Talk:Giordano Bruno/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2

Gatti and Mercati

The Intro currently states, "After his death he gained considerable fame, particularly among 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who, focusing on his astronomical beliefs, regarded him as a martyr for modern scientific ideas." @Darouet: and @Elvey: persist in adding a following sentence that states, "Theologian Angelo Mercati later maintained instead that Bruno was persecuted as a heretic due to a pantheist theology of an infinite God, an idea supported by some, but not all scholars." In support of this, they cite this quote from Gatti:

Furthermore, as was pointed out by Angelo Mercati, the theologian who introduced the official publication of the remaining parts of the Roman trial documents of 1942, philosophical and scientific propositions play little part in the interrogations we know about; the main body of the trial was occupied with theological queries and definitions of heresies. Mercati's analysis seems to have inspired scholars such as Antonio Corsano and Luigi Firpo to propose the possibility that Bruno was involved in a religious mission during the last years of his life, a thesis Yates embraces eagerly, even if known documents fail to corroborate it. This discussion confounds the real issue at stake - which may be considered as the definition of legitimate intellectual inquiry… [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.

I'm going to concede, because I don't have any reason to do otherwise, that Gatti's view here is correct. However, I strongly object that this quote seems to offer little support for the statement to which it is being appended. Gatti states that Mercati "pointed out" the prominence of "theological queries and definitions of heresies" as the "main body" of Bruno's trial, with no indication that Gatti disagrees with that evaluation. Gatti does then criticize Corsano, Firpo, and Yates for building upon Mercati by suggesting "that Bruno was involved in a religious mission," but that is of very little relevance to the article at all. Gatti then gets on her hobby horse and pontificates that Bruno's trial was really about free thought and the like, but really, how does this contradict the thesis that "theological queries and definitions of heresies" were its "main body"? It was precisely his "theological queries" and "heresies" about which Bruno wanted to be "free to think" as he pleased!

I submit that nothing in this quote contradicts the fact that scholarship fails to support the idea that Bruno was "a martyr for modern scientific ideas." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This has already been stated several times now and is not even worthy of a debate. I see this here and there on Wikipedia. Some editors are militant atheists in the Church of Dawkins and such and it doesn't matter what common sense reading comprehension points you make, they will just not have it that a 16th Century hero have anything to do with "God". They want to rewrite history and ignore the fact that a pantheist theology at that time is not just free thinking but radical free thinking. NaturaNaturans (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If it wasn't worthy of debate, then we would not have editors in good faith taking opposing positions. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The point of sources is not to show that they don't contradict what you want to argue in the lead, but rather to accurately reflect what they say. From what you write above, it seems as though your primary interest is to prove that Gatti or Aniello don't contradict you. Nobody is disputing what "heresies" the church ultimately declared Bruno to be guilty of: the question is why was he imprisoned, interrogated over 20 times over a period of seven years, probably tortured, and eventually burned at the stake.
BlueMoonlet, Gatti's text doesn't agree with the statement you insist on inserting, "though scholars emphasize that Bruno was persecuted as a heretic due to his heterodox theology, particularly its pantheist elements." Specifically, she states that his trial and persecution were "about free thought and the right of the philosopher to pursue an inquiry touching on the same subjects as those considered by the theologian." Aniello writes that "Bruno was imprisoned for seven years and subjected to a difficult trial that analyzed, minutely, all his philosophical ideas." These statements directly contradict what you write and could not be summarized by the text you continue to insert.
What these authors, and editors DeistCosmos, Elvey, Wordreader and I have been pointing out is that Bruno wasn't persecuted simply for his theology as opposed to other elements of his philosophy, which were a part of his theology, whatever that was exactly. It is amazing to me that you not only insist on inserting your own view into the lead, but also refuse to allow the lead text to reflect that some important scholars disagree with that view.
NaturaNaturans, there is no conspiracy launched by "militant atheists in the Church of Dawkins" here, and editing along that WP:BATTLEGROUND line of reasoning will get you nowhere with anyone. BlueMoonlet, thank you for avoiding that mentality. -Darouet (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Here to reinforce "The point of sources is not to show that they don't contradict what you want to argue in the lead, but rather to accurately reflect what they say." Our articles should reflect what our sources say, not what they don't say or deny. Besides the fact that the lead should be a summary of the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Darouet: I have a feeling that we are misunderstanding each other to some extent. I am going to try to be as plain as possible to try to cut through that effect.
Can you be specific about which parts of "the statement [I] insist on inserting" you find objectionable? To me, the most important part is the word "though," which provides a contrast with the preceding sentence's claim that Bruno was persecuted primarily for believing in Copernicanism or in many worlds (and perhaps that preceding sentence could be edited to clarify that that is its main point). I wonder whether that it was you have been thinking I meant? I gather from your emphasis on Bruno's philosophy as a whole that you also would disagree with the ideas I am seeking to contradict, which is why I have found our conflict to be puzzling. I wonder whether we can craft some language that would satisfy everyone's main concerns?
When Gatti says that Bruno's 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," doesn't that just mean that it was about whether trials for heresy should exist in the first place? Doesn't it just mean that Bruno was seeking the right to not have his thoughts policed? I don't mind seeing the trial in that way, but it seems kind of a truism. Anyone accused of breaking a rule might seek to argue that the rule itself is unjust (or, perhaps more relevant to the present case, posterity may make that argument on his behalf), but that doesn't negate the fact that the key question of the trial is whether his specific conduct broke the rule. Religious freedom had not been invented yet, its lack was hardly unique to Bruno or to 16th-century Italy, and in that context it seems worthwhile to give greater consideration to the actual content of Bruno's thought, and why he got into trouble when countless thinkers from Aquinas to Cusa did not.
You say Bruno "wasn't persecuted simply for his theology as opposed to other elements of his philosophy." Okay, so then he was persecuted for his philosophy as a whole? But weren't parts of his philosophy completely unproblematic? Even Hitler was right about some things (interstate highways, for example). So then mustn't here be some parts of his philosophy that led to his condemnation more than others? Can we enumerate what those were? Even leaving aside the possibility of hyperbole, the fact that "all his philosophical ideas" were "analyzed minutely" as part of his trial does not mean that all of them equally led to his condemnation.
I think my second paragraph might be the most helpful, as I try to better explain myself and perhaps clear up ways in which you might have been misunderstanding me. The third and fourth paragraphs are more of an attempt on my part to understand what you are saying and why. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Some, but not all scholars argue that Bruno was persecuted for his philosophy as a whole. Some, but not all scholars argue that Bruno was persecuted primarily for his theological beliefs, which were defined as heretical by the inquisition. Therefore, it would be accurate to write, "though some scholars have written that Bruno was persecuted as a heretic primarily due to his heterodox theology, particularly its pantheist elements."
I'll write that in the text, and you can let me know if you have objections. -Darouet (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Or something very close. I've made those changes. -Darouet (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
And the crusade to rewrite history continues... NaturaNaturans (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Writing about the "crusades" and "militant atheists in the Church of Dawkins" devolves into ad hominem and won't make you any friends. It's also against policy that prohibits personal attacks.
NaturaNaturans, I was looking through your edits, and I agree with a lot of them. My only objection is that you insist on text, in the lead, that misleadingly suggests that scholars are united in writing that pantheism was the primary reason for Bruno's trial and execution. That's a plausible view, and you'd be surprised how much I agree with it. However, as sources above show, many scholars do not write this and their interpretation of Bruno's trial contradicts the idea that scholars are all agreed on this point. The suggestion by Dougweller, that we take sources seriously and reflect them accurately, requires that we note that some, but not all scholars see Bruno's principle crime, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, as his pantheism. -Darouet (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

True - we need to reflect the differing views. See WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Darouet,there are exactly zero scholars who contradict the OBVIOUS fact that pantheism - the name most often used to describe Bruno's theology and conception of God (an infinite everything God) - was the Church focus in Bruno's trial and execution. There are a TON of books about this. Bruno is considered a "God-intoxicated" man who goes around talking about how much he loves God - an infinite God that is not what the Church could accept. If any academic contradicts these views, they are a FRINGE view and should be treated as such. This edit you keep insisting on gives equal weight to such fringe views, which are not even supported by the one citation you make as BlueMoonlet has exhaustively demonstrated. Your citation is just an ADDITIONAL abstract speculation (not in contradiction to anything) to the generally accepted idea that Bruno's personal philosophy which he went around evangelizing about (his pantheistic view), was what the Church could not accept. All your source is speculating about is, in effect, 'look at the bigger picture'. The Church wouldn't allow free thought. But your edit creates a contrast between Bruno's heretic pantheistic theology and the free thought idea, even though his heretic pantheistic theology IS the character of free thought that your source is referring to. Creating that contrast - some academics say this, some say that - is a fringe view that is completely unsupported. I don't know if you don't get it, or you just refuse to get it because this shouldn't have to be repeated so many times. NaturaNaturans (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. You claim that it's an obvious fact that he was executed for pantheistic heresy, full stop. Prove it. Or, stop trying to push what I see as 'OBVIOUS' nonsense into the article. Dougweller makes some good points about this; if only they were heard. --Elvey (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Prove what? That he was punished as a heretic for blasphemy against "God"? That he had a loud pantheistic conviction of an infinite God? These are well supported. You need more sources for these? I believe they are already in the article. By the way, Bruno's main DEFENSE was that he was a philosopher, not a theologian. It is OBVIOUS that his THEOLOGY was what the Catholic Church went after. This is also well supported. Other speculations are IN ADDITION to that, not in conflict with those facts. NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
NaturaNaturans, you really need to come here with sources and text. Nothing else is helpful or acceptable in the context of a dispute. All capital letters, and repeated invocations of what you find "obvious," don't do anything to convince us. At least providing a few sources and text could demonstrate that anybody at all shares your position. Much more would be required to demonstrate that everyone agrees with you. Right now, you've given us nothing in the way of sources. -Darouet (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Darouet: I am rather disappointed that you did not really engage with the questions I asked of you.

Would you agree to language that expressed the consensus of scholars that Bruno was not persecuted primarily for believing in Copernicanism or in many worlds? If not, why?

What exactly is the difference between being persecuted "primarily for his theological beliefs" and being persecuted "for his philosophy as a whole"? Can you enumerate the set of beliefs that are in each of those two pots?

Please note that the word "primarily" acknowledges that non-theological beliefs were not entirely absent, but asserts that they were not prominent drivers of Bruno's fate. What do you say to my claim that Gatti (as quoted by you so far) is speaking primarily about Bruno's significance to posterity, rather than about the 16th-century question of why Bruno was convicted rather than acquitted? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I just rephrased the sentence at issue, in the hopes that clearer language might elide our disagreements and better put the focus on statements that we can all get behind. I still feel that I only dimly understand some of your positions, and indeed what we're arguing about and why, and I hope that your responses to this edit might clarify matters. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like our position and that of the sources so far have been clear; so are your questions however. I'll respond soon when I've time. -Darouet (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet: reading over your earlier comments, I think I can respond to your questions. Essentially, you would like the text to state that Bruno was tried for a number of specific heresies, and condemned and executed for these. You'd also like the text to state that "scholars emphasize that Bruno's scientific ideas played little role" in his trial/execution.
Regarding the first point, can you provide a good reference stating that Bruno was put on trial for a specific set of heresies? It's my understanding that Bruno was brought before the Venetian and Roman Inquisitions on suspicion of heresy, and that Cardinal Bellarmine eventually drafted a set of 7-8 heresies that he requested Bruno to recant. Bruno, refusing to recant these fully, was burned at the stake.
Also regarding your first point, and the second: according to Montano, Bruno's inquisitorial trial involved questioning on all aspects of his philosophy. Do you mean to suggest that Montano believes that the inquisition's interrogation of Bruno on all aspects of his philosophy was done for a lark, and had nothing to do with their condemnation of him? In Aquilecchia's book "Giordano Bruno" written in honor of the publication of his Italian works in French, the scholar describes many sessions of Bruno's interrogation (there are around 25 major sessions) in which his cosmological ideas were questioned in the context of potential religious heresies. Bruno was often willing to concede on questions of theology, but not on cosmology. Would you maintain that these interrogations are unrelated to Bruno's final condemnation and death? Lastly, don't you think that Gatti's point about Bruno maintaining, throughout his trial, that he had a right to believe what he wished is in some way related to the extraordinary beliefs he held? That freedom of inquiry is related to scientific ideas, as Gatti herself, and James Birx, and other scholars also note?
Regarding your last point: not all scholars maintain that Bruno's scientific ideas played little role in his trial. You've found two scholars who do this: Adam Frank and Frances Yates (and I doubt you've read Yates, though I happily apologize if I'm wrong). Even Adam Frank doesn't really say this: he just writes that the trial wasn't purely about a war between science and religion, and that Bruno made bad choices for himself. -Darouet (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • [Y]ou would like the text to state that Bruno was tried for a number of specific heresies, and condemned and executed for these. Well, yes. I am surprised that that is a point of contention. Would you please clarify your opinion of why Bruno was tried, condemned, and executed?
  • You'd also like the text to state that "scholars emphasize that Bruno's scientific ideas played little role" in his trial/execution. Essentially, yes. I would say "a minor role at best" rather than "little role," but that's a shading of tone.
  • [C]an you provide a good reference stating that Bruno was put on trial for a specific set of heresies? The list is already in the article, and with a source! See Giordano Bruno#Imprisonment, trial and execution, 1593–1600. You yourself go on to mention Bellarmine's set of 7-8 heresies that he requested Bruno to recant; are these not the heresies for which he was tried, condemned, and executed?
  • Do you mean to suggest that... the inquisition's interrogation of Bruno on all aspects of his philosophy was done for a lark, and had nothing to do with their condemnation of him?... Would you maintain that these interrogations are unrelated to Bruno's final condemnation and death? As they say on Law & Order, it seems most likely to have been a "fishing expedition," as prisoners enjoyed no protection against such things in Bruno's time. The authorities simply engage him in conversation as long as they like, hoping that sometime or other Bruno would say something that would aid their case against him.
  • [D]on't you think that Gatti's point about Bruno maintaining, throughout his trial, that he had a right to believe what he wished is in some way related to the extraordinary beliefs he held? Of course it is! His extraordinary beliefs about the Trinity, transubstantiation, the virgin birth, pantheism, witchcraft, and more! Yes, the plurality of worlds may have been in the mix, but not prominently.
Regarding scholars, I just came across a book entitled The Extraterrestrial Life Debate 1750–1900 by Michael J. Crowe (Cambridge University Press, 1986). In the first chapter, which deals with the debate before 1750, Crowe mentions "the myth that Giordano Bruno was martyred for his pluralistic convictions" (p.8, and note that "pluralistic" in the context of this book refers to the plurality of worlds). Two pages later, Crowe says this: "[The cautious Copernicus] contrasts sharply with Giordano Bruno (1548–1600), whose passion for the new and daring was scarcely more limited than the infinite universe he championed in such books as La cena de le ceneri and De l'infinito universo et mondi, both published in 1584, and De immenso, of 1591. Bruno was passionately pluralist, populating not only planets but also stars, and even attributing souls to the planets, stars, meteors, and the universe as a whole. His sources, including Lucretious, Cusanus, Palingenius, Paracelsus, Copernicus, and the Hermetic writings, seem to have been more numerous than his followers, at least until the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century revival of interest in Bruno as a supposed "martyr for science." It is true that he was burned at the stake in Rome in 1600, but the church authorities guilty of this action were almost certainly more distressed at his denial of Christ's divinity and alleged diabolism than at his cosmological doctrines."
I think that's a pretty strong source to back up what I've been saying. In a footnote, Crowe cites not only Yates but also The Cosmology of Giordano Bruno by Paul-Henri Michel (1973), which may be another lead to follow up. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you happy with the text of the lead at present? With the exception of NaturaNaturans' insertions about Pantheism, which may be true but need better sourcing (and perhaps belong lower in the lead), I'm satisfied that the current lead gives a fair picture of the man. We should incorporate the Crowe source, and the Michel source too. As we have time, we need to really develop this beyond the lead, and in the body of the article. I look forward to your contributions. -Darouet (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. I just made this edit, after which I am happy.  :) The list of items is presented in the body text (which the WP:LEAD should reflect) as the charges, not the items on which he was convicted (I believe the latter are lost to historians). I put the pantheism more in context (NaturaNaturans may or may not approve), and I continue insist that you have given no counter-example to the claim that responsible scholars reject the idea that Bruno's astronomical views were particularly responsible for his death. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Vatican apology

Hi, the Catholic Curch (Pope J.Paul II) made public apology for the death of Giordano Bruno. The Pope officially stated the Curch was wrong and acted wrongly against Giordano Bruno and declared him "innocent" of what he was charged for. Why you did not mention it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.90.124.114 (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because it's wrong? You need to give a reliable source for it to be added; I'm not aware of any apology towards Bruno. You may be confusing him with Galilei, the only scientist to whom Pope John Paul II did apologize according to our list. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Divine creation"

The article is contradictory with respect to Bruno's theological concept: First it says "There was no room in his stable and permanent universe for the Christian notions of divine creation" and then "According to Bruno, an infinite God necessarily created an infinite universe". The second claim claims divine creation of the world, the first disputes it. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the first statement looks patently WP:SYNTH and should be removed. The latter statement does seem pretty consistent with Bruno's expressed views, though, so we should probably keep that one. Sebastian Garth (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I am in agreement with that assessment. Bruno may not have had room for Christian creation (which would have conflicted with his view of stars-as-other-Suns) but there's nothing to suggest that he believed in a perpetual uncreated Universe. Indeed his views on the nature of our Universe hinge upon his views of its Creator's creative characteristics. DeistCosmos (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe

There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment

An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Giordano Bruno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Bruno's date of birth.

Most references have no date just 1548 or even 1548? What is the source for January 1? I suspect that some computer defaulted to the first day of the year.2001:5B0:2379:CB10:5CEB:C63:2386:78C (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Mark Shulgasser

I removed it. It was WP:UNSOURCED and not needed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Bruno and mathematics

@Linket: I'd like to encourage you to edit this article, and am making a talk page post here so that you can discuss any controversial changes, to the extent that would help. I reverted both your first and second edits because the first was unsourced, and the second relied upon two, self-published sources.

Any material that is added to the lead should review material that is well sourced and included in the article's main text. Ideally, when we are describing Bruno's mathematics we should use peer-reviewed publications. -Darouet (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

MacTutor History of Mathematics archive is a very well known source that is used on numerous Wikipedia pages on other mathematicians, engineers, and scientists (both modern and ancient) and clearly cites the source materials they use in their articles. Secondly, what evidence is there that Bruno was a mathematician or educated in mathematics in the first place? Pretty much all articles that claim he is one are a direct cut and paste from the opening line of this Wikipedia article with no further discussion of his mathematics work. Without anything more to go on, this would be nothing more than circular reporting or citogenesis. The sources I cited actually discuss Bruno's writings on mathematics and reveal it to be nothing more than incoherent rambling. Linket (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This is Not a Very Good Article

This is a pretty bad article on Bruno and is full of rather glaring and obvious mistakes. I suggest that you do more work on it and get it right. The following web page is far superior and gives a better account of Bruno than you guys did.http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Bruno_Giordano.html

There is also a very good paper on Bruno which you failed to reference. You should also read and reference other papers which your poor scholarship failed to notice. In particular I recommend the paper Giordano Bruno by Thomas Whitaker, Mind Vol 9 No 34, page 236-264

Overall I give you a grade of C- for this article. Not a very good grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.187.49 (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a more precise specification of the shortcomings you see? Or edit the page to cure some yourself? Pandeist (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Pandeist, All you have to do is copy the link I gave above into the article and read the paper I cited. Both give more information than what is available here. This article doesn't tell me much about Bruno as a person, just what historians want you to believe.Bruno was an obscure religious revolutionary in an age of religious turmoil. That does not come out in this article. He was combative and arrogant. He may also have been mentally ill. So this article is pretty bad as a source of information about Bruno and is more propaganda than anything else. The article describes the Bruno that the propagandists of our current age want him to be not actually who he was. Try working on fixing that. In any event, the article here is pretty worthless as far as providing any real facts about Bruno, his life, and his ideas.71.251.187.49 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@71.251.187.49 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC). J J O'Connor and E F Robertson, the authors of MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, are mathematicians, not historians of physics. Their articles sometimes are of low quality. I inspected the list of references used in http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Bruno_Giordano.html:
G Aquilecchia, Giordano Bruno (1971).
P O Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (1964).
D W Singer, Giordano Bruno : His Life and Thought (1950).
V Spampanato, Vita di Giordano Bruno (1921).
V Spampanato and G Gentile (eds.), Documenti della vita di Giordano Bruno (1933).
F A Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition (London, 1964).
The sources are rather outdated; one always needs the latest scholarship. Note that their (J J O'Connor and E F Robertson) on-line articles are not peer-reviewed. --Gerard1453 (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Bruno was not the first in the Medieval West to speculate about other worlds

The article mentions Nicholas of Cusa (1401 – 1464). But there were scholars before him: Duns Scotus (1266 – 1308), Augustinus of Ancona (1241/1270 - 1328) and Peter Ceffons (fl. 1340s), see [1].

  • Duns Scotus envisaged that other worlds existed, obeying other laws than ours (not sure if he means physical- or societal laws).
  • Augustinus of Ancona thinks that God created other worlds in an infinite space.
  • Peter Ceffons went as far as speculating that these worlds are inhabited, and seriously worried about the soul of the 'extra-terrestrials' and if they could have enjoyed deliverance by Redemption! A void is possible between these world and space and time become of similar nature, universal , replacing the place of material bodies and the duration of the movements (?) ("remplaçant le lieu des corps et la durée des mouvements").

None of the above scholars were deemed formally heretical by the Church.

According to James Hannam in [2], p. 309, as for an infinite universe, Giordano Bruno merely echoed Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.

[1] J-R Armogathe, P. Montaubin, M-Y Perrin (editors) (2010), Histoire générale du christianisme., Volume I: des origines au XV-e siècle, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. p. 1306, in an article by Olivier Boulnois, La ressemblance invisible: une nouvelle cristallisation du savoir.

[2] James Hannam (2009), God's philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. --Gerard1453 (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Actual Date of Execution

In 1582 and 1583 Italy and most other Catholic countries adopted the Gregorian Calendar. The UK waited until 1752 and Turkey the last country to convert from the Julian Calendar waited until 1927. So if the date given, 17th February 1600 is Old Style (ie UK and many other Protestant countries) then the actual date in Rome would have been 27th February. Conversely if the date given is that in Rome at the time (New Style) then in the UK it would have been 7th February 1600. This may seem pedantic but there are now millions of wiki readers from hundreds of countries all of which adopted the Gregorian Calendar at different times so all dates between 1582 and 1927 should be annotated OS or NS. NicholasCraig (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think it's flawed. If there's ever any conversion done, it's always from an OS date to an NS date, never the other way around. Italy was using the NS calendar by 1600, and it would require an extraordinarily long bow to conclude that the date 17 February 1600 as shown in all references for Bruno's death somehow managed to be an OS date. If you can find any source that says it is indeed OS, and needs to be converted to 27 Feb NS, then we can revisit it. Even then, it would be one source against hundreds, and it would need to be peculiarly compelling to upset the consensus. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
None of these dates is Wednesday anyway, and this Article says: "On Ash Wednesday, 17 February 1600"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.7.80 (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Giordano Bruno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cosmology before Bruno

The section Cosmology before Bruno claims that Aristotle claimed that universe was finite, which he did not. He claimed that a finite universe requires a Void outside the universe, and since nature abhors Voids, then universe must be infinite. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also from § Cosmology: According to Aristotle and Plato, the universe was a finite sphere[dubious – discuss]
It's all amazingly complicated… Aristotle did preclude any gap between the ethereal spheres but his universe wasn't really infinite or finite in space. Beyond the sphere of fixed stars there's no space, nothing what-so-ever, except the 47 or 55 movers (active intellects) and, more abstractly, the prime mover (first cause). Although temporally eternal, (to which the unchanging, eternal motion of the spheres aspire), the movers and the circumference are non-spacial, non-material and non-changing.
Owens, Joseph
The doctrine of being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics: A Study in the Greek Background of Mediaeval Thought.
3rd edition, revised. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 1978.
p. 462

“It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self sufficient of lives. As a matter of fact, this word 'duration' possessed a divine significance for the ancients, for the fulfilment which includes the period of life of any creature outside of which no natural development can fall, has been call its duration. On the same principle the fulfilment of the whole heaven, the fulfilment which includes all time and infinity, is 'duration'—a name based upon the fact that it is always duration immortal and divine. From it derive the being and life which other things, some more or less articulately but other feebly, enjoy.”

Aristotle, On the Heavens
Cael., I 9,279a17-30, Oxford trans.

—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
A significant factor in our understanding how revolutionary Bruno's idea of an infinite universe was is that we easily forget that most people thought -- when they thought about it to any degree -- the universe was finite. Beyond the planets -- the "wandering stars" -- were the "fixed" stars, which were thought to be attached to the solid surface of the heavens. And when a bright student asked, "What is on the other side of this?" his teacher would reply, "Nothing. Now let's move on to other topics." This understanding is a hard thing for us moderns to conceive, but then it was little more than a century before us that scientists could not conceive of space being absolutely empty ("But if it contains nothing, how does light reach us? Wouldn't the atmosphere drift away?") so they were convinced it contained something they called aether -- until the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. -- llywrch (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oddly enough, the Big Bang Model of cosmology (simplified, single-bang version) suggests a very similar image: the universe expanding from the point of origin at the speed of light (actual matter expanding inside that bubble at somewhat slower speeds)... and what is on the outside of this bubble? "Nothing. Now let's move on to other topics."
And... even granted the universe is so big we can't see across it (cumulative expansion speed redshifts the light), a sphere with a finite circumference is not infinite.
Would that leave Bruno wrong in the end, about the universe being truly infinite?
Ah, but Bruno's "many suns, many earths" (the same fundamental laws that work here work everywhere) should have us ready to say, "Not so fast. There might be other bangs and other bubbles."
We have to include all that "nothing" on the other side as "possibly something"; already more than a century before Bruno's execution, another Italian had made the Spanish rich by finding something that no modern European suspected was there. – •Raven  .talk 09:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I propose that the following sentence be deleted from the article: "he is the first European to have conceptualized the universe as a continuum where the stars we see at night are identical in nature to the Sun." The reason is that we already find this idea in Nicholas of Cusa's thought in the 15th century, as can be verified on wikipedia. Also, Augustine mentions the idea that the stars may be astronomical bodies of equal size or greater than the sun in his de genesi ad litteram, book II, 16.33. What does everybody think? Thanks, Guardaiinalto (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed that bit, yes. Sebastian Garth (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I probably don't have to tell you this, but will, just in case. Giordano Bruno had a prominently featured, long, and beautiful segment in Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, episode 1: "Standing Up in the Milky Way". It occurs approximately at the half-way point. Full episode 1: http://www.fox.com/watch/183733315515# (expires in 55 days); Giordano Bruno clip: http://www.fox.com/watch/168713283639 (no expiration date given). Watch and enjoy! Wordreader (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -Darouet (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I just watched The Colbert Report. Neil deGrasse Tyson was the guest. Stephen Colbert asked specifically about the way Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey dealt with the execution of Bruno. NdT said that they specifically made it clear that Roman authorities burned Bruno, not the Church, but at the behest of the Inquisition, which is an institution that the Church no longer has. He seemed quite diplomatic to me. Look at the CR's website tomorrow for a video of the episode. Wordreader (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Wordreader said above: > "... the Inquisition, which is an institution that the Church no longer has."
Wikipedia does not make that claim, in fact pointing out at the end of the lede (just before the contents) "The institution survived as part of the Roman Curia, but in 1908 was given the new name of 'Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office'. In 1965 it became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."; and also says here: "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith... is the oldest among the nine congregations of the Roman Curia. It was founded to defend the church from heresy; today, it is the body responsible for promulgating and defending Catholic doctrine. Formerly known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition,...." I presume the CDF would be the 'youngest', not the 'oldest', of the nine if it were a new and different body rather than the identical institution you say the Church no longer has. Or else, if you have a daughter Robin and change her name to Sparrow, is Robin a daughter that you no longer have? – •Raven  .talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"Beautiful" may be an appropriate description of its artistic quality, but I find it very unfortunate that the producers chose to strongly indicate that Bruno was persecuted because of his vision of exoplanets, or that he was executed because the church feared or wished to suppress heliocentrism and/or the idea that exoplanets exist. Cosmos did a disservice to its viewers by perpetuating such gross misinformation. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
BlueMoonlet, we shouldn't write too bombastically on the "gross misinformation" campaign perpetrated against the Catholic church which did, only a few years later, formally declare heliocentrism to be heretical, and banned heliocentric books. In that latter case as in Bruno's, Bellarmine played an important role in the outcome. I agree with your concern however that this article stick to reliable published sources so help on that front will be appreciated (and in that vein, references to the Galileo affair will be helpful to readers for context). -Darouet (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my statement. The substantially erroneous representations in the segment are more than I can count on one hand. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, it's graphically a very beautiful segment. The animation was a good choice over human actors. I'm glad you appreciated it. However, I'm finding it difficult to understand your objections to the way the researchers and authors of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey depict Bruno. It's stated above that he was murdered for his "theology" and not his intuitive view of the nature of the universe. How do you tease these concepts apart? Does one not follow the other in the minds of his Inquisition judges and of any reasonable contemporary reader? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I concur absolutely. Bruno's cosmology/theology was holistically inseparable. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The segment opens with Bruno hiding his copy of De rerum natura under his floorboards and then getting in trouble when the book is discovered; in reality, the Church never banned the book and many scholars critically engaged with it. The segment repeatedly portrays those who rejected Copernicanism in Bruno's day as stupid and evil, when in fact Copernicus had mathematical elegance but not observational evidence on his side at the time (the latter came only with Kepler and Galileo).
But mostly the segment is to blame for its inordinate emphasis on Bruno's belief in many worlds. If the segment had been true to Bruno's history, it would have spent most of its time describing his belief in sorcery, ancient Egyptian religion, and his denial of many core Catholic doctrines. Those were the things that got him in trouble, with his belief in many worlds rather an afterthought both for Bruno and for his persecutors. Instead of portraying his history accurately (which, of course, would have made Bruno a much poorer choice of topic for Cosmos in the first place), the segment repeatedly showed his persecution stemming directly from his belief in many worlds.
The difference is an important one, because Cosmos' agenda is to portray the Church as hostile to scientific innovation, a view that may be popular with Andrew Dickson White and his modern partisan successors (e.g. Richard Dawkins) but which is discredited among actual scholars of history. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
BlueMoonlet, you've added links to books that were written between 1900-1964, and a few links to catholic sites, in addition to writing a bunch of stuff about Anthroposophy, to source your statements in the lead. We'll need to remove the religious, non-scholarly sources, and we can't use the old books as an explanation of contemporary consensus. Do you have any modern, scholarly sources you can improve the article with? -Darouet (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Darouet:, you must be thinking of someone else. I have made none of the edits you just described. I'll also note that nothing you say here is really responsive to the criticisms I just made of the Cosmos segment, so I'm not sure why you put it in this thread.
As a general comment on sources, since you bring them up (again, I have played no role in the sourcing of this article), of course more recent scholarly works would be welcome, but older sources should be sufficient in their absence. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry I thought you'd added those links. I'll remove them. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Astrologer?

The article only says he was "influenced by" astrology. Is that enough to justify Category:Italian astrologers? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giordano_Bruno/Archive_2&oldid=1227384688"