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

by Paul Strathern

  Even at this late hour it was suggested to Savonarola that he could still escape by way of the garden, using the same route as Valori. According to some sources, Savonarola considered this. Yet it was now that the Judas amongst his disciples chose to act. Within the community of San Marco, one monk had traitorously vowed his secret allegiance to the Arrabbiati: this was Fra Malatesta Sacramoro, who now approached Savonarola and suggested: ‘Should not the shepherd lay down his life for the sake of his flock?’11

  Fra Malatesta evidently had a good insight into the way Savonarola’s mind worked, for the ‘little friar’ at once ceased all hesitation, silenced any debate and declared his irreversible decision to give himself up to the authorities. After receiving communion he took his leave of his fellow friars, kissing each one of them. Many of his closest followers begged to be allowed to go with him, but in the end Savonarola allowed only one friar to accompany him: Fra Domenico da Pescia, whose unswerving faith at the prospect of the ordeal by fire had so impressed him.

  By now the Signoria had at last despatched a contingent of armed troops under the command of Giovanni della Vecchia, who had imposed an element of order amongst the rioters, as well as managing to force his way through to the cloister inside the monastery. Savonarola sent two of his friars into the cloister to parley his surrender to della Vecchia’s men-at-arms. The friars informed the men: ‘We agree to hand over the Frate if you promise to take him safely to the Palagio.’12 Having received this assurance, Savonarola and Fra Domenico proceeded out into the cloister, where della Vecchia’s men had just been joined by the official mace-bearers from the Signoria, who immediately took charge of the two friars.

  It was now probably around 3 a.m. or maybe even later.fn3 The mace-bearers barely had time to manacle Savonarola and Fra Domenico before the angry mob surged around them, attempting to break through the men-at-arms and lay hands on the prisoners. As they were led away between the soldiers into the Piazza San Marco, the crowd, illuminated in the darkness by flickering torches, jeered, yelled insults and spat into their faces. At one stage someone attempted to burst through the line of soldiers and thrust his flaming brand into Savonarola’s face, yelling sarcastically, ‘Behold the true light!’13 Just as the two prisoners were being ushered through the side door of the Palazzo della Signoria someone managed to land a kick on Savonarola’s backside, shouting, ‘Look, that’s where his prophecies come from!’

  Once inside, Savonarola and Fra Domenico were led before Gonfaloniere Popoleschi, supported by his Signoria and numerous dignitaries. Popoleschi could not refrain from gloating over the victory that he had engineered with his fellow Arrabbiati. His voice heavy with sarcasm, he asked the two hapless and humiliated prisoners whether they still persisted in believing that their words came from God. Both replied that they did indeed. Whereupon they were led off to separate places of imprisonment within the palazzo. Savonarola was marched up the stone stairway to the top of the tall turreted tower, where he was locked in the tiny stone cell known as the Alberghettino (little inn), whose narrow window looked down over the Piazza della Signoria. Ironically, this was the very cell where Cosimo de’ Medici had been imprisoned in 1433, when the Albizzi family had temporarily succeeded in ousting the Medici from power. The canny Cosimo de’ Medici had used his network of contacts and managed to save his life by bribing his way out of the Alberghettino; meanwhile his friend Pope Eugene IV and other Italian heads of state had protested on his behalf, to ensure that his death-sentence was rescinded and he was allowed to travel with his family into exile, where he had access to sufficient funds to help contrive the Medici’s return to rule. But Savonarola had no such network, no such means, no access to such sympathetic powers. The pope and heads of state throughout Italy all rejoiced at his downfall, and the population of Florence had turned overwhelmingly against him. Only the remaining downtrodden Piagnoni still supported him, sullenly and in secret.

  fn1 A halberd was a pike-like weapon with a long wooden shaft tipped by a metal capping consisting of a spike, an axe-blade and a sharpened point. An arquebus was the earliest form of rifle: a long-barrelled musket operated by a matchlock, generally using gunpowder and firing round lead bullets. It came into use earlier in the century, was effective only at short range and liable to explode, making it often more dangerous to the user than the target. The early mortars were a form of short-barrelled wide-bore cannon, which used gunpowder to fire into the air cannonballs or stones and were equally dangerous for all concerned.

  fn2 Understandably, amidst the darkness and general chaos pervading the city, the order of events that took place that night varies slightly in the different contemporary accounts. I have not adhered precisely to Landucci’s account, but have chosen what appears to have been the most likely sequence.

  fn3 The times given by contemporary sources vary considerably. For instance, the events that Landucci described as taking place at ‘6 in the night’ – that is 2 a.m. (see here) – probably took place somewhat earlier, while Burlamacchi gave the time of Savonarola’s arrest as ‘the sixth hour of the night’ (1937 edn, p.161). Ridolfi stated ‘It was now after the seventh hour of the night’ (Vol. I, p.368) and in a note (n.27) he discusses Burlamacchi and this problem of timing. All that can safely be stated is that the arrest and the ensuing events took place in the darkness of what we would call the early hours – that is, some time before first light, which began just before 5 a.m. in Florence at that time of year.

  23

  Trial and Torture

  LANDUCCI DESCRIBED THE atmosphere in Florence after day duly dawned on Monday 9 April 1498:

  People laid down their weapons, but everyone continued talking about what had happened. It was as if hell had opened beneath our feet: everyone kept saying ladro e traditore (wretch and traitor), no one dared to say a word in support of Savonarola, or they would have been killed, and everyone jeered at the citizens, calling them Piagnoni and hypocrites.1

  The Compagnacci roamed the streets in triumph, displaying the weapons that had been discovered in San Marco, claiming them as evidence that Savonarola had intended to lead an armed insurrection against the government. He was not only a charlatan, but also a traitor. Middle-class Piagnoni sympathisers fled for the countryside; others, secretly taking their families and any portable valuables, simply went into exile in fear of their lives.

  Savonarola was brought down from the Alberghettino late on Monday morning, when he was probably subjected to some informal questioning by the Signoria. Having been taken into custody, he would now be subject to the due process of law. This would involve him being interrogated and tortured before a judicial commission set up to discover whichever laws he might have broken, and whether his claims to be a prophet and to have spoken with God were true.

  Next day things began in earnest:

  At the ninth hour in the evening [i.e. 5 p.m.] Savonarola was carried to the Bargello by two men on their crossed hands because his feet and hands were clapped in irons. Fra Domenico was brought there in a similar fashion. On arrival they were both seized: Fra Girolamo was put to the rack three timesfn1 and Fra Domenico four times; and Fra Girolamo said: ‘Take me down and I will write you my whole life.’ As you can imagine, when right-minded men who had faith in him heard that he had been tortured many were reduced to tears.2

  By now the two accused had been joined by a third friar. Savonarola’s closest adviser, the ailing Fra Silvestro Maruffi, whom Savonarola had valued so much on account of his visions, had initially hidden himself when San Marco was overrun, but his presence had been betrayed by the turncoat Fra Malatesta, with the result that he too had been taken into the custody of the Signoria.

  The man appointed to be Savonarola’s chief interrogator on the judicial commission was the notary Francesco de Ser Barone, usually known by his nickname ‘Ser Ceccone’. An unsavoury character, Ser Ceccone had been a close supporter of Piero de’ Medici, responsible for carrying out a number of his underhand deeds. Ironically, when Piero and h
is brother Cardinal Giovanni had fled the city, Ser Ceccone had sought sanctuary in San Marco, emerging only after Savonarola had guaranteed his safety by issuing from the pulpit the strongest warning against the taking of reprisals by either side. From then on Ser Ceccone had adopted the guise of a firm Piagnoni supporter, but had in fact been an informer, passing on his information directly to Doffo Spini at the Compagnacci dinners, which he continued to attend, whilst at the same time regularly attending all of Savonarola’s sermons at the cathedral.

  Anomalously, as a mere notary he was not legally permitted to conduct any official investigation, but the Signoria had decided to overlook such niceties. Ser Ceccone could be relied upon to deliver a verdict that would ensure Savonarola’s conviction.

  The judicial commisssion appointed by the Signoria consisted of seventeen citizens, fervently anti-Savonarola to a man. They included Doffo Spini, as well as a number of leading Compagnacci; another member was the diarist Piero Parenti, whose feelings were clear from his chronicle of day-to-day events; also present was Giovanni Manetti, the man who had been responsible for stirring up the crowd against Savonarola as they waited for the ordeal by fire. Manetti was recorded as asking for permission to conduct a public inspection of Savonarola’s genitals: rumours were circulating concerning an astrologer’s prediction that a hermaphrodite prophet would arrive in Italy, and Manetti wished to set his mind at rest that Savonarola was not the man fulfilling this role. Manetti was duly permitted his request, which was completed to the satisfaction of his fellow commissioners; such humiliation of the prior of San Marco was to be just the beginning.fn2

  Meanwhile the Signoria had set about dismantling any possible official opposition to their actions. Elections for the Great Council were called, with no Piagnoni supporters permitted to stand as candidates, and any even suspected of Piagnone sympathies were soon weeded out of the administration.

  Savonarola’s interrogation would continue over the ensuing week until 17 April. (An indication of the seriousness and urgency of these proceedings can be judged from the fact that they were not even adjourned for Good Friday, 13 April, or Easter Sunday two days later, the holiest events in the Christian calendar.) The interrogation proceeded by means of the habitual Florentine method used in criminal investigations. Savonarola would first have been invited to confess to the charge of treason. If his subsequent confession was not considered adequate, he would have been reminded that further evidence could be extracted by means of the strappado. If, even after this warning, his confession still did not satisfy the commissioners, then his hands would be tied behind his back and he would be subjected to one drop after another of the strappado until he did ‘confess’.

  The effect of all this on Savonarola, his body rendered frail from constant fasting, self-denial and frequent self-flagellation, can barely be imagined. The ingenious advantage of the strappado was that it was not fatal if judiciously administered. Moreover, the method did not numb the body, rendering it equally painful each time it was administered. Such interrogation was legal in Florence, as indeed ‘trial by ordeal’ of one sort or another remained an integral part of the judicial process throughout most of Europe, much as it had done during the medieval era. However, in this case, Savonarola’s entire trial was in fact illegal. Priests did not fall under the jurisdiction of the civil authorities and could only be tried by the Church courts.

  This hardly mattered where Savonarola was concerned. By 12 April, within forty-eight hours of Savonarola having been carried in irons into the Bargello, news had reached Alexander VI of what had happened. That very day His Holiness conveyed his feelings to the Signoria in Florence:

  It gave us the greatest pleasure when your ambassador informed us of the timely measures you have taken in order to crush the mad vindictiveness of that son of iniquity Fra Hieronymo Savonarola, who has not only inspired such heresies amongst the people with his deluded and empty prophecies, but has also disobeyed both your commands and our orders by force of arms. At last he is safely imprisoned, which causes us to give praise to our beloved Saviour, whose divine light sheds such truth upon our earthly state that He could not possibly have permitted your faithful city to have remained any longer in darkness.3

  The Signoria was explicitly given permisssion to examine Savonarola under torture; however, Alexander VI made it quite plain that he should then be despatched to Rome, where he would be tried before the appropriate ecclesiastical tribunal. This would have involved more traditional methods of interrogation, such as the rack, branding irons and other devices of the Inquisition, which traditionally tried its victims on charges of heresy. Ironically, the Inquisition remained the preserve of Savonarola’s own order, the Dominicans. Such gruesome methods, in the hands of expert practitioners, were guaranteed to extract the last morsels of information from the hapless victim.fn3

  The Signoria were heartened by Alexander VI’s Brief, which not only allowed them to torture Savonarola with impunity, but also lifted from the city the threat of general excommunication. It even went so far as to give dispensation for those who had been guilty of attacking and desecrating Church property during the siege at San Marco. However, the Signoria were reluctant to comply with Alexander VI’s crucial request: Savonarola would not be despatched to Rome. This was more than just a matter of the city of Florence asserting its independence. Over the years during which Savonarola had been consulted by the Signoria, he had inevitably gained an intimate knowledge of the workings of the city government, its secret policies, as well as its methods of gathering intelligence. These would certainly have included sympathetic informants providing confidential intelligence from Rome, possibly even spies within the Vatican itself. Alexander VI would make sure that he extracted as much of this vital information as he could from Savonarola, which he would then use to pursue his own political ends: informants would be eliminated, Florentine strategy anticipated and thwarted, the city’s weaknesses exploited. For the good of the republic, Savonarola had to be kept in Florence, even if this displeased His Holiness – which it certainly did. This was one of the reasons why Savonarola’s trial was conducted with the maximum secrecy. None beyond the seventeen members of the inquisitorial commission, the surgeon and members of the Signoria were permitted to attend. Savonarola was not even allowed a defence counsel, on the grounds that as a priest he would not have been permitted one in the ecclesiastical court before which he should have been tried. The logic of this argument was to be typical of the conduct of Savonarola’s case.

  On 13 April, probably the very day that Alexander VI’s Brief arrived in Florence, important news reached the city from another source. It was learned that on 7 April (that is, the very day on which the ordeal by fire was to have taken place), Charles VIII had cracked his head on the stone lintel of a doorway, rendering him unconscious, and despite all the efforts of his physicians the twenty-seven-year-old King had died within a matter of hours. The prophecy that Savonarola had solemnly pronounced just over a year previously had now been fulfilled. This news seems to have given many in Florence cause for thought, especially when it filtered down to those amongst the silent, sullen Piagnoni who remained Savonarola’s secret supporters. Yet it would have no effect upon Savonarola’s fate. The wheels had by now been set in motion: it would take more than the ‘miraculous’ fulfilment of his prophecy to stop them.

  Sources differ as to how many ‘drops’ of the strappado Savonarola suffered. As we have seen, the gossip reaching Landucci claimed that he suffered three times. At the other extreme, Botticelli’s brother, the ardent Piagnone Simone Filipepi, claimed that Savonarola suffered fourteen drops in one day, which would definitely have rendered him incapable of confession of any sort and would almost certainly have proved fatal. Others go so far as to claim that burning coals were pressed to the soles of Savonarola’s bare feet as he hung suspended after the drop, though many dispute this as a hagiographic overelaboration of his suffering. With feelings so polarised, and the events taking place in secret, t
he truth is difficult to assess. At any rate, the modern judgement is that Savonarola’s frail body probably took at the most four drops before he broke and told his torturers: ‘Take me down and I will write you my whole life.’ But this was far from being enough. What the Signoria required was a number of specific admissions that would have proved Savonarola guilty of treason, thus allowing them to execute him. Ser Ceccone duly began interrogating Savonarola and taking down his answers.

  The evidence suggests that Ser Ceccone’s record of these events was deliberately slanted to achieve the intended result. No original transcript exists, and all we have are the unsubstantiated printed texts that were released later in the year. Admittedly, in his broken state Savonarola would have confessed to many things, but it is highly unlikely that he did so as recorded in the printed version of Ser Ceccone’s transcript. Even so, the printed text is still worth examining for the simple reason that it was probably a biased version of the events that took place, as distinct from being a complete fabrication. Internal evidence supports this assessment: the problem lies in discerning where the truth tails off and falsehood takes over, and here the text provides us with a number of plausible clues. The picture it paints is hardly that of a skilled interrogation, yet it is this very muddle that hints at a basic underlying reality.

  First of all, Savonarola was asked to confess that his prophecies were not the result of divine revelations, and that his claim that God spoke to him was false. According to Ser Ceccone’s record, Savonarola denied that he was a prophet. This was a serious confession, which he must have known would have profound consequences amongst his Piagnoni supporters – yet there is good reason to believe that he did make it. Admittedly, Savonarola had on a number of earlier occasions denied that he was a prophet – though equally incontestably, he had on many later occasions accepted the mantle of a prophet, both in name and in the manner in which he preached. His contemporary apologists such as Burlamacchi, Fra Benedetto Luschino and Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola (the biographer and nephew of the philosopher) accepted that Savonarola made this confession, yet at the same time defended his thinking on this point. And there is no doubt that they were close enough to Savonarola to have been conversant with his method of thought. Savonarola would have been well aware that prophets such as Amos and Zachariah had on occasion denied that they were prophets, as indeed had John the Baptist. According to the Gospel of St John, even Jesus himself had given an evasive answer on this question.fn4