THE JUDGMENT

OF THE REVEREND FATHER THOMAS DE LEON,

Professor of Sacred Theology in the Academy of Granada,

CONCERNING THE

GREAT ART.

Reverend Father

Large woodcut ornamental initial 'A' decorated with intricate vine and leaf patterns in a square frame. I have read, with all the diligence I could muster, the book on the Combinatoric Art original: "Ars Combinatoria," Kircher's system for organizing all knowledge through mathematical combinations by Athanasius Kircher of our Society The Society of Jesus, or the Jesuits, who is sufficiently well known throughout all lands for his exceptional reputation for teaching and recondite hidden or obscure erudition. Setting aside the right of friendship in which I glory, and putting away the illustrious reputation the author holds among all the learned—since these things might prejudice a censorship of the work—I first recognized the design and goal of the work: it is to deliver a universal category and a catholic method In this context, "catholic" means universal or all-encompassing for all disciplines; a thing attempted by many in the past and present, and desired by all the learned. Aristotle’s system of categories has displeased many great minds, so much so that they thought it unworthy of such a great Philosopher. And following St. Thomas Aquinas, who judged it so, slighting remarks are commonly brought forth concerning it.

In previous centuries, the much-celebrated Art of Lull Ramon Llull (c. 1232–1316), a Majorcan philosopher who created a logical system to prove Christian truths through mechanical combinations of concepts was introduced; it was born in a barbaric age but conceived with a good mind, and for that reason it gained a wonderful applause among some, while among others it met with a wonderful and indignant contempt because of its rough outer shell of words and the fact that such great effort yielded no rich harvest. Nevertheless, the study of it has been maintained in several Universities. In the first part of this book, that Art is drawn out from its own night into such open light that it can no longer be judged a fugitive from the day or an enemy of the light. Nothing more brilliant could have been expected in this area from any man, however great. But only he who compares these writings with the Tarragonian Commentator on Raymond Referring to commentators on Ramon Llull and the Majorcans will be able to judge how much difference there is between light and darkness. Petrus Gregorius Pierre Grégoire (1540–1597), a jurist who wrote on the organization of knowledge is much more learned than they, but he only cultivates the first face and appearance of the doctrine and does not penetrate into its depths; and since he takes everything from Lull, it was out of envy that he did not even once mention the man through whom he made progress.

Finally, our Athanasius, through Combination, analysis, and analogy, makes the method rich and more wealthy with a wonderful supplement, and unless I am mistaken, he surpasses by a long interval those who are thought to have achieved great things in this field. The Use of the Art—which is lacking in the brief but accurate exposition of Augustin Nuñez Delpadillo, in the diffused digest of Ivo of Paris, and others—he explains clearly even to the unrefined. Therefore, I judge the book most worthy to be printed publicly for the common utility, since it is in no way discordant with good morals or the Catholic faith. Thus I judged. At Rome, in the Professed House of the Society of JESUS. The 18th day of September, the year 1661.