Overblown Religious Myths: Is Giordano Bruno a Condemned Scientist?

By: Omar Rushlive L. Arellano

Growing up, I was always fond of watching the National Geographic Channel. I even remember my uncle and my cousins watching it with Discovery Channel as well. It influenced me to have a particular inkling to love learning from these shows. Before, my attitude was generally thinking that things I watch on TV are credible. But when I started to watch Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey by Neil deGrasse Tyson, I began to realize that I could not just readily accept everything that I was taught; I needed to do my own research.

In the show, Tyson narrates the significant events of Giordano Bruno’s life. He starts by introducing him as a person entranced with a grander vision of an infinite cosmos.¹ Tyson narrates that Bruno was incarcerated in 1600. Tyson also paints Bruno’s time as a world without telescopes, where the earth does not move, and the heavenly bodies are perceived to move around it. This picture was challenged by Nicolas Copernicus, whose revolutionary proposal was that the Earth is just like any other planet that revolves around the Sun. With this in mind, Tyson cites Martin Luther as a character who considers heliocentrism as a “scandalous affront to Scripture,” to stress that the Church was unscientific.

Tyson depicts Italy as a society where freedom of thought was absent. Nevertheless, Bruno dared to read the forbidden books of the Church, such as that of the Ancient Roman Lucretius. Tyson explains that this made Bruno apprehend that the universe was boundless and infinite, like God Himself. When he became thirty years old, he had a dream of a world enclosed inside a confining bowl of stars–what Tyson describes as the cosmos of Bruno’s time. And Bruno removed the curtain and saw a reality far beyond it, which made him realize of a place where there was “no up, no down, no edge, no center,” and that the Sun is not special since it is similar to any other star; and it was escorted by other planets like the earth. His vision captivated him to become an evangelist for infinity.

Tyson continues that the result of Bruno’s evangelization was his excommunication by the Roman Catholic church and his banishment in Switzerland by the Calvinists and by the Lutherans in Germany. Tyson further relates that Bruno was mocked, ridiculed, and deemed as a heretic when he imparted the grand vision of the cosmos at a lecture in Oxford, England.

In spite of this, he persevered in propagating his vision and returned to Italy. Tyson comments that the Inquisition (which he labeled as the “thought police”) was used by the Roman Catholic church to silence Bruno, resulting in his imprisonment for eight years, where he never recanted his views. Tyson surmises that the Church’s incentive in going to great lengths to torture Bruno was that the supremacy of the Scriptures and the authority of the church would be undermined if his vision were true. Finally, Tyson concludes Bruno was sentenced by the Inquisition because of his belief in the existence of other worlds.

Tyson’s view is shared by other thinkers as well. For example, John William Draper argues that as a Dominican, Bruno was supposed to be part of the Church. However, his meditations about transubstantiation and the immaculate conception made him vulnerable to doubt. Draper continues that the “spiritual authorities” censured Bruno because he was an opinionated man, so much so that after living in hiding and seeking refuge in other countries, the Inquisition hounded him until his return to Italy.² With that said, Draper seems to have the same argument that Bruno’s punishment was due to his belief in other worlds. He said:

On the demand of the spiritual authorities, Bruno was removed from Venice to Rome, and confined in the prison of the Inquisition, accused not only of being a heretic, but also a heresiarch, who had written things unseemly concerning religion; the special charge against him being that he had taught the plurality of worlds, a doctrine repugnant to the whole tenor of Scripture and inimical to revealed religion, especially as regards the plan of salvation. After an imprisonment of two years he was brought before his judges, declared guilty of the acts alleged, excommunicated, and, on his nobly refusing to recant, was delivered over to the secular authorities to be punished “ as mercifully as possible, and without the shedding of his blood,” the horrible formula for burning a prisoner at the stake.³

In addition, British neurobiologist Colin Blakemore agrees with Tyson that Bruno was not a scientist (my experience with atheists and skeptics usually portray Bruno as a scientist)⁴, and he claims that his death was a huge blow against Italian science. Blakemore narrates that in the Reformation, scholars who speculated about the nature of the world were deemed as heretics. Bruno is given as an example, saying that he was captivated by the Copernican theory that the earth moved around the Sun, making it appear to be the same reason Bruno was punished.⁵

Regardless of how people accounted for Bruno (whether he is a scientist or not), I think those who propagate a conflict thesis between science and religion will agree with Blakemore in this:

I think Bruno’s execution marked the beginning of a battle between faith and reason. The dangers I faced for my science came from a small group of fanatics. But during the Renaissance, most threats to scientists had the backing of the mighty Catholic church.⁶

Uncovering the Truth About Bruno

Can it be agreed upon that the facts show that Giordano Bruno was punished for his scientific views? Was he punished merely for believing that there were other worlds and stars? Did Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and England deem him a heretic because of his science?

Firstly, the question of whether Bruno was a scientist due to his linkage to Copernicus must be addressed. To answer this, I relied on the paper of the physics professor Lawrence Lerner, and historian Edward Gosselin entitled, “Giordano Bruno.”⁷ And I also relied on the historian Frances Yates’ book entitled, “Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition.”⁸

Secondly, the history of Bruno’s life must be discussed, starting from a general biographical sketch of his life; to his escape from Italy; and whether he was deemed a heretic for his belief in other worlds by Switzerland, Germany, and England.

Finally, it must be examined whether he was burned at the stake for his scientific views, which can be answered by historian Ingrid Rowland’s book entitled, “Giordano Bruno: Philosopher / Heretic.”⁹

Was Giordano Bruno a Scientist?

There’s an alleged notion that Bruno’s The Supper of Ashes was intended as a defense and exposition of Copernicanism. Lerner and Gosselin exposed that the dialogue was not fully about that subject. They asserted that his scientific arguments were merely a collection of nonsense and non-sequiturs; they were never meant to be taken literally.¹⁰

One support for this is one of Bruno’s arguments against the objection to Copernicanism (that since the distance between Earth and Venus varies, then the size of Venus should change). He responds that if the distance from the observer to a luminous object were halved repeatedly, then the size of the object would increase to whatever size we could think of. Lerner and Gosselin commented that this would be absurd and that he ignored that the argument applies also to both opaque and luminous objects.¹¹

Another example is Bruno’s debate at Oxford in 1583. Bruno appealed to De revolutionibus, which revealed that he misinterpreted Copernicus’ diagram. They, in addition, argued that Bruno’s defense was not based on Copernicus’ work, but rather on a work on magic by a Florentine Neoplatonist called Marsilio Ficino. He, himself, even impatiently said in the dialogue that he did not care about Copernicus. Neither did he care whether or not other people comprehend Copernicus properly. This indicates that Bruno was not interested in the details of astronomy. His real interest was only to use heliocentrism as a grand metaphor for his own views about the infinity of the universe.¹²

This reading corresponds to the findings of the historian Frances Yates. In the 13th chapter of her book,¹³ Bruno is described not as a modern man but as someone “magical.” For instance, Bruno’s allegiance to Copernicanism was based on mystical grounds, in a sense that the innumerable worlds of the infinite universe were believed to have the capacity to move through space as if they were living animals. It includes the belief that man is capable of gaining godlike powers to grasp the infinite God and the infinite universe. That could be seen in Bruno’s own transformation of studying Lucretius’ De natura.

Yates explains that Lucretius’ notions portray an infinite universe that is cold, godless, and agnostic, to which Bruno turned it into an image of divinity. God was revealed as a magician that imbued the innumerable worlds with magic so that they could come alive. In fact, even Copernicus’ mathematical arguments were seen by Bruno as confirming Hermes Trismegistus’ and Cornelius Agrippa’s magical philosophy of the universe being alive. With that said, this infinite All was still said to be One, which is said to be Bruno’s constant theme which is also a basic tenet of Hermetism.

With this in mind, a good case could be made that Bruno did not have a serious scientific proposal and that he was an avid follower of the Hermetic tradition. Both these factors support the proposition that Bruno was not a scientist.

Biographical Sketch

The Nolan philosopher was the title that Giordano Bruno often used to attribute to himself. As a child, he was known as Filippo, a name chosen by his father to honor King Philipp II. Giordano was Bruno’s religious name and he assumed this by the age of seventeen. His father, Giovanni Bruno, was a soldier who served the Spanish crown in the Kingdom of Naples.¹⁴ Bruno was brought to the convent of San Domenico Maggiore when he was seventeen. He was young and caused some trouble. He removed the pictures of the Madonna, Saint Catherine of Siena, and Bishop Antoninus of Florence, which left him with only a single crucifix. This made a commotion because it was parallel to what the Protestants were doing throughout Europe. This happened early in his novitiate. In response, Fra Eugenio Gagliardo wrote a formal reprimand, but he changed his mind, so he tore it up later in the day to spare Bruno.

Another example was when another novice was reading a pamphlet with a devotional poem, The Seven Joys of the Virgin. Bruno asked him to throw the book away and told him to read some books like the Lives of the Holy Fathers. This act of Bruno was considered peculiar since the city of Naples was known to pride themselves for their devotion to the Madonna, and yet Bruno exhibited great irreverence.¹⁵ Bruno was then suspected of behaving like a Protestant. Thus, Fra Eugenio reported Bruno to the Inquisition.

With that said, Bruno was still able to pronounce his final vows as a friar in the Order of Preachers, and he began to prepare for his ordination as a priest a year after. Despite the troubles he caused, it was not in such a way that his fitness to the ministry would be questioned by Fra Eugenio. Bruno then took the name Fra Giordano to show special honor to Fra Giordano Crispo, the convent’s former prior.¹⁶

After Bruno’s trip to Rome, his career in the convent progressed. In 1570, he became a subdeacon, then in 1571, he became a deacon. Then he was sent to the Dominican convent of San Bartolomeo in Campagna. This was part of the final step of their ordination process. The purpose was to help them see the big picture of what it meant to be a priest. This new convent was described as a beautiful, wealthy, little feudal town, that is set among the dramatic volcanic crags behind Salerno.

For ten years, Bruno lived a blameless religious life, then he was again in trouble. In 1572, Agostino da Montalcino, a professor of philosophy at the Dominican College in Rome, was hosted by the convent of San Domenico Maggiore. Fra Montalcino said that the heretics were ignorant because the scholastic terms in their arguments were insufficient. Bruno responded that a sweeping pronouncement of all heretics as ignorant was unfair, for even if they did not use the same terms, they were still able to argue their points in a clever way. Rowland comments that though this is a fair point, it was still another matter to defend Arius since he was a heretic who denied the divinity of Christ. Thus, this gave Fra Domenico Vita the incentive to investigate Bruno three years later, to find any record in the Inquisition’s archives of him saying anything concerning. As a result, Fra Vita discovered that Bruno had a preserved report of his attack of The Seven Joys of the Virgin, and that he removed holy images from his office. Consequently, Fra Vita ordered a search of Bruno’s cell. A copy of the Commentaries of Erasmus, with Bruno’s notes, was found in the latrine. Having this book was considered forbidden and would result in excommunication.¹⁷

Bruno was tipped off about this incident via letter in Rome. This made him run away.¹⁸

Switzerland

In Geneva, Bruno was visited and welcomed by Italian exiles. He was shown great hospitality and generosity, and they gave him gifts: a hat, a cape, and a sword. They also gave him a job as a copy editor. Eventually, Bruno was pressed to convert. He obliged and stayed in the city. Bruno visited Calvinist services in French and Italian. There he learned that the clarion call for a vernacular liturgy and a vernacular Bible were unanimous among the Protestant Reformers.¹⁹

Subsequently, Bruno enrolled in the University of Geneva as “Philippus Brunus Nolanus, professor of sacred theology.” The one leading the university was Theodore Beza’s successor, Antoine de La Faye. Now, La Faye was of ill repute: ambitious, vain, and greedy. Rowland supports this by pointing out that he collected as many salaries and official residences as he could. He had many hats: principal of the college, professor of philosophy, professor of theology, rector of the university, pastor of the city, and the principal minister of Geneva. And yet he was not competent in any of them and was almost fired as the chair of philosophy in 1577.²⁰

Bruno’s experience at the University of Geneva was unbearable. The regular occurrence was that the professor would merely from their lectern, and the students would only be expected to listen. Debate was not allowed in their classrooms. This made Bruno turn to the press. There he listed 20 mistakes that La Faye made in a single lecture, “treating exclusively questions of knowledge, with nothing about God or the magistrates.”²¹ This alarmed La Faye since he nearly lost his job two years before, and since he could count on Beza’s support, he took the case before the Consistory (Geneva’s Inquisition). This led to the charge of slander against Bruno (this could be turned into sacrilege to exact the death penalty). As a result, Bruno was arrested with his printer Berjon. Berjon was fined 50 florins and was released overnight. Bruno was admonished to “follow the truth doctrine” and he was excommunicated until he made a proper confession. After two and a half weeks in jail, Bruno apologized to La Faye and the Consistory for the slander. This got Bruno off the hook, though all copies of his broadsheet were committed to the flames. After this, Bruno traveled to France.²²

France

People may be tempted to look down on Bruno because of his reputation as a heretic, however, history suggests that he is a very brilliant man. He is well known for his art of memory, which is something that he developed to make it novel and teachable to others. In fact, when he was still a student in 1569 at the Dominican College, his superiors at San Domenico sent him to Rome to perform his feats of memory to Pope Pius V and Scipione Cardinal Rebiba. He recited Psalm 86 forward and backward in Hebrew, and after that, he gave them a brief lesson about the machinations of his art.²³

This brilliance that he had had given him great attention when he was able to go to Paris, and he was even able to get the attention of King Henri III. Henri is considered to be a “monarch after Bruno’s own heart”, since though he was Catholic, he made an effort to mend the tensions between Catholics and the Huguenots, and he also spent three long hours a day listening to philosophy.²⁴ The King was so impressed by Bruno, that he appointed him as a royal reader. Bruno also made shrewd use of the printing press to spread his reputation. He published his first memory manual, The Great Key (already lost), and he published the next three in a single year, namely: On the Shadows of Ideas, The Song of Circe, and On the Compendious Architecture and Complement to the Art of Ramon Llull.²⁵

Furthermore, Bruno’s contemporaries would describe him as a very passionate man, and his heartfelt lecture made his listeners “spellbound.” This made him attract loyal students. One of them was Raphael Eglin, who said that Bruno’s lecture was “Off-the-cuff” and that praised the “power of his mind”.²⁶

Though his career may be promising in France, he still decided to journey to England because of rumors that the Inquisition was coming to France.²⁷

England

Bruno’s experience in Oxford was very traumatic. Since he was an experienced teacher and professor, taught the art of memory to Pope Pius V, and caught the attention of the king of France, he expected a similar reception in Oxford. However, he was laughed at when he spoke there. The English made fun of Bruno’s accent, gestures, passionate energy, and tiny stature. Bruno pronounced his Latin as if it was Italian, and they focused on how he spoke, rather than on the substance of what he said. Their smirk and mockery made Bruno more frantic and more Italian in his presentation, and all the more the English considered this funnier, which led to his humiliation.²⁸

Another opportunity for Bruno in Oxford was in August when he lectured about the cosmos. His aim is to show that “the Copernican system provided more effective reinforcement for Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic theology than the traditional Earth-centered universe.”²⁹ In this lecture, Bruno felt more open to sharing his admiration for Erasmus, since Oxford emphasizes modern humanistic studies, however, since Bruno’s citations from Ficino’s On Living the Heavenly Life were so exact (because of his memory), the dons suspected him of plagiarism.³⁰ Thus, Oxford’s ridicule of Bruno’s personal manner, and their accusations of plagiarism, stripped him of every kind of dignity, and it was very devastating for him.³¹

Germany

In Helmstedt, when Duke Julius died, Bruno offered a funeral oration in his honor, in order to make himself known to a wider public. He even published a text of this Consolatory Oration to make it more effective. Bruno even published the Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast, meant as a frontal attack against the Catholic Church. In this work, the embodiment of the Triumphant Beast is the person of Pope Sixtus V himself as the incarnation of the Gorgon Medusa. This pleased the new Duke, Heinrich Julius, and this made him continue to support Bruno just as his father did. But he was powerless against the power of the new head Lutheran pastor, Gilbert Voet. Voet took a hard line against any dissent, and also against Bruno in particular. Rowland comments that the reason for his hatred for Bruno is unclear and it may have included an intense personal dislike, though we can see that Voet subjected Bruno to a public writ of excommunication, based on the charge that Bruno was harboring Calvinist beliefs. To counteract the harsh judgments of the pastor, Duke Julius received Bruno at his riverside palace in Wolfenbuttel, and he gave Bruno a gift of fifty florins, so he could continue traveling. And for Bruno, the next attractive destination would be in Frankfurt, because of its book fair, with its reputation of tolerance of any creed.³²

In Frankfurt, Bruno was able to publish many works. He was able to publish three poems, which are said to have been read by Germans such as Kepler, Leibniz, and Athanasius Kircher.³³ There was also On the Immense, which is a biography of the universe and of Bruno himself. Here he mentioned that the infinite universe became his way of seeing.³⁴ He also published On the Triple Minimum, which is a poem where he put his own atomic theory.³⁵ With that said, Bruno met two noblemen at the Frankfurt book fair, and they invited him to teach a series of courses. He then stayed in Zurich for five months, and one of the noblemen, Raphael Eglin, would eventually publish his notes from one of those courses as the Summary of Metaphysical Terms. Bruno then went back to Frankfurt to publish two more works, On Bonds in General and On the Composition of Images, which are his last works on the art of memory. With that said, though his career in Frankfurt and Zurich looked promising, Bruno unexpectedly went back to Italy.³⁶

His Arrest

I would say that Bruno being brought to the Inquisition was unfortunate. When Bruno went back to Italy, he went to Padua because its university was known to be a haven of free thought. The University of Padua was said to be eventually the de facto university of Venice.³⁷ Now, several months earlier, a Venetian nobleman, Giovanni Mocenigo, sent Bruno a letter in Frankfurt, which asked him for private lessons in the art of memory. Rowland commented that tutoring would not be Bruno’s first choice of work, but his circumstances made him accept the offer as a last resort. At first, Bruno lived for a time in rented rooms, but he eventually moved to the palazzo of the Mocenigos.³⁸

With that said, Bruno’s work on memory was not for the inattentive and the lazy. It demanded constant application for comprehension and preservation. However, since Mocenigo was a Venetian patrician, many things distracted him, and he was also not outstandingly bright and disciplined for the task. So after seven or eight months, he did not learn well and he started to suspect that Bruno was cheating him for his hospitality and money while withholding the real secrets of his art. Worse, Bruno was very attentive to Mocenigo’s wife. These made them get on each other’s nerves.³⁹ Eventually, Bruno expressed his desire to return to Frankfurt. Mocenigo first pressed him to stay, and when he insisted, Mocenigo complained that Bruno was not able to teach him what he promised. Mocenigo then threatened to detain him if he would leave. Thus, when Bruno resolved to leave the next night, Mocenigo pretended that he needed to tell him something, but Mocenigo’s servant Bartolo and five or six others were already there to forcefully lock Bruno up in the attic. Mocenigo then drafted a letter to the Inquisition to bring him there.⁴⁰

Despite this, Bruno was confident that his situation would stay in Venice, and that they would let him live if he had repented. This was based on the Venetian Inquisition’s reputation of tolerance to views contrary to their own — as long as the lanes of commerce stayed open — and they were an independent inquisition. For this reason, Bruno made a confession, and indeed, the Venetian Inquisitors spared him, but he was not released from prison. This was because the Roman Inquisition took an interest in Bruno’s case. Normally, Venice would reject any interference from Rome in matters of church and state, but because of the unstable political realities in Europe at that time, and the presence of a new pope who was unwilling to compromise, they acquiesced to Rome’s demand for his extradition.⁴¹

To understand what guided the Inquisition in their final deliberations, Rowland’s organization of Mocenigo’s accusations in his letter is worth looking at:

2 (Summary heading 3). About Christ. Giovanni Mocenigo, informer: “I have sometimes heard Giordano say in my house that Christ was a wretch, and that, if he did wretched things to seduce the people, he could perfectly well have predicted that he would have to hang, and that Christ performed illusory miracles and that he was a magician, that Christ showed he was unwilling to die, and fled to the extent that he could.

3 (Summary heading 2). About the Trinity, divinity, and incarnation. Giovanni Mocenigo, informer:” I have sometimes heard Giordano say in my house that there is no distinction of persons in God, and that this would be an imperfection in God.”

4 (Summary heading 7). That there are multiple worlds. Giovanni Mocenigo, informer: “I have sometimes heard Giordano Bruno say in my house that there are infinite worlds, and that God makes infinite worlds continually, because, he says, he wants to do so as much as he can.”

5 (Summary heading 22). About the souls of men and beasts. Giovanni Mocenigo, informer: “I have sometimes heard Giordano say in my house that the souls created by the work of nature pass from one animal to another, and that, just as brute animals are born of corruption, so are men, when they return to be born after the floods.”

6 (Summary heading 1). That Brother Giordano has bad feelings about the holy Catholic faith, against which, and its ministers, he has spoken ill. Giovanni Mocenigo, informer in Venice: “I have sometimes heard Giordano say in my house that no religion pleases him. He has shown that he plans to make himself the creator of a new sect under the name of ‘new philosophy’ and has said that our Catholic faith is full of blasphemies against the majesty of God, and that it is time to remove the discussion and the income from friars, because they defile the world, that they are all asses, and that our opinions are the doctrine of asses, that we have no proof that our faith has any merit with God, and that he marvels at how many heresies God tolerates among Catholics.”

7 (Summary heading 24). That sins are not to be punished. Giovanni Mocenigo, informer: “I have sometimes heard Giordano say in my house that there is no punishment for sins, and that he has said that not doing to others what we do not want them to do to us is enough [advice] to live well.”

8 (Summary heading 23). About the art of divination. Giovanni Mocenigo, informer: “I have sometimes heard Giordano say in my house that he wants to pay attention to the art of divination and he wants all the world to follow after him, and when I kept him locked up to report him, he asked me to give back a copy of a book of spells that I had found among his papers.⁴²

Furthermore, the subjects of the Trinity, divinity, and incarnation; multiple worlds⁴³; souls of men and beasts; and the art of divination, were subjects that Bruno never backed down from even under duress.⁴⁴

Now, the Jesuit Cardinal Robert Bellarmine was his inquisitor, and he had a great ability to reduce theological disputes to a set of clearly expressed arguments. He distilled the heresies of Bruno into eight propositions, which Bruno had to renounce. With that said, Rowland mentions that we no longer have a surviving record of Bellarmine’s eight propositions.⁴⁵ And Bruno’s refusal to renounce as heretical the eight propositions, as well as his refusal to believe in transubstantiation, led to his conviction of heresy.⁴⁶

Conclusion

The facts convey that Bruno was a hermetic philosopher and a magician, not a scientist. His life showed no indication that he was hounded by the Inquisition. Also, the claim that Bruno’s science led to his excommunication by the Roman Catholic church, the banishment in Switzerland by the Calvinists and by the Lutherans in Germany, and the mockery and ridicule in Oxford, is a farce.

The facts show us that his possession of a forbidden book and his escape led to his excommunication by the Roman Catholic church. He was banished in Switzerland due to his public criticism of his professor’s competence. He was excommunicated in Germany for being charged of harboring Calvinist beliefs, and he was ridiculed in Oxford because of his accent, gestures, passionate energy, and his tiny stature. His arrest by the Inquisition was also borne of ill fate, the result of an injustice committed by Mocenigo. Lastly, the basis of Bruno’s conviction of heresy was his refusal to renounce as heretical the eight propositions presented by Bellarmine, as well as his refusal to believe in transubstantiation.

In conclusion, Bruno was not burned at the stake because of his science. And if he was not condemned because of his science, then the allegation that he was a scientist condemned by the Church could not have any epistemic weight.

References:

1. Tyson, Neil deGrasse. “La historia de Giordano Bruno,” March 16, 2014. https://vimeo.com/89241669
2. John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (USA: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 178.
3. Draper, History of Conflict, 179–180.
4. Some articles that depict Bruno as a scientist was Nick Greene’s entitled, “Biography of Giordano Bruno, Scientist and Philosopher (2019).” Another was Alberto Martinez’s, “Was Giordano Bruno Burned at the Stake for Believing in Exoplanets? (2018).” The former explicitly labeled Bruno as a scientist, the latter focused on arguing that Bruno was condemned mainly for his belief that there are other worlds. Though Martinez did not label Bruno explicitly as a scientist, I think it could be taken as an implicit claim by virtue of making it seem that Bruno was condemned for believing in exoplanets.
5. Blakemore, Colin. “Christianity — God and the Scientists,” July 15, 2015. https://youtu.be/UcZ44kQphlo?si=PVHgA37SicTfk9BI
6. Ibid, 12:45–13:05. https://youtu.be/UcZ44kQphlo?si=PVHgA37SicTfk9BI.
7. Lerner, Lawrence S., and Edward A. Gosselin. “GIORDANO BRUNO.” Scientific American 228, no. 4 (1973): 86–95. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24923028.
8. Frances Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London: Routledge, 1964).
9. Ingrid Rowland, Giordano Bruno: Philosopher / Heretic (USA: The University of Chicago Press, 2009).
10. Lerner and Gosselin, Giordano Bruno, 88–89.
11. Lerner and Gosselin, Giordano Bruno, 89.
12. Lerner and Gosselin, Giordano Bruno, 90.
13. The 13th Chapter is entitled, “Giordano Bruno in England: The Hermetic Philosophy.”
14. Rowland, Giordano Bruno, 14–15.
15. Ibid., 30–31.
16. Ibid., 33.
17. Ibid., 72–75.
18. Ibid., 76.
19. Ibid., 98.
20. Ibid., 100.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., 101.
23. Ibid., 63.
24. Ibid., 122.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., 132–133.
27. Ibid., 138.
28. Ibid., 143.
29. Ibid., 146.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid., 149.
32. Ibid., 212–213.
33. Ibid., 215.
34. Ibid., 215–216.
35. Ibid., 216.
36. Ibid., 222.
37. Ibid., 223.
38. Ibid., 224.
39. Ibid., 226.
40. Ibid., 227–228.
41. Ibid., 239–243.
42. Ibid., 259–260.
43. Ibid., 60. Bruno’s proposal of an infinite universe is a theological proposal. Rowland quoted one of Bruno’s cellmates as reporting, “He said that God needed the world as much as the world needed God, and that God would be nothing without the world, and for this reason God did nothing but create new worlds.” It’s clear that this view makes God lesser, since he denies God’s aseity and His transcendence over creation in this admission. He got this belief in infinite worlds from the essay, On Learned Ignorance by the 15th Century German philosopher-priest, Nicholas of Cusa. It is also an idea he could have elaborated from the Kabbalah.
44. Ibid., 258.
45. Ibid., 255–257.
46. Ibid., 272.