On Magic
On magic
As with any other topic, before we begin our treatise On Magic, it is necessary to distinguish the various meanings of the term, for there are as many meanings of 'magic' as there are of 'magician'.
On magic
As with any other topic, before we begin our treatise On Magic, it is necessary to distinguish the various meanings of the term, for there are as many meanings of 'magic' as there are of 'magician'.
Bruno-Cause-Principle-and-Unity
The descent moves from a single being to an infinity of individuals and innumerable species; the ascent moves from the latter to the former.
Therefore, to conclude this second consideration, I say that when we aspire and strive towards the principle and substance of things, we progress towards indivisibility, and that we must never believe we have arrived at the first being and the universal substance until we have come to this indivisi- ble one in which all is comprised. Meanwhile, let us not be led into believ- ing we can understand of the substance and essence more than what we can understand concerning indivisibility. Peripatetics and Platonists gather the infinity of individuals into a simple concept, which is their species; they
? ?
Cause, principle and unity
? gather countless species under determined genera, which Archytas first declared to be ten in number; they gather the determined genera into one being, a single thing: but this thing, this being, is understood by them as a name, a term, as a logical concept, and finally a vain thing. For then, when they treat of the physical, they no longer recognize a single principle of reality and of being for all that is, as they have recognized a common con- cept and name for all that which is expressible and intelligible. All this is due to their intellectual weakness.
Thirdly, you must know that substance and being are distinct from and independent of quantity, so that number and measure are not substance, but relative to substance; not being, but relative to being. We must define substance, therefore, as essentially without number and without measure and, consequently, as one and undivided in all particular things - which, themselves, owe their particularity to number, that is, to things relative to substance. Thus, whoever apprehends Poliinnio as Poliinnio does not apprehend a particular substance, but apprehends substance in the partic- ular and in the differences which characterize it and which, by these differences, comes to place this man under a species in number and multi- plicity. 7 And here, just as certain accidents of man cause the multiplication of what we call human individuals, so certain accidents of animals multiply the species of animality. Similarly, certain accidents of what is vital cause the multiplication of what is animated and alive. It is no different for certain corporeal accidents which cause the multiplication of corporeality, in the same way certain accidents of the substantial multiply the substance. And finally, in the same way, certain accidents of being cause the multi- plication of entity, truth, unity, being, the true, the one.
Fourthly, if you consider the signs and the proofs thanks to which we wish to demonstrate the coincidence of contraries, it will not be difficult to infer that all things are one in the end. All number, be it odd or even, finite or infinite, is reduced to a unity which, repeated in a finite series, posits number, and by an infinite repetition, negates number. You will adopt signs from mathematics and proofs from other moral and specula- tive sciences. Let us look at signs first: tell me what is more unlike a straight line than the circle? Is there anything more opposite to a straight line than a curve? And yet, they coincide in the principle and the minimum, since
? 7 The one substance of Bruno's world is manifest in Poliinnio, and since he belongs to a number of different species, such as man, philosopher, tall, etc. , the number and multiplicity which are associ- ated with Poliinnio result from his belonging to various species rather than from the unity of sub- stance which is manifested in him.
? ?
Fifth dialogue
? (as the Cusan8, the inventor of geometry's most beautiful secrets, divinely pointed out) what difference could you find between the minimum arc and the minimum chord? Furthermore, in the maximum, what difference could you find between the infinite circle and the straight line? Do you not see that the larger the circle, the more its arc approximates straightness? Who is so blind that he cannot see (fig. 1) how the arc BB, by being larger than the arc AA, and the arc CC, by being larger than the arc BB, and the arc DD, by being larger than the other three, tend to be parts of ever-larger circles, and, therefore, approach ever more closely the straightness of the infinite line of the infinite circle, indicated by IK? We must, therefore, say and believe with absolute certainty that, as that line which is longer is also, because of its greater length, more straight, the longest of all must superlatively be the straightest. The infinite straight line thus finally becomes the infinite circle. Here, then, is how not only the maximum and the minimum converge into one being, as we have already shown elsewhere, but also how, in the maxi- mum and the minimum, contraries come to be but one, and to be indistinct.
fig. ? .
Moreover, compare, if you will, the finite species to a triangle, since all finite things are seen to participate, by a certain analogy, in the finitude and the limitation of the first finite and first limited thing (just as in all genera, the analogous predicates draw their degree and order from the first and loftiest of the genus), so that the triangle is the first shape which cannot be resolved into another species of simpler shape (while the quadrangle, for instance, can be resolved into triangles), making the triangle the primary foundation of every limited and configurated thing. You will find that the
8 Nicolas of Cusa, in his De mathematica perfectione and De berillo. ? ?
? ? Cause, principle and unity
? triangle, as it cannot be resolved into another figure, likewise cannot be composed into triangles whose three angles are greater or smaller, even if the triangles are diverse and varied, of diverse and varied types in terms of greater or lesser size, minimal or maximal. Therefore, if you posit an infi- nite triangle (I do not mean really and absolutely, since the infinite has no figure; I mean infinite hypothetically, insofar as its angle is useful for our demonstration), it will not have an angle greater than that of the smallest finite triangle, and likewise for that of any intermediate triangle and of another, maximum triangle.
But leaving off the comparison between one shape and another, I mean between triangles, and considering angles, we see that they are all equal, whatever their size, as in this square (fig. 2). This square is divided diago- nally into several triangles, and we see that not only are the angles of the
fig. ? .
three squares A, B and C equal, but also that all the acute angles resulting from the division made by the said diagonal, which doubles the series of triangles, are all equal. From this we can very clearly see, by a very marked analogy, how the one infinite substance can be whole in all things, although in some in a finite manner and in others in an infinite manner, in some in lesser measure and in others in greater measure.
Add to this (to see further that, in this one, in this infinity, contraries coincide) that the acute and the obtuse angles are two contraries. But do you not see (fig. 3) that they are formed from a unique, undivided, identi- cal principle, that is, from the inclination made by the line M, which joins perpendicularly the horizontal line BD at point C? Pivoting on point C, and by a simple inclination towards point D, that perpendicular line, that produces, first, two identical right angles and highlights, then, the difference between the acute and the obtuse angle as it approaches point D. When it
? ? ?
Fifth dialogue
? has reached that point and is united with it, it merges the acute and obtuse angles, which cancel one another out, since the one and the other are united in the potency of one and the same line. The line M, which has been made
fig. ? .
to unite with and merge with line BD, can, similarly, disunite and separate itself from it, giving rise from the same identical, unique and undivided principle to the most contrary angles, from the maximum acute and the maximum obtuse, to the minimum acute and the minimum obtuse, and thence to their equivalence as right angles, and their merging produced when the perpendicular and the horizontal lines are superimposed.
Let us proceed now to proofs: first, regarding the active primary quali- ties of corporeal nature, who does not know that the principle of heat is indivisible and, in consequence, is separated from all heat, since the prin- ciple cannot be any of the principled things? And if this is true, who can hesitate to affirm that the principle is neither cold nor hot, but that there is one and the same principle for cold and heat? What explains that a contrary is the principle of its opposite, and that, therefore, the transmutations are circular, if not the existence of a subject, of a principle, of a term, and a con- tinuity and a coincidence between the one and its contrary? Are not maxi- mum heat and minimum cold wholly one? Is it not from the limit of maximum heat that we obtain the point of departure in the movement toward cold? It is evident, therefore, that not only do the two maxima some- times coincide in their opposition and that the two minima coincide in their agreement, but etiam [also] that the maximum and the minimum coincide through the vicissitude of transmutation. Therefore, it is not without cause that physicians are often concerned when faced with the best of health, or that those with foresight grow doubly prudent in periods of greatest hap- piness. Who does not see that corruption and generation derive from the same principle? Is not the end of the corrupt thing the beginning of the thing generated? Do we not similarly say: to take that, is to posit this?
? ? ?
Cause, principle and unity
? There was that, there is this? If we use our judgement wisely, we see clearly that corruption is nothing but a generation, and generation is nothing but a corruption; love is a hate and hate is a love, in the end. Hate of the contrary is a love of the congruent, and the love of this is the hate of that. Therefore, in substance and at the root, love and hate, amity and dis- cord are the same thing. Where does the physician find the antidote more surely than in poison? Who delivers a better theriac than the viper? The best remedies lie in the worst venoms. Is a potency not the potency of two contrary objects? And how do you think that can be explained, if not because the principle of the being of both the one and the other is one, as is the principle of their conception, and if not because the contraries are related to one and the same substratum, just as they are apprehended by the same sense? Not to mention that the sphere rests on the plane, the con- cave remains on and settles into the convex, the irascible lives in accord with the patient, the prideful likes the humble the best and the bountiful the miser.
In conclusion, he who wants to know the greatest secrets of nature should observe and examine the minima and maxima of contraries and opposites. There is a profound magic in knowing how to extract the con- trary from the contrary, after having discovered their point of union. Poor Aristotle was tending to this in his thought when he posited privation (to which a certain disposition is joined) as the progenitor, parent and mother of form, but he could not get to it. He failed to attain it because, stopping at the genus of opposition, he remained snared by it in such a way that, not having descended to the species of contrariety, he did not reach or even perceive the goal. He strayed completely away from it by claiming that contraries cannot actually concur in the same substratum.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . You have expatiated in an elevated, rare and exceptional way about the whole, the maximum, about being, principle and the one. But I would like to hear you speak more explicitly about unity, for I find there a Vae soli [Woe to the solitary]! 9 Moreover, I feel a great anguish at the idea that in my purse and in my wallet, there is but a single coin.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Theunitywhichisallisnotunfolded,norfoundinnumeric distribution and distinction. It is not a singularity such as you perhaps conceived it, but a unity which is all-embracing and comprehensive.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Exemplum [An example]? To tell the truth, intendo, but non capio [I am paying attention, but I do not understand].
9 Ecclesiastes ? , ? ? . ? ? ?
? Fifth dialogue
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Thedecadeisaunityinthesameway,butitiscomplex;the hundred is no less a unity, but it is more complex, and the thousand is a unity no less than the other two, but much more complex. And what I tell you in arithmetical terms, you must understand in the sense of a greater depth and a greater simplicity as regards the totality of things. The supreme good, the supreme object of desire, the supreme perfection, the supreme beatitude consists in the unity which embraces the whole. We delight in colour; not in a single, express colour, whatever it may be, but above all in the colour which embraces all colours. We delight in sound, not in any particular one, but in a complex sound which results from the har- mony of many sounds. We delight in a sensible thing, but we take greatest delight in that which comprehends, in itself, all sensible things; similarly, we take delight in a knowable thing that comprehends all knowable things, an apprehensible thing that embraces all that can be apprehended, a being that embraces everything; we delight, above all, in the one which is itself the all. Just as you, Poliinnio, would prefer the unity of a gem so precious as to be worth all the gold in the world, to the multitude of thousands upon thousands of such pennies as the one you have in your purse.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Optime[Excellent].
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Here I am grown learned. For if the man who does not understand the one understands nothing, he who really understands the one understands everything. And the closer one gets to the intelligence of the one, the closer one comes to the apprehension of everything.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? . The same goes for me. If I have understood rightly, I am going away much enriched by the considerations of Teofilo, reliable reporter of the Nolan philosophy.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Praised be the gods, and may all living things magnify the infinite, perfectly simple, unique, highest and absolute cause, principle and unity.
End of the five dialogues
on Cause, Principle, and Unity
? ? ?
On Magic
On magic
As with any other topic, before we begin our treatise On Magic, it is necessary to distinguish the various meanings of the term, for there are as many meanings of 'magic' as there are of 'magician'.
First, the term 'magician' means a wise man; for example, the trismegistes among the Egyptians, the druids among the Gauls, the gymnosophists among the Indians, the cabalists among the Hebrews, the magi among the Persians (who were followers of Zoroaster), the sophists among the Greeks and the wise men among the Latins.
Second, 'magician' refers to someone who does wondrous things merely by manipulating active and passive powers, as occurs in chemistry, medicine and such fields; this is commonly called 'natural magic'.
Third, magic involves circumstances such that the actions of nature or of a higher intelligence occur in such a way as to excite wonderment by their appearances; this type of magic is called 'prestidigitation'.
Fourth, magic refers to what happens as a result of the powers of attrac- tion and repulsion between things, for example, the pushes, motions and attractions due to magnets and such things, when all these actions are due not to active and passive qualities but rather to the spirit or soul existing in things. This is called 'natural magic' in the proper sense.
The fifth meaning includes, in addition to these powers, the use of words, chants, calculations of numbers and times, images, figures, symbols, characters, or letters. This is a form of magic which is intermediate between the natural and the preternatural or the supernatural, and is properly called 'mathematical magic', or even more accurately 'occult philosophy'.
The sixth sense adds to this the exhortation or invocation of the intelli- gences and external or higher forces by means of prayers, dedications,
? ? ?
On magic
? incensings, sacrifices, resolutions and ceremonies directed to the gods, demons and heroes. Sometimes, this is done for the purpose of contacting a spirit itself to become its vessel and instrument in order to appear wise, although this wisdom can be easily removed, together with the spirit, by means of a drug. This is the magic of the hopeless, who become the vessels of evil demons, which they seek through their notorious art. On the other hand, this is sometimes done to command and control lower demons with the authority of higher demonic spirits, by honouring and entreating the latter while restricting the former with oaths and petitions. This is transnatural or metaphysical magic and is properly called 'theurgy'.
Seventh, magic is the petition or invocation, not of the demons and heroes themselves, but through them, to call upon the souls of dead humans, in order to predict and know absent and future events, by taking their cadavers or parts thereof to some oracle. This type of magic, both in its subject matter and in its purpose, is called 'necromancy'. If the body is not present, but the oracle is beseeched by invoking the spirit residing in its viscera with very active incantations, then this type of magic is properly called 'Pythian', for, if I may say so, this was the usual meaning of 'inspired' at the temple of the Pythian Apollo.
Eighth, sometimes incantations are associated with a person's physical parts in any sense; garments, excrement, remnants, footprints and anything which is believed to have made some contact with the person. In that case, and if they are used to untie, fasten, or weaken, then this constitutes the type of magic called 'wicked', if it leads to evil. If it leads to good, it is to be counted among the medicines belonging to a certain method and type of medical practice. If it leads to final destruction and death, then it is called 'poisonous magic'.
Ninth, all those who are able, for any reason, to predict distant and future events are said to be magicians. These are generally called 'diviners' because of their purpose. The primary groups of such magicians use either the four material principles, fire, air, water and earth, and they are thus called 'pyromancers', 'hydromancers', and 'geomancers',1 or they use the three objects of knowledge, the natural, mathematical and divine. There are also various other types of prophecy. For augerers, soothsayers and other such people make predictions from an inspection of natural or phys- ical things. Geomancers make predictions in their own way by inspecting mathematical objects like numbers, letters and certain lines and figures, 1 The fourth implied name, 'aeromancers', is not included in Bruno's text.
? ? ? ?
On magic
? and also from the appearance, light and location of the planets and similar objects. Still others make predictions by using divine things, like sacred names, coincidental locations, brief calculations and persevering circum- stances. In our day, these latter people are not called magicians, since, for us, the word 'magic' sounds bad and has an unworthy connotation. So this is not called magic but 'prophecy'.
Finally, 'magic' and 'magician' have a pejorative connotation which has not been included or examined in the above meanings. In this sense, a magician is any foolish evil-doer who is endowed with the power of help- ing or harming someone by means of a communication with, or even a pact with, a foul devil. This meaning does not apply to wise men, or indeed to authors, although some of them have adopted the name 'hooded magi- cians', for example, the authors2 of the book De malleo maleficarum (The Witches' Hammer). As a result, the name is used today by all writers of this type, as can be seen in the comments and beliefs of ignorant and foolish priests.
Therefore, when the word 'magic' is used, it should either be taken in one of the senses distinguished above, or, if it is used without qualifications, it should be taken in its strongest and most worthy sense as dictated by the logicians, and especially by Aristotle in Book ? of the Topics. 3 So as it is used by and among philosophers, 'magician' then means a wise man who has the power to act. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the word, when unquali- fied, means whatever is signified by common usage. Another common meaning is found among various groups of priests who frequently specu- late about that foul demon called the devil. Still other meanings are to be found in the common usages of different peoples and believers.
Given these distinctions, we will deal generally with three types of magic: the divine, the physical and the mathematical. The first two of these types of magic necessarily relate to what is good and best. But the third type includes both good and evil, since the magician may direct it towards either. Although all three types agree on many principles and actions, in the third type, wickedness, idolatry, lawlessness and charges of idolatry are found when error and deception are used to turn things which are intrinsically good into evil. Here, the mathematical type of magic is not defined by the
2 The authors of this book, first published c. ? ? ? ? , were Heinrich Kramer (Henricus Institoris) and James Sprenger. An English translation by Rev. Montague Summers has been published under the Latin title Malleus maleficarum (New York: Benjamin Blom, ? ? ? ? ; Dover, ? ? ? ? ).
3 In Topics, ? , ? -? , Artistotle provides a long list of rules to be used to determine the meaning of words in terms of the properties assigned to things.
? ? ? ?
On magic
? usually mentioned fields of mathematics, i. e. , geometry, arithmetic, astron- omy, optics, music, etc. , but rather by its likeness and relationship to these disciplines. It is similar to geometry in that it uses figures and symbols, to music in its chants, to arithmetic in its numbers and manipulations, to astronomy in its concerns for times and motions, and to optics in making observations. In general, it is similar to mathematics as a whole, either because it mediates between divine and natural actions, or because it shares or lacks something of both. For some things are intermediates because they participate in both extremes, others because they are excluded from both extremes, in which case they should not be called intermediates but a third species which is not between the other two but outside of them. From what has been said, it is clear how divine and physical magic differ from the third type.
To turn now to the particulars, magicians take it as axiomatic that, in all the panorama before our eyes, God acts on the gods; the gods act on the celestial or astral bodies, which are divine bodies; these act on the spirits who reside in and control the stars, one of which is the earth; the spirits act on the elements, the elements on the compounds, the compounds on the senses; the senses on the soul, and the soul on the whole animal. This is the descending scale.
By contrast, the ascending scale is from the animal through the soul to the senses, through the senses to compounds, through compounds to the elements, through these to spirits, through the spirits in the elements to those in the stars, through these to the incorporeal gods who have an ethereal substance or body, through them to the soul of the world or the spirit of the universe; and through that to the contemplation of the one, most simple, best, greatest, incorporeal, absolute and self-sufficient being.
Thus, there is a descent from God through the world to animals, and an ascent from animals through the world to God. He is the highest point of the scale, pure act and active power, the purest light. At the bottom of the scale is matter, darkness and pure passive potency, which can become all things from the bottom, just as He can make all things from the top. Between the highest and lowest levels, there are intermediaries, the higher of which have a greater share of light and action and active power, while the lower levels have a greater share of darkness, potency and passive power.
As a result, all light in lower things, which comes to them from above, is more powerful in higher things. And also, all darkness in higher things is stronger in lower things. But the nature and power of light and darkness
? ? ?
On magic
? are not equal. For light diffuses and penetrates through the lowest and deepest darkness, but darkness does not touch the purest sphere of light. Thus, light penetrates and conquers darkness and overflows to infinity, while darkness does not penetrate or overwhelm or equal the light, but rather is very weak compared to light.
Parallel to the three types of magic mentioned above, there are three different worlds to be distinguished: the archetypal, the physical and the rational. Friendship and strife are located in the archetypal world, fire and water in the physical world, and light and darkness in the mathematical world. Light and darkness descend from fire and water, which in turn descend from peace and strife. Thus, the first world produces the third world through the second, and the third world is reflected in the first through the second.
Leaving aside those principles of magic which play on the superstitious and which, whatever they be, are unworthy of the general public, we will direct our thoughts only to those things which contribute to wisdom and which can satisfy better minds. Nevertheless, no type of magic is unwor- thy of notice and examination, because every science deals with the good, as Aristotle says in the introduction to his De anima,4 and as Thomas and other more contemplative theologians agree. Nevertheless, all this should be kept far away from profane and wicked people and from the multitudes. For nothing is so good that impious and sacrilegious and wicked people cannot contort its proper benefit into evil.
In general, there are two types of efficient cause: nature and the will. The will is threefold: human, spiritual and divine. Nature, as used here, is twofold: intrinsic and extrinsic. Furthermore, intrinsic nature is of two kinds: matter or the subject, and form with its natural power. Extrinsic nature is also of two kinds: the first, which is preferably called an image of nature, is a trace and shadow or light which remains in a thing within its body, like light and heat in the sun and in other hot bodies; the second emanates and radiates from a subject, like light, which flows from the sun and is found in illuminated things, and like heat, which resides with light in the sun and is also found in heated bodies.
By examining the number of these causes, we can descend to the differentiation of powers or of effects produced by the first cause through the intermediate causes down to the closest and lowest ones, by restricting the universal cause, which, itself, does not attend to any one available
4 Aristotle, De anima, ? , ? (? ? ? . a. ? -? ). ? ? ?
? On magic
? subject rather than another. For, although this cause and its causal power always remain immutably the same, it produces contrary (and not just different) effects in different subjects with the help of different types of matter. As a result, there need be only one such simple, principal efficient cause, like there is only one sun, one heat and one light, which by turning forward or backward, by approaching and receding, mediately and imme- diately causes the winter, the summer, and their different and contrary weather, and the ordering of the seasons.
Matter is also derived from this same cause, if we wish to believe those who think that the four commonly mentioned elements change into each other. The originator of this view was Plato, who sometimes says that all things were produced from one matter and one efficient cause. But what- ever may have been the method of production used by the first universal cause, and whether one assumes only one or many material principles, any human or spiritual secondary cause must recognize that, because of the great multitude and variety of producing species, there are many types of matter having act or form, through which a subject is able to influence things outside of itself.
In regard to the powers or forms or accidents which are transmitted from subject to subject, some are observable, for example, those that belong to the genus of active and passive qualities, and the things that immediately follow from them, like heating and cooling, wetting and drying, softening and hardening, attracting and repelling. Others are more hidden because their effects are also obscure, for example, to be happy or sad, to experience desire or aversion, and fear or boldness. These are said to be caused by external impressions acting on the cognitive power in humans and on the estimative power in animals. Thus, when a child or infant sees a snake, or when a sheep sees a wolf, it conceives an image, without any other experience, of hostility and of fear of its own death or destruction.
The explanation of this is to be found in the internal sense, which is, indeed, moved by the external impressions, although indirectly. For nature gives not only existence to each species, but also the desire in each individ- ual to preserve itself in its present state. Thus, it implants in each thing an internal spirit, or sense, if you prefer that word, by which as from an inter- nal dictate it recognizes and avoids great dangers. This can be seen not only in the examples given above, but also in all things in which, even if they seem to be defective or dead, there still resides a spirit striving with all its power to conserve the present condition. This happens in falling drops
? ? ?
On magic
? of liquids which form a sphere to avoid disintegration, and also in falling bodies which are attracted to a centre and tend to gather their parts into a sphere lest they break up and disperse. This is also found in pieces of straw or wood thrown on a fire, and in thin tissues and membranes, which recoil to avoid, somehow, their own destruction.
This particular sense is located in all things and is a form of life, although, in accordance with the common custom, we do not call it an ani- mal, which refers to a specific soul, because these components cannot be called animals. Nevertheless, in the order of the universe, one can recog- nize 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.
Just as our soul produces, originally and in a general way, all vital activities from the whole body, and even though the whole soul is in the whole body and in each of its parts, nevertheless, it does not produce every action in the whole body or in each of its parts. Rather, it causes vision in the eyes, hear- ing in the ears and taste in the mouth (but if the eye were located in any other place, we would see in that place, and if the organs of all the senses were located in any one place, we would perceive everything in that place). In the same way, the soul of the world is in the whole world, and is every- where so adapted to matter that, at each place, it produces the proper sub- ject and causes the proper actions. Therefore, although the world soul is located equally everywhere, it does not act equally everywhere, because matter is not arranged to be equally disposed to it everywhere. Thus, the whole soul is in the whole body, in the bones and in the veins and in the heart; it is no more present in one part than in another, and it is no less pre- sent in one part than in the whole, nor in the whole less than in one part. Rather, it causes a nerve to be a nerve in one place, a vein to be a vein else- where, blood to be blood, and the heart to be the heart elsewhere. And as these parts happen to be changed, either by an extrinsic efficient cause or by an intrinsic passive principle, then the activity of the soul must also change.
This is the most important and most fundamental of all the principles which provide an explanation of the marvels found in nature; namely, that because of the active principle and spirit or universal soul, 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. Indeed, on the contrary, a very large disintegration into such components must occur for an almost completely new world to be generated from them.
? ? ?
On magic
? While bronze is more similar to gold and is closer to the distinctive prop- erties of gold than are the ashes of bronze, still, in a transmutation, these ashes of bronze are closer to the form of gold than is bronze. Likewise, we see that all seeds, which are oriented to producing a particular species, hap- pen to be rather alike as though they were of the same, and not different, species, since they are similar and distinctive and related. He who believes otherwise is like someone who thinks that an ape can be changed into a human more easily than the seed, implanted in a woman, which previously was food and bread.
Nevertheless, in every production, there must be present a similarity and a form of the same species. Just as a house or a garment results from a model in the maker's mind in the case of artefacts, likewise, in the productions of nature, a species of things is generated and defined by the exemplar, which is distinctive of the matter which generates the form. For example, we see the same types of food, and the same heavens, water and houses reproduced in substance: a dog into a dog, a human into a human, a cat into a cat. And a dog generates the same species of dog, and a human the same species of human.
From this, it is clear that the entire cause of the differences is due to an idea, which is generally present everywhere in nature, and which is later limited to this or that species, depending on whether one or other species resembles the idea more. As a result, any magician who wishes to carry out his work in accordance with nature must especially understand this ideal principle and how it applies specifically to species, numerically to numbers and individually to individuals. From this, he formulates an image and the proportions of the matter so formed, and with good reasons reinforces the result with the wisdom and power of his magic. Many also bring about cures and injuries by connecting symbols with particular components or by appealing to those who communicate with or take part in curing or destructive forces. In this way, the work of magic is restricted and applied to a particular individual.
Leaving aside other arguments, it is clear from these experiences that every soul and spirit has some degree of continuity with the universal spirit, which is recognized to be located not only where the individual soul lives and perceives, but also to be spread out everywhere in its essence and substance, as many Platonists and Pythagoreans have taught. As a result, vision grasps the most distant things immediately and without motion, and, indeed, the eye, or some part thereof, extends immediately to the stars or immediately from the stars to the eye.
? ? ?
On magic
? Furthermore, the soul, in its power, is present in some way in the entire universe, because it apprehends substances which are not included in the body in which it lives, although they are related to it. Thus, if certain impediments are excluded, the soul has an immediate and sudden presence with the most distant things, which are not joined to it by any motion, which nobody would deny, but rather are directly present in a certain sense.
Experience teaches this also in the case of those whose nose has been cut off; if they arrange to grow a new nose for themselves from the flesh of some other animal, and if that animal whose flesh was used dies, then as the body of that animal rots, so does the borrowed nose. From this, it is clear that the soul diffuses outside of the body in every aspect of its nature. 5 It also follows that the soul knows not only the members of its own body, but also everything for which it has any use, participation, or interaction.
There is no value in the stupid argument, advanced by those who lack true philosophical principles, that a thing which is touched by something else does not itself perceive that. Indeed, in one sense, this is true if we are distinguishing between species or individuals, but it is false if we are dis- tinguishing one bodily part from another. For example, if someone injures a finger or pricks one part of the body with a pin, the whole body is imme- diately disturbed everywhere and not just in that part where the injury occurred.
And so, since every soul is in contact with the universal soul, it is not pos- sible to find in this case the same effects which occur in bodies which do not mutually penetrate into each other. Rather, for spiritual substances, a different comparison is needed. For instance, if innumerable lamps are lit, they all act together as though they were one light, and no one light impedes or reflects or excludes another. The same thing happens when many voices are diffused through the same air, or if many visible rays, to use the common saying, spread out to reveal the same visible whole. All these rays pass through the same medium, and while some move in straight lines and others obliquely, they do not interfere with each other. In the same way, innumerable spirits and souls, when spread out through the same space, do not interfere with each other such that the diffusion of one would affect the diffusion of an infinity of others.
This power belongs not only to the soul but also to certain accidents, like sound, light and vision. The reason is that the whole soul is located in the whole body and in every part of the body, and that the whole soul
5 This is Thesis ? ? in Bruno's Theses de magia.
Therefore, to conclude this second consideration, I say that when we aspire and strive towards the principle and substance of things, we progress towards indivisibility, and that we must never believe we have arrived at the first being and the universal substance until we have come to this indivisi- ble one in which all is comprised. Meanwhile, let us not be led into believ- ing we can understand of the substance and essence more than what we can understand concerning indivisibility. Peripatetics and Platonists gather the infinity of individuals into a simple concept, which is their species; they
? ?
Cause, principle and unity
? gather countless species under determined genera, which Archytas first declared to be ten in number; they gather the determined genera into one being, a single thing: but this thing, this being, is understood by them as a name, a term, as a logical concept, and finally a vain thing. For then, when they treat of the physical, they no longer recognize a single principle of reality and of being for all that is, as they have recognized a common con- cept and name for all that which is expressible and intelligible. All this is due to their intellectual weakness.
Thirdly, you must know that substance and being are distinct from and independent of quantity, so that number and measure are not substance, but relative to substance; not being, but relative to being. We must define substance, therefore, as essentially without number and without measure and, consequently, as one and undivided in all particular things - which, themselves, owe their particularity to number, that is, to things relative to substance. Thus, whoever apprehends Poliinnio as Poliinnio does not apprehend a particular substance, but apprehends substance in the partic- ular and in the differences which characterize it and which, by these differences, comes to place this man under a species in number and multi- plicity. 7 And here, just as certain accidents of man cause the multiplication of what we call human individuals, so certain accidents of animals multiply the species of animality. Similarly, certain accidents of what is vital cause the multiplication of what is animated and alive. It is no different for certain corporeal accidents which cause the multiplication of corporeality, in the same way certain accidents of the substantial multiply the substance. And finally, in the same way, certain accidents of being cause the multi- plication of entity, truth, unity, being, the true, the one.
Fourthly, if you consider the signs and the proofs thanks to which we wish to demonstrate the coincidence of contraries, it will not be difficult to infer that all things are one in the end. All number, be it odd or even, finite or infinite, is reduced to a unity which, repeated in a finite series, posits number, and by an infinite repetition, negates number. You will adopt signs from mathematics and proofs from other moral and specula- tive sciences. Let us look at signs first: tell me what is more unlike a straight line than the circle? Is there anything more opposite to a straight line than a curve? And yet, they coincide in the principle and the minimum, since
? 7 The one substance of Bruno's world is manifest in Poliinnio, and since he belongs to a number of different species, such as man, philosopher, tall, etc. , the number and multiplicity which are associ- ated with Poliinnio result from his belonging to various species rather than from the unity of sub- stance which is manifested in him.
? ?
Fifth dialogue
? (as the Cusan8, the inventor of geometry's most beautiful secrets, divinely pointed out) what difference could you find between the minimum arc and the minimum chord? Furthermore, in the maximum, what difference could you find between the infinite circle and the straight line? Do you not see that the larger the circle, the more its arc approximates straightness? Who is so blind that he cannot see (fig. 1) how the arc BB, by being larger than the arc AA, and the arc CC, by being larger than the arc BB, and the arc DD, by being larger than the other three, tend to be parts of ever-larger circles, and, therefore, approach ever more closely the straightness of the infinite line of the infinite circle, indicated by IK? We must, therefore, say and believe with absolute certainty that, as that line which is longer is also, because of its greater length, more straight, the longest of all must superlatively be the straightest. The infinite straight line thus finally becomes the infinite circle. Here, then, is how not only the maximum and the minimum converge into one being, as we have already shown elsewhere, but also how, in the maxi- mum and the minimum, contraries come to be but one, and to be indistinct.
fig. ? .
Moreover, compare, if you will, the finite species to a triangle, since all finite things are seen to participate, by a certain analogy, in the finitude and the limitation of the first finite and first limited thing (just as in all genera, the analogous predicates draw their degree and order from the first and loftiest of the genus), so that the triangle is the first shape which cannot be resolved into another species of simpler shape (while the quadrangle, for instance, can be resolved into triangles), making the triangle the primary foundation of every limited and configurated thing. You will find that the
8 Nicolas of Cusa, in his De mathematica perfectione and De berillo. ? ?
? ? Cause, principle and unity
? triangle, as it cannot be resolved into another figure, likewise cannot be composed into triangles whose three angles are greater or smaller, even if the triangles are diverse and varied, of diverse and varied types in terms of greater or lesser size, minimal or maximal. Therefore, if you posit an infi- nite triangle (I do not mean really and absolutely, since the infinite has no figure; I mean infinite hypothetically, insofar as its angle is useful for our demonstration), it will not have an angle greater than that of the smallest finite triangle, and likewise for that of any intermediate triangle and of another, maximum triangle.
But leaving off the comparison between one shape and another, I mean between triangles, and considering angles, we see that they are all equal, whatever their size, as in this square (fig. 2). This square is divided diago- nally into several triangles, and we see that not only are the angles of the
fig. ? .
three squares A, B and C equal, but also that all the acute angles resulting from the division made by the said diagonal, which doubles the series of triangles, are all equal. From this we can very clearly see, by a very marked analogy, how the one infinite substance can be whole in all things, although in some in a finite manner and in others in an infinite manner, in some in lesser measure and in others in greater measure.
Add to this (to see further that, in this one, in this infinity, contraries coincide) that the acute and the obtuse angles are two contraries. But do you not see (fig. 3) that they are formed from a unique, undivided, identi- cal principle, that is, from the inclination made by the line M, which joins perpendicularly the horizontal line BD at point C? Pivoting on point C, and by a simple inclination towards point D, that perpendicular line, that produces, first, two identical right angles and highlights, then, the difference between the acute and the obtuse angle as it approaches point D. When it
? ? ?
Fifth dialogue
? has reached that point and is united with it, it merges the acute and obtuse angles, which cancel one another out, since the one and the other are united in the potency of one and the same line. The line M, which has been made
fig. ? .
to unite with and merge with line BD, can, similarly, disunite and separate itself from it, giving rise from the same identical, unique and undivided principle to the most contrary angles, from the maximum acute and the maximum obtuse, to the minimum acute and the minimum obtuse, and thence to their equivalence as right angles, and their merging produced when the perpendicular and the horizontal lines are superimposed.
Let us proceed now to proofs: first, regarding the active primary quali- ties of corporeal nature, who does not know that the principle of heat is indivisible and, in consequence, is separated from all heat, since the prin- ciple cannot be any of the principled things? And if this is true, who can hesitate to affirm that the principle is neither cold nor hot, but that there is one and the same principle for cold and heat? What explains that a contrary is the principle of its opposite, and that, therefore, the transmutations are circular, if not the existence of a subject, of a principle, of a term, and a con- tinuity and a coincidence between the one and its contrary? Are not maxi- mum heat and minimum cold wholly one? Is it not from the limit of maximum heat that we obtain the point of departure in the movement toward cold? It is evident, therefore, that not only do the two maxima some- times coincide in their opposition and that the two minima coincide in their agreement, but etiam [also] that the maximum and the minimum coincide through the vicissitude of transmutation. Therefore, it is not without cause that physicians are often concerned when faced with the best of health, or that those with foresight grow doubly prudent in periods of greatest hap- piness. Who does not see that corruption and generation derive from the same principle? Is not the end of the corrupt thing the beginning of the thing generated? Do we not similarly say: to take that, is to posit this?
? ? ?
Cause, principle and unity
? There was that, there is this? If we use our judgement wisely, we see clearly that corruption is nothing but a generation, and generation is nothing but a corruption; love is a hate and hate is a love, in the end. Hate of the contrary is a love of the congruent, and the love of this is the hate of that. Therefore, in substance and at the root, love and hate, amity and dis- cord are the same thing. Where does the physician find the antidote more surely than in poison? Who delivers a better theriac than the viper? The best remedies lie in the worst venoms. Is a potency not the potency of two contrary objects? And how do you think that can be explained, if not because the principle of the being of both the one and the other is one, as is the principle of their conception, and if not because the contraries are related to one and the same substratum, just as they are apprehended by the same sense? Not to mention that the sphere rests on the plane, the con- cave remains on and settles into the convex, the irascible lives in accord with the patient, the prideful likes the humble the best and the bountiful the miser.
In conclusion, he who wants to know the greatest secrets of nature should observe and examine the minima and maxima of contraries and opposites. There is a profound magic in knowing how to extract the con- trary from the contrary, after having discovered their point of union. Poor Aristotle was tending to this in his thought when he posited privation (to which a certain disposition is joined) as the progenitor, parent and mother of form, but he could not get to it. He failed to attain it because, stopping at the genus of opposition, he remained snared by it in such a way that, not having descended to the species of contrariety, he did not reach or even perceive the goal. He strayed completely away from it by claiming that contraries cannot actually concur in the same substratum.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . You have expatiated in an elevated, rare and exceptional way about the whole, the maximum, about being, principle and the one. But I would like to hear you speak more explicitly about unity, for I find there a Vae soli [Woe to the solitary]! 9 Moreover, I feel a great anguish at the idea that in my purse and in my wallet, there is but a single coin.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Theunitywhichisallisnotunfolded,norfoundinnumeric distribution and distinction. It is not a singularity such as you perhaps conceived it, but a unity which is all-embracing and comprehensive.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Exemplum [An example]? To tell the truth, intendo, but non capio [I am paying attention, but I do not understand].
9 Ecclesiastes ? , ? ? . ? ? ?
? Fifth dialogue
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Thedecadeisaunityinthesameway,butitiscomplex;the hundred is no less a unity, but it is more complex, and the thousand is a unity no less than the other two, but much more complex. And what I tell you in arithmetical terms, you must understand in the sense of a greater depth and a greater simplicity as regards the totality of things. The supreme good, the supreme object of desire, the supreme perfection, the supreme beatitude consists in the unity which embraces the whole. We delight in colour; not in a single, express colour, whatever it may be, but above all in the colour which embraces all colours. We delight in sound, not in any particular one, but in a complex sound which results from the har- mony of many sounds. We delight in a sensible thing, but we take greatest delight in that which comprehends, in itself, all sensible things; similarly, we take delight in a knowable thing that comprehends all knowable things, an apprehensible thing that embraces all that can be apprehended, a being that embraces everything; we delight, above all, in the one which is itself the all. Just as you, Poliinnio, would prefer the unity of a gem so precious as to be worth all the gold in the world, to the multitude of thousands upon thousands of such pennies as the one you have in your purse.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Optime[Excellent].
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Here I am grown learned. For if the man who does not understand the one understands nothing, he who really understands the one understands everything. And the closer one gets to the intelligence of the one, the closer one comes to the apprehension of everything.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? . The same goes for me. If I have understood rightly, I am going away much enriched by the considerations of Teofilo, reliable reporter of the Nolan philosophy.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? . Praised be the gods, and may all living things magnify the infinite, perfectly simple, unique, highest and absolute cause, principle and unity.
End of the five dialogues
on Cause, Principle, and Unity
? ? ?
On Magic
On magic
As with any other topic, before we begin our treatise On Magic, it is necessary to distinguish the various meanings of the term, for there are as many meanings of 'magic' as there are of 'magician'.
First, the term 'magician' means a wise man; for example, the trismegistes among the Egyptians, the druids among the Gauls, the gymnosophists among the Indians, the cabalists among the Hebrews, the magi among the Persians (who were followers of Zoroaster), the sophists among the Greeks and the wise men among the Latins.
Second, 'magician' refers to someone who does wondrous things merely by manipulating active and passive powers, as occurs in chemistry, medicine and such fields; this is commonly called 'natural magic'.
Third, magic involves circumstances such that the actions of nature or of a higher intelligence occur in such a way as to excite wonderment by their appearances; this type of magic is called 'prestidigitation'.
Fourth, magic refers to what happens as a result of the powers of attrac- tion and repulsion between things, for example, the pushes, motions and attractions due to magnets and such things, when all these actions are due not to active and passive qualities but rather to the spirit or soul existing in things. This is called 'natural magic' in the proper sense.
The fifth meaning includes, in addition to these powers, the use of words, chants, calculations of numbers and times, images, figures, symbols, characters, or letters. This is a form of magic which is intermediate between the natural and the preternatural or the supernatural, and is properly called 'mathematical magic', or even more accurately 'occult philosophy'.
The sixth sense adds to this the exhortation or invocation of the intelli- gences and external or higher forces by means of prayers, dedications,
? ? ?
On magic
? incensings, sacrifices, resolutions and ceremonies directed to the gods, demons and heroes. Sometimes, this is done for the purpose of contacting a spirit itself to become its vessel and instrument in order to appear wise, although this wisdom can be easily removed, together with the spirit, by means of a drug. This is the magic of the hopeless, who become the vessels of evil demons, which they seek through their notorious art. On the other hand, this is sometimes done to command and control lower demons with the authority of higher demonic spirits, by honouring and entreating the latter while restricting the former with oaths and petitions. This is transnatural or metaphysical magic and is properly called 'theurgy'.
Seventh, magic is the petition or invocation, not of the demons and heroes themselves, but through them, to call upon the souls of dead humans, in order to predict and know absent and future events, by taking their cadavers or parts thereof to some oracle. This type of magic, both in its subject matter and in its purpose, is called 'necromancy'. If the body is not present, but the oracle is beseeched by invoking the spirit residing in its viscera with very active incantations, then this type of magic is properly called 'Pythian', for, if I may say so, this was the usual meaning of 'inspired' at the temple of the Pythian Apollo.
Eighth, sometimes incantations are associated with a person's physical parts in any sense; garments, excrement, remnants, footprints and anything which is believed to have made some contact with the person. In that case, and if they are used to untie, fasten, or weaken, then this constitutes the type of magic called 'wicked', if it leads to evil. If it leads to good, it is to be counted among the medicines belonging to a certain method and type of medical practice. If it leads to final destruction and death, then it is called 'poisonous magic'.
Ninth, all those who are able, for any reason, to predict distant and future events are said to be magicians. These are generally called 'diviners' because of their purpose. The primary groups of such magicians use either the four material principles, fire, air, water and earth, and they are thus called 'pyromancers', 'hydromancers', and 'geomancers',1 or they use the three objects of knowledge, the natural, mathematical and divine. There are also various other types of prophecy. For augerers, soothsayers and other such people make predictions from an inspection of natural or phys- ical things. Geomancers make predictions in their own way by inspecting mathematical objects like numbers, letters and certain lines and figures, 1 The fourth implied name, 'aeromancers', is not included in Bruno's text.
? ? ? ?
On magic
? and also from the appearance, light and location of the planets and similar objects. Still others make predictions by using divine things, like sacred names, coincidental locations, brief calculations and persevering circum- stances. In our day, these latter people are not called magicians, since, for us, the word 'magic' sounds bad and has an unworthy connotation. So this is not called magic but 'prophecy'.
Finally, 'magic' and 'magician' have a pejorative connotation which has not been included or examined in the above meanings. In this sense, a magician is any foolish evil-doer who is endowed with the power of help- ing or harming someone by means of a communication with, or even a pact with, a foul devil. This meaning does not apply to wise men, or indeed to authors, although some of them have adopted the name 'hooded magi- cians', for example, the authors2 of the book De malleo maleficarum (The Witches' Hammer). As a result, the name is used today by all writers of this type, as can be seen in the comments and beliefs of ignorant and foolish priests.
Therefore, when the word 'magic' is used, it should either be taken in one of the senses distinguished above, or, if it is used without qualifications, it should be taken in its strongest and most worthy sense as dictated by the logicians, and especially by Aristotle in Book ? of the Topics. 3 So as it is used by and among philosophers, 'magician' then means a wise man who has the power to act. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the word, when unquali- fied, means whatever is signified by common usage. Another common meaning is found among various groups of priests who frequently specu- late about that foul demon called the devil. Still other meanings are to be found in the common usages of different peoples and believers.
Given these distinctions, we will deal generally with three types of magic: the divine, the physical and the mathematical. The first two of these types of magic necessarily relate to what is good and best. But the third type includes both good and evil, since the magician may direct it towards either. Although all three types agree on many principles and actions, in the third type, wickedness, idolatry, lawlessness and charges of idolatry are found when error and deception are used to turn things which are intrinsically good into evil. Here, the mathematical type of magic is not defined by the
2 The authors of this book, first published c. ? ? ? ? , were Heinrich Kramer (Henricus Institoris) and James Sprenger. An English translation by Rev. Montague Summers has been published under the Latin title Malleus maleficarum (New York: Benjamin Blom, ? ? ? ? ; Dover, ? ? ? ? ).
3 In Topics, ? , ? -? , Artistotle provides a long list of rules to be used to determine the meaning of words in terms of the properties assigned to things.
? ? ? ?
On magic
? usually mentioned fields of mathematics, i. e. , geometry, arithmetic, astron- omy, optics, music, etc. , but rather by its likeness and relationship to these disciplines. It is similar to geometry in that it uses figures and symbols, to music in its chants, to arithmetic in its numbers and manipulations, to astronomy in its concerns for times and motions, and to optics in making observations. In general, it is similar to mathematics as a whole, either because it mediates between divine and natural actions, or because it shares or lacks something of both. For some things are intermediates because they participate in both extremes, others because they are excluded from both extremes, in which case they should not be called intermediates but a third species which is not between the other two but outside of them. From what has been said, it is clear how divine and physical magic differ from the third type.
To turn now to the particulars, magicians take it as axiomatic that, in all the panorama before our eyes, God acts on the gods; the gods act on the celestial or astral bodies, which are divine bodies; these act on the spirits who reside in and control the stars, one of which is the earth; the spirits act on the elements, the elements on the compounds, the compounds on the senses; the senses on the soul, and the soul on the whole animal. This is the descending scale.
By contrast, the ascending scale is from the animal through the soul to the senses, through the senses to compounds, through compounds to the elements, through these to spirits, through the spirits in the elements to those in the stars, through these to the incorporeal gods who have an ethereal substance or body, through them to the soul of the world or the spirit of the universe; and through that to the contemplation of the one, most simple, best, greatest, incorporeal, absolute and self-sufficient being.
Thus, there is a descent from God through the world to animals, and an ascent from animals through the world to God. He is the highest point of the scale, pure act and active power, the purest light. At the bottom of the scale is matter, darkness and pure passive potency, which can become all things from the bottom, just as He can make all things from the top. Between the highest and lowest levels, there are intermediaries, the higher of which have a greater share of light and action and active power, while the lower levels have a greater share of darkness, potency and passive power.
As a result, all light in lower things, which comes to them from above, is more powerful in higher things. And also, all darkness in higher things is stronger in lower things. But the nature and power of light and darkness
? ? ?
On magic
? are not equal. For light diffuses and penetrates through the lowest and deepest darkness, but darkness does not touch the purest sphere of light. Thus, light penetrates and conquers darkness and overflows to infinity, while darkness does not penetrate or overwhelm or equal the light, but rather is very weak compared to light.
Parallel to the three types of magic mentioned above, there are three different worlds to be distinguished: the archetypal, the physical and the rational. Friendship and strife are located in the archetypal world, fire and water in the physical world, and light and darkness in the mathematical world. Light and darkness descend from fire and water, which in turn descend from peace and strife. Thus, the first world produces the third world through the second, and the third world is reflected in the first through the second.
Leaving aside those principles of magic which play on the superstitious and which, whatever they be, are unworthy of the general public, we will direct our thoughts only to those things which contribute to wisdom and which can satisfy better minds. Nevertheless, no type of magic is unwor- thy of notice and examination, because every science deals with the good, as Aristotle says in the introduction to his De anima,4 and as Thomas and other more contemplative theologians agree. Nevertheless, all this should be kept far away from profane and wicked people and from the multitudes. For nothing is so good that impious and sacrilegious and wicked people cannot contort its proper benefit into evil.
In general, there are two types of efficient cause: nature and the will. The will is threefold: human, spiritual and divine. Nature, as used here, is twofold: intrinsic and extrinsic. Furthermore, intrinsic nature is of two kinds: matter or the subject, and form with its natural power. Extrinsic nature is also of two kinds: the first, which is preferably called an image of nature, is a trace and shadow or light which remains in a thing within its body, like light and heat in the sun and in other hot bodies; the second emanates and radiates from a subject, like light, which flows from the sun and is found in illuminated things, and like heat, which resides with light in the sun and is also found in heated bodies.
By examining the number of these causes, we can descend to the differentiation of powers or of effects produced by the first cause through the intermediate causes down to the closest and lowest ones, by restricting the universal cause, which, itself, does not attend to any one available
4 Aristotle, De anima, ? , ? (? ? ? . a. ? -? ). ? ? ?
? On magic
? subject rather than another. For, although this cause and its causal power always remain immutably the same, it produces contrary (and not just different) effects in different subjects with the help of different types of matter. As a result, there need be only one such simple, principal efficient cause, like there is only one sun, one heat and one light, which by turning forward or backward, by approaching and receding, mediately and imme- diately causes the winter, the summer, and their different and contrary weather, and the ordering of the seasons.
Matter is also derived from this same cause, if we wish to believe those who think that the four commonly mentioned elements change into each other. The originator of this view was Plato, who sometimes says that all things were produced from one matter and one efficient cause. But what- ever may have been the method of production used by the first universal cause, and whether one assumes only one or many material principles, any human or spiritual secondary cause must recognize that, because of the great multitude and variety of producing species, there are many types of matter having act or form, through which a subject is able to influence things outside of itself.
In regard to the powers or forms or accidents which are transmitted from subject to subject, some are observable, for example, those that belong to the genus of active and passive qualities, and the things that immediately follow from them, like heating and cooling, wetting and drying, softening and hardening, attracting and repelling. Others are more hidden because their effects are also obscure, for example, to be happy or sad, to experience desire or aversion, and fear or boldness. These are said to be caused by external impressions acting on the cognitive power in humans and on the estimative power in animals. Thus, when a child or infant sees a snake, or when a sheep sees a wolf, it conceives an image, without any other experience, of hostility and of fear of its own death or destruction.
The explanation of this is to be found in the internal sense, which is, indeed, moved by the external impressions, although indirectly. For nature gives not only existence to each species, but also the desire in each individ- ual to preserve itself in its present state. Thus, it implants in each thing an internal spirit, or sense, if you prefer that word, by which as from an inter- nal dictate it recognizes and avoids great dangers. This can be seen not only in the examples given above, but also in all things in which, even if they seem to be defective or dead, there still resides a spirit striving with all its power to conserve the present condition. This happens in falling drops
? ? ?
On magic
? of liquids which form a sphere to avoid disintegration, and also in falling bodies which are attracted to a centre and tend to gather their parts into a sphere lest they break up and disperse. This is also found in pieces of straw or wood thrown on a fire, and in thin tissues and membranes, which recoil to avoid, somehow, their own destruction.
This particular sense is located in all things and is a form of life, although, in accordance with the common custom, we do not call it an ani- mal, which refers to a specific soul, because these components cannot be called animals. Nevertheless, in the order of the universe, one can recog- nize 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.
Just as our soul produces, originally and in a general way, all vital activities from the whole body, and even though the whole soul is in the whole body and in each of its parts, nevertheless, it does not produce every action in the whole body or in each of its parts. Rather, it causes vision in the eyes, hear- ing in the ears and taste in the mouth (but if the eye were located in any other place, we would see in that place, and if the organs of all the senses were located in any one place, we would perceive everything in that place). In the same way, the soul of the world is in the whole world, and is every- where so adapted to matter that, at each place, it produces the proper sub- ject and causes the proper actions. Therefore, although the world soul is located equally everywhere, it does not act equally everywhere, because matter is not arranged to be equally disposed to it everywhere. Thus, the whole soul is in the whole body, in the bones and in the veins and in the heart; it is no more present in one part than in another, and it is no less pre- sent in one part than in the whole, nor in the whole less than in one part. Rather, it causes a nerve to be a nerve in one place, a vein to be a vein else- where, blood to be blood, and the heart to be the heart elsewhere. And as these parts happen to be changed, either by an extrinsic efficient cause or by an intrinsic passive principle, then the activity of the soul must also change.
This is the most important and most fundamental of all the principles which provide an explanation of the marvels found in nature; namely, that because of the active principle and spirit or universal soul, 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. Indeed, on the contrary, a very large disintegration into such components must occur for an almost completely new world to be generated from them.
? ? ?
On magic
? While bronze is more similar to gold and is closer to the distinctive prop- erties of gold than are the ashes of bronze, still, in a transmutation, these ashes of bronze are closer to the form of gold than is bronze. Likewise, we see that all seeds, which are oriented to producing a particular species, hap- pen to be rather alike as though they were of the same, and not different, species, since they are similar and distinctive and related. He who believes otherwise is like someone who thinks that an ape can be changed into a human more easily than the seed, implanted in a woman, which previously was food and bread.
Nevertheless, in every production, there must be present a similarity and a form of the same species. Just as a house or a garment results from a model in the maker's mind in the case of artefacts, likewise, in the productions of nature, a species of things is generated and defined by the exemplar, which is distinctive of the matter which generates the form. For example, we see the same types of food, and the same heavens, water and houses reproduced in substance: a dog into a dog, a human into a human, a cat into a cat. And a dog generates the same species of dog, and a human the same species of human.
From this, it is clear that the entire cause of the differences is due to an idea, which is generally present everywhere in nature, and which is later limited to this or that species, depending on whether one or other species resembles the idea more. As a result, any magician who wishes to carry out his work in accordance with nature must especially understand this ideal principle and how it applies specifically to species, numerically to numbers and individually to individuals. From this, he formulates an image and the proportions of the matter so formed, and with good reasons reinforces the result with the wisdom and power of his magic. Many also bring about cures and injuries by connecting symbols with particular components or by appealing to those who communicate with or take part in curing or destructive forces. In this way, the work of magic is restricted and applied to a particular individual.
Leaving aside other arguments, it is clear from these experiences that every soul and spirit has some degree of continuity with the universal spirit, which is recognized to be located not only where the individual soul lives and perceives, but also to be spread out everywhere in its essence and substance, as many Platonists and Pythagoreans have taught. As a result, vision grasps the most distant things immediately and without motion, and, indeed, the eye, or some part thereof, extends immediately to the stars or immediately from the stars to the eye.
? ? ?
On magic
? Furthermore, the soul, in its power, is present in some way in the entire universe, because it apprehends substances which are not included in the body in which it lives, although they are related to it. Thus, if certain impediments are excluded, the soul has an immediate and sudden presence with the most distant things, which are not joined to it by any motion, which nobody would deny, but rather are directly present in a certain sense.
Experience teaches this also in the case of those whose nose has been cut off; if they arrange to grow a new nose for themselves from the flesh of some other animal, and if that animal whose flesh was used dies, then as the body of that animal rots, so does the borrowed nose. From this, it is clear that the soul diffuses outside of the body in every aspect of its nature. 5 It also follows that the soul knows not only the members of its own body, but also everything for which it has any use, participation, or interaction.
There is no value in the stupid argument, advanced by those who lack true philosophical principles, that a thing which is touched by something else does not itself perceive that. Indeed, in one sense, this is true if we are distinguishing between species or individuals, but it is false if we are dis- tinguishing one bodily part from another. For example, if someone injures a finger or pricks one part of the body with a pin, the whole body is imme- diately disturbed everywhere and not just in that part where the injury occurred.
And so, since every soul is in contact with the universal soul, it is not pos- sible to find in this case the same effects which occur in bodies which do not mutually penetrate into each other. Rather, for spiritual substances, a different comparison is needed. For instance, if innumerable lamps are lit, they all act together as though they were one light, and no one light impedes or reflects or excludes another. The same thing happens when many voices are diffused through the same air, or if many visible rays, to use the common saying, spread out to reveal the same visible whole. All these rays pass through the same medium, and while some move in straight lines and others obliquely, they do not interfere with each other. In the same way, innumerable spirits and souls, when spread out through the same space, do not interfere with each other such that the diffusion of one would affect the diffusion of an infinity of others.
This power belongs not only to the soul but also to certain accidents, like sound, light and vision. The reason is that the whole soul is located in the whole body and in every part of the body, and that the whole soul
5 This is Thesis ? ? in Bruno's Theses de magia.
