Latin Works of Giordano Bruno

...seem such as to compel a different hypothesis.¹ It is certain, however, that he does not follow the original edition;² and the places in which, in contrast with AB, he agrees with it, are either emended by conjecture, or it must be admitted that the original edition was consulted exclusively for these instances and for the title page. These places, moreover, are not many:

p. 38, 5 to them original: illis PG : to others original: aliis AB || 39, 3 and thick original: spissisque PG: and ears of grain original: spicisque AB || 41, 4 because original: quia PG; where original: qua AB || 60, 5 because original: quia PG: [omitted] AB || 73, 28 between original: inter (after "than") PG: [omitted] AB || 77, 21 not original: non PG: [omitted] AB.

And so it will not even be surprising that in places of easy emendation, even A' returns to P, in contrast with AA²: for example p. 59, 13 'creative' original: creative AA²: 'crearive' a likely typo in the original PA³G; p. 20, 18 'are contained, and' AA'G: 'are contained and' PA³ etc.

Very incorrect in the original edition, and often corrected with little method in the Gfrörer edition, is The Art of Oratory original: Artificium perorandi, a treatise on rhetoric and persuasion. The last pages especially are full of errors of every kind, depending in largest part on a false interpretation of Bruno's intricate and tiny handwriting; probably due to the inexperience of Alsted Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638), a German professor who edited some of Bruno's works himself, as we are inclined to believe that Bruno's own autograph The manuscript written in the author's own hand had fallen into his hands. Some flaws we have removed ourselves, others Gfrörer had successfully corrected, and many others can be corrected by whoever believes it a useful task to set themselves to it on purpose. Meanwhile, we have followed our usual system, and in the text we have only introduced emendations that are absolutely obvious; for the rest, we have—

¹ One place for which we find no satisfactory explanation is at p. 52, 1 (not 2). There, PAG have 'mixture' original: mistura, and B has 'mixture' original: mixtura, a different Latin spelling. Now G corrects 'mixed' original: mistus into 'mixed' original: mixtus and the like at other times; and therefore it is not understood why he does not follow the edition here which, according to our hypothesis, he had before him. In any case, the examination of the other works of Bruno, which were reprinted in the same Lullian editions Works based on the logic system of Ramon Llull and will be contained in the second part of the second volume of our edition, will, we hope, provide the means to see more clearly.
² See p. 7, 8; 15, 12; 40, 13; 41, 3; 48, 1; 52, 27; 59, 7; 81, 5; 83, 4; 84, 22.