GIORDANO BRUNO AND HIS PARADOXES.

[Jordani Bruni Nolani de Monade, Numero et Figura ... item de

Innumerabilibus, Immenso, et Infigurabili ... Frankfort, 1591, 8vo.[65]

I cannot imagine how I came to omit a writer whom I have known so many

years, unless the following story will explain it. The officer reproved the

boatswain for perpetual swearing; the boatswain answered that he heard the

officers swear. "Only in an emergency," said the officer. "That's just it,"

replied the other; "a boatswain's life is a life of 'mergency." Giordano

Bruno was all paradox; and my mind was not alive to his paradoxes, just as

my ears might have become dead to the boatswain's oaths. He was, as has

been said, a vorticist before Descartes,[66] an optimist before Leibnitz, a

Copernican before Galileo. It would be easy to collect a hundred strange

opinions of his. He was born about 1550, and was roasted alive at Rome,

February 17, 1600, for the maintenance and defence of the holy Church, and

the rights and liberties of the same. These last words are from the writ of

our own good James I, under which Leggatt[67] was roasted at Smithfield, in

March 1612; and if I had a copy of the instrument under which Wightman[68]

was roasted at Lichfield, a month afterwards, I daresay I should {60} find

something quite as edifying. I extract an account which I gave of Bruno in

the _Comp. Alm._ for 1855:

"He was first a Dominican priest, then a Calvinist; and was roasted alive

at Rome, in 1600, for as many heresies of opinion, religious and

philosophical, as ever lit one fire. Some defenders of the papal cause have

at least worded their accusations so to be understood as imputing to him

villainous actions. But it is positively certain that his death was due to

opinions alone, and that retractation, even after sentence, would have

saved him. There exists a remarkable letter, written from Rome on the very

day of the murder, by Scioppius[69] (the celebrated scholar, a waspish

convert from Lutheranism, known by his hatred to Protestants and Jesuits)

to Rittershusius,[70] a well-known Lutheran writer on civil and canon law,

whose works are in the index of prohibited books. This letter has been

reprinted by Libri (vol. iv. p. 407). The writer informs his friend (whom

he wished to convince that even a Lutheran would have burnt Bruno) that all

Rome would tell him that Bruno died for Lutheranism; but this is because

the Italians do not know the difference between one heresy and another, in

which simplicity (says the writer) may God preserve them. That is to say,

they knew the difference between a live heretic and a roasted one by actual

inspection, but had no idea of the difference between a Lutheran and a

Calvinist. The countrymen of Boccaccio would have smiled at the idea which

the German scholar entertained of them. They said Bruno was burnt for

Lutheranism, a name under which they classed all Protestants: and they are

better witnesses than Schopp, or Scioppius. He then proceeds to describe to

his Protestant friend (to whom he would certainly not have omitted any act

which both their churches would have condemned) the mass of opinions with

which Bruno was charged; as that there {61} are innumerable worlds, that

souls migrate, that Moses was a magician, that the Scriptures are a dream,

that only the Hebrews descended from Adam and Eve, that the devils would be

saved, that Christ was a magician and deservedly put to death, etc. In

fact, says he, Bruno has advanced all that was ever brought forward by all

heathen philosophers, and by all heretics, ancient and modern. A time for

retractation was given, both before sentence and after, which should be

noted, as well for the wretched palliation which it may afford, as for the

additional proof it gives that opinions, and opinions only, brought him to

the stake. In this medley of charges the Scriptures are a dream, while

Adam, Eve, devils, and salvation are truths, and the Saviour a deceiver. We

have examined no work of Bruno except the _De Monade_, etc., mentioned in

the text. A strong though strange _theism_ runs through the whole, and

Moses, Christ, the Fathers, etc., are cited in a manner which excites no

remark either way. Among the versions of the cause of Bruno's death is

_atheism_: but this word was very often used to denote rejection of

revelation, not merely in the common course of dispute, but by such

writers, for instance, as Brucker[71] and Morhof.[72] Thus Morhof says of

the _De Monade, etc._, that it exhibits no manifest signs of atheism. What

he means by the word is clear enough, when he thus speaks of a work which

acknowledges God in hundreds of places, and rejects opinions as blasphemous

in several. The work of Bruno in which his astronomical opinions are

contained is _De Monade, etc._ (Frankfort, 1591, 8vo). He is the most

thorough-going Copernican possible, and throws out almost every opinion,

true or false, which has ever been discussed by astronomers, from the

theory of innumerable inhabited worlds and systems to that {62} of the

planetary nature of comets. Libri (vol. iv)[73] has reprinted the most

striking part of his expressions of Copernican opinion."

A Budget of Paradoxes, Volume I · 第 38 / 198 题