While White's portrait of Bruno is interesting, he commits a fundamental fallacy in dealing with history; he evaluates events from a contemporary perspective. In doing so he not only does the Church and society of the 16th century a severe disservice, but in effect, does so to Bruno as well. Bruno has been quasi-canonized by the same anti-church sentiments that make of Galileo a far more colorful martyr than the facts support, and White's work only continues this trend. Bruno had elements of brilliance in his work, certainly, but it was buried amidst a mish-mash of self-aggrandizing, convoluted and almost schizophrenic ramblings. His prosecution by the church resulted less from his ideas in and of themselves, and more from his general tendency to cause trouble wherever he went; Catholic, Protestant - he seemed to offend all equally. White, in addition to his post-enlightenment condemnation of history, also has an unfortunate tendency to over-dramatize. He is not alone in this; there seem to have been a spate of highly novelized histories recently, of which some are impressive and others considerably less so. This is of the latter ilk, the sort which imposes purely speculative dialog and other such details (which are utterly impossible for us to know) onto the facts at hand. It may be that the result is more entertaining than the facts themselves; however, this volume cannot really be called history. I submit that if the author's wish is to entertain, perhaps he would be better advised to stick to fiction writing (at which he seems to have some skill) and leave history in the hands of those who will treat it responsibly.

Share/Like this Review?