In 1964 Frances Yates published Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition and reframed the field. Her Bruno was not a proto-scientist at all but a Hermetic magus, a religious reformer who wanted to restore the Egyptian religion described in the Hermetic writings, and who embraced the Copernican system not as astronomy but as a hieroglyph, a sign in the heavens of the magical truth he was preaching. She was, note, arguing against the martyr-of-science legend, not for it.
The book's influence was enormous and its central thesis has not held. Robert Westman and J. E. McGuire attacked it directly in 1977; Brian Vickers's 1984 collection declared itself entirely unconvinced; Hilary Gatti argued in 1999 for a Bruno seriously engaged with the science of his day; Ingrid Rowland's 2008 biography works from the trial documents. The most telling single indicator is that the current Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Bruno does not mention Yates at all.
It is worth being clear about what has been rejected, because Yates is still cited constantly in esoteric writing as though her account were settled history. What survives is her demonstration that Renaissance Hermeticism was a large, serious intellectual current that historians had been ignoring, and that magic and natural philosophy were not separate worlds. What has not survived is the strong claim, that Bruno's Copernicanism was essentially magical, and that Hermeticism was the engine of the scientific revolution. Anyone reading her should have both halves of that in view.