Death in Florence: the Medici, Savonarola and the Battle for the Soul of the Renaissance City

by Paul Strathern

  An important distinction must be reiterated here. As can be seen from Savonarola’s letters, he had no intention of splitting the Church. He wished to reform it from within, with the installation of a truly worthy pope who would put an end to corruption. Savonarola’s reformation sought to leave the Church intact.

  Florence, the most culturally advanced city in Europe, which had given birth to the Renaissance, was now the focus of a new breakthrough, this time in the religious field: a vision of a progressively egalitarian Church, founded on the ideas of early Christianity. These republican ideas harked back to the similar democratic ideas of the ancient classical world – that touchstone of the Renaissance. Yet they were also accompanied by a regression to the authoritarian fundamentalism of the Old Testament. The paradox inherent in this cannot be overstressed: the democracy Savonarola sought offered a freedom that he could not accept.

  fn1 The Rude or Ugly Companions; a modern, more colloquial equivalent would be the ‘Bully Boys’.

  fn2 Some sources, such as Villari, place this plot almost a year earlier, intended for Savonarola’s Ascension Day sermon in May 1497, with the pulpit being smeared with excrement only after the explosive idea had been abandoned. Villari cites Burlamacchi amongst others as his source. Martines, the modern expert, prefers the reliability of the contemporary journal of Lorenzo Violi.

  fn3 In fact, according to protocol, this was addressed to the Council of Ten, who were responsible for the foreign affairs of the republic, but there can be no doubt that it was intended for the gonfaloniere and the Signoria, as its wording makes clear.

  fn4 A satirical anti-religious epic poem, which had been much admired during the time of Lorenzo the Magnificent and had remained popular after his death.

  fn5 A referennce to the Tiepidi moderate anti-Savonarolan faction, who were becoming increasingly exasperated at his behaviour, especially his defiance of papal authority and the possibility that Alexander VI might retaliate by issuing an interdiction, thus endangering their souls in the eyes of God.

  fn6 Formerly a papal possession, which had rejected papal rule the previous century.

  fn7 A reference to the death of Charles VIII’s infant son.

  fn8 The title Rex Christianissimus (Most Christian King) had been bestowed by the Church upon Clovis, the first King of the Franks, at the turn of the fifth century, and had since become a hereditary title of the kings of France.

  20

  The Tables Are Turned

  WORD QUICKLY REACHED Rome about Savonarola’s drastic intention to send a circular letter to the rulers of Europe. This was the most serious threat yet to Alexander VI’s papacy, and he knew that it must be stopped at once, no matter the cost. Making use of all his many loyal contacts both within Florence and throughout Italy, Alexander VI would do his best to intercept Savonarola’s letters. In Florence the Augustinians and other religious orders, as well as the Arrabbiati sympathisers and even the moderate Tiepidi, were all utterly opposed to the summoning of a council. Such a revolutionary move would do nothing but throw the Church into disarray, pitting leaders and national interests against each other, possibly even resulting in a split such as the disastrous Great Schism, which had only with great difficulty been healed just over eighty years previously.

  Throughout March 1498, Arrabbiati spies watched all gates in the city walls from their opening at dawn until their closing at dusk, apprehending any Dominicans who might be messengers carrying copies of Savonarola’s letter. Savonarola had been prepared for this and made astute use of several sympathisers amongst the secular population. His close friend, the merchant and former gonfaloniere Domenico Mazzinghi, was instructed to write a personal letter to his friend Giovanni Guasconi, the Florentine ambassador at the French court, who would then discreetly pass this on to Charles VIII. In the event, Mazzinghi wrote two such letters, in the hope that at least one of them would reach its destination. Simone del Nero, who had remained loyal to Savonarola despite the recent execution of his brother Bernardo, sent a letter to his brother Niccolò, who was the Florentine ambassador in Spain, with orders to make a discreet approach to the joint rulers, King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile. At the same time, Giovanni Combi, an ardent champion of the city’s new independence, was induced to write to Maximilian I in Germany. Each of these letters was conveyed by courier, sealed and addressed as if it were a personal or commercial communication, yet each also contained Savonarola’s circular letter, together with his appended private communication to each individual ruler.

  The precise fate of these letters remains something of a mystery. The King of Spain was away in Portugal and never received his copy. The letters to England and Hungary vanished without trace, as it seems did the letter to Germany. Mazzinghi’s precautions proved fully justified, as only one of his letters was received by Charles VIII. Disastrously, the courier carrying the other letter to France was waylaid and robbed by a group of brigands as he crossed Milanese territory. The brigands realised the value of the letter in their possession and sold it to Ludovico ‘il Moro’, Duke of Milan, who in turn passed it on to the pope. Alexander VI now had in his possession concrete evidence of Savonarola’s treachery to the papacy.

  Yet ironically the chief threat to Savonarola at this point would arise from an incident that took place within Florentine territory. The incident itself had obscure beginnings, being instigated by one of Savonarola’s most bitter enemies, Francesco da Puglia, a monk from the opposing Franciscan order whose Florentine headquarters was Santa Croce, in the east of the city. A year or so previously, during early 1497, Francesco da Puglia had delivered a sermon at Prato, some ten miles north of Florence, during which he forcibly expressed his objections to Savonarola and all that he stood for – challenging anyone who believed in his doctrines, and accepted the invalidity of his excommunication by Alexander VI, to undertake with him an ordeal by fire. This ancient medieval practice involved the contestants walking through fire, sometimes barefoot over a lengthy bed of red-hot coals, at others times passing along a passageway through a large bonfire. The winner was the contestant who managed to complete the ordeal unharmed – this being taken as a sign from God that his cause was the true one. All the evidence indicates that Fra Francesco was in fact being rhetorical here, indicating the strength of his abhorrence for Savonarola; he did not seriously expect anyone to accept his challenge to such an outmoded ritual.

  Yet it so happened that on this very day Savonarola’s closest and most loyal supporter, Domenico da Pescia, had also been in Prato, and his ingenuous enthusiasm had led him to take up Fra Francesco’s challenge. When the Franciscans in Florence got wind of what had happened, Fra Francesco was at once ordered to return to Santa Croce and the matter was quietly forgotten.

  However, during the 1498 Lenten sermons that Savonarola was having delivered for him by Domenico da Pescia, he again emphasised that God spoke through him. On this occasion he was particularly insistent. His claims culminated in the exhortation:

  I entreat each one of you to pray earnestly to God that if my doctrine does not come from Him, He will send down a fire upon me, which shall consume my soul in Hell.1

  Although it was not intended as such, this was seen by Fra Francesco as a direct provocation, and during the sermon that he preached on 25 March at Santa Croce he returned to the theme of ordeal by fire, this time directly challenging Savonarola himself, on account of the claim he had made to his congregation.

  Savonarola simply ignored this challenge. At the time he was not only composing the written texts of the forthcoming Lenten sermons that he was to have delivered for him, but was also preoccupied with making arrangements for his all-important circular letter to be delivered to the rulers of Europe, as well as formulating his additional personal messages to each of these rulers. Besides, he had long considered medieval practices such as ordeal by fire to belong to the superstitions of the past. On the other hand, he did not dismiss such medieval practices as self-flagellation and ex
treme fasting, as well as other self-imposed ordeals and penances – these he accepted as bringing the soul of man closer to God and an understanding of the truth. Even the gift of prophecy, his visions, his dreams, and his conviction that he spoke with God, he accepted: these he felt to be part of his actual experience.fn1 Other medieval practices, such as ordeal by one of the elements,fn2 divination, hermetic practices, alchemy and astrology, he dismissed with contempt. He could also muster strong biblical and intellectual arguments against belief in such practices, as he had shown in his debates with his friend Pico della Mirandola, in which he had eventually triumphed over his brilliant adversary’s every objection. Ordeal by fire fell into the category of superstition, and thus a challenge such as that issued by Fra Francesco was not worthy of consideration.

  Yet Savonarola had not reckoned on the naïve, unthinking fervour of his disciple Domenico da Pescia. Savonarola had delegated Fra Domenico as one of the loyal Dominicans to deliver sermons on his behalf, and as a consequence Fra Domenico not only saw himself as the public face of Savonarola, but also chose to see himself as the object of Fra Francesco’s challenge. As before, he was not willing to shirk what he saw as his responsibility. On 28 March Landucci recorded:

  ‘Fra Domenico preached in San Marco, saying that he was willing to pass through fire … On the same day Fra Francesco preached at Santa Croce declaring that he too was willing to pass through fire, declaring, ‘I believe that I shall burn, but I am willing to do so for the sake of liberating the people of this city. If he does not burn, then you may believe that he is a prophet’.2

  This makes it clear that there was little doubt about Fra Francesco’s expectations concerning the ordeal: he was now willing to die, in order to rid Florence of Savonarola. But as soon as he heard that Savonarola was not going to take part, and that instead Fra Domenico would take Savonarola’s place, he insisted that ‘his quarrel was with Savonarola alone, and although he himself expected to be consumed by the flames he was quite ready to enter the fire in order to ensure the destruction of that disseminator of scandal and false doctrine. On the other hand, he would have nothing to do with Fra Domenico.’3

  This should have been the end of the matter. Savonarola had already admonished Fra Domenico in the strongest possible terms, and Fra Francesco was only too relieved to be freed from his obligation to undergo what he had come to believe would be certain death. But by now other parties had become involved, and were determined that the matter should go ahead. If such a trial was to take place, it would first require the permission of the Signoria, which meant that this was no longer just a matter for the appropriate Church authorities, but was a political matter. By now Gonfaloniere Popoleschi had browbeaten his Signoria into a more reliably Pro-Arrabbiati stance, and as such they were all in favour of proceeding with the ordeal. The Arrabbiati, who may well have been behind the entire challenge in the first place, now became the driving force: pressure was exerted upon the Franciscans to persuade Fra Francesco to insist upon Savonarola personally accepting his challenge. Rumours were spread that if Savonarola refused the challenge, he would be revealed as a charlatan and a heretic, unwilling to put his doctrine to God’s test. These rumours were said to emanate from Fra Francesco, whilst at the same time the Arrabbiati disingenuously assured him that he would never have to enter the fire, as no ordeal would be permitted to take place.

  Yet the more extreme members of the Pro-Arrabbiati faction would tolerate no such thing. When the hot-headed, gilded youth of the Compagnacci gathered at their regular banquet, they decided:

  If Savonarola enters the fire, he will certainly be burned; if he does not enter the fire, he will lose all credit with his followers. We will then be able to raise a riot, during which we will be able to seize him in person.4

  There can be no doubt that some amongst them were intent upon murdering Savonarola. It was now that Fra Domenico’s enthusiasm once again got the better of him, and he played into their hands. The day after this banquet, ignoring Savonarola’s instructions and without his consent, Fra Domenico published a document entitled Conclusiones:

  The Church of God needs to be reformed, it must be scourged and renovated. Likewise Florence too must be scourged before it can be renovated and return to prosperity. The infidels must be converted to Christianity. All these things will come to pass in our time. The excommunication issued against the reverend father our brother Hieronymo is invalid. Those who choose to ignore this excommunication are not sinners.5

  In fact, these Conclusiones said no more than Savonarola had been preaching in his sermons for some time now. However, this was precisely the opportunity for which the Compagnacci and the Arrabbiati had been waiting. Here, in writing, was confirmation of Savonarola’s defiance of the Church; here was the acceptance of Fra Francesco’s challenge. On 28 March the Signoria insisted upon their notary examining the document, and then summoned Fra Domenico to the Palazzo della Signoria, requiring him to authenticate it with his signature. Soon after this Fra Francesco was persuaded to acknowledge this challenge with his signature, which he eventually did with extreme reluctance. To complicate matters, another of Savonarola’s acolytes, called Fra Mariano Ughi, now also put himself forward, saying that he was willing to accompany his fellow Dominican, Fra Domenico, into the fire if the Franciscans were also willing to produce a second candidate.

  Versions of what was happening at the Palazzo della Signoria swept through the city, with rumour followed by counter-rumour. Things appeared to be getting out of hand, and a general atmosphere of hysteria was beginning to spread through the streets. Barbaric and superstitious medieval practices like ordeal by fire had long since lapsed in such a cultured and sophisticated city as Florence. Indeed, it was well over a hundred years since such a thing had taken place here. Many were horrified, while others amongst the population were only too keen to witness such a gruesome spectacle: few talked of anything else. Meanwhile Savonarola remained alone in his cell at San Marco, praying for God’s guidance. At this stage he appears to have concluded that he was being politically outmanoeuvred, and that there was nothing he could do about this.

  On Friday 30 March a Pratica council was held at the Palazzo della Signoria to decide upon the matter, and whether such a thing should be permitted to take place within a civilised city. As usual the meeting was attended by 200 or so of the ruling citizens, who would debate the matter before it was finally voted upon by the Signoria. This would be a repeat of the recent debate over the appeal against the death-sentence for the five ‘traitors’, though all present were aware that the outcome of this Pratica was liable to be of even graver importance for the republic. No sooner had the meeting begun than Savonarola’s supporter, former gonfaloniere Domenico Mazzinghi, unexpectedly declared that he was in favour of the trial taking place, ‘for this will surely result in such a miracle that it will reflect upon the glory of God, as well as bringing peace to our city’.6 The moderate Girolamo Rucellai took a more commonsensical approach, though ultimately he too came to the same conclusion:

  All this uproar about a trial by fire is so much nonsense. The most important thing we should be discussing here is how we can get rid of the friars and the non-friars, the Arrabbiati and the non-Arrabbiati, so that we can bring peace to our people. As far as I am concerned, if this trial restores harmony amongst our citizens, then let it go ahead … We should be worried about the city, not about a few friars getting burned.

  At this point, the worldly Filippo Guigni tried to defuse the increasingly fraught situation with an attempt at levity, remarking:

  To me, this idea of passing through fire seems all very odd, and I for one am against it. Why don’t we instead use a trial by water? This would be much less dangerous. If Fra Girolamo could pass through water without getting wet, then I would certainly join in asking for his pardon.

  But by now passions had run too high to appreciate such attempts at wit. At one point, Giovanni Canacci, one of Savonarola’s most bitter enemies, became so
enraged that he leapt to his feet to interrupt the proceedings; yet it was this very anger that caused him to make practically the only contribution which reflected well upon those present:

  When I hear you all saying such things, I wonder whether I would be better off dead than alive. If our forefathers who founded this city could but hear that we were even discussing such a matter, making ourselves such a disgrace that we will become the laughing stock of the world, they would have refused to have anything whatsoever to do with us. Our glorious city has sunk to its lowest ebb for many a long year, and all about us there is nothing but confusion.

  Yet in the end even Canacci could see no other way out of their predicament: ‘I implore your Excellencies [the Signoria] to deliver our people from this wretchedness no matter the cost, either by fire, air, water or any other method you want.’

  So low had the city of Lorenzo the Magnificent now sunk – in its own eyes, as well as the eyes of all Italy. The city that had given birth to the Renaissance had fallen into division and disgrace, its commerce all but stagnant and its ‘vanities’ consigned to the flames, its embittered people faced with the prospect of anarchy, its weak rulers reduced to abject collusion. Barely any of those present at the Pratica, even amongst Savonarola’s most enthusiastic secular supporters, believed that the ordeal by fire would result in a miracle. Anyone who took part in it would undoubtedly be burned. Yet the decision of the Signoria, overwhelmingly backed by the Pratica, was that the ordeal should go ahead, with the two Franciscans taking part against the two Dominicans. The Pratica also solemnly decided what action should be taken when the result of the ordeal was known. If one of the Dominicans was burned to death, then Savonarola would be exiled. If one of the Franciscans was burned to death, then Fra Francesco would be exiled. (By now one of his fellow Franciscans had offered to take his place in the ordeal, as by this stage he had become too terrified to do so.) Furthermore, the Pratica decided, if either side refused to submit to the ordeal, then their leader would automatically be exiled. However, if both sides suffered deaths, then the Dominicans would be declared the losers (in which case Savonarola would be exiled). The reasoning of the Pratica was as transparent as it was unjust: they were determined to get rid of Savonarola.