Bruno was perhaps the most avant-garde of the thinkers of the renaissance, making it difficult to categorize him as part of such when his contributions were far ahead of even the thinkers of the Scientific Revolution. Beginning with the beliefs in celestial bodies, Bruno had rejected the notions of Aristotelian astronomy and was himself critical of the dependency that academia had had with astrological works. Bruno had brought together these two critiques in his work “De L’infinito”, rejecting the Ptolemaic concept of astronomy and Aristotelian cosmology. In his rejection, Bruno argued that celestial and terrestrial physics were in fact, working in tandem and ought to be unified, which entailed the imperfection and impossibility of mathematical calculation of the movement of celestial bodies. Consequently, he posited, the astrology of the day was an ineffective “science” as the movement of celestial bodies is imperfect and therefore uncertain.
To better understand the context of this debate, it is important to understand the Aristotelian model of the universe, which was the mainstay and dogma in much of Europe during the medieval period. It held that the heavenly bodies or celestial spheres had a unique kind of perfection attributable to them, and that they did not move in relative motion, but rather due to their location inside rotating spheres. This model was also geocentric, in contrast to the special position the Earth had in the Aristotelian model, which also placed it at the center of the solar system. When the Copernican model started to spread throughout the continent, it brushed up against years of established doctrine. It advocated the idea that the movement of entities in the sky was due to Earth’s rotation, and that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the center of the model, with the Earth revolving around it in a calendrical cycle.
These new ideas conflicted with not just the empirical data accepted at the time, but the church’s view of the unmoved mover, that is, God, establishing the universe in a fixed manner, with the Earth at the center. Bruno further argued against the notion of planetary spheres, instead envisioning the universe as infinite. He also discussed the idea of multiple worlds that could have life not unlike that of Earth, and are still part of the One. Bruno goes forward with this belief in his work “Spaccio de la bestia trionfante”, where he detaches the scientific phenomenon of the formation of stars and the movement of comets from their traditional explanation, and instead advocates for the rejection of a hierarchical view of reality.
However, it is important to keep in mind just how steeped in ancient thought he also was. Bruno theorized the notion of the universe having a spirit, a sort of World Soul. The motion of the planets, according to him, were because of their souls, which gave them the ability to move in a teleological sort of manner. The doctrine of the four classical elements also appears in his work, with his synthesis being that all four of them (fire, air, earth, and water) being present in a given celestial body. His view on metaphysics was inherently mystical and dialectical, as he viewed the soul/spirit and matter as opposites, but ultimately part of one principle, the ground. This substance would resolve any contradiction between the opposites and achieve their unity. Although he critiqued the astrology of the day, he was interested in Hermetic ideas, some of which included works on esoteric and occult subjects.
Ultimately, his discourse reflects the conflict of his time, with new challenges and discoveries in the fields of philosophy, science, and religion. Just as his philosophy taught the unity of opposites, he remains a scholar known for his passion for viewing the above fields as part of one coherent, interconnected whole. The debate about if he was a martyr for science or occultists still continues, and perhaps it was in fact both. To end with a quote from a primary source that elegantly summarizes his view of the universe-in Cause, Principle, and Unity, he states that, “The universe is then one, infinite, immobile. I say that the absolute possibility is one, that the act is one; the form, or soul, is one, the matter, or body, is one, the thing is one, being is one”. Just as Europe was experiencing a grand transformation and seeing philosophy, religion, and science become fields seen as separate, he proposes a radical yet unified view of each.
Glossary:
Ptolemaic concept of astronomy and Aristotelian cosmology: these models placed the Earth at the center of the universe (hence why it is called geocentric), in contrast to a heliocentric model (Sun at the center)
the One: the ultimate ground, beyond both being and non-being, as the source of the world
Teleological: directed toward a specific purpose/goal
World Soul: the connection between all things endowed with spirit or soul, which can range from humans and animals to cosmic entities, depending on the specific framework
Hermeticism: esoteric tradition influential throughout Western philosophy and religion that claims its origins in the thought of ancient Greece and Egypt, and later was developed by those working in Abrahamic contexts
Unity of opposites: when a given entity has conflicting elements that are also dependent on each other and co-create the whole