-
Giordano Bruno. An unsigned review of Giordano Bruno: His Life, Thought, and Martyrdom, by William Boulting
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- document
- Additional Information
An unsigned review of London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1914. Pp. viii +
Giordano Bruno is the Benvenuto Cellini of philosophy. The comparison may seem far-fetched, in view of the sanctity with which martyrdom has invested Bruno’s name, but a study of Mr. Boulting’s biography gives it some justification.
Bruno’s wanderings are traced in full detail. He was born at Nola, near Naples, in 1548. From Naples to Genoa he drifted, from Genoa to Geneva, from Geneva to Toulouse and Paris, from Paris to England, from England to Germany, and back to Italy to face the Inquisition. Everywhere in his writings he leaves fragments of his life. Some of his most entertaining reminiscences are of Oxford and London. It was in 1583 that he crossed from Calais, and he went directly to Oxford, announcing himself by superb self-advertisement. Of Oxford his impression was not favourable. He had come to a citadel of Aristotelianism to carry on his war against Aristotle, and the dons were not well pleased. The irascible Italian writes that the fellows and tutors “knew much more about beer than about Greek” [85]. He says further “the happy country is ruled by a constellation of pedants” [87]. His anti-Aristotelian lectures were suppressed. Returning to London, Bruno took shelter with the French Ambassador. He was not a man to make friends; he despised the English and refused to learn their language; and his overpowering conceit was quick to take offence. “England can boast a common people,” he wrote, “which will yield to none other in disrespect, outlandishness, boorishness, savagery and bad bringing up” [103]. In the Yelling “Oars” we wasted as much time as it would have taken to go by land and do a trifle of business on the way. At length two boatmen answered from afar and slowly, slowly drew in. After much question and reply as to whence, where, why, how and when, they brought the prow to the foot of the stairs. [109]
The book is learned and painstakingly exact. It is weakest in its account of Bruno’s philosophy; as the method is strictly chronological, there is no systematic exposition, and the author extols rather than expounds. Mr. Boulting is undoubtedly right in asserting that Bruno contributed nothing to Leibniz, but his statement that the