ir THE UNIVERSE INFINITE IN EXTENT 183 



have been only apparent ; so, it may be inferred, could 

 we transfer ourselves with our senses to any of the 

 distant stars, we should still seem to ourselves to be in 

 the centre of a closed sphere, the very same appear- 

 ance which is presented to us on this earth. 



Aristotle's theory of the limitation of space by the 

 ultimate sphere of the heavens was open to objections, 

 many of which were raised in the early schools. The 

 " subtle Averroes " had endeavoured to avoid some of 

 these by the doctrine that beyond this outer sphere is 

 the divine being, the eternal self-sufficient Mind. 1 " But 

 how," asks Bruno, " can body be bounded by that which 

 is not body ? The divine nature is no less nor in any 

 other manner within the whole than without; it is 

 neither place nor in place." 2 Space therefore is always 

 bounded by space, body by body, that is, each is in- 

 finite in extent. Were divinity that which bounds space, 

 it would itself be space under another name. 3 Aristotle's 

 theory implied that the universe as a whole was not in 

 any place or space. The " place " of each body, he had 

 said, is the containing surface of the sphere above it ; 

 the outermost sphere, therefore, as there is no other 

 beyond it, is itself uncontained and without place. The 

 theory implied also the identity of body and space, and 

 was the ground of Aristotle's rejection of the vacuum in 

 nature. For a truer conception of Space, Bruno turned to 

 an earlier commentator (or group of commentators 

 " Philoponus ") on Aristotle, who defined it as u a con- 

 tinuous physical quantity in three dimensions, in which 

 the magnitude of bodies is contained, in nature before and 

 apart from all bodies, receiving all indifferently, beyond 

 all conditions of action and passion, not mixing with 

 things, impenetrable, without form or place." 4 It is 



1 De Immenso, bk. i. ch. 6. 2 Op. Lat. i. i. p. 222. 3 P. 227. 4 P. 231. 



