from Bruno’s trial in Rome. Between two sheets of ‘The Decree of
the Congregation of the Holy Office’ regarding Giordano Bruno,
dated 20 January 1600, Carusi found a slip of paper that reads ‘From
the sheets of F. Mo . . . of this Congregation there remains only to
add the 2nd decree of friar Giordano Bruno, al the others have
been posted.’297 Luigi Firpo conjectured that this referred to a compilation of documents prepared for the ‘Father Monster’, Niccolò Riccardi. This sliver of evidence showed that Riccardi had consulted
the proceedings against Bruno. Unfortunately, as Luigi Firpo notes,
the slip of paper found by Carusi is now missing.298
Campanella’s Exile and Death
Meanwhile, Campanella’s hyperbolic explanations of Pope Urban’s
poems failed to win the approval of the Curia for publication.
Protestant reformers had argued that Urban’s Roman ideas were
232
The Enemies of Galileo
proof of his perversion, so Campanella’s emphasis on classical
sources would hardly help the Papacy, as historian Peter Rietbergen
remarks: ‘The Pope, afraid he himself might fall under suspicion of
harbouring Copernican, and worse, Pythagorean and neoPlatonic
views, resignedly accepted the fact that the Campanellaedition of
his poems would not be after all. ’299
Soon after Galileo was sentenced to live under house arrest,
Campanella too was discredited. Members of the Spanish government complained about his presence in the Vatican, because they suspected his involvement in acts of insurgency in Naples.300 In addition he was subjected to persecution by the Master of the Sacred
Palace, Riccardi. In 1634 Campanella fled to France, at least with the
apparent support of letters from the Pope. Campanella then stayed
at a convent in Paris with fellow Dominicans. Fortunately he was
also well received by some French savants and by Cardinal Richelieu,
and even received a few kind words from King Louis xiii.
Campanella then tried to retaliate against Riccardi by attacking
his writings, unsuccessfully. He promptly published new books and
second editions of his works in Paris and Lyon. These were initially
sanctioned by the Catholic faculty of the Sorbonne. However, one
of the Pope’s emissaries in France and Cardinal Francesco Barberini
both warned in letters that Campanella’s theology was dangerous,
requesting that he be discredited before Cardinal Richelieu and
the French court, and that the publication of his works should be
opposed.301 Francesco Barberini stressed that it was important to monitor Campanella with vigilance because he was ‘temerarious, and
presumes to know much’, he was prone to ‘writing extravagances’,
and worse – capable of ‘being a Heresiarch’.302 In another letter he warned that Campanella was ‘volatile, inconstant and cannot
be trusted’, because he might wilful y make himself the leader ‘of
some pernicious doctrine’, and therefore that it might even be necessary to remove him from Paris. 303 Hence the initial, warm welcome that Campanella had received in France, from Richelieu, the liberal
Sorbonne and even the King, quickly crumbled. Early in May 1636
the faculty of the Sorbonne retracted all of the approbations it had
inscribed in Campanella’s recent books. 304 His request to publish Theologica, his new manuscript, was also denied.305
For years Campanella had heard complaints about his book On
the Sense of Things and Magic. He had planned to publish a second
233
burned alive
edition, which would include an addendum defending his claims.
Although the Sorbonne had retracted its authorization to publish
his books, Campanella had previously secured permissions to publish his Defence of On the Sense of Things in Rome, in 1631, and also in January and April of 1636 in Paris. Therefore his Defence was finally
printed in 1637, with such permissions, together with a full copy of
On the Sense of Things. Campanella opened the book with a dedication to Cardinal Richelieu, exhorting him actually to build the City of the Sun that he had written about many years ago.306
In his Defence Campanella tried to prove several controversial
propositions, as if many great authorities clearly supported them.
His main two theses were that things have sense and that the world
has a soul! Campanella waged an attack on many fronts, which
he cal ed ‘phalanges’. He gave dozens of arguments to insist that
things really do have sense, quoting profusely from the works of
many authorities, including many saints, such as John Chrysostom,
Ambrose, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Clement, Irenaeus, Augustine,
Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas. He also quoted several other Christian authors, including Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea and even Origen. Contrary to
Melchior Inchofer, Campanella construed any author’s metaphor
about things or parts of the world somehow perceiving as literally
true. Hence the world was alive.
The ‘corporeal world’, Campanella wrote, is an image of God or,
more exactly, ‘a living statue of God’. He said that in articulating this
view he was following Orpheus, Timaeus and Origen.307 He noted
that Orpheus believed that the world is a rational animal, with sense
and reason, as reported by Eusebius.308 Then Campanella added a very eccentric and wilful ‘conclusion’, as he wrote: ‘Therefore it is an
error, and at least a material heresy, to deny the soulful life of material things. But a formal heresy against all the Scriptures to deny life, and sense in every way. ’309 He then claimed to be following the rules of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and the Sacred Canon, yet none
of those sources attributed soulful life to material things.
Years earlier, in his original edition of the Sense of Things,
Campanella had said that Copernicus ascribed both motion and
sense to the Earth. Now that the Copernican or Pythagorean doctrine was clearly heretical, however, Campanella did not repeat or elaborate his earlier claim. In that first edition, Campanella’s
234
The Enemies of Galileo
comments on the soul of the world appeared in only six pages,
in subtle and understated ways. But in his Defence he added fifteen more pages discussing this thesis openly and vigorously, and articulating it in detail. To Varro, Anaxagoras and the Stoics he
attributed the opinion that God actually is the soul of the world.310
He contrasted their opinion to the notion that, instead, God created an intelligent soul of the world, and Campanella credited this notion to ‘Timaeus the Pythagorean’, and to Plato, Porphyry,
Plutarch, Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus, Virgil, Calcidius, Numenius,
Ficino, Christopher Landinus, Pico della Mirandola, St Basil and
Gregory of Nyssa. He could have added Giordano Bruno to the list.
Furthermore, Campanella quoted the ringing lines from the sixth
book of Virgil’s Aeneid, which he wrote as:
In the beginning, the Sky and Lands, and regions of water,
Shining globe of the Moon, and Titanic stars
the Spirit nourishes within; the totality infused through
the limbs,
a Mind agitates the Mass, and intermixes itself with
the great body.311
Campanella remarked that Virgil rightly said ‘that a mind is infused
in the limbs of the wor
ld, totally agitating the mass, which forms
all bodies, and animates, and produces for its own ends’.312 He also
quoted the alleged words of Pythagoras, as reported by Clement of
Alexandria, that God is not outside the world, but is within everything, and is the mind and mover of all. Campanella immediately explained the alleged words of Pythagoras, saying: ‘Therefore God
did appoint the world intrinsically to give; and in his light, and
contemplation, and it produces the vivification of souls. ’313
To justify his belief that the Earth somehow vivifies all organisms, Campanella also quoted passages from the Bible. For example, he quoted that God commanded: ‘waters produce living reptile
souls, and volatile’ (Genesis 1:20), and that God commanded: ‘Earth
produce living souls’ (Genesis 1:24). 314 Thus Campanella construed many biblical statements very literally, wherever it suited his purpose, and contrary to orthodox Catholic interpretations. Campanella insisted that souls do not come from nothing nor from a substance,
but from the soul of the world. He argued that heat animates all,
235
burned alive
that there is a spirit in the bodily humours, a kind of animal heat: in
humore spiritus (calor animalis). He quoted Aristotle on how animals
are generated from solar heat. He did not mention that others such
as Kepler and Julius Caesar Scaliger had echoed the same argument.
Campanella clarified that although the universal mind animates the
world, animals gain their senses from the etherial heat. Again, to
substantiate his argument that the soul is conceived in the air and
diffused in the body, he cited passages from ancient and religious
authorities, including Moses, Augustine, Lactantius, Aristotle, Pliny,
Averroes and Galen.315
By stressing the sense and soul of all things, Campanella
claimed to oppose atheism. Meanwhile, still in 1637, a Greek
priest living in Paris, Athanasios Rhetor, drafted a book attacking Campanella’s ‘errors’. Rhetor promptly sent his manuscript to Rome for approval and publication. He also extracted an abridged
version, which the Sorbonne approved for publication in 1638,
titled AntiCampanella, A Summary Written against the Book On the
Sense of Things and Magic. Rhetor explained that he had written his
tract to defend the Catholic truth and to warn Christians against a
nefarious doctrine. He argued that the thesis that ‘things have sense’
was a heresy. His main complaint was against the notion of the soul
of the world. He complained that this was a dogma ethnicum, that
is, a pagan doctrine.
Campanella had said that the conscious and intelligent world
was ‘the most noble, the best, and the most beautiful of beings’, and
that it was ‘the son of the sovereign good’, and even the first instrument of God’s wisdom. 316 Therefore Father Rhetor argued that this doctrine was heretical, because it conflated the world with Christ,
the only true son of God. 317 It was also heretical to claim that the world was a being with a soul superior to those of humans, he said,
because humans were the only beings who had been created in the
image of God. The Greek priest further argued that God, in order to
create and act, did not need any mediator or instrument such as the
soul of the world.318 Bellarmine had made that argument. Rhetor also criticized Campanella’s City of the Sun as indecent and im pious,
and noted the disrespectful way in which the author had named
Jesus Christ and the Prophets merely in a list containing impious
and atheist legislators. Rhetor said that Campanella actually taught
atheism while pretending to do the opposite.319
236
The Enemies of Galileo
In his dedicatory preface to the Chancellor of the Sorbonne,
Father Rhetor asked the Chancellor to rage against Campanella’s
pestilent doctrine potentially capable of dragging many souls to perdition. Rhetor demanded that Campanella be punished, and that the reading, printing and sale of his books be rigorously prohibited.320
Meanwhile, despite all misfortunes, old Campanella remained
optimistic. One of his Parisian friends, Nicolas Chorier, wrote down
an anecdote that conveys Campanella’s positive outlook and his
notion of the soul of the world as the warm, divine breath:
He [Campanella] was a joyful and festive man: when he
walked in the farmland or in the garden, all he did and said
was that he was glad to have remissions from serious labours,
which relax the mind. He chased birds, trying to run, with
the heavy mass of his old and obese body, tossing his hat
into the air, he turned to them and said, ‘Inhale, inhale, life
from the life of the world. Air is the life of the world’, he
said, ‘which is the soul of nature. ’321
In May 1639 Campanella suffered colic pains for three weeks. He
then died, long before Rhetor’s critique was finally printed.
237
four
WORLDS ON THE MOON
AND THE STARS
Like Inchofer and Campanella, other writers associated Galileo
with Pythagorean beliefs. In 1638, while Galileo was living
under house arrest, an Anglican clergyman and Fellow of the
Royal Society, John Wilkins, published a treatise titled The Discovery
of a World in the Moon. Wilkins sought to prove that the Moon was a
habitable world. He explained that many ancient and modern mathematicians had defended this thesis. He noted that some attributed this belief to the very ancient Greek poet Orpheus, followed by
Xenophanes, Anaxagoras, Democritus and Heraclitus. Wilkins then
added ‘unto these agreed Pythagoras, who thought that our Earth was
but one of the Planets which move round about the Sun, (as Aristotle
relates it of him) and the Pythagoreans in general did affirm, that the
Moon also was terrestrial, that she was inhabited as this lower world. ’1
Then Wilkins echoed ‘Plutarch’s’ account in the Placita, about
the creatures and plants living there. Wilkins wrote that Plato too
had agreed with ‘this opinion of Pythagoras’, and that Aristotle
had opposed it but that it had never been refuted with any solid
reason. Wilkins said that Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno had
asserted that every star is a world, but that the narrower propos ition,
about the Moon being an inhabitable world, had been more directly
substantiated by Maestlin, Kepler and Galileo.
Wilkins argued that although some readers dismissed Kepler’s
and Galileo’s remarks about the Moon being another world, by construing them as jests, such comments were real y meant seriously, because otherwise Campanella would not have had to apologize for
Galileo, and ‘Galileo would never have suffered so much for it as
238
Worlds on the Moon and the Stars
afterwards he did.’ Wilkins celebrated the invention of the telescope,
he praised Galileo as ‘the new Ambassador of the Gods furnished
with this perspective to unfold the nature of the Stars, and awaken
the ghosts of the ancient philosophers’.
Furthermore, Wilkins tried to prove the proposition that ‘a plurality of worlds does not contradict any principle or reason of faith.’
To do so, he attacked Aristotle’s inferences and he listed alleged
reasons why ‘some say�
� that such a proposition is contrary to scriptures: that Moses spoke only about one world, that St John had said that God made the world, in the singular, as Thomas Aquinas had
argued, and that ‘The opinion of more worlds has in ancient times
been accounted a heresy, and Baronius affirms that for this very
reason, Virgilius was cast out of his Bishopric, and excommunicated
from the Church’, and hence he was ‘condemned’.2 But Wilkins thoroughly disagreed, giving multiple arguments, even clarifying
that Pope Zacharias had actually been concerned about there being
a habitable world within the Earth.
How Heretical, Really?
In the end, the Pythagorean claims of the Copernicans are noteworthy in light of the pagan heresies that early Christian authorities had damned. An intriguing question remains: to what extent were
the socalled Pythagorean beliefs considered heretical in the 1610s
and thereafter? This broad question is difficult to answer mainly
because there were disagreements about what constitutes a heresy.
There was no single inquisitorial list that comprehensively itemized
all propositions that were deemed heretical by all Catholics. Multiple
compendiums had different lists, and individuals disagreed about
which departures from orthodoxy were grave enough to be heretical.
Yet we can get a sense of the answer by first discussing a narrower
question: to what extent was the Earth’s motion around the Sun
viewed as heretical? This question is a subset of the first, since the
Inquisition and the Index had called it a ‘Pythagorean doctrine’.
It was not merely a notion from astronomy. Instead, it was also
a part of an eccentric religious conception that the Earth has a soul,
and therefore it is a living animal that moves like other animated
beings, as argued by Ovid, Origen, Ficino, Bruno, Gilbert, Kepler,
Campanella and others.
239
burned alive
Here are some of the disagreements, the wide spectrum of opinions, on whether this Pythagorean doctrine was heretical. In 1584
Diego de Zúñiga said that ‘the statement of the Pythagoreans’ could
be used to explain Holy Scriptures. Yet in 1597 the Catholic Consultors
censured the proposition that Earth moves in the works of Giordano
Burned Alive: Bruno, Galileo and the Inquisition Page 32