only to give some general conclusions regarding an important factor in G.'s development. Natorp (Phil. Mon., XVIII, p. 214) quoted G. as asserting that he knew nothing either of Democritus or of Epicurus; and historians of philosophy (e.g. Überweg-Heinze) have accepted this statement as authoritative. But on referring to the passages, the author finds that this statement is only made regarding Epicurus; as a matter of fact in one passage G. repeatedly mentions Democritus and favors his explanation of light and heavy bodies rather than that of Aristotle. The author goes on to show that G.'s assertion that the rate at which all bodies fall to the earth is uniform, his laws of motion and of the persistence of energy in short the entire groundwork of his physics and astronomy are due either directly or indirectly to the influence of Democritus. To this is to be added that the view held by G. of the merely subjective nature of color, taste, sound, etc., which came into modern philosophy from him by way of Hobbes and Descartes, was first maintained by Democritus. Incidentally the author contends for the importance of Democritus' views and their kinship with modern scientific conceptions.
This first paper of a series treats of Bruno's relation to the Italian Renaissance, his early life in the Dominican order, his retirement from the priesthood, his life in Geneva and his subsequent attack on Calvinism, his life and philosophical activity in Paris and London. It was at the court of Elizabeth, in the England of Shakespeare and Sydney, that his genius reached its highest development and his spirit found freest utterance.
