Click here for Full Issue of Fidelio Volume 3, Number 3, Fall 1994

-,......
TRA N S LATI 0 N --- -------------

On the Theory
Of the Transfmite
Correspondence of Georg Cantor
and J. B. Cardinal Franzelin
( 1 8 8 5 - 1 886)
GEORG CANTOR ( 1 845- 1 9 1 8), MATHEMATICIAN AND PHILOSOPHER, carried on an exten
sive correspondence, on a wide variety of topics, with his colleagues and many others in vari-
0us countries. After his death, twenty letterbooks were found, into which he had copied his
numerous letters. Seventeen of these letterbooks were burned as fuel shortly after the war,
and only three were rescuedfrom theflames.
Thefollowing correspondence with J. Bapt. Cardinal Franzelin (1816-1886) is contained
in these letterbooks. Two of Cantor's letters and a part ofFranzelin 's reply were published by
Cantor himself and incorporated into his work "Mitteilungen zur Lehre vom Transfiniten "
("Communications on the Theory ofthe Transfinite") .
In 1869, Pope Pius IX called a Vatican Council. Without debating here the issues of this
council, it is important to note that the convening ofthe council created an uproar in Europe
and especially within international Freemasonry, which convened an opposing council in
Naples, in which the "Mazzini networks, " including Giuseppe Garibaldi and Victor Hugo,
participated. At the Vatican Council the standpoint of the encyclical "De Fide Catholica "

that man can know God through reason-was affirmed. Cardinal Franzelin played an
important role in this part ofthe council, and later in theformulation of the social policies of
Pope Leo XIII.
With his first letter to Cardinal Franzelin, Cantor included a brief essay, which has been
included in this translation. It is almost identical to an 1885 letter he had sent to his Swedish
colleague in Stockholm, Mr. Enestrom, and was published by Cantor himself in 1890 in the
"Journal of Philosophy and Philosophical Critique. " We have also translated several brief,
related itemsfrom Cantor's correspondence with others.
This is thefirst time that the complete known correspondence between Georg Cantor and
Cardinal Franzelin has been translated into English and published in one location.

The translation of these letters was prepared from the German texts published
in Georg Cantor: BrieJe, edited by Herbert Meschkowski and Winfried Nilson
1 99 1 ) (GCB) and Georg Cantor: Gesammelte Abhand
(Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
lungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts, edited by Ernst Zermelo
(Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1 990) (GCG A). They are published by permission of
Springer-Verlag.

97
1994 Schiller Institute, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.
 Letter from Georg Cantor afterwards was educator of the subsequent King Karl
to Cardinal Franzelin* Emanuel I V of Piedmont, was then called to Rome in
Halle, Germany 1 776 by Pope Pius VI, was employed in various business
December 1 7, 1 885 es of the Holy See, and finally was appointed Bishop of
Ostia as well as Cardinal. Perhaps he will be known to
Permit me, Monsignore, to present to you herewith a you as the author of some works on geometry and histor
small essay (in proof sheet), of which I will take the liber ical matters. Cauchy on page 2 6 refers to a treatise of
ty to send you several copies by book-post, as soon as the Gerdil's, which bears the title: "Essai d'une demonstra
printing shall be completed. tion mathematique contre l ' e x i stence eternelle de la
I would be pleased, if the attempt contained therein, to matiere et du mouvement, deduite de l ' i m possibilite
properly differentiate the three main questions respecting demon tree d ' une suite actuellement infinie de termes,
the Actual-Infinite, would also be submitted to examina soit permanents, soit successifs." (Opere edite ed inedite
tion from the standpoint of the C h r i s t i a n - C a t h o l i c del cardinale Giacinto Sigismondo Gerdil, t. IV, p. 26 1 ,
philosophers. Rome, 1 806).3 The same subject i s also presented by him
The fact that Your Eminence in your great work on in " M e m o i r e de l ' i n fi n i a b s o l u c o n s i d e r e d a n s l a
dogma, namely in the book "De Deo uno secundum nat grandeur" (ibid., t . V. p. 1 , Rome, 1 807).4
uram" in thesis XLI does not necessarily reject the stand I am by no means in fundamental opposition to these
point taken by me, which affirms the A.1. in all three main authors, inasmuch as they strive for a harmony between
respects, motivated me already one year ago to take the faith and knowledge, but I consider the means, of which
liberty to inform Your Eminence of my relevant works. they avail themselves here to that end, to be enti rely
Please accept, Your Eminence, the expression of my wrong.
greatest esteem, with which I have the honor to sign If the religious dogmas would require for their sup
myself as port such an a bsolutely false principle, as that of the
very respectfully, impossibil i ty of actual i n finite numbers (which in its
Your Eminence's most loyal well-known formulation "numerus infinitus repugnat" S
G.C. is as old as the hills; recently it can be found for example
in Tongiorgi: "Instit. philos., t. I I , 1 . 3, a. 4, pr. 1 0" in the
*GCB, letter #99, p. 252 . Italics indicate author's emphasis only.
form of: "Multitudo actu infinita repugnat,,6 ; it can also
be found among others in Chr. Sigwart "Logik, Vol. II. p.
On the Various Standpoints 47, Tiibingen, 1 8 7 8 , " and in K. Fischer "System der
With Regard to the Actual Infinite* Logik und Metaphysik oder Wissenschaftslehre, p. 275,
Heidelberg, 1 865"),7 then they were in a very bad condi
(From a letter by the author to Mr. G. Enestrom tion, and it seems to me most noteworthy that the holy
in Stockholm on November 4, 1 885.) Thomas of Aquinas in I p, q. 2, a. 3 of his "Summa theo
logica," where he proves the existence of God with five
. Your letter of Oct. 31 of this year which I received a r g u m e n t s , m a k e s no u s e of t h i s fa u l ty p r i n c i p l e ,
today contains the following question: [in French--ed.] although in other respects h e is n o opponent o f the same;
"Have you seen and studied the essay by the Abbot in any case it seemed to him at least too uncertain for this
Moigno entitled: 'Impossibilite du nombre actuellement purpose. (Compare Constantin Gutberlet: "Das
infini; la science dans ses rapports avec la foi . ' (Paris, unendliche metaphysisch und mathematisch betrachtet,"
Gauthier-Villars, 1 884) ? " 1 Indeed I did obtain this short Mainz, 1 8 78, p. 9.) 8 As much as I value Cauchy as a
paper some weeks ago. What Moigno says here about the mathematician and a physicist, as sympathetic as I find
alleged impossibility of the actual infinite numbers, and his piety and as much as I am also particularly pleased
the use which he makes of this false argument for the with that "Sept Leons de physique generale,,, 9 apart
foundation of certain religious doctrines, was already from the error in question, nevertheless I must decidedly
essentially known to me from Cauchy's: "Sept Leons de protest against his authority, there where he has failed.
physique generale" ( P a r i s , Gauthier-Vi l l a r s , 1 8 6 8 ) .2 It is now exactly two years ago, that Mr. Rudolf Lip
Cauchy seems to have been led to this speculation, most schitz in Bonn called my attention to a certain passage in
peculiar for a mathematician, by the study of P. Gerdil. the correspondence between Gauss and Schumacher,
The latter (Hyacinth Sigmund, 1 7 1 8- 1 802) was a notable, where the former declares himself against any bringing
very respected personality and a distinguished philoso into play of the Actual-Infinite in mathematics (letter of
pher, who worked for a while as a professor in Turin, July 1 2 , 1 83 1 ); I have answered in detail, and have in this

98
point dismissed the authority of Gauss, of which I think P a s c a l , " O e u v r e s completes," t. I p. 3 0 2 -303 , P a r i s ,
so highly in all other respects, as I reject today the testi Hachette & C o . , 1 877; a n d also: "Logique d e Port-Roy
mony of Cauchy and, in my short paper "Grundlagen al," ed. by C. Jourdin, 4e partie, chap. 1 , Paris, Hachette
einer allgemeinen Mann igfa l t i g k e i t s l e h r e , L e i p z i g , & Co., 1 877) . ' 2
1 883 ," 1 0 among others also the authority o f Leibniz, who If one chooses t o distinctly classify the various views,
in this question has committed a peculiar inconsistency. which have asserted themselves in the course of history
If you would look more closely at the aforementioned with regard to our subject, the Actual-Infinite (hencefor
short paper (not the translation in the "Acta mathemati ward for the sake of brevity denoted by A.-I.), then sever
ca," t. II, where only one part therefrom is printed), then al v iewpoints present themselves for that purpose, of
you would find that in paragraphs 4-8 I have fundamen which I wish to emphasize only one today.
tally answered all objections, which could be made against One can namely call into question the A.-I. in three
the introduction of actual infinite numbers. Although at main respects: firstly, inasmuch as it is called in Deo extra
that time the writings men m undano aeterno omnipo
tioned of Gerdil, C auchy, tenti sive natura naturante, 1 3
and Moigno concerning our where i t i s called the
subject were not yet known A bsolute, secondly, i n a s
to m e , n e v e r th e l e s s the much a s it occurs in concre
respective sophisms of these to seu in natura naturata, 14
authors are refuted j ust as where I name it Transfini
well, as the petitiones prin tum and th irdly the A . - I .
cipii of the philosophers so can be called into question
a b u n d a n t l y c i te d by m e in a bstracto, that is i n a s
there. much as it may b e compre
All so-called proofs against hended by human cogni
the possibility of actual infi t i o n [ E r k e n n t n i s ] i n the
nite numbers, as can be dis form of actual-infinite, or
tinctly demonstrated in every as I have named them,
case and can also be conclud transfinite n u mbers, or i n
edfrom general principles, are t h e e v e n m o r e ge n e r a l
in the m a in point fa u lty form o f the transfinite ordi
thereby, and therein lies their nal types (aQll'Jp,oi v01]r:oi
:TrQwr:ov 1jJevoor;, I I that they or eLo1]r:txoi ). I S
from the outset demand or Disregarding the first of
rather impose upon the num these three problems fo r
bers in question all properties the moment, and confining
of the finite numbers, whereas ourselves to both of the lat
however the infinite numbers Prints and Photographs Division, Ubrary of Congress t e r, fo u r dIfferent sta n d
on the other side, if they are to Georg Cantor
points automatically result,
be conceivable at all in any w h i c h i n d e e d a l s o fi n d
form, must, owing to their contrast to the finite numbers, themselves represented in the past and the present.
comtitute an entirely new species of number, whose character One can reject,firstly the A.-I. not only in concreto, but
,

is by all means dependent on the nature of things and is the also in abstracto, as this is done for example by Gerdil,
subject of inquiry, but not of our caprice or our prejudices. Cauchy, Moigno i n the mentioned texts, by Mr. C h .
Pascal, as I have seen only recently, has well recog Renouvier (compare his " Esquisse d'une classification
nized the questionable if not paradoxical nature of such systematique des doctrines philosophiques," t. I , p. 1 00,
deductions, as we encounter them with the mentioned Paris, au Bureau de la Critique philosophique, 1 88 5 ) 1 6
authors, and he therefore also declares himself, j ust as and by all so-called positivists and their kin.
his friend Antoine Arnauld, in favor of the actual-infi Secondly, one can affirm the A.-I. in concreto, but then
nite numbers, except that he for a different, refutable reject it in abstracto; this standpoint is found, as I empha
reason, which I will not take up in further detail here, sized in my "Grundlagen, p. 1 6," 1 7 in Descartes, Spinoza,
underestimates the human mind with regard to its pow Leibniz, Locke, and many others. If I have to name here
er of comprehension of the Actual-Infinite. (Compare one of the more recent authors, then I mention Hermann

99
Lotze, who defends the A.-I. in concreto in an essay enti is found in his "Sept Le<;:ons," and is skillfully defended
tled " L' I n fi n i actuel est-il contradictoire ? Reponse a prior to him by Andre Marie Ampere (Cours du college
Monsieur Renouvier" in the "Revue philos. de Ribot," t. de France 1 83 5 - 1 836), a fter h i m by de Saint-Venant
IX, 1 88018; Renouvier's reply is found in the same volume (Compare his "Memoire sur la question de savoir s'il
of that journal. existe des masses continues, et sur la nature probable des
Thirdly, the A . - I . can be affi rmed in abstracto, but dernieres particules des corps." " Bulletin de la Societe
then denied in concreto; this is the standpoint of one fac philomatique de Paris," 20 Janvier 1 84423; as well as his
tion of the neoscholastics, while another, and perhaps the larger work in the "Annales de la Societe scientifique de
larger faction of these, a school powerfully spurred by Bruxelles," 2e annee), among us in Germany principally
the encycl i c a l of Leo X I I I of A u g u s t 4, 1 8 7 9 : " D e by H. Lotze (compare his "Mikrokosmos," Vol. I) and by
philosophia C h r i s t i a n a a d m e n t e rn Sancti T h o m a e G. Th. Fechner (compare his " U ber die physikalische
Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici in scholis catholicis instau und philosophische Atomlehre," Leipzig, 1 864).24 On the
randa" 1 9 still seeks to defend the fi r s t of these fou r other hand I can not deny that Cauchy at least in that
standpoints. short paper (and indeed also the remaining above-men
Finally, Jourthly, the A.-I. can be affirmed not only in tioned authors, with the exception of Leibniz) polemicize
concreto but also in abstracto; on this basis, which I consid against the second component of my hypothesis, the actu
er the only right one, only a few stand; perhaps I am tem al-infinite number of the last elements; with what j ustifica
porally the first, who represents this standpoint with tion, I have indicated above. That Cauchy nevertheless on
complete determination and in all its consequences, how other occasions did not remain faithful to this opinion
ever this I know for certain, that I shall not be the last one respecting the A.-I., as it really could not be otherwise, I
who defends it! will demonstrate some time later. . . .
Also taking into account the position of the philoso Despite the essential difference between the concepts
phers on the problem of the A.-I. in Deo, one obtains a of the potential and Actual Infinite, in that the former sig
classification of the schools into eight standpoints, all of nifies a changeable finite magnitude, growing beyond all
which, strange to say, appear to be represented. One diffi finite boundaries, the latter afixed in itself, constant Quan
culty of the arrangement into these eight classes could tum, situated however beyond all finite magnitudes, it
only result from those authors, who have not taken a def happens to be the case, unfortunately only too often, that
inite position with regard to one or more of the three the one is confused with the other. Thus for example, the
questions concerning the A.-I. not seldom occurring conception of the differentials, as if
The reason that the so-called potential or syncategore they were specific infinitely small magnitudes (while they
matic 20 Infin ite ( I n d e fi n i t u m ) g i v e s r i s e to n o s u c h a r e , a fter a l l , only changeable a u x i l i a r y magnitudes,
arrangement, i s , that it has significance exclusively as a assumed to be as small as you please, which completely
correlative concepi [Beziehungsbegriff] , as an auxiliary disappear from the end results of the calculations and
mental image [Hilfsvorstellung] for our thinking, but sig therefore are characterized already by Leibniz as mere
nifies no idea in itself; in that role it has certainly proven, fictions, for example in Erdmann's edition, p. 436) is based
through the differential and integral calculus discovered on a confusion of these concepts. If, however, out of a jus
by Leibniz and Newton, its great value as a means of cog tified aversion against such an illegitimate A.-I., a certain
nition [Erkenntnismittel] and an instrument of our mind; Horror Infiniti, which found its classic expression and
it can not claim for itself a more extensive significance. s u p p o r t in the mentioned letter of G a u s s , has been
Perhaps you were led to pose your question by a formed in broad layers of science, under the influence of
remark in my essay " U ber verschiedene Theoreme aus the modern Epicurean-materialistic tendency of our
der Theorie der Punktmengen, ,, 2 1 in "Acta mathemati time, so the therewith connected uncritical rejection of
ca," t. VII, p. 1 23, where I named among others Cauchy the legitimate A.-I. seems to me to be no trifling offense
as the authority for my view with regard to the constitu against the nature of things, which one has to take as they
tion of matter; by doing so, I have had in mind especially are, and this behavior can be understood as a kind of
that component of my hypothesis in which I affirm the shortsightedness, which deprives one of the possibility to
strict spatial point-like quality [Punktualitat] or dimension see the A.-I., although it in its Supreme, Absolute Bearer
lessness [Ausdehnungslosigkeit] of the last elements, as they has created us and preserves us, and in its secondary,
were also taught, following the precedent of Leibniz, by transfinite forms surrounds us everywhere [alliiberall]
Pater Boskovic, in his paper "Theoria philosophiae natu and even dwells in our mind.
ralis redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existen Another frequent confusion occurs with the two forms of
tium, Venetiis, 1 763"22; and certainly this view of Cauchy the Actual Infinite, in that namely the Transfinite is mixed

1 00
up with the Absolute, while however these concepts are and in them the words introduced by me "transfinite =

strictly separated, insofar as the former is to be conceived suprafinite" [iiberendlich] stand out frequently; neverthe
as an indeed Infinite, but nevertheless a yet increasable, the less I can not find, that he has understood me correctly.
latter however essentially as un increasable and therefore In theformer work, for example, the whole sentence at
mathematically indeterminable; we encounter this mistake, the bottom of page 1 2 7 which starts with the words:
for example, in pantheism, and it constitutes the Achilles' "Wenn wir eine . . . " states the exact opposite of what is
heel of Spinoza's Ethics, about which, of course, F.H. Jacobi correct. Also the concepts of the potential and Actual Infi
has maintained that it could not be refuted with rational n i te ( w h i c h I h a v e c a l l e d n o n -gen u i n e - Infin ite
arguments. One can also observe that since Kant, the false [ U n e i g e n t l i c h - U n e n d l i c h e s ] a n d gen u in e -Infin ite
notion has come into vogue among philosophers, as if the [Eigentl i c h - U n e n d l i c h e s ] in my " G r u n d lage n " ) a r e
Absolute were the ideal boundary of the Finite, while in defined by him entirely incorrectly. T h e j uxtaposition
truth this boundary can only be thought of as a Transfini with Hegel must likewise be rejected as incorrect. The
tum and indeed as the minimum of all Transfinites (corre pantheistic Hegel knows no essential differences in the
sponding to the smallest suprafinite [iiberendlichen] num A.-I., whereas it is indeed exactly my unique characteris
ber, denoted by me with w). Without serious critical prior tic, to have sharply emphasized such differences, which I
discussion the concept of infinity is treated by Kant in his found, and to have rigorously mathematically developed
"Kritik der reinen Vernunft, ,, 2 5 in the chapter on "Antino them through discovery of the fundamental opposition of
mien der reinen Vernunft," 26 infour questions, so as to fur "power" [ M a c h t i g k e i t ] a n d "ordina l n u m ber" [ O r d
nish proof [Nachweis], that they could be affirmed or nungszahl] among sets, which Mr. Wundt seems t o have
denied with equal rigor. "It is likely that hardly ever, even entirely overlooked, although it stands out on almost
taking into consideration the Pyrrhonic and academic every page of my works. My inquiries bear j ust as little
skepticism, with which Kant has so many points in com resemblance to the "mathematical," with which they are
mon, has more been done for the discrediting of human nevertheless placed in the same category by Mr. Wundt.
reason and its capabilities, than with this section of the The fluctuation of concepts and the confusion connected
"critical transcendental philosophy." I will demonstrate at therewith, which were introduced into philosophy some
some other time, that it is only through a vague, distinction one hundred years ago, at first from the far east of Ger
less application of the concept of the Infinite (if in these cir many,29 manifest themselves nowhere more clearly than
cumstances one can still speak of concepts at all), that that in the questions concerning the Infinite, as we see in the
author has succeeded in gaining recognition for his antino innumerably many publications of our modern philo
mies, and even that, only among those, who like him will sophical literature, be they criticalistic or positivistic, psy
ingly evade a thorough mathematical treatment of such chologicalistic or philologicalistic. Thus it can not remain
questions. unmentioned, that Mr. Wundt wishes to use the word
At this point I would also l i k e to respond to two "Infinitum" exclusively to signify the potential Infinite.
attacks, which have been attempted against my works. Now this word of old has been quite generally related to
Herbart, as is well known, conceives the definition of the most positive of all concepts, that of God; one must be
the Infinite such, that only the potential Infinite can be astonished at the peculiar fancy, according to which the
included in it, so as to thereupon base a so-called proof, word "Infinitum" should henceforth be used only in the
that the A.-I. would be self-contradictory. He could have most restricted, syncategorematic sense.
just as well defined the conic section as a curve, whose
'
points are all equally distant from a center, in order to EDITOR S NOTES

support the thereupon based argument against Apollo J. "Impossibility of the actual infinite numbers; science in its rela
tionships with faith".
nius of Perga: "There are no conic sections other than the
2. "Seven lectures on general physics".
circle, and what you there call ellipse, hyperbola and 3. " Essay on a mathematical demonstration against the eternal exis
parabola are contradictory concepts." Of such wares are tence of matter and motion deduced from the proven impossibili
the objections, which the gentlemen Herbartians have put ty of an actually infinite series of terms, whether continuous or
successive" .
fo r w a r d aga i n s t my " G r u n d l a g e n . " ( C o m p a r e
4. "Memorandum on the absolute infinite considered in magnitude".
" Zeitsch rift f. exakte Philos.," b y Th. Allihn a n d A . 5. "an infinite number is contradictory".
Fliigel, Vol. 1 2 , p. 389.) 2 7 6. "an infinite multitude is in fact contradictory".
Mr. W. Wundt refers, although in a peculiar way, to my 7. K. Fischer, "System of Logic and Metaphysics or the Theory of
Learning".
works in two of his papers, in his "Logik, Vol. II," as well
8. "The Infinite Considered Metaphysically and Mathematically".
as in the treatise "Kants kosmologische Antinomien und 9. See footnote 2.
das Problem der Unendlichkeit, Philos. Studien, Vol. 11," 2 8 1 0. "Foundations of a General Theory of Mani folds".

101
I I . "chief deception".
12. Pascal, "Complete Works". regard to the philosophical foundation of my works, sent
13. "in God-who is Beyond the World, Eternal, Omnipotent-who to you for your examination; there are probably certain
gives rise to nature". words used by me whose meaning I have not explained
14. "or concretely, in created nature".
more precisely, which do not bring out my opinion quite
15. "numbers of the mind" or "seen in the eye of the mind".
16. "Outline of a Systematic Classification of Philosophical Doctrines". exactly, and I would like to take the liberty to briefly
17. See footnote 10. explain myself more precisely.
18. "Is the Actual Infinite contradictory ? Response to Mr. Renouvier". 1 . I employ the expressions "natura naturans" and
19. "Aeterni Patris (On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy)".
"natura naturata" found in my small essay "On the Vari
20. syncategorematic, connoting another idea to express its full mean
ing; as, the term "son" is syncategorematic of the term "father".
ous Standpoints With Regard to the Actual Infinite"
2 1 . "On Various Theorems of the Theory of Point Sets". with the same meaning which the Thomists have given
22. "Theory of Natural Philosophy Reduced to a Single Law of Pow to them, so that the first expression signifies God, stand
ers in the Nature of Existences".
ing outside of the substances created by Him out of noth
23. "Memorandum on the question of dete r m i ning i f continuous
masses exist, and on the probable nature of the last elements of
ing, as the Creator and Preserver of the same; the latter
bodies". expression, on the other hand, signifies the world created
24. "On Physical and Philosophical Atomic Theory". through Him. Correspondingly I distinguish an "Infini
25. "Critique of Pure Reason".
tum aeternum sive Absolutum," which refers to God and
26. "Antinomies of Pure Reason".
27. Th. Allihn and A. Fliigel, in the "Journal of Exact Philosophy".
His attributes, and an "Infinitum creatum sive Transfini
28. "Kant's Cosmological Antinomies and the P roblem of I nfinity". tum," which will be expressed everywhere there, where
29. Kant taught in the city of Konigsberg, located in what was at that in the natura creata an Actual Infi n i te must be con
time the far east of Germany.
firmed, as for example with respect to, in my strong con
'"GCGA, "Uber die v erschiedenen Standpunkte in bezug auf das
viction, the actual infinite number of created individual
aktuelle Unendliche," pp. 370-376. beings, not only in the universe but also already on our
earth and, in all probability, even in every ever-so-small
extended part of space, wherein I completely agree with
Letter from Cardinal Franzelin Leibniz. (Epistola ad Foucher, t. 2 operum, p. I., p. 243).
Although I know that this theory of the "Infinitum crea
to Georg Cantor '"
tum" is attacked, certainly not by all, but by most church
December 25, 1 885 doctors, and in particular, opinions contrary to it are
I am very much obliged to Mr. G . Cantor for the brought forward even by the great St. Thomas Aquinas
transmittal of the papers about the " Actual I n fi n ite . " in his "Summa theo!.," p. 1 ., q. 7., a. 4., nevertheless, the
What greatly pleases m e is that the selfsame appears to reasons, which in this question in the course of twenty
take not a hostile, but indeed a favorable position with years of inquiry, have forced themselves upon me from
regard to Christianity and Catholic principles. May God within and, so to speak, taken me captive, I might add
the truly Infinite reveal to him the sole necessary truth against my will, because in opposition to always highly
for finite salvation. I can little busy myself at present with esteemed tradition, are stronger than everything which I
metaphysical discussions; I confess however, that in my have hitherto found said against them, although I have
opinion, that which the author calls the "Transfinitum in investigated it to a great extent. Likewise, I believe that
natura naturata," can not be defended, and in a certain the words of the Holy Scripture, as, for example, in Sap.
sense, although the author does not appear to intend it, c. 1 1 , v. 2 1 "Omnia in pondere, numero et mensura dis
would contain the error of pantheism. posuisti" [ " You have d isposed all things by measure,
number, and weight." Wisdom 1 l :20--ed.], in which a
"GCB, p. 253.
contradiction against the actual infinite numbers was sus
pected, do not have this meaning; for let us suppose, there
Letter from Georg Cantor were, as I believe to have proven, actual infinite "powers"
[Machtigkeiten ] , that is cardinal numbers, and actual
to Cardinal Franzelin '"
infinite numbers [Anzahlen], that is ordinal numbers
Halle
(which two concepts, as I have discovered, are extraordi
January 22, 1 886 narily different in actual infinite sets, while their differ
To His Eminence Cardinal J. Bapt. Franzelin, S . J . in ence in finite sets is hardly noticeable), which j ust as the
Rome. finite numbers obey strict laws given by God, so quite
The lines, which Your Eminence had the kindness to undoubtedly these transfinite numbers were also meant
direct to me on Dec. 25, 1 885, contain some doubts with to be included in that holy utterance and therefore, in my

1 02
opinion, it may not be used as an argument against the But what concerns materialism and the tendencies
actual infinite numbers, if a vicious circle shall be avoid connected t h e r e w i t h , a s they a p p e a r to me, exactly
ed. because they are scientifically most untenable and most
That, however, an "Infinitum creatum," as existent, easily refuted, belong to those evils, of which the human
must be assumed, can be proven in several ways. So as species in the temporal existence shall never be totally
not to delay Your Eminence too long, I wish to limit freed.
myself in this matter to two brief indications. Accept, Monsignore, the expression of high respect
One proof proceeds from the concept of God and con and most superior esteem
cludes first of all from the highest Perfection of God's from Your Eminence's
Being the possibility of the creation of a Transfinitum most devoted servant
ordinatum, then from His Benevolence and Magnifi Georg Cantor
cence the necessity of the actually ensued creation of a
EDITOR ' S NOTE
Transfinitum.
Another proof shows a posteriori, that the assumption I. According to Meschkowski, Cantor errs here in attributing these
lines to Goethe.
of a Transfinitum in natura naturata renders possible a
better, because more perfect explanation of the phenome GCB, letter # 1 00, pp. 254-256.
na, especially the organisms and psychical manifestations,
than the opposing hypothesis.
The friendly words of appreciation which Your Emi
Letter from Cardinal Franzelin
nence has spoken with regard to my position towards
to Georg Cantor
Catholicism, l owe but little to my own merit, inasmuch
as the circumstances into which I am born have had a Januar y 26, 1 886
voice in my standpoint; my highly esteemed late father Most honored Sir,
was indeed Lutheran, my mother, however, whom I have F rom your learned essay "On the Problem of the
the good fortune to adore among the living, belongs to A . I . " I observe with satisfaction how you d istinguish
the Roman Catholic Church and the same is true of her very well the Absolute-Infinite and that which you call
family, as far as I can trace it back. The views, however, the Actual Infinite in the created. Because you explicitly
which I myself have developed in the course of the years, declare the latter to be a "yet increasable" (naturally in
have never removed me from the fundamental truths of indefinitum, that is, without ever being able to become a
Christianity, but have rather strengthened me therein; I not more increasable) and set it against the Absolute as
harmonize only very little with the modern philosophical "essentially unincreasable," which obviously must be
schools, on the contrary I am doing battle with most of j ust as valid of the possibility and impossibility of reduc
them; no system is further removed from my essential t i o n or s u b t r a c t i o n ; t h u s t h e t w o c o n c e p t s of t h e
beliefs than pantheism, apart from materialism, with Absolute-Infinite a n d the Actual-Infinite in the created,
which I have absolutely nothing in common. or Transfinitum, are essentially different, so that when
I believe however, concerning pantheism, that it could both are compared, only the one must be characterized
be totally overcome in time, and perhaps only through as genuine Infinite [eigentlich Unendliches] , the other as
my conception of the matter. Hereby may I be permitted non-genuine [uneigentlich] and equivocal Infinite. Per
for affirmation of this view to call to mind one of the ceived thus, as far as I see until now, no danger for reli
most gifted pantheists, the German poet Joh. Wolfgang gious truths lies in your concept of the Transfinite. Nev
Goethe, who shortly before his end, on his last, his eighty ertheless, in one respect you most certainly go astray
second birthday, August 28, 1 83 1 , wrote the following against the unquestionable truth; this error, however,
words: does not follow from your concept of the Transfinitum,
but from the deficient conception of the Absolute. In
"Long have I resisted, your esteemed letter to me, you say, to wit, at first cor
Finally I give in: rectly (provided that your concept of the Transfinitum
When the old man turns to dust, is not only religiously inoffensive, but also true, whereof
The new one will awaken. I do not j udge), one proof proceeds from the concept of
And so long as you have not that, God and concludes first of all from the highest Perfec
This: die and become ! tion of God's Being the possibility of the creation of a
You are but a gloomy guest Transfinitum ordinatum. On the assumption that your
Upon the dark earth." l Transfinitum Actuale contains no contradiction in itself,

1 03
your conclusion of the possibility of creation of a Trans not be able to answer your possible replies, which howev
fi n i tum out of the concept of God's Omni potence is er, inasmuch as they refer to your system, I ask you to dis
entirely correct. My only regret is you go further and continue.
conclude "from His Benevolence and Magnificence the With respect, most honored Sir
necessity of an actually ensued creation of the Transfini Yours most faithfully
tum . " Exactly because God in Himself is the absolute (signed) J B Card. Franzelin
infini te Good and the absolute Magni ficence, which
"GCGA, (partial) pp. 385-386. GCB, (partial) pps. 256-257, 5 1 1 -5 1 2
Good and which Magnificence nothing can augment
(facsimile, partial).
and n o t h i n g d i m i n i s h , the n ecessity of a c r e a t i o n ,
whichever that may be, is a contradiction, and the free
dom of creation a j ust as necessary Perfection of God, as Letter from Georg Cantor
all His other Perfections, or better, God's infinite Per
to Cardinal F ranzelin"
fection is (according to our necessary distinctions) j ust as
Halle
well Freedom, as Omnipotence, Wisdom, J ustice, etc.
January 29, 1 886
According to your conclusion of the necessity of a cre
ation of the Transfinitum, you ought to go much fur Yo u r E m i n e n c e , I w i s h to e x p r e s s my w a r m e s t
ther yet. Your Transfinitum Actuale is an increasable; thanks for the expositions in your kind letter o f the 26th
now if God's infinite Benevolence and Magn i fi cence of this month, with which I agree with full conviction;
really demands with necessity the creation of the Trans for in the brief indication of my letter of the 22nd of the
finitum, so, for entirely the same reason of the infinite same month, it was not my intention a t the point in
ness of His Benevolence and Magnificence, the necessity question, to speak of an objective, metaphysical necessi
of increase until it would be no longer increasable fol ty of the act of creation, to which God the absolute Free
lows, which contradicts your own concept of the Trans would have been subj ugated; on the contrary, I wanted
finitum. In other words: he who infers the necessity of a to point to a certain subjective necessity for us, to infer
creation from the infiniteness of the Benevolence and from God's Benevolence and Magnificence an actually
Magnificence of God, must maintain, that everything ensued (not a parte Dei ensuing) creation, not only of a
crea table i s i n d e e d c reated from e t e r n i t y ; a n d that Finitum ordinatum, but also of a Transfinitum ordina
before the eye of God there is nothing possible, that His tum .
Omnipotence could call into existence. This unfortunate Accept, Monsignore, my most sincere thanks for all
opinion of yours, of the necessity of creation, will very the evidence of your fatherly goodwill and your great
much hinder you, also in your so praiseworthy fight kindness.
against the pantheists, and at least weaken the persua Yours
sive power of your a rguments. I have dwelt on this most respectful devoted
point so long, because I most sincerely wish that your G. c.
great acumen would free itself from such a fateful error,
"GCB, letter #101, p. 258.
which of course many other great minds lapse into, even
those who consider themselves orthodox.
What you write to me about your position regarding Excerpt from a letter from Georg Cantor
Catholicism, was on the one hand very gratifying, espe
to G6sta Mittag-Leffler"
cially when I consider the surroundings within which
Halle
you find yourself; but on the other hand I can not con
Dec. 23, 1 883
ceal from you, how painful it is for me, that you have
the misfortune of finding yourself outside your moth . My good friends, who like to call themselves
er's house. For men of your position, reflection upon metamathematicians, may think of my ideas as they will,
the most important and for eternity decisive concern of they may write to London and Paris and for all I care to
religion is necessary, but much more necessary still, is Kamchatka about what they think is right, I surely
humble prayer fo r i l l u m ination a n d strength from know, that the ideas on which I work with my weak
above. powers will engage for generations the thinking minds,
I am no longer able to engage in a further correspon even when I and my good friends, the gentlemen meta
dence about your philosophical views, with my many mathematicians, have long gone the path of all mortals. I
occupations, through which I am dependent upon an am far from attributing my discoveries to personal merit,
entirely different field; you may thus excuse me, if I will because I am only an instrument of a higher power,

1 04
which will continue to work long after me, in the same ination by Abbot Ehe Blano, but I must also postpone
way as it manifested itself thousand s of years ago in that until a later date.
Euclid and Archimedes . . Thank you as well for the excerpts from "Fraite de
Mecanique de Poisson" about the "infiniment petit." You
GCB, letter #59, pp. 1 59- 1 60.
give me herewith the desired opportunity to declare that
there is no more determined opponent of these concep
Letter from Georg Cantor tions of Poisson, which are full of contradictions, than I,
and that I most despise this kind of "Infiniment petit ou
to Professor C.A. Valson
grand," which I call in the very beginning of the enclosed
Halle
note the "L'infini actual illegitima"; it has led only to mis
Jan. 3 1 , 1 886
understanding of the "Infini actual legitime." I rather
Professor C.A. Valson, in Lyon, 25 rue du Plat. hold that conception of the merely potentially infinite
Highly esteemed colleague, generally found in mathematics, for which especially the
I deliberately put off my reply to your kind letter of extremely significant works of Cauchy paved the way
Jan. 1 8, '86, because it was my intention to answer in (although in Leibniz already the same conception of the
detail; unfortunately I am still too much overloaded with differential is found), to be the only correct one. My works
various work and will therefore no longer wait to express pertain to a totally different and in the main point new
to you my courteous thanks for the worthy as well as mathematical ordering of ideas, than can be achieved
i n t e r e s t i n g p r e s e n t of y o u r w o r k on A n d r e - M a r i e through the Newtonian principles, which, however, until
Ampere a s well a s your letter. The "discours prelim i now has only been recognized by a few. They do not
naire" i n your book will fascinate m e n o less than the oth refer directly to something above nature; they rather aim
er part, because I, as you know, treasure the value of all at a more precise, more complete, more refined knowl
efforts which are directed towards elevating science to a edge of nature itself, certainly not without contact with
more ideal standpoint, than can be achieved through Him, who stands above nature, because it is His volun
pure rationalism, which through the brilliant talents of a tary creation. Please accept, Sir, the expression of my dis
Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, etc., was led to develop and tinguished esteem and respect.
flower, and from which influence even Cauchy and Your most devoted
many other of today's living geometers, whose tendency (signed) Georg Cantor
of heart, if I may say so, leans in a different direction,
have not been able to fully escape. There is much I could P.S. Could you perhaps recommend to me a young man
say about all of this, but I confine myself to j ust this, that who would be enough of a philosopher and mathematician,
it is my conviction that the great achievement of Newton, and would be kind enough to produce for me small ap
the "Principia mathematica philosophia natural is," to propriate excerpts from texts, which I can not find in Ger
which all of the recent developments of mathematics and many, but which might be easily obtained in the libraries of
mathematical physics have conformed, is to be seen, Lyon or Paris ? I would be greatly indebted to you.
because of the gross metaphysical shortcomings and erro
GCB, pp. 5 1 2 -5 1 3 (facsimile).
neousness of his system, despite the good intention of the
originator, as the true cause of the materialism or posi
tivism of our time, which has grown into a kind of mon From "Mitteilungen zur Lehre
ster, strutting in the radiant robe of science, especially in
vom Transfiniten"
the metropolitan and world-famous academies. Thus we
see, that the greatest achievement of genius, despite the (From a letter from Georg Cantor to A. Eulenberg,
subjective religiosity of the author, if it is not united with Feb. 28, 1 886)
true philosophical and historical spirit, leads to conse
quences, and I go so far as to declare, must necessarily . The Transfinite with its abundance of formations
lead to consequences whereby it is highly questionable, and forms, points with necessity to an Absolute, to the "truly
whether the good in them is not far surpassed by the evil Infinite," to whose Magnitude nothing can be added or
which they simultaneously inflict upon mankind; and to subtracted and which therefore is to be seen quantitatively
the worst of evils it appears to me belong the errors of as absolute Maximum. The latter exceeds, so to speak, the
modern scepticism, which considers itself "positive" and human power of comprehension and eludes particularly
harks back to Newton, Kant, Comte and others. I also mathematical determination; whereas the Transfinite not
wanted to send along some metaphysical theses for exam- only fills the vast field of the possible in God's knowledge,

1 05
but also offers a rich, constantly increasing field of ideal general recognition, especially among the theologians, as
inquiry and attains reality and existence, I am convinced, valuable as this knowledge would prove to be as a resource
also in the world of the created, up to a certain degree and for the promotion of their domain (religion) . .
in different relations, to bring the Magnificence of the Cre
ator, following His absolute free decree, to greater expres GCGA, pp. 405-406.

sion than could have occurred through a merely "finite

world." This will, however, have to wait a long time for -translated by Gabriele Chaitkin

An Afterword by Lyndon H . LaRouche, Jr.

July 3 0 , 1 994

Georg Cantor: The Next Century

T spondence between mathematical gen ius Georg
he relatively brief period of Halle-to-Rome corre only the 1 897 Beitriige as "pathological science," but also
such earlier writings as the Grundlagen. There are prob
Cantor and Cardinal Johann Baptiste Franzel i n , S . J . lematic features in the Beitriige, but none to which those
remains one o f the more significant anomalies in the his critics might rightly object. From the vantage-point of
tory of science, and also theology. To appreciate the cen those who have studied the more vigorous Cantor writ
tral feature of that correspondence itself, it is essential to ings of the 1 880's, the failing of the Beitriige is its propitia
identify some crucially relevant features of Cantor's life: tory quality, its excessive reliance upon formalism, j ust as
then, and during the decade following the termination of the dedicatory note to Newton might imply.
that exchange of letters. S i n c e o u r p u r p o s e h e r e is to s i t u a te the Cantor
Georg Cantor's 1 897 Contributiom To The Founding of Franzelin correspondence, we are permitted and obliged
The Theory of Transfinite Numbers (Beitriige) 1 is an indis to dispense with the subsidiary mathematical formalities
pensable work; but, there are problems. Cardinal Johann of the matter as much as possible. Under those circum
Baptiste Franzelin's abrupt termination, on Jan. 26, 1 886, stances, the immediately following descriptive observa
of his ongoing correspondence with Cantor,z is crucial for tion is supplied.
understanding fully the darkened mood which distin All of the crucial conceptions met in the Beitriige are
guishes Cantor's writings of the 1 890's from those of the met in earlier writings of the 1 883- 1 888 interval; the sig
1 880's; and that latter period in Cantor's life is one of the nificance of the 1 897 book is that it supplies a proof and
keys to understanding the circumstances in which the some further elaboration of those conceptions from a
correspondence was terminated. strictly formal standpoint. The Georg Cantor of 1 897, a
Directly to the crucial issue: Cantor's depression con mere fi fty-two years of age, has become, in one very
fronts the informed reader immediately at the outset of important sense of the term, "an old man," his enemies
reading the Beitriige. Exactly as it is placed there in the have finally succeeded in quenching his creative spark.
1 962 edition,3 the evidence is: He is left to no more than commenting faithfully upon
the achievements of a brilliant past state of mind, to
"Hypotheses non jingo" [-Newton].
which he is fated never fully to return. The operative
That reference would not have been allowed by the term there is "reporting faithfully"; the discovery report
Cantor of the Franzelin correspondence, the 1 883-84 ed in the 1 897 book is authentically Cantor's, but, sadly,
Grundlagen, 4 or even the 1 887- 1 888 "Mitteilungen zur the exposition is added by a Cantor who could no longer
Lehre vom Transfiniten." 5 The Cantor of 1 897 and later, make new such original discoveries.
pleading for recogn ition from B ritain, and engaging If one takes all the relevant elements of Cantor's envi
himself in such pathetic enterprises as the myth of Fran ronment into account, Cardinal Franzelin's abrupt ter
cis Bacon's authorship of Shakespeare's works, 6 is no mination of the correspondence was at least a contribut
longer the Cantor of the 1 880's. ing cause for Cantor's very-premature old age. The Car
This mid- 1 890's change in Cantor's mood has been dinal clearly did not intend such an effect; the problem
misused by sundry sophists as a pretext for deriding not was, that the topics of that correspondence are the same

1 06
issues which mobilized the rogues of the European sci al ci rcles at that time by Cantor's 1 883 - 1 884 Grundla
ence community, especially the mathematicians, in a gen. 13 This work had mobilized Cantor's enemies into
two-decades-long aversive behavioral modification of attack at full tilt, led, as always, by Kronecker. Cantor's
Cantor. Those topics, which are the essential content of reaction to the query respecting Moigno's piece, is visibly
the correspondence, are the issues prompting Leopold a response to the already ongoing political lynch-mob
Kronecker and his positivist accomplices to conduct one being mobilized against him, in Germany, France, and
of the most widespread and disgusting inquisitions in elsewhere.
the internal history of science, the v irtual lynching of With the Grundlagen 's appearance, it is evident that he
Georg Cantor. is well-grounded in Plato's work, and is attempting to
view the method of Leibniz from that standpoint. He has
Georg Cantor 's Theology also shown himself a follower of Cardinal Nicolaus of
Cusa in these matters. The appearance of the "Mitteilun
Georg Cantor, born of Jewish ancestry in St. Petersburg, gen"14 affirms that continuing commitment. This estab
Russia on March 3, 1 845, began life with a grand her lishes Cantor's scientific and theological outlook very
itage. He was the maternal grandnephew of the Joseph clearly for anyone with the prerequisites to assess this.
Boehm who was, in turn, the collaborator of Ludwig van Briefly: Cantor himself insists that his science and the
Beethoven in the performance of Beethoven's late string ology center around two crucial points of equivalence
quartets, who was the founder of the Vienna school of between his own work on the transfinite and Plato's prin
violin performance, and personally the teacher of the ciple of hypothes i s . His opinion on these parallels is
famed violinist Joachim. That musical tradition permeat broadly correct. IS Cantor insists that his general notion of
ed the family; until his adolescent turn into mathematics, the Transfinite is equivalent to Plato's Becoming, and that
Georg Cantor himself was trained as a violinist in this his own Absolute corresponds to Plato's Good. By Becom
tradition, and two of his siblings, in addition to other ing is signified Plato's generalized notion of what Plato
immediate relatives, were notable musicians. The family terms hypothesizing the higher hypothesis. 1 6 Obviously, to
converted to a Protestant rite, and moved to Germany, follow the argument in Cantor's letters (or, elsewhere, for
where he studied in such locations as Wiesbaden and that matter) one must first understand what is signified
Darmstadt. by Plato's principle of hypothesis.
During 1 885- 1 886, this Jewish-born German Protes For the purposes of formal criticism, especially formal
tant, and music-student turned mathematical genius, is mathematics or mathematical physics, Plato's principle of
exchanging correspondence on some of the most pro hypothesis is best presented in terms of his Parmenides:
found issues of theology with an influential Cardinal in the ontological paradox of the One and the Many. His
the Rome of Pope Leo XII I . To cap those ironies, Cantor solution for that paradox i s the formal defini tion of
was by no means unprepared. human creativity, as valid axiomatic revolutions in formal
This correspondence was prompted, on Cantor's part, mathematical physics typify creativity, in the sense of
by a question addressed to him, asking whether he had Cantor's definition of type. In Plato, the term hypothesis
seen a c e r t a i n w r i t i n g by F r e n c h A b b o t F r a n c o i s signifies such a type of discovery, and never anything dif
Napoleon Marie Moigno. 7 This provoked a Nov. 4, 1 885 ferent. Briefly, work through an illustration of Plato's dis
letter to one G. Enestrom in Stockholm, 8 and the enclo covery of the principle of hypothesis.
sure of a copy of that letter in Cantor's letter of Dec. 1 7, The secondary student's classroom model of reference
1 8 8 5 to Franzelin. 9 The Cardinal acknowledged this for a Many is Euclid's geometry: an expandable lattice
communication in a letter of Dec. 2 5 , 1 885, cautiously work of theorems, each and all mutually consistent with
rebuking Cantor's criticism of Cauchy and Moigno with one another in terms of a shared, fixed set of axioms and
the suggestion that Cantor m ight a b s t a i n from the postulates. That expandable list of theorems constitutes a
appearance of pantheism. l o To this, Cantor replied on Many. The challenge is to identify a single conception
Jan. 22, 1 886. The response from the Cardinal was issued such that, when we think about that single conception,
on Jan. 26, 1 886, excusing himself from further corre we are implicitly defining each and every theorem which
spondence with Cantor. I I Cantor sent a "thank you" let might possibly be part of that theorem-latticework. If one
ter for consideration given on Jan. 29, 1 886, but received adheres to the formalist methods of a Parmenides, a
no acknowledgement. 1 2 Sophist, an Aristotle, a Galileo, a Newton, a Cauchy, a
To assess the Cardinal's manifest reaction to Cantor's Kronecker, a Bertrand Russell, or a John Von Neumann,
attack on the characteri stically neo-Aristotelian (e.g., no true solution to this ontological paradox is possible. 1 7
positivist) fallacies of Cauchy and Moigno, one must take However, let us discover a proposition which is true in
into account the reputation already gained in profession- nature, but which cannot be consistently a theorem of

l O7
that theorem-latticework; let us designate that latter as strass, Riemann, et al. earlier. This is a continuation of
theorem-lattice "A. " This theorem requires us to alter Venice Abbot Antonio Conti's war to destroy Leibniz
some part of the set of axioms and postulates of theorem and rehabilitate Galileo; this is a continuation of Paolo
lattice "A" to the effect that all of the old theorems must Sarpi's use of the "brainwashed" Galileo to guide Bacon
now be scrapped in their earlier form, and recalculated et al. in their attacks upon Nicolaus of Cusa, Leonardo da
on the basis of a new set of axioms and postulates, theo Vinci, and Johannes Kepler. This is the issue of 1 885-
rem-lattice "B. " In another case, nature obliges us to pro 1 886, between Cantor, on the one side, and the followers
ceed to a third theorem-lattice, "e. " On this basis, Plato of LaPlace, Cauchy, and Moigno, on the opposing side. IS
hints in writing the Parmenides, a solution for discovery This is the mathematical, ontological, and theological
of the One is attainable. issue which permeates the immediate environment of the
Instead of focussing upon fixed objects, such as sense Cantor-Franzelin exchange.
objects, one must focus upon change itself as the primary To identify the axiomatic formalities of the issue
fact of nature, and of mental life. In the given case, it is between C a n to r a n d s u c h fo l l o w e r s of G a l i l e o and
the change from A to B, and from B to C, which is cru LaPlace as Cauchy and Moigno, it is sufficient to focus
cial. It is this change which one can conceptualize as an upon the review of elementary geometry j ust supplied
unified object of thought, a One. This permits us to con h e r e . L o o k at the c h a nge in p r oce e d i n g fr om the
ceptualize the changes in the respective underlying sets of axiomatic basis of theorem-lattice A to that of B, or B to
axioms and postulates, from A to B, as a unit, as a One. C, or C to D. 19 From the standpoint of Aristotelian for
That One is an hypothesis. Any valid axiomatic-revo malism, the movement from one such lattice to the high
lutionary discovery of that type is an instance of hypothe er successor is a formal-logical discontinuity, and also a
sis as Plato defines hypothesis. mathematical discontinuity. This discontinuity, separat
Next, continue with the illustration provided. Exam ing the axiomatic basis of one theorem-lattice from the
ine the successive changes, from A to B, B to C, and, then, next, is the formal reflection of an act; it is the representa
C to D. This sequence of changes--of hypotheses-is a tion of what we term in physics a true singularity. That
Many, too. Scrutiny of this Many enables us to conceptu act is the employment of the creative processes of mind,
alize a higher sort of One. As the first level of One--e.g., as described by Plato's Socratic method, to discover a
A to B--defined an hypothesis, the new One required is a solution to a "One/Many" paradox of the type illustrated
method ofgenerating hypotheses: a higher hypothesis. It is a by the Parmenides.
method of discovery. In natural science historically, there This discontinuity, which has a mathematical size of
is evidence of various types of relatively valid methods of virtually zero--b ut not zero, is a correlative of what Plato
d i scovery, but some proving more valid than others. signifies by "change." This change, this mathematical dis
Study of the Many alternative, relatively valid choices of continuity is the root ontological referent for Cantor's
methods of hypothesis (higher hypotheses) yields Plato's notion of the transfinite. Since Riemann's famous Habili
hypothesizing the higher hypothesis. tation dissertation of 1 854 on hypothesis, such singularities
That latter, hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, is expressed as paradoxes of the formal domain of mathe
Plato's knowledge of the Becoming. The notion of a One matics are the entry-points for the crucial issues of physics,
corresponding to a Many is Cantor's notion of a transfi which can be addressed efficiently only from the stand
nite; he is occupied with examining the general hierarchy point of physics, and not formalist mathematics as such. 2o
of transfinitenesses as a domain defined in the sense indi In light of this kind of evidence, it is clear than the
cated by Plato's principle of hypothesis. "infinite" as conceived by Aristotle and other formalists
This principle of hypothesis implies the necessary exis does not exist. The proof is, that every formal theorem
tence of the Good. Since hypothesis is development in lattice, within whose terms such a popular misapprehen
physical space-time, a Many, what is the One which cor sion of the term "infinite" is projected by formal logic, is
responds to hypothesizing the higher hypothesis respect itself fi n i te o r, "transfinite" ! Every theorem -lattice is
ing physical space-time ? It must be intelligence; it must bounded externally by a higher-order theorem-lattice,
be all space, all time, combined with efficient (creative) until the very conception of Plato's Becoming reaches its
intelligence as One. That is Plato's Good; that us what upper, external boundary, defined by the Good, the loca
Cantor signifies by Absolute. tion of existence of the Mosaic God of the Apostles John,
On this issue, the London-aligned political party with Paul, et al., which latter bounds everything efficiently.
in European science was united in a maenad's hateful Those are the mathematical , physics, and theological
frenzy, not only against Cantor's notion of the mathemat implications of the Cantor-Franzel in exchange, the envi
ical transfinite, but also the related work of Karl Weier- ronment within which the discussion is situated.

1 08
 The fact that discovery of relatively higher-order theo followers of Wenck and Pomponazzi (the Aristotelians).
rem-lattices enables us to conceptualize as a single mental To say the least, Cantor posed a very touchy subject in
object the d i fferences between the respecti v e sets of his correspondence.
axioms underlying two compared formal theorem-lat Georg Cantor fully in his right mind would never
tices, permits us to replace the commonplace, but patho adopt Newton's "hypotheses non jingo, " nor send praises of
logical notion of an "infinite" with the notion of the Theosophist's hero Francis Bacon to Pope Leo XIII.
boundedness, hence "transfiniteness" of that set of axioms
which defines the theorem-lattice, within which latter The Formalities of the Issue
the corresponding pathological notion of an "infinite" is
situated. 2 1 Now, to concl ude, identify as simply as possible the
Cantor's general form of solution to conceptualization form of the issue between the followers of LaPlace and
of the notion of infinite in a non-pathological way, is to C a n t o r, t h e fo r m a l i t i e s of t h e C a n t o r - F r a n z e l i n
express the Many-ness of very large arrays within a spe exchange.
cific theorem-lattice by a One. That One is the unified Cantor's correspondence references symptomatically
notion of the set of axioms and postulates underlying the an issue which is as old as the beginning of modern Euro
consistency among all possible theorems of that specific pean civilization, the issues of the principles of the found
theorem-lattice type. ing of modern science by Nicolaus of Cusa's De Docta
This is the problem which Bertrand Russell, for one, Ignorantia23 and related writings.
attempts to circumvent by mere word-j uggling, using the Once one situates observation of the act of mental
term "hereditary principle." I.e., since every possible the creative d i scovery within the formalities of classical
orem of a consistent lattice is hereditarily consistent with geometry, as Cusa did in solv ing the ontological paradox
the imputable set of axioms and postulates underlying it, of Archimedes' theorems on quadrature of the circle,
that set of axioms and postulates must be construed as an one has immediately two notable results. First, one has
"hereditary principle"; once the hereditary principle's dis rendered the act of creative mental activity itself a sub
tinctions are understood, as distinct from that of other ject available to conscious reflection, has rendered the
lattices, the notion of any infinity apparently existing creative processes of the mind intelligible. One is obliged
within a formal lattice is expressed adequately by direct to explore the same principle of intelligible creativity
reference to the "hereditary principle." The trouble with shown in such a geometry setting, to see the same quality
Russell's version of this, and those of his followers, is that of intelligible mental phenomenon i n other areas of
his views involve a deliberate fraud, a methodological, application.
for m a l i st's fraud closely related to that of LaPlace, Since the work of Paolo Sarpi's tame gnostic, Galileo
Cauchy, and Moigno earlier. Galilei, the fraudulent tactic which the followers of
To understand the Cantor-Franzelin exchange ade Galileo's method have employed to attempt to evade the
quately, one must know these background considera kinds of singularities to which we have referred above,
tions. To understand Cantor himself adequately, one is to insist, hysteri cally, a s Venice agent D r. Samuel
must return to the clean fresh air of Riemann's 1 8 54 Clarke did in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, upon
paper on hypothesis. the ultimate authority of infinite series. They claim, that
Once one steps out of the precincts of the street math since infinite series may approximate all possible values
ematician, into the realm of theology, the issue between within mathematical functions, mathematical disconti
Cantor and Moigno is a replay of the continuing issue nuities do not exist. Often, they even worship such an
between Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa and A ristotelian infinity, insisting that the unfathomable outer reaches of
apologist John Wenck, back during the 1 440's. Not only "infinity" are the place of residence of what Harvard
does Cantor rightly trace his discoveries to the mathe Professor William James specified as the universal com
matical discoveries of Nicolaus of Cusa. That is the issue mon root of "varieties of religious experience," or what
of attacks on Cusa by Pietro Pompanazzi and his stu Sigmund Freud (or, is it "Fraud") identified as "the
dents, such as F rancesco Zorzi, and the later attack s oceanic feeling. ,, 2 4
upon Cusa's method and influence b y the atheists Paolo That copying of the notion of infinite series inhering
Sarpi (who deployed G a l i leo) and Cauchy's mentor in t h e m e t h o d of G a l i l e o , is t h a t s a m e s t a n d p o i n t
LaPlace. 22 To pose such issues within a theological delib expressed b y Venice's Eighteenth-Century control agent,
eration among public figures, one a cardinal, in the Abbot Antonio C o n t i , h i s accomplice Abbot G u i d o
1 880's, is to raise the specter of possible schism between Grandi of Pisa, and his p rotege and Grandi student
the followers of St. Augustine (the Platonists) and the G i a m m a r i a Ortes. This i s the standpoint of radical

1 09
 phase of Cantor's depression erupts visibly during the approxi
empiricism, such as that of Jeremy Bentham and his fol mately two-year span of time from the 1 895 break in his al ready
lowers in Britain, and also the standpoint of the French deeply strained intellectual relationship with Professor Felix
Restoration form of radical empiricism, the positivism of Klein, through such 1 897 events as the publication of the Beitrage
and the death of Cantor's former mentor, Karl Weierstrass. Dur
the followers of LaPlace and Cauchy.2 5
ing that interval, Cantor has developed a close acquaintance with
Cardinal Franzelin's abrupt termination of the corre Rudolf Steiner, a member of the British Theosophist movement, a
spondence with Cantor did not cause Cantor's capitula founder of the Vienna-based Theosophist periodical, Luzijer, and
tion to British Theosophy during the late 1 890's; unfor l a t e r fo u n d e r of t h e G e r m a n ( W a l d o r f) s p i n - o ff of t h e
Theosophists, the Anthroposophic movement. (The legend is that
tunately, had Franzelin's rej ection of continued discus
Steiner concluded that the radicalism of Bertrand Russell's crony,
sion not have occurred as it did, Cantor's mind m ight the Theosophical leader and satanist Aleister Crowley, was a bit
not have cracked under the pressures of such London strong for customary German Kantians, and produced the altered
assets in Germany and France as Kronecker and his dogma of the anthroposophs with this thought in mind.)
accomplices. It was in this setting, of the association with Rudolf Steiner's
British Theosophism, that Cantor adopted the cultish view that
C a n t o r 's w o r k r e m a i n s a g r e a t c o n t r i b u t i o n to "Theosophy-saint" Francis Bacon had actually written Shake
mankind, and his efforts to clarify this issue with a repre speare's dramas. It must be taken into account, that all of Cantor's
sentative of the Vatican are an honorable part of that. His creative work was grounded in the deepest rejection of everything
for which Francis Bacon's followers stand. It is clear that Cantor's
collapse under two decades of his enemies' a v e r s i v e
change of heart toward Bacon could have occurred only as a result
attempts at h i s behavioral modification, is a n important of a persisting "behavior modification by aversive conditioning,"
tragedy of modern history, especially for science, but also supplied by Iago-like Leopold Kronecker, et at.
for mankind. Cantor himself believed that his discoveries Note the relationships with British agents such as Cambridge
University's Jourdain (the translator of the Beitrage), Grace Chisholm
would not be properly appreciated until some time dur
Young, and even Cantor's own mortal intellectual adversary, Russell
ing the Twentieth Centu ry. Generally speaking, h i s himself. See also Section 4 from Professor Ernst Fraenkel's biographi
insight o n that point was prophetic, although w e must cal sketch, "Das Leben Georg Cantors," in Gesammelte Abhandlungen,
thank those, including Kurt Godel, who kept his work op. cit., pp. 469-475 on Cantor's honors and connections in Britain
from the period of his close acquaintanceship with Rudolf Steiner.
alive for us today. To go forward with his contributions,
The dating of Cantor's first contact with Rudolf Steiner's circles is not
it is sufficient to begin with a slight detour, to situate clear; what is clear is the horrifYing implication of Cantor's February
Cantor's d iscoveries within the developments flowing 13, 1 896 letter to Pope Leo XIII: "Permitte, Pontifex Maxime . . . tria
th rough Riemann's 1 8 54 habili tation d i ssertation on volumnina operum Francis Baconi addam." The Cantor of that letter
is no longer the Cantor of the Grundlagen or the earlier correspon
hypothesis.
dence with Cardinal Franzelin.
7. Impossibiliti du nombre actuellement infini; la science dans ses rap
NOTES ports avec la foi (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1 884). See Cantor, "Ober
I . Georg Cantor, Beitriige zur Begrandung der transfiniten Mengen d i e v e r s c h i e d e n e n S t a n d p ii n k te in B e z u g a u f d a s a k t u e l l e
lehre ( 1 897), in Georg Cantors Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ed. by Unendliche," in Gesammelte Abhandlungen, op. cit., p p . 370-377.
Ernst Zermelo (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1 962), pp. 282- 8. Ibid.
35 1 . The readily available English translation is that of Cam 9. Meschkowski, op. cit., pp. 252-253.
bridge University-trained Philip E . B . Jourdain: Georg Cantor, 1 0 . Ibid.
Contributions to the Founding ofthe Theory of Transfinite Numbers 1 1 . Op. cit., pp. 254-257.
( 1 9 1 5) (New York: Dover Publications, 1 955). For reason of that 12. Op. cit., p. 258.
precedent, the Jourdain English translation of the title has been 1 3 . Op. cit.
employed here. The reader is cautioned that Jourdain's notes for 1 4 . Op. cit.
the 1 9 1 5 edition are rendered obsolete by Kurt Godel's "On for 1 5 . Cantor's repeated insistence on this during his writings of the
mally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and 1 880's is indispensable for avoiding the commonplace blunders of
related systems I " ("Uber formal Unentscheidbare Satze der Prin the proverbial "usual generally recognized authorities" in their
cipia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I"), in Kurt Gode!: reading of both the Beitrage and these earlier writings.
Collected Works, Vol. I, ed. by Solomon Pfeferman et al. (New 1 6. There is a presentation of this in numerous of this author's writ
York: Oxford Unive rsity Press, 1 990), pp. 1 44 - 1 99 (including ings, including Section 2 of the current "How Bertrand Russell
appended note by editors). Became An Evil Man," Fidelio, this issue, pp. 33-73.
2. On Cardinal Franzelin's termination of the correspondence, see 1 7. Kurt Godel, op. cit.
Georg Cantor Brieje, ed. by Herbert Meschkowski and Win fried 1 8 . LaRouche, "Evil Man," op. cit. ; Section 2, passim.
Nilson (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1 99 1 ), pp. 256-257. On the sub 1 9. Ibid.
j ect of this correpondence and also Cantor's depression of the 20. Ibid.
1 890's, see the same source, pps. 1 1 - 1 6, 252-258, 282- 285. 2 1 . Ibid.
3. Op. cit., p. 282. 22. Ibid.
4. Grundlagen: aber unendliche lineare Punktmannigfaltigkeiten, i n 2 3 . Nicolaus of Cusa, De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance)
Gesammelte Abhandlungen, op. cit., p p . 1 39-246. ( 1 440) [trans. by Jasper Hopkins as Nicholas ofCusa on Learned Igno
5. Op. cit., pp. 3 78-45 1 (including appended notes from Dedekind rance (Minneapolis: Atrhur M. Banning Press, 1 985)].
correspondence). 24. LaRouche "Evil Man," op. cit. ; Section 2, passim.
6. See Meschkowski and Nilson, op. cit., passim. The Anglophile 2 5 . Ibid.

1 10