Censura Aratoris de nova Logica Foelicis Veri – an unknown review of Faust Vran？i？’s treatise on logic in the State Archives in Zadar

Sa？etak A hitherto unknown short script entitled Censura Aratoris de noua Logica Foelicis Veri, containing the review of Faust Vran？i？’s treatise on logic is being published here for the first time. Its discovery instantly brought to mind an almost two and a half centuries old controversy stemming from an assertion made by the Paduan abbot Alberto Fortis in his book Viaggio in Dalmazia (Venice, 1774), i.e. his claim that the censura autografa of Faust Vran？i？’s logichetta he saw in Vran？i？ family archive in ？ibenik in 1771 has been written by the great philosopher Tommaso Campanella. However, the manuscript that was found among the relics of the Vran？i？ family archive in the State Archives in Zadar could not for a certainty be identified with the review mentioned by Italian scholar. Unlike the friendly objections to Vran？i？’s Logica that were given in yet another review, by Marko Antun de Dominis, Archbishop of Split (which is also mentioned by Fortis), the review made by Arator—as his name is noted in the title of the script—is a piece of severe adverse criticism. In the opening lines Arator states that “as the new Lutheran religion is battling with the ancient Roman [i.e. Catholic] faith, so is this new logic battling with all the ancient logic” and thus “deserves to be condemned by the learned”. In the following paragraphs the reviewer criticises Vran？i？’s overall definition of the logic as well as some of his particular statements in the opening chapters of the reviewed work. In conclusion, the unknown philosopher claims that “this new logic” could nevertheless “be printed since it does not contain anything contrary to the faith, but in that case its author would expose himself to the ridicule and the mockery of the learned”. Without entering into the discussion about the contents of the script, some questions that seem rather important are being raised here: what was the purpose of the review, to which version of Vran？i？’s Logica it was referring, i.e. at what time it could have been written, and by whom. Firstly, notwithstanding the phrase imprimi potest in the final paragraph, Censura Aratoris is obviously not an official document, or a censure in the narrower sense of the word. On the contrary, in view of the fact that the author of the Logica is repeatedly being addressed to directly (male definitis; dicis; reiceistis, etc.), it is presumable that the script at issue is an appraisal communicated in the form of a private letter, which has been sent to Vran？i？ upon his own request. Secondly, there can be no doubt that the reviewed work was still