-345; "Jacques Lefevre d'1taples, Charles de Bovelles and Ber-
nardo de Lavinheta: The Revival of Lullism at Paris, 1499-1516," Renaissance Quarter-
ly 28 (1975), 504-534; Charles de Bovelles, an intellectual biography (Geneva: Droz,
1978).
34Victor,"The Revival of Lullism," pp. 514-515.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 TheSixteenthCentury
Journal

sale covering all fields of knowledge. According to its preface the Ex-
planatio is divided into nine books, dealing with the trivium(Book 1),
theology (Books 2-7), chronology(Book 5), the ars praedicandi (Book
7), the quadrivium, mechanical arts, medicine,metaphysics, civil and
canon law (all in Book 8), and the art of memory(Book 9).35 The initial
position of grammar,rhetoric,and logic, as well as the inclusion of the
ars praedicandi, suggest the paramount role which arts of language
play in this encyclopedic scheme. The treatment of mnemonics pro-
posed in Book 9 became one of the most typical features of sixteenth-
centuryLullism. Rossi observes that because the Lullian Art offered
the prospect of easy learning in all fields of knowledge, "it is thus
natural that ... the problemof a mnemonictechnique ... be presented
closely connectedto that of a combinatorytechnique and to that of the
encyclopedic classification of the elements of reality and the compo-
nents of the world of knowledge."36Lavinheta's work marks the posi-
tion from which the Lullian Art would henceforthbe appreciated
throughoutthe sixteenthcentury;"the idea of a logica memorativaor
of a substantial affinityand relationshipbetween logic and the art of
memoryis, in reality,at the heart of all the attempts, which were re-
peated in European culture from the early sixteenth century up to
Leibniz, of employing the Lullian heritage for constructing an ars
generalis unifying all learning and a sistema mnemonicum or en-
cyclopedia of knowledge."37The brothers Carreras y Artau have af-
firmed,moreover,that Lavinheta's Explanatio and his teachings at
Paris "put an end to the mystical-humanisttendency of the Lullism
representedby Lefevre d'Etaples and his disciples and inaugurate, in
turn, a period of revalorization of the Lullian Art, considered as the
method of argumentand rational demonstrationpar excellence."38 It is
not unreasonable, thus, to say that Lavinheta's workinitiates the final
phase in the Renaissance reception of Llull's philosophy.
Despite his brieftenure at Paris, caused in part by controversies
with Nominalist and Scotist theologians, Lavinheta was able to at-
tract a small group of students which produced one of the most re-
markable and influentialtexts of Renaissance Lullism, the so-called
Remundi Lulli Eremiti divinitus illuminati in Rhetoricem Isagoge
(Paris: J. Badius, 1515).39Lavinheta recognized that the unattractive

35Theentire table of contents is printed in Rogent and Duran, Bibliografia de les

impressions lul.lianes, pp. 71-72.
36Rossi,Clavis universalis, p. 62.
37Ibid.,p. 79.
38Historiade la filoso/iaespahola, 2, 214.
39A11referencesare to the text printed in Raymundi Lullii Opera ea quae ad adin-
ventam ad ipso artem universalem, scientiarum artiumque omnium brevi compendia,
firmaque memoria apprehedendarum, locupletissimaque vel oratione ex temporeper-
tractandarum,pertinent(Strasbourg: L. Zetzner, 1617), pp. 178-227.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Receptionof theLullianArt 41

Scholastic trappingsof Lull's Art posed a great obstacle to its sympa-

thetic reception among many of his learned contemporaries.40 The In
RhetoricemIsagoge, apparently writtenby one Remigius Rufus Can-
didus Aquitanus (perhaps a pseudonym),remedies this problem by of-
feringwhat Rossi has called "a singular blend of rhetoric,cosmology,
and encyclopedicaspirations."'4'Paola Zambelli describes the Isagoge
as something"between a rhetorical-dialecticalprimerand an encyclo-
pedic summarywhich is articulated in various synoptic schemes, ex-
tended to all the arts and sciences then known."42 Much of the work
consists simplyof lists in tabular formarranged under the two broad
divisions of subiecta ("subject matter") and applicatio announced in
the opening paragraph. The dual rhetoricaland pansophistic aims of
the work are set forthtogether there: "all the arts are completelyat-
tained in this knowledge. The task of the orator is to be able to speak
about matters in so far as they pertain to the civic welfareand good,
besides to the issue."43 The subiecta comprise the nine Lullian
categories of Deus, Angelus, Coelum, Homo, Imaginativa, Sensitiva,
Vegetativa, Elementativa, and Instrumentativa, all profusely exem-
plified and explicated with the pertinent lore from classical and
medieval authorities.44Following the subiecta, and apparentlybelong-
ing to the same Pars prima, were sections devoted to praedicata (the
nine Lullian principia),praedicata relativa (the nine Lullian relativa),
and quaestiones (the nine Lullian regulae).45 In the last half of the Pars
prima "for the greater expression of the firstand second parts [sic]
there follows the division of all disciplines, so that the orator might
more freelybe able to discourse on every subject and in every disci-
pline."46 This material is presented entirelyin a tabular format.The
much brieferPars RhetoricesSecunda de Applicatione begins withthis
definitionof oratory: "the orator must be able to speak ex tempore
about anything proposed to him. Gorgias Leontinus first dared to

40Zambelli, Ii 'De audituKabbalistico', pp. 129-131.

4'Clavis universalis, p. 54.
42I1 'De auditu Kabbalistico', p. 135.
43 Perfunctorieattinguntur omnes artes in hac scientia. Oratoris officiumest
posse dicere de rebus, inquantum pertinentad remp [ublicam]et utilitatemcivilem,nec
non ad causam" (ed. 1617, p. 179).
44The formerincluded Aristotle, Ausonius, Cicero, Horace, Pliny, Plutarch, Quin-
tilian, Sallust, Seneca, Vitruvius, and Zenophon.
45Theprincipia were bonitas, magnitudo, aeternitas (or duratio), potestas, sapi-
entia, voluntas, virtus, veritas, and gloria; the relativa were differentia,concordantia,
contrarietas, principiurn, medium, finis, maioritas, aequalitas, and minoritas; the
regulae were utrurn,quid, de quo, quare, quantum, quale, quando, ubi, and quomodo/cum
quo. Each series was assigned the lettersB throughK of the alphabet, and these were
then manipulated in the celebrated combinatoryfiguresand tables of the Art.
46"Admaioremautem expressionem primae et secundae partis sequitur omnium
disciplinarumdivisio, ut liberius orator in omni materia et per omnes disciplinas dis-
currerepossit" (ed. 1617, p. 197).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 TheSixteenthCentury
Journal

speak about everythingin the world, and he said that the subj ect of
the orator is the whole world."47The account of applicatio which
follows is based almost wholly on Cicero and begins with a list of the
five parts of rhetoric. A discussion of the genera causarum is suc-
ceeded by a somewhat disorganized treatment of confirmationeset
refutationesand the partes orationis. The elements of the Lullian Art
are applied to the genera causarum: the principia are employed in the
genus demonstrativum and the regulae in the genus iudiciale; the
genus deliberativumis not discussed at all and the relativa assigned to
it are incorporatedinto the account of the demonstrativum.The prin-
cipia, relativa, and regulae of the Lullian Art thus provide the basis
forthe treatmentof any subject. The association of the principia and
relativa under the genus demonstrativumand the regulae under the
iudiciale suggests a conventional dialectical distinction such as
Cicero's separation of invention and judgement (Topica, 2.6-8). The
workdoes not propose any metaphysicalor epistemological framework
forits prescriptions,and the last paragraph concludes abruptly,"yet
nothingindeed seems so difficultin this Art as making a beginningbe-
cause it does not seem to be born fromthe terms of the Art. To con-
clude well is still more difficult."48
Appended to the work is an oratio
exemplaris which presents, in a mediocre Neo-Latin style, a remark-
able pastiche of medieval and Renaissance metaphysics and
cosmology froma largely Neoplatonist basis.
The project of the In RhetoricemIsagoge is, patently,to provide a
practical paradigm for encyclopedic discourse. The subiecta are so
called "because we speak principallyabout themor because fromthem
confirmationsand refutationsare taken."49The author, recalling the
ancient dispute over the proper subject matter of the orator,invokes
the all-embracingclaims of Gorgias Leontinus. An Epistola dedicatoria
fromRemigius Rufus to "Antonius Boherus Royal Treasurer and his
brotherFranciscus" prefacesthe entireworkand proclaims the utility,
encyclopedism,and the eminenceof its presumed inspiredorigin.50 The
Epistola concludes with this request: "whereforecherish,esteem, and
admire this little book, which for a long time lay hidden, dirty and
dusty, and covered with mould and rot."I5 Despite this charming
4'Oratoris est ex tempore posse dicere de quacunque re sibi proposita. Primus
autem Gorgias Leontifnjus de omni re mundi ausus est disserere, dixitque oratoris
materiam esse totum mundum" (ibid., p. 216).
48"Nihiltamen adeo videtur difficilein hoc artificioquam facere exordium, quia
non videtur nasci ex terminisartis. Bene concludere adhuc difficilius"(ibid., p. 223).
49 'Quia de iis principaliterloquimur: aut quia ab iis sumuntur confirmationeset
confutationes" (ibid., p. 180).
50Ibid.pp. 178-79.
51' 'Quare hunc libellum colite, adamate, admiremini:qui longo temporis curriculo

squalidus et pulverulentus situ et carie sparsus delituit" (ibid., p. 179).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Receptionof theLullianArt 43

claim, and the publication of the work under Llull's name, it is not
clear that the original 1515 edition of the In Rhetoricem Isagoge was
offeredas a deliberatefraud.In any case, the workcompletelyfulfilled
the sixteenth-century expectations of a Lullian art of discourse and
achieved wide diffusionas an authentic writingof Llull in the four
Zetzner editions printedat Strasbourg in 1598, 1609, 1617, and 1651;
it continued to be considered genuine until the nineteenthcentury.
One of Lavinheta's logical writingsalso came to be attributedto
Llull. In 1516 Lavinheta published together Llull's Logica nova and
Tractatus de conversionssubiecti et praedicati per medium,along with
his own Tractatus de venatione medii intersubiectum et praedicatum.
This latterwork,based on Llull's own treatise,appeared in the Zetzner
editions under Llull's name, despite Lavinheta's prefatoryremark in
the 1516 edition,"a contributionfrommy own efforton the investiga-
tion of the middlerelationship." Lavinheta's Tractatus attempts to ex-
plicate the differencebetween the syllogismus verus, necessarius et
demonstrativusof Lullian logic, and the syllogismus dialecticus sive
logicalis et intentionalis of Aristotelian logic; J. N. Hillgarth has
foundthat most of it reproducesverbatim sections fromthe earlierIn-
troductioin artem Remundi of the fourteenth-century French Lullist
Thomas Le Myesier.52The material in Lavinheta's workis the same as
in Llull's, consisting almost entirelyof syllogisms illustratingthe dif-
ferentmodes of medium-metaphysical relationships of participation
-existing between their subjects and predicates. There is, perhaps,
one signal differencebetween the two texts: the wordingof theirtitles.
Llull's conversio subiecti et praedicati appeals to a metaphysical rela-
tionship while Lavinheta's venatio medii suggests the inventional or
heuristicvalue attributedto Llull's logic as an instrumentforthe gen-
eration of knowledge.
Lavinheta and his associates approached the Lullian Art as a
discursive paradigm for pansophistic inquiry. This approach was
given its most cogent redaction and handed on to the later sixteenth
centurythroughthe In artem brevemRaymundi Lulli Commentaria
(Cologne: Joannes Soter, 1531) of Henricus Cornelius Agrippa von
Nettesheim.53Agrippa's work, which was reprinted fifteen times,
remediesthe shortcomingswhichhe saw in Llull's Art and describes in
his De incertitudineet vanitate scientiarum atque artium (1531).
Agrippa associates Llull's Art with the Gorgian claim to universal dis-
course: "Now Ramon Llull discovered . .. a marvelous Art, by which
anyone would be able, just as Gorgias Leontinus once was, ... to speak
52RamonLull and Lullism, p. 291.
53A11referencesare to Operum pars posterior (Lyon: Bering, 1600?; rprt. Hilde-
sheim: Olms, 1970).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 TheSixteenthCentury
Journal

abundantly on any subject" (1, 9).54 Nonetheless, Agrippa cautions

that "this Art supports eruditionand the display of skill, and has by
far more audacity, than efficacy.It is moreovercompletelyunlearned
and barbarous, unless it be adorned by some more elegant language."55
Agrippa's characterizationexpresses concisely the sixteenth-century
attitude toward Llull's Art. The Art offersa useful plan for panso-
phistic discourse but is easily pervertedforthe "display of talent" and
"ostentation of learning"-the faults of the "loquacious Lullist" listed
among the abusers of learning in Chapter 1 of the De incertitudine.
Moreover, Llull's Art requires reformulation according to the
language and style of contemporaryliterarypractice.
In the opening paragraphs of the Commentaria Agrippa defines
the encyclopedism and dialectical skill which his presentation of
Llull's Art will provide:
Ramon Llull composed an Art forthe discoveryof knowledge . . .
And this is called an "inventive" Art because it teaches us to find
[invenire]and to multiply things and terms, and propositions,
definitions,divisions, relationships[media],commonplaces,argu-
ments, questions, and the answers and deductions of questions
and arguments,and the truthsand knowledgeof everything,and
that which is proposed foreverything.56
This practice relies upon rhetoricalrecourses such as amplificationand
exornatio forthe "invention" of discourse:
Now to finda thing,or terms,involves only this: since a thing,be-
cause it is one, can be explicated in many terms signifyingthe
same thingor somethingsimilar,convertiblyor otherwise,there-
fore to find terms is nothing other than to amplify and adorn
some proposed thing with many and apt words.57
All terms,whetherfromconventionallogical or grammatical doctrine,
are subsumed in the subiecta, which comprehend all objects of
thought: "everythingwith which the mind deals is each one an object

54"InvenitautemRaymundus Lullus . . . prodigiosamartem,perquam tanquam

olimGorgiasLeontinus... de quovis subiectosermoneabundequis valeat disserere"
(p. 39).
55'Hanc artemad pompamingeniiet eruditionem valere,ac longe plus habere
audaciae, quam efficaciae.Esse praetereatotam ineruditamac barbaram,nisi ele-
gantiorequadam literaturaadornetur"(p. 40).
56"Raymundus Lullus composuitartemad scientiarum inventionem . .. Dicitur
autemhaec ars inventiva,quia docetnos invenireet multiplicare res et terminos, et
propositiones,difinitiones,divisiones,media, loca, argumenta,quaestiones,quaes-
tionumet argumentorum solutionesatque deductiones,veritateset scientiasde omni
re,et ad omneid quod proponitur" (p. 319).
57'Invenireautemrem,vel terminos, hocsoluminterest:quoniamres,cumuna sit,
pluribuspotestterminisexplicari,idemaut similesignificantibus, convertibiliter vel
aliter.Invenireitaqueterminos nihilaliudest,quam realiqua propositaillampluribus,
et iisquidemaptisverbisamplificare et exornare''(p. 319).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Receptionof theLullianArt 45

of the intellect,or thought, however such is regarded."58Agrippa's

Commentaria,like the In Rhetoricem Isagoge, integrates traditional
rhetoricaland logical elements into Llull's Art in order to establish a
body of subiecta capable of elaboration through the applicatio of
various dialectical recourses. The three parts of Agrippa's Commen-
taria set forththis dual program: "in the firstof which, afterthe dis-
covery of the subject, we will declare and teach the multiplicationof
generalterms:in the second part we will set forththe discoveryof com-
plex terms: in the third we will teach the universal arrangementand
application of the Art and demonstrateit throughexamples."59Agrip-
pa extends the range of possible subiecta indefinitelyby eliminating
the restrictionson theirnumberprescribedin the Lullian Art: "These
thereforeare the termsmost necessary forthis Art, throughwhichthe
discourse of the whole Art can be done. Still, we can, in addition to
these terms,adopt otheroutside terms,and othercompletelydifferent
ones in any number, with which we can discourse in the same
manner."60 Agrippa subsumes the three genera causarum of rhetoric
into the subiecta and supplies other terms for the Lullian principia,
whose permutations and combinations are thus made virtuallylimit-
less:
Now this combinationis made eitherfromthe part of the subject
or the predicate,or of the mode of the syllogism or each of them:
and again triply, either through the terms proper to the Art
among themselves, or through the outside terms among them-
selves, or through the proper and outside terms: and all these
variously either in one figurealone or in several and many.6'
The second part of the Commentariatreats the formationof prop-
ositions, definitions,and simple syllogisms (the basic elements of the
early medieval logica vetus), the Lullian inventio media,the solution
and "dissolution" of questions, and includes a lengthy catalogue of
commonplacesor "topics," the so-called "seats of argumentand orna-
ment of speech."62 This second part serves to reformulateLlull's
58"Omne id circa quod versatur anima, quodque est obiectum intellectus, vel
cogitationis, quocunque eiusmodi posito" (p. 419).
59"In quarum prima, iuxta inventionem materiae, terminos ipsos generales de-
clarabimus, et multiplicare docebimus: in secunda parte, complexorum inventionem
ostendemus: in tertia,universalem artis dispositionem et applicationem docebimus, et
per exempla demonstrabimus" (p. 320).
60' 'Hi itaque sunt terminiad hanc artem maxime necessari, per quos totius artis

discursus fieripotest. Possumus tamen praeter istos terminosalos accipere extraneos,

etiam alienissimos et quantumlibet multos, per quos eodem modo discurremus" (p.
359).
61' 'Fit autem haec mixtio aut ex parte subiecti, aut a parte praedicati, aut modi

cuiusque eorum; et iterum fit tripliciter,aut terminorumin arte explicitoruminter se,

aut terminorumextraneoruminter se, aut explicitorumcum extraneis: et omnia haec
varie aut in una figuratantum aut in diversis et pluribus" (p. 374).
62"Sedes argumenti ac ornamentumsermonis" (p. 404).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46 TheSixteenthCentury
Journal

rather elementarylogical schemes in terms of the conventional doc-

trines fromwhich they were originallyadapted. The emphasis on the
"topics" is especially noteworthysince these had long served in logic
as devices of "invention," rather than "judgement," as Agrippa
employs them.63
The thirdand finalpart of the Commentariapresents a rhetorical
program drawn completely fromtraditional sources, as Agrippa ac-
knowledged in the opening line: "since this is not available skillfully
enough fromthisArt, thereforewhoeverwishes should consult the pre-
cepts of rhetoric.
"64 Most of Agrippa's rhetoricaldoctrineseems to be

adapted fromthe artes praedicandi, and he explicitlyappealed to the

recourses of Biblical exegesis which they employed in the "amplifica-
tion" of sermonmaterial: "division, which oftenoccurs in the explica-
tion of Sacred Scripture,is also useful in this sort of thingin order to
make a distinction through figures and allegories, to elicit different
senses fromthe same word, and then to draw out the matter in each
sense according to the process noted above, and this singly through
each member and then also jointly in the whole proposition . .. and
thus with similar ones, just as among the theologians the foursenses
of exposition are used."65 Classical Ciceronian rhetorical lore is also
mentioned incidentally with references to the practices "among
orators."66 Agrippa does not seem to incorporate any material from
eithertheRethorica nova or Liber de praedicatione ofLlull. Three com-
plete sample discourses conclude the third part, one of which is the
"Oratio exemplaris" fromthe In RhetoricemIsagoge. Other features
of the Commentaria suggest that Agrippa may have adapted the
organization of that earlierwork forhis own and have drawn on it for
some of his material. Moreover, just as in the Isagoge, no meta-
physical or epistemololgical premises for his schemes are expressed.
The program of Agrippa's Commentaria is pre-eminentlydirected
toward the elaboration of discourse. It provides a plan forargumen-
63TheScholastic terministlogicians reinterpretedthe topics as recourses of "judg-
ment;" see Otto Bird, "The Tradition of the Logical Topics: Aristotle to Ockham,"
Journal of the History of Ideas 23 (1962), 307-323.
64' 'Haec autem quoniam non satis docte ex hac arte petitur, ideo qui velit ad
praecepta rhetoricase conferat" (p. 417).
65' 'Convenit etiam in hoc genere divisio, quod quidem in sacris litterisexplicandis

saepe usu venit,ut distinctio fiatper translationes,et allegorias, ad eliciendos diversos

sensus, ex ipso sermone, et tunc in uno quoque sensu deducere rem secundum pro-
cessum supra notatum,et hoc particulatimper singula membra,tum etiam commixtim
in tota propositione . . . et sic de similibus, prout apud theologos quatuor exponendi
genera hoc in usu est" (pp. 422-423). On the artes praedicandi and their history,see
James J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1974).
66"Apud oratores" (p. 424).
67Thisis recognized,but lamented, by the Carreras y Artau: "Pese a la grandiosi-
dad del prop6sito, el Arte de Agripa queda inferioral de Lull, por no estar s6lidamente

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Receptionof theLullianArt 47

tation limited only by the inductive agility of the speaker. Agrippa's

work completes the project of the Isagoge by providing a successful
redaction of the Lullian Art in the formthrough which it would be
chieflycultivated throughoutthe rest of the sixteenthcentury-as an
art of discourse,"thinkingmachine," and clavis universalis.Agrippa's
Commentariathus fixes the thirdphase in the Renaissance reception
of Llull's Art.
Paolo Rossi has writtenthat the Renaissance encyclopedists and
pansophists who pursued Llull's Art as a clavis universalis did so
because they also accepted and utilized the exemplarist metaphysics
which it elaborated; fromthe cosmic hierarchythey sought to appre-
hend directlythe hierarchyof knowledge.68This article has instead
sought to suggest that the Renaissance interest in Llull's Art devel-
oped principallyas an appeal to the heuristicforceof discourse itself.
This interest comprised three more or less cumulative phases in the
period fromabout 1450 to about 1530: an initial attention to the uni-
versal symbolism of the Lullian Art, a criticism of the Art based on
literaryand rhetorical standards, and finally,a reformulationof the
Art as an encyclopedic heuristic program employing conventional
dialectical doctrines.69The metaphysics which supports the symbolic
associations of such a program was not problematic for Llull, and
neitheris it apparent that it was so among his Renaissance enthusi-
asts. Indeed, the two works in which Llull specificallysought to ac-
count metaphysicallyfora formallyexemplarist "language of things"
-the De significationeand Rethorica nova-remain unprintedto this
day, and the latter was supplanted by the apocryphal In Rhetoricem
Isagoge.70 These apocryphal writings,and other commentarieson, or
asentado, como 6ste, sobre una metafisica y una teologia. Agripa, hombre del Renaci-
miento,se desentiende de la concepci6n medieval inherenteal artificioluliano. En sus
manos, 6ste degenera en un mecanismo puramente formal,cuya vacuidad se ilena con
materiales asimilados de la dialectica y la ret6rica.... He aqui en que ha venido a parar
finalmenteel ambicioso mecanismo logico de Agripa: en un derroche de oratoria" (His-
toria de la filosofiaespahola, 2, 221-222).
68Clavisuniversalis, p. 49.
69Thesethree facets may correspond,in an approximate manner,to the three tra-
ditions of "logomysticism,""linguistic humanism," and mathesis universalis discussed
by Karl Otto Apel in L'idea di lingua nella tradizionedell'umanesimo da Dante a Vico,
Ital. tr. Luciano Tosti (Bologna: II Mulino, 1975), pp. 85-116. Richard McKeon has
classified Renaissance Lullism and Peter Ramus together under the somewhat impre-
cise category of "The Encyclopedia or Cycle of the Arts and Sciences as Programs of
Education, Projects of Discovery, and Organizations of Knowledge" in "The Trans-
formation of the Liberal Arts in the Renaissance," in Bernard S. Levy, ed.,
Developments in the Early Renaissance (Albany: State Universityof New York Press,
1972), pp. 158-223.
7'Louis Sala-Molins is preparingan edition of the De significationeforpublication
in the series Raimundi Lulli Opera Latina and has discussed the theories which that
work suggests in La philosophie de l'amour chez Raymond Lulle (The Hague: Mouton,
1974). On the Rethorica nova, see J. Rubi6 Balaguer, "La 'Rhetorica nova' de Ramon
Llull," Estudios lulianos 3 (1959), 5-20 & 263-274.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 TheSixteenthCentury
Journal

epitomes of, Llull's Art, tend to abandon Llull's formal,exemplarist

approach to natural language in favorof a mechanisticand generative
model of discourse more compatible with conventional rhetorical or
dialectical precepts. Rather than establish a system of formal logic
based on explicit ontological categories, they seek to perfectthe dis-
cursive machineryof the Lullian program of inquiry.
In the Lullian Art an exemplarist metaphysics of resemblance
already provided both "the formand content of what was known."'71
The difficultyof such a program lay in discovering and utilizing the
"inner principle of proliferation" inherent in language itself. Later
adaptations of Llull's Art, such as Gregoire's Syntaxeon Artis
mirabilis (1610), would eventually take up the project of "reconsti-
tuting the very order of the universe by the way in which words are
linked togetherand arranged in space."72 At the turnof the sixteenth
century,however,the symbolic functionof language was sought not
"in the words themselves,but ratherin the veryexistence of language,
in its total relationto the totalityof the world,in the intersectingofits
space with the loci and formsof the cosmos."73The chiefcontribution
of Llull's Art to the encyclopedic and pansophistic inquiries of
Renaissance philosophy was the model it offeredfor reducing all
knowledge to wholly discursive recourses. The impact of this model
can be traced fromthe response to Llull's Art of Cusanus and Lefevre
d'Etaples to Agrippa's denunciationof "loquacious Lullists" to the old
Dutchman, reportedby Descartes, who claimed the abilityto discourse
on any subject for an hour with the aid of Agrippa's Commentaria.74
The early sixteenth-century practitionersof Lullism established a con-
text forLlull's philosophy in which his Art would henceforthbe pur-
sued as a system of argumentation possessing unlimited heuristic
power, a power sustained by the voluble proliferationof discourse
itself.

71MichelFoucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences.

A translation of Les Mots et les choses (New York: Random House, Vintage Books,
1973), p. 42.
72Ibid.,p. 38.
73Ibid., p. 37.
74Hillgarth,Ramon Lull and Lullism, p. 296.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:03:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions