Talk:Giordano Bruno/Archive 1

Revision
I am starting a revision of the article. First of all, I will remove the reference to the University of Venice, which did not exist in Bruno's time. Bruno moved to Venice after accepting Mocenigo invitation to teach him mnemonics and "inventiveness". My source here is the article about Bruno by Giovanni Aqulilecchia in "Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani". Aquilecchia is also the author of the article about Bruno in the Encyclopedia Britannica. 18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am soon going to revise the paragraphs about the role of Bruno's cosmological beliefs in his trial. Bruno's belief in the plurality of worlds and his overall cosmological model, where the Sun is just a star among many other, were actually amply discussed during his trial. I am also going to add more sources. Stammer 05:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just revised the paragraph about Bruno's stay in England.Stammer 06:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Beside other minor edits, I have added a final paragraph stressing the still controversial character of Bruno's contribution. Moreover I have replaced the "astronomer/astrologer" in the opening paragraph with "cosmologist", which appears more appropriate. Stammer 09:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the works that he composed and published in England are currently misattributed to his French period. I am going to fix that. Stammer 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Still work in progress. In the pipeline is a paragraph about Bruno's works on mnemonics during his first French period. 06:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am removing and replacing the unsourced reference to "Masonic circles" sponsoring the monument in Campo dei Fiori. Stammer 11:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am going to eliminate the unsourced references to Bruno's status as a "martyr of science" and the equally unsourced entry about "docetism", since I have added sourced material about Bruno's trial, including the Vatican's webpage about it. Referencing is a bit messy. I am going to clean it up later.Stammer 13:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am going to add some final touches, minor edits and some links, but this is basically it for now. Stammer 13:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

how many trials?
The text is also confusing on another point: was he tried in Venice, then tried in Rome? If both trials are worth mentioning, then we might as well be clear on this point.

I will leave it to another to expand on this point some or will do it later but it should be noted that he was first tried by the Inquisition (the Church). At this trial he was found guilty of heresy. From there he was handed over to the Secular Authorities of Venice who found him guilty and pronounce the death sentence. The Inquisition did not have the power to carry out a death sentence, (at least at that time and location). They could find one guilty of heresy but the sentence was carried out by Secular Authorities. --Chaoscrowley 12:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Translation into English
It looks like no one else is picking it up, so I'll try. -- Jmabel 18:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) Done -- Jmabel 05:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Article: ca:Bruno, Giordano
 * Corresponding English-language article: Giordano Bruno
 * Worth doing because: Material to incorporate into English-language article
 * Originally Requested by: Jmabel 22:17, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Status: in progress Jmabel 22:17, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Other notes: I haven't had a chance to read the Catalan article closely, but it looks like it's accurate, as far as it goes, and is more extensive than the English-language article. If no one picks this up soon, I'll do it myself. -- Jmabel 22:17, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Article: de:Bruno, Giordano
 * Corresponding English-language article: Giordano Bruno
 * Worth doing because: Material to incorporate into English-language article
 * Originally Requested by: Jmabel 18:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Status: All relevant material translated and incorporated. -- Jmabel 19:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Other notes: Far more biographical material than the English-language article. -- Jmabel 18:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the German-language article...
The German-language article says that Bruno was forced to leave Rome in 1576 not because of religious matters but because of "einer (falschen) Mordanklage", "a (trumped-up) murder charge". Does anyone know a source for this? If true, I'd like to put it in the article, but I'm not sure I believe it. -- Jmabel 21:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The English-language article has Bruno handed by the Inquisition to the secular authorities January 8, 1600, the German article says February 8. Does anyone have a source for this? -- Jmabel 19:38, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think both are coming from Britannica. It says that he was unjustly accused of murder. And it was on February 8th, 1600, the death penalty was read to him. Aknxy 22:12, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Speaking to the dicrepency in dates it is probably the same reason the Russian Revolution is dated October and November 1917, the adoption of the Gregorian calendar over the Julian calendar.

Hermes Trismegistus
The article mentions Hermes Trismegistus, but (1) only vaguely hints at the connection between his writings and Neoplatonism and (2) doesn't remark on the fact that in Bruno's time these writings were thought to be very ancient, but they are now thought to date from about 300AD. I would think this worth mentioning. Does anyone disagree? -- Jmabel 21:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No one having weighed in for 2 weeks, I will do this. -- Jmabel 19:39, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to Frances Yates the Hermetica were fundamental to Bruno's cosmology, even more than neo-Platonism. Also, from what I understand it is now thought that, however recent the Hermetica may have been it reflects thought which originated a great many years ago in ancient Egypt. Hieroglyphs have been discovered that testify to similar cosmological ideas as contained in those works ThePeg 23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Saint Augustine maintained that God's wisdom had been revealed to the wise men of antiquity, pagan and Jewish alike, and that (since he was Christian) their wisdom was compatible with Christianity and even was Christianity in its purest form. It was known that the wisdom of Egypt was the oldest of all. The neo-Platonists hoped that uncovering it might reveal "Primitive Christianity" which would reconcile all the conflicting religions and philosophical controversies of the day by clearing away the superstitions and errors that might have accrued to of modern religions, in the same way that errors and interpolations accrue to texts that are copied manually again and again through the ages. This was the optimistic hope of the Renaissance Platonists, and it persisted until the end of the eighteenth century. Of course it was a disappointment to find out that the Hermetic corpus actually dated from the Christian era. Even more of a disappointment was the decipherment of hieroglyphics in the nineteenth century. In this connection an interesting book (in addition to Yates) is Umberto Eco's The Search for the Perfect Language: The Making of Europe. Also see Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680), who, according to Wikipedia, "argued under the impression of the Hieroglyphica that ancient Egyptian was the language spoken by Adam and Eve, that Hermes Trismegistus was Moses, and that hieroglyphs were occult symbols which 'cannot be translated by words, but expressed only by marks, characters and figures.' This led him to translate simple hieroglyphic texts now known to read as dd Wsr ('Osiris says') as 'The treachery of Typhon ends at the throne of Isis; the moisture of nature is guarded by the vigilance of Anubis'" Hieroglyphics were supposed to express ineffable insights that are beyond words, the sort of communication higher beings such as angels might use, a perfect language that would reveal the nature of truth. One thing is certain, perfect language or no, truth is stranger than fiction.Mballen (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"astrologer, and magician"
Recent anon edit adds "astrologer, and magician" to the lead paragraph.

He definitely was an astrologer, like most people in his times with a reasonable knowledge of celestial mechanics. Not sure it's worth mention in the lead paragraph though. But magician? Can someone clarify what they mean by that in this context? Presumably not a conjuror... I'm pretty inclined to delete this, but since it's probably not a highly visible article, I'm first raising the matter here for comment and I'll leave it for at least a couple of days. -- Jmabel 06:16, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Britannica.com writes "philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, and occultist". Occultist would be better instead of magician. Aknxy 22:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I can live with that. -- Jmabel 03:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Restored
I restored this text: As a demonstration of mercy, the clerical authorities placed a bag of gunpowder around his neck before they set the fire, to spare Bruno, bringing his suffering to an end quickly. Although it seems strange to us, what matters is what it meant to them at the time. For an example, see this example from Foxe's Book of Martyrs. PR IIS 15:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"...his scientific ideas..."
I have edited the lead paragraph for style and at least for now left "...because his scientific ideas went against church doctrine," but I think that is at least a bit misleading. I'm pretty familiar with Bruno's writing and with writing about him, and his was not a particularly scientific temperament. His cosmological speculations paralleled the science of his time, but he was rather anti-mathematical. I don't see him as even as much a "scientist" as P. D. Ouspensky, to whom I don't think we'd apply that word. It is true that many in the world of science have tried to claim him as a martyr, but that doesn't mean that they were legitimate in doing so. Comments? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Seeing Bruno as a martyr to science is certainly a Whiggish interpretation. I think it's misleading, and, depending on how you define "science," quite anachronistic. Bruno reached all his conclusions by pure speculation. PRiis 15:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The final clause of the introduction is too sweeping and loaded a statement as to be useful: "[Bruno's pantheist beliefs about God] not an idea (sic, number) that would be characterized today as scientific". Neither is this comment supported explicitly by the quotation it cites. From what I can gather, this statement purports an unjustified authority on the relative 'scientificness' of theism and pantheism as a foregone conclusion. It sounds rather weak for this. Could an authorised person edit this to something more balanced and less opinionated, or else remove the useless clause altogether please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.136.55 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent anon deletions
It was deleted that he was imprisoned in the Castel Sant'Angelo for six years before he was tried. I'm pretty certain that is accurate, but I don't have a citation. It was replaced by an equally uncited claim that "imprisoned for six years before he was tried, lastly in the Tower of Nona" but I thought he was in the Tower after his trial. Since there is no citation on either side, I don't know how best to proceed.

The following was deleted: "As a demonstration of mercy, the clerical authorities placed a bag of gunpowder around his neck before they set the fire, to spare Bruno, bringing his suffering to an end quickly. The authorities also nailed his tongue to his jaw to stop him from speaking." I don't have any idea whether this is true or not, but if it is, could someone restore with citation?

Again, I know about Bruno mostly from college 30 years ago, so I'm no authority. Could someone more familiar weigh in? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Was he pardoned by the Church?
Galileo Galilei was pardoned for his "crimes" in 1992 by the Pope. Has a similar pardon been issued to Bruno yet? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred26 (talk • contribs) 8 Oct 2005.

No, he was not, nor will he likely ever be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.210.16 (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I translate from the article in wikepedia.nl. "Not without reason his statue looks in the direction of the Vatican. Pope Leo XIII condemned the erection of the statue. In 1942 cardinal Giovanni Mercati declared that Bruno was condemned quite righly, "abstraction made about the way he was executed". Pope John Paul II has officially declared his deep sorrow about Bruno being burnt alive. Bruno was not rehabilitated due to the fact that his views are not in accordance with catholic views."

Poldebol (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bruno x Galileo
"Like Galileo Galilei, his Copernicanism was a factor in his heresy trial. Unlike Galileo, some of his theological beliefs were also a factor."

Are you sure about this? Let me quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"(...) in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.50.111.30 (talk • contribs) 17 Nov 2005.


 * I think this probably should change in the article. My own view is that in the eyes of the Church, the heretic Bruno's Copernicanism is a lot of what gave Copernicus a bad name, rather than vice versa. But I don't have a citation, and this is an area in which I would call myself clueful but not expert. Is there someone more expert who can weigh in? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a complex topic. It is not accurate to say that no documents about the trial survive. What is lost is the final verdict, which contained the motivations for the death sentence. There is actually a classic book by Luigi Firpo "Il processo di Giordano Bruno", which is based on a careful analysis of the surviving documents. It is available also in French, but, as far as I know, it has not been translated in English. Bruno's support for heliocentrism was an issue at the trial, but it may not have been decisive in motivating the death sentence. In my opinion the current article is a good starting point, but it could be improved, keeping in mind that Bruno's thought still has a remarkable capacity to stir controversy.  I may try my hand at it in the next few weeks. I will add here a quote by Hans-Georg Gadamer that may give an idea both of Bruno's importance and the challenges it poses to the modern scholar: "For a long time, Giordano Bruno has represented a philosophical figure with immense symbolic power. During the period of conflict between the modern states and the Catholic Church, his martyrdom and his philosophical work were elevated to the status of universal notoriety. In the meantime, modern research has come to forget more and more the merits of the Italian Renaissance and the genesis of modernity's scientific culture". --  Stammer 15:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this really belong?
In a recently added section called "In the movies":
 * Satire article from David Albrecht (2004) "reporting" on new Giordano Bruno film directed by Richard Dawkins

It's a clever piece of Satire on Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, but it seems like a frivolous link. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and I don't see what anyone turning to this page for an encyclopedia article about a historical figure would gain from the link. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Having received no response in over 24 hours, I am removing. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Such links document that Bruno's legacy is still alive in popular culture (cf. the "Influence and reputation" section in the Thomas More article as an example among many). I may re-integrate the link and add one to Bruno (webcomic). Stammer 07:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about Bruno as an Occultist
I wonder why Giordano Bruno is described in britannica.com to have been an occultist. Other Encyclopedias do not mention something like this (for instance my "Atlas of Philosophy" in the German langage, dtv Verlag). I have also checked other websites and consulted two printed history books, without anything pointing in this direction... Any more info about this? mathaxiom 23:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mathaxiom. I moved your comment - it’s a convention in Wikipedia to write the contributions at the end of the discussion page. I'd like to repeat that I already saw other works describing Bruno as a mystical, etc…, (but it was some time ago, and I don't remember where). Let's see what other people have to say. PS.: I’m also interested in the reasoning behind the (now gone) description of Bruno as a spy. --Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] pois não? 23:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have posted two listings of translations of Bruno that were recently put into English. Cause, Principal, and Unity, and The Cabala of Pegasus. In both these writings Bruno deals with matters that are occult in nature. Two short treatises by Bruno are included with "Cause" entitled "Essays on Magic" and "An Account of Bonding" both works deal specifically with magic. In addition  "The Cabala of Pegasus" is a set of Dialogues wherein Bruno describes his cosmology using Cabalistic (Kabalistic) terms. Whatever we choose to call it I think these demonsrate that some reference to the occult or magic is justified. These parts of Bruno's life have not been noticed because a study of Bruno and translations out of Italian or Latin have only recently begun. De Magia only arrived in English in 98 and Cabala in 97. The Cabala is translated to German only in 2000 and at least 50 of his writings still remain only in Italian or Latin. Chaoscrowley 00:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How can you say they have not been noticed? Frances A. Yates Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition dates from 1964. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When Yates book first arrived it was greeted with a fair amount of controversy. Yates work in general wasn't very well respected at the time.  It took a number of years before it was accepted into the broader academic community.  "Ignored" may be a bit of a strong word, but it was an area that wasn't really dealt with in his biographies and ideas even after Yates work. Considering the number of people who wondered about it on this site and are not able to find much on the idea, and the fact that Yates begins dealing with the subject 350 years after his death show that it is an idea that hasn't been dealt with in a major way.  The fact that there had to be an actual discussion on why he was described as an occultist shows it is a matter that was not really noticed.  If the idea was well known why would anyone post questions on Why he is described as an occultist? --Chaoscrowley 08:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd guess that most people don't encounter Bruno at all in the course of their education, or if they do it's a passing mention where he is misrepresented as simply a martyr for science. But I would also hope that anyone who has studied Bruno in any depth at all in the last 30-odd years has at least heard about Yates's work. But maybe I'm wrong, and I'd be interested in hearing about how Bruno's work is currently taught (if at all) at various universities. I'd also be interested in knowing the date of the "Atlas of Philosophy" referred to above. I read Bruno (and Yates on Bruno) in a course I took in 1975-'76, taught by Elisabeth Young-Bruehl ( who I see doesn't have a Wikipedia article; I would think she should, I'll put that on my list about whom I just wrote an article - Jmabel | Talk). In any event, I agree that, certainly, for several centuries, Bruno was co-opted successfully as a martyr for science and rationalism, which to me suggests that not many people actually bothered reading him. One might not go as far as Yates, but clearly Bruno was no rationalist. - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I would go farther than Yates but not in this article. I have lived within walking distance of a Big 10 university for the last 10 years and I have only met two people outside of philosophy majors who even knew who Bruno was.  He seems to be mainly passed over or treated overly dramatic as a copernican martyr, or a one paragraph side note.  Considering the teacher of the course I think it could be said that she was probably open to ideas that were not always smiled upon by other professors.  (a compliment)  I would propose that he is still being ignored, although not as an occultist.  A number of his works are still only available in the Omnia in Italian. People will continue to churn out "pulp" biographies by the dozen because he led an exciting life but outside the realm of Bruno scholars no one is going to actually read anything by him. --Chaoscrowley 02:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Solving the Martyr of Science Problem
It appears that there are some issues here of whether Bruno should be regarded as a martyr for science or if his death was due to theological heresy. I think this question can be solved. Some of the problems we are experiencing are due to outdated references. A partial document of Bruno's Inquisition trial in Rome was found in the Vatican archives and only recently released for public consumption.Vatican Archives. This negates the accuracy of most bibliography's being used here. In the late 90's nearly complete transcripts of his Venice secular trial were also found. I think the argument that we can't decide for what or why he was convicted due to lack of materials is negated. Bruno was never accused of holding the heretical idea of Heliocentrism. It was not a heretical idea at the time then. Bruno's interrogation involving Heliocentricity was in relation to his philosophical/theological ideas. Bruno inspired a number of later thinkers including Spinoza, and Hegel. He was offered the choice to recant multiple times and held his ground until death, unlike Galileo and others. If no one opposes I will gather some sources and begin in a few days and try to clear this idea up.--Chaoscrowley 13:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing Spy section
I am completely removing the section on Bruno as a spy. The involvement of Bruno in the "Embassy Affair" as the informer 'Henry Fagot' was put forth by John Bossy a number of years ago, and he does make a convincing argument. Latter Bossy himself in "Under the Molehill", writing again about the affair, quietly acknowledges that he was wrong on a number of key dates, when the letters were written, and Bruno's whereabouts at the time. Since the reference was made invalid by its own author I don't think including this section is of any use. This is a direct quote from Bossy in the section entitled "A note on the date of Fagot's letter" pg.169

"If we choose the first [assumed date] we may like to imagine Bruno handing his letter to Sidney as he steeped on to the Queen's Barge which was to take the party festively towards Oxford, for Sidney to pass on to Walsingham on their return: what could be safer? But the later date, and a less distinguished postman, seems much more likely." --Chaoscrowley 11:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the "spy section" is back, added by a gentleman who apparently did not read your post. Stammer (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can anyone provide the actual text of this supposed recant? I expect Bossy would 'recant' if he found that his findings were somehow screwed up, but I'd like to actually see the text of this retraction of his position. If I remember correctly (I don't have "Embassy Affair" at hand) there were a number of 'Fagot letters', or at least more than one. How would uncertainty as to the transfer of a letter to Sidney in one particular instance invalidate the entire line of argument and constitute a retraction of position? If there is an actual retraction I'd love to see it, and to include the text of it (if possible) in a footnote with a proper citation. Thanks! --Picatrix (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stanford's Michael Wyatt writes: "Just as Bossy has now acknowledged regarding his case supporting Giordano Bruno's supposed career as an Elisabethian spy in the 1580s, the facts are too elusive to provide but tantalizing hypotheses." . Note 106 concerning Bossy's "flimsy paleographical evidence", can be perused here. Stammer (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the Apology from church
The apology section seems to be very poorly reasearched and attempts to paint Bruno as a murderer of Catholics. The Church never made these statements. I will wait for comment as I have edited a fair amount already. Here is the actual statement Catholic statement on Bruno on the anniversary. --Chaoscrowley 11:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I was just about to start a new talk section on this when I saw this one; even if it is factual it's a complete non-sequitur and demands explanation. —This unsigned comment was added by 172.156.47.17 (talk • contribs) 28 March 2006.

Immanant and imminent
I know it seems anal but I have changed imminent back to Immanent. The idea of immanence was central to Bruno's cosmology and left a large mark on Spinoza and those after him. I have wikified the words and I'm sure the subtle, yet in this case substantial difference between the two can be seen. --Chaoscrowley 10:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bruno as astronomer
I did some minor tinkering with the article; in particular, I added him to a couple of astronomer categories. The body of the article says (in contrast to the intro) that he was not an astronomer. I left the statement because, in context, I think it is intended to say that he didn't do anything with a high level of mathematics. At the same time, he did lecture and write on astronomy. I believe it is accurate to call him an astronomer with this qualification. Maestlin 05:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed
Citation is needed on a matter where our sources apparently do not all agree with one another.

camillo
can we start a related article on giulio camillo which exists in italian and german wiki but not in english and has tremendous relevance to bruno??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The following was removed without comment:

"Although the actual charge against Bruno was docetism, (adherence to the doctrine that Jesus did not actually have a physical body and that his physical presence was an illusion), and despite the fact that his theoretical work cannot be considered scientific, some authors have claimed Bruno as a 'martyr of science'. They see a parallel between his persecution and the Galileo affair, asserting that even though, unlike Galileo, Bruno's theological beliefs were a factor in his heresy trial, Bruno's Copernicanism was also a factor."

"But the above 'connection' may be exaggerated, or even plainly false. For example: according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, '…in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When…Bruno…was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology.' In fact, the precise charges of heresy on which Bruno was finally condemned are unknown, as the official record has long been lost. The role (if any) of his heliocentric teachings and belief in an infinite universe is not a matter that can be conclusively proved on either side."

It was replaced by an uncited statement that "The numerous charges against him included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is usually considered a pretty decent (if tertiary) source. I would expect some discussion around saying that it is wrong. I would, especially, expect to see a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the old segment is more substantive, and has the added advantage of an actual citation. We really should have further discussion of this change before making it permanent. I will revert the page back [correction: reinsert section --V.]and request anyone preferring otherwise to discuss it here. --Varenius 23:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In film and fiction addition
Bruno figured prominently in an episode of the anime series Those who Hunt Elves. I would add this into the article, but I'm not quite sure how. Could someone put it in? --Not a User 1:19, 2 April 2007

I added the Margaret Gabrielle Long/Marjorie Bowen novel in this section. --User:jessnevins 9:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Burned by whom?
I made the following edit: "Burned at the stake by the Catholic Church as a heretic…" As far as I know, he would have been burned by the civil authorities, even if his conviction was in an ecclesiastical court. I'm unaware of anywhere in Europe at that that time that the Church actually carried out executions. I could be mistaken on this, in which case, please produce a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 10:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Øøh (imagine the sound of a punch in the stomach), the Roman Inquisition, developed by the Holy See. Actually, the Roman Catholic Church is responsible, more specifically Pope Clement VIII and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine are responsible for his execution. And, like the witch hunts and immoral persecutions of Jews, we True Christians are obligued to denounce these Christian atrocities in order to gain absolution for our collective sin. Is that so foreign for a Christian?? No revisionism please.


 * Besides, I once saw a cleric, responsible for the Vatican Observatory, having a portrait of Giordano Bruno on his wall. END. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even at the heyday of the Inquisition, the final verdict and/or excecution were often put into the hands of civil authorities. This had led to many people, even today stating that the victims of the Inquisition were much less than those condemned and executed by the civil authorities.

Poldebol (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bruno's manifest heresy was determined at trial before an ecclesiastical tribunal that then handed him over to the secular authorities for execution. Nevertheless it is truly only coincidental that, in 1600, the top secular authority in Rome was also the Pope. [shrug]    Heck, if Bruno hadn't assiduously alienated everyone who ever sponsored him or if he had just stuck to science instead of running a sideline in heresy, he might still be alive today . . . [tear]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.156.48 (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever may have been 'ultimately responsible' Bruno was turned over to secular authorities for execution. In any case the section in question no longer claims he was burned by the Catholic Church. This issue is no longer 'live' as the text has been changed, and talk pages are not for discussion of personal views. --Picatrix (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Vatican Secret Archive Reference
The text about the Vatican Secret Archive, citing footnote 9, misleadingly appears to be quoting the text of the archival document in question. It is not, but rather is quoting the cited page that describes the archival document. The quote mentions Galileo's trial being held in the same room as Bruno's and thus implies that the Secret Archive document was written sometime after Galileo's trial, but the cited web page also suggests that the document was written by a canonist who died in 1612, before Galileo was tried. The cited page does have some quotes from the document in question in both Latin and in English translation, but the quote that appears on the Wikipedia page is not part of the quote, but merely is the final paragraph of the web page.

I strongly suggest that this be reworded, but I have no specific suggestions for an appropriate alternative 72.192.234.183 05:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC) -[lojbab (non-Wikipedian)]


 * I strongly concur with the foregoing. The quote is little more than innuendo and doesn't belong here, regardless of how laudable the effort at presenting an alternative view.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.156.48 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the text currently on the page expresses clearly that the discussion is on the web page, not in the document. In any case, this is a web page published and maintained by a Vatican organization, and for that reason alone this deserves mention in the context of balanced reporting of controversies. --Picatrix (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the quoted sentence as saying many things. I will take the prudent course and use more than one sentence to recapitulate it:


 * * Galileo and Bruno were questioned in the same rooms.


 * * Galileo and Bruno were questioned for the same reasons, to wit:  “the relationship between science and faith, at the dawning of the new astronomy and at the decline of Aristotle’s philosophy.” 


 * * Bellarmine contested Bruno’s heretical propositions.


 * * Bellarmine later summoned Galileo.


 * * Galileo and Bruno faced famous inquisitorial trials.


 * * Galileo’s trial resulted in a mild sanction, lucky for him.


 * The proposition that Bruno had “heretical theses” seems to be granted by the quoted sentence. Does the statement that Galileo and Bruno were questioned “for the same important reasons of the relationship between science and faith, at the dawning of the new astronomy and at the decline of Aristotle’s philosophy” mean that Bruno’s heresy trial was based, in whole or in part, on his astronomy/astrology/cosmology?  Or does it merely imply or suggest such?  The latter is the case, of course, as the current article text already admits.  I used the word innuendo before and I stand by it.  This sort of ambiguous gobbledygook should not pass as a usable source.  Despite its laudable source, it does not stand as material evidence of a controversy, nor does it constitute a balanced report of same--I say this while freely admitting that the supposed controversy does actually exist.


 * I will note that the (presumably original) Italian seems to have a slightly different sense in certain places:
 *  “In quelle stesse stanze ove veniva interrogato Giordano Bruno, per questi medesimi cruciali problemi del rapporto fra scienza e fede, agli albori della nascente astronomia e sul crepuscolo della decadente filosofia aristotelica, sedici anni dopo sarebbe stato convocato dal cardinale Bellarmino, che ora contestava al Bruno le tesi eretiche, Galileo Galilei, soggetto anch’egli ad un celebre processo inquisitoriale che per fortuna, almeno nel suo caso, si concluse con una semplice abiura.” 


 * That's all I will say on the matter. Thank you for your kind consideration. 74.69.156.48 (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bruno and Cusanus
The article ignores completely Cusanus view on the universe and the huge influence he had on Bruno. It even suggests Bruno developed his "theory" extrapolating Copernicus' heliocentric cosmos. Any evidence on that? Bruno had read Cusanus, he was influenced by Cusanus (as he mentioned him in his works) and Cusanus wrote on an infinite universe with infinitely many stars and systems where Earth has no special place. Cusanus argues (and on that also Ficino) the center of the universe is ubiquitous and the circumference is infinite. Cusanus also argues on a spherical Earth (but that was not so rare in the "Aristotelic Middle Ages"), but a rotating one. Daizus 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the POV-bit template, but if this is the cause for POV-bit, then I'm going to Dispute it instead. Said: Rursus 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding, Bruno DID extrapolate Copernicus' heliocentric views, though this certainly wasn't the only source of his cosmology. Frances Yates discusses this in her book on Bruno. Bruno himself makes references to Copernicus and how he more properly understood the implications of Copernicus' merely mathematical understanding of heliocentrism. As far as I can tell, Bruno's heliocentrism doesn't state that the Sun is the center of the universe, just that the Earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. I apologize that I am on vacation at the moment and don't have access to the page references, but it is definitely in Yates' book, and is taken directly from Bruno's writings. (added by dimensional_didge 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Film and Fiction misunderstanding
The movie The Ninth Gate mentions Bruno, but not in any kind of context with The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows. Nor does the novel, "The Club Dumas"- upon which it was based - imply that Bruno was involved in the creation of the satanic folio.

Bruno's cosmology
It is currently written as it is a kind of modern cosmology missing few things here and there. Daizus 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. And Cusanus still needed? Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC) (Admire my new signature! ☻☻☻)


 * Nicholas of Cusa for the fastest one with itching fingers. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 16:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bruno's influence on Spinoza's "deus sive natura"
Could anyone shed some light on Bruno's influence on Spinoza, in particular the latter's idea that God is the matter? Thank you.

Pierre (noelp@ebrd.com)

No one is picking up on this interesting question? DeSeingalt (talk) 11:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)deSeingalt


 * Maybe because the question is hard. Some external analysis needed to cite, in order to get it done.  Said: Rursus   ☻   19:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup: the conflict over his execution
The section has a nagging language! All standpoints should remain, but the section gives a jigsaw puzzle impression of Mr X adding this and Mr Y countering by that argument for and against. The citations can actually be moved to the references section, in order to get the ordinary section's language flow better. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not solved as I said, but nevertheless acceptably. Criticism retracted.  Said: Rursus   ☻   20:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Disdain for math
This sentence in the article: "This animism (and a corresponding disdain for mathematics as a means to understanding) is the most dramatic respect in which Bruno's cosmology differs from what today passes for a common-sense picture of the universe." is faulty.

If he had a "disdain for math as a means to understanding" he was right. If you study more about the formal sciences, math logic etc, you will understand why the formal sciences cannot tell us anything about the real world. The expression "a common-sense picture of the universe" is very undefined. Does it mean what people in general think, or the current position of the philosophy of science?

His "disdain for mathematics as a means to understanding" should be described as an insight in the role of the formal sciences which is correct in the modern world. The opposite view, that logic and math expressed the absolute truth or could give us knowledge about the real world, was a religious view, which still influence less educated people.

Theoretical models, like formulas and maps are never correct models of the real world, in every detail. If the map (model) differs from the reality it is the map that is wrong and has to be revised. Modern science is based on observations of reality, not on theoretical speculations. (Roger J.)

Something "queeird"
Section "Early years", second and third para. Second para contends that Bruno might have been influenced by Hermetic tracts according to Frank Yates. Then the third para talks on, as if proven that Bruno was influenced by Neoplatonism. Too far leap-to-conclusions to be exactly quite acceptable, by my taste. I think it might not exactly be proven that his mnemonic theory really is a Neoplatonic writing in disguise, at least not by the paras 2 and 3 in this section. Maybe instead he invented a mnemonic theory, that happen to remind very knowledgeable authors of the kind of thinking in Neoplatonism, maybe ...  Said: Rursus   ☻   20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some more discovered: section Bruno's cosmology, para 3, the end:
 * There was no room in his stable and permanent universe for the Christian notions of divine creation and Last Judgement.
 * And then para 4:
 * According to Bruno, infinite God necessarily created an infinite universe,
 * Now, was there room for a creation or was there not? The apparent (?) contradictions confuses me. Do we understand Bruno incorrectly or are we mixing various author interpretations on Bruno in an indiscriminate manner?  Said: Rursus   ☻   20:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New Round of Revisions
This article has a lot of useful information, but there are a number of problems with it that I'll be attempting to address as I have time in coming weeks. For starters, however, I would like to suggest that the "Statue of Giordano Bruno" article remain separate, though some mention of it can be placed in the article with a link. I will therefore remove the suggestion that the material be merged. I also find the "Popular Culture" and "Legacy" sections to be more or less useless page-clutter. An encyclopedia article discussing an important philosopher is not an appropriate place for collecting trivial odds and ends about where and when he may have been mentioned by others. Since five or six months have elapsed since this useless content was tagged with the suggestion that it be incorporated into other sections or appropriate articles, and nothing seems to have been done, I am removing it. --Picatrix (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with it now, but the "Cosmology before Bruno" and "Bruno's cosmology" sections should be merged and rewritten. This whole article needs a lot of work. --Picatrix (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've completed a first pass of revisions in an effort to get this article off to a better start. We've got a decent opening paragraph and an acceptable biography (though no doubt both can be improved). Until I have more time I've put in place a compromise solution for the "Cosmology" section, but it's not optimal. This article needs a serious discussion of Bruno's philosophy, cosmology and art of memory. Hopefully someone will step up to take care of this. If not, I'll get to it as soon as I can. Let's try to keep the pop-culture clutter and third rate derivative sources out, while building on citations based on sound scholarship about Bruno, of which plenty exists. --Picatrix (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruno portraits
The two alleged portraits of Bruno were awkwardly placed in both of my web browsers, so I made an attempt at realignment. I'm not sure that what I did is Wikipedia approved, but perhaps it will get regular contributors to this page thinking about new ideas for the layout. I'm not planning to be a regular editor of the Bruno article, so let me simply say "happy editing" to the regular contributors. -- Astrochemist (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned Comment Without Subject Heading
Bruno was a minor scientist of limited abilities who is being hyped by extremist atheists like Dawkins. He is being hyped for obvious reasons, to be coupled with Galileo as a sign of religion's oppression of science. Yet there is no proof that Bruno was tried and then executed by the state for anything but the simple crime of heresy. In that date and time heresy was a capital offense,m since it was considered dabbling in the political machinery of the theocracy. Such behaviour could lead to civil unrest or even wars. Bruno was not responsible for any advancements in science. He was not credited with any great scientific theories or experiments.

Bruno got in trouble for his religious views (publicly denying the divinity of Christ is never a good move... for a Christian living in a monastery), not for his "beliefs" in the Copernican sun-centred system. Nobody believed the Copernican system... not even Copernicus (the predictions it made were just as inaccurate as the predictions made with the Earth-centred model).

Galileo got in trouble because he pretended he had proofs that the planetary system was Sun-centred... when he did not. And he made fun of the Vatican chief scientist in the process. They did not like that. (I had a boss who once told me, if you are going to be arrogant about something, first make damn sure you are right)

At the time, the world was still thought to be composed of 4 elements: earth, water, air and fire. earth was obviously the heaviest, then water (sits on top of earth), then air (stays above water) and fire (rises).

The heaviest elements would seek the centre (that is how gravity was explained in those days).

Earth (the thing we stand on) was made of... err... earth (what else?) and water. It was obviously the heaviest. The Sun was made of fire, it was obviously the lightest. Therefore, the Sun could not be at the centre, based on the knowledge of the time.

What proof did Galileo offer that everything orbits around Earth? He found moons around Jupiter.

Obviously not a very convincing proof that everything orbits Earth. However, instead of looking for proofs that his support of Kepler's system was correct, Galileo spent his time proving that the theory of the Vatican astronomers was wrong.

And he was very arrogant about it.

---

Kepler first book was around 1615.

Newton's explanation came in 1687.

Scientists (including Vatican scientists) were really swayed by Newton's work, so the answer would be "up to the penultimate decade of the 17th century." Even if some began to accept the Sun-centred system as early as the 1620s (Kepler's predictions for planetary positions were more accurate than any previous tables). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan6362 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 25 December 2008


 * Please create a subject heading consistent with your comments on the talk page, and please sign your posts. Placing your comments inside subject headings to which they do not relate is confusing. Other editors then have to take time to straighten out your 'contributions'. The rambling discussion above appears to be an expression of personal views. Please note that Wikipedia talk page guidelines explicitly state that "article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." As for the claim that the article does not maintain NPOV, please note that the intro paragraph states that he is "often considered" a martyr for scientific ideas, not that he was a martyr for these ideas. Also, please read the section on retrospective views of Bruno, wherein it is written: "Some authors have characterized Bruno as a "martyr of science", suggesting parallels with the Galileo affair. They assert that, even though Bruno's theological beliefs were an important factor in his heresy trial, his Copernicanism and cosmological beliefs also played a significant role for the outcome. Others oppose such views, and claim this alleged connection to be exaggerated, or outright false." Alternative points of view are presented in the article. This NPOV tag is not warranted. If you cannot provide citations (as opposed to a long-winded discussion of your personal feelings) this tag will shortly be removed. To be entirely clear, your assertions require citations, and should be reflected in the sections for which they are appropriate. --Picatrix (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can't wait to delete the truth. Amigo, I'm not going to be bothered. I see where this is going, and I've read the prior talk history, it's a waste of my time.

I'm not a grounded 16 year old. I have a life.

The article itself should be deleted, Bruno was a nobody in scientific and historical terms according to mainstream science and history. Even the article doesn't present any reason to see Bruno as anything else but a minor scientist who held an opinion which was different than the mainstream at the time. His math was awful. He convinced no one of anything.

The flow of the article is intended to present Bruno as a martyr, despite other opinions which are shoved in and just as quickly refuted with an editorial. It's loaded with inaccuracies intended to hype it's subject, including Pope Paul's supposed apology. There is editorial comment relating to the Vatican Secret Archive, which is again, intended to sway readers, not present a genuine supposed dispute.

Mainstream historians have not honored this man in the way he is being presented here. The fact remains he was a minor scientist of no accomplishments who would have never been remembered but for the proponents of the Reformation hyping his scandal. Later marxists and now counterculture proponents are sadly keeping this nonsense alive.

It's a shame some teachers allow wiki to be used for research with trash like this in it. You wonder why donations are not jumping into the coffers. This is why. So continue your inaccuracies and Catholic bashing, There are alternatives to Wiki, and I'd rather put my time into that. Peace.

synodus ex mundis
Would any Latin fans like to add a translation of synodus ex mundis? TJRC (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Later assessments
This sounds weak:
 * However, later assessments have challenged the description of his beliefs as scientific, and suggest that his ideas about the universe played a substantially smaller role in his trial than his pantheist beliefs about God.[1][2]

It sounds like an apology to me. The citations given are weak and blathering', like someone trying to defend themselves caught for pilfering, citation [2] is not supporting the statement, its just blabbing around, and citation [1] contains Catholic Encyclopedia, who cannot be considered neutral. The sentence needs rewriting, like:
 * still after 409 years, when the execution of Giordano Bruno is mentioned, the believers of X are starting to babble redfacedly.[1][2]

... said: Rursus ( m b o r k³ ) 16:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your emotions. Thanks also for sharing your opinion about what seems like an apology to you. The citations are sufficient to support the statements made: on one hand they establish the historical fact that he was considered a 'martyr' for science (and add a few representative popular examples of this association, e.g. astronomers naming things after him); on the other, they establish the academic acceptance of his pantheist beliefs, and show that books have been written (the example provided is Yates, but there are others, e.g. Karen Silvia De Leon-Jones) that suggest he was far more of a magician, mystic or esoteric memory practitioner than a Martyr for Science. John Bossy even argues that he was a spy (though some problems with that line of argument seem to have emerged). If you want to find more recent discussions that assert that Bruno was a scientist then you might try Mendoza's Acentric Labyrinth. I haven't read it yet, but it seems to take an upbeat view of the relationship between Bruno's thought and modern science. You might find some material there that would form the basis of a worthwhile contribution to ensuring the neutrality of any statements. However, as it stands, you seem to be most concerned with coming out of the gates bitching about "blathering". It's worthwhile to bear in mind that making emotional remarks on an article talk page accusing Christians of red-faced babbling really doesn't meet talk page guidelines per WP:TALK ("Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."). Such guidelines contextualize your remarks here as a kind of 'blathering', if I'm allowed the term. Finally, leaving the citations aside, let's come to your belief that the statement in question sounds like an apology. One is forced to wonder how a statement indicating some uncertainty in the literature as to whether he was burned for his religious or his scientific ideas could be an apology for Christians!!?? If they burned him for mystical or for scientific ideas it would presumably have no bearing on the fact that he was burned for having unorthodox beliefs. How then could it be an apology? Please make an effort to understand the literal sense of statements (as well as their broader context in the text) before blathering on the talk page. Thanks! --Picatrix (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My remark was inappropriate, since it created exactly that reaction. My apology to the rest of the readers, but Picatrix, that was not the reason for my emotionalism: my reason is that the Vatican and the Inquisition have hidden and braked the spread of information, and is still doing so by making apologies of "but at that time it preserved freedom". They should release all information, translate and publish it all on the web, otherwise no reason of "preserved freedom" hold! Whether he was a christian/non-christian, mystic/magician/science guy in any combination is irrelevant, I simply don't assume that the denominations in question are mutually exclusive. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Umlaut
I just noticed that some joking spirit has changed all references to Bruno into references to Brüno, possibly in homage to Sasha Baron Cohen. I guess it would be a good idea to revert to the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.24.74 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Late Vatican position: translation error
Sodano's letter is traslated as saying that the Inquisitors "had the desire to preserve freedom"..

In the original we read "desiderio di servire la verità" which means "the desire to serve the truth"..

Please correct the error.--79.55.182.170 (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sebastian Garth (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

--79.55.182.170 (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the error is from the quoted article in note; so if possible  the original and official letter from the Vatican site  could be added. tnx
 * I've run the original letter through a few different translators, so the current revision basically reflects the "lowest common denominator" of the lot. Look okay? Sebastian Garth (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions
Re "the first man to have conceptualized the universe as a continuum where the stars we see at night are of identical nature as the sun," Rowland, in Giordano Bruno: Philosopher/Heretic 2008, p.109, cites a very similar thesis in the writings of Nicolas of Cusa. I haven't had a chance to chase this any further. Freeman (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember him claiming that the universe is infinite, filled with an infinite number of stars just like our sun. Did he actually claim that infinitely worlds with intelligences existed?


 * Yes. Remember, though, that he considered matter itself to be intelligent. -- Jmabel 21:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, in the last paragraph: ''It is claimed that he was burned for his Copernicanism and stated at his trial "Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it", but this is uncertain, since his theological beliefs were sufficiently unorthodox. ''

What is uncertain? That he said this to his judges, or that he was burned for his Copernicanism, or both? What he was burned for should be readily accessible from the trial documents, which survived. --AxelBoldt


 * Well, there's also the allegation by a very prominent historian of the English Renaissance (John Bossy, Giordano Bruno and the Embassy Affair) that Bruno was deeply involved in the Tudor efforts to suppress the Catholic Church in England - he was working in the French embassy in London as tutor to the ambassador's son. Bossy claims that Bruno's handwriting is recognizeable in letters to the secret service of the day informing on British priests.  Bossy's book was not overwhelmingly positively received.  His theology was certainly unorthodox - notice that he was condemned from multiple directions - so it may not have been "science", but "theology" that got him in the end. --MichaelTinkler, who had resolved to stay out of the post-medieval period.

I think he doesn't even have much science to show for and he certainly wasn't a scientist; I'm sure many of his philosophical/theological theses were considered heretical. --AxelBoldt
 * Bruno was a scientific man for his age but what he was martyred for was heretical free-thinking. He really did not believe in Christianity, but preferred to revert to his understanding of Hermetical religion.  There isn't much about that in this article, which is a problem, since it seems pretty clear that although the Papal authorities listed individual points of belief where Bruno was considered "heretical," what they were getting at were details of his unacceptable overall notion that Christianity itself was a problem, since Jesus was a magician, not God, and since the real method of connecting with the Divine involved rituals and beliefs to be found in Hermetic documents like the "Asclepius."  He was deeply against idolatry and really something of an old-fashioned animist.  The misplaced notion of Bruno as a martyred scientist has rather enfevered those who are outraged at his murder and suffering.  But what he died for was a very different sort of free-thinking which needs greater recognition.  Also, Bruno is described as an "astronomer" in this article; but was he really? That seems fanciful.  There is no question that Tycho Brahe and Galileo were astronomers.  Bruno was a mathematician and he was certainly a very well-versed astrologer, and enormously influenced by the writings of Henry Cornelius Agrippa, as well as Ficino.  What does that tell you?  (And by the way, there is no mention of Agrippa in the article.) I think Bruno should be described, rather, as an "astrologer," since not only was he one, but astrology deeply informed almost every one of his beliefs. NaySay (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can describe Bruno as an astrologer. Astrological imagery, the planetary gods as instantiations of divine power, certainly were part of his thought. But an astrologer ought to be someone who attempts to learn about the world or the fate of persons by working with the conjunctions of the planets and the constellations. I know of no evidence that Bruno ever did that kind of work. Bruno was certainly not a scientist (not by any definition that arises when the word does, in the 19th century, nor any definition we now have). He was a philosopher, and a believer and perhaps a worker in natural magic (by which was meant the accomplishing of things through knowledge of and manipulation of natural forces, without the aid of spiritual entities or God. Of course Bruno's idea of what constitutes a natural force is not ours.  The greatest exponent of Bruno's philosophy as underlying a complex and serious erotic magic is Ioan Culianu, "Eros and Magic in the Renaissance".  And see Hilary Gatti, "Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science" for a thorough and surprising analysis of Bruno's metaphysics/physics, which contain hints of a world view that only arises with modern atomic theory and quantum mechanics -- though of course entirely speculative and not scientific at all.  -- John Crowley   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.140.111 (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The final impulse to Bruno's trial was made by Roberto Bellarmino, the same one that is found later in relation with Galileo. He made the final accusation with 12 points, one of them, I think, was related to his copernicanism. I think the documents where it says exactly why was it burned do not survive,though.-AN

The very first sentence in the article calls Giordano Bruno an astrologer. This is not accurate. He was not known for being an astrologer at all. We should be careful about people with an idealogical agenda changing the text of the article to purposefully misinform others. I would remove the word "astrologer." I don't mind not saying that he was an astronomer, since he is not known for making astronomical measurements. But I think the word "astrologer" should be removed.

GB and a lunar impact.
Is this the same dude who observed what MAY have been an asteroid impact on the moon? Googling his name and some promising other words can't seen to get past the crater named after him, which may have occurred in 1178, so that's obviously not him. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Bruno's appearance
I have just rewritten the section previously called "Notes on Bruno portraits. The images themselves are non-notable, particularly as one is 19th century and purely derivative.  It doesn't require any discussion whatsoever, in the context of the article.

The other image is interesting in that is almost certainly based on an early likeness. Although an early engraving has been suggested, if none such exists as a frontispiece to any of Bruno's works as originally published, then it might even come from an original portrait taken directly from life, in the form of a drawing or painting, and since lost.

The reasons that I suggest this other than that it came from an earlier print are simply that prints usually: a. serve a purpose i.e. as a frontispiece in a book, b.  are created for mass production,  giving a them better chance of survival than a drawing.

The image in the engraving coincides very well with the archbishop's description of Bruno as being like a little water bird, strutting around with bright eyes, dabbling its long beak into everything.

Amandajm (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Neapolitan, Italian...
Neminis has replaced Bruno's description as an "Italian" philosopher in the first sentence with the description "Neapolitan." While I appreciate the historical point being made, this change may confuse readers unacquainted with Bruno and his work, and I think his origin is made perfectly clear in the first paragraph of the article's main body of text. Wikipedia describes Thomas Aquinas as "Italian" in the first sentence of the lede and later notes that he was born in the Kingdom of Sicily. Similarly, Francis of Assisi is described as "Italian" in the lede, and so is Galileo, though the latter was born in the Duchy of Florence. If there are no objections I'll change this back shortly. -Darouet (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In fiction
If I am correct, there is usally an 'In fiction' section at the end of articles. I am currently reading 'Heresy' by S J Parris, in which Bruno is the central character.78.133.160.222 (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find it refreshing to find an article that lacks such a section. 24.21.175.70 (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Astronomical facts of the universe inherited from Arab astrology, Neoplatonism and Hermeticism
The article currently states that Bruno was influenced by astronomical facts of the universe inherited from Arab astrology, Neoplatonism and Renaissance Hermeticism. This is confusing for a number of reasons:


 * "Facts of the universe" is a strange formulation, especially when we write that these are "inherited" from astrology, Neoplatonism or Hermeticism. A fact is a true statement about the universe and isn't inherited from others. For instance it would be confusing to write that Bruno was influenced by facts of the universe inherited from Copernicus. Rather, it would be true to say that Bruno was influenced by Copernican thought, or that Copernicus' astronomical observations influenced Bruno's thinking.
 * Arab astrology is mentioned in the lede and never mentioned again. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, so Arab astrology shouldn't be mentioned here unless it's brought up elsewhere.
 * I'm not an expert on Astrology in medieval Islam, but as far as Neoplatonism and Renaissance Hermeticism are concerned, it is misleading to write that Bruno was influenced by "facts of the universe" inherited from these beliefs systems. That specific wording implies that these systems of thought revealed certain facts: that's an editorial statement declaring some portion of Neoplatonism or Renaissance Hermeticism to be "true." While anyone's entitled to believe as much, I doubt it would be the consensus view of an encyclopedia in the 21st century.

We should just fix that sentence. -Darouet (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of Bruno
I have just deleted a misleading picture of Bruno. The reason is that the picture is clearly based upon the one that is included in the article, further down the page as the earliest known portrait of Bruno which is though to be based on one done from life.

The deleted picture is a nice neat tidy clean picture of a very much later date- 19th or 20th century, and obviously derivative. The date of the book is given as late 16th century, but it is impossible that this picture appeared in that form in that book. There was no method of printing at the time that could have created that image. So it doesn't date from the 1500s. It is merely a picture that has been used to illustrate a much later edition.

The picture should not be used in preference to a much older wood-cut, thought to have been based on an original drawing.

Hope this is clear enough. Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible Homosexuality
The source currently used for the brief mention of Bruno's homosexuality is not a scholarly one. That doesn't mean it should automatically be removed, and if you read the source it does appear to reference other, perhaps more scholarly works that speak of Bruno's possible homosexuality. If anyone finds scholarly material on the subject please feel free to post that here, or discuss the issue more generally. My feeling is that we shouldn't have a section in the article dedicated to the topic, but should reference the speculation in some other biographical portion. -Darouet (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand what you say, but sources don't necessarily have to be "scholarly" to be reliable and acceptable for citation on WP, do they? In any case, as you point out, which I was also aware of when I created this section, the cited source is based on and lists a number of other references that are "scholarly."  Trouble is, most of them are printed works so they aren't available to me.  I did spend a couple hours going through Google Books, etc., looking for something with which to extend the section but came up empty-handed.  However, I am sure that Symonds and Pater, both classically trained scholars who wrote about many historical gay figures, didn't make up the legend out of whole cloth; there must be sources that would support the assertion.  Also see this reply to my query on the WP:LGBT talk page.


 * All of which is to say, my feeling is that the section is both noteworthy and acceptable per WP standards, and should remain in place so that one day, soon I hope, someone with more time and access to more sources can expand it. If it's buried as part of some other section, nobody may notice for a long, long time; this way, it's more likely to attract notice and get expanded.  I don't see how having this separate section detracts or distracts from anything else in the article, and thus there's no need to rush to scrub it out, is there?  (God knows there's plenty of other stuff on WP that needs a good scrubbing and rewriting.)  So can you live with that?  Textorus (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me. Sebastian Garth (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sympathetic to all this, but there is the issue of what Symonds and Pater actually wrote on Bruno's sexuality, and of where we should place this in the article.


 * Part II, chapter 9 of Symonds' "Renaissance in Italy" states that Bruno's sexuality may indeed have been quite free, but probably not homosexual:
 * "He was never delicate in his choice of phrase, and made no secret of the admiration which the beauty of women excited in his nature. The accusations brought against him at Venice contained one article of indictment implying that he professed distinctly profligate opinions; and though there is nothing to prove that his private life was vicious, the tenor of his philosophy favors more liberty of manners than the Church allowed in theory to her ministers."


 * Pater's 1889 Essay on Bruno does obliquely suggest, I think, homosexual desires (and please excuse the long quote):
 * "From those first fair days of early Greek speculation, love had occupied a large place in the conception of philosophy; and in after days Bruno was fond of developing, like Plato, like the Christian platonist, combining something of the peculiar temper of each, the analogy between intellectual enthusiasm and the flights of physical love, with an animation which shows clearly enough the reality of his experience in the latter. The Eroici Furori, his book of books, dedicated to Philip Sidney, who would be no stranger to such thoughts, presents a singular blending of verse and prose, after the manner of Dante's Vita Nuova.  The supervening philosophic comment re-considers those earlier physical impulses which had prompted the sonnet in voluble Italian, entirely to the advantage of their abstract, incorporeal equivalents.  Yet if it is after all but a prose comment, it betrays no lack of the natural stuff out of which such mystic transferences must be made. That there is no single name of preference, no Beatrice or Laura, by no means proves the young man's earlier desires merely "Platonic;" and if the colours of love inevitably lose a little of their force and propriety by such deflection, the intellectual purpose as certainly finds its opportunity thereby, in the matter of borrowed fire and wings."


 * We really should find a scholarly source that speaks clearly about this, rather than use the website now provided. Can we agree to keep what's there now until better sources are found, but also agree that what's present is inadequate? Most of the citations provided neither support nor undermine the article's central thesis.


 * As to having a section dedicated to this issue, I don't think that's appropriate because even the Pater and Symonds sources only refer to Bruno's sexuality in passing, while their central concern is his philosophy. Having a section uniquely dedicated to this issue, when there could be many other sections dedicated to the vast expanse of Bruno's ideas and many episodes of his life, gives the issue of his sexuality (about which it seems little is written) undue weight. We should consider ultimately merging this section into another dedicated perhaps to his personal life, his temperament, or to some specific events, etc.


 * In the mean time, in order to improve the article, perhaps you could try to find some published sources that discuss this? There's no rush to "scrub this out," but because this is an encyclopedia we should try hard to get it right. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I very much agree we should try hard to get it right, as we should with any article; and I appreciate that you have apparently gone to the trouble of reading Symonds's and Pater's references to Bruno, although it appears that you and the source I cited disagree on the interpretation thereof. I have just blockquoted the two most relevant paragraphs from Staebler's article, so he can speak for himself.  I think it would be dandy and in keeping with WP principles if you found opposing viewpoints to cite there as well, as long it's not WP:OR.


 * Though I am generally interested in gay history, Bruno and his time are not a particular area of expertise for me, and although I would like to take up your invitation to hunt for further sources - either yea or nay - as I mentioned in my first comment above, I did spend a couple of hours combing through Google Books already, and I simply don't have the time to devote to tracking down paper-and-ink sources, nor do I have access to online subscription services like JSTOR and such. So I leave it up to someone else with more time and better resources; I just thought I was doing a good deed by making mention of it with an appropriate citation.


 * As I'm sure you know, homosexuality was literally unmentionable - peccatum illud horribile non nominandum inter Christianos - for the better part of the last two thousand years, and were erased from the historical record. It is only just in the last few decades that scholars and reference works have begun to restore the facts to history.  And it may be that, as in the case of William Shakespeare and others we could name, there will never be any definitive answer about Bruno's sexuality; still, if numbers of competent scholars discuss evidence and the possibility that he was gay, then to me that's notable and worthy of inclusion, whatever the prevailing view may be, one way or the other.


 * I agree with you also that much more could be said here about Bruno and his life and his writings. I have changed the section title to the perhaps more neutral "Sexuality"; and as you suggest, I would be happy to see this made a subsection of a "Personal life" section instead of standing alone as a first-level division of the article.  Do you want to reshape the article that way?  Textorus (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you mind if we first quoted Pater and Symonds directly, and then merely referenced Staebler and his interpretation, instead of quoting him? -Darouet (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you like, as long as the clear mention of possible homosexuality and the citation remain for others to find. Textorus (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have at last been able to find Symonds' commentary on Bruno as quoted by the Staebler piece. Symonds is actually writing about Whitman, but he does refer to Bruno a number of times. I'll post those references below, partly so that you can judge for yourself if Symonds is making a commentary on Bruno's sexuality, but more importantly because his words are lovely.

I hope this is helpful a little. Staebler does seem to be taking these quotes in a very different direction, which is why I wrote above that I didn't feel his references actually supported the thesis of his article. This doesn't mean we shouldn't mention his piece: as you note, Textorus, this will allow readers to investigate themselves. But that we shouldn't give it undue weight in the article. -Darouet (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your conscientious research in digging up the Symonds piece; which, indeed, is beautifully written, and to my mind very aptly represents that stately barque of Victorian optimism which sailed along so smoothly until it foundered in the next century on the sharp rocks of war, revolution, and "isms" of every kind, including the glittering but barbarous materialism of the present time. And I congratulate you on such a fine reworking of the article; I think you have improved it greatly, and now it seems to flow much better from begininng to end for a casual reader such as myself.  Good job, Darouet!  The one very small criticism I have is that the "Personal life" section, which you very skillfully rewrote, would still be better titled "Sexuality," in my view:  it discusses nothing else.  But do as you please with it, I'm willing to let the matter rest there.  And I thank you for the most agreeable disagreement I've ever had on Wikipedia.  Textorus (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, I have to say that the subject of Bruno's homosexuality is a non-issue. The reason I say this is because any thoughts on the issue are "Pure" speculation and conjecture, nothing else. If Assumptions could substitute as Facts, this world would be a completely different place. I have read at least 2 biographies on Bruno and there is no mention of his sexuality and for good reason. There is no purpose in bringing the subject of sexuality into his biography if there is no actual proof to support it. Just imagine if you were a lone monk, practicing abstinence for over half your life and died with the same integrity. Is it fair to Bruno's memory, his personal sacrifices and his lasting image to unfairly associate his image with a potentially false claim? If you read deeper into Bruno's work, you will see that Bruno worshiped the "Mind" and all of it's infinite capabilities and potentialities. Furthermore, his devotion and sacrifice would include resisting the urges of the flesh. To say that Bruno was secretly a homosexual is to undermine and insult this great man's sense of discipline, sacrifice and ultimately his personal religious mission. Giordano Bruno was a bold personality, he was direct and was unafraid to tell people exactly how he felt and for this he is appropriately viewed as a rebel. If you ask me, the reason Giordano Bruno is thought of as possibly being a homosexual is due to his deeply rebellious spirit, nothing else. The same thing could be said of Christopher Marlowe, who for some reason many biographers and scholars have always accepted as homosexual when there is no real proof. Marlowe's accuser, Richard Baines was only trying to deflect attention off of himself and put as much blame on Marlowe, he was an informant with everything to lose and his accusations cannot be trusted. Additionally, there is no evidence to support the claim that Bruno associated with Marlowe. Bruno left England to go back to France in 1585 and although he did associate himself with the School of Night in London and its circle of members who would later be associated with Marlowe, Marlowe himself did not officially arrive in London until 1587. If we can accept that Giordano Bruno was a monk for approximately the first 30 years of his life, how much imagination would be required to believe that Bruno may simply have retained the personal discipline of a traveling Monk / Scholar? This is a highly likely scenario if you ask me. Consider this, if Bruno was truly a homosexual who had engaged in some alleged immoral conduct, don't you think the Inquisition would have jumped at this piece of evidence (even the slightest accusation) to condemn and punish Bruno with even more vigor? It was more prized by the Church to destroy Bruno's reputation more than actually take his life, since this would injure his potential influence in the future. This is also possibly why Bruno was imprisoned for such a long period of time. If the Church was trying to gather as much dirt on Bruno as possible, they had 8 years to do it! Also, Bruno's play, "Candlebearer" may be a heavily satirical work but the primary subject for satire are the Pedants, the Monks, Scholars or Priests who had power and authority during this time but were complete hypocrites in Bruno's eyes. If Bruno is using the term candle bearer to refer to holding one's genitals, it is only to point out incompetence in general. Bruno is saying that he is the true "Torch Bearer", the possessor of the Light, the Truth while the hypocrites are only capable of holding their genitals. Bruno was too profound to make an entire work about hypocrisy without providing a solution and forging a new path. This is why the petty perspectives do not make sense on their own, they need to be viewed within a complete context of Bruno's ultimate and sacred vision. Imagine if Bruno was simply an abstinent monk. Is this section regarding his homosexuality fair to him? An encyclopedia should retain only facts, not gossip or speculations or half truths. Bruno died for truth,not assumptions and speculations. He sacrificed much in his lifetime. If we are to give the world information on this great man, we should have the dignity to treat him with respect and tell the truth based only on verifiable facts, because the truth is what he died for. I suggest removing the speculative section altogether, since it attempts to give shape and form where there is nothing but ambiguity. Bruno's ideas are too important to be cluttered by petty conjectures concerning unknown personal preferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Con v66 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the reference to sexuality should be in there. Basically, the only comment on the subject is from Walter Pater, an English essayist, who in 1889 may have obliquely suggested Bruno's homosexuality. Mark Staebler has a web site in which he argues that Bruno was homosexual and cites Pater. Staebler also cites Symonds, but appears to be taking Symonds' words out of context, because Symonds suggests that Bruno was heterosexual (all this is reviewed above). In any event, this is speculation from a website. At the moment the comment doesn't take up much space, but I'm not arguing it belongs. -Darouet (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the section about sexuality doesn't belong. It should be removed.  If Bruno's sexuality could be absolutely verified based on some primary source documentation, (which is highly unlikely) then no one could say anything and the fact could stand on its own.  There is nothing wrong with Bruno possibly being a homosexual in my eyes, (it's assumed by many scholars that the same sex monastic life in general allows for the growth of this behavior, Another example -  Prisons)  but assumptions are just assumptions until proven otherwise.  On your comment regarding the fact that the statements doesn't take up much space; space has absolutely nothing to do with facts.  Just because a statement is short doesn't make it true or give it a free pass.  Spreading misinformation is dangerous and I feel it is unfair to Bruno to have this section up. It only exists because of speculation on another website, which is a pro LGBT website that misleads the reader more than anything.  It is not the website that is dangerous, but the misinformation others freely accept as being true when it is not.
 * Would someone (a scholar) really need to prove Bruno's sexuality in order to mention it? I think, rather, that if his sexuality had received significant attention from reliable sources, that attention could be reviewed here in this article. As it is, I haven't seen such attention: Bruno's personal sexuality just doesn't come up in biographies or studies of his philosophy. Sexuality more generally speaking, and not related to Bruno's own preferences, is something which might be mentioned. Bruno was very critical of religious (Christian) misogynists, a result of various aspects of his materialism and arguably his generally democratic spirit; the issue is reviewed in biographies. -Darouet (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've searched for material on the subject and just not found it. Can we agree to remove the section in a few days if we can't find a direct reference to the issue in some book or article on Bruno? Perhaps Pater's views on Bruno could be incorporated into the article in some other way; will think about how this might be done. -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, the issue of his sexuality or sexual orientation doesn't have to be proven or verified in order to be mentioned. Which naturally brings up the next question, "Why (should) it be mentioned?".  Bruno's life is most appropriately defined by his ideas not his personal preferences.  Why don't we put in a section about his favorite food and color while we're at it? How about a secret rendezvous he had with an English monk named Adam when he was in London?  Just kidding. :)  Don't you see how valueless and how digressive speculation can really be?  Here are my personal opinions:  I truly feel "the issue" detracts from some of the more important facts and purposes of his life's biography.  It is as if an an entire biographical article of absolute conviction and bold and immense biographical details is slowed down or even reduced into petty slander and misdirected, valueless speculation.  I always look at historical figures with a balanced perspective.  Consider this - I have read time and time again that if you want to know the truth about someone, you seek out their peers and contemporaries.  The people who surrounded a man or woman while they actually "lived" are the greatest and most valued sources for gaining the most accurate knowledge of someone or something.  The same is often said concerning Translations of works from different languages.  Literary Critics and even many Authors have observed that while modern translations of great works are generally more accurate in a linguistic sense, they often include language, diction and vocabulary that did not exist during the authorship of the original work. Too many liberties are often taken by modern translators.  Additionally, the older translations and especially the ones written contemporaneously while the original author was still alive, capture the feel and the essence of the era and time period like no other translation ever can.  Walter Pater was no peer or contemporary, in fact "Many of Pater's works focus on male beauty, friendship and love, either in a Platonic way or, obliquely, in a more physical way"  These subjects apparently interested Pater, so it is not surprising his works revive these same interests in the guise of speculations.  Not a responsible critic if you ask me, but how many critics are?  Have you ever wondered why critics have such bad reputations? On the other hand, "None" of Bruno's "contemporaries" ever wrote about, or spoke about anything involving his sexuality.  Remember, this was no quite man!  He openly cursed, condemned, slandered and verbally attacked everyone, wherever he went.  I find it difficult that there is no record of anyone, anywhere mentioning a close relationship or some type specialized tutoring of young adolescents etc.  I will give you more examples.  Look up Benvenuto Cellini.  This man was equally as bold of a figure as Bruno, he was italian, an artist and this man was a known homosexual who had numerous affairs with young boys and young men.  Now, lets move on to minor figures of the Renaissance.  Look up Benedetto Varchi, he was an Italian poet, who although not as famed as Bruno, was immediately known and understood by his contemporaries as a homosexual.  So, the truth is, when some famed author or figure traveled from University to University during the Renaissance, surrounded by young boys, young men, middle aged men, old men, there is not one account or accusation from his contemporaries?  Not even some minor association with an apprentice or student?  WOW!  Now, let's think!  If someone was a homosexual, people found out.  If someone such as Bruno, who was hated by everyone wherever he went, and ran into conflict wherever he went, if this type of man wasn't accused by his contemporaries and peers, then who would? If this type of man messed around with some young boys or young men whose fathers or local leaders would have sold him out to the authorities or the church in a heart beat. The entire personal life section should be taken off.  Allow Bruno's ideas to stand at the forefront of his biography!  It's his ideas that he died for!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Con v66 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that I hope I am not forcing you or anyone to remove or to completely disqualify a thought or possibility from a biography. I think it can be fairly said that I have never A) removed any text from the actual article and B) that I have done nothing more than form an argument for Fact and against Speculation.  I am actually pleased there are others who have taken an interest in Bruno, I only hope this interest does not further displace Facts with Speculation.  With all due respect, Darouet, may I ask how your interest in Bruno developed?  Also, do you truly feel it is important to include any commentary on his sexuality?  If so, why?  The quote from Pater's article that appears above shows the author reaching for an answer without finding one.  I personally feel sometimes we as humans mistake the act of looking or searching for something that doesn't exist to be enough to validate that something into existence.  This is wrong.  On the other hand, I am not so ignorant to completely remove the possibility of Bruno's sexuality out of my head altogether.  Anything is possible and in line with all the many examples I have given above in regard to the homo social world in which most men lived during this period, I do not think it is wrong to speculate on the matter.  Just as long as the speculation does not substitute as truth and become a false representation of someone's character.  Pater himself recognizes and utilizes platonic love and intellectual love as the jumping off point toward his extremely vague thought regarding Bruno's possible homosexuality. Why is he so vague?  Is it because Pater feared discussion of Bruno's homosexuality?  I doubt that.  Bruno was dead and what is more, dozens upon dozens of historical figures before and since Bruno have been documented as homosexuals without fear of censorship.  I have already mentioned 2 of of Bruno's contemporaries above.  Let's not forget about Henry James, Walt Whitman and Oscar Wilde, contemporaries of Pater.  I think the reason Pater is vague is because he has no real basis to form his thought and so consequently it remains extremely vague and shapeless.  My friend, if this is the most evidence that can be found on Bruno's possible "homosexuality"...I am shocked! Staebler should not even be mentioned at all, it should be clear to see that such descriptions coming from a pro LGBT site necessarily reveal themselves to be biased and agenda driven.  Facts do not discriminate and are not biased.  I just think it is wrong to label anyone falsely and for Bruno, who abstained as a monk for many years of his life and perhaps even to death, this same man who deeply admired the famously celibate Thomas Aquinas, unless we have facts it is not fair to do this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Con v66 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is no objection, either minor or major, I will remove the personal life section within a week. I think it is safe to say that it is all One Big Guess and nothing more.  If anyone, anywhere, has some additional insight on the matter or feels there is something I should know or simply wants to voice their opinion, please do so.  I am open to consideration or reconsideration of any kind.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Con v66 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the problems caused by the speculation of whether such and such a person was homosexual is that it invariably swamps the rest of the article, with masses of quotes trying to prove the point.
 * I think that mention of it as a possibility is enough: "Author (name) suggests that Bruno was homosexual, based on interpretation of his writing "Name of work" (ref)
 * It's not a point that needs labouring, particularly in todays climate. Sexual orientation is just one aspect of ones humanity, and may be highly significant, or not very significant at all, in terms of what one is famous for. In Michelangelo's case, it was significant, and was revealed in his writings, so it can simply be stated as fact. In Leonardo's case it is singularly insignificant and no-one really has a clue, except for that unpleasant little matter in 1479.  However, (previously) the Leonardo da Vinci page was swamped by so much speculation on his sexuality that there was no description of his artworks. So, in Bruno's case, how significant is it, in terms of his achievements?  Amandajm (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox deletions
Nikkimaria has just removed the "influences/influenced" parameters from the infobox for the second time today, without giving an adequate reason. While this may be because there aren't enough supporting references in the text, having read Yeates (albeit more than 30 years ago) it does seem to me like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps someone with more expertise can provide the necessary references. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These parameters are not supported by infobox person, which was the template in use at the time of the first removal and which is the base for infobox theologian, the current template. Thus, the article was included in the cleanup category Category:Infobox person using influence. Furthermore, even where the parameter is supported, it requires the information to be supported and cited in the article text; the majority is not. Per WP:BURDEN, the restoration of unsourced material is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The template currently in use (and in use before it was changed in December 2012 to infobox person), is actually infobox philosopher, not infobox theologian. Thus the parameters are supported, they just need more supportive references. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're correct, my mistake. In that case they need to be both explained and sourced in the article text in order to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, the "Influenced" parameter basically serves the purpose of listing a philosopher's influence on scholars. A quick look at the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy usually suffices to verify such content (I have personally checked hundreds of Wikipedia articles that feature this template and already removed information that was unverifiable and provided citations for content that seemed dubious at first glance). Also note that this parameter has never been put to doubt so far by any member of WikiProject Philosophy. Until it does, please do not remove such parameters. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re your edit summary, I gave you a good reason: you are required to explain and source every entry in this parameter in the article text, and for most of them this has not been done. Until you've done so, please do not restore such parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) It is misleading for you to suggest that this has to do with WP:BURDEN. I have reservations about the criteria you used to trim down the list in this article. It seems that you removed every name that does not appear in the body of the article. So you removed Schopenhauer; well, anyone who has read his On Genius knows that Schopenhauer made direct reference to Bruno; and secondary scholarly literature has commented on their relation (see Robert J. Wicks (2008:190). In another article you doubted that Sergey Nechayev was influenced by Mikhail Bakunin. My objection is that there was actually already a citation for it in the body of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin#cite_note-48 (cf. also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Nechayev#cite_note-7). But even if there weren't one, this would still be a factually accurate and verifiable piece of information that could be easily sourced. Removing it is a bit like removing "Stuttgart" from Hegel's infobox because no source is given that this is his birthplace. Information is usually removed when it is dubious (i.e., likely to be challenged) and hard to verify; so, it is an overkill to remove en masse easily verifiable information and using WP:BURDEN as your only rationale. In some cases you even deleted already verified information; examples include: Emma Goldmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#cite_note-25), Edward Said (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci#cite_note-34) and David Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Ashley-Cooper,_3rd_Earl_of_Shaftesbury#cite_note-8) to name a few. So please do not camouflage this as a trivial WP:BURDEN issue.

Since there is no deadline, sourcing issues can be solved through normal editorial processes. If you think that certain entries in the infobox of an article should not be there, please leave a message on the relevant talk page identifying where the problems are. "Driveby" mass removals are not helpful in this case; effectively your edits consist in "enforcing" a very subjective interpretation of policy to reverse what other editors have done with care.

Currently there are 1,568 articles that employ Infobox philosopher. I have worked on improving most of them (removing deprecated infobox parameters and filling in the place of birth and death, school/tradition, and influences/influenced parameters). My main source has always been the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (the most reputable reference work available in the literature); occasionally, I also used peer-reviewed research papers. While, I did include citations to the research papers, unfortunately, I did not do the legwork to provide any citations to the Encyclopedia. But I did intend to provide citations for every single entry and am still working on it.

You might propose in the appropriate venue (here or here) the following: "'Influences' / 'influenced' has to be via physical contact, not via study of works or books", or you might propose that "Every entry should be explained and sourced", or you might propose that "'Influences' / 'influenced' should be deprecated". Until the time that consensus is reached in favor of your edits, your actions remain unilateral (i.e, not the result of a consensus that involved some work to reach). (For the record, those parameters were present since the very first version of Infobox philosopher and their utility has never been challenged before by any active member of WikiProject Philosophy.)

Regarding your "simplify" rationale, I will quote User:271828182 who wrote here that "the 'Influenced' infobox basically serves the purpose of listing [a philosopher's] positive influence on scholars." I grant that having this piece of information in prose is better than having it in a list; but not having it at all because the parameter that used to include the list has been or might one day be deprecated is the sloppiest solution possible and a disservice to our readers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a requirement that any entry in the influences/influenced parameter be explained and sourced in the article text. If that requirement is not met, entries may be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There are abundant sources available describing those who influenced Bruno's philosophy, and those whom he influenced. I think we can all agree on an easy solution to this argument: let's just find some of those sources and place them here. Rowland's recent biography is, I'm sure, a good start. This is a wonderful book by Hilary Gatti on the subject. She has also written this new book on Bruno I've never seen, and this book about his place in Renaissance/Baroque science. -Darouet (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably he was burned, as Schioppius reports, though we have no legal proof of the fact.
That is a quote from the source that this article claims explicitly supports the statement found in the current article.

"[...]guilty of heresy, and he was burned at the stake."

Should perhaps be changed to something like "[...]guilty of heresy, and he was probably burned at the stake." - at least if this source is to be used.

http://archive.org/stream/americancatholic14philuoft#page/732/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.55.202 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's alright: we don't need a hostile article written in 1876 to verify that Bruno was burned at the stake. -Darouet (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The name of Bruno's works
De la Causa, Principio et Uno (1584)is one of Bruno's works. In this article, it is translated as On Cause, Principle and Unity, But in the 7th volume of the Story of Civilization (the Age of Reason Begins) it is translated as Of Cause, Beginning, and the One. Which one is better here? Pirehelokan (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Pirehelokan, thanks for your note. I think the second translation you offer would be fair, but prefer the first, which is that used by Cambridge's important translation and commentary. I also believe it is more commonly used, and my recollection of the work is that it is more concerned with the principles governing matter than their specific beginnings. What do you think? -Darouet (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Darouet, Thank you. I am not an expert in this field, but your reasoning seems reasonable. Pirehelokan (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Executed for His Conception of God
This source was used to demonstrate that "some scholars argue..." that Bruno was killed for his specific scientific speculations, but the source does not demonstrate that. Every scholar I have looked at has said Bruno was killed for his pantheistic religious views; infinite God view. His scientific views obviously influenced his overall views, but the suggestion that there are actual scholars that believe that it was specifically or only his scientific speculations that had him killed is incorrect. NaturaNaturans (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The source actually says the opposite:
 * It says that Bruno "was expelled from country after country for heretical views that ranged from dabbling in magic to denying the divinity of Christ. What endears him to modern scientists, though, is that Bruno embraced Copernicus's heliocentric model of the solar system and even went one step further: He declared that Earth was just one of an infinite number of worlds, each perhaps inhabited by creatures entirely foreign to us--and to the church. After a long imprisonment, Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600. It is unclear whether Bruno's cosmology played a role in his condemnation, but he has since become a symbol of a church crusade against the progress of science." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The insinuation is that he was burned for a little bit of everything. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a controversial issue for numerous reasons. First, scientific historiographical traditions emphasize Bruno's scientific contributions, whereas Catholic or mystical traditions emphasize his heresy or pantheism. These perspectives have obvious political implications. In anglophone scholarship, an earlier focus on Bruno's scientific contributions gave way, after Frances Yates' seminal study, to a focus on neoplatonism. In recent decades in France and Italy there's been a return to a more scientific outlook. That has partially entered anglophone scholarship via, say, Hillary Gatti, who worked with the famous Giovanni Acquilecchia.
 * Second, record of Bruno's actual trial was lost. The story goes that Napoleon seized the papers among many others during his conquest of Rome, and those were later lost. Which makes resolution of the conflict difficult. Anyway, most American graduate students whom I speak with, who study the subject, are deeply committed to Yates' story, whereas in Europe they moved past that some time ago (with some exceptions). -Darouet (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How Bruno is talked about is aside my original topic. It's more about what historians state was the reason for his execution. I have not seen a single example of a historian saying he was executed due to his scientific speculations. They state he was executed because of his theology. NaturaNaturans (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hilary Gatti and Giovanni Acquilecchia are famous historians; sorry for the misunderstanding. -Darouet (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at this summary of Gatti's book, it seems that the argument is to emphasize Bruno's contribution to the development of scientific thought. It may very well be that he can and should be considered important in that way, but that is not the issue here.  The question is whether he was executed because the church feared or wished to suppress heliocentrism and/or the idea that exoplanets exist.  To my knowledge there is no evidence (or WP:RS support) for an affirmative answer to that question. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Scholarship on Bruno: burned for free thought, science, pantheism?
There's been some dispute recently in the lead regarding why Bruno is considered by scholars to have been burned, and also why he remains notable.

Specifically, in these edits, User:NaturaNaturans and User:BlueMoonlet changed the text of the lead to state that "Scholars note that" Bruno's pantheism/heterodox theology played the "largest" role in his persecution. In this edit, NaturaNaturans explains their view that "academics are united that Bruno's conception of God was the reason for his death."

User:Elvey has correctly pointed out that aspects of the altered text are not substantiated by the sources provided. Previously in these edits I had written that "Some scholars argue" what NaturaNaturans and BlueMoonlet wrote above, and written that Bruno's perceived martyrdom for science and free thought remained an important interpretation among Bruno scholars. I added this quote from Hilary Gatti:

User:Wordreader in his comments above essentially echoes Gatti's point: that Bruno's ideas about the cosmos, and his ideas about what we now would call "science," are inseparable from his ideas about free thought. Based on the quote above, and other quotes later in the article, is it true to write that "scholars note" what some have argued, but others disagree with? I don't see the point of endorsing one particular view - essentially that of Frances Yates - and giving the impression that scholars are agreed on Bruno's persecution largely for heterodox theology, when other scholars emphasize free thought, authority, science and his worldview. -Darouet (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Darouet, I think you meant to include a "not" in "are substantiated", above. I agree with you.  Some people seem to be here to argue, and talk past their opponents, and are not building an encyclopedia.  --Elvey (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your accusation that certain users (apparently including myself) are "here to argue, and talk past their opponents, and are not building an encyclopedia" is an inappropriate personal attack. We may disagree with you as to how best to do it, but we are just as committed as you are to ensuring that this encyclopedia relates the best possible summary of the facts to our readers.  Please use strikethrough ( like this ) to show that you retract the comment.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You say you feel accused and attacked. It was not my intent to write words that would leave you or anyone feeling that.  :(  I think that if my comment was a personal attack, then so are some 24,000 references to WP:BATTLEGROUND, which says, relevantly, "If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue."  I meant to merely comment on what I saw as the reasons for the slow progress toward consensus, and my comment was not directed anyone, but rather at behavior and toward solutions.  You admit you don't know if it was directed at you.  Let's move on and focus on the content issue and recognizing and avoiding talking past each other.  --Elvey (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The edits you are making (the latest of which I have reverted) are creating an imaginary dichotomy between Bruno's death due to heresy/pantheism 'versus' death due to his free-thinking. The quote and citations you're offering are not contradicting any scholars' assessment of Bruno's killing due to his pantheistic heresy. They are merely added speculative reflections and considerations about how his execution for pantheistic heresy was really a part of a broader war against free thought and what would later become scientific inquiry. I happen to agree with those reflections and considerations that speculate about the psychology behind the events that took place. But that doesn't mean I get to demote or devalue the actual facts and circumstances of what happened to highlight my opinion about those events. I think expanding on the reasons for his execution would be welcome, but not if creating a false dichotomy. NaturaNaturans (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your idea that the church accused and convicted Bruno of heresy, and that his trial was therefore about heresy and not philosophy, free thought or science, it just absurd. In 1616 Galileo was brought before the inquisition, which declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical and absurd in philosophy." The inquisition also banned heliocentric books and ordered Galileo to refrain from teaching or holding heliocentric ideas. Later, in 1633, the inquisition found Galileo "vehemently suspect of heresy." Was Galileo's trial about heresy, or about science and philosophy? With the view you've adopted regarding Bruno, you'd have to write that Galileo's trial was about heresy, because those are the terms on which the Church persecuted him. -Darouet (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Invoking the Galileo affair is not particularly helpful, as it is widely held that Galileo inadvisedly waded into a fraught political situation with a distinct lack of tact, and that his troubles could have been avoided had he been more politically adept. The fact is that there were many successful Catholic scientists in the early modern period and that there is little evidence of a chilling effect due to the cases of Bruno and Galileo.
 * To answer your question, Bruno's trial was about theological heresy in a way that Galileo's clearly was not. Only one of the eight articles accusing Bruno had anything to do with astronomy, while all of the accusations against Galileo were astronomical in nature.  Both events were anomalous in the larger context of the early modern period, but for different reasons: the charges against Galileo were indeed about astronomy, but the subtext that led to his conviction was political intrigue that had little to do with astronomy; the charges against Bruno were primarily theological and had little to do with astronomy, thus they stand as one of many sad examples of the lack of religious freedom in the early modern period.  However, neither case demonstrates a general sense of the Church that innovative scientific ideas could not be reconciled with the Church's doctrine.  To me, that is the important point.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You haven't really answered my point: the Church and Inquisition framed Galileo's "errors" in terms of heresy, and I gave you two direct quotes from their judgments to that effect, even though you and I both recognize that his conflict concerned astronomy (and in your view, "tact," though this wasn't mentioned in his reprimand or condemnation). Gatti frames Bruno's trial on Bruno's own terms, and explicitly states that the Church's focus on theological heresy is beside the point. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Gatti says that the Church's focus on theological heresy is beside the point of Bruno's significance for posterity, not that it is not the primary reason for his conviction. You keep trying to use the quote to prove the latter point, when it is clear that Gatti is talking about the former point.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Regarding "tact," I gave references to modern historiography. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My recent edits, using "nevertheless" have attempted to solve this. The idea of him being killed for his pantheistic heresy can be expanded into reflections about free-thinking and scientific heresy, rather than being posed as some kind of contradiction. Hope this works for you. NaturaNaturans (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edits don't address the fv tag I added. Darouets' did, but you've removed 'em.  Putting 'em back.   You claim that he was executed for pantheistic heresy, full stop.  Erm, ? --Elvey (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that "some scholars claim" suggests that there is an alternative view that contradicts the view that his theological position played a principal role in his execution when, in fact, the other views are only expanding on this, not at all contradicting it. Also, the newly edited paragraph structure conflates "pantheist theology" with his interest in astrology and mnemonic techniques, which have little to do with his theology. NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Yates, astrology and theology are intimately linked for Bruno. As far as what "some scholars claim," below you can see two highly competent scholars who rather explain how Bruno's philosophical and scientific ideas were paramount in his trial. -Darouet (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha! I just noticed that this issue had been discussed/debated ad nauseum before I got here.  I am reminded of the title of Newton's seminal work.   Bruno had a great many positions, theological, philosophical, what have you.   To say that his theological position played a principal role in his execution is nonsense.  He didn't have one.  He had several non-pantheistic ones alone.  --Elvey (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How about you provide an example, since, clearly, you know so much about this subject. NaturaNaturans (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to dignify that with a response. I'm taking a break, following Darouet's example, noted below.  --Elvey (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As Gatti points out, Bruno's "theology" is inseparable from his cosmology, which includes Copernicanism and atomism, and his ideas regarding free thought. Maybe you don't agree with them NaturaNaturans, but some scholars, and Yates is one, really believe that Copernicanism, atomism, and free inquiry had nothing to do with Bruno's trial. Instead they write that his trial was wholly or largely determined by theological heresy as defined by the church at the time of his inquisition, and that his crimes included various unusual theological beliefs, maybe neoplatonism, etc.

What your edits do is present this position as the consensus among all scholars, in contrast to the idea that Bruno's trial, death, and overall persecution was really about free thought and scientific inquiry. But there are important scholars who do maintain that Bruno was tried and executed because of his defense of free thought and scientific inquiry. A more full quote from Gatti may help you see the link between Bruno's ideas generally, the views of the church generally, and Bruno's trial specifically:

There are others who write in this same vein as well. There's a wonderful book - written in Italian and widely available in Italy - called "Giordano Bruno: The Deposition before the Tribunal of the Inquisition." Professor Aniello Montano comments:

Both of these professors are writing about Bruno's trial within the context of Bruno's philosophy, his cosmology, his basically scientific conceptions. They do not accept, alone, the intellectual framework of heresy adopted by the church when considering the trial of Giordano Bruno. -Darouet (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your extended quotes of Gatti do not contradict my position. As I stated in this edit summary, Gatti says Bruno was a martyr for free thought, and that his relevance to science is only inasmuch as free thought is important to science.  I'm totally on board with that.  I'm happy to sign on to the Intro's current language that "Bruno's case is considered a landmark in the history of free thought and the future of the emerging sciences."
 * The sticking point for me is the idea that Bruno was "a martyr for modern scientific ideas." A perfect example of this is the recent Cosmos episode that gave a hackneyed and inaccurate portrayal of Bruno's persecutors as being primarily motivated by his belief in many worlds.  I think it is important to state that scholars generally reject this idea, which is not so much about Bruno as it is about his persecutors.
 * Even if it is true (per Gatti) that "[The trial] was about free thought and the right of the philosopher to pursue an inquiry touching on the same subjects as those considered by the theologian," it is important to ask about the content of the thought that got him into trouble. It is evident from scholarship (as from the charges themselves) that this was primarily about a denial of certain basic Catholic doctrines and about Bruno's advocacy of pantheism and sorcery, with his views on astronomy an afterthought at best.
 * It's actually unclear to me the extent to which you disagree with the accuracy of my last paragraph, or to which you simply disagree as to whether that is the important point to be decided. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, free thought and science are not just incidentally related, and Bruno's a great example of this: he took the liberty to interpret Copernicus' data and model in the widest sense, and developed a cosmology out of it. Both his method (the liberty of interpreting broadly and despite scripture) and his conclusions (christ is just a man, the earth rotates around the sun, there are infinite worlds, etc) led him to conflict with the church. According to Gatti, and according to Montano, science and philosophy, not just theology, were critical issues in Bruno's trial. -Darouet (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bruno's theological heresies are a consequence of his Copernicanism? Care to support that statement?  Bruno was a heretic who happened to be a Copernican.  Gatti and Montano say that Bruno's trial had critical implications for the development of science, not the other way around.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Scholars are not universally agreed on Bruno's "Pantheism." If you look at the Italian wikipedia page you'll see that some scholars have described Bruno's philosophy as "monist," or "atheist," or various things in between. Many compare Bruno to Spinoza, as you may know that a number of major scholars of Spinoza do not view him as a pantheist. Anyway this shouldn't be surprising. In Bruno's "Cause, Principle, Unity," he invests one single God in every object and force of the universe. -Darouet (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pantheists are monists. Investing "one single God in every object and force of the universe" is a textbook definition of pantheism.  And a few references to Bruno as an "atheist" are not terribly surprising, as it is not really a great leap between "everything is God" and "nothing is God".
 * Bottom line: Nothing here convinces me that "pantheist" is not the best way to describe Bruno's concept of God. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are however many forms of Pantheism that have nothing to do with Monism, and not all people specify that Bruno is a "Monist pantheist," and I'm not sure all scholars would agree with that either. There's no reason for us to declare it's true just because we feel it was likely the case (and I agree on this point of classifying his religious beliefs.).-Darouet (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You've reversed what I meant to say. If you read the article to which I linked (and obviously I'm assuming that the article is decently written, as WP itself is not an RS), pantheism is a form of monism.  Monism is more generally the belief that certain things are all really the same; pantheism is more specifically the belief that God and the Universe are all really the same.  What exactly would a "non-monist pantheist" look like? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Next to Spinoza, Bruno is the most often mentioned "pantheist" in academic literature about the subject. Also, all notable pantheists are monists. Several philosophers state that pantheism implies monism. There seems to be a mistaken assumption here that pantheism is somehow opposed to free thought and scientific inquiry when, in fact, pantheism - especially at that time - was a derivative of free thinking and scientific inquiry. NaturaNaturans (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't we just agree that Bruno was burned for a little bit of this, a little bit of that? His views were holistic and intertwined, perhaps a bit prophetic even, and none of that is acceptable to the Church. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the sources above, and many others, agree with you DeistCosmos and that Bruno was not simply burned for one thing or another, but for his whole philosophy, and his many publications. Because I and Elvey seem to think these sources are saying something very different than how BlueMoonlet and NaturaNaturans interpret them, I'll take a break for a day or two to think about them. Everyone seems relatively reasonable here; I'm sure we can come to an agreement eventually. -Darouet (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I would cautiously agree with you. Because we don't have the actual trial transcript, we simply have to take the list of charges at face value unless we have a strong reason (which would have to be driven by strong RSs) to do otherwise.  That list includes his astronomical views as only one item among eight, and indeed far down the list.  That indicates that, had Bruno never said anything about astronomy, he very likely would have met the same fate.  The logical conclusion of this is that there is no justification for the claim that he was executed for his astronomical views in particular or that he was "a martyr for modern scientific ideas" (to quote the current language in the Intro, which I don't mind retaining because it is present in the marketplace of ideas, but which I want to keep in tension with scholarly consensus). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In extension of my previous thoughts allow me to add that what Bruno presented was an holistic vision; there is no part of his philosophy separable from any other part. It was exactly because he was given the vision of a revolutionarily expansive view of God that he was compelled to a like vision of infinite suns ringed by infinite worlds, with life like our own. And when this vision is borne out by scientific discovery, perhaps Bruno will be accorded the title not simply of visionary, but of true prophet. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The number of plausible scholarly, scientific, and religious perspectives on Bruno is fascinating, and a testament to the breadth of his work, thinking and age. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Echo that, brother!! But they are all elements of one philosophical grounding.... DeistCosmos (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientist or not?
A recent edit - Bruno is "not a scientist by our modern definition" sounds unhelpful to me. He is not a modern anything, he lived in the 1500's. Also, the lead sentence calls him a scientist and then now later suggests not a modern scientist. From what I understand so far, he is not a scientist at all, despite the fact that he is often called a scientist or a "martyr of science". NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Scientists didn't exist at this time in history. He wrote a lot about the natural world, and was notable among other things for being one of the first people to have published and argued in favor of a Copernican, atomist, and infinite universe. -Darouet (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The modern scientist is of the hypothesize-then-develop-repeatable-experiments type. Naturally nobody so classes Bruno. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Although the modern term scientist does not emerge until the nineteenth century, the notion of the investigation of nature to obtain scientific knowledge extends back to ancient Greece. One of the common questions opening medieval academic disputations was "Whether the discipline under study was a science?", Utrum N sit scientia?
 * Bruno was not a scientist in the sense used by his contemporaries. There had been students of astronomy and cosmology from before the time of Ptolemy and Aristotle.  The astronomers had developed predictive models of the planetary motions and the cosmologists had produced physical models that provided explanations of the causes of those motions.  Bruno, on the other hand, imagined a cosmos in which atoms (or monads as he called them) and the celestial bodies moved freely by the action of their wills and in which his contemporaries' attempts to compute the motions of these freely-acting bodies was futile.  I'd say that by modern criteria, and by the criteria of his contemporaries, Bruno was not a scientist. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)