Cause, Principle and Unity: And Essays on Magic

by Giordano Bruno

Giordano Bruno's notorious public death in 1600, at the hands of the Inquisition in Rome, marked the transition from Renaissance philosophy to the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. This volume presents new translations of Cause, Principle and Unity, in which he challenges Aristotelian accounts of causality and spells out the implications of Copernicanism for a new theory of an infinite universe, as well as two essays on magic, in which he interprets earlier theories about magical events in the light of the unusual powers of natural phenomena.

Genres: Philosophy, Occult, Magic, Science, Religion, Nonfiction, Spirituality

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1583

About the author

Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, who is best known as a proponent of the infinity of the universe. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in identifying the Sun as just one of an infinite number of independently moving heavenly bodies: he is the first European man to have conceptualized the universe as a continuum where the stars we see at night are identical in nature to the Sun. He was burned at the stake by authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy. After his death he gained considerable fame; in the 19th and early 20th centuries, commentators focusing on his astronomical beliefs regarded him as a martyr for free thought and modern scientific ideas. Recent assessments suggest that his ideas about the universe played a smaller role in his trial than his pantheist beliefs, which differed from the interpretations and scope of God held by Catholicism.[1][2] In addition to his cosmological writings, Bruno also wrote extensive works on the art of memory, a loosely organized group of mnemonic techniques and principles. More recent assessments, beginning with the pioneering work of Frances Yates, suggest that Bruno was deeply influenced by the astronomical facts of the universe inherited from Arab astrology, Neoplatonism and Renaissance Hermeticism.[3] Other recent studies of Bruno have focused on his qualitative approach to mathematics and his application of the spatial paradigms of geometry to language.[4]

Reviews

[Jibran · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read it out of curiosity of its name and enjoyed it a lot. I really recommend this book to the goodread readers.

[Thomas]

i mostly just read this for the essays on magic, cause principle and unity seems cool but i am not invested enough in philosophical debates of the renaissance to get much out of it.

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Imaginative treatises on (i) infinite universe, panpsychism, flux amid immobility, and (ii) reason, love, natural magic. Cause also includes some witty scholarly banter.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bruno's dialogues and essays in this volume are interesting in one regard for the way they illustrate some of the metaphysical-theological debates that were current in 16th-century intellectual society, via Bruno weighing in with his own views and refuting his philosophical opponents. The juxtaposition of 'Cause, Principle, and Unity' with the later 'On Magic' reveals developments and continuities in Bruno's thought, as well as implicit attempts to reconcile certain contradictions between his essentially monist metaphysics and relatively dualist magical theory. Finally, notwithstanding their value to intellectual history, the dialogues of 'Cause...' are actually rather entertaining, and even occasionally funny.

[Sara-Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

hey hey
the quote that led me to think this might be a good thing to read: 'And they say that when a drum made of sheep skin is located next to a drum made of wolf skin, the former loses its sound, even though it otherwise emits strong sounds when forcefully hit. The reason for this is that the spirit which somehow remains in the dead wolf skin can bond with, and control, the spirit in the sheep skin, and thus they are subject to the same antagonism and dominance which are present in the living animals. I have not personally experienced this. But it is a possibility and is reasonable...'
(on magic, 136)
coool

[aden]

I have not read this book. I never planned to, but select passages are included in the copy of Ethics by Spinoza I'm reading, and goddamn, Bruno wrote some bangers; I will definitely be reading this book now.

Like how cool is this:

If anything whatever of the substances should be destroyed, the world would become a void.

(Basically he's saying that everything/nature is God and God is immutable and infinite and nothing that cannot be exists; so if you destroy one thing you destroy everything, because everything is one thing. Sick.)

It is not changeable into another form, because it has no external through which it may suffer, or through which it may be affected in any way.

The universe is one, infinite, immovable. . . It cannot diminish nor increase, since it is infinite, from which, just as nothing can be added to it, so nothing can be taken away, because the infinite has no proportionate parts. . . There is no proportionate part, nor part at all which differs from the whole. . . Because, if you wish to say part of the infinite, you must call it infinite; and, if it is infinite, it unites in one being with the whole; therefore the universe is one, infinite indivisible. And, if in the infinite there is no difference, as of a whole and part, or as of one and another, then certInly the infinite is one.

In the One, infinite and immovable, which is substance, which is Being, there is multitude, number, which by being mode and variety of Being that distinguishes thing from thing, does not make that which is Being more than one, but multiform, many-figured. . . . Every production, of whatever kind it may be, is a change, while substance remains always the same. . . . So think the philosophers who say that nothing is produced as to substance, nor is destroyed.

Everything which we apprehend in the Universe, since it has that which is all in all itself, embraces in its own way the whole world-soul, which is in every part of the same completely, but not totally.

I'll just arbitrarily stop here; he goes on to say more mind-benders (as well as plenty I don't agree with, but that's part of all reading and learning). I'm excited to actually read this (and learn what the fuck he means by magic).

[a · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's shocking how almost everything Bruno says still feels like it could be argued today. (At least to a crackpot like me.) He is at once a no-bullshit thinker, going against contemporary thinking (eg geocentrism, eg the idea that love enters the human through the eyes), yet he knows when to mysticize. He finds deity at the highest and lowest levels. I was particularly interested by how he talks about souls and ways of influencing souls in "On Magic" and "On Bonding." So much of it sounds so poetic and fresh.

Some choice quotes:

“In the order of the universe, one can recognize that there is one spirit which is diffused everywhere and in all things, and that everywhere and in all things there is a sense of grasping things which perceives such effects and passions” (111).

“nothing is so incomplete, defective or imperfect, or, according to common opinion, so completely insignificant that it could not become the source of great events” (111).

“Although one soul lives in the whole body, and all the body’s members are controlled by one soul, still the body and the whole soul and the parts of the universe are vivified by a certain spirit. Hence, the explanation of many spiritual feelings must be found in something else which lives and is conscious in us, and which is affected and disturbed by things which do not affect or disturb us” (137-8)

“[things which are seen and absorbed unconsciously] do penetrate more deeply and lethally [than things absorbed consciously] … Thus, it would not be easy to refute some of the Platonists and all of the Pythagoreans, who believe that one human person of himself lives in many animals, and when one of these animals dies, even the most important one, the others survive for a long time” (138)

“the theologians believe, agree and state publicly that it is impossible to help those who do not believe the minister. ... Thus, someone who is less well-known can bind people more easily” (141-2).

“As was imagined by Proteus and Achelous, the same material object can be changed into different forms and figures, such that to bind them continuously one should always use differing kinds of knots” (145).

“Fantasy and opinion bind more things than does reason. … there are many who love without a reason, although there is some cause which motivates their love, and, as a result, they are bound but do not know what binds them” (152).

“An apparent bond is enough, for the imagination of what is not true can truly bind. … the thought and imagination of hell without a basis in truth would still really produce a true hell, for fantasy has its own type of truth” (164-5).

[Matias Juarez · Rating 3 out of 5]

¿Qué es Dios? ¿Cómo es Dios? Son las principales interrogantes que Bruno trata de responder y a la vez argumentar en este libro de estilo platónico (en diálogos).
Si bien contiene pasajes un poco tediosos, resulta interesante conocer el pensamiento de este polémico monje que ha generado grandes incomodidades a la iglesia en cuanto a sus posiciones, pensamientos y argumentos (tanto fue así, que le costó la vida).
El libro me gustó y coincido en gran parte con algunos argumentos referente a un Dios que es sustancia presente en todas las formas de la naturaleza.
La verdad que conocemos siempre será relativa a la verdad absoluta que se encuentra en alguna parte y a la que nunca llegaremos a conocer... quizás sea contraria a la que Bruno proponía, o tal vez, le de la razón.

[Callum Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was drawn to this text for its resonance with Bataillean solar energetics and the allure of Bruno as a radical, provocative thinker. Each dialogue moves with poetic rhythm and logical clarity, building a vision of metaphysics and cosmology that is both vital and materially immanent. Unlike the leisurely pace of Plato's Socratic dialogues, Bruno's exchanges carry a focus and intensity well suited to his more systematic mode of exposition, while remaining entertaining and humorous. I recommend this work with the qualification that a rudimentary grasp of Aristotle will greatly enhance the reading experience.

[Andrew Simmons · Rating 4 out of 5]

Went into this with a presupposed negative view of Bruno, but left really enjoying the work. While I think Plato is still the master of philosophical dialogues (the dialogues in this feel more like a lecture), Bruno manages to present his views with enough substance and legitimacy to make this an excellent read. The texts on Magic and Bonding are very good in this regard.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

All kinds of fascinating views in this! Lot of abstruse metaphysics. The world is infinite. All things are suffused by a world soul. Matter is alive or conscious or both. Medical doctors and theologians emphasize one of two extremes, that derangement is caused by either physical matter or demons when its' both. All very cool. Didn't fully understand the discussion on bonding though.

[Adrian Fanaca · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have read this book on my tablet, and I found it interesting. I do not remember many things about it as I have read it many months ago, but it is obviously a treaty on science, reason, against mysticism and spirituality.

[J. W. Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wrote some of my reflections on Bruno's theories in this book on my blog.

[0:50 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Historically important because it contains the intellectual basis for the theory of gravitational force and Newton's laws of motion.

[Dylan O'Brien · Rating 5 out of 5]

My review refers to the Cause, Principle, and Unity dialogue, and not to the other portions of this book.

Reading this book, you'll soon get a good sense of why Bruno was considered such a threat by the established order of his day. Many of his philosophical arguments are radical (or perhaps crazy) even by today's standards. In "Cause," Bruno focuses on the relation between matter and form, though he touches on several other subjects. He has harsh words for those who he disagrees with - including the greats: Aristotle, Plato and their many followers.

Aristotle, Bruno argues, had created an academically-productive, but ultimately confused model of matter, with many layers of unnecessary complexity tacked on to resolve its internal inconsistencies. Fundamentally, Aristotle, had based his thinking on an artificial division. For Aristotle, life and matter are separated, leading to strange and confusing concepts in an attempt to bridge that gap. Bruno's position on the contrary is that matter is inseparable from life - that matter is not dead in itself, but a unified, living substratum. Formal sensible properties, per Bruno, are generated after the fact: simulacra of a vital, unified, dynamic material substance. Genuine philosophy should work with that substance, not get lost on endless scholastic bypaths created by Aristotle's fundamental error.

Plato does not escape Bruno's attacks either. Although Bruno sees Plato as having philosophized in better faith than Aristotle, Plato is still portrayed as an insufferable careerist. Plato turned his back on the flashes of insight that appear throughout his work in order to secure himself a reputation (and probably a salary) as an irreplaceable "expert." He exceeded his expertise and pandered to his followers, and fails to do justice to the sparks of wisdom that inspired his work. Bruno is more sympathetic to the Platonic legacy than to Plato himself. Plotinus, the Neoplatonist, fares better in Bruno's hands, but still ends up under attack for his dismissive attitude towards the material world. Neoplatonists, with the possible exceptions of Iamblichus and Damascius, were ascetics. They denied the physical world legitimacy to transcend it. As you'll see if you choose to read this book, Bruno turns that approach on its head. Bruno seeks to return to the Neoplatonic "One" by affirming the physical world, not by denying it.

Having pulled out all the stops and attacked both the rational foundation of religious doctrine (in classical Greek philosophy) as well as having attacked the core religious dogma itself by arguing for an infinite universe and an immanent God, it's not very surprising that Bruno was condemned to death. His work calls for not only a new religion, but for a whole new social structure, devoid of repressive categories and dogmatic manipulations. Heck, Bruno even attacked his opponents on the basis of misogyny - arguing that the material world has been unjustly blamed for evil in the same way that women have been! Given that even ~200 years later, the relatively vanilla Kantian philosophy faced sharp criticism by dogmatists, it makes sense that Bruno was burned alive for his views. In fact, given the intensely heretical nature of his arguments, I'm somewhat surprised that Bruno's books have survived, and that he himself survived to write as many of them as he did.

[Peter J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the first portion of this work, that on cause, moreso than the final portion on bonding. I find that, since stumbling upon the man during my studies, I have been continually surprised at his insight, as well as his life, and attracted to both. Many things which I have "discovered" through sheer determination and effort, have been found to be proverbial reinvented wheels, which Bruno put forward roughly 450 years ago. He has also made clear for me the cause for my instinctive dislike of Aristotle, which he shared; something I could never understand, knowing Aristotle to have been influenced by the noble and terrifyingly brilliant Plato. Bruno makes clear how that "apple" fell quite far from its tree. In fact, was a different species of fruit altogether. In fine, this is a challenging read even for one well versed in philosophy, but worthwhile for him who undertakes it.

[Autumn Kotsiuba · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bruno's story has always amazed me. And now that I get to read his work...I mean, it adds a whole new dimension, you know?

I'm not even going to pretend I understood most of this, but I got through it (*pats self on back*). If my understanding is anywhere near the mark, it looks like his theological tendency is towards pantheism. But I will say that I'm amazed at his lack of dichotomy between science and religion. I sometimes forget that such a rift hasn't always existed.

Also? "Nature can make nothing perfect, since she is herself a woman." Not gonna lie, I smiled at that one.

[HrCristobal]

Danish ed.

[Roberta · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting material...