Burned Alive: Bruno, Galileo and the Inquisition

by Alberto A. Martinez

  Inchofer said that it was absurd for a stone, magnetic or not,

  to have sense. He further complained about the notion that the

  magnetic Earth is animated by a spirit. He also ridiculed the role

  225

  burned alive

  of pagan poetry: ‘according to the fables of poets, we would think

  that rivers too are animated; [but] there is nothing very applicable

  that pertains to the New Pythagorean philosophy, which is so very

  similar to the fictions of poets.’ Inchofer said that since Gilbert had

  discussed the sounds of the ‘Pythagorean harmony’, hence ‘Gilbert

  is another Orpheus. ’271

  Once Inchofer had concluded his long chapter against Gilbert’s

  magnetic theory and the soul of the world, he presented a chapter

  titled ‘NeoPythagoreanism is Absurd in Mathematics’. He argued,

  for example, that it is false to feign that the poles and circles of

  motion belong to the Earth instead of the heavens. He argued

  that Lansberge’s attempted demonstrations of phenomena about

  the Earth and the planets were ridiculous, as well as his claims

  about the prime mobile. Inchofer also argued that nothing confirms

  that the New Pythagorean explanation of the phenomenon of the

  precession of the equinoxes is better than the geocentric account.

  Whatever might change about astronomy, Tycho Brahe’s scheme

  seemed much more credible than that of Copernicus. Inchofer

  explained that Brahe had rightly tried to detect any parallax in the

  orbit of Mars, that is, if indeed the Earth is moving then throughout the year one should observe apparent shifts in the orbit of Mars.

  But Brahe detected no such shifts, so he concluded that Copernicus

  was wrong. Similarly, at some point in the fifth century the educator

  Martianus Capella had proposed an astronomical system in which

  not all bodies circle the Earth. He had argued that most of them

  do, except for Mercury and Venus, which circle the Sun. Hence his

  system was similar to what Brahe proposed a thousand years later.

  Accordingly, Inchofer quoted Capella for having argued that ‘the

  Earth is not the centre of all the planets’, while retaining the Earth’s

  centrality overall.272

  Again, instead of focusing his critiques on the Catholic

  Copernicans, Inchofer attacked the Protestants. For example, he

  wrote: ‘This is essentially Lansberge, who with his erratic mind precipitated, I know not what apparently confused [him], this ridicu lous man continued to exclaim that the Copernican hypothesis is true,

  and audaciously affirmed that not the Sun but the Earth moves. ’273

  Inchofer also discussed whether the world in Gilbert’s account was

  finite or infinite. Like Bruno and Digges (and unlike Copernicus),

  Gilbert had claimed that the stars are not al in one sphere, but

  226

  The Enemies of Galileo

  extend outwards far beyond the planets. In his book of 1600 he did

  not specify whether the universe is infinite, yet Inchofer inferred

  that indeed ‘the philosophy of Gilbert has accepted, [that] the

  world is infinite.’ But Inchofer countered, ‘We say certainly finite,

  not denying that it can move. ’274

  Inchofer complained that the New Pythagoreans posited

  ‘six hundred other things’ against the Ptolemaic System and the

  Tychonic System, but that all such things were not demonstrated

  but were merely assumed and postulated with their ‘abortive

  imagin ation’. 275 He concluded that the notions that the Earth has magnetism, and various motions and inclinations were ‘figments’

  that were just ‘not credible’.276

  Next, he titled the last chapter of his manuscript ‘The Censure

  of the Sacred Tribunal against the Propositions of the New

  Pythagoreans’. Inchofer wrote that they were ‘abusers of the sacred

  philosophy, who on the authority of Pythagoras try to vindicate the

  entire sect, contrary to religion’. 277 Inchofer then quoted the relevant passages from the Decree of the Index of 1616 that censured Copernicus, Zúñiga, Foscarini and the ‘false Pythagorean doctrine’

  of the Earth’s motion and the stationary Sun. Inchofer commented,

  ‘this was the first Decree after which the New Pythagoreans began

  to be heard about outside the [monastic] schools.’ He said that,

  however, this censure alone did not suffice to restrain the ‘evil wit’ of

  the false imagination that could lead some Catholics to being rash,

  having ‘temerity’, and that, consequently, the Church had to issue

  a second sanction.278 He then quoted the ‘Warning’ or ‘Reminder’

  of the Holy Congregation against the Copernicans published on

  15 May 1620, which Inchofer dated to 22 November 1619. That

  docu ment not only required the censorship of specific passages in

  Copernicus’s book, but it reiterated a stern warning to the readers

  of Copernicus, as Inchofer quoted: ‘the principles about the location

  and motion of the terrestrial globe, which are repugnant to the true

  and Catholic interpretation of Holy Scripture (which is minimally

  tolerated in a Christian man)’.279

  Next, Inchofer summarized the third official action against

  the New Pythagoreans: the Sacred Congregation’s condemnation

  of Galileo in June 1633, and that the Index had decreed that his

  Dialogue should be prohibited in August 1634. Inchofer then quoted

  the key points of the proceedings against Galileo:

  227

  burned alive

  And from what has been said, the Judgment and decree of

  the S. Congregation, built upon the authority of the Supreme

  Pontiff, we have this about the NeoPythagorean opinion, ‘ it

  is false’, in the first place, ‘ and entirely opposed to the divine

  Scripture, slithering perniciously into the Catholic truth’. Then,

  ‘ It is repugnant to S. Scripture, and the true Catholic interpretation, [to be] minimally tolerated in a Christian man’, and finally, ‘ totally prohibited’.280

  The quoted lines echo the Decree of the Index of 1616, and the

  subsequent rulings, but the wording is slightly distinct.

  Furthermore, Inchofer remarked that the author of the Preface

  of Copernicus’s book, namely Andreas Osiander, was a known heretic. Recall that Bellarmine had listed Osiander as a heresiarch.

  Inchofer also accused Kepler of ‘strenuously cultivating impiety’,

  and a ‘hard and frigid heresy’.281 Like Froidmont, Inchofer quoted the proclamation of Pope Sixtus v, to the effect that any propositions ‘which pertain to the dogmas of the Faith’ are reserved to being exclusively interpreted by the Holy See.282 He also echoed Froidmont for saying that the Copernican theory had set a foot on

  the threshold of heresy, but Inchofer added that this was not just in

  part, ‘but completely’. 283

  Inchofer ended his book by enumerating the various ways in

  which, in his expert opinion, the questionable theory transgressed

  Catholic considerations. He titled that last section ‘The Author’s

  Censure against the NeoPythagorean Opinion’. He said that, first,

  it was ‘offensive’ to say that Earth moves and not the Sun. Second,

  he said that it was ‘scandalous’, for not having any justified rationale. Third, it was rash or ‘temerarious’. Fourth, he said that it was
‘ill sounding’. ‘Fifth, we think that it is erroneous. Affirming the false

  as if true.’ Sixth, he said that it was a ‘conscious heresy’. And lastly,

  ‘Seventh, we think that without ambiguity it is openly Heretical:

  because it fights against the explicit truth in the S. Scriptures.’ All

  these terms – offensive, scandalous, temerarious, il ­sounding, erroneous and heretical – were standard Catholic categorizations for distinct

  kinds of transgressions.284

  Did Inchofer’s superiors agree with his critiques? A relevant

  piece of evidence appears in a page that Inchofer appended at the

  start of his manuscript. The Jesuits required that every Jesuit should

  228

  The Enemies of Galileo

  submit any manuscript to an internal review, before it was submitted to the Roman censors or possible publishers. Thus the Jesuits tried to secure a doctrinal uniformity within their works. In his note

  addressed to such Jesuit reviewers, Inchofer explained that he had

  described the theory of the Earth’s motion around the Sun as heretical only because he had consulted those to whom the right to make that judgement belonged. 285 Hence, Francesco Beretta remarks,

  ‘This text by Inchofer gives us an important indication concerning

  the intention of Urban viii himself. ’286

  Inchofer declared that the New Pythagorean beliefs were a

  ‘Heretical depravity’. It all deviated from the ‘unanimous consensus’ of the Fathers and the Sacred Tribunal. Inchofer noted that he himself had submitted his opinion to the Holy Apostolic See

  and the Sacred Tribunal. He complained that some writers tried to

  accommodate scriptures to their own mathesi, that is, their mathematics or science, and he noted that Philaster had denounced this practice as ‘Heresy 43’. Inchofer did not quote that heresy,

  but it denounces Colarbasus, an obscure heretic and follower of

  Valentinus and Pythagoras, who tried to use letters and numbers

  to pronounce about the stars and the lives of men. Inchofer then

  specified that it was very closely related to ‘the Valentinian Heresy’

  and ‘the philosophy of the Gnostics’. It should be recalled that St

  Hippolytus had complained that Valentinus had derived his heresies

  from Pythagoras and Plato, and therefore was ‘a Pythagorean and

  Platonist, not a Christian’. Inchofer did not explain this at length,

  but it was said that the Gnostics boldly committed a typical error of

  heretics: while purporting to be Christians they modified orthodox

  Christian beliefs by adding notions that were foreign to Christianity,

  such as the transmigration of souls. Accordingly, Inchofer also cited

  the Manichaeans once again.

  Finally, on the very last page of his long manuscript, Inchofer

  again emphasized the offensive core of the Pythagorean heresies:

  but even if the pagan Heathen wanderers degenerate, attributing perceptions and comprehension to degenerate the mute nature of things, affirming that the universal world

  possesses a soul, even the Earth on which we walk, not

  knowing what kind of strange soul, latching onto the more

  ridiculous or stupid. Such truly impious arguments, and just

  229

  burned alive

  as formerly the heads of the Church already condemned

  it in sacred laws, and even in Councils, as we show here,

  amply repeating it, we do not seem to exaggerate the case,

  we think not.287

  Summing up, Inchofer’s manuscript Vindication is a striking document for clearly showing how Galileo’s judges could and did link his seemingly particular indiscretions with greater pagan heresies. It was

  their obligation to know well the realm of Catholic improprieties,

  and to study the standard canons and history of heresies.

  Inchofer finished his manuscript in 1635. Did he already know

  in 1633 that these pagan beliefs were offensive? Yes, because he mentioned them in his Summary Treatise. He there quoted Augustine’s brief work on heresies, which includes the heresy of many worlds.

  Moreover, in a book published in 1629 he had already criticized the

  ‘deliriums’ and ‘madness’ of philosophy, including ‘that stars are animated’, and ‘that in the immensity of things many seeds exist, which can constitute immense worlds, according to Anaximander’. 288

  Inchofer also blamed Anaxagoras for saying that ‘animals arose

  from the seeds falling from the heavens.’ He mentioned also Thales,

  Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Valentinus and the

  Gnostics.289 Inchofer thus quoted Irenaeus’s book Against Heresies, and referred also to Jerome, Theodoret and Epiphanius – all before

  Galileo’s trial.290

  Galileo’s philosophical or scientific concerns, despite his precautions, were easily linked with pagan beliefs contrary to Catholic beliefs. Moreover, Galileo’s beliefs seemed to be a subset of the heresies of Giordano Bruno. We must be careful when trying to analyse topics about which individuals chose to remain silent, yet it is necessary to identify tacit knowledge, because it too influenced Galileo’s judges. In writing, Inchofer did not mention the heretic from Nola,

  but Bruno’s shadow seems to infuse his manuscript text. Inchofer

  rebuked many notions that appear prominently in Bruno’s writings,

  trial and condemnation, including the plurality of inhabited worlds,

  the soul of the world, the Earth’s motion and the eternity of the

  world. Remarkably, Inchofer even quoted phrases that had a deep

  significance in Bruno’s world view.

  For one, Inchofer mentioned Ecclesiastes to deny the notion

  that the world is eternal, ‘as asserted by some’. He then specified

  230

  The Enemies of Galileo

  his reference to Ecclesiastes by adding these words in the margin,

  ‘ what is it that was, that which the future is’. Then in the main text

  he added Solomon’s words ‘there is nothing new under the Sun’.291

  Remarkably, these are the very lines from Ecclesiastes 1:9 that Bruno

  had edited into his personal motto about Pythagoras, which to him

  signified the immortality of the soul and the eternity of primal substance. These lines previously had also been appropriated by Origen, who construed them as referring to the succession of many worlds.

  Bruno had praised Origen as the only theologian who had dared to

  voice the truth of eternal transmutations.

  Also, in the midst of his long diatribe against Gilbert’s theory of

  magnetism and souls, Inchofer briefly touched upon the key phrase

  of pagan poetry that for decades had inspired some eccentric philosophers and astrologers, including Bruno, Kepler and Campanella.

  Inchofer briskly quoted and disdained the infectious words of Virgil:

  But really, the animating power of the Earth, and as the

  Poet says, spirit nourishing within, to ennoble, and nevertheless it is always fixed in place, clinging like an oyster or a sponge, benumbed, this implies several more things contrary

  to nature, more than can be easily explained. Since al of this

  lies open to inspection, we need not pursue it more here. 292

  Thus Inchofer abruptly and strangely quoted the words that seemed

  to convert ancient poetry into subversive secret knowledge about

  God or polytheism. The cryptic allusion to an oyster or sponge

  seems reminiscent of an argument voiced by Campanella in his

  book of 1620, Sense of Things and Magic. Campanella had there argued

  that the human soul cannot
be transmitted into oysters or sponges

  because they are utterly different from humans. 293 Campanella and Inchofer both critical y departed from Bruno, who in one of his early

  discussions of transmigration had specifically said that the substance

  of human souls ‘is the same in essence specifically and generally with

  that of flies, marine oysters and plants, and of whatever thing that is

  animated, or having soul’. 294 Bruno boldly affirmed the equivalence of human souls with those of very different beings. The same soul

  of the world inhabited all living things.

  Inchofer’s attacks against the pagan religious notions show that

  indeed he was not merely concerned about philosophy, astronomy or

  231

  burned alive

  physics. Instead, he was most upset about a clear and present danger:

  an apparent heretical challenge to Catholicism. It was what Inchofer

  called the ‘NeoPythagorean theology’.295

  I suspect that other consultants and Inquisitors in Galileo’s trial

  were similarly aware of how Galileo’s views seemed akin to pagan

  claims that saintly Catholic authorities had repeatedly denounced

  in the Pythagoreans, Democritus, Porphyry, Origen, Virgilius,

  Abelard and Bruno. We have already seen that Cardinal Barberini

  was very annoyed by what Galileo’s work implied: that the Earth is

  a star – a Pythagorean belief denied by Aristotle but which Bruno

  and Foscarini had defended, and which the cardinals had censored

  in Copernicus. To find out whether other participants in Galileo’s

  trial criticized Pythagorean notions, it would be necessary to inspect

  all of their extant writings. For example, soon after Galileo’s trial,

  another one of the critical consultants, Zaccaria Pasqualigo, did

  reject the ‘vain’ opinion of Pythagoras about the transmigration of

  souls, and he echoed Aristotle’s argument that ‘there cannot exist

  another world. ’296

  Furthermore, I wonder which censors, consultants and

  Inquisitors associated the Galileo affair with the transgressions of

  Giordano Bruno. At the time the documents from Bruno’s trials were

  still available to the Inquisitors. I should point out one intriguing

  trace of evidence. In the 1920s Enrico Carusi found new documents