As if this were not bad enough, he then launched into an unmistakable personal attack on Alexander VI and his supporters in Rome:
What was the purpose of those who lied in order that I should be excommunicated? … Once my excommunication was announced they once more abandoned themselves to excessive eating and drinking, to greed of all kinds, to consorting with concubines, to the sale of benefices, and to all manner of lies and wickedness. On whose side will thou be, O Christ? On the side of the truth or lies? Christ says, ‘I am the truth …’
Savonarola was making his position unequivocally clear. He now even more explicitly linked his excommunication to the immoral behaviour of the pope and those around him, at the same time openly declaring that he had no intention of obeying such a man, or of accepting his pronouncements. Savonarola was making a direct and public challenge to Alexander VI. There could be no going back now, on either side.
Savonarola’s sermon was greeted with some awe, and not a little trepidation, by the citizens of Florence. Landucci for one recorded:
Many people went to hear him, and it was much discussed, because of his excommunication; however, a lot of people did not go for fear of being excommunicated, saying: giusta vel ingiusta, temenda est [just or unjust, it is to be feared]. I was one of those who did not go.6
Landucci may have supported Savonarola, but he remained cautious where the authority of the Church was concerned, as indeed did many other Piagnoni. Just six days after Savonarola’s first sermon, Landucci wrote: ‘17th February. Fra Girolamo preached in Santa Maria del Fiore [Florence Cathedral], and fewer people went.’
It was around this time that an extremist group amongst the anti-Savonarolans, consisting largely of brash upper-class young hedonists known as the Compagnacci,fn1 decided to take matters into their own hands. They hatched a plot to assassinate Savonarola by blowing him up while he was delivering one of his sermons in the cathedral. A local munitions expert called Baia was hired to conceal the gunpowder beneath the pulpit, but the plot was called off at the last minute because the Compagnacci realised that during such an explosion people sitting in the front rows of the congregation, some of whom would be relatives of their own families, were liable to ‘be maimed or killed’.7 Martines suggests that this would have been ‘the first “terrorist” bomb in the history of Europe’. Significantly, this incident also illustrates how deeply the sympathies and antipathies towards Savonarola still ran through the city, even dividing several upper-class families.fn2
On the very same day that Savonarola was delivering his second public sermon in Florence Cathedral, one of the two Florentine ambassadors in Rome, Domenico Bonsi, sent a despatch complaining to the Signoria.fn3
I am being attacked on every side by cardinals and prelates, who come to complain in the strongest possible fashion about the behaviour of Your Excellencies [in allowing Savonarola to preach]. They all tell me of the Pope’s great anger over this matter. You have enemies all over Rome, who are doing their best to whip up feelings against you.8
Alexander VI had realised that the Florentines were unwilling to bargain over Savonarola and their entry into his Holy League – a realisation that filled him with anger. Moreover he was being passed daily communiqués from the outraged Augustinians in Florence containing detailed descriptions of Savonarola’s actions and pronouncements. On 25 February, Alexander VI summoned both Bracci and Bonsi to appear before him at his papal court, where he began remonstrating to them about Savonarola, ‘expressing himself in the strongest possible terms and with great passion’.9 Bonsi was commanded to send an immediate despatch to the Signoria in Florence, informing them that if they did not silence Savonarola ‘either by restraint or by some other method [His Holiness would impose] a universal interdiction upon the entire city’. This was the equivalent of a collective excommunication: certain sacraments were banned, no divine services could be held and, perhaps most intimidating of all, no Christian burials were permitted. Alexander VI went on to announce that he had made this pronouncement publicly, in formal court session in front of his cardinals, prelates and the ambassadors to the Holy See, ‘in order to make clear that there could be no question of him countermanding this order’. Working himself up into an even more passionate state, the pope then ordered to be read out certain scurrilous sonnets circulating in Florence that had come to his notice (doubtless through the agency of the Augustinians). These made a mockery of the pope, in the most vulgar fashion, holding him and his authority up to ridicule before the common citizens. Each time that the Florentine ambassadors attempted to reply to Alexander VI they were immediately silenced. They would obey his orders forthwith and without question.
That very day, a chastened Bonsi hurriedly sent his despatch to Florence. Yet in order that there should be no mistaking the pope’s intentions, on the same day Alexander VI himself dictated two Briefs, expressing his views in the strongest possible manner, and had these sent to Florence forthwith. This time there could be no excuses, no pretences that messages had gone astray, no quibbles over the legality of his orders. Either Savonarola was silenced, or the Florentine republic stood in the gravest possible danger – and it would be evident to all that such danger extended beyond the realms of the spiritual. Behind Alexander VI loomed the combined power of the Holy League.
Yet on 27 February, even as the diplomatic couriers were galloping north along the ancient Via Cassia on the last stages of the 150-mile journey to Florence, Savonarola was mounting the steps of the pulpit in San Marco to deliver his Carnival-day sermon. This was followed by the usual procession of Savonarola’s boys bearing candles and singing hymns as they passed through the streets, banging at doors requesting the donation of luxurious items for the annual Burning of the Vanities. Amazingly, a considerable number of such items remained in certain houses, but their collection was not wholly welcomed and Savonarola’s boys found themselves receiving a mixed reception:
A big stack of things was piled up on the Piazza de’ Signori. These vain objects consisted of nude statues and gaming boards, heretical books, Morgantifn4, mirrors and many other vanities, adding up to a great value, estimated at thousands of florins … although some lukewarm peoplefn5 gave trouble, throwing dead cats and all kinds of filth upon it.10
Other reports speak of hymn-singing processions being stoned, barricades being erected to prevent them from entering certain districts, and in some cases Savonarola’s boys even being physically attacked with sticks and having their white robes torn from their backs. The poor were still enduring meagre grain handouts and resented the destruction of such valuable items, which could have been sold to buy in provisions; many moderate citizens were growing tired of the killjoy puritan atmosphere that prevailed and that was becoming more and more invasive of their personal lives; while the Arrabbiati continued to stir up as much trouble as they could. When the papal Briefs demanding Savonarola’s silence finally arrived in Florence, according to Guicciardini: ‘A great council was held on this subject and there were much argument and controversy.’11 Despite the inevitable clash between the pro-Arrabiatti and pro-Piagnoni factions, many on all sides felt sympathetic with the view expressed by Giovanni Combi:
As for this Brief, there was no point in sending it to us, any more than to Perugia.fn6 It would dishonour us to obey … It would be a mark of our ingratitude [to Savonarola] if we obeyed. We are deeply obliged for all that he has done for us … In him we have a treasure that anyone might envy.12
According to Guicciardini, Savonarola’s opponents:
whose influence with the people was constantly growing, objected to his disobedience and protested that his arrogance would only annoy the Pope at the very time when the return of Pisa was under discussion with him and the league. This was the very moment when they should be attempting to encourage the Pope. However, Savonarola’s supporters defended him, insisting that the work of God should not be interfered with by worldly matters and that they should not permit the Pope to meddle in the Republic’s
affairs on such grounds.13
After several days of more or less heated discusssion, a final vote was taken:
At last a great majority advised that [Savonarola] should not be allowed to preach. And so the Signoria commanded him and he obeyed, leaving Fra Domenico da Pescia to preach instead of him in San Marco and others of his friars in other churches.14
This was a distinct fudge, as all would have been well aware. Domenico da Pescia was Savonarola’s most fervent supporter in San Marco, and all knew that he, as well as the others amongst his friars, would simply deliver Savonarola’s sermons word for word regardless of any directives from Rome.
The population was possessed by an increasingly volatile mix of conflicting patriotic beliefs, class and political divisions and religious affiliations. These mixed feelings were reflected in the views of the newly elected gonfaloniere and his Signoria, which replaced the pro-Savonarolan rulers on 1 March 1498. The gonfaloniere himself, Piero Popoleschi, was a known opponent of Savonarola, though he was not an extremist. His eight-man Signoria was divided: four were known Arrabbiati supporters, while three were pro-Piagnoni. The eighth member of the Signoria, Piero Fedini, felt unable to commit himself. However, as seen with the recent appeal against the death-sentence of the five plotters, according to the Florentine constitution six votes from amongst the gonfaloniere and his Signoria were required to pass any important motion. Thus, Fedini’s dithering left the Signoria powerless to take any decisive action against Savonarola, at least for the time being.
All the indications were that the city was shaping up for a fateful contest, which would have a decisive outcome. And when that day arrived, no one wanted to be on the losing side – Florence being notorious for its violent and vengeful behaviour following the settlement of major political disputes. There was a general air of foreboding about the city, as many sensed what might be in store. Some prepared for the day, while others took precautions:
The leaders of the opposing faction, seeing that many high-spirited young men of quality bearing arms were enemies of the friar, had gathered them together in a band called the compagnacci: their leader was Doffo Spini, and they often met and dined together. As they were men of good family and bore arms, they kept everyone in fear of them; so much so that Paolantonio Soderini, who was passionately for the friar, had his son Tommaso enter their company in order to have a stake on their side in case of misfortune.
Others continued to be steadfast, as a matter of principle, for reasons of their own or simply because there was no going back. The universally despised sixty-five-year-old Ficino had for some time now regarded himself amongst the last group. Living the life of a frightened man, he no longer felt safe for more than brief periods at his villa in Careggi. Conversely, whilst in the city he could only stay for limited periods at the houses of the few who were prepared to offer him hospitality and were willing to tolerate his acid-tongued personality for the sake of his former renown. Just a few months previously Ficino had complained in a letter to one of his few remaining friends, the leading Venetian publisher Aldus Manutius, that his prized collection of manuscripts and books – editions of Plato and other ancient philosophers in the original Greek, as well as a wealth of classical literature – was now scattered in houses in various parts of the city ‘because of three furies that antagonise the already constantly miserable Florence: the plague, famine and political turmoil – and, what is worse, the other human dissembling of that plague in disguise’.15 The last comment was a barely concealed reference to Savonarola. When, in the following month, Savonarola had failed to intervene on behalf of the death-sentence of his close lifelong friend Bernardo del Nero, Ficino’s bitterness and fury knew no bounds.
Ficino vented his spleen by writing a diatribe against Savonarola, which would be published three months later. The original manuscript was contained on four sides of closely written Latin manuscript and was headed: ‘Apology of Marsilio Ficino on behalf of the many Florentine people, who have been deceived by the antichrist Hieronymus of Ferrara, greatest of all hypocrites …’16 Summoning the full extent of his biblical scholarship, which approached that of Savonarola himself, Ficino vilified the prior of San Marco, frequently quoting St Paul:
For such boasters are false prophets, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Thus, it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds.17
Meanwhile his former friend Botticelli continued living in the house of his brother Simone, whose increasingly vehement Piagnoni views had led him to host regular meetings with his group of friends. It is said that these took place in Botticelli’s studio, which would certainly have been the most likely room in the house to be of an appropriate size to accommodate such meetings, which would surely have been attended by the artist himself. We can imagine this small earnest group gathered about the candlelight, whilst lying against the shadowy walls must have been propped Botticelli’s latest unfinished paintings, which according to his biographer Ronald Lightbown expressed ‘the profound sense of disturbance, of living in apocalyptic times, in the latter days of the world, that was felt by many Florentines during the later 1490s’.18
The Signoria now received an ultimatum from the Vatican: unless Savonarola was taken into custody and despatched to Rome at once, Florence would be placed under an interdict and the collective excommunication that all its citizens feared would come into force. At the same time, the goods belonging to every Florentine merchant living in Rome would be seized and the merchants themselves would be cast into the dungeons of the notorious Castel Sant’ Angelo. It looked as if Florence was on the brink of war with Rome, which would inevitably summon the overwhelming forces of the Holy League in its support. But the Signoria’s dilemma persisted: if Savonarola was arrested, this would inevitably provoke a civil war within the city.
It was now that Savonarola played his masterstroke. He was well aware that powerful rulers throughout Europe had become outraged by Alexander VI. His personal behaviour, to say nothing of his devious and treacherous political scheming, had brought many to the point where they would be only too pleased to be rid of him. As a result, Savonarola decided to write a circular letter to these rulers, suggesting that they should summon a Council of the Church with the purpose of deposing Alexander VI and replacing him with a more fitting candidate for St Peter’s throne. Savonarola chose to address his letter to the Holy Roman Emperor, as well as the kings of Hungary, Spain, England and France. He had particular confidence in Charles VIII, despite his pact with Alexander VI. Savonarola had received intelligence that the French king’s grief over the loss of his son had led him to reform his ways. The prodigious sexual feats such as he had displayed during his occupation of Naples were a thing of the past, and he now ‘turned his thoughts to living according to God’s commandments’, leading him also to look with disapproval on the behaviour of Alexander VI. In consequence, Charles VIII himself had already given thought to summoning a Council of the Church, and had even begun discussing this matter with his cardinals.
Savonarola’s letter to the European leaders was direct and to the point:
The time to avenge our disgrace is at hand and the Lord commands me to expose new secrets, revealing to all the world the perilous waters into which the ship of St Peter has sailed. Such circumstances are due to your lengthy neglect of these matters. The Church is filled with abominations, from the crown of her head to the soles of her feet, yet not only do you neglect to cure her of her ailments, but instead you pay homage to the very source of the evils which pollute her. Wherefore, the Lord is greatly angered and has for long left the Church without a shepherd … I now hereby testify, in verbo Domini [in the word of the Lord], that Alexander is no pope, nor can he be regarded as one. Aside from the mortal sin of simony by means of which he purchased the Papal Throne, and daily sells Church benefices to the highest bidder, as well a
s ignoring all the other vices which he so publicly flaunts – I declare that he is not a Christian, and does not believe in the existence of God, and thus far exceeds the limits of infidelity.19
Yet these were merely Savonarola’s opening remarks. Only now did he come to the heart of the matter, the true purpose of his letter. As Villari put it: ‘Savonarola then proceeded to invite all the princes of Christendom to summon a council as soon as possible, designating a location which is both appropriate and free from outside influence.’20
Savonarola added personal messages addressed to each of the rulers. The Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian I, was informed that his dignity would be at stake if he did not perform the worthy act of rescuing the Church from its present disgrace. And, overlooking his own prophecy of Charles VIII’s death, Savonarola addressed to the French king his most personal plea:
You surely cannot have forgotten the sacred role which the Lord has bestowed upon you, which means that should you fail to join this holy enterprise the punishment inflicted upon you will be far in excess of that meted out to the others. Be mindful that God has already given you the first sign of his wrath.fn7 You who bear the title of Most Christian King,fn8 you whom the Lord has chosen and armed with the sword of his vengeance, are you prepared to stand aside and witness the ruin of the Church? Are you willing to ignore the grave dangers that imperil her?
Here was the ‘little friar’ in his role as the saviour of Christendom. This was an open declaration of war against Alexander VI. There could be no compromise. It could only end in a victory for the papacy of Alexander VI or a victory for the man who wished to lead the Church out of the corrupt and tyrannical rule of its oppressors. It could only be a fight to the death. Now it became clear why Savonarola had chosen Exodus for the theme of his Lenten sermons before he had been silenced. He would be the Moses who led the tribe of Israel out of tyranny to the Promised Land.
Death in Florence: the Medici, Savonarola and the Battle for the Soul of the Renaissance City Page 36