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 underestimate 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 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 philosophy, of which Bruno has as high claims as either Bacon or Descartes to be named the founder.

[Sidenote: Antidicsonus.]

[Sidenote: Thomas Watson.]

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-dicsonus_ 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, 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,[607] 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 with respect, if not quite with admiration, in Thomas Watson's dedication of his _Compendium Memoriae Localis_ (n. d., but probably 1585) to Henry Noël, Queen Elizabeth's courtier. "I very much fear if my little work (_nugae meae_) 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.

[Sidenote: Bacon.]

If we turn to Bacon, who was in London while Bruno was with Mauvissière, 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 Experimentalis_.[608] After a list of the philosophers of 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;[609] and the suggestion that the movements of the heavenly bodies may be in spiral lines instead of in perfect circles.[610] 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."[611] 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 philosophy."[612] 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."[613] 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 application 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 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.[614] 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.[615] To faith are to be given the things that are of faith, to philosophy the things that are of philosophy.[616] 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 substances, 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 the nature of things--experience, bodily existence, whereas the physics of Aristotle, for the most part, sound of nothing but dialectical terms."[617]

[Sidenote: Method.]

[Sidenote: _Omnia animata._]

The false straining after simplicity of explanation, the tendency to seek for similarities rather than differences, 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 suppose 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 introduced to constitute a _quaternio_ with the other three that were actually perceived by sense," etc.[618] 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) intelligences, 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 every kind."[619] In Bruno the same distinction is drawn, but it is made also _within_ human knowledge, the intuitive 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 intuits. 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 transcended 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_.[620] 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.[621] In both Bacon and 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."[622] 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.[623] 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 sensation, to comprehend the latter; but while Bruno saw in the negative limits of the understanding a positive 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 immeasurable, _i.e._ infinite in extent and in quantity. Bacon also makes use of this impossibility in the human intellect 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 necessity 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 (however small parts we take), from the impotency of thought."[624] 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 limitless 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 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."[625] Again, "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."[626]

[Sidenote: Kepler.]

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_.[627] Galilei, a thorough diplomatist, would hardly have gone so far:[628] 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.[629] But Kepler, fearless before men, shrank from the thought of the infinite world in which Bruno found a glorious 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.[630]

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 _Amphitheatre 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."[631]

[Sidenote: Descartes.]

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 acknowledgment, from the Italian philosopher. Bishop Huet[632] 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 thought. Bruno indeed begged men to throw over all prejudices, all traditional beliefs, before entering upon the study of nature: he agreed with Descartes therefore 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_.[633] "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 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 former[634] 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.[635]

[Sidenote: Gassendi 1592-1655.]

It was only natural that Gassendi's critics should 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.[636] 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, 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.

[Sidenote: Spinoza.]

It is, however, on the development of Spinoza's[637] thought that the most direct influence of Bruno can be shown. Sigwart[638] and Avenarius[639] have proved that in preparing the short treatise on "God, Man, and his Blessedness," Spinoza must have had the _Causa_ and _Infinito_ of Bruno almost before his eyes. The treatise consists of several parts which are more or less independent 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 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 are necessary to it, as it to them. Carrière[640] 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 universal 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.[641]

From their principles both derived a conviction of the necessity[642] and of the goodness of all things, but it is Bruno rather than Spinoza who attempted to reconcile individual liberty with determinism in the universe as a whole, and individual moral responsibility with the necessary goodness of the all. The corresponding relativity of evil, the fallacy of "fortune" or "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 investigations of science, are precisely those which Spinoza adopts.

[Sidenote: The short tractate.]

[Sidenote: Ratio.]

In the _De Deo seu Homine_, however, the correspondences are much greater and more definite between Spinoza and Bruno, showing that the former passed through a phase of Neoplatonism, in which his pantheism was much less formal or abstract than it afterwards 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.[643] The parallelism between outward nature and the thought or understanding of God is also more after Bruno's mode of expression (ch. ii. § 11, 19). "Neither substance nor qualities can be in the infinite understanding of God, which are not _formaliter_ in nature (1) 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 and third of the arguments by which it is supported, are all verbally close to Bruno's argument in the _Infinito_ and in the _De Immenso_. So the effort of all finite things after self-conservation,[644] 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 _Intellectus_. _Ratio_ is discursive thought, building up knowledge by successive steps; _Intellectus_ "intuitive thought," direct and simultaneous perception of the whole of the object--the only adequate or complete form of knowledge, for which reasoning is merely a preparation in us. Our knowledge 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, intimately present, "more intimately than each is to himself."[645] 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 knowledge 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 intellectual 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."[646] 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 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 retrograde movement.

[Sidenote: Leibniz.]

At first sight it might seem much more natural to connect Leibniz with Bruno, because of the obvious correspondence of many of their fundamental ideas:--their analysis of the universe into a system of independent 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 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, uninfluenced 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, containing 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 identified 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, 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.[647]

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 "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 "_Monad_," which Leibniz, after much searching and deliberation, gave to his "real unities" from 1696 onwards.[648] Brunnhofer goes so far as to see both the ideas and the main formulas of Leibniz in Bruno--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 phenomenality 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 "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 grâce_ was given to this legend, for so we must call it, by Ludwig Stein in his _Leibniz und Spinoza_.[649] 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 Combinatoriâ_, _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 (11th April 1708),[650] he hardly appreciated them at their true 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 d'esprit, mais il n'est 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.[651]

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 "Monads" was greater than the resemblance.[652]

Meanwhile literature in France and England had not lost sight of Bruno.[653] In 1633 there was published in the former a play, _Boniface et le Pédant_, which has been described as a refined and Gallicised imitation of the _Candelaio_; in its turn it suggested, perhaps, the _Pédant Joué_ of Cyrano de Bergerac, and some of the pedant-scenes in Molière.[654] 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.[655]

[Sidenote: Bayle.]

[Sidenote: Budgell.]

[Sidenote: Toland.]

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 "abominable doctrine" 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.[656] 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 wandering 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."[657] In England the same aspersion upon Bruno's name was stereotyped by an article in the _Spectator_ of May 27, 1712 (one of Budgell's). The writer, however, had the fairness, which Bayle had not, 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 John Toland,[658] the "poor denizen of Grub Street," and once famous, or infamous, author of _Christianity not Mysterious_, who in England first paid Bruno something 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 "regarded magic as nothing but a more recondite, non-vulgar, although perfectly natural wisdom." This was certainly true; but Toland added, "So he sometimes calls the eternal vicissitude of material forms Transmigration," which was at least misleading. Among his manuscripts Toland left "an account of Giordano Bruno's Book of the Universe" (_De l' Infinito_), along with a translation of the introductory epistle.[659] And somewhat earlier, in 1713, a translation of the _Spaccio_ was made into English by W. Morehead,[660] who may have been one of Toland's brethren, as the Quarterly Reviewer suggests. Toland himself was, however, 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).[661] "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 pleasantries, 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 Bartholmèss, and needs but a very brief sketch here. Heumann[662] repudiated Lacroze's description of him as an atheist and forerunner of Spinoza's pantheism, describing him as a martyr for the Lutheran faith and as an eclectic in philosophy. Brucker[663]--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, Lessman 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 "restoration" at one stroke of both Bruno and Spinoza to their place among the great names of the history of thought.[664] 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 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.[665] 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 _toto coelo_.[666] Buhle--first in his _Comment on the Rise and Progress of Pantheism_ (1790), afterwards in his learned and careful _History of Philosophy_[667]--placed Bruno amongst the highest of pantheistic writers. Even Tennemann[667] grows eloquent over the brilliant effort of Bruno, by which he almost achieved a philosophy of the Absolute two centuries before Schelling and Hegel.[668] 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.[669] 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 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 Bartholmèss' _Jordano Bruno_,[670] and Moritz Carrière's _Philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit_.[671] 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 increased, 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 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."[672] 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 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

1. To p. 5 and p. 27, _Bruno's upbringing_.--In the _Infinito_, 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, _figol 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 schoolmate of Sidney at Shrewsbury, but proceeded to Jesus College, Cambridge, while Sidney went to Christ Church at Oxford; afterwards 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 published 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 Gaspar 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 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 (1) 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; _De occulta philosophia_, 131, 149; _De Vanitate Scientiarum_, 149, 257

Alasco, Prince, of Poland, 23

Algerio, Pomponio, 4

Alsted, John Henry, _Artificium 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, 236; _De generatione et corruptione_, 116; _Meteorologica_, 116; Bruno's acquaintance with, 121-23; rejection of mathematical method, 123; treatment of predecessors, 124; _Logic_, 138; theory of limitation of space, 183; on finitude of world, 185, 186; on plurality of worlds, 197

Asinity, 257

Aspiration, 291

Atom, the, 236; knowledge implies the, 227; spherical, 240; and materialism, 249

Atomism, belief of Bruno and Cusanus in, 147; a metaphysical doctrine, 227, 246; mathematical, 245; physical, 247; critical, 247; and mathematics, 331

Avarice, 272

Avenarius, 337

Averroes, 136, 305

Avicebron or Avencebrol, _Fons Vitae_, 135

Bacon, Francis, 33, 123, 139, 325-29; _Novum Organum_, 123, 124, 327-32; _Historia Naturalis et Experimentalis_, 325; _Historia Ventorum_, 326; _De Augmentis Scientiarum_, 327, 328, 333; method, 329; theory of form, 330

Balbani, Nicolo, of Lucca, 13

Bartholmèss, Christian, 5, 16, 20, 97, 311, 348, 350

Basäus' Catalogue of Frankfort Books, 65

Bayle, Pierre, 348

Beauty, 281, 283; reason apprehends true, 281

Bellarmino, censor of Bruno's works, 89

Berti, Domenico, 5, 8, 10, 11, 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; prime, 224

Brunnhofer, 3, 18, 41, 51, 60, 64, 89, 114, 301, 337, 345, 354

Bruno, Giovanni, father of Bruno, 3

Bruno, Giordano (Filippo), birth and family, 3; childhood, 5, 357; at Naples, 8, 121; enters Dominican Order, 9; became priest, 9; charges of heresy, 9, 10; at Rome, 10; at Venice, 11, 66; at Padua, 12, 69; at Geneva, 12; before Consistory, 15; at Toulouse, 16, 17; Doctor in Theology and professor, 16; at Paris, 17, 18; Reader at the university, 20; at London, 21; at Oxford, 21; impressions of Oxford, 25; relation to Mauvissière, 27; on Mauvissière, 29; admiration for women of England, 41; hostility in England, 45; consults Bishop of Bergamo, 48; associate of College of France, 49; at Marburg, 51; at Wittenberg, 52; at Helmstadt, 60; denounced by Mocenigo at Venice, 72, 73; examination before Tribunal, 74, 294, 357; defence, 75; creed, 76, 77, 109; abjuration of errors, 81; remitted to Rome, 84; orthodoxy, 87; death, 92-96; grounds for death, 97; mission, 103; dislike of pedantry, 105; originality, 107; optimism in philosophy, 111, 175, 313; works published during imprisonment and posthumously, 113-17; interest in Greek philosophy, 125; and Cusanus, 147; religion, 297; rationalism, 301; restoration of name, 351 _Publications_--Italian Dialogues, 5, 29, 34, 45, 127; _Sigillus Sigillorum_, 5, 12, 17, 37, 111, 112, 137, 140, 297; _Le Opere Italiane_, 5, 89; _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; _De Immenso_, 8, 48, 51, 62, 65, 108, 122, 133, 152, 180, 183, 185, 186, 191, 192, 196, 203-08, 212, 213, 215, 218, 221, 223, 226, 307, 311, 315; _Signs of the Times_, 11; _Ark of Noah_, 11; _Cabala_, 11, 40, 41, 102, 107, 149, 219, 252, 265, 270, 308; _Cena_, 12, 23, 25, 27, 33, 35, 37, 41, 103, 104, 106, 108, 123, 125, 126, 152, 161, 163, 170, 216, 219, 268, 299, 300, 301, 310, 327; _Clavis Magna_, 17, 37; "The Thirty Divine Attributes," 17; _De Umbris_, 18, 19, 103, 107, 115, 310, 324; _Ars Memoriæ_, 18; _Cantus Circæus_, 18, 37; _De Compendiosa Architectura_, 19, 140, 141; _Il Candelaio_, 19, 106; _Oratio Consolatoria_, 21, 60, 260, 298; _Explicatio Triginta Sigillorum_, 22, 26, 34, 37; "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; _Infinito_, 28, 108, 125, 131, 142, 180, 185, 192, 217, 221, 224, 310, 357; _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; Centum et Viginti, Articuli _De Natura et Mundo_, 49; _De Lampade Combinatoria_, 53, 139, 261; _De Lampade Combinatoria Lulliana_, 54; _De Specierum Scrutino_, 54, 59, 114; _De Progressu Lampada Venatoria Logicorum_, 55; _De Minimo_, 62-65, 106, 116, 160, 163, 178, 223, 226, 228, 234-36, 238-41, 243, 312, 313, 320; _De Monade_, 62, 65, 80, 149, 150; _Articuli adv. Mathematicos_, 110, 244, 295, 318, 335; _Summa terminorum metaphysicorum_, 113, 304, 305, 308, 321, 341; _Artificium perorandi_, 114; _Lampas Triginta Statuarum_, 114, 295, 313, 314, 320, 321; _De Magia_, et _Theses de Magia_, 116; _De Magia Mathematica_, 116, 137; _De Rerum Principiis et Elementis et Causis_, 116; _De Medicina Lulliana_, 117, 139; _De Vinculis in genere_, 117, 134, 266; _Acrotismus_, 180, 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

Carrière, Moritz, 339

Cause of nature, efficient, 157, 184; 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; of contraries, 176, 179, 209; verifications 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, 110

Copernicus, 150-52; _De orbium c[oe]lestium Revolutionibus_, 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; _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, Théophil, 14

Earth, the, 208; as centre of gravity, 190; its movements, 211; 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

Erlangen Codex, 116

Ether, the, 206, 245

Euclid, simplification of, 243

Evolution, theory of, 270

Existences, finite, 173; 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; natural, 165

Franco, Nicolo, 39

Frankfort, works published at, 51, 62, 66, 114; 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; love of, 291-93, 342; man and, 298; in nature, 315; in himself, 317

Goethe, 352

Golden Age, the, 266

Greville, Sir Fulke, 27, 33, 43, 357

Grün, professor of philosophy, 54

Gwinne, Matthew, 35, 43

Hegel, 353; _De Orbitis Planetarum_, 108

Helmstadt, Bruno at, 60, 61

Hennequin, John, 49

Henry III., 17, 18

Heraclitus' fire, 125

Heretical propositions, the eight, 90

Heumann, _Acta Philosophorum_, 350

Iamblichus, 129

Ideas, abstract, 196

Identity in God, 167; 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; 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_, 351

Jews, antipathy towards the, 265

Judgment, 262; based upon sensations, 234

Juvenal, 104

Kepler, 333

Knowledge of God, 194; principles of, 229; relativity of, 233; Bruno's _Summum Bonum_, 276

Lacroze, 345, 346, 350

Lagarde, 5, 11, 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, 216, _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; on Bruno, 347

Lessing's idea of myths anticipated, 108

Life, one principle of, 199; the practical, 261; the strenuous, 279; and death contrasted, 289

London of Elizabeth, the, 42, 45

Love, degrees of, 281; intelligence and, 290

Lucian's _Parliament of the Gods_, 39

Lucretius, 127; _De rerum natura_, 127

Lully, Raymond, 138-41; _Art of Reasoning_, 115, 139, 333

Luther, 57

Magnus, Albertus, 137

Man and the animals, 270; and God, 298

Matter, divinity of, 157; spirit and, 161; and form, 163, 168; deduction of, 163; the true substance, 165; as potentiality, 166; substrate of the spiritual world, 168; the ultimate unity, 171

Matthew, Tobias, 26

Mauvissière, 26, 27, 29, 47; _Teulet Papers_, 23; _Salisbury Papers_, 47

Melanchthon, 52

Mendoça, Bernardino di, 31, 32

"Metaphysical Remains," 113

Minima, the three, 227; in the classification of the sciences, 229

Minimum, relativity of, 227; as substance, 230; indestructible, 231; 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 110, 111

Naples, Bruno at, 8, 121; cloister at, 9

Nature as one and many, 169; permanence of beauty, harmony, 175; uniformity of, 203; and spirit, 251

Necessity and liberty, 195

Neoplatonist school, 127, 128; mysticism of the, 110, 134

Nicodemo, Lionardo, 348

Nicolaus of Cusa, 141, 176; sketch of his philosophy, 142-48; _De Docta Ignorantia_, 143, 145, 257; and Bruno compared, 144, 146; _Alchoran_, 145; _De Ludo globi_, 147; _De Idiota_, 149; _De Conjecturis_, 148; _De Visione Dei_, 148; _De Venatione Sapientiæ_, 148

Nigidius, Petrus, 51

Nola, 3, 4, 7

Object of _De Minimo_, 226

Ovid, _Metamorphoses_, 99

Oxford and Aristotle, 21, 22; Bruno's impressions of, 25

Padua, 12, 69

Paracelsus, 149, 150; _ad miraculum medicus_, 150

Paris, 18

Perfection, abstract conception of, 198; plurality and, 199; nature of, 201; 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; necessity and liberty, 195; similarity in composites, 234; time and space, 237; part and limit, 239; peace and liberty, 261; sincerity, 264; temperance, 265; evolution, 270; avarice, 272; fortune, 272; courage, 273; simplicity, 273; solicitude, 274; beauty, 281, 283; love, 281, 290

Pius V., Pope, 39

Plato, _Timæus_, 131; _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, 114; of substance and nature, 115

Primum mobile, the, 185

Principle: cause, 155; 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; mediæval, 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, Gaspar, 40, 94; 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, 357

Sigwart, 3, 52, 63-65, 67, 86, 337, 340, 342

Soul, the goods of the, 271; the body, 286; functions of the, 286; hierarchy of, 313

Soul-principle in bodies, 216, 224

Spagnolo, Alfonso, 48

Spenser, Edmund, _Cantos on Mutability_, 33; _Færie Queen_, 33

Spinoza on Bible interpretation, 108; and Bruno, 176, 337-43; _De Deo seu Homine_, 340, 342; _Ethics_, 341

Spirit and matter, 161; unity of, and body, 170

Stars, souls of the, 217

Stein, Ludwig, 346

Superstition and natural law, 7

Tansillo, affection of Bruno for, 5; 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, _Conferenza_, 90; _Le Opere Latine de G. Bruno_, 114, 225; criticism of _Lampas Triginta Statuarum_, 115; _Le Opere Inedite di G. Bruno_, 115, 116; _Le Fonti piu recenti_, 138, 149

Toland, John, 38, 94, 349

Trinity, rejection of the, 109; Cusanus' proof of the, 145; interpretation of the, 294, 295

Trismegistus, Mercurius or Hermes, 129

Truth, philosophical and theological, 76; the "implicit universe," 274, 275; the twofold, 303

Universe, infinite in extent, 182, 183; perfection of the, 190

Vacuum, the, 240

Vanini, Lucilio, burnt as a heretic at Toulouse, 17, 334

Vautrollier, bookseller, 34, 358

Venice, works published at, 11; 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 _Opere Italiane_, 89

Waldensian persecution, 8

Watson, Thomas, _Compendium Memoriæ 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 published at, 54, 55; lectures at, 114; notes dictated at, 115

Wittmann, _Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie_, 135, 136

Works, Marburg edition, 113; State edition, 113-115; published during imprisonment and posthumously, 113-117; Noroff collection, 116, 117

Worlds, innumerable, 191, 194; decay of, 221

Zurich, Bruno at, 64; work published at, 113

THE END

_Printed by_ /R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED/, _Edinburgh_

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Brunnhofer, p. 321, Appendix.]

[Footnote 2: Sigwart, i. p. 118 (note 5).]

[Footnote 3: Berti, _Vita di S. B._, p. 28.]

[Footnote 4: Bartholmèss, vol. i. p. 26.]

[Footnote 5: Lagarde, 452. 23.]

[Footnote 6: _V._ additional note.]

[Footnote 7: Lagarde, _Op. Ital._, p. 101.]

[Footnote 8: _i.e._ Heightening of normal powers.]

[Footnote 9: _Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 184.]

[Footnote 10: On Bruno's family _v._ Fiorentino, in the _Giornale de la Domenica_ (Naples), for Jan. 29, 1882.]

[Footnote 11: _De Magia, Op. Lat._ iii. Op. 430, 431.]

[Footnote 12: _De Immenso, v. Op. Lat._ i. 2. p. 120.]

[Footnote 13: _De Immenso_, iii. (i. 1. 313).]

[Footnote 14: Ct. the punning line "_Domini canes evangelium latrantur per totum orbem._"]

[Footnote 15: Berti, p. 50.]

[Footnote 16: Cf. _Spaccio de la Bestia_, Lag. p. 552, 1.]

[Footnote 17: Venetian Documents, No. 8.]

[Footnote 18: Docs. 8 and 13.]

[Footnote 19: _Vide_ additional note.]

[Footnote 20: Doc. 1 (Berti, p. 378).]

[Footnote 21: Tasso came about the same time, to be repulsed as plague-stricken from the gates.]

[Footnote 22: Doc. 9. Berti, p. 393 (a line is omitted in the 2nd Edition).]

[Footnote 23: Lag. 147. 21.]

[Footnote 24: 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.]

[Footnote 25: _Sig. Sig._ (_Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 191).]

[Footnote 26: _Cena_, Lag. 143. 40.]

[Footnote 27: Doc. 9.]

[Footnote 28: _Giordano Bruno à Genève_ (1579), par Théophil Dufour: _v._ Berti, pp. 449 ff.]

[Footnote 29: From the Register of the Council.]

[Footnote 30: Register of Consistory, 1577-1579.]

[Footnote 31: Bartholmèss, i. pp. 62, 63 (with note).]

[Footnote 32: _Vide De Umbris_ (_Op. Lat._ ii. 1. p. 65, cf. p. 87).]

[Footnote 33: Brunnhofer's _Giordano Bruno_, etc., p. 25.]

[Footnote 34: Introd. to _De Umbris_.]

[Footnote 35: Bartholmèss, I. 74.]

[Footnote 36: _Vide Acrot. Camoer._ Epistle to the Rector of the University (Filesac.). _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 56, 57.]

[Footnote 37: _Artificium Arist. Lull. Ram._ 1615.]

[Footnote 38: Cf. _Orat. Consol._ (i. 1. 32).]

[Footnote 39: _Op. Lat._ ii. 2. pp. 76-8.]

[Footnote 40: _Cena_, L. 176, 37 ff.]

[Footnote 41: _Teulet Papers_, ii. p. 570 (May 16, 1583).]

[Footnote 42: _Op. cit._, p. 693.]

[Footnote 43: Camden's _Elizabeth_.]

[Footnote 44: The MS. of _Dido_, which was acted by Christ Church men, is still preserved in the library of Christ Church.]

[Footnote 45: Lag. p. 120 ff.]

[Footnote 46: L. p. 220.]

[Footnote 47: 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 imparibus_, were preferred by the Queen) and an excellent preacher"--(Fuller, quoted in the _Dict. Nat. Biog._)]

[Footnote 48: Warden of New, 1573-99; Dean of Chichester, 1577.]

[Footnote 49: _Vide Trig. Sigilli_, Dedication.]

[Footnote 50: _Vide_ add. note.]

[Footnote 51: Doc. 9, _Berta_, p. 305. "Castelnuovo, in casa del qual non faceva altro se non che stava per il suo gentilhomo."]

[Footnote 52: Preface, L. 305.]

[Footnote 53: Lag. 264, 20.]

[Footnote 54: L. 143.]

[Footnote 55: L. 226. 25 ff.]

[Footnote 56: Mauvissière's successor was nominated in Nov. 1584, although he did not leave until a year later.]

[Footnote 57: _Vide_ add. note.]

[Footnote 58: First pointed out, I believe, by Mr. Whittaker in _Essays and Notices_, 1895 (_v._ the note to _Giordano Bruno_, p. 94).]

[Footnote 59: Cf. the _Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1902. The references are _Tschischwitz: Shakespeare-Forschungen--Hamlet_, 1868; _W. König, Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xi.; _Frith's Giordano Bruno_; on the other side _Beyersdorff, Giordano Bruno und Shakespeare_ (1889); _Furness_ in the _New Variorum Shakespeare_.]

[Footnote 60: _Vide_ add. note.]

[Footnote 61: Lag. 223. 4.]

[Footnote 62: _Vide infra_, part ii. ch. 9.]

[Footnote 63: In the _Aminta_.]

[Footnote 64: _Sigillus_ is really a diminutive of "Signum" in Bruno's view; "Seal" therefore means much the same as "Sign."]

[Footnote 65: "Venezia" on the title-page.]

[Footnote 66: Again "Venetia." The Introduction is translated in _A collection of several pieces_, by Mr. John Toland, 2 vols., London, 1726.]

[Footnote 67: "_Parigi._" Translated, except for the introductory letter to Sidney, in _Sp. 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 Gods_. 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, Mauvissière's term having expired.]

[Footnote 68: Lag. 417.]

[Footnote 69: _Ib._ 408.]

[Footnote 70: _Parigi_ is on the title page.]

[Footnote 71: _Op. Lat._ ii. 3, 237.]

[Footnote 72: 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.)]

[Footnote 73: Lag. 123. 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.]

[Footnote 74: Lag. 144. 10.]

[Footnote 75: Lag. 406. 17 (_Spaccio_).]

[Footnote 76: Lag. 292.]

[Footnote 77: 521. 27 ff.]

[Footnote 78: 551. 38, 522. 23, 550. 2, 490. 3.]

[Footnote 79: _Salisbury Papers_, iii. p. 112.]

[Footnote 80: Doc. 9.]

[Footnote 81: Doc. 17. Berti, p. 426, 427.]

[Footnote 82: Landseck's _Bruno_.]

[Footnote 83: _Vide Op. Lat._ vol. iii. Introd. p. xxxix.]

[Footnote 84: Centum et Viginti Articuli _De Natura et Mundo_, adv. Peripateticos, Paris, 1586; and "J. B. N. _Camoeracensis Acrotismus_, etc." Wittenberg, 1588. "Camoeracensis" qualifies Bruni,--"of the College of Cambray." Acrotismus is barbarous Latinising of [Greek: Akroasis].]

[Footnote 85: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 63.]

[Footnote 86: i. 1. 65.]

[Footnote 87: _Ib._ 68, 69.]

[Footnote 88: _Figuratio Aristotelici Physici Auditus_, Paris, 1586. _Dialogi Duo de Fabricii Mordentis Salernitani prope divina adinventione ad perfectam cosmimetrae praxim_, Paris, 1586. _Vide_ add. note.]

[Footnote 89: Doc. 9.]

[Footnote 90: Eglin, a pupil of Bruno, was Professor of Theology at Marburg in 1607 (Brunnhofer, p. 60).]

[Footnote 91: Sigwart. The university has since been united with that of Halle, the seat being at the latter place.]

[Footnote 92: _De Specierum Scrutinio et Lampade Combinatoria Raimundi Lulli_, "the omniscient and almost divine hermit doctor." Prague, 1588.]

[Footnote 93: Krell was imprisoned, and put to death ten years later.]

[Footnote 94: _Vide Spaccio_, Lag. 516. 11, and 553. 21 ff.]

[Footnote 95: _De Specierum Scrutinio_, _vide supra_, p. 54.]

[Footnote 96: Published 1589, Helmstadt.]

[Footnote 97: Bk. iv. ch. 10.]

[Footnote 98: Cf. Frith's _Bruno_, p. 200.]

[Footnote 99: _Vide_ Brunnhofer and Sigwart.]

[Footnote 100: Censor's Register: Frankfort Archives.]

[Footnote 101: Sigwart, and _Op. Lat._ vol. iii. introd. p. xxix.]

[Footnote 102: Bassäus Catalogue of Frankfort Books from 1564-1592, printed 1592 (Sigwart).]

[Footnote 103: Doc. 6 (Ciotto's evidence).]

[Footnote 104: Doc. 8 (Bruno's own statements).]

[Footnote 105: Sigwart, _Kl. Schriften_, i. p. 302.]

[Footnote 106: _Vide Op. Lat._, vol i., introd. p. xx.]

[Footnote 107: Bertano described him as lecturing at Padua to some German scholars (Doc. 7). On _Besler_, and Bruno's connection with him, _v._ Stölzle, _Archiv f. Geschichte d. Phil._, iii.]

[Footnote 108: Riehl, _Giordano Bruno_.]

[Footnote 109: Doc. 15, Morosini's evidence.]

[Footnote 110: Doc. 17 (Bruno). Cf. 16 (Ciotto re-examined), and 9 (Bruno).]

[Footnote 111: Doc. 10.]

[Footnote 112: Ambassador in Paris during Bruno's first visit (1582).]

[Footnote 113: The Nuncio was sometimes represented by his auditor, the Patriarch by his vicar.]

[Footnote 114: _i.e._ orthodox, right-thinking.]

[Footnote 115: Bruno refers to the Pythagorean doctrine, quoting the _Æneid_, vi. 724 ff.: _Principio c[oe]lum ... mens agitat molem_.]

[Footnote 116: _De Monade_ (_Op. Lat._ i. 2. p. 415).]

[Footnote 117: Doc. 17.]

[Footnote 118: Doc. 24. Venetian State Archives.]

[Footnote 119: Doc. 25. State Archives.]

[Footnote 120: Docs. 26, 27.]

[Footnote 121: Roman Documents, III.]

[Footnote 122: 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.]

[Footnote 123: It is officially stated that there are no further documents.]

[Footnote 124: Wagner's introduction to Bruno's _Opere Italiane_, p. 7.]

[Footnote 125: _Conferenza_, p. 86.]

[Footnote 126: For the part of this letter relative to Bruno, _v._ Bartholmèss (with French translation), Berti and Frith.]

[Footnote 127: 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).]

[Footnote 128: Berti, p. 326, n. 1.]

[Footnote 129: Pognisi, _Giordano Bruno e l'Archivio di San Giovanni Decollato_, Torino, 1891, and vol. iii. of _Op. Lat._ introd.]

[Footnote 130: _Metam._ xv.]

[Footnote 131: Cf. _Her. Fur._ 623. 20 ff.]

[Footnote 132: Lag. 564. 25.]

[Footnote 133: _E.g._ cf. _De Umbris_, p. 10 ff., and _Magia Math., Op. Lat._ iii. 5. 506.]

[Footnote 134: Lag. 141. 5.]

[Footnote 135: _Cena_, Lag. 125. 12 ff.]

[Footnote 136: Juvenal, i. 3. 300.]

[Footnote 137: Lag. 129. 7.]

[Footnote 138: Lag. 318. 5.]

[Footnote 139: Lag. 619. 20. Cf. also 700. 25, 717. 39.]

[Footnote 140: Lag. 718. 26.]

[Footnote 141: Lag. 223. 14 ff., cf. 242. 35, and _De Minimo_, bk. iii. 1.]

[Footnote 142: _De Minimo, Op. Lat._ i. 3, 135.]

[Footnote 143: In his _De Orbitis Planetarum_, 1801, Hegel "demonstrated" that the number of planets could not exceed seven. Before it appeared, Piazzi had discovered Ceres.]

[Footnote 144: _Art. Adv. Math. Epist. Ded._ (i. 3. 4).]

[Footnote 145: _Sig. Sig._ (ii. 2. 192.)]

[Footnote 146: Works published during Bruno's imprisonment, and posthumously.]

[Footnote 147: Cf. _Op. Lat._ vol. i. pt. 4. Also in Gfrörer.]

[Footnote 148: Cf. p. 67, l. 11.]

[Footnote 149: Brunnhofer (p. 81) suggests that the first part contains the exoteric, the second the esoteric teaching of Bruno. But as Tocco (_Opere Latine 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.]

[Footnote 150: _Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 333.]

[Footnote 151: _Vide_ Tocco, _Opere Inedite di G. B._ Napoli, 1891.]

[Footnote 152: _Op. cit._ p. 77.]

[Footnote 153: _Vide Op. Lat._ iii., Introduction by Vitelli; but according to Stölzle (_Archiv für 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.]

[Footnote 154: Under the heading "Time" (_de tempore_) there is a short treatise on Astrology.]

[Footnote 155: 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.]

[Footnote 156: Cf. _Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 61; ii. 3; i. 4. 39, 65, 69; i. 1. 256, etc.]

[Footnote 157: i. 4. 21; i. 1. 223; i. 1. 231.]

[Footnote 158: A compendium of Aristotle's _Physics_.]

[Footnote 159: _Op. Lat._ i. 4. 131 ff.]

[Footnote 160: (_De Immenso_, iii. 3), _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 340.]

[Footnote 161: Lag. 131.]

[Footnote 162: _Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 133.]

[Footnote 163: Lag. 239.]

[Footnote 164: _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 contentious," (_vide infra_, ch. 9).]

[Footnote 165: Lag. 256.]

[Footnote 166: _Ib._ 280.]

[Footnote 167: _Nov. Org._ i. 62.]

[Footnote 168: (_De l' Infinito_), Lag. 324.]

[Footnote 169: Lag. 231.]

[Footnote 170: _Ib._ 183. Cf. _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 282, 288.]

[Footnote 171: Cf. _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 96, 3. 26, 3. 271; i. 1. 291; i. 3. 26; iii. 70, etc.]

[Footnote 172: Lag. 282.]

[Footnote 173: _Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 196, and (_Her. Fur._) Lag. 722. 35.]

[Footnote 174: _Cena_, Lag. 237. 9. Cf. _Her. Fur._ Lag. 722. 35.]

[Footnote 175: Lag. 256. 25, 273. 25. Cf. _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 377.]

[Footnote 176: i. 1. 272.]

[Footnote 177: i. 2. 148.]

[Footnote 178: i. 3. 140.]

[Footnote 179: _Causa_, Lag. 247.]

[Footnote 180: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. 169.]

[Footnote 181: Cf. _Her. Fur._, Lag. 636. If not by Iamblichus, this work issued certainly from his school, to which Julian the Apostate belonged.]

[Footnote 182: _E.g. Op. Lat._ i. 1. 376.]

[Footnote 183: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 184: _Op. cit._]

[Footnote 185: _Op. Lat._ i. 2. 409.]

[Footnote 186: Lag. 532.]

[Footnote 187: _i.e._ creative or original.]

[Footnote 188: _Spaccio_, Lag. 533. Bruno was probably acquainted with the _De arte cabbalistica_ (1517) of Reuchlin the Platonist, and with Pico of Mirandula's _Cabalistarum 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; 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, corresponding to the chief virtues or qualities; next to these are the ideas or forms, then the world-souls, and last of all material things.]

[Footnote 189: _Causa_, Lag. 231.]

[Footnote 190: _Op. Lat._ i. 2. 196.]

[Footnote 191: _Ib._ ii. i. 48.]

[Footnote 192: Plotinus, _Enneads_, ii. 4. 4; cf. Bruno's _Causa_, Lag. 267.]

[Footnote 193: _Causa_, Lag. 271; cf. Plot. _Enn._ ii. 4. 3.]

[Footnote 194: i. 2. 117.]

[Footnote 195: _Vide_ Munk, _Mélanges de Philosophie juive et Arabe_, Paris, 1589; and _Dictionnaire des sciences Philosophiques_, Paris, 1844-52.]

[Footnote 196: Ibn Sina, 980-1037 /A.D./; cf. _Op. Lat._ iii. 458, 475.]

[Footnote 197: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 223, called by Bruno _Hispanus_, but really an Arabian, Ibn Badja,--d. 1138.]

[Footnote 198: A Jew, Ibn Gebirol, fl. 1050.]

[Footnote 199: Al Ghazzali, 1059-1111 /A.D./]

[Footnote 200: Cf. _Op. Lat._ iii. 696.]

[Footnote 201: _Vide_ Wittman, _Giord. Bruno's Beziehungen zu Avencebrol_ in the _Archiv für Geschichte der Phil._ 13. 2 (1900).]

[Footnote 202: _Causa_, Lag. 253; cf. 246, and _Op. Lat._ iii. 696.]

[Footnote 203: _Causa_, Lag. 265.]

[Footnote 204: Cf. Wittman, _loc. cit._]

[Footnote 205: _Cena_, Lag. 170.]

[Footnote 206: _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."]

[Footnote 207: A Latin translation of Averroes' _Commentaries_ was published in 1472, and one of his criticisms of Algazel (_Destructio destructionis_) in 1497 and in 1527.]

[Footnote 208: _Causa_, Lag. 271, and _Op. Lat._ i. 2. 411.]

[Footnote 209: i. 1. 370.]

[Footnote 210: _Causa_, Lag. 271: on Averroes cf. _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 221, 224, 337, 338, etc.]

[Footnote 211: _Her. Fur._ Lag. 677.]

[Footnote 212: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 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 Mathematica_, etc.]

[Footnote 213: i. 2. 415. Cf. _Sig. Sig._ ii. 2. 190, for a reputed miracle related of Saint Thomas.]

[Footnote 214: Cf. the ridicule in Lag. 361 and 563.]

[Footnote 215: _Causa_, Lag. 246.]

[Footnote 216: Tocco, _Fonti piu recenti_, etc., p. 538.]

[Footnote 217: Besides the several works on the Art of Reasoning, Lully had written also on theology and on medicine, and Bruno, in his (posthumous) _Medicina Lulliana_, gave a compendium of the latter group of writings.]

[Footnote 218: _De Lampade Combinatoria_, _Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 234.]

[Footnote 219: Faber Stapulensis (_c._ 1500), and Carolus Bovillus (_c._ 1470-1553). Both were rather followers of Cusanus.]

[Footnote 220: _Op. Lat_. ii. 2. 242.]

[Footnote 221: ii. 2. 61.]

[Footnote 222: _Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 329, 3. 297.]

[Footnote 223: _De Comp. Arch._ ii. 2. 42.]

[Footnote 224: i. 1. 17. On Cusanus _v._ Falckenberg, _Grundzüge der Philosophie des Nicolaus Cusanus_, 1880, Uebinger, _Philosophie des N. C._, 1880, and _Gotteslehre des N. C._, 1888, F. J. Clemens, _Giord. Bruno und Nikolaus von Cusa_, 1847, Scharpff, _Des N. von C. wichstigste Schriften_, 1862.]

[Footnote 225: _Infinito_, Lag. 348.]

[Footnote 226: Cf. Cusanus' _De docta ignorantia_.]

[Footnote 227: _Spaccio_, Lag. 420.]

[Footnote 228: _De docta ignorantia_, i. 7. _Alchoran_, ii. 7, 8.]

[Footnote 229: _Doct. ignor._ ii. 7.]

[Footnote 230: _De Possest._]

[Footnote 231: _Alchoran_, ii. 6.]

[Footnote 232: Cusanus, _De Ludo globi_, bk. i.]

[Footnote 233: Cusanus, _De Idiota_, iii. (_De Mente_, 9).]

[Footnote 234: Cusanus, _De Conjecturis_, i. 4.]

[Footnote 235: _Id. De Visione Dei_, 10.]

[Footnote 236: _Id. De Venatione Sapientiae._]

[Footnote 237: _De occulta philosophia._]

[Footnote 238: _De Vanitate Scientiarum._]

[Footnote 239: Tocco. _Fonti piu recenti_, etc. p. 534.]

[Footnote 240: Theophrastus Bombastes von Hohenheim, 1493-1541.]

[Footnote 241: Lag. 247.]

[Footnote 242: i. 1. 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 _Eremita_, which Paracelsus took, however, from his birthplace Einsiedeln, and to his well known and strongly expressed contempt for the learning of books.]

[Footnote 243: 1501-1576 /A.D./]

[Footnote 244: The first two books of the _De natura rerum_ were published in 1565.]

[Footnote 245: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 17.]

[Footnote 246: _Cena_, Lag. 124.]

[Footnote 247: Bruno praises and gives long extracts from Copernicus in the _De Immenso_, bk. iii. ch. 9.]

[Footnote 248: _De la Causa_, etc.]

[Footnote 249: Lag. 229.]

[Footnote 250: Lag. 229.]

[Footnote 251: _De la Causa, principio et uno_, 1584.]

[Footnote 252: Lag. 230.]

[Footnote 253: _Ib._ The terms correspond to Aristotle's [Greek: archê] and [Greek: aition], respectively; 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 manifestation of some such inward principle, rather than as a mechanical system to which the impulse was given from without.]

[Footnote 254: Lag. 231. 38. The _Intellectus_ is identified also with the Pythagorean world-mover (Verg. _Aeneid_, vi. 726); the "World's Eye" of the Orphic Poems; the "distinguisher" of Empedocles; the "Father and Progenitor of all things" of Plotinus.]

[Footnote 255: Lag. 232. 24.]

[Footnote 256: Lag. 232. 33 ff.]

[Footnote 257: On Perfection, _vide infra_, p. 199.]

[Footnote 258: Lag. 233. 27. Cf. Arist. _De Anima_, ii. 1.]

[Footnote 259: Cf. Arist. _De Anima_, ii. ch. 1 and 2.]

[Footnote 260: Lag. 238. 34.]

[Footnote 261: Cf. _Lucretius_.]

[Footnote 262: Lag. 202. 40.]

[Footnote 263: Cf. _e.g._ 238. 12, when the form or soul is said to be _one_ in all things, and differences are said to arise from the dispositions of _matter_.]

[Footnote 264: _Vide infra_, ch. 5.]

[Footnote 265: Lag. 240. 28.]

[Footnote 266: Lag. 242. 7.]

[Footnote 267: _Epist. Proëm._, Lag. 203. 19. When he wrote the _De Minimo_ 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 compositions of the forms or ideal types, and the varied dispositions of matter; and it is suggested that the latter of these may derive from the former.]

[Footnote 268: Lag. 246. 37.]

[Footnote 269: Lag. 248. 17. The apparent conflict between this and the preceding pages will resolve itself below.]

[Footnote 270: Lag. 249. 35.]

[Footnote 271: Pseudo-Timaeus, 94 A.]

[Footnote 272: Lag. 253. 11.]

[Footnote 273: Lag. 257, 258.]

[Footnote 274: Lag. 258-260.]

[Footnote 275: Lag. 261.]

[Footnote 276: Lag. 266.]

[Footnote 277: _Supra_, ch. i. Cf. Plotinus, _Ennead_, ii. 4. 4.]

[Footnote 278: Lag. 269.]

[Footnote 279: Lag. 268-271. Bruno refers here to Averroes, and especially to Plotinus, v. ch. i.]

[Footnote 280: Compare the ambiguity in Spinoza's definition of mind in relation to body.]

[Footnote 281: Lag. 273, 274.]

[Footnote 282: Lag. 277.]

[Footnote 283: Lag. 278. 4.]

[Footnote 284: Lag. pp. 278-281.]

[Footnote 285: Lag. 285. 35.]

[Footnote 286: Lag. 288. 5.]

[Footnote 287: Lag. 288, 289.]

[Footnote 288: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. 147. 1.]

[Footnote 289: _De Immenso: de l' Infinito: Acrotismus_, etc.]

[Footnote 290: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. p. 202.]

[Footnote 291: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. p. 203.]

[Footnote 292: _De Immenso_, bk. i. ch. 6.]

[Footnote 293: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. p. 222.]

[Footnote 294: P. 227.]

[Footnote 295: P. 231.]

[Footnote 296: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. p. 232. On _Space_, cf. _Acrot._ Art. 31, 33-37 (Vacuum, Ether, etc.), and _Infinito_, Lag. 365.]

[Footnote 297: P. 234.]

[Footnote 298: P. 235.]

[Footnote 299: Cf. _Infinito_, Lag. 322. 1 ff. for the argument.]

[Footnote 300: Bk. ii. ch. 2.; cf. _Infinito_, Dial. v., Lag. 387.]

[Footnote 301: _De Imm._ i. 1. 264; cf. _Inf._ 392. 15.]

[Footnote 302: Bk. ii. ch. 4 (267 ff.).]

[Footnote 303: Bk. ii. ch. 6.]

[Footnote 304: Ch. 7. (p. 278); cf. _Infinito_, Lag. 335 ff.]

[Footnote 305: _Vide infra_, ch. 5.]

[Footnote 306: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. p. 279.]

[Footnote 307: _Ib._ p. 281.]

[Footnote 308: Bk. ii. ch. 8 (p. 283); cf. _Op. Lat._ i. 4. 216, and _Infinito_, Lag. 344 ff. 338.]

[Footnote 309: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. p. 284.]

[Footnote 310: P. 285.]

[Footnote 311: Bk. ii. ch. 10. p. 293.]

[Footnote 312: Bk. ii. ch. 11.]

[Footnote 313: P. 300 ff.]

[Footnote 314: Bk. ii. ch. 12. 302 ff.]

[Footnote 315: Bk. ii. ch. 13.]

[Footnote 316: Cf. also _infra_, p. 199 ff.]

[Footnote 317: _De Imm._ bk. i. ch. 10. pp. 235-8; cf. _Infinito_, 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."]

[Footnote 318: _De Imm._ bk. i. ch. 11. p. 239; _Infin._ 314 f.]

[Footnote 319: _De Imm._ bk. i. ch. 11. p. 241.]

[Footnote 320: _Ib. Schol._ ch. 11. pp. 241, 242.]

[Footnote 321: P. 242 ff.]

[Footnote 322: Cf. _Infinito_, Lag. 316. 21.]

[Footnote 323: No. 13 states that the worlds could not interfere with one another, since space is infinite.]

[Footnote 324: No. 18 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.]

[Footnote 325: Bk. i. ch. 12.]

[Footnote 326: P. 245.]

[Footnote 327: _Op. Lat._ vol. i. pt. 2. p. 310.]

[Footnote 328: _Ib._, ch. x. p. 312 ff.]

[Footnote 329: Cf. _Op. Lat._ i. 2. p. 259.]

[Footnote 330: P. 260. On _Time_ cf. _Acrot._, Arts. 38-40.]

[Footnote 331: _Op. Lat._ i. 2. p. 274.]

[Footnote 332: _Op. Lat._ i. 2. p. 307.]

[Footnote 333: P. 309 ff.]

[Footnote 334: P. 311.]

[Footnote 335: P. 312. Cf. Fiorentino's _Telesio_, p. 85. On Perfection, and the Perfection of the Universe, cf. Bruno's _Acrot._, Arts. 17 and 51.]

[Footnote 336: Cf. Spinoza.]

[Footnote 337: Allusions to practices of the Black Art.]

[Footnote 338: _Op. Lat._ i. 2. p. 316.]

[Footnote 339: _De Immenso_, iii. ch. 1. (p. 313 ff.).]

[Footnote 340: P. 317.]

[Footnote 341: Bk. iii. ch. 2.]

[Footnote 342: Ch. 4. p. 341 ff.]

[Footnote 343: So Bruno explained the phases of the moon.]

[Footnote 344: Bk. vi. ch. 17. p. 210.]

[Footnote 345: Ch. 18. p. 218.]

[Footnote 346: _Ib._ p. 220. If the flow of change were arrested at any one point in Nature, it would ultimately be arrested throughout the whole.]

[Footnote 347: Bk. iv. ch. 1. (_Op. Lat._ i. 2. p. 6).]

[Footnote 348: P. 7.]

[Footnote 349: P. 8.]

[Footnote 350: P. 152.]

[Footnote 351: After Empedocles.]

[Footnote 352: _De Imm._ bk. iii. ch. 5.]

[Footnote 353: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. p. 353.]

[Footnote 354: P. 354.]

[Footnote 355: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. p. 329.]

[Footnote 356: 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."]

[Footnote 357: _Op. Lat._ i. 1.. 360.]

[Footnote 358: P. 362, cf. _supra._]

[Footnote 359: P. 369 (ch. 7)--

"Promptius utque magis quâvis pernice volucrum Versum quaque meent, immensumque aera findant Intima nempe animae vis concitat illa," etc. ]

[Footnote 360: P. 372.]

[Footnote 361: _De Imm._ bk. iv. ch. 3.]

[Footnote 362: Ch. 8 (p. 42 f.).]

[Footnote 363: Ch. 4, Schol. cf. bk. iv. ch. 13 (_Op. Lat._ i. 2. 67).]

[Footnote 364: _De Imm._ bk. vi. ch. 19.]

[Footnote 365: _Op. Lat._ i. 2. p. 230.]

[Footnote 366: 1531, 1532, 1572, 1577, 1585. (Bk. v. chs. 9 and 13.)]

[Footnote 367: _E.g. De Imm._ bk. iv. ch. 5.]

[Footnote 368: _Ib._ ch. 7.]

[Footnote 369: _De Imm._ bk. v. ch. 2 (p. 119).]

[Footnote 370: _Op. Lat._ i. 2. p. 147.]

[Footnote 371: _Cena_, Lag. 183. 30.]

[Footnote 372: Lag. 184. 35; _Acrot._ Art. 68; _Infinito_, 370. 29, 375. 6, 390. 34; _Acrot._ Art. 80 (i. 1. 189), etc.]

[Footnote 373: _De Imm._ bk. v. ch. 1.]

[Footnote 374: _Cena_, Lag. 185. 4.]

[Footnote 375: _Cabala_, p. 587. 23 ff.]

[Footnote 376: On movements of suns and earths, as determined by the soul, and the need of mutual sustenance, cf. _Acrot._ Arts. 65, 66, 67, 72.]

[Footnote 377: 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 continuous 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.]

[Footnote 378: _De Imm._ bk. iv. ch. 18.]

[Footnote 379: Cf. _Infinito_, 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._ 332. 15, and _De Imm._, bks. iv. and vi.; _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.]

[Footnote 380: _Acrotismus: De Minimo._]

[Footnote 381: Lag. p. 158.]

[Footnote 382: Lag. 164. 18.]

[Footnote 383: _Monadology_, § 70. Cf. also §§ 64, 66, 67-69.]

[Footnote 384: Lag. 332.]

[Footnote 385: Lag. 357. 10; cf. 334. 24, 359. 13, 393. 5, and _Her. Fur._ 738. 17.]

[Footnote 386: Lag. 367. 12, 375. 37.]

[Footnote 387: Lag. 455. 37.]

[Footnote 388: Contrast Tocco, _Opere Latine di G.B._, part 5.]

[Footnote 389: Fiorentino's Preface to _Op. Lat._ vol. i. p. xxviii.]

[Footnote 390: _Acrot. Cam._ Art. 42, p. 154.]

[Footnote 391: _Acrot. Cam._ Art. 65.]

[Footnote 392: _Vide De Min._ p. 211 (bk. ii. ch. 6).]

[Footnote 393: _De Min._ bk. i. ch. 9.]

[Footnote 394: _Ib. Schol._ (p. 170).]

[Footnote 395: Ch. 10.]

[Footnote 396: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. p. 209.]

[Footnote 397: This thought recurs in Leibniz.]

[Footnote 398: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. pp. 209-211.]

[Footnote 399: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. p. 208.]

[Footnote 400: P. 147. 1.]

[Footnote 401: P. 149. 3.]

[Footnote 402: _De Min._ bk. ii. ch. 3, pp. 191 ff.]

[Footnote 403: P. 195. 20.]

[Footnote 404: Ch. 4.]

[Footnote 405: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. p. 199. 15.]

[Footnote 406: P. 200. 20.]

[Footnote 407: P. 200. 28, 201. 4; cf. 223. 11.]

[Footnote 408: _De Min._ bk. ii. ch. 5.]

[Footnote 409: P. 203. 27.]

[Footnote 410: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. p. 207. 5 (cf. p. 302, bk. v. ch. 2).]

[Footnote 411: P. 208. 9.]

[Footnote 412: P. 207.]

[Footnote 413: _De Min._ bk. i. ch. 5.]

[Footnote 414: Arist. _Phys. Z._ 1. 231, a 23.]

[Footnote 415: _De Min._ p. 153. 22 ff.]

[Footnote 416: P. 158.]

[Footnote 417: _De Min._ P. 173. 9; cf. 173. 7, 180.]

[Footnote 418: P. 160.]

[Footnote 419: P. 161.]

[Footnote 420: P. 162.]

[Footnote 421: _De Min._ i. ch. 8.]

[Footnote 422: Ch. 11. p. 176.]

[Footnote 423: Ch. 12.]

[Footnote 424: Ch. 2. p. 140.]

[Footnote 425: _De Min._ i. ch. 14. p. 184. 23.]

[Footnote 426: ii, ch. 8. p. 214.]

[Footnote 427: iii. ch. 12. p. 267.]

[Footnote 428: Lasswitz, p. 26, note, where it is said the eighth triangle and the sixth circle are equal.]

[Footnote 429: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. p. 217. 9.]

[Footnote 430: Pp. 219, 221.]

[Footnote 431: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. p. 243 (bk. iii. ch. 3).]

[Footnote 432: P. 245 (bk. iii. ch. 4.), cf. p. 323 (bk. v. c. 9), 324. (c. 10).]

[Footnote 433: P. 306 (bk. v. ch. 5.).]

[Footnote 434: P. 270. 14.]

[Footnote 435: Cf. _Art. adv. Math._ ii. The figures there are slightly different, and named _Figurae Mentis_, _Intellectus_, _Amoris_.]

[Footnote 436: Lag. 407. 25.]

[Footnote 437: Lag. p. 407. 7.]

[Footnote 438: P. 406. 29.]

[Footnote 439: Lag. 427. 19.]

[Footnote 440: The constellations as typifying vices were to be expelled from the heavens and replaced by the personified virtues.]

[Footnote 441: Lag. p. 445.]

[Footnote 442: Lag. p. 446. 1 ff., cf. 447. "_Questa fetida Sporcaria del mondo_," and 467.]

[Footnote 443: P. 462. 30.]

[Footnote 444: P. 468. 25.]

[Footnote 445: 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.]

[Footnote 446: _Cabala_, p. 565.]

[Footnote 447: Cf. the poem in the _Cabala_, p. 564. 25, _O' Sant' Asinita_, and _Cena_, Lag. 147. 21 (the Ark of Noah), etc.]

[Footnote 448: 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.]

[Footnote 449: From Lag. p. 439.]

[Footnote 450: Cf. also p. 488. Another list of virtues is in the eulogium on Julius in the _Oratio Consolatoria_ (_Op. Lat._ i. 1. 47 ff.). There also the constellations typify different virtues.]

[Footnote 451: 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. Lat._ ii. 2. 257).]

[Footnote 452: Lag. 489. 18 (_Sub Lyra_). They are _Arithmetica_, _Geometria_, _Musica_, _Logica_, _Poesia_, _Astrologia_, _Physica_, _Metaphysica_, _Ethica_.]

[Footnote 453: Lag. p. 461. 11 ff.]

[Footnote 454: Pp. 461, 462.]

[Footnote 455: In contrast with _St. Luke_ 15. 7.]

[Footnote 456: Reading _conversation_ for _conservation_.]

[Footnote 457: Lag. pp. 464, 465.]

[Footnote 458: Lag. pp. 465, 466.]

[Footnote 459: P. 527.]

[Footnote 460: Pp. 520, 521.]

[Footnote 461: _Op. cit._ p. 794.]

[Footnote 462: Compare the picture of Avarice in _Spaccio_, pp. 477, 478, with Shakespeare's _Shylock_.]

[Footnote 463: _Cabala_, p. 576. 31.]

[Footnote 464: P. 500. 40.]

[Footnote 465: Cf. p. 535. 4, and 541. 35,--"_Escremento de l' Egitto_," which may not mean more than outgrowth or offshoot of Egypt, although it has been interpreted otherwise.]

[Footnote 466: P. 542. 18.]

[Footnote 467: _Spaccio_, p. 526. 11; Clemens' translation (_op. cit._ p. 172) gives this saying an unnecessarily sinister meaning.]

[Footnote 468: _De Vinculis in genere_ (_Op. Lat._ iii. p. 697. 26).]

[Footnote 469: Lag. p. 503. 20.]

[Footnote 470: 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."]

[Footnote 471: Cf. _Infinito_, p. 398. 16.]

[Footnote 472: Cf. _De Imm._ vii. 16 (_Op. Lat._ i. 2. p. 278).]

[Footnote 473: Lag. p. 507. 6.]

[Footnote 474: P. 507. 14.]

[Footnote 475: _Vide infra_, ch. vii., _re_ transmigration.]

[Footnote 476: Lag. p. 586. 11.]

[Footnote 477: Lag. p. 586. 35 ff.]

[Footnote 478: _Ib._ p. 469. 7.]

[Footnote 479: _Sextus Math._ xi. 51-58. Crantor was one of the Old Academy, and wrote a commentary on the _Timaeus_, 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.]

[Footnote 480: Lag. p. 487, 488.]

[Footnote 481: P. 492 (_Cassiopoeia_).]

[Footnote 482: P. 493.]

[Footnote 483: _Vide_ Lag. pp. 457 ff.]

[Footnote 484: _Vide supra_, ch. 2. and cf. _Cabala_, Lag. 578. 35.]

[Footnote 485: A reminiscence of Aristotle's [Greek: phronêsis].]

[Footnote 486: Lag. 458. 459.]

[Footnote 487: Lag. 459. 460.]

[Footnote 488: There is a mingling, in Bruno's use of this word, of meanings derived from [Greek: hêrôs], and from Plato's [Greek: erôs].]

[Footnote 489: Lag. 717. 39 ff.]

[Footnote 490: Lag. 634. 4.]

[Footnote 491: 634. 22.]

[Footnote 492: Lag. 635.]

[Footnote 493: 649, 650.]

[Footnote 494: 626, 20 _f._]

[Footnote 495: Lag. 639. 22 ff.; cf. _Sig. Sig._ § 48, for the first kind of furor (_Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 191).]

[Footnote 496: Lag. 672. 1.]

[Footnote 497: Cf. the Sonnet on p. 631:--

Amor per cui tant' alto il ver discerno, Ch' apre le porte di diamante nere, Per gl' occhi entra il mio nume, et per vedere Nasce, vive, si nutre, ha regno eterno, Fa scorger--quant' ha 'l ciel, terr' et inferno. ]

[Footnote 498: Lag. 628. 18.]

[Footnote 499: Lag. 639.]

[Footnote 500: Lag. 672. 29.]

[Footnote 501: 646. 2 ff.]

[Footnote 502: Lag. 646, 647.]

[Footnote 503: 647. 34 ff.; cf. the Sonnet (Tansillo's) on p. 648:--

Poi che spiegat' ho' l' ali al bel desio, Quanto piu sott' il pie l' aria mi scorgo, Piu le veloci penne al vento porgo, Et spreggio il mondo, et vers' il ciel m' invio.

* * * * *

Fendi sicur le nubi, et muor contento; S' il ciel si illustre morte ne destina. ]

[Footnote 504: _Alle selve i mastini e i' veltri slaccia Il grovan Atteon_, etc., p. 651.]

[Footnote 505: Lag. 651, 652.]

[Footnote 506: 653. 6.]

[Footnote 507: Lag. 654, 655.]

[Footnote 508: 658. 16.]

[Footnote 509: 731. 9 ff.]

[Footnote 510: _E.g._ darkness is _privatively_ infinite, although it has a limit in light, a positive something.]

[Footnote 511: _E.g._ light is _positively_ infinite; its limit--darkness--is privation.]

[Footnote 512: Lag. 731.]

[Footnote 513: Lag. 662, 663.]

[Footnote 514: 701. 30 ff.]

[Footnote 515: Lag. 732. 23; the terms correspond to [Greek: dynamis] and [Greek: energeia], or [Greek: hylê] and [Greek: eidos], respectively.]

[Footnote 516: 647. 7.]

[Footnote 517: Lag. 744. 1 ff.]

[Footnote 518: 696. 24; cf. 681. 22.]

[Footnote 519: 705. 35.]

[Footnote 520: 716. 14.]

[Footnote 521: Lag. 663. 36; cf. 666. 5.]

[Footnote 522: P. 680. 2 ff.]

[Footnote 523: Cf. also _Sigillus 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 contempt 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.]

[Footnote 524: Lag. 700. 35; cf. 681. 19.]

[Footnote 525: P. 700. 14, 701. 4 ff.; cf. also 710. 11. The divine beauty excludes the possibility of our loving in its stead any other object. Also 713. 30.]

[Footnote 526: _Op. Lat._, ii. 2. 195.]

[Footnote 527: Lag. 704. 10.]

[Footnote 528: Lag. 699. 3.]

[Footnote 529: P. 742. 24; cf. also 723. 28 and 724. 17.]

[Footnote 530: Lag. 741. 14.]

[Footnote 531: _Op. Lat._ iii. 158.]

[Footnote 532: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. 4 (Letter to Rudolph II., prefixed to the _Art. adv. Math._).]

[Footnote 533: Lag. 452. 3 ff.]

[Footnote 534: Cf. Lucretius, ii. 1093 ff.]

[Footnote 535: Lag. 454. 6.]

[Footnote 536: Lag. 455. 35. Cf. _De Immenso_, ii. 13. 310, 311.]

[Footnote 537: Lag. 456. 7.]

[Footnote 538: Cf. the mockery of _Momus_ in the _Spaccio_ (_sub Orion_, Lag. p. 543).]

[Footnote 539: _Sig. Sig. Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 190.]

[Footnote 540: _Orat._ Consol. _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 51; cf. i. 3. 4.]

[Footnote 541: Cf. Lucretius, ii. 646: "_Omnis enim per se divom natura necessest_," etc.]

[Footnote 542: Lag. 463. 464.]

[Footnote 543: _Cena_, Lag. 169. 17 ff.; cf. Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico politicus_, esp. ch. 14 and 15, and preface, § 24: "Scripturam rationem absolute liberam relinquere et nihil cum philosophia commune habere."]

[Footnote 544: Cf. what is said of the danger of preaching determinism to the many, in _Inf._, Lag., 317. 11, and _Her. Fur._, Lag. 619. 20.]

[Footnote 545: Giordano Bruno's, _Weltanschauung_, etc., pp. 23, 24.]

[Footnote 546: _Cena_, Lag. 171, 172.]

[Footnote 547: _Vide_ Berti, Docs. xi. and xii.]

[Footnote 548: Comp. _Arch. art. Lull._, _Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 42.]

[Footnote 549: _Op. Lat._ ii. 2. 78 (preface to _Triginta Sigilli_); cf. i. 1. 82 (_Acrotismus_), and the _Spaccio_ (_supra_, p. 253).]

[Footnote 550: _Causa_, Lag. 267. 7.]

[Footnote 551: Lag. 693. 22.]

[Footnote 552: Cf. the passage in the _Infinito_ referred to above, Lag. 317. 11.]

[Footnote 553: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. 6.]

[Footnote 554: _E.g._ by Sigwart. Cf. _supra_, p. 75.]

[Footnote 555: _Summa_, _Op. Lat._ i. 4. 100, 101 (sub. _Evidentia_).]

[Footnote 556: _Loc. cit._ p. 99, _sub Fides_.]

[Footnote 557: _Ib._ s. _Auctoritas_; cf. _Causa_, Lag. 271. 40.]

[Footnote 558: _E.g. Inf._ Lag. 378. 16.]

[Footnote 559: Cf. Tocco, _Conferenza_, p. 50 ff.]

[Footnote 560: Lag. 529 ff.]

[Footnote 561: _Spaccio_, Lag. p. 530.]

[Footnote 562: _Spaccio_, 531.]

[Footnote 563: _De Immenso_, _Op. Lat._ i. 2. 172.]

[Footnote 564: _De Immenso_, _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.]

[Footnote 565: Cf. _Spaccio_, Lag. 411. 9; _Her. Fur._ 662. 22; _Cantus Circaeus_ (_Op. Lat._ ii. 1); _De Minimo_ (i. 3. 207); _De Monade_ (i. 2. 327), and iii. 261, 653.]

[Footnote 566: Cf. Plato's _Phaedrus_, § 61.]

[Footnote 567: _Cabala_, Lag. 584.]

[Footnote 568: Lag. 242. 3.]

[Footnote 569: _Causa_, Dial. 4; esp. Lag. 265, 38 ff.]

[Footnote 570: _Cena_, Lag. 128. 5; cf. _Spaccio_, 533. 16, 539. 2, and _Op. Lat._ i. 3. 146.]

[Footnote 571: Lag. 164. 18 ff.]

[Footnote 572: Lag. 202. 39 ff., 238. 27 ff., 303. 17, 317. 7, 409. 13, 547. 16; _Op. Lat._ i. 3. 142.]

[Footnote 573: _De Umbris_ (ii. 1. 46).]

[Footnote 574: _Inf._ 303. 21.]

[Footnote 575: Lag. 66. 7.]

[Footnote 576: Cf. Bartholmèss (vol. i. p. 124), who refers to Cardan and Campanella as offering a similar "proof" of immortality.]

[Footnote 577: _De Imm._, _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 205.]

[Footnote 578: _De Minimo_, 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.]

[Footnote 579: Bruno "inclines" to this view only in one of his latest works, the _Lampas_ (vol. iii. 59), but it is clearly implied in the _De Minimo_.]

[Footnote 580: _De Minimo_, 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; for the stars I call gods in a secondary sense; 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. 61 (_De Immenso_, iv. 11), and i. 2. 399 (_De Monade_).]

[Footnote 581: _Lampas_, _Op. Lat._ iii. 48; cf. _Her. Fur._ Lag. 741. 15.]

[Footnote 582: _Her. Fur._ Lag. 721. 33.]

[Footnote 583: _Lampas_, _Op. Lat._ iii. 21; cf. 23.]

[Footnote 584: _Ib._ p. 108.]

[Footnote 585: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 205.]

[Footnote 586: _Op. Lat._ i. 2. 51; i. 1. 68.]

[Footnote 587: i. 2. 151.]

[Footnote 588: i. 1. 241.]

[Footnote 589: _De Immenso_, bk. i. ch. 10-13.]

[Footnote 590: _Op. Lat._ i. 1. 68, etc.]

[Footnote 591: 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."]

[Footnote 592: _Summa, Op. Lat._ i. 4. 117. It does not imply their formal identity.]

[Footnote 593: _Art. adv. Math. Op. Lat._ i. 3. 16.]

[Footnote 594: i. 2. 346.]

[Footnote 595: i. 4. 73.]

[Footnote 596: i. 4. 95.]

[Footnote 597: For Bruno's revolt against the mystical in Neoplatonism, cf. _De Imm._ v. 1. 1 (_Op. Lat._ i. 2. 118), and cf. viii. p. 298 ff. 313; _De Mon._, p. 410.]

[Footnote 598: _Op. Lat._ i. 4. 79.]

[Footnote 599: _Ib._ 83.]

[Footnote 600: _Ib._ 85.]

[Footnote 601: _Ib._ 86.]

[Footnote 602: _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._]

[Footnote 603: _Op. Lat._ iii. 42 (_Lampas_), cf. i. 4. 85, 86.]

[Footnote 604: i. 3. 146, 147 (_De Min._)]

[Footnote 605: _Summa, Op. Lat._ i. 4. 93, 95.]

[Footnote 606: _Lampas, Op. Lat._ iii. 45.]

[Footnote 607: "Scepsius," behind whose authority Dicson shelters, is, according to G. P., Dicson himself.]

[Footnote 608: Ellis and Spedding, ii. 13.]

[Footnote 609: _Historia Ventorum_, Ellis and Spedding, ii, p. 51; cf. _Nov. Org._ ii. 12. The source of the Mount Athos legend is certainly Aristotle's _Problemata_ (xxvi. 39), while that for Olympus is either Solinus, or more probably Bruno, in the _Cena de le Cenere_ (Lag. 167. 13). Bruno, on his part, refers to Alexander of Aphrodisias; it is not to be found, however, in Alexander's commentary upon the Meteorologica (E. and S. refer to Ideler, i. 148).]

[Footnote 610: _Nov. Org._ i. aph. 45.]

[Footnote 611: _Ib._ ii. 9.]

[Footnote 612: _De Augm._ i. p. 466; cf. Bruno's _Cena_, 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.]

[Footnote 613: _De Augm._ i. 479, and Bruno, _passim_.]

[Footnote 614: _Nov. Org._ i. ax. 84; cf. 77 (the argument _ex consensu_), 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"; and to Casmann's _Problemata Marina_ (1596), as well as to Bruno's _Cena_ (1584).]

[Footnote 615: _Nov. Org._ i. 89.]

[Footnote 616: _Ib._ i. 65.]

[Footnote 617: _Nov. Org._ i. 63; cf. also 71.]

[Footnote 618: _Ib._ i. 45.]

[Footnote 619: _Nov. Org._ ii. 15. It was a scholastic distinction; E. and S. illustrate it from Thomas Aquinas' _Summa Theologiae_, I^{ma}, _q._ 45 (E. and S. i. p. 259).]

[Footnote 620: _Ib._ ii. 1.]

[Footnote 621: _E.g. ib._ i. 66, where are added "the appetite a thing has to return to its 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, 602; and Bruno, _supra_.]

[Footnote 622: _Nov. Org._ ii. 8.]

[Footnote 623: _Vide_ Bacon's Essay on the Vicissitude of Things; and for his Atomism, the _Historia Densi et Rari_ (E. and S. vol. ii.), and _Cogit. de Natura Rerum_ (_ib._ vol. iii.).]

[Footnote 624: _Nov. Org._ i. 48.]

[Footnote 625: _De Augm._ vi. ch. 2.]

[Footnote 626: _Ib._ v. ch. 5.]

[Footnote 627: Berti, _Vita di G. B._ p. 9.]

[Footnote 628: _Vide_ Cay von Brockdorff, _Galilei's Philosophische Mission_ (Vierteljahrschrift für Wiss. Philos. und Sociol., 1902).]

[Footnote 629: _Vide_ the _Discorsi_: and cf. the truculent Brunnhofer: "_Galileo, der Bruno Zugleich ausbeutete und ignorirte_" (_op. cit._, p. 69).]

[Footnote 630: _Vide_ Sigwart, _Kleine Schriften_, vol. i., on Kepler: he refers to _Opera_, i. p. 688, and vi. p. 136.]

[Footnote 631: _Fiorentino_, 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 Cæsare Vanino, Philosopho, Theologo, ae Juris utriusque Doctor. Lugduni, 1615." With his remark compare Campanella, _Quidam Nolanus_ (Metaphys. ii. 1. 5).]

[Footnote 632: _Censura Philosophiae Cartesianae_, 1689.]

[Footnote 633: _Op. Lat._ i. 3. 4.]

[Footnote 634: _Contre l'impiété des désistes, athées et libertins de ce temps_ (1624, p. 229, 234, etc.).]

[Footnote 635: _Vide_ Bartholmèss, i. pp. 257, 259. Descartes, like Galilei, was careful not to prejudice himself in the eyes of the Church. For Gassendi, _v._ Gentzken, _Hist. Phil._, p. 154.]

[Footnote 636: _Exercitationes paradoxicae adversus Aristoteleos._]

[Footnote 637: 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 _Ethica_ of Spinoza.]

[Footnote 638: Spinoza's _Neuentdeckter Tractat von Gott, dem Menschen, und dessen Glückseligkeit_, Gotha, 1866, and his translation of this, _Kurzer Tractat_, with introduction and notes. Tübingen, 1870.]

[Footnote 639: _Die Beiden Ersten Phasen des Spinozischen Pantheismus._ Leipzig, 1868.]

[Footnote 640: Moritz Carrière, _Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit_, p. 470.]

[Footnote 641: Cf. Tocco, _Conferenza_, p. 15; Sigwart, _Neuentdeckter Tractat_, pp. 110-113.]

[Footnote 642: _E.g._ Bruno's _Acrot._ (_Op. Lat._ i. 1, 108).]

[Footnote 643: _Short Tractate_, ch. i. § 9, and Bruno's _Causa_, Dial. v. Sigwart, _Neuent. Tract._, pp. 115, 116.]

[Footnote 644: "_Il desio di conservarsi_" 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.]

[Footnote 645: Sigwart, _Neuent. Tract._, pp. 120-124.]

[Footnote 646: _Ib._ p. 129.]

[Footnote 647: Cf. Carrière. _Op. cit._ p. 471 ff.]

[Footnote 648: _Thesauri Epistolici la Croziani_, 1746; Hansch, _Prin. Philos. Leibn._, 1728; Thes. ix., xxxi., lxxi. Cf. Steffens, Clemens, Dühring, Brunnhofer, _op. cit._, and also in G.B.'s _Lehre vom Kleinsten, als die Quelle der prä-establirten Harmonie von Leibniz_, 1890; also Tocco, etc.]

[Footnote 649: _Ein Beitrag zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der Leibnizschen Philosophie_ (1890), v. pp. 197 ff.]

[Footnote 650: In Dutens, v. 492; cf. also a letter of 1st May (p. 493).]

[Footnote 651: In Dutens, v. 385 (June 1712), and v. 369.]

[Footnote 652: It appears that the term _Monas Monadum_ used by Bruno of God does not occur in Leibniz at all.]

[Footnote 653: 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. 11 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).]

[Footnote 654: Bartholmèss, i. pp. 261, 262.]

[Footnote 655: _Vide Quarterly Review_, October 1902: "Giordano Bruno in England," and the biography of Carew in _Encycl. Britan._ (by R. Adamson).]

[Footnote 656: Cf. Bartholmèss, i. p. 263.]

[Footnote 657: _Vide_ Rixner und Siber, _op. cit._ heft v. p. 234.]

[Footnote 658: Janius Junius Toland (1669-1722); v. Leslie Stephen's _English Thought_, etc., vol. i. ch. 3.]

[Footnote 659: _Vide Collection of several pieces of Mr. John Toland, with some memoirs of his life and writings_, London (1726), vol. i.]

[Footnote 660: 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 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"!]

[Footnote 661: _Vide Toland's Miscellaneous Works_, London (1747), vol. i.]

[Footnote 662: _Acta Philosophorum_ (1715 ff.), parts iii. ix. xi. xv., cf. Zimmermann in _Mus. Helvet._ T. v.]

[Footnote 663: _Kurze Fragen aus der Phil. Hist._ (1736), and _Hist. Crit._ (1742-1744).]

[Footnote 664: Cf. his _Werke_, t. iv. pt. 2.]

[Footnote 665: Cf. Carrière, _op. cit._ p. 475.]

[Footnote 666: Brunnhofer has suggested an active influence of Bruno upon Goethe--_v._ Göthe--_Jahrbuch_ (1886), Göthe's _Bildkraft_ (1890), Leipzig; also Carrière, p. 487.]

[Footnote 667: _Geschichte des neueren Philosophie_, 6 vols., Göttingen (1800-1805), vol. 2.]

[Footnote 668: _History of Philosophy_, 11 vols. (1798-1819), vol. 9, pp. 372-429.]

[Footnote 669: _Beiträge_, vii. 4 and xi. 1.]

[Footnote 670: 2 vols., Paris, 1846, 1847.]

[Footnote 671: 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.]

[Footnote 672: _Op. cit._, _Vorrede_, xi. A bibliography of the more recent works on Bruno is given at the beginning of this volume.]