Okay, first of all there are two different objects known as the _Fourth
Book_. There is a volume that appeared in Marburg, 1559 if memory
serves, that has this title. It contains a number of short works,
including a book entitled _De Occulta Philosophia Liber Quartus_ (Fourth
book of occult philosophy), which claims to be by Agrippa. It also
contains a book _Of Geomancy_, which is genuine, pretty much
unquestionably by Agrippa, although we're not entirely certain of the
circumstances of its original composition. The remainder are more and
less well-known bits and pieces: an _Ars Notoria_, the pseudo-Abano
_Heptameron_, Pictorius's _On Spirits_, and so on. The only question,
really, would be about the authorship of the _Fourth Book of Occult
Philosophy_ claimed to by Agrippa.
Note, incidentally, that I know of no reprint or edition of the Marburg
volume that is complete; usually at least one of the pieces is cut, and
in some cases almost all of them.
Now the authorship of the little _Fourth Book_ is, I think, not at all
Agrippa. First of all, there is Weyer's testimony, which I think we have
to take rather more seriously than Skinner does. Second, the contents
strike me as structurally very un-Agrippan, in the sense that my reading
of his genuine _Occult Philosophy_ militates against any sort of
cookbook, grimoire approach, and certainly I think his opinion of this
sort of demonic magic would be rather low. Third, the genuine _Occult
Philosophy_ seems marvelously complete, structurally sound, and not in
need of supplementation. Fourth, the notion that Agrippa would keep this
book secret because of its dangerous demonic content (something that has
been claimed) seems very unlikely given Agrippa's usual willingness to
publish and be damned. Fifth, the introductory remarks to the _Fourth
Book_ seem to suggest that he wrote it somewhat after completing the
final edition of the _Occult Philosophy_, but in that case he wrote it
between 1533 and 1535, which is exactly when Weyer was more or less on
top of him; if he had done this, I think Weyer would have said or hinted
that Agrippa lost his marbles at the end, whereas actually it sounds
like he was rather busy in an unhappy fashion (arrested for debt,
repudiating his third wife, hounded around France by debt-collectors,
etc.). Finally, I am no great expert on Latin prose style, but if the
book was written when it claims to have been, it should be relatively
graceful in a dense fashion, and peppered with extremely erudite
allusions (somewhat pedantically, actually). I do not see this in the
_Fourth Book_. Therefore I would need very strong evidence indeed to
accept the text as genuine Agrippan.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you want more technical references, but
the _Fourth Book_ is very little studied.
Chris Lehrich
Alan Thorogood wrote:
> Skinner mentions in the introduction to his 2005 reprint that he is
> 'inclined' to think it genuine based on 'internal evidence.' He
> refers to the denunciation by Weyer (whom he wrongly describes as
> 'Agrippa's English pupil') as 'sour grapes' because he was not
> involved in the publication of the work, all of which appears to
> represent an entirely personal view. Chris Lehrich describes the
> fourth book as spurious in his recent study of Agrippa's Occult
> Philosophy ('The Language of Demons and Angels' (Leiden: Brill, 2003)
> p.1) and he might be able to elaborate.
>
> Alan
>
> On 22 Aug 2006, at 22:28, jason winslade wrote:
>
>> Can anyone provide a quick reference to what the current scholarship
>> is about the authorship of Agrippa's 4th book of Occult Philosophy? I
>> know that it was considered spurious but Skinner's recent (2004)
>> edition is now claiming it's authentic. Just looking for a footnote,
>> really.
>> thanks!
>>
>
--
Christopher I. Lehrich
Boston University
