Caro Guido,

I have read with much interest Agnoli’s article on Bruno and especially your reply. I have always been a great admirer of your tenacious and sustained efforts to advance the cause of a better and deeper understanding of Bruno as being arguably the most powerful intellect of the XVI century with your excellent publications as well as with your relentless efforts to keep us informed of everything of importance that is happening and being published about Bruno and his work.

However, I have a few comments about your response to Agnoli that struck me as being less effective than it could have been if you had taken a different approach. Instead of a defensive position I feel that a more offensive counterattack would have been more efficacious. But this more aggressive response should not have been directed in any way to the writer of the article himself but as dispassionately as possible to what he said. There are undoubtedly certain things that Agnoli said about Bruno’s character that have to be acknowledged as being true. However, Bruno’s unquestionable character flaws and familiarity with and involvement in magic and the occult should have been contrasted with and shown as being compensated by far by his heroic virtues, namely his enormous courage, his decision to die rather than betray his convictions, his astonishing hard work and dedication all his life to amass the overwhelming knowledge he acquired in all fields of philosophical, theological, literary, mathematical, and scientific knowledge in such a short time. A lot of work and total dedication indeed, which is perhaps the most important and admirable character trait that a human being can have, as you, dear Guido, know only too well. I think all those of us who admire Bruno so much should be the first to admit his undeniable character flaws. This is only honest and fair and, by the way, a better way to blunt the aggressiveness of the attacker. Perhaps he will be less inclined to keep on disdparaging Bruno in the future. Instead of saying, for example, that he has never read a page of Bruno’s works, which may well be very true, it would have been more appropriate and effective to say that the author surely would understand Bruno much better if he read more attentively Bruno’s more important works, especially…

I also think that it was not necessary to bring up the perhaps too patriotic sounding insistence on the need of an Italian not to disparage Bruno. In brief, I think that the most effective response to this biased attack on Bruno should be as unbiased as possible. Paradoxically, the less indignation is shown the more effective the response will be. The serenity and fairness of the attacked should put to shame the bitterness and unfairness of the attacker and will certainly demonstrate his superiority. Otherwise it may seem that the former has descended to the same level as the latter. There is so much greatness in Bruno that one should be most willing, even eager, to admit his flaws. I don’t know of any genius that has been a saint. We don’t need to canonize Bruno, it’s enough to let his genius shine and thereby overwhelm his detractors.

In a less serious and more festive stance I must confess that I have always been mesmerized by Bruno’s turning away his face from the crucifix. Since you mentioned the da Vinci Code I must bring up and admit that I see Bruno’s gesture reminiscent of the Templars’ alleged spitting on the cross. Any connection? I also must confess that after reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail I feel less angry at Frances Yates than I was before.



Yours, most truly and grateful,

Ramon Mendoza