Trevor:
> Bruno is, and full of great passages, even in translation. Here's one
> from Cause, Principle and Unity (Tr. Richard Blackwell):
>
> "In infinite duration, an hour is no different from a day, a day from
> a year, a year from a century, a century from an instant, because
> neither moments nor hours exist any more than do centuries, and
> because none is more commensurable with eternity than another.
> Similarly, in the immensity, the palm is not different from the
> stadium, nor the stadium from the parasang, because the parasang is
> no nearer the immensity's proportions than is the stadium. Hence,
> there are no more infinite hours than there are infinite centuries,
> nor infinite palms in greater number than infinite parasangs.
... I couldn't even bare to read any further than that, reminds me of every
single reason why I disliked Bruno.
As Donne says (referencing Augustine, and behind Augustine, Plato), "God's
first last everlasting day".
(Something to do with the problem of the Many and the One around there
somewhere.)
Bruno takes forever to say what was said better before, more succinctly, by
finer writers.
I did feel momentarily a slight twinge of guilt at the point where you and
dave bircumshaw seemed to agree that Bruno's poetry was worth reading, and
was tempted to dig my copy of George Kay off my shelves and look.
But really, life's too short -- I can easily imagine re-reading Cusanus but
not, no nay never no more, ever, Bruno.
Especially as someone whom Dame Francis Yates admired can't be ... much
good.
<g>
Robin
|