{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024322830292979547, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004422332780541736, 'mean_word_length': 5.605839416058394, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Way Athanasius Kircher Illustrated China in His “China Illustrata” (1667)

The paper seeks to further research the long-forgotten compilation work of the German Jesuit encyclopedist of the 17th century Athanasius Kircher “China Illustrata ...”, which has acquired relevance since the beginning of the 21st century not only in the context of the European Sinology history, but also in historical, imagological and philosophical-missiological context. The publication aims to integrate this hitherto little-known and underestimated work of the German erudite and “the last Renaissance man, who knew everything” into several lines of information transmission: From the preachers collecting facts and carrying out initial systematization in China to the creator of “China Illustrata”, and further from the author of this first “Encyclopedia of China” to subsequent philosophers of the Enlightenment and first professional European Sinologists. The paper provides a brief description and history of the “Encyclopedia of China” creation, identifies some important Jesuit informants and colleagues of the scientist (including his Chinese collaborators), whose data Kircher used while compiling his work. The author comes to the conclusion that the long present in history of science claims made to Kircher for factual errors, dissemination of mythologized information and the construction of several false hypotheses (such, e.g., as the genesis and structure of Chinese symbols, the origin of which Athanasius Kircher deduced from Egyptian hieroglyphics) are not entirely fair, since the German scientist conscientiously worked out the information field outlined for the book by himself, and his inevitable mistakes largely served as a guarantee that they were not made by researchers following in his footsteps.