SHAKESPEARE & GIORDANO BRUNO: WHY AND HOW?

How do you sell a good lie? You wrap it up with truth so people will believe that everything you say is the truth when it actually contains many lies. Hi everyone! Welcome back to John Florio channel. I am Mary and I'm here to talk about John Florio. Lately I have made a series of videos on Giordano Bruno and Shakespeare. I have explained you how great was the influence of Giordano Bruno on the dramatist and how Shakespeare was well acquainted with Bruno's thesis, specifically the art of memory, transmigration of the soul, soul death as a pure moment of passage, a step into another life whether it is human, animal or vegetal, infinite universe. And so the arduous search within this new concept of the universe for a new historical and civil role for the man of madness seen as the cause of the strong condemnation of a corrupt and arrogant power. Now there are interesting new scenarios after this beautiful introduction on the connection between Shakespeare and Bruno. These are why and how. Why? Why Shakespeare and Bruno? Why Shakespeare mentions Bruno so often? Why he is so fascinated by his stuff? Why Shakespeare uses Bruno's ideas in his plays? This could seem a silly question. I mean you could say why not? In an era as we have seen the past videos in which astronomers in a right or wrong way questioned themselves about the universe, why Shakespeare couldn't make mentions of these theories? Well you should know and this is the focus of the discussion, Shakespeare's mentions of Giordano Bruno are unique, are one of a kind. And what I mean by that? I mean that other Shakespeare contemporaries didn't support Bruno like Shakespeare does. So now let's analyze the historical period in which Shakespeare wrote and let's make a comparison with other Shakespeare contemporaries who also mentions Bruno in their works. For example Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson. Now Christopher Marlowe is much closer to Bruno's years in London, Jonson is pretty much later but they both mentions Bruno even if in different ways. Let's see how. The exact date of the composition of Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe is unknown but it's pretty certain that Marlowe wrote this work right before his death in the Tavern Brough in May 1593. That was a period that sees new figures who challenged the conflicting cultural and religious orthodoxy of the times in their claim to create a new cosmology and a new vision of the universe. Bruno was the most powerful of these figures and the one who created most controversy in England. So his heroic search for new knowledge of the structure of the universe directly inspired Marlowe's poetic and dramatic articulation of the Faust myth. This does not mean necessarily that Faust is Bruno. It is possible that Faust could be John Dee as well. What Bruno gave to Marlowe was something more important. The philosophical framework in which he created a new image of the man, the modern man as I have explained you in the past videos, who doesn't accept religious dogma and committed to expand his knowledge on universe and his role in nature. In Doctor Faustus there is also Saxon Bruno who is prisoner of the Pope that Faustus saves from the stake and helps him return to Germany in Wittenberg. This character is perhaps an homage to Bruno who worked at Wittenberg and was executed by the church. Now how did Marlowe know Giordano Bruno? There are no documents that prove that Marlowe and Bruno ever met each other but there is maybe the famous School of Night which was a secret group of writers, intellectuals, scientists centered on Voltaire, Raleigh. One of these writers who also attended secret meetings with the School of Night was John Florio who was very much involved in the secret society but we will talk later in the next videos. And then there is Ben Jonson. I love to call him John Florio's son because Ben Jonson brought this beautiful dedication for John Florio and he defined him as his loving father which certainly suggests that they had a close relationship and maybe Florio had a fundamental role in instructing him as well. Jonson wrote The Alchemist in 1610 which contains references in the plot to a Bruno's comedy Il Candelaio, one of the earliest modern comedy ever written. Jonson's comedy tells how alchemy can be sometimes intimately false, deceptive and very something venial. It shows the urban scene dominated by materialistic exuberance and corruption which is the symbol of social disease. False alchemy and false forms of love were also underlined by Bruno in the preface of his comedy. He introduced Bonifacio, the insipid lover of the alchemist Bartolomeo, the sword in Mise. So also Ben Jonson makes some general references to Bruno and to his comedy. Now what's the difference between Marlowe's Bruno, Jonson's Bruno and Shakespeare's Bruno? Marlowe was a creative, ingenious and talented writer who was very well aware of the social and political changes of his country. Bruno's arrival first at Oxford and later in London created a fracas in the whole country. But while the establishment and the academics were against Bruno's ideas, his theses were discussed secretly in the most interesting intellectual circles of the time like the School of Knight. I don't know if Marlowe ever met Bruno because there are no documents that can prove it. I don't think that they ever met each other but Marlowe was an unconventional mind and I think he welcomed unorthodox and non-conformist ideas. Marlowe's description of Bruno in Doctor Faustus is the description of someone who has heard about Giordano Bruno, about his debate at Oxford and the chaos that he created and has shared among his friends, colleagues, his theories and ideas. Marlowe's references to Bruno are not directly connected to Bruno's works but to the reaction that Bruno's arrival had in England and to the ideas for which he was banished and considered heretical. Marlowe knew Bruno through his acquaintances, through his colleagues and friends and discussed his revolutionary ideas in his inner circles and his reference to Bruno in Doctor Faustus is the result of this vivid, challenging and stimulating dispute that Bruno brought in London. With Ben Jonson, the situation is quite different. When he wrote The Alchemist, the flame of Bruno's intellectual uproar in London had faded away and Jonson doesn't mention Bruno's thesis upon the infinite universe or transmigration of the soul or his tragic death but he is inspired by the first prologue that Bruno wrote in his comedy in which he introduced his characters and borrowed the general plot, the general idea for his comedy because they both contain similar topics. So the difference with Shakespeare is quite huge. Marlowe's Bruno is the shadow of the real Bruno, is the idea that Marlowe had of Bruno and what his ideas caused in England. Jonson is inspired not by Bruno's thesis or ideas but he's inspired by the general plot of his comedy. Shakespeare is completely different. Shakespeare shows that he knows Bruno better than everyone else. Shakespeare knows specific detailed topics that Bruno writes in his works. Shakespeare supports Bruno and his ideas for which he was banished in England. He defends his ideas, his thought and goes against everyone else in his own country to support a foreign that everyone considered mad. Shakespeare in his plays makes specific detailed references to Bruno's most important theses and ideas through the use of subtle language. Shakespeare has, unlike Marlowe and Jonson, a deep and profound knowledge of Bruno. He knows Bruno so well that he's able to borrow, readapt his thought to share his ideas through his plays. Now this does beg the question how? How he does that? How Shakespeare knows Bruno so well? We know that when Bruno was at Oxford and at the French Embassy in London, Shakespeare was not yet in London and it's even more complicated to explain how he could read his works. Why? Bruno's language is a hard one. It is not simple Italian. It is not the Italian that a courtier might learn through some Italian lesson or language manual. He wrote scientific works with a hard complicated language. Some of his works, like Ash Wednesday's Supper, contain dialect words and neologism. I'm not saying that it would have been quite impossible for Shakespeare to read his works, but this is the reason why Bruno is hardly mentioned by Shakespeare contemporaries, if not for a hint at his ideas or his persona. Now some people use this problem to shout their anti-Stratfordian thesis. Yeah, you know, Shakespeare was not really Shakespeare because how he could read Bruno so well? How he could know Giordano Bruno so well? You can't prove it. So Shakespeare is somebody else. It makes me laugh because these people who claim to have the perfect candidate actually face the same problem. But of course they don't say it or they mask it with a good lie. But how do you sell a good lie? You wrap it up with truth so people will believe everything you say is the truth when it actually contains many lies. They say things like, yeah, he was in that circle. They talk about Bruno so he must certainly knew Bruno and that's how we find Bruno in Shakespeare works. I have explained you the huge difference between people like the creative genius of Marlowe and Ben Jonson who gave general ideas and references to Bruno in their works and writers like Shakespeare. There is a huge difference between discussing, talking with your friends and colleagues about Bruno and they make a reference to Bruno's ideas and to his personality of work and to read Bruno's words. Read, write his ideas and to use subtle language to share his ideas through your play. That's a huge difference. So these people can't really demonstrate that their candidate, their Shakespeare knew Giordano Bruno so well. They can't do it. So what's the difference with Shakespeare if you can't prove that your candidate actually knew Bruno and read his works? Now, John Florio lived with Giordano Bruno for two years when Bruno wrote the most important works of his career of modern philosophy and those works have influenced Shakespeare so much. Florio owed Giordano Bruno's works. He used Bruno's works translating, rewriting his thought in his works and ultimately Florio mentioned Bruno crying for his death in the preface of Montaigne Essays. What I want to say with this? I want to say that this is the most important, undaunting, clearest and convincing explanation that could and will always connect Shakespeare with Bruno and it's John Florio's years in London at the French embassy with Giordano Bruno. In the next videos I will talk about those troubled but happy years that Florio spent with Bruno at the French embassy. Years spent with spies, a little girl named Catherine, the embassy burned down, nights spent on the roof with Bruno and a plot to assassinate Mary Stewart. Once a German scholar wrote about Shakespeare and Bruno. None in England knew Giordano Bruno better than Shakespeare. It is time to correct him. Shakespeare and John Florio. Stay resolute. Bye!