Burned Alive: Bruno, Galileo and the Inquisition
Page 24
published comments about beings on the Moon were just playful, humorous.70 But Campanella added that ‘even if the theory of the plurality of worlds is false’, then it would not undermine
Galileo’s discovery of ‘a plurality of systems’ that are ordered uniformly. He then named Bruno as having argued the same thing, the only instance in which he dared to name Bruno in this book.
While defending Galileo, Campanella attacked Aristotle’s
astronomy as ‘completely false’, incompatible with Galileo’s
telescopic discoveries. He insulted Aristotle’s fans: ‘potbellied theologians’ who were ‘fools’, ‘insane and most ignorant’. He denied their faith: ‘They are not true Christians who would chain us to Aristotle
or Ptolemy.’71 Campanella claimed that it is ‘heretical to say that theology is based on Aristotelianism’, or that theology essentially
needs such teachings. He complained that trusting Aristotle above
Christ was ‘wickedness and foolish blindness’.72
Campanella said that Copernicus rightly corrected old errors in
astronomy, and ‘returned to the teachings of the ancient Pythagoreans,
which provide a better account of the appearances’. Campanella
claimed that saints Leo, Anthony, Bernard, John Chrysostom and
others had rightly said that ‘the world is the book of God’, which
should be studied diligently. 73 And Galileo truly knew ‘something new about the world, the book of God’.74 Campanella proclaimed:
‘Scripture, which is the book of God, does not contradict the other
book of God, that is, nature. ’75
Regarding Copernicus: ‘I think that this philosophical theory
should not be condemned.’ Campanella said that if Catholics
attacked physicists and astronomers then the Protestants would
more vigorously ridicule Catholics, for assaulting both scriptures
and nature.76 And he said that Cardinal Bellarmine was aware of this; but Bellarmine had died in 1621.
Campanella praised Galileo, saying, ‘[you] rise up to the celestial houses; you bring the distant stars closer to our eyes, and you subject the heavens to your genius’. He said ‘falsity cannot be
found in Galileo’ because he proceeded carefully from observations.
Campanella tried to prove that scriptures ‘agree more with Galileo
than with his adversaries’.77 He characterized ‘the opinion of Galileo’
176
The Enemies of Galileo
as four claims: Earth moves, the Sun does not; the Sun is at the
centre of the universe; stars are composed of the four elements,
including water.78 He said these views were not original to Galileo, but were very ancient. Campanella credited Pythagoras.
Ancient stories said that Pythagoras visited Egypt; and Moses
had lived in Egypt. Therefore Campanella speculated that Pythagoras
probably based his philosophy on the teachings of Moses. Thus
Campanella conjectured that the theory of Copernicus or Galileo
originated from Moses himself, and that ‘Pythagoras, who was of
Jewish stock although he was born in a Greek city’, brought these
ideas ‘to Greece and to Italy, and taught it at Croton in Calabria’.79
He further explained:
It is likely that Pythagoras was born on Samos to a Jewish
family . . . According to Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch,
Aristotle and Galen, Pythagoras was the first to promulgate
to the gentiles this marvel ous philosophy that the Earth
moves, that there are many systems in the heavens, that the
Sun is at the centre, that the Moon is another Earth, and
that all four elements, and not just water, exist in the stars.
Therefore it seems that Pythagoras derived these teachings
from Moses, for he could not have had such wisdom without
a previous revelation.80
Campanella added that ‘Pliny rightly says that Pythagoras was
the wisest of philosophers.’81 Allegedly Pythagoras received his know ledge from God.
Campanella did not mention some opinions he had previously
attributed to Pythagoras: that the world has a soul, and that Earth is
a living animal. Bruno had been judged for these doctrines, and others.
Thus Campanella tried to rehabilitate Pythagorean ideas by
linking them to Moses. He said that the truth had been buried,
but ‘Our ancestors, however, are not to be blamed, for they had
not yet discovered the new earths, and celestial worlds, and new
phenomena, and the agreement of Scriptures with philosophy. ’82 Campanella promoted the Pythagorean views as a key to understanding the Bible.
Ending his book, Campanella advised that Galileo’s writings
should not be prohibited. He said that censuring Galileo would
177
burned alive
undermine the credibility of Catholics. Finally, Campanella
submitted himself to the censure of the Church.
Despite his attempt to legitimize Galileo and the Pythagorean
theory, publication of Campanella’s Defence of Galileo was prohibited in 1623 and he was forced to disavow the edition published in Frankfurt.
Meanwhile, in City of the Sun, Campanella described his ideal
city as follows:
The inhabitants of the City of the Sun do not fear death,
because they all believe that the soul is immortal, and that
when it has left the body it is associated with other spirits,
wicked or good, according to the merits of this present
life. Although they are partly followers of Brahma and
Pythagoras, they do not believe in the transmigration of
souls, except in some cases by a distinct decree of God . . .
They have but one book, which they call Wisdom, and in it
all the sciences are written with conciseness and marvellous
fluency of expression. This they read to the people after the
custom of the Pythagoreans.
Did Campanella actually believe in transmigration? He had made
the same claim in his Sense of Things: that souls are not reborn, except in special cases decreed by God. He there said it was heretical to
believe in transmigration. Here again, his views resemble those of
Bruno, but were understated.
Campanel a envisioned an alternative to the Catholic Roman
government. The City of the Sun would have a central temple of
the Sun, with a model of the universe, a globe on an altar and stars
painted on the ceiling. Seven ceiling lamps would correspond to
seven planets. Around this temple, there would be circular walls,
dividing the city into seven districts where people would live, corresponding to the seven planets. The inhabitants of the city, called Solarians, would worship the Sun and share knowledge from astrology and talismans. Scientific arts, including the telescope, would be superior to the best achievements of Greeks, Jews and Romans.
Campanella wrote: ‘I learn more from the anatomy of an ant than
from all the books that have been written since the beginning
of time.’
178
The Enemies of Galileo
Galileo Defends the Pythagorean Doctrines Again
In 1623 Galileo published The Assayer. He argued that philosophy is
written in a grand book, the universe, which cannot be understood
at all without mathematics.83 Galileo seemed to say that mathematicians such as himself or Kepler had a special skill for understanding nature, the work of God. This kind of claim had been criticized by
Hippolytus, St Augustin
e and others.
That same year, a friend of Galileo, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini,
became Pope Urban viii. Hence Galileo was kindly invited to papal
audiences on six occasions. He also gained confidence that the
Copernican account might win favour. Thus far, the Index had temporarily suspended the books by Copernicus and Zúñiga, while it had prohibited books by Bruno, Foscarini, Kepler and Campanella.
In 1624, and thereafter, the Index included a prohibition of al works
teaching Earth’s motion and the Sun’s immobility.84
Sometime before 7 June 1624 Cardinal Zollern spoke with the
new Pope about the controversial theory of Copernicus. Zol ern
told Galileo what he said to the Pope: that ‘the heretics all have
the opinion’ of Copernicus (presumably Zollern meant Protestants
such as Kepler), but ‘one should be very circumspect in reaching any
determination. ’85 Cardinal Zollern quoted the Pope’s reply: ‘that the Holy Church had not condemned it [the opinion of Copernicus]
nor would it be condemned as heretical, but only as temerarious,
but that there was no need to fear that anyone would ever prove it
as necessarily true’.86
Importantly, the Pope’s remark clearly shows that he did not view
Copernicus’s theory as terrible, nor even as particularly dangerous.
Years later, a theologian for the Pope quoted the Pope’s comments
to ‘a most learned man’, whom historians construe to be Galileo.
The Pope argued that even if Earth’s motion could account for all
astronom ical observations, God still had the power to move the orbs
and stars in any way while generating the same effects: ‘we should not
restrain the divine power and knowledge in this way. Hearing this, the
most learned man became quiet. ’87 No matter what argument purported the Earth’s motion, it could never be proven true, because God could have made the world in any way He wanted. Human reason
lacked the certainty to impose necessity on God – to constrain His
omnipotence. Besides, there were worse doctrines around.
179
burned alive
In 1624 Marin Mersenne, a theologian in Paris, published a book
denouncing deists, atheists and freethinkers, including Giordano
Bruno. Father Mersenne said that Bruno was a ‘miscreant’, an
impious ‘brigand’ who pretended his deceptions were miracles. 88
Mersenne said that Bruno could have been forgiven if he had
restricted himself to discussing only questions about geometry,
atoms and divisibility. But Bruno had also discussed ‘the infinity
of starry worlds, and other things’, and since he had ‘attacked the
Christian truth, it is reasonable to decry him as one of the most
evil men that the Earth has ever produced’. Therefore, Mersenne
scorned Bruno as ‘an Atheist, who has been burned in Italy for his
impieties’.89
To reassure readers that ‘you do not think that I speak without
knowing’, Mersenne suggested that they read the last chapter of
Bruno’s book on The Minimum, where ‘you will easily realize that
he [Bruno] favoured the transmigration of souls from one body
to another, and that it seems that he did not invent a new way of
philosophizing, but just to secretly combat the Christian Religion.’
Mersenne argued that if one tried to decipher what Bruno really
meant by writing about the sphere and the centre, about birth, life
and death, one would realize that Bruno’s intention was not to talk
about ‘a reasonable immortality of the soul, but about that [transmigration] which he attributed to the soul of animals, and plants, and to all individuals, who are down here’.90
In the words of historian Miguel Granada, Mersenne sensed
that Bruno’s beliefs about the universal soul and transmigration were ‘extremely dangerous’ and ‘radically incompatible’ with
Christianity.91 Mersenne cited one reason why Bruno was killed.
Regarding Bruno’s beliefs about human souls and the world soul,
Mersenne reported that Bruno’s ‘evil book’ On the Cause, the
Principle, and the One (1584) includes ‘the dialogues for which he was
burned in Rome, as some individuals have informed me’. 92 Recall that in this book Bruno agreed with the Pythagoreans and Virgil
for arguing that human souls originate from the world soul, while
the universal ‘Mind agitates the mass and intermixes itself with the
great body’.
Mersenne further argued that the wicked Bruno wrongly tried
to prove that God has no freedom at all, ‘by convincing himself of
infinite worlds’ – as if God had no freedom to create otherwise.
180
The Enemies of Galileo
Mersenne argued that God could create the world in any way. (This
was essentially the same argument the Pope conveyed to Galileo
and Cardinal Zollern that Earth does not necessarily orbit the Sun.) Mersenne also complained that Bruno’s impiety led him to question
the true religion and to disrespect the miracles of Christ. He said
that Bruno ‘thinks that one can elevate oneself in the air, like St Paul,
who was raised up to the third Heaven’. Mersenne was referring to
‘I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to
the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I
do not know – God knows’ (2 Corinthians 12:2).
Father Mersenne discussed other impertinent ‘liars’, including Campanella. Mersenne insisted that Bruno’s ‘many Earths’ do
not exist.93 Did Mersenne know that belief in many worlds was a heresy? In a previous book, published in 1623, Mersenne made a
remark that answers this question. He included an article ‘Proving
that the World is Unique’. Having acknowledged that St Jerome
criticized Origen’s belief in many worlds, Mersenne yet claimed that
scriptures did not specify its falsehood. He argued that the world is
one and he wrote, ‘anyone who claims the contrary is not a heretic,
but is at most temerarious.’ Mersenne claimed that ‘no Ecumenical
Council’ had defined that it was a matter of faith to not believe in
many worlds.94 Like Campanella, Mersenne just didn’t know that belief in many worlds was officially a heresy. Still, Mersenne recognized that the existence of many worlds led to absurd issues, such as whether Christ had embodied the shape of the alien beings in such
worlds and died for them too.95
In 1625 Mersenne published another book in which he discussed Bruno, criticizing again his belief that the world is infinite.
He also criticized another ‘error’ of Bruno, that the universe is eternal. Mersenne commented, ‘one well knows that when one embraces a principle that is false, afterward there follow many absurdities and
impertinences. ’96
Editions of John Donne’s satire against the Jesuits, Ignatius
His Conclave, were published anonymously in Latin and English
in 1611. By 1621 Donne had become a prominent Anglican priest
and Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral in London.97 Both versions were reprinted, in 1625 and 1626, respectively, and again people could read
about how Galileo’s discoveries seemed to support extravagant anti
Christian notions: the Moon is an inhabited world; the Sun, stars
181
burned alive
and planets are inhabited worlds; and the moving Earth has a
soul.
These notions had been defended by Bruno. Likewise, in a sermon to
the nobility in the Earl of Exeter’s chapel in St John’s, Clerkenwell,
Donne preached: ‘Did God satisfy Himself with this visible and discernible world; with all on Earth, and all between that, and Him? . . .
Let every star in the firmament, be (so some take them to be) a several world, was all this enough?’98 Donne returned to the question of many or ‘infinite worlds’ in several other sermons.99
Meanwhile, some important writers used the memory of Bruno’s
death to bicker about religion. In 1625 the Calvinist politician
Ludwig Camerarius wrote:
When the Holy Office of the Inquisition sentences
Lutherans to the death, how simply they declare that the
punishment be done without a profusion of blood. Hence
burn them alive, and without any shedding of blood. Oh
what leniency worthy of Catholic men! As Schoppe tells
us, in his Letter about the execution of Giordano Bruno of
Nola, who was burned publicly on 9 February of the year
1600 at the Campo dei Fiori in Rome, in front of the Theatre
of Pompey. The Lutherans should give many thanks to the
Inquisitors, that they use their blood to feed the flames,
instead of extracting it with iron.100
As a Protestant, Camerarius complained that Schoppe was a ‘truly
wicked and cruel’ Catholic who believed that ‘all Protestants or
Calvinists are Heretics, proscribed by the empire to the ultimate punishment.’ Camerarius was the chief counsellor of Elector Frederick v of the Palatinate (and briefly King of Bohemia), a Calvinist who
plotted to recapture lands and titles that the Catholic emperor
Ferdinand ii had taken from him.
Camerarius’s use of Bruno’s execution to criticize Catholics
elicited a reply. The following year a ‘Lucius Verus’ published a book
replying to claims by Camerarius. In response to the point about
Bruno, the pseudonymous author wrote:
for those who are interested, there are documents; & the
records show, those which are available: Regarding the execution of Bruno of Nola it states: He was not a Lutheran, 182
The Enemies of Galileo
instead he was infected partly with Calvinism, even by
Manichaeus, Borborites, Arian and Eutychian heresies,
and he was convicted of those crimes, and therefore nobody