Burned Alive: Bruno, Galileo and the Inquisition

by Alberto A. Martinez

  satanic opinions, deceptive magic, insanity and awful lies.169

  Those who appreciated Galileo’s revival of ancient ideas were

  distressed by the Inquisition. In March 1633 Lucas Holste complained to his French friend Nicolas­Claude Fabri de Peiresc about the ignorance of cardinals at the Index, and he became so annoyed

  by what they said that he decided not to attend their meetings

  anymore.170 Holste wrote to his friend:

  It would take me a long time to review the cause of the

  hatred against the fine old man [Galileo]. Surely nobody

  saw without indignation that the men chosen to judge

  about Galilei’s book and about the entire Pythagorean or

  Copernican proposition are plainly dissonant, while it is

  principal y about the authority of the Church, which wil

  suffer vehemently from a less correct judgment. I earnestly

  advise them to realize that the first authors were great mathematicians, and who were more excellent than others in investigating the truth; and those who in our century have

  brought their doctrine back into the light, to their credit

  their erudition has approached that of the ancients.171

  Holste’s advice to the clergymen raises the question: who were these

  ‘first authors’? Since he had just mentioned Pythagorean knowledge

  and ‘the ancients’, it seems that Holste referred to ancient philosophers, such as Pythagoras and Democritus. It also seems that the cardinals did not view such men as ‘mathematicians’, which moved

  Holste to describe them thus. Still, despite Holste’s tolerance for

  eccentric ideas, he like others lacked the courage to endanger himself

  by openly supporting someone who seemed guilty of heresy.

  On 12 April 1633 the Inquisitors first interrogated Galileo. I

  need not summarize his depositions since they have been widely

  published. Aside from discussing the publication of his Dialogue,

  he described at length his impressions about the events of 1616.

  However, I want to note a trace of important topics left unspoken.

  197

  burned alive

  Galileo said that there was something from 1616 that he preferred

  not to voice, except to whisper it to the highest authority. He told

  the Inquisitors:

  one morning the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine ordered that

  I be summoned, and he told me a certain particular that I

  want to say to the ear of His Holiness prior to anyone else;

  but the conclusion was that he told me that the opinion

  of Copernicus could not be held or defended, for being

  contrary to Holy Scripture.172

  But the Pope would not meet with Galileo, so we don’t know what

  unspeakable thing Bellarmine voiced in 1616, and why Galileo did

  not say it in 1633.

  To defend him, Campanella hoped to be appointed to the committee that would evaluate Galileo’s case. But no. Riccardi explained to Niccolini it was impossible to appoint Campanella, because

  Campanella had ‘composed a somewhat similar work, which was

  prohibited, and cannot defend him while being himself guilty’.173

  Stil , Riccardi ‘felt obligated’ to defend Galileo himself. So instead of

  Campanella he recommended a Jesuit (namely Melchior Inchofer)

  ‘who is his [Riccardi’s] confidant, and guarantees that he proceeds

  with proper intentions’, along with the Pope’s theologian, Agostino

  Oreggi, who ‘truly had good will’.174

  The special committee, however, concluded that Galileo had

  defended the censured opinions in his Dialogue. The case fell to

  the Inquisition. In April 1633 three consultants analysed Galileo’s

  book: Agostino Oreggi, Melchior Inchofer and Zaccaria Pasqualigo.

  They had to determine whether Galileo held, defended or taught

  that Earth moves and not the Sun. Oreggi concluded that Galileo

  indeed held and defended those censured views. Pasqualigo, a young

  professor of theology, reported likewise that Galileo transgressed

  the injunction against him because his book did ‘teach and defend’

  it, and therefore also Galileo ‘is strongly suspected of holding such

  an opinion’.175

  Finally, the longest reports against Galileo were submitted by

  the Jesuit theologian Melchior Inchofer, who was Riccardi’s close

  friend.176 Inchofer analysed Galileo’s Dialogue and reported to the Inquisition: ‘I am of the opinion not only that Galileo teaches and

  198

  The Enemies of Galileo

  defends the view of Pythagoras and Copernicus but also . . . that he

  is vehemently suspected of firmly adhering to it, and indeed holds

  it. ’177 Inchofer complained not only about many arguments ‘ad nauseam’ that Galileo wrote in favour of such opinions, but about how Galileo argued: with arrogance, insolence and combative bitterness.

  Inchofer listed many instances where Galileo argued in an absolute, non­hypothetical and non­mathematical way about Earth’s motion and the Sun’s immobility. Since we are focused also on other

  Pythagorean beliefs, we may note that Inchofer mentioned another

  objectionable belief sometimes attributed to the Pythagoreans: the

  eternity of the world. This was one of the heretical propositions

  that Inquisitors brought up against Bruno. Inchofer didn’t mention

  Bruno and he didn’t say that Galileo made such a claim. Inchofer

  used it as an example of a belief to avoid: ‘Philosophers also inquire

  whether the world could have existed from eternity; yet no Christian

  says that it has existed from eternity.’178 Inchofer also complained that Galileo ‘declares war on everybody and regards as dwarfs all

  who are not Pythagorean or Copernican’.179

  I wonder whether members of the Inquisition were aware of the

  heretical connotations of the term ‘Pythagorean’. It is particularly

  striking that Lucas Holste authored an expansive work on Porphyry

  and Pythagorean ideas under the sponsorship of Cardinal Barberini.

  I have found no comparable book published by anyone anywhere

  in the preceding decades. It seems impossible to imagine that the

  consultants and Inquisitors, though having expertise on theology

  and heresies, were nonetheless indifferent to Pythagorean heresies

  about whether souls pre­exist bodies, transmigration, pagan gods,

  other worlds, the soul of the world or its eternity. Still, the available

  evidence does not show that all the consultants and Inquisitors were

  overtly moved by such concerns in 1633. However, the strongest critic

  among them – Melchior Inchofer – certainly was, as we will see.

  It is also noteworthy that one Inquisitor from the previous

  investigative proceedings against Galileo, in 1616, was present in

  Galileo’s trial in 1633: Bishop Felice Centino, known as Cardinal

  d’Ascoli.180 Historian Annibale Fantoli argues that it is conceivable that d’Ascoli played a significant role in the final opposition to Galileo.181

  During the trial Cardinal Barberini commanded considerable power among the Inquisitors, yet he expressed some sympathy 199

  burned alive

  for Galileo.182 Contrary to writers who construe Barberini as one of Galileo’s allies, however, I view him as duplicitous. Recall how

  annoyed he was in 1630 when he inferred that Galileo argued that

  Earth is a star. And in 1633 he told Niccolini that the matter was ‘very delicate, because it could intro
duce some fantastical dogma into

  the world’. Barberini did not sign the final condemnation, so some

  writers speculate that this shows some disapproval. However, apparently he could not sign it because he was meeting with the Pope that day. Moreover, Barberini’s name was included among the authors

  of that final condemnation against Galileo. Barberini and Urban

  felt some sympathy for Galileo, but their allegiance to Catholic

  dogma was far greater than any sympathy for an irreverent friend.

  Remember that in the times of Bruno and Campanella, Inquisitors

  could be courteous, kind, patient, sympathetic and accommodating – while at the same time they enabled obstinate suspects to be brutally tortured and burned alive.

  Likewise, I view Father Riccardi as duplicitous. It was his

  sacred obligation to defend scriptures. He chose his Jesuit confidant Inchofer because of his ‘proper intentions’, although earlier, in mid­1632, Riccardi had anticipated that ‘the Jesuits will persecute

  him [Galileo] most acrimoniously. ’183

  In May or June the Inquisitors submitted a final report to the

  Pope. It reviewed the accusations and proceedings against Galileo

  from 1615 to 1633. It included not just the accusations about Galileo’s

  belief in Earth’s motion, but also the most spurious early accusations: that he said God is an accident, God laughs and cries, and his denial of the miracles of the Saints. 184 Similarly, at the end of Bruno’s trial, the Inquisitors cited some of the earliest and spurious accusations against him: that Bruno allegedly had doubted transubstantiation and Mary’s virginity – whereas actually Bruno

  wrote no such things, he denied such accusations, and therefore such

  accusations were not the focus of the proceedings.

  On 21 June 1633 the Inquisitors ordered Galileo one last time to

  admit whether he had ever believed that the Earth moves around

  the Sun. Galileo cautiously denied it, saying that before 1616 he

  merely thought the theory was ‘disputable’. Unconvinced, the

  Inquisitors insisted that he ‘tell the truth, as otherwise one would

  have recourse to torture’. 185 Galileo denied it again – he lied –

  endangering himself.

  200

  The Enemies of Galileo

  To condemn Galileo, the Inquisition took him to the Church of Santa Maria

  Sopra Minerva, between the Pantheon ‘Rotunde’ and the Jesuit Church

  of St Ignatius.

  The next day, old Galileo was humiliated by being forced to

  wear sackcloth, the penitential garb of guilt, and publicly taken

  to the Dominican convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, in the

  centre of Rome, to face the cardinals and other members of the

  Inquisition.186 They declared Galileo guilty of ‘vehement suspicion of heresy’, a grave and punishable offence. 187 It is noteworthy that the first cardinal to sign Galileo’s condemnation was Cardinal

  d’Ascoli, the one who had been present in the proceedings of 1616

  and the only one who heard any comments by Sfondrato, Taverna,

  Borghese and Bellarmine – who had all judged both Galileo and

  Bruno. They knew that Bruno’s belief in the moving Earth pertained directly to his heresies about the many worlds and the soul of the world. Yet no such issues show up in the extant trial transcripts

  of 1633.

  At this point, if Galileo had refused to abjure the ‘suspicion of

  heresy’ then it would become a proven heresy, and ‘the inevitable

  penalty in this case was to be burned at the stake. ’188 To avoid being burned alive, the Inquisitors now compel ed Galileo to kneel and

  recant his claims.

  He then said, ‘with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure,

  curse and detest the above­mentioned errors and heresies, and in

  general each and every other error, heresy and sect contrary to the

  Holy Church.’ I suspect that Galileo was renouncing not just all

  sects in general, but one in particular: the Pythagorean sect. In late

  201

  burned alive

  Inside the Church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, where Galileo was

  condemned for ‘vehement suspicion of heresy’ in 1633.

  1631 the Catholic theologian Froidmont had accused Galileo of

  being a member of this awful pagan sect.

  Galileo was condemned to imprisonment for a period to be

  specified. He was required to repeat the seven penitential psalms

  once a week for three years. His sentence was commuted to live

  permanently under house arrest.189

  Froidmont soon heard about Galileo’s trial and humiliation.

  He immediately drafted a pamphlet to celebrate the victory of

  the Catholic faith and of his Anti­Aristarchus of 1631. Echoing the

  ancient account by Plutarch about the pagan Pythagorean temple

  of the central fire, Froidmont titled his new pamphlet Vesta, or

  Anti­Aristarchus Vindicated. 190 It was approved for publication in September 1633 and published in early 1634. Froidmont proudly

  declared, ‘this year in Rome the Most Eminent Cardinals have

  judged and condemned the errors of Pythagoras and Copernicus,

  and all the subjects [members] of the Apostolic See are barred

  from this doctrine.’ And in the margin of one page, he succinctly

  summed up Galileo’s final judgement: ‘Galileo was forced to abjure

  his Pythagoreanism. ’191

  202

  The Enemies of Galileo

  Inchofer Against the New Pythagoreans

  Historians have puzzled over the motivations of the individuals

  who led the case for Galileo’s conviction. The most damning testimony against Galileo was provided by Melchior Inchofer. But why?

  Riccardi and Francesco Barberini had been friendly towards Galileo.

  Why did they choose Inchofer?

  As early as 1623 Inchofer had been in contact with Francesco

  Barberini, requesting a copy of a letter that allegedly had been written by the Virgin Mary. 192 Historian Thomas Cerbu reports that members of Barberini’s entourage were interested in the letter as

  early as 1622. In 1629 Inchofer published a book arguing that the

  letter was genuine, but an archbishop disagreed and so Inchofer was

  summoned by the Inquisition. Inchofer, however, quickly convinced

  them that his book could be readily modified. He then argued that

  the letter ‘seemed to be’ authored by the Virgin Mary. Most importantly, Inchofer obtained the privilege of having his revised book published in 1631 by Ludovico Grignani, the printer who ‘specialized

  in works by authors attached to the Barberini papal court’.193 Also, since one of Barberini’s attendants had published a work on the

  letter, Cerbu remarks that it is plausible that ‘Francesco Barberini

  both sanctioned and funded’ the publication of Inchofer’s book.194

  Inchofer became friends with the Vatican librarian, who explained

  that Inchofer ‘ingratiated himself with many Cardinals of the Holy

  Congregation of the Index’.195

  Cerbu conjectures that Riccardi and Barberini chose Inchofer to

  analyse Galileo’s Dialogue ‘to displace the scrutiny of Galileo away

  from scientific controversy’. 196 Presumably, since Inchofer would focus on theology instead of astronomy, then his criticisms would

  not be as severe, since Galileo did not discuss theology openly in

  his Dialogue. If that were expected to soften the evaluation, then it

  would be surprising to receive Inchofer’s utterly negative assessment.

  Inc
hofer himself elaborated his concerns in a book he drafted

  during the trial and promptly published.197 In 2006 Richard J.

  Blackwell fairly noted that Inchofer’s lengthy tract had been ‘largely

  ignored by Galileo scholars’, so he published an English translation

  and analysis. Inchofer analysed the theological case against heliocentrism. Blackwell characterized its importance: ‘This tract was written while the trial was being conducted, and thus in a special

  203

  burned alive

  way it gives a direct insight into at least one participant’s view of

  the religious rationale behind the trial.’198 No other publications by Inquisitors or consultants are as extensive and explanatory about

  their concerns. Instead of focusing on scientific issues, the theological case against the heliocentric theory turned out to be very strong.

  In the summer of 1633 Inchofer published A Summary Treatise

  concerning the Motion or Rest of the Earth and the Sun, in which it is

  briefly shown What Is, and What Is Not, to be Held as Certain according to the Teachings of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. It justified the Catholic opposition to the heliocentric theory, ‘to rally

  everyone as soldiers of religion’. Among various objections, Inchofer

  complained ‘since the Pythagoreans have gradually come to oppose

  the faith, it must be shown that the truth is found in the scriptures,

  and as our major authors knew, is opposed to them’.

  The new Pythagorean sect argued that parts of the Bible were

  literally false, though lacking any authority to do so, which was

  intolerable to the clergymen. Inchofer required that ‘the Copernican

  theory and its related Pythagorean philosophy should not be taught

  at all. ’199

  Inchofer enumerated seven arguments that had been proposed

  to supposedly show that the Bible is consonant with the claims

  that Earth moves, not the Sun. I summarize all seven arguments,

  to note Inchofer’s worries about incorrect interpretations of biblical

  passages.

  Seven Arguments Criticized by Melchior Inchofer

  First Argument

  The passages of scripture on the stability or fixity of the

  Earth refer actually ‘to the situation and ordering in which

  the Earth remains in stable and perpetual motion’.