A Sefirotic tree from a miscellany of

Christian Kabbalistic texts

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

The contents of the miscellaneous Latin manuscript bearing the signature Piancastelli O VII 57, preserved at the Biblioteca Comunale of Forl, have been already the object of some partial surveys, in
particular by Chaim Wirzsubski1, Paola Zambelli2, and, more recently, by the author of the present article.3
Nevertheless, although some elements of uncertainty or sheer errors in the evaluation of the origin, the
date and the nature of the heterogeneous materials bound together in it have been clarified or dispelled,
there are still numerous points which deserve a closer look. After having shown, I believe, with conclusive evidence, that the Christophorus appearing in the manuscript as the copyist could not be identified
with the cardinal Cristoforo Numai, for obvious chronological reasons, one can at least have a terminus
post quem for the dating of the major part of the materials present in this miscellany: it is the year 1540,
when Francesco Giorgio Veneto, also known as Zorzi, died in Asolo. The manuscript, in which the pages
of the printed edition of the Giorgios Problemata (Venice 1536) are repeatedly quoted, refers to him
clearly as already dead: it stands therefore to reason that the main bulk of the manuscript was produced,
within the Franciscan Observance, possibly at the Franciscan Convent of Villa Verucchio (Rimini)4,
around the middle of the 16th century. It contains, among other things, a version of the reportatio of the
Commentary on the Conclusiones cabalisticae by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, a fragment of a kabbalistic commentary on the Canticle, an Hexameron mysticum, the text of the Conclusiones themselves,
various documents concerning the much debated problem of the royal divorce of Henry VIII of England
and the reform of the Franciscan Observance. Towards the middle of the miscellany, on ff. 111r-112r
1.Ch. Wirszubski, Francesco Giorgios Commentary on Giovanni Picos kabbalistic theses, Journal of the Warburg and
Courtauld Institutes 37 (1974), [pp. 145-156], p. 148.
2.P. Zambelli, Pico, la Cabala e lOsservanza Francescana. Un inedito commento alle Tesi di Pico scampato al Sacco
di Roma, Archivio Storico Italiano 152 (1994), p. 735-766; see also the abbreviated version in P. Zambelli, Lapprendista
stregone. Astrologia, cabala e arte lulliana in Pico della Mirandola e seguaci, Venice, 1995, p. 173-200.
3.S. Campanini, Ein unbekannter Kommentar zum Hohelied aus der kabbalistischen Schule von Francesco Zorzi: Edition und Kommentar, in G. Frank, A. Hallacker and S. Lalla (eds), Erzhlende Vernunft, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 2006,
pp. 265-281; Idem, Il commento alle conclusiones cabalisticae nel Cinquecento, in F. Lelli (ed.), Giovanni Pico e la qabbalah,
in print.
4. As I have shown elsewhere (Il commento alle conclusiones), the evidence of the manuscripts testifies to the existence
of three versions of Zorzis commentary on Picos conclusiones: 1) the shortest, that is the reportatio of the mss. Piancastelli
and of MS. Yahuda Var. 24 of the National Library of Israel; 2) an intermediate version, larger then the preceding one, but much
shorter than 3) the commentary published under his own name by Zorzis pupil Arcangelo da Borgonovo. It is far from being
devoid of interest that a copy of the intermediate version of the Commentary on the conclusiones is preserved at the Biblioteca
Gambalunghiana of Rimini (sign. SC-MS 110).

Manuscrits hbreux et arabes: Mlanges en lhonneur de Colette Sirat, dit par Nicholas de Lange et Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, Turnhout,
2014 (BIBLIOLOGIA, 38), p.387-401
DOI 10.1484/M.BIB.1.102101
BREPOLS H PUBLISHERS

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 387

13/10/14 13:50

388

A SEFIROTIC TREE FROM A MISCELLANY OF CHRISTIAN KABBALISTIC TEXTS

(whereas f. 112v is blank), that is to say, between the end of the Exameron mysticum and the beginning
of the Commentary on the Canticle, one finds the text of a short commentary on the sefirot followed, but
it should be remarked right away, on a different kind of paper, more robust, and written only on the recto,
by a singular representation of the tree of the sefirot with circles representing the various sefirot with
some words for each sefirah, inscribed partly in Latin and partly in vocalized Hebrew (Plate 1).
The most striking feature of this peculiar tree, besides the twigs connecting the seventh and the eighth
sefirah (Netzach and Hod), with the tenth (Malkut), which confers to the whole diagram a remarkable
circular bent, is the realistic representation of what is usually reduced to an abstract diagram as a proper
tree or rather a thornbush, which is quite rare (not to say virtually absent5) in the Jewish tradition6, but
will be one of the most widespread features in the representation of the sefirotic tree in the Christian
tradition. I will dedicate to this aspect a few more words when describing the tree in its visual and textual
aspects.
The first question that arises is whether there is any connection between the commentary and the tree
beyond their mere justaposition. It is evident that the subject of the two textual/visual units is common,
but the factors separating them, such as the already mentioned quality of the writing support and the
script, which seems to belong to a significanly later hand (datable, if I am not mistaken, to the second
half of the 16th or rather to the 17th century), are prevalent. Moreover, the very fact that the sheet containing the tree has been cut to fit the dimensions of the booklet, with a marginal but not insignificant loss
of text on the right margin and the presence of vocalized Hebrew words, written by an untrained, quite
awkward hand, certainly by a pupil with only rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew (as the wrong rendition
of the word , written twice as makes abundantly clear), as opposed to the fact that the rest of
the manuscript does not contain a single word in Hebrew characters (whereas the frequent Hebrew words
recalled in the text are invariably transcribed in Latin characters) leave no room for doubt that the picture
of the sefirotic tree has been added to the original manuscript at a later point. Finally, as we will see
further on, the contents of the two pieces are only partly compatible. In order to examine the problem of
the relationship between the two units, a closer look is needed.
To start with the first textual unit, that is the commentary on the sefirot, one can easily remark that it
is written by the same hand as the main bulk of the manuscript. Moreover one should emphasize a peculiar feature of this brief explanation of the sefirot: the last name (nomen), referring to the sefirah Malkut
is written, since the copyist had used all the space available on f. 111v, on a blank space at the end of f.
110v. This should be an indication that the text has been copied from some model rather than being an
original composition, and that the copyist had slightly overestimated the space at his disposal, and, not
wanting to begin a new page, simply completed the task by utilizing a free space at the end of the previous
textual unit. As remarked above, on f. 113v one finds the incipit of the Commentary on the Canticle, also

5.I am grateful to Giulio Busi, who confirmed with his vaste visual erudition my impression that, although the expression
is authentic, and used, as early as in the Sefer ha-Temunah, to identify it with the tamarisk (eshel), a realistic representation of the sefirot as a tree or a shrub seems utterly unknown.
6. One is reminded of a highly stylized, and quite rare, tree of wisdom (Ilan ha-okmah) in a manuscript of the Bibliothque Nationale de France (hb. 763), written in Rome in the XIIIth century (1286). A very similar drawing is preserved also
in MS Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, parm. 2784, f. 97r. See G. Busi, Qabbalah visiva, Einaudi, Torino, 2005, p. 128. A reproduction of the tree had alrady been used for the cover of G. Scholem, Les origines de la Kabbale, trans. by G. Vajda, Aubier Montaigne, Paris, 1966 and in A. Abcassis, G. Nataf, Encyclopdie de la mystique juve, Berg, Paris, 1977, p. 698.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 388

13/10/14 13:50

SAVERIO CAMPANINI 389

written by the same hand (that is Christophorus), responsible for the vast majority of the manuscript,
and perhaps the copyist did not want to begin writing on a new page the few lines left in his antigraphus.
Be that as it may, it seems useful to publish here the text of the commentary on the sefirot in order to
proceed to its identification.
[111r] Hebreorum mecubales ponunt 10 primaria nomina divina quae per 10 sephiroth veluti per exemplaria
archetypi in omnia creata ordine quodam influunt. Nam primo influunt in 9 angelorum ordines et animarum
beatarum chorum. Et per illos in caelestes sphaeras et planetas et homines, a quibus deinde res singulae accipiunt
vim atque virtutem. Primum horum est nomen ehie, nomen divinae essentiae. Eius numeratio vocata est Cheter,
quae interpretatur corona, vel diadema supremum, et significat esse simplicissimum divinitatis et attribuitur
patri et influit per ordinem seraphin, vel ut vocant Hebraei haioth hacadoscim, hoc est animalia sanctitatis, et
exinde per primum mobile omnibusque essendi munus largitur, ipsum universum per totam circumferentiam
et centrum replens, cuius intelligentia particularis nuncupatur Metatron sar hapanim idest princeps facierum,
cuius officium est alios introducere ad faciem principis. Et per hunc locutus est dominus Moysi. Nomen est Jod i
sive Tetragrammaton cum iod coniunctum, et eius numeratio Cocma sive Hochma hoc est sapientia et significat
divinitatem plenam ideis et primogenitum, et attribuitur filio, et influit per ordinem cherubim sive prout vocant
hebraei ophanim hoc est formae vel rotae, et exinde coelum stellatum, totidem illic fabricans figuras quot in
se continet ideas. Ipsum Chaos creaturarum distinguens per intelligentiam particularem nomine Razielem,
qui fuit praefectus Adam. Nomen vocatum est tetragrammaton Elohim, numeratio eius dicitur Bina hoc est
providentia seu intelligentia, et significat remissionem, quietem, Jubilaeum poenitentialem, conversionem,
tubam magnam, redemptionem mundi et vitam venturi saeculi, et attribuitur Spiritui sancto et per ordinem
thronorum influit7 sive quos haebrei vocant Aralim hoc est angeli fortes et robusti. Atque exinde per sphaeram
Saturni formam fluxae materiae ministrans, cuius intelligentia particularis Zaphchiel prefectus Nohe. Et alia
intelligentia Jophiel prefectus Sem. Et haec sunt 3 numerationes summae et supremae veluti sedes divinarum
personarum quarum iussu omnia fiunt, sed per reliquas 7 exequuntur quae iccirco numerationes fabricae.
Nomen est El, cuius numeratio haesed idest clementia sive bonitas, et significat gratiam, misericordiam,
pietatem, magnificentiam, sceptrum et dextram manum, et influit per ordinem dominationum sive ut aiunt
hebraei hasmalim, per sphaeram Jovis effingens corporum effigies clementiam et iustitiam pacificam omnibus
donans, et intelligentia eius particularis Zadchiel prefectus Abrae. [111v]
Nomen elohim gibor, hoc est deus robustus, puniens culpas improborum, et eius numeratio vocatur geburach
idest potentia, fortitudo, securitas, iudicium puniens per strages et bella, et coaptatur ad tribunal dei, et cingulum
dei et gladium et brachium sinistrum, et vocatur etiam pachad, quod est timor, et influit per ordinem potestatum,
sive quem dicunt hebraei seraphim, et exinde per sphaeram martis cuius est fortitudo, afflictio, bellum, et eius
intelligentia particularis Camael prefectus Sampsonis.
Nomen est Eloha et numeratio eius Tiphereth idest ornatus pulchritudo gloria voluptas et significat lignum
vitae, et influit per ordinem virtutum, sive ut aiunt hebraei Malachim idest angeli in sphaeram solis, claritatem
illi, et vitam donans, et exinde metalla producens, et intelligentia eius particularis Raphael, qui fuit praefectus
Jsahac8 et Thobiae iunioris, atque angelus Peliel praefectus Jahacob.

7. At first the copyist wrote induit, subsequently erased.

8. At first the copyist wrote Isaac and then erased it.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 389

13/10/14 13:50

390

A SEFIROTIC TREE FROM A MISCELLANY OF CHRISTIAN KABBALISTIC TEXTS

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

What is immediately evident is that the commentary on the sefirot is of Christian origin and not a
direct translation of a Jewish source. A certain haste in the execution of the copy is visible from the fact
that the divine names, and the sefirot related to them, are not numbered as would be expected, although
they reflect correctly one of the two possible dispositions of the sefirot, the classical descending order,
from Keter to Malkut. Moreover, the peculiar terminology used for indicating the kabbalists restricts
greatly the scope of our search for a possible source. To the best of my knowledge, the first Christian
author who used the term mecubales in order to describe the kabbalists, clearly adapting the Hebrew
mequbbalim ( )to Latin morphology, was the Spanish poet Pero Guilln de Segovia, in his decir
Oyd maravillas del siglo presente9, who in turn was deeply influencd by the very widespread Visin
deleytable of Alfonso de Torre10, in which one reads the deformed term necubalini, but which was
probably based on the standard form mecubalim.11 The latter was the usual form attested in the 15th century
polemical literature, especially the tracts authored by Jewish converts, for example the Mostrador de
Justicia of Alfonso de Valladolid12 and the Zelus Christi of Pedro de la Caballeria (who has, at least in
9.P. Guilln de Segovia, Obra potica, ed. by C. Moreno Hernndez, Fundacin Universitaria Espaola, Madrid, 1989,
p. 366.
10. F. J. Domnech, El decir Oyd maravillas derl siglo presente de Pero Guilln de Sevilla: contribucin al estudio de sus
fuentes litrarias, Dicenda 5 (1986), [pp. 13-45], p. 36. More generally see L. M. Girn-Negrn, Alfonso de la Torres Visin
deleytable. Philosophical Rationalism and the Religious Imagination in 15th Century Spain, Brill, Leiden Boston, 2001, p.
216.
11. But other variants are attested, see A. De la Torre, Visin deleytable, ed. by J. Garca Lpez, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, 1991, p. 246, who lists: mecubalim, macubalyn, methubalim, necubalim, mecabalim, necabalim, necubalini.
12.Cfr. I. Loeb, Polmistes chrtiens et juifs en France et en Espagne, REJ 18 (1889), [pp. 43-70], p. 61; F. Secret, Pico
della Mirandola e gli inizi della cabala cristiana, Convivium 25 (1957), [pp. 31-47], p. 44; Alfonso de Valladolid (Abner of
Burgos), Mostrador de justicia, ed. by W. Mettmann, vol. I, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, 1994, p. 165.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 390

13/10/14 13:50

SAVERIO CAMPANINI 391

the printed version, the form mecubalini).13 The first Christian Kabbalist to use the term mecubales
was Ludovico Lazzarelli, in his Crater Hermetis (written before 1494, but published in 150514) and also
in his Fasti Christianae religionis.15 Much closer to our context, that is to say already speaking of the
names and the functions of the sefirot, was then the Jewish convert Paulus Ricius, who, in his Isagoge
(150916), has many expressions which coincide with the ones found in our commentary. One could
suppose a certain degree of dependence of our piece on Ricius, but it would be an error of perspective:
the fact that our list partly coincides with the one presented by Ricius in his Isagoge and, later on, in a
condensed form, in his Symbolum17, can be better explained by considering that Ricius, among others,
was the mediated source of this passage, which is to be found almost exactly (we will examine further
on the minor discrepancies and we will try to offer an explanation) in Cornelius Agrippas De occulta
philosophia.18 In considering the strict affinity, not to say identity, between the two texts, one could term
the excerpt present in MS Piancastelli a mere extract from the book, published for the first time in Cologne
in the years 1530-31. Before pronouncing a verdict on this question, I reproduce here the relevant passage
from Agrippas De occulta philosophia (italics have been used where there is a complete coincidence
between the two texts):
Verum Hebraeorum mecubales, rerum divinarum eruditissimi, decem principalia nomina divina veluti
numina quaedam ceu Dei membra acceperunt, quae per decem numerationes, quae Sephiroth vocant, veluti
per vestimenta sive instrumenta vel exemplaria archetypi influunt in omnia quae creata sunt, per singula
superiora usque in infima, ordine tamen quodam: nam primo et proxime influunt in novem angelorum ordines
et animarum beatarum chorum et per illos in coelestes sphaeras et planetas et homines, a quibus deinde res
singulae accipiunt vim atque virtutem. Primum horum est nomen Ehie, nomen divinae essentiae; numeratio
eius vocata est Cether, quod interpretatur corona seu diadema et significat esse simplicissimum divinitatis
et vocatur quod oculus non vidit et attribuitur Deo patri et influit per ordinem Seraphim (vel, ut vocant
Hebraei, Haioth Hacadosch, hoc est animalia sanctitatis) et exinde per Primum Mobile omnibusque essendi
13.Cfr. Tractatus Zelus Christi contra Iudaeos, Sarracenos, et Infideles ab Illust. Doct. Petro de la Cavaleria, Hispano ec
Civitate Caesaraugusta, anno 1450 compositus, nec umquam impressus, Apud Baretium de Baretiis, Venetiis, 1592, p. 34.
14. Paris 1505, f. 60v-81v: 72r; see also W. J. Haanegraaf, R. M. Bouthoorn (eds), Ludovico Lazzarelli (1447-1500), The
Hermetic Writings ans Related Documents, Arizona Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Tempe, 2005; C. Moreschini, DallAsclepius al Crater Hermetis. Studi sullermetismo latino tardo-antico e rinascimentale, Giardini, Pisa, 1989.
15. Lazzarelli writes: Mecubales cedant Hebraei, nanque magistro / clarius a Christo Cabala aperta fuit. I owe this observation to F. Bacchelli, Giovanni Pico e Pier Leone da Spoleto. Tra filosofia damore e tradizione cabbalistica, Olschki, Firenze, 2001, p. 157, who quotes from the MS 207 of the Biblioteca Comunale of San Severino Marche, the latest version, dedicated to Charles VIII and composed not before 1494; see G. Arbizzoni, art. Lazzarelli, Ludovico, in Dizionario Biografico degli
Italiani, vol. 64, Istituto dellEnciclopedia Italiana, Roma, 2005, p. 180; A. Fritsen, Ludovico Lazzarellis Fasti Christianae
Religionis: Recipient and Context of an Ovidian Poem, in D. Sacr, G. Tournoy, Myricae. Essays on Neo-Latin Literature in
Memory of Jozef Ijsewijn, Leuven University Press, Leuven, 2000, pp. 115-132: 117; see especially C. Moreschini, La poesia
cristiana di Ludovico Lazzarelli. I Fasti christianae religionis, Academia 5 (2003), [pp. 39-59], p 57; Idem, Lermetismo del
rinascimento da Marsilio Ficino a Ludovico Lazzarelli, Aries 5 (2005), [pp. 33-60], p. 57.
16. Pauli Ricii israelitae aphoristicae in cabalistarum eruditionem cum digressionibus isagogae, apud Bernardinum de
Garaldis, Papiae, 1509, f. bIv.
17.P. Ricius, In Apostolorum Symbolum dialogus, Augsburg, 1514, f. biiiv-bivr.
18.C. Agrippa, De occulta philosophia, III, 10. See V. Perrone Compagni (ed.), Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia
libri tres, Brill, Leiden, 1992, pp. 424-427.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 391

13/10/14 13:50

392

A SEFIROTIC TREE FROM A MISCELLANY OF CHRISTIAN KABBALISTIC TEXTS

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

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 392

13/10/14 13:50

SAVERIO CAMPANINI 393

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

It seems, at a first glance, that no serious doubt can be cast on the evidence that the excerpt of MS
Piancastelli should be derived from Agrippa. The discrepancies between the two texts are almost always
the result of an abbreviation, of the choice of a synonymous expression or of a different turn of the phrase.
There is only one instance where the derivative text seems to expand beyond the materials given in the
supposed original: it is the Hebrew name of Metatron, called in MS Piancastelli Sar hapanim, a term,
at the most, implicit in the text published by Agrippa, who only cites the Latin translation of the epithet.
This discrepancy is too marginal, and could have been very well introduced ope ingenii by the copyist
to suppose that his source was different from Agrippas printed version, which had been, all things considered, already in print for at least a decade before MS Piancastelli was written. It is known from the
correspondence of Agrippa, that at least on one occasion, the latter was in indirect contact with Francesco
Giorgio and that he encouraged his correspondent to copy a kabbalistic work he had at his disposal in
the convent of San Francesco Della Vigna19, but it is all the more surprising to see a disciple of Giorgio,
as the copyist of MS Piancastelli must have been, using materials obviously derived, among others, from
Giorgio and utilised, in his peculiar mixture, adding Ricius and Reuchlin, to form a spurious synthesis,
which was to be normative in later esoteric traditions. It is all the more noteworthy that precisely some
passages, for example the reference to oculus non videt, clearly derived from Giorgio20, are not copied
in the fragment of MS Piancastelli. On the other hand, a serious objection against the hypothesis that the
fragment we are examining could be an intermediate version copied for Agrippa is represented by the
simple fact that the use made by Agrippa of Francesco Giorgios work is rather systematic and certainly
not limited to this central passage.21 It seems rather a sign of the decadence of the school of Giorgio, in
which even Agrippa could be used as a confirmation, et pour cause, of Giorgios teaching. As far as I
know, Giorgio himself never mentioned Agrippa and was very well aware of the derivative nature of his
teachings, but already his pupils, in some isolated convent, could only gather whatever scraps of material
they were able to put their hands on in order to pursue, among great difficulties (this is already the case
for the best among them, Arcangelo da Borgonovo) the difficult heritage they received from their venerated master.
One should rather consider the enormous diffusion of this Agrippas synthetic commentary on the
sefirot and regard the fragment of MS Piancastelli as an early confirmation of the diffusion of this mlange
19. See the letter by Bernardo Paltrinieri to C. Agrippa (1532), in C. Agrippa, Opera, Lyon s. d., vol. II, pp. 1030-1033, in
part. p. 1030-1031 e 1033. I have expanded on this document in F. Zorzi, Larmonia del mondo, ed. S. Campanini, Bompiani,
Milan, 2010, pp. XVIII and n. 39.
20.See De harmonia mundi 1, 8, 21. On this chapter of the De harmonia mundi, see S. Campanini, Francesco Zorzi:
armonia del mondo e filosofia simbolica, in A. Angelini, P. Caye (eds), Il pensiero simbolico nella prima et moderna, Olschki,
Firenze, 2007, pp. 225-246.
21. See V. Perrone Compagni, Una fonte di Cornelio Agrippa, il De Harmonia Mundi di Francesco Zorzi, Annali
dellIstituto di Filosofia dellUniversit di Firenze 4 (1982), pp. 45-74; F. Secret, Loriginalit du De occulta philosophia,
Charis. Archives de lUnicorne 2 (1990), pp. 57-87.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 393

13/10/14 13:50

394

A SEFIROTIC TREE FROM A MISCELLANY OF CHRISTIAN KABBALISTIC TEXTS

of different and only partly compatible traditions. Concerning the fortunes of Agrippas synthesis, one
should recall Giordano Bruno, quoting it verbatim in his De magia mathematica22 and again in his De
monade numero et figura23, but also Maurizio Fieschis Decas de fato, as late as 166524.
As to the term mecubales, which is used also in Agrippas De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum25,
it has become, at least for the historian, a caracteristic trait enabling us to detect Agrippas influence, as
it resurfaces in Robert Fludds Monas Hieroglyphica26, Blaise de Vigenres Traict des cometes27, Les
images28, Trait des chiffres29 and Trait du feu et du sel, Roch le Bailiff30, C. de Remond31, Claude
Desternod32, Pietro Bongo33, Claude Duret34, Polycarpe De la Rivire35, Lon de Saint-Jean36, Peter
Friedrich Arpe.37 The previous list is certainly not complete, but its purpose is rather to convey how
fashionable it became to refer to the authority of the mecubales, which in turn, given that the vast
majority of the mentioned authors depended directly or indirectly on the works of Agrippa, reveals the
amplitude of the latters influence long before his consecration as one of the absolutely central sources
of 19th century esoterics and in particular of the theosophical movement. Should we, then, ascribe this
fragment/excerpt to the large chapter of the fortune of Agrippas synthesis? The elements gathered seem
to allow, in my view, at least a reasonable doubt: we could be also confronted with one of possibly many
fragments testifying to the circulation of what would become Agrippas heterogeneous mixture, that is a
testimony to the formation of his revised and greatly enlarged version of the De occulta philosophia.
Instead of deciding about this difficult point, which could only be solved, I believe, in the wider context
of a still to be attempted history of the formation of the De occulta philosophia, we can add a further

22.G. Bruno, Opere magiche, Adelphi, Milano, 2000, p. 45.

23. Bruno, Opere magiche, p. 96.
24.M. Fieschi, Decas de fato annisque fatalibus tam hominibus quam regnis mundi, Apud J. Baptistam Schnwetter, Francofurti, 1665, p. 171-173. The identification of Arcangelo da Borgonovo as the source of Fieschis passage on the mecubales
suggested by F. Secret,Notes sur quelques kabbalistes chrtiens, Bibliothque dHumanisme et Renaissance 36 (1974), pp.
70-71, should be corrected: Fieschis source is far more precisely Agrippa.
25.C. Agrippa, De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum, Kln, 1531, p. Z iir.
26.R. Fludd, Monas Hieroglyphica, Johann Wechel, Peter Fischer, Frankfurt, 1591, p. 59.
27.B. De Vigenre, Traict des cometes ou estoiles chevelues apparoissantes extraordinairement au ciel avec leurs causes
et effects, chez Nicolas Chesenau, Paris, 1578, p. 104; see F. Secret, De quelques courants prophtiques et religieux sous le
rgne de Henri III, Revue de lHistoire des Religions, 172 (1967), [pp. 1-32], p. 17.
28. Les images ou tableaux de platte-peinture de Philostrate Lemnien sophiste grec, par B. de Vigenre, Nicolas Chesneau,
Paris, 1578, pp. 58; 270; 430.
29.B. De Vigenre, Traict des chiffres, Abel LAngelier, Paris, 1587, p. 114.
30.R. De Bailiff, Premier traict de lhomme, et son essentielle anatomie, Abel LAngelier, Paris, 1580, p. 29v. See also
D. De Planis Campy, Bouquet compos des plus belles fleurs chimiques, Pierre Billaine, Paris, 1629, p. 79.
31.C. De Remond, Le sacre et couronnement du roy Loys XIII, Charles Sevestre, Paris, 1610, p. 60v.
32.C. Desternod, Le franc Bourguignon, Gillebert le Veau, 1615, p. 164.
33.P. Bongo, De numerorum mysteria, Apud Laurentium Somnum, Paris, 1618, p. 557.
34.C. Duret, Thresor de lhistoire des langues de cest Univers, Yverdon, 1619, p. 265.
35.P. De la Rivire, Ladieu du monde ou le mespris de ses vaines grandeurs et plaisirs perissables, Antoine Pillehotte,
Lyon, 1631, p. 46
36.L. De Saint-Jean, Antoine Padeloup, Studium sapientiae universalis, Antoine Padeloup, Paris, 1657, p. 25.
37. P. F. Arpe, De prodigiosis naturae et artis operibus, talismanes et amuleta dictis, Christian Liebezeit, Hamburg, 1717,
p. 177.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 394

13/10/14 13:50

SAVERIO CAMPANINI 395

object to our puzzled philological contemplation: the sefirotic tree facing the commentary in MS
Piancastelli.
We will follow the same pattern chosen for the commentary presenting, beside the photographic
reproduction of the tree, the textual evidence it offers:

Diadema supremum,
Privatio, pater, mens

Spiritus dei, Iubileus tu-
Sapientia, primogeni
ba magna, formatrix
tus, essentia informe

penitentialis conversio
Cocma

redemptio mundi vita

venientis seculi

Elohim gebura for-
Tiphereth
Gratia, magnificen
titudo, Iudicium
Gloria, linea media
tia dextrum miser[icordie]

sinistrum, Jsahac
voluptas, lignum vitae
aquae superiores

Timor
Jahacob
Abraham

Zaphchiel
Christus
Pietas

Michael
Zadchiel

Saturnus
Sol
Jupiter

Confessio, columna

Sinistra
Samael
Mars

Raphael

Fundamentum iustus

Israhel, Joseph
intellectus bonus saba-
tum quies redemptio fedus
circumcisionis
Mercurius

Eternum
columna
dextra
Uriel
Venus

Regnum Ecclesia Jsrahel, templum regis sponsa regina celi, virgo,

israhel, dei ianua domus david, hortus
david. Gabriel
Luna
The image of the tree can be, at least partly, traced back to its source, here more directly to the very
first author publishing a sefirotic tree in a Christian context: the two trees published, once with the names

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 395

13/10/14 13:50

396

A SEFIROTIC TREE FROM A MISCELLANY OF CHRISTIAN KABBALISTIC TEXTS

of the sefirot in Hebrew and once in Latin translation in Paulus Ricius Latin partial translation of
Gikatillas Shaare Orah (Augsburg 151638). As a matter of fact already in 1509 Ricius announced that
his commented translation was ready for publication but he decided, when he still was in Italy, to postpone
its appearance in print. On the other hand, all the names attributed to the various sefirot are taken from
Paulus Ricius Isagoge, first published in 1509 (Pavia), and then again in 1510, and afterwards again in
Augsburg in 1515 (and also reprinted in the De caelesti agricultura, 1541, and in Johannes Pistorius
anthology of 1587). This can easily be proved by listing the attributes of the sefirot as given by Ricius,
who explicitly declares his sources: the already mentioned Shaare Orah by Gikatilla and the anonymous
Maarekhet ha-Elohut. Here follow the thesis, which underwent only minor changes39 through the various
editions of the Isagoge, with the complete series of the attributes of the sefirot:
3940. Prima sphira41: eheie, diadema supremum42, privatio, pater, mens.
40. Secunda: ioh43, sapientia, primogenitus, essentia, informe.
41. Tertia44: tetragramaton prolatum45 elohim46, spiritus dei, iubileus, tuba magna, formatrix, penitentialis47
conversio, redemptio mundi, vita venientis seculi.
42. Quarta48: el, gratia, magnificentia, dextrum, misericordiae, aquae superiores.
43. Quinta49: elohim, fortitudo, iudicium, sinistrum.
44. Sexta50: eloha, gloria, linea media, voluptas, lignum vitae.
45. Septima: tetragramaton51 zevaos, eternum, columna dextra.
46. Octava52: elohim zevaos, confessio, columna sinistra.
47. Nona: sadai53, fundamentum, iustus, israel, ioseph, intellectus bonus, sabatum54, quies, redemptio, foedus
circuncisionis55.

38. Since the title page is not reproduced in P. Ricius, De caelesti agricultura, per Henricum Stayner, Augsburg, 1541, only
the Latin tree appears there and in the reprint of the leter appearing in J. Pistorius, Artis cabalisticae scriptores, per Sebastianum
Henricpetri, Basileae, 1587.
39. I have noted all the significant changes in the notes, adding the year of the edition where they appear.
40. The ordinal numbers of the theses are, in the 1541 edition, XXIX through XXXVIII.
41. Primae Sephirae adscribitur nomen (ed. 1541).
42. supremum diadema (ed. 1541).
43. iah (ed. 1515); secundae adscribitur nomen Iah (ed. 1541).
44. Tertiae (ed. 1541).
45. Tetragrammaton pronunciatum (ed. 1541).
46. elohim, prudentia (ed. 1541).
47. om. ed. 1541.
48. Quartae (ed. 1541).
49. Quintae (ed. 1541).
50. Sextae (ed. 1541).
51. Septimae adscribitur Tetragrammaton (ed. 1541).
52. Octavae (ed. 1541).
53. sadaii (ed. 1515); Nonae adscribitur nomen Schadai (ed. 1541).
54. sabbathum (ed. 1541).
55. circumcisionis (ed. 1515; ed. 1541).

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 396

13/10/14 13:50

SAVERIO CAMPANINI 397

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

As one can easily notice, the most precise analogies are with the three first editions rather than with
the abridged and more thoroughly revised 1541 edition. However, the names of the archangels, the names
of the patriarchs and the planets attributed to the single sefirot are hardly derived from the same source,
partly because Ricius does not explicitly associate the sefirot with the planets58, partly because the names
of the archangels do not coincide with the ones recurring in Ricius Isagoge59. For this aspect of the tree
we need to search for another source. In this case Francesco Giorgio cannot be identified with the source
for this peculiar association, the list of the angels and their correspondence to the planets being as follows:
Saturnus Zaphchiel, Jupiter Zadchiel, Mars Camael60, Sol Raphael, Venus Honiel, Mercurius Michael,
Luna Gabriel61. Moreover, the original cosmologic system we find in this tree does not coincide with the
very peculiar one found in the works of Giorgio, nor in the works of Pico, whom Giorgio commented. It
is certain, as a quick comparison will show, that the names of the angelic intelligences presiding over the
planets do not correspond to the ones present in the commentary on f. 111r-v [and 110v]: for example
Haniel stands as the angelic intelligence presiding over Venus as opposed to Uriel. Agrippa (although he
recalls the name of the angel Uriel, but in a different context and with no connection whatsoever with
Venus) can also be excluded from the sources of this tree62. However, the peculiarity of this tree resides
far more in the proposed correspondence between the planets and the sefirot, which is not to be found,
in this particular form, as far as I know, in any of the numerous attempts at reconciling two systems, the
ten sefirot and the spheres of the heavens, which are not completely compatible. As I have pointed out
elsewhere63, the only way to present the two series, planets and sefirot, in parallel, associating one planet
to a single sefirah, is to break the traditional order of one or both series. In fact, this is what, starting with
Pico della Mirandola, all the Christian Kabbalists of the Renaissance did, as can be seen clearly from the
following table of comparison of the different cosmological-metaphysical systems.
56. edonay (ed. 1510); edonaii (ed. 1515); Decimae adscribitur nomen Aedonai (ed. 1541).
57. Dei ianua, virgo Israel (ed. 1541).
58. See S. Campanini, Shaping the Body of the Godhead. The Adaptation of the Androgynous Motif in Early Christian
Kabbalah, in M. Diemling, G. Veltri (eds), The Jewish Body. Corporeality, Society, and Identity in the Renaissance and Early
Modern Period, Brill, Leiden Boston, 2009, pp. 355-376.
59. Here follows the list of the names of the archangels according to the first editions of the Isagoge (they are missing from
the last edition and, of course, also from Pistorius anthology): 65. Accessit enim (ut cabalistae, talmudistaque, et magnus
formationis libelli interpres rabi Isaac proferunt) per angelum raziel, qui ipsum edocuit Adam, accessit filius Noe per angelum
iofiel, per zadchiel abraam, per raphael ysaac, per piliel iacob, per gabriel ioseph, per metatron mose, per maltiel elia, quid et
de pluribus iudicandum.
60. On another occasion, Zorzi spells the name as Samael (De harmonia mundi 1, 7, 32), and in yet another passage (1, 4,
19) he has Zamael. Already the French translator of the De harmonia mundi, Guy Le Fvre de la Boderie, noticed that the form
Zaphchiel does not correspond to the Jewish sources he had at his disposal and, surmising a printing mistake, corrected Zaphchiel
into Cazpiel, see G. Le Fvre de la Boderie, Lharmonie du monde, Paris, 1579, p. 84.
61.See De harmonia mundi 1, 3, 6.
62. Agrippa, De occulta philosophia 3, 24, has two lists, one derived from the De harmonia mundi and the other from J.
Trithemius De septem secundeis: Orifiel/Saturnus; Anael/Venus; Zachariel/Jupiter; Raphael/Mercurius; Samael/Mars; Gabriel/
Luna; Michael/Sol. As one can easily see, none of them corresponds exactly with the equivalents of the Piancastelli tree.
63.S. Campanini, Il de divinis attributis di Cesare Evoli, Materia Giudaica 15-16 (2010-2011), pp. 339-355.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 397

13/10/14 13:50

398

A SEFIROTIC TREE FROM A MISCELLANY OF CHRISTIAN KABBALISTIC TEXTS

Sefirot

Pico della
Cesare
Mirandola65 Evoli66

Keter

Empireus

Chokmah

Primum
mobile

Binah

Coelum
stellatum

Chesed

Jupiter

Gevurah

Mars

Netzach
(Jupiter)

Tiferet

Sol

Netzach
Hod

Saturnus
Venus

Gevurah
Sol
(Mars)
Tiferet (Sol) Venus
Hod (Venus) Mercurius

Yesod

Mercurius

Yesod
(Mercurius)

Luna

Malkut

Luna

Malkut
(Luna)

Luna

Keter
(Primum
mobile)
Chokmah
(nonum
coelum)
Binah
(coelum
stellatum)
Chesed
(Saturnus)

Francesco
Giulio
Zorzi,
Camillo68
Agrippa,
Arcangelo da
Borgonovo,
Giordano
Bruno67

Saturnus
Jupiter
Mars

Saturno
(Bina;
Zaphchiel)
Giove
(Chased;
Zadchiel)
Marte
(Gabiarah69;
Camael)

Venere (Hod;
Nizach;
Honiel)
Mercurio
(Iesod;
Michael)
Luna
(Marcut70;
Gabriel)

Piancastelli Tree Paulus Ricius,

Isagoge

Keter

Coelum
intellectuale

Cocma

Primum mobile

Bina

Orbis stellarum

Gratia (Jupiter)

Saturnus

Gebura
(Saturnus)

Jupiter

Tipheret (Sol)

Mars

Eternum (Venus) Sol

Confessio (Mars) Venus
Fundamentum
(Mercurius)

Mercurius

Regnum (Luna)

Luna

If we keep the traditional oder of the sefirot, the natural order of the planets of the solar system is
violated twice: Jupiter precedes instead of following Saturn and Mars is located under the Sun, instead
of taking place where it should, that is immediately above the sphere of the Sun. The second alteration
of the natural order of the spheres is much more relevant, because, if one is prepared to invert the prece64. Conclusiones II,48.
65. Caesaris AEVOLI NEAPOLITANI, De divinis attributis quae Sephroth ab Haebreis nuncupata, ad Maximilianum II,
Imperatorem Romanum, Apud Georgium Melantrichum ab Aventino, Pragae, 1571 (further editions Venice, 1573; 1580 and
1589).
66. Cabala del cavallo pegaseo, 1585.
67. G. CAMILLO, LIdea del Theatro, Appresso Lorenzo Torrentino, Firenze, 1550, p. 47.
68.Sic.
69.Sic.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 398

13/10/14 13:50

SAVERIO CAMPANINI 399

dence between Chesed and Gevurah, Saturn and Jupiter would be in the right order, but this would not
help in solving the problem of Mars-Hod. Among the other solutions suggested for this problem, the most
authoritative, the one by Pico, moving Saturn under the sphere of the Sun, and the one by Zorzi, associating the Moon with two sefirot (Yesod and Malkut) in order to respect the succession of the other
sefirot, but bringing the conspicuous difficulty to move Saturn within the inner circle of the first three
sefirot, which is probaly derived from the peculiar cosmology of the Sefer ha-Peliah, the closest one is
that of Cesare Evoli, who kept the order of the planets but altered significantly the order of the sefirot.
I cannot point to a single earlier source for the connection, which was to become in later times quite
wide-spread, between Uriel and Venus, but the variants, in the spelling of the names of the archangels
and in their association with the heavenly spheres are, already in the Jewish tradition, almost innumerable70, only to proliferate beyond control in the Christian tradition.71
A further interesting feature of this tree, well integrated in the Christian attempts at adapting the Jewish
lore of Kabbalah to their own basic tenets of faith, shows that, to the identification of the first three sefirot, with the personae of the Trinity, already suggested by Ricius with the choice of the three attributes,
respectively pater, primogenitus, spiritus, the author of the tree has also added the name Christus
in correspondence with the sixth sefirah that is tiferet, an idea fully developed, once again, by Francesco
Giorgio72. A further connection, underlined by Zorzi especially in his Problemata, is the one, confirmed
or represented by the Piancastelli tree, between the Christ and the archangel Michael.73
One last feature of this sefirotic tree which will have, especially in the 17th century, an interesting
development, deserves to be specially emphasized. As in the case of one of the most famous archetypes
of the arboreal representation of any abstraction, the arbor Porphyriana, the image of the tree, in the course
of history, tends to disappear or to be reduced to a mere schema in the abstract idea of some sort of ramification, but especially in the Christian world, the figurative respresentation of a tree, always in the background (at least on a linguistic level, the tree is called after all also in Hebrew ), tends to resurface.
Many representations of the tree of the sefirot in a Christian environment, especially the ones by Robert
Fludd74, Philippe dAquin75 and, clearly influenced by the latter, in Christian Knorr von Rosenroths
Kabbala Denudata, depict the tree with very realistic traits. The very first sefirotic tree published among
70. See, for example J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition. A Study in Folk Religion, Behrmans Jewish Book
House, New York, 1939, p. 250-251. One can add the list of correspondences between archangels and planets found in Judah
ben Barzilay al-Barcelonis Commentary on the Sefer Yezirah (ed. Halberstam 1885, p. 247): Raphael/Sun; Anael/Venus;
Michael/Mercury; Gabriel/Moon; Qafziel/Saturn; Zadkiel/Jupiter; Samael/Mars. The very same list is found also in Elazar of
Worms Sode Razayya.
71. Perrone Compagni (ed.), Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia, p. 469, indicates, for example, the Latin translation of Abraham Ibn Ezras Liber rationum (Venezia 1507, f. 43v), who has yet a different list: Cassiel, Satkiel, Samael, Michael, Annael, Raphael, Gavriel.
72. See, in particular, De harmonia mundi 2, 6, 6; see also 3, 6, 3. From a theological point of view it seems clear that the
double nature of the Son allows his appearance among the three superior sefirot and, as the Christ, in correspondence with the
sefirah of the patriarch Jacob, that is tiferet.
73. See in particular Problemata 5, 3, 295: Christo autem, non dicam in tutelam, sed in principem militiae datus fuit Michael,
qui (teste Iohanne) pugnavit contra serpentem antiquum, Christi praecipuum hostem.
74.R. Fludd, Utriusque cosmi Historia, vol. II, Erasmus Kempffer, Frankfurt am Main, 1621.
75.Ph. DAquin (before his conversion Mordekay Crescas), Interprtation de larbre de la cabale enrichy de sa figure tire
de plus anciens auteurs hbrieux, J. Laguehay, Paris, 1625. The illustration accompanying the booklet is missing from all its
known copies, but it has been retrieved, in the form of a broadsheet, at the Bibliothque Nationale de France and published by

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 399

13/10/14 13:50

400

A SEFIROTIC TREE FROM A MISCELLANY OF CHRISTIAN KABBALISTIC TEXTS

the Christians, the one appearing twice in Paulus Ricius commented translation of Gikatillas Porta Lucis,
however, is rather abstract, reminding us, if anything, of the schematic representation of molecules or
atoms from chemistry or physics76 and, precisely for its abstractness, revealing its higher degree of fidelity
to the Jewish tradition, although the author was also a converted Jew. I was not able to date the Piancastelli
tree with absolute certainty, but if it was produced in the second half of the 16th century, then it is the
earliest occurrence of a realistic sefirotic tree in the Christian Kabbalistic tradition. The Piancastelli tree,
besides tending towards a circular form, shows the connections between the sefirot in the form of branches
with what appears as broken twigs, leaf scars or even thorns. It is perhaps not necessary to underline that
this visual pattern does not conform very well with the original Kabbalistic idea of the ramification of the
influx so much so that the very idea of cutting the branches is widely used in Kabbalistic doctrines to
describe the sin of Adam or that of the heretic Elisha ben Abuya. The thorns we witness here seem rather
to stem from a completely different visual culture: to name two possible references, on a rather impressionistic mode, the mystical crown of thorns or the chastising shrubs of so many lives of the Franciscan
saints77. It is all the more remarkable that the adaptation of an original (?) Jewish motive, such as the names
and attributes of the sefirot undergoes a triple process of synchretistic adjustement: of linguistic nature
(the translation of the names and of the attributes), of cosmologic import (the adaptation of the position
of the planets) and of iconic impact.
The question of the relationship between the two textual units now bound in sequence in MS Piancastelli
could be answered, rather promptly, by saying that they are only very loosely connected: related in subject, the ten sefirot, the two texts bear no significant reciprocal relationship at a closer look, they come
from kindred but distinct chains of tradition and they are fundamentally incompatible. Perhaps, however,
the visual fact we were pointing to, the novel presentation of the sefirot tree as an arcane object offered
to pious contemplation for a friar in a convent of the Franciscan Observance, might suggest a different
approach, which I only surmise here: the mere jsutaposition of two alternative presentations of the sefirotic system offers itself in turn as an object of contemplation. This inevitably recalls to mind the philologic examinatio of variants, equally legitimate, about which the point is beyond choosing the right
one, and rather keeping open the rhizomatic nature of philological contemplation of variant readings
without endangering the readability, that is to say, the intelligibility of the text and of the image. The text
is linear, the image is spatial: is it by chance that the schematic reproduction of the philogical reconstruction of textual transmission assumes also the form of a tree, the stemma? All of them, the arbor
Porphyriana, the sefirotic tree and the stemma codicum are rooted, if the metaphor is allowed, in a common Neo-platonic view of emanation as the key of reality, in the common recurse to deictical evidence
to summarize, anticipate, complement or even substitute diegetical or dialectical explanation. The variants
point to an ideal Archetype of unity and nevertheless they can claim for themselves the discrete but
persistent appeal of uniqueness as it is appropriate for irreductible individuals.
D. Stolzenberg, Four Trees, Some Amulets, and the Seventy-two Names of God: Kircher Reveals the Kabbalah, in P. Findlen
(ed.), Athanasius Kircher. The Last Man Who Knew Everything, Routledge, New York London, 2004, [pp. 149-169], p. 152.
76. I have expanded on this topic, offering a comprehensive collection of specimina in S. Campanini, Der Sefirotbaum.
Ein Topos der christlichen Kabbala der Renaissance, in A. Eusterschulte (ed.), Kritik der Topik, Topik als Kritik, in print.
77. It should be remarked, of course, that if the representation of the tree was added much later to the miscellany, it could
derive from a completely different esoteric context, when MS Piancastelli had already left its original Franciscan environment.
Until new evidence emerges, this will remain one of the unanswered questions raised by this puzzling document.

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 400

13/10/14 13:50

SAVERIO CAMPANINI 401

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

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 401

13/10/14 13:50

bib_38_19_09_2014.indd 402

13/10/14 13:50