CHAPTER III

THE INFINITE UNIVERSE--THE MIRROR OF GOD[289]

In the contemplation of the infinite, writes Bruno, man attains his highest good. All things aspire to the end for which they are ordained, and the more perfect its nature the more nobly and effectively does each aspire. Man alone, however, as endowed with a twofold nature, pursues a twofold good,--"on the boundary line of eternity and time, between the archetypal world and the copy, the intelligible and the sensible, participating in either substance."[290] Human effort can find satisfaction in none but the highest and first truth and goodness. Neither our intellect nor our will ever rests. It is clear therefore that their end lies not in particular goods or truths which lead us on from one to another and to another, but in universal good and truth, outside of and beyond which no good or truth exists. So long as we believe that any truth is left to know, or any good to gain, we seek always further truth, desire always further good. The end of our inquiry, therefore, and of our effort cannot be in a truth or in a good that is limited. In each and all is the desire in-born to become all things. Such infinite desire implies the existence in reality of that which will satisfy it. If "Universal Nature" or Spirit is _able_ to satisfy the appetite of each "particular nature" or mode of itself, and that of itself as a whole, then the understanding and desire which are innate, inseparable from and co-substantial with each and all shall not be in vain, nor look hopelessly to a false and impossible end. Again, were universal nature and the efficient cause content with finite truth and good, they would not satisfy the infinite aspiration of particular things. It is true that even the desire for continuance of our present life is not satisfied; a particular mode of matter cannot realise all "forms" or ideas at once, but only in succession and one by one; it knows and therefore desires only that which is present to it at any given time: by force of nature, therefore, it comes in its ignorance (which arises from the "contraction" of the form to this or that particular matter and the limitation of matter by this or that form) to desire to be _always_ that which it _now_ is. The wise soul, however, will not fear death, will indeed sometimes wish for it, since there awaits every substance eternity of duration, immensity of space, and the realisation of all being. "Whatever the good be for which a man strives, let him turn his eyes to the heavens and the worlds; there is spread before him a picture, a book, a mirror, in which he may behold, read, contemplate the imprint (_vestigium_), the law, and the reflection of the highest good--and with his sensible ears drink in the highest harmony, and raise himself as by a ladder, according to the grades of the forms of things, to the contemplation of another, the highest world."[291] The contemplation of the extended infinite and "explicate" or unfolded nature is thus only a means by which we may rise to the contemplation of the infinite in itself, "implicate" nature, God. "It is no frivolous or futile contemplation, but one most weighty and worthy of the perfect man, which we pursue, when we seek the splendour, the fusion, and the intercommunication of divinity and of nature not in an Egyptian, Syrian, Greek or Roman individual, not in food, drink, or any ignoble matter, with the gaping many, but in the august palace of the all-powerful, in the immeasurable space of the Ether, in the infinite potency of twofold nature, all-becoming and all-creating. So from the eternal vast and immeasurable effect in visible things, we comprehend the eternal and the immeasurable majesty and goodness. Let us then turn our eyes to the omniform image of the omniform God, and gaze upon the living and mighty reflection of Him."

The three characteristics of the universe as a mirror of God which Bruno sought to drive home to the minds of men were its infinite extent, the infinite number of its parts, and its uniformity, or the similarity of its constituent elements throughout its whole extent. His illustrations and his arguments would in many cases cause a smile if they were put forward seriously at the present day, but no absurdities can outbalance his enthusiasm, the readiness and thoroughness of his polemic against Aristotle and the old cosmology, and the fertility of imagination by which he is able to look, and to make others look, at things from his new, and therefore, at first, confusing point of view.

[Sidenote: The universe infinite.]

Bruno's arguments rest partly on inferences from sense-knowledge, partly on the principle of sufficient reason. Thus the infinity of extent is evidenced, first, by the teaching of sense, in the constant change which our circle of vision undergoes as we move from one place to another. There always appears to be an ultimate limit, but no sooner do we move than the limit is seen to have been only apparent; so, it may be inferred, could we transfer ourselves with our senses to any of the distant stars, we should still seem to ourselves to be in the centre of a closed sphere,--the very same appearance which is presented to us on this earth.

Aristotle's theory of the limitation of space by the ultimate sphere of the heavens was open to objections, many of which were raised in the early schools. The "subtle Averroes" had endeavoured to avoid some of these by the doctrine that beyond this outer sphere is the divine being, the eternal self-sufficient Mind.[292] "But how," asks Bruno, "can body be bounded by that which is not body? The divine nature is no less nor in any other manner _within_ the whole than _without_; it is neither place nor in place."[293] Space therefore is always bounded by space, body by body, that is, each is infinite in extent. Were divinity that which bounds space, it would itself be space under another name.[294] Aristotle's theory implied that the universe as a whole was not in any place or space. The "place" of each body, he had said, is the containing surface of the sphere above it; the outermost sphere, therefore, as there is no other beyond it, is itself uncontained and without place. The theory implied also the identity of body and space, and was the ground of Aristotle's rejection of the vacuum in nature. For a truer conception of Space, Bruno turned to an earlier commentator (or group of commentators--"Philoponus") on Aristotle, who defined it as "a continuous physical quantity in three dimensions, in which the magnitude of bodies is contained, in nature before and apart from all bodies, receiving all indifferently, beyond all conditions of action and passion, not mixing with things, impenetrable, without form or place."[295] It is called _physical_, because it can not be separated from the existence of natural things. It is itself not contained, because it equals with its dimensions those of body as the transparency of a crystal has the same dimensions with the crystal itself. Neither body nor space can be thought of the one apart from the other.[296] Granted the infinity of space, that of matter necessarily follows by an inverse of the principle of sufficient reason:--for there is no reason, according to Bruno, why this small part alone of space, where our earth is, should be filled; the eternal operation is not distinct from the eternal power, nor could it be the will of God to cramp nature, which is the hand of the all-powerful, his force, act, reason, word, voice, order and will.[297] "There is one matter, one power, one space, one efficient cause, God and Nature, everywhere equally, and everywhere powerful.--We insult the infinite cause when we say that it may be the cause of a finite effect; to a finite effect it can have neither the name nor the relation of an efficient."[298]

The corresponding argument from the capacity of our human imagination to think always of a greater than any given magnitude, _i.e._ its inability to rest short of the infinite, is expanded elsewhere. Our imaginative faculty is the _umbra_ or shadow of nature; its power, therefore, of adding quantity to quantity, _ad infinitum_, must have something in nature to which it corresponds; nature does not give a faculty for which there is no satisfaction. There is then in truth an infinite universe, such as our imagination demands. Bruno notices the objection that on this theory anything whatever might be said about the universe, _e.g._ that it is infinite man, since one can imagine a human form filling the universe; and he replies, "it _is_ infinite man, or infinite ass, or infinite tree, each and all, since in the infinite all particular things are one and the same."[299]

[Sidenote: Aristotle.]

[Sidenote: 1. The _primum mobile_.]

[Sidenote: 2. The elements.]

[Sidenote: 3. The whole and its parts.]

The arguments we have traced are:--(1) What appears to be a limit to our senses always proves to be imaginary, when we are able to test it, therefore we may infer that it is imaginary in other cases; (2) the very notion of space, implying that it has neither form nor place, means that it is infinite, limitless; (3) we cannot imagine a portion of space than which there is not another greater, and so _ad infinitum:_ but reality cannot fall short of thought, therefore space is infinite. The arguments of Aristotle against the infinity of the world are taken up in detail in the second book of the _De Immenso_. As the controversy, however important at the time, has lost much of its interest for us, we need only give a brief sketch of its main lines. The first argument was drawn from the assumption of an ultimate sphere or _primum mobile_ which moved about the earth as a centre.[300] It was clear that if the universe were infinite the radii of this sphere would be infinitely prolonged, and therefore the termini of any two given radii at an infinite distance one from another. The motion of the sphere would thus be inconceivable, for it would require infinite time in which to pass from one point to another. The answer of Bruno was that the universe as a whole was not moveable at all, nor had it any centre; only its parts were moved and each of these had its own relative and finite centre. The apparent motion of the sphere was due to the real movement of the earth about its axis. A similar answer was given to the argument from the movements of bodies according to their elements. As to us on the earth, the earth appears to be the centre of the universe, so to the inhabitants of the moon, the moon will appear to be such. Matter rising from the earth to the moon would appear to the inhabitants of the latter to fall. These distinctions were relative to the finite worlds, but might not be referred to the whole universe. As the earth is one world, the moon another, so each has its own centre, each its own _up_ and _down_: nor can these differences be assigned absolutely to the whole and its parts together, but only relatively to the position and condition of the latter.[301] In his _third_ argument Aristotle sought to prove that infinite body in general was impossible.[302] If the whole is infinite its simple elements must be so also. These must be either of an infinite number of kinds, different from one another, or of a finite number of kinds, or all of the same kind. But the first of the alternatives is impossible on the _a priori_ ground that each element must have a special kind of movement corresponding to it, and the kinds of movement are actually few in number; the second and third, because the movement of the elements should then be infinite, whereas in the actual universe motion is limited both in centre and circumference. The arguments, however, do not apply to Bruno's theory of the universe. Motion is always from one definite point to another; we do not set out from Italy in order to go on _ad infinitum_, but to go to some definite point. He does not, as Epicurus did, regard all minima as in infinite motion downwards through the universe; there is no down, no centre, no up, all is simply and generally in flux. It is not the elements that are innumerable in kind, but the composite bodies, the stars, which are constituted by them; and of these the parts move about their natural body, as the parts of the earth towards the earth, and those of the moon toward the moon in their own regions; all motion is therefore limited,--each world has, as it were, _margins_ of its own. The idea that if any of the elements, as fire or water, were infinite, there would be infinite lightness or gravity, and hence that the universe would move as a whole upwards or downwards, is equally at fault. To the universe as a whole the terms heavy and light do not apply, but only to its parts, the finite and determinate bodies consisting of finite and determinate elements. These elements, whether they be taken as of one or more kinds, since they cannot move outside of the universe, must have finite movements.

[Sidenote: 4. Action between the infinite and the finite.]

The fourth argument[303] was based upon the impossibility of action between an infinite body and a second body whether finite or infinite. An infinite cannot act upon a finite because the action would necessarily be timeless. Were it in time we could then find a finite body which in the same time would produce the same effect; but there can be no such equality between the finite and the infinite. Similarly action between two infinites would occur in infinite time; in other words, would not take place at all. The conclusion is that neither fire nor earth nor any of the elements can be infinite in quantity. Bruno suggests, in the first place,[304] that a change may be produced timelessly; thus if a body in a large circle cover a certain space in the _minimum_ of time, a body in a smaller circle will cover a less space in _no_ time, for nothing can be smaller than the minimum.[305] In the second place, no action of the whole or effect upon the whole exists, it is only the finite bodies within it, each with its finite force, that act upon one another. Even if two infinite bodies, over against one another, were supposed, their action would not be of one whole upon another, but of the parts on the contiguous parts.[306] Force is exerted by bodies not _intensively_ but _extensively_, because as, where one part of a body is, there another is not, so at the point where one part of the body acts another does not.[307]

[Sidenote: 5. Proportion of parts to whole in the infinite.]

A difficulty, not unknown to recent philosophy, occurred as to the relation of infinites to one another. Whatever is an element of the infinite must be infinite also; hence both earths and suns are infinite in number. But the infinity of the former, said Bruno, is not greater than that of the latter; nor, where all are inhabited, are the inhabitants in greater proportion to the infinite than the stars themselves.[308] Each sun is surrounded by several earths or planets, but the one class is not greater in respect of its infinite than the other. A single sun, earth, constellation, is not really a part of the infinite nor a part in it, for it can bear no proportion to it. A thousand infinities are not more than two or three, and even _one_ is not comprehensible by finite numbers. In the innumerable and the immeasurable there is no place for more or less, few or many, nor for any distinctions of number or measure.[309] The matter of the stars is immeasurable, and no less immeasurable is that of the fiery type or suns than of the aqueous type or earths. Nor does the fact that these infinities are not given to sense disprove their existence, as Aristotle had maintained. To imagine there is nothing beyond the sphere which limits our range of sight, is to be like Bruno as a child, when he believed there was nothing beyond Mount Vesuvius because there _was_ nothing to strike his senses.[310] Though each class be infinite, we have seen that the infinite does not act infinitely, that is _intensively_, but acts finitely, _i.e. extensively_. Each individual and species is finite, but the number of all individuals is infinite, and infinite are the matter in which they consist and the space in which they move. Everywhere, therefore, limit and measure are only in the particular and the individual, which, compared with the universe, are nothing.

[Sidenote: 6. Figure and body.]

A further argument was derived from the necessity of figure in body and from the relation of body to space.[311] Every body is known to us as of a certain and definite figure, whereas infinite body would necessarily be unfigured. In this case, said Bruno, Aristotle is confounding body with space, although he elsewhere separates the two notions. That space is something other than the bodies which fill it, that it is more than limit or figure, is evident from the fact that always between any two corporeal surfaces, between any two atoms, there is space. Nor is space merely an accident of body, a special quality of it, as colour is, for example, for we cannot think of colour without a body in which it exists, and when the body is abstracted the colour goes also, whereas space may be thought of apart from body, and body, when removed does not take with it its space. Perhaps we should say that space is really the continuous ether or light which penetrates throughout the universe, and seems to fill space more continuously than wood, stone, or iron, in which there is an admixture of _vacuum_. Must all bodies be figured, then the figure of the infinite is the sphere. The dimensions of space coincide with those of body, and the definition given of body as tri-dimensional quantity applies also to space:--there cannot be any body which is not in place, nor can its dimensions exist without equal dimensions of the containing space.

[Sidenote: 7. The centre of the earth, etc.]

A seventh argument, closely related to some of the others, is drawn from the old belief in the earth as the centre of gravity, the heaviest body in the universe, and in the empyrean as the outermost limit and the lightest body.[312] But, as we have seen, there is in the universe no centre--as the stars and their inhabitants are heavenly beings to us, so are we and our earth to them. "Just as the earth knows no centre or downward direction proper which is away from its own body, but only a centre of its mass, a central cavern of its heart, from which the precious life is diffused through the whole body, and which we may believe to be the chief seat of the soul; so there must be in the moon and other bodies a centre which connects all parts, to which every member contributes, and which is nourished by all the forces of the living body." The old belief, therefore, that if there were inhabitants at the antipodes they would be apt to fall downwards into space, or that the parts of the moon and its living beings might fall upon our earth, was absurd, for the face of the earth always looks upward in the direction of the radii from the centre to the superficies.[313]

[Sidenote: 8. The perfect as the self-limited.]

The last argument was that drawn from the supposed perfection of the universe.[314] Aristotle defined the perfect as that which was limited by itself, not by another. Hence the immeasurable would not be perfect, while the world was perfect because limited by its own terminus. Again body does not pass over into any other kind of quantity, but it is the limit into which the line and the point flow. The first argument, said Bruno, would hold of any fragment of body, while the second would apply to any animal or member of an animal, for these also are self-contained and do not pass over into any other kind. Perfection has no reference to quantity, nor to limitation by self, which is a geometrical determination.[315] For this mechanical idea of perfection, Bruno substitutes a teleological; the perfect is that which consists of a number of parts or members, working together towards the end for which the whole is ordained: the universe is perfect "as adorned by so many worlds, which are so many deities, and as that in and to which, as a unity embracing the perfection of all, innumerable things perfect in their kind are reduced, referred, united."[316]

[Sidenote: Infinite number of worlds.]

The infinity of space or ether and of matter being proved, it follows again, by the principle of sufficient reason, that the "worlds" are "innumerable" or infinite in number.--As it is good that the world exists, and would be bad did it not exist, so in a similar space, and where similar causes are, it is good that there be a world, and bad should there not be one. If the world is single, then there is a single, finite, particular good, and infinite wide-spread universal evil. He who is able to produce good, and does not do so, without cause, is evil; "as not to be able is _privatively_ evil, to be able and to be unwilling would be so _positively_, and God in regard to the finite effect would be a finitely good cause, in regard, however, to the repression of infinite realisation, would be infinitely evil."[317] Perfection does not belong to our world, our system, taken by itself, since there are innumerable other possible worlds which cannot be contained in it. Given a man endowed with all human perfections, the existence of other men subordinate to him is not excluded, but rather demanded in order that he may fulfil the harmony of his being. So the best, the first, of the monads,--which comprises all particular things in itself,--embraces, in spite of its unity, innumerable worlds, without limit, under its corporeal aspect. _One_ does not suffice, for the productive mind diffuses itself throughout the whole universe, wholly in every part, in equal goodness and power, and fills the void in order that its great image may be presented throughout the whole.[318] Nature thus puts forth an infinite mirror of itself and a fitting reflection; its substance is infinite and its force eternal, there is an _explicit_ immeasurable, as God is _implicitly_ in the whole and everywhere wholly.[319] To the infinite nothing finite bears any proportion, nor can be a fitting product of it. Hence if it communicate itself at all to corporeal things, or unfold its magnitude in corporeal existences and in multitude, the reflection of its essence and imprint of its power must be infinite in magnitude and without number. "Although, when we consider individuals singly, under that proximate and immediate respect in which they are particulars, they must be referred to a finite principle and cause (since a finite effect demands a finite power), in the consideration of the universe, however, each and all the innumerable existences in immeasurable space point to an infinite first cause."[320]

[Sidenote: Argument from God to the world.]

In the simplicity and unity of God's being, all attributes are one, therefore knowledge, will, and power coincide. The consequences of this doctrine Bruno unfolds in a series of aphorisms or propositions--which are interesting as anticipating Spinoza's method of "proof":[321]--1. The Divine essence is infinite. 2. As the measure of being, so is the measure of power. 3. As the measure of power, so is the measure of action. 4. God is absolutely simple essence or being in which there can be no complexity nor internal diversity. 5. Consequently in him, being, power, action, volition, and whatever can be truly attributed to him, are one and the same. 6. Therefore the will of God is above all things, and can be frustrated neither by himself nor by another. 7. Consequently the Divine will is not only necessary, but is necessity itself, and its opposite is not only impossible but impossibility itself. 8. In simple essence there cannot be contrariety of any kind, nor inequality: will, therefore, is not contrary to, nor unequal to, power. 9. Necessity and liberty are one, hence what acts by the necessity of nature acts freely; it would not act freely at all did it act otherwise than is demanded by necessity and nature, or by the necessity of nature.[322] 10. There is not an infinite _power_, unless there be an infinite _possible_; _i.e._ there is not that which is able to create an infinite unless there be that which is able to be created. What is a power which is impossible of realisation or which is relative to an impossible? 11. As there is a world in _this_ space, so also there is able to be one in any space similar to that which, were this world removed, would remain equal to the world. 12. There is no ground for denying, outside the world, a similar space to that in which the world is, nor any for regarding it as finite.[323] 14. It is better to be than not to be; it is more worthy to create what is good than not to create it. To posit (create) being and truth is incomparably better than to allow not-being or nothing. 15. The potency of nature ought not to be frustrated, nor space remain unfilled for infinite duration, for then potency would be relative to an impossible. 16. That infinite potency (whether extensive or intensive) should be frustrated of existence means that infinite evil should be actually posited, as space is actually infinite. 17. As _this_ space can receive this world and be adorned thereby, so also any similar space whatever, indiscernible from it, a similar principle being present, could have received a similar world.[324] 19. Of God and of nature we should think as highly as possible. 20. Of the greatest things nothing should be rashly asserted which is contrary to sense and reason.

[Sidenote: Knowledge of God.]

The infinite number of worlds is thus made to depend for its proof upon the identity of power and will, of will and knowledge, _i.e._ thought, in God. Whatever is in the mind of God is realised in the universe. Before God past, present, and future are one, present, and eternal;[325] he is unable to change his purpose or to deny himself. What he wills and what he can are one and the same; nor can he do what he wills not, for fate is the Divine will itself. Hence, as he cannot be other than he is, so nothing can be done by him otherwise than as it is done. The nature of God is a simple substance; however many names be predicated of it, they signify, one and all, the same thing.[326] Infinite virtue, if limited neither by itself nor by another, acts by the necessity of its own nature, not by a necessity alien to itself and to its will; it is itself necessity. The necessity by which it acts, therefore, can be frustrated neither from within, by itself, nor from without, by another: not the former, for it cannot be both one thing and another, nor the latter, because its necessity is the law of all other things. There can be nothing which may prevent this nature, necessity, will, power, from proceeding according to its whole power, which is goodness itself, according to its whole goodness, which is power itself, and both are infinite, and diffuse themselves infinitely. Man's liberty of action is expressed imperfectly, and sometimes in an imperfect object, is continually being disturbed by passion and ignorance of things; for if we acted without any disturbance of the will, or course of thought, without ignorance, or passion, then our action would be determined always towards the better of two opposed ends. Before we act we stand between the two ways and deliberate, and at last determine, but in uncertainty and perturbedness of spirit; while God, as in nature most perfect, acts in the one of two ways that is the most fitting. Nor is it an imperfection of nature to be determined in one direction only, away from that which may lead to error. Thus we may not refer the will and action of God to a liberty of this kind, of being equally or unequally disposed to two contradictory volitions or acts--a liberty of indifference--but his liberty is of the kind which is identical with necessity. Over it is nothing greater, in the way of it there is nothing equal, all things in all and throughout all serve it. God's knowledge is not discursive, involves no effort. To be in the mind of God is to be realised (_species concepta deo est effectio resque_). Thus as the perfect monad, he is intrinsically and extrinsically the whole, sustaining all things. There is on the one side infinite goodness and infinite desire for its realisation, on the other infinite desire of being realised; the result must be perfect satisfaction and perfect good.

[Sidenote: Abstract ideas.]

In order to understand how far Bruno has moved at this, the final stage of his philosophy, from the Neoplatonism of its beginnings, the ninth chapter of the last book of the _De Immenso_ must be taken into account.[327] It is interesting in view of the relation of Spinoza to Bruno, as well as of the consistency of Bruno's own thought. In it the existence of _abstract ideal types_ is contended against,--"Nowhere is essence apart from existence;--nature is nothing but the virtue that is immanent (_insita_) in things, and the law by which all things fulfil their course. There is no abstract that subsists in logical reason but not in reality, no justice by which things are just, no goodness through which they are good, wisdom through which they are wise, nor are _deitas_ and _feritas_ the ground of existence of gods and beasts: nor is it light by which shining bodies shine, nor shadow by which folly, darkness, fictions, nonsense come to exist." The student of nature must not suppose form and matter, light and colour and motion, to exist separately by themselves because they may be conceived or defined by themselves. There is then no archetypal world to which the Creator looked in fabricating this of ours, but nature produces all things from within itself, without thought or hesitation. "Study to know where Nature and God are, for there are the causes of things, the life of principles, the source of elements, the seeds of the things that are to be brought forth, the typal forms, active potency producing all things, ... there is also matter, the underlying passive potency, abiding, present, ever coming together into one as it were, for it is not as if a creator came from on high, to give it order and form from without. Matter pours forth all things from its own lap, Nature itself is the inward workman, a living art, a wondrous virtue which is endowed with mind, giving realisation to a matter which is its own, not foreign to itself; not hesitating, but producing all things easily out of itself, as fire shines and burns, as light spreads without effort through space.... Nature is not so miserably endowed as to be excelled by human art, which is directed by a kind of internal sense, while several kinds of animals, guided by their inward mind, show an innate foresight of a wonderful kind,--ants and the industrious bees, which have no type or model spread before them. For there is a nature which is _more than present to_, which is _immanent in_ things, remote from none as none is remote from being, except the false: and while only the surface of things without changes, deeper in the heart of all than is each to itself it lives, the principle of existence, source of all forms, ... Mind, God, Being, One, Truth, Fate, Reason, Order."[328] _Natura naturata_ is thus not a resultant or outcome of _natura naturans_ with Bruno; they are one and the same thing under different aspects, and both are one with God, the living force in things.

[Sidenote: Aristotle on plurality of worlds.]

[Sidenote: Perfection.]

The arguments of Aristotle against the plurality of worlds are in the seventh book set out one by one, and controverted from Bruno's own standpoint, at times with great fulness and subtlety. It would be unprofitable to enter far into this debate, where the advantage lay so obviously on one side. We have already seen that Bruno was able to lay his finger upon the weak spot in Aristotle's system, the definitions of space and time. There is no absolute norm of time, said Bruno, whether arithmetical, geometrical, or physical; for in this kind we cannot fix a _minimum_, and least of all on Peripatetic principles; there is always a less than any given period of time, hence we cannot lay down any true measure of time, _i.e._ all time is relative to the individual. In any case the daily movement (of the outermost sphere, as Aristotle thought, but in fact) of the earth, is not really circular. There are as many moving agents as there are stars, as there are souls, or deities.[329] But "if we must assume some one presiding over the infinite number of agents, we must ascend above all or descend down to the centre of all, to the absolute being, present above all and within all ... more intimate to all things than each is to itself, not more distant from one than from another, for it is equally the nearest to all."[330] Several of the arguments of Aristotle were drawn from abstract conceptions of unity and perfection, and evidently raised interesting problems for the time of Bruno. They are, briefly, that a plurality of worlds would be irrational, since no reason could be given for one number rather than another, that it is more in accordance with the perfection of the monad, that all reality should be massed together in one world, that the economy of nature does not admit of the multiplication of goods, that the passive capacity (_matter_) is not equal to the active power (the _form_), that the perfect is by its very nature unique. Bruno answers that there is no definite, but an infinite, number of worlds, and that if the former were the case no reason could be put forward why there should be only one, which in Bruno's sense of world is no doubt true. As to the monad, the true monad is that which embraces all number or plurality in itself. "We are not compelled to define a number, we who say that there is an infinite number of worlds; _there_ no distinction exists of odd or even, since these are differences of number, not of the innumerable. Nor can I think there have ever been philosophers who, in positing several worlds, did not posit them also as infinite: for would not reason, which demands something further beyond this sensible world, so also outside of and beyond whatever number of worlds is assumed, assume again another and another?"[331]

[Sidenote: One life in all the worlds.]

That there are more worlds than one is due to the presence everywhere throughout space of the same principle of life, which everywhere has the same effect; just as within one of these worlds, the earth, we find different species of the same animal--of man, for example--which cannot be descended from the same parentage. There are "men of different colours, cavemen, mountain-pygmies, the guardians of minerals, the giants of the South," each of which races must have been produced independently in its own place. And finally, although it is true that nothing can be added to the perfect, why may not the perfect be multiplicable? Though the perfect man is one, nature may produce several within the same species. "Everywhere is one soul, one spirit of the world, wholly in the whole and in every part of it, as we find in our lesser world also. This soul ... (should the kind of place and of element not conflict) produces all things everywhere; so that for the generation of some even time is not required.... The infinite universe, and it only under God, is perfect. Nothing finite is so good that it could not be better; whatever may be better has some degree of evil and defect, as what is not absolutely bright is not without some signs of obscurity.... Therefore the perfect, absolutely and in itself, is one, infinite, which cannot be greater or better, and than which nothing can be greater or better. This is one, everywhere, the only God, universal nature, of which nothing can be a perfect image or reflection, but the infinite. Everything finite therefore is imperfect, every sensible world is imperfect, as good and evil, matter and form, light and darkness, joy and sadness concur in it, and all things everywhere are in alteration and movement; but all of them, in the infinite, are as in unity, truth, and goodness, and in this aspect the infinite is rightly called the universe."[332] In the infinite, as we have learned from the _Causa_, all contraries are one. The universe is perfect, not because of its quantity, but because it contains all other things in it.[333] Within the limits of their kind small causes can produce small effects with some perfection; much more effective is that immeasurable and more general cause, of which nothing stands in the way. It is a harmony of the many in one, the only corporeal image of the divine mind. The finite, however, is imperfect only when taken apart from the whole to which it belongs, _i.e._ evil and defect are appearances only. Although in nature not all things are of their best, and more species than one produce monstrosities, yet we may not find fault with the great building of the mighty architect, for even the small, weak, and diminutive contributes its part to the nobility of the whole. Is a picture most beautiful when it is blazoned all over with gold and purple? Does it not shine out best from a dull background? Can there be any part which, in its order and place within the whole body, is not good, and the best in the end and in the whole? A harmony in music is better the greater the variety within it of length, accent, pause, and the like.[334]

The perfect may be either (1) "the perfect absolutely, or (2) the perfect in its kind." The former again is twofold, according as it is (1) "that which is wholly in the whole and in every part, or (2) that which is wholly in the whole but not in the part." Of these the one is divinity, the intellect of the universe, absolute goodness and truth, the other the immeasurable corporeal reflection of the divine. As within the universe there are many things perfect in their kind, which it combines in its unity, containing in itself the perfection of all, it may in a second sense be called the absolutely perfect. For no one world singly, nor system of worlds, nor any number of systems, can be brought into comparison with God, except indirectly, through the immeasurable wisdom, power, and goodness. "Nothing is absolutely imperfect or evil, for the highest nature exists in a certain sense in the meanest and lowest, as on the palette of a painter colours are thought little of which presently, unfolded into the scheme of the picture, shall seem to be, along with the painter himself, of chief importance."[335] Moral evil, itself, as we shall find, has no reality for Bruno's pantheism. Justice and goodness, not existing as abstract entities, have their only ground in the divine will, _i.e._ in the course of nature.[336] On the other hand, it is not in the part, the detail, the trivial or minute existence, that the divine will is most adequately declared, but in the whole, its plan and its law. "What is best and most glorious, most beseeming the goodness of His nature, is to be attributed to His will. It is impious to seek this in the blood of insects, in the mummied corpse, in the foam of the epileptic, under the shaking feet of murderers, or in the melancholy mysteries of vile necromancers;[337] it must be sought rather in the inviolable, intemerate law of nature, in the religion of a mind directed duly by that law, in the splendour of the sun, in the beauty of the things which are brought forth from this our parent, after His true image, as expressed bodily in the beauty of those innumerable living things, which, in the immeasurable sweep of the one heaven, shine and live, have sense and intelligence, and sing praises to the One, the highest and best."[338]