ritus. 



126 GIORDANO BRUNO PART 



aspect the Absolute as unfolding, revealing itself, 

 " appearing " in and through the finite. 1 Anaxagoras 

 expressed the relation between the finite individual 

 and the One, " All things are in all things," for 

 " omnipotent, all-producing divinity pervades the whole, 

 therefore nothing is so small but that divinity lies con- 

 cealed in it." " Everything is in everything, because 

 spirit or soul is in all things, and therefore out of any- 

 thing may be produced anything else." 3 To Anaxagoras, 

 as to Bruno, nature was divine. 4 No special distinction 

 was made by Bruno between the teaching of Anaxagoras 

 and that of Empedocles : in one passage he attributes 

 to the former the theory of effluxes and influxes of 

 atoms through the pores of bodies, which really belongs 

 to the latter, 5 and in another suggests that Empedocles 

 only put in a more " abstract " way what Anaxagoras 

 had shown " concretely," that all things are in all. 6 



With Leucippus and Democritus Bruno might have 

 been expected to claim affinity, through their common 

 atomism and naturalism : with two cardinal features of 

 the traditional Epicureanism he was however in entire 

 disagreement. The one was its admission of the 

 void or vacuum : it explained the constitution of 

 diverse bodies out of atoms which were all of the same 

 spherical form, by the different positions and order in 

 which the void and solid parts respectively were 

 arranged, whereas Bruno could not imagine the cor- 

 poreal atoms holding together without a material 

 substance, extending continuously throughout the 

 universe. 7 The other point of contrast was its denial 



1 Lag. 282. 2 Op. Lat. ii. 2. 196, and (Her. Fur.} Lag. 722, 35. 



3 Cena, Lag. 237. 9. Cf. Her. Fur. Lag. 722. 35. 



4 Lag. 256. 25, 273. 25. Cf. Op. Lat. i. I. 377. 5 i. i. 272. 



6 i. 2. 148. 7 i. 3. 140. 



