Much of Bruno’s book On Mathematical Magic was copied from
various sources, but this passage was not copied verbatim from
any source. Furthermore, in another work Bruno overtly identified
the universal spirit with God. Again he attributed this notion to the
Pythagoreans, and he related it to polytheistic notions about the
heavens, the stars and the Sun:
The ancients and those more recent attribute Gods to the
Heavens, where by Gods they really meant stars, from which
none can be the first God; although among those that are in
our sphere, the Chaldeans had the Sun rising in the centre of
the stars as God’s great temple, and for the Pythagoreans it is
an infinite spirit that penetrates everything, comprehending
and vivifying.67
Finally, to complete this compelling chain of evidence, in his work
The Heroic Furor Bruno again said that the heavenly bodies are composed of superior powers (that abide with the divinity) along with inferior powers that abide with the ‘mass’ and ‘vivify’ the body, and
sustain ‘the living things in that world’. In that book Bruno referred
to Virgil as ‘the Pythagorean poet’.68
Regarding the theory of transmigration of souls from one body
to another, Bruno testified to the Venetian Inquisitors, apparently
42
The Crimes of Giordano Bruno
with less certainty, that ‘if it is not true, then at least it has verisimilitude following the opinion of Pythagoras.’69 In sum, Bruno recanted or denied practically all charges of heresy, except the doctrine of the
universe and the doctrine of souls. He said that he was ‘reasoning as
a philosopher’. These three points are striking because they confirm
his Pythagorean beliefs, that is, he willingly denied every heresy he
had allegedly said, except his Pythagorean convictions. To be sure,
Bruno’s beliefs were not merely or exclusively Pythagorean; he had
developed his own idiosyncratic, original and subtle theories, yet his
views involved wellknown Pythagorean notions.
We should consider Bruno’s phrase ‘the Pythagorean doctrine’.
It is an important expression especially because the cardinals later
used it, in 1616, to censure Copernican works. Expressions such as
‘the doctrine of Pythagoras’ appeared in some ancient works, such
as Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius, where it referred to transmigration of souls, the memory of past lives, abstinence from eating animals
and the importance of silence. In 1576 Thomas Digges praised the
‘Doctrine of the Pythagoreans’, a supposedly perfect description
of the celestial orbs that included an immovable and perpetual
orb of stars extending infinitely in all directions. In 1592 an Italian
book on emblems referred to the most secret ‘Pythagorean doctrine’ according to which numerical proportions correspond to the elements and the theory of the world, leading to knowledge of ‘the
Real Kabbalah’. 70 Also in the 1590s a few works on government, in Italian, used the expression ‘dottrina Pittagorica’ as the name for the
astrological theory that distinct numbers can be associated to the
planets and the signs of the Zodiac to make predictions. 71 A 1594
work by a Spaniard, advocating the establishment of a new Catholic
Council, included discussions about Pope Clement i, in which he
disdained this late firstcentury Pope’s father as ‘a pagan man, and
educated by the Pythagorean doctrine, not Christian or Mosaic’, for
having opposed Christian and Apostolic teachings. 72 The author alluded briefly to ‘Pythagorean errors’, in the context of religious
heresies. This contrast seems to echo the ancient dichotomy posited
by Hippolytus, who had criticized some heretics as ‘disciples not of
Christ but of Pythagoras’.
Thus the phrase ‘Pythagorean doctrine’ had been used to refer
to mystic or pagan beliefs, numerical astrology and, in Bruno’s case,
the soul of the Earth and the soul of the universe. The phrase had
43
burned alive
also been used in literary elaborations of classical works. Ovid’s
ancient Metamorphoses featured Pythagoras but did not refer to
him by name, only as the wise ‘man from Samos’. It did not even
say ‘the Pythagoreans’. Yet later editors and translators added such
names. In 1584 Giovanni dell’Anguillara published a translation of
the Metamorphoses into Italian that greatly expanded it. For ex ample,
in the original Latin version, in Book 15, Ovid wrote 74 lines of
verse before saying that ‘the man from Samos’ rejected the killing and eating of animals; yet in dell’Anguillara’s version there are instead 272 lines of verse until that point. Dell’Anguillara referred
to Pythagoras repeatedly by name, and he also referred to the teachings of Pythagoras as ‘the new Pythagorean doctrine’. 73 Again, in the Metamorphoses Ovid had portrayed the Samian sage as revealing sacred knowledge: that everything changes, but that souls are immortal and, not keeping the same form, they can transmigrate
into other human bodies or even into animal bodies; that the soul
of Pythagoras had lived before; and that Earth is a living animal.
Bruno actively defended all of these beliefs.
The Venetian Inquisition summoned more witnesses. Two were
booksellers: Giovanni Battista Ciotti, also known as ‘Ciotto’, and
Giacomo Bertano, also known as Jakob van Brecht from Antwerp.
Both had first met Bruno in Frankfurt. Ciotti, from Siena, had
introduced Bruno to Mocenigo. Ciotti and Bertano had hardly
any accusations against Bruno. Andrea Morosoni testified that
Bruno seemed to be a good Catholic. Among other witnesses was
Domenico da Nocera. (It is unclear whether Celestino Arrigoni
participated in the Venice proceedings or only in Rome.) Overall,
they testified that Bruno regularly read forbidden books. Indeed,
he was a fugitive friar who had consorted with Protestants in
Geneva, London and Wittenberg, while publishing multiple books
on controversial topics. Some of his books had false imprints, for
example purporting to have been published in Venice when in
fact they had been published in London. Such activities reeked
of heresy.
Bruno then begged for forgiveness, saying ‘I now detest and abhor’
any and all errors committed in regard to the Catholic faith and life. 74
The Venetian proceedings were interrupted by the Inquisition
of Rome. The central office of the Inquisition determined that the
case was so important that it should be handled directly. They argued
44
The Crimes of Giordano Bruno
that Bruno was not a citizen of Venice, but of Naples. The ‘Supreme
Inquisitor’ in Rome, Cardinal Giulio Santori of Santa Severina,
ordered that Bruno be transferred because he was not merely a heretic, he was something worse: a heresiarch, someone who leads and converts Catholics into heretics, and can become their intellectual
patriarch.75
They complained that this ‘popular heresiarch’ had fraternized
with heretics, he had written heretical books, he published them ‘in
heretical places’, and he had praised royal heretics, such as Queen
Elizabeth of England. His heresies were ‘extraordinarily grave’, such
a
s doubting the incarnation and the Trinity, and leading a ‘diabolical
life’.76 Pope Clement viii himself wanted Bruno to be extradited and put on trial in Rome. For months the Venetian authorities resisted
the extradition order. Historian Thomas Mayer explains that almost
none of the detainees requested by Rome were allowed to leave
Venice, ‘unless the Venetians had decided on their own that they had
outlived their usefulness’. Finally in February 1593 they transferred
Bruno to the Inquisition’s prisons in Rome. This was very unusual,
because unlike other jurisdictions the Venetian authorities ‘almost
never allowed the extradition of those accused of heresy’.77
The Roman Inquisition continued the proceedings instead of
beginning anew. In Rome a fellow Venetian prisoner, a friar called
Celestino Arrigoni from Verona, confirmed some of Mocenigo’s
accusations and added new ones. This is very important because
other wise the Inquisition essentially had just one free witness
against Bruno, namely Mocenigo, since his principal accusations
had not been confirmed by the other witnesses. According to the
practice of the Inquisition, one witness was equivalent to no wit
ness.78 Friar Celestino accused Bruno of blasphemies about Christ (that Jesus had sinned), that Bruno had erroneous opinions about
Hell, that he criticized Moses and the prophets, that he denied
Church dogmas and the Catholic book of rites, that he disapproved
of praying to the saints, that he uttered blasphemies, that he planned
to burn down a monastery and said that Cain was a good man for
killing his brother Abel, in addition to the previous claims that stars
are worlds, and about the transmigration of souls from body to body,
and from one world to others.79
In turn, Bruno again defended himself and gave various clarifications, for example, that ‘I was primarily joking when I told him 45
burned alive
The building of the Holy Roman Inquisition, ‘S. Inquisitio’, near the southern
wall of Vatican City, south of St Peter’s Basilica. Map by Antonio Tempesta, 1593.
that Cain was a Pythagorean, that is, by having a Pythagorean zeal,
because Pythagoras abhorred the slaughter of animals.’80 In Genesis 4:4, Abel offered an animal sacrifice to God, while Cain did not.
Still more witnesses accused Bruno too. They reported that he
had argued that Jesus sinned; that Bruno uttered blasphemies; that
he doubted dogmas; that he said the world is eternal; that many
worlds exist, and so on. There transpired ten more interrogations
and depositions (for a total of sixteen), but Bruno continued to deny
46
The Crimes of Giordano Bruno
charges and renounce alleged heresies, except the plurality of worlds
and the Pythagorean doctrine of souls.
Six witnesses against Bruno were fellow prisoners, which greatly
undermined their credibility. Also, roughly half of Mocenigo’s
accusations were unconfirmed.
Censured Propositions in Bruno’s Books
In early 1595 the Inquisition decided that its theologian consultors
should systematically inspect Bruno’s books in order to pinpoint
heretical statements that should be censured. Over the following
months they managed to gather only some of his books, not all.
The identity of the theologians is unknown, but it seems plausible
that Robert Bellarmine joined them after February 1596, when he
became a consultor for the Inquisition.
By late 1596 the list of censured propositions from Bruno’s books
was nearly ready.81 On 16 December the Inquisitors visited Bruno in his cell and ordered ‘that he be interrogated as soon as possible
about the propositions excerpted from his writings and about the
censures’.82 Apparently the original list has not survived, but any need to speculate about its contents diminished when a summary
was discovered.
In 1925 Angelo Mercati became Prefect of the Secret Vatican
Archives, and soon learned that in 1887 a document had been discovered regarding Bruno’s proceedings. Back then, however, Pope Leo xiii had ordered that it be sent immediately to him and that he
‘absolutely did not want these proceedings to be given to anyone’.
Mercati began an extensive archival search that continued for fifteen
years, until finally in November 1940 he found the document hidden
in the personal archives of Pope Pius ix. The document, titled ‘The
Summary of the Trial of Giordano Bruno’, consists of 261 paragraphs, including 34 articles of accusations, embedded in summaries of Bruno’s interrogations in Venice and Rome. Importantly, the long
document ends with ten sections, under the final heading, undated,
titled ‘Summary of the Replies of Brother Giordano to the Censures
made about Propositions that were extracted from his Books’.
The Summary includes ten censured topics or propositions. The
last two seem to have been added later than the rest, for at least three
reasons: that by comparison to the first eight, the last two are very
47
burned alive
brief; they do not include Bruno’s replies; and the last proposition
includes a cited page number, ‘fol. 139’, which is out of sequence with
all the other cited page numbers. It seems that after the first eight
propositions were composed and presented to Bruno, and after his
replies were recorded, the Inquisitors added two more.
To discuss the relation of these ten propositions to Pythagorean
notions, we must first list them. The shortest section (the tenth)
occupies only three lines of print in Mercati’s published edition,
while the longest (the fourth) occupies 53 lines of print plus 55
lines of footnotes. Hence, I will abridge the ten sections by quoting
only the initial lines of each, which include the brief statement of
each censured proposition, our main interest. I will also summarize
some of Bruno’s replies. There exist various scholarly accounts, with
some differences. The ‘Summary’ that Mercati discovered consists
of ten propositions. Luigi Firpo reproduces all ten, but then adds
two others from a later account by Gaspar Schoppe. 83 Maurice Finocchiaro closely follows Firpo, but interpolates yet another:
‘the individual immortality of the human soul is a questionable
proposition.’84 I find no evidence for this interpolated proposition.
Instead, Bruno repeatedly claimed: ‘I hold that souls are immortal. ’85 It is therefore important to analyse the ‘Summary’ carefully, because it has generated puzzlement and speculation. In a classic
monograph, Frances Yates frankly commented: ‘I find this document very confused and confusing.’86 The following analysis will explain it.
Summary of the replies of Brother Giordano to the
censures made about Propositions that were extracted
from his books. 87
[ 1st censured proposition] ‘Concerns the generation of things
since he admitted the eternal existence of two real principles
from which all things are done, and which are the soul of
the world, and primal matter; Interrogated whether they
are eternal.’88
[ 2nd censured proposition] ‘Concerns the conditional, namely,
that the nature of God is finite, if it does not in fac
t produce
infinity, or the infinite . . . [and Bruno insisted] that as a
48
The Crimes of Giordano Bruno
consequence of my philosophy, since God’s power is infinite
it must necessarily produce effects that are equally infinite.’89
[ 3rd censured proposition] ‘Concerns the mode of creation
of human souls stated by these words: Deriving from that
universal principle, from general to particular. ’90
‘Concerning that [ 4th censured] proposition, indeed. In
this world nothing is generated, or corrupted in substance,
unless we want to refer to alteration in this way; a product, whatever may be its alteration, it always maintains the same substance . . . [Bruno replied:] As Solomon does
not contradict this, now saying “a generation passes away,
and a generation arrives, [but the Earth remains forever]”
[Ecclesiastes 1:4] and now also with “Nothing new under the
Sun” [Ecclesiastes 1:9], that is, what is now is what was. ’91
[ 5th censured proposition] ‘Concerning Earth’s motion states:
First, I generally say that the manner and cause of the motion
of the Earth, and of the immobility of the firmament and
heaven are to me produced with the proper reasons and
authority, which are certain and not harmful to the authority
of divine Scriptures . . .’92
‘Likewise folio 292 face 2 states [ 6th censured proposition]
that Stars are Angels, in these words: the Stars are actually
Angels, animated rational bodies, which while they praise
God, and reveal the power and greatness of that by which
light, its writings etched in the firmament, “the Heavens
declare the glory of God”; Angels do not mean anything
other than the messengers and interpreters of the divine
voice, and of nature, and these are sensible Angels, visible,
while others are invisible, and insensible. ’93
‘Likewise, folio 293 posits [ 7th censured proposition] that
the Earth is alive, not only with a sensitive soul, but also
rational, and God expressly attributed a soul to it, by saying:
“Earth produce a living soul”, which is how animals are
constituted with the body from a part of its body, and its
49
burned alive
[Earth’s] universal spirit comes to animate each particular
Burned Alive: Bruno, Galileo and the Inquisition Page 6