for he was always moving from place to place, was due in part to love of Nature and of novelty, but still more to a desire to spread his own fame.  He lacked the naivete and openness to impressions of the true child of Nature; his songs in praise of spring, etc., scatter a colourless general praise, which is evidently the result of arduous thought rather than of direct impressions from without; and his many references to ancient deities shew that he borrowed more than his phrases.

Though geography was then closely bound up with the writing of history, as represented by Beatus Rhenanus (1485-1547) and Johann Aventinus, and patriotism and the accounts of new lands led men to wish to describe the beauties and advantages of their own, the imposing discoveries across the seas did not make so forcible an impression upon the German humanist as upon savants elsewhere, especially in Italy and Spain.  A mystico-theosophical feeling for Nature, or rather a magical knowledge of her, flourished in Germany at this time among the learned, both among Protestants and those who were partially true to Catholicism.  One of the strangest exponents of such ideas was Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim of Cologne[3] (1535).  His system of the world abounded in such fantastic caprices as these:  everything depends on harmony and sympathy; when one of Nature’s strings is struck, the others sound with it:  the analogical correspondences are at the same time magical:  symbolic relations between natural objects are sympathetic also:  a true love-bond exists between the elm and vine:  the sun bestows life on man; the moon, growth; Mercury, imagination; Venus, love, etc.  God is reflected in the macrocosm, gives light in all directions through all creatures, is adumbrated in man microcosmically, and so forth.

Among others, Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus von Hohenheim (1541), ranked Nature and the Bible, like Agrippa, as the best books about God and the only ones without falsehood.

’One must study the elements, follow Nature from land to land, since each single country is only one leaf in the book of creation.  The eyes that find pleasure in this true experience are the true professors, and more reliable than all learned writings.’

He held man to be less God’s very image than a microcosmic copy of Nature—­the quintessence of the whole world.  Other enthusiasts made similar statements.  Sebastian Frank of Donauwoerth (1543) looked upon the whole world as an open book and living Bible, in which to study the power and art of God and learn His will:  everything was His image, all creatures are ’a reflection, imprint, and expression of God, through knowledge of which man may come to know the true Mover and Cause of all things.’

He shewed warm feeling for Nature in many similes and descriptions[4]—­ in fact, much of his pithy drastic writing sounds pantheistic.  But he was very far from the standpoint of the great Italian philosophers, Giordano Bruno and Campanella.  Bruno, a poet as well as thinker, distinguished Nature in her self-development—­matter, soul, and mind—­as being stages and phases of the One.