Campanella In : Or How to Succeed in Society And Fail in the Republic of Letters

by David Allen Duncan

In 1623, (1588-1648) published the Quaestiones in Genesim, a massive book devoted to religion, natural philosophy, music, and numerous other subjects. Anxious to stake out the borders of religious orthodoxy and to define the frontiers of natural philosophy, Mersenne attacked those ideas and thinkers that crossed those boundaries. Chief among the trespassers Mersenne included the neoplatonic naturalism (especially animism and the doctrine of the world soul) of Giordano Bruno, Bernadino Telesio, and Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639). As the Church had never condemned naturalism as heretical, Mersenne hesitated to take such a step instead; he belittled its modern theorists on mainly rational grounds (Quaestiones cols 937-942; Correspondance 1: 63-64, 122-123, editor's notes). With Campanella he was especially punishing. The writings of Campanella (De sensu rerum et magi a in particular), Mersenne remarked with the corrosive rhetoric typical of his earliest books, deserved to be burned (Quaestiones col. 464).

As Mersenne must have known, Campanella had only narrowly avoided being burned himself. A lifelong figure of controversy, Campanella, a Dominican from Calabria, had repudiated the philosophy of Aristotle, adopting Telesio's naturalism (from De rerum natura of 1570) in its place as the binding of an eclectic philosophy of magic, empiricism, and protoexperimentalism. Earlier than most scholars, he also advanced Copernicus and Galileo, and in defense of the latter, he wrote Apologia pro Galileo1 a gesture that Galileo neither needed nor wanted from one so powerless and suspect (Redondi 40).

Many times throughout his surprisingly long life, Campanella's indiscreet courage, bad luck, and poor 96 DAVID DUNCAN judgment converged to bring him to grief. His first brush with intolerant authorities came in 1592, when a fellow Dominican denounced him. After seven more years of accusations and periodic jail terms, he returned to Calabria to lead a Utopian reform movement which, in association with a local rebellion and an abortive Turkish attempt at intervention, moved Spanish authorities to imprison him in 1599 for heresy and treason. He saved his life by feigning madness. What followed was enough to drive him mad in fact: almost 27 years of trials, torture, starvation, and solitary confinement. During much of this pathetic interval his jailers denied him books and restricted visits to his cell. Thereby, whether intentionally or not, they curbed his access to much of the startling new scholarship of the first third of the seventeenth century. Yet Campanella bravely persevered with his writing, calling on a fabulous memory to produce many long works, among them his most enduring book, the Utopian Citta del sole (1602), published in Frankfurt in 1623 as Civitas solis.

In his sunless prison cell in Naples when Mersenne's Quaestiones in Genesim appeared, Campanella apparently knew nothing of Mersenne's critique. Mersenne was not, however, entirely unknown to him, for he had written Campanella three times before 20 September 1624 to offer to help him find a publisher in Paris (Correspondence 1: 123). Campanella's reply in 1624 was cordial and did not refer to Mersenne's unflattering review of his philosophy— hence the inference that he remained ignorant of it (Correspondance 1: 177-179). Nothing had come of Mersenne's offer when in November 1627 he enrolled Lukas Holstenius in to determine Campanella's opinions on musical consonance and to discover if he were at liberty to publish with the Inquisition lurking hard by (Correspondance 1:604). Campanella, now under looser confinement in Rome thanks to papal intercession, refused to answer. By then Jacques Gaffarel had probably apprised him of Mersenne's rough treatment of his philosophy (Correspondance 3: 312). In 1625, Gaffarel, a priest and doctor of canon law, had published an attack on Mersenne (Abdita divinae Cabalae mysteria) for his rejection of cabalism and his coarse handling of Campanella's thought.2 CAMPANELLA IN PARTS:... 97

Meanwhile, Campanella busily cultivated Urban VIII, who he hoped would take up the plan of Utopian reform enunciated in the Citta del sole. To stave off the death of the Pope predicted by certain astrologers as accompanying a lunar eclipse of 1628, Campanella performed an elaborate ritual replete with the occult methods and devices of sympathetic magic. The eclipse came and went. Urban continued in good health unaffected by evil astral influences, and Campanella's star rose in the districts of the Tiber, where he was becoming less a prisoner than a celebrity. He acquired further prestige in 1630 when he performed a similar ceremony for a son of the Pope's nephew, whom the Barberini's enemies had also placed under the condemnation of a lunar eclipse. He, too, prospered in the aftermath, and for a brief spell Campanella reaped the rewards due a successful magus.3

On 8 April 1634 Giovanni Battista Doni, a member of the Barberini entourage and a friend of Mersenne, attempted to arrange a rapprochement. He assured Mersenne that Campanella would not begrudge him an accommodation if he would only extend to him "the slightest satisfaction." Such a gesture would "entirely win him over," although Doni did warn that Campanella remained "a little piqued (Correspondance 4: 86-87)." Mersenne obliged with a peace offering passed through Doni, who took the opportunity to urge reconciliation on Campanella. He in turn agreed to lay aside his grievances (Correspondance 4: 384).

The episode might have ended with this polite conclusion if the political climate of Rome had not taken a turn against the Barberini's "season of indulgent patronage," as Pietro Redondi has termed it. Spanish interests in Rome had forced Urban VIII into a corner over his support of France, which with the Treaty of Barwalde in 1631, had subsidized the Lutheran Gustavus Adolphus, the Lion of the North currently mauling Habsburg armies in the Empire. The charge that the Pope was therefore a defender of heretics, and not only of the hoary-headed philosopher variety but also of the heavily armed Swedish species, made Campanella's position 98 DAVID DUNCAN increasingly tenuous (Redondi 232). Finally, and more menacingly, the Spanish accused Tommaso Pignatelli of plotting sedition in Naples. Under torture Pignatelli had falsely implicated Campanella, who now saw the necessity of a get-away. In the habit of a Minim, he stole out of Rome on the night of 21 October 1634 in the coach of the Comte de Noailles, the French ambassador.

Chased from his comfortable protective custody, he absconded to Aix-en-Provence and to the protection of Claude Fabri de Peiresc and Pierre Gassendi, who gave him a kindly reception. Peiresc was Mersenne's and Gassendi's patron, as well as a remarkably generous and cultivated friend of many other artists and scholars. Blessed with a family fortune, he was a collector of rare books and manuscripts, an astronomer and natural historian, and an almost unbelievably prolific letter-writer. Like other French scholars, Peiresc had embraced Campanella not only for his anti-Aristotelian stand but also because of the cruel captivity he had endured, an imprisonment inflicted on him by France's most formidable enemy, an empire that represented not only political tyranny but also oppression of thought. Nor did Campanella's astrology put him off, as he was a believer in horoscopes, an adherent of the premonitory powers of dreams, and a correspodent of Cesar de Nostradamus, the son of Michel de Nostradamus. Moreover, Peiresc had appointed himself the arbiter of French and Italian culture. Situated at the crossroads of their geographic frontiers, he had also positioned himself at their intellectual marchlands. He harbored deep affection for the Italian people, from whom he was descended, and for their culture, which he had studied firsthand as a student.

Behind him Campanella had left Gabriel Naude, another of Peiresc's friends, to face some fairly unpleasant music. But for Campanella, amiable conversation, relaxation, and even astronomical observations filled this happy interlude of nearly ten days (Peiresc iii; Pintard 253-255). A letter of Peiresc of 3 January 1635 indicated no portent of the bickering soon to follow, and he, Peiresc, made a point to tell Naude how often and how fondly CAMPANELLA IN PARIS:... 99

Campanella had spoken of him—a deference Campanella would soon rescind (Peiresc 27-28).

Afraid of being on the road as winter deepened, Campanella pried himself from the comforts of Aix and forged north on the road to Paris in one of Peiresc's coaches. Delivered from the Spanish, Campanella plunged into the unknown territory of the French capital. First reports to Peiresc, who had also added gold to the Calabrian's purse before his leave-taking, heartened him. "He was very well received in Paris by men of letters," Peiresc was pleased to report to Naud6, and "I hope he will find more happiness there [Paris] than he has known elsewhere." At last he might reasonably expect "to live in complete peace of mind (Peiresc 27-28)." And indeed he might have done just that had he not carelessly thrown away the good will so freely lavished on him by an important segment of the French Republic of Letters. Promptly upon his advent in Paris, he delivered up indiscreet criticism of Gassendi's atomism and added curt observations against the work of other French scholars (Correspondance 5: 172).

For his part, Mersenne must have dreaded Campanula's forthcoming visit. Unlike Peiresc, Mersenne was committed to mechanism and utterly dedicated to the ruination of its occult rivals. Moreover, while appreciative of Italian music, he frequently assailed other aspects of Italian intellectual life, particularly Florentine neoplatonism, to which he rightly connected Campanella. And, of course, it was one thing to condemn a philosopher at a safe remove (and recklessly jeopardize his safety), but quite another to face him and treat him with the conviviality Mersenne knew Peiresc would expect. In a letter to Peiresc of 4 December, Mersenne wrote that he was waiting to see if the Italian visitor "makes himself visible and available." In a postscript he added that Campanella had appeared in Paris on 1 December, and that he had repaired to the monastery of the Jacobins {Correspondance 4: 405-408). In a long letter this was all Mersenne had to say about a subject he knew to be of vital interest to Peiresc. 100 DAVID DUNCAN

Not surprisingly, Peiresc began to fret about Campanella's treatment in the company of Mersenne. A letter of 19 December 1634 reflected Peiresc's anxiety over what sort of welcome the friar from Calabria might receive from Reverend Father Mersenne, whom Peiresc had recently taken to chiding as overly confrontational. "Pamper him as much as you can," Peiresc appealed to Mersenne (Correspondance 4: 418-419). He well appreciated how crucial it was that Campanella get on well with Mersenne, for the learned Minim knew virtually everyone who counted in the world of European scholarship. A good word from him went a long way, rebounding this way and that among his approximately 200 correspondents. Equally, a poor review got around just as efficiently.

Still, more than a month after Campanella's arrival, Mersenne informed Peiresc that he had not yet seen him, offering as his excuse that Campanella was resident at the Jacobins on the Rue St. Honore, some distance away and over a bad road. He would call on him when the weather improved and when opportunity afforded (Correspondance 5: 27). Two weeks later, Mersenne reported the same information to Doni but added the telling comment that he had heard that Campanella was still angry with him (Correspondance 5: 33). His patience running out, Peiresc directed Noel Gaillard on 13 February 1635 to prod Mersenne; tell him, Peiresc wrote, "to be so good as to go see the Reverend Father Campanella, it not being reasonable that he should wait to be visited first. Seeing that he had spoken of him in his works a bit too boldly, he is obliged to excuse himself for it... (Correspondance 5: 51)."

Peiresc's entreaty for greater haste to the contrary, Mersenne played out the waiting game. The edgy disputants did not stage their interview until sometime around 5 May, and the first session testified to continuing and fundamental disagreements, which no face to face encounter would pacify. Campanella cast Mersenne's horoscope; Mersenne cast stones at astrology. Campanella had talked for two or three hours; Mersenne had not heard CAMPANELLA IN PARIS:... 101 much worth his time. Before the interview, Jean Bourdelot had informed Mersenne of Campanella's improvident judgment of French scholars. This information Mersenne then turned to facetious advantage with Peiresc, to whom he wrote saying that since Campanella had no respect for French intellectuals and since Mersenne was the "least of all France," perhaps he was in a poor position to assay Campanella's true brilliance. More soberly Mersenne concluded that Campanella had "no great ascendancy over our minds." After these pronouncements Peiresc might rightly have doubted the sincerity of Mersenne's barbed compliment that he had left their encounter with a higher opinion of Campanella than when he had commenced it {Correspondance 5: 202).

A second meeting of three hours failed to refashion Mersenne's opinion of Campanella's intellectual capacity. Mersenne flatly declared that "he has nothing to teach us in the sciences." Even his vaunted reputation for musical learning crumbled before Mersenne's questioning, for Mersenne appraised him unusually deficient, his rudimentary acquaintance with music not even including familiarity with the octave. Mersenne could think of nothing better—or worse—to say than that Campanella was blessed with "a happy memory and a fertile imagination {Correspondance 5: 209)." Whether mellowing (very doubtful) or simply currying favor with his aggravated friend in the south of France, Mersenne claimed that he would give up hope of visiting if only Galileo could come to Paris, in which case France would have fallen heir to Italy's "two greatest men {Correspondance 5: 213-214, 270)."4

Peiresc quickly found himself pressuring not only Mersenne to keep a civil tongue but also admonishing Campanella for his own unbridled display of free, but in Peiresc's mind, insulting expression. He acknowledged that he knew of Campanella's intemperate remarks about Gassendi and admitted his displeasure with them {Correspondance 5: 165, 171-172). Peiresc's mounting dissatisfaction with Campanella quickly eclipsed his annoyance with Mersenne. He was angry that Campanella 102 DAVID DUNCAN had notified friends in Rome of his plight, portraying certain Frenchmen as villainous and himself as utterly victimized, charges Peiresc found especially upsetting from "the poor old man who so badly practices the maxims of true moral philosophy, of which he speaks so often (Correspondance 5: 258)."

Peiresc was in the distressing position of urging patience for a man who was beginning to try him sorely, whom he had welcomed, recommended, and sustained— and who had made himself obnoxious in return. Even had he been in the full vigor of young manhood, Peiresc's undertaking was basically hopeless. But Peiresc was not young, not healthy, and not at all vigorous. Fifty-five and consumptive, he was virtually bedfast, and by his own admission struggling against intellectual enfeeblement (Peiresc 17). In the summer of 1635, he had two years to live, too much of it squabbling over another old man whose repute as a natural philosopher plummeted just as his respectability at the French court mounted.

With the same thoroughness with which he had disaffected the intellectual elite of Paris from virtually the same moment he was introduced into it, Campanella just as skillfully ingratiated himself with its political leadership. Taken under the protection of , who had summoned him to a private meeting only two weeks after he had set up in Paris, he allowed the Cardinal to conduct him to court on 9 February 1635 to meet his new sovereign. He returned to the Jacobins 200 livres a month more secure and with promises from Louis XIII that this would not exhaust the King's largesse. Campanella returned Louis's generosity in part by functioning as an unofficial advisor on Italian affairs and by doing what he had done so successfully in Rome: preparing astrological charts to reassure the powerful of their continuing well-being and prosperity (Correspondance 4: 22; Lenoble 43; Peiresc 41- 42). Under the aegis of Richelieu and the King, he undertook to republish all his books in Paris, a design the hard pressed Urban VIII unsuccessfully attempted to quash (Grimm 81-82). CAMPANELLA IN PARIS:... 103

Not a professor and outspokenly anti-Aristotelian, Campanella was excluded from the closed club of the University of Paris. More importantly, he had clumsily debarred himself from the company of Mersenne and his confidants, the reputable rivals of the University and the vanguard of mechanism and experimentalism. Left to him with Richelieu's endorsement was appearance at the conferences of Theophraste Renaudot's catch-all academy at the Bureau d'adresse and mention in Renaudot's Gazette—not quite the most prestigious intellectual precincts but at least places where he would be politely heard out and where he would be rendered the deference owed anyone who walked only a step behind the sweeping red robes of the Cardinal-Minister. His ideas on political reform Campanella now transformed into an agenda for a French empire of world-wide proportion. Campanula's appeal to transform France into a City of the Sun was not incompatible with Richelieu's own designs for aggrandizing the authority of the King and the state he embodied. Not for nothing, as well, did Richelieu and the King react approvingly in the following year when Campanella, under commission from Anne of Austria, predicted that the baby in the Queen's womb would be a boy and hence a king— and not just any king but a Sun King.5

Despite his success in society, Campanella was not unmindful of the ongoing controversy surrounding his opinions and, accordingly, wrote Peiresc on 25 May with professions of contrition and apologies. Just as the letter reached him, however, Peiresc was also hearing from Naude that Campanella was persisting in his attacks on French philosophy and that he was compounding his errors by denouncing the best friend he had had in Italy, namely Naude himself (Peiresc 51-52).

Naude and Campanella had fallen out over the disposition of Campanella's memoirs which Naude had taken down from dictation during almossot fourteen months of visits to his quarters in Rome. Their relationship was amicable and, at least on Naude's side, one of considerable respect; Campanella was, Naude wrote, "the man who surpasses all others by the sharpness of his 104 DAVID DUNCAN mind... (Bonnasea 35)." Hoping to edit the memoirs (De libris propriis), Naude connived with Gaffarel to circumvent the Inquisition, and to publish in Padua, a project Peiresc offered to abet by deferring the cost of a copiest (Pintard 254; Wolfe 41). Campanella balked, demanded the manuscript from Naude, and prodded Gaffarel to withdraw from the transaction. He accused Naude of purloining his work, and even charged him with plagiarizing his observations on the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. Near eruption himself, Naude maintained that his intentions were innocent, that he retained the manuscript only because his handwriting was nearly indecipherable and that, therefore, the papers would be of no use to anyone but himself {Correspondence 5: 279-281, 282).

Between 1635-1636, Peiresc wrote Naude four times to reassure him of his loyalty and to excoriate the feckless Campanella. If Campanella wished to mollify Naude, Peiresc required two changes of direction: he must learn restraint, and he had to keep better company, abandoning the "monstrous crowd" in whom he had placed his trust (Peiresc 55-56). Despite two recent letters from Campanella abjuring any ill-intentions, Peiresc doubted the sincerity of his pleading, wondering how Campanella could ever again expect anyone to speak candidly in his presence (Peiresc 87). Peiresc announced what surely was becoming ever more true in the conduct of French intellectuals toward Campanella: they were excluding him from their community and their discourse.

Until 20 April 1636 Peiresc held out some possibility of accommodation with Campanella and had agreed to act as a go-between among the disputants. He had begun to weary of the task, however, and had begun to accept what most other of his friends had already realized, that no resolution was possible, or wanted. "I discovered in him great human failings," Peiresc wrote, "and there is no longer any point in arguing with him (Peiresc 87)." Naude was even more direct. Campanella was "an enraged fool, an imposter, a liar...an ingrate, a philsopher under pretense CAMPANELLA IN PARIS:... 105

who has never known what it is to do good nor to speak the truth (Pintard 256)."

Doni was among the few to persist in defending Campanella. Under the impression that Campanella and Mersenne had arbitrated their misunderstanding (in fact there was no misunderstanding; Mersenne and Campanella understood one another quite exactly), Doni praised Campanella's good character and lack of malice. Although Campanella was not the clearest thinker, Doni conceded, he qualified as a "true philosopher" who had the potential to found a new school, which he would "illuminate by the light of his faith." Apart from Gaffarel and Eli Diodati, Doni appears to be the only scholar of good reputation to have ventured so exorbitant an estimate of Campanella's character and so optimistic a forecast of his future (Correspondence 5: 387).

Campanella's future became clearer in 1637-1638. In a frank letter to Andre Rivet on 25 March 1637, Mersenne appraised Campanella's compilation of Thomist aphorisms Cento Thomisticus as "really barbarous (Correspondance 6: 227)." At least Mersenne gave Campanella the courtesy of a careful reading. Unimpressed with his philosophy, he granted that Campanella was a decent sort. Descartes, however, in his only appearance in the dispute, utterly dismissed Campanella's work and did not bother with trivial speculations about his character as compensation for his poor abilities. In March 1638, he scowled to Huygens that there was almost nothing of consequence in Campanella's writings (Descartes 47-48). Responding a few months later to an offer by Mersenne to send him one of Campanella's books, Descartes declined: "What I have seen formerly of Campanella does not allow me to hope anything good from his book, and I thank you for the offer to send it to me, but I don't have any desire at all to see it (Correspondance 8: 200)."

Descartes's pointed observation that there was «si peu de solidite» in Campanella's works aptly summed up the judgment of a new generation of natural philosophers on its Renaissance predecessors. Moreover, it marked the 106 DAVID DUNCAN

divide between two fundamentally different eras of scientific investigation. Years of abuse inside prison walls had made Campanella a social misfit, graceless in bearing and intellectually isolated. Outside those walls a revolution in science proceeded, leaving him behind, a relic of a discredited worldview. A powerful amalgam of empiricism, quantitative analysis, experiment (and increasingly mechanism) had displaced not only Aristotle's science of qualities but also Renaissance magic. It was not enough, then, that Campanella opposed Aristotle; Aristotle's cosmology and its attendant physics were no longer central issues of contention for Descartes and his friends. Moreoever, Campanella's affection for magic simply struck them as ludicrously anachronistic, as lacking anything of «solidite.»6

Campanella's days as a natural philosopher to be taken seriously in France had been brief and came to a sad conclusion. During his last illness in May 1639, he performed magical rituals to stay the hand of death; a pope he had thus saved, himself he could not. A court funeral failed to stir the sympathy of those other Frenchmen who had judged his philosophy an imposture and his person a boor. Even less inhibited about saying what he really thought about Campanella after the death of Peiresc (June 1637), Mersenne confided to Theodore Haac that Campanella "had made himself ridiculous to all the scholars here." He also provided a succinct analysis of Campanella's major weakness as a natural philosopher: he was not an experimenter. As a result "he contented himself with speculation and often deceived himself, for want of experience."7

After this date, 31 December 1639, Campanella resurfaces in the correspondence of Marin Mersenne infrequently and incidentally, an inconsequential passing tone in the rich polyphony of the intellectual life of the seventeenth century. No longer alive to give offense, his superannuated philosophy out of step with the growing success of mathematico-experimental science, and with no prestigious advocates within the world of scholarship to negotiate him a place within the serious discussion of new CAMPANELLA IN PARIS:... 107

ideas, Campanella passed out of the deliberations of the Mersenne circle. Thus, he had been marginalized, banished beyond the borders of polite scholarly discourse. At best, he had unwittingly helped a community of scholars define itself by excluding him. Not exactly sure about what they were, the "new scientists," by policing themselves in this fashion, were growing ever more certain of what they were not.

But a worse fate had already been visited upon this Calabrian friar who had endured far too much shame, degradation, and physical torment. Perhaps in a more perfect world, in a City of the Sun, he might have escaped it. But in the real world of seventeenth-century France, where gentlemen butchered one another over petty insults, and where scholars, too, let their pens perform their own kind of death-dealing, Campanella suffered the unenviable fate of having died twice. In the words of Rene Pintard: "For the universe Campanella died in 1639; for Naude and his friends, he had died in 1635 (Pintard 256)."

Tennessee Wesleyan College

Notes

1For Peiresc's interest in this book, see Correspondance du P. Marin Mersenne, Peiresc to Palamede de Vallavez at Paris, 28 January 1626. 1:359.

21'bid.. 1:224-232, for excerpts from Gaffarel's book.

3Campanella recorded the details of the episode in his Astrologium of 1629. For modern accounts, see Yates 375- 376 and Walker 205-212.

4In a letter from later in the summer Mersenne reworded this sentiment, telling Peiresc that he wished Galileo could settle in Paris as had Campanella.

5For Campanella's association with Richelieu and Renaudot, see Solomon 81-82, 92-93. For a more detailed 108 DAVID DUNCAN examination, see Grimm 79-86. Grimm shows the practical side of Campanella's utopianism, especially when linked to a scheme of French "universal monarchy."

6I thank John Headley for his thoughtful and very helpful critique of an earlier version of this essay. I owe him particular recognition for his insistence on the importance of Descarte's letter (especially the words «si peu de solidite») and hope that I have summarized his arguments for its significance.

7Mersenne's accurate summation is in clear contrast with that of Jurgen Grimm who writes, explaining the attraction of the imprisoned Campanella for the French, that Campanella believed in "the conception of scientific research that was purely experimental." (Grimm 80). Works Cited or Consulted

Bonnasea, Bernandino. Tommaso Campanella: Renaissance Pioneer of Modern Thought. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1969).

Descartes, Rene. Oeuvres. Correspondence II. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery, eds. (Paris: L. Cerf, 1898).

Grimm, Jiirgen. "Campanella in France." In La France et Vltalie au temps de Mazarin. 15e colloque du CMR-17, Grenoble, 25-26 January 1985. Jean Serroy, ed. (Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1986).

Lenoble, Robert. Mersenne, ou la naissance du mecanisme (Paris: Vrin, 1943).

Mersenne, Marin. Correspondance du P. Marin Mersenne (Paris: CNRS, 1933-1988).

. Quaestiones in Genesim. (Paris: Cramoisy, 1623).

Peiresc, Nicolas Fabri de. Lettres a Naude. Phillip Wolfe, ed. (Paris, Seattle, Tubingen: Biblio 17 [Papers on French Seventeenth-Century Literature]. 12, 1983).

Pintard, Rene. Le libertinage erudit en France au XVIIe siecle. (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1983 - Originally published 1943).

Redondi, Pietro. Galileo, Heretic. Raymond Rosenthal, tr. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987).

Solomon, Howard. Public Welfare, Science, and Propaganda in Seventeenth-Century France: The Innovation of Theophraste Renaudot. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972)

Walker, D. P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic From Ficino to Campanella.(London: Warburg Institute, 1958). 110 DAVID DUNCAN

Yates, Frances. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).