Burned Alive: Bruno, Galileo and the Inquisition
Page 26
against the teachings of Catholic Apostolic Roman Faith. ’133
Regrettably, Galileo did not read the books by Froidmont and
Morin before his own book was printed. 134 Its printing was finished on 21 February 1632. Like Froidmont, Galileo or his censors decided to begin the Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World
by discussing the Decree of 1616. Hence the Preface begins with the
Catholic censorship of the Pythagorean doctrine:
Some years ago there was published in Rome a salutary edict
which, to prevent the dangerous scandals of the present age,
imposed opportune silence upon the Pythagorean opinion
of the Earth’s motion. There were some who rashly asserted
that the decree was the offspring of extremely illinformed
passion, and not of judicious examination.135
Galileo claimed that he now wrote not by audacity, but as a ‘sincere
witness of the truth’.
But instead of speaking directly, Galileo posited three characters in conversation, who occasionally referred to ‘the Academician’, that is, Galileo. (Similarly, in some of Bruno’s books, Bruno too
had used dialogues and referred to himself only indirectly, as ‘the
Nolan’.136) The Pope and the censors had instructed Galileo to speak of the Earth’s motion only as a hypothesis. Yet Galileo’s Dialogue
vigorously defended the claim that the Earth moves.
In person, the Pope had been receptive to Galileo’s hypothetical discussions about astronomy. But the Pope’s tolerance towards eccentric ideas suddenly became subverted. It happened because
190
The Enemies of Galileo
of a confrontation of March 1632 that had nothing to do with
astronomy.
Recently the Pope had tried to maintain Rome’s independence
from the Habsburg rulers in Spain. To do so, he had been allied
with France, but fearing a universal Spanish monarchy, France suddenly allied itself with an invading Swedish army in 1631. The Pope, however, could not support that new alliance, because the invading army was Protestant. Pope Urban then sacrificed the Vatican’s independence by giving allegiance to Spain and the Emperor. Soon
the Spanish ambassador at the Inquisition began to accuse the
Pope of protecting heresies in Rome. 137 Then an ugly confrontation happened on 8 March 1632: the ambassador of Spain, Cardinal Borgia, directly challenged the Pope at a council on the state of
the Church.138 Borgia first stood and surrounded himself with all the Spanish and proSpanish cardinals, to shield him as he read
the statement. Borgia said that Madrid wanted the Pope to oppose
heresy vigorously. This instruction was so offensive that the Pope’s
brother lunged at Borgia, but only managed to grab his arm.
Soon some Spaniards threatened to depose the Pope for protecting heresies. 139 To defend himself, the Pope agreed to enact stricter persecution of heresies, by giving more influence to Spanish dignitaries. This change of ideology meant that eccentric individuals whom the Pope had sponsored would no longer receive the same
tolerance at the Vatican. For example, the former heretic and prisoner of the Inquisition, Tommaso Campanella, would have to leave Rome: ‘The liberal atmosphere that had characterized the early years
of Urban’s pontificate disappeared. ’140
Galileo’s alleged aim in his book was to show that Italians like
himself had thoughtfully contemplated arguments for and against
Earth’s motion. He sought to show that any experiments carried
out on Earth’s surface would not prove its motion or rest because
they would produce the same results. Still, he would defend the
Copernican theory by showing that it matches celestial phenomena, and that ocean tides might be explained as being caused by Earth’s motions.
Galileo mentioned the Pythagoreans only briefly to illustrate
certain points. For example, he wrote that Pythagoras himself
believed that the Earth moves. 141 Galileo’s First Dialogue referred to the Pythagoreans as fol ows: ‘I know that they did not expose
191
burned alive
wonderful things to the ridicule and contempt of the populace, to
damage, as sacrilege to publish the most recondite properties of
numbers. ’142 Speaking as one of his characters, Galileo wrote: ‘That the Pythagoreans held the science of numbers in high esteem, and
that Plato himself admired the human understanding and believed
it to partake of divinity simply because it understood the nature of
numbers, I know very well; nor am I far from being of the same
opinion.’ In response, the character of Simplicio commented: ‘I do
not want to join the number of those who are too curious about the
Pythagorean mysteries.’
At another point Simplicio denied that there is generation or
mutation on the Moon. He complained that the notion of men
living on the Moon was ‘impious’, or wicked. The other two characters replied that even if the Moon is not inhabited by beings similar to those on Earth, nevertheless, there might well exist some strange
beings on the Moon: ‘things, that adorn its operations, and moving,
and living; and perhaps in a very different way from ours, seeing, and
admiring the grandeur and beauty of the World, and of its Maker,
and Ruler, and continually singing His glory’.143 Historian David Wootton has rightly commented on Galileo’s ‘remarkable’ claims:
‘The Moon may be uninhabited, but you do not have to force the
text to find in it Bruno’s heresy: around other stars there may be
other planets, other worlds . . . ’.144
Furthermore, note that Galileo’s Dialogue mentioned that the
Sun is a star, and the stars are suns. 145 It also referred to his telescopic discovery of ‘innumerable stars’. 146 Galileo was defending opinions regarded as erroneous or heretical: the Earth’s motion,
the Sun’s immobility, the Sun is a star and the existence of other
inhabited worlds.
In April 1632 the Pope became annoyed by Giovanni Ciampoli,
one of Galileo’s closest supporters, a papal courtier and fellow
Lincei.147 Ciampoli had supported Galileo in 1616. He had been a source of useful hearsay for years and he had secured a provisional
permission from Riccardi so that Galileo might publish his Dialogue
in Rome. Yet somehow Ciampoli upset Urban. Some said it was
because Ciampoli had dared to try to improve (and hence critique) some of Urban’s poems. Others said that one night Ciampoli had secretly met with Cardinal Borgia. Pope Urban arranged to
have Ciampioli exiled from Rome, under the dubious honour of
192
The Enemies of Galileo
appointing him governor of an insignificant village. Galileo was
losing allies in Rome.
At the same time Galileo asked a friend to take eight copies
of his book to the Vatican. They arrived in late May 1632 and he
instructed that the first copy be delivered to Cardinal Barberini,
the others to Riccardi, Campanella, other acquaintances, and to a
consultor of the Inquisition, Ludovico Serristori.148
The book promptly upset some readers. Even the Pope became
alarmed. In July the Pope instructed Riccardi to contact the
Inquisitor in Florence to stop the publisher from distributing the
book and confiscate all copies. Riccardi complained that ‘there are
many things that are not liked’ about the book.149
In Galileo’s Dialogue there were few references to the
; Pythagoreans. I don’t want to imply that a main reason why the
work seemed offensive was because it praised them. In particular, it
did not discuss their religious beliefs. Nonetheless, it was offensive
because it embodied the same brazen heresy that Bruno advocated,
that in certain matters philosophers have more authority than
Catholic theologians. Moreover, the main thesis of Galileo’s work,
the Earth’s motion, was one of the Pythagorean claims that had been
censured during Bruno’s trial and again by the Inquisition in 1616.
On 5 August 1632 Tommaso Campanella sent Galileo an enthusiastic letter. This congratulatory letter is significant because it shows an educated reader’s immediate impression on reading Galileo’s
book. Campanella praised the ‘novelty of ancient truths, of new
worlds, new stars, new systems, new nations’. He spoke of a new
century beginning, and said that Galileo’s ideas ‘were of the ancient
Pythagoreans and Democritics’.150 This letter’s importance has been emphasized by historian Pietro Redondi, who argued that it shows
how an informed reader quickly understood Galileo’s work and,
allegedly, that it reveals the relevance of the atomism of Democritus,
which was disdained as heretical. 151 Historians have carefully analysed this argument, since an earlier manuscript report on Galileo’s book of 1623 did discuss atomism. However, historians concluded
that despite the significance of atomism in that earlier book, there
is insufficient evidence that it was an issue when Inquisitors read
Galileo’s book of 1632.
Nevertheless, Campanella’s letter shows how Galileo’s claims
were construed to be those of ‘the ancient Pythagoreans’ – including
193
burned alive
explicit reference to the heretical notion of new worlds. Although
Redondi conjectured that Campanella’s mention of the ‘Democritics’
implied the atomistic theory, Redondi did not point out that the
name Democritus had another relevant connotation. Campanella did
not mention atomism, but he did enthusiastically emphasize ‘new
worlds, new stars, new systems’, and Democritus was known as a
proponent of many worlds – according to Cicero, Varro and Valerius
Maximus. Hippolytus had ridiculed Democritus for claiming that
there are infinitely many worlds, some inhabited, some with Suns
and Moons.152 Philaster, Ambrose and Thomas Aquinas denied that more than one world exists, and criticized Democritus for asserting
infinitely many.153 Ficino too credited Democritus with the claim that ‘worlds are innumerable. ’154 Hence Matteo Ricci, Nicholas de Nancel, Clavius, Campanella and others had credited that doctrine
to Democritus.
How did the Pope react to Galileo’s book? Urban had been
Galileo’s friendly supporter. Now he saw that Galileo had misused
his advice. Galileo personally offended him by placing Urban’s measured outlook in the voice of an idiotic character, Simplicio. Galileo also violated his commitment to treat the Earth’s motion as a mere
hypothesis.
In August 1632 the Pope convened a special committee to decide
whether Galileo should be brought to the Inquisition. From the
Inquisition’s archives, the committee received a document that,
Riccardi said, ‘is alone sufficient to ruin Mr Galileo completely’.155
This document from 1616 forbade Galileo ‘to hold, teach or defend
in any way whatever, orally or in writing’, the opinion of Earth’s
motion, or else be prosecuted by the Inquisition. Galileo had
revealed no such injunction to the Pope or Riccardi. Now the Pope
had evidence that Galileo had been deceitful.
On 4 September 1632 the Pope met with the Tuscan ambassador, Francesco Niccolini, and complained that Galileo’s book was
‘pernicious’, ‘troublesome and dangerous’. The Pope became agitated
and bitterly enraged. Niccolini reported:
His Holiness exploded in great anger, and all of a sudden
told me that our Galilei had also dared to enter where he
should not have, and into the most severe and dangerous
matters that could be stirred up at this time . . . matters,
194
The Enemies of Galileo
which involve great harm to religion and more awful than
were ever devised.
The Pope denounced it as ‘the most perverse subject matter that one
could ever handle’.156
But why? Galileo had personally offended the Pope, but yet that
affront can hardly be construed as the most perverse subject ever.
On 13 November 1632 Niccolini met with the Pope again, to plead
for Galileo. But the Pope ‘again said that one is dealing with an
awful doctrine’.157 Years later the Pope reiterated that Galileo had defended ‘an opinion so very false and so very erroneous’, which had
generated ‘a universal scandal to Christianity with a doctrine that
had been damned’.158 So it was not just personal.
In 1624 the Pope had told Cardinal Zollern that the opinion
of Earth’s motion was not heretical, it was merely temerarious,
and it was not something one should worry about. Hence it seems
that what upset the Pope in 1633 was not merely that Galileo had
defended the hypothesis of Earth’s motion, hardly a major danger
to Catholicism, but Galileo had ‘ also’ done something much worse:
he had engaged ‘the most severe and dangerous matters . . . which
involve great harm to religion and more awful than ever devised’.
Another remark reiterates that it was not just one subjectmatter:
the Pope complained that Galileo ‘had been illadvised to give out
his opinions’.159
Ambassador Niccolini explained in a letter that the Pope’s concern was not about science: ‘the Pope believes that this involves many dangers for the Faith, not that we are dealing here with mathematical matters, but about the Holy Scripture, about religion and about the Faith. ’160 What were those many dangers?
In March 1633 the Pope met again with Niccolini, saying that
Galileo would be interrogated. Then the Pope became ‘incensed’
and ‘infuriated’, insisting that ‘one should not impose necessity on
God. ’161 And in April the Pope reiterated the gravity of Galileo’s crime: ‘it pains His Holiness that he [Galilei] has entered into this
matter, which he [the Pope] still considers to be extremely grave and
of great consequence for the [Catholic] religion. ’162
What was so dangerous to Catholicism about Galileo’s work?
Historians have advanced various conjectures. For example, John
L. Heilbron argues that maybe there were other considerations
195
burned alive
indirectly connected to the Dialogue: maybe Galileo’s support of
atomism (in 1623) seemed incompatible with transubstantiation,
or perhaps there were implications about astrology, or even the
problem of salvation and grace. According to Heilbron, ‘Although
Galileo’s trial was not about atomism, astrology, freewill, salvation,
grace, or divine attributes, many or all of them probably were in
Urban’s mind when he castigated Galileo’s doctrine as “the worst
[menace] ever perceived”. ’163
We do not know what Pope Urban had in mind, but we can
understand his words if they referred
to the central matter of
Galileo’s Dialogue and the Decree of 1616. If the Earth’s motion were
not merely hypothetical but actually true, then it would mean that
some passages in the Bible were literally false. Cardinal Bellarmine
had warned Foscarini that the doctrine of Earth’s motion and Sun’s
immobility ‘is a very dangerous thing’ because it would irritate
all theologians and ‘harm the Holy Faith by rendering the Holy
Scripture false’. 164 Galileo was proposing a Pythagorean way to interpret scriptures, as if the Pythagorean notions were true. Galileo’s work would then seem to undermine not just Catholic authority,
but Christianity – in favour of what? A blend of Christian and
ancient Pythagorean ideas? The intrusion of an alien pagan sect
into Catholicism? That is precisely how Froidmont had recently
described it.
Members of the Inquisition were disturbed by Galileo’s Dialogue,
partly because it offended the Pope but especially because it defied
the personal injunctions of 1616 and the public Decree: his book
taught and vigorously defended the ‘false Pythagorean doctrine’ as
if it were true. Moreover, it was inadmissible to argue that a proposition was ‘probably’ true after the Church had declared it contrary to scriptures.165
In February 1633, having failed to get sympathy from the Pope,
the Tuscan ambassador approached the nephew Cardinal Francesco
Barberini, to request support for Galileo. Cardinal Barberini was the
head of the Inquisition. He replied that he esteemed Galileo and
wished him well, ‘but that this matter was very delicate, because it
could introduce some fantastical dogma into the world’.166 What was that outlandish belief, ‘ dogma fantastico’?
Incidentally, in the passage in the Dialogue in which Galileo
defended the idea of beings living on the Moon, Galileo began: ‘I have
196
The Enemies of Galileo
many times been fantasizing [ fantasticando] . . .’. 167 Coincidentally, in England Bruno had been described as a ‘fantastical ’ man who
was burned alive.168 At the time, in England and Italy such words were used to refer to falsehood, monstrosity, false worship, heresies,
ridiculous inventions, absurd fables, deranged conceit, foolishness,