GIORDANO BRUNO

//"/y/Y///v . /Jt

GIORDANO BRUNO

BY

J. LEWIS McINTYRE

M.A. ED1N. AND OXON. : D.SC. EDIN. : ANDERSON LECTURER IN THE
UNIVERSITY OK ABERDEEN

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

1903

All rights reserved

2.7 M 2.6

HENRY MORSE STEPHENS

MY WIFE

PREFACE

THIS volume attempts to do justice to a philosopher
who has hardly received in England the consideration
he deserves. Apart from the Life of Giordano Bruno,
by I. Frith (Mrs. Oppenheim), in the English and
Foreign Philosophical Library, 1887, there has been no
complete work in our language upon the poet, teacher,
and martyr of Nola, while his philosophy has been
treated only in occasional articles and reviews. Yet
he is recognised by the more liberal-minded among
Italians as the greatest and most daring thinker their
country has produced. The pathos of his life and
death has perhaps caused his image to stand out more
strongly in the minds of his countrymen than that of
any other of their leaders of thought. A movement of
popular enthusiasm, begun in 1876, resulted, on 9th
June 1889, in the unveiling of a statue in Rome in the
Campo dei Fiori, the place on which Bruno was burned.
Both in France and in Germany he has been recognised
as the prophet, if not as the actual founder, of modern
philosophy, and as one of the earliest apostles of free-
dom of thought and of speech in modern times.

The first part of the present work — the Life of

Vll

viii GIORDANO BRUNO

Bruno — is based upon the documents published by
Berti, Dufour, and others, and on the personal refer-
ences in Bruno's own works. I have tried to throw
some light on Bruno's life in England, on his relations
with the French Ambassador, Mauvissiere, and on his
share in some of the literary movements of the time.
I have, however, been no more successful than others
in finding any documents referring directly to Bruno's
visit to England.

In the second part — The Philosophy of Bruno — I
have sought to give not a systematic outline of Bruno's
philosophy as a whole under the various familiar head-
ings, which would prove an almost impossible task, but
a sketch, as nearly as possible in Bruno's own words, of
the problems which interested this mind of the six-
teenth century, and of the solutions offered. The first
chapter points out the sources from which Bruno derived
the materials of his thinking. The succeeding chapters
are devoted to some of the main works of Bruno, — the
Causa (Chapter II.), Infinite and De Immense (Chapters
III. and IV.), De Minimo (Chapter V.), Spaccio (Chap-
ter VI.), and Heroici Furori (Chapter VII.), — and contain
as little as possible of either criticism or comment, except
in so far as these are implied in the selection and arrange-
ment of the material. I have adopted this method
partly because Bruno's works are still comparatively
unknown to the English reader, and partly because his
style, full as it is of obscurities, redundances, repetitions,
lends itself to selection, but not easily to compact ex-
position. Several phases of Bruno's activity I have left

PREFACE ix

almost untouched — his poetry, his mathematical theories,
his art of memory. The eighth chapter turns upon his
philosophy of religion, about which there has been much
controversy ; while the last attempts to bring him into
relation and comparison with some of the philosophers
who succeeded him. I subjoin a list of works and
articles which are of importance for the study of Bruno.
Throughout I have referred for Bruno's works to the
recent Italian edition of the Latin works, issued at the
public expense, 1879 to 1891 (three volumes in eight
parts, with introductions, etc.), and to Lagarde's edition
of the Italian works — Gotha, 1888. Of the latter there
are two volumes, but the paging is continuous from one
to the other, page 401 beginning the second volume.

J. LEWIS M'INTYRE.

UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN,
ibth July 1903.

CONTENTS

PACE

BIOGRAPHIES ......... xv

WORKS AND ESSAYS xvii

PART I

LIFE OF BRUNO

PART II

PHILOSOPHY OF BRUNO . . . . .119

CHAPTER I

THE SOURCES OF THE PHILOSOPHY . . . . .121

CHAPTER II

THE FOUNDATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE . . . . .153

CHAPTER III

THE INFINITE UNIVERSE — THE MIRROR OF GOD . . .180

CHAPTER IV

NATURE AND THE LIVING WORLDS ..... 203

xi

xii GIORDANO BRUNO

CHAPTER V

LEAST THINGS : A
MONADS . . . . . . . . .223

PAGE
THE LAST AND THE LEAST THINGS : ATOMS AND SOUL-

CHAPTER VI

THE PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY OF BRUNO . . . .252

CHAPTER VII
THE HIGHER LIFE ........ 277

CHAPTER VIII

POSITIVE RELIGIONS AND THE RELIGION OF PHILOSOPHY . . 294.

CHAPTER IX
BRUNO IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY . . . .323

INDEX 361

BIOGRAPHIES AND GENERAL WORKS
ON BRUNO

Bartholmcss, Christian, Jordano Bruno, vol. i., Paris, 1846 — on
the life and times of Bruno; vol. 2, 1847 — on his works and
philosophy.

Carriere, Moritz, Die philosophised Weltanschauung der Re-
formationszeit, 1st ed., 1847 ; 2nd ed., 1887.

Berti, Domenico, Giordano Bruno da Nola, sua vita e sua dottrina.
Appeared first in the Nuova Antologia, 1867. Some new documents
were published in Documenti intorno a Giordano Bruno da No/a,
1880. A second edition of the Life, including all the documents,
appeared in 1889.

Dufour, G. B. a Geneve (1578). Documents inedits : Geneve,
1884. Also given in Berti's second edition.

Sigwart, Die Lebensgeschichte G. B's (Verzeickniss der Doctor en,
etc., Tubingen, 1880), a paper which is expanded and corrected in
his Kleine Schriften, 1st series (pp. 49-124 and 293-304) : Freiburg
i. B., 1889.

Brunnhofer, G. B?s Weltanschauung und Verhangniss : Leipzig,
1882. A vigorous eulogy of Bruno and his work.

Frith, Life of Giordano Bruno : London, 1887.

Riehl, Giordano Bruno, Zur Erinnerung an den 17. Februar, 1600 :
Leipzig, 1st ed., 1889; 2nd, 1900.

Kiihlenbeck ("Landseck ") Bruno, der Martyrer der neuen Welt-
anschauung-. Leipzig, 1890.

Pognisi, G. B. e I* Archivio di San Giovanni Decollato ; Torino,
etc., 1891.

Italian biographies and pamphlets are innumerable. Among the
best are —

Mariano, G. B. La Vita e t'uomo: Roma, 1881.

xiii

xiv GIORDANO BRUNO

Levi, G. B. o la Religione del Pensiero : Torino, 1887.

Morselli, G. .5., Commemorazione, etc. : Torino, 1888. Morselli
regards Bruno as the precursor of all modern philosophy, and as
prophet of most of the scientific discoveries of the I9th century.

Tocco, G. B. Conferenza: Firenze, 1886. On Bruno's religion
and philosophy of religion.

Of writers in English on Bruno may also be named : — Owen, in
his Sceptics of the Italian Renaissance : London, 1893 (pp. 244-342) ;
Daniel Brinton and Thomas Davidson, G. £., Philosopher and
Martyr, Two Addresses: Philadelphia, 1890; Plumptre, in his
Studies in Little-known Subjects : London, 1898 (pp. 61-127) > Whit-
taker in Essays and Notices, 1895 (reprinted from Mind, April 1884
and July 1887) ; the Quarterly Review for October 1902, " Giordano
Bruno in England " ; and R. Adamson, The Development of Modern
Philosophy: Edinburgh and London, 1903, vol. 2 (pp. 23-44).

PART I
LIFE OF BRUNO

IN 1548, at a stormy period of the history of Italy, Birth and
Bruno was born in the township of Nola, lying within
the kingdom of Naples, which at that time was under
Spanish rule. His father, Giovanni, was a soldier,
probably of good family, and in deference, it may be
supposed, to the King of Spain, the son was named
Filippo ; the more famous name of Giordano was only
assumed when he entered a religious order. Through
his mother, Fraulissa Savolina, a German or Saxon
origin has been claimed for Bruno ; there were several
inhabitants of Teutonic name in the village of his birth
—suggesting a settlement of Landknechts, — and the
name, Fraulissa, has a German ring ; l but Bruno him-
self nowhere in the addresses or works published in
Germany makes any hint of his own connection with
the race, while the name was probably a generic term
for the wife of a soldier, borrowed from the Swiss or
German men-at-arms.2

Their home was on the lower slopes of Mount
Cicala, which rises above Nola, and amid its laughing
gardens Bruno first imbibed a love of nature, which
marked him out from so many of his contemporaries,
The soil of Nola is among the most fertile of all Italy. Noia.
and the pleasant plain in which it lies is ringed with

1 Brunnhofer, p. 321, Appendix. 2 Sigwart, i. p. 118 (note 5).

4 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

hills which lie shadowy under the clear sky ; most
prominent and most mysterious is Vesuvius, a few miles
to the south. But the charms of natural beauty in
Nola were surpassed by those of picturesque antiquity :
the half-mythical "Pelasgians founded it before the walls
of Rome were begun ; they were followed by the
Chalcidians of Cuma, from whom the Nolans inherited
a Greek spirit, calm yet quick, eager in the pursuit of
wisdom and in the love of beauty, which down even
to the 1 6th century distinguished them above other
Italians. There followed a chequered history in which
the Samnites, the early Romans, Hannibal, Sulla, and
Spartacus, played successive parts. Nola was the death-
place of Augustus, and to that fact owed its greatness
in Imperial times, when its two great amphitheatres
and multitude of beautiful temples topped a great city,
shut in by massive walls, with twelve gates that opened
to all parts of Italy. Evil times were to come ;
Alaric, the Saracens, Manfred, and others had their will
of Nola, and earthquakes, flood, and plague reduced it
by the end of the I5th century to one tenth of its
former self. It had its own martyrs, for the old faith
and for the new ; one of the latter, Pomponio Algerio,
suffered during Bruno's lifetime a fate that fore-
shadowed his own ; accused while a student at Padua of
contempt for the Christian religion, he was imprisoned
in Padua, Venice, and Rome, and finally burnt at the
stake. Its sons never lost their love for the
mother-town ; Bruno speaks of it always with affec-
tion, as to him "the garden of Italy"; of a
nephew of Ambrogio Leone, the historian of its
antiquities, we are told that, on returning to Nola
after a few days' absence, seeming ill with longing,
he threw himself on the earth and kissed it with

i NOLA : YOUNG IMPRESSIONS 5

unspeakable joy.1 Perhaps the suggestion of Bar-
tholmess is not groundless, that the volcanic soil
and air of Nola influenced the character of the
people as of the wine. " Hence the delicacy of
their senses, vivacity of gesture, mobility of humour,
and passionate ardour of spirit.2

Of the childhood of Bruno little is to be learned, childhood
Cicala, his home, he describes as a " little village of °
four or five cottages not too magnificent." 3 In all
probability his upbringing was simple, his surroundings
homely. We need not go further, and suppose that
his surroundings were not only homely, but degraded
and vicious.4 His father, although a soldier by pro-
fession, seems to have been a man of some culture ; at
least he was a friend of the poet Tansillo, who excited
the admiration of the young Bruno, and first turned
his mind towards the Muses. Tansillo's poetry, follow-
ing the taste of the age, was not too refined, but its
passion called forth a ready reflection in the ardent
nature of the lad. It was perhaps the only door to
the higher artistic life of the time which was open to
Bruno ; the neighbours, if we may judge from satiric
references in the Italian Dialogues, were of a rough
homely type. Bruno tells, for example,5 how Scipio
Savolino (perhaps his uncle) used to confess all his sins
to Don Paulino, Cure of S. Primma that is in a village
near Nola (Cicala), on a Holy Friday, of which
" though they were many and great," his boon com-
panion the Cure absolved him without difficulty. Once
was enough, however, for in the following years, with-
out many words or circumstances, Scipio would say to
Don Paulino, " Father mine, the sins of a year ago

1 Berti, Vita di S. B., p. 28. 2 Bartholmess, vol. i. p. 26.

3 Lagarde, 452. 23. 4 V. additional note. 5 Lagarde, Op. Ital., p. 101.

6 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

to-day, you know them " ; and Don Paulino would
reply, " Son, thou knowest the absolution of a year ago
to-day — go in peace and sin no more ! "

One incident of Bruno's childhood, which has been
thought a promise of extraordinary powers, he himself
relates in the Sigillus Sigillorum. Describing the
different causes of " concentration," 1 (Contractio), he
instances fear among them : — " I myself, when still in
swaddling clothes, was once left alone, and saw a great
and aged serpent, which had come out of a hole in the
wall of the house ; I called my father, who was in the
next room ; he ran with others of the household,
sought for a stick, growled at the presence of the
serpent, uttering words of vehement anger, while the
others expressed their fear for me, — and I understood
their words no less clearly, I believe, than I should
understand them now. After several years, waking up
as if from a dream, I recalled all this to their memory,
nothing being further from the minds of my parents ;
they were greatly astonished." 2 As well they might
be! It is hardly right, however, to see in the story
evidence of marvellous faculty showing itself in infancy,
beyond that of an impressionable and tenacious mind.
No doubt the drama had been repeated many times by
the parents for behoof of visitors.3

Superstitious beliefs abounded among Bruno's fellow-
countrymen ; many of them clung to him through life,
were moulded by him into a place in his philosophy,
and bore fruit in his later teaching and practice of
natural magic. Thus we are told how the spirits of the
earth and of the waters may at times, when the air is

1 i.e. Heightening of normal powers. 2 Op. Lot. ii. 2. 184.

3 On Bruno's family v. Fiorentino, in the Giornale de la Domenica (Naples),
for Jan, 29, 1882.

i SUPERSTITION AND NATURAL LAW 7

pure and calm, become visible to the eye. He himself
had seen them on Beech Hill, and on Laurel Hill, and
they frequently appeared to the inhabitants of these
places, sometimes playing tricks upon them, stealing
and hiding their cattle, but afterwards returning the
property to their stalls. Other spirits were seen about
Nola by the temple of Portus in a solitary place, and even
under a certain rock at the roots of Mount Cicala,
formerly a cemetery for the plague-stricken ; he and
many others had suffered the experience when passing
at night of being struck with a multitude of stones,
which rebounded from the head and other parts of the
body with great force, in quick succession, but did no
injury either to him or to any of the others.1 It was
at Nola that Bruno saw what seemed a ball or beam of
fire, but was " really " one of the living beings that
inhabit the ethereal space ; " as it came moving swiftly
in a straight line, it almost touched the roofs of the
houses and would have struck the face of Mount Cicala,
but it sprang up into the air and passed over." To
understand the mind of Bruno, it is necessary to
remember the atmosphere of superstition in which he
lived as a child.

One lesson from nature was early implanted which unity of
gave body and form to Bruno's later views : he had
seen from Cicala, the fair mount, how Vesuvius looked
dark, rugged, bare, barren, and repellent ; but when
later he stood on the slopes of Vesuvius itself, he dis-
covered that it was a perfect garden, rich in all the
fairest forms and colours, and luxurious bounty of
fruits, while now it was his own beloved hill, Cicala,
that gloomed dim and formless in the distance. He
learnt once for all that the divine majesty of nature is

1 De Magia, Of. Lat. Hi. Op. 430, 431. a De Immense, «z/. Of. Lat. i. 2. p. 120.

8 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

everywhere the same, that distance alters the look but
never the nature or substance of things, that the earth
is everywhere full of life, — and beyond the earth the
whole universe, he inferred, must be the same.1

II

Naples. When about eleven years of age, Bruno passed from

Nola to Naples in order to receive the higher education
of the day — Humanity, Logic, and Dialectic, — attend-
ing both public and private courses ; and in his fifteenth

1563. year (1562 or 1563) he took the habit of St. Dominic,
and entered the monastery of that order in Naples. Of
his earlier teachers he mentions only two, — " il Sarnese,"
who is probably Vincenzo Colle da Sarno, a writer of
repute, and Fra Theophilo da Vairano, a favourite
exponent of Aristotle, who was afterwards called to
lecture in Rome. Much ingenuity has been exercised
in attempting to find a reason for Bruno's choice of a
religious life ; but the Church was almost the only
career open to a clever and studious boy, whose parents

The DO- were neither rich nor powerful. The Dominican Order
into which he was taken, although the narrowest, and
the most bigoted,2 was all-powerful in the kingdom,
and directed the machinery of the Inquisition. Naples
was governed by Spain with a firm hand, and the
Dominican was the chosen order of Spain. Just at this
time there were riots against the Inquisition, to which
an end was put by the beheading and burning of two
of the ringleaders.3 The Waldensian persecution was
then fiercer and more brutal than it had ever been ; on
a day of 1561 eighty-eight victims were butchered with

1 De Immense, Hi. (i. I. 313).

2 Ct. the punning line "Domini canes evangel 'mm latrantur per tctum crbem."
3 Berti, p. 50.

i THE CLOISTER AT NAPLES 9

the same knife, their bodies quartered, and distributed
along the road to Calabria.1 Plague, famine, earth-
quake, the Turks, and the Brigands, under "King"
Marconi, swelled the wave of disaster that had come
upon the kingdom of Naples. Little wonder then that
one whose aim was a life of learning should seek it
under the mantle of the strong Dominican order.

The cloister stood above Naples, amidst beautiful The
gardens, and had been the home of St. Thomas
Aquinas, whose gentle spirit still breathed within its
walls. In its church, amid the masterpieces of Giovanni
Merliano of Nola, " the Buonarotti of Naples," stood
the image of Christ which had spoken with the Angelic
Doctor, and had approved his works. Long afterwards,
at his trial, Bruno spoke of having the works of St.
Thomas always by him, " continually reading, studying
and re-studying them, and holding them dear." On his
entry into the order, Bruno laid down, as was customary,
the name Filippo, and took that of Giordano, by which,
except for a short period, he was thenceforth known.
After his year's probation he took the vows before
Ambrosio Pasqua, the Prior, and in due course, pro-
bably about 1572, became priest, his first mass being 1572.
said in Campagna.2

It was the age of the counter-reformation which had Processes
been inaugurated by Loyola, its course set by the
decision of the Council of Trent "to erase with fire
and sword the least traces of heresy," and Bruno early
began to feel his fetters, and to suffer from their weight.
During his noviciate even, a writing had been drawn up
against him, because he had given away some images of
the saints, retaining for himself only a crucifix, and
again because he had advised a fellow-novice, who was

1 Cf. Spacc'w de la Bestia, Lag. p. 552, i. 2 Venetian Documents, No. 8.

io GIORDANO BRUNO PART

reading The Seven Delights of the Madonna to throw
it aside and take rather The Lives of the Fathers or
some such book. But the writing was merely intended
to terrify him, and the same day was torn up by the

1576. Prior.1 In 1576, however, the suspicions of his
superiors took a more active turn, and a process was
instituted in which the matter of the noviciate was
supported by charges of later date, of which Bruno
never learned the details. He believed the chief count
was an apology for the Arian heresy made by him in
the course of a private conversation, and rather on the
ground of its scholastically correct form than on that of
its truth.2 In any case Bruno left Naples while the

Rome. process was pending, and came to Rome, where he put
up in the cloister of Minerva. His accusers did not
leave him in peace, however : a third process was
threatened at Rome with 130 articles ;3 and, on learn-
ing from a friendly source that some works of St.
Chrysostom and St. Hieronymus, with a commentary
of the arch-heretic Erasmus, had been discovered — he
had, as he supposed, safely disposed of them before
leaving Naples, — Bruno yielded to discretion, abandoned
his monkly habit, and escaped from Rome. From this
time began a life of restless wandering throughout
Europe which ended only after sixteen years, when he
fell into the power of the Inquisition at Venice.

Ill

Bruno, who resumed for the time his baptismal

name of Filippo, journeyed first to the picturesque little

Noii. town of Noli, in the Gulf of Genoa, whither a more

famous exile, Dante, had also come. There he lived for

1 Docs. 8 and 13. 2 Vide additional note. 3 Doc. I (Berti, p. 378).

i EARLY WORKS n

four or five months, teaching grammar to boys, and 1576?
"the Sphere" — that is, astronomy and cosmography,
with a dash of metaphysics, — to certain gentlemen.
Thence he came to Savona, to Turin,1 and to Venice. ^avona>

Turin.

In Venice six weeks were spent, probably in the Venice.
vain attempt to find work — the printing offices and
the schools were closed on account of the plague
which was carrying off thousands of the inhabitants ;
but the time was utilised in printing the first of
his books — no longer extant — on the Signs of the
Times? written, like so many other works of other
people, to put together a few " danari." It was shown
to a reverend Father Remigio of Florence, therefore
was probably orthodox, or its unorthodoxy was veiled.
This work may have been the first of Bruno's writings
on the art of memory or on Lully's art of knowing.
Another work belonging to this early period was the
Ark of Noah. It was probably written before he left
Naples, and was dedicated to Pope Pius V., but is not
known to have been published : its title is that of a
mystical writing of Hugo of St. Victor, but according
to the account in the Cena* it was an allegorical and
probably satirical work, somewhat after the fashion of
Bruno's Cabala : — The animals had assembled to settle a
disputed question of rank, and the ass was in great danger
of losing his pre-eminent post, — in the poop of the Ark,
— because his power lay in hoofs rather than in horns ;
when we consider Bruno's frequent and bitter invoca-
tions of Asinity, we can hardly avoid seeing in the
work an allusion to the credulity and ignorance of the
monkhood.

1 Tasso came about the same time, to be repulsed as plague-stricken from the
gates.

2 Doc. 9. Berti, p. 393 (a line is omitted in the 2nd Edition).

3 Lag. 147. 21.

12 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Padua. " From Venice/' * Bruno tells us, "I went to Padua,

where I found some fathers of the order of St. Dominic,
whom I knew ; they persuaded me to resume the habit,
even though I should not wish to return to the order,
as it was more convenient for travel : with this idea I
went to Bergamo, and had a robe made of cheap white
cloth, placing over it the scapular which I kept when
I left Rome." On his way to Bergamo he seems to

Brescia. have touched at Brescia and Milan, at the former
place curing, " with vinegar and poly pod/' a monk
who claimed to have the spirit of prophecy.2 At

Milan. Milan he first heard of his future patron and friend,

Bergamo. Sir Philip Sidney.3 From Bergamo he was making

chambery. for Lyons, but at Chambery was warned that he would
meet with little sympathy there, and turned accordingly

Geneva, towards Geneva, the home of exiled reformers of all
nationalities, but especially of Italians. It is uncertain
how the time was distributed among these places,—
possibly Bruno spent a winter, as Berti suggests,
at Chambery, having crossed the Alps the previous
autumn ; — what is certain is, that he arrived at Geneva

May 1579. in April or May of 1579. Under the date May 22,
of that year, in the book of the Rector of the Academy
at Geneva, is inscribed the name Philippus Brunus,
in his own hand. On his arrival at the hostelry in
Geneva, he was called upon by a distinguished exile
and reformer, the Marquis of Vico, a Neapolitan.
To the court at Venice, Bruno gave the following
account of this visit and of his life in Geneva : — " He
asked me who I was, and whether I had come to stay
there and to profess the religion of the city, to which,

1 Fra Paolo Sarpi was at this time teaching philosophy in one of the monasteries
in Venice, but Bruno does not seem to have met him.

2 Sig. Sig. (Op. Lot. ii. 2. 191).

3 Cena, Lag. 143. 40.

i GENEVA: RELIGION AND LIBERTY 13

after I had given an account of myself and of my
reasons for abandoning the Order, I said that 1 had
no intention of professing the religion of the city,
not knowing what it was, and that therefore I wished
rather to remain living in freedom and security, than
in any other manner. I was persuaded, in any case,
to lay aside the habit I wore ; so I had made for
myself from the cloth a pair of trews and other
things, while the Marquis himself, with other Italians,
gave me a sword, hat, cape, and other necessaries of
clothing, and enabled me to support myself so far by
correcting proofs. I stayed about two months, and
attended at times the preachings and discussions, both
of Italians and Frenchmen who lectured and preached
in the city ; among others, I heard several times
Nicolo Balbani of Lucca, who read on the epistles
of St. Paul, and preached the Gospels ; but having
been told that I could not remain there long if I
did not make up my mind to adopt the religion of Did Bruno
the city, for if not I should receive no assistance, I vinS
resolved to leave." l When the inscription of Bruno's
name in the book of the Rector of the Academy was
found, a doubt appeared to be thrown upon the truth
or frankness of this evidence about himself. The
regulations of 1559 had made it necessary for intend-
ing members to accept and sign the Calvinist confession
of faith ; but from 1576 onward, it was only required
that they should belong to the community, a condition
Bruno fulfilled by attending the ministrations of Nicolo
Balbani at the Italian Church ; this would account
also for his name being in the list of the Protestant
refugees. The real cause of his departure from
Geneva has, however, been revealed by the documents

1 Doc. 9.

i4 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

which Dufour published in I884-1 On Thursday
August 6, 1579, "one Philippe Jordan called

Freedom of Brunus, an Italian/7 was brought before the Council,
for having " caused to be printed certain replies

De ia Fayc. and invectives against M. de la Faye, enumerat-
ing twenty errors made by the latter in one of his
lectures." De la Faye was then Professor of Philosophy
in the Academy, of which in 1580 he became Rector,
resigning that post for the theological chair a few
years later. His one title to fame is, that he was the
biographer of Beza, and he was in no sense a strong
man ; all the more bitter and intense was his anger
at the intruding Italian who criticised his views, and —
a far graver crime — disparaged his learning. Bruno,
heard before a body of councillors, and having confessed
his fault, was to be set free on giving thanks to God
and an apology to M. de la Faye, admitting his fault
before the Consistory (the governing body of the
Church in Geneva), and tearing up the defamatory
libel.2 But when he did appear, on August 13,
the philosopher adopted a different tone : — " Philippe
Brun appeared before the Consistory — to admit
his fault, in so far as he had erred in doctrine,
and called the ministers of the Church of Geneva
' pedagogues* asserting that he neither would excuse
nor condemn himself in that, for it had not been
reported truly, although he understood that one,
Anthony de la Faye, had made such a report.
Inquired whom he had called pedagogues, he replied
with many excuses and assertions that he had been
persecuted, making many conjectures and numerous
other accusations." Finally, u it was decided that

1 Giordano Bruno a Geneve (1579), par Theophil Dufour: i/. Berti, pp. 449 ff.
2 From the Register of the Council.

I

i BRUNO BEFORE CONSISTORY 15

he be duly admonished, that he have to admit his
fault, and that, should he refuse to do so, he be
forbidden communion, and sent back again to the
Council, who are prayed not to endure such a person,
a disturber of the school ; and in the meantime he
shall have to admit his fault. He replied that he
repented of having committed the fault, for which
he would make amends by a better conversation,
and further confessed that he had uttered calumny
against De la Faye. The admonitions and exclusions
from the communion were carried out, and he was
sent back with admonitions." Apparently these steps
were effective ; the required apology was made, and
on August 27 Bruno was absolved from the form
of excommunication passed upon him. No doubt,
however, life in Geneva was made less easy for him,
and he left soon after. The sentence of excommunica-
tion passed by the Consistory — the only one within
its power — does not prove that Bruno was a full
member of the Protestant community, nor that he
partook of the communion, which at his trial in
Venice he absolutely denied ever having done ; but
formal excommunication must have entailed many un-
pleasantnesses, so that his appeal for remission is
quite comprehensible. His unfortunate experiences in
Geneva account, however, for the extreme dislike of
Calvinism which his writings express. Of the two
reformed schools, Lutheranism was by far the more
tolerant, and gave him, later, the more cordial welcome.
Calvin, we must remember, whose spirit continued
in Theodore Beza, had written a pamphlet on Servetus,
a " faithful exposition of the errors of Michael Servetus,
a short refutation of the same, in which it is shown to

1 Register of Consistory, 1577-1579.

1 6 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

be lawful to coerce heretics by the sword." It was
more probably, however, Bruno's attitude towards the
Aristotelian philosophy which brought him into conflict
with the authorities : Geneva was as thoroughly con-
vinced of the all-wisdom of Aristotle as Rome.1 Beza
had written to Ramus that they had decided once
for all, ne tantillum ab Aristotelis sententia deflectere^
and Arminius, when a youth of twenty-two, was
expelled from Geneva for teaching the Dialectic of
Ramus.

IV

Lyons. After a short stay in Lyons, where u he could not

make enough to keep him alive," Bruno passed to

Toulouse. Toulouse, which boasted then of one of the most
flourishing universities in the world. In his account
of his life before Venetian tribunal, he gives two years
and a half to Toulouse, but he must have left it before

1579-81. the end of 1581, so that his actual stay was only two
years. While he was holding private classes on the
Sphere, and other philosophical subjects, a chair at the
University fell vacant. Bruno was persuaded to
become a candidate ; to that end he took a Doctorate
(in Theology), and was allowed to compete. By the
free election of the students, as the custom was, he was
chosen for the chair, and thereafter for two sessions
lectured on Aristotle's De Anima and on other matters.
Part of these lectures is perhaps given to us in the
works published afterwards at Paris. It was fortunate
that the University did not require of its ordinary
professors that they should attend mass, as was the case,
for example, at the Sorbonne. Bruno could not have

1 Bartholmess, i. pp. 6z, 63 (with note).

i TOULOUSE (1579-81) 17

done so owing to his excommunication, but that he
was unconscious of any want of sympathy towards the
Catholic Church is shown by his visit in Toulouse to
the confessional of a Jesuit.

The city was not generally favourable to heretics, and
in 1 6 1 6 Lucilio Vanini was burnt there for his opinions.
A cancelled phrase in the evidence suggests that Bruno's
departure from Toulouse was owing to disputes and
difficulties regarding his doctrine, but his alleged reason
was the civil war that was then raging in the south of
France, with Henry of Navarre in the field. While at
Toulouse, Bruno seems to have completed a work in
more than one volume, the Clavis Magna, or " Great
Key," a general, and as Bruno thought, a final text-
book on the art of memory : — u All the ideas of
the older writers on this subject (so far as we are able
to make out from the books that have come to our
hands), their doctrines and methods, have their fitting
place in our invention, which is a superlatively pregnant
one, and has appropriated to it the book of the Great
Key." One volume only, it appears, was published by
Bruno, and that in England, the Sigillus Sigillorum.

To Paris Bruno came about the close of 1581, and
almost at once sprang into fame. A course of thirty
lectures on " The thirty divine attributes " (as given by
Thomas Aquinas) brought him the offer of an ordinary
professorship, but this he could not take, being unable
to attend mass. However, his fame reached the ears
of the king, Henry the Third, who summoned him to
his presence, to know among other things " whether the
memory Bruno had, and the art of memory he professed,
were natural or due to magic." Bruno proved to him
that a powerful memory was a natural product, and

1 Vide De Umbris (Op. Lot. ii. I. p. 65, cf. p. 87).

C

1 8 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

dedicated to him a book on the Art of Memory.
Henry III. was the son of an Italian mother, and had
a keen, if uncritical and dilettante, love of learning.
At the time Bruno arrived in Paris philosophy was one
of the king's chief hobbies, and the fact had a great
Works pub- influence on Bruno's future. During his stay in Paris
Pads. m Bruno published several works, of which the first
DC Umbrit. perhaps was the " Shadows of Ideas " (De Umbris
Idearum\ 1582, dedicated to Henry III., along with
which, but without a separate frontispiece, was the
Ar* . Art of Memory (Ars Memorise Jordani Brunt) ; there
followed "The Incantation of Circe" (Cant us Circle us),
i$82y dedicated to Prince Henry of Angouleme, and
edited by Regnault. The De Umbris gives the
metaphysical basis of the art of memory, the Ars
Memorise a psychological analysis of the faculty, and
an account of the theory of the art itself, while the
Cantus Circteus offers first a practical application, and
secondly a more elementary account of the theory and
practice of the system. Obscurity was, in those days
of pedantry, one of the safest ways of securing a
hearing : there is nothing of value in Bruno's art except
the philosophy by which he sought to support it — a
renovated Neoplatonism. It has been pointed out,
however, "that the art was a convenient means of
introducing Bruno to strange universities, gaining him
favour with the great, or helping him out of pressing
money troubles. It was his exoteric philosophy with
which he could carefully drape his philosophy of religion
hostile to the Church, and ride as a hobby horse in his
unfruitful humours."1 There can be no question of
Bruno's own belief in it ; it was not, for example, a
cipher language by which he covered his real thoughts :

1 Brunnhofcr's Giordano Bruno, etc., p. 25.

i THE "CANDELAIO" 19

the Copernican theory is not, as Berti says, absent from
the Parisian writings, rather it is forced obtrusively into
them.1

In Paris was published also the " Compendious DC
Architecture " (De Compendiosd Architecture! et Com-
flemento Artis Lullii\ 1582, dedicated to Giovanni tur^ ttc
Moro, the Venetian Ambassador in Paris. It is the
earliest of the Lullian works in which Bruno expounds
or comments upon the art of Raymond Lully, a logical
calculus and mnemonic scheme in one, that attracted
many imitators up to and after Bruno's time. In the
same year appeared a work of a very different stamp, //
Candelaio^ or u The Torchbearer," " a comedy by Bruno
of Nola, Academico di nulla academia, detto il fastidito :
In tristitia hilaris, hilaritate tristis" It is a satire
upon some of the chief vices of the age — in the fore-
front pedantry, superstition, and sordid love. Without
great dramatic power — the characters are personified
types, not individuals — it has been judged to be second
to none of the comedies of the time, in spirit, wit, and
pert comedy. It certainly excels in many respects the
Cortegiana of Aretino, to which it is similar in character.
It is equally realistic in the sense that it " calls a spade
a spade," and does not shrink from representing vice
as speaking in its own language. Bruno is not, how-
ever, to be blamed for an obscenity which was de
rigueur in the literature of the time. But although
the humour is broad and occasionally amusing, there is
no grace, no lighter touch ; the picture is all dark.
The attack upon the pedant, however, strikes a key-
note of Bruno's life ; in him he saw the greatest enemy
his teaching had to face, and therefore he struck at him
whenever the opportunity offered.

1 Introd. to De Umbris.

20 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

The uni- Owing perhaps to some of these works, Bruno was
Slty' granted an Extraordinary Readership at the university.
There were, however, two universities in Paris, and it
is uncertain at which Bruno taught : they were the
Sorbonne, catholic and conservative, the censorship of
which must have passed his Parisian works, and the
College of France — following the liberal policy of its
founder, Francis II., declaring war against pedantry in
general, and the Jesuit Society in particular.1 As has
been said, Bruno was at this time eager to be taken
back into the fold of the Church, and turned to the
Jesuits for assistance, so that the latter college could
hardly have been his habitation ; on the other hand,
his revolutionary teaching could not fail in the end to
excite the indignation of the Sorbonne pupils : Aristotle
was, here as elsewhere, " divine." Yet when Bruno
returned to Paris in 1585, and when he was on the
eve of a second departure, he recalled with pleasure
the humanity and kindness shown to him by rectors
and professors on his first visit. They had honoured
him by " the continued presence of the more learned
at his lectures both public and private, so that any
title rather than that of stranger was befitting him
with this kindly parent of letters."2 And Nostitz,
one of Bruno's pupils, remembered with admiration,
thirty-three years later, the skill and versatility of his
teacher : " He was able to discourse impromptu on
any subject suggested, to speak without preparation
extensively and eloquently, and he attracted many
pupils and admirers in Paris."

1 Bartholmess, i. 74.

2 Vide Acrot. Camoer. Epistle to the Rector of the University (Filesac.). Op. Lat.
i. i. 56, 57.

8 Artifictum Arist. Lull. Ram. 1615.

i BRUNO LEAVES PARIS: ENGLAND 21

But Bruno's evil genius would not allow him rest ;
whether on account, as he himself says, of " tumults,"
— which may mean either the civil war * or an active
resistance to his own teaching on the part of the youth
of Paris, — or because of the attraction of a less bigoted
country, he was drawn in 1583 to exchange Paris
for London.

England under Elizabeth was renowned for its England,
tolerance ; all manner of religious refugees found there a *583'
place of safety : to Italians its welcome was particularly
cordial, their language was the favoured one of the
court, and Elizabeth herself eagerly saw and spoke
with them in their own tongue. Florio — an Italian in
spite of having had London for his birthplace, the
friend of Shakespeare, of Spenser and Ben Jonson —
was constantly at court ; two of Elizabeth's physicians
were Italian, as were several of the teachers of the
universities. Perhaps the happiest days of Bruno's
troubled life were spent here ; he had access to the
most brilliant literary society of the time ; he was able
to speak, write, and publish in his own tongue, and in
consequence gave all the most polished and brilliant
of his works to the world during this period.

In April, May, and June of 1583 Bruno was in Oxford,
Oxford, although the university and college records
make no mention of his name. He must have known

it as a stronghold of Aristotelianism ; on its statutes The
stood " that Bachelors and Masters who did not follow AritStie?d
Aristotle faithfully were liable to a fine of five shillings
for every point of divergence, and for every fault

Cf. Or at. Censcl (i. I. 32).

22 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

committed against the Logic of the Organon" ; and that
this was no dead law had been proved a few years
before when one Barebones was degraded and expelled
because of an attack on Aristotle from the standpoint
of Ramus. The only living subject of teaching was
theology, there was no real science, and no real scholar-
ship. This peaceful school was not likely to be
gratified by the letter which Bruno wrote asking per-
mission to lecture at Oxford ; it is printed in the
Explicatio Triginta Sigittorum:1 "To the most excellent
the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, its
most famous Doctors and celebrated Masters — Saluta-
tion from Philotheus Jordanus Brunus of Nola, Doctor
of a more scientific theology, professor of a purer and
less harmful learning, known in the chief universities
of Europe, a philosopher approved and honourably
received, a stranger with none but the uncivilised and
ignoble, a wakener of sleeping minds, tamer of presump-
tuous and obstinate ignorance, who in all respects
professes a general love of man, and cares not for
the Italian more than for the Briton, male more than
female, the mitre more than the crown, the toga more
than the coat of mail, the cowled more than the un-
cowled ; but loves him who in intercourse is the more
peaceable, polite, friendly and useful — (Brunus) whom
only propagators of folly and hypocrites detest, whom
the honourable and studious love, whom noble minds
applaud." The epistle which so begins is the preface
to a work on the art of discovering, arranging, and
remembering facts of knowledge, by which Bruno
hoped to commend himself to the English, as he
had succeeded in commending himself to the French
universities. He attempted to disarm prejudice by

1 Op. Laf. ii. 2. pp. 76-8.

i ALASCO IN OXFORD 23

sheltering under the twofold truth — " if this writing
appears to conflict with the common and approved
faith, understand that it is put forward by me not as
absolutely true, but as more consonant with our senses
and our reason, or at least less dissonant than the other
side of the antithesis. And remember, that we are not
so much eager to show our own knowledge, as moved
by the desire of showing the weakness of the common
philosophy, which thrusts forward what is mere opinion
as if demonstratively proved, and of making it clear by
our discussion (if the gods grant it) how much in
harmony with regulated sense, in consonance with the
truth of the substance of things, is that which the
garrulous multitude of plebeian philosophers ridicule as
foreign to sense."

He was coldly received, however ; in common-
sense England his new art could evoke no enthusiasm,
and his real and vital doctrines met with nothing but
opposition at the old university — " the widow of true
science," Bruno calls it. From the loth to the ijth Alasco of
June the Polish prince, Alasco, was in Oxford, and
disputations were held in his honour as well as banquets.
Among others, Bruno disputed publicly in presence of
the prince and some of the English nobility.1 Alasco
appears to have caused some excitement to the
Elizabethan court. According to Mr. Faunt (of the
secretary's office) he had been General in more than
forty fought battles, spoke Latin and Italian well, and
was of great revenues. Mauvissiere grumbled in a
letter to the French king, that the Palatine Lasque and
a Scottish ambassador seemed to be governing the
court.2 The real object of the visit was apparently
political, to prevent the traffic in arms between England

1 Cena, L. 176, 37 ff. 3 Teulet Papers, ii. p. 570 (May 16, 1583).

24 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

and Muscovy.1 Whether Alasco succeeded in this
design or not, he seems to have found life in England
too fast for his purse — " A learned man of graceful
figure, with a very long beard, in decorous and
beautiful attire, who was received kindly by the Queen,
with great honour and praise by the nobles, by the
university of Oxford with erudite delectations (oblecta-
tionibus) and varied spectacles ; but after four months,
being harassed for debt, he withdrew secretly/' 2 The
arrival of this tragic-comic figure in Oxford appears to
have gratified the city and university ; he was most
hospitably received, and put up at Christ Church. On
the following day there was a dinner at All Souls,
at which "he was solemnlie satisfied with scholar lie
exercises and courtlie fare." That evening was per-
formed a " pleasant comedie," the Rtvates, and on the
following night a " statelie tragedie," Dido? and there
were in the intervals shows, disputations in philosophy,
physics, and divinity, in all of which, we are glad
to know, " these learned opponents, respondents,
and moderators, acquitted themselves like themselves,
sharplie and soundlie." Let us hope that Bruno too,
The dispu. who took part in one of these disputations, made this
impression. According to his own account the pro-
tagonist put forward by the university could not reply
to one of his arguments, and was left fifteen times by
as many syllogisms, " like a hen in the stubble,"
resorting accordingly to incivility and abuse, in face of
the patience and humanity of the Neapolitan " reared
under a kinder sky." The result was unfortunate for
Bruno ; it put an end to the public lectures, which he

1 Op. «>., p. 693. 2 Camden's Elizabeth.

3 The MS. of Dido, which was acted by Christ Church men, is still preserved in
the library of Christ Church.

tation.

i IMPRESSIONS OF OXFORD 25

was giving at the time, on the Immortality of the Soul
and on the " Five-fold Sphere." The same month he
returned to London, and shortly after published the
Cena (Ash- Wednesday Supper), in which he ridiculed The c™a
the Oxford Doctors. Inter alia, he thought they knew
a good deal more of beer than of Greek.1 The impres-
sion this attack produced in his London circle was
apparently not that which he desired, for in the following
dialogue, the Causa, he was much more judicious.2 The
He admitted much in the university that was well
instituted from the beginning : " the fine arrangement
of studies, the gravity of the ceremonies, careful
ordering of the exercises, seemliness of the habits worn,
and many other circumstances that made for the require-
ments and adornment of a university ; without doubt
every one must admit it to be the first in Europe, and
consequently in all the world — nay, more, " in gentle-
ness of spirit and acuteness of mind, such as are
naturally brought out in both parts of Britain, it equals
perhaps the most excellent of the universities. Nor is
it to be forgotten that before speculative philosophy
was taught in any other part of Europe it flourished
here, and through its princes in metaphysics (although
barbarians in speech and of the profession of the cowl)
the splendour of one of the noblest and rarest spheres
of philosophy, in our times almost extinct, was diffused
to all other academies in civilised countries." What
Bruno condemned in Oxford was the undue attention
it gave to language and words, to the ability to speak
in Ciceronian Latin and in eloquent-phrase, neglecting
the realities of which the words were signs. As for
the knowledge of Aristotle and of philosophy generally
that was demanded for the degree of Master or Doctor,

1 Lag. p. 120 ff. 2 L. p. 220.

26 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Bruno suggests an evasion that probably had its origin
in the undergraduate wit of the time. The statute
read "nisi potaverit e fonte AristoteUs" but there were
three springs in the town, the Fons Aristotelis, Fons
Pythagorae^ Fons Platonis, and " as the water for the
beer and cider was taken from these springs, one could
not be three days in Oxford without imbibing not
merely of the spring of Aristotle, but of those of
Pythagoras and of Plato as well." Doctors were
easily created and doctorates easily bought. There
were of course exceptions, men renowned for eloquence
and doctrine like Tobias Matthew1 and Culpepper,2
but as a rule the nobility and best men generally
refused to avail themselves of the " honour," and pre-
ferred the substance of learning to its shadow.

VI

It was after his return from Oxford that the pleasant
London, and busy life in London literary society began — the
period of Bruno's greatest productiveness. In the
house of the enlightened and cultured Mauvissiere he
found, for the first time since leaving Nola, a home.3
Bruno's position in London has given rise to great
difference of opinion ; none of the ordinary contem-
porary records make mention of him, or the slightest
allusion to his presence in England. At his trial he
professed to have brought letters to the French
Ambassador from the King of France, to have stayed
at the house of the former continuously, to have gone

1 1546-1628. Studied at University College $ President of St. John's, 1572-7$
Dean of Christ Church (to 1584); afterwards Archbishop of York: "One of a
proper person (such people, ceteris paribus and sometimes ceteris imfaribus, were preferred
by the Queen) and an excellent preacher " — (Fuller, quoted in the Diet. Nat. Biog.}

2 Warden of New, 1573-99 ; Dean of Chichester, 1577.
5 Vide Trig. Sigilli, Dedication.

i RELATION TO MAUVISSI&RE 27

constantly to the Court with the Ambassador, and to
have known Elizabeth ; and in his works he claims
intimacy with Sidney and Greville. It was consequently
thought that he moved in the highest English society
of the time, and from the Cena that he belonged to a
literary coterie, or club, of which Sidney, Greville,
Dyer, Temple, and others were members. Lagarde,
believing Bruno (but on ludicrous grounds) 1 to have
sprung from the lowest of Italian society, could hardly
accept this familiar legend of Bruno-biographies, and
more recently, the Quarterly Review has questioned
both the friendship with Sidney and Greville, and the
existence of the supposed Society. As to the last,
there was certainly at one time a literary society,
Sidney's Areopagus, to which Spenser belonged in
1579, but which concerned itself chiefly with artificial
rules of versification, and the merits of various metres ;
the habit of meeting may have very well persisted for a
few years, after the first flush of enthusiasm had passed,
and the Ash Wednesday supper may have represented
one of these meetings to which Bruno — the defender
of the Copernican theory — may have been invited as
Protagonist. As for Bruno's position, it must have
been that of a secretary or tutor, perhaps both, in
Mauvissiere's employment. The French Ambassador
was constantly in want of funds, and could not very
well afford to support any casual stranger whom the
King of France recommended to him. In November
1584 he complained of absolute penury, of being
unable to obtain money due to him from the King of
France (the King paid him by occasional doles only), of
being hard pressed by London and Italian bankers,
while his wife was in ill health. He was not greatly

1 Vide add. note.

28 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

respected either by the Court, who, with good grounds,
believed him to have no influence with the French
King, or by Mary of Scotland and the English
Catholics, partly because of his supposed Huguenot
leanings, and partly because of their distrust of Henry
III., or by the French King himself. Mauvissiere had
been sent to England as one who could be trusted not
to err by way of undue zeal. Henry had no desire to
see the unfortunate Queen of Scots liberated, although
he put out all his diplomatic power to save her life ;
the status quo in England suited his policy only too
well ; there was no need for active interference. It was
Mary of Guise that spurred on Mauvissiere to act as
energetically as he did for Queen Mary. We may
assume then that Bruno, when Oxford rejected him,
entered the French Embassy as an unofficial secretary.
The words he employed at the Venetian inquiry quite
harmonise with this supposition : " In his house I
stayed as his gentleman, nothing more," not as friend
or guest, but as " his gentleman." l That he went
constantly to Court with the Ambassador, and was
introduced to Queen Elizabeth, would be natural in the
case of a secretary — it would be curious in the case of a
mere guest, or of any servant lower than a secretary.
Finally, in the Infinito* the grateful remark that
Mauvissiere entertained Bruno within his family, " not
as one who was of service to him (Mauvissiere), but
as one whom he could serve on the many occasions
in which aid was required by the Nolan," obviously
suggests that services were rendered by Bruno to the
Ambassador. A man who was prepared to make a

1 Doc. 9, Berta, p. 305. " Castelnuovo, in casa del qual non faceva altro se non
che stava per il suo gentilhomo."

2 Preface, L. 305.

r BRUNO ON MAUVISSlfeRE 29

living by teaching children as readily as by lecturing
to students, by setting books in print as readily as by
writing them, was not likely to be an expensive
secretary, and it must have been pleasant to Bruno to
escape from the turmoil of scholastic strife and its
bitter antagonisms to the quiet haven of the Embassy.
His host was a well-meaning, kindly, but unfortunate
man, unequal to the great issues that were being
decided around him. Although it was a Catholic
family, and mass was frequently said in the house,
Bruno's religious freedom was respected. He attended
neither mass nor any of the preachings, on account of
his excommunication. If one may judge from Bruno's
enthusiasm, the wife and daughter of Mauvissiere must
have been charming companions, the one " endowed
with no mean beauty of form, both veiling and clothing
the spirit within, and also with the threefold blessing
of a discreet judgment, a pleasing modesty, and a kind
courtesy, holding in an indissoluble tie the mind of her
consort, and captivating all who come to know her" ;
the other, u who has scarcely seen six summers, and
from her speech you could not tell whether she be of
Italy, of France, or of England ; from her musical
play, whether she is of corporeal or incorporeal
substance ; from the ripe sweetness of her manners,
whether she is descended from heaven or risen from
earth." l For Mauvissiere himself, to whom the three
most important of the Italian dialogues are dedicated,
no words that Bruno can invent are too high praise.
In the dedication of the Causa, after comparing his
persevering zeal and delicate diplomatic powers to the
dropping of water upon hard stone, and his steadfast
support of Bruno in face of detractions of the ignorant

1 Lag. z64, 20.

30 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

and the mercenary, of sophists, hypocrites, barbarians,
and plebeians, to the strength of the rock against
seething waves, the philosopher adds, "I, whom the
foolish hate, the ignoble despise, whom the wise love,
the learned admire, the great honour — I, for the great
favours enjoyed from you, food and shelter, freedom,
safety, harbourage, who through you have escaped so
terrible and fierce a storm, to you consecrate this
anchor, these shrouds and slackened sails, this merchan-
dise so dear to me, more precious still to the future
world, to the end that through your favour they may
not fall a prey to the ocean of injustice, turbulence, and
hostility." The merchandise of which Bruno thought
so highly was the Dialogue itself ; we must of course
allow for the grandiloquence of the dedications of
the time, and of Bruno's especially, but a real gratitude
shines through the words.

Queen His account of the Queen must be taken much less

seriously, although his praise of her formed one of the
many counts against him in Venice. " That most
singular and rare of ladies, who from this cold clime,
near to the Artie parallel, sheds a bright light upon all
the terrestial globe. Elizabeth, a Queen in title and in
dignity, inferior to no King in all the world. For her
judgment, counsel, and government, not easily second
to any other that bears a sceptre in the earth. In her
familiarity with the arts, knowledge of the sciences,
understanding and practice of all languages spoken in
Europe by the people or by the learned, I leave the
whole world to judge what rank she should hold
among princes." l In a satirical passage of the Causa,
where Bruno is proving that all vices, defects, crimes
are masculine, all virtues, excellences, goodnesses,

1 L. 143.

i ELIZABETH: MENDOgA 31

feminine, Elizabeth is given as a crowning example : —
" than whom no man is more worthy in the whole
kingdom, among the nobles no one more heroic,
among the long robed no one more learned, among
the councillors no one more wise." l Exaggerated as
the language is, it is not more so than was common
with the writers who adorned Elizabeth's Court ; and
it was one of his errors which Bruno could easily regret
before his judges. " In my book on * the Cause, Principle,
and One/ I praise the Queen of England and call her
' divine/ not as a term of worship, but as an epithet
such as the ancients used to apply to their princes,
and in England where I then was, and where I com-
posed this book, the title ' divine ' is usually given to
the Queen. I was the more inclined to call her so,
that she knew me, as I went continually with the
Ambassador to Court ; but I know I erred in praising
this lady, she being a heretic, and in calling her
4 divine/ ' Through Mauvissiere, Bruno made acquaint-
ance with Bernardino di Mendo^a, Spanish Ambassador
to England from 1578 to 1584, a much stronger man
as well as a more unscrupulous servant of his king
than Mauvissiere could be. Bruno says definitely that
Mendo^a was known by him at the English Court.
So well was he known that Bruno approached the
Ambassador in Paris on the delicate subject of his own
relations with the Catholic Church, and was introduced
by him to the Papal Nuncio. There is absolutely no
reason for doubting these statements, and if true, they
are quite compatible with acquaintance, if not friend-
ship, between Bruno and Sir Philip Sidney, or the
others whom he mentions. Mendo^a was not, how-
ever a persona grata at Court : he was a thorough-going

1 L. 226. 25 ff.

32 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

supporter of the Scottish Queen, and seems to have
had a finger in almost every conspiracy that was
planned or formed by the English Catholics. He
became unbearable to Queen Elizabeth ; his recall was
demanded and refused; but in January of 1584 he
was compelled to leave England, and a formal rupture
with Spain was the consequence, which became actual
war four years afterwards. Philip of Spain did not
desert his champion, in whom he had the highest
confidence. In October of 1584 Mendo^a became
Ambassador to France, and there in 1855 Bruno
renewed acquaintance with him.

Like all his contemporaries, Bruno came under the
Sidney, spell of Sir Philip Sidney's charm. He had already
heard in Milan and in France of that " most illustrious
and excellent cavalier, one of the rarest and brightest
spirits in the world. " To Sir Philip are dedicated the
two chief ethical writings of Bruno, the Spaccio, and
the Heroici Furori, with the expressed assurance that
the author is not presenting a lyre to a deaf man, nor
a mirror to a blind. " The Italian reasons with one
who can understand his speech ; his verses are under
the censure and the protection of a poet. Philosophy
displays her form unveiled to so clear an eye as yours.
The way of heroism is pointed out to a heroic and
generous spirit." Sidney was one of the first to take
an interest in the Italian on his arrival in England,
and when the Spaccio was published, on the eve, as
Bruno thought, of his departure from England towards
the close of 1584,* Bruno could not turn his back
upon Sidney's "beautiful, fortunate, and chivalrous
country, without saluting him with a mark of recogni-

1 Mauvissiere's successor was nominated in Nov. 1584, although he did not leave
until a year later.

i GREVILLE : SPENSER 33

tion, along with the generous and humane spirit, Sir
Fulke Greville." There was some disagreement, how- Greviiie.
ever, between Greville and Bruno, " the invidious
Erinnys of vile, malignant, ignoble, interested persons,
had spread its poison " between them, in Bruno's
emphatic words. What the ground of division was
we do not know ; possibly the tone in which the Cena
spoke of Oxford men, and of English scholars generally,
had offended Greville, and this may have called out
the partial retractation in the Causa. As is well
known the friendship of the two men, Sidney and
Greville (with whom Edward Dyer was closely
associated), was of the noblest type. Greville died in
1628 in the fulness of years and of honours, but had
retained the impress of his young friendship fresh to
the end.1 It may be added that he became an intimate
of Francis Bacon, who may through him have been
introduced to Bruno's works. It must have been in
some such way also that Spenser knew of Bruno, as it is Spenser,
probable that the Cantos on Mutability (first published
posthumously in 1609, but written probably after his
visit to England in 1596) were "suggested" by
Bruno's Spaccio? The " new poet " certainly could
not have met Bruno, for he was in Ireland continuously,
as secretary, from 1580 till 1589, when he came over
to publish the first three books of the Faerie Queen.

It is possible, on the other hand, that Bruno met
Bacon, who was a rising young barrister and member Bacon.
of Parliament when he arrived in England, and had
already achieved some fame as a critic of Aristotle.
The idea, however, that he knew and influenced

1 Vide add. note.

2 First pointed out, I believe, by Mr. Whittaker in Essays and Nonces, 1895
(f . the note to Giordano Bruno, p. 94).

D

34 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Shakespeare, is entirely fanciful. Richard Field, a
friend of Shakespeare, had come to London in 1579,
and served his apprenticeship with Thomas Vautrollier ;
shake- ancj Field was Shakespeare's first publisher, having set
up for himself by 1587. It has been suggested that
before this time Shakespeare worked in Vautrollier's
printing office. On the other hand, it has been
universally received that Vautrollier was Bruno's
publisher in England, and Bruno usually corrected
his own proofs. Hence the two may have met,
Shakespeare and Bruno, in a grimy printer's den. The
idea is charming, but it has to yield before the light
of fact. Shakespeare did not come to London until
1586, and there is no proof that he worked with
Vautrollier. Bruno had left England by the end of
1585, and there is no proof that Vautrollier was his
printer. The suggested analogies between one or two
ideas in Hamlet and Bruno's conceptions of trans-
migration, of the relativity of evil, and the rest, are
of the shallowest.1 Thomas Vautrollier, a French
printer who came to London some years before, and
set up a press in Blackfriars, was said (by Thomas
Baker) to have gained an undesired notoriety as
Bruno's printer, and to have been compelled to leave
England for a period, which he spent in Edinburgh,
to the advantage of Scottish printing. The Triginta
Sigilli and all the Italian Dialogues of Bruno were
certainly published in England, although Venice or
Paris was set down as their place of publication.
According to Bruno, this was "that they might sell
more easily, and have the greater success, for if they

1 Cf. the Quarterly Re-view, Oct. 1902. The references are Tschhchwifx, : Shake-
speare-For schungen — Hamlet, 18685 W. Kbnig, Shakespeare -Jahrbuch, xi. j Frith' 's
Giordano Bruno j on the other side Beyersdorjf, Giordano Bruno und Shakespeare ( 1 8 8 9) ;
Furness in the New Variorum Shakespeare.

i FLORIO 35

had been marked as printed in England, they would
have sold with greater difficulty in those parts." It is
doubtful, however, whether Vautrollier was really the
printer ; in any case it was not on that account that
he went to Edinburgh.1

Of the Italians in England during Elizabeth's reign
the most familiar to us is Florio, whose father had been riorio.
preacher to the Protestant Italians in London. Florio
had been at Oxford, from which university he dedicated
his " First Fruites " to Leicester in 1578, so that he was
already well known as a scholar when Bruno came
to England and made his acquaintance. This may have
occurred through Sidney ; or vice versa, Sidney's
attention may have been called to Bruno by Florio.
The latter was described by Cornwallis as one who
looked " more like a good fellow than a wise man,"
yet was " wise beyond his fortune or his education."
It was long after Bruno's departure that Florio devoted
himself to the charming translation of Montaigne
(published in 1603), °f which a copy has been found
bearing Shakespeare's name, while to Shakespeare is
attributed a sonnet in praise of Florio. Curiously, we
find him in his translation acknowledging assistance from
one with whom Bruno also has casually connected him
in the Cena, viz. Matthew Gwinne. Of Bruno's more
intimate acquaintance in England we know little : there
are two whose names occur in the dialogues, " Smith "
in the Cenay and Dicson in the Causa, both sympathetic Alexander
listeners and adherents of Theophilo, who is Bruno's DlC80n-
representative. The former it is naturally difficult to
place : he may however have been the poet William
Smith, a disciple of Spenser, who published a pastoral
poem c' Chloris, or the Complaint of the Passionate

1 Vide add. note.

36 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Despised Shepherd." Of Dicson, — " learned, honour-
able, lovable, well-born faithful friend Alexander Dicson,
whom the Nolan loves as his own eyes," 1 a little more
can be told. He was the author of a De Umbra Rationisy
(1583), obviously inspired by Bruno's De Umbris
Idearum, and on the same basis of Neoplatonism. The
work is extremely sketchy, occasionally diffuse, and of
little value even were there anything of value in the Art
of Memory which it teaches. But it seems from a
reply it called forth (Antidicsonus) to have had some
vogue, and to have been backed by a vigorous and
aggressive school in which Bruno, who is joined in
condemnation with Dicson, may have had a place.2
Watson. The poet Thomas Watson has also connected Bruno
with Dicson in his Compendium Memorise Localis,
published in 1585 or 1586. Watson also published a
translation of Tasso's Aminta^ in Latin hexameters,
— in 1585, i.e. in the year following the appearance
of Bruno's Spaccio, with its satire on Tasso's Age of
Gold? Watson had been in Paris in 1581, when he
met Walsingham, and he may of course have met
Bruno also : he was a scholarly poet, although his
work lay more in the direction of translation and
imitation of foreign writers, than in that of original
verse, but during his lifetime he ranked as the equal of
Spenser and Sidney. The Compendium of Local Memory
is in clear, simple, classical Latin, in strong contrast
with the corresponding works of Dicson and of Bruno ;
but the principles of the Art which it describes are
those of Bruno, or Ravenna, or of some common source,
more skilfully arranged and more aptly expressed.

1 Lag. 223. 4. 2 Vide infra, part ii. ch. 9. 3 In the Amlnta.

i WORKS PUBLISHED IN ENGLAND 37

VII

No fewer than seven works from Bruno's facile pen
were published in England ; the first of these was the
Thirty Seals, and the Seal of Seals (1583) Explicatio The Thirty
Trlginta Sigillorum^ quibus adjectus est Sigillus * Sigill-
orum. It was dedicated to Mauvissiere, but the
introductory epistle was addressed to the Vice-
Chancellor of Oxford. Bound along with it, in front,
was a Modern and Complete Art of Remembering
which is merely a reprint of the last part of the
Cantus Circ<eus. The work belongs to the mnemonic
and psychological writings of Bruno ; the thirty seals
are hints " for the acquiring, arranging, and recol-
lecting of all sciences and arts," the Seal of Seals
"for comparing and explaining all operations of the
mind. And it may be called Art of Arts; for here
you will easily find all that is theoretically enquired
into by logic, metaphysics, the cabala, natural magic,
arts great and small." (The part called Sigillus
Sigillorum was a volume of Bruno's Clavis Magna,
perhaps the only volume published.) It was followed
by an Italian dialogue, " the Ash Wednesday Supper,"
La Cena de le Ceneri, also dedicated to Mauvissere. cena de k
Written in praise of the Copernican theory, it goes Cenen'
beyond Copernicus himself in its intuition of the
infinity of the universe, of the identity of matter in
the earth with the matter of the planets and stars, and
of the possibility that such living beings inhabit them
as inhabit the earth : earth and stars themselves are
also said to be living organisms : so there are not
seven planets or wandering stars only, but innumerable

1 Sigillus is really a diminutive of " Signum " in Bruno's view j " Seal" therefore
means much the same as " Sign."

38 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

such ; for every world, whether of the sun-type or of
the earth-type, is in motion, its motion proceeding
from the spirit within it. Finally, this philosophy is
shown to be in complete accord with all true religion,
to conflict only with the false. After the "Ash-
Wednesday Supper" came " Cause, Principle, and
Dt ia causa, Unity" (De la causa, principle et Uno), 1584 ; again
dedicated to Mauvissiere.1 The first of its dialogues
is an apology for the Cena, which, as we have seen, had
caused considerable feeling in Bruno's circle of readers,
for the severity and irony of its strictures upon Oxford,
and England generally. In the others the immanence
or spirituality of all causation ; the eternity of matter ;
its divinity as the potentiality of all life ; its realisation
in the universe as a whole (as a " formed " thing) ; the
infinite whole and the innumerable parts, as different
aspects of the same : the origin of evil and of death :
the coincidence of matter and form in the One : the
source of all individual and finite forms in the one
material substance : the coincidence in the One of the
possible and the real, the century and the moment,
the solid and the point : the universe all centre and
all circumference : diversity and difference as nothing
but diverse and different aspects of one and the same
substance : the coincidence of contraries : — these are
among the chief topics of this, the freshest and most
brilliant of Bruno's philosophical writings : " a dialogue
worthy of Plato," Moritz Carriere has said. In the
same year appeared The Infinite Universe and its
worlds (De r infinite universe et Mondi\ dedicated to

* * • • ^ <> ? . * , r

Mauvissiere/ It contained a masterly array or reasons,

1 " Venezia " on the title-page.

2 Again " Venetia." The Introduction is translated in A collection of several pieces,
by Mr. John Toland, ^ vols., London, 1726.

i THE "SPACCIO" 39

physical and metaphysical, for the belief that the universe
is infinite, and is full of innumerable worlds of living
creatures ; sense and imagination are shown to be at
once the source and the limit of human knowledge.
Yet the argument is mainly a priori : the infinite
power of the Efficient Cause cannot be ineffective, the
divine goodness cannot withhold the good of life from
any possible being ; the divine will is one with the
divine intelligence and with the divine action : all
possible existence falls within the sphere of the divine
intelligence, therefore is willed ; but whatever is willed
is realised, for the power is infinite ; and whatever is
is good, for it is willed by the infinitely good. What-
ever really is, is a substance, and therefore immortal.
The substance of us is immutable, only the outward
face or form of it changes, passes away ; in the whole
all things are good ; where things appear evil or
defective, it is because we look at the part or the
present, not at the whole or the eternal.

"The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast/* Spaccio

i o. V»t •!• t>estia trion-

de la bestia trionfante^ 1584, was dedicated to Sir Philip fanu.
Sidney. In form an allegorical, satirical prose poem, it

1 " Parigi.1" Translated, except for the introductory letter to Sidney, in Sf. dalla
Best. Triom., or the Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast, London, 1713 ; attributed
to W. Morehead.

The Spaccio was in its outward form, no doubt, suggested by Lucian's Parliament
of the God*. Fiorentino has pointed out that Niccolo Franco had made use of a
similar idea in a dialogue published in 1539, in which he described a journey to
heaven, where he was at first refused admittance ; he had a parley with the Gods,
until, with the aid of Momus, he obtained permission to enter, conversed with Jupiter,
received some favours, and returned. Franco was impaled in 1565 by Pope Pius V.,
hence perhaps the absence of his name in Bruno. Perhaps the idea of the Spaccio
was also determined by a prophecy of the Bohemian Cipriano Leowicz ("On the
more signal great conjunctions of the planets," 1564), that about the beginning of
April 1584 would occur a reunion of almost all the planets in the sign of Aries, and
it should be the last in that sign. It was inferred that the Christian religion would
also come to an end then. This would agree with the reason given above for Bruno's
preface, viz. that he was leaving England in 1584, Mauvissiere's term having
expired.

40 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

is in fact an introduction to a new ethical system. A
repentant Jupiter resolves to drive out the numerous
beasts that occupy his heavenly firmament — the con-
stellations— and to replace them by the virtues, with
Truth as their crown. He calls a council of the gods to
consider this plan, and in the discussion that follows
numberless topics are touched upon — the history of
religions, the contrast between natural and positive
religion, and the fundamental forms of morality. The
Spaccio is, however, preparatory to a future work, in
which moral philosophy shall be treated " by the inner
light which the divine intellectual sun has irradiated
into my soul," says Bruno ; l in it, and other dialogues,
the whole structure of the philosophy is to be completed,
of which the Bestia is merely a tentative sketch.2
Jupiter represents the human spirit ; and the constella-
tions, the Bear, the Scorpion, etc., are the vices of the
age, which are to be driven out by Bruno's hierarchy of
virtues. The work, which is rich in both moral and
religious suggestion, was early regarded as an attack on
the Pope or the Church, the supposed " Triumphant
Beast." Gaspar Schopp, for example, writes to that
effect after witnessing Bruno's death. It is really an
attack upon all religions of mere credulity as opposed to
The Cabala, religions of truth and of deeds. The u Cabal " (Cabala
del Cavallo Pegaseo, con r Aggiunta del? Asino Cillenico)
was published in 1585. 3 It is dedicated to an imaginary
Bishop of Casamarciano, who represents the spirit of
backwardness, ignorant simplicity, and was not a real
person, as some biographers supposed. It is a still
more biting, a merciless satire on Asinity (i.e. ignorance,
credulity, and unenquiring faith in religion). In a
later work 4 there is a remark on the Asinus Cillenicus,

1 Lag. 417. 2 lb. 408. 3 Parigi is on the title page. 4 Op. Laf. ii. 3, 237.

i ELIZABETHAN PERIOD 41

" the image and figure of the animal are well known,
many have written on it, we among the rest, in a
particular fashion ; but as it displeased the vulgar, and
failed to please the wise, for its sinister meaning, the
work was suppressed." Whether this refers to the
whole Cabala^ or to the last part of it, is not known.

The " Enthusiasms of the Noble " (De gf heroici
furori\ 1585,* dedicated to Sir Philip Sidney, consists
of sonnets, with prose illustrations, after the model of
Dante's Vita Nuova. Its theme is that of the
Ph<edrus and Symposium, the rising of the love for
spiritual beauty out of that for sensible beauty, reaching
its height in the divine furor — an ecstatic unity with
the divine life, in which all the miseries and misfortunes
of the merely earthly life disappear. Many of the
sonnets are of extreme beauty, although Brunnhofer
goes too far when he speaks of them as surpassing
Petrarca's, except in smoothness of form, and as
equalling Shakespeare's.

VIII

It may not be amiss to give from these works some The women
illustrations of life in England as Bruno found it.

England, as in the days of Erasmus, was renowned
on the continent for its beautiful women, and Bruno's
passionate and enthusiastic nature could not but feel
the attraction of " the fair and gracious nymphs of
England." In the Cena he appeals to the muses of
England, " gracious and gentle, soft and tender, young,
fair and delicate, blond-haired, white of chin, pink of
cheek, of enticing lips, eyes divine, breasts of ivory,

1 Also Parigi. Translated in " The Heroic Enthusiasts," an Ethical Poem, by L.
Williams, London, 1887. (The Argument or Summary, and the Apology of Bruno,
are omitted.)

42 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

and hearts of adamant : how many thoughts do I weave
for you in my mind, how many emotions besiege my
spirit, how many passions fill my life, how many tears
pour from my eyes, sighs burst from my breast, fires
sparkle from my heart " ? l Nature was taking its
revenge indeed for the long years of suppression in the
Church. If this dark, slender, " interesting " Italian
found favour with the fair and cultured inhabitants of
England, he was the less successful with the people in
general, the Plebs, then as now uncompromisingly
opposed to the " foreigner." In his belief England
" could boast of a Plebs which for want of respect,
rudeness, roughness, rusticity, savagery, ill training,
was second to none in the world." 2 No doubt he
writes from experience when he describes the greater
part of them as " appearing like so many wolves and
bears, when they see a foreigner — one part of them,
the artisans, shopkeepers, knowing you as some kind of
foreigner, screw their noses at you, call you dog !
traitor ! stranger ! which is with them a term of high
abuse, and renders its object liable to all the injuries in
the world, no matter what manner of man he is, young
or old, in gown or in uniform, noble or gentleman.
They will come upon you with a rustic fury, careless of
the who or why, where, or how, not referring to one
another, but every one, giving vent to the natural hatred
he has for the foreigner, will try with his own hand and
his own rod to take the measure of your doublet, and
if you are not careful to save yourself, of the hair of
your head ; — and when at length you think you may be
allowed to go to the barber's, and to rest your wearied,

1 Lag. IZ3. 3. Cf. Her. Fur. 747. 19 — "le belle et gratiose Ninfe del Padre
Tamesi," 749. 40, " Leggiadre Nimphe, ch'a le' herbose Sponde del Tamesi gentil
fatte Soggiorno," and 753. 10.

2 Lag. 144. 10.

i THE LONDON OF ELIZABETH 43

ill-handled body, behold them so many executioners
and tipstaffs ; — if they can pretend that you touched any
one of them, you will have your back and legs as sore
as if you had the heels of Mercury, or were mounted
upon the Pegasean Horse, or bestrode the steed of
Perseus, the Hippogriff of Astolfo, the dromedary of
Madian, or had trotting under you one of the giraffes
of the three Magicians : by force of blows they will
make you run, helping you forward with their heavy
fists, — better for you were they hoofs of ox, ass, or
mule : and will not let you go till they have you fast
in a prison, — and there I take my leave of you." In
the second dialogue of the Cena^ there occurs incident-
ally, a characteristic account of the state of Elizabethan
London. Fulke Greville had agreed with Bruno to
have a discussion in his house on the Copernican theory,
on the evening of Ash Wednesday. When the day
came, no further message arriving, Bruno concluded
that the meeting had been postponed, and after dinner
went out to visit some Italian friends. Returning after
sunset, he found Florio and Guin (Gwynne), impatiently
awaiting him : a number of cavaliers, gentlemen, and
doctors, had met to hear the discussion, but the chief
character of the play was awanting. They hurried him
off, in the dark, and thinking to shorten the road, left
the straight way and made for the Thames to get a boat
to take them to the Palace. " Arrived at the bridge of
Lord Buckhurst's Palace, we shouted and cried for
* oares ' — -'id est Gondolieri"1 — and wasted as much
time as would easily have sufficed to take us by land to
our destination, and to have done some business on the
way. At last from afar two boatmen replied, and
slowly, slowly drew up to the shore ; after many inter-
rogations and replies as to the whence, whither, why,

44 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

and how much, they rested the bow on the last step of
the bridge. Then one of the two, that appeared like
the ancient boatman of the Tartarean world, gave his
hand to the Nolan, while the other, who I think was
his son, although his years were five and sixty or so,
received the rest of us. Although there was no
Hercules or Aeneas or Rhadamanth, king of Sarza, still

. . . Gemuit sub pondere cimba
Sutilis, et multam accepit limosa paludem. . .

" The sweet harmony (of its creaking and whistling)
like love, invited us to forget our misfortunes, the
times and the seasons, and to accompany the sounds
with song. Florio (recalling his days of love) sang
Dove senza me dolce mia vifa, and the Nolan replied
with Saracin doknte or Femenil ingegno, and the like ;
and so little by little we advanced as the barque
permitted. Although worms and age had reduced it to
something like cork, it seemed from its festina lente
all of lead, and the arms of the two ancients worn
out. So with much time we made little way, and
before we had covered a third of the distance — a
little beyond the place they call the Temple — our
old fathers, instead of hurrying, ran their prow along-
side the shore. To the Nolan asking if they wished
a little breathing time, they answered that they were
not going any further, for this was their stance.
In conclusion, they would not budge for us, and when
we had paid them and thanked them (there is nothing
else to do when you suffer a wrong from one of
these canaille], they showed us the direct road for
getting on to the street. Now, oh for your help,
Maphelina, muse of Merlin ! That was a road which
commenced in a black mud, from which there was

r LONDON MUD 45

no escape even by good luck. The Nolan, who had
studied and practised in the schools more than we,
bade us follow him through a passage, that he thought
to see, filthy though it was. But he had not ceased
speaking when he was planted in the mire so firmly
that he could not drag out his limbs, and so with
mutual help we went through the midst of it, hoping
that the purgatory would be of short duration ; but
by unjust and hard fate he and we found ourselves
engulfed in a slimy passage, that, just as if it were
the ' field of jealousy ' or the ' garden of delights/
was bounded on this side and on that by good walls,
and because there was no light to guide us we could
not distinguish between the way we had come and
the way we ought to go, hoping at every step for
the end." ..." Higher up the street we found a lava
which on one side left a stony place where we could
walk dry ; step by step we stumbled like drunk men—
and not without danger of breaking a head or a leg.
To make a long story short at last the Elysian fields
appeared, viz. the broad, ordinary street — and then
from the houses we discovered we were about twenty
steps from the place where we had set out to find
the boatman, and not far from the Nolan's rooms ! "
The temptation to give up the expedition was over-
come, and after sundry adventures with apprentices,
servitors, and bravos of the gentle class, they arrived
safely at Fulke Greville's, where supper was already
in progress.

In the Italian dialogues the personal note of com- Hostility
plaint sounds more highly than in Bruno's other works, England"
and we may imagine that Bruno himself felt neglected
in England more than in other countries, while
English hostility to his teaching was probably more

46 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

contemptuous, therefore more galling and more difficult
to overcome. He might repeat as he did, the bold
saying that " to the true philosopher every country is
fatherland, " or call himself with Socrates a citizen of
the world ; but a touch of despair sounds through the
words : — " a citizen and servant of the world, son of
Father Sol and Mother Earth ; because he loves the
world too much, he must be hated, cursed, persecuted,
and rejected by it. Meanwhile let him not be idle,
nor ill -occupied while awaiting death, transmigration,
change."1 Elsewhere there is almost a savage stoicism ;
he cries that he is attacked not by one but by many,
almost by all, and the reason is that he hates the
people, cares not for the multitude, adores one thing
only : — " That through which he in subjection is free,
in pain content, in necessity rich, in death living, and
through which he envies not those who in freedom
are slaves, in pleasure pained, in riches poor, in life
dead, because in the body they have a chain that
binds them, in the spirit an inferno that depresses them,
in the soul error that weakens them, and in the mind
lethargy that slays, etc." 2 Yet the climate of England
seems to have pleased Bruno : " there more than in
any other region the climate is temperate ; for the
excessive rigour of the snows is driven out by the
earth beneath, and the superfluous fervour of the sun
blesses it with a continuous, a perpetual spring, as is
testified by the ever green and flowery land." 3 From
the Spaccio, it appears that he was struck in England,
inter alia, with the multitude of crows, the richness of
the sheep and the sleekness of the cattle, the stern
game-laws, and the land-hunger of the people.4

1 Lag. 406. 17 (Spaccio). 2 Lag. 292. 3 521. 27 ff.

4 551- 38, 5"- 23> 550. 2, 49°- 3-

i MISFORTUNES OF MAUVISSIERE 47

IX

When Mauvissiere was recalled, Bruno in all prob- Return to
ability sailed with him. It had been decided, unjustly,
as Mauvissiere thought, to recall him to France in
1584 ; but owing to his wife's health and perhaps his
claims on the French treasury, he secured a postpone-
ment till the following year, on condition he should do
his best for Queen Mary and her son with Elizabeth,
" but not mix himself up with any of the plots against
Elizabeth." In October 2, 1585, he was still in
London, for he wrote to his friend Archibald Douglas,
the Scottish Ambassador, from London on that date ;
the following letter, however, was from Paris (Nov. 3,
1585) and told a pathetic story.1 On his way across
(Bruno with him, we may suppose) he had been
" robbed of all he had in England, down to his shirt, of
the handsome presents given him by the Queen, and of
his silver plate : nothing was left, either to him or to his
wife and children, so that they resembled those exiled
Irish who solicit alms in England, with their children
by their side." He had lent money also to the Queen
of Scots, and was in great trouble concerning it, " for
neither her officers nor her treasurer possessed a sou,
nor did they speak of repayment." The unfortunate
ambassador had fallen upon evil days : he was accused
of having spoken ill of his successor, Chateauneuf, and
had to write, as the report went, to Elizabeth, to unsay
his insinuations. In December 1586, he wrote to
Archibald Douglas of his wife — the Maria de Bochetel,
whom Bruno praises — having died in childbirth. It
would be interesting to know how Bruno fared in the
robbery of Mauvissiere's goods. At least we may

1 Salisbury Paper j, iii. p. 112.

48 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

assume that he arrived in Paris with very little worldly
goods, but with part of the manuscript of a great work
on the Universe (the De Immense') in his possession,
during the month of October 1585.

Paris : "In Paris I spent another year in the house of

June 1585] gentlemen of my acquaintance, but at my own expense
the greater part of the time : because of the tumults I
left Paris, and went from there to Germany.7' 1 So
Bruno told the tribunal at Venice ; but the duration of
his second visit to Paris was from October 1585 to
The June 1586. One of his first steps was to make further
church. encorts towards reconciliation with the Church : he pre-
sented himself for confession to a Jesuit father, while
consulting with the Bishop of Bergamo (the Papal
Nuncio), but they were unable to absolve him, as he
was an apostate. What Bruno wished was that he
might be received into the Church without being com-
pelled to return again to the priesthood, and he begged
the Nuncio to write to the Pope Sixtus V. on his behalf.
The Bishop, however, had no hope of the favour being
granted, and declined to write unless Bruno agreed to
return to his order. To the same effect was the advice
of the Jesuit father Alfonso Spagnolo to whom he
was referred ; to obtain absolution from the Pope he
must return to the order — to his bonds, in other words ;
and without absolution he could not enjoy the pri-
vileges either of mass or of the confessional.2 This idea
Bruno could by no means entertain, and therefore he
resigned himself to his position as an alien to the
Catholic Church. He had no intention of remaining

1 Doc. 9. 2 Doc. 17. Berti, p. 426, 427.

i THE DISPUTATION OF PENTECOST 49

in Paris, where perhaps his Italian writings had made
him no longer acceptable, but he desired not to leave
it without some recognition of the favour shown him
there in the past. The means he adopted was a public
disputation, to be held in the Royal Hall of the uni-
versity at Pentecost of the year 1586. These disputa-
tions of the learned were a delight to the youth of the
time, and drew audiences comparable in our own time
only to great football or cricket matches.1 He drew up
one hundred and twenty theses against the Peripatetic The 120
Philosophy, which still formed the substance of the
teaching at the Sorbonne ; and his side was taken up by
the rival, more modern, college of Cambray (afterwards
the College of France), of which he appears now to
have become an associate.2 It was the custom of the
real propounder of the theses to preside at the debate,
leaving it to another to act as protagonist, and inter-
vening only when the latter's discomfiture was imminent.
In this case Bruno chose a young Parisian nobleman of
his own following — John Hennequin, a Master of Arts
—but we may well imagine that he did not long keep
silent himself. We have no knowledge of how the
debate went, but it cannot have been too favourable to
Bruno, for he left Paris immediately afterwards. Its
date was the 25th of May; Bruno, therefore, left Paris
probably in early June 1586.

The articles, with a note of explanation attached to Criticism of
each, and an introduction to the whole — (Excubitor, the
Awakener) — being the address of Hennequin at the
beginning of the disputation, but written by Bruno
himself — were published in Paris and again at Witten-
berg.3 They contain a temperate but powerful criticism

1 Landseck's Bruno. 2 Vide Op. Lot. vol. iii. Introd. p. xxxix.

3 Centum et Viginti Articuli De Natura et Mundo, adv. Peripateticos, Paris,

E

50 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

of the Aristotelians, by the words of Aristotle himself,
and of Aristotle from the standpoint of Bruno's own
physical theory, which he believed to be that of the
Pythagoreans and Platonists. The right to criticise the
" divine " Aristotle, Bruno claimed on the same grounds
as those on which Aristotle himself enjoyed the right of
criticising his predecessors : we are to him as he to
them : their truth, which to him seemed error, may be
right to us again, for opinion, like other history, moves
in cycles. And as to authority, the mass of which was
against Bruno, " if we are really sick, it helps us nought
that public opinion thinks we are really making for
health." l " It is a poor mind that will think with
the multitude because it is a multitude : truth is not
altered by the opinions of the vulgar or the confirma-
tion of the many " — " it is more blessed to be wise in
truth in face of opinion than to be wise in opinion in
face of truth." 2 The new philosophy gives wings to
the mind, to carry it far from the prison cell in which
it has been detained by the old system, and from which
it could look out upon the orbs of the stars only through
chinks and cracks : — to carry it out into infinite space,
to behold the innumerable worlds, sisters of the earth,
like it in heart and in will, living and life-producing ;
and returning, to see within itself — " not without, apart,
or far from us, but in ourselves, and everywhere one,
more intimate, more in the heart of each of us, than we
are to ourselves " 3 — the divine cause, source, and centre
of things. Aristotle and the sources of the scholastic
philosophy were occupying Bruno's leisure almost ex-
clusively at this time : he had begun the great Latin

1586 j and " J. B. N. Camoeracensis Acrotumm, etc." Wittenberg, 1588. " Camoera-
censis " qualifies Bruni, — " of the College of Cambray." Acrotismus is barbarous
Latinising of 'Atf/xWts.

1 Op. Lat. i. i. 63. 2 i. i. 65. 3 Ib. 68, 69.

i GERMANY: MAINZ: MARBURG 51

work, the De Immenso, which was to see the light in
Frankfort ; and he published in this year a commentary
on the physics of Aristotle as well as an account of a
mathematical and cosmometric invention of one Fabrizio
Mordenti^ which seems to be of much less value than
Bruno supposed.1

XI

Leaving France for Germany, the Nolan made his 1586.
first halt at " Mez, or Magonza, which is an archi-
episcopal city, and the first elector of the Empire";2
it is certainly Mayence. There he remained some Mainz,
days ; but not finding either there or at " Vispure, a
place not far from there/' any means of livelihood such
as he cared for, he went on to Wittenberg in Saxony.
" Vispure " has caused considerable exercise of ingenuity Marburg.
among Bruno's biographers. The best explanation
seems to be that of Brunnhofer, that it represents
Wiesbaden, which is not far from Mayence, and is still
popularly known as Wisbare or Wisbore ; but there
may also be a telescoping of the words Wiesbaden and
Marburg. Bruno was certainly at the latter town, but
it is of course a long distance from Mayence. On the July 25,
ist of July 1586, Petrus Nigidius, Doctor of Law and I5 6>
Professor of Moral Philosophy, was elected Rector of
the university at Marburg. In the roll of students
matriculated under his rectorship stands as eighth name
that of" Jordanus Nolanus of Naples, Doctor of Roman
Theology," with the date July 25, 1586, and the
following note by the rector : — " When the right
of publicly teaching philosophy was denied him by me,

1 Figuratio Arhtottlki Physici Auditus, Paris, 1586. Dialogi Duo de Fabricii
Mordenti* Salernitani prope divina adinventione ad perfectam cosmimetrae praxim,
Paris, 1586. Vide add. note.

2 Doc. 9.

52 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

with the consent of the faculty of philosophy, for
weighty reasons, he blazed out, grossly insulting me
in my own house, protesting I was acting against the
law of nations, the custom of all the universities of
Germany, and all the schools of humanity. He refused
then to become a member of the university, — his fee
was readily returned, and his name accordingly erased
from the album of the university by me." The name
could still be read through the thick line drawn across
it, and some later rector, when Bruno had become more
famous, re-wrote the name above, and cancelled the
words " with the consent of the faculty of philosophy "
in Nigidius' note.1 The " weighty reasons " for which
Bruno was driven from Marburg may have been merely
his description of himself as a Doctor of " Roman
Theology " at a Protestant university ; or perhaps an
attack upon Ramus at a place where the Ramian Logic
had many adherents ; or the Copernican system taught
by him, which was as firmly opposed by Protestants
as by Catholics. In any case " the Knight-Errant of

Wittenberg. Philosophy " departed sorrowfully and came to Witten-
berg, where he found, for the third time, a respite

Aug. 20, from his journey ings. On the 2Oth August 1586 he
matriculated at the university,2 and there remained for
nearly two years. Then, as now, the Protestant Church
in Germany was divided into two parties, the Lutheran
and the Calvinist or Reformed Churches. Melanchthon's
attempt to unite the two — he himself belonged to the
latter — brought upon his head the "formula of "con-
cord," better known as the " formula of discord,"
because of the disputes it caused. Among other things

1 Eglin, a pupil of Bruno, was Professor of Theology at Marburg in 1607
(Brunnhofer, p. 60).

2 Sigwart. The university has since been united with that of Halle, the seat
being at the latter place.

i LUTHERANS AND CALVINISTS 53

it condemned the views of the Calvinists on the person
of Christ, their denial of his " Real Presence " in the
bread and wine of the communion table, and their
doctrine of predestination. When Bruno arrived in
Wittenberg, Lutherans were still in power, as they
had been under the old Duke Augustus. His son
Christian I., however, under the influence of John
Casimir, his brother-in-law, of the Palatinate, had gone
over to the Calvinist faction, and was trying with the
aid of the Chancellor, Krell, to supplant the reigning
faith and authority. At the university the philo-
sophical faculty was, in the main, Calvinist, the
theological Lutheran ; and among the latter party was
an Italian Alberico Gentile, the father of International
Law, whom Bruno had perhaps known in England as
a professor at Oxford. Through him Bruno found
favour with the Lutheran party, and received permission
to lecture, on the condition that he taught nothing that
was subversive of their religion. For two years, accord-
ingly, he lectured on the Organon of Aristotle, and other
subjects of philosophy, including the Lullian art, which
he had for a time discarded. The excellent terms on
which he stood with his colleagues is shown by the
dedication of a Lullian work, De Lampade Com- Dedication

i r i TT . of De

binatona, to the senate or the university. He speaks
gratefully of their kind reception of himself, the
freedom of access and residence which was granted not
only to students but to professors from all parts of
Europe. In his own case " a man of no name, fame,
or authority among you, escaped from the tumults of
France, supported by no princely commendation, with
no outward marks of distinction such as the public
loves, neither approved nor even questioned in the
dogmas of your religion ; but as showing no hostility to

54 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

man, rather a peaceful and general philanthropy, and
my only title the profession of philosophy, merely
because I was a pupil in the temple of the Muses, you
thought me worthy of the kindliest welcome, enrolled
me in the album of your academy, and gave me a
place in a body of men so noble and learned that I
could not fail to see in you neither a private school nor
an exclusive conventicle, but as becomes the Athens of
Germany, a true university." In this introduction a
large number of the professors are invoked by name,
among them the enlightened Gru'n, a professor of
philosophy, who taught that theology cannot be
detached from philosophy — that they are necessary
complements one of the other.

works In Wittenberg was published (1587), the De

Lampade Combinatoria Lulliana, the second of the
commentaries on Lully's art, and representing perhaps
the clams magna of the De Umbris and other Parisian
publications. It was dedicated to the senatus of the
University of Wittenberg. A reprint, however, appeared
in Prague in the following year with a new frontispiece,
a dedication to William of St. Clement, and the addition
of a small treatise.1 The chief purpose of the work
was to furnish the reader with means for " the discovery
of an indefinite number of propositions and middle
terms for speaking and arguing. It is also the sole
key to the intelligence of all Lullian works whatsoever/'
Bruno writes with his sublime confidence, " and no less
to a great number of the mysteries of the Pythagoreans
and Cabalists." As in the earlier work, so in this also,
the root ideas are that thought is a complex of elements,
which are to it as the letters of the alphabet are to a

1 De Specierum Scrutinio et Lampade Combinatoria Raimundi Lulli, " the omniscient
and almost divine hermit doctor." Prague, 1588.

i DEPARTURE FROM WITTENBERG (1588) 55

printed book ; but thought and reality or nature are
not opposed to one another — they are essentially one.
The elements of thought when discovered will accord-
ingly give us the constitutive elements of nature and
the connections in, and workings of, nature will be
understood from the different complications of these
simple elements of thought. In the same year appeared
the De Progressu et Lampade Venatorid Logicorum, De pro-
" To enable one to dispute promptly and copiously f^*'
on any Subject proposed." It was dedicated to the
Chancellor of the University of Wittenberg, and was
mainly a commentary, without special references, on the
Topics of Aristotle, and doubtless formed part of the
lectures on the Qrganon, given in Bruno's first year at
Wittenberg. The simile of the hunt — i.e. the idea that
the solution of a problem or the finding of a middle
term is like a quarry that has to be stalked and hunted
down — is a favourite one with Bruno.

Unfortunately for Bruno, the Duke's party in 1588.
Wittenberg soon gained the upper hand — only for a
time, it is true l — and the party to which Bruno himself
belonged fell out of power. As a Copernican, Bruno
must in any case soon have fallen foul of the Calvinists,
by whom the new theory had been declared a heresy.
He therefore left Wittenberg in the beginning of 1588,
after delivering on the 8th of March an eloquent fare-
well address to the university (Oratio Vakdictoria). oratw
By the fable of Paris and the three Goddesses, he
indicated his own choice of Wisdom (Minerva) over
riches or fame (Juno), and over worldly pleasure or the
delights of society (Venus) : — u Wisdom is communi-
cated neither so readily nor so widely as riches or
pleasure. There are not and there never have been so

1 Krell was imprisoned, and put to death ten years later.

5 6 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

many Philosophers as Emperors and Princes ; nor to so
many has it been granted to see Minerva robed and
armed, as to see Venus and Juno even in naked
simplicity. To see her is to become blind, to be wise
through her is to be foolish. They say Tiresias saw
Minerva naked, and was struck blind ; who that had
looked upon her, would not despise the sight of other
things ? — ' man shall not see me and live/ . . . Wisdom,
Sophia, Minerva, beautiful as the moon, great as the sun,
terrible as the marshalled ranks of armies ; like the
moon in her fair gracefulness, like the sun in her lofty
majesty, like armies in her invincible courage. . . . The
first-born before all creatures, sprung from the head of
Jove — for she is a breath from the virtue of God, an
emanation of omnipotent brightness, sincere and pure,
clear and inviolate, honourable, powerful, and kind
beyond words, well pleasing to God, incomparable : —
pure, because nothing of defilement can touch her ; clear,
because she is the brightness of eternal light ; inviolate,
because she is the spotless mirror of the majesty of
God ; honourable, because the image of goodness itself ;
powerful, because being one she can do all things, being
permanent in herself, she renews all things ; kind,
because she visits the nations that are sacred to her and
makes men friends of God, and prophets ; pleasing to
God, because God loves only him that dwells with
wisdom ; incomparable, for she is more beautiful than the
sun and brighter than the light of all the stars. Her have
I loved and sought from my youth, and desired for my
spouse, and have become a lover of her form — and I
prayed that she might be sent to abide with me, and work
with me, that I might know what I lacked, and what
was acceptable to God : for she knew and understood,
and would guide me soberly in my work and would

i THE TEMPLE OF WISDOM 57

keep me in her charge : . . . But wisdom in the highest
sense, in its essence as the thought of God, is incommuni-
cable, incomprehensible, apart from all things. Wisdom
has three phases or aspects or * mansions ' — first, the
mind of God the eternal, then the visible world itself
which is the first-born, and third, the mind of man
which is the second-born of the highest, the true
wisdom unattainable by man. Here among men
wisdom has built herself a house of reason and of
thought (which comes after the world), in which we see
the shadow of the first, the archetypal and ideal house
(which is before the world), and the image of the second,
the sensible and natural house, which is the world.
The seven columns of the house or temple are the
seven Arts — Grammar, Rhetoric (with poetry), Logic,
Mathematics, Physics, Ethics, and Metaphysics, and
the temple was built first among the Egyptians and
Assyrians, viz. in the Chaldeans, then among the
Persians, with the Magi and Zoroaster, third the
Indians with their Gymnosophists ; . . . seventhly, in
our time, among the Germans." So far has Bruno come
from taking the Germans as mere beer-bibbers, as he
had written of them in England.1 " Since the empire
(of wisdom) devolved upon you there have risen
amongst you new arts and great minds, the like of
which no other nations can shew." In the category
of German temple -builders are Albertus Magnus,
Nicolas of Cusa, Copernicus, Palingenius, Paracelsus ;
" among humanists many, apt imitators of the Attic and
Ausonian muses, and among them one greater than the
rest who more than imitates, rather rivals, the ancient
muses " (Erasmus). It is not unnatural that, in his own
Wittenberg, Luther should be praised, as among the Luther.

1 Vide Sfaccio, Lag. 516. n, and 553. 21 ff.

58 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

temple-builders or priests of truth : but Bruno's words
have a ring of sincerity, proving that his sympathy was
really aroused for the Lutherans. " When the world
was infected by that strong man armed with key and
sword, fraud and force, cunning and violence, hypocrisy
and ferocity, — at once fox and lion, and vicar of the
tyrant of hell, — infected with a superstitious worship
and an ignorance more than brutal, under the name of
divine wisdom and of a God-pleasing simplicity ; and
there was no one to oppose or withstand the voracious
beast, or dispose an unworthy and abandoned generation
to better and happier state and condition, — what other
part of Europe or the world could have brought forth for
us that Alcides, stronger than Hercules himself, in that
he did greater things with less effort and with fewer
instruments, — destroying a greater and far more deadly
monster than ever any of the past centuries had to suffer ?
Here in Wittenberg he dragged up that three-headed
Cerberus with its threefold tiara from its pit of dark-
ness : you saw it, and it the sun. Here that dog of
Styx was compelled to vomit forth its poison. Here
your Hercules, your country's Hercules, triumphed over
the adamantine gates of hell, over the city girt about
with its threefold wall, and defended by its nine
windings of the Styx."

To this temple Bruno, eager in his pursuit of the
ever-eluding Truth, had come, — "a foreigner, an exile,
a fugitive, the sport of fortune, meagre in body, slender
of means, destitute of favour, pursued by the hatred of
the multitude and the contempt of fools and the base,"
and could on leaving say to its people that he had
become " an occasion, or matter, or subject in whom
they unfolded and demonstrated to the world the beauty
and wealth of their virtues of moderation, urbanity, and

i PRAGUE 59

kindness of heart." It was the last, or nearly the last,
spell of happiness that life had in store for him.

XII

The court of the Emperor Rudolph II. was at Prague, Prague :
in Bohemia ; from there his fame as a Maecenas of the
learned, and especially of those who claimed power to
read the heavens or to work magic, had spread to many
countries. Perhaps Sidney, who had visited him from
Elizabeth on the death of Maximilian, may have spoken
of him to Bruno : while two of Bruno's friends, the
Spanish Ambassador St. Clement and the mathematician
Mordentius, were at Prague in 1588. Thither, accord-
ingly, he now turned in the hope of settled quarters,
introducing himself, as was his frequent habit, with a
Lullian work, which he caused to be printed soon after
his arrival, and dedicated to the Spanish Ambassador.1
The introductory letter is dated from Prague, June June 10,
10, 1588, and is in praise of Lully, whose importance l5
to philosophy Bruno values much more highly than his
successors have done : it promised at the same time a
future work, the Lampas Cabalistica, in which the inner
secrets of Lullism were to be more fully revealed.
This, so far as we know, never appeared, and Bruno
tried to obtain the Emperor's patronage by a mathe-
matical work dedicated to him, of somewhat revolu-
tionary type — " One hundred and sixty articles against
the mathematicians and philosophers of the day.'1 The
Emperor, however, had few funds to spare for any
but the professed astrologists and alchemists in whom
lay his real interest — not at all scientific, although
/Tycho Brahe and Kepler profited themselves and the

1 De Specierum Scrutinio, vide supra, p. 54.

60 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

world by it. With three hundred dollars, which the
Emperor gave in recognition of his powers, Bruno left

January 1 3, about the close of the year, and on January 13, 1589,
matriculated in the Julian university of Brunswick

Helmstadt. at Helmstadt. This, the youngest university in
Germany at the time, of only twelve years' standing,
had been founded for the Protestant cause by the
reigning Duke Julius, a breezy and popular prince,
who loved theologians little, Catholics not at all, and
founded a model university on liberal principles.
It was not, however, an unqualified success. Bruno
received some recognition from the university, or from
the Duke, and when the latter died in May 1589 he
obtained permission to give a funeral oration some days
after the official programme had been carried through
(on the ist of July) — the Oratio Consolatoria.1

Bruno professes as his reason for wishing to speak
that he must express his gratitude to one who had made
the university he founded free to all lovers of the
Muses, even to strangers such as Bruno himself was :—
an exile from his Italian fatherland for honourable
reasons and zeal for the truth, here he had received
the freedom of the university : in Italy he was
exposed to the greedy maw of the Roman wolf — here
he was in safety : there he had been chained to a
superstitious and absurd cult — here he was exhorted to
more reformed rites. What is remarkable in this
speech is the bitterness of Bruno's personal attack upon
Rome, and " the violent tyranny of the Tiberine beast."
The constellations are allegorically treated as symbols
of the virtues of Julius, or of the vices which he attacked
and repressed : among them " the head of the Gorgon,
on which for hair there grow venomous snakes,

1 Published 1589, Helmstadt.

i HELMSTADT 61

representing that monster of perverse Papal tyranny,
which has tongues more numerous than the hairs of the
head, aiding and serving it, each and all blasphemous
against God, nature, and man, infecting the world with
the rankest poison of ignorance and vice." It was
indeed strange that Bruno should have thought of
entering Italy after publishing words like these.

However, he was not to find the Protestants much

. ~ i i- T i • • municaton

more tolerant than the Catholics. In the university Of Bruno in
archives there is extant a letter from him to the Helm3tadt-
prorector of the academy, appealing against a public
excommunication of himself by the first pastor and
superintendent of the church at Helmstadt, Boethius.
According to this letter, Boethius had made himself both
judge and executioner, without giving the Italian a
hearing at all : and the letter appealed to the senate and
rector against the public execution of an unjust sentence,
privately passed ; it demanded a hearing, so that if any
legal derogation were to be made from his rank and
good name, he might at least feel it to be justly made,
and demanded that Boethius be summoned to show he
had not fulminated his bolt out of private malice, but
in pursuance of the duty of a good pastor on behalf of
his sheep. The date of the letter is October 6, 1589. Oct. 6,
No further records of the affair have been found, so I589>
that the appeal was probably rejected. The meaning
of the excommunication is not quite clear : Bruno does
not seem to have been a full member of either the
reformed or the Lutheran church, although attending
services ; and in all probability the sentence was a formal
one, which, however, carried serious social incon-
veniences with it. The prorector, Hofmann, was
not one to sympathise either with Bruno or with his
philosophy ; he was unhappy unless attacking some other

62 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

person's opinions : philosophy in general fell under his
condemnation, although he professed knowledge of it. A
few years after he drove Bruno from Helmstadt he him-
self was dethroned from his place of authority, " ordered
to stick to his last," and had to leave Helmstadt in the
end (1601). No doubt it is against him that the
invectives in De Immense? are directed : — " This schol-
arch, excelling director of the school of Minerva :
this Rhadamanthus of boys, without a shadow of an
idea even of ordinary philosophy, lauds to the skies
the Peripatetic, and dares to criticise the thoughts of
diviner men (whose ashes are to be preferred to the
souls of such as these)/' Later Boethius also had to
be suppressed by the consistory.2 The young Duke,
with whom no doubt Bruno stood in favour, since he
presented him with eighty scudi after the funeral
oration, was of the opposite party to Hofmann, but
even with this support the Italian could not struggle
against his enemies, and towards the middle of 1590
1590- he left for Frankfort, " in order to get two books
printed."

XIII

Frankfort. These were the great Latin works he had been writ-
ing, perhaps begun in England itself ; — the De Minimo,
and the De Immense, with the De Monade as a part of
or introduction to the latter. The printing, however,
was not begun till the following year : the censor's
permission was obtained for the first of them only in
March 1591, and it appeared in the catalogue of the
Spring bookmarket. He again sought and found
„ patronage with an old friend of Sir Philip Sidney, one

1 Bk. iv. ch. 10. 2 Cf. Frith's Bruno, p. 200.

i FRANKFORT (1590) 63

of the Wechels, famous printers of their day, in the
house of another of whom (Andre) Sidney had lived.
In the protocol-book of the council of Frankfort, under
the date July 2, 1590, a petition of Jordan us Brunus of
Nola is mentioned, in which he asks permission to stay
in the house of the printer Wechel. This, as the book
of the Burgomaster under the same date shows, was
roughly refused : — " Soil man ime sein pitt abschlagen,
und sagen, das er sein pfennig anderswo verzehre " —
" his petition is to be refused and he is to be told go
and spend his coin elsewhere." In spite of this refusal,
Wechel found Bruno lodging in the Carmelite Monas-
tery, where he stayed, working with his own hands at
the printing of his books, for some six months, — until
December, perhaps, of that year. Frankfort was the
main centre of the book world in those days ; to its
half-yearly book-marts printers and sellers came from
all parts of Europe to see the new books of the world,
to dispose of their goods, to stock their houses. Among
others in this year came the booksellers Ciotto and
Bertano, who afterwards were witnesses before the
Inquisition, and who stayed in the monastery probably
in September of that year, where they met Bruno. In
the dedication of the De Minima ', of date February 13,
1591, Bruno's publishers wrote that "he had only the
last folium of the work to correct, when by an unfore-
seen chance he was hurried away, and could not put the
finishing hand upon it, as he had done on the rest of
the work : he wrote accordingly asking us to supply in
his name what by chance it had been denied him to
complete." The " unforeseen chance " may, as Sigwart
suggests, have been the final putting into effect of the
Council's refusal to allow him to stay in the town, which
may till then have remained a dead letter ; or it may

64 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

have been the summons to Zurich. He had made the
aquaintance of a young Swiss squire, Hainzel, an
Augsburger by birth, at whose castle of Elgg in
Switzerland a gay and open hospitality was extended to
a number of the bizarre and the learned spirits of the
time : Hainzel had leanings towards the Black Arts,
— Alchemy and the rest, — but had interest to spare for
any others about which an air of mystery clung, such
as Bruno's Art of Memory and of Knowledge. Bruno

ziirich, spent a few months with him near Zurich and wrote for
him the De imaginum composition*, etc. — as a handbook
of these arts. Another of the Frankfort pupils would
also be in Zurich, the brilliant but erratic Raphael
Eglin, who published in 1609 at Marburg (where he was
professor of theology), a work Bruno had dictated in
Zurich, — the Summa Terminorum Metaphysicorum.
Eglin suffered along with his friend Hainzel from
the trickery of the Alchemists, to whom recourse was
had in the hope of repairing the fortunes dissipated by
the Squire of Elgg's hospitality.1 The Summa is
dedicated in a letter of April 1595 (from Zurich) to
Frederic a Salices, and in a personal reminiscence
Eglin remarks on Bruno's fluency of thought and
speech — " standing on one foot, he would both think
and dictate as fast as the pen could follow : so rapid
was his mind, so forceful his spirit."

In order perhaps to print the De Imaginum Com-
positione for Hainzel, or to complete the other works,
Bruno returned to Frankfort about the beginning of

March, March, 1591, and on the iyth of that month obtained
permission to publish the De Minima? It is to this
period probably that he referred when he spoke of him-
self before the Venetian tribunal, as having spent six

1 Vide Brunnhofer and Sigwart. 2 Censor's Register : Frankfort Archives.

i THE DISPUTATION OF PENTECOST 49

in Paris, where perhaps his Italian writings had made
him no longer acceptable, but he desired not to leave
it without some recognition of the favour shown him
there in the past. The means he adopted was a public
disputation, to be held in the Royal Hall of the uni-
versity at Pentecost of the year 1586. These disputa-
tions of the learned were a delight to the youth of the
time, and drew audiences comparable in our own time
only to great football or cricket matches.1 He drew up
one hundred and twenty theses against the Peripatetic The 12
Philosophy, which still formed the substance of the
teaching at the Sorbonne ; and his side was taken up by
the rival, more modern, college of Cambray (afterwards
the College of France), of which he appears now to
have become an associate.2 It was the custom of the
real propounder of the theses to preside at the debate,
leaving it to another to act as protagonist, and inter-
vening only when the latter's discomfiture was imminent.
In this case Bruno chose a young Parisian nobleman of
his own following — John Hennequin, a Master of Arts
—but we may well imagine that he did not long keep
silent himself. We have no knowledge of how the
debate went, but it cannot have been too favourable to
Bruno, for he left Paris immediately afterwards. Its
date was the 25th of May; Bruno, therefore, left Paris
probably in early June 1586.

The articles, with a note of explanation attached to Criticism of
each, and an introduction to the whole — (Excubitor^ the
Awakener) — being the address of Hennequin at the
beginning of the disputation, but written by Bruno
himself — were published in Paris and again at Witten-
berg.3 They contain a temperate but powerful criticism

1 Landseclc's Bruno, 2 f'ide Op. Lat. vol. iii. Introd. p. xxxix.

3 Centum et Viginti Articuli De Natura et Mundo, adv. Peripateticos, Paris,

E

50 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

of the Aristotelians, by the words of Aristotle himself,
and of Aristotle from the standpoint of Bruno's own
physical theory, which he believed to be that of the
Pythagoreans and Platonists. The right to criticise the
u divine " Aristotle, Bruno claimed on the same grounds
as those on which Aristotle himself enjoyed the right of
criticising his predecessors : we are to him as he to
them : their truth, which to him seemed error, may be
right to us again, for opinion, like other history, moves
in cycles. And as to authority, the mass of which was
against Bruno, " if we are really sick, it helps us nought
that public opinion thinks we are really making for
health." * " It is a poor mind that will think with
the multitude because it is a multitude : truth is not
altered by the opinions of the vulgar or the confirma-
tion of .the many" —"it is more blessed to be wise in
truth in face of opinion than to be wise in opinion in
face of truth."2 The new philosophy gives wings to
the mind, to carry it far from the prison cell in which
it has been detained by the old system, and from which
it could look out upon the orbs of the stars only through
chinks and cracks : — to carry it out into infinite space,
to behold the innumerable worlds, sisters of the earth,
like it in heart and in will, living and life-producing ;
and returning, to see within itself — " not without, apart,
or far from us, but in ourselves, and everywhere one,
more intimate, more in the heart of each of us, than we
are to ourselves " 3 — the divine cause, source, and centre
of things. Aristotle and the sources of the scholastic
philosophy were occupying Bruno's leisure almost ex-
clusively at this time : he had begun the great Latin

1586 j and " J. B. N. Camoeracemis Acrotumus, etc." Wittenberg, 1588. " Camoera-
censis " qualifies Bruni, — " of the College of Cambray." Acrotismus is barbarous
Latinising of 'A/cp6curu.

1 Op. Lot. i. i. 63. 2 i. i. 65. 3 Ib. 68, 69.

i GERMANY: MAINZ: MARBURG 51

work, the De Immenso, which was to see the light in
Frankfort ; and he published in this year a commentary
on the physics of Aristotle as well as an account of a
mathematical and cosmometric invention of one Fabrizio
Mordenti, which seems to be of much less value than
Bruno supposed.1

XI

Leaving France for Germany, the Nolan made his 1586.
first halt at " Afez, or Magonza, which is an archi-
episcopal city, and the first elector of the Empire";2
it is certainly Mayence. There he remained some Mainz,
days ; but not finding either there or at " Vispure^ a
place not far from there," any means of livelihood such
as he cared for, he went on to Wittenberg in Saxony.
" Vispure " has caused considerable exercise of ingenuity Marburg,
among Bruno's biographers. The best explanation
seems to be that of Brunnhofer, that it represents
Wiesbaden, which is not far from Mayence, and is still
popularly known as Wisbare or Wisbore ; but there
may also be a telescoping of the words Wiesbaden and
Marburg. Bruno was certainly at the latter town, but
it is of course a long distance from Mayence. On the July 25,
ist of July 1586, Petrus Nigidius, Doctor of Law and I586'
Professor of Moral Philosophy, was elected Rector of
the university at Marburg. In the roll of students
matriculated under his rectorship stands as eighth name
that of" Jordanus Nolanus of Naples, Doctor of Roman
Theology," with the date July 25, 1586, and the
following note by the rector : — " When the right
of publicly teaching philosophy was denied him by me,

1 Figuratio Aristotelici Physici Auditus, Paris, 1586. Dialogi Duo de Fabricn
Mordenth Salernitani prope divina adinventione ad perfectam cosmimetrae praxim,
Paris. 11586. Vide add. note.

2 Doc. 9.

52 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

with the consent of the faculty of philosophy, for
weighty reasons, he blazed out, grossly insulting me
in my own house, protesting I was acting against the
law of nations, the custom of all the universities of
Germany, and all the schools of humanity. He refused
then to become a member of the university, — his fee
was readily returned, and his name accordingly erased
from the album of the university by me." The name
could still be read through the thick line drawn across
it, and some later rector, when Bruno had become more
famous, re-wrote the name above, and cancelled the
words " with the consent of the faculty of philosophy "
in Nigidius' note.1 The " weighty reasons " for which
Bruno was driven from Marburg may have been merely
his description of himself as a Doctor of " Roman
Theology " at a Protestant university ; or perhaps an
attack upon Ramus at a place where the Ramian Logic
had many adherents ; or the Copernican system taught
by him, which was as firmly opposed by Protestants
as by Catholics. In any case " the Knight-Errant of
Wittenberg. Philosophy " departed sorrowfully and came to Witten-
berg, where he found, for the third time, a respite
Aug. 20, from his journeyings. On the 2 oth August 1586 he
I586t matriculated at the university,2 and there remained for
nearly two years. Then, as now, the Protestant Church
in Germany was divided into two parties, the Lutheran
and the Calvinist or Reformed Churches. Melanchthon's
attempt to unite the two — he himself belonged to the
latter — brought upon his head the " formula of con-
cord," better known as the " formula of discord/'
because of the disputes it caused. Among other things

1 Eglin, a pupil of Bruno, was Professor of Theology at Marburg in 1607
(Brunnhofer, p. 60).

2 Sigwart. The university has since been united with that of Halle, the seat
being at the latter place.

i LUTHERANS AND CALVINISTS 53

it condemned the views of the Calvinists on the person
of Christ, their denial of his " Real Presence " in the
bread and wine of the communion table, and their
doctrine of predestination. When Bruno arrived in
Wittenberg, Lutherans were still in power, as they
had been under the old Duke Augustus. His son
Christian I., however, under the influence of John
Casimir, his brother-in-law, of the Palatinate, had gone
over to the Calvinist faction, and was trying with the
aid of the Chancellor, Krell, to supplant the reigning
faith and authority. At the university the philo-
sophical faculty was, in the main, Calvinist, the
theological Lutheran ; and among the latter party was
an Italian Alberico Gentile, the father of International
Law, whom Bruno had perhaps known in England as
a professor at Oxford. Through him Bruno found
favour with the Lutheran party, and received permission
to lecture, on the condition that he taught nothing that
was subversive of their religion. For two years, accord-
ingly, he lectured on the Organon of Aristotle, and other
subjects of philosophy, including the Lullian art, which
he had for a time discarded. The excellent terms on
which he stood with his colleagues is shown by the
dedication of a Lullian work, De Lampade Com- Dedication
binatoria^ to the senate of the university. He speaks Lampade.
gratefully of their kind reception of himself, the
freedom of access and residence which was granted not
only to students but to professors from all parts of
Europe. In his own case " a man of no name, fame,
or authority among you, escaped from the tumults of
France, supported by no princely commendation, with
no outward marks of distinction such as the public
loves, neither approved nor even questioned in the
dogmas of your religion ; but as showing no hostility to

54 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

man, rather a peaceful and general philanthropy, and
my only title the profession of philosophy, merely
because I was a pupil in the temple of the Muses, you
thought me worthy of the kindliest welcome, enrolled
me in the album of your academy, and gave me a
place in a body of men so noble and learned that I
could not fail to see in you neither a private school nor
an exclusive conventicle, but as becomes the Athens of
Germany, a true university." In this introduction a
large number of the professors are invoked by name,
among them the enlightened Griin, a professor of
philosophy, who taught that theology cannot be
detached from philosophy — that they are necessary
complements one of the other.

works In Wittenberg was published (1587), the De

' Lampade Combinatoria Lulliana, the second of the
commentaries on Lully's art, and representing perhaps
the clavis magna of the De Umbris and other Parisian
publications. It was dedicated to the senatus of the
University of Wittenberg. A reprint, however, appeared
in Prague in the following year with a new frontispiece,
a dedication to William of St. Clement, and the addition
of a small treatise.1 The chief purpose of the work
was to furnish the reader with means for c< the discovery
of an indefinite number of propositions and middle
terms for speaking and arguing. It is also the sole
key to the intelligence of all Lullian works whatsoever,"
Bruno writes with his sublime confidence, " and no less
to a great number of the mysteries of the Pythagoreans
and Cabalists." As in the earlier work, so in this also,
the root ideas are that thought is a complex of elements,
which are to it as the letters of the alphabet are to a

1 De Specierum Scrutinio et Lampade Combinatoria Raimuxdi Lulli, " the omniscient
and almost divine hermit doctor." Prague, 1588.

i DEPARTURE FROM WITTENBERG (1588) 55

printed book ; but thought and reality or nature are
not opposed to one another — they are essentially one.
The elements of thought when discovered will accord-
ingly give us the constitutive elements of nature and
the connections in, and workings of, nature will be
understood from the different complications of these
simple elements of thought. In the same year appeared
the De Progressu et Lampade Venatorid Logic or urn, DC pro-
" To enable one to dispute promptly and copiously ^8""'
on any subject proposed." It was dedicated to the
Chancellor of the University of Wittenberg, and was
mainly a commentary, without special references, on the
Topics of Aristotle, and doubtless formed part of the
lectures on the Organon, given in Bruno's first year at
Wittenberg. The simile of the hunt — i.e. the idea that
the solution of a problem or the finding of a middle
term is like a quarry that has to be stalked and hunted
down — is a favourite one with Bruno.

Unfortunately for Bruno, the Duke's party in 1588.
Wittenberg soon gained the upper hand — only for a
time, it is true l — and the party to which Bruno himself
belonged fell out of power. As a Copernican, Bruno
must in any case soon have fallen foul of the Calvinists,
by whom the new theory had been declared a heresy.
He therefore left Wittenberg in the beginning of 1588,
after delivering on the 8th of March an eloquent fare-
well address to the university (Oratio F ale die tori a). oratio
By the fable of Paris and the three Goddesses, he
indicated his own choice of Wisdom (Minerva) over
riches or fame (Juno), and over worldly pleasure or the
delights of society (Venus) : — u Wisdom is communi-
cated neither so readily nor so widely as riches or
pleasure. There are not and there never have been so

1 Krell was imprisoned, and put to death ten years later.

56 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

many Philosophers as Emperors and Princes ; nor to so
many has it been granted to see Minerva robed and
armed, as to see Venus and Juno even in naked
simplicity. To see her is to become blind, to be wise
through her is to be foolish. They say Tiresias saw
Minerva naked, and was struck blind ; who that had
looked upon her, would not despise the sight of other
things ? — * man shall not see me and live.' . . . Wisdom,
Sophia, Minerva, beautiful as the moon, great as the sun,
terrible as the marshalled ranks of armies ; like the
moon in her fair gracefulness, like the sun in her lofty
majesty, like armies in her invincible courage. . . . The
first-born before all creatures, sprung from the head of
Jove — for she is a breath from the virtue of God, an
emanation of omnipotent brightness, sincere and pure,
clear and inviolate, honourable, powerful, and kind
beyond words, well pleasing to God, incomparable : —
pure, because nothing of defilement can touch her ; clear,
because she is the brightness of eternal light ; inviolate,
because she is the spotless mirror of the majesty of
God ; honourable, because the image of goodness itself ;
powerful, because being one she can do all things, being
permanent in herself, she renews all things ; kind,
because she visits the nations that are sacred to her and
makes men friends of God, and prophets ; pleasing to
God, because God loves only him that dwells with
wisdom ; incomparable, for she is more beautiful than the
sun and brighter than the light of all the stars. Her have
I loved and sought from my youth, and desired for my
spouse, and have become a lover of her form — and I
prayed that she might be sent to abide with me, and work
with me, that I might know what I lacked, and what
was acceptable to God : for she knew and understood,
and would guide me soberly in my work and would

i THE TEMPLE OF WISDOM 57

keep me in her charge : . . . But wisdom in the highest
sense, in its essence as the thought of God, is incommuni-
cable, incomprehensible, apart from all things. Wisdom
has three phases or aspects or ' mansions ' — first, the
mind of God the eternal, then the visible world itself
which is the first-born, and third, the mind of man
which is the second-born of the highest, the true
wisdom unattainable by man. Here among men
wisdom has built herself a house of reason and of
thought (which comes after the world), in which we see
the shadow of the first, the archetypal and ideal house
(which is before the world), and the image of the second,
the sensible and natural house, which is the world.
The seven columns of the house or temple are the
seven Arts — Grammar, Rhetoric (with poetry), Logic,
Mathematics, Physics, Ethics, and Metaphysics, and
the temple was built first among the Egyptians and
Assyrians, viz. in the Chaldeans, then among the
Persians, with the Magi and Zoroaster, third the
Indians with their Gymnosophists ; . . . seventhly, in
our time, among the Germans." So far has Bruno come
from taking the Germans as mere beer-bibbers, as he
had written of them in England.1 " Since the empire
(of wisdom) devolved upon you there have risen
amongst you new arts and great minds, the like of
which no other nations can shew." In the category
of German tern pie -builders are Albertus Magnus,
Nicolas of Cusa, Copernicus, Palingenius, Paracelsus ;
** among humanists many, apt imitators of the Attic and
Ausonian muses, and among them one greater than the
rest who more than imitates, rather rivals, the ancient
muses " (Erasmus). It is not unnatural that, in his own
Wittenberg, Luther should be praised, as among the Luther.

1 Vide Spaced Lag. 516. II, and 553. 21 ff.

58 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

temple-builders or priests of truth : but Bruno's words
have a ring of sincerity, proving that his sympathy was
really aroused for the Lutherans. " When the world
was infected by that strong man armed with key and
sword, fraud and force, cunning and violence, hypocrisy
and ferocity, — at once fox and lion, and vicar of the
tyrant of hell, — infected with a superstitious worship
and an ignorance more than brutal, under the name of
divine wisdom and of a God-pleasing simplicity ; and
there was no one to oppose or withstand the voracious
beast, or dispose an unworthy and abandoned generation
to better and happier state and condition, — what other
part of Europe or the world could have brought forth for
us that Alcides, stronger than Hercules himself, in that
he did greater things with less effort and with fewer
instruments, — destroying a greater and far more deadly
monster than ever any of the past centuries had to suffer ?
Here in Wittenberg he dragged up that three-headed
Cerberus with its threefold tiara from its pit of dark-
ness : you saw it, and it the sun. Here that dog of
Styx was compelled to vomit forth its poison. Here
your Hercules, your country's Hercules, triumphed over
the adamantine gates of hell, over the city girt about
with its threefold wall, and defended by its nine
windings of the Styx."

To this temple Bruno, eager in his pursuit of the
ever-eluding Truth, had come, — " a foreigner, an exile,
a fugitive, the sport of fortune, meagre in body, slender
of means, destitute of favour, pursued by the hatred of
the multitude and the contempt of fools and the base,"
and could on leaving say to its people that he had
become " an occasion, or matter, or subject in whom
they unfolded and demonstrated to the world the beauty
and wealth of their virtues of moderation, urbanity, and

i PRAGUE 59

kindness of heart." It was the last, or nearly the last,
spell of happiness that life had in store for him.

XII

The court of the Emperor Rudolph II. was at Prague, Prague :
in Bohemia ; from there his fame as a Maecenas of the
learned, and especially of those who claimed power to
read the heavens or to work magic, had spread to many
countries. Perhaps Sidney, who had visited him from
Elizabeth on the death of Maximilian, may have spoken
of him to Bruno : while two of Bruno's friends, the
Spanish Ambassador St. Clement and the mathematician
Mordentius, were at Prague in 1588. Thither, accord-
ingly, he now turned in the hope of settled quarters,
introducing himself, as was his frequent habit, with a
Lullian work, which he caused to be printed soon after
his arrival, and dedicated to the Spanish Ambassador.1
The introductory letter is dated from Prague, June June 10,
10, 1588, and is in praise of Lully, whose importance I588'
to philosophy Bruno values much more highly than his
successors have done : it promised at the same time a
future work, the Lampas Cabalistica, in which the inner
secrets of Lullism were to be more fully revealed.
This, so far as we know, never appeared, and Bruno
tried to obtain the Emperor's patronage by a mathe-
matical work dedicated to him, of somewhat revolu-
tionary type — " One hundred and sixty articles against
the mathematicians and philosophers of the day." The
Emperor, however, had few funds to spare for any
but the professed astrologists and alchemists in whom
lay his real interest — not at all scientific, although
Tycho Brahe and Kepler profited themselves and the

1 De Specierum Scrutinio, vide supra, p. 54.

60 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

world by it. With three hundred dollars, which the
Emperor gave in recognition of his powers, Bruno left

January^, about the close of the year, and on January 13, 1589,
matriculated in the Julian university of Brunswick

Heimstadt. at Helmstadt. This, the youngest university in
Germany at the time, of only twelve years' standing,
had been founded for the Protestant cause by the
reigning Duke Julius, a breezy and popular prince,
who loved theologians little, Catholics not at all, and
founded a model university on liberal principles.
It was not, however, an unqualified success. Bruno
received some recognition from the university, or from
the Duke, and when the latter died in May 1589 he
obtained permission to give a funeral oration some days
after the official programme had been carried through
(on the ist of July) — the Oratio Consolatoria.1

Bruno professes as his reason for wishing to speak
that he must express his gratitude to one who had made
the university he founded free to all lovers of the
Muses, even to strangers such as Bruno himself was : —
an exile from his Italian fatherland for honourable
reasons and zeal for the truth, here he had received
the freedom of the university : in Italy he was
exposed to the greedy maw of the Roman wolf — here
he was in safety : there he had been chained to a
superstitious and absurd cult — here he was exhorted to
more reformed rites. What is remarkable in this
speech is the bitterness of Bruno's personal attack upon
Rome, and " the violent tyranny of the Tiberine beast."
The constellations are allegorically treated as symbols
of the virtues of Julius, or of the vices which he attacked
and repressed : among them " the head of the Gorgon,
, on which for hair there grow venomous snakes,

1 Published 1589, Helmstadt.

i HELMSTADT 61

representing that monster of perverse Papal tyranny,
which has tongues more numerous than the hairs of the
head, aiding and serving it, each and all blasphemous
against God, nature, and man, infecting the world with
the rankest poison of ignorance and vice." It was
indeed strange that Bruno should have thought of
entering Italy after publishing words like these.

However, he was not to find the Protestants much

. ^ . . . T . . . municaton

more tolerant than the Catholics. In the university Of Bruno in
archives there is extant a letter from him to the Helmstadt-
prorector of the academy, appealing against a public
excommunication of himself by the first pastor and
superintendent of the church at Helmstadt, Boethius.
According to this letter, Boethius had made himself both
judge and executioner, without giving the Italian a
hearing at all : and the letter appealed to the senate and
rector against the public execution of an unjust sentence,
privately passed ; it demanded a hearing, so that if any
legal derogation were to be made from his rank and
good name, he might at least feel it to be justly made,
and demanded that Boethius be summoned to show he
had not fulminated his bolt out of private malice, but
in pursuance of the duty of a good pastor on behalf of
his sheep. The date of the letter is October 6, 1589. Oct. 6,
No further records of the affair have been found, so I589-
that the appeal was probably rejected. The meaning
of the excommunication is not quite clear : Bruno does
not seem to have been a full member of either the
reformed or the Lutheran church, although attending
services ; and in all probability the sentence was a formal
one, which, however, carried serious social incon-
veniences with it. The prorector, Hofmann, was
not one to sympathise either with Bruno or with his
philosophy ; he was unhappy unless attacking some other

62 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

person's opinions : philosophy in general fell under his
condemnation, although he professed knowledge of it. A
few years after he drove Bruno from Helmstadt he him-
self was dethroned from his place of authority, " ordered
to stick to his last," and had to leave Helmstadt in the
end (1601). No doubt it is against him that the
invectives in De Immense? are directed : — " This schol-
arch, excelling director of the school of Minerva :
this Rhadamanthus of boys, without a shadow of an
idea even of ordinary philosophy, lauds to the skies
the Peripatetic, and dares to criticise the thoughts of
diviner men (whose ashes are to be preferred to the
souls of such as these)." Later Boethius also had to
be suppressed by the consistory.2 The young Duke,
with whom no doubt Bruno stood in favour, since he
presented him with eighty scudi after the funeral
oration, was of the opposite party to Hofmann, but
even with this support the Italian could not struggle
against his enemies, and towards the middle of 1590
1590- he left for Frankfort, " in order to get two books
printed."

XIII

Frankfort. These were the great Latin works he had been writ-
ing, perhaps begun in England itself ; — the De Minimo,
and the De Immenso, with the De Monade as a part of
or introduction to the latter. The printing, however,
was not begun till the following year : the censor's
permission was obtained for the first of them only in
March 1591, and it appeared in the catalogue of the
Spring bookmarket. He again sought and found
patronage with an old friend of Sir Philip Sidney, one

1 Bk. iv. ch. 10. 2 Cf. Frith's Bruno, p. 200.

i FRANKFORT (1590) 63

of the Wechels, famous printers of their day, in the
house of another of whom (Andre) Sidney had lived.
In the protocol-book of the council of Frankfort, under
the date July 2, 1590, a petition of Jordanus Brunus of
Nola is mentioned, in which he asks permission to stay
in the house of the printer Wechel. This, as the book
of the Burgomaster under the same date shows, was
roughly refused : — " Soil man ime sein fitt abschlagen,
und sagen, das er sein pfennig anderswo verzehre " —
" his petition is to be refused and he is to be told go
and spend his coin elsewhere." In spite of this refusal,
Wechel found Bruno lodging in the Carmelite Monas-
tery, where he stayed, working with his own hands at
the printing of his books, for some six months, — until
December, perhaps, of that year. Frankfort was the
main centre of the book world in those days ; to its
half-yearly book-marts printers and sellers came from
all parts of Europe to see the new books of the world,
to dispose of their goods, to stock their houses. Among
others in this year came the booksellers Ciotto and
Bertano, who afterwards were witnesses before the
Inquisition, and who stayed in the monastery probably
in September of that year, where they met Bruno. In
the dedication of the De Minimo, of date February 13,
1591, Bruno's publishers wrote that "he had only the
last folium of the work to correct, when by an unfore-
seen chance he was hurried away, and could not put the
finishing hand upon it, as he had done on the rest of
the work : he wrote accordingly asking us to supply in
his name what by chance it had been denied him to
complete." The " unforeseen chance " may, as Sigwart
suggests, have been the final putting into effect of the
Council's refusal to allow him to stay in the town, which
may till then have remained a dead letter ; or it may

64 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

have been the summons to Zurich. He had made the
aquaintance of a young Swiss squire, Hainzel, an
Augsburger by birth, at whose castle of Elgg in
Switzerland a gay and open hospitality was extended to
a number of the bizarre and the learned spirits of the
time : Hainzel had leanings towards the Black Arts,
— Alchemy and the rest, — but had interest to spare for
any others about which an air of mystery clung, such
as Bruno's Art of Memory and of Knowledge. Bruno

Zurich, spent a few months with him near Zurich and wrote for
him the De imaginum composition, etc. — as a handbook
of these arts. Another of the Frankfort pupils would
also be in Zurich, the brilliant but erratic Raphael
Eglin, who published in 1609 at Marburg (where he was
professor of theology), a work Bruno had dictated in
Zurich, — the Summa Terminorum Metaphysicorum.
Eglin suffered along with his friend Hainzel from
the trickery of the Alchemists, to whom recourse was
had in the hope of repairing the fortunes dissipated by
the Squire of Elgg's hospitality.1 The Summa is
dedicated in a letter of April 1595 (from Zurich) to
Frederic a Salices, and in a personal reminiscence
Eglin remarks on Bruno's fluency of thought and
speech — " standing on one foot, he would both think
and dictate as fast as the pen could follow : so rapid
was his mind, so forceful his spirit."

In order perhaps to print the De Imaginum Com-
positione for Hainzel, or to complete the other works,
Bruno returned to Frankfort about the beginning of

March, March, 1591, and on the iyth of that month obtained

permission to publish the De Minimo? It is to this

period probably that he referred when he spoke of him-

„ self before the Venetian tribunal, as having spent six

1 Vide Brunnhofer and Sigwart. 2 Censor's Register : Frankfort Archives.

i LATIN WORKS 65

months in Frankfort (Doc. 9). It was a second period
of six months after his return from the Zurich visit, of
which he omitted all mention — no doubt he had good
reason for that.1 At the autumn book-market his De
Monade, De Immense, and De Imag. Compositione, were
ready 2 — the last works that he published. About the
same time, on an evil day for himself, he responded to
the invitation of a young Venetian patrician, and crossed
over to his fatherland, — the last of his free journeyings.
The Frankfort works are fully dealt with in the
chapters on Bruno's philosophy that follow : in their
order they were ( i ) the De triplici Minimo et Mensura : D
— " On the threefold minimum and measurement, being
the elements of three speculative and of many practical
sciences " : — dedicated to Duke Henry of Brunswick. It
is the first of three Latin poems, written somewhat after
the manner of Lucretius, but with prose notes to each
chapter or section. The style unfortunately seldom
approaches that of Lucretius, either in Latinity or in
poetic imagery, but the works are full of vigorous verse,
and the force of the ideas suffers little from the fact
that they are pressed into the Procrustean bed of rhyme
and rhythm. The others were (2) the De Monade,
Numero et Figura : — " On the Monad, number and
figure, being the elements of a more esoteric (secret, or
perhaps inward} Physics, Mathematics, and Meta-
physics"; and (3) the De Immenso et Innumerabilibus :
— " On the Immeasurable and the Innumerable, or on
the universe and the worlds." Both are dedicated to
Duke Henry. The three works together contain
Bruno's finished philosophy of God and of Nature, of
the universe and of the worlds within it, as well as a

1 Sigwart, and Op. Lat. vol. iii. introd. p. xxix.

2 Bassaus Catalogue of Frankfort Books from 1564-1592, printed 1592 (Sigwart).

F

66 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

criticism of the prevailing and contrary doctrines of the
time.

Deimag. In Frankfort appeared also, in 1591, (4) the De
Imaginum^ Signorum, et Idearum Compositions : — " On
the composition or arrangement, of Images, Signs, and
Ideas, for all kinds of inventions, dispositions, and
memory." It is dedicated to Hainzel, and is the last
of the works published by Bruno himself. It sums up
all those published earlier on the theory of knowledge
and on the art of memory. It assumes an identity
between the Mind from which the universe sprang, or
which is expressed in the universe, and the mind of each
individual by whom it is known or approached. It
follows that the ideas in our own minds contain im-
plicitly a knowledge of the inmost nature of reality.
Here, however, it is chiefly the mnemonic corollaries of
this thought that are developed — ideas are to be
arranged or grouped about certain images or pictures,
in such a way that when any one occurs to the mind, it
may readily call up those others which are most closely
associated with it, i.e. which belong to the same TOTTO?
or " place " in the mind.

XIV

Venice. During the second part of his stay in Frankfort,

Bruno received an invitation from a young patrician of
Venice, Giovanni Mocenigo, to come to him there and
instruct him in the arts for which Bruno was famed.
To the surprise of all who knew the circumstances,

Aug. 1591. Bruno accepted, and re-entered, in August, the Italy
which he had left some fourteen years earlier as a
refugee. It was through the bookseller Ciotto that
the negotiations were carried on. Mocenigo appeared

i MOCENIGO AND BRUNO 67

in his shop one day to buy a work of Bruno which
Ciotto in his deposition called at first the Heroici
Furori, but this name was cancelled, and De Minimo
mag no et mensura written in its stead ; in all probability
it was neither the Furori nor any of the Latin poems to
which the second (erroneous) title might refer, but one
of the Lullian works. Mocenigo asked at the same
time whether Ciotto knew Bruno, and where he was ;
and on the reply that he was probably at Frankfort
(they had found lodging in the same monastery
there), Mocenigo expressed a wish that Bruno would
come to Venice to teach him the secrets of Memory,
and the others he professed, as shown by the book that
had just changed hands. Ciotto believed Bruno would
come if asked ; and accordingly, after a few days,
Mocenigo brought a letter for Bruno, which Ciotto
undertook to deliver, and in which he was besought to
come to Venice. The message must have been delivered
in the autumn of 1591, and Bruno seems to have replied
by immediate acceptance.1 A previous letter, however,
had been written, probably before Mocenigo spoke with
Ciotto, and sent by another hand ; it may have been
the receipt of it which brought Bruno from Zurich to
Frankfort, to hasten the printing of his Latin works.
In both letters there were evidently specious promises
of protection.2

The motives of Mocenigo were more than question-
able. He was of the noblest blood of Venice, the Doge's
Chair having been seven times filled by members of his
family, and among the patrician youth there was a
fashionable craze for Lullism and kindred much-pro-
mising arts at this time.3 De Valeriis, another Venetian

1 Doc. 6 (Giotto's evidence). 2 Doc. 8 (Bruno's own statements).

3 Sigwart, Kl. Schrifttn, i. p. 302.

Bruno's
reasons for
returning.

68 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

noble, wrote, in 1589, an Opus Aureum, which was
published at Strassburg along with other Lullian works
(including Bruno's) in 1609. Again, Bruno believed in,
and probably taught, a kind of " natural magic," the
magic of sympathetic influence from stars, animals,
plants, and stones upon the life of man. Mocenigo,
as his conduct abundantly showed, was shallow, mean,
superstitious, weak-minded, and vain. He was just the
type of man to be attracted therefore by anything that
savoured of the black art, of which Bruno was popularly
regarded as a devotee. His real aim may have been to
be initiated by Bruno into this, although he professed
the desire merely of having the Lullian mnemonics and
art of invention taught him. His disappointment, when
he found Bruno had nothing jnew to give him in that
direction, might account, in a man of his character, for
the revenge he took. But there may have been worse
behind : Mocenigo had been one of the Savii air Eresia
— the assessors appointed by the State to the Inquisition
Board in Venice — and was therefore familiar with the
intrigues of that body. He was also under the influence
of his Father Confessor, by whose orders he denounced
Bruno. The proceedings make it extremely probable,
therefore, that the Inquisition laid a trap for Bruno, into
which he unsuspectingly walked. It is more difficult
to understand how the latter so calmly entered the lion's
jaws, jicidalius (Valeria Havekenthal), writing to Michael
Forgacz from Bologna (January 21, 1592), expressed the
general surprise. " Tell me one thing more : Giordano
Bruno, whom you knew at Wittenberg, the Nolan, is
said to be living just now among you at Padua. Is it
really so ? What sort of man is this that he dares enter
Italy, which he left an exile, as he used himself to
confess ? I wonder, I wonder ! I cannot yet believe

i PADUA : VENICE 69

the rumour, although I have it on good authority. You
shall tell me whether it is true or false." But clearly
ill rumours were spreading, for on the third of March March 3,
he wrote in a different tone, " I no longer wonder about
that other sophist, so diverse and incredible are the tales
I hear daily of him here." l Probably Bruno did not
understand what manner of reputation he had ; he still
regarded himself as belonging to the Catholic Church.
Ciotto deposed he had heard nothing from Bruno's lips
which might suggest a doubt of his being a good
Catholic and Christian. Venice was a free and powerful
state, Mocenigo the son of a powerful house, so that he
may well have looked for safety ; and it was his beloved
Italy, for which he had never ceased to yearn since the
day he had crossed the Alps.

To Venice, at any rate, he came, living for a time by
himself, and spending some three months also at Padua,
the neighbouring university town, where he gathered
pupils about him, and wrote as constantly as before.
Some manuscripts that were bought in Paris a few years
ago, and which had belonged to Bruno, were partly
written in the hand of one of these pupils, Jerome
Besler, whom Bruno had known in Helmstadt, and who
acted there as his copyist. Others of his German, and
possibly some English friends were met with at this
renowned university.2 It was only a few months after
he left that Galilei was invited to teach in Padua — " the
creator of modern science following in the steps of its
prophet." 3 The university was in a state of ferment
at the time Bruno arrived, one of the hottest disputes
being that between the students and certain professors,

1 Vide Op. Lot., vol i., introd. p. xx.

2 Bertano described him as lecturing at Padua to some German scholars (Doc. 7).
On Beder, and Bruno's connection with him, f . Stblzle, Archil) f. Geschichte d.
PhiL, iii. 3 Riehl, Giordano Bruno,

70 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

who read or dictated instead of freely speaking their
lectures — Doc fores chart acei they were called — and a
fine of twenty ducats was imposed by the senate on
every one who should be found guilty of this crime.
Bruno's memory art may therefore, as Bartholmess
suggests, have " supplied a felt want."

Bruno in Early in 1592 Bruno took a fatal step, which showed

hJusemS° * how little he realised his danger — he gave up his personal
freedom and went to live in Mocenigo's house. There
the two opposite natures soon clashed, and the young
patrician began to show his real character. The teaching
did not satisfy him, did not give him the power over
nature and man which he no doubt expected. He
approached Ciotto again before the spring book-market,
telling him how Giordano was living in his house at his
expense, " who promised to teach me much, and has
had clothes and money in plenty from me, but I cannot
bring him to a point, and fear he may not be quite
honest " ; and asking him to make inquiries in Frank-
fort as to Bruno's character, and the likelihood of
his fulfilling his obligations. Ciotto returned with an
unfavourable report : Bruno was known to make pro-
fession of a memory-art, and of other similar secrets,
but had never been known to do any good with them,
and all who had gone to him for such things had
remained unsatisfied ; moreover, it was not understood
in Frankfort how he could stay in Venice, as he was
held for a man of no religion. To this Mocenigo
replied, " I too have my doubts of him, but I will see
how much I can get of what he promised me, so as not

Ito lose entirely what I have paid him, and then I will
give him up to the judgment of the Holy Office " —
the Inquisition. This estimable frame of mind no doubt
asserted itself in the relations of pupil and master.

i HOPE OF RECONCILIATION 71

Bruno had been introduced by Ciotto to the house of
Andrea Morosini, an enlightened patrician, whose open
hospitality a number of the most cultured men of the
time enjoyed ; they formed an Academy after the
manner of those of Cosenza, Naples, and other places.
" Several gentlemen meet there," said Morosini of these
gatherings, " prelates among them, for entertainment,
discoursing of literature, and principally of philosophy ;
thither Bruno came several times, and talked of various
things, as is the custom ; but there was never a sign
that he held any opinions against the faith, and so far
as I (Morosini) am concerned, I have always thought
him a Catholic, and had I had the least suspicion of the
contrary I should not have permitted him to enter my
house/' l The last statement must, of course, be taken
cum grano. At this time Bruno was preparing a work
on "the Seven Liberal Arts, and on Seven other In-
ventive Arts," 2 which he hoped to be able to present to
the Pope in order to obtain from him absolution, and
have the bann of excommunication removed, without
the compulsion of again entering the order. Many
Neapolitan fathers of the order came to Venice to a
meeting of Chapter, and to some of these Bruno spoke
— to a Father Domenico especially: — he wished to
present himself at the feet of his Holiness with some
" approved " work, and his ultimate design, as he told
Domenico, was to go to Rome and live quietly a life of
letters, perhaps obtaining some lecturing in addition.3
Among others he consulted Mocenigo, who promised to
assist him so far as he could.

1 Doc. 15, Morosini's evidence.

2 Doc. 17 (Bruno). Cf. 16 (Ciotto re-examined), and 9 (Bruno).
3 Doc. 10.

72 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

XV

Meantime Mocenigo was putting pressure on Bruno
to obtain the secrets he sought to know, while Bruno
at last became aware of his danger. He pretended he
wished to go to Frankfort to have some books printed,
and on a certain Thursday in May he took leave of
Mocenigo. The latter, fearing his prey was about to
escape, began to cajole him into staying, but passed to

May 22. complaint and finally to threats as Bruno persisted.
On the night of the following day (Friday), as Bruno
had already made preparations for leaving, Mocenigo
came with his servitor Bartolo and five or six men,
whom Bruno recognised as gondoliers, from the neigh-
bouring stance, seized the philosopher and locked him
up in an attic-room. Mocenigo promised, if he would
stay and teach what was desired — viz. "the formulas
for memory and geometry " ! — to set him at liberty,
otherwise something unpleasant would befal him. This
novel method of drawing instruction being foiled by
the self-respect of the prisoner, the latter was left for
the night, transferred the following day to a cellar
under the ground, and during the night was handed

The in- over to the servants of the Inquisition, who brought
*' him to their prison. On the 23rd of May, Mocenigo
denounced him to the Holy Office, with a hideous but
cunning travesty of some of his opinions, reporting
him, for example, as saying that Christ's miracles were
only apparent, that He and the apostles were magicians,
and that he himself (Bruno) could do as much or more
if he had a mind ; that the Catholic faith was full of
blasphemies against God ; that the Friars ought to be
prevented from preaching, and should be deprived of

nunciation.

i THE DENUNCIATION 73

their revenues, because the world was befouled by
them — they were asses, and the doctrines of the Church
asses' beliefs, and so on. The arrest was on the
following night (Sunday night), and on the Monday
a second denunciation was entered by Mocenigo, than Second De-
which there is no more pitiful self-revelation of mean-
ness and hypocrisy extant. He confesses or rather
boasts that, on locking up Bruno, he had recited the
charges he would make against him, " hoping to coerce
him into revealing his secrets," i.e. the Secret Arts.
Bruno's only reply had been to ask for his liberty, to
say that he had not really intended to leave, but was
still ready to teach Mocenigo everything he knew, to
work for him (" to be my slave," said Mocenigo),
without any further recognition, and to give him any-
thing that he had in the house ; only he asked to have
returned him a copy of a book of conjurations that
Mocenigo had found among his written papers and had
appropriated. To explain his delay in accusing Bruno,
Mocenigo professed not to have been able to get enough
against the latter until he had the philosopher in his
own house two months earlier (viz. in March), "and
then I wished to get the good of him, and by the steps
I took I was able to assure myself that he would not
leave without telling me of it. All the time I promised
myself to bring the matter before the censorship of the
Holy Office" These denouncements were confirmed on
oath by Mocenigo, whose age is given at thirty-four
years, so that the excuse of youth falls from him. The
following Tuesday the Holy Tribunal met to consider The ve-
the case. It consisted, in Venice, of the Papal Nuncio
(Ludovico Taberna), the Patriarch of Venice (Lorenzo
Priuli),1 the Father Inquisitor (John Gabrielli of Saluzzo,

1 Ambassador in Paris during Bruno's first visit (1582).

74 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

de Salutiis}? along with three assessors or representatives
of the State (Savii air Eresia), one of whom was always
present, with the right of suspending the meeting if he
thought proper : at the present time the three were
Aloysius Fuscari, Sebastian Barbadico, and Tomaso
Morosini. On this day the evidence of Ciotto and
Bertano, the booksellers who had known Bruno at
Frankfort as well as at Venice (Bertano was also at
Zurich), was taken ; it was in the main favourable,
only Bertano recalled the prior of the Carmelite monas-
tery at Frankfort having said of Bruno that he spent
most of his time in writing, and went about dreaming
dreams and meditating new things, that he had a fine
mind and knowledge of letters, and was a universal
man, but that he had no religion so far as the prior
knew, and he quoted a saying of Bruno's to the effect
that the apostles did not know everything, and that he
had the mind, if he wished, to make all the world of
one religion ; while Ciotto reported the common belief
in Frankfort that Bruno was a man of no religion.
First ex- The prisoner himself was then brought forward —

amination A r -\- • *t i t

of Bruno. A man or ordinary stature, with chestnut- brown
beard, of the age and appearance of forty years " ;
Ciotto, too, described him as a slender man of small
stature, with a small dark beard, about forty years of
age. Bruno of his own accord, before a question was
put, professed his readiness to speak the truth ; he had
several times had the threat made to him of being
brought before the Holy Office (viz. by Mocenigo),
but had always treated it as a jest, because he was quite
ready to give an account of himself. This he proceeded
to do. The biographical part of his account has been
, embodied in the preceding pages.

1 The Nuncio was sometimes represented by his auditor, the Patriarch by his vicar.

i BRUNO'S DEFENCE 75

On the 29th Mocenigo made another deposition, Third depo-
the result of further reflections, at the request of the Mo°cen°igo.
Father Inquisitor, on the utterances of Bruno against
the Catholic faith. Bruno had said that the Catholics
did not act on the model of the apostles, who taught
by example and good deeds, converting through love,
not force ; that he preferred the Catholic religion to
others, but it also stood in great need of reform ; that
he hoped great things from the King of Navarre ; that
it was a mistake to allow the friars to remain so rich
(in Venice) : they should do as in France, where the
nobles enjoyed the revenues of the monasteries, the
friars living on soup, as befitted such " asses." This
was a powerful stroke of diplomacy on Mocenigo's part.
It was also hinted that Bruno's life was not pure, that
he said the Church erred in making a sin of what was
of great service in nature, and of what he (Bruno)
regarded as a high merit.

Next day (Saturday) Bruno continued his account
of his life, the first note of defence being struck in an
appeal to the famous doctrine of the " twofold truth." Thetwo-
" Some of the works composed by me and printed I do
not approve, because I spoke and discoursed too much
as a philosopher rather than as an ' honest ' l man and
good Christian, and in particular I know that in some
of these works I taught and believed on philosophic
grounds what ought to have been referred to the
potency, wisdom, and goodness of God, according to
the Christian faith, basing my doctrine on sense and
reason, and not upon faith/7 On Tuesday, June 2, a
deposition was read from Fra Domenico da Nocera Fra Do-
confirming Bruno's appeal to him, and his desire for "
the favour of the Pope and a reconciliation with the

1 i.e. orthodox, right-thinking.

76 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Church, so that he might be able to live quietly in
Rome. The prisoner was then cross-examined, and
submitted a list of his works, published and unpublished.
In these he claimed to have spoken always " philo-
sophically, and according to the light of nature, having
no special regard to what ought to be believed accord-
ing to the faith : his intention had been not to impugn
Phiiosophi- religion, but only to exalt philosophy, although many
theological impieties might have been uttered on the strength of
truth. kis natural light. Directly he had taught nothing con-
trary to the Christian Catholic religion ; thus in Paris
he had been allowed to vindicate the articles against the
Peripatetics and others, by natural principles, without
prejudice to the truth according to the light of the
faith : indirectly, Aristotle's and Plato's works were as
contrary, indeed much more contrary, to the faith than
the articles philosophically propounded and defended
by him." He proceeded to give an admirable state-
ment of his " philosophical " creed which might have
Bruno's fired the hearts of his judges : — " I believe in an infinite
universe, the effect of the infinite divine potency, be-
cause it has seemed to me unworthy of the divine
goodness and power to create a finite world, when able
to produce besides it another and others infinite : so
that I have declared that there are endless particular
worlds similar to this of the Earth ; with Pythagoras I
regard it as a star, and similar to it are the moon, the
planets, and other stars, which are infinite, and all these
bodies are worlds, and without number, constituting
the infinite all (universita) in an infinite space ; while
the latter is called the infinite universe, in which are
innumerable worlds ; so that there are two kinds of
.infinity, one in the magnitude of the universe, the other
in the multitude of worlds, by which indirectly the

i BRUNO'S CREED 77

truth according to the faith may be impugned. In this
universe I place a universal providence, in virtue of
which everything lives, grows, moves, and comes to and
abides in its perfection. It is present in two fashions :
the one is that in which the spirit is present in the body,
wholly in the whole, and wholly in any part of the
whole, and that I call nature, the shadow, the footprint
of divinity ; the other is the ineffable way in which God
by essence, presence and power, is in all and above all,
not as part, not as spirit or life, but in an inexplicable
way. Then in the divinity, I regard all attributes as
being one and the same thing. With theologians and
the greatest philosophers I assume three attributes —
power, wisdom, and goodness, or mind, understanding,
and love ; through these, things have, first, existence by
reason of mind ; then an ordered and distinct existence
by reason of understanding ; third, concord and sym-
metry by reason of love. Distinction in divinity is thus
posited by way of reason, not of substantial truth."
God in Himself is one ; but three aspects of this unity \ { \
may be distinguished, Mind (Will or Force or Power),
Understanding (Knowledge, the Word), and Love or
Soul. These three aspects correspond, of course, to the
three Persons of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit respectively. Bruno confesses, however,
to have doubted, from the philosophic point of view,
the becoming flesh of the Understanding or Word of
God, although he did not remember giving definite
expression to this doubt ; and as to the Spirit, he did
not think of it as a person, but rather as the soul or life
in the universe.1 "From the Spirit, the life of the
universe, springs, in my philosophy, the life and soul

1 Bruno refers to the Pythagorean doctrine, quoting the Mneid, vi. 724 ff. : Prln-
cifio catlum . . . mens agitat molem.

78 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

of everything that has soul and life ; and I regard it
as immortal, as also bodies in substance are immortal,
death being nothing but division and congregation : as
the Preacher says, ' The thing that hath been it is that
which shall be, and that which is done is that which
shall be done ; and there is no new thing under
, the sun/"

Bruno confessed to have doubted the application of
the word u persons " to these distinctions within the
Godhead, since his eighteenth year ; but he had read in
St. Augustine that it was not an old term, but new at
that time. To none of his doubts as to the distinction
of persons or the Incarnation had he ever knowingly
given expression, except in quoting others, Arius,
Gabellius, and the like. . . . On the same day, in his
prison-house, he was further examined, and repeated
that whatever he had written or said contrary to the
Catholic faith was not intended as direct impugnment
of the faith, but was based on philosophic grounds or
on the authority of heretics ; he made clearer also his
reason for doubting the applicability of the term
" persons " to the distinctions in the Godhead, quoting
Augustine's words, " Cum for midine prof erimus hoc nomen
personae, quando loquimur de divinis, et necessitate coacti
utimur" Especially as to the divinity of Christ he
had been unable to understand how there could be any
such relation between the infinite, divine substance, and
the human, finite, as between any other two things, —
soul and body, for example, — which may subsist together
as one reality, but he had only hesitated as to the in-
effable manner of the Incarnation, and not as to the
authority of the Holy Scriptures which says " The
Word was made flesh." Divinity could not be held,
theologically speaking, to be along with humanity in

i DIVINITY OF CHRIST 79

any other fashion than by way of assistentia (i.e.
temporary influence or presence), but he did not infer
anything from this contrary to the divinity of Christ, or
of the supposed Divine Being that is called Christ ; the
miracles of Christ he had always held to be divine, true,
and real — not apparent miracles; while the miracles
of others were only in virtue of Christ : as to the
sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the Transubstantiation
of the flesh and blood of Christ he had always held
with the Church : he had not attended Mass because
of his excommunication, but had been to Vespers and
to preachings in the Churches : in his dealings with
heretics, he had always treated of matters philosophical,
and had never allowed anything to escape him that was
contrary to the Catholic Doctrine, and for that reason
Calvinists and Lutherans had always thought of him as
having no religion, because he did not entangle himself
with theirs, and had been in many parts without having
communicated, or accepted the religion of any of them.
Some of the grosser charges of Mocenigo were read to
him, which he strenuously denied, — and " as he spoke,"
says the faithful record, " he grew exceedingly sorrow-
ful," marvelling that such things could be imputed to
him. More strenuous grew his assertion of his
orthodoxy — as to the person of Christ, the Virgin
Motherhood, the Sacrament of Repentance ; he spoke
of his repeated efforts to obtain absolution, how for his
sins he had always asked pardon of God, and would
also willingly have confessed himself had he been
able, because he had never doubted of this sacrament
(or of any of the others), being firmly convinced that
impenitent sinners were condemned and that hell was
their portion. Heretic theologians, — Melanchthon,
Luther, Calvin and others, — he condemned and despised,

8o GIORDANO BRUNO PART

and had read their books from curiosity merely, although
there were others, as those of Raymond Lully, which
he had kept by him because they treated of matters
Aquinas, philosophical. Saint Thomas Aquinas, on the other
hand, he had always esteemed and loved as his own
soul ; had his writings always by him, read, studied, and
pondered over them ; and had spoken of Aquinas in
one of his works as " The Honour and Light of all
the race of theologians, and of Peripatetics among
philosophers." * When he had spoken of good works
as necessary for salvation, he had in his mind not
Catholicism, but " the reformed religion, which is in
fact deformed in the extreme/' One by one Mocenigo's
charges were read, and denied, except that as to his
contrasting the apostles' method of spreading the Gospel
with that of the Catholic Church, — this charge he evaded.
When the grossest of all, however, was read, alleging
him to have said the apparent miracles of Christ and
the apostles were due to the black art, and that he
himself could equally well do them all — he could not
restrain himself; — "raising both hands, and crying,
* What is this ? Who has invented these devilries ? I
never said such a thing, it never entered my imagi-
nation ; oh God ! what is this ? I would rather be dead
than that such a thing should have been uttered by
me ! ' His references to women he admitted an
error, but they had been spoken in lightness amid
company and during talk of things " otiose and
mundane. " Threatened with extreme measures if he
refused to confess his errors with respect to the Church,
Bruno promised to make a greater effort to recall all
he had said and done against the Christian and Catholic
faith, protested the sincerity of all he said, and was left

1 De Monade (Op. Lat. i. 2. p. 415).

i BRUNO'S ABJURATION AT VENICE 81

in peace for a time. This interview took place in the
prison of the Inquisition.

On the following day in the same place the exam-
ination was continued — his neglect of Holy Days and
Fastings in England and Germany ; his attendance at
heretic preachings (although he emphatically denied
that he ever partook of the communion in any
Protestant church) ; his doubts concerning the Incarna-
tion, the Miracles, the Sacraments ; his familiarity with
magical arts ; his praise of heretics and heretic Princes,
— these were some of the many points of indictment
which he had to face. The Book of Conjurations,
and others like it, he professed to have had only out of
curiosity, although he despised and discredited sorcery ;
but he had wished to study the divining art, and
especially the divinatory (prophetic) side of astrology,
merely out of scientific interest, and therefore had
such books by him.' Heretics he had praised, only for
the moral virtuesThey had showed, or from convention
(as in the case of Queen Elizabeth). The course of his
examination was making clear to Bruno at last in how
great danger he really stood ; and on this day he made,
probably in hope of immediate release, a formal and
solemn abjuration of all the errors he had ever
committed pertaining to the Catholic life and profession,
all the heresies he had believed and the doubts he had
permitted himself to hold about the Catholic Faith or the
decrees of the Church ; and prayed that the Holy Tribunal
would receive him into the bosom of the Holy Church,
provide him with remedies proper to his salvation, and
show mercy upon him.

The earlier processes against him at Naples and at
Rome were, however, recalled to mind ; and on the
following day he was again questioned as to his

nit.

82 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

familiarity with the magic arts. Three weeks later
Morosini was examined and Ciotto re-examined ; in
both cases the evidence was wholly in Bruno's favour,
juiy 30. Then a long interval elapsed. It was not till the 3oth
of July that the case was again taken up.1 Bruno had
nothing to add to his defence, except his constant desire
to enter the Church, if he could only do so without
undergoing the bondage of monkhood again. Worn
out by anxiety, and possibly by torture, he humbled
himself before his judges: kneeling, he asked pardon of
God and of his judges for all the errors he had committed,
and offered himself as prepared for any penance they
might lay upon him. He hoped his chastisement might
exceed rather in gravity than in publicity, whereby
dishonour might be cast upon the sacred habit of the
Order which he had borne ; and if by the mercy of God
and of " their illustrious lordships," his life should be
granted him, he promised to make amends for the
scandal he had created by equally great edification.

XVI

This closed the acts of the process so far as the
Venetian tribunal was concerned. The " Sacred Con-
gregation of the Supreme Tribunal of the Holy Office,"
at Rome, was eager to secure the distinguished heretic for
itself, and on the I2th of September the Cardinal San
Severina wrote to this effect ; the Venetian tribunal,
on the 1 7th, gave orders that Bruno be sent as soon as
possible to the Governor of Ancona, who would see to
his further custody to Rome. On the 28th this
decision was reported to the Doge and Council of
Venice by the Vicar of the Patriarch (the Father

1 Doc. 17.

i ROME AND VENICE 83

Inquisitor and Thomas Morosini being present),
with an account of the charges against Bruno, and he
added, that they did not wish to act without first
informing the College (the Doge and Senators), so that
they might give what order they thought fit, and the
tribunal would wait to know what reply should be
made to Rome ; but he begged for expedition, since
there was at that very time an opportunity of sending
the prisoner in security ; to all which the Senate
promised to give due consideration. On the same day
the Father Inquisitor returned, after dinner, to learn the
decision of the Signers, adding that there was a vessel at
hand, ready to set out. The State was not so willing,
however, to allow the Church to have its way, and it
was replied "that the matter being of moment, and
deserving consideration, and the occupations of the
State being many and weighty, they could not at that
time come to a decision, and his Reverence might for
the present let the vessel sail." On the 3rd of October
they wrote to their ambassador (Donato) at Rome,
that the request had been refused, on the ground that it
meant an infringement of the rights of the Venetian
tribunal and a menace for the future to their subjects.
Nearly three months elapsed before any further steps
were taken. On the 22nd December the Papal Nuncio Dec. 22.
appeared before the College pressing them to deal with
the Friar Giordano Bruno, described as a publicly
known Arch-heretic, whom the Pope desired to have at
Rome, in order to bring to an end the process that was
begun against him in the Holy Inquisition, and their
serenities were begged to permit his being carried to
Rome, that justice might be done. His Holiness, the
Pope, had already, in the interval, impressed his desire
upon the minds of the ambassadors at Rome. On the

84 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

procurator, Donato, who had meanwhile returned from
Rome, pressing the unconstitutional nature of the act,
the Nuncio pointed out that Bruno was a Neapolitan,
not a subject of the Venetian Republic at all ; that there
were earlier unfinished processes against him both in
Naples and in Rome ; and that in similar cases the
accused had been sent to the chief tribunal at Rome.
The Senate agreed to consider the matter, and expressed
their desire to give every possible satisfaction to his
Holiness.

January 7, On the yth of January, their procurator, Contarini,
reported on Bruno to the College that " his faults were
extremely grave in respect of heresies, although in
other respects one of the most excellent and rarest
natures, and of exquisite learning and knowledge " ;
but) since the case was begun at Naples and Rome, was
one of extraordinary gravity, and Bruno a stranger,
not a subject, he thought it might be convenient to
satisfy his Holiness, as had been done before at times
in similar cases. He also hinted that Bruno himself,
on being informed that his case was to be brought to
a speedy conclusion, had said he would send a writing
in which he was to ask to be remitted to Rome, but
that this might have been intended merely to put off
time. His report he desired to have kept secret, both
for public and for private reasons.1 It was successful
in its aim, for on the yth of January it was decided
that "to gratify the Pope, the said Giordano Bruno
be remitted to the Tribunal of the Inquisition at Rome,
being consigned to Monsignor the Nuncio that he may
be sent in what custody and by what means his Reverend
Lordship thinks best ; that the Nuncio be notified of
^this, and that our ambassador at Rome be also advised

1 Doc. 24. Venetian State Archives,

i VENICE AND THE POPE 85

thereof to represent it to his Holiness as a mark of
the continued readiness of the Republic to do what
is pleasing to him."1 The ambassador, Paruta, was
informed of the decision, and asked to present it to the
Pope as proceeding, in the words of the letter, " from
our reverend and filial regard for his Holiness, with
whom you should condole in our name on his indis-
position ; and if on the arrival of these presents he is
in good health, as with the grace of God we hope,
you shall congratulate him thereupon." His Holiness,
on Paruta's informing him of the decision, was highly
gratified, and replied with " courteous and kindly
words, saying how greatly he desired to remain always
in harmony with the Republic, and how he hoped it
might not give him bones that were very hard to gnaw,
in case others should cast up to him that he yielded
overmuch to the affection he bore it." 2 Clearly Venice
had no desire to quarrel with the Papal Government
just at that time, and the unfortunate Bruno was made
a political sacrifice. The persistency of the Pope's
representative at Venice in demanding Bruno's trans-
ference to Rome, and the Pope's evident relief when
Venice yielded, show how important the death or com-
plete recantation of Bruno had come to be thought by
the Catholic party.

On the 2yth of February 1593 Bruno entered the
prison of the Inquisition at Rome.3

XVII

Bruno's behaviour before the Venetian tribunal has
been regarded as a signal blot upon his character. In

1 Doc. 25. State Archives.
2 Docs. 26, 27. 3 Roman Documents, III.

86 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

the course of his cross-examination he entirely changed
his attitude, which was at first one of defiant self-
confidence, open confession of his (philosophic) differ-
ences from the Church, and of indirect attacks upon
the faith in his writings ; insistence upon his right to
use "the natural light" of sense and reason, so long
as the doctrines of the Church were accepted by way
of faith. Later he passed from this attitude to one of
anxious and angry denial of all charges of heterodoxy,
of trafficking with heretics, and the like ; and finally to
one of almost cringing submission and professed readi-
ness to undergo any punishment for his misdeeds. It
is possible that he began by overrating the tolerance
of the Venetian Republic. In Morosini's circle, of
which Fra Paolo Sarpi was afterwards a member, he
had heard enlightened talk and free criticism of the
Church, and especially of Rome. One of the reputed
sayings of Morosini, "we were born Venetians before
we became Christians," makes one hesitate to accept as
quite honest his evidence before the tribunal. But
Bruno's trial occurred at a time when tolerance had
given way to diplomacy. Had Bruno been a Venetian
or of another nationality the result would have been
different. They had adopted a policy of friendship
towards the Papal government, and in consequence
dealt during that period much more severely with
heretical doctrine than with looseness of life. Bruno
may have discovered this in the course of his trial, and
changed his position in order to save his life. Sigwart
comes to the conclusion that "it is impossible to believe
in his entire genuineness and truthfulness ; it is clear
that he was now trying to save himself and escape con-
demnation by submission." Numberless quotations
might be made from his writings which give the lie

i BRUNO'S ORTHODOXY 87

to his denials before the tribunal, and his wonderful
memory could not have allowed them to slip from his
mind. However, there is this to be said, that Bruno
had never regarded himself as anything but a Catholic ;
that his criticisms of that Church were suggestions of
reform from within rather than attacks from without ;
that he had always retained an instinctive dislike both
of Calvinism and of Lutheranism, in spite of his
exaggerated but conventional praises of Luther at
Wittenberg ; that he had never formally compared his
philosophy with his traditional faith, but rather laid that
faith aside and worked as a philosopher merely : hence
his reputation in Germany as a man of no religion.
When he first became aware that he was in danger of
losing life or at least liberty, and his dream of a quiet
retirement with freedom of work in Italy began to fade,
he must have lost his centre of judgment, and had
difficulty in estimating his own past doings and sayings
from the new standpoint. It would be unjust to say
there was the smallest element of hypocrisy in his
submission, or of deceit in his denial of guilt. And in
any case, whatever errors he committed before the
Venetian tribunal were amply amended by his behaviour
before the Roman.1 One thing is certain : he never
either then or afterwards recanted or in any sense with-
drew a single proposition belonging to his philosophical
creed.

To Rome there went with him, in all probability,
copies of the denunciations and evidence given at
Venice, the works which Mocenigo had marked, and
lists of all his works, including that given by himself,

1 It must not be left out of mind that documents have occasionally been tampered
with, and statements put into the mouths of witnesses which are in substance false,
as Fiorentino hints concerning these reports of Bruno's trial. But there is no special
reason for doubt here.

88 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

which would be valuable could it now be found. From
January 16, 1593 to January 14, 1599 there is
absolute silence concerning Bruno, so far as discovered
documents go. In 1 849 an opportunity was obtained
of studying the archives of the Vatican, but the student
did not pass beyond November 1598 (beginning from
February 1600), before the opportunity was over.1 The
earliest of these records of Bruno is, as stated above,
of January 14, 1599. To the congregation (of the
Holy Office) " there were read eight heretical pro-
positions, taken from the works of Fra Giordano
Bruno of Nola, apostate of the order of Preaching
Friars, imprisoned in the prison of the Holy Office, and
from the process against him, by the Reverend Fathers
Commissario and Bellarmino. It was decided that
selected propositions be read to him, in order to
determine whether he was willing to abjure them as
heretical. Other heretical propositions are to be looked
for in the process and in the books.

What had happened all these years ? Why was
Bruno's life spared so long ? This unusual clemency
on the part of the Inquisition points to a great difference
in their estimate of Bruno's importance from their view
of that of other heretics. In a list of twenty-one prisoners
of the Inquisition made on the 5th of April 1599, only
one besides Bruno had been for more than a year in
their hands ; the duration of imprisonment for the
others could be counted by months or days. As a
general rule they were not slow in striking. Among
the reasons that have been suggested is the time
required to go over the four processes which had already
been drawn up against Bruno, if the documents were
-extant, and to obtain and read his books and manu-

1 It is officially stated that there are no further documents.

i BELLARMINO 89

scripts. This may be dismissed at once ; Bruno's
books could not be scarce then, although they became
so later, and it could not require six years to find
enough material to condemn him if that were desired.
Another suggestion is that Bruno was a Dominican, and
the whole order was concerned in procuring his
recantation, rather than have the scandal which his
death in apostasy would cause. The historians of the
order afterwards denied that Bruno, if really put to death,
had been one of their order — " Had he been one of us he
would have remained with us et convictu et sensibus"
More probable is the idea that Pope Clement had some
favour for Bruno, who had intended to dedicate a book
to him, and whose skilful pen and biting tongue he
hoped to win over to the side of the Church. The book
on the Seven Liberal Arts may have been actually com-
pleted, and may have presented a modus vivendi between
religious authority and philosophic freedom, as Brunn-
hofer suggests. If the hope of winning him over was
really held, it is not likely that they refrained in his
case, any more than in Campanella's, from the use of
torture.

Bellarmino, a Jesuit, to whom along with Com-
missario the study of Bruno's works and of the processes
had been entrusted, was one of the most learned pre- r
lates of the day, a keen and ready controversialist, in
spite of his reputed love of peace, and a skilful writer
of many apologetic and polemical works. Beneath the
surface of enlightenment there lay hidden a nature of
intense bigotry : it was he who decided that Coper-
nicanism was a heresy ; he played a part later in the
process against Galilei, and in the attack upon Fra Paolo
Sarpi ; through his agency the Platonist Patrizzi was

1 Wagner's introduction to Bruno's Opere Italiane, p. 7.

90 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

induced to retract his heresies, and his works were
placed along with those of Telesius, the apostle of
Naturalism, upon the index.

February^ On the 4th of February the congregation again
considered Bruno's case, he having in the interval made
some protest against the eight propositions selected.
His Holiness decreed that it should be intimated to
him by the Reverend Fathers Bellarmino and Com-
missario, " that the propositions are heretical, and not
only now or lately declared heretical, but according to
the most ancient Fathers of the Church and the
Apostolic See. If he shall admit them as such, it is
well, but if not, a term of forty days shall be set him."
What were the eight propositions ? It is of course
almost impossible to say, but probably Tocco l is right
in suggesting that they were neither any of those already
withdrawn in Venice (as held " philosophically/' but
not theologically), nor any of the charges of Mocenigo
which Bruno had so vigorously denied, but actual
admissions common to his works and to the confessions
he had made at Venice — for example, propositions as to
(i) the distinction of persons in God ; (2) the Incar-
nation of the Word ; (3) the nature of the Holy Spirit ;
(4) the Divinity of Christ ; (5, 6, and 7) the necessity,
eternity, and infinity of Nature ; (8) the Transmigra-
tion of Souls. It must have been in the last four of
these, or some similar propositions, that Bruno stood
fast by his new faith.

1 Conferenza, p. 86.

THE TRIBUNAL IN ROME 91

XVIII

He was granted more than forty days, however, or December
the period was renewed, for it was not until the 2ist of 2I' x-
December of that year that the patience or perse-
verance of the Inquisition began to be exhausted. On
that date — the next on which there is any record of
Bruno — the congregation. again reopened the case. In
a rough copy of the report which has been found
Bruno is quoted as saying, " that he neither ought nor
will recant, that he has nothing to recant, no matter
for recantation, does not know what he ought to
recant." In the fair copy the names of the members
of the tribunal are given. At their head was Cardinal
Madruzzi, and among them were the fanatical San
Severin, embittered by his failure to secure the Papacy
(he had gone so far as to choose his name — Clement —
when his rival was elected in 1592, and became
Clement VIII.), the man who figures in history as
having declared St. Bartholomew's " a glorious day, a
day of joy for Catholics " ; the ascetic Sfondrati ; the
intolerant Borghese, afterwards Pope Paul V. ; and the
learned Bellarmino. After hearing Bruno on his
defence, it was decided among them that Hippolyte
Maria, general of the Dominican order, and Paul of
Mirandula, their vicar, " should deal with Bruno, show
him what had to be abjured, that he might confess his
errors, amend his ways, and agree to abjure ; and should
try to bring him to the point as soon as possible."
Bruno, however, as they reported, stood firm, denying
that he had made any heretical statements, and insist-
ing that he had been misunderstood by the ministers of
the Holy Office, and by his Holiness ; and at the

92 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

same meeting (2Oth of January 1600) a memorial from
Bruno to the Pope, who was present, having been
opened but not read, it was decreed " that further
measures be proceeded to, servatis servandis, that
sentence be passed, and that the said Friar Giordano be
handed over to the secular authority." On the 8th of
February this decision was carried into effect, and he
was placed in the hands of the Governor of Rome,
with the usual recommendation that he be punished
"with as great clemency as possible, and without
effusion of blood " — the formula for burning at the
stake. A witness of the passing of the sentence was
Gaspar Schopp, a youthful but none the less fanatical
convert from the reformed religion to Catholicism. It
was a year of jubilee in Rome. Pope Clement was
possessed of great diplomatic gifts, he had gained the
submission of Henry IV. of France, had united France
again with Spain, and detached it from England, and
had quieted or lulled numerous disputes within the
Church itself. Rome was therefore crowded with
visitors, more so than usual even in a year of jubilee.
Of the distinguished foreigners paying their homage to
Clement, Gaspar Schopp was one ; facile of tongue as of
pen, he quickly gained the Pope's favour, was made a
knight of St. Peter, and a count of the Sacred Palace.
This adept at coat-turning sent from Rome a letter
to Conrad Rittershausen, which was for long the sole
authority for Bruno's death, but was held by Catholic
writers on Bruno to be a forgery. In the face of the
solid arguments and evidence forthcoming, Catholic
reviewers even at the present day deny that Bruno was
put to death. It is quite needless at this date to enter
' into the question of the authenticity of the letter, its
assertion of Bruno's punishment being the sole ground

SCHOPP'S LETTER

93

on which that was ever doubted.1 We learn from it
that Bruno was publicly reported in Rome to have
been burned as a Lutheran ; and one of the aims of
Schopp in writing — which he did on the very day of
Bruno's death — was to prove the falsity of this report.
He had heard the sentence pronounced, and its damna-
tory clauses he gives as the following : — (i) Bruno's
early doubts concerning and ultimate denial of the
Transubstantiation, and of the virgin conception ; (2)
the publication in London of the Bestia Trionfanti,
which was held to mean the Pope ; (3) the " horrible
absurdities " taught in his Latin writings, such as
the infinite number of worlds, the transmigration of
souls, the lawfulness and utility of magic, the Holy
Spirit described as merely the soul of the world, the
eternity of the world, Moses spoken of as an Egyptian
working his miracles by magic — in which he excelled
other Egyptians — and as having invented the decalogue,
the Holy Scriptures a fable, the salvation of the devil, the
Hebrews alone descended from Adam and Eve, other
peoples from the men created the previous day ; Christ
not God, but an illustrious magician, who deceived
men, and on that account was properly hanged (im-
piccato} and not crucified ; the prophets and apostles
corrupt men, magicians, who were for the most part
hanged. " In fine, I should never have done were I to
pass in review all the monstrosities he has advanced,
whether in his books or Sy word of mouth. In one
word, there is not an error of the pagan philosophers
or of our heretics, ancient or modern, that he did not
sustain." The delay at Rome, it is suggested, was
due to Bruno's constant promises to retract, but he was

1 For the part of this letter relative to Bruno, i/. Bartholmess (with French trans-
lation), Berti and Frith.

94 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

only putting off his judges, and the duration of his
imprisonment is given (officially ?) at " about two
years." It is clear that on the occasion of the sentence
being read the denouncements of Mocenigo, as well as
all later evidences dragged from Bruno's own lips, or
picked up from his books, were recited for the benefit,
presumably, of the visitors present. When the sentence
was pronounced Bruno was degraded, excommunicated,
and handed over to the secular magistrates, as we have
seen. The whole letter is redeemed by the reply of
Bruno to his judges — " Greater perhaps is your fear in
pronouncing my sentence than mine in hearing it."
These strong words are almost the last we have of
Bruno. At the stake he turned his eyes angrily away
from the crucifix held before him. And so, adds
Schopp, " he was burned and perished miserably, and is
gone to tell, I suppose, in those other worlds of his
fancy, how the blasphemous and impious are dealt with
by the Romans ! " It is pleasant to know that when
Lord Digby was English ambassador to Spain he
caused Gaspard Schopp to be horse-whipped.1 For the
degradation of Bruno, as we learn from the Register
of the Depository - General of the Pontificate, two
scudi of gold were paid to the Bishop of Sidonia.
The memorable words he uttered at the time were
reported by another than Schopp, the Count of Venti-
miglia, who was a pupil of Bruno, and present at his
death (perhaps at the sentence also) — " You who
sentence me are in greater fear than I who am con-
demned " ; and before his death Bruno recommended

1 The letter was translated into English by La Roche, Memoirs of Literature, vol.
ii., and by Toland, Misc. Works, vol. i. Schopp refers to Bruno's death in a work
published in 1611 (i.e. several years before the letter itself was published) as having
occurred ten years earlier (Berti, p. 10).

i BRUNO'S DEATH 95

Ventimiglia "to follow in his glorious footsteps, to
avoid prejudices and errors."

In the Avvisi and Ritorni of Rome, which repre-
sented, however meagrely, the newspapers of the time,
two references to Bruno appeared, with short garbled
accounts of him. In one he was spoken of as a Friar
of S. Dominic, of Nola, burnt alive in the Campo di
Fiori, an obstinate heretic, with his tongue tied, owing
to the brutish words he uttered, refusing to listen to
the comforters or others : in another he was reported
as saying that he died a martyr, and willingly, and that
his soul would ascend with the smoke to Paradise, " but
now he knows whether he spoke the truth ! " The
fullest account, however, of his death, and one which
should put to rest all doubts on the subject, is in the
reports of the Company of St. John the Beheaded.
This company — called also the Company of Mercy or
Pity (jiella misericordia) — was instituted for the pur-
pose of accompanying condemned heretics to the place
of death, encouraging them to repent, to die with con-
trition for their sins. The priests bore tablets painted
with images, which were presented to the condemned
to kiss, from time to time, till the faggots were lit.
Even the executioner was called to their aid occasion-
ally, and the cruellest methods adopted to produce at
least the appearance of kissing, and so of repentance.
In obstinate cases, on the other hand, the tongue was
tied, so that the heretic could not speak to the people.
When the sufferers repented before death the Company
took note of their last wishes, and they were buried in
the tombs of the Cloister donated for that purpose by
Innocent VIII., but if they were impenitent no will was
allowed, and the ashes were abandoned to the winds of

1 Berti, p. 3z6, n. i.

96 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

heaven. This must have happened in Bruno's case, for
there is no mention of will or of burial in the report.
Its date is Thursday, i6th February (an error for lyth),
and it reads thus : l — " At the second hour of the night
it was intimated to the Company that an impenitent
was to be executed in the morning ; so at the sixth hour
the comforters and the chaplain met at St. Ursula, and
went to the prison of the Tower of Nona. After the
customary prayers in the chapel there was consigned to
them the under-mentioned condemned to death, viz.
Giordano, son of the late Giovanni Bruno, an Apostate
Friar of Nola in the Kingdom, an impenitent heretic.
With all charity our brethren exhorted him to repent,
and there were called two Fathers of St. Dominic, two
of the Society of Jesus, two of the new Church, and
one of St. Jerome, who, with all affection and much
learning, showed him his error, but he remained to the
end in his accursed obstinacy, his brain and intellect
seething with a thousand errors and vanities. So, per-
severing in his obstinacy, he was led by the servants of
justice to the Campo dei Fiori, there stripped, bound
to a stake, and burnt alive, attended always by our
Company chanting the litanies, the comforters exhort-
ing him up to the last point to abandon his obstinacy,
but in it finally he ended his miserable, unhappy life."

So Bruno passed away ; his ashes were scattered, his
name almost forgotten. His death was the merest
incident amid the great doings of the year of Jubilee.
None of the many bishops and cardinals and dis-
tinguished visitors in Rome, with the single exception
of Gaspard Schopp, makes any mention of the occur-
rence or of the man ; and Schopp did so only because

1 Pognisi, Giordano Bruno e FArchivio di San Giovanni Decollate, Torino, 1891, and
vol. iii. of Op. Lat, introd.

i GROUNDS FOR HIS DEATH 97

he wished to point a moral from the case. During
his seven years' imprisonment, Bruno had almost passed
out of the short-lived memory of his fellowmen.
Burnings of heretics were not infrequent spectacles,
and required no special notice. uThree years later
(August 7, 1603) all his works were placed upon the
Index, and consequently became rare. They were
classed with other dangerous works on the black arts,
and Bruno's name became one to avoid.

This was the death which in happier days he had
foreseen for himself should he ever enter Italy : —
u Torches, fifty or a hundred, will not fail him, even
though the march be at mid-day, should it be his fate
to die in Roman Catholic country." What were the
real grounds on which his condemnation and sentence
were founded ? . The alleged grounds we have already
seen, but they cannot have formed the actual motive
of the Pope and the Inquisition. Neither at Venice
nor in Rome can much weight have been laid upon the
evidence of the weakling Mocenigo. The Cardinals
cannot have imagined that Bruno would ever open his
heart or even speak freely to so shallow a nature — so
utterly different in all things from himself. The mere
fact of his having left his order was not enough, nor
his refusal to return to it, nor were his heretical
opinions — defended as they might be, and as Aristotle's
own teaching had to be defended in the Church, by
the subterfuge of the twofold truth. Had his chief
fault been, as some have thought, his praises of Elizabeth,
Henry III., Henry of Navarre, Luther, Duke Julius,
and other enemies, real or supposed, of the Church,
he would not so long have occupied the prisons of
the Inquisition. Probably his earliest biographer,
Bartholmess, was right in suggesting that Bruno was

H

9 8 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

regarded as a heresiarch — he is several times so described
in the documents — the founder of a new sect, the
leader of an incipient but dangerous crusade against
the Church. It was as the apostle of a new religion,
founded on a new intuition, a new conception of the
universe, and of its relation to God, that Bruno died.
Had he been won over to the side of the Church, his
mind conquered and his spirit crushed by the long
years of waiting, and possibly the days and nights of
physical torture, it would have been a signal triumph
for the papacy. But the heart which had trembled
at the beginning, when the sudden gulf yawned before
it, grew more and more steadfast as its trials increased.
We can only re-echo Carriere's words, that in the soul
of such a man, who after eight years' confinement in
the prisons of the Inquisition remained so firm, " the
governing motives must have been an eternal and in-
violable impulse towards Truth, an unbending sense
of right, an irrepressible and free enthusiasm." That
for which he died was not any special cult or any
special interpretation of Scripture or history, but a
broad freedom of thought with the right of free inter-
pretation of history and of nature, which in his own
case was founded upon a philosophy, one of the noblest
that has been thought out by man.

The fear of death was no part of this philosophy ;
what we call death, it teaches, is a mere change of state,
of " accidents " — no real substance, such as the human
spirit is, can ever die. One of the highest values of
his philosophy he thought to be this, that it freed man
from the fear of death, " which is worse than death
itself." Strikingly apposite to his own fate is a
passage from Ovid1 that he quotes —

1 Metam. xv.

i BRUNO'S EPITAPH 99

O' genus attonitum gelidae formidine mortis,
Quid Styga, quid tenebras, et nomina vana timetis,
Materiam vatum, falsique pericula mundi ?
Corpora sive rogus flamma, seu tabe vetustas
Abstulerit, mala posse pati non ulla putetis ;
Morte carent animae domibus habitantque receptae.

Bruno himself lived within the sphere of which he
writes in the Spaccio, " surrounded by the impregnable
wall of true philosophic contemplation, where the peace-
fulness of life stands fortified and on high, where truth
is open, where the necessity of the Eternity of all sub-
stantial things is clear, where nought is to be feared
but to be deprived of human perfection and justice."
His finest epitaph is to be found in his own words, " I
have fought : that is much — victory is in the hands of
fate. Be that as it may with me, this at least future
ages will not deny of me, be the victor who may, —
that I did not fear to die, yielded to none of my
fellows in constancy, and preferred a spirited death to a
cowardly life.7'

No end in history is more tragic, when looked at in
all its circumstances, than that of Giordano Bruno.
First a life of endless, unresting struggle, striving
through years of wandering, in many lands, to over-
come prejudice and outworn authority, to proclaim and
urge on unwilling minds the splendid gospel which
inspired himself, and by which for a brief time he may
have thought to supplant the old ; now admired of
kings, and sought after by the highest in the land,
at another time a hunted pedlar of literary wares ; then
eight years in darkness from the world, with shame or
death to choose for release. The choice made for the
nobler end, the mockeries of religion he had detested
and reviled pursued him to the end — to the very stake ;
and the funeral pyre of this martyr for liberty of

ioo GIORDANO BRUNO PART

thought, for the new light of science, became a spectacle
for the gay and thoughtless sight-seers of the Roman
Jubilee year, to all of whom, one sad disciple excepted,
it was but another " damnable and obstinate heretic "
who was on this earth, for that brief spell, foretasting
his eternal doom.

XIX

It is not easy to characterise so complex a personality
as Bruno undoubtedly was. The fiery passionate blood
of the south ran in his veins, the joy of a strong-flow-
ing life was in his heart and brain. A child of Nature,
he was almost from the first, " cribbed, cabined, and
confined " by the stone walls of the cloister, as his
mind was hampered by the laws and dogmas of the
Church.1 From Nature herself he drew his first lessons.
While his fellows taught that Nature was a thing of evil,
he learnt to love her, and to turn to her rather than to
the authority of man for instruction. He believed also,
as very few of his age did, in the power of human
thought to penetrate the secret nature of things, to
reach even to the deepest and highest reality, so far
as that can be known by another than itself. Trust-
ing to his own mind, to sense and reason, for his
theory of the world, he found himself opposed in all
essentials to the general thought of the time.

His purpose from the first was to use his own eyes,
i to discover truth for himself, and to hold fast what-

ever seemed to be right, irrespective of the opinions
' \ ^ '\ of others. " From the beginning I was convinced
of the vanity of the cry which summons us to close
or lower the eyes that were given to us open and

1 Cf. Her. Fur. 623. 2O ff.

V:

i INDEPENDENCE OF MIND 101

n?

upward-looking. I Seeing, I do not pretend not to
see, nor fear to profess it openly ; and as there is con-
tinual war between light and darkness, knowledge and
ignorance, everywhere have I met with hatred, abuse,
clamour, insult (ay, not without risk to my life) from
the brute and stupid multitude ; but guided by the hand
of truth and the divine light, I have overcome_it/T
that he really formed his theory by induction from
sense-data, or by deductive reasoning ; it was rather an
inspiration, or an intuition, springing from his tempera-
ment, to which optimism was as necessary as pessimism
repellent ; and there were numerous suggestions of it
both in Bruno's immediate predecessors, Copernicus
and the rest, and in earlier thinkers. Bruno himself
found it, as he thought, in the more ancient pre- ^/, ,/,-
Aristotelian philosophies, j But, however obtained,
this philosophy satisfied even his boundless enthusiasm,
and it became the chief motive of his life to convince
others of its truth, inspire them with the same enthusi-
asm, and endow them with the joyous freedom of life
of which it seemed to him to be the source. His
philosophy, in other words, became his religion, his
inward religion, — Catholicism remaining a mere habit,
a set of formulae to which he was indifferent, to most
of which he was willing to subscribe because he had not
questioned them.

His perfect self-confidence, and belief in the power Authority.
of human reason (especially his own reason) to penetrate
the mysteries of things, was accompanied by contempt
for the argument from authority in philosophy ^con-
tempt for humility, submission, obedience in the

***^"^**'**"»»»»J^«**w«»*>l|i-l**"1'*11*^^ •

speculative life. To believe with the many because

~*imai ui»i»n— — "T**—— •

they were many was the mark of a slave. Bruno,
before Bacon, before Descartes, insisted on the need of

102

GIORDANO BRUNO

PART

first of all clearing the mind from all prejudices, all
traditional beliefs that rested on authority alone, before
attempting the pursuit of truth. They were impedi-
ments-— burdens that delayed or prevented the attain-
ment of the goal. The whole of the Cabala is a satire
on the quietistic attitude, the standpoint of ignorant
and ignoring faith, which regards sense and reason as
alike misleading and unnecessary guides, for which
science and philosophy are mere troublings of the still
waters of life. " Oh, holy asinity " ! one of the sonnets
begins, " oh, holy ignorance, holy folly and pious
devotion, which alone makest souls so good that human
wit and zeal can no further go ; strenuous watchful-
ness, in whatsoever art, or invention, or contemplation
of the wise, arrives not to the heaven wherein thou
buildest thy mansion. Of what avail is your study, ye
curious ones, your desire to know how nature works,
whether the stars are earth, or fire or sea r Holy
asinity for that cares not, but with folded hands and
bended knees awaits from God its fate." *

Having already that touch of vanity in his character
which the possession of a quick mind among sluggards or
dullards almost inevitably entails, he was thrown, by his
attitude towards nature and the Church, more and more
back upon himself. At every step he met with a leaden,
uncomprehending, but dogged opposition, until he seemed
to himself the one seeing man in a world of the blind.
At times this belief was expressed only too emphatically ;
the reader of Bruno must expect to find a passage in
almost every work pointing out that that work is the
best of its kind, and dispenses with all others on the
subject ; while his opponents in any theory are bedaubed
with epithets to which the amenities of modern party

1 Lag. 564. 25.

r DIFFICULTY : BRUNO'S MISSION 103

strife are politeness itself.1 Boundless was his confidence
in himself, in his power of discerning truth, and in his
ability to overcome all difficulties in the way of its
discovery. " Difficulty," he writes in the Cena, " is
ordained to check poltroons. Things ordinary and
easy are for the vulgar, for ordinary people. But rare,
heroic, divine men pass along this way of difficulty, that
necessity may be constrained to yield them the palm of
immortality. Although it may not be possible to come
so far as to gain the prize, run your race nevertheless,
do your hardest in what is of so great importance, strive
to your last breath. It is not only he who arrives
at the goal that is praised, but also whoever dies no
coward's or poltroon's death ; he casts the fault of his
loss and of his death upon the back of fate, and shows
the world that he has come to such an end by no defect
of himself, but by error of fortune." 2

His outward fortunes left Bruno indifferent ; it was
the opposition to his philosophy that embittered him,
and excited the magnificent invectives scattered every-
where through his works. Of his own mission Bruno
had the highest conception : " The Nolan has set free
the human mind, and its knowledge, that was shut up
within the narrow prison-house of the atmosphere (the
troubled air), whence it could only with difficulty, as
through chinks, see the far distant stars ; its wings were
clipped, that it might not fly and pass through the veil
of clouds, and see that which is really to be found there.
. . . But he in the eye of sense and reason, with the
key of unwearied inquiry, has opened those prison-
doors of the truth which man might open, laid bare
nature that was covered over and veiled from sight,

1 E.g. cf. De Umbris, p. 10 ff., and Magia Math., Op. Lot. iii. 5. 506.
2 Lag. 141. 5.

io4 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

given eyes to the moles, enlightened the blind . . .
loosened the tongue of the mute, that could not and
dared not express their inmost feelings." 1 It was not
to the many that he spoke, however ; there was little
in his heart of that love for his fellowman that was so
charming a trait in Spinoza, with all the latter's desire
for solitude, and under all his persecutions. Bruno,
whether a son of the people or not, had never the
slightest respect for that body. We have already seen
what opinion he formed of the English populace,
and he held a similar view of the plebs in general
— " Rogatus tumet, Pulsatus rogat^ Pugnis concisus
adorat" he quotes (or misquotes)2 concerning it.
Distrust of the natural man he had imbibed along
with the teaching of the Church, and doubt as to his
capacity for receiving or understanding the truth.
Those who have acquired the truth that he has to
teach need not, he writes, communicate it to all,
" unless they will see what swine can do with pearls,
and will gather those fruits of their zeal and labour
which usually spring from rash and foolish ignorance,
together with presumption and incivility, its constant
and trusty companions."3 Speaking of the doctrine of
the necessity of all human events, as determined and
foreseen by God, and its coincidence with true liberty,
he shows how theologians and philosophers have held it,
but have refrained from communicating it to the vulgar,
by whom it could not be understood, who would use it
as an excuse for giving rein to their passions. " Faith
is required for the instruction of the plebs, that must
be governed ; demonstration (truth) for the wise, the
contemplative, that know how to govern themselves
'and others." 4 So speculation as to the future life must

1 Cena, Lag. 125. 12 ff. 2 Juvenal, i. 3. 300. 3 Lag. 129. 7. 4 Lag. 318. 5.

THE PEDANT

105

be kept from them, for it is "with the greatest difficulty
that they can be restrained from vice and impelled to
virtuous acts through their faith in eternal punishment :
what would become of them if they were persuaded of
some lighter condition regulating the rewards of heroic
and humane deeds, the punishment of wickedness and
sin?"1 He was an "aristocrat of learning," — only (/
the wise should have the government of the world ;
the people were unfit to judge either of truth or of
men.

Along with this distrust of the vulgar went a far Pedantry
more intense dislike of the kind of learning they
admired, and of the type of scholar, the pedant, that
most appealed to them. The minds of the vulgar, it
seemed to him, were more readily turned by sophisms,
by the appearances on the surface of things, than by the
truth that is hidden in their substance, and is indeed
their substance itself; 2 and the man — too frequent in the
Italian, and generally in the learned world of those days
—most apt to veil a real ignorance by a pretended
knowledge, by a show of externals, by appeal to
authorities with whom he had himself no acquaintance,
was the pedant. Bruno himself was not without that
touch of vanity which led him, like others, to mass
together quotations and phrases from Latin and even
from Greek writers ; to point an argument by forced
analogies from classical mythology ; to heap up refer-
ences, in support of his theories, to the Neoplatonists,
to the mystics, to the Cabbalah, to the older Greek
philosophers: these adornments were quite in the fashion
of his time, and looked at in that light they add to,
rather than detract from, the peculiar charm and spirit
of his writings. The true pedant — such as Polihimnio

1 Lag. 619. 20. Cf. also 700. 25, 717. 39. 2 Lag. 718. 26.

4,

106 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

in the Causa (who has been thought to have suggested
Polonius in Hamlet), Mamphurio in the Candelato,
Prudentio in the Cena — is one that for style loves
long words, learned phrases, irrespective of their con-
text ; who, under pretence of accuracy, delights in
trifling, subtle distinctions, sows broadcast mythological
or classical allusions without a hint of relevancy. His
favourite hunting-ground is, however, philosophy, and
it is to philosophy, according to Bruno, that the pedant
has done greatest injury. One of the most vigorous
descriptions of him which Bruno gives is in the Causa,1
where, no doubt, some of the actual writers of the time
are satirised. Curiously, Ramus and Patrizzi, both
reformers of philosophy, are mentioned as " arch-
pedants"; but men have always criticised most bitterly
those who stood nearest to themselves.

Bruno regarded words as the servants of his pen,
claimed, and indeed exercised almost too freely, the
right of inventing new words for new things. Use
and wont, he knew, determined the fate of words as of
other things ; some which had fallen into decay would
rise again, others now honoured would lapse from use.
For the teaching of the philosophers of old their own
old words were the clearest mirror, but for new theories
new words might be sought from the readiest source :
— " grammarians are the servants of words, words are
our servants ; it is for them to study the use to which
we put our words." 2

1 Lag. 223. 14 ff., cf. 242. 35, and De Minima, bk. iii. I.
2 De Minima, Op. Lat. i. 3, 135.

IMAGINATION : ORIGINALITY 107

XX

For such coinage, as for illustrations to his theories,
references to old authorities, material for his satire on
pedants, as well as for more doubtful purposes, —
mystical or magical formulas, or " proofs," — his pro-
digious memory never left Bruno at a loss. But if this
memory, in its tenacity, supplied him with powerful
and ready arguments against his opponents in their
appeal to the authority of antiquity, it was also, in its
fertility, the source of the chief defects of his writing,
and perhaps also of his speaking. His imagination
runs riot in the pursuit of allegories, metaphors, similes
from mythology. Tiraboschi, the historian of Italian
literature, defies <c the most acute intelligence to
penetrate into his system, the most patient of men to
endure the reading of it."

So far was this enormous mass of material from
blocking up the spring of originality in his mind,
however, that the ideas in which he may be said to
have a anticipated " modern thought are innumerable.
No doubt, in many cases, they came from the earlier
Greek philosophers whom he chiefly studied ; but Bruno
invariably gives them a connection with his own theory,
such as precludes us from taking his restoration of
them for a happy chance. Such ideas, for example, are/
those of the evolution or gradual transformation of
lower organisms into higher (De Umbris, Int. 7), of
the part played by the hand in the evolution of the ^^£p
human race (Cabala, L. 586. 35), of the gradual /v
changes brought about on the surface of the earth, its
seas, its islands, the configuration of the land, the

,io8 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

climate of different countries, by the constant, if
imperceptible, operation of natural causes (Cena, L. 190
ff.) : of the true nature of mountains, which are only
excrescences as compared with the real mountains, the
larger continents that slope upwards from the sea (e.g.
,-'.' '• France) : of the true nature of comets, so far at least
as that they are perfectly natural bodies allied to
planets1 (Infinit. L. 372 ; De Imm. iv. 9. 51); of the
identity of the matter of heavenly bodies with that of
the earth, the universality of movement (even the fixed
stars move, cf. Infinit., L. 350, 351, 400), the
possibility (he said rather the certainty} of other worlds
than our own being inhabited by beings similar to or
more highly developed than ourselves (L. 360. 27).
He " anticipated " also the idea of Lessing that myths
may contain foreshado wings of truth, and that they
\ should be interpreted not by their letter, as matters of
fact, but by their spirit, as indications of higher " truths
of reason." The Bible should be interpreted in the
same way : as Spinoza afterwards taught, so Bruno
held, that the Scriptures inculcated moral and practical
truths, to which their seemingly historical statements

; were entirely subordinate.

*

Add to this fermenting thought, power of memory,
keenness and sureness of glance, and imaginative force,
the fact that Bruno had a deeply poetic nature, fiery,
vivid, passionate in defence of what seemed to him true,
equally passionate in hatred of what seemed to him
false, and the sources of his strength and weakness alike
become clear. The Italian writings remain, in spite of
their occasional obscurity, the most brilliant of philoso-
phical works in that language, while the Latin works

1 In his De Orbitis Planetarum, iSoi, Hegel " demonstrated " that the number of
planets could not exceed seven. Before it appeared, Piazzi had discovered Ceres.

i HIS CREED 109

are a monument of learning (too often misapplied or
useless), of acute reasoning, and of poetic enthusiasm.

XXI

Bruno was far from being what we should now Religion,
call a Rationalist ; he felt that cold reason, mere ^ $ J
human logic alone, could not fathom the deepest nature
of things, which was God, but that this deepest
nature of things was apart from conditions of time
and space. Whatever occurred under these conditions,
—whatever fell within the actual world, — he claimed
for sense and reason, i.e. as a subject of natural explana-
tion, as accessible in all its aspects to human knowledge.
There are thus two very distinct sides to Bruno's
philosophical character : on the one side he is a fore-
runner of modern science, in his love of nature as
a whole, in his desire to understand it, in his applica-
tion of purely " empirical " methods to its analysis. To
this side belong his rejection of the orthodox dogmas
concerning the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception,
and the rest, his theory of an evolution of man,
his idea of a natural history of religions, his entire
rejection of authority however high as an argument
for or against a theory or view of nature. His own
religious creed was simple, and he believed it to be
the essence of what was true in all the jarring sects
that had separated man from man, nation from nation,
and race from race — " the law of love — which springs
not from the evil genius of any one race, but from
God the father of all, and is in harmony with universal
nature, which teaches a general love of man, that
we should love our enemies even, should not remain

no GIORDANO BRUNO PART

like brutes or barbarians, but be transformed into the
likeness of Him who makes His sun to rise upon
the good and the bad, and pours the rain of His
mercies upon the just and the unjust. This is the
religion above controversy or dispute, which I observe
from the belief of my own mind, and from the custom
of my fatherland and my race."1;?; On the other side,
he had inherited the mysticism of the Neoplatonist
school, or at least it called out a responsive echo from
his mind so soon as he came under its influence. Jde.
was full of enthusiasm, as we shall find, for the divine
— in things, in us, in the world, in the universe — a
" God-intoxicated man " far more strikingly than the
impassive Spinoza. It was because the Copernican
theory fitted into his mystical thought of the One,
as an identity of the infinitely small, the point, and
the infinitely great, the broad, deep, immeasurable
universe, that it appeared to him an inspiration of
genius. Therefore he defended it, extended it further
than its originator dared extend it, and finally died
for it and for all that it meant to him. His belief
in natural magic belongs again to this side, or rather
to the influence of the one side of his nature upon
the other ; owing to their essential unity in God,
natural things have sympathies with one another and
with human life, so that a change in one thing — a stone,
a tree — may indirectly cause a corresponding change in
another, a human being. It was characteristic of him
that he sought to give to these beliefs — which, be it
remembered, were universal in his time — a rational
basis, a connection with his thought- system as a whole.
The two sides or standpoints are never far apart
in Bruno : it is often impossible to say to which a

1 Art. Adi}. Math. Efist. Ded. (i. 3. 4).

i OPTIMISM 1 1 1

given theory or mood should be attributed, but in
his~eIrTier life the mystical, in his later the naturalistic,
or rationalist standpoint may be said to have pre-
dominated. It is with the more metaphysical attitude
that a certain vein of optimism in Bruno's philosophy
is connected, the familiar conception of evil, natural
or moral, as necessary for the good of the whole, like
the discords by which a harmony is heightened. No
absolute evil, for the consistent Neoplatonist, can pos-
sibly exist in a world which flows from the divine and
is an outpouring of His nature. But Bruno had little
or nothing of the practical optimist in his own
character ; whatever he thought to be evil, he fought
against with all his might ; a victim of intolerance, he
had himself no toleration for some points of view —
those, namely, which he felt might weaken the bonds of
civil society and of human brotherhood. " Such evil
teachers/' he writes in the Sigillus (ii. 2. 182), "succeed-
ing time, and a world wise overlate in its own ill
condition, will exterminate as the tares, canker-worms,
locust plagues of their age — nay, as scorpions and vipers."
Bruno saw only too clearly the evils of the world, and
of his age, from the greatest of which — tyranny over
the soul, and suppression of mental liberty — he suffered
in his own person ; and his life, as we have seen, was
spent in a ceaseless, and for the time unavailing,
struggle against them. But he never lost his faith
in the ultimate victory of his own philosophy, based
as it was upon his faith in the essential goodness, justice,
and truth of the eternal source of things. As all
things flow from, so all things tend to return to God.
Philosophy goes further than to teach merely that
pain and evil are not absolute facts, not grounded in
the nature of things ; it also frees the believer from the

U2 GIORDANO BRUNO PARTI

burden they impose : — " the practical test of a perfect
philosophy is, when one by the height of his specula-
tion is so far withdrawn from bodily things as hardly
to feel pain. And there is greater virtue, as we believe,
in one who has come to such a point as not to feel
pain at all than in another who feels it but resists.
He who is more deeply moved by the thought of some
other thing does not feel the pangs of death." l

Sig. Sig. (ii. 2. 192."

WORKS OF BRUNO PUBLISHED AFTER 1592 *

I. Summa terminorum metaphysicorum ad capessendum Logic ae et
Philosophiae studium, ex Jordani Bruni Nolani Entis descensu manusc.
excerpt a ; nunc primum luci commit sa; a Raphaele Eglino Iconio,
Tigurino : Zurich, 1595. Reprinted in 1609 : — Summa Terminorum
Metaphysicorum, Jordani Bruni Nolani. Accessit eiusdem Praxis
Descensus seu Multiplicatio Entis ex Manuscripto per Raphaelum
Eglinum Iconium Tigurinum in Acad. Marpurg. Profess. Theolog. cum
supplemento Rodolphi Goclenii Senioris, Marburg, 1 609.2

Described by the editor, Eglin, who was with Bruno at Zurich,
and afterwards became Professor of Theology at Marburg, as Bruno's
" Metaphysical remains." It represents the fruit of the lectures
given by Bruno at Zurich in I59I,3 and is one of the earliest philo-
sophical dictionaries extant. It is on the model of the Fifth Book
of Aristotle's Metaphysics, now known to have been intended by
Aristotle as a separate work, but differs in its choice and arrange-
ment of the terms of philosophy which are discussed. The first
part of the work, which was published by itself in Zurich, may
best be described as a handbook to philosophy generally, the main
reference being to Aristotle's system, as was natural : with it Bruno
writes for the most part in agreement. The second part, however,
which was not published until the Marburg Edition (p. 73 ff. of the
State Edition), is an " application " of the several terms already
defined to the Neoplatonist philosophy : in its first section (De Dec
seu Mente] they are applied and illustrated by reference to God as
the source of the world, of whom all things are emanations, in a
graduated scale of being ; in the second (Intellectus seu Idea) to the
world of Ideas — God in the world, the soul in all things and in

1 Works published during Bruno's imprisonment, and posthumously.
2 Cf. Op. Lat. vol. i. pt. 4. Also in Gfrbrer. 3 Cf. p. 67, 1. n.

I

u4 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

everything ; and a third section (Amor seu pulchritude] should have
followed, dealing with God as the end and goal of things, but is
awanting.1 The document on the Predicates of God which
Mocenigo presented to the Court at Venice was probably the
second part of the Summa, or perhaps only its first section (Brunn-
hofer, p. 1 06).

2. Artificium perorandi traditum a Jordano Bruno Nolano Italo,
communicatum a Johan. Henrico Ahtedio. In gratiam eorum qui elo-
quentiae vim et rationem cognoscere cupiunt. Frankfort, 1612. (Also
in Gfrorer, and State Edition, vol. ii. pt. 3, No. 3). — A summary
of, or a commentary on, the spurious Rhetoric of Aristotle (ad
Alexandrum), with the addition of a second part by Bruno, on
which he himself lays no great stress, on elocution or adornment ;
he refers his readers, however, to the orators themselves for com-
plete instruction. It contains chiefly lists of heads of arguments
and of synonyms for rhetorical use. Apparently the work is printed
from notes of Bruno's lectures in Wittenberg (1587), which came
into the hands of the editor, Alsted, in 1610.

3. Lampas Triginta Statuarum. — First published in the State
Edition, vol. iii. pp. 1-258, from MSS. of the Noroff collection at
Moscow. This is in the hand of Besler, Bruno's pupil and copyist,
and was done at Padua in the autumn of 1591, although Besler had
received the original, which he copied, in April 1590 at Helmstadt.
Another MS. is in the Augustan Library, and is both more obviously
correct and of earlier date than the copy of Besler (1587); in all
probability the work was dictated by Bruno at Wittenberg, and is
that referred to as Lampas Cabalistic a in the letter of dedication pre-
fixed to the De Specierum Scrutinio (Prague, 1588), and as shortly
to be published.2

It contains a finished study of philosophy from Bruno's stand-
point, arranged under thirty and more headings, " Types," " Statues
and Images," " Fields," etc. Under each heading are thirty
" articles," " conditions," " descriptions," " contemplations." For

1 Brunnhofer (p. 81) suggests that the first part contains the exoteric, the second
the esoteric teaching of Bruno. But as Tocco (Opere Latlne di G. B., p. 136)
rightly points out, some such knowledge of Aristotelian terms as that in Part i.
would form a necessary preliminary to the study of philosophy in Bruno's time. He
makes use of the Aristotelian terms to express ideas quite different from those of
Aristotle.

2 Op. Lot. ii. 2. 333.

i WORKS PUBLISHED AFTER 1592 115

example, we have first the two triads — Chaos, Orcus, Nox ; and
Pater, Intellectus Primus, Lux — typifying the lowest and the highest
principles of things : the first three are Vacuum, Potency in
Appetite, and Matter ; the second three Mind or Reason, Under-
standing or Soul, and Love or Spirit. At the close of the Statuae
there follows the practical application of them to the scale of
Nature — the outflow of the highest towards the lowest, the gradual
transition from lowest to highest ; an account of the thirty pre-
dicates of Substance and of " Nature " in the universal sense ; and a
logical or methodological illustration of the uses of the Art under
the headings of Definition, Verification, Demonstration. The
general purpose of the whole is to give an instrument for discovery
("Invention"} of truth, after the model of the Lullian Art, just as
some of the earlier works (e.g. De Umbris] contain a similar instru-
ment for remembering knowledge acquired.1 Unfortunately the
work is entirely marred by the artificial distinctions drawn, and the
tying down (or expansion) of the ideas treated therein to the thirty
fundamental notions and thirty applications of each. Thus subjects
and predicates are thirty in number each, and the modes of pre-
dication are in classes of fifteen. It is impossible not to agree with
Tocco's verdict, that " However fine the analysis employed in dis-
tinguishing the subtlest shades of concepts, however great the
number of elevated philosophical thoughts scattered throughout,
expounded with vigour and felicity of imagery, the tractate as a
whole has little value, just as the ars inventiva itself has little —
more fit to blunt than to sharpen the inventive powers." 2 One
gladly re-echoes Bruno's words at the close : " Itaque gratias deo
agentes, Artem Inventivam per triginta statuas perfecimus"

4. Animadversiones circa Lampaaem Lullianam (State Edition, vol.
ii. pt. 2). — From the Augustan MSS., dated I3th March 1587.
Notes dictated in Wittenberg, on the Lullian art as a universal
instrument for the discovery of truth.

5. Libri Physicorum Aristotelis, a clariss. Dn. D. jFordano Bruno
Nolano explanati. — From two codices in the Erlangen Library, the
second of which is in the hand of Besler, and was written, pre-
sumably, at Helmstadt. The earlier MS. in a German handwriting
points to the commentaries having been dictated by Bruno during

1 Vide Tocco, Of ere Inedite di G. B. Napoli, 1891. 2 Of. at. p. 77.

n6 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

his stay at Wittenberg.1 The books of Aristotle treated are the
five books of the Physica, the De generatione et corruptions, the
Meteorologica, Book IV. There is an introduction on the methods
of the sciences, and other matters, by Bruno himself; the remainder
follows closely the text of Aristotle, except in the fourth and fifth
books, where Bruno is much less exact.

6. De Magia, et Theses de Magia. — The MS. of this work is in
the Erlangen Codex, by Besler, and also in the Moscow (Noroff)
collection, by the same hand ; the former is a copy of the latter,
which was dictated by Bruno in the early part of 1590 at
Helmstadt.

It deals with one of the three divisions of Magic, viz. Natural or
Physical Magic (the others being Divine, Metaphysical or Super-
natural, and Mathematical — that of symbols, numbers, etc.).
Physical magic is shown to be a natural consequence, first, of the
fact that the same soul, the soul of the world, is in all things, of
which the individual finite soul of each thing is a temporary mode
or phase ; hence all things are linked one with another, through
their spiritual identity, in a bond of sympathy ; secondly, of the
hierarchy of beings — the principle that all finite things are emana-
tions, in increasing degree of imperfection, from the Divine. The
Theses represent a summary of the De Magia, and in the latter the
headings of the former are referred to throughout, except in two
episodes or excursus not strictly connected with natural magic (on
spirit-charms and spirit-analogies) : the work is referred to in the
De Minima, i. 3. 210 (re the magical influences of bodies newly
dead ; " the soul everywhere recognises the matter of its own body,
as we have shown in the book on physical magic ").

7. De Magia Mathematica. — Merely a collection of excerpts
from writers on Magic — Tritemius, Agrippa, Pietro Di Abano, the
(Pseudo-) Albertus Magnus. (Noroff MSS. The title is that ot
the Italian editors.)

8. De Rerum Principiis et Elementis et Causis. — (Noroff MSS.
The writing was begun on the i6th of March 1590, in Helmstadt,
by Besler, to Bruno's dictation.)

It contains the theory of the natural and material elements or

1 Vide Op, Lat. iii., Introduction by Vitelli ; but according to Stbizle (Archi-v fur
Gesch. d. PhiL iii. 1890) and Tocco (Op. Ined., p. 99) they belong to the first stay
in Paris. The latter adds that they may have been repeated in Wittenberg.

i WORKS PUBLISHED AFTER 1592 117

principles of things — light and fire, wind or air, water or vapour or
darkness, and earth or the dry, with their "forms," time and place
— leaving the metaphysical and the immaterial principles (spirit
and soul) for consideration elsewhere. It is not of great scientific
value. Bruno makes use of abstract terms even more readily than
Aristotle (e.g. "lux seminaliter est ubiquc, et in tenebris" p. 514).
The chief aim of the work is to illustrate the magical applications
of the different elements1 (cf. pp. 516, 525, etc.). Its value mainly
lies in the light it throws on Bruno's atomic theory, and on one or
two other minor points of his philosophy — the harmony, co-ordina-
tion, and sympathy between all natural things, the doctrines of
liberty and necessity, etc.

9. De Me die in a Lulliana, partim ex matkematicis, partim ex physicis
principiis educta. — Written immediately after the above (de rerum
principiis], to which it occasionally refers : merely a collection of
abstracts from works of Lully on medicine, as a practical application
of the system of magic contained in the three previous writings.
It is accordingly of the astrological type of mediaeval medicine.

10. De Vinculisin genere. NorofF MSS. — A first sketch in Bruno's
own hand, dating probably from Frankfort ; and a later, much
more detailed, in Besler's, copied at Padua. It in a sense completes
the tractates on Magic, by dealing with "attraction" in general, of
which the attractions and sympathies of natural and mathematical
magic are special cases. As it stands, however (for neither sketch
is finished : Bruno's covers wider ground than Besler's, the latter
breaks off abruptly before the natural end is reached), it is a
psychological essay on the human passions, and more especially on
human love, from a purely objective, matter-of-fact standpoint.
In it the most grossly material and the highest spiritual sources of
love are placed side by side ; and to love, including self-love, are
reduced all passions, all effects, even hate, which is an outcome, a
reversion of love.

1 Under the heading " Time " (de temper e] there is a short treatise on Astrology.

PART II
PHILOSOPHY OF BRUNO

CHAPTER I

THE SOURCES OF THE PHILOSOPHY

IN the school and the monastery at Naples Bruno passed
as a matter of course through a training in the Scholastic
Philosophy. Before entering the monastery of St.
Dominic at fifteen years of age he had studied "humane
letters, logic, and dialectic," l and had attended, among
other lectures, a private course by Theophilus of Varrano,
an Augustine monk and distinguished Aristotelian.
From him, probably, Bruno received an impetus towards
the study of Aristotle in the original works, if not also
in the original tongue, which stood him in admirable
stead when he came later to attack the foundations of
the vulgar philosophy. He was familiar at first hand
with all the main writings of Aristotle.2 He had read, i .
too, and cites, most of the earlier commentators — r
Adrastus and Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry,
Themistius, Simplicius, and " Philoponus " 3 — as well as
the later, the Arabians and other Schoolmen. He had
accordingly a more thorough acquaintance with the
mind of Aristotle than any of the latter 's staunchest
supporters in his time : the lack of the historic sense

1 Doc. 8 : the words suggest a special training in Latin, Greek, Philosophy,
and Rhetoric, — not the whole Trivium and Quadrivium of the ordinary education of
the day, as Berti supposes.

2 Cf. Op. Lot. ii. 2. 6 1 ; ii. 3 ; i. 4. 39, 65, 69 ; i. i. 256, etc.

3 i. 4. 21 ; i. i. 223 j i. i. 231.

121

122 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

prevented him, however, from taking a just view of the
system as a whole : it was not the Aristotle of Greek
philosophy whom he rejected, and against whom he
wielded the powerful weapons of his armoury, but the
Aristotle of his own day, — a living force with which no
one could avoid a reckoning,.the influence of which was no
longer for good, but which formed, as Bruno felt, a barrier
against the progressive thought and spirit of the time.
In the introductory letter to the Figuratio Arist. Phys.
Auditus, Bruno gave three reasons for undertaking the
work : 1 — (i) " that he might not appear, like so many
others, to be taking up the office of censor without a
sufficient knowledge of his subject ; (2) that he might
present to his opponents the philosophy of Aristotle
as it really was, for the majority of the Aristotelians
admired it rather from their faith in the man Aristotle
than from discriminate judgment concerning the
principles of the philosophy ; (3) that he might seem
not an audacious caviller against thoughts that were
beyond his depth, but a genuine and legitimate disputant
on doctrines that were clear to himself." The name
of Aristotle was a charm ; his opinion final not in matters
of pure philosophy alone, but equally in natural theory ;
his natural philosophy had been harmonised with
scriptural authority, and was the accepted doctrine of
the Church. The cry which his critic heard had weight
behind it : " You against Aristotle — against so many
authorities, so great names ? I would rather be in
error along with them, than find truth with you ! " 3
The danger lay not so much in the error of Aristotle's
theory of nature, or of his metaphysical theories, as in
his authority ; " many of the Peripatetics," Bruno says

1 A compendium of Aristotle's Physics. 2 Of. Lat. i. 4. 131 ff.

3 (De Immenso, iii. 3), Op. Lat. i. i. 340.

ii ARISTOTLE 123

in the Cena, " grow angry, and flush and quarrel about
Aristotle, yet do not understand even the meanings of
the titles of his books." l It was the influence of this
authority that Bruno, in the interests of true philosophy
and science, set to work to undermine. The charge
which he brought against Aristotle was the same as that
which Bacon afterwards brought — that he attempted to
explain nature by logical categories. "It is not strange
that from impossible, logical, and imaginary distinctions
quite discordant with the truth of things, he infers an
infinite number of other untruths " (inconvenientta).'2
" Matter is formless only to logical abstraction, as with
Aristotle, who is constantly dividing by reason what is
indivisible according to nature and truth: "3 "a logical
intention (or concept) is made into a principle (or
element) of nature." However unfair and indeed
absurd the charge must appear when Aristotle is con-
sidered in his actual place within the development of
philosophy and science, and however far Bruno or Bacon
or any of the nature-philosophers of the Renaissance was
from avoiding the use in explanation of similar purely
logical or metaphysical conceptions, it was still a great
and necessary step to call attention to the need of
observation and experiment upon nature, and to the
value of mathematics as a method of calculating and
correlating the phenomena observed. This was a second
objection to Aristotle, that he despised mathematics, Aristotle's
" being too much of a logician (and stronger in criticism mithematf-
than in argument)," yet, Bruno adds, " when he sought cal method-
to explain any of the more profound facts of nature,
he was often driven by necessity to the repudiated

1 Lag. 131. z Of. Lat. ii. z. 133. 3 Lag. 239.

4 Ib. 252. Cf. Bacon's Nov. Org. i. 54: — "Aristotle, who altogether enslaved
his natural Philosophy to his Logic, and so rendered it nearly useless and conten-
tious," (vide infra, ch. 9).

i24 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

mathematics." Many of Bruno's own mathematical
applications savour rather of Neopythagorean mysticism
than of the spirit of modern science, and his geometry
was far from Euclidean, but he at least made a serious
attempt to account for the building-up of bodies and
of the universe on mathematical principles. A third
objection, which again we find in Bacon, is as to
His treat- Aristotle's treatment of his predecessors. His deprecia-

ment of the . r . . , i-i.^> t-v/> it

earlier tion of them is condemned in the Causa: — <{Of all
:ks> philosophers I do not know one who founds more upon
imagination, or is further removed from nature than he :
and if sometimes what he says is excellent, we know
that it does not spring from his own principles, but is
always a proposition taken from other philosophers."1
In another passage he is described as a " dry sophist,
aiming with malicious explanations and frivolous argu-
ments to pervert the opinions of the ancients, and to
oppose the truth, not so much perhaps through
imbecility of intelligence as through the influence of
envy and ambition." 2 So Bacon speaks of him as
imposing " innumerable fictions upon the nature of
things at his own will : being everywhere more anxious
as to how one should extricate oneself by an answer, and
how some positive reply in words should be made, than
as to the internal truth of things." 3 In particular it
was argued that Aristotle confused the various meanings
of the same name with one another : — " He takes the
word vacuum in a sense in which no one has ever under-
stood it, building castles in the air, and then pulling
down his * vacuum/ but not that of any other who has
spoken of a vacuum or made use of the name. So he
acts in all other cases, — those for example of * motion/

1 Lag. 256. « Ib. 280.

3 Nov. Org. i. 62.

ii INTEREST IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY 125

1 infinite/ ' matter,' { form,' * demonstration/ ' being,'
always building on the faith of his own definition, which
gives the name a new sense."

The close study of Aristotle himself, which was one The pre
of the greatest results of the Humanist movement, had lians.
the effect of bringing into greater prominence the
earlier Greek philosophers, whose doctrines Aristotle
states and criticises in many of his works — notably the
Physics and Metaphysics. The rediscovery of antiquity
included that of ancient philosophy ; and Bruno's dis-
satisfaction with Aristotle led him into greater sympathy
with the nature -philosophers whom Aristotle decried.
Towards these earlier Greeks, as towards other
philosophers, his attitude is wholly that of an Eclectic :
he does not attempt to appreciate their relative value,
nor to discover any evolution of thought through the
successive systems. From each he takes that which
agrees or appears to agree with his own philosophy, and
treats it as an anticipation of, or as an authority for,
the latter. The " universal intelligence," for example,
as the universal efficient cause in nature, is a doctrine
ascribed in the Causa indiscriminately to the Pythago-
reans, the Platonists, the Magi, Orpheus, Empedocles,
and Plotinus.2 The belief in an infinite ether (Hera-
clitus' Fire) surrounding the earth, and containing
innumerable worlds within it, in the Cena is attributed,
equally without discrimination, to Heraclitus, Democ-
ritus, Epicurus, Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Melissus.3
Xenophanes represented for Bruno the static aspect of
Pantheism — the Absolute One as in itself, apart from
all reference to the finite ; 4 Heraclitus its dynamic

1 (De V Infinite), Lag. 314. 2 Lag 2^l

3 Ib. 183. Cf. Op. Lat. i. i. 282, 288.
4 Cf. Of. Lat. i. i. 96, 3. 26, 3. 271 j i. i. 291 ; i. 3. 26 } iii. 70, etc.

ritus.

126 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

aspect — the Absolute as unfolding, revealing itself,
" appearing " in and through the finite.1 Anaxagoras
expressed the relation between the finite individual
and the One, — " All things are in all things," for
" omnipotent, all-producing divinity pervades the whole,
therefore nothing is so small but that divinity lies con-
cealed in it." " Everything is in everything, because
spirit or soul is in all things, and therefore out of any-
thing may be produced anything else." 3 To Anaxagoras,
as to Bruno, nature was divine.4 No special distinction
was made by Bruno between the teaching of Anaxagoras
and that of Empedocles : in one passage he attributes
to the former the theory of effluxes and influxes of
atoms through the pores of bodies, which really belongs
to the latter,5 and in another suggests that Empedocles
only put in a more " abstract " way what Anaxagoras
had shown " concretely," that all things are in all.6

With Leucippus and Democritus Bruno might have
been expected to claim affinity, through their common
atomism and naturalism : with two cardinal features of
the traditional Epicureanism he was however in entire
disagreement. The one was its admission of the
void or vacuum : it explained the constitution of
diverse bodies out of atoms which were all of the same
spherical form, by the different positions and order in
which the void and solid parts respectively were
arranged, whereas Bruno could not imagine the cor-
poreal atoms holding together without a material
substance, extending continuously throughout the
universe.7 The other point of contrast was its denial

1 Lag. 282. 2 Op. Lat. ii. 2. 196, and (Her. Fur.} Lag. 722, 35.

3 Cena, Lag. 237. 9. Cf. Her. Fur. Lag. 722. 35.

4 Lag. 256. 25, 273. 25. Cf. Op. Lat. i. I. 377. 5 i. i. 272.

6 i. 2. 148. 7 i. 3. 140.

ii LUCRETIUS: NEOPLATONISM 127

that anything but corporeal matter exists, with the
corollary that forms are merely accidental dispositions
of matter : Bruno confesses to have been at one time of
the same opinion, but he had been unable wholly to
reduce forms to matter, and therefore was compelled
to admit two kinds of substance, forms or ideas, and
matter or body, although these again were modes of
a still higher unity, the One.1 " The deep thought
of the learned Lucretius " 2 early fascinated Bruno, Lucretius,
and Lucretius gave the trend not only to much of
his philosophy but also to the style of his writing.
The Latin poems were suggested by Lucretius' De
rerum natura^ to which they are far inferior, certainly,
in literary charm ; the philosophical system of the later
writer however is not only bolder and grander in itself,
but far more thoroughly worked out into the detail of
exposition and of criticism. In the Italian dialogues
also Lucretius is constantly quoted, — frequently from
memory, as one may judge from the errors made.

But in the first reaction against the now barren Neopiaton-
Peripatetic philosophy, the school to which Bruno
turned, with so many of his fellow-countrymen, was
that which nominally derived from Aristotle's immediate
predecessor. The revival of Platonism in its secondary
form of Neoplatonism was one of the most marked
traits of the time. In connection with the attempt to
unite the Greek and Latin Churches in 1438, a Greek
scholar came from Constantinople, — one Georgius
Gemistus (Gemistus Plethon), — to the court at
Florence, and there opened the minds of the Italians
to the beauty of the Platonic philosophy. Its mystical
world of ideas charmed all who were embued with the
new spirit — romantic, adventurous, hopeful, self-con-

1 Causa, Lag. 247. 2 Op. Lat. i. 3. 169.

ism.

128 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

fident. The Ideas, it is true, were materialised and
personified in the transition through Neoplatonism,
and it was as spirits of the stars and worlds, demons of
the earth and sea, the living souls of plants and stones,
that they appealed to minds fed on the grosser fare of
mediaeval superstition. Plethon's lectures, uncritical as
they were, ensured the spread of Platonism in Italy.
Bessarion of Trebizond, Marsilio Ficino, who became
head of the Platonist Academy at Florence, and Pico
of Mirandula followed in his steps. Both Ficino and
Pico are mentioned by Bruno, and his knowledge of
Plato, as of Plotinus, Porphyry, and other Neoplatonists,
was derived, almost certainly, from Ficino's translations.
The teaching of Plato was interpreted in the light of,
and confused by admixture with, the mystical ideas of
Philo and Plotinus, of Porphyry and lamblichus, of the
Jewish Cabala, and the mythical sayings of Egyptian >
Chaldean, Indian, and Persian sages. The new world
was struggling for light, and it rushed towards every
gleam of brightness, however feeble. Thus in the
address to the senate at Wittenberg before leaving the
university, Bruno named the foremost of those whom
he regarded as Builders of the Temple of Wisdom :
the list begins with the Chaldeans among the Egyptians
and Assyrians ; there follow Zoroaster and the Magi
among the Persians, the Gymnosophists of India ,
Orpheus and Atlas among Thracians and Libyans,
Thales and other wise men among the Greeks, — and
so down to Paracelsus in Bruno's own century. The
fantastic grouping is characteristic of the uncritical
syncretism of this last phase of Neoplatonism : Plethon
had conjoined the dogmas of Plato with those of
Zoroaster, and had confirmed both by illustrations
from Greek mythology. Among the most widely read

n IAMBLICHUS 129

works were those of lamblichus the Platonist, who died
early in the fourth century, — the Life of Pythagoras,
and especially the Mysteries of the Egyptians} Another
work, in many books, which has not come down to us,
but which penetrated into the literature of the middle
ages, was on the Perfect Theology of the Chaldaeans. To
lamblichus, as to Plotinus, the Ideal world was a
hierarchy of Gods, from the ineffable, unsearchable
One, down, tier upon tier, through successive emana-
tions, to the Gods that are immanent in the world we
know and the things of the world. In the scheme not
only do the Ideas of Plato, the Numbers of Pythagoras,
the Forms of Aristotle, find a place, but also all the
Gods of the Greek mythology, of the Egyptian religion,
of the Babylonian and Hebrew esoteric cults. The
same character is to be found in the writings of the so-
called Hermes or Mercurius Trismegistus, to whom
Bruno constantly appeals.2 It was partly for their
cosmology, more in accord with modern thought than
that of the Peripatetics and the Church, that they were
read ; but still more for the support their belief in
demonic spirits, governing the movements of the
worlds and of all individual things, gave to magical
and theurgical practices, which through the slackening
of the rule of the Church were now universal. " All
stars are called fires by the Chaldaeans," writes Bruno,
<c animals of fire, ministers of fire, innumerable gods,
divine oracles." " The Chaldaeans and the wise Rabbis
endowed the stars with intelligence and feeling." 4
" There are some who are by no means thought worthy
of a hearing among philosophers, — the Chaldaeans and

1 Cf. Her. Fur., Lag. 636. If not by lamblichus, this work issued certainly
from his school, to which Julian the Apostate belonged.

2 E.g. Op.Lat. i. i. 376. 3 Ibid. 4 Of.cit.

1 30 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Hebrew sages, who attribute body to the omnipotent
God, calling him c a consuming fire ' " : below Him
were innumerable Gods, flames of fire, and spirits of air?
which were subtle, active, mobile bodies : souls too were
spirits — that is, subtle bodies ; and Bruno adds, " We
do not pursue this mode of philosophising, but are far
from despising it, nor have ever thought that a wise
man should think it contemptible." l The theology or
Egyptian theosophy of the Egyptians is praised in the Spaccio? —

theosophy. . IT- i r -n

" The magical and divine cult of the Egyptians, who
saw divinity in all things, and in all actions (each
manifesting divinity in its own special way) ; and knew
by means of its forms in the bosom of nature how to
secure the benefits they derived from it — as out of the
sea and rivers it gives fish, out of the deserts wild
beasts, and out of mines metals, out of trees fruits, and
out of certain parts of nature, certain animals, certain
brutes, certain plants, are gifted certain fates, virtues,
fortunes, or impressions. Divinity in the sea was
called Neptune, in the sun Apollo, in the earth Ceres,
in the deserts Diana, and diversely in each of the other
species of things : as divine ideas, they were diverse
deities in Nature, and all were referred to one deity of
deities, one source of Ideas above Nature." The
passage- shows clearly the connection between the
revived enthusiasm for the old pagan cults and the new
but dark beginnings of independent study of nature, in
Magic, Divination, Alchemy, and Astrology : equally
close was the connection of both with the revival of
Pantheism, the conception of nature as a single whole
throbbing with one life, springing from one single
Hebrew source. So of the Hebrew Cabala, Bruno writes, " its
wisdom (whatever it be in its kind) derives from the

1 Op. Lot. i. 2. 409. 2 Lag. 532.

ii PLATO AND PLOTINUS 131

Egyptians, among whom Moses was brought up."
" In the first place it attributes to the first principle
a name ineffable, from which proceed, in the second
place, four names, afterwards resolved into twelve,
these into seventy-two, these into one hundred and forty-
four, etc., etc. By each name they name a god, an
angel, an intelligence, a power that presides over a
species of things, — so the whole of divinity is reduced
back to one source, as all light is brought back to the
first, self-shining light ; and the images in the diverse,
innumerable mirrors, — particular existences, — are re-
ferred to one formal,1 ideal source." 2

As might be expected, Plato himself was best
known to the school through one of the least charac-
teristic of his works, the Timaeus, with its fanastic
cosmology and demonology, alongside of which was
placed the work of (the Pseudo-) Timaeus of Locris, a
later writing, based upon that of Plato, although pro-
fessing to belong to an earlier date : next to these in
importance came the Republic, with the theory of Ideas.
It was from the Chaldaeans, Egyptians, and Pythago-

1 i.e. creative or original.

2 Spaccio, Lag. 533. Bruno was probably acquainted with the De arte
cabbalistica (1517) of Reuchlin the Platonist, and with Pico of Mirandula's Caba-
listarum selectiora obscurioraque dogmata. Of the Cabala itself the first part (Creation)
was published in Hebrew at Mantua 1562, a translation into Latin at Basle 1587 :
the second part, The Book of Splendour, Hebrew, 1560, a translation, not, as it seems,
until the following century. It is unlikely that Bruno read Hebrew, although he
makes use of Hebrew letters among his symbols. But there were many writings on
the Cabala from which he could have derived his idea of their teaching — e.g.
Agrippa's Occulta Philosophia, to which he was indebted for much of the De Monade.
The Cabala (i.e. '' traditional teaching ") is a collection of dogmas made about the
ninth and thirteenth centuries j it was certainly influenced by Neoplatonism, and
contained the interpretation of creation as emanation in graduated series of beings
from the one supreme Being, of the Logos or Divine Word as intermediary between
the Supreme and the lower beings (viz. the material world and all sensible objects) :
the elements of the Logos are the Sephiroth, the ten numbers of Pythagoras, corre-
sponding to the chief virtues or qualities ; next to these are the ideas or forms, then
the world-souls, and last of all material things.

132 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

reans that Plato was supposed to have derived his cos-
mology. It is, however, with the system of Plotinus
that Bruno's earlier theory has the closest affinity : he
passed far beyond that system, as the following chapters
may show, but many of the ideas that had come down
from the master remained throughout part of the basis
of Bruno's thought : such are, for example, the idea of
the Universal Intelligence, — distinct from the One, the
Highest and Unknowable Being, or God,— as the soul
of the world and the source of the forms of material
things ; l the rationes or.ideas which are contained in it
mould and form all things from the seed onwards : the
seed is a miniature world containing implicitly, i.e. in
its ratio, form or soul, the perfect thing.2 The con-
ception again of the lower, sensible world, as an
imitation of the higher, the intelligible, is derived from
Plotinus, as is that of the seven grades or steps of
emanation from the First Principle to the material
world, which correspond to the seven grades by which
the human mind rises from the knowledge of sensible
things to that of the Highest, the Good.3 The order
of knowledge corresponds step for step with the order of
emanation — of creation. Most significant of all for the
development of Bruno's philosophy was Plotinus' con-
ception of an " intelligible matter," which is common
to all the different beings and species, in the intelligible
world, just as brute matter is that which is common to
all kinds of corporeal objects.4 Again from Plotinus
derives the distinction that the matter underlying the
intelligible world is all things and all together : having
in it (implicitly) all forms, there is nothing into which
it may change : whereas the matter of the sensible

1 Causa, Lag. 231. 2 Op. Lat. i. 2. 196. 3 Ib. ii. i. 48.

4 Plotinus, Enneads, ii. 4. 4 ; cf. Bruno's Causa, Lag. 267.

ii PLOTINUS 133

world becomes all by change in its parts, becomes at
successive moments this and that, is therefore at all
times in diversity, change, movement. Matter of either
kind is never without form, but all forms are in them
in different ways — in the one in the instant of eternity,
in the other in the instants of time ; in the one all at
once, in the other successively, in the one complicity, in
the other explicitly.1 The same idea is attributed in
the De Immense (Book V.) to the Platonists, — "that
God has imbued celestial matter with all forms at once,
but gives them to elemental matter in single moments,
just as he has poured into the nature of the Gods all
ideas once for all, but instils them into animal nature
day by day. And as in the order of minds there is an
ultimate principle which is incorruptible, so in the order
of bodies. For the order of bodies follows that of
intelligences as a footmark follows the foot, as a shadow
follows the body ; hence whatever order is proved to
hold of minds, the same will be found to hold of bodies."2
It only remained to identify the two kinds of matter,
the divine and the " elemental," the spiritual and the
corporeal, to obtain the pure Pantheistic naturalism of
the middle period of Bruno's philosophy : at that stage
he was no longer in sympathy with the Neoplatonist
psychology, and denied the doctrine of a separate in-
telligence or understanding in man, an intelligence, that
is, of different origin from sense, and therefore of
different kind ; he rejected also their view that the
imagination which is the source of instinct in animals,
differs from human imagination, and their assertion of a
difference in kind between reason and intellect in man.
For Bruno, as the order of nature was throughout the
same in kind, constituted of similar elements, so the

1 Causa, Lag. 271 j cf. Plot. Enn. ii. 4. 3. 8 i. 2. 117.

134 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

order of thought or knowledge was one in kind, from
its lowest phase in sense, to its highest in the divine
ecstasy. In the Heroici Furori (as again in the post-
humous De Vinculis in generi) the Platonic doctrine of
the ascent to the ecstatic vision and love of divine
beauty, from sense-perception and the material feeling
for sensible beauty, is the essential topic throughout :
and in both Bruno is largely indebted for his symbolism
to the Neoplatonist mystics.

The renewed passion for physical science brought
another school of philosophy into prominence — the
Arabian.1 The chief commentaries of this school on
Aristotle, as well as many of their original writings,
were translated and published before the middle of the
sixteenth century. Their interest being directed rather
towards the physical and metaphysical writings of the
master, than towards the logical, they helped to satisfy
and to foster the growing spirit of inquiry, and at the
same time to spread abroad a more exact knowledge of
the real Aristotle than was to be derived from the
Christian commentators, whose philosophy was much
less in sympathy with Aristotle's than was imagined.
The general trend of the Arabian school in meta-
physics was towards a modified Aristotelianism, leavened
by the Neoplatonist conception of the essential unity of
all being and all thought, particular things and particular
ideas being a free outflow from the One, into which they of
necessity return again without affecting its fundamental
nature. Bruno was familiar with Avicenna? Avempace*
Avicebronf Algazel? and above all Averroes. Avice-

1 Vide Munk, Melanges de Philosophic juive e t Arabe, Paris, 1589 j and Dictionnaire
des sciences Philosophiques, Paris, 1844-52.

2 Ibn Sina, 980-1037 A.D. ; cf. Op. Lot. iii. 458, 475.

3 Op. Lat. i. I. 223, called by Bruno Hispanus, but really an Arabian, Ibn Badja, —
d. 1138. 4 A Jew, Ibn Gebirol, fl. 1050. 5 Al Ghazzali, 1059-1111 A.D.

ii AVICEBRON 135

bron or Avencebrol was the author of the famous Fons
Vitae, " the Source of Life," which gained a quite
undeserved notoriety for its supposed materialism. Bruno
did not know it at first hand, but through quotations
in the translated Arabian writings,1 and criticisms in the
Scholastics. Accordingly his idea of it is by no means
accurate.2 He knew that Avicebron had spoken of
matter as divine, that he had reduced even the " sub-
stantial forms'* of Aristotle to transitory phases of
matter — " the stable, the eternal, progenetrix, mother
of all things/' 3 — and had shown the logical necessity of
assuming a matter, or ground, out of which corporeal
nature on the one hand, incorporeal or spiritual on the
other, are differentiated.4 It is clear that this under-
lying matter was not material in the ordinary sense, but
a unity which in itself was neither corporeal nor spiritual,
yet in its different aspects was both at once. That is a
conception which formed one of the main theses in
Bruno's philosophy. Directly or indirectly, he drew
from the Fons Vitae the thought of a common some-
thing which runs through all differences, which is their
basis, and gives them reality, which stands to them in
the relation of Aristotle's matter to forms : under the
differences of bodily objects there lies one common
matter, under the differences of spiritual beings another,
and under the differences of these two secondary
" matters " lies a primary matter in which both are one.
So too the progress of thought is from the most com-
plex, or composite, material bodies, — through the less
complex, the spiritual, — to the highest and simplest, the

1 Cf. Op. Lat. iii. 696.

2 Vide Wittman, Giord. Bruno's Beziehungen zu Avenctbrol in the Archi-v fur
Geschichte der Phil. 13. 2 (1900).

3 Causa, Lag. 253 ; cf. 246, and Op. Lat. iii. 696. 4 Causa, Lag. 265.

136 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

One.1 Of Algazel's Makacid — a resume of the chief
philosophical systems, which were criticised in a
second part of the work — a translation was published
in 1506. Although an orthodox theologian, he taught
Bruno that the Sacred Books had as their end not so
much truth or knowledge about reality " as goodness
of custom, the advantage of the civil body, harmonious
living together of peoples, and practice for the benefit
of human intercourse, maintenance of peace, increase of
republics " ; 2 in other words, that the Bible claimed no
authority in regard to matters of historical fact or of
natural science, but contained a revelation of moral
or practical rather than of speculative or theoretical
-^ truth.3 For Averroes, Bruno has the highest respect : 4
ibn koschd he constantly speaks of him as " the most subtle and
1198)." weighty of the Peripatetics" ; Ci Averroes, though an
Arab and ignorant of Greek (!), is more at home in the
Peripatetic doctrine than any Greek I have read : and
he would have understood it better, had he not been so
devoted to his deity Aristotle." 5 This blind faith in
Aristotle was the weak spot in Averroes' armour, and
the cause of many of his subtleties. " He could not
believe that Aristotle, whose knowledge was co-extensive
with creation, could have erred ; rather than deny
Aristotle, he refused to believe his own senses." Q In
philosophical theory there were at least two points of

1 Cf. Wittman, loc. cit. 2 Ccr.a, Lag. 170.

3 Her. Fur. Lag. 742. Algazel is connected with Averroes by Bruno in another
argument against authority, — that the mere habit of and familiarity with a given
belief does not authorise its truth, for " those who from boyhood and youth are
accustomed to eat poison, come to such a state that it is transformed into a sweet
and good nourishment for them, and on the contrary they come to abhor what is
really good and pleasant according to common nature."

4 A Latin translation of Averroes' Commentaries was published in 1472, and one of
his criticisms of Algazel (Destructio destructionli] in 1497 and in 1527.

ii THE SCHOLASTICS 137

contact between Bruno and the great Arabian — one was
the doctrine that forms, i.e. individual particular objects,
are sent out from and therefore originally contained in
matter, or, in modern phrase, that the evolution of
natural objects is from within outwards, not imposed
upon nature by an alien and separate creator : l the
other was the theory of a universal intelligence per-
vading and illuminating all human minds, yet remaining
one and the same in all, itself an emanation from the
Divine, and the lowest in the order of intelligences.2
Bruno did not, however, speak of it as separate from the
finite minds, but as immanent in them : nor did he
regard it as the only immortal element in man.

Of the Scholastics proper, from whom much at least
of Bruno's terminology is derived, two seem to have
influenced him most strongly: — Albert the Great, whose
interest in natural science entitled him to a place in the
temple of wisdom : " He had no equal in his time, and
was far superior to Aristotle, whose school, in which he
ranked according to the conditions of his age, was
unworthy of him ;3 and Thomas Aquinas, the angelic
doctor, " honour and glory of all and every race of
theologians and of Peripatetic philosophers."4 Gener-
ally speaking, however, the Scholastic is to Bruno the
pedant, the dabbler in words, as contrasted with the
student of nature or of reality.5 Under this condemna-
tion fell two of the greatest innovators upon the
Aristotelian philosophy of his own time, — Ramus, and

1 Cauza, Lag. 271 : on Averroes cf. Op. Lat. i. i. 221, 224, 337, 338, etc.

2 Her. Fur. Lag. 677.

3 Of. Lat. i. i. 16. Albertus lived from 1193 to 1280 A. D. There are frequent
references to the spurious writings attributed to him, in Bruno's De Magia Mathe-
matica, etc.

4 i. 2. 415. Cf. Sig. Sig. ii. 2. 190, for a reputed miracle related of Saint
Thomas.

5 Cf. the ridicule in Lag. 361 and 563.

138 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Patrizzi. The great logician was merely " a French arch-
pedant, who has written The School upon the Liberal
Arts^ and the Animadversions against Aristotle. We
may admit that he understood Aristotle, but he under-
stood him badly ; and had he understood him well, he
would perhaps have been minded to make honourable
war upon him, as the judicious Telesio has done."1 The
fashionable philosopher and Platonist is " un altro
stereo di pedanti, an Italian who has soiled so many
quires with his Discussiones Peripateticae ; we cannot
say he understood Aristotle, either well or ill, but
he has read and re-read, stitched and unstitched, and
compared with a thousand other Greek authors, friendly
and unfriendly to Aristotle, and in the end has under-
gone great labour, not only without any profit, but also
with very great disprofit, so that he who would see into
what presumptuous folly and vanity the pedantic habit
may plunge a man, let him look at that book, before
the memory of it is lost." Tocco has laid his finger
upon the reason for Bruno's dislike of these moderns,
and it explains his objection to the Scholastics generally:
— it was that they attempted to remodel and reform the
Logic and Rhetoric of Aristotle, the very parts of his
work which Bruno regarded as the most perfect, — and
neglected the physical works, the theory of which had
so powerful an authority to back it, and therefore all
the more required the energies of the stronger minds of
the time to be directed upon it.2

Luiiy, One of the mediaeval writers Bruno associated so

"35-1305- cioseiy with himself, that his indebtedness might easily be

exaggerated : this was Raymond Lully, whose grim

figure stands out from the shadowy thirteenth century,

1 Causa, Lag. 246.
2 Tocco, Fonti flu rccenti, etc., p. 538.

ii LULLISM 139

— the author of the celebrated Art of Reasoning} The
object of the Art was to tabulate the primary forms or
elements of thought, and their modes of combination,
from which data, it was believed, any process of
reasoning, however complex, might be carried out,
without greater expenditure of energy than in perform-
ing an arithmetical operation with any of the first
nine numbers. There was no question of a possible
divorce between thought and reality. The result of
any such process of rational calculus properly carried
out was truth. Bruno thought with Lully that
the ultimate ideas within reach of human thought
were at the same time substantial elements in reality
and that the completest knowledge of reality — short
of the Absolute — was within the power of human
reason to achieve. Lully included in this rational
sphere the dogmas of Christian theology : faith was for
the many, who must be driven to believe ; reason for
the few, the wise. Lully's method attracted, and his
teaching influenced nearly all the greater minds of the
later middle ages, and of the Renaissance. They
became a source of as bitter contention as the doctrines
of Aristotle himself. Bruno speaks of Lully as " almost
divine " ; Agrippa, after being an ardent follower, came
to see the vanity of the system, and Bacon called it
a method of imposture. At different times Bruno
expounded, criticised, and expanded the Art. He
claims 2 to have " embellished the method of him whom
the best leaders among philosophers admire, follow,
imitate." Duns Scotus (" Scotigena "), Nicholas of

1 Besides the several works on the Art of Reasoning, Lully had written also on
theology and on medicine, and Bruno, in his (posthumous) M.edicina Lulliana, gave a
compendium of the latter group of writings.

2 De Lampade Combinatorial, Op, Lat. ii. 2. 234.

1 40 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Cusa, Paracelsus, Agrippa, are named, unjustly, as
having drawn their chief doctrines from this source :
Lefevre and Bouille 1 cited among his most recent
followers. The art was taught " by some divine
genius to a rude uncultured hermit, and although it
seems to issue from one too dense and stupid, yet it
excels the teaching of any famous Attic orator in this
kind, as a crop of wheat excels one of barley. It seemed
to us unfitting that this work, struggling upwards to
the light, against the envy of oppressing darkness,
should be suffered to perish and be lost." 2 Yet Bruno
by no means thought Lully's exposition perfect. Of
his own Lullian work, the De Compendiosa Architectural
he says that it " suffices for the understanding, estimating,
and prosecuting of the art of Lully, by those who are
skilled in the vulgar philosophy. For in it is expressed
in one whole, all that is in Lully's many ' Arts/ in
which he always seems to be saying the same thing ;
you have there all that is in the Ars Brevisy the Ars
Magna, and other books bearing the name of Arbor
Scientiae, Inventionis, Artes demons tr at ivae^ mixtionis
principiorum, Auditus cabalistici, or any other of that
kind, in which the poor fellow strove always to express
the same thing."

It was the dream of universal knowledge that
attracted Bruno and others to Lullism,just as the dream
of universal power over nature attracted the greater
minds of the Renaissance to the pseudo-science of
Alchemy. The same idea is at the root of both. All
things are in all things, i.e. the one fundamental nature
is in each and every individual thing, therefore out of
any one may be produced any other. So in the idea of

1 Faber Stapulensis (c. 1500), and Carolus Bovillus (c. 1470-1553). Both were
rather followers of Cusanus. 2 Op. Lot. ii. 2. 242. 3 ii. 2. 61.

ii NICOLAUS OF CUSA 141

any one thing, the knowledge of all and any others is
necessarily contained, requiring only a proper method
for its extraction, as out of the seed may be brought
the great tree. Therefore, to Bruno, the hermit Lully
seemed "omniscient and almost divine," his method an
inspiration from above.1 There is little, however, to
connect Bruno with the substantive teaching of Lully,
apart from the method. He explicitly rejects, for
example, the main contention of Lully, that the Christian
dogmas are capable of demonstration by reason. —
" Those relations (i.e. between God and man), which
have been revealed to the worshippers of Christ alone,
are contrary to all reasoning, philosophy, other faiths
and superstitions, and allow of no demonstration but of
faith only, in spite of what Lully in his madness
(delirando) attempted to do, in face of the opinion of
the great theologians." 2

Foremost of all, however, of the influences which
directed Bruno's thought was that of the Cardinal Cusanus-
Nicolaus of Cusa (Nicholas ChrypfFs). A " pre-refor-
mation reformer," he stands both in theology and
philosophy between the old and the new eras, summing
up in his own theory the purest theology and the most
refined philosophy of the Middle Ages, yet inevitably
pointing forwards to a scientific and religious reform
which should transcend both. " Where," cried Bruno
in his oration at Wittenberg, " will you find his equal ?
and the greater he is the fewer are they to whom he is
accessible. Had not the robe of the priest infected his
genius it would have been not merely equal to but far
superior to that of Pythagoras."3 " He knew and

1 Op. Lot. ii. 2. 329, 3. 297. 2 De Comp. Arch. ii. 2. 42.

3 i. i. 17. On Cusanus v. Falckenberg, Grundzuge der Philosophic des Nicolaus
Cusanus, 1880, Uebinger, Philosophic des N. C., 1880, and Gotteslehre des N. C.,

1 42 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

discerned much, and is truly one of the most gifted
natures that have ever breathed the air of heaven ; but
as to the apprehension of truth, he was like a swimmer
in tempestuous waters, cast now high now low, he did
not see the light continuously, openly, clearly ; did not
swim as in calm and quiet waters, but interruptedly, at
intervals, for he had not cast off all the false principles
which he had received from the common doctrine —
his starting-point." 1

A sketch of the philosophy of the Cusan will show
in how close a relation Bruno stands to him, yet how
great is the difference in outcome between the two
philosophies. Clemens, whose sympathies are with the
orthodox theologian, does not hesitate to say that this is
" the real and direct source from which Bruno drew
with both hands, the philosophy to which he owes many
of the main principles of his nature-philosophy, and
which he has to thank for all the essentials of teaching
said to be peculiar to himself" ; and Falckenberg is
equally inclined to underrate the originality of the
Italian in preference to the German philosopher. The
outset of Cusanus' philosophy is from a theory of
knowledge which he held from Platonist traditions : —
Knowledge is posterior both in time and in value to
Being, or Reality, of which it is at best a copy or a
sign, hence Reality can never be wholly comprehended
by it. Every human assertion is at best a " conjec-
ture," a hypothesis or approach to truth, but never the
absolute truth itself. Only in the Divine spirit are
thought and reality one ; the Divine thought is at the
same time creative, human only reflective, imitative,
thus the Ultimate Being is and must remain incompre-

1888, F. J. Clemens, Giord. Bruno und Niko/aus -von Cusa, 1847, Scharpff, Dei N.
von C. ivichstigste Schriften, 1862. l Infinite, Lag. 348.

ii PHILOSOPHY OF CUSANUS 143

hensible for human minds. So Bruno also taught.
The Cusan did not, however, reject on this account all
human knowledge. On the contrary, reason approxi-
mates ever more and more closely to the Divine mind,
as a polygon approaches more and more to the form of
a circle when the number of its sides is increased ; as it
never becomes an actual circle, so the Divine reason
may be known ever more and more truly through
human reason, but never quite truly. It is the know-
ledge of this our essential ignorance of the Divine that
brings us nearest to it.1 Thus although from one
point of view all that is best in human experience may
be attributed to the Divine nature in a higher form
(positive theology}, from another every predicate, even
the highest, may be denied of it (negative theology), or
from still a third standpoint (mystical theology), con-
trary predicates equally hold or do not hold of the
Divine. This u coincidence of contraries," suggested
perhaps by the tradition of Heraclitus and Empedocles,
was in the Cusan a principle of knowledge merely.
The Divine was at once the greatest and the least ;
greatest because we could not imagine it added to, for
it was the all ; least because, being truly existent, we
could not imagine anything taken away from it. It is
owing to the limits of human thought, therefore, that God
is at once greatest and least, equal and unequal, many
and one ; God Himself is free from all contradiction,
the apparent contraries of our understanding are in Him
one and the same. So, to our imagination, the infinite
circle coincides with the infinite straight line, and a top
spinning with its fastest movement appears to stand
still.

Bruno extols the greatness of this discovery — " Con-

1 Cf. Cusanus' De docta Igncrantia.

144 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

sidering it physically, mathematically, morally, one sees
that the philosopher who saw into the coincidence of
contraries made a discovery of the highest importance,
and that the magician who knows to seek it where it is
is no feeble practician." l Yet, although he made use of
the same geometrical illustrations, and believed himself
to be substantially following Cusanus, his theory was
widely different. The coincidence'springs in Bruno, not
from the limitations of the human mind, but from the
fulness of the Divine nature. It is not in God as the
transcendent unknowable Being that the coincidence
inheres, but in the infinite universe as one with God,
which is in itself at once the greatest and the least, the
maximum and the minimum. Since nature is per-
meated by God, in everything, in the least of things, is
God the greatest ; the least is the greatest, has in it
the nature of the whole, and so, too, the greatest is the
least. In Bruno it is a pantheistic, in the Cusan a
theistic, doctrine. The same conception occurs again
in its different meanings, when both compare God to
an infinite circle in which centre and circumference are
one ; in Cusanus it is to our knowledge that He so
appears, in Bruno He really is infinite, and is with His
whole nature at any point or centre, as well as in the
whole, the circumference.

The With the Cusan the threefold nature of the Highest

^ Being is deduced as a necessity of Reason : it is (i)
unity eternal ; (2) sameness or equality eternal ; and
(3) the union of unity and equality. As there
cannot be three eternal and highest beings, these three
are necessarily one — the Unity (the Father) produces
or begets from itself the same (the Son), and out of
both springs their union (the Holy Ghost), yet each of

1 Spaccio, Lag. 420.

ii PROOF OF THE TRINITY 145

these in the One is one and the same.1 In the universe,
the created world, there is also a Trinity, since it
is a copy or reflection of the Divine. (i) Pos-
sibility or Matter, the unlimited, indeterminate, but
capable of being limited and determined, corre-
sponds to the unity of the eternal ; (2) Actuality, or
Form, the limiting or determining something, that
which limits, corresponds to the sameness or equality
of the Eternal ; and (3) the unifying movement
by which the possible receives actuality, matter re-
ceives form, implying a spirit of union, of Love,
corresponds to the Absolute Union, the Holy Ghost.2
At a later stage of his philosophy, however, the
Cusan gave a second deduction of the Trinity.3 God
is both Absolute Possibility, Absolute Power or
Potency (the Creative Word, the Son), and the union
of both in Absolute Reality ; yet these are merely
different aspects or points of view of the Eternal Being.
Again, God is the identity of knowing, or intellect,
the knowable or intelligible (the Word), and love, as
the inter-relation of each with each, the striving of the
knowing after the knowable, its highest good.4 Bruno
also adopts the Trinity of Possibility or Matter,
Potency or Form, and Reality, but it is applied at
once to God and to Nature as two sides of the same
thing. As the Divine potency is infinite, so is nature,
its expression, infinite ; matter and form do not in their
origin stand opposed to one another, as if separated
from one another, any more than power and possibility
are separate in God ; all that can be is realised ; matter
has in itself all possible forms, and produces these out
of itself in the successive moments of time ; the universe

1 De docta ignorantia, i. 7. Alchoran, ii. 7, 8.

2 Doct. ignor. ii. 7. 3 De Possest. 4 Alchoran, ii. 6.

L

146 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

is eternal, therefore, in order that the infinite power
may in it be realised. In all these respects Bruno trans-
forms the orthodox Cusanus' conception of a created
and finite world ; although nowhere perhaps has the
idea of a creation been more skilfully woven into a
profound philosophical system than in the Cardinal's
quaint dialogues. The Cusan does not attempt the
impossible, to account for the fact of creation — " God
comprehends (or contains) all things, for all things are
in Him, and He unfolds all things out of Himself, for
in all things He lives" ; but the essence and the process
of the comprehension and the unfolding are unknow-
able by us, just as we can never understand how chance
comes to be united with necessity (creation) in the world.
It is to this incomprehensible partnership that the im-
perfections of created things are attributed. In its
reality the universe is finite, limited ; in its possibility
(i.e. its idea) it is infinite, but only privatively infinite
— that is, God could still call a more perfect universe
into existence than it has actually pleased Him to do.
Only He, as the Absolute Greatest, is infinite in the
full negative sense, i.e. that which can neither be nor be
thought greater than it is. Here Bruno's theory is in
complete contrast with that of the Cusan. There are,
however, many consequences that both alike have
drawn, as that no two things in the universe are wholly
and in all respects alike (the identity of indiscernible s} ;
each thing expresses the nature of the whole in a special
way, but all things may be arranged in graduated
scales from the lowest to the highest, or from any one
to any other, i.e. there are no absolute differences, only
differences of degree. Nor are there absolute centres in
the universe, or in any of the worlds, nor perfect figures
— thus there are no perfect circles described, e.g. by the

ii CUSANUS AND BRUNO 147

planets, in nature. A further corollary was that the
whole is mirrored in each of the parts, as each parti-
cular thing partakes of the soul or creative force of all ;
each does not, however, mirror or reflect the Divine
nature with the same adequacy as every other ; some
do so more perfectly than others, man most perfectly of
all.1 Cusanus did not definitely accept the suggestion
of a soul of the universe, analogous in its relation to
the world to the soul of man in the body ; still less did
he identify it with God, as Bruno tended more and
more to do. Hence he escaped the fantastical conse-
quences of the belief in Universal Animism, which
were drawn without reserve by the Renaissance writers
— the consequence, e.g. that if one soul, one nature,
pervades all things, and is the life of all things, then
out of each may be produced any other — out of lead,
gold, etc. On the other hand, the four elements at
least were different forms of the same fundamental
being, and might be produced each out of the other ;
and, in common with Bruno, Cusanus held the pre-
Aristotelian belief in Atomism : — there cannot be division
of anything, cube or surface, or line — ad infinitum ; ulti-
mately there must in each kind be a minimum,2 an
atom, beyond which we cannot in fact go, although to
thought it may be still further divisible ; so there is in
every figure, in every kind of thing, a definite number
of atoms. It was partly this thought, partly also the
mystical value from time immemorial given to the
different numbers and geometrical figures, that led both
Cusanus and Bruno to look to mathematics and geo-
metry for the true method or organon of natural
science. " Number is the natural and fruitful principle

1 Cusanus, De Ludo globi, bk. i.
2 Cusanus, De Idiota, hi. (De Mente, 9).

148 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

of the understanding's activity ; irrational beings do
not number. But number is nothing but the unfolding
of the understanding. Without it the understanding
would have none of the results to which it attains. . . .
Nothing can exist before number, for all that goes
beyond the simplest unity is in its fashion a composite,
and, therefore, without number is unthinkable, for mul-
titude, difference, and relation of parts arise from
number." l In both again human knowledge proceeds
inversely as creation (or emanation) from number, the
many, back through successive grades of simplicity to
the one highest, most simple, God, in whom are all
things complicitly (without number). " What appears
to us as after another, successive, is by no means after
in Thy Thought, which is eternity itself. The single
thought, which is Thy word, embraces (complicat) all
and each in itself, Thy single word cannot be manifold,
opposite, changeable. ... In the eternity in which
Thou thinkest, coincides all the after another of time,
with the now of eternity. There is, therefore, no past
nor future where future and past coincide with the
present." 2 The merely logical understanding, that
which is based upon sense and requires sense-images
for its material, is inadequate to this highest knowledge,
gives approximation merely, and we are thrown back
upon mystical intuition on the one hand, reasoned faith
on the other, for our insight into the true nature of the
One and the All.3

of Other influences which gave direction to Bruno's
helm!3 genius belong rather to physical science and pseudo-
science than to philosophical theory. Cornelius Agrippa
of Nettesheim (1487-1535), the scholarly adventurer,

1 Cusanus, De Conjecturis, i. 4.
2 Id. De Vnione Dei, 10. 3 Id. De Venatione Sapient iae.

ii PARACELSUS 149

the Faust who acquired all the knowledge and most
of the arts of his time, wrote a compendium and
justification (from Neoplatonist philosophy) of magical
practices,1 and at the close of his life the great declama-
tion " on the uncertainty and vanity of all sciences and
arts," 2 — a plea for the simple life and the simple gospel.
The De occulta philosophia is the chief source from
which Bruno drew the fantastical lore of the De
Monade? The satires upon Asinity, as the chief
human virtue, in the Spaccio and the Cabala, directed
as they are against blind faith without works or wisdom,
found their occasion at least in Agrippa's praise of the
Ass (in the De Vanitate) as the mouthpiece of God in
the story of Balaam, and the bearer of Christ in the
New Testament history.

Paracelsus 4 proposed a reform of medicine on Neo- Paracelsus,
platonist principles, attacking the Galenian doctrine of
the Four Humours, which was based on the four
elements of the Aristotelians (the warm and the cold,
the moist and the dry). His own more <c natural "
theory made salt, sulphur, and mercury the (chemical)
elements of all things — those which in living organisms
were vivified and directed by an inner spirit (e.g.
the Archaeus in man), a direct emanation from the
soul of the universe. Through their common con-
stitution, and the spirit that infused all things alike,
there was a subtle, mysterious sympathy between the
microcosm and the macrocosm, the individual body
and the universe, and it was by the study of the
relations (magical, astrological, and the rest) between
the stars and the things of earth, between the

1 De occulta philosophia. 2 De Vanitate Scientiarum.

8 Tocco. Fonti piu recenti, etc. p. 534.
4 Theophrastus Bombastes von Hohenheim, 1493-1541.

150 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

different metals and the body of man, that
Paracelsus proposed to reform the art of medicine.
Bruno, in the Causa,1 praises Paracelsus for his " philo-
sophical " treatment of medicine, that he did not
rest content with the three chemical principles alone for
explanation of the different vital phenomena, but
sought the true principle of life everywhere in a spirit
or soul. He is one of the builders of the temple
of wisdom, — ad miraculum medicus? In his magical
writings and in the De Monade, Bruno is largely
indebted for materials to Paracelsus. The same
general tendency, the desire for a return to nature and
to sense-observation as opposed to the authority of
Aristotle, and to the cult of logical or grammatical

Cardanus. subtleties, is found also in Cardan.3 In his work
there is the same mixture of mathematics and physical
science with theology, magic, and Neoplatonism, and
to him Bruno owes many of his superstitions. The

Teiesio. more profound Telesio also (who before Bruno " made
honourable war upon Aristotle ") 4 attempted, in-
dependently of all authority, from sense - knowledge
and induction alone, to penetrate the mysteries of
nature. '

Copernicus. Only one name remains with which that of Bruno
is indelibly associated — that of Copernicus, whose De
orbium coelestium Revolutionibus was published in
1543. It was his theory of the solar system, coinciding
as it seemed with that of the most ancient philosophers,

1 Lag. 247.

2 i. i. 17. In the Sig. Sig. ii. 2. 181, he is put forward as an example of the
value of the life of solitude : — " Paracelsus, who glories more in the title of hermit
than in that of doctor or master, became a leader and author among physicians,
second to none " ; — a reference to the title of Ercmita, which Paracelsus took, how-
ever, from his birthplace Einsiedeln, and to his well known and strongly expressed
contempt for the learning of books. 3 1501-1576 A.D.

4 The first two books of the Denatura rerum were published in 1565.

ii COPERNICUS 151

that gave the decisive trend to Bruno's thought,
holding him fast to the one all-important fact that the
earth is not the centre of the universe but one of its
humblest members. Without the solid arguments of
Copernicus, Bruno's superb conception of the cosmic
system would have remained a dream, an intuition
of genius, rather than a well-grounded forecast of
modern scientific discovery. " There is more under-
standing," said Bruno, " in two of his chapters than in
tKe" whole philosophy of nature of Aristotle and all the
Peripatetics.1 Grave, thoughtful, careful, and mature
in mind, not inferior to any of the astronomers that
went before him — in natural judgment far superior to
Ptolemy, Hipparch, Eudoxus, and all the others that
have walked in their footsteps — a height he attained by
freeing himself from the prejudices, not to say blindness,
of the vulgar philosophy. Yet he did not get beyond
it ; being more a student of mathematics than of
nature, he was unable wholly to uproot all unfitting,
vain principles, to solve all contrary difficulties, liberate
both himself and others from so many vain inquiries,
and fix their contemplation on things abiding and sure.
With all that, who can sufficiently appraise the greatness
of this German, who paid little heed to the foolish
multitude, and stood solid against the torrent of
opposing belief. Although almost destitute of living
reasons for weapons, he took up those cast-off and
rusty fragments that he could get to his hand from
antiquity ; repolished them, brought the pieces together,
mended them, so that through his arguments — mathe-
matical rather than physical though they were — he
made a cause that had been ridiculed, despised,
neglected, to be honoured and prized, to seem more

1 Op, Lot. i. i. 17.

152 GIORDANO BRUNO PART n

probable than its contrary, and certainly more suitable
and expeditious for calculation." l Copernicus had put
forward the theory as a hypothesis merely, and had
shown how much more simply the different positions of
the sun and planets as seen from the earth could be
explained by it, and how much more accurately they
could be calculated. In the Epistle prefixed to his
work (said by Bruno not to be by Copernicus himself),
the reader was warned of the folly of taking this
hypothesis as true. To Bruno the contrary of the
hypothesis was absurd. Bruno did not appreciate the
mathematical proofs of Copernicus, and constantly
spoke of him as too much of a mathematician, too
little of a physicist : his own mathematical demonstra-
tions were, however, much less successful than those of
his predecessor.2

1 Cena, Lag. 124.

2 Bruno praises and gives long extracts from Copernicus in the De Immense,
bk. iii. ch. 9.

CHAPTER II

THE FOUNDATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE1

IT is the object of this chapter to give some account of
the speculations on nature and spirit which occupied
Bruno during his first year in England, and which
show how hard he was striving to pierce through the
shell of mediaeval thought in which his mind was
encased. However fiercely he struggled to gain his
freedom, it was impossible that he should do so quite at
once. With all his contemporaries, he was imbued in
Aristotle's ways of thought, and the problems he set
himself to answer were largely determined for him by
Aristotle. The categories with which he wrought, —
"principle," "cause," "form," "matter," "potency,"
" act," " subject," were those of the Stagirite, and
were open, therefore, to the same charge of unfruitful-
ness. On the other hand, while the outward form of
Bruno's philosophy, and to a certain extent its matter
also, were essentially Aristotelian, the spirit which
infused it all was not so ; the emotion and enthusiasm
with which he wrote savoured rather of the fire of
Plato than of the logical mind of his successor ; and
throughout, the new conception of nature and of mind
which belongs to modern philosophy was struggling to
the light.

1 De la Causa, etc.
153

154 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

From his Platonist masters Bruno had learned that
the Highest or First Principle was unknowable to man,
being beyond the reach of his senses and of his under-
standing alike : a complete systematisation of knowledge
was therefore impossible. A philosophy of nature had
to seek only for physical (i.e. real or "immanent")
causes or principles ; these might depend, indeed, upon
the highest and first principle or cause, but the depend-
ence was not so close that the knowledge of the former
gave us knowledge of the latter : no single system of
knowledge could embrace both. Knowing the universe,
we yet knew nothing of the essence or substance of its
first cause, any more than that of the sculptor Apelles
could be inferred from the statue he had made. The
things of nature, although effects of the divine opera-
tion, became the remotest accidents, when regarded as
means to the knowledge of the divine supernatural
Essence. " We have still less ground for knowing it
than for knowing Apelles from his finished statues,
for all of these we may see, and examine, part by part,
but not the great and infinite effect of the divine
potency." 1 The First Principle is, therefore, the
concern of the moralist and of the theologian, as
revealed to them by the gods, or declared to them
through the inspired knowledge of diviner men and of
the prophets. On the other hand, in the universe we
have the infinite image of God, and it is, therefore,
possible through it to obtain an approximate knowledge
of Him : " the magnificent stars and shining bodies,
which are so many inhabited worlds, and animate beings
or deities, worlds similar to that which contains
ourselves, must depend, since they are composite and
capable of dissolution, upon a principle and cause ; and

1 Lag. 229.

ii THE CAUSA 155

consequently, by their greatness, their life and work,
they show forth and preach the majesty of this first
principle and cause."1 Thus the starting-point of
Bruno's mature philosophy is nature as the vestige or
imprint of divinity, and divinity is considered only " as
nature itself or as reflected in nature " : the presence of
a transcendent principle above and beyond nature is,
indeed, premised to the discussion of the Causa, but it
is no longer admitted that its study falls within the
philosopher's scope, nor does it ever hamper or in any
way influence the course of the argument. So far from
that, we find, at the completion of the dialogue, that
we have arrived at an immanent principle or divinity,
which renders the transcendent superfluous.

The purpose of the Causa,2 Bruno's first purely
philosophical work, was to determine what are the
creative and constitutive principles of the natural
world, — its efficient cause, its end, its form, its matter,
and its unity ; or, in other words, to lay down the
" foundations of knowledge," to give an outline-
picture of reality the details of which it was left to
experience and observation to fill in. Bruno begins
by laying down certain distinctions, which, however,
do not, in the end, prove very binding. First, a
principle (principio} is that which enters, intrin- Principle
sicaily, into the constitution of a thing, while a
cause concurs from without in its production ; thus,
matter and form, which are principles rather than
causes, are the elements of which a thing is composed
and into which it is resolved. A cause, on the other
hand, remains outside of the resultant object — for ex-
ample, the efficient, creating cause, and the end or final
cause for which the thing is ordained. Principle is the

1 Lag. 229. 2 De la Causa, principio et uno, 1584.

156 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

more general term, for " in Nature, not everything that
is principle, is also cause : the point is principle of
the line, not cause ; the instant, of the event ; the
starting-point, of the movement ; the premisses, of
the argument."1 God is both principle and cause,
but from different points of view : " He is first
principle in so far as all things are posterior to him in
nature, duration, or dignity ; he is first cause in so far
as all things are distinguished from him as effect from
efficient, thing produced from producer. The points
of view are different, for not always is the prior and
more worthy a cause of that which is posterior and less
worthy ; and not always is the cause prior and more
worthy than that which is caused." 2 There are really
two marks of a principle given by Bruno, priority in
worth, and internality ; but, generally, a principle is
that without which a thing could not come into being,
and which if taken away would take away also the
being of the thing. To a cause the latter half of this
description would not apply, as it remains outside of
the effect. Thus God as principle is immanent in all
things, and is the higher source from which they proceed.
This twofold interpretation of the relation of God to
nature and to natural things was already inherent in
the Neoplatonic doctrine which formed Bruno's starting-
point, since God as the source of emanation was outside
of the emanations themselves, and was unaffected by
them ; on the other hand, the gradations in the
different stages of emanation, and the possibility of

1 Lag. Z3o.

2 Ib. The terms correspond to Aristotle's dpX'n and afrtov, respectively j no clear
distinction was drawn between their meanings by Aristotle, however. Bruno's aim
is to contrast the inwardly active, immanent principle of life and of movement with the

' transient, outwardly active cause, and to interpret nature, as a whole, as the mani-
festation of some such inward principle, rather than as a mechanical system to which
the impulse was given from without.

ii THE EFFICIENT CAUSE 157

rising from the lowest to the highest, to the One above
all, implied the existence of somewhat of the One as a
common nature in all. The two points of view were,
however, held apart, and the contradiction between
them was not consciously perceived, so that the coinci-
dence of nature between God as the source, and matter
as the lowest emanation, never suggested itself ; on the
contrary, their complete opposition was maintained
until Bruno put forward his theory of the " divinity
of matter," which forms the real theme of the Causa.

The efficient cause of the natural world is the Efficient
universal intelligence, " the first and principal faculty nature°f
of the soul of the world." This intellectus universalis
is to natural things as our intellect to the thoughts
of our mind, and Bruno identifies it with the Demiurge
of the Platonists, and the " seed-sower " of the Magi,
for it impregnates matter with all " forms " : it is an
artefice interno, for it works from within in giving form
and figure to matter, as the seed or root from within
sends forth the stem, the stem the branches, the
branches the formed twigs, and these the buds ; " from
within leaves, flowers, fruit are formed, figured,
patterned ; from within again in due time the sap is
recalled from leaves and fruit to twigs, from twigs to
branches, from these to stem, from stem to root. . . .
But how much greater an artificer is he that works
not in any single part of matter alone, but continually
and in all."1 The intellectus is both external and
internal to any particular being ; i.e. it is not a part
of any particular existence, is not exhausted by it,
therefore is so far external to it ; on the other hand,

1 Lag. 231. 38. The Intellectus is identified also with the Pythagorean world-
mover (Verg. Aeneid, vi. 726) j the " World's Eye " of the Orphic Poems ; the
" distinguished' of Empedocles ; the "Father and Progenitor of all things" of Plotinus.

158 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

it does not act upon matter from without, but from
within,1 the efficient cause is at the same time an
inward principle.

Formal The formal cause of nature is the ideal reason ;

nature! before the intelligence can produce species or particular
things, can bring them forth from the potentiality of
matter into reality, it must contain them "formally," i.e.
ideally, in itself, as the sculptor cannot mould different
statues without having first thought out their different
forms.2 This ideal reason is the Idea ante rem of the
Scholastics. The ideas of the intelligence are not,
as such, the things of nature, they are the models by
which the intellect guides nature in its production of
individual things. The final cause which the intellect

Final cause, sets before itself is the perfection of the universe, i.e.
that all possible forms may have actual existence
in the different portions of matter ; from its joy in
this end proceeds its ceaseless activity in the production
of forms out of matter.3

Among constitutive principles or elements of things,

Form. the intellects again takes the foremost place as the
form ; for, as we have seen, it is both extrinsic and
intrinsic to the nature of things, . . ." the soul is
in the body as the pilot in the ship ; in so far as he is
moved along with it, he is part of the ship, but in so
far as he governs and guides it, he is not a part but a
separate agent ; so the soul of the universe, in so far
as it animates and gives form to things, is intrinsic
formal principle ; in so far as it directs and governs,
it is not part, nor principle, but cause." 4 As external,
the soul of the world is independent of matter, and
untouched by its defects : it is only the perfections

1 Lag. 232. 24. 2 Lag. 232. 33 ff.

3 On Perfection, vide infra, p. 199. 4 Lag. 233. 27. Cf. Arist. De Anima, ii. I.

ii SUBSTANCE: IMMORTALITY 159

of the lower that are present in the higher being, and
that to a higher degree. As internal it constitutes the
soul in all things — down to the very lowest, although
in these it is repressed or latent. This all-presence
of soul does not mean, however, that each particular
thing, e.g. a table or garment, is, as such, a living and
sensible being, but only that in everything, however
small or insignificant, there is a portion or share of
spirit, animating it, and this, a if it find a pro-
perly disposed subject, may extend itself so as to
become plant or animal, and may receive the limbs
of any body whatsoever, such as is commonly
said to be animate." Even the smallest material
body, therefore, has in it the potentiality of life and
mind.

It follows that there are, strictly speaking, only Substance,
two substances^ matter and spirit : all particular things
result from the composition in varying degrees of
these two — are therefore mere C{ accidents," and have
no abiding reality. Bruno joins issue in this with the
Peripatetics, to whom the " real man," for example,
is a composite of body and soul, or the true soul is
the perfection or actualisation of the living body, or
is a resultant from a certain harmony of form and
of limbs.1 Death or dissolution would mean to them
the loss of their being ; whereas neither " body nor
soul need fear death, for both matter and form are
constant abiding principles." 2 This theory of sub-
stance and of immortality was regarded by Bruno
as one of the cardinal points of his philosophy,3 and
one in which he differed most widely from Aristotle,
as interpreted by him, and from the Aristotelians. Its
statement, and the criticism of the Peripatetics, occur

1 Cf. Arist. De Anima, ii. ch. I and 2. 2 Lag. 238. 34. 8 Cf. Lucretius.

160 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

again and again throughout the works, and he believed
the removal from man of the fear of death to be one
of the greatest results of his teaching. — "This spirit,
being persistent along with matter — and these being
the one and the other indissoluble, it is impossible
that anything should in any respect see corruption or
come to death, in its substance, although in certain
accidents everything changes face, and passes now into
one composition, now into another, through now one
disposition, now another, leaving off or taking up
now this now that existence. Aristotelians, Platonists,
and other sophists have not understood what the sub-
stance of things is. In natural things that which they
call substance, apart from matter, is pure accident.
When we know what form really is, we know what is
life and what is death ; and, the vain and puerile fear
of the latter passing from us, we experience some of
that blessedness which our philosophy brings with it,
inasmuch as it lifts the dark veil of foolish sentiment
concerning Orcus and the insatiable Charon, that wrests
from us or empoisons all that is sweetest in our lives." l
There is a certain ambiguity in the description of
substance. Whether is the spiritual unity which is
placed over against matter itself substance, or is it
rather the particular souls which are part of it, and
which are thus immortal, changing only the form of
composition into which they enter ? In this dialogue
it seems Bruno is speaking only of the world-soul,2
but in later works, especially in the Spaccio and De
Minimo, the substantiality and immortality of the
individual soul are categorically asserted. In the

1 Lag. 202. 40.

2 Cf. e.g. 238. 12, when the form or soul is said to be one in all things, and differ-
ences are said to arise from the dispositions of matter.

ii SPIRIT AND MATTER 161

Causa however, Bruno maintains quite clearly the
substantiality of the universal soul alone, the finite
individual being merely one of the modes of its de-
termination in matter.1

Having shown that no part of matter is ever entirely
without " form," Bruno leaves aside for the present the
question whether all form (Spirit) is equally accompanied
by matter. The form or world-soul is not more than
one, for all numerical multiplication depends on matter.
It is in itself unchanging ; only the objects vary, the
different portions of matter into which it enters : and
although in the object it is the spirit or form which
causes the part to differ from the whole, yet // does
not differ in the part or in the whole. There are
differences of aspect only, according as it is regarded as
(a) subsisting in itself, or as (£) the actuality and per-
fection of some object, or as (^) referred to different
objects with different dispositions.2 That is, Spirit in
itself, — the universal Spirit, — the Spirit or Soul of a
particular animate being, the Spirits or Souls of a number
of different beings (a system of beings), — these are all the
same thing looked at from different points of view. It
is the same unique Spirit which determines the life of the
human individual, the development of the human race
as a whole, and the persistence of the world ; the soul of
Caesar and the spirit of humanity are one with the soul
of the universe. The relation of spirit to matter in
Bruno's philosophy is more difficult to understand.
Spirit is said to be neither external to nor mixed
with matter, nor inherent in it, but " inexistent," i.e.
associated with or present to it. Moreover it is defined
and determined by matter, because having in itself
power to realise particular things of innumerable kinds,

1 Vide Infra, ch. 5. 2 Lag. 240. 28.

M

1 62 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

it " contracts " or limits itself to realise a given indi-
vidual ; and on the other side the potency of matter,
which is indeterminate, and capable of any form whatso-
ever, is <c determined " to one particular kind ; so that
the one is cause of the definition and determination of
the other. Thus particular bodies are modes (de-
terminations) of spirit and also of matter. As the
universal form, spirit is all- present throughout the
universe, not however materially or in extension,
but spiritually, i.e. intensively. Bruno's favourite
illustration is that of a voice or utterance — " imagine a
voice which is wholly in the whole of a room, and in
every part of it ; everywhere it is heard wholly, as these
words which I speak are understood wholly by all, and
would be even if there were a thousand present ; and if
my voice could reach to all the world, it would be all
in all." l So the soul is individual, not as a point is, but,
analogously to a voice, or utterance, filling the universe.
It is clear from these passages that the finite soul has no
more reality in this phase of Bruno's pantheism than in
Spinoza's ; not only is the world-soul one as unique, but
it is also one as indivisible — there are no parts of it :
it is wholly in each of the parts of the universe — in each
of its realisations. The finite individual, as this par-
ticular soul in this particular body, is accordingly a mere
accident, and passes away as all accidents do ; its
existence is due chiefly to matter, by the varying " dis-
positions " of which the universal form is " determined "
to this or that particular form ; matter is in general the
source of all particularity, all number and measure.
The difficulty underlying this attribution of diversity
to a matter which is supposed to be, apart from the
form, undetermined and undifferentiated, has been re-

1 Lag. 242. 7.

ii MATTER AND FORM 163

ferred to above. It is emphasised in the argument to
this part of the Causa given in the introductory
epistle,1 where matter, although formless in itself, is
spoken of as " consisting in diverse grades of active
and passive qualities? " Bruno seems, however, at this
time unconscious of the difficulty. Certainly from pure
matter and pure form, body and spirit, standing over
against one another, no start could be made. Diversity
had to come into the world somehow.

We have not yet solved the problem as to the
relation between these two principles themselves — matter
and form. Bruno confesses to have held at one period
the "Epicurean view that matter was the only substance,
the forms being merely accidental dispositions of it ; but
on further consideration he was compelled to recognise
a formal as well as a material substance." 2 In fact,
however, both form and matter tend as the philosophy
develops to coincide in a higher unity which is at last
the ultimate reality. The " proof" of <c Matter " is The deduc-
from the analogy between Nature and Art. All who
have attempted, said Bruno, to distinguish matter from
form have made use of the analogy of the arts (e.g. the
Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics). Take some art
such as that of the wood-worker ; in all its forms and
all its operations it has as subject (or material) wood —
as the iron-worker has iron ; the tailor, cloth. All these
arts produce each in its own material various pictures,
arrangements, figures, none of which is proper or natural
to that material. So Nature, which art resembles, must

1 Epist. Proem., Lag. 203. 19. When he wrote the De Minima the question had
at least presented itself to Bruno as requiring solution : vide bk. iv. (Op. Lat. i. 3.
274). Individual differences are referred to two possible sources — the different com-
positions of the forms or ideal types, and the varied dispositions of matter j and it is
suggested that the latter of these may derive from the former.

2 Lag. 246. 37.

1 64 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

have for its operations a certain matter (material) ; for
no agent intending to make something can work without
something of which to make it, or wishing to act can do
so without something on which to act ; there is there-
fore a species of subject or material, of which and in
which nature effectuates its operation, its work, and
which is by it formed in the many forms presented to
the eye of reflection. And as wood by itself has not
any artificial form, but may have any or all through the
action of the wood-worker, so the matter of which we
speak, of itself and in its own nature, has not any natural
form, but may have any or all through the agent, the
active principle of nature. This natural matter or
material is imperceptible, differing so from the material
of art, because the matter of nature has absolutely no
form, whereas the matter of art is a thing already formed
by nature. Art can operate only upon the surface of
things formed by nature, as wood, iron, stone, wool,
and similar things ; but nature operates from the centre
so to speak, of its subject, or matter, which in itself is
wholly devoid of form. The subjects of the arts are
many — of nature one ; for those being diversely formed
by nature, are different and various, while the latter,
not being formed at all, is entirely indifferent, — every
difference and variety being due to the form.1 As it is
absolutely formless, this matter cannot be perceived by
the senses, which are the media of natural forms, but
only by the eye of reason. As visible matter, that of
art, remains the same under countless variations of form,
— the form of a tree becoming that of a trunk, of a beam,
of a table, a chair, a stool, a comb, its nature as wood
continuing throughout ; so in nature that which was

1 Lag. 248. 17. The apparent conflict between this and the preceding pages will
resolve itself below.

ii MATTER THE TRUE SUBSTANCE 165

seed becomes herb ; the herb, corn in the ear ; the corn,
bread ; the bread, bile ; bile, blood ; blood again seed, an
embryo, a man, a corpse, earth, stone, or other things,
and so through all natural forms. There must then be
one and the same thing which in itself is not stone nor
earth, nor corpse, nor man, nor embryo, nor blood, nor
anything else.1 So the Pythagorean Timaeus 2 inferred,
from the transmutations of the elements one into
another, — earth into water, the dry into the moist, — a
tertium quid, which was neither moist nor dry, but
became subject now of the one, now of the other nature.
Otherwise the earth would have gone to nothing and
the water come from nothing, which is impossible.
Thus nothing is ever annihilated but the accidental, the
exterior, material form, both matter and the substantial
form, i.e. spirit, being eternal.

The argument has proved that there is a something, Natural
the " I know not what " of Locke, which is the sub-
stance of all natural things, " natural forms. " We have
now to see in what relation this substance stands to the
forms, the differences, which are on its surface. All
natural forms dissolve in matter, and come again in
matter, so that nothing is really " constant, firm, eternal,
or deserving of the name of a principle, but matter :
besides that the forms have no existence without matter,
in it they are generated and decay, from it they issue,
into it are received again ; therefore matter, which
remains always the same and always fruitful, must be
regarded as the only substantial principle, as that which
always is and always abides ; and the forms but as
varying dispositions of matter, which come and go,
cease and are renewed ; therefore they have no claim to
be principles." 3

1 Lag. 249. 31. 2 Pseudo-Timacus, 94 A. 8 Lag. 253. n.

1 66 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

The matter or material of which Bruno here speaks
is what afterwards was called extension, or the extended
substance, and the natural forms are the various indi-
vidual shapes or bodies of nature : both from the
transformations of one into the other, and again from
the fact that the particular forms come into being and
cease to exist, it was argued that there must be an
underlying something, material indeed, but different
from all the things we know or see, indifferently capable
of becoming any one of them, persisting throughout
their becoming, their change, and their ceasing to exist,
— i.e. a permanent reality.

Matter as Matter, however, meant not only " subject " or
tiaiity". substrate, but also " potentiality," or possibility : and
we have to consider it in this light also. Everything
that exists is therefore possible, and the possibility of
coming into existence, — "passive potency," — implies
that of bringing into existence — " active potentiality
or power " ; the one is never without the other,
First prin- not even in the first principle. Thus the first prin-
ciple is all that which it has the possibility of being—
in it reality and possibility are one ; whereas a stone,
e.g. is not all that it has the possibility of being, for it
is not lime, nor vase, nor dust, nor grass. That which
is all that it can be, the Absolute, is also all that any
other thing is or can be : it embraces all being within
itself. Other things are not thus absolute, but limited
to one reality at a time, i.e. one specific and particular
existence. They can be more only through succession
and change. " Every possibility and actuality that in
the (first) principle is as it were complicate, united, one,
in other things is explicate, dispersed, many. The
universe, which is the great simulacrum and image (of
the first principle) is — it also — all that which it may be

ii IDENTITY IN GOD 167

in its kinds and principal members, as containing all
matter, to which no element of the whole (the universal)
form can be added, in which no phase of that form is
ever wanting ; but it is not all that which it may be in
its differences, its modes, properties, and individuals ;
thus it is a mere shadow of the first reality, and first
potency, and so far in it reality and possibility are not
the same absolutely, that no part of it is all that which
it may be : besides that, as we have said, the universe is
all that it may be only in explicitness, dispersion, dis-
tinctness, whereas its principle is so unitedly and in-
differently, for in it all is all, and the same, simply,
without difference or distinction." *

Bruno works out at considerable length the paradoxes
to which this identity of all possibility and all reality
in the first principle lead. Thus, in magnitude it is both
greatest and least, and as in magnitude, so in goodness,
in beauty ; the sun would fitly represent such a
principle if it were at the same moment in all parts of
the universe, if its motion were so swift that it was
everywhere at once, and therefore motionless. God,
however, is not only all that the sun may be, but also
all that everything else may be — " potency of all
potencies, reality of all realities, life of all lives, soul of
all souls, being of all beings." That which elsewhere is
contrary and opposite, is in Him one and the same.2
Bruno has brought us back in a curious way to the
very first principle which he proposed to exclude from
contemplation : it can be understood, it is true, only by
negations, for our intellect cannot measure itself with
the immeasurable : we can form no image or idea of a
great that might not be greater. But here follows one
of the most vital steps in his philosophy : — As the

1 Lag. 257, 258. 2 Lag. 258-260.

1 68 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

absolute possibility, the first principle becomes itself
matter ', and as there is no possibility without an actuality,
present or to come, the absolute possibility is also
Matter and absolute reality, or matter and form coincide in the
one. One} We approach this conclusion first from the con-

sideration of matter as * * subj ect ' ' ( su bstr ate ) . From the
changes of one natural substance into others we inferred
a universal substrate, undifferentiated, which formed at
once the basis of the community of nature in things,
Matter or and the ground of their difference.2 But the spiritual
oftheate and the corporeal worlds, also, as distinguished from
world181 one another, imply a common " subject " or substrate
in which they are one or identical. Bruno refers, as we
have seen, to Plotinus 3 as having held that distinction
and difference imply a common ground or unity, and
that " intelligible " distinctions are not exempt from
this rule. " As man qud man is different from lion
qud lion, but in the common nature of animal or of
corporeal substance they are one and the same, so the
matter of things corporeal, as such, is different from the
matter of things incorporeal, as such : but from another
point of view it is the same matter which in dimensions
or extension is corporeal matter, and which when
without dimensions or extension is an incorporeal sub-
stance. In things eternal (spiritual) there is one matter
in one simple realisation, in things variable (corporeal)
matter has now one, now another ; in the former, it has
at one time and all together all that which it can have,
and is all that it may be ; in the latter, at many times,
on different occasions, and in succession. The former
has all species of figure and dimension, and because
it has all, it has none : for that which is so many
diverse things, cannot be any one of them in particular.

1 Lag. 261. 2 Lag. 266. 3 Supra, ch. i. Cf. Plotinus, Ennead, ii. 4. 4.

ii NATURE AS ONE AND AS MANY 169

That which is all must include every particular exist*
ence.1 In it, absolute potency and absolute actuality,
matter and form, do not differ at all ; it is the extreme
of purity, simplicity, individuality, and unity, because it
is absolutely all. It is individual in the highest sense.
Being both matter and form, it is neither : as matter, it
has all dimensions and none ; as form, it has all formal
existence or qualities and none. The corporeal matter
is contracted to this or that dimension, whereas
spiritual matter is free (absoluta) of dimensions, there-
fore is both above all, and comprising all. Thus matter
in itself, being without dimensions, is indivisible : it
acquires dimensions according to the nature of the form
it receives : the dimensions under the human form
differ from those under the horse form, and from those
under the olive or the myrtle form. But before it can
be under any of these forms, it must have in faculty all
their dimensions, as it has the possibility or potency of
receiving all the forms. In itself it includes rather than
excludes all dimensions, because it does not receive them
as from without, but sends them, brings them forth,
from itself, as from the womb." 2 In other words,
Nature, under one aspect, is a spiritual unity, in which
are comprised all possible differences, or all separate
existences : under another it is these many existences
themselves, in each of which, in succession, all differ-
ences are " realised," all modes come into being : and
finally, under another aspect, it is the force which brings
forth the separate forms or existences out of the
formless, indeterminate, undifferentiated unity of being,
or God.

The two kinds of matter, or potentiality, the lower

1 Lag. 269.
2 Lag. 268-271. Bruno refers here to Averroes, and especially to Plotinus, v. ch. i.

i yo GIORDANO BRUNO PART

and the higher, are thus essentially one ; so we reach
the notion, not indeed of "the highest and best
principle," as Bruno is again careful to remind us, but
of the soul of the world, as reality of all, and potency
of all, and all in all. Thus in the end, although in-
dividuals are innumerable, all things are one ; and the
knowledge of this unity is the goal and limit of all
philosophy of nature.

The unity This unity, which embraces all the knowable, is the
anybody, subject of the fifth dialogue of the Causa. The steps by
which we have reached it are : — first, the identification
of a common nature, or substratum in things corporeal,
— corporeal matter, that which is common to all physical
existences ; secondly, the recognition that there must
similarly be a corresponding matter, or common ground
of things spiritual ; there also differences exist and
demand an identity ; and finally, corporeal matter and
spiritual matter must themselves coincide in ground;
there must exist that which is indifferently either, or
which is the potency of both, and their " subject " or
substratum. To the objection that to have dimensions
is characteristic of matter, it is answered that each kind
of matter has dimensions, only the latter has them
absolutely, i.e. it has all indifferently, and therefore none,
while the other is always " contracted " to one or other
at each instant, but has all successively. We have seen
that at the close of the fourth dialogue Bruno refers
again to the first principle, unknowable, or knowable
only by faith, and professes to abstain from any con-
sideration of it. It is quite clear, however, that Bruno
could not have said of it anything other than he says
of this unity of the corporeal and the spiritual itself.
That which is implicitly all reality in such a manner
that it is at the same time none of the particular forms

ii MATTER AS THE ULTIMATE UNITY 171

of the real, is all things and none — could not be other
than the highest principle. Further, this unity already
has the distinction applied formerly to the Highest
Intelligence, — it " is all," and at the same time it
"creates all," in producing the forms out of itself.
The unity then is only the world-soul from a special
point of view, or the world-soul is at once the unity of
itself and of the corporeal world.1 This means that of
the spiritual and the corporeal worlds each is a unity in
itself, and each only a special aspect of a final unity
which embraces both. It is no wonder then that
Schelling found a congenial spirit in Bruno. The
reality of this final matter or unity is moreover higher,
truer, than that of any of the forms to which it gives
birth, and finally it is divine. Little more is wanting
to prove the entire superfluity of the theological highest
principle. The unity (or matter) is by no means an
" abstract " identity, but a concrete whole, which con-
tains all differentiation in itself, and a " dynamic " being,
which produces, or realises, its own modes. " Deter-
minate, sensible, explicate existence is not the highest
characteristic (raggione) of actuality, but is a thing
consequent, an effect of the latter ; thus the principal
essence of wood, e.g. the characteristic of its actuality,
does not consist in its being ' bed ' ; but in its being
of such a substance and consistency that it may be bed,
bench, beam, idol, or anything formed of wood.
Nature, however, from its material produces all things,
not as art, by mechanical removal or addition of parts,
but by separation, birth, efflux, as the Pythagoreans
understood," — Bruno adds Anaxagoras, Democritus,
the Wise Men of Babylon, Moses ! " Rather, then, it
contains the forms and includes them, than is empty of

1 Compare the ambiguity in Spinoza's definition of mind in relation to body.

172 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

them, or excludes them ; and matter, which makes
explicit what it contains implicitly, ought to be called a
Divine thing : it is the substance of nature." * Thus
the One is the only ultimate reality ; it is neither matter
things in nor form, yet both together, — implicitly. And it has
>ne' no parts, or all parts, for all parts coincide in it, the
smallest with the greatest, in it all particular things
coincide with one another, and all differences. It has
all possible existence and is therefore unchangeable,
it has all perfections and therefore is infinitely perfect.

"The universe is one, infinite, immovable. One
is the absolute possibility, one the reality. One the
form or soul, one matter or body. One the thing, one
the ens. One the greatest and best, which can not be
comprised, and therefore can neither be ended nor
limited, and even so is infinite and unlimited, and con-
sequently immovable. It does not move locally, for
there is no place outside of itself, to which it might
transport itself (for it is the all). Of it is no generation,
for there is no other existence which it can desire or
expect, for it has all existence. Of it is no corrup-
tion, for there is no other thing to which it can
change ; it is everything. It cannot grow less or
greater, for it is infinite ; it cannot be added to, and it
cannot be subtracted from, for the infinite has no
proportional parts. It cannot be subject to mutation
in any quality whatever, nor is there anything contrary
to, or diverse from it, which may alter it, for in it all
things are in harmony." 2 In it height is not greater
than length or depth ; hence by a kind of simile it may
be called a sphere. It has no parts, for a part of the
infinite must be infinite, and if it is infinite it concurs in
one with the whole ; hence the universe is one, infinite,

1 Lag. 273, 274. 2 Lag. 277.

ii FINITE EXISTENCES 173

without parts. Within it there is not part greater and
part less, for one part, however great, has no greater
proportion to the infinite than another, however small ;
and therefore, in infinite duration, there is no difference
between the hour and the day, between the day and the
year, between the year and the century, between the
century and the moment ; for moments and hours are
not more in number than centuries, and those bear no
less proportion to eternity than these. Similarly, in the
immeasurable, the foot is not different from the yard,
the yard from the mile, for in proportion to immensity,
the mile is not nearer than the foot. Infinite hours are
not more than infinite centuries, infinite feet are not of
greater number than infinite miles.1 Thus, Bruno
frankly draws the conclusion, which is inherent in all
pantheistic thought, that in the infinite all things are
indifferent ; there are no proportional parts thereof — in

i . T ence of all

it one is not greater nor better than another : " In things in
comparison, similitude, union, identity with the infinite, thelnfimte-
one does not approach nearer by being a man than by
being an ant, by being a star than by being a man. In
the infinite these things are indifferent, and what I say
of these holds of all other things or particular ex-
istences. Now if all these particular things in the
infinite are not one and another, are not different, are
not species, it necessarily follows that they are not
number (i.e. not distinct) — the universe is again an
immovable, unchangeable one. If in it act does not
differ from potency, then point, line, superficies and
body do not differ in it (for each is potency of the
other — a line by motion may become a surface, a surface
a body). In the infinite, then, point does not differ
from body ; since the point is potency of body, it does not

1 Lag. 278. 4.

174 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

differ from body, where potency and act are one and the
same thing. If point does not differ from body, centre
from circumference, finite from infinite, the greatest from
the least, then the universe, as we have said, is all centre,
or the centre of the universe is everywhere ; or, again,
the circumference is everywhere but the centre is
nowhere." Thus, not only are the particular existences
indifferent in the infinite : they have also in it no true
reality, i.e. their existence is a purely relative one.

We have now to consider the relation of particular
things one to another. It follows from the argument
that all things are in all ; each particular thing has the
possibility of all reality, has all reality implicit in itself,
but only one mode is at any particular time realised, and
the life of particular things consists in their constant
transmutation from one mode to another. While the
universe comprehends all existence and all modes of
existence, — of particular things, each has all existence,
but not all modes of existence, and cannot actually have
all circumstances and accidents, for many forms are
incompatible in the same subject, either as contraries or
as belonging to diverse species. The same individual
subject (supposito) cannot be under the accidents of
horse and of man, under the dimensions of a plant and
of an animal. Moreover, the universe comprehends
all existence wholly, because outside of and beyond
infinite existence there is nothing that exists, for there
is no outside or beyond : of particular things on the
other hand, each comprehends all existence, but not
wholly, for beyond each are infinite others. But the
ens, substance, essence of all is one, which being
infinite and unlimited in its substance as in its duration,
in its greatness as in its force, can neither be called
principle nor resultant ; for as everything concurs in its

ii OPTIMISM 175

unity and identity, it is not relative, but absolute. In
the one infinite, immovable, which is substance, ens,
there is multitude, number ; and number, as " mode " of
the ens, differentiates thing from thing ; it does not
therefore make the ens to be more than one, but to be of
many modes, forms, and figures. Hence " leaving the
logicians to their vain imaginings," we find that all that
makes difference and number is pure accident, pure
figure, pure "complexion" ; every creation of whatso-
ever sort it may be is an alteration, the substance
remaining always the same, for there is only One Being,
divine, immortal.1

Thus all things are in the universe, the universe in Beauty,
all things ; we in it, it in us ; and so all concurs in a
perfect unity. Therefore, cries Bruno, we need not be of nature>
troubled in spirit, nor be afraid ; for this unity is one,
stable, and always abides ; this one is eternal ; every
aspect, every face, every other thing, is vanity, is as
nought ; all that is outside of this One is nought.
These philosophers have found the wisdom that they
love, who have found this unity. Wisdom, truth, unity,
are the same. All difference in bodies, difference of
formation, complexion, figure, colour, or other property,
is nothing but a varying aspect of one and the same
substance, — an aspect that changes, moves, passes away,
of one immovable, abiding, and eternal being, in which
are all forms, figures, members, but indistinct and " ag-
glomerated," just as in the seed, or germ, the arm is not
distinct from the head, the sinew from the bone, and the
distinction or "disglomeration" does not produce another
and new substance, but only realises in act and fulfil-
ment certain qualities of the substance, already present.

The coincidence of Bruno's doctrine with some of

1 Lag. pp. 278-281.

n

1 76 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Spinoza's principal positions is striking, although their
terms are different. The indeterminate all-comprising
unity of Bruno is that which was afterwards called by
Spinoza substance ; its two aspects, material and spiritual
— substances with Bruno, — are attributes in Spinoza,
and finally, the innumerable finite and passing modes
with both are mere accidents, and therefore do not
determine any change in the one reality itself. In a
subsequent chapter other more detailed resemblances
will be pointed out in their bearing on the history of
Spinoza's development.

Coincidence The concluding portion of this dialogue and of the
work is taken up with the doctrine of the Coincidence
of Contraries, which derives from that of the unity and
coincidence of all differences, and which, although it
was undoubtedly contained in his own system, Bruno
obtained directly from Nicholas of Cusa. It is an
indirect proof, from the side of particular things them-
selves, of the identity of all in the One. The first
signs." illustrations are geometrical.1 The straight line and
the circle, or the straight line and the curve, are oppo-
sites ; but in their elements, or their minima, they
coincide, for, as Cusanus saw, there is no difference
between the smallest possible arc and the smallest possible
chord. Again, in the maximum there is no difference
between the infinite circle and the straight line ; the
greater a circle is, the more nearly it approximates to
straightness. ... as a line which is greater in magnitude
than another approximates more nearly to straightness, so
the greatest of all ought to be superlatively, more than all,
straight, so that in the end the infinite straight line is an
infinite circle. Thus the maximum and the minimum
come together in one existence, as has already been proved,

i Lag. 285. 35.

ii " VERIFICATIONS " OF COINCIDENCE 177

and both in the maximum and in the minimum, con-
traries are one and indifferent.

These geometrical illustrations are " signs " of the
identity of contraries, those which follow are called by
Bruno " verifications/' l the first of which is taken from
the primary qualities of bodies. The element of heat, its
" principle," must be indivisible — it cannot have differ-
ences within itself, and can be neither hot nor cold,
therefore it is an identity of hot and cold. " One con-
trary is the ' principle ' or starting-point of the other,
and therefore transmutations are circular, because there
is a substrate, principle, term, continuation and con-
currence of both. So minimal warmth and minimal
cold are the same. The movement towards cold takes
its beginning from the limit of greatest heat (its " prin-
ciple " in another sense). Thus not only do the two
maxima sometimes concur in resistance, the two minima
in concordance, but even the maximum and the minimum
concur through the succession of transmutations. Doctors
fear when one is in the best of health ; it is in the height
of happiness that the foreseeing are most timid. So also
the "principle" of corruption and of generation is one and
the same. The end of decay is the beginning of genera-
tion ; corruption is nothing but a generation, generation
a corruption. Love is hate, hate is love in the end ;
hatred of the unfitting is love of the fitting, the love
of this the hatred of that. In substance and in root,
therefore, love and hate, friendship and strife, are one and
the same thing. Poison gives its own antidote, and the
greatest poisons are the best medicines. There is but
one potency of two contraries, because contraries are
apprehended by one and the same sense, therefore belong
to the same subject or substrate ; where the principle (i.e.

1 Lag. 288. 5.
N

1 78 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

the source, or faculty) of the knowledge of two objects
is the same, the principle (i.e. elementary form) of their
existence is also one. (Examples are the curved and the
plane, the concave and the convex, anger and patience,
pride and humility, miserliness and liberality). In con-
clusion : — " He who would know the greatest secrets ot
nature, let him regard and contemplate the minima and
maxima of contraries and opposites. Profound magic it
is to know how to extract the contrary after having found
the point of union" Aristotle was striving towards it,
but did not attain it, said Bruno ; " remaining with his
foot in the genus of opposition, he was so fettered that
he could not descend to the species of contrariety. . . .
but wandered further from the goal at every step, as
when he said that contraries could not co-exist at the
same time in the same subject." * There is a naive but
at the same time a bold realism in this demand of
Bruno's that reality shall correspond even to the simpler
unities of thought — unities which after ail are mere
limitations. It is only because we cannot distinguish in
imagination between an infinite circle and a straight line
that their identity in actual existence is postulated, and
so the minimal chord and minimal arc coincide to
our limited imagination only. Admittedly in the case
of sense- qualities the argument is from oneness of
faculty knowing to oneness of things known. These,
however, are only, as we have said, " signs " and " veri-
fications " of a metaphysical truth which is arrived at
by other methods.

A corresponding passage in the De Minimo 2 explains
more fully the coincidence of contraries in the minimum :
— " In the minimum, the simple, the monad, all opposites
coincide, odd and even, many and few, finite and

1 Lag. 288, 289. 2 Qpf Lat i 3i I47> j

ii "VERIFICATIONS" OF COINCIDENCE 179

infinite ; therefore that which is minimum is also maxi-
mum, and any degree between these." Besides the
coincidence of contraries in God as the monad of
monads, the examples are given of the indifference of
all dimensions in the universe, and the^ubiquity of its
centre ; the indifference of the radial directions from
the centre of a particular sphere ; the indifference of all
points in the diurnal rotation of the earth, so that any
point whatever is east, west, north, or south ; the " sub-
jective " coincidence of concave and convex in the circle
("subjective" meaning "in the thing itself"); the
coincidence of the acute and the obtuse angle in the
inclination of one line to another ; that of smallest arc and
chord as of greatest arc and chord, " whence it follows
that the infinite circle and the infinite straight line, also
the infinite diameter, area, and centre are one and the
same." Lastly, we have the coincidence of swiftest
motion with slowest, or with rest, " for the absolutely
swift (swift ' simpliciUTy i.e. "in its highest possible
manifestation, without any degree of the contrary, slow-
ness) which moves from A to B, and from B to A, is
at once in A, and in B, and in the whole orbit, therefore,
it stands still."

These coincidences are again of two kinds : some
" subjective " in the modern sense, e.g. the coincidences
of directions in the globe ; any one may be taken as
depth according to the spectator's standpoint ; others
are " objective," e.g. when in God the one and the
many are said to coincide. According as the stress
is laid on one or on the other, the theory may be
regarded as either dualistic (as Cusanus' really was) or
as pantheistic. There is no doubt, however, that it
was in the latter sense that Bruno held the coincidence
of contraries.

CHAPTER III

THE INFINITE UNIVERSE THE MIRROR OF GOD l

IN the contemplation of the infinite, writes Bruno, man
attains his highest good. All things aspire to the end
for which they are ordained, and the more perfect its
nature the more nobly and effectively does each aspire.
Man alone, however, as endowed with a twofold nature,
pursues a twofold good, — " on the boundary line of
eternity and time, between the archetypal world and the
copy, the intelligible and the sensible, participating in
either substance." 2 Human effort can find satisfaction
in none but the highest and first truth and goodness.
Neither our intellect nor our will ever rests. It is clear
therefore that their end lies not in particular goods or
truths which lead us on from one to another and to
another, but in universal good and truth, outside of
and beyond which no good or truth exists. So long
as we believe that any truth is left to know, or any
good to gain, we seek always further truth, desire
always further good. The end of our inquiry, therefore,
and of our effort cannot be in a truth or in a good that
is limited. In each and all is the desire in-born to
become all things. Such infinite desire implies the
existence in reality of that which will satisfy it. If

1 De Immcnso : de /' Infinite: sfcrotismus, etc. 2 Op. Lot. i. I. p. 202.

180

PART ii HUMAN DESIRE 181

4 ' Universal Nature" or Spirit is able to satisfy the
appetite of each " particular nature " or mode of itself,
and that of itself as a whole, then the understanding and
desire which are innate, inseparable from and co-substan-
tial with each and all shall not be in vain, nor look
hopelessly to a false and impossible end. Again, were
universal nature and the efficient cause content with
finite truth and good, they would not satisfy the infinite
aspiration of particular things. It is true that even the
desire for continuance of our present life is not satisfied ;
a particular mode of matter cannot realise all <c forms "
or ideas at once, but only in succession and one by one ;
it knows and therefore desires only that which is present
to it at any given time : by force of nature, therefore, it
comes in its ignorance (which arises from the " contrac-
tion " of the form to this or that particular matter and
the limitation of matter by this or that form) to desire
to be always that which it now is. The wise soul, how-
ever, will not fear death, will indeed sometimes wish for
it, since there awaits every substance eternity of duration,
immensity of space, and the realisation of all being.
" Whatever the good be for which a man strives, let
him turn his eyes to the heavens and the worlds ; there
is spread before him a picture, a book, a mirror, in which
he may behold, read, contemplate the imprint (vestigium),
the law, and the reflection of the highest good — and
with his sensible ears drink in the highest harmony, and
raise himself as by a ladder, according to the grades of
the forms of things, to the contemplation of another,
the highest world." * The contemplation of the extended
infinite and " explicate " or unfolded nature is thus only
a means by which we may rise to the contemplation of
the infinite in itself, "implicate"3 nature, God. "It is no

1 Op. Lat. i. I. p. 203.

1 82 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

frivolous or futile contemplation, but one most weighty
and worthy of the perfect man, which we pursue, when
we seek the splendour, the fusion, and the inter-
communication of divinity and of nature not in an
Egyptian, Syrian, Greek or Roman individual, not in
food, drink, or any ignoble matter, with the gaping
many, but in the august palace of the all-powerful, in
the immeasurable space of the Ether, in the infinite
potency of twofold nature, all-becoming and all-creat-
ing. So from the eternal vast and immeasurable effect
in visible things, we comprehend the eternal and the
immeasurable majesty and goodness. Let us then turn
our eyes to the omniform image of the omniform God,
and gaze upon the living and mighty reflection of Him."
The three characteristics of the universe as a mirror
of God which Bruno sought to drive home to the minds
of men were its infinite extent, the infinite number of its
parts, and its uniformity, or the similarity of its consti-
tuent elements throughout its whole extent. His illus-
trations and his arguments would in many cases cause a
smile if they were put forward seriously at the present
day, but no absurdities can outbalance his enthusiasm,
the readiness and thoroughness of his polemic against
Aristotle and the old cosmology, and the fertility of
imagination by which he is able to look, and to make
others look, at things from his new, and therefore, at
first, confusing point of view.

Bruno's arguments rest partly on inferences from

sense-knowledge, partly on the principle of sufficient

The uni- reason. Thus the infinity of extent is evidenced, first,

finite. by the teaching of sense, in the constant change which

our circle of vision undergoes as we move from one place

to another. There always appears to be an ultimate

limit, but no sooner do we move than the limit is seen to

ir THE UNIVERSE INFINITE IN EXTENT 183

have been only apparent ; so, it may be inferred, could
we transfer ourselves with our senses to any of the
distant stars, we should still seem to ourselves to be in
the centre of a closed sphere, — the very same appear-
ance which is presented to us on this earth.

Aristotle's theory of the limitation of space by the
ultimate sphere of the heavens was open to objections,
many of which were raised in the early schools. The
" subtle Averroes " had endeavoured to avoid some of
these by the doctrine that beyond this outer sphere is
the divine being, the eternal self-sufficient Mind.1 " But
how," asks Bruno, " can body be bounded by that which
is not body ? The divine nature is no less nor in any
other manner within the whole than without; it is
neither place nor in place." 2 Space therefore is always
bounded by space, body by body, that is, each is in-
finite in extent. Were divinity that which bounds space,
it would itself be space under another name.3 Aristotle's
theory implied that the universe as a whole was not in
any place or space. The " place " of each body, he had
said, is the containing surface of the sphere above it ;
the outermost sphere, therefore, as there is no other
beyond it, is itself uncontained and without place. The
theory implied also the identity of body and space, and
was the ground of Aristotle's rejection of the vacuum in
nature. For a truer conception of Space, Bruno turned to
an earlier commentator (or group of commentators —
" Philoponus ") on Aristotle, who defined it as u a con-
tinuous physical quantity in three dimensions, in which
the magnitude of bodies is contained, in nature before and
apart from all bodies, receiving all indifferently, beyond
all conditions of action and passion, not mixing with
things, impenetrable, without form or place." 4 It is

1 De Immenso, bk. i. ch. 6. 2 Op. Lat. i. i. p. 222. 3 P. 227. 4 P. 231.

i84 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

called physical, because it can not be separated from the
existence of natural things. It is itself not contained,
because it equals with its dimensions those of body as
the transparency of a crystal has the same dimensions
with the crystal itself. Neither body nor space can be
thought of the one apart from the other.1 Granted the
infinity of space, that of matter necessarily follows by an
inverse of the principle of sufficient reason : — for there
is no reason, according to Bruno, why this small part
alone of space, where our earth is, should be filled ; the
eternal operation is not distinct from the eternal power,
nor could it be the will of God to cramp nature, which
is the hand of the all-powerful, his force, act, reason,
word, voice, order and will.2 " There is one matter,
one power, one space, one efficient cause, God and
Nature, everywhere equally, and everywhere powerful. —
We insult the infinite cause when we say that it may be
the cause of a finite effect ; to a finite effect it can have
neither the name nor the relation of an efficient." 3

The corresponding argument from the capacity of
our human imagination to think always of a greater
than any given magnitude, i.e. its inability to rest short
of the infinite, is expanded elsewhere. Our imaginative
faculty is the umbra or shadow of nature ; its power,
therefore, of adding quantity to quantity, ad infinitum,
must have something in nature to which it corresponds ;
nature does not give a faculty for which there is no
satisfaction. There is then in truth an infinite universe,
such as our imagination demands. Bruno notices the
objection that on this theory anything whatever might
be said about the universe, e.g. that it is infinite man,
since one can imagine a human form filling the universe ;

1 Op. Lot. i. i. p. 232. On Space, cf. Acrot. Art. 31, 33-37 (Vacuum, Ether, etc.),
and Infinite, Lag. 365. 2 p. 2^ 3 p> 2^^

ii ARISTOTLE ON FINITUDE OF WORLD 185

and he replies, " it is infinite man, or infinite ass, or
infinite tree, — each and all, since in the infinite all
particular things are one and the same/'

The arguments we have traced are: — (i) What
appears to be a limit to our senses always proves to be
imaginary, when we are able to test it, therefore we may
infer that it is imaginary in other cases ; (2) the very
notion of space, implying that it has neither form nor
place, means that it is infinite, limitless ; (3) we cannot
imagine a portion of space than which there is not
another greater, and so ad infinitum : but reality cannot
fall short of thought, therefore space is infinite. The
arguments of Aristotle against the infinity of the world Aristotle.
are taken up in detail in the second book of the De
Immenso. As the controversy, however important at the
time, has lost much of its interest for us, we need only
give a brief sketch of its main lines. The first argu-
ment was drawn from the assumption of an ultimate
sphere or primum mobile which moved about the earth as i. The/™,
a centre.2 It was clear that if the universe were infinite the
radii of this sphere would be infinitely prolonged, and
therefore the termini of any two given radii at an infinite
distance one from another. The motion of the sphere
would thus be inconceivable, for it would require
infinite time in which to pass from one point to another.
The answer of Bruno was that the universe as a whole
was not moveable at all, nor had it any centre ; only its
parts were moved and each of these had its own relative
and finite centre. The apparent motion of the sphere
was due to the real movement of the earth about its
axis. A similar answer was given to the argument »• The

_ .. . elements.

from the movements of bodies according to their

1 Cf. Infinite, Lag. 322. i ff. for the argument.

2 Bk. ii. ch. 2. ; cf. Infinito, Dial, v., Lag. 387.

1 86 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

elements. As to us on the earth, the earth appears to be
the centre of the universe, so to the inhabitants of the
moon, the moon will appear to be such. Matter rising
from the earth to the moon would appear to the inhabit-
ants of the latter to fall. These distinctions were relative
to the finite worlds, but might not be referred to the
whole universe. As the earth is one world, the moon
another, so each has its own centre, each its own up and
down : nor can these differences be assigned absolutely
to the whole and its parts together, but only relatively
3- The _, to the position and condition of the latter.1 In his third

whole and

its parts, argument Aristotle sought to prove that infinite body
in general was impossible.2 If the whole is infinite its
simple elements must be so also. These must be either
of an infinite number of kinds, different from one
another, or of a finite number of kinds, or all of the same
kind. But the first of the alternatives is impossible on
the a priori ground that each element must have a special
kind of movement corresponding to it, and the kinds of
movement are actually few in number ; the second and
third, because the movement of the elements should then
be infinite, whereas in the actual universe motion is
limited both in centre and circumference. The argu-
ments, however, do not apply to Bruno's theory of the
universe. Motion is always from one definite point to
another ; we do not set out from Italy in order to go
on ad infinitum, but to go to some definite point. He
does not, as Epicurus did, regard all minima as in infinite
motion downwards through the universe ; there is no
down, no centre, no up, all is simply and generally in
flux. It is not the elements that are innumerable in
kind, but the composite bodies, the stars, which are
constituted by them ; and of these the parts move about

1 De Imm. i. i. 264 j cf. Inf. 392. 15. 2 Bk. ii. ch. 4 (267 ff.)-

ii THE INFINITE AND THE FINITE 187

their natural body, as the parts of the earth towards the
earth, and those of the moon toward the moon in their own
regions ; all motion is therefore limited, — each world has,
as it were, margins of its own. The idea that if any of
the elements, as fire or water, were infinite, there would
be infinite lightness or gravity, and hence that the universe
would move as a whole upwards or downwards, is equally
at fault. To the universe as a whole the terms heavy and
light do not apply, but only to its parts, the finite and
determinate bodies consisting of finite and determinate
elements. These elements, whether they be taken as of
one or more kinds, since they cannot move outside of
the universe, must have finite movements.

The fourth argument1 was based upon the impossi- 4- Action
bility of action between an infinite body and a second infinftTand
body whether finite or infinite. An infinite cannot act the finitc'
upon a finite because the action would necessarily be
timeless. Were it in time we could then find a finite
body which in the same time would produce the same
effect ; but there can be no such equality between the
finite and the infinite. Similarly action between two
infinites would occur in infinite time ; in other words,
would not take place at all. The conclusion is that
neither fire nor earth nor any of the elements can be
infinite in quantity. Bruno suggests, in the first place,2
that a change may be produced timelessly ; thus if a
body in a large circle cover a certain space in the minimum
of time, a body in a smaller circle will cover a less
space in no time, for nothing can be smaller than the
minimum.3 In the second place, no action of the whole
or effect upon the whole exists, it is only the finite
bodies within it, each with its finite force, that act upon
one another. Even if two infinite bodies, over against

1 Bk. ii. ch. 6. 2 Ch. 7. (p. 278) ; cf. Infinite, Lag. 3 3 5 ff. 3 Vide Infra, ch. 5.

1 88 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

one another, were supposed, their action would not be
of one whole upon another, but of the parts on the con-
tiguous parts.1 Force is exerted by bodies not inten-
sively but extensively, because as, where one part of a
body is, there another is not, so at the point where one
part of the body acts another does not.2

5. Proper- A difficulty, not unknown to recent philosophy,
to°who?ein occurred as to the relation of infinites to one another,
the infinite. Whatever is an element of the infinite must be infinite
also ; hence both earths and suns are infinite in number.
But the infinity of the former, said Bruno, is not greater
than that of the latter ; nor, where all are inhabited, are
the inhabitants in greater proportion to the infinite than
the stars themselves.3 Each sun is surrounded by
several earths or planets, but the one class is not greater
in respect of its infinite than the other. A single sun,
earth, constellation, is not really a part of the infinite nor
a part in it, for it can bear no proportion to it. A thousand
infinities are not more than two or three, and even one
is not comprehensible by finite numbers. In the
innumerable and the immeasurable there is no place for
more or less, few or many, nor for any distinctions of
number or measure.4 The matter of the stars is
immeasurable, and no less immeasurable is that of the
fiery type or suns than of the aqueous type or earths.
Nor does the fact that these infinities are not given to
sense disprove their existence, as Aristotle had maintained.
To imagine there is nothing beyond the sphere which
limits our range of sight, is to be like Bruno as a child,
when he believed there was nothing beyond Mount
Vesuvius because there was nothing to strike his senses.5

1 Op. Lot. i. i. p. 279. 2 Ib. p. 281.

3 Bk. ii. ch. 8 (p. 283) } cf. Op. Lat. i. 4. 216, and Infinite, Lag. 344 ff. 338.
4 Op. Lat. i. i. p. 284. 5 P. 285.

ii FIGURE IN BODY AND SPACE 189

Though each class be infinite, we have seen that the infinite
does not act infinitely, that is intensively ', but acts finitely,
i.e. extensively. Each individual and species is finite, but
the number of all individuals is infinite, and infinite are the
matter in which they consist and the space in which they
move. Everywhere, therefore, limit and measure are
only in the particular and the individual, which, compared
with the universe, are nothing.

A further argument was derived from the necessity of 6. Figure
figure in body and from the relation of body to space.1 a
Every body is known to us as of a certain and definite
figure, whereas infinite body would necessarily be un-
figured. In this case, said Bruno, Aristotle is confounding
body with space, although he elsewhere separates the two
notions. That space is something other than the bodies
which fill it, that it is more than limit or figure, is evident
from the fact that always between any two corporeal sur-
faces, between any two atoms, there is space. Nor is space
merely an accident of body, a special quality of it, as colour
is, for example, for we cannot think of colour without a
body in which it exists, and when the body is abstracted
the colour goes also, whereas space may be thought of
apart from body, and body, when removed does not take
with it its space. Perhaps we should say that space is really
the continuous ether or light which penetrates throughout
the universe, and seems to fill space more continuously
than wood, stone, or iron, in which there is an admixture of
vacuum. Must all bodies be figured, then the figure of
the infinite is the sphere. The dimensions of space coincide
with those of body, and the definition given of body as tri-
dimensional quantity applies also to space : — there cannot
be any body which is not in place, nor can its dimensions
exist without equal dimensions of the containing space.

1 Bk. ii. ch. 10. p. 293.

190 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

7. The A seventh argument, closely related to some of the

thfearth, others, is drawn from the old belief in the earth as the
etc- centre of gravity, the heaviest body in the universe, and

in the empyrean as the outermost limit and the lightest
body.1 But, as we have seen, there is in the universe no
centre — as the stars and their inhabitants are heavenly
beings to us, so are we and our earth to them. " Just
as the earth knows no centre or downward direction
proper which is away from its own body, but only a
centre of its mass, a central cavern of its heart, from
which the precious life is diffused through the whole
body, and which we may believe to be the chief seat of
the soul ; so there must be in the moon and other bodies
a centre which connects all parts, to which every member
contributes, and which is nourished by all the forces of
the living body." The old belief, therefore, that if
there were inhabitants at the antipodes they would be
apt to fall downwards into space, or that the parts of
the moon and its living beings might fall upon our
earth, was absurd, for the face of the earth always looks
upward in the direction of the radii from the centre to
the superficies.2

8erfelthas ^e ^ast argument was tnat drawn from the supposed
the self- perfection of the universe.3 Aristotle defined the perfect
as that which was limited by itself, not by another.
Hence the immeasurable would not be perfect, while the
world was perfect because limited by its own terminus.
Again body does not pass over into any other kind of
quantity, but it is the limit into which the line and the
point flow. The first argument, said Bruno, would hold
of any fragment of body, while the second would apply
to any animal or member of an animal, for these also
are self-contained and do not pass over into any other

1 Bk. ii. ch. ii. 2 P. 300 ff. 3 Bk. ii. ch. 12. 302 ff.

ii THE WORLDS INNUMERABLE 191

kind. Perfection has no reference to quantity, nor to
limitation by self, which is a geometrical determination.1
For this mechanical idea of perfection, Bruno substitutes
a teleological ; the perfect is that which consists of a
number of parts or members, working together towards
the end for which the whole is ordained : the universe
is perfect " as adorned by so many worlds, which are
so many deities, and as that inland to which, as a unity
embracing the perfection of all, innumerable things
perfect in their kind are reduced, referred, united." 2

The infinity of space or ether and of matter being infinite
proved, it follows again, by the principle of sufficient ™™ °
reason, that the <c worlds " are " innumerable " or infinite
in number. — As it is good that the world exists, and
would be bad did it not exist, so in a similar space, and
where similar causes are, it is good that there be a world,
and bad should there not be one. If the world is single,
then there is a single, finite, particular good, and infinite
wide-spread universal evil. He who is able to produce
good, and does not do so, without cause, is evil ; " as
not to be able is privatively evil, to be able and to be
unwilling would be so positively, and God in regard to
the finite effect would be a finitely good cause, in regard,
however, to the repression of infinite realisation, would
be infinitely evil/' 3 Perfection does not belong
to our world, our system, taken by itself, since
there are innumerable other possible worlds which
cannot be contained in it. Given a man endowed
with all human perfections, the existence of other

1 Bk. ii. ch. 13. 2 Cf. also infra, p. 199 ff.

3 Delmm, bk. i. ch. 10. pp. 235-8 ; cf. Infinite, 312 f., 316. Bruno does not use the
term " principle of sufficient reason " : his principle is the inverse of that of Leibniz —
** whatever has not a sufficient reason for existing is necessarily non-existent," — Bruno's
being that "whatever has not a sufficient reason for non-existence (i.e. whatever is
possible) necessarily exists."

1 92 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

men subordinate to him is not excluded, but rather
demanded in order that he may fulfil the harmony of
his being. So the best, the first, of the monads, — which
comprises all particular things in itself, — embraces, in
spite of its unity, innumerable worlds, without limit,
under its corporeal aspect. One does not suffice, for the
productive mind diffuses itself throughout the whole
universe, wholly in every part, in equal goodness and
power, and fills the void in order that its great image
may be presented throughout the whole.1 Nature thus
puts forth an infinite mirror of itself and a fitting re-
flection ; its substance is infinite and its force eternal,
there is an explicit immeasurable, as God is implicitly in
the whole and everywhere wholly.2 To the infinite
nothing finite bears any proportion, nor can be a fitting
product of it. Hence if it communicate itself at all to
corporeal things, or unfold its magnitude in corporeal
existences and in multitude, the reflection of its essence
and imprint of its power must be infinite in magnitude
and without number. " Although, when we consider
individuals singly, under that proximate and immediate
respect in which they are particulars, they must be re-
ferred to a finite principle and cause (since a finite effect
demands a finite power), in the consideration of the
universe, however, each and all the innumerable exist-
ences in immeasurable space point to an infinite first

cause." 3

Argument In the simplicity and unity of God's being, all attri-
to°theG° butes are one, therefore knowledge, will, and power
world. coincide. The consequences of this doctrine Bruno un-
folds in a series of aphorisms or propositions — which
are interesting as anticipating Spinoza's method of

1 De Imm. bk. i. ch. n. p. 239 ; In/in. 314 f. 2 De Imm. bk. i. ch. II. p. 241.

3 Ib. Schol. ch. n. pp. 241, 242.

ii KNOWLEDGE, WILL, AND POWER 193

" proof" :l — i. The Divine essence is infinite. 2. As
the measure of being, so is the measure of power. 3.
As the measure of power, so is the measure of action.
4. God is absolutely simple essence or being in which
there can be no complexity nor internal diversity. 5.
Consequently in him, being, power, action, volition,
and whatever can be truly attributed to him, are one and
the same. 6. Therefore the will of God is above all
things, and can be frustrated neither by himself nor by
another. 7. Consequently the Divine will is not only
necessary, but is necessity itself, and its opposite is not
only impossible but impossibility itself. 8. In simple
essence there cannot be contrariety of any kind, nor
inequality : will, therefore, is not contrary to, nor un-
equal to, power. 9. Necessity and liberty are one,
hence what acts by the necessity of nature acts freely ;
it would not act freely at all did it act otherwise than
is demanded by necessity and nature, or by the necessity
of nature.2 10. There is not ah infinite power, unless
there be an infinite possible; i.e. there is not that
which is able to create an infinite unless there be that
which is able to be created. What is a power which is
impossible of realisation or which is relative to an im-
possible ? 1 1 . As there is a world in this space, so also
there is able to be one in any space similar to that which,
were this world removed, would remain equal to the
world. 1 2. There is no ground for denying, outside the
world, a similar space to that in which the world is, nor
any for regarding it as finite.3 14. It is better to be
than not to be ; it is more worthy to create what is
good than not to create it. To posit (create) being and

1 P. 242 ff. 2 Cf. Infinite, Lag. 316. 21.

3 No. 13 states that the worlds could not interfere with one another, since space
is infinite.

O

I94 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

truth is incomparably better than to allow not- being or
nothing. 15. The potency of nature ought not to be
frustrated, nor space remain unfilled for infinite duration,
for then potency would be relative to an impossible.

1 6. That infinite potency (whether extensive or intensive)
should be frustrated of existence means that infinite evil
should be actually posited, as space is actually infinite.

17. As this space can receive this world and be adorned
thereby, so also any similar space whatever, indiscernible
from it, a similar principle being present, could have
received a similar world.1 19. Of God and of nature
we should think as highly as possible. 20. Of the
greatest things nothing should be rashly asserted which
is contrary to sense and reason.

The infinite number of worlds is thus made to de-
pend for its proof upon the identity of power and will,
of will and knowledge, i.e. thought, in God. Whatever
is in the mind of God is realised in the universe.
Knowledge Before God past, present, and future are one,
present, and eternal ; 2 he is unable to change his
purpose or to deny himself. What he wills and what
he can are one and the same ; nor can he do what he
wills not, for fate is the Divine will itself. Hence, as
he cannot be other than he is, so nothing can be done
by him otherwise than as it is done. The nature of God
is a simple substance ; however many names be predi-
cated of it, they signify, one and all, the same thing.3
Infinite virtue, if limited neither by itself nor by
another, acts by the necessity of its own nature, not by
a necessity alien to itself and to its will ; it is itself
necessity. The necessity by which it acts, therefore,

1 No. 1 8 denies that the perfection of the world in one space should either
add to or detract from the perfection of another world in other space or render it less
necessary.

2 Bk. i. ch. 12. 8 P. 245.

ii NECESSITY AND LIBERTY 195

can be frustrated neither from within, by itself, nor
from without, by another : not the former, for it
cannot be both one thing and another, nor the latter,
because its necessity is the law of all other things.
There can be nothing which may prevent this nature,
necessity, will, power, from proceeding according to its
whole power, which is goodness itself, according to its
whole goodness, which is power itself, and both are
infinite, and diffuse themselves infinitely. Man's liberty
of action is expressed imperfectly, and sometimes in an
imperfect object, is continually being disturbed by passion
and ignorance of things ; for if we acted without any
disturbance of the will, or course of thought, without
ignorance, or passion, then our action would be deter-
mined always towards the better of two opposed ends.
Before we act we stand between the two ways and
deliberate, and at last determine, but in uncertainty
and perturbedness of spirit ; while God, as in nature
most perfect, acts in the one of two ways that is the
most fitting. Nor is it an imperfection. of nature to be
determined in one direction only, away from that which
may lead to error. Thus we may not refer the will
and action of God to a liberty of this kind, of being
equally or unequally disposed to two contradictory
volitions or acts — a liberty of indifference — but his
liberty is of the kind which is identical with necessity.
Over it is nothing greater, in the way of it there is
nothing equal, all things in all and throughout all
serve it. God's knowledge is not discursive, involves
no effort. To be in the mind of God is to be realised
(species concept a deo est effect io resqui). Thus as the
perfect monad, he is intrinsically and extrinsically the
whole, sustaining all things. There is on the one side
infinite goodness and infinite desire for its realisation,

196 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

on the other infinite desire of being realised ; the
result must be perfect satisfaction and perfect good.
Abstract Jn order to understand how far Bruno has moved at

this, the final stage of his philosophy, from the
Neoplatonism of its beginnings, the ninth chapter of the
last book of the De Immenso must be taken into
account.1 It is interesting in view of the relation of
Spinoza to Bruno, as well as of the consistency of
Bruno's own thought. In it the existence of abstract
ideal types is contended against, — " Nowhere is essence
apart from existence ; — nature is nothing but the
virtue that is immanent (ins i to) in things, and the law
by which all things fulfil their course. There is no
abstract that subsists in logical reason but not in
reality, no justice by which things are just, no goodness
through which they are good, wisdom through which
they are wise, nor are deltas and feritas the ground of
existence of gods and beasts : nor is it light by which
shining bodies shine, nor shadow by which folly,
darkness, fictions, nonsense come to exist." The
student of nature must not suppose form and matter,
light and colour and motion, to exist separately by
themselves because they may be conceived or defined
by themselves. There is then no archetypal world to
which the Creator looked in fabricating this of ours,
but nature produces all things from within itself,
without thought or hesitation. " Study to know
where Nature and God are, for there are the causes of
things, the life of principles, the source of elements, the
seeds of the things that are to be brought forth, the
typal forms, active potency producing all things, . . .
there is also matter, the underlying passive potency,
abiding, present, ever coming together into one as it

1 Op. Lat. vol. i. pt. 2. p. 310.

ii PLURALITY OF WORLDS 197

were, for it is not as if a creator came from on high, to
give it order and form from without. Matter pours
forth all things from its own lap, Nature itself is the
inward workman, a living art, a wondrous virtue which
is endowed with mind, giving realisation to a matter
which is its own, not foreign to itself; not hesitating,
but producing all things easily out of itself, as fire
shines and burns, as light spreads without effort through
space. . . . Nature is not so miserably endowed as to
be excelled by human art, which is directed by a kind
of internal sense, while several kinds of animals, guided
by their inward mind, show an innate foresight of a
wonderful kind, — ants and the industrious bees, which
have no type or model spread before them. For there
is a nature which is more than present /0, which is
immanent in things, remote from none as none is remote
from being, except the false : and while only the surface
of things without changes, deeper in the heart of all
than is each to itself it lives, the principle of existence,
source of all forms, . . . Mind, God, Being, One,
Truth, Fate, Reason, Order."1 Natura naturata is thus
not a resultant or outcome of natura naturans with
Bruno ; they are one and the same thing under
different aspects, and both are one with God, the living
force in things.

The arguments of Aristotle against the plurality of Aristotle on

• i 111 i j plurality of

worlds are in the seventh book set out one by one, and worlds.
controverted from Bruno's own standpoint, at times
with great fulness and subtlety. It would be unprofit-
able to enter far into this debate, where the advantage
lay so obviously on one side. We have already seen
that Bruno was able to lay his finger upon the weak
spot in Aristotle's system, the definitions of space and

1 /£., ch. x. p. 312 ff.

198 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

time. There is no absolute norm of time, said Bruno,
whether arithmetical, geometrical, or physical ; for in
this kind we cannot fix a minimum, and least of all on
Peripatetic principles ; there is always a less than any
given period of time, hence we cannot lay down any
true measure of time, i.e. all time is relative to the
individual. In any case the daily movement (of the
outermost sphere, as Aristotle thought, but in fact) of
the earth, is not really circular. There are as many
moving agents as there are stars, as there are souls, or
deities.1 But " if we must assume some one presiding
over the infinite number of agents, we must ascend
above all or descend down to the centre of all, to the
absolute being, present above all and within all ...
more intimate to all things than each is to itself, not
more distant from one than from another, for it is
equally the nearest to all." Several of the arguments
of Aristotle were drawn from abstract conceptions of
Perfection, unity and perfection, and evidently raised interesting
problems for the time of Bruno. They are, briefly,
that a plurality of worlds would be irrational, since no
reason could be given for one number rather than
another, that it is more in accordance with the perfection
of the monad, that all reality should be massed together
in one world, that the economy of nature does not
admit of the multiplication of goods, that the passive
capacity (matter) is not equal to the active power (the
form}, that the perfect is by its very nature unique.
Bruno answers that there is no definite, but an infinite,
number of worlds, and that if the former were the case
no reason could be put forward why there should be
only one, which in Bruno's sense of world is no doubt
true. As to the monad, the true monad is that which

1 Cf. Op. Lat. i. 2. p. 259. 2 P. 260. On Time cf. Acrot., Arts. 38-40.

ir PLURALITY AND PERFECTION 199

embraces all number or plurality in itself. " We are
not compelled to define a number, we who say that
there is an infinite number of worlds ; there no distinc-
tion exists of odd or even, since these are differences of
number, not of the innumerable. Nor can I think
there have ever been philosophers who, in positing
several worlds, did not posit them also as infinite : for
would not reason, which demands something further
beyond this sensible world, so also outside of and
beyond whatever number of worlds is assumed, assume
again another and another ? " l

That there are more worlds than one is due to the One life in
presence everywhere throughout space of the same worlds.
principle of life, which everywhere has the same effect ;
just as within one of these worlds, the earth, we find
different species of the same animal — of man, for
example — which cannot be descended from the same
parentage. There are " men of different colours, cave-
men, mountain-pygmies, the guardians of minerals, the
giants of the South/' each of which races must have
been produced independently in its own place. And
finally, although it is true that nothing can be added to
the perfect, why may not the perfect be multiplicable ?
Though the perfect man is one, nature may produce
several within the same species. " Everywhere is one
soul, one spirit of the world, wholly in the whole and
in every part of it, as we find in our lesser world also.
This soul . . . (should the kind of place and of
element not conflict) produces all things everywhere ;
so that for the generation of some even time is not
required. . . . The infinite universe, and it only under
God, is perfect. Nothing finite is so good that it
could not be better ; whatever may be better has some

1 Op. Ldt. i. 2. p. 274.

200 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

degree of evil and defect, as what is not absolutely
bright is not without some signs of obscurity. . . .
Therefore the perfect, absolutely and in itself, is one,
infinite, which cannot be greater or better, and than
which nothing can be greater or better. This is one,
everywhere, the only God, universal nature, of which
nothing can be a perfect image or reflection, but the
infinite. Everything finite therefore is imperfect, every
sensible world is imperfect, as good and evil, matter and
form, light and darkness, joy and sadness concur in it,
and all things everywhere are in alteration and move-
ment ; but all of them, in the infinite, are as in unity,
truth, and goodness, and in this aspect the infinite is
rightly called the universe." * In the infinite, as we
have learned from the Causa, all contraries are one.
The universe is perfect, not because of its quantity,
but because it contains all other things in it.2 Within
the limits of their kind small causes can produce
small effects with some perfection ; much more effective
is that immeasurable and more general cause, of which
nothing stands in the way. It is a harmony of the
many in one, the only corporeal image of the divine
mind. The finite, however, is imperfect only when
taken apart from the whole to which it belongs, i.e.
evil and defect are appearances only. Although in
nature not all things are of their best, and more species
than one produce monstrosities, yet we may not find fault
with the great building of the mighty architect, for
even the small, weak, and diminutive contributes its
part to the nobility of the whole. Is a picture most
beautiful when it is blazoned all over with gold and
purple ? Does it not shine out best from a dull back-
ground ? Can there be any part which, in its order

1 Op. Lot. i. 2. p. 307. 2 P. 309 ff.

ii NATURE OF PERFECTION 201

and place within the whole body, is not good, and the
best in the end and in the whole ? A harmony in
music is better the greater the variety within it of
length, accent, pause, and the like.1

The perfect may be either ( i ) " the perfect absolutely,
or (2) the perfect in its kind." The former again is
twofold, according as it is ( i ) " that which is wholly in
the whole and in every part, or (2) that which is wholly
in the whole but not in the part." Of these the one is
divinity, the intellect of the universe, absolute goodness
and truth, the other the immeasurable corporeal reflec-
tion of the divine. As within the universe there are
many things perfect in their kind, which it combines in
its unity, containing in itself the perfection of all, it
may in a second sense be called the absolutely perfect.
For no one world singly, nor system of worlds, nor any
number of systems, can be brought into comparison
with God, except indirectly, through the immeasurable
wisdom, power, and goodness. " Nothing is absolutely
imperfect or evil, for the highest nature exists in a
certain sense in the meanest and lowest, as on the
palette of a painter colours are thought little of which
presently, unfolded into the scheme of the picture, shall
seem to be, along with the painter himself, of chief
importance." 2 Moral evil, itself, as we shall find, has
no reality for Bruno's pantheism. Justice and goodness,
not existing as abstract entities, have their only ground
in the divine will, i.e. in the course of nature.3 On the
other hand, it is not in the part, the detail, the trivial or
minute existence, that the divine will is most adequately
declared, but in the whole, its plan and its law. " What

1 P. 311.

2 P. 312. Cf. Florentine's Telesio, p. 85. On Perfection, and the Perfection
of the Universe, cf. Bruno's Acrot., Arts. 17 and 51.

3 Cf. Spinoza.

202 GIORDANO BRUNO PART n

is best and most glorious, most beseeming the goodness
of His nature, is to be attributed to His will. It is
impious to seek this in the blood of insects, in the
mummied corpse, in the foam of the epileptic, under
the shaking feet of murderers, or in the melancholy
mysteries of vile necromancers ; 1 it must be sought
rather in the inviolable, intemerate law of nature, in
the religion of a mind directed duly by that law, in
the splendour of the sun, in the beauty of the things
which are brought forth from this our parent, after His
true image, as expressed bodily in the beauty of those
innumerable living things, which, in the immeasurable
sweep of the one heaven, shine and live, have sense
and intelligence, and sing praises to the One, the
highest and best." 2

1 Allusions to practices of the Black Art. 2 Op. Lat. i. 2. p. 316.

CHAPTER IV

NATURE AND THE LIVING WORLDS

WE have found that, according to Bruno, the universe
is infinite in extent, and that there are innumerable
worlds within it : it remains to know what are the
materials that constitute the universe, and the moving
principles that govern its changes and direct the worlds
in their courses.

Nature, he said, is the same in kind, in its substance, uniformity
and in its elements, throughout its whole extent — a °
daring conception for a time when the empyrean and
all space beyond it were still regarded as the special
abode of divinity. He reminded his opponents of his
own childish experiences : — when from Cicala he looked
towards Mount Vesuvius, he thought it dark, gloomy,
bare of trees and flowers ; but when he approached it,
he found it fairer than Cicala itself, while now the latter
looked bare and dark.1 The Aristotelians were com-
mitting a similar error in judging the distant stars and
the firmament to be in reality as they appeared to our
eyes, and in denying the existence of that which was
not visible to us. "As the philosopher must not
believe what cannot be demonstrated by evidence, so
neither must he foolishly despise or find fault with
what cannot be disproved by reason." 2 Had men,

1 De Immense, iii. ch. I. (p. 313 ff.). 2 P. 317.

203

204 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

instead of bending so long over the books of Aristotle
and his commentators, the nebulosa volumina, but turned
their eyes to the book and light of nature, they would
have formed a far different conception of the constitu-
tion of the heavens than that of the eight, nine, ten, or
more spheres and innumerable epicycles of the Ptolemaic
system. Bruno showed how as we rise from the surface
of the earth our horizon becomes wider, while in detail
less vivid, and he supposed himself to continue the
ascension upwards to the surface of the moon.1 A few
miles away tree and mountain would not be distinguish-
able from the rest of the earth, but we should perceive
only a wide circle of light with dark spots, the appear-
ance of sea and of land respectively. As the distance
increased the form of the earth would become more
visible while it lost all appearance of opacity, and the
whole would seem continuous light. As we neared the
moon, the earth would come to appear exactly as the
moon does to us from the earth. The moon also
revolves round its own axis, and from it, as with us,
the universe will appear to revolve round it as centre.
It had been said that the appearance of the heavenly
bodies had always been and continued to be the same,
but Bruno points to the fact that although a mountain,
when seen from at hand, changes its face from day to
day, and from season to season, yet from a distance it
seems always the same.2 It is owing to the distance
that the face of the moon appears to us never to change,
although it is certainly subject to as many alterations as
the earth itself ; and to the dwellers on the moon the
earth will appear equally changeless. The light and
shadow seen on the surface of the moon are due to the
variety of sea and land in it, the one reflecting light,

1 Bk. iii. ch. 2. 2 Ch. 4. p. 341 ff.

ii CEASELESS CHANGE 205

the other absorbing. On the moon, as on the earth,
Nature is in continuous change : for example, the relative
positions of sea and land are ever altering ; but the
magnitude of the distance renders these invisible, and
more especially the minuteness and gradual nature of
the changes themselves. The lunar spectator will be
presented with eclipses of the earth, and, according to
the position of sea and land, i.e. of light and shadow,
with phases of the earth.1 In the same way Bruno
applied his principle of similarity to show that from
distant stars the earth would appear of uniform magni-
tude and unvarying position, while in the neighbourhood
of other suns it and all the other planets would dis-
appear. As matter is the same in kind throughout the
universe, so it is subject everywhere to the same Jaw of
unceasing change : — " The sun in its rising never seeks
twice the same point, all things by stress of the con-
tinuous flux are renewed, nor ever seek again the
haunts they have left, nor is there any part of the earth
which does not pass through every region, and a like
force now carries each part in one direction or another,
now drives it away ; and if by chance any one revisit
the centre, it is no longer in the same form, nor in the
same connection (or dine)." 2 Not even the whole can
ever be twice the same, since the order and arrangement
of its parts are continuously changing. Even in things
that seem ever to present the same face there is a latent
alteration which time will bring to light. There would
otherwise be nothing to prevent the whole of Nature
being fixed, petrified, as it were, to all eternity. Yet
the substance of things — the atom — is unchanging.3
" All things are in flow ; the parts of the earth, seas,

1 So Bruno explained the phases of the moon.
2 Bk. vi. ch. 17. p. 210. 3 Ch. 18. p. 218.

206 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

and rivers vary their positions, by a certain ebbing and
flowing order of Nature. As matter wanders, flowing
in and out, now here, now there, so the forms travel
through matter. For there is not any form which,
once occupying a portion of matter, retains it always,
nor any matter which, once obtaining a certain form,
maintains it for ever. Hence it is that, matter always
taking up one form or another, and having equal
capacity for all, consequently by virtue of its eternity
it must sometimes fall in with that which is able to
bind it to itself for ever ; if this were to happen, all
things would be so constituted that there would be no
alteration or difference in them." l

The Ether. The universe to Bruno is transfused with spirit,
soul or life, " the soul of the universe," which animates
its every part. "The seat or place of God is the
universe, everywhere the whole immeasurable heaven,
empty space, of which He is the fulness." The material
aspect, or, as Bruno sometimes seems to say, the body
of this spirit is the ether, a subtle fluid distinguished
from the air we breathe by the absence of moisture.
The ether is a purely passive, non-resisting medium,
permeating the universe, without quality, and unimpres-
sionable by force or action ; thus it is penetrated by
the heat of any radiating body without diminishing its
force. It took the place, for Bruno, of the mythical
Fifth Essence, which had so long fed the dreams of
philosophers — " Divine yet corporeal, material yet with-
out matter, a form without privation, conjoining act
with potency, neither heavy nor light, suffering neither
generation, nor corruption, nor alteration, neither increase
nor decrease ; beyond which no sensible existence is,

1 Ib. p. 220. If the flow of change were arrested at any one point in Nature, it
would ultimately be arrested throughout the whole.

II

THE ETHER : MOISTURE 207

first-born and creatrix of Nature, simplest of beings, all-
containing, most powerful, most active, most living,
most perfect of existences, endowed with life and
intelligence, of its own nature moving circularly, etc.,
etc. — all this is at length proved to have been a most
portentous shadow without body." l Heaven is either
empty space, or it is an ethereal substance, " a very
subtle kind of air, which is the first and most universal
occupant of space." 2 Again, the ether is described as
a vapour or smoke, a nebulous matter, penetrating
throughout the depths of the void, interpenetrating all
things and embracing all ; as not entering into move-
ment of its own accord, for it is but an exhalation of
the wind — a kind of continuous vapour such as is
contained in the bowels of the earth : in it is neither
heat nor cold nor any similar effect (passio), but it is
the medium through which these are borne. All these
require moisture : moisture alone can " fix " light or
darkness or combine atoms into a concrete body and
prevent their random flight through the air.3 It has
been claimed that in this and other passages Bruno
anticipated the modern theory of the ether ; it must be
noted, however, that he expressly denies to its parts
any kind of motion — it is only the composite body
which moves — and that he speaks of this heaven or
ether as the soul which is at once immanent in and
comprehends the stars, i.e. as the soul of the universe.

Of the strictly material elements of the universe, the Moisture.
most important is moisture or water. It is moisture
which gives concreteness and therefore weight to
things. Nothing has weight which has not been
formed into one by the union of innumerable parts
under the action of water.4 Consistently with this,

1 Bk. iv. ch. i. (Op. Lat. i. 2. p. 6). 2 P. 7. 3 P. 8. 4 P. 152.

208 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Bruno believed the heaviest bodies, as the metals, to be
the most solid and concrete, and therefore to contain
most moisture. It is moisture also which, penetrating
through the arteries, veins, and bones of the earth,
gives to it both variety of aspect and the power of life.
The visible moisture on the earth's surface, the seas and
lakes, is a mere nothing as compared to that which is
diffused through its interior — is but the sweat, as it
were, of the earth's body.1 Bruno's passion for homo-
geneity led him to understand that in its surface the land
under the sea is similar to that above it, with which the
former is continually changing place, and it is divided
up into plains, mountains, valleys, the islands and rocks of
the sea being the tops of the mountains : — a remarkable
intuition of the truth, however arrived at. As to the
Earth : familiar elements, earth and fire, Bruno could neither
allow a special place or sphere nor a special direction
of movement to either, as in the Aristotelian cosmology.
The earth was not the centre of the universe, and there
were earths or similar planets everywhere. To the
several arguments of the Peripatetics 2 for the centrality
of the earth, — from the heaviness, the darkness, solidity,
composite character of the earth's matter, and the
movements of its parts, from the idea that contraries
shun one another so that the coldest element, for
example, should be in the centre, the hottest at the
extreme, — Bruno opposed the common-sense answers
that his own theory suggested to him* His appeal was
always from " fictitious order " to the evidence of
" sense and reason." The argument has no longer any
interest in itself, and to pursue it into detail would
hardly be edifying ; but so full is it, so weighty and so
vigorous, that one wonders how even the " Peripatetics "

1 After Empedocles. 2 De Imm. bk. iii. ch. 5.

ii NO ELEMENTS IN ISOLATION 209

failed to be convinced by it. Bruno's very errors are
interesting. Fire for example, far from being the
outermost, lightest, subtlest element, was regarded by
him as a body of which the substance, (light and heat
being accidents) was water mixed with earth ; * and in
general, he maintained, no element was ever found in
isolation. As to the supposed coldness of the central
element, — the earth, — he believed, again anticipating
future discoveries, that the centre of the earth was not
cold, but hot, the source of terrestrial warmth ; but the
theory loses something of its value, scientifically, from
the imagined vitality of the planet, by which it is
supported.2 It was natural that the coincidence of
contraries should be brought to do duty against the
maxim on which the Aristotelian view was really based
— namely, that contraries tend to rest at the greatest
possible distance from one another, against which Bruno
marshalled a whole army of facts. Away from the
shadow of the earth there was perhaps no light but
that of the sun, too strong for our eyes, for the
daylight arose from a mixture of the light of the
sun and the darkness of the earth ; we could see
other colours by it, for the reason that they were
similarly composed — mixtures of light and darkness.
The heat of the sun also was only bearable when
tempered by the coolness of the earth or other
planets. The body of the earth, great as it is,
can bear this heat only through its swift revolution.
As to the objection that if the earth moved we
should feel its motion, Bruno remarked that when
we are carried in a smoothly and continuously moving
vehicle, not striking against any object, we do not
perceive that we are moving, except by comparison with

1 Op.Lat.Li. p. 353. a P. 354..

P

210 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

some object known to us to be fixed. Thus sense
furnishes its own correction.1 The differences in the
distances of the planets from the sun, as seen from the
earth, are explained much more readily by the
assumption that they and the earth itself are moving
about the sun, than by that of the centrality of the
earth, which compelled astronomers to the complicated
device of the epicycles.2 The fact that the moon
always turns the same face towards the earth dis-
proved the Ptolemaic theory : were it on an epi-
cycle, as was supposed, this would be impossible.
According to the old doctrine, the earth was fixed
immovably in the centre of the universe, while
about it circled the spheres of sun, planets, and fixed
stars. With Bruno, on the other hand, the centre of
the universe is everywhere, or nowhere, — in other words
it is relative to the body on which the spectator is
supposed to stand.

The principle of continuous change was employed
to explain, among other matters, the variation of the
equinoxes, which was already known to occur ; but the
continuous change was itself accounted for on teleologi-
cal grounds. — " The motion which causes the poles to
tremble, and the equinoctial and solstitial points to vary
irregularly, is on account of the variations which are
always taking place in parts of the earth ; for the frigid
zones may not always be frigid, nor the torrid, torrid ;
all parts must rest and have holiday from each kind of
* affect/ and consequently take up every kind of dis-
position successively." ..." The centre of the earth,
therefore, and its position relatively to the poles, will

1 Op. Lot. i. i. p. 329.

2 The saying of King Alfonso in this regard is worth repetition, — that " had he
been consulted at the creation of the world he would have spared the Maker some
absurdities."

ii THE EARTH: ITS MOVEMENTS 211

vary." l No star ever repeats one day the revolution
of the previous, or any one year that of another.
Mathematical exactness, as we have seen, is never
found in the material world : the earth may not always
present the same face to the sun, so that one pole must
at length pass into the place of the other — a change
which must occur sensibly and continuously, and
irregularly, as natural bodies and elements of bodies
are naturally in continuous alteration and movement.
" The same composite body is never in exactly the
same state at any two moments, nor consists of quite
the same parts, for from all sides and everywhere there
is, necessarily, an unceasing influx and efflux of
elementary bodies." 2 The stars and planets are
compared to a flock of birds, which float hither
and thither in the clear ether, guided only by their
desires.3 Never does the flock present precisely the
same appearance twice. In nature the law is vicissitude
and succession, so that each thing may in actual fact
come to be all things.4

All the stars consist of the same elements, since Earths and
water cannot subsist without earth, nor fire without s
water ; but in some stars the aqueous element pre-
dominates (planets), in others the igneous (suns).
From sameness of appearance and of effects (accidents)
we may infer sameness of substance. It is clear
therefore to Bruno that moon, planets, stars, are all
of precisely the same substance as the earth. It is
unnecessary to point out by how long a period this

1 Op. Lot. i. I. p. 360. 2 P. 362, cf. supra.

s P. 369 (ch. 7)-

" Promptius utque magis quavis pernice volucrum
Versum quaque meent, immensumque aera findant
Intima nempe animae vis concitat ilia," etc.
4 P. 372.

212 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

brilliant philosophical faith preceded the slower if surer
march of science. The great worlds of the universe
are of two kinds — the suns, in which fire is the pre-
dominating element, and from which light is diffused ;
and the earths or planets, in which water predominates
and which reflects light. To the first class belong
the so-called fixed stars, from which our sun would
appear no larger and no brighter than they appear to
us ; to the second belong the moon, Mercury, and
other planets, all in one and the same ethereal space,
suspended in free air and balanced by their own weight
as is our earth. In all are seas and woods, rivers,
men, cattle, reptiles, birds, fishes, as on the earth, and
in all the same continuous changes occur.1 No one
is in the centre of the universe rather than another,
for about all equally extends immeasurable space with
its innumerable stars. Of these " first bodies " one
kind could not exist without the other, for it is by the
concourse of contraries and opposites that nature
provides for movement, life, and growth in things.
About each of the scintillating stars, or suns, which we
see, there must circle planets which are for the most
part invisible to us, but which may become visible.2
In the same way, both on account of the smallness of
their bodies, and especially on that of the less intensity
of reflected light in comparison with light of original
force, the planets which are about our fixed star, the
sun, would not be seen from any of the others. The
discovery in the last half- century of what is almost
certainly a satellite of Sirius confirms in this also
Comets. Bruno's " anticipation of nature." Another of these
was his theory of comets,3 which he held to be of the

1 De 1mm. bk. iv. ch. 3. a Ch. 8 (p. 42 f.).

3 Ch. 4, Schol. cf. bk. iv. ch. 13 (Op. Lat. \. 2. 67).

II

COMETS 213

same nature as planets, and to move in similar orbits.
He believed also that there were other solar planets
which never appeared to us because their position in the
heavens precluded their reflecting any of the sun's rays
to us : — a belief to which the reported eclipses of the
sun by occult bodies has given some support. The
shape of the comet, with its appendages, was only
apparent, Bruno said, and was due to the angle made
by the light reflected from its surface. In another
reference, however, he compares it with the oblique
reflection of light from a mirror, or from the surface
of water ; it is the watery matter, the vapours which are
drawn out by the warmth of the sun, that give the un-
usual reflection.1 This shows how nearly he approached
the modern theory. In the true spirit of the Renais-
sance, however, he appealed to the authority of the
ancients, of Aeschylus and Hipparchus of Chios, who,
according to Aristotle, regarded the comets as planets.2
The comets of the sixteenth century,3 so far as observed,
went wholly against the received view that their orbits
must lie within the sphere of the moon, and proved that
the substance of bodies beyond that sphere was the same
as the elementary substance of the earth, as well as that
there was penetrable space beyond. Both of these to
Bruno were important consequences. Still greater, how-
ever, was their importance for humanity, in removing the
grounds of the terror which comets and other heavenly
wonders had hitherto inspired. " There are some," said
Bruno, " who rest their faith in a virtue above and beyond
nature, saying that God, who is above nature, creates
these appearances in the heavens in order to signify
something to us : as if those were not better, nay the

1 De Imm. bk. vi. ch. 19. 2 Op. Lat. i. 2. p. 230.

3 1531, 1532, 1572, 1577, 1585. (Bk. v. chs. 9 and 13.)

2i4 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

very best, signs of divinity which arise in the ordinary
course of nature ; among which are those of which we
speak, for they also are not apart from this order,
although their order is hidden from us."

To account for the many appearances which seemed
to conflict with his new view of the universe, Bruno
had recourse to several slight experiments and analogies
of daily observation such as a schoolmaster might
employ at the present day before his class,1 but by
which even a man of Kepler's intelligence refused then
to be convinced ; at least he would not openly profess
his conviction. Among other fruitful suggestions
which Bruno makes is that the sun may perhaps turn
on its own axis, and again that it may contain vapour
and earth.2 He had a curious theory that the heat of
the sun is only directed outward from the surface^ not
inwards ; that this is the general course of radiation ;
and that it leaves an inner surface of the sun cold,
on which solar animals live ; finally that meteors are
" animals " expelled from the sun ! So always the
fruitful idea is accompanied by the absurd.

From the principle of the identity of nature it
follows that bodies which are remote from us are the
same in kind with those that are with us and near us ;
nothing may be denied of the former which is affirmed
of the latter, and 'vice versa. There can be no doubt,
therefore, of their similar composition and similar
parts. Thus if here on the earth we nowhere see fire
subsisting without earth, nowhere earth without water
or fire, while their composites are both contained in
and penetrated by air and void, then the same is
necessarily the case in the upper world also ; neither
sense nor reason compels us to assert or suspect other-

1 E.g. De Imm. bk. iv. ch. C. 2 Ib. ch. 7.

ii IDENTITY IN KIND OF ALL BEINGS 215

wise.1 Bruno has grasped, however confusedly, the
idea that each individual, each being in the uni-
verse, is as it were an epitome of the universe itself ;
that each therefore stands in a peculiar relation to it,
differing from it only in the " proportion " in which the
elements are composed into unity. It is impossible not to
see in this idea the germ of the most important develop-
ment of Leibniz* philosophy, whatever the source may
have been through which it came to the latter. It is
true that here, at least, Bruno's conception appears
much less spiritual than that of his successor, inasmuch
as he is thinking rather of the actual physical elements
which go to make up a body (and in which all bodies
are similar to one another). On the other hand, the
formation of the body is, in his view, the work of
the soul, and it is in the last resort the identity of the
universal soul of nature in all its members that brings
each of these into correspondence with all others. It
is true, also, that Bruno has no definite explanation
of what constitutes an individual, and his readers are
exposed to the dilemma either of regarding the
physical atoms as themselves u beseelt" — a view which
Bruno nowhere sanctions, — or, on the other hand, of
accepting a dualism of spirit (the soul of the universe
or God) and matter (the material atoms, moisture, fire,
and ether). Yet the tenour of Bruno's philosophy is
wholly opposed to such a dualism. As a corollary of
this theory, Bruno suggested an explanation of what has
been called " spontaneous generation," supported, how-
ever, by tales of the credulous rather than by actual
observation. " Dust that has been heated by the sun,
as soon as moisture falls upon it, becomes a frog, the
whole substance of dung goes into worms or flies, the

1 De Lam. bk. v. ch. 2 (p. 119).

216 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

body of a horse will turn into wasps, the provident bee
rises from the body of an ox ! " 1 As each thing is in
its inner nature identical with every other, so it may,
and in the natural course does, become every other, as
we have learned from the Italian works. Nevertheless,
the outward appearances of things do not cease to be
different from one another. " That is more latent in
one subject which is more unfolded in the remainder.'*
" The subject of all is one (monas\ and all things are in
truth one, although in individuals they seem to be
many."

Movements The movements of the earth and of other free-
theh^soui- moving bodies are always attributed by Bruno to an
principle. « internal principle or soul." Movement from without
could only take place through direct contact, and
the liquid air or ether is too light to move these
heavy bodies.2 " It is taking things by the wrong end
to say that the loadstone attracts the iron, the amber
the straw, the sun the sunflower. In the iron there is a
kind of sense, awakened by a spiritual (i.e. a subtly
material) virtue diffused from the loadstone, . . . and
generally everything that desires and has intelligence
moves towards the thing desired, converts itself into it
as far as possible, beginning with the wish to be in the
same place." By the same principle are explained the
phenomena of gravity, which is defined as impulse
towards the place of preservation, such as the earth is
to the stone that has formed part of it ; its opposite,
" levity" is impulse away from the contrary or the
injurious. " Gravity and levity are nothing but the
impulse of parts to their place, where they may either
move or be at rest, or to a place through which it is
necessary for them to go (in the circular movement of

1 Op. Lat. i. 2. p. 147. 2 Ceaa, Lag. 183. 30.

II

SOULS OF THE STARS 217

all material things)." Thus the motions of the heavy
and the light are merely relative movements ; the same
kind of motion does not belong always to the same
kind of substance or element.1

The movement of the stars is determined not
by considerations of place only, but also by the
necessity that bodies of one kind are under of deriving
sustenance from those of another, — the suns from the
earths and the earths from the suns. It is through the
soul that their needs are felt, and the soul directs their
movements as does the human soul those of the human
body. There are, however, no fixed limits to their
movements : they are governed only by the convenience
of life, as perceived by the sense and mind, which are
inborn in each. By this fantastic principle Bruno
explained what he thought to be the fact, that all
heavenly bodies whatsoever are in movement ; or
perhaps we should say he inferred the fact from the
principle : — which was first in the order of his thought
it would be impossible to know. Like most of his
contemporaries he looked upon the conception of a soul
in all things with peculiar reverence —

Porgimus haec paucis, vulgus procul esto prophanum,
Ne liceat laico sacrum conscendere montem,

The method by which Bruno sought to know the
nature of the souls of the worlds is one which the
course of modern philosophy has rendered familiar to
us in other connections. It rests upon the argument
from the part to the whole. " Whatever we find in a
part of the world belongs, in a higher sense (stiblimius)y
to the whole, and must be attributed to it. All the

1 Lag. 184. 35 ; Acrot. Art. 68 ; Infnito, 370. 29, 375. 6, 390. 34 ; Acrot. Art.
So (i. i. 189), etc.

2i 8 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

capacities of each part are attributed to the whole — that
is, their perfections and activities, not the qualities they
possess as parts, and as less than the whole in any
respect." Thus the hindrances to which lesser in-
dividuals are exposed, the necessity of taking in and
giving out matter as their forms change, exist in the
greater individual in a minimal degree. But in all
parts of the earth Bruno found signs of life, sensation,
and even intelligence. Stones of different kinds were
universally believed to have a kind of sensibility and
instinct : to move of their own accord, attract other
bodies to themselves, act upon our human spirits and
senses. The phenomena of animal instinct were a
constant object of interest to Bruno, who saw in them
the expression of a deeper intelligence than the merely
human. It is true the observations on which he built
may not always have been exact ; but that does not
detract from the value of his principle. Thus the
porcupine (istrix) moved his admiration because of
its careful storing up of a stock of darts in its back,
with which to protect its life ; it could, with unerring
aim, cast one at its enemy, hearing, it is said, with its
skin ; and its precision far surpassed all that the cunning
of man, with his many instruments, could do. With
perfect skill it threw its darts, yet sparingly, so that no
part of its body was ever defenceless, the spirit directing
all its actions from one centre, to which, from every
part of the body, report was made ! " With how much
higher reason will the star be endowed, of the body of
which animals are made, by whose spirit they flourish ?
So the earth from one centre directs all its actions and
those of its parts ; it never errs, neither it nor any
of the worlds which dwell in the immeasurable ether."1

De Imm. bk. v. ch. i.

ii INSTINCT AND INTELLIGENCE 219

Bruno rejected l the popular notion that the behaviour
of ants, spiders, and other animals does not spring from
their proper foresight and artifice, but from divine,
unerring intelligence acting upon them from without,
giving them those " thrusts " (spinte) which are called
"natural instincts" — a term which he regarded as
meaningless. " Is this ' natural instinct ' sense or
intellect? If the former, is it internal or external?
Clearly it is not external ; but if internal, where is
the internal sense from which they could have their
foresight, their arts and artifices, their precautions,
expeditions, to meet various conditions, both present
and future ? There must be some proximate principle,
i.e. a form of intelligence peculiar to each animal,
which determines its actions. The divine and universal
intelligence is merely the principle that gives it intelli-
gence, through which it understands." 2 The action of
animals of a given kind were supposed to be after one
perfect model, and to be undeliberate. Bruno there-
fore placed their intelligence higher than that of man,
nearer the level of that of the world-souls. "The
swallow makes its nest, the ants their cave, the spiders
their web or nets, in one way only, than which they
could not make them more admirably or suitably. . . .
Who knows whether the spirit of man is rising upwards,
that of others moving downwards ? At least it is to
be referred to a defect of light and divine force that
men hesitate and deliberate in all that belongs to the
means of life, the modes of worship and defence, for if
all knew perfectly, all would be governed in the best,
and consequently in one way only." It is, then, on
the analogy of these supposed higher, unerring faculties
of animals that Bruno considers the souls of the worlds

1 Ccna, Lag. 185. 4. 2 Cabala, p. 587. 23 ff.

220 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

to think and act. They have perfect freedom, since
their life and soul are their own, not borrowed, as ours.
" Thus as we breathe, see, sleep, without labour or
anxiety, and while our soul performs the function of
life, the vital humours and spirits continually circulate,
so these, the chief members of the world, divine animals,
have no need to undergo any anxious toil, for all things
with them are done for the best.7' Their fixed aim of
life defines for them certain determinate orbits, " in
which they move freely by the force of that soul which
is much more certainly present in these high, perfect,
divine bodies than in us, of more ignoble condition,
who draw from them spirit and body, come forth living
out of their bosom, are nourished by them, and at
length are dissolved and received back into them." 1

It is to the internal spirit also that the spherical form
of the worlds is due. The so-called mountains of the
earth do not in the least detract from its spherical form.
Bruno anticipated modern science in his discovery or
intuition that the real mountains are not those we are
accustomed to call such, but immense tracts of country,
—the whole of France, for example. " I find the whole
country of France to be one mountain, which rises
gradually from the North Sea to Auvergne, where is
its summit, marked on the west by the Pyrenees, where
the Garonne flows, on the east by the Rhone, on the
south by the Mediterranean Sea/' 2 The whole earth
is, however, as smooth in reality as is to us the pumice
stone, which to the ant seems furrowed with mountains

1 On movements of suns and earths, as determined by the soul, and the need of
mutual sustenance, cf. Acrot. Arts. 65, 66, 67, 72.

2 Cf. Cena, Lag. 166. 32, where it is suggested that the Alps and Pyrenees once
formed the summit of a very high mountain, gradually broken up, through con-
tinuous geological changes, into the lesser forms we now call mountains. So the
whole of Britain is a mountain, rising up out of the sea $ its summit is the highest
point, Scotland.

ii DECAY OF WORLDS 221

and valleys. It is on teleological grounds that Bruno
accounts for this sphericity. Composite things are
preserved through the harmony and union of their
parts, while decay arises from dissolution. But such
harmony and union are best secured by the spherical
form : towards this form, then, every soul aspires in
the moulding of its body. The most perfect animals,
the stars, having fewer limitations, have the greater
advantages ; being almost independent, free, self-
sufficient, they are most closely united in themselves,
i.e. tend most nearly to the purely spherical form.1

However perfect they are, the stars are yet of mortal
stuff. " You may say if you will that the worlds change
and decay in old age, or that the earth seems to grow
grey with years, and that all the great animals of the
universe perish like the small, for they change, decay,
dissolve. Matter, weary of old forms, eagerly snatches
after new,' for it desires to become all things, and to
resemble, as far as may be, all being." The efflux and
influx of atomic matter into the great bodies is con-
tinuous, and this is the only kind of motion which is
unceasing.2 <c As the conflux of native matter is greater,
so the bodies grow more and more, and increase up to
a certain limit, on touching which they grow weary and
become subject to a contrary order ; as about the seed
atoms are gathered and added continuously until the
body and its limbs reach their maturity, when the same
parts are cast out from the centre, and the breaking up
of the composite is presented to our eyes." Hence

1 De Imm. bk. iv. ch. 18.

2 Cf. Infinite, Lag. 351. 30, on the gradual changes of the earth's surface, which
Bruno infers are present, although imperceptible, in other stars also. Cf. ib. 33Z. 15,
and De Imm., bks. iv. and vi. j Acrot. Arts. 48 and 74. In Inf. 353. 30, rocks,
lakes, rivers, springs, etc., are compared to the different members or organs of the
human body : the accidents or disturbances of them, — clouds, rain, snow, etc., — to
the diseases of the human body.

222 GIORDANO BRUNO PART n

there are atoms innumerable roaming through the void,
while infinite changes succeed one another in bodies.
Those in one region receive the atoms repulsed from
another : there is no danger of their straying infinitely
without reaching a goal, for everywhere are great bodies
to receive what is expelled from other stars.

Composite as the worlds are, — capable, therefore, of
dissolution and destruction, — yet, as Timaeus had sug-
gested, the power and providence of the divine purpose
may maintain them eternally as they are.

CHAPTER V1

THE LAST AND THE LEAST THINGS : ATOMS
AND SOUL-MONADS

THE reaction against Aristotelianism had, as one of its
results, a renascence of the atomic theory of Democritus
and Lucretius ; and one of the earliest adherents of
the renovated doctrine was Bruno. Although a com-
plete presentation of the theory was not given until
his later works, the De Minim o and the Articuli adv.
Mathematicos, appeared, yet already in the Italian
dialogues there were frequent references to it. In
the Cena? for example, it is said that in the physical
division of a finite body infinite progress is impossible,
and, as we shall afterwards find, in Bruno there is no
distinction between physical and mathematical divi-
sion. Again, in the Cena an animistic atomism is
suggested, which presents a curious anticipation of
some of Leibniz' characteristic views. " It is more
than probable, as all things partake of life, that many
or innumerable individuals live not only in us, but in
all composite things ; when anything " dies," as is said,
we must believe it to be not death, but change only ;
the accidental composition or concord ceases, the things
that enter into it remaining always immortal ; and this
is truer of those things we call spiritual than of those

1 Acrot'nmus: De Aiittimo. 2 Lag. p. 158.

223

224 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

we call corporeal or material." 1 Thus every body or
organism, for all bodies are organisms to Bruno, is itself
constituted by other living beings, the atoms — living
atoms — being alike the origin and the end of all. So
Leibniz wrote : — " Every living body has a presiding
entelechy, which is the soul in the animal ; but the
members of this living body are full of other living
beings — plants, animals, — each of which, again, has its
entelechy or presiding soul." 2 In the Infinite Bruno
refers to the continuous changes of all composite bodies
as arising from the ceaseless flux of atoms out of and
into each body, even the greater " animals," the stars
and planets, sending out particles, which wander
through the universe from one to another.3 Again,
when discussing the four elements, he ascribes to water
the power of holding together the atoms of earth, or
u the dry." " If from the earth all water were to be
removed, so that there remained purely dry matter,
this remainder would necessarily be an incoherent, rare,
loose substance, easy to be dispersed through the air,
in the form of innumerable discontinuous bodies ; for
while the air or ether makes a continuum, that which
makes a coherent continuum is water or moisture." 4
These indivisible " prime bodies," of which the worlds
are originally composed, are spoken of as flying
throughout space from world to world, in infinite
movement, entering now into this, now into that
" composition." 5 Finally, in the Spaccio, we are re-
minded that u every trifle, however worthless, is of
value in the order of the whole, the universe, for great
things are composed of little, little things of the least,

1 Lag. 164. 18. 2 Monadology,§ 70. Cf. also §§ 64, 66, 67-69.

3 Lag. 332.

4 Lag. 357. 10 ; cf. 334. 24, 359. 13, 393. 5, and Her. Fur. 738. 17.
5 Lag. 367. 12, 375. 37.

ir THE ACROTISMUS 225

and these of the individuals (or indivisibles) or minima." l
In its main outlines, accordingly, Bruno's atomic theory
was already formed in his mind when he wrote his
earlier philosophical works, and even some of his
peculiar applications of it had already suggested them-
selves. It is hardly possible, therefore, to find any
very marked development in this regard between the
London and the Frankfort periods. There is elabora-
tion and completion rather than development in any
definite direction ; 2 and, as we have seen, the writing
of the larger works, containing the developed system,
was projected in London, and even carried out to a
certain extent before Bruno left England.3 In the
Acrotismus, which occupies a middle place between the
two periods, the doctrine is equally in evidence, in
reference both to the atoms and to the continuous ether
in which they move. " There is a limit to the division of
nature — an indivisible something ; the division of nature
arrives at ultimate minimal parts, unapproachable by
human instruments. Of these minimal bodies every
sensible body is composed, and such a body, resolved
into its minima, can retain no semblance of complexity ;
for these are the first bodies out of which all others are
made, and which are, in the truest sense, the matter of
all things that have corporeal existence. Resolved into
these parts, stone has no look of stone, flesh of flesh,
bone of bone ; in their elements, bone, stone, and flesh
do not differ, but only when formed out of these, com-
pounded, compacted, and arranged in diverse manners,
do flesh, stone, and bone and other things become
different one from another." 4 And Bruno describes
how, between the heavenly bodies, there is a substance,

1 Lag. 455. 37. 2 Contrast Tocco, Of ere Latine di G.B., part 5.

3 Florentine's Preface to Op. Lat. vol. i. p. xxviii. 4 Acrot. Cam. Art. 42, p. 154.

Q

226 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

" ingenerable and incorruptible, the immeasurable air,
a kind of spiritual body "• — the ether.1

object of Its full extension, however, the theory receives in
m°' the De Minima, where the atom, or corporeal unity, is
not the sole minimum discussed. The full title of the
work is : — " On the threefold minimum, and measure,
being the principles of the three speculative sciences and
of many practical arts." We find nowhere any distinct
statement as to what Bruno meant by the "threefold
minimum," and the three speculative sciences to which
its several members refer. It was supposed that the
minima were (i) the monad or unity which is the unit
of number, (2) the point, which is the unit of the line,
and (3) the atom, which is the unit of body. But
arithmetic and geometry can hardly be called specula-
tive sciences, and Tocco has shown that Bruno had in
view the triad of God, the soul and the atom — the three
kinds of simple substance, each immortal and inde-
structible : — God as the supreme and most simple unity,
Monad of Monads ; soul as that which lives in each
composite being and holds in unity the atoms which
from time to time enter into its composition ; and the
atom, the most simple of material substances, in the
sum of which, with their containing ether, the material
universe consists. Had Bruno carried out his sub-
division of the speculative sciences, he would probably
have referred God, as the substance of all reality, to a
speculative theology, of Neoplatonist type ; soul as the
simple substance of animate beings to metaphysics
proper ; and the atoms, the substance of body, to a
speculative physics, dealing with the metaphysical pre-
suppositions of the general theory of nature, which was
set forth in the De Immenso. The scheme, however,

1 Acrot. Cam. Art 65.

ii THE THREE « MINIMA " 227

was never fully carried out,1 the times being not yet
ripe for the complete separation of the speculative and
the experimental or observational sciences. In referring
the atomic theory to metaphysics, Bruno showed a true Atomism

r .... . . - a meta-

mstmct, for while in one sense atomism is a scientific physical
hypothesis capable of furnishing laws which explain the doctnne-
interaction of bodies, — the corpuscular theory, — and as
such has proved its value by the brilliant developments
of recent years, on the other hand, it is also a presup-
position of knowledge, a ground of the possibility of
our knowledge of body, and therefore has its place in
speculative theory, or metaphysics, in the widest sense.
Both points of view are presented in Bruno's doctrine,
but that from which he starts is the epistemological,
following in this the guidance of Nicholas of Cusa.

Knowledge is measurement, and all measure implies Knowledge

. . . 11-1 c i • TTT • M i implies the

a minimum in each kind or being. Were it possible to atom,
subdivide anything ad infinitum, the half would be
potentially equal to the whole, and measurement frus-
trated. There must be a limit to division, an ultimate
part, which itself has no parts, and which is the sub-
stance of the composition into which it enters, the com-
position on the other hand being an "accident" of this
minimum. As it is primarily a condition of measure-
ment, the minimum differs in the different spheres of Relativity
measure or knowledge to which the category of
quantity applies. In magnitudes of one or two dimen-
sions it is the point, in bodies the atom, in numbers the
monad or unity. Thus number is accident of the
monad, monad is the essence of number, as composition
is accident of the atom, atom is essence of the com-
posite. Again, the " sensible minimum " must be far
greater than the natural or real minimum, for in so far

1 Vide De Mia. p. 211 (bk. ii. ch. 6).

228 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

as minimum is qualified by sensible, it is implied that
the minimum is not absolutely such, but is a composite.
The minimum of taste, touch, etc., must possess certain
qualities, by which it has relation to sense, and these
can derive only from some form of composition. In
their primary form the minima of nature must be
without difference ; therefore that some are sensible,
others not, must be due to some addition in the
former.1

Thus each species of existence, as light, moisture,
vital force,2 has its own minimum, and the minimum is
relative in this sense also, that there are different kinds
of existence not resolvable one into another : the abso-
lute minimum would be God, who is also the absolute
maximum. The relative minimum, accordingly, is
determined either by the thought and design of the
observer, or by the species of existence to which the
subject belongs ; nature has set limits, both lower and
upper, within which the individual of any species must
stay, or cease to belong to that species. Accordingly,
what one regards as great and composite, another may
take as first and minimum : the unit of one science may
be analysed in another into further elements. " Pyth-
agoras in his philosophy started with the monad and
numbers ; Plato with atoms, lines and surfaces ; Empe-
docles with the four elements ; the physicians with the
four humours, and so on ; but the Pythagorean monad is
prior to the placed monad (the atom), Plato's matter of
bodies to the qualified bodies of Empedocles, the four
simple bodies of Empedocles to the four first combina-
tions of these, the four humours. So to the universe
the whole solar system, the sun and all its planets, may
be a simple unit."3

1 De Min. bk. i. ch. 9. 2 Ib. Schol. (p. 170). 3 Ch. 10.

ii PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE 229

Here Bruno suggests two principles for the classifi-
cation and systematising of the sciences, to which it
would have been well had he himself and his successors
faithfully adhered. The one is, that the modes of
measurement, i.e. the methods and laws of the sciences,
must differ for the different kinds of existence studied:
that a biological law, for example, cannot be adopted
as an explanation of mental phenomena, nor the atomic
theory account for the phenomena of life. On the
other hand there are orders of existence, according to
the complexity of the subjects involved. If we regard
the science which deals with the more concrete subject
as " higher," then each higher science (e.g. psychology)
must take for granted the principles and results of each
lower science (biology, physics, mathematics), — each
must adopt and retain a unit for itself, which it has not
further to analyse.

In the same way the minima offer a ground for the The

1. . . r , . . r "minim

distinction of the more abstract sciences one from -m the
another. The term " individual nature " (afoma natura) ^BBO?
may, according to Bruno, have one of several uses. It sciences-
may be applied either " negatively or privatively, and if
negatively, then either accidentally or substantially."
His instance of the accidental use is a voice or sound,
which expands spherically, is wholly wherever it is, i.e.
the full content of the sound is heard, wherever its in-
fluence extends, not a part here, a part there, although
the intensity may vary in degree. Of the substantial
use examples are the spirit, which is wholly in the whole
body of man, or that spirit which is in the whole extent of

t*:he life of the earth, by whose life we live and in which
ve have our being, or, above this substantial nature or
ndividual soul, that of the universe, and supreme above
ill, the mind of minds, God, one spirit completely filling

230 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

all things.1 The atom-nature is privativefy so-called,
when it is the element and substance of a magnitude which
is the same in kind with it, and may be reduced to it, and
it is distinguished from the atom negatively so-called,
because it is not divisible, either in genus or in species,
either per se or per accident. Examples are, ( I ) in dis-
crete quantities : — unity to the mathematician, the uni-
versal proposition to the logician, the syllable to the
grammarian ; and (2) in continuous quantities, varying
with the species of continuum: — the minimal pain,
sweetness, colour, light, triangle, circle, straight line,
curve ; in duration, the instant ; in place, the minimal
space ; in length and breadth, the point ; in body, the
least and first body.

Minimum In the second place, the atom or minimum is also a
stance" metaphysical TTOV o-rw ; not only is it the last result of
analysis, but it is also the permanent substance of being,
and again it contains all being in itself — it is essence of
being. Thus such an individual nature a never comes
into existence by way of generation, nor passes out of
it by way of corruption or dissolution ; only per accidens
may we say that it now is, now is not." 2 Certain of
them, however, the souls, deities, God, are in their intrinsic
nature eternal, immortal, indissoluble. Of these it was
Bruno's intention to treat at large in a Metaphysics and
a De Anima which he purposed to write " if God granted
him time." 3 Unfortunately, it was willed otherwise.

Nothing that becomes, changes, decays, is real
(ens). It is by meditating on this perpetual unity of
nature, by conforming ourselves, and preserving
ourselves in likeness to it, that we come to partake
in the life of the gods, and to deserve the name

1 Of. Lot. i. 3. p. 209. 2 This thought recurs in Leibniz.

3 Op. Lat. i. 3. pp. 209-211.

ii THE "MINIMUM" INDESTRUCTIBLE 231

of substance. That which time, movement, fate bring
to us is nought ; for while they are, they are not.
" Let us then," cries Bruno, " supply the mind with
material, in the contemplation of the minimum, through
which it may exalt itself to the maximum" x Since the
real minimum, whether atom or soul, is immortal and
indestructible, we know, as Pythagoras saw, that there
is no death, but only transition ; death is a dissolution
which can occur only to the composite, for the com-
posite is never substance, but is always adventitious.
Otherwise we should be changing our substance every
moment with the continuous influx of atoms into our
bodies. Only by the individual substance of the soul
are we that which we are ; about it as a centre, which
is everywhere in its whole being (ubique totum), the dis-
gregation and aggregation of atoms takes place.
According to a law of the soul-world, all bodies and
forces tend to the spherical form ; God, as monad of
monads, is the perfect or infinite sphere, of which the
centre is at once nowhere and everywhere ; and in Him
(as in all minima, simple substances, monads) all oppo-
sites coincide, the many and the few, finite and infinite ;
therefore that which is minimum is also maximum, or
anything between these, each is all things, the greatest
and the whole.2 Therefore, if contemplation is to
follow in the footsteps of nature, it must begin, con-
tinue, and end with the minimum? In other words, the
minimum in each sphere of being contains implicitly in
itself the whole reality of that sphere. The minimum is
its substance, not merely the ultimate of analysis, but
the actual source, the dynamic origin of reality, as God
is implicitly the whole universe and also the source of
the universe as it actually exists. It is because the

1 Op. Lat. i. 3. p. 208. 2 P. 147. i. 3 P. 149. 3.

232 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

minimum is all reality, is the maximum, that the know-
ledge of it gives us that of the whole.

Uniqueness In the third place the atomic theory offers an
things. explanation of the uniqueness of each natural existence,
which Bruno's philosophical theory already assumed.
The ever moving atoms present a mechanism by which
the infinite diversity and infinite succession of change
in things may be brought about. The appearance of
similarity, exactness, etc., is, as we have found, an
illusion. Mathematically exact figures or bodies — a
true circle, for example — are unattainable by sense,
even if they exist in nature ; but they do not exist in
Sense and nature. Sense is the primary faculty, through which
knowledge. ^ materiai of ^\\ others must pass, so that what has
not entered through that window of the soul cannot
be known at all. But a single point out of place on
the circumference of a circle makes it cease to be a
true circle, and our sense-apprehension is necessarily
so confused and indistinct that we cannot distinguish
between the true and the false, where truth depends
upon so inappreciable a difference. Moreover sense-
Relativity, knowledge is relative to the knowing subject, or to
the subject's position with regard to the object. What
to the eye of one is too large is to another too small ;
a sound which is pleasant to one ear is not so to
another ; the food which to the hungry man tastes
sweet, to the full man is nauseous ; the ape to the ape
is beautiful, but to the man is of laughter-inspiring
ugliness. Hence the circumspect will not say " this
has a good odour, taste, sound, this has a beautiful
appearance," but will add " to me," " now," " some-
times." Nothing is good or evil, pleasant or painful,
beautiful or ugly, simply and absolutely ; but the same
objects in relation to individual subjects receive from

ii RELATIVITY OF KNOWLEDGE 233

the senses contrary denominations, as they in fact
produce contrary effects. In deciding what is to be
called good or bad, honourable or base, nature and
custom have been the chief agents, and alterations have
issued from the slow rise and victory of different
opinions. Among the Druids and Magi certain things
were performed publicly at sacrifices which now, even
when committed in privacy, are regarded as execrable,
and are so by way of law, and in the present condition
of affairs. Philosophy, as it teaches to abstract from
particulars, to bring the nature and condition of things
as far as possible under an absolute judgment, must
define differently the useful and good in an absolute
sense, from the useful and good as contracted to the
human species. Objectively there is no definitely
good or definitely evil, definitely true or definitely
false, so that from one point of view we may say that
all things are good ; from another that all things are
evil ; from a third that nothing is good or evil, as
neither of the contraries is true ; from a fourth that
all things are both good and evil, as each of the
contraries is true. No sense deceives or is deceived :
each judges of its proper object according to its own
measure. There is no higher tribunal to which to
refer its object, nor can reason judge of colour any
more than can the ear ; sensible truth does not follow
any general or universal rule, but one which is
particular, mutable, and variable. In the working of
an external sense there may be different degrees of
perfection or defect, but not of truth or falsity, which
consist in the reference of the subject and predicate
to one another. The faculty by which we judge this
or that to be true colour or light, and distinguish from
apparent colour or light, is not in the eye. To affirm

234 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

that man is an animal, we must know both man and
animal, know that animal nature is in man, and other
things which, as means or circumstances, concur directly
or indirectly in this knowledge. External sense can
apprehend only one species or image of the object;
from the colour and figure to pass to its name, its
truth, its difference from other objects, belongs to a
judgment more inward faculty. Yet the latter is always based

based upon i r • i i

sensation, upon sense ; — a dear man can neither imagine nor dream
of sounds which he has never heard, nor a blind man
of colours and figures which he has never seen.1 This
digression on the relativity of knowledge, and on the
different functions of sense and reason, in which Bruno
follows partly the teaching of Lucretius, partly the
Peripatetic doctrine of knowledge, shows that even if
a true or perfectly exact geometrical figure existed in
nature, none of the faculties with which we are endowed
could apprehend it, since it is not given by external
sense.2

NO exact- But in the second place3 reason tells us that no

ness or , i /* • • •» • r

similarity true circle, or other figure, is possible in nature : for
" there is in nature no similarity except in the atoms ;
a true circle would imply the equality of all lines from
the centre, but no two lines in nature are entirely and
in all respects equal to one another. The circle or
part of a circle which appears most perfect to us — the
rainbow — is an illusion of the senses, due to the
reflection of the light of the sun from the clouds ; so
the circles made by a stone falling into water cannot be
perfect, for this would mean that the stone itself is
perfectly spherical, that the water is everywhere of the
same density, that no wind is playing upon its sur-
face. Sound is not equally diffused owing to differ-

1 De Min. bk. ii. ch. 3, pp. 191 ff. 2 P. 195. 20. 3 Ch. 4.

ii ALL EXISTENCES DIFFER 235

ences in the density and rarity of the air, nor is the
horizon ever a perfect circle, owing to differences of
clearness in different directions. Object and faculty
alike are in continuous change ; all natural things are
continually altering their form or changing their
position ; therefore although they seem to sense to
remain fixed for a time, we know that this is impossible,
from the nature of things.1 Whatsoever falls in the
scope of sense-perception, even the distant sphere
and stars, we judge to consist of the same elements,
therefore to be subject equally to perpetual variability
and vicissitude. Thus — the atoms alone being simple,
and remaining ever the same — no composite thing can be
the same for one moment even, as each is being altered
continually in all parts and on all sides by the efflux
and influx of innumerable atoms.2 " Hence nothing is
perfectly straight, nothing perfectly circular among
composites, nothing absolutely solid but the atoms,
nothing absolutely void but the spaces between them."
The facet of a diamond appears to be a perfect plane,
perfectly compact, yet in reality it is rough and porous.3
In matter no two lines or figures are, entirely equal,
nor can the same figure be repeated twice.4 No man
is twice of the same weight, the very instruments by
which we measure and weigh things are themselves in
constant change, and the flux of atoms is never equal,
but now denser, now rarer. In general no two things
are of the same weight, length, sound, or number, nor
are two motions or parts of motion ever the same.
To say that ten trees are equal to ten others is to speak
merely from a logical point of view, for in fact each
is one in a peculiar and special sense.5 " Equality is

1 Op. Lat. i. 3. p. 199. 15. 2 P. 200. 20. 3 P. 200. 28, 201. 4 ; cf. 223. n.
4 De Mm. bk. ii. ch. 5. 5 P. 203. 27.

236 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

only in those things which are permanent and the same ;
changing bodies are unequal to themselves at any two
instants." l " Nothing variable or composite consists
at two moments of time wholly of the same parts
and the same order of parts, since the efflux and influx
of atoms is continuous, and therefore not even from
the primary integrating parts will you be able to name
a thing as the same twice." 2

Number itself is not an absolute, but a relative
determination : it does not touch the nature of the
thing itself. Nature has no difference of number, as
we have, of odd and even, tens and hundreds ; nor
do the gods, spirits, or other rational beings define the
numbers and measures of objects by the same series of
terms. Both numbers and the methods of numbering are
as diverse as are the fingers, heads, and mental equip-
ment of the numberers. That which fits in with the
numbers of nature will therefore never fit in with our
numbers. Thus ten horses and ten men, although
determined arithmetically by one and the same number,
are in nature, or physically, wholly unequal to one
another.3

The atoms. In order that men's minds may be better disposed
for the reception of truth, it is necessary first to
demolish the foundations of error ; 4 Bruno accordingly
sets himself to disprove the infinite divisibility of the
continuum.5 It was the common belief that there
were no limits set to the dividing power of either
nature or art, so that, however small a part might be
arrived at, it was possible to divide it into yet smaller
parts, on the analogy of the division of a fraction into
„ tens of thousands of parts. Bruno denied this analogy

1 Op. Lat. i. 3. p. 207. 5 (cf. p. 302, bk. v. ch. 2). 2 P. 208. 9. 3 P. 207.
4 De Min. bk. i. ch. 5. 5 Arist. Phys. Z. i. 231, a 23.

ii CONTINUUM NOT DIVISIBLE 237

to be justifiable, as in the latter case we are concerned
not with division but with multiplication or addition,
not with a continuum, but with discrete quantities, and
it was part of his general theory that the addition of
discretes might be carried on ad infinitum ; the inverse
process he denied. He thus held opinions directly
contrary to those of Aristotle, with whom the mass
of the universe was finite, limited by its enclosing
sphere, the parts of the universe unlimited. Aristotle had
an upper but not a lower limit ; Bruno a lower but not
an upper. So time and space, which Aristotle had Time and
treated as finite in duration or extent, but as infinitely 3I
divisible, like the universe itself, are regarded by Bruno
as unlimited in their dimensions, but as consisting of
discrete minimal parts. " In every point of duration
is beginning without end, and end without beginning" ;
it is the centre of two infinities. Therefore the whole
of duration is one infinite instant, both beginning and
end, as immeasurable space is an infinite minimum or
centre. " The beginning and source of all errors, both
in physics and in mathematics, is the resolution of the
continuous in infinitum. To us it is clear that the
resolution both of nature and of true art, which does
not advance beyond nature, descends from a finite
magnitude and number to the atom, but that there is
no limit to the extension of things either in nature or
in thought, except in regard to the form of particular
species. Everywhere and always we find the minimum,
the maximum nowhere and never. The maximum and
minimum, however, may in one sense coincide, so that
we know the maximum to be everywhere, since from
what has been said it is evident that the maxi-
mum consists in the minimum and the minimum
in the maximum, as in the many is the one, in the

238 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

one the many. Yet reason and nature may more
readily separate the minimum from the maximum than
the maximum from the minimum. Therefore the
immeasurable universe is nothing but centre every-
where ; eternity nothing but a moment always ; im-
measurable body an atom ; immeasurable plane a
point ; immeasurable space the receptacle of a point
or atom." 1

The chief source of error on the part of the Peri-
patetics was their failure to distinguish between the
minimum as a part, and the minimum a terminus or limit.
Hence their idea that no combination of physical minima
would give a magnitude, since two or more would
touch one another with their whole surface, i.e. would
coincide : — otherwise the minimum would have parts,
a part of each touching the other, and a part not
touching. On their theory it would follow that magni-
tudes do not consist of parts, or at least not of
elementary parts. This is inconsistent with nature, for
existing magnitudes must have been built up out of
nature's elements, and with art, for art can measure
only on the assumption of first parts. It is true that
what is posited as first part in one operation may be
the last result in another, for the minimum^ as we have
seen, is a relative conception, but some first part is
always assumed in any operation. And as the operation
of art is not infinite, so neither is there infinite
subordination of parts.2 When two minima touch one
another, they do not do so with their whole body, or
any fart of it, but one with its terminus or limit may
touch several others ; no body touches another with
the whole of itself or a part, but with either the whole
or the part of its limiting- surface. The terminus of a

1 De Mm. p. 153. 22 ff. 2 P. 158.

ii PART AND LIMIT 239

thing is therefore no part of it, and by implication not
a minimal part. Hence there are two kinds of minima
concerned — that of the touching body, or part, and the
minimum of that by which the contact is effected, the
terminus.1 The atom, which is the minimal sphere,
touches in the absolutely minimal point, the smallest
terminus. Other spheres do not touch in a point
simply, but in more than one, or in a plane circle.2
By adding limit to limit we never obtain a magni-
tude ; the terminus is no part, and therefore if in
contact it would touch with its whole self, so that
magnitude is not made up of termini, whether points,
atoms, lines, or surfaces which are termini ; and this
was the false ground on which the Aristotelians denied
the possibility of the atom. It remained to ask if the
termini were infinite, since the atoms were not ; but it
was clear that their number was determined by that of
the atoms. For two limits do not touch one another : —
" They do not cohere or make a quantum, but through
them others in contact with one another make a con-
tiguum or continuum" 3 It may be added that if the
parts of a divisible body were infinite in number, the
parts of the whole would be equalled by the parts of the
half, for in the infinite there can be no greater and
less. In the infinite, as we have seen above, there
is no difference between palms, digits, miles, between
units and thousands, nor in the infinite time that has
elapsed are there more months than years, more years
than centuries. If any one set of these were less than
the others it would be finite, and if one finite number
may be applied to the whole, then the whole is finite.4
The force of the Achilles dilemma was derived from the
false idea that the minimum of one kind had some

1 De Min. p. 173. 9 ; cf. 173. 7, 180. 2 P. 160. 3 P. 161. 4 P. 162.

24o GIORDANO BRUNO PART

relation to that of another kind, e.g. that of time to
that of motion, that of impulsive force to that of the
motion produced. A thing of one kind does not
define or measure a thing of another, and the duration
of one does not compare in the same sense with the
duration of another. Parts of different things are
only equivocally called parts, and minima are minima
only according to their proper (and diverse) definitions ;
therefore one is not measured by another, except in
a rough way, for practical purposes.1

The As the atoms come into contact with one another,

Atom™' not m a^ points of their surface, but in a definite
spherical. number, it follows that there is a space between them,
in the interstices ; it was this thought which led Democ-
ritus to posit a vacuum.2 The figure of the corporeal
minimum must be spherical, for any mass which has
projections can always be thought of as smaller, when
these projections have been removed ; and nature
itself suggests this, by the gradual rounding off of
substances through time, and the apparent roundness
and smoothness of rough and jagged bodies when the
observer is at a distance.3 Diversity of forms of
composite bodies results easily from spherical atoms,
through differences in situation and order, differing
amounts of vacuum and solid ; but a simple vacuum
with solid bodies is not sufficient, — there must be a
certain matter through which the latter cohere together.4
Although all other determinations may be abstracted
from, figure at least must be predicated of the atoms ;
quantity cannot be asserted of that which is thought to
be unfigured. These determinations of the minimum,
though not given to sense, may nevertheless be made

1 De Mm. i. ch. 8. 8 Ch. n. p. 176.

3 Ch. 12. 4 Ch. 2. p. 140.

ir MATHEMATICS OF THE MINIMUM 241

object of thought, by analogy or inference from the
combinations of sensible minima in larger composites,
the same forms of aggregation being repeated in the
higher which occur in the lower forms.1

From the consideration of mathematical figures as
consisting of minima^ Bruno attempted both to remodel
and to simplify the existing mathematical theory, and,
unfortunately fell foul of the new analytical mathematics,
the theory of rationals and of approximations, which at
that time was receiving marked extensions, and which
has since justified itself so completely by results. It is
true he did not entirely reject it, but he regarded it as
merely an artifice for rough practical measurements.
The true measure is always the minimum^ inferred by
analogy from the combinations of greater parts, which
are perceived by sense. Thus the minimal circle, after
the atom itself, consists of seven minima, the minimal
triangle of three, and the minimal square of four, and
as each figure increases not by the addition of one
atom merely, but by a number determined by the
original number of atoms in the figure, it follows that
no one figure is ever equal to another. Thus the
second triangle is of six minima, the second square of
nine, the second circle of nineteen. The " squaring of
the circle " is therefore impossible,2 although it may
be approximately reached through the ultimate coin-
cidence of arc and chord, by which the circle becomes
equal to a polygon with an infinite number of sides.3
This, however, is only an approximation of sense,
which fails to observe the infinitesimal differences that
are caused by the existence of a few atoms, more or less,
in a figure. They are visible to the eye of reason,
which comprehends that no two figures in nature are

1 De Min. i. ch. 14. p. 184. 23. 2 ii. ch. 8. p. 214. 3 iii. ch. 12. p. 267.

R

242 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

ever exactly equal. In exact geometry the number of
one species of figure has nothing in common with that
of another. It is clear, however, that even on his own
ground Bruno was in error in this regard ; for example,
the seventh triangle and the fifth square are each com-
posed of thirty-six minima.1 But it is hardly necessary
to take seriously his teaching in this respect. He was
wholly governed by the belief in the infinite diversity
of nature, and the absolute incommensurability of any
member of one species of beings with one of a different
species. " Since a definite minimum exists, it is not
possible either in reality or in thought for a square to
be equalled by a circle, nor even a square by a pentagon,
a triangle by a square, nor in fine any species of figure
by a figure of another species ; for difference in the
number of sides implies also difference in the order
and number of parts. As figures in this respect are as
numbers, and one species of number cannot be equalled
by another either { formally ' or fundamentally (i.e.
either in idea or in fact), we can never make an
equilateral figure of any kind equal to one of another
by first parts/' 2 Where this transformation is ap-
parently carried out, as where a cube of wax is moulded
to another figure, the result is due to the varying
degrees of density in the different parts of the material ;
no solid parts are added or subtracted, but the dis-
position and extent of the pores or vacua are altered.
But no argument can be drawn from this rough method,
for the principles of practice are different from those of

science.3

The latter principles are then applied boldly to
geometrical science : thus it is shown that an angle,

1 Lasswitz, p. 26, note, where it is said the eighth triangle and the sixth circle are
equal. 2 Op. Lat. i. 3. p. 217. 9. 3 Pp. 219, 221.

ii SIMPLIFICATION OF EUCLID 243

although it may be multiplied indefinitely, can be
divided only into two parts ; all its lines, it is understood,
consisting of fila or rows of atoms ; 1 that the circle
has not an infinite number of radii, for from the
circumference to the centre only six such lines can be
drawn ; 2 that not every line can be divided into two
equal parts, for the physical line orjilum may, naturally,
consist of an odd number of atoms ; 3 in any case
geometrical bisection can at best be a near approximation,
— though the two halves be apparently equal, they may
really differ by many atoms. On this basis, in the
fourth and fifth books of the De Minimo, Bruno offers
a simplification of the geometry of Euclid. As nature
itself is the highest unification of the manifold, and the
monad is the unity and essence of all number, so we
are taught to pass " from the infinite forms and images
of art to the definite forms of nature, which the mind
in harmony with nature grasps in a few forms, while
the first mind has at once the potentiality and the
reality of all particular things in the (simple) monad." 4
In accordance with the method of simplification sug-
gested by this doctrine, Bruno sets himself to show
that the greater part of Euclid may be intuitively
presented in three complicated figures, named respec-
tively the Atrium Appollinis, Atrium Palladis^ and
Atrium Veneris. He hoped that by this means, "if
not always, for the most part at any rate, without
further explanation, the demonstration and the very
evidence of the thing might be presented to the senses
of all, without numbers, — not after the partial method
of others, who in considering a statue take now the
foot, now the eyes, now the forehead, now other parts

1 Op. Lot. i. 3. p. 243 (bk. iii. ch. 3). 2 P. 245 (bk. in. ch. 4.), cf. p. 323

(bk. v. c. 9), 324 (c. 10). * P. 306 (bk. v. ch. 5.). 4 P. 270. 14.

244 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

separately, — but explaining all in each and each in all."
It is no part of the purpose of this book to go at
length into the mathematics of Bruno, which un-
fortunately have not yet met with a competent exposition.
Apart from the difficulty of the matter itself, the
poetical form and setting of his theorems is an additional
stumbling-block in the way of understanding. Bruno
was put to many shifts in order to give a poetical
colouring to the most prosaic of subjects.

We have gone thus fully into the detail of Bruno's
atomic theory, more so perhaps than its intrinsic value
seems to demand, because this aspect of his doctrine is
the most important philosophically, and has exercised
the greatest influence upon the course of speculation.
It also provides most clearly an exemplification of the
return which was made, or thought to be made, by the
Renaissance to the older pre- Aristotelian philosophy and
science. The rejection by Aristotle and his scholastic
followers of the atomic theory of Leucippus and
Democritus had been based upon the identification of
space and body. The possibility of a vacuum in the
corporeal world was denied, on the ground that dis-
creteness was inconsistent with the continuity which
was felt to be a necessary condition of space. Accord-
ingly, the reintroduction of the atom was possible only
in one of two ways — either by the distinction between
body and space, or by the application of the atomic
constitution of body to space itself. The former and
truer solution was not open to Bruno. His time was
still too much under the domination of Peripatetic
thought for him to be able to take the important step
of critically separating these two notions. The latter

1 Cf. Art. ad-v. Math. ii. The figures there are slightly different, and named Figurae
Mentis, Intellectus, Amoris.

ii MATHEMATICAL ATOMISM 245

way, therefore, was that which he followed. Hence the
curious attempt to remodel mathematical theory on the
basis of the atom, which we have described above, and
the reduction of mathematical certainty to an illusion of
sense. Figure is to be found only in the combinations
of atoms ; and owing to the spherical form of the atom,
the infinite number of them existing in any body which
is presented to sense, and the space which lies between
their surfaces, mathematical equality and exactness are
impossible. Neither straight line, therefore, nor perfect
circle are to be found in reality. Mathematics, which
should be based upon, or which presupposes, continuity,
is confounded with physics, which presupposes the
analysis of body into discrete, impenetrable atoms.
Physical atomism finds its justification in the experienced
fact of resistance, which is the primary quality of body
as perceived by our senses. In mathematical space, on
the other hand, we abstract from all qualities except
that of dimension only. Resistance would be in-
explicable were it possible to proceed ad infinitum in
dividing matter ; it implies an ultimate irreducible and
indestructible unit, whether we regard this unit as a
centre of force or as an inert substance merely.

The same influence of Aristotelian thought led
Bruno to posit a subtle matter, the Ether, as filling up
the interstices between the atoms. Space and body
having been identified, it was seen that a vacuum was
inconsistent with the nature of things. The Aristotelian
-plenum was reintroduced in this form, that there might
be some reality where the discrete atoms were not. The
bolder step of asserting the fact, and indeed, the neces-
sity of a vacuum as a presupposition of knowledge of the
material world, was not taken until there appeared the
work of Gassendi, by whom the final blow was given to

246 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

the old conception of body and space, and through whom
the critical separation of the one from the other was first
rendered possible. It is curious that Bruno did not think
of applying to the continuous ether any geometrical
measure ; had he done so, he would have understood
the value of the new theory of infinitesimals and
irrationals which he opposed so strongly. Again, had
he carried out more fully the distinction which he
draws between the atom and the terminus or limit, the
same result would have followed. Pure geometry is
the geometry of the limit ; for the limit is not only
between atom and atom, or body and body, but also
between atom and vacuum or ether. In this sense it is
both continuous and figured, the compatibility of which
qualities Bruno had denied ; the continuous is measured,
not by making it discrete, but by making the number,
the measure, fluid or continuous.

Lasswitz has shown that there are in Bruno's theory
three distinct aspects, not, however, clearly separated one
from another, of the atomic hypothesis: they may be
named severally the metaphysical, the physical, and the
Meta- critical aspects. From the metaphysical point of view
atomism, the atom is the ultimately simple, indeterminate
substance of things ; its conception results from the
effort to find the real substance which is outside of,
and unaffected by, the change and decay apparent on
the surface of things, but felt to be unreal. Simplicity,
unity, substance, is that which is sought, an abiding
somewhat underlying the flux of the universe, which is
regarded as an illusory appearance to sense. From this
aspect it is that the identity of minimum and maximum,
of the least with the greatest, is to be explained.
Number, plurality, and diversity no longer apply to the
absolutely simple : all are determinations of human and

ii PHYSICAL ATOMISM 247

finite origin which are here no longer valid. In the
simple all contraries coincide, for the very reason that
it has no determinations in itself; even the highest
qualities which men would attribute to God, for
example, — justice and goodness, — are improperly
predicated of him, for as in him the greatest and the
least coincide, so do goodness and evil and all other
contrary qualities. In this respect Bruno was following
closely in the footsteps of Nicolaus of Cusa.

From the second point of view, that of physical Physical

. ... ill- Atomism.

atomism, the atom is nothing more than a hypothesis
to explain the constitution and qualities of nature as we
experience it. We seek to account for the differences
in material bodies and in their ways of acting upon one
another by the interaction of ultimate elements of which
the nature and laws may be variously interpreted. Of
this point of view also there are traces in Bruno,
although for it he had least regard. He does not
attempt, for example, to apply the theory of the atoms
to explain the four elements which had come down from
Aristotle. He leaves them practically intact, and we
have seen that they form a standing difficulty in the
way of a consistent theory. The earth alone is atomic
in its nature ; water, air, and fire seem alike fluid and
continuous in quality, but wherein their difference from
one another consists he was unable, or did not care, to
make clear. Perhaps, if we take his view at its best,
we should say that all three represent strata, varying in
density, of the one fluid and all-pervading ether. Had
he worked out this conception, which was evidently
present, on occasions, to his mind, he would have given
an example of what is meant by physical atomism. But
this was left for another century to fulfil. From the

i • -i . . j . r • i • i • • • i Critical

third or critical point of view, which inquires into the Atomism.

248 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

presuppositions or the possibility of knowledge, Bruno
may be regarded as being, to some extent, a forerunner
of Kant, in the stress he lays upon the relation of the
minimum to measure or knowledge, and in his doctrine
of the relativity of the conception of the minimum.
The minimum, instead of a last of division, becomes a
first of composition — a ground which we must necessarily
assume in order to account for the experienced fact of
composition. To know a composite is to measure it,
and measurement implies the minimum or first part,
without which quantity in any form cannot be explained.
As the comparison of numbers with one another, their
determination as greater or less, is only possible on the
assumption of a unit, a common measure to which each
may be referred, so the comparison of bodies with one
another, as to quantity and quality alike, demands a
corporeal minimum, to which their differences must be
reduced. This relation to knowledge carries with it
the relativity of the minimum according to the subject-
matter with which the knower is for the time being
concerned. If all knowledge is of the same type, then
in each application of it — each subdivision of knowledge
as a whole — there is presupposed the corresponding
minimum. That which is least in one sphere may be
greatest in another ; that which is element of one science
may be that which another seeks to analyse into lesser
constituents. The celestial body, which is a highly
complex combination of elements, may be the unit of
astronomical science. The phrase, which is the unit of
the rhetorician, is analysed by the logician and the
grammarian into terms and words ; these are analysed
by another science into syllables and letters ; these by
the mathematician into lines and points. Thus every
science has its own (relative) minimum. Only one

ji ATOMS AND MATERIALISM 249

minimum is absolutely so named, — God as the monad of
monads. It is to be noted that the relativity of the
monad is dependent upon the origin of its conception,
in the conditions of knowledge ; it is because quantity
is universal that a minimum is necessary, and it is
because quantity differs in kind, in each subject of
knowledge, — because it is, in scholastic phrase, equivo-
cally applied in the different cases, — that the minima
differ from one another. The minimal number is no
measure of the minimal body nor of the geometrical
figure, and the numbers which are in use among men
are not those which may be employed by other and
higher rational beings. Thus, even number itself
is a relative determination ; ten horses, said Bruno,
are not really equal to ten men, but only conven-
tionally.

The ancient atomism upon which Bruno founded
his theory was, at any rate in its traditional rendering,
frankly materialistic. It admitted nothing but atoms
and the void, all things else being dependent upon the
composition of atoms, which itself, and all that results
from it, is merely an appearance to sense, without
corresponding reality in nature. All physical opera-
tions were explained by mechanical arrangement and
movement of the atoms. The method which was
pursued thus unscientifically, without consciousness of
the extent of its validity, modern atomic theory has
followed scientifically, with full comprehension of its
bearings, and perhaps without due consideration of its
limits. Bruno tells us that he had at one time been an
adherent of Democritus' atomic theory, but on reflec-
tion had been unable to rest satisfied with his material-
istic account of the nature of things. In this case also
he showed himself unable to get rid of the ties which

250 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

bound all the thought of his time — even that thought
which most believed itself to be free.

Aristotle's distinction of form and matter in nature,
of pure activity and pure passivity, had still sufficient
influence to render even in Bruno's time a purely
mechanical treatment of nature an impossibility. The
opposing school, the Neo-Platonism which attracted so
many minds of that period, because of its supposed incon-
sistency with Aristotle's system, was itself an offshoot, to
some extent, of that system, and was still less scientific in
its tendency. Mysticism, of which it was partly a cause
and partly an effect, lent its weight also against any
mechanical interpretation of nature. Thus even while
apparently governed by scientific aspiration, Bruno
gives a teleological scheme of the universe which
renders any scientific explanation of it impossible. Not
only, as we have seen, is the ether identified with the
first substance, spirit, or soul of the universe, but also
the greater and lesser organic bodies are governed each
by its individual soul, which is somehow distinguished
from the universal spirit, and within each of these is an
infinite number of smaller living bodies. In other
words, the atoms themselves are animated virtually, if
not actually. This animistic interpretation is in direct
conflict with the mechanical interpretation which science
has followed, and which it must continue to follow if
it is to produce any result. Thus, motion and the
changes of composition that derive from motion are
explained not by the mechanical impact of atoms and
bodies upon one another, but by the action of the
intrinsic soul in each being, which causes the motion of
the body, in accordance with its need and desire of self-
preservation. All motion, even the slightest, is thus
explained by a final cause. In the whole universe also,

ii NATURE AND SPIRIT 251

the constantly occurring changes and transformations
are due to a similar final cause — the need for each thing
to become explicitly that which it already is implicitly,
i.e. the whole of reality. It required once more a
critical separation of the spheres of validity of the
respective conceptions of nature and spirit, such as
Kant attempted, before full scope could be given
to mechanical interpretation on the one side, and
teleology restricted to the domain of spirit only on
the other.

CHAPTER VI

THE PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY OF BRUNO

THE distinctively ethical teaching of Bruno is con-
tained in the two dialogues — the Spaccio della Bestia
Trionfante, and the Heroici Furori. The latter de-
scribes the struggles and aspirations of the "heroic" or
generous human soul in its pursuit of the infinitely
beautiful and good — its efforts towards union with the
divine source of all things. To this more constructive
work, in which moral philosphy was to be treated
according to " the inwardjight with which the divine
sun of intelligence had irradiated " the soul of the
writer, the Spaed o was to form an introduction. " It
seemed well to begin with a kind of prelude, after the
manner of musicians ; to draw some dim and confused
lines, as painters do ; to lay deep bases and dark
foundations, as do the great builders ; and this end
seemed best achieved by putting down in number and
in order all the primary forms of morality which are
the capital virtues and vices." -1 The Spaccio y with its
shorter appendage, the Cabala del Cavallo Pegaseo,
contained a bitter attack upon the prevalent forms of
Christian religion ; it especially attacked the doctrine of
the all-sufficiency of faith, which, interpreted as it then
was, might stand as the formula of mediaeval cor-

1 Lag. 407. 25.
252

PART ii THE "SPACCIO" 253

ruption and stagnation ; and it was upon this dialogue, ^,
almost solely, that the reputation Bruno long enjoyed —
that of being an atheist — was based. It is therefore
well to remember the introductory nature of the work.
Had not <c atheism " been frequently synonymous with
" unorthodoxy," the Heroic Enthusiasms would have y
shown on how shallow a foundation the charge rested,
for that dialogue breathes the purest religious emotion
and aspiration. Bruno had, however, a premonition of
the fate that was to befall his memory. He protested,
perhaps with a touch of sarcasm, that nothing in his
work was said " assertively," — that he had no wish either
directly or indirectly to strike at the truth, to send a
shaft against anything that was honourable, useful,
natural, and, consequently, divine.1 His own religion
was that which had its beginning, its growth, and its
continuance in " the raising of the dead, making whole
the sick, and giving of one's goods " ; and not that in
the spirit of which the goods of others were seized, the
whole maimed, and the living put to death.2 The con-
clusions of the Spaccio were not therefore to be regarded
as presenting a finished system, but as mere suggestions,
to be tested uwhen the music should be given in
concert, the picture finished, the roof put on the
building." On the other hand, it is clear also that in
the Spaccio Bruno intended to present a popular moral
philosophy, or to point out the degree of virtue which
might be attained without the influence of the divine
afflatus described in the Enthusiasms. As in the philo-
sophy of Aristotle before Bruno, and in that of Spinoza
after him, the perfection of this customary morality
formed at the same time the ante-chamber through which
alone entrance was to be gained into the inner chamber of

1 Lag. p. 407. 7. 2 P. 406. 29.

254 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

divine love. This is the real meaning that underlies
t the bizarre and at times extravagant humour of the
dialogue : it points out the purification to which the
human soul must submit before it can become a fitting
vessel for the divine enthusiasm.

Faith and Before a purer morality can be taught to any avail,
there must exist a desire for it in the minds of those to
whom it shall be revealed. In the way of Bruno's
proposed reformation there stood the attitude of the
Church and of the religious orders towards " faith "
and towards "works" respectively. Faith meant
merely professed belief in, or acceptance of, their
doctrines, and conformity with their practices — blind
acceptance and unreasoning conformity — in contrast
with which an earthly life that was simply moral was
held to be of no value towards the blessed life hereafter.
Under the influence of this spirit the worst vices were
practised, condoned, and pardoned, even in Bishops and
Cardinals, not to speak of the ordinary priests and
monks. It is only as embodying this conception that
Bruno attacked the Church. Thus Jupiter, in the
Spaccio, complains that his powers are decaying : — " I
have not vigour enough to pit myself against certain
half-men, and I must, to my great chagrin, leave the
world to run its course as chance and fortune direct.
I am like the old lion of JEsop — the ass kicked it with
impunity, the ape played tricks upon it, the pig came
and rubbed its dusty paunch upon it, as if it were some
lifeless log. My noble oracles, fanes, and altars are
thrown down, and most unworthily desecrated ; while
altars and statues are raised there to some whom I am
ashamed to name, for they are worse than our satyrs,
fauns, and other half-beasts, viler than the crocodiles of
Egypt ; for these at least showed some mark of

ii ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY 255

divinity when magically guided, but those are quite the
scum of the earth/' l Bruno is ironically contrasting
the Christian ideal, as he interprets it, with that of the
Greeks and Egyptians. The former is that of a being
only half-human, half-free ; on one side of his nature
he is reduced to the level of the beast, the ass, the
bearer of burdens, unquestioning, faithful. Again, one
of the constellations, the Corona Boreatisy is to be left
in the heavens, escaping the general fate,2 until the
time when it shall be given in reward to " the invincible
arm that shall bring peace, the long-desired, to a
miserable, long-suffering Europe, cutting down the
many heads of that worse than Lernean monster that is
scattering its fateful poison of manifold heresy, and
sending it through every portion of her veins." 8 To
this decision of Jupiter, Momus, the critic and wit of
the assembly, adds that it would be enough " if a
certain sect of pedants could be rooted out, who, doing
no good themselves, as the divine and natural law bade,
yet thought themselves, and desired to be thought
by others, pious and pleasing to the gods ; they
said that to do good was good, to do evil, evil ; but
that men gained grace and favour with the gods, not
through the good that they did, but through hoping
and believing in accordance with their catechism. As
if the gods, said Mercury, were anxious about nothing
but their own vainglory, cared nothing for the injury
caused to human society. And they defame us,
Momus continued, by calling this an institution of
heaven, decrying effects or fruits ; while all the time
they are doing no work themselves, but living on the

1 Lag. 427. 19.

2 The constellations as typifying vices were to be expelled from the heavens and
replaced hy the personified virtues.

3 Lag. p. 445.

256 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

works of others, who instituted temples, chapels,
hospices, hospitals, colleges, universities, for quite other
men than they. These others, even if they are not
perfect, will not, like their usurpers, be perverse and
pernicious to the world ; they will be useful to the
state, skilled in speculative science, studious of morality,
fanning zeal and enthusiasm for doing good to one
another, and maintaining the common weal for which
all laws are ordained. The usurpers are worse than
grubs, caterpillars, or destroying locusts, and should be
exterminated accordingly." l How is it possible, we
read elsewhere, that men should regard that as the
highest type of religion which holds behaviour, the
doing of good deeds, to be unimportant, or even to be
vice and error ; or pretends that the gods do not care
for good deeds — that through such, however great they
are, men are not justified ? 2 This creed was a disease
that ran through a man's nature and poisoned it for
ever. " When one turned from any other profes-
sion or faith to this, his liberality was exchanged for
avarice, mildness for insolence, humility for pride ;
formerly open handed with his own goods, he now
became a robber and usurper of those of others ; a
good man became a hypocrite ; a sincere one, cunningly
evil ; a simple one, malicious ; he who was once
conscious of his own defects became the most arrogant
of men ; he who was ready to do any good action, to
learn any new knowledge, became prone to every kind
of ignorance and ribaldry ; he who had merely the
makings of a rogue became the worst possible of men." 3
Miracle-working was the universal means by which the
supremacy of faith was maintained. Momus therefore

1 Lag. p. 446. I ff., cf. 447. " Questa fetida Sporcaria del mondo" and 467.
2 P. 462. 30. 3 P. 468. 25.

ii MIRACLES AND DECEIT 257

proposed to send Orion upon the earth. " He can do
miracles — can walk upon the waves of the sea without
sinking or wetting his feet ; let us send him among
men to make them believe everything we would have
them believe — that black is white, that the human
intellect is blind where it thinks itself to see best ; that
what to reason appears excellent, good, best, is vile,
wicked, evil in the extreme ; that nature is a strumpet, the
law of nature a ribaldry ; that nature and divinity cannot
work together for one and the same good end ; that the
justice of the one is not subordinate to that of the other,
but that they are as contrary as darkness and light/1 *

The attitude of mind which formed the ideal of Asinity.
the Church for its members Bruno typified frequently
enough, as we have seen, by the Ass, after Cusanus'
Docta Ignorantia and Agrippa's praise of Asinity in his */*
work on The Vanity of all' Sciences. But they were in
earnest : Bruno bitterly ironical. In his Cabala Asinity
is given the two places left vacant in the heavens by
the council of the gods in the Spaccio : the place of
Ursa Major is taken by Asinity in the abstract, that of
Eridanus by Asinity in the concrete. The whole work
is in praise of " the pure goodness, royal sincerity,
magnificent majesty of ignorance, learned foolishness,
divine Asinity." Asinity is in the sphere of practice
as submission to authority in that of speculation, or
pedantry in that of teaching. Against all of these
Bruno casts the shafts of his irony, now broad and
heavy, now fine, light and piercing.3

1 Lag. p. 543. 35 ff., cf. 544. 20, 546. 16, and esp. 554. 13 ff. (Chiron the Centaur),
for other references to the Church and its beliefs. Bruno could not have written the
last passage while retaining any shred of genuine belief in the divinity of Christ.
v. also 534. 32.

2 Cabala, p. 565.

3 Cf. the poem in the Cabala, p. 564. 25, 0' Sant' dsinita, and Cena, Lag. 147. 21
(the Ark of Noah), etc.

S

258 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

The list of virtues which Bruno gives as adorning
the soul of the renovated man does not present any
novelty, except perhaps in the order assigned to the
different virtues.1 Along with each mythical figure of
the constellations he names the various vices that are
expelled, and into the place of which the virtues come.
The Bear, the highest constellation in the heavens, is
replaced by Truth, the Dragon by Prudence, Cepheus
by Sophia, or Wisdom. The following table shows
some of the virtues which occupy the different posts
vacated by the mythical beings of the heavens, and
their contrary vices.

1 The lists given in the argument are not quite the same as those in the body of
the work, and both differ to some extent from the list of vices which is put in the
mouth of Jupiter at the beginning, p. 439.

TABLE

II

THE VIRTUES

259

CONSTELLATION.

VIRTUE.

Vicrs.

I. Ursa t .

Truth

Deformity, Falsity, De-

fect, Impossibility, Con-

tingency, Hypocrisy,

Imposture, Felony.

2. Ursa Major

The place is left

vacant, to be

filled in the

satire of the

Cabala by

" Asinity in the

abstract."

3. Draco

Prudence.

Cunning, Craftiness,

Malice, Stupidity, In-

ertia, Imprudence.

(Envy).1

4. Cepheus .

Wisdom.

Sophistry, Ignorance (of

evil disposition), foolish

Faith (Hardness).

5. Bootes .

Law.

Prevarication, Crime,

(Arctophylax)

Excess, Exorbitance,

(Inconstancy).

6. Corona Bore alls

Judgment.

Iniquity.

7. Hercules .

Courage.

Ferocity, Fury, Cruelty.

Slackness, Debility,

Pusillanimity (Vio-

lence).

8. Lyra

Mnemosyne, and

Ignorance, Inertia. Besti-

the Ni n e

ality (Conspiracy).

Muses, her

daughters, — the

branches of

knowledge.

9. Cygnus .

Repentance.

Self-love, Uncleanness,

Filthiness, Immodesty,

Wantonness.

10. Cassiopeia

Simplicity.

Boastfulness on the one

side, Dissimulation on

the other (Vanity).

II. Perseus .

Diligence or

Torpor, Idleness, Inertia,

Solicitude.

Foolish Occupation,

Perturbation, Vain soli-

citude.

12. Triptolemus

Humanity or

Misanthropy, Envy,

Philanthropy.

Malignity.

From Lag. p. 439.

260 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

There follow as " virtues " : — Sagacity, judicious
election or choice, affability, magnanimity (Aquila) ;
divine enthusiasm or rapture (Pegasus} ; hopefulness,
faith and sincerity (the Triangle} ; virtuous emulation,
tolerance, sociability (and friendship — the Pleiades) ;
love (peace and friendship — Gemini) ; conversion or
emendation, heroic generosity (or magnanimity, again
— Leo) ; continence, equity (and justice — Libra) ;
sincerity (observance of promises — Scorpio)\ contempla-
tion, the love of solitude (freedom of mind), temperance
(Aquarius) ; just reserve and taciturnity, tranquillity
of mind, industry, prudent fear, vigilance for the state,
kindliness, liberality, judicious sagacity (Hydra) ; divine
magic (and soothsaying), abstinence (the Cup /), the
divine parable (the sacred mystery, — Chiron) ; sincere
piety and wise religion (the Altar) ; honour, glory, and,
finally, health, security and repose, as the due reward
of the virtues, and remuneration for zealous work and
endurance.1

It will be seen that the list is redundant, and it is
more so in the text, where several virtues are usually
given under each head. Several of the names do not
denote virtues in the ordinary sense (e.g. knowledge of
magic, ability to interpret the divine parables) : they
are merely qualities which it is desirable for the good
man to have. Others refer to qualities which could not
be acquired by any one destitute of them (e.g. hope,
love, piety), while others represent rather the outcome I
of the virtuous life than any one of its constituent \
elements, e.g. Knowledge, Divine Enthusiasm, Con-
templation, Honour. There remain the familiar virtues

1 Cf. also p. 488. Another list of virtues is in the eulogium on Julius in the
Oratio Comolator'ta (Op. Lot. i. i. 47 fF.). There also the constellations typify dif-
ferent virtues.

II

THE PRACTICAL LIFE 261

of Greek philosophy : — Courage ; prudence and sagacity;
temperance (continence and abstinence) ; wisdom (or
the love of truth) ; justice, including submission to
law, active justice or judgment, and equity ; sincerity,
with truthfulness, simplicity, faith, the observance of
promises ; sociability and friendliness, with humanity,
affability, tolerance, kindliness ; liberality ; magnanimity
and heroic generosity ; tranquillity or gentleness. More
modern are the virtues of solicitude, diligence or
industry, of emulation, and of love of solitude, or
" Monachism." There is accordingly nothing of value
to be derived for systematic ethics from this or from
any other work of Bruno. It is in the digressions from
the main argument that his philosophy of practical life
is revealed.1

The two things which seemed to Bruno for his time Peace and
the most desirable were peace and freedom — freedom
alike of thought and of speech. The characteristics of
the Church which he consistently condemned were on
the one hand its violence, the dissension and strife it
stirred up, on the other its tyranny over mind and
tongue. Hence the aim of the moral life, from the
lower plane on which we stand in the Spaccio, is to
secure the prosperity of the state, the peaceful common
life of its members, and the avoidance of all interference
with the individual, except where the positive end,
security, appears endangered. Of the nine muses, the
daughters of Mnemosyne,2 Ethica is at once the last
born and the most worthy. Her task is to institute
religions, to establish ceremonies, to posit laws, to

1 In the De Lamp. Comb, are two lists of virtues and vices, after Lully ; with
each virtue are given the two vicious extremes, in Aristotelian fashion. (Op. Lac.
ii. 2. 257).

2 Lag. 489. 1 8 (Sub Lyra). They are Arithmetics, Geometria, Musica, Logica, Poesia,
Aitrologia, Physica, Metaphysica, Etkica.

262 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

execute judgments, with prudence, sagacity, readiness,
and generous philanthropy ; to approve, confirm, pre-
serve, defend whatever is well instituted, established,
posited, executed ; adapting, as far as may be, both
passions and actions to the worship of the gods, and

Law. the common life of men. — The function of Law, the
daughter of wisdom, is to prevent the powerful from
making undue use of their pre-eminence and strength,
and in other respects vigorously to protect the common
life and civil intercourse of men.1 " The powerful are
to be sustained by the weak, the feeble are not to be
oppressed by the strong, tyrants are to be deposed, just
governors and kings ordained and confirmed, republics
fostered ; violence shall not tread reason under foot,
ignorance not despise knowledge, the poor shall be
aided by the rich, virtues and studies necessary or
useful to the community be promoted, advanced, main-
tained. No one is to be put into a place of power
that is not superior in merits, by force of virtue and
talent, either in himself, which is rare and almost im-
possible, or through communication with and counsel of
others, which is due, ordinary and necessary. The two
hands by which any law is strong to bind are justice
and possibility, one moderated by the other, for
although many things are possible that are not just,
nothing is just that is not possible. Whether it come
from heaven or from the earth, no institution or law
ought to be approved or accepted which does not tend
to the highest end, viz. the direction of our minds and
reform of our natures so that they produce fruits
necessary or useful for human intercourse." 2 Judg-

judgment. ment shall make a scale of virtues and of crimes, the
greatest in either class being that which affects the

1 Lag. p. 461. ii ff. 2 Pp. 461, 462.

ii THE ROMAN PEOPLE 263

Republic as a whole ; next that which affects other
individuals than the agent ; a crime committed between
two who are in accord is hardly a crime, while there is
no crime if the fault remains in the individual — does not
proceed to bad example or to bad deed. Repentance is
to be approved by it, but not set upon the same level
as innocence ; l belief and opinion, but not placed so high
as deeds and work ; confession and admission of fault,
but not as correction and abstention. It shall not place
one who to no purpose mortifies the flesh on a level
with one who bridles his spirit, nor compare one who is
a useless solitary with another who is in profitable
intercourse2 with his fellows, nor applaud so highly
one who, perhaps unnecessarily, subdues his desires, as
another, who refrains from evil -speaking and from
evil-doing ; not make so great a triumph over one who
has healed a base, useless cripple, worth little if any
more when whole than maimed, as over another who
has liberated his fatherland, or reformed a mind
diseased.3 The Roman people was the type of the best-
governed state, " more bridled and restrained from the
vices of incivility and barbarity, more refined and
willing for generous undertakings than any other ; and
as their law and religion were, so were their customs
and deeds, so their honour and happiness." How
different from the pedants of the Church, who flourish
throughout Europe : while saluting with peace they
bring wherever they enter in the sword of division, and
the fire of dispersion ; taking son from father, neigh-
bour from neighbour, citizen from fatherland, and
causing other divorces more abhorrent and contrary to
all nature and law ; calling themselves ministers of one

1 In contrast with St. Luke 15. 7. 2 Reading conversation for conservation.

3 Lag. pp. 464, 465.

264 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

who raises the dead and heals the sick, they more than
all others on the earth are maimers of the sound, and
slayers of the living, not so much with fire and sword,
as with the tongue of malice.1

The scales. Under the Scales, Bruno describes some of the
reforms he believes necessary : in courts, offices and
honours are for the future to go by merit ; "in
republics, the just are to preside, the wealthy to con-
tribute, the learned to teach, the prudent to guide, the
brave to fight, those that have judgment to counsel, those
that have authority to command ; in states, the scales
represent the keeping of contracts of peace, confedera-
tions, leagues, the careful weighing of action before-
hand ; in individuals the weighing of what each wishes
with what he knows, of what he knows with what he
can, of what he wishes, knows, and can with what he
ought ; of what he wishes, knows, can, and ought,
with what he is, does, has, and expects." 2

Underlying this cult of humanity one cannot but
feel the robust naturalism of the Renaissance, which in
Bruno's mind is apart altogether from the mystical
exclusive intellectualism of his more characteristic
philosophy. It is with man as a natural being, living
out his earthly life, and gathering such fruits as may be
of kindliness and love from his fellow-creatures, that
the practical philosophy is concerned. The religion
attacked was one that struck at the root of this human
love, and made of earth a purgatory for the sake of the
uncertain life to come. Hence the emphasis laid on

sincerity, sincerity, faithfulness, or truthfulness, as high among the
virtues. " Without it every contract is uncertain and
doubtful, all intercourse is dissolved, all social life at
an end." Bruno is as rigid as Kant in regard to the

i Lag. pp. 465, 466. 2 P. 527-

ii THE JEWS 265

keeping of faith ; even promises made to the wicked
may not be broken. It was " a law of some Jew or
Saracen, brutal and barbarian, not of civilised and heroic
Greek or Roman, that sometimes, and with certain
kinds of people, faith might be pledged for individual
gain, and for an opportunity of deception, making it
the servant of tyranny and treachery.'* -1

The antipathy of Bruno towards the Jews is to be
explained by the same principle of social life and pro-
gress ; it is not, as Lagarde supposes,2 an offspring of
his hatred towards the Church, regarded as a direct
descendant of Judaism. So far as it is not an expres-
sion of an unreasoning anti-Semitic wave of feeling,
such as occasionally overwhelms some of the European
peoples, it may have had three grounds : the reputed
avarice of the Jew : 3 his exclusiveness, unsociability ; —
" a race always base, servile, mercenary, solitary, in-
communicative, shunning intercourse with the Gentiles,
whom they brutally despise, and by whom in their
turn, and with good reason, they are contemned" :4 —
or his religion, which appeared to Bruno a corruption
of the nobler Egyptian religion. Thus in Spaccio 5 the
punishment of the children for the sins of the fathers is
said to be found only among Barbarians, and first among
the Jews, " a race so pestilent, leprous, and generally
pernicious that it should be effaced from the earth." 6

Temperance, as a virtue, is rather the peace of mind Temper-
that goes with civilisation — urbanity — than the more ai
physical virtue : its opposites are intemperance, excess,
asperity, savagery, barbarity. " It is through intemper-

1 Pp. 520» 521- 2 Op. tit. p. 794.

3 Compare the picture of Avarice in Spaccio, pp. 477, 478, with Shakespeare's
Shylock. 4 Cabala, p. 576. 31. 5 P. 500. 40.

6 Cf. p. 535- 4> and 541' 35» — u Escremento de /' Egitto" which may not mean more
than outgrowth or offshoot of Egypt, although it has been interpreted otherwise.

266 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

ance in sensual and in intellectual passions that families,
republics, civil societies, the world, are dissolved, dis-
ordered, destroyed, swallowed up." l Again, Bruno's
unorthodox standpoint with regard to the vows of chastity
and of celibacy taken by nuns and priests is part of a
healthy reaction towards naturalism from the false senti-
ment which condemned as unholy whatever pertained
to the natural man. The place of Virgo is taken by
chastity, continence, modesty, shame ; the contrasting
vices being lust, incontinence, shamelessness. " It is
through these," Bruno adds, " that virginity becomes a
virtue. In itself it is neither virtue nor vice, implies no
goodness, dignity, or merit, and when it resists the com-
mand of nature it becomes a wrong, an impotence, a
folly, madness express ; while if it is in compliance with
some urgent reason, it is called continence^ and has
the essence of virtue, because it participates in that
courage and contempt for pleasure which is not vain
or worthless, but benefits human intercourse and brings
honourable satisfaction to others." 2 " The laws of the
wise do not forbid love, but irrational love ; the syco-
phancies of the foolish prescribe, without reason, limits
to reason, and condemn the law of nature ; the most
corrupt of them call /'/ corrupt, because by it they are
not raised above nature to become heroic spirits, but are
depraved, contrary to nature and below all worth, to
become brutes." 3

In the third dialogue of the Spaccio is a digression

The on Otium, Idleness, and the Golden Age, which had

Age.en been brought into popularity by the pastoral poem of

Tasso, the Aminta, and its imitators (e.g. Guarini in the

1 P. 54*. 18.

2 Spaccio, p. 526. 1 1 j Clemens' translation (of. cit. p. 172) gives this saying an
unnecessarily sinister meaning.

3 De Vinculh in genere (Op. Lot. iii. p. 697. 26).

ii THE AGE OF GOLD 267

Pastor Fido]. Otium presses its claim to a place in the
heavens as being more truly a virtue than solicitude or
strenuous effort, to which the place of Perseus had been
given. Its chief argument is that through it the golden
age had been instituted and maintained, by the law of
idleness which is the law of nature, while it was through
solicitude, with its following of vainglory, contempt of
others, violence, oppression, torment, fear, and death,
that the age had departed. u All praise the fair age of
gold, when I kept minds quiet and peaceful, safe from
this virtuous goddess of yours. For their bodies,
hunger was sufficient sauce to make a delicious and
satisfying repast out of acorns, apples, chestnuts, peaches,
and roots, which benign nature administered at a time
when such food was the best nourishment for them, gave
them most pleasure, and kept them longest in life, which
the many artificial sauces that industry and zeal have
discovered cannot do." l Industry had introduced
property, and divided up not only the earth, which is
given to all its children, but also the sea, and perhaps
the air as well ; so that instead of sufficiency for all
there is too much for some and too little for others.
It had introduced an unnatural inequality, and confused
together peoples whom nature had intended to live apart,
with the consequence that the vices of one race were
being implanted upon those of others. The right of
the stronger had taken the place of the law of nature,
violence that of the peace of nature, which are the law
and peace of God.

O bella eta de 1'oro

Non gia perche di latte

Sen corse il fiume, et stillo mele il bosco.

1 Lag. p. 503. 20.

268 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Ma 'n primavera eterna

Ch' hora s' accende et verna

Rise di luce, et di sereno il cielo,

Ne porto peregrine

O' guerra, o merce a' P altrui lidi il pino.

Ma legge aurea et felice

Che natura scolpi. S' ei piace, ei lice.1

Bruno was no imperialist. Nature seemed to him
to have fixed definite boundaries to the extension of the
different races, by which the special genius of each was
kept pure. In the Cena (126. 9) Tiphys and his
successors (Columbus, Vespucci, and others are meant,
although not named) are said to have " discovered means
of disturbing the peace of peoples, violating the natural
trend of the genius of countries, confounding what fore-
seeing nature had distinguished, doubling, through com-
merce, evil feelings, adding the vices of one race to those
of another, propagating new incitements, instruments,
methods of tyranny and assassination, which in time,
by the natural vicissitude of things, would recoil upon
our own heads." 2 It was really, he thought, for the
advantage of men themselves that the world-regions
should be kept as distinct in their usages and customs
as they are physically distinct by the natural divisions
of mountains and tracts of sea. From region to region,
vice and the poison of perverse laws and religions, the
materials of discord and extermination, were propagated
and disseminated to the suffocation of every good fruit ;
there were no advantages which could compare with

1 From Tasso's Aminta^ act i. sub fin. — Bruno hardly ever mentions the
authors of the poems in his ethical works, so that the layman in literature has great
difficulty in knowing which, if any, are his own. Thus Rixner and Siber translate
the above, and give it as Bruno's (op. cit. p. 230). In the fourth line Bruno reads
" E 'n " for " Ma 'n." 2 Cf. Infinite, p. 398. 16.

ii THE EVILS OF COMMERCE 269

these evils.1 It should be remembered that the colonists
of the day were the Spaniards, with the corruption and
cruelty of whose rule Italians were only too familiar ;
and their misdeeds were far greater in the new world.

The age of gold, however, of idleness, and peaceful Progress.

happiness, was far from Bruno's ideal ; the reply of

Momus to Otium showed that it had not made men

virtuous in the golden age any more than the brutes

were virtuous now — that men were perhaps originally

more stupid than many of the latter; but in their

emulation of divine actions and their attempts to

satisfy spiritual desires, difficulties had arisen and needs

sprung up ; through these their minds were sharpened,

industries had been discovered, arts invented ; and so

from day to day out of the depth of the human

intellect necessity brought forth new and marvellous

inventions.2 Thus more and more they advance,

through pressing and earnest occupation, from the

bestial nature, and approximate more and more nearly

to the divine. That injustice and vice increase along

with industries is only a corollary of the increase of

justice and of virtue. If oxen or apes had as much

virtue and spirit as man, they would have the same

apprehensions, the same passions, and the same vices.

So in men those that have in them somewhat of the

pig nature, or of the ass or ox nature, are certainly

less wicked, not infected by so criminal vices as more

highly developed men might be ; but they are not for

that more virtuous, unless the brutes also are more

virtuous than men, being infected with fewer vices.3

In this generous conception of human progress, and of

its spur — solicitude, necessity, pain — Bruno is quite at

one with modern theories of human evolution ; it can

1 Cf. De Imm. vii. 16 (Op. Lat. i. 2. p. 278). 2 Lag. p. 507. 6. 3 P. 507. 14.

270 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

hardly be said, however, that he anticipated the
Evolution, evolution theory so far as it involves an identity of
origin for human beings and lower animals. The idea
that different human beings express different animal
types was not a new one. It means in Bruno that such
men have animal souls, but this is not because their
bodies have reverted to the animal type. It is the soul
that moulds the body and gives, in these cases, the
animal expression to the face — the look of wolf, or
bear, or fox, or serpent. There is no question of a
physical continuity between animal and man, but there is
a psychical continuity, since a soul which is that of an
animal in one generation may become that of a man in
another.1 A much nearer approach to the evolution-
theory is to be found in the Cabala? where it is said
Man and that if a serpent could have its head moulded into that
8' of a man, its tongue widened, its shoulders broadened,
arms and hands branching out from it, and, where the
tail now is, a pair of legs, it would think, look, breathe,
speak, work, and walk just as a man does, for it would
be nothing but a man. Or if the reverse process
occurred, in a man (involution), in place of talking he
would hiss, in place of walking he would creep, in place
of building a palace he would hollow out a hiding-place
for himself. This is not, however, because the body of
the one had been transformed into that of the other
animal, function following structure ; the soul with all
its qualities is unchanged — it is one and the same in
both ; the differences are only in the power of expres-
sion. A serpent or any other animal might have a
higher intelligence than man, yet remain inferior to him
through poverty of instruments. If man had not
hands, but two feet in their stead, however high his

1 Vide infra, ch. vii., re transmigration. 2 Lag. p. 586. II.

ii THE GOODS OF THE SOUL 271

intelligence, family and social life would have been no
more enduring with him than with the horse, the deer,
or the pig ; it would only have exposed him to greater
danger and more certain ruin ; and, in consequence,
there would have been none of the institutions of
doctrine, the inventions of discipline, the congregations
of citizens, the raising of edifices and other things that
represent human greatness and excellence, and make
man the invincible superior over all other species. All
this is referred not so much to his mind as to his hand,
the organ of organs.1 It is in the development of the
hand, also, that modern anthropology has sought one of
the chief conditions of human development. It is
clear, however, that in these theories there are two
positions not distinctly separated : one that the soul
gives form to the body, the other that all difference
comes from the body, the soul remaining apart, and in
its essence untouched by the changes its body undergoes.
We shall have to return to this question in the follow-
ing chapter.

Another digression occurs under Hercules? where Riches and
Riches, Poverty, and Fortune contend for the place of pov
honour that is finally given to Courage or Fortitude.
Such personifications of the virtues had been familiarised
in Italian philosophy by Petrarca (Remedium utriusque
fortunae\ but Bruno refers back to Grantor's discussion
of the relative value for the soul of Riches and other
goods.3 In our dialogue Riches is decided to be
neither good nor bad in itself ; it may be indifferently

1 Lag. p. 586. 35 ff. 2 Ib. p. 469. 7.

3 Sextus Mat/':, xi. 51-58. Crantor was one of the Old Academy, and wrote a
commentary on the Titraeus, as well as some ethical works, of which that " On
Mourning " seems to have been most in vogue. The goods of the soul were placed
in the following order of merit by him : — Virtue, Health, Pleasure, Riches. — Vide
Zeller, ii. 696.

272 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

either, according to its possessor : therefore it is to
incur neither disgrace nor honour, neither be condemned
to Hades, nor raised up to Heaven, but to wander
from place to place. It shall be found by no one who
has not first repented of his good mind and healthy
brain ; he must give up, according to Momus, all
thought of prudence, " not trusting in Heaven, regard-
ing not justice or injustice, honour or shame, calm or
storm, but committing all to chance. As a general
rule Riches are to go to the most insensate, the most
foolish, careless, silly — to beware of the wise as of fire.
Poverty, on the other hand (in inferior or corporeal
goods), may be conjoined with riches in goods of the
mind, as riches in inferior goods may never be, for
no one that is wise or wishes to gain knowledge
can ever achieve great things by their means. To
philosophy Riches are an impediment, while Poverty
offers it a safe and easy road. He will be great who in
poverty is rich because he is content ; and he is a slave
who in riches is poor because he has not enough. Not
he that has little but he that desires much is really
poor. The friends of Poverty are open, the enemies of
Riches are secret ; the poor man by repressing desire
may rival Jove in happiness ; the rich, ever spreading
more and more widely the nets of cupidity, is plunged

Avarice, more and more into depths of misery. Avarice is the
dark side, the shadow, of both Riches and Poverty,
ever fleeing Poverty and pursuing Riches, but ever
eluded by the latter, and ever caught by the former ;
far from Poverty in reality, she is ever close by it in
imagination ; it is this darkness or shadow that make
Poverty and Riches alike to be evil. One may be
poor in virtue of affect (feeling, emotion) as well as

Fortune. in virtue of effect (actual, material want). Fortune

ii FORTITUDE 273

also is rejected, in spite of her claim to be absolutely
just ; as all things are ultimately or really one, no part
of the world, she claims, should be treated as more
worthy or unworthy than another, and fortune regards
all equally, or does not respect any particular person
more than another, which is really justice !

To the place for which these have striven succeeds Courage.
Fortitude, the servant of the higher virtues : " Constant
and brave must be he that administers judgment, with
prudence, by the law, and according to truth. He
shall be guided by the book in which is the catalogue
of the things the brave man ought not to fear, viz. :
those which do not make him worse, as hunger,
nakedness, thirst, pain, poverty, solitude, persecution,
death ; and that of other things which, as they make
him worse, must be avoided at all cost, — gross ignor-
ance, injustice, infidelity, lying, avarice, and the rest.1
Beside Fortitude may be placed Simplicity? between simplicity,
the vicious extremes of Boastfulness on the one hand
and Dissimulation on the other, the latter being the
less hateful of the two : " sometimes even the gods
must make use of it, and to escape envy, reproach,
outrage, Prudence is wont to cover Truth with her
vestments." Simplicity is pleasing to the gods, for it
has in a manner the likeness of the divine countenance, Seif-con-
being always the same and unconscious of itself. That
which reflects upon or is conscious of itself, makes itself
in a sense to be many, to be other and other, becoming
both object and faculty, the knowing and the knowable,
whereas in the act of intelligence many things concur in
one. The most simple intelligence does not know itself,
by reflection, because it is absolute, pure light : and again
it alone knows itself, negatively, for it cannot be hidden.3

1 Lag. p. 487, 488. 2 P. 49Z (Cassiopoeia). 3 P. 493.

T

sciousness.

274 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

The transition from ordinary morality, — the virtue
of the everyday life of human society, — to the divine
aspiration of the c< heroic " soul, is to be found in the

Solicitude, virtue of Solicitude, and the primary triad of Truth,
Prudence, and Wisdom. On the feet of Solicitude
(Diligence, Endurance) " are the winged sandals of the
divine impetus, through which she leaves beneath her
the vulgar good, and contemns the soft caresses of
pleasures, that, like insidious sirens, try to delay her in
the pursuit of the works she seeks/' On labour and
fatigue she nurses the generous mind, — enables it not
only to subdue itself, but to attain the highest state-
that of not feeling fatigue, or pain, when fatigue or pain
must be undergone. In noble work fatigue is pleasure
and not fatigue to itself, but in other than in such work
or virtuous activity, it is not pleasure to itself, but
intolerable fatigue. " Be with me " Solicitude con-
cludes, " generous, heroic, anxious Fear, stimulate
me that I do not perish from the number of the
illustrious before I perish from that of the living.
Before torpor or death take from me my hands, grant
that the glory of my works may not be in their power
to take. Anxiety, grant that the roof be finished before
the rain come : that the windows be whole before
the winds of treacherous and unquiet winter blow.
Memory of a well-spent life, thou shalt make old age
and death destroy my soul before they disturb it. Fear
of losing the glory acquired in my life shall make
old age and death not bitter to me, but dear and
desirable." The end which this strenuous virtue seeks
is that of the intellectual triad placed in the highest part

Truth; of the heavens by the gods, — Truth, Prudence and
Wisdom, which in reality are one and the same.1

1 Vide Lag. pp. 457 ff.

ii TRUTH, PRUDENCE, WISDOM 275

Truth is the unity which stands above the all of
things, and the goodness which is pre-eminent over
all things, for being, goodness, and truth are one : — in
other words, it is the Eleatic One, — the " implicit
universe," — of the metaphysical works.1 It is before
things as cause and principle, and things have dependence
upon it : it is in things, as their substance, and through
it things subsist : it is after things, for through it
things are known without error. These three aspects
represent metaphysical, physical, and logical truth re-
spectively. What is presented to our senses and may
be grasped by our intelligence, is not the highest truth,
but only the figure, image, resplendence, or appearance
of it. Prudence also is both above and in us. It is
above as Providence, when it is also truth itself, and
there Liberty, Necessity, Essence, Entity, all are one,
the Absolute. In us Prudence is the virtue of the
consultative and deliberative faculty, — " it is a principal
form of reason dealing with the universal and the
particular.2 has for its maid-servant dialectics^ and for
guide acquired wisdom, vulgarly called metaphysics^
which deals with the universals of all things that fall
within human knowledge." 3 So too Wisdom, Sophia,
is at once supra-mundane, — when it is one with Provi-
dence itself, light and eye in one, — and mundane,
inferior, not truth itself, wisdom itself, but participant
in truth and in wisdom, — an eye that is illuminated by
a foreign light. The first is invisible, infigurable,
incomprehensible ; the second is figured in the heavens,
reflected in finite minds, communicated by words. The
earthly or inferior forms, however, as Bruno makes
clear, are of value only for the sake of the higher unity,

1 Vide supra, ch. 2. and cf. Cabala, Lag. 578. 35.
2 A reminiscence of Aristotle's <f>p6vr)(Tis. 3 Lag. 458. 459.

276 GIORDANO BRUNO PART n

to attain which is the real end of the philosophic life.
" He who pretends to know what he does not know,
says Wisdom, is a wanton Sophist : he who denies
knowing what he knows, is ungrateful to the Active
Intelligence, insults truth, and outrages me, as do all
those who seek me — not for myself, or for the supreme
virtue and love of that divinity which is above every
Jupiter and every heaven, — but either to sell me for
money, honour, or other gain, or to be known rather
than to know, or to detract from and be able to destroy
the happiness of others. . . . They that seek me for
love of the supreme and first truth are wise, and there-
fore blessed." l Bruno's Summum Bonum is therefore
knowledge, an intellectual comprehension of the All of
things, as it is in the supreme Unity or source of the
world. It is for the sake of this end of the few, the
wise, that the many, the vulgar, and foolish, are to be
kept at peace, in harmony with one another, following
obediently their higher guides in religion or in the state.
There is not in Bruno any more than in Spinoza any
sense of the infinite worth, or the infinite pitifulness of
man as an earth-born creature of hopes and fears,
creeping towards the light, with the clogging darkness
behind, groping in childish terror and childish trust, for
the hand of a loving, human God. Therefore, although
he lived in the midst of the Reformation, its true mean-
ing passed him by.

1 Lag. 459. 460.

CHAPTER VII

THE HIGHER LIFE

WE now turn to the higher moral life, which is at the
same time the religious life, of the heroic soul in its
struggle towards perfection. This perfection consists
in comprehension of the world as infinitely perfect,
in the union with God as the source from which the
world flows, the spirit in which it lives, and in the Love
of God as at once infinite beauty and infinite goodness.

We have seen that there are to Bruno, as to Plato
and to Aristotle, two classes of men, the " vulgar " and
the " heroic," 1 the lower or subject, and the upper or
ruling classes : as in each of us there are two principles,
a higher, intellect or reason or mind, and a lower, sense
and sensual passion. The danger is as great to the
world when the lower class attempts to usurp the place
of the higher, as it is to the individual soul when passion
overwhelms reason. The spread of pedantry, in the
universities and in the churches, greater in his time and
more menacing to human progress than it had ever
been, was an illustration to Bruno's eye of the results
ensuing when lower minds tampered with divine
knowledge.2

The heroic soul is raised by the divine spirit within

1 There is a mingling, in Bruno's use of this word, of meanings derived from
and from Plato's fyws. 2 Lag. 717. 39 ff.

277

278 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

it out of the turmoil of the constant change and
vicissitude, to which the vulgar soul is, in common with
all living things, subjected. "The beginning, middle,
and end, birth, growth, and perfection of all earthly
things are from contraries, through contraries, in con-
traries, and to contraries ; and where there is contrariety,
there is also action, reaction, movement, diversity,
multitude, order, degrees, succession, change." " There
is never any pleasure," we read elsewhere, " without
some bitterness ; — nay, if there were not the bitter in
things, there would not be the pleasurable, for fatigue
makes us to find pleasure in repose, separation causes us
to find joy in union, and so everywhere we find that
one contrary is the reason of another being desired and
pleasing : " l and so it is with pain. None, therefore,
are ever satisfied with their state, except the unfeeling
or the foolish who have no knowledge of their own ill,
but enjoy the present without fear of the future, can
find rest in what is, and have no feeling or desire for
what might be : " in short have no sense of contrariety,
which is figured by the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil.2 " Ignorance is the mother of sensual
happiness and joy ; hence " the heroic love (in its
beginning) is a torment, for it does not rest in the
present, as does sensual love, but feels ambition, emula-
tion, suspicious fear for the future, the absent, the
contrary." Yet the wise man is neither happy nor
miserable, — knowing that good and evil are alike
relative, alike fading and temporary things, he is neither
dismayed nor elated, but becomes continent in his
inclinations, and temperate in his pleasures. Pleasure
is not really pleasure to him, for he has present to
him its ceasing ; pain is not pain, for he has by force

1 Lag. 634. 4. 2 634. 22.

ii THE STRENUOUS LIFE 279

of thought its termination before him : all mutable
things therefore are to him as things that are not.1

Owing to the ever-moving cycle of change, the
ordinary soul must of necessity fall back, in the course
of the eternal process of its life, to the lowest stage,
however high in the scale it may have risen ; but this,
although an evil for it, does not prejudice the whole,
in which all things work together for good. Some few,
however, may escape this danger, through becoming
unked with the eternal Mind or Source.2 They then
cease to be subject to mutation, — Mind being immut-
able,— and persist in eternal blessedness and love. For
such favoured ones of heaven, the greatest evils of this
life are converted into goods, correspondingly great.
It is suffering that compels the labour and the striving
which lead most frequently to the glory of immortal
splendour. Death in one age makes to live in all others?

There are, however, two kinds offurori (or inspira- Kinds of
tion). a In some there is only blindness, stupidity, un-
reasoning impulse ; others consist in a certain divine
abstraction by which some men become better in fact
than ordinary men. These again are of two kinds, for
some becoming the habitation of gods or of divine
spirits, say or do miraculous things without themselves
or others understanding the reason ; these for the most
part are promoted to this state from one of rudeness
and ignorance : the divine sense and spirit enters into
them as into a house swept and garnished, they being
void of any spirit or sense of their own. Others being
more habituated to or skilled in contemplation, and
having innate in them a lucid and intellectual spirit, are
moved by an internal impulse and natural fervour, with
love of divinity, justice, truth, glory ; by the fire of

1 Lag. 635. 2 649, 650. » 626. 20 /

280 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

desire, fanned by the breath of purpose, they give edge
to their senses, and in the sulphur of the thinking
faculty enkindle the light of reason, by which they see
further than ordinary men. These come in the end to
speak and operate not as vases or instruments, but as
principal artificers and agents — the first have worth or
dignity, the second are worthy : or the first are worthy
as an ass that carries the sacraments, the second as a
sacred thing. In the first we see divinity in effect — we
admire, adore, obey it ; in the second we see the
excellence of our own humanity." l

The steps towards the highest peak of human

excellence are compared, after Neoplatonist example, to

Ascent to- the degrees in intensity of light, as we proceed from

with the darkness, in which it is entirely absent, to shadow, then

to tke coiours 'm fa^ order from black to white, next
to the brightness diffused from polished or transparent
bodies, the rays outflowing from the sun, finally to the
sjin itself, in which light is most truly and most vividly
itself.2 First of all it is needful for the soul to turn to
the light, " by act of conversion to present the light of
intelligence to its eyes, so to regain its lost virtue, to
strengthen its sinews, to terrify and put to rout its
enemies," — the lower, sense-feelings and passions. The
conversion seems to arise as by an act of grace from
above ; or, to express this in other words, the soul or
spirit tends towards that with which it has greatest
affinity, as the sun-flower tends towards the sun, and
this affinity in the human soul is Love.3 The symbol

1 Lag. 639. 22 ff. j cf. Sig. Sig. § 48, for the first kind of furor (Of. Lot.
ii. 2. 191).

2 Lag. 672. i.

3 Cf. the Sonnet on p. 631 : —

Amor per cui tant' alto il ver discerno,
Ch' apre le porte di diamante nere,

ii THREE DEGREES OF LOVE 281

of love is fire, for love converts the object of love into
the lover, as fire is of all elements the most active, the
most potent to transform others into itself.1 It is the
divine in man that makes him or impels him to love
God as He is in reality, and the goal or aim of that love
is to take God into himself, to become one with God.
No really divine or heroic love can ever rest satisfied in
anything but spiritual beauty. For there are three kinds
of love, as there are three kinds of Platonic rapture —
the contemplative, the practical, the idle or voluptuous.
One from the perception of corporeal form and beauty
rises to the thought of the spiritual and divine ; another
enjoys the vision of beauty for itself, and for the grace
of the spirit that is reflected in the grace of the body ;
while still another enjoys only the material pleasure that
beauty provides ; the last is the love of barbarous
natures, incapable of raising themselves to love that
which is really worthy of love.2

To the two higher kinds of love correspond the two Beauty,
kinds of beauty — sensible and intelligible. That in the
body which calls forth love — its beauty — is a certain
spirituality, which consists not in definite dimensions,
" nor in determinate colours or forms, but in a certain
harmony and consonance of members and colours."
Corporeal beauty is not, however, true or permanent
beauty, and therefore cannot call forth true or per-
manent love. The beauty of bodies is accidental,
"shadowy," and like other qualities is absorbed, altered,
and decays through the change of the subject-body, for
the latter frequently from beautiful becomes ugly, without
any change taking place in the soul. Reason, however,

Per gl' occhi entra il mio nume, et per vedere
Nasce, vive, si nutre, ha regno eterno,
Fa scorger — quant' ha '1 ciel, terr' et inferno.
1 Lag. 628. 18. 2 Lag. 639.

282 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

apprehends the more truly beautiful by conversion to that
which makes beauty in body, the source of the beauty,
and that is the soul, which has so moulded and formed
it. Intellect rises still higher, sees that while the soul
is incomparably beautiful above the beauty of bodily
things, it is not beautiful in_ itself, or primitively, other-
wise there could not exist the diversity that is found in
souls — some being wise, lovable, beautiful, others foolish,
hateful, ugly. Hence it must rise to that higher
intelligence which of itself is beautiful and of itself is ;
good. That is the One, the Supreme Captain, who I
when presented to the eyes of the thoughts militant,
illuminates them, encourages, strengthens, and leads
them to victory in the contempt of every other beauty,
and repudiation of every other good. Its presence,
therefore, is that which enables us to overcome every
difficulty and conquer every force.1, The Intelligence
which is the truest beauty attainable by us, is not yet
Divinity itself, but only the highest " intelligible species,"
or form, the highest Idea. Divinity itself is the final,
the most perfect object of thought and love, not attain-
able in our present state, in which God cannot become
object to us, except through some image.2 No image
of the Divine, however, even the most inadequate, can
be abstracted or otherwise derived by the senses, from
corporeal beauty or excellence. Such can be formed
only by the intellect, and on such the human intellect
feeds, in this lower world, until it be allowed to behold
with purer eyes the beauty of divinity itself. In a fine
simile Bruno describes how one may come to some
mansion, most exquisitely adorned, and as he goes about
observing now this, now that, is pleased and happy,
filled with delight and noble wonder. But if then he

1 Lag. 672. 29. 2 646. 2 ff.

ii THE TRULY BEAUTIFUL 283

sees the living Lord of these beautiful forms, of beauty
incomparably greater, he lets go all care or thought of
them, intent wholly on this one, their source. Such is
the difference between the earthly state, when we see
the divine beauty in intelligible or abstract forms,
derived from its effects, its works, masterpieces, its
shadows and similitudes, and the perfect state, when we
are allowed to behold it in its real presence.1 The
" intelligible species " of this conception, which Bruno
derives from Neoplatonism, are simply the ideas of the
" speculative sciences," which include, however, what
would now be called the natural sciences. Human
Perfection consists in a form of knowledge, a system
of thought, by which the knower becomes one. with
the mind in which this thought-system originated, the
mind of God. Our knowledge — that is, our perfection
— can never, however, be complete, since the object, the
knowable, can never be perfectly comprehended. But
it may be made complete so far as our vision extends ;
and herein lies a saving clause for the " ordinary "
man. Few can reach the goal, but all may run ; it is
enough that each do his best possible. The generous
spirit prefers to fail nobly in the pursuit of the highest
rather than to succeed in inferior and baser enterprises.2
Acteon typifies the human intellect in its pursuit of
the divine wisdom and capture of divine beauty.3
The wild beasts whom he tracks down are the " in-

1 Lag. 646, 647.

2 647. 34 ff. j cf. the Sonnet (Tansillo's) on p. 648 : —

Poi che spiegat 'ho' 1'ali al bel desio,
Quanto piu sott' il pie 1' aria mi scorgo,
Piu le veloci penne al vento porgo,
Et spreggio 51 mondo, et vers' il ciel m' invio.

Fendi sicur le nubi, et muor contento j
S' il ciel si illustre morte ne destina.

3 Alle sel-ve i mast mi e /' veltrl slaccia II grovan Atteon, etc., p. 651.

284 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

telligible species " or ideal forms, rarely sought, and
rarely seen by those that seek them. His dogs are
the thoughts that issue outwards in search of good-
ness, wisdom, beauty beyond himself. The fate of
Acteon — his death under the fangs of his own hounds
— represents how the generous spirit, coming into the
presence of that highest beauty, is ravished out of itself,
is converted into the very prey which it pursued : itself
is now the prey of its own thoughts, for it has con-
tracted divinity into itself, has no longer to seek it
outside of itself : as love converts into the thing loved.1
His death means that he ends his life according to the
world of folly, of sense, of blindness and of fancy, only to
commence the new intellectual life, the life of the gods.2
The first step, however, in the desire of the infinitely
The infinite beautiful is but the beginning of an endless series ; the
heart goes out on an endless quest, while the intellect
cannot but follow. For the intellect cannot rest in
any definite or finite idea or object, but is driven ever
forwards towards the source of all ideas, the ocean of
all truth and goodness. Whatever form may be pre-
sented to it and comprehended by it, it judges that
there must be a greater above and beyond that. Hence
it is in constant discourse and movement, for whatever
it possesses is seen to be a measured thing, and therefore
cannot be sufficient in itself, nor good in itself, nor
beautiful in itself. It is not the universe, not absolute
Being, but Being " contracted " to this or that nature,
species, form, represented to the intellect, and presented
to the mind (ammo}. Thus always from beauty com-
prehended, and therefore measured or limited, — the
beautiful by participation, — we progress towards that
which is truly beautiful, beautiful without any limit or

i Lag. 651, 652. 2 6:53.6.

ii PROGRESS AND PERFECTION 285

margin.1 On the other hand,2 this infinite process is not
in vain, for it is not from imperfect to perfect, but a
" circular movement about the degrees of perfection, in
order to arrive at the infinite centre which is neither
formed nor form." This paradox Tansillo (taking the
part of the Nolan) refuses to explain. It probably hints
at the idea, as familiar in Bruno as the infinite process
itself, that in each form or degree of perfection, the
infinite with all its perfection, is wholly present. It is
a centre which is at the same time the circumference.

In a subsequent dialogue 3 the object alike of intel-
lectual pursuit and of the heart's desire is described as
a positive or " perfective " infinite. The will cannot
rest satisfied with a finite good ; but if there is other
good beyond, desires it, seeks it, because, as the com-
mon saying goes, the acme of one species is the foot
and the beginning of the next higher species. The
highest good being infinite, it is communicated in-
finitely, but also according to the nature of the things
to which it is communicated. Neither to the universe,
e.g. as regards mass and figure, nor to the intellect, nor
to the heart, are any definite limits fixed ; yet the
intellect and the heart may still become perfect through
or by their object, for that object is not merely a
" privative infinite4 " or potentiality, but a perfective or
positive 5 infinite as being itself actuality and perfection.
When the intellect conceives truth, or light, the good,
the beautiful, within the whole capacity of its nature,
and the soul drinks of the divine nectar and of the
source of eternal life, so much as its vessel can hold, it
is seen that the light (of truth) extends beyond, and

1 Lag. 654, 655. 2658.16. '731. 9 ff.

4 E.g. darkness is pri-vatively infinite, although it has a limit in light, a positive
something.

5 E.g. light is positively infinite j its limit — darkness — is privation.

286 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

that the intellect may go on and on. penetrating more
deeply into it. The nectar and the source of living water
are infinitely productive ; the soul may quench its thirst
in it again and again.1

Thus the blessed or perfect life for Bruno meant a
permanent, continuous absorption of the individual soul
in the divine goodness — a permanence or eternity which
was also one with the instant of time. There was no
greater value at any later moment than at the first
union of the soul with its divine object : the soul was
thereby removed, once for all, out of the constant flux
of things, the incessant renewal and rebirth of the soul
throughout the ages, and lifted up into the calm of the
eternal and immutable.

Even the heroic soul, however, is, as other souls,
Soul and on the border line between corporeal and incorporeal
nature ; in part it tends to rise towards the upper
world, in part inclines towards the lower world. If
sense ascends to imagination, imagination to reason,
reason to intellect, intellect to mind, then the soul is
wholly converted into God, and its dwelling-place is
the intelligible world. In the contrary direction it
descends through conversion to the sensible world, by
way of intellect, reason, imagination, sense, and the
vegetative faculty. Mind (the highest faculty in Bruno's
psychology : — the intuitive perception of unity with
the supreme ideal world) is oppressed by its conjunc-
tion with the more material faculties of the soul ;
knowing of a higher state to which the soul might rise,
it despises the present in favour of the future. If a
brute had sense of the difference between its condition
and that of man, and between the baseness of its state
and the nobility of that of man, to which it did not feel

1 Lag. 731.

ii SOUL AND BODY 287

it impossible to rise, it would prefer death which should
put it on the way to that state, to life which held it fast
in its present one. So the soul, compelled by its loftier
thoughts, as if dead to the body, aspires upwards.
Although living in the body, it " vegetates " there as
dead — is present in it so far as animation is concerned,
but absent from it in its proper action.1

Thus the heroic soul, although present in the body,
is absent from it with the better part of itself, and
unites itself in an indissoluble bond with divine things.
It feels neither love nor hatred of mortal things, con-
sidering itself too great to be the slave and servant of
its body : the latter it regards simply as a prison-house
within which its liberty is closed in ; a snare that holds
its wings entangled ; a claain that binds its hands ; fetters
that hold its feet fast ; a veil that bewilders its vision.
Yet it is neither slave, nor captive, nor entangled, nor
chained, nor held fast, bound nor blind, for the body
cannot tyrannise over it further than itself allows. It
has spirit allotted to it proportionally to its nearness to
divinity, since the corporeal world and matter are subject
to divinity and nature. So it may make itself strong j
against fortune, magnanimous against injustice, bold in
face of poverty, disease, and persecution.2

The soul of man, in Bruno's psychology, as in The soul
Aristotle's, performs a double function : — " the one is
to vivify and actuate the body, and the other to con-
template the higher world. It has a receptive faculty
towards the spiritual, an active faculty towards the
corporeal. Body is as dead, a thing privative towards
the soul, which is its life and perfection, and the soul is
as dead, a thing privative to the higher illuminating
intelligence from which its intellect derives Goth its

1 Lag. 662, 663. 2 701. 30 ff.

288 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

tendency or nature, and its actual form, its realisation." l
The soul is not locally in the body, but is related to
it as intrinsic form, and as extrinsic giver of form :
moulding the members, and giving shape to the
composite result from within and from without. Body
is in soul, soul in mind, and mind either /V, or is in
God, as Plotinus said.": The dualism of nature and
divinity, of corporeal and spiritual, intellect and sense,
permeates the ethical as it permeates the earlier philo-
sophical thought of Bruno : nowhere is the Neoplatonist
effort to overcome the dualism inherent both in Plato
and in Aristotle less effective than here. Thus the

Distraction ^gdy remains — in spite of the continuity seemingly

of the body. -" . , , ,1-1 . • r i

maintained between the highest and the lowest or the
emanations from the supreme, or the identity asserted
between sense, imagination, reason, intellect, — the chief
hindrance to the aspiration of the soul. For the body
is in continual movement, change, alteration, and its
faculties are conditioned by its inherent nature, its
operations by its faculties. " How then can immobility,
subsistence, entity, truth, be understood by that which
is always different from itself, always acting and
becoming in different ways ? What truth, what
representation can be depicted or impressed when the
pupils of the ejes are dispersed into water, the water
into vapour, the vapour into flame, the flame into air —
that into other things and again other, the object of
sense and sense-knowledge passing endlessly through
the infinite cycle of changes ? " Thought and passion
take their character from their object, or the sense-data
on which they are based : but <c that which has always
before it now one thing now another, now in one way

1 Lag. 732. 23 j the terms correspond to 56vafju$ and frtpyeia, or VXij and
respectively. 2 647. 7.

ii "DEATH" AND "LIFE" 289

now in another, must necessarily be quite blind in
regard to that beauty which is always one, and in one
manner, which is unity itself, entity, identity." *

Into the very life of the generous soul there enter,
accordingly, the contrarieties by which on a lower plane
the soul is governed: — "the skilfulness and art of
nature cause it to faint with desire for that which
destroys it, to be content in the midst of torment, to be
tormented in the midst of all content. For nothing
derives from principles of peace, but everything from
contrary principles, through the victory and dominance
of ojie side of the contrariety. There is no pleasure of
generation on one side without the pain of corruption
on the other ; and the things that are becoming and
those that are decaying are conjoined in one and the
same composite being. The sense of joy and the sense
of sorrow go ever together ; it is called joy rather than
sorrow if the former predominates and has greater force
to solicit the sense." 2 The life in death of the more
divine soul is only an extreme instance : — it is the death
of lovers from an extreme of joy, the Cabalist mors
oscu/i, and is at the same time eternal life, such as man
may have potentially, in disposition^ in this world, but
actually, in effect, in eternity alone." 3 Again it is the
contrast of infinite desire and finite power : — " the
weakness of the human mind which is intent on its
divine enterprise, and suddenly is engulfed in the abyss
of incomprehensible excellence. Sense and imagination
are confused and absorbed, the soul can neither go
forward nor backward, nor know where to turn, but
loses its being just as a drop of water vanishes in the
sea, or a little vapour thins out and loses its proper
substance in the spacious immeasurable air." 4

1 Lag. 744. i ff. 2 696. 24; cf. 681. 22. ? 705. 35. 4 716. 14.

U

29o GIORDANO BRUNO PART

intelligence As the height of our intelligence, so is the depth
of our love or passion ; the higher, i.e. the more
comprehensive, the object of knowledge, the more
absorbed become feelings and emotions in its con-
templation.1 The most complete absorption is that of
the heroic mind in its infinite and all -comprehensive
object. That is not perfect divine heroic love which
feels the spur or the bridle, or regret or grief for any
other love ; but that which is entirely without sense or
feeling of other passions. It is so deep in its delight
that nothing can displease or divert it or cause it to
stumble in the least, and this is to reach the highest
blessedness in our present state — to have pleasure
without any sense of pain.2 The loss of sense is caused
by the absorption of the whole being in virtue, in the
truly good, and in felicity. Regulus, Lucretia, Socrates,
Anaxarchus, Scaevola, Codes, are instanced as noble
human beings who had no feeling or sense of the
greatest tortures, or what would be such to baser human
natures.3 " A keener joy, or fear, or hope, faith, or
indignation, or contempt, turns the mind away from any
present, less vivid, passion." "One who is more
deeply moved by the sight of some other thing, does
not suffer the pangs of death. The truly wise and
virtuous man, not feeling pain, is perfectly happy, so
far as the present life admits, at least in the eye of
reason."

1 Lag. 663. 36 ; cf. 666. 5. 2 P. 680. 2 ff.

* Cf. also Slglllus Sigillorum (ii. 2. 192), where Polemon and Laurentius are
added to the above list. The highest kind of " contraction " or concentration is the
subject, viz. that which is proper to philosophers. Cf. also De Vinculis in genere
(vol. iii. p. 657). Diogenes the Cynic and Epicurus are placed side by side
as having held that they had attained the highest good in this life possible to
man, when they could keep the mind free from pain, fear, anger, or other
melancholy passions and preserve it in a certain heroic delight. By this con-
tempt of the ignoble things in this life, viz. those subject to change, they protested
that they had attained, even in this mortal body, to a life similar to that of the gods.

ii GOD IN US 291

In its aspiration the soul need not go beyond itself,
need only enter into the depths of its own mind
(mens) ; " for this it is unnecessary to open the eyes
wide upon the heavens, to raise aloft the hands, to wend
one's way to the temple, to intone to the ears of idols,
that one may best be heard ; rather we should enter
into the innermost heart of ourselves, for God is near
to us, with us, within us, more truly than we are in
ourselves ; being soul of souls, life of lives, essence of
essences." Divinity is not more nor less present in the
other worlds than in our own or in ourselves.1 There-
fore the heroic soul withdraws from the many, neither
hating them nor seeking to be like them, associating
only with those whom it may make better, or who may
make it better ; but aiming ever to be self-sufficient in Aspiration.
its own wisdom. " The soul must come to the point
when it no longer regards but despises fatigue, and
the more the contest of passions and vices rages within,
the struggle of vicious enemies without, the more it
must aspire and rise, and pass, with one breath (if it
may be) over this mountain of difficulty. Here there
is no need for other arms or shield than the grandeur
of an invincible mind, the endurance of a spirit which
maintains the even tenor of its life, proceeds from
knowledge, and is regulated by the art of speculating
upon things high and low, divine and human, in which
its highest good consists." 2

To the love in the human soul there corresponds Love of
love in the divine nature, because love is of the essence
of divinity. It precedes, in the mythology of the
ancients, all the other gods. Hence there is a natural

1 Lag. 700. 35 j cf. 68 1. 19.

2 P. 700. 14, 701. 4 ff. ; cf. also 710. n. The divine beauty excludes the possi-
bility of our loving in its stead any other object. Also 713. 30.

292 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

instinct or tendency of all things towards the beautiful
and good. Love is that by virtue of which all things
are produced, which is in all things, and is the vigour
of all things ; by its guidance souls rise to contemplation,
by the power of flight it inspires, the difficulties of
nature are overcome, and men become united with
God.1 To see God is to be seen by God ; to be heard
by divinity is to hear the voice of divinity ; to be
favoured by its grace is the same thing as offering
oneself to it. The divine potency that is wholly in
everything does not offer nor withdraw itself except
through the conversion of the other, its object, to it, or
aversion from it.2 To love God is to be loved by God.
It is only through love, again, that we can approach the
inmost nature of God ; we cannot reason or even
think of the divine without detracting from it rather
than adding to its glory.3 To think of God is to lirmt
Him, and, therefore, as we have seen, every concep-
tion of Him is inadequate : the deepest, the highest
[ knowledge of divine things is by way of negation,
never by affirmation. For the divine beauty and divine
goodness can never fall within our understanding (our
conceptual knowledge), but are ever beyond and beyond
in absolute incomprehensibility. No finite intelligence
ever perceives the substance of divinity, but always its
similitude, its image ; even the highest intelligences are,
in the language of the schools, not formally , but only
denominative fyt gods, or divine, — divinity and the divine
beauty remaining one and exalted above all things.4
Being itself eternal, unchangeable, the divine truth
reveals itself to the few to whom it is revealed — nnpt
as in the physical sciences, which are acquired by the

1 Op. Lat., ii. 2. 195. 2 Lag. 704. 10.

3 Lag. 699. 3. 4 P. 742. 24 j cf. also 723. 28 and 724. 17.

ii THE LOVE OF GOD 293

natural light of sense and reason, proceeding from the
known to the unknown, in successive stages, but —
suddenly and at one stroke. There is no need of
expense of time, laborious study,!, active inquiry, to
secure it ; but it enters into us as readily as the solar
light is present, without lapse of time to him who
turns to it, and lays himself open to receive it.1 When
the soul is thus wholly turned to God — to the Idea of
Ideas — the mind is lifted up to the unity above essence,
and becomes all love, all simplicity and unity. The
soul is permeated at once with the desire or love of
the divine beauty in itself, " without similitude, figure,
image, or form " — a desire or love which is its own
realisation.

1 Lag. 741. 14.

CHAPTER VIII

POSITIVE RELIGIONS AND THE RELIGION OF
PHILOSOPHY

THE hostility which the Italian and some of the Latin
writings of Bruno showed towards the positive religions
of his day, alike the Catholic, the Reformed, the
Jewish, and the Mahomedan, had two grounds : his
belief that religious or sectarian strife was the chief
cause of the evils of war and civil discord that were
rife throughout Europe, and the fact that one and all
of these Churches claimed the right of limiting thought
as well as of dictating practice, and in their exercise of
this right formed an unendurable barrier in the way of
human progress. Of the Roman Catholic Church, to
which all his life Bruno belonged in spirit if not in
outward conformity, he never expressly denied any of
the essential doctrines, as he maintained before the
Inquisition at Venice. On the other hand, he admitted
that he had occasionally made indirect criticism of
these doctrines, speaking or writing " philosophically,"
not " theologically." To the doctrine of the Trinity,
for example, he had given a rationalist, half-mystical
interpretation, seeing in it a figure or metaphor of the
coincidence in God of the three highest principles —
Mind (the Father), Intellect (the word, the Son), and

294

PART ii THE TRINITY 295

Love, the creating, vivifying force of the Universe (the
Comforter or Holy Spirit). It is quite clear that he
did not accept as " philosophically " true the dis-
tinction of Persons, or the special divinity of Christ
Only once, perhaps, does he write seriously of Christ as
the Son of God, and that in one of the posthumous
works, the Lampas Triginta Statuarum.1 " Charity is
the most perfect and consummate harmony, by which
the soul in us becomes so harmonious in itself that it is
attuned both to God and to all men equally, not only
to friends but even to enemies ; to this perfection we
are drawn, impelled, invited by the Son of the all-
mighty God, to raise us up to the likeness of the
Father, * who maketh His sun to rise upon good and
evil, and sends His rain upon the just and the unjust/
uplifting us from the savage condition of life common
to brutes and to the uncivilised, who love their friends
and neighbours, but hate strangers and enemies." On
the other hand, this very law is elsewhere spoken of as
coming not from the " evil spirit or genius of any one
race," but from God, the Father of all, as being in
harmony with universal nature, and as teaching a
general philanthropy ; " that we should love our very
enemies, not be like brutes and barbarians, but trans-
form ourselves after the image of Him who makes His
sun to rise upon good and evil, and makes the rain of
His mercies to fall upon just and unjust. This is the
religion which I observe, as beyond all controversy,
and above all disputation, both from the conviction of
my mind, and in accordance with the custom of my
fatherland and race."

What Bruno rejected in Christianity was the whole

1 Op. Lat. iii. 158.
2 Op. Lat. i. 3. 4 (Letter to Rudolph II., prefixed to the Art. adv. Math.).

296 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

mass of doctrine which suggested a miraculous or
supernatural interference with the order of nature,
for the benefit either of a particular person, or of a
particular race. That is the nerve, for example, of his
satire upon the popular idea of Providence in the
Spaccio.1 There Mercury, on one of his visits to
Sophia, relates a number of things he has to see carried
out, by the order of Providence, about the little hamlet
of Cicala. They are none of the cleanest — the number
of melons that are to ripen in Franzino's garden and
that are not to be gathered till over-ripe, of jujubes
that are to be picked from Giovanni Bruno's tree, that
are to fall to the earth, or that are to be eaten by
worms ; how Vasta, in curling the hair on her temples,
is to overheat the iron and burn fifty-seven of them,
but is not to scorch her head — and so on. These
unpleasant details, however, are only a prelude to a
philosophical conception of the divine action. God,
it is said, does not provide for this and that in-
dividual as occasion arises.2 He " does all things with-
out deliberation, anxiety, or perplexity : provides for
innumerable species and an infinite number of in-
dividuals, not in any order of succession, but at once
and all together : He is not like a finite agent, doing
things one by one, with many acts, an infinite number
of acts for an infinite number of things, but does
everything, past, present, and future, with one simple
and unique act." 3 So the knowledge of God is simple,
containing implicitly in itself all things that are or
happen in the extended universe (the explicate unity).
It is only to our confused vision that this divine
government does not appear just and holy. Mercury
advises Sophia to put more strength and warmth into

1 Lag, 452. 3 ff. 2 Cf. Lucretius, ii. 1093 **• 3 Lag. 454. 6.

ii BRUNO'S RELIGION 297

her prayers, for to the mind of the infinite the small
is as important as the great ! " The least things are
just as much a care to the gods as the principal things,
for the greatest and chtefest cannot subsist without
the least and lowliest." The minutest trifle in the
order of the universe is important, for great things are
composed of little, little things of least things, and
these of atoms and minima.1 The act of the divine
knowledge is the substance of all things : all are there-
fore known, ordained, foreseen. " Divine knowledge
is not as human, which comes after things, but is
before and in all things, and if it were not so, things
could not be causes or agents, either proximate or
secondary."2

Thus the order of nature is fixed and eternal,
ordained and foreknown from all time. We have
seen that Bruno rejected the superstitious idea that
comets and other heavenly wonders had a super-
natural meaning ; and that he found the truest signs
of divinity in the orderly course of nature.3 Miracles
he explained either through imposture or through
sympathetic magic. Along with these he rejected also
what may be called the morbid side of mediaeval
Christianity — its constant dwelling upon the physical,
sensational aspects of Christ's life, sufferings, and
death,4 its appeal to the hysterical in man. Against a
religion of incoherent personal emotion and brute
ignorance, he would set one of humane love and of
reasoned knowledge. The chief value of the New
Testament, in his eyes, was its preaching of "the
Gospel law of mutual love," which the tyranny of

1 Lag. 455. 35. Cf. De Immense, ii. 13. 310, 311. 2 Lag. 456. 7.

3 Cf. the mockery of Momus in the Spaccio (sub Orion, Lag. p. 543).

4 Sig. Sig. Op. Lot. ii. 2. 190.

298 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Rome had violated.1 The religion to which he gave
his adherence was that which raised the dead, healed
the sick, gave to the poor ; not the contrary form to
which the Inquisition had brought the Church in
Catholic lands.

Man and With great boldness Bruno drew from his concep-

tion of the Infinite the consequence that there can be
no action of the finite upon the infinite, no change or
effect in God produced through man. A practical
corollary of this was the argument for freedom ot
thought. The virtue of Judgment, in the Spaccio, has
entrusted to it the defence of the true law, and the
removal of unjust or false laws, dictated by enmity to
the peace and happiness of the human commonwealth.
It shall kindle and fan the appetite for glory in the
human breast, as the only sure stimulus for inciting
men to the heroic deeds that increase, maintain, or
strengthen republics. But it shall not pay heed to
what men imagine or think, provided their words and
deeds do not corrupt the peace of the realm. Deeds
are its only concern, and it has to judge the tree, not
by the fineness, but by the goodness of its fruits.
Heaven is not interested in any way in what does not
interest man ; it is moved and angered, not by any-
thing done, said, or thought by men, except in so far as
the welfare of republics is endangered. Gods would
not be gods if they were either pleased or displeased,
grieved or delighted, by what men did or thought ;
they would be more needy than men, would be as
dependent on men as men are on themselves for
utility and profit.2 The gods are beyond all passion :
they have active anger and pleasure only, not passive.

1 Orat. Consol. Op. Lat. i. i. 51 j cf. i. 3. 4.

2 Cf. Lucretius, ii. 646 : " Omnh enim per se divom natura necessest," etc.

ii THE BIBLE'S TEACHING 299

Therefore they do not threaten punishment or promise
reward for good or evil that results in themy but for
that committed on peoples and in the human societies
which they foster by their divine laws and statutes, since
human laws do not suffice. The gods do not seek the
reverence, fear, love, worship, or respect of men, for
any other end or utility than that of men themselves.
Glory cannot be added to the gods from without ; they
have made their laws not to receive glory but to
communicate glory to men. The sole sphere of justice
is the moral actions of men with regard to other men ;
inward sins are sins only so far as they have outward
effect, and inward justice is not justice without out-
ward practice.1 In the Cena Bruno had already made
practical use of this principle in maintaining that the
Scriptures teach not science, but an ideal of conduct, ™neotBible>
and therefore that any argument from them as to the science but
actual constitution of the world is devoid of com-
pelling force, while, on the other side, no scientific
theory or hypothesis can be ruled out simply because
it is contradicted by any statement in the Scriptures.
They were written, not in the service of our intellect
to instruct us in philosophy, but for the grace of our
mind and heart, ordaining by their laws what should be
our behaviour in the moral life. The Scriptures were
written in the language and adapted to the intelligence
of the vulgar, the people of the time. UA historian
making use of words which the ordinary man could
not understand, would be absurd ; and still more so
would be one who desired to give to a whole people a
law and model of life, if he were to employ terms
which he alone or very few could understand, and
should waste time over matters indifferent to the end

1 Lag. 463. 464.

300 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

for which the laws were ordained. For this reason
Alghazel said that the function of the books of the
law was not so much to probe the truth of things, or
speculation, as to promote good customs/' and to
provide for the welfare of republics and of humanity.
To use the terms of science where there is no need, is
to ask that the vulgar, the foolish many, from whom
only conduct is required, shall have a special com-
prehension,— to ask that the hand shall have the eye,
whereas it is not made by nature to see, but to work,
and to obey the eye.1

The revelation of the Scriptures is accordingly re-
duced to that of a moral ideal, to be enforced upon the
ordinary man by the threat of future punishment and
promise of future reward ; but it is an ideal which the
wise man would acquire by the light of reason alone,
and which he would pursue for its own sake.

On the other hand, the ceremonies and worship
of the Church were never attacked by Bruno, nor did
he ever place himself in open hostility to it ; while he
submitted, formally at least, to the rites of the Pro-
testant churches in Geneva and Helmstadt. The
grounds of this outward conformity may have been
various : Bruno had no interest in speculative theology,
and probably kept an open mind towards the prevailing
dogmas and the ceremonies that symbolised the
truths contained in them. He believed with Pom-
ponazzi, and others after him, that religion is a good
thing for the many, the foolish and ignorant of the
world, while knowledge or philosophy takes its place
with the wise. The former must be governed by laws
which they have blindly to obey, hence the supernatural

1 Cena, Lag. 169. 17 ff. j cf. Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico politicus, esp. ch. 14 and
15, and preface, § 24: " Scripturam rationem absolute liberam relinquere et nihil
cum philosophia commune habere."

ii RATIONALISM IN BRUNO 301

sanction required ; the latter pursue the true good
without this stimulus, by virtue of reason. But for the
sake of the many, the few must conform in outward
practice with the religion of their state.1 Brunnhofer
goes so far as to see in this the idea of Lessing, that
religion is a means whereby men are gradually educated
upwards to a true knowledge of God, — leading them
from the state of darkness and savagery to that of
moral behaviour, at which point only the full light of
science and philosophy takes the place of religion.2
There was a religion, however, for the few as well as
for the many, for the wholly civilised as well as for the
semi-barbarians of Europe, — the philosophical religion
of the Heroici Furori. Another reason for his con-
formity was that Bruno regarded the historical religions
as allegories, or metaphors, of truth. Not that it was
for every one to say what was metaphorical merely,
what truth or fact : in the hands of Jews, Christians,
and Mahomedans, and the many sects of each, the
same Scripture met with as many interpretations as the
number of the sects.3 The interpretation of the divine
words, uttered by inspired prophet or poet, — for the
divine inspiration was not given at one place or one
time only, — was again the work of the wise few.

Bruno's own leaning was towards Rationalism, — as
in his interpretation of the Trinity, of Creation, of the
Incarnation, of Immortality, of Providence.4 In this he
was only following Lully and Nicolaus of Cusa, who
also " demonstrated " some of the deepest of Christian
doctrines, interpreted in their own way. Yet Bruno
was by no means a thorough Rationalist : there remained

1 Cf. what is said of the danger of preaching determinism to the many, in Inf.,
Lag., 317. n, and Her. Fur., Lag. 619. 20.

Giordano Bruno's, Weltanschauung, etc., pp. 23, 24.
3 Cena, Lag. 171, 172. 4 fide Berti, Docs. xi. and xii.

302 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

always a sphere within which Faith only was available,
to which neither reason nor intellect could penetrate.
We remember that he ridiculed Lully for attempting
to demonstrate some of the particular doctrines which
" are revealed to the worshippers of Christ (Christicoli}
alone, are contrary to all reason, philosophy, other
faiths or superstitions, and are capable of no demonstra-
tion, but admit of faith only." * It is improbable that
any ironical meaning should be read into the words ;
for the distinction between faith and knowledge or
science, between theological and philosophical discussion,
between the supernatural light and the light of nature
or reason, occurs again and again, not only in Bruno's
replies to the Inquisitors of Venice, but in the published
works. Here and there he deprecates the taking of
his statements, should they conflict with or tend to
weaken the accepted faith, as " assertively " made,
and claims, like Copernicus, the right of arguing for
any thesis which is " more in harmony with our sense
and reason, or at least less out of harmony with them
than the contradictory thesis," however high the
authority of the latter may be.2 Discreet theologians
would fix no limit to natural reasonings, however far
these went, provided they did not determine against
the divine authority, but subordinated themselves to it.3
Even the Heroici Furori disclaims any supernatural
reasoning or revelation. " If there is another order,
above the natural, which either destroys or corrects the
latter, I believe in it, and may not dispute about it, for
I do not reason in any other than a natural spirit."
He is dealing with Philosophy, not Theology.4 In
other words, Bruno refuses to dogmatise, just as he

1 Comp. Arch. art. Lull., Op. Lat. ii. 2. 42.

2 Op. Lat. ii. 2. 78 (preface to Triginta Sigilli) j cf. i. i. 82 (Acrothmus), and the
Spaccio (supra, p. 253). 3 Causa, Lag. 267. 7. 4 Lag. 693. 22.

ii THE TWOFOLD TRUTH 303

condemns dogmatism in others ; philosophy or science
should be allowed to pursue its own course, irrespective
of religion, and untrammelled by the Church, so long
as it does not attack the authority of the Church, and
thereby weaken the forces that make for peace and
harmony among men.1 Short of that, entire freedom
of thought should be allowed. Sometimes it might be
well that the wise and heroic, as well as the others,
should submit and humble the light of reason received
from God, " the mark of divinity hidden in the sub-
stance of our nature," if some higher light forbid or
warn. But, — " In matters of philosophy at least, by
whose free altars I have taken refuge from the threaten-
ing waves, I shall listen only to those doctors who bid us
not close the eyes but open them as widely as we may." 2
It has been suggested that Bruno, like many others
who were unstable in the Church, made use of the
subterfuge of the twofold truth ; 3 in other words, that
he professed to disbelieve theologically what he accepted
as philosophical truth : or that he held one and the
same proposition to be true to sense and reason, i.e. to
harmonise with all other " natural " knowledge, and yet
to be false to faith, i.e. inconsistent with revealed truth.
But no theologian denied more strenuously than Bruno,
in spite of occasional lapses, the possibility of two
kinds of truth. There were indeed two kinds of
evidence : " one from the light of our own senses
and rational inference, such as we require in speculative
sciences, in the arts, and in practical life, where true
and false, good and evil, are apprehended by human
reason and natural light ; " the other, from light of a
foreign, namely, a divine source. For as God neither

1 Cf. the passage in the Infinite referred to above, Lag. 317. n.
2 Op. Lot. i. 3. 6. 3 E.g. by Sigwart. Cf. supra, p. 75.

304 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

deceives nor is deceived, and is not envious, but good
in the highest degree — is indeed truth and goodness
itself; so, when he speaks to us of occult things, of
mysteries, it must be evident that everything he pro-
poses for our belief is true, and that everything he
proposes for our doing is good. But God is also the
Author of nature, of our senses, of our eyes, and of
that truth and evidence which is in them and according
to them ; truth does not contradict truth, goodness is
not opposed to goodness. The word of God that is
spread through the parts of nature, His hand and in-
strument,— for Nature is either God himself, or the
divine force manifest in things, — is not opposed to the
word of God, from whatever other part or principle it
springs.1 There could be no clearer assertion of the
right of philosophy and science to pursue their own
way in the discovery of truth. Nothing revealed from
above can conflict with truth acquired by the discursive,
slow-moving human reason, nor on the other hand
can any real truth arrived at by science ever contradict
the pure, genuinely - revealed, word of God. The
sphere of faith is separated from that of reason ; faith
follows the authority of revelation, is an infallible
certainty equal to, if not greater than, that of sense-
knowledge and the intuition of first principles. Re-
vealed truths are outside the sphere of sense and reason,
not, however, as opposed or contrary to the truths
belonging to that sphere, but as above them. While
philosophical faith enables us to act according to reason
and human nature, guiding us by principles innate in
ourselves, to the perfection of our natural condition,
theological faith leads us by supernatural principles to a
supernatural end, to become formed in the likeness and

1 Summa, Ob. Lat. i. 4. 100, 101 (sub. E-vldent'ia}.

ji MEDIAEVAL RATIONALISM 305

in the knowledge of God.1 Neither must we call to
the bar of reason what is above reason, summon before
our tribunal " cases " of eternity,2 nor on the other
hand must faith be allowed to prejudice the discovery
of truth by natural methods : if so, it becomes a danger
and a snare.3 Bruno was therefore a Rationalist only
in a limited sense : while he claimed for the philosopher
entire freedom of interpretation of religious dogmas or
legends, the interpretation was to be governed not by the
facts of ordinary knowledge, but by the mystical in-
tuition of divine truth, given, in inspired moments, to
the heroic soul. There were two types of rationalism
in mediaeval philosophy — that of Averroes, which
sought to supplant the positive religions by a religion of
philosophy, and that of Scotus Erigena, which aimed at
upholding popular faiths while allowing the philosopher
freedom of thought in interpreting the doctrines these
faiths involved. Bruno's rationalism is clearly of the
second type, although personally he disliked all pre-
vailing religions for the reasons already given.4 All
positive religions expressed for him one and the same
truth, some more, some less adequately, — that the
supreme end of human activity is the union of the
soul with God, whereby it becomes one with God and
is raised above the sphere of sense and reason, above
nature, out of the ordinary cycle of human life and
human death. That which of all others most nearly
approached his ideal was the half-mythical religion of Egyptian
the Egyptians, from whom indeed he believed the later Animism,
religions, as well as the earlier philosophies, to have been
inspired. The Egyptian worship of the gods in the
form of living animals was symbolic of the truth that

1 Loc. cit. p. 99, sub Fides. 2 Ib. 8. Auc tontas ; cf. Causa, Lag. 271. 40.

3 E.g. Inf. Lag. 378. 16. 4 Cf. Tocco, Conferenza, p. 50 ff.

X

306 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

God is in all things : " Animals and plants," says Jupiter
in the Spaccio, " are living effects of nature, and nature
is nothing but God in things. Diverse things represent
diverse deities, and diverse powers." 1 God is in all
things, but not fully expressed in each, " in some more3
in some less excellently," in some one divine attribute
or power predominates, in some another. Thus the
viper or the scorpion represents Mars, the cock or the
lion the Sun> because of their greater affinity, respec-
tively, with these deities, or rather with the divine
powers which the deities embody. For as divinity is
communicated in a divine scale downwards to nature,
so from the light that is reflected in natural things we
may rise to the divine life that is above them. It was
on these sympathies between animals, plants, metals, on
the one hand, and the various attributes of divinity on
the other, that genuine magic and divination depended.
The Magi ascended by the same scale of nature to the
highest divinity, by which that divinity itself descended
to the least of things, in its self-communication. Their
ceremonies were not vain imaginations, but living voices
that reached the very ears of the gods. " These wise
men knew God to be in things, divinity to be latent in
nature, acting in and scintillating diversely from diverse
subjects, and making them to participate in itself, as in
its being, life, and intelligence." 2 Of Jupiter, Venus,
and the rest is said what Bruno no doubt thought of
Christ, and other founders of religion, that they had
been mortal human beings. What men adored was
not Jupiter, as a divine being, but divinity, as expressed
in Jupiter : in this or that man were worshipped the
name and symbol of a divinity which in their birth com-
municated itself to men, and with their death was

1 Lag. 529 ff. 2 Sfaccio, Lag. p. 530.

ii FINITE SOUL AND DIVINE MIND 307

thought to have completed its work and to have re-
turned to heaven.1 But divinity is communicated not
only through these divinely chosen human vessels, but
through earth, and sun, and moon, the planets, the
stars, and all that is in them : one divinity under in-
numerable names, according to the innumerable modes
in which it is diffused. Endlessly varied also are the
methods by which it must be sought, under conditions
appropriate to each thing, while it must be honoured and
worshipped with endlessly different rites, because the
kinds of favour we seek to obtain from it are beyond
number. Later religions had transformed for the worse
what to the Egyptians was merely a fable or metaphor,
by which a mystery above the reach of sense was ex-
pressed, or presented to the mind in a sign or symbol.2

How Bruno understood the relation of the finite The finite
human soul to the divine mind, or to the soul of the infinite,
universe, it is not easy to determine, and it is doubtful
whether he ever made it clear to himself. Men, as
natural beings, enter into the determinate order of
Nature^ which, as we have seen, is the divine power that
moves matter to life. This divine power is the soul in
all things, everywhere " one mundane spirit, wholly in
the whole and in every part of it, producing all things in
each according to the conditions of matter, time, and
place." Men, for example, are not descended from one
parent only, but have come to life in the ordinary
course of nature, in different places and at different
times ; hence the difference between the races.3 We
have seen that Bruno also reverts repeatedly to the

1 Spaccio, 531. 2 De Immense, Op. Lot. i. 2. 172.

3 De Immense, Op. Lat. i. 2. 284 f. : " Every land produces all kinds of animals,
as is clear from inaccessible islands, nor was there one first wolf, or lion, or bull,
from which all wolves, lions, and cattle are descended and transported to these
islands, but at every part the earth from the beginning has given all things," etc.

308 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

idea that various men present in their expressions
various animal characters, which are an index to their
inward nature, and at the same time point to a transi-
tion from a previous or towards a future state.1 And
again it was shown how animals differed from men not
necessarily in degree or quality of mind, but only in
the outward organism through which alone the mind
could express itself. It is clear then that man should
have no higher place than any other animal, should
stand no nearer God than they ; yet in a sense he does,
for the human state appears to be the only one from
which the soul may raise itself out of the incessant
flow of earthly vicissitude, and enjoy the calm of eternal
intellectual union with God.2 The soul of any animal
(or plant?) may in time, however, take the body of a
man, when this outlet is given to it, just as that of a
man, should he refuse his opportunity, may sink back,
and indeed must sink back, to the animal state, in the
never-ceasing cycle of change. But what precisely is
this soul that passes from one body to another, perhaps
from one star to another ? In one passage we read
that as in corporeal matter the body of the ass does not
differ from that of the man, so in spiritual matter the
soul of the ass remains the same as that of the man ;
the soul of either is not different from that which is in
all things, i.e. the soul of the universe.3 We should
then have to assume that it is matter^ not the form or
soul, that differentiates individuals. According to the
differences of the organised bodies are the souls that
are in them ; or, it is one and the same soul which
constitutes the vital and cognitive principle in different

1 Cf. Spaccio, Lag. 411. 95 Her. Fur. 662. 22 j Cantus Circaeus (Op. Lot. ii. i) j
De Minima (i. 3. 207) ; De Monade (i. 2. 327), and iii. 261, 653

2 Cf. Plato's Phaedrus, § 61. 3 Cabala, Lag. 584.

ii MEANING OF IMMORTALITY 309

animal bodies, and in different " worlds " or stars.
The individual human and animal souls would be
merely modes of the one earth -soul, just as the
different star -souls would be merely modes of the
one soul of the universe, the first and highest emana-
tion of divinity. The immortality of the individual
soul would mean accordingly its reabsorption, at the
close of its bodily life, into the eternal ; but it would
be impossible then to ascribe any continuity or identity
to the souls of two beings which succeed each other
in nature. This impersonal immortality is that which
is most prominent in the Italian dialogues ; it gives
place, so far as prominence is concerned, to quite
another standpoint in the later Latin works. Thus
we find in the Causa the comparison of the presence
of the spiritual in matter to that of a voice in a
room : it is wholly in the room and in every part of
the room, yet it is only one utterance that is so
heard in the different parts.1 It might be added that
the different degrees of perfection or of divinity in
different things would correspond exactly with the
differences in the intensity, vividness, of the sound in
nearer and more distant parts of the room. As matter
itself is ultimately one with spirit,2 the outcome of this
theory is an extreme Pantheism ; especially as in the
Causa the transcendent Unity, elsewhere distinguished
from the soul of the universe, is disregarded. Divinity
constitutes both existence and essence of all things, and
all things are ultimately one — God, in whom individual
beings have their reality, and in whom each is one with
all other beings. u We have not to look for divinity
at a distance from us, for we have it with us, more
truly intimate to us than we are to ourselves " ; and so

1 Lag. 242. 3. 2 Causa, Dial. 4; esp. Lag. 265, 38 ff.

310 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

with all other finite things.1 It has been shown also
that death from this standpoint is merely the dissolu-
tion of a composite thing into its immortal elements,
spirit and matter ; 2 death is a change of " accidents " to
the substance (i.e. of qualities, conditions), never a
change of substance itself.3 Not only we, but all other
substances, spiritual and corporeal alike, are beyond
reach of death ; but as all substances are ultimately
one, this does not mean a peculiar, personal immortality
for each of us as separate beings.

Optimism. It follows also from this aspect of Bruno's philo-
sophy, that as all things are divine, so all are good.
The forms of all living things — men, animals, metals,
even those of deformed creatures — are beautiful and
perfect in heaven (i.e. sub specie aeternifatis)* All
things being subordinated to the will of the best,
everything is good, and tends towards good ; the con-
trary is only apparent when we refuse to look beyond
the present, as the beauty of a building is not manifest
to one who sees only a part of it, a stone, a piece of
cement, a partition wall, but is clearest to one who can
see the whole, and is able to compare part with part.5
The worth But there is another aspect of Bruno's theory of
individual.6 the relation of the finite individual soul to the uni-
versal spirit, according to which every finite thing has
an infinite worth from the very fact of its existence as
a member, or part of the universe. It is in this phase,
later in time than the other, but never completely
dissociated from it, that the real contribution of Bruno
to the history of philosophy appears.

It is foreshadowed in the Heroici Furorif where

1 Cena, Lag. 128. 5 ; cf. Spaccio, 533. 16, 539. 2, and Op. Laf. i. 3. 146.

2 Lag. 164. 1 8 ff.

3 Lag. 202. 39 ff., 238. 27 ff., 303. 17, 317. 7, 409. 13, 547. 16 j Of. Laf. i. 3. 142.

4 De Umbris fii. i. 46). 5 Inf. 303. 21. 6 Lag. 66. 7.

ii INDIVIDUAL IMMORTALITY 311

the pursuit of an infinite object by a finite intelligence
is justified from the infinite potentiality of the latter, as
eternal and unlimited in its capacity for delight and
blessedness. The infinite desire is itself a pledge of
its fulfilment in an eternal life.1 The individual, finite
as it is, must realise in itself the whole nature of the
universe to which it belongs ; each thing, each substance
or monad, realises in the course of its life all other
possible existences. Each takes on successively all pos-
sible forms, just as at every moment all possible forms
are actually realised in the universe as a whole. Each
thing, and every part of each, present to us the
" similitude," the image of the universe. It is precisely
the thought which afterwards loomed so largely in the
philosophy of Leibniz, that each monad is a mirror of
the universe. The transmigration of the earlier philo-
sophy appears in a far nobler light in this phase. The
soul of man does not change in itself as it passes
through its innumerable forms ; now it is endowed
with the " instruments " or members of the human
body ; anon it will take up the members of another
body ; " for the soul which has now the bodily organs
of a horse there await the bodily members of a man
and of all other kinds of being, in regular series, or in
confused order ; the death of the present members has
no bearing upon the future life and its innumerable
forms. The soul would not suffer if this were known
to it ; the wise soul does not fear death, sometimes
desires it, and goes to meet it. Before every sub-
stance lies eternity for duration, immensity for place,
omniformity for realisation." The soul is not limited

1 Cf. Bartholmess (vol. i. p. 124), who refers to Cardan and Campanella as
offering a similar "proof" of immortality.

2 De fmm.j Op. Lat. i. I. 20^.

312 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

to the earth alone, but has the infinite worlds before it,
for its dwelling-place. It is owing to this individual
(indivisible, therefore unchanging) substance — the soul
— that we are what we are ; about it as a centre there
occur in each life continuous " massing and unmassing "
of corporeal atoms, through which the changes of form
are brought about. " By birth and growth the spirit-
architect expands into this mass of which we consist,
spreading outwards from the heart. Thither again it
withdraws, winding up the threads of its web, retiring
by the same path along which it advanced, passing out
by the same gate through which it entered. Birth is
expansion of the centre, life consistency of the sphere,
death contraction to the centre." It is the soul that
gathers about it, groups and vivifies the atom-mass ;
and the strongest argument for its immortality is that
it cannot be of less value, of inferior condition, than the
atoms themselves of which it avails itself to its own
ends, and which are in their nature imperishable.1
Each soul exists apart in its own unity and individu-
ality ; the soul of the universe does not impart any-
thing of itself to the souls of its members.2 The
hierarchy of souls is not a scale of beings within
beings, but a multitude of realities, co-existent to all
eternity, the Monas Monadum at their head, represent-
ing perfectly, completely, at every moment (i.e. time-
lessly), the reality of all the others, yet separable from
them. Of the others that is higher which knows more
perfectly, and in closer unity — that is, more adequately
— the universe to which it belongs. Thus there is the

1 De Minima, bk. i. (i. 3. 143). There also it is said that the transformations
are not fortuitous, but depend on the character of the life that has been lived, as
Pythagoras and the Platonists taught.

2 Bruno " inclines " to this view only in one of his latest works, the Lamfas
(vol. iii. 59), but it is clearly implied in the De Minima.

ii THE HIERARCHY OF SOULS 313

daemon or soul " which is wholly in the whole extent
of the life of the earth, by the life of which we live, and
in the being of which we are ; " above it is the in-
dividual soul or substantial nature which is in the wider
extent of the solar system to which the earth belongs ;
above it again the soul of the whole system of the
universe ; and highest of all the mind of minds — God,
the one spirit filling all things wholly.1

So in the Lampas the Intellectus -primus is said to be
separable from particular finite intelligences. It does
not belong to their substance : it works in them, but
not as a part of them. It does not gradually leave the
being to which it has presented itself when that begins
to decay, but simply ceases to operate, just as it comes
also suddenly to each, if at all.2

It follows that each of the lower monads is so far
imperfect that it is never at any one time all that it
has the possibility of being ; the eternal essence of
humanity, for example, the truth of humanity, its ideal,
is realised not in any one individual, but only in the
species as a' whole,3 and this is true of the perfection of
every other species. But Bruno's optimism surmounts
this difficulty. The evil, the imperfection, is so only
to the individual, and in that particular phase of its
life. Each thing has a double tendency and a double
striving — to remain in the state in which it is, and to
press beyond that to realise new forms. But each thing
has in itself the nature of the whole — is therefore in its
inmost nature perfect. It is imperfect only in its explicit

1 De Minima, ii. ch. 6 (Op. Lat. i. 3. 208 ff.). Cf. i. 2. 80 : "The seats of the
blessed are the stars ; the seat of the gods is the ether or heavens j for the stars I
call gods in a secondary sense j the seat of God is the universe, everywhere, the whole
immeasurable heaven — empty space, of which he is the fulness." For Bruno's
Demonology, vide i. 2. 6 1 (De Immenso, iv. n), and i. 2. 399 (De Monade).

2 Lampas, Op. Lat. iii. 48 j cf. Her. Fur. Lag. 741. 15.

3 Her. Fur. Lag. 721. 33.

3i4 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

nature — on its outward side. The striving after new
life is due to the felt conflict, or want of harmony,
between what it has in it to become — its inner self—
and what it has actually become, the limited form in
which it appears. On the one hand evil is necessary
for good, for were the imperfections not felt, there
would be no striving after perfection ; all defect and
sin consist merely in privation, in the non-realisation of
possible qualities. " It would not be well were evil
non-existent, for it makes for the necessity of good,
since if evil were removed the desire of good would
also cease." 1 In its whole life, however, the soul will
realise all good, and therefore is only per accident im-
perfect. On the other hand, however mean in itself at
any moment, it is a necessary part of the whole, and
therefore, relatively to the whole it is good. "If we
look to the order of the universe it will appear that
every action and effect is good by way of necessity, for
even the things which appear the most trifling and sordid
are parts of greater and more noble things, as the form-
less are parts of the formed, the least are necessary
elements of the great, the great of the greatest ; and
as the less cannot subsist without the least, so
neither can the greatest without the great. All beings,
therefore, of whatsoever nature, are good, if they
are rightly considered, not less good than greater
things, if we take into account the fact that the
goodness of the whole depends on the goodness of
its parts." 2

Every part, every individual in the universe, differs
from every other ; each has its own inalienable individuality
by which it stands out from all others and is itself. So
far was this principle carried by Bruno that, as we have

1 Lampas, Of. Lai. Hi. 215 cf. 23. z Ib. p. 108.

nature.

ii GOD IN NATURE 315

seen, he denied that any body could ever occupy the
same place twice ; the planets moved not in circles or
regular paths, but ever in spiral course, so that at each
moment their places were other than at any prior or
later moment. No two circles, no two lines in nature,
were ever exactly equal ; hence there was never a perfect
circle nor a perfectly straight line. The principle is not
at all an epistemological one. It does not mean that
we could not distinguish between two precisely equal
things, but that two such things could not exist, not
even in the minutest forms of nature, since the infinite
variety of the infinite all must reflect at every moment
the infinite, eternally realised, thought of the One
Mind.

There are accordingly three aspects of God in Bruno's God in
philosophy — three different standpoints from which He
may be approached. The first is that of natural religion
— God in Nature. Nature is " the omniform image
of the omniform God — His great living semblance
(simulacrum)." J Its order reveals the mind from which
it springs — the stars u declare the glory of the majesty
of God and the works of His hands. Thence we are
uplifted to the infinite cause of the infinite effect."
Nature is God in things,3 His infinite mirror, the
explicate^ unfolded, extended, immeasurable world, and
He is implicitly everywhere in the whole.4 There is,
however, no argument from the world to God's existence.
From the first the infinite power and goodness are
assumed, and the universe, in Bruno's thought, is
simply a broad general revelation of what each one of
us may find in himself.5

1 Op. Lot. i. i. 205.

2 Op. Lat. i. 2. 51 ; i. i. 68. 3 i. 2. 151. 4 i. i. 241.

5 De ImmensO) bk. i. ch. 10-13.

3i 6 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

The form which the cosmological argument takes in.
Bruno is that as individual things, taken singly, must
be referred each to a finite principle and cause, a finite
effect implying a finite power ; so from the point of view
of the universe of things, the innumerable individuals in
immeasurable space must be referred to an infinite first
cause. But to our thought the universe is only an
inciting cause ; we cannot know God or anything of
God's nature from it further than an architect or
sculptor can be known from one or all of his works.
The beauty and majesty of external nature leads us to
aspire to God, its source ; but a nearer spring of know-
God in us. ledge is in ourselves. " We are led to regard divinity
not as without us, separate or distant from us, but as
within ourselves (since it is everywhere wholly), for it
is more intimate to us than we can be to ourselves, since
it is the substantiating and most essential centre of all
essences and of all being." l It is from these two
aspects of his philosophy, the identifying of nature with
God, and the identifying of the true being of each of
us with God, that Bruno has been described as a Pan-
theist. So far, however, as this term implies the identity
of the individual things with each other, the conception
that all things are one, not in the sense of forming a
unity of differents, but in the sense of an indifference
or uniformity of all, the term " Pantheism " would
give a very false impression of Bruno's religious
belief. It is neither the Pantheism which reduces all
to a lifeless one, in which all differences are merged,
nor that which breaks up the one into a many in
which all differences are lost ; but the Pantheism of
a living, self- manifesting One, which is throughout
eternity unfolding itself in the diverse units of the

1 Op. Lot. i. i. 68, etc.

ii GOD IN HIMSELF 317

world — a pantheism not different from that of any of
the higher religions.

Neither in nature, however, nor in ourselves, in the God in

u " if

soul of man, is the whole being of God to be found.
Could we indeed see the substance, the truth of our-
selves, could our eye in seeing itself see all things, as
the eye of God in seeing other things sees itself,— then
it would be possible to understand all things and to
create all things, for we should then in reality be God.
We never penetrate to the deep-lying individual in our-
selves, but see only the accidents, the externals ; as we
never see our own eye, but only its reflection from a
mirror, so our intellect cannot see itself in itself, nor
anything else in itself, but always some external form,
semblance, image, figure, sign.1 The truth of things
— God — everywhere eludes our sense and our reason,
our discursive intelligence. It is revealed, as we have
seen, only to our intuitive, comprehensive glance — a
sudden insight for which reason only prepares the way.
Yet even this insight, " comprehension," is not " com-
prehending." We are brought, perhaps, through it
into contact and into harmony with Him, but He is
never, even to intuition, knowable. To be known
would mean to be comprehended, limited, and therefore
finite.

First, then, God, the Monad, or Mind, is the true,
innermost nature of things ; "in themselves things are
in motion, in matter, dependent, defective, are rather
non-entia than entiay for as from not-being they become,
so from being they may cease to be ; hence they truly
exist only where they cannot cease to be, i.e. in the first
cause and unfailing principle, which has power to bring

1 Cf. Op. Lat. ii. 3. 90 (De Imag. Comp.}. "Intellect" is here used in a general
sense, not in the special one of " intuitive thought."

3i 8 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

them forth when it will. Therefore they are more
truly in the Monad itself, and consequently are more
truly known in it, in simplicity and togetherness, where
all things are one in an ineffable sense, without distinc-
tion, distribution, or number/' l God is the source of
the determinations, the forms of all things. " The first
measure is Mind itself: for all measure receives its
denomination from mind " 2 (mensura, mens). " One is
mind, everywhere wholly, giving measure to all things ;
one intellect ', giving order to all things ; one love, pro-
ducing harmony between all things." 3 The first
section of the Praxis Descensus sums up the relation,
the meaning of "creation," thus:4 — " God is the
universal substance, being, by which all things are ;
essence, the soul of all essence, by which whatever is,
is ; more intimate in every being than its form or its
nature ; for as nature is the ground of the being of
each thing, so the deeper ground of the nature of each
thing is God."

In the second place, the order and life of things has
its source in God, as the Monas ordinatrix ; the whole
order of nature, both as it is simultaneously, as it has
been, and as it shall be, lies " complicitly," grasped in
one thought, and realised in one act, in his Mind.
" What immutable substance wills, it wills immutably,
i.e. it wills necessarily, not as determined by an alien
will, which enforces the necessity, but of its own will ;
this necessity is far from being contrary to liberty ;
liberty itself, will, and necessity are one and the same "
(in God).5 Divine necessity differs from natural causa-
tion, the sequence of causes and effects, in that in
nature the causes, will, and knowledge may be frus-

1 Summa, Op. Lot. i. 4. 117. It does not imply their formal identity.
2 Art. adv. Math. Op. Lat. i. 3. 16. 3 i. 2. 346. 4 i. 4. 73. 5 i. 4. 95.

II

THEISM IN BRUNO 319

trated, the effect averted ; but divine necessity is neces-
sity in all respects — to will, to know, to act, are one.
In the third place, God is above and beyond both Theism,
natural things and their order in the universe as a
whole. In the later works, it is no longer as a mystical
being — inaccessible, because wholly abstract, empty of
content, the sublimated unity of things — that God is
posited. The Neoplatonism of the earlier works,
although remaining in the language and even in much
of the thoughts of the later, has been overcome in fact.1
God is indeed transcendent, beyond the world, but He
is so only as comprehending the world in Himself, its
source, its truth — yet more than the source of things or
of their order. In all other things we may distinguish
between existence and essence (i.e. the fact of their
being, their historical presence in the world, and their
nature, through which they are what they are) ; in God
alone these are one or indistinguishable.2 God and
things differ by a greater difference than substance and
accident — i.e. things are not accidents, or "modes" of
God. They differ from one another by their special
differentiae, but resemble in other respects. God differs,
not as marked off, limited by them, but as containing
them all in essence, presence, power and eternity.3 He
is not apart from things, but in them ; in them not as
comprehended or contained by them, but as compre-
hending and containing them, and as the essential basis
of all things, the centre of the universal life and sub-
stance.4 He is all things in all, because He gives exist-
ence to all ; He is none of them, because above all,
transcending each and all in essence, nobility and power.'

1 For Bruno's revolt against the mystical in Neoplatonism, cf. De Imm. v. i.
(Op. Lat. i. 2. 1 1 8), and cf. viii. p. 298 ff. 313 $ De Mow., p. 410.

2 Of. Lat. i. 4. 79. 3 Ib. 83. 4 Ib. 85. 5 Ib. 86.

5

320 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

He comprises all things, not as excluded and, as it were,
looking upon them from apart and from above, for He
is also comprised by all things. He is comprised also
not as included, contained, repressed within alien limits,
for He also comprises all things. He is therefore
within all things, as He who gives essence to all things ;
and is the basis of all being, the heart and source of all
life. He comprises all things, as excelling them,
governing, moving, disposing, limiting — Himself un-
limited.1 Hence, also, as we saw, He is nameless ;
names are for distinguishing, defining, separating from
other things, but He is above all difference, other-
ness, diversity, multitude 2 ; or again, all names, all
predicates, attributes, are equally true of Him,
because He comprises all in Himself. It is in this
sense that He is Monad of Monads, entity of entities,
" in whom are all things, who is in none, not even
in Himself, because He is indivisible, and is simplicity
itself." 3

Bruno's philosophical religion is in the end a theism,
but theism of a purely intellectual or rationalist type.
The natural world is after all nothing over against God
who subsists in absolute simplicity — as Mind ; in abso-
lute immobility, changelessness — as Intellect (the World
of Ideas) ; in absolute perfection, self-sufficiency, and
self-satisfaction — as Love, or Holy Spirit. Over against
this self-contained Trinity, the changing and passing
world is a non-ens : as /'/ changes not, neither can it
know change : to know change would be a change in
itself — its knowledge is as immutable, as simple as itself.
" Although we see things come into being that before

1 Op Lat. i. 4. p. 99. God is not, however, passively comprised : cf. iii. 509 (De
rerum princip.} : " Mens eminentius tota in toto ita ut etiam sit tota extra totum et supra
totum" etc.

2 Op. Lat. iii. 4.2 (Lampas], cf. i. 4. 85, 86. 3 i. 3. 146, 147 (De Min.)

ii TIMELESS REALITY OF THINGS 321

were not, and the world itself, as is believed, was pro-
duced out of nothing — a new thing, yet from this
change and novelty of effects, no change in His action
or power can be inferred, for He exists above all motion
and all vicissitude, an unchanging agent in eternity ;
not as artificers, or material principles, moved by
changing dispositions to new willing, new faculty, new
effects, but from the instant of eternity, above time and
above change, He creates all that which becomes in
time, in change, in motion, in vicissitude. Before and
above time and motion there is not always time and
motion, but there we find divinity, immutable and in-
variable. He has from eternity willed that to be which
now is." " There liberty makes necessity, necessity
attests liberty." 1 <c Past is not past to it (the First In-
telligence), nor future future, but the whole of eternity is
present to it as one whole, all together, in its complete-
ness." 2 Seldom, even in recent idealist philosophy, has
the World of Ideas maintained its hold so powerfully
over a mind whose whole trend was towards a natural-
istic interpretation of things. The religious instinct
dominates to the last Bruno's thought ; these passages
are from the very latest of his works. Each and all of
his speculations on nature, on its elements, its indi-
viduals, its general laws, bring him back to the all-
embracing Mind, in which nature has its source, but
which nature by no means exhausts. So his specula-
tions on the nature of man, on the moral life, on the
inspiration of the artist and of the generous human
soul, the hunter after truth, point again to a thought, a
world above nature, revealed neither capriciously nor
yet to the natural faculties of the seeker, but to a
divinely implanted power of intuitive insight. It was

1 Summa, Op. Lat. i. 4.. 93, 95. 2 Lamfas, Op. Lat. iii. 45.

Y

322 GIORDANO BRUNO PART n

an attempt, more consistent perhaps and more thorough
than any other has been, to combine the independence
and freedom and worth of individual souls, of the finite
many, in one thought with the absolute unity, necessity,
eternity of God. And this, after all, is the one aim
philosophy has to achieve.

CHAPTER IX

BRUNO IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

PERHAPS no philosopher of equal originality and
strength has had so little apparent influence upon
contemporary or later thought as Bruno. His name
hardly occurs in any of the writers of his own or the
following century ; when it does occur, it is mentioned
only that the author may make sufficiently clear the
discrepancy between the actual or reputed views of
Bruno and those .of himself. Yet it is easy to under-
estimate the influence his writings and his personality
exercised ; neither in France, in England, nor in
Germany could his prolonged stay have failed to rouse,
in some at least of his hearers, sympathy with his
lofty conception of the universe and of man's destiny ;
through them Bruno's books must have passed into
the hands of many philosophers, both before and after
they were placed upon the Index Expurgatorius in
1603. A natural consequence of this public ban
would be that Bruno was no longer quoted or referred
to as an authority ; but all thinkers of sceptical or
liberal tendency would at least be eager to read his
works when the opportunity offered itself. Owing to
the great scarcity of the copies and their increasing
costliness, this would become a chance less and less

323

324 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

frequent as time went on. Even so, however, one
may trace how his ideas filtered through many minds
and helped to determine the course of modern philo-
sophy, of which Bruno has as high claims as either
Bacon or Descartes to be named the founder.

In English writers the only contemporary notices
of Bruno which have been found are in two small
works on mnemonics, — one by a professed opponent of
Bruno's friend, Alexander Dicson, the other by the
poet Thomas Watson. The former, the Anti-die sonus
of a certain Cambridge scholar, G. P., of date 1584,
was dedicated to Thomas MofFat or Moufet, a well-
known philosopher and doctor of medicine, from whom
support was hoped against the " Dicson School." Of
this school Bruno, who was then in England, must
have been regarded as a member. The author is a
follower of Ramus, and ridicules the art of memory
which consists in locis et umbris and its " self-parading
memoriographs, such as Metrodorus, Rosselius, the
Nolan, and Dicson ; these are the reefs and whirlpools
in which the purer science of memory would have been
wholly destroyed, had she not clung to her faith in the
Rameans as a pillar of refuge." It is an interesting
note, for it shows that Bruno's antipathy to Ramus
was returned by Ramus' followers, — an antipathy so
difficult to understand when we remember that both
were reformers in philosophy, and that both zealously
attacked Aristotle. The work against which G. P.
writes is Alexander Dicson's ~De Umbra rationis et
iudicii, sive de memoriae virtute Prosopopoeia^ dedicated
to the Earl of Leicester (1583). There can be no
doubt that it is based upon Bruno's De Umbris Idearum
(1582), with which it agrees both in substance and in
metaphysical basis. Dicson, as already pointed out,

ii WATSON : BACON 325

was one of Bruno's mouthpieces in an Italian dialogue.
Here at least is an avenue for influence from Bruno
upon English thought. Unfortunately Dicson's work
is not of great value, and, with the man himself, has
long been forgotten. But G. P.'s reliance upon
MofFat's support to repel " the attacks of Scepsius,1
and the wrath and violence towards me of the whole
school of Dicson," shows that on the side, at any rate,
of his mnemonic doctrine Bruno's teaching had not
fallen on wholly barren soil. Again, he is spoken of Thomas
with respect, if not quite with admiration, in Thomas
Watson's dedication of his Compendium Memoriae
Localis (n. d., but probably 1585) to Henry Noel,
Queen Elizabeth's courtier. " I very much fear if my
little work (nugae meat} is compared with the mystical
and deeply learned Sigilli of the Nolan, or with the
Umbra artificiosa of Dicson, it may bring more infamy
to its author than utility to the reader." The scholarly
poet, terse and brilliant Latinist, could hardly have felt
in harmony with the passionate but confused thought,
the virile but unscholarly style of Bruno ; yet the art
of memory he professes in this compendium is no
other than that of Bruno and of Dicson, and the
" Memoriographs," whom " G. P." attacks.

If we turn to Bacon, who was in London while Bacon.
Bruno was with Mauvissiere, already in high favour
with the Queen, and at home in the society of
Burghley, Leicester, Walsingham, and Sidney, we find
entire neglect of Bruno's philosophy. Only in one
passage, perhaps, does Bacon mention Bruno's name ;
it is in the introduction to the Historia Naturalis et
Experimentalist After a list of the philosophers of

1 " Scepsius," behind whose authority Dicson shelters, is, according to G. P.,
Dicson himself. 2 Ellis and Spedding, ii. 13.

326 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Greece, and the remark that " all these made up at
their pleasure feigned accounts (or " plots ") of worlds,
as of fables, and recited, published these fables of
theirs — some more consistent certainly and probable,
others harder of belief," he adds that among the
moderns, through the instruction of schools and
colleges, the imagination is kept within stricter bounds,
yet men have not ceased imagining. " Patrizzi,
Talesio, Bruno^ Severin of Denmark, Gilbert of
England, Campanella, have tried the stage, acted new
plays which were neither marked by applauding favour
of the public, nor by brilliancy of plot." The names
are those of men with whom it is no shame for Bruno
to stand side by side ; and one and all are instances of
Bacon's incapacity for grasping the true direction in
which the thought of his time was flowing ; but the
mere mention of Bruno in such a context implies that
his works were still read, and that they were estimated
at a high value by the lovers of " philosophy." There
are, however, many points of contact between Bacon
and Bruno, suggesting an influence, indirect if not
direct, of the latter upon the former. Bacon was
perfectly at home in Italian literature, and it is unlikely
that he omitted to read Bruno's dialogues. Two
casual but significant proofs that he did so are, the
legend related of Mount Athos and of Olympus, that
men had written in the ashes of the sacrifices offered
upon their summits, and had returned the following
year to find the ashes and the writing undisturbed,
the inference being that the summits of these mountains
were in a region of perpetual calm ; l and the suggestion

1 His tor ia Ventorum, Ellis and Spedding, ii. p. 51 j cf. Nov. Org. ii. 12. The
source of the Mount Athos legend is certainly Aristotle's Problemata (xxvi. 39),
while that for Olympus ia either Solinus, or more probably Bruno, in the Cena de le

ii COMPARISON WITH BACON 327

that the movements of the heavenly bodies may be in
spiral lines instead of in perfect circles.1 The latter
especially is a characteristic thought of Bruno.

Bacon, like Bruno, was a believer in a purified
natural magic, the handmaid of metaphysics, " because
of its broad ways and wider dominion over nature."
They are united in their admiration for the Book of
Job as a compendium of natural philosophy. Bacon
writes that " if we take that small book of Job and
diligently work through it, we shall find it full, and, as
it were, pregnant with the mysteries of natural philo-
sophy." 3 Both recur with conviction to the saying of
Solomon that there is nothing new under the sun.
" As to novelty, there is no one who has thoroughly
imbibed letters and philosophy, but has had it impressed
on his heart that there is nothing new upon the
earth." 4 Deeper harmonies, if not more suggestive,
exist between the two reformers of philosophy than
these. One is the argument against authority, against
general agreement, against antiquity of belief, as
grounds or reasons for belief, and the special applica-
tion of this argument to undermine the hold of the
Aristotelian philosophy upon the minds of men. " It
is the old age of the world and the fulness of years
that are to be regarded as its true antiquity. For that
age, with respect to us ancient and older, with respect
to the world itself was new and younger." " As we

Cenere (Lag. 167. 13). Bruno, on his part, refers to Alexander of Aphrodisias j it
is not to be found, however, in Alexander's commentary upon the Meteorologica
(E. and S. refer to Ideler, i. 148).

1 Nov. Org. i. aph. 45. * Ib. ii. 9.

3 De Augm. i. p. 466 ; cf. Bruno's Ceaa, Lag. 177. 27. Elsewhere, however,
Bacon condemns the habit of "some of the moderns," who have attempted to base
natural philosophy upon the first chapter of Genesis and the Book of Job, and
other sacred scriptures. — Nov. Org. i. ax. 65.

4 De Augm. i. 479, and Bruno, passim.

328 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

expect greater knowledge and maturer judgment from
an old man than from a young, so from our own age
we should expect (if it knew its strength, and were
willing to make trial and to put it forth) far greater
things than from old times," etc.1 So faith and
religion are to be kept apart from investigation, science,
or philosophy, although the latter does not on that
account carry us away from God ; the one shows the
will, the other (natural philosophy) the power of God.2
To faith are to be given the things that are of faith, to
philosophy the things that are of philosophy.3 It was
on the same ground also — the use of other than natural
principles to explain natural phenomena — that both
Bruno and Bacon condemned the physical works of
Aristotle. He " corrupted natural philosophy with his
dialectics — gave the human soul, the noblest of sub-
stances, a genus from words of second intention ;
settled the business of the dense and the rare, through
which bodies occupy greater or less dimensions or
spaces, by the feigned distinction between act and
potency ; asserted a unique and proper movement of
each body, being more concerned for an answer one
might make in a discussion and to have something
positive in words, than for the inward truth of things,
as is best shown by a comparison of his philosophy
with the others celebrated among the Greeks." And
Bacon, like Bruno and other innovators of the day,
goes back to Anaxagoras, Leucippus and Democritus,
Parmenides, Empedocles, Heraclitus, whose principles
" have something of natural philosophy, and savour of

1 Nov. Org. i. ax. 84 ; cf. 77 (the argument ex consemu\ and De Augm. i. p. 458.
In their note E. and S. refer to Esdras, c. 14, v. 10 : "the world has lost its youth,
and the times begin to wax old " j and to Casmann's Prcbhmata Marina (1596), as
well as to Bruno's Cena (1584).

2 Nov. Org. i. 89. 3 lb. i. 65.

n BACON : METHOD 329

the nature of things — experience, bodily existence,
whereas the physics of Aristotle, for the most part,
sound of nothing but dialectical terms/' 1

The false straining after simplicity of explanation, Method.
the tendency to seek for similarities rather than differ-
ences, to expect order on the surface rather than at the
root of things, is condemned as vigorously by Bruno as
by Bacon, although not placed in the forefront of the
theory of method, as it is by the latter writer. One
of the Idols of the Tribe was — " the tendency to sup-
pose greater order and equality in things than is
actually to be found ; although in nature many things
are monodica (i.e. monadica, unique), and full of imparity,
yet the mind feigns parallels, correspondences, relations
which are not. Hence the erroneous idea, e.g. that ' in
the heavens all things move in perfect circles/ rejecting
utterly spiral lines and dracones (except for the name) :
hence the element of fire and its sphere were intro-
duced to constitute a quaternio with the other three that
were actually perceived by sense," etc.2 These things
were condemned also, and for the same reason, by
Bruno, who, however, went further, and insisted on the
uniqueness of every individual existence in the universe.
Again Bacon retained (without, however, giving it a
place in his philosophy) the scholastic distinction between
divine or angelic, intuitive, knowledge, and the acquired
piecemeal knowledge of man. " God, the inditer and
worker of forms, and perhaps angels and (higher) intel-
ligences, know forms immediately by affirmation, and
from the beginning of their contemplation. But that
is certainly above men to whom it is conceded only to
advance in the beginning by negatives, to come to rest
in the last place only, in affirmatives, after exclusion of

1 Nov. Org. i. 63 ; cf. also 71. lb. i. 45.

ammata.

330 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

every kind/' l In Bruno the same distinction is drawn,
but it is made also within human knowledge, the intui-
tive knowledge of the heroic mind being the same
in kind as that of the higher intelligences, and only
different from that of God in that it does not create
what it intuites. So the scholastic distinction of natura
naturans as the form or immanent principle of things,
and natura naturata as the sum of things actually
existing, the outward expression in matter of the activity
of the form — a distinction which, in Bruno, is tran-
scended by the identification of one with the other, as
two aspects of a higher unity — also reappears in Bacon's
theory of form. However different the " form " of
Bacon may have seemed to himself from the scholastic
" form," it is still the immanent cause of the properties
of the body to which it belongs, or in which it adheres,
and as such is actually named by Bacon the natura
naturans? So with Bacon, as with Bruno, Campanella,
and Telesius, all things are endowed with life, with
sensation, with soul, which is the inward principle of
their external movements. He ridiculed Gilbert, who
first suggested a scientific explanation of magnetism
and electricity, and put forward on his own account as
a theory of electrical attraction that " friction excites
the appetite of bodies for contact, which appetite does
not like air much, but prefers something else which is
tangible." The phenomena of chemical affinity and
the like were also explained, precisely as Campanella
or Cardan would account for them, by the delight in
mutual contact, i.e. by an inherent sensibility, and desire
or striving of like towards like.3 In both Bacon and

1 Nov. Org. ii. 15. It was a scholastic distinction ; E. and S. illustrate it from
Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, Ima, q. 45 (E. and S. i. p. 259).

2 Ib. ii. I.

3 E.g. ib. \. 66, where are added " the appetite a thing has to return to iti

ii ATOMISM AND MATHEMATICS 331

Bruno, also, this universal animism is combined with an
atomistic theory of mechanical nature, and with the
belief that no physical phenomenon is understood until
it can be expressed in mathematical terms : " the more
our inquiry inclines to simple natures, the plainer and
clearer shall things become ; for we shall have to deal
with the simple instead of the manifold, the computable
instead of the surd, the definite and certain instead of
the vague, — as in the elements of letters, and the notes
of harmonies, and an inquiry is best conducted when
the physical is defined by the mathematical." l The
last result of analysis is not, with either Bacon or Bruno,
the atom of the Epicurean physics, viz. an immutable
substance floating in empty space ; but Bacon' s particulae
verae are much more confusedly thought out than the
Italian's theory — of a subtle ethereal matter diffused
throughout the universe, and of the denser atoms which
are in constant motion within it. There is, however,
the same perpetual flux and reflux in matter with Bacon
as with Bruno.2 In the last resort, Bacon took refuge
in a hope of future explanation — always, however,
by simple, positive, computable factors — regarding
atoms and void, as on a par with materia prima, human
abstractions, entirely unfruitful, not light -bringing
" anticipations of nature." In regard to the relation
between the human understanding and nature, both had
absolute convictions of the power of the former, directed
by the rules of experience and limited by the data of

natural dimension or extension (viz. Elasticity), the appetite to conjugate with
masses of its own kind, as the dense to the sphere of the earth, the rare to the sphere
of the sky." These are described as really "physical" kinds of motion, not, as
Aristotle's are, " logical " and " scholastical." Cf. the Natural History, E. and S.
ii. 600, 6oz j and Bruno, supra.

1 Nov. Org. ii. 8.

2 Vide Bacon's Essay on the Vicissitude of Things j and for his Atomism, the
Hi star ia Densi et Rari (E. and S. vol. ii.), and Cogit. de Natura Rerun (ib. vol. iii.).

332 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

sensation, to comprehend the latter ; but while Bruno
saw in the negative limits of the understanding a posi-
tive hint of a reality beyond, the more careful Bacon
saw only a further ground for falling back from reason
upon faith. Thus the incapacity of the mind to rest
in any finite space, without thinking of a space beyond
that and beyond, or of imagining a body than which
none could be greater, was proof to Bruno that space
itself was infinite, and that body or matter was immea-
surable, i.e. infinite in extent and in quantity. Bacon
also makes use of this impossibility in the human in-
tellect of resting, acquiescing, at any point as a finality.
" It must ever pass beyond — but it is in vain. Thus it
is unthinkable that there should be any extreme or
outermost rim to the world, our mind always of neces-
sity thinks there may be something beyond : nor can
we think how eternity could have flowed down to this
day : the distinction between an infinity a parte ante
and an infinity a parte post cannot be maintained, for it
would follow that one infinite is greater than another,
and that an infinite is used up, and declines into a finite.
Similar is the subtlety about lines always divisible (how-
ever small parts we take), from the impotency of
thought." l But the conclusion drawn is simply the
positivist one, that such endless questioning after the
unknowable is profitless and absurd. The one sees in
it a metaphysical or cosmological argument — infinite
capacity for knowing implies an infinite to be known,
as infinite or endless desire implies an infinite or limit-
less good : the other a methodological argument against
attempting to fly when we are born to creep. In two
other cases Bacon rejected the work of Bruno, and
rightly, viz. in regard to the Art of Lully, and the

1 Nov. Org. i. 48.

ii ART OF LULLY 333

Art of Memory ; and it is possible that he may have
had Bruno in his mind in writing both passages. " Some
men, rather ostentatious than learned, have laboured
about a certain method not deserving the name of a
true method, as being rather a kind of imposture,
which may nevertheless have proved acceptable to some
triflers. Such was the Art of Lully, simply a massed
collection of technical terms. This kind of collection
resembles an old broker's shop, where many fragments
of things are to be found, but nothing of any value." J
Again, a there exists certainly some kind of art (of
memory), but we are convinced that better precepts for
confirming and extending the memory might be laid
down than are contained in this art, and also that the
practice of the art might be made better than as it has
been received. As now managed, it is but barren and
useless." 2

On the Continent it was rather the cosmological
theories of Bruno that attracted attention ; and there,
no less than in England, every suspicion of sympathy
with the heretic was avoided. Only Kepler had the
courage to complain (as a letter of Martin Hasdal to
Galilei tells) that Galilei had omitted to make praiseful
mention of Bruno in his Nuntius Sidereus? Galilei, a
thorough diplomatist, would hardly have gone so far : 4
yet in the metaphysical basis of his theory of the
universe, and in his theory of knowledge, he only
elaborates ideas already suggested by Bruno.5 But
Kepler, fearless before men, shrank from the thought of
the infinite world in which Bruno found a glorious

1 De Augm. vi. ch. ^. z Ib. v. ch. 5. 3 Berti, Vita dl G. B. p. 9.

4 Vide Cay von Brockdorff, Galilei's Philosophische Mission (Vierteljahrschrift fur
Wiss. Philos. und Sociol., 1902).

5 Vide the Discorsi : and cf. the truculent Brunnhofer : " Galileo, der Bruno
Zugleich auibeutete und ignorirte " (op. cit., p. 69).

334 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

freedom for the play of his mind. Kepler could not,
and did not, give up his enclosing sphere of fixed stars,
shutting in the solar system as comfortably as the
orange-skin its seeds, not accepting the giddy hypothesis
of Bruno that each of the stars is itself a sun, with a
solar system of its own, and that beyond and beyond,
in endless series, are other suns and other worlds.1

Even Vanini the unfortunate, if light-headed, sceptic,
who in 1619, at Toulouse, met with a fate similar to
that of Bruno, but more horrible, mentions the latter
only by indication in his earlier work, — the Amphi-
theatre of the Eternal Providence (p. 359) — " Nonnulli
semiphilosophi novi have said that beyond the last sphere
of the heavens there is an infinite created universe, as if
from God no finite action could proceed."

Of the philosophers who represent the main line of
development of modern thought on the Continent in
the seventeenth century, — Descartes, Gassendi, Spinoza,
Leibniz, — there is not one who has not been accused of
having borrowed his chief doctrines, without ac-
Descartes. knowledgment, from the Italian philosopher. Bishop
Huet3 described Bruno as the antesignanus of the
Cartesian philosophy, and pointed to the De Immenso et
innumerabilibus as containing indications of almost all its
ideas. The charge is of course absurd so far as
Descartes' characteristic philosophy is concerned — the
ideas by which he created a revolution in modern

1 Vide Sigwart, Kleine Schriften, vol. i., on Kepler : he refers to Opera, i. p. 688,
and vi. p. 136.

2 Florentine, in Bruno, Op. Lat., vol. i. p. xix. The full title of Vanini's work is,
" Amphitheatrum aeternae providentiae divino-magicum, christiano-physicum, necnon
astrologo-catholicum, adversus veteres philosophos, Atheos, Epicureos, Peripateticos
et Stoicos. Auctore Julio Caesare Vanino, Philosophic, Theologo, ae Juris utriusque
Doctor. Lugduni, 1615." With his remark compare Campanella, S^u'idam Nolanus
(Metaphys. ii. I. 5).

3 Centura Philosophiae Carttsiar.ae, 1689.

ii DESCARTES AND BRUNO 335

thought. Bruno indeed begged men to throw over all
prejudices, all traditional beliefs, before entering upon
the study of nature : he agreed with Descartes there-
fore in rejecting wholly every authority but that of
man's own reason, in demanding complete freedom of
thought, not only from outward, but also from inward,
subjective fetters. Most nearly he approaches the
" Cartesian doubt " in the preface to the Articuli
adv. Mathematicos.1 " As to the liberal arts, so far from
me is the custom or institution of believing masters or
parents, or even the common sense which (by its own
account) often and in many ways is proved to deceive
us and lead us astray, that I never settle anything in
philosophy rashly or without reason ; but what is
thought perfectly certain and evident, whenever and
wherever it has been brought into controversy, is as
doubtful to me as things that are thought too difficult
of belief, or too absurd." But this is still very far from
the universal doubt of Descartes, — doubt, not of this
or that particular opinion or belief, but of all possible
beliefs. Bruno's aim was knowledge, to add to or correct
the sum of general opinion as to the world as a whole,
as to man's relation to it and to God ; Descartes' was
certainty ', to find a basis from which a system of thought
might be built up de novo, and from which at the same
time a secure ground for morality and religion might be
derived. The doubt was nothing without the certainty
to which it led, — the certainty of self-consciousness, —
which, as it has been said, is only the other side, the
positive expression of the universal doubt itself. On
the other hand, in the subsequent steps of the Cartesian
philosophy, — the arguments on the nature of God, and
the relation of the infinite to the finite substances, — many

1 Op. Lot. i. 3. 4.

336 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

touches suggest the influence of Bruno's comprehensive
attempt to combine a philosophical pantheism with a
scientific atomism. It is unlikely that Descartes should
have been ignorant of a writer well known to Mersenne
and Huet. The former1 would have excused Bruno
" had he been content to philosophise upon a point,
an atom, or on unity, — but because he attacked the
Christian religion, it is reasonable to decry him as one
of the most wicked men the earth has ever produced ! "
Certainly the fact that Descartes nowhere mentions the
guilty philosopher is of no importance in deciding as to
the influence of the latter upon him.2

Gassendi jt was on}y natural that Gassendi's critics should

1592-1655. *

have placed him in a close relation to the Nolan. There

is no improbability in the idea that Gassendi was
attracted to the latter as an opponent of the Aristotelian
philosophy, against which he himself had already written
in his youth — although no part of the work was
published until 1624.* Both also approached the reform
of natural philosophy from the same standpoint, that of
sense-experience, and both arrived at an atomic theory
of the ultimate constitution of nature. Bruno, before
Gassendi, had attempted to place the ethical teaching of
Epicurus in a fairer light than popular prejudice allowed,
but while Gassendi followed Epicurus in his atomism
only too strictly, Bruno was much more independent,
and advanced much nearer to the modern view. So in
his general theory of the system of the world, Gassendi
stops half-way — with the conception of a limited matter,
but in an endless space, of a beginning for the world,

1 Contre I'impiete des desistes, athe'es et libertins de ce temps (1624, p. 229, 234, etc.).

2 Vide Bartholmess, i. pp. 257, 259. Descartes, like Galilei, was careful not to
prejudice himself in the eyes of the Church. For Gassendi, i/. Gentzken, Hist. Phil.,
p. 154.

3 Exercitationes paradoxicae adversus jlristoteleos.

ii SPINOZA AND BRUNO 337

but in an endless time, of a plurality of worlds with the
earth as centre of our system : here also it is Bruno that
is the more advanced, and the more daring thinker ;—
yet, from the respect with which Gassendi writes of
Copernicus, it is clear that his sympathies were with the
new hypothesis. It may be added that although
Gassendi rejected the notion of a world-soul, in the
ordinary sense, as distinct from God, and that of souls
of the individual worlds, or of stones, etc., yet he too
was fain to explain the attraction of the magnet for the
iron, of the earth for the stone, of atom for atom, by an
influence passing from the one to the other, by which
the one became aware of the other's existence, and was
impelled towards it, i.e. by a kind of sense, or feeling,
a soul, which was at the same time the principle of
movement.

It is, however, on the development of Spinoza's1 Spinoza,
thought that the most direct influence of Bruno can be
shown. Sigwart 2 and Avenarius 3 have proved that in
preparing the short treatise on " God, Man, and his
Blessedness," Spinoza must have had the Causa and
Infinite of Bruno almost before his eyes. The treatise
consists of several parts which are more or less in-
dependent of one another, and which represent tentative
approaches towards the finished Ethics ; but it differs
from the Ethics in the far greater prominence of the
mystical, Neoplatonist element. Pollock suggests that

1 Cf. Brunnhofer, p. xix : " The longer I consider the question, the more probable
it appears to me that Spinoza would have been impossible, historically, if Bruno had
had time to develop the rich fulness of his ideas in a systematic form." Cf. p. 81,
where, however, he lays too much stress on verbal analogies between Bruno's Summa
and the Ethlca of Spinoza.

2 Spinoza's Neuentdeckter Tractat von Gott, dem Menschen, and dessen Gluckseiigkeit,
Gotha, 1866, and his translation of this, Kurzer Tractat^ with introduction and
notes. Tubingen, 1870.

3 Die Beiden Ersten Phasen des Spinozischen Panthehmus. Leipzig, 1868.

Z

338 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

it may have been his free-thinking teacher Dr. Van den
Ende who introduced Spinoza to Bruno's writings :
there is no external evidence of the acquaintanceship,
but that, it is needless to say, is of slight importance.
Spinoza certainly read Italian, and he practised in
other cases the same neglect of authorities, of whose
substance he was making use : it was indeed the
custom of the time — there were few who followed
Burton's example.

There are certain general resemblances between the
finished philosophies of the two authors, so far as Bruno
can be said to have a finished philosophy. The first
principle of both is the unity out of which all things
spring, to which all return, and in which all have their
true nature, or highest reality, — a unity with which both
identify nature and spirit alike, and which is for both
God. God is accordingly beyond the reach of all
human knowledge ; determination is negation, limit, by
which the infinite is untouched. All attributes in God
are one only, or none ; thought is one with extension,
love with intelligence ; yet in strictness God is neither
thought nor extension, intelligence nor love, or he is
these in another than our human meaning. So far as
this central thought is concerned, it is Bruno that is the
deeper thinker. In him the One is not a dead negation,
in which real things are absorbed to the loss of all their
reality and life, as it is with Spinoza : rather it is a
living fountain, gushing forth in the infinite streams of
living beings : the whole of nature is the expression
of its own inward being. The One is in process ; the
whole, in which this process results, is a harmony every
member of which has its own independent reality and
worth, over against all others, as a manifestation of
divinity. The life of the one is that of its members ; all

ii BRUNO AND SPINOZA 339

are necessary to it, as it to them. Carriere1 indeed
places Bruno above Spinoza as having found in the one
a self-consciousness, a subject infinite in that it knows
itself and all things in itself, preserving all things, as
necessary to its external enjoyment and love ; while
Spinoza is still within the bonds of substance — in God
there is neither understanding nor will, in Him all
difference vanishes, the modes are an illusion. So the
Spinozistic parallelism between thought and matter
finds its counterpart in Bruno, with whom all that is
thought, all that is possible, is also real, or actual, i.e.
has extended or material existence. It is true that this
conception is much more precisely expressed in Spinoza,
with his clean-cut distinction between the world of
body and the world of mind or ideas, to which the
possible belongs, but it was a distinction which he could
not consistently uphold ; on the other hand, the uni-
versal animism, the doctrine that to every material
thing or event there corresponds a spiritual reality or
process, which is only the other side of the parallelism
of soul and body, is more clearly and vigorously
defended by the earlier philosopher. The natural and
the spiritual, matter and form, are not two principles,
or elements which combine to produce a given result,
or which harmonise with one another : they are one
and the same thing, and their truth is their life, their
soul, their thought. Bruno was in earnest with his
animism, as his confident belief in magical correlations
showed. 2

From their principles both derived a conviction of
the necessity 3 and of the goodness of all things, but it

1 Moritz Carriere, Weltanschauung der Reformat ionszeit, p. 470.

2 Cf. Tocco, Conferenza, p. 15 ; Sigwart, Neuentdeckter Tractat, pp. 110-113.

3 E.g. Bruno's Acrot. (Op. Lot. i. i, 108).

tractate.

340 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

is Bruno rather than Spinoza who attempted to recon-
cile individual liberty with determinism in the uni-
verse as a whole, and individual moral responsibility
with the necessary goodness of the all. The corre-
sponding relativity of evil, the fallacy of " fortune " or
c< chance " (as anything but " uncertainty " of the finite
mind), were already asserted by Bruno, and his ideas
as to the relation between the religion of the Church,
or the teaching of the Bible, and the investiga-
tions of science, are precisely those which Spinoza
adopts.

The short In the De Deo seu Homine, however, the corre-
spondences are much greater and more definite between
Spinoza and Bruno, showing that the former passed
through a phase of Neoplatonism, in which his pan-
theism was much less formal or abstract than it after-
wards became. Thus the predicates applied in the
Ethics to God are applied here to nature, as by Bruno
also ; — Nature is infinite in the sense of " without limits
or bounds," containing no parts in itself, and therefore
not a whole over against other wholes ; there cannot be
two infinites, or boundless worlds.1 The parallelism
between outward nature and the thought or under-
standing of God is also more after Bruno's mode of
expression (ch. ii. § n, 19). "Neither substance nor
qualities can be in the infinite understanding of God,
which are not forma lifer in nature (i) because of the
infinite power of God — there is no cause or ground
in Him why He should create one thing rather than
another, hence He creates all ; (2) because of the
simplicity of His will ; (3) because He cannot refrain
from doing what is good." The thesis, and the first

1 Short Tractate, ch. i. § 9, and Bruno's Causa, Dial. v. Sigwart, Ncuent. Tract.,
pp. 115, 116.

ii RATIO AND INTELLECTUS 341

and third of the arguments by which it is supported,
are all verbally close to Bruno's argument in the Infinite
and in the De Immenso. So the effort of all finite
things after self-conservation,1 and their consequent
movement, are explained not mechanically, through the
action of one material thing upon another, but rather
spiritually, through the unity of nature in which all
share. Thus even that possibility of an action of thought
upon matter (extension) is allowed, which in the Ethics
is, formally at least, denied. In the Tractate also
there is more emphasis laid upon the goodness of God,
as the source of the infinite world of finite beings,
whereas in the Ethics a logical, mechanical necessity
takes its place. It is in the second, more mystical and
ethical part, of the treatise, however, that the influence
of the Nolan philosopher is most apparent, and here it
is the Summa Terminorum or Heroici Furori that seems
to have formed the direct or indirect source of many of
the conceptions — such, for example, as the distinction
between Ratio and Intelkctus. Ratio is discursive Ratio,
thought, building up knowledge by successive steps ;
Intellectus " intuitive thought, "direct and simultaneous
perception of the whole of the object — the only ade-
quate or complete form of knowledge, for which
reasoning is merely a preparation in us. Our know-
ledge of God, so far as it is possible at all, is of the
second type : we cannot know Him as he is, through
His effects, His creation : it is only the few to whom He
reveals Himself that can know Him as He is, by direct
contact with Him. Yet this revelation is constantly
open to all men ; for each and all God is, always, inti-

1 " // desk di conser-varsi " of Bruno. Pollock (Spinoza, p. 109) refers to Descartes,
Prin. Phil. 2, chs. 37 and 43, and Spinoza's Cog. Met. (pt. i. ch. 6, § 9), where the
** effort " is " the thing itself," whereas in the essay it is providence, i.e. God. Cf.
part i., ch. 5, with Ethica, iii. 6 and 7.

342 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

mately present, " more intimately than each is to him-
self."1 Other ideas which Sigwart has found common
to the Short Tractate and the writings of Bruno, are
those of the Love of God as springing from the know-
ledge of God ; the correspondence between the degrees
or stages of love and those of knowledge ; the inability
of our minds to rest in a finite object or finite good,
the constant pressure onwards towards other and other
objects ; the contrast between sensible love and intellect-
ual love ; God as the highest, most complete object, the
knowledge of Him above and embracing in itself all other
knowledge, making the knower one with his object,
transforming him into God himself; the divine Harmony
in the soul which ensues ; the love of God which is
man's highest blessedness, which is wholly disinterested,
and blind to all earthly good or beautiful things ; love
which is unlimited in its possibility, as its object is
infinite : with this limitless possibility of Love is the
idea of immortality connected ; but " Bruno deduces
from the immortality of man the possibility of a love
which increases infinitely ; while for Spinoza, on the
contrary, the infinitely increasing love of God is a
ground of proof for immortality. " 2 When there is
added to these many instances of doctrines in Spinoza's
earlier work which were later modified in the direction
of greater rigidity and mechanical systematisation, the
fact that the Tractate embraces two tentative dialogues,
in one of which Spinoza is represented by a Theophilus
(as Bruno in so many of his dialogues is represented),
it is impossible not to feel convinced that Spinoza for a
period of his life at least was a follower of Bruno. It
is true that many of these ideas are not the property of
Bruno alone, but of the school of Neoplatonism of

1 Sigwart, Neuent. Tract., pp. 120-124. 2 ^- P- I29-

ii LEIBNIZ AND BRUNO 343

which he like Spinoza was at any rate a partial adherent,
but nowhere else than in Bruno is to be found the same
" collocation " of these ideas as occur in this tractate of
Spinoza. It is an open question whether the movement
of the latter away from the Italian's philosophy was
entirely a progressive, and not in some respects a retro-
grade movement.

At first sight it might seem much more natural to Leibniz,
connect Leibniz with Bruno, because of the obvious
correspondence of many of their fundamental ideas : —
their analysis of the universe into a system of inde-
pendent realities, each differing from every other — each
mirroring the universe in itself from its own individual
point of view ; each therefore in a sense containing or
comprising the all in itself, as each is again a necessary
constituent of the all. In place of Spinoza's dead
world, we find in Leibniz, as in Bruno, finite things in
constant flow, constant change, each passing necessarily
through every phase through which any other has
passed — representing the universe as it is in time, as
well as the universe as it is at any moment in actual
existence ; each experiencing, in other words, the life,
the process, as well as the quality, the being of the all.
Everything that is, is necessarily, everything that occurs,
occurs necessarily, in Bruno because the whole flows
out from the thought of God, as God thinks it (i.e. in
the relations in which it stands in the one all-embracing
thought of God) ; in Leibniz, because of the will of
God, who in His goodness has chosen the best of all
ideal systems, within which each thing or event has its
necessary place. In both, all things are, from the point
of view of the whole, good : — in Bruno because in God
truth and goodness, will and understanding, are one ;
in Leibniz because of the will of God, which has chosen

344 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

for the best : evil is finitude, or again is ignorance, an
error of standpoint. In both freedom and necessity
are one, because the necessity belongs to God's own
nature ; He wills out of Himself, undetermined, unin-
fluenced from without, and this is freedom. In both,
as we have seen, the principle of sufficient reason is a
ground both for the infinite number and infinite
variety of the finite beings in the universe, and for the
impossibility that two should exist which are exactly
identical one with another. Were it known that
Leibniz had studied Bruno before his system was
formed, we might almost say that he had chosen that
aspect of the Nolan philosophy which with Spinoza had
been disregarded, viz. the aspect in which all rights
are given to the finite individual, and to the world of
finite beings, as each representing the infinite, contain-
ing the infinite in itself, and, so far as possibility goes,
each of infinite divine worth. Whereas just that side
which appealed to Spinoza would have failed to touch
Leibniz — the side in which God appears as one with
the universe, not as beyond or outside of it, but as
immanent in the whole, and present in the fulness of
His nature to each and every member of the whole.
Philosophically Leibniz' mission was to develop the
Cartesian doctrine of the three substances — God,
finite spirit, and body — in a direction which identi-
fied the first and third with the second, broke up the
unity of God into the immeasurable many of the
monad spirits, and its infinity into indefiniteness. The
God of Leibniz, even as the highest of the monads, is
separate from, apart from, the other monads — a finite
along with other finites. So each of the ordinary
monads is a world by itself, shut up within itself, with
no windows from which it can look out upon the world,

ii DIRECT INFLUENCE ON LEIBNIZ 345

and really be affected by what is passing without it.
There is no without — each is, in a word, God^ and so far
as it is concerned there may be no other being in
existence. Bruno, on the contrary, was fully conscious
—at times — of the necessity of holding the balance
between the infinite unity of God and the finite units or
realities, which are the expression, the manifestation,
the self-revelation of the one. Why this revelation ?
he does not indeed ask ; but given it as actual, he finds
the reconciliation in it at once of the necessity of the
whole and the liberty of the unit, the goodness of the
all and the moral frailty of the individual.1

Interesting as this speculative comparison of the two
philosophies may be, there is not, however, even the
slightest ground for attributing any direct historical
influence of Bruno upon Leibniz. If influence occurred
at all — which is doubtful — it was through Spinoza or
some of the minor philosophical writings of the time.
Lacroze (in a letter of 1737) accused Leibniz of
u having drawn his whole system " from Bruno's book
De Maximo et Minimo (sic /) : he added that he had
told Leibniz this fact himself, both by word of mouth
and in writing, and that the reason why so few had
noticed it was that the philosophical writings of Bruno
were obscure and repellent. The same suggestion has
been repeatedly made since — more especially as regards
the name u Monad" which Leibniz, after much search-
ing and deliberation, gave to his "real unities" from
1696 onwards.2 Brunnhofer goes so far as to see both
the ideas and the main formulas of Leibniz in Bruno —

1 Cf. Carriere. Of. at. p. 471 ff.

2 Thesauri EfUtoKti la Croxiani, 1746 j Hansch, Prin. PAi/os. Leibn., 1728 ; Thes.
ix., xxxi., Ixxi. Cf. Steffens, Clemens, Diihring, Brunnhofer, of. cit., and also in
G.B.'s Lehre •uom Kleinsten, ah die Quelle der pra-establirten Harmonic •von Leibniz,
1890 5 also Tocco, etc.

346 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

the monad-doctrines, monads as living mirrors of the
universe, as fulgurations of God, the Pre-established
Harmony — the future as involved in the present, " the
present is pregnant with the future," — the phenomen-
ality of sense-objects — God as the highest monad, etc.
He argues that Leibniz derived his idea that " the
monads have no windows by which anything can enter
or depart " from casual remarks by Bruno as to the
u windows of the soul," " the gates of the senses " by
which images enter in, or "the chinks and holes" by
which we gaze outwards upon the world. The coup
de grdce was given to this legend, for so we must call it,
by Ludwig Stein in his Leibniz und Spinoza.1 He
showed that Leibniz was already in full possession of
the idea of the monad at least ten years before he found
the most fitting expression for it, and that after 1696
he used the word " Monad " always as the distinctive
badge or typical name for his substances or forces ;
that before 1700 he knew of Bruno only one of the
Lullian works (the De Arte Combinatorid, v. Dutens,
ii. 367), and perhaps the mathematical articles (adv.
Mathematicos^ ib. iii. 147). Apart from these works,
which could have no reference to his own philosophy,
he was acquainted with Bruno only by hearsay, as a
reputed forerunner of Descartes ; even as librarian of
the Brunswick Library, although some of Bruno's
works were in his guardianship, he is not likely to have
read them until his attention was called to them by
their alleged resemblance to his own theory. And
then, as we learn from the letter to Lacroze (nth
April I7o8),2 he hardly appreciated them at their true

1 Ein Beitrag %ur Entivickelungsgeschichte der Leihnixschen Philosophic (1890), \.
pp. 197 ff.

2 In Dutens, v. 492 j cf. also a letter of ist May (p. 493).

ii LEIBNIZ ON BRUNO 347

value — " Mr. Toland has not spoken to me of the
Specchio (i.e. Spaccio, an error that does not show much
familiarity with Bruno) della Bestia trionfante of
Giordano Bruno. I think I have seen the book at
some time, and that it is against the Pope. I have two
works of his on the Infinite, one in Latin, the other in
Italian. The author is not wanting in genius, but is
not very profound (ne manque pas d1 esprit, mats il nest
pas trop profond}." Elsewhere he speaks of Bruno
only as believing in " innumerable worlds " with
Leucippus and Democritus, and as having been burnt,
not, as he believes, on account of his book the De
Immenso, but for other opinions.1

There is therefore little reason to suppose that
Leibniz had great interest in Bruno, or that he had
read his works so carefully as to have derived any
sustenance or advancement for his philosophy from
them. Stein has in any case shown that the term
" Monad " came to Leibniz, not from Bruno at all, but
from the younger Van Helmont, in whose theory it
plays almost as important a part as in Leibniz—
although the difference between the two <c Monads "
was greater than the resemblance.2

Meanwhile literature in France and England had
not lost sight of Bruno.3 In 1633 there was published
in the former a play, Boniface et le Pedant^ which

1 In Dutens, v. 385 (June 1712), and v. 369.

2 It appears that the term Monas Monadum used by Bruno of God does not occur
in Leibniz at all.

3 In Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy (1621) Brunus appears with Copernicus as
author of "some prodigious tenent or paradox of the earth's motion, of infinite
worlds in an infinite waste" (vol. i. p. n of Shilleto's edition). In the " Digression
on Air," the Cena is referred to (ii. p. 46), — the changes of sea and land, the fixed
stars as suns with planets about them, the air of the heavens as identical with that
of the earth, the infinite worlds in an infinite ether (ib. 47, 57, 62). Bruno, infelix
Brunus as Kepler had called him, is classed with atheistical writers in a later part of
the work (vol. iii. p. 447).

348 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

has been described as a refined and Gallicised imitation
of the Candelaio ; in its turn it suggested, perhaps, the
Pedant JouJ of Cyrano de Bergerac, and some of the
pedant-scenes in Moliere.1 In 1634 in England a
masque by Thomas Carew — the Coelum Britannicum —
was played in English by Charles I., which was based,
, partly at least, upon the Spaccio, with Charles I. in the
place of Truth.2

Bayie. Pierre Bayle, by the article in his Dictionnaire

Historique et Critique (1697), which had a very wide
influence, probably damned Bruno's reputation for a
century. The article on Spinoza also did the same
service for the Dutch philosopher, with whom, indeed,
Bayle joined Bruno, as having held the same " abomi-
nable docrine " of atheism. He had no real knowledge
of Bruno, the biography is frivolous and inexact, and
the philosophy — a garbled version — is reported on
hearsay.3 It was Bayle's authority which stamped
Bruno with the sarcastic description of " a knight
errant in philosophy," which has sometimes been
spoken of as a happy touch of Hegel's invention, but
really dates back to one Lionardo Nicodemo (1683),
who described Bruno as " playing the part of a wan-
dering knight (i.e. a travelling scholastic), now here,
now there, at different universities in France, England,
Germany, Switzerland, Italy, with shield pendant, and
lance in rest, challenging the Aristotelians to learned
combat." 4 In England the same aspersion upon
Bruno's name was stereotyped by an article in the

Budgeii. Spectator of May 27, 1712 (one of Budgell's). The
writer, however, had the fairness, which Bayle had not,

1 Bartholmess, i. pp. 261, 262.

2 Vide Quarterly Review, October 1902: "Giordano Bruno in England," and
the biography of Carew in EncycL Britan. (by R. Adamson).

3 Cf. Bartholmess, i. p. 263. 4 Vide Rixner und Siber, op. cit. heft v. p. 234.

ii TOLAND 349

to read Bruno's Spaccio before making reflections upon
it. Contrary to his expectations, for Bruno was " a
professed atheist, with a design to depreciate religion,"
he found " very little danger " in it. This did not
prevent him from taking Bruno as a text for a
would-be humorous disquisition on Atheism. It was Toiand.
John Toiand,1 the " poor denizen of Grub Street," and
once famous, or infamous, author of Christianity not
Mysterious, who in England first paid Bruno some-
thing of the respect he deserved. His championship
was not, perhaps, of the most discerning or of the most
valuable, but it was honest. A copy of the Spaccio had
come into his possession, — one which he believed to be
the only one then in existence, — and as a result of his
reading he claimed Bruno as the founder of free thought.
He had studied the sayings on Divine Magic in that
work, and had fastened on the fact that Bruno "re-
garded magic as nothing but a more recondite, non-
vulgar, although perfectly natural wisdom." This was
certainly true ; but Toiand added, "So he sometimes
calls the eternal vicissitude of material forms Trans-
migration," which was at least misleading. Among
his manuscripts Toiand left " an account of Giordano
Bruno's Book of the Universe " (De rinfinito\ along
with a translation of the introductory epistle.2 And
somewhat earlier, in 1713, a translation of the Spaccio
was made into English by W. Morehead,3 who may
have been one of Toland's brethren, as the Quarterly
Reviewer suggests. Toiand himself was, however,

1 Janius Junius Toiand (1669-1722) j v. Leslie Stephen's English Thought, etc.,
vol. i. ch. 3.

2 Vide Collection of several pieces of Mr. John Toiand, ivith some memoirs of his life
and writings, London (1726), vol. i.

3 According to the British Museum Catalogue. No name is on the title page of the
work — " Spaccio, etc., or the Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast." To the chequered

350 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

believed to be the author. He had visited Lacroze
at Berlin in 1706, and had defended the Nolan against
that virulent searcher-out of atheists, deists, pantheists,
and the like " miscreants and libertines." To a fellow-
enthusiast in Germany (Baron Hohendorf) Toland
wrote three years later, giving the proofs of Bruno's
punishment, with a translation of Schopp's account, and
stating his belief as to Bruno's real doctrine (viz. free-
thinking).1 " The author," he wrote, " gives full play
to his spirit, which is always diverting, but at the same
time very powerful ; he is often diffuse, but never
wearisome. In a very small space he has expounded
a complete system of natural religion, the theory of
ancient cosmography, history, comparison and refutation
of different opinions, besides many curious observations
on diverse subjects. But the author abounds in pleasan-
tries, and in satirical traits : he is impious in a sovereign
degree, and does not always keep himself within the
limits of allegory." And so Bruno, like Spinoza in
this also, went down to posterity as a worthless, impious
atheist, one of the reputed authors of the mythical work
De Tribus Impostoribus^ which no one had ever seen,
but in which the three founders of the great religions of
the world were attacked as conscious cheats ! So far
was the world as yet from understanding the martyr
for truth and for " the religion of thought."

It was from Germany that the reaction came.
The story of the restoration of Bruno's name (his
Ehrenrettung) has been told by Bartholmess, and needs
but a very brief sketch here. Heumann 2 repudiated

history of this title and its various interpretations may be added a modern instance
from the Dictionary of National Biography, sub Vautrollier : " Bruno's Last Tromp " !

1 Vide Tolantfs Miscellaneous Works, London (1747), vol. i.

2 Acta P hilosophorum (1715 ff.), parts iii. ix. xi. xv., cf. Zimmermann in Mus.
Helvet. T. v.

ii RESTORATION OF BRUNO'S NAME 351

Lacroze's description of him as an atheist and fore-
runner of Spinoza's pantheism, describing him as a
martyr for the Lutheran faith and as an eclectic in
philosophy. Brucker l — without the historical sense,
but a painstaking and learned, if diffuse, analyst,
judging all philosophies by the standard of orthodox
Protestantism and the Leibnizian philosophy — yet
sympathised with Bruno, described him as an " eclectic,
combining ideas of the Eleatics with those of Democritus
and Epicurus, Copernicus and Pythagoras, not an
impostor, but an intellectual enthusiast — cum ratione
insanivit." Throughout the remaining part of the
century a number of monographs appeared, by Jordan,
Christiani, Kindervater ; with, on the contra side, Less-
man and Lauckhard. Adelung thought Bruno worthy
of a place in his History of Human Folly (1785). In
the same year (1785) appeared F. H. Jacobi's Letters
on Spinoza s Philosophy, which contained a " restora-
tion " at one stroke of both Bruno and Spinoza to their
place among the great names of the history of thought.2
This fine thinker — if not great thinker — penetrated by
the beauty and calm of Spinoza's pantheism, saw in
Bruno a true forerunner. Bruno had " taken up the
substance of the ancient philosophy, transformed it into
flesh and blood, was wholly permeated by its spirit,
without ceasing to be himself." Naturally it was in
the Causa that Jacobi found the greatest affinity with
Spinoza, as in it the starting-point of Bruno is from the
One, the Highest, which is at the same time the All —
the universe, the unity of the One and Many, of Spirit
and Nature. Jakobi's friend, Hamann, the " Wizard
of the North," the mystical critic of Kantianism, went

1 Kurze Fragen aus der Phil. Hist. (1736), and Hist. Crit. (1742-1744).
2 Cf. his Werke, t. iv. pt. 2.

352 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

a step further than Jakobi himself ; Bruno's principle
of the coincidence of opposites, he said, was of more
value to him than all the Kantian criticism. In the
pantheistic or monistic side of Bruno's philosophy he
found sympathy with his own revolt against the excessive
intellectualism and rationalism which seemed to him to
be the chief danger of the Kantian philosophy.1 Goethe
also was carried away by the flowing tide of enthusiasm,
and, indeed, his own philosophical conception had much
affinity with that of the Nolan, although in their inner
natures the two men differed to to coeto.2 Buhle — first
in his Comment on the Rise and Progress of Pantheism
(1790), afterwards in his learned and careful History of
Philosophy 3 — placed Bruno amongst the highest of pan-
theistic writers. Even Tennemann 3 grows eloquent
over the brilliant effort of Bruno, by which he almost
achieved a philosophy of the Absolute two centuries
before Schelling and Hegel.4 Fulleborn is more cautious
and critical, but in his Contributions to the History of
Philosophy he gives analyses and extracts from several
of Bruno's works.5 Schelling himself, as is clear from
the dialogue which he wrote bearing Bruno's name,
regarded the Italian as nearest to himself among his
forerunners in the philosophy of the absolute. There
is obviously a close analogy between the two ; and
Schelling may be said to take, with regard to the course
of philosophy after him, the same place which Bruno
took as regards the lines of development in the philosophy
of the seventeenth century. Both had a wider view, and

1 Cf. Carriere, op. at. p. 475.

2 Brunnhofer has suggested an active influence of Bruno upon Goethe — TJ. Gbthe
—Jahrbuch (1886), Gbthe's Bildkraft (1890), Leipzig ; also Carriere, p. 487.

3 Geschichte des neueren Philosophic, 6 vols., Gbttingen (1800-1805), vol. 2.

4 History of Philosophy, n vols. (1798-1819), vol. 9, pp. 372-429.

5 Beitrage, vii. 4 and xi. I.

ii HEGEL 353

perhaps a deeper insight, than their successors, while
lacking the power of strenuous thought necessary
to carry out their views into the completeness of a
philosophical system. It is doubtful, however, whether
Schelling knew much more of Bruno than Jakobi's
essay and his abstract of the Causa had to tell.

Hegel took a much less enthusiastic view of Bruno's
philosophy than did his contemporary and sometime
partner — to place Bruno on a level with Spinoza was
to give him a higher reputation than he deserved :
his doctrine was a mere re-echo of the Alexandrine.
Yet Hegel, too, saw something to admire in this
" Bacchantic " spirit, revelling in the discovery of its
oneness with the Idea, and with all other beings, with
the all of nature which is an externalisation of spirit.
It was under the influence of Hegel or of the Hegelian
philosophy that the first really complete and satisfactory
studies of Bruno appeared : — Christian Bartholmess'
Jordano Bruno? and Moritz Carriere's Philosophische
Weltanschauung der Reformations sett.'2' The quick and
generous enthusiasm of the first, the wide philosophic
comprehension of the second have probably done more
to attract public attention to the forgotten Nolan, and
to guarantee him a permanent place in the history of
philosophy, than any other writings about him. Since
their time the literature upon Bruno has steadily in-
creased, and with it has grown the comprehension of
and sympathy with the man as well as with the idea he
so fearlessly proclaimed, and so strenuously defended.
It is no part of the purpose of this work to parallel

1 2 vols., Paris, 1846, 1847.

2 Stuttgart, 1847, pp. 365-494. 2nd edition, enlarged, Leipzig, 1887, 2 vols*
Both of the above works were preceded by a translation into Italian (by Florence
Waddington) of Schelling's Dialogue, with an introduction by Terenzio Mamiani (on
Bruno), Firenze, 1845 ; 2nd edition, 1859.

2 A

354 GIORDANO BRUNO PART

Bruno with any of the more modern philosophers. It
is foolhardy to say, for example, as Brunnhofer does,
that Schopenhauer alone reaches the same height of
literary style in modern philosophy, " although the
Nolan leaves the Frankfort philosopher far behind him
through the strength of his philosophical conception of
the universe, which holds its own against pessimism and
optimism alike." l It is foolhardy, and it is misleading,
to place him in comparison with philosophers who have
nearly three centuries of thought, of social, industrial,
and literary growth, between him and them. Like all
the philosophers whom a touch of poetical imagination
has redeemed, Bruno stands more or less alone, and he
overtops all the others of his century. None of the
ordinary rubrics of historical terminology in philosophy
apply to him, not even that of "Eclectic." He is
far more than that. His philosophy, as perhaps these
pages have shown, bears the stamp of individuality, the
individuality of a strong mind, fed with nearly all the
knowledge, and all the out-reaching guesses at truth of
its own time, and of the times that had gone before,
striving to turn this difficult mass into nourishment for
itself, and to transmit the achievement to others. He
was an eclectic, just as every great thinker is an eclectic,
but it is the bricks merely, not the style of architecture,
that he has borrowed from others. He never founded
a school, not merely because the circumstances of his
life, and the fate of his writings, precluded him from
being widely known or studied in any country, but also
because his philosophy was too much a thing of himself
to be readily attractive to many of his hearers or readers.
Yet it has been a force making for the progress of

1 Of. «>., Vorredt, xi. A bibliography of the more recent works on Bruno
is given at the beginning of this volume.

ii CONCLUSION 355

thought and of liberty, and it is still an active force.
Human nature has not yet lost the tendency to rest
calmly in its "habit of believing," to shut itself up in
its finite world, refusing either to look abroad, or to
look at itself from an external point of view ; it is still
apt to think " geocentrically," to take its molehills for
mountains, while " underlooking," if the term may be
allowed, the real mountains that are before it, to hold
doggedly to one contrary, reject utterly the other,
whereas the truth always lies in their unity. To these
recurring foibles of humanity, and more especially,
perhaps, of philosophic humanity, the fresh and
vigorous writings of the Dominican monk and martyr
of the sixteenth century will ever form a healthy
counterpoise.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

i. To p. 5 and p. 27, Bruno's upbringing. — In the Infnito, Lag.
362. 34, Burchio, the Aristotelian pedant of the dialogue, addresses
Fracastorio in the following polite terms : — " You would be more
learned than Aristotle — you, a beast, a poor devil, a beggar, a
wretch, fed on bread of millet, perishing of hunger, begotten of a
tailor, born of a washer-woman, nephew to Cecco the cobbler,
"fgol di Momo, postiglion de le puttane, brother to Lazarus that makes
shoes for asses ! " It is almost incredible that any one should have
taken these words as biographical or rather auto-biographical. They
are in the mouth of a pedant and enemy : they are addressed not
to the Bruno-character of the dialogue (" Philotheo"), but to
Fracastorio, who temporarily takes his place as a well-trained
disciple. Yet Lagarde, that amazing editor, gravely wonders
whether the Dominicans did not know that their novice had been
" postiglion de le puttane," or whether they were glad to forget it
when they saw the pure and attractive young face ! (v. Lagarde's
edition of the Italian works, pp. 789, 798).

2. To p. 10. The Arian heresy. — Before the Venetian tribunal
Bruno explained his position with regard to the Arian heresy
thus : — " I showed the opinion of Arius to be less dangerous than
it was generally held to be, because generally it is understood that
Arius meant to say that the Word was the first creation of the
Father, and I declared that Arius said the Word was neither Creator
nor Creation, but intermediary between the Creator and the
Creation, as the word is intermediary between the speaker and what
is spoken, and therefore it is said to be first-born before all creatures ;
through it, not out of it, have all things been created. . . ."
(Doc. xi. Bert. i. p. 403).

3. To p. 33. Sidney and Greville. — Greville had been a school-

357

358 GIORDANO BRUNO

mate of Sidney at Shrewsbury, but proceeded to Jesus College,
Cambridge, while Sidney went to Christ Church at Oxford ; after-
wards they were constant friends at Court. When Sidney went to
Heidelberg in 1577, the Queen would not allow the handsome
Greville to accompany him, nor would she let either go with Drake
to the West Indies in 1585, and Greville was kept at home from
Leicester's Expedition to the Low Countries, in which poor Sidney
met with a heroic death (Oct. 17, 1586). In a letter of 1586,
Greville describes Sidney as " that prince of gentlemen " : writing
to Douglas after Sidney's death, he says that the name of Sidney's
friendship has carried him above his own worth. The epitaph
Greville wrote for himself is familiar, but will bear repetition : —
" Fulke Greville, Servant to Queen Elizabeth, Councillor to King
James, and friend to Sir Philip Sidney. Trophaeum Peccati"

4. To p. 35. Vautrollier and Bruno. — Vautrollier traded in
Scotland as early as 1580 as a bookseller: he had already enjoyed
the patronage of King James, and was even encouraged to return
with a printing press, which he did in 1584. Thereafter he pub-
lished in both London and Edinburgh till 1587. On the other
hand some of Bruno's works were printed in 1585, so that the
theory of Vautrollier's flight to Scotland owing to his being the
printer of Bruno's works, falls through. The business in London
was carried on during his absence by his wife, and the " troubles "
out of which Mr. Randolph helped him were quite unconnected with
Bruno, and may have arisen from his printing of John Knox's
History of the Reformation in Scotland, which Archbishop Whitgift
suppressed. The letter to Mr. Randolph is in L'Espine's Treatise
of Apostasy, 1587 (Vautrollier: London).

5. To p. 51. Mordentius. — Fabrizio Mordente of Salerno was a
mathematician of the sixteenth century, of whom only two works
are known to have existed, — one published in 1597, the other
written in conjunction with his brother Caspar in 1591. He was
the inventor of an eight-point compasses of which Bruno writes in
the second of the Mordentius dialogues, and on which he bestows
apparently extravagant praise. The peculiarity of the invention,
as far as one can discover, consisted in the introduction of four
" runners," two on either limb of the compasses, and secured by
screws ; but there seems to have been no gradation of the compasses,
and it is difficult to perceive any great value in the novelty, without

ADDITIONAL NOTES 359

that essential addition. The first of the two dialogues suggests a
possible origin for some of Bruno's ideas on atomic geometry, as we
find, attributed to Mordentius, two ideas that were applied to some
purpose in Bruno's own mathematical works. They are (i) that of
the measurement of inappreciable subdivisions of continuous
quantities by integration, and (2) that of the impossibility of infinite
division, the continuous being composed of discrete minima, beyond
which no division can go, and the minima (like the maxima] being
relative, differing in different subjects, so that, for example, what in
astronomy is a minimal quantity may in geodesy be greater than the
diameter of the earth.

INDEX

ABSOLUTE, first principle or, 166

Agrippa of Nettesheim, Cornelius, 148,
149 j De occulta philosophia, 131, 149 ;
De Vanitate Scientiarum, 149, 257

Alasco, Prince, of Poland, 23

Algerio, Pomponio, 4

Alsted, John Henry, Arttficium perorandi,
114

Anaxagoras, 126

Animism, 305 ; universal, 147

Antidicsonus, 36, 324

Aquinas, St. Thomas, 9, 80, 137

Areopagus, literary society, 27

Aretino, Pietro, Cortegiana of, 19

Arian heresy, the, 357

Aristotle, De Anima, 16, 158, 159; criticism
of, 50, 123 ; Organon, 53, 55 ; Topics, 55 ;
Metaphysics, 113, 125 ; Rhetoric, 114, 138 ;
Physics, 115, 116, 122, 125, 2365 De
generatione et corruptione, 1165 Meteor o-
logica, 116; Bruno's acquaintance with,
121-235 rejection of mathematical
method, 123 } treatment of predecessors,
124 j Logic, 138 j theory of limitation
of space, 183 ; on finitude of world, 185,
1 86 ; on plurality of worlds, 197

Asinity, 257

Aspiration, 291

Atom, the, 236 j knowledge implies the,
227 j spherical, 240 j and materialism,
249

Atomism, belief of Bruno and Cusanus in,
147 ; a metaphysical doctrine, 227, 246 ;
mathematical, 245 5 physical, 2475 critical,
247 j and mathematics, 331

Avarice, 272

Avenarius, 337

Averroes, 136, 305

Avicebron or Avencebrol, Fons Vitae, 135

Bacon, Francis, 33, 123, 139, 325-295
Novum Organum, 123, 124, 327 - 32 j
Historia Naturalis et Experimentally, 325 j
Hi star ia Ventorum, 326 j De Augment is

Scientiarum, 327, 328, 333 ; method, 329 ;

theory of form, 330
Balbani, Nicolo, of Lucca, 13
Bartholmess, Christian, 2, 1 6, 20, 97, 311,

348, 35°

Basaus' Catalogue of Frankfort Books, 65
Bayle, Pierre, 348
Beauty, 281, 2835 reason apprehends true,

281

Bellarmino, censor of Bruno's works, 89
Berti, Domenico, 5, 8, 10, n, 94, 95, 333,

357

Besler, Bruno's pupil and copyist, 114-17
Bible's teaching, the, 299
Bochetel, Maria de, 47
Body, distraction of the, 288
Bodies, movements of, 216 j prime, 224
Brunnhofer, 3, 18, 41, 51, 60, 64, 89, 114,

3<> '» 33.7, 345; 354
Bruno, Giovanni, father of Bruno, 3
Bruno, Giordano (Filippo), birth and family,
3 j childhood, 5, 357 } at Naples, 8, 12 1 ;
enters Dominican Order, 9 ; became priest,
9 j charges of heresy, 9, 10 j at Rome, 10 j
at Venice, n, 66 j at Padua, 12, 69 j at
Geneva, 12 j before Consistory, 155 at
Toulouse, 1 6, 17 j Doctor in Theology
and professor, 16 j at Paris, 17, 18 ;
Reader at the university, 20 ; at London,
21 j at Oxford, 21 j impressions of
Oxford, 25 ; relation to Mauvissiere, 27 j
on Mauvissiere, 29 j admiration for
women of England, 41 ; hostility in
England, 45 ; consults Bishop of Bergamo,
48 ; associate of College of France, 49 j
at Marburg, 51 j at Wittenberg, 52 j at
Helmstadt, 60 j denounced by Mocenigo
at Venice, 72, 73 ; examination before
Tribunal, 74, 294, 357 ; defence, 75 ;
creed, 76, 77, 109 ; abjuration of errors,
8 1 j remitted to Rome, 84; orthodoxy,
87 j death, 92-96 ; grounds for death, 97 j
mission, 103 ; dislike of pedantry, 105 ;
originality, 107 ; optimism in philosophy,

36l

362

GIORDANO BRUNO

in, 175, 313; works published during
imprisonment and posthumously, 113-17 ;
interest in Greek philosophy, 125 ; and
Cusanus, 147 j religion, 297 5 rationalism,
301 j restoration of name, 351

Publications — Italian Dialogues, 5* 29»
34, 45, 127 j Sigillus Sigillorum, 5, 12, 17,
37, in, 112, 137, 140, 2975 Le Opere
Italiane, 5, 89 j Opera Latina, 6, 7, 12, 17,

20, 22, 40, 80, 96, 106, 113, 114, 122,
126, 127, 134-37, 140, 141, 151, 178,
180, 181, 183, 184, 188, 196-200, 202,
207, 209-11, 213, 216, 230, 231, 235,
236, 242, 243, 260, 261, 266, 292, 295,
297, 298, 302-4, 307, 310, 311, 313-16,
318-20, 334, 335 j De Immense, 8, 48, 51,
62, 65, 108, 122, 133, 152, 180, 183,
185, 186, 191, 192, 196, 203-08, 212,

213, 215, 2l8, 221, 223, 226, 307, 311,
315 j Signs of the Times, n j Ark of Noah,
ii j Cabala, n, 40, 41, 102, 107, 149,
219, 252, 265, 270, 308 ; Cena, 12, 23,

25» 27> 33> 35» 37, 4*» I03> 104» i°6,
108, 123, 125, 126, 152, 161, 163, 170,

216, 219, 268, 299, 300, 301, 310, 327 ;
Clavis Magna, 17, 375 "The Thirty
Divine Attributes," 17 ; De Umbris, 18,
19, 103, 107, 115, 310, 324; Ars
Memorial, 18 j Cant us Circaus, 18, 37 j
De Compendiosa Architectura, 19, 140, 141 j
// Candelaio, 19, 106 j Oratio Consolatoria,

21, 60, 260, 298 j Explicatio Triginta
Sigillorum, 22, 26, 34, 37 5 "Immortality
of the Soul" and " The Five-fold Sphere,"
25 ; Causa, 25, 29, 30, 33, 35, 38, 106,
124-26, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 150,
153, 155, 200, 302, 309, 340; Infinite,
28, 108, 125, 131, 142, 180, 185, 192,

217, 221, 224, 310, 357 j Spaccio, 32, 39,
40, 46, 57, 130, 131, 144, 149, 160, 224,
252-54, 265, 296, 302, 306, 307, 341 ;
Heroici Furori, 32, 41, 42, 100, 126, 129,
134, 137, 252, 253, 302, 310, 313;
Modern and Complete Art of Remembering,
37 j Centum et Viginti, Articuli De
Natura et Mundo, 49 j De Lampade Com-
binatoria, 53, 139, 261 ; De Lampade
Combinatoria Lulliana, 54 ; De Specierum
Scrutino, 54, 59, 1145 De Progressu
Lampada Venator la Logicorum, 555 De
Minimo,6z-6$, 106, 116, 160, 163, 178,
223, 226, 228, 234-36, 238-41, 243, 312,
313, 3205 De Monade, 62, 65, 80, 149,
150 j Articuli adv. Mathematical, 1 10, 244,
295, 318, 335} Summa ter minor um meta-
physicorum, 113, 304, 305, 308, 321, 341 ;
Artificium perorar.di, 114} Lampas Triginta
Statuarum, 114, 295, 313, 314, 320, 321 j
De Magia, et Theses de Magia, 1 1 6 ; De

Magia Mathematica, 116, 137 j De Rcrum
Principiis et Elementis et Causis, 116; De
Medicina Lulliana, 117, 139; De Vinculis
in genere, 117, 134, 266; Acrotismus, l8or
217, 223, 225, 226

Budgell, Eustace, in Spectator, 348

Buhle, History of Philosophy, 352

Burton, Robert, Anatomy of Melancholy, 347

Cabala, Hebrew, 130, 131

Camden's Elizabeth, 24

Cardanus, 150

Carriere, Moritz, 339

Cause of nature, efficient, 157, 184 j formal,

158 } final, 158

Change, ceaseless, 205, 210, 221
Christianity, attack on, 225
Cicala, Mount, 5, 7
Clemens, F. J. 142, 266
Coincidence of all things in One, 172, 176 j

of contraries, 176, 179, 209 j verification*

of, 177-79

Comets, Bruno's theory of, 212
Commerce, the evils of, 269
Company of St. John the Beheaded, 95, 96
Contarini, Venetian procurator, report of, 84
Continuum not divisible, 237
Copernicanism, a heresy, 89 ; influence of,

on Bruno, no
Copernicus, 150-525 De orbium ccelestium

Re'volutionibus, 150

Culpepper, Warden of New College, 26
Cusanus. See Nicolaus of Cusa.

Death and life contrasted, 289

Democritus, 126

Descartes, 334-36

Desire, human, 181

Dicson, Alexander, 35, 36 j De Umbra

Rationis, 36, 324
Disputation of Pentecost, 49
Divine essence, attributes of, 193 ; union

with the, 280 ; finite soul and mind, 307
Divinity of Christ, 79; of matter, 157
Domenico da Nocera, 71, 75
Dominicans, the, 8, 357
Douglas, Archibald, 47
Dufour, Theophil, 14

Earth, the, 208 : as centre of gravity, 190 ;

its movements, 211 j and suns, 211
Eglin, Raphael, 64, 113
Egyptian theosophy, 130 ; religion, 305
Elements, the, 185 ; in isolation, 209
Elizabeth, Queen, 21, 30, 31, 47, 81 ; the

London of, 41, 45
Empedocles, 126
England, works published in, 37
Epitaph, Bruno's, 99

INDEX

363

Erlangen Codex, 116

Ether, the, 206, 245

Euclid, simplification of, 243

Evolution, theory of, 270

Existences, finite, 173 j differ, all, 235

Faith and works, 254

Faye, Anthony de la, 14

Ficino, Marsilio, 128

Figure in body and space, 189

Finite soul and divine mind, 307

Fiorentino, in Giornale de la Domenica, 6

Fire, Bruno's theory of, 209

Florio, 21, 35, 43; "First Fruites," 35;

translation of Montaigne, 35
Form, intellect as, 158, 160 j natural, 165
Franco, Nicolo, 39
Frankfort, works published at, 51, 62, 66,

114 j petition to council of, 63
Furor (inspiration), kinds of, 279

Gassendi, Pierre, 336, 337

Gemistus, Georgius (Gemistus Plethon),
127, 128

Gentile, Alberico, 53

God in us, 291, 316 j love of, 291-93, 342 j
man and, 298 j in nature, 3155 in him-
self, 317

Goethe, 352

Golden Age, the, 266

Greville, Sir Fulke, 27, 33, 43, 357

Grim, professor of philosophy, 54

Gwinne, Matthew, 35, 43

Hegel, 353 j De Orbitis Planetarum, 108

Helmstadt, Bruno at, 60, 61

Hennequin, John, 49

Henry III., 17, 1 8

Heraclitus' fire, 125

Heretical propositions, the eight, 90

Heumann, Acta Philosopher urn, 350

lamblichus, 129

Ideas, abstract, 196

Identity in God, 167 j in kind of all beings,

215

Imagination of Bruno, 107
Immaculate conception, rejection of, 109
Immortality, 159; meaning of, 309;

individual, 311

Indifference of all things in the Infinite, 173
infinite and the finite, the, 187, 307;

action between the, 187 j relation of, 188
Intellect, 282, 341
Intelligence and Love, 290 ; instinct and,

219
Isolation, no elements in, 209

Jacobi, F. H., Letters on Spinoza's Philosophy,

35*

Jews, antipathy towards the, 265
Judgment, 262 j based upon sensations, 234
Juvenal, 104

Kepler, 333

Knowledge of God, 194 j principles of, 229 j

relativity of, 2335 Bruno's Summum Bonum,

276

Lacroze, 345, 346, 350

Lagarde, 5, 1 1, 12 ,23, 25, 27, 28-31, 36, 40,
42, 46, 57, 102-8, 124, et seq., 142, 144,
150, 154-65, 167-69, 172, et seq., 185,
193, 2l6, et seq., 252, 253, 255-57, 259,
261 et seq., 276-93, 296 et seq., 357
Law, function of, 262

Leibniz, Monadology, 224 } and Bruno, 343 ;
Bruno's influence on, 345 j on Bruno, 347
Lessing's idea of myths anticipated, 108
Life, one principle of, 199 j the practical,
261 ; the strenuous, 279 ; and death con-
trasted, 289

London of Elizabeth, the, 42, 45
Love, degrees of, 281 j intelligence and, 290
Lucian's Parliament of the Gods, 39
Lucretius, 127 ; De rerum natura, 127
Lully, Raymond, 138-41 ; Art of Reasoning,

"5> J39> 333
Luther, 57

Magnus, Albertus, 137

Man and the animals, 270 j and God, 298

Matter, divinity of, 1575 spirit and, 161 j

and form, 163, 168 j deduction of, 163 j

the true substance, 165 j as potentiality,

1 66 } substrate of the spiritual world,

1 68 j the ultimate unity, 171
Matthew, Tobias, 26
Mauvissiere, 26, 27, 29, 47 ; Teulet Papers,

23 $ Salisbury Papers, 47
Melanchthon, 52
Mendo^a, Bernardino di, 31, 32
" Metaphysical Remains," 1 1 3
Minima, the three, 227 ; in the classification

of the sciences, 229
Minimum, relativity of, 227 ; as substance,

230; indestructible, 2315 mathematics

of the, 241

Miracles and deceit, 257
Mirror of God, 182

Mocenigo, Giovanni, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 75
Moisture, a material element, 207
Mordente, Fabrizio, 51, 358
Morehead, W., 39, 349
Morosini, Andrea, 71
Mystical and naturalistic attitude compared

no, in

GIORDANO BRUNO

Naples, Bruno at, 8, 121 5 cloister at, 9

Nature as one and many, 169 5 permanence
of beauty, harmony, 175 ; uniformity of,
203 j and spirit, 251

Necessity and liberty, 195

Neoplatonist school, 127, 128 j mysticism
of the, no, 134

Nicodemo, Lionardo, 348

Nicolaus of Cusa, 141, 176 ; sketch of his
philosophy, 142-48 ; De Docta Ignorantia,
143, 145,257 j and Bruno compared, 144,
146 ; Alchoran, 145 ; De Ludo globi, 147 j
De Idiot a, 149 ; De Conjecturis, 148 j De
Vhione Dei, 148 ; De fenatione Sapient ite,
148

Nigidius, Petrus, 51

Nola, 3, 4, 7

Object of De Minima, 226
Ovid, Metamorphoses, 99
Oxford and Aristotle, 21, 22 j Bruno's im-
pressions of, 25

Padua, 12, 69

Paracelsus, 149, 1505 ad miraculum medicus,
150

Paris, 1 8

Perfection, abstract conception of, 198 ;
plurality and, 199 j nature of, 201 j
progress and, 285

Peripatetic philosophy, theses against, 49 ;
criticism of theory, 49

Philosophy, practical test of a perfect, 112 $
Bruno's — Matter and spirit, 159 j necessity
and liberty, 195 ; similarity in composites,
234 j time and space, 237 ; part and
limit, 239 ; peace and liberty, 261 ;
sincerity, 264 $ temperance, 265 $ evolu-
tion, 270 j avarice, 272 j fortune, 272 ;
courage, 273 j simplicity, 273 ; solicitude,
274; beauty, 281, 283 j love, 281, 290

Pius V., Pope, 39

Plato, Timeeus, 131 j Republic, 131

Platonism, Platonists, 128, 133

Plethon. See Gemistus, Georgius

Plotinus, 132, 133 ; Enneads, 132, 168

Pognisi, Giordano Bruno, 96

Prague, 59

Pre- Aristotelians, the, 125

Predicates of God, 1 14 j of substance and
nature, 115

Primum mobile, the, 185

Principle : cause, 155 j first or absolute, 166

Process, the infinite, 284

Progress, human, 269 $ and perfection, 285

Prudence, the virtue of deliberative faculty,
275

Quarterly Review, 27, 34, 348

Ramus, Petrus, Dialectic of, 16, 324
Ratio or discursive thought, 341
Rationalism in Bruno, 301 j mediaeval,

305

Reality of things, timeless, 321
Reuchlin, Johann, De arte cabbalistica, 131
Riches and poverty, 271
Riehl, Giordano Bruno, 69
Roche, La, Memoirs of Literature, 94
Roman people, Bruno on, 263
Rome, Bruno at, 10 ; tribunal at, 91
Rudolph II., 59

Savolina, Fraulissa. mother of Bruno, 3

Schelling, 352

Scholastics, the, 137

Schopenhauer, 354

Schopp, Caspar, 40, 94 j letter on Bruno's

death, 92, 350
Self-consciousness, 273
Sense-knowledge, relativity of, 232
Shakespeare, 34, 35
Sidney, Sir Philip, 12, 27, 31, 32, 35, 59,

Sigwart, 3, 52, 63-65, 67, 86, 337, 340,

342
Soul, the goods of the, 271 ; the body, 286 ;

functions of the, 286 j hierarchy of, 313
Soul-principle in bodies, 216, 224
Spagnolo, Alfonso, 48
Spenser, Edmund, Cantos on Mutability, 335

Fterie <$ueen, 33
Spinoza on Bible interpretation, 108 ; and

Bruno, 176, 337-43 ; De Deo seu Homine,

340, 342 } Ethics, 341
Spirit and matter, 1615 unity of, and body,

170

Stars, souls of the, 217
Stein, Ludwig, 346
Superstition and natural law, 7

Tansillo, affection of Bruno for, 5 j quoted,

283

Tasso, Aminta, 36, 268
Telesio, De natura rerum, 150
Temple of Wisdom, the, 57 ; builders of, 128
Tennemann, Wilhelm G., 352
Theism in Bruno, 319
Theophilus of Varrano, 121
Tiraboschi, Girolamo, historian, 107
Tocco, Felice, Conferenxa, 90 ; Le Opere

Latine de G. Bruno, 114, 225; criticism

of Lampas Triginta Statuarum, 1155 Le

Opere Inedite di G. Bruno, 115, 116; Le

Fonti piu recent i, 138, 149
Toland, John, 38, 94, 349
Trinity, rejection of the, 109 j Cusanus'

proof of the, 145 j interpretation of the,

294, 295

INDEX

365

Trismegistus, Mercurius or Hermes, 129
Truth, philosophical and theological, 76 ;

the "implicit universe," 274, 2755 the

twofold, 303

Universe, infinite in extent, 182, 183 ; per-
fection of the, 190

Vacuum, the, 240

Vanini, Lucilio, burnt as a heretic at Tou-
louse, 17, 334

Vautrollier, bookseller, 34, 358

Venice, works published at, n j tribunal at,
73, 294, 357 ; relation between, and the
Pope, 85

Verifications of coincidence, 177

Vico, Marquis of, 12

Virtues, table of the, 259

Wagner in Bruno's Of ere Ita/iane, 89

Waldensian persecution, 8

Watson, Thomas, Compendium Memoriae
Localis, 36, 325 } translation of Tasso's
Aminta, 36

Whole and its parts, the, 186

Williams, L., 41

Wisdom reviewed, 275

Wittenberg, Bruno at, 51, 52; works pub-
lished at, 54, 55 j lectures at, 114; notes
dictated at, 115

Wittmann, Archi-v fur Geschichte der Philo-
sophic, 135, 136

Works, Marburg edition, 113 5 State edition,
113-115 j published during imprisonment
and posthumously, 113-117; NorofF col-
lection, ii 6, 117

Worlds, innumerable, 191, 194; decay of,

221

Zurich, Bruno at, 64 ; work published at,
"3

THE END

Printed by R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, Edinburgh

RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT

TO— ^ 202 Main Library

LOAN PERIOD 1
_HOME USE

4

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS

1 -month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405

6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk

Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

AUG 8 1982 Low - o 1991

SENTONIUL

in i mm •"<* 9 ™

KTt W~~

»^g

JUN 1 0 1997

U.C.BERKELEY

-,

fie*- 3

Qpp ?, 9. 199

>

Af ITY^ mii-ir-L

O L_l

KJ

Muiu. DISC.

/i 1 1 rt j-». *-**-*«

l/\M QA l3Sj

JUN 9

AUG27 1986

JAN u

FEB151987 J

rrn 1 -7

mnisccaL FEB 13

93

I

DEC i o 199

3

AUTOOisc0 | xUIODlSCCKC rtJN

1593

S£i&MlM^8

AP/i

AyiQOtSCJpil *88 1

1 3 2007

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 12/80 BERKELEY CA 94720

. . - ^,

B <^«^wtii

78

GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY

6000^2701