The story of Giordano Bruno is similar to the famously twisted detective that mankind has been reading for more than four centuries, but can never reach a denouement.
Lost case
"Detective", the protagonist of which is Giordano Bruno, could have started with a "flash forward" in 1809, when Emperor Napoleon ordered the withdrawal of the documents of the papal Inquisition from the secret archives of the Vatican. Among the requisitioned papers was allegedly the Bruno case, which included interrogation protocols and the text of the sentence itself. After the return to the French throne of the Bourbon dynasty, the Vatican asked to return the documents. But Rome was disappointed: the French reported that part of the Inquisition's archive had disappeared without a trace. However - oh, miracle! - the papers were soon found. They were discovered by Gaetano Marini, the pope's envoy in Paris, "in the shops of the herring and meat traders." In the Parisian "deli" secret archives came with the light hand of another representative of the Roman curia, who sold them to shopkeepers as packaging. Having received an order from Rome to destroy especially delicate papers from the archives of the inquisitors, Gaetano Marini did not find anything better than to sell them as waste paper to a Paris paper mill.
It would seem that this is the end of the story, but in 1886 a second miracle occurs - one of the Vatican archivists accidentally stumbles upon Bruno's case in the dusty archives of the pontiff, which he immediately informs Pope Leo XIII. How the documents from the French paper mill were teleported to Rome remains a mystery? As well as how much you can trust the authenticity of these documents. By the way, the Vatican did not want to share the find with the public for a long time. The Giordano case was not published until 1942.
Why was there a bonfire in Rome's Square of Flowers?
There were also some surprises. In the verdict of Giordano Bruno, nothing was said about his scientific convictions - "The Earth is not the center of the Universe, which is infinite." But “voluntary martyrdom” for science made Bruno an “icon” that inspired scientists to scientific exploits, and here it is! But the most curious thing, in the verdict, there was no specific indictment at all, except for the first sentence of the document: “You, brother Giordano Bruno, the son of the late Giovanni Bruno, from Nola, your age is about 52 years old, eight years ago were brought to the court of the holy service of Venice for having declared: it is the greatest sacrilege to say that bread was transubstantiated into the body, etc."
Promotional video:
In his "Aesthetics of the Renaissance" the Russian philosopher, Professor Alexei Fedorovich Losev formulated an important task for the historical science, which had been waiting for the publication of the case for several decades: "The historian must clearly answer the question: Why, in the end, was Giordano Bruno burnt?"
Royal friend
For the Vatican, the verdict of Giordano Bruno was not just a condemnation of a Dominican monk who fell into heresy. At the end of the 16th century, in popularity with European intellectuals, Bruno could have given odds to the modern cosmologist Stephen Hawking. Giordano Bruno maintained very friendly relations with the kings of France Henry III and Henry IV, the British Queen Elizabeth I, the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II and many other European "rulers". At the snap of his fingers, he could get a chair and the mantle of a professor at any European university, his books were published in the best printing houses, the best minds of the continent dreamed of his patronage.
The main calling card of Giordano Bruno was not cosmology at all, but his magnificent memory. Bruno developed mnemonics (the art of memory), which was then at the height of fashion among intellectuals. Giordano is said to have memorized thousands of books, ranging from Scripture to Arabic alchemical treatises. It was the art of memorization that he taught Henry III, who was proud of his friendship with the humble Dominican monk, and Elizabeth I, who allowed Giordano to enter her chambers at any time, without a report. In addition, the monarchs enjoyed how Bruno, with mocking grace, "knocked out" with his intellect the teams of the Sorbonne and Oxford professors on any issue.
For Giordano Bruno, intellectual fighting was a kind of sport. For example, Oxford academics recalled that he could playfully prove that black is white, that day is night, and the moon is the sun. In the manner of his debate, he was like boxer Roy Jones in the ring in his best years - boxing fans will understand this comparison well. It must be admitted that it is hardly due to his supernatural memory alone that Bruno found himself on a short foot with the most influential monarchs in Europe.
As biographers recall, some invisible force moved this Dominican monk through the life of this Dominican monk, easily brought him to the best palaces in Europe, protected him from the persecution of the Inquisition (for Bruno often entered in his statements about theology). However, this power suddenly failed in May 1592.
Denunciation
On the night of May 23-24, 1592, the Venetian inquisitors arrested Giordano Bruno on the denunciation of the local patrician Giovanni Mocenigo. The latter Bruno personally taught - for a huge fee - the art of memory. However, at some point the monk got bored with it. He declared the student hopeless and decided to say goodbye to this. Mocenigo tried every possible means to get the "guru" back, but Bruno was adamant. Then the desperate student wrote a denunciation to the local inquisition. In short, the informer claimed that his mentor trampled on Catholic dogmas, talked about some "endless worlds" and called himself a representative of a "new philosophy."
I must say that denunciations of the violation of dogmas were the most common "signals" from honest citizens of the Inquisition. It was the most proven way to annoy a neighbor, a competitor shopkeeper, a personal enemy … Most of these cases did not even reach the court, but the Inquisition in any case was obliged to respond to the "signal". In other words, the arrest of Giordano Bruno can be considered "technical". The prisoner himself generally took it as a joke. At the very first interrogations, he cleverly dismissed all accusations of heresy and amicably shared with the investigators his views on the structure of the universe. However, this frankness of Bruno could in no way alleviate his situation. The fact is that the works of Copernicus, whose ideas he developed, were not banned (they were banned only in 1616), so there were no reasons for arrest.
The monk was kept under investigation to a greater extent because of harm: it was too painful for him to behave pejoratively with the inquisitors.
Having taught a lesson to the “proud man”, the Venetians were about to let him go, but then a request came from Rome - demanding that the heretic be “transported” to the Eternal City. The Venetians took a pose: “Why on earth ?! Venice is a sovereign republic! " Rome had to organize an entire embassy to Venice to convince. It is curious that the Venetian procurator Contarini strongly insisted that Giordano Bruno should remain in Venice. In his report to the Council of the Wise of Venice, he gave the following characterization: “One of the most outstanding and rarest geniuses one can imagine. Possesses extraordinary knowledge. Created a wonderful teaching."
However, Venice trembled under the pressure of the Pope - Bruno set off on a "stage" to Rome.
Crusade against Aristotle
And now let's return to the denunciation by Giovannia Mocenigo - more precisely one of his points, which says that Bruno considered himself a representative of a certain "new philosophy". The Venetian inquisitors hardly attached any importance to this nuance of the accusation. But this term was well known in Rome.
The very concept of "New philosophy" (or "New universal philosophy") was introduced by the Italian philosopher Francesco Patrizi, who was very close to the papal curia. Patrizi argued that the philosophy of Aristotle, which became the basis for medieval scholasticism and theology, is directly opposite to Christianity, since it denies the omnipotence of God.
In this the Italian philosopher saw the cause of all the strife that arose in the church, which resulted in the Protestant movements. The restoration of a single Church and the return of Protestants to its fold was seen by Patrutsi in the departure from scholasticism, built on Aristotle, and its replacement by a certain synthesis of Plato's metaphysics, the views of the Neoplatonists and the pantheistic theosophical teaching of Hermes Trismegistus. This synthesis was named "New Universal Philosophy". Many people in the papal curia liked the idea of ousting Aristotle from European universities (primarily Protestant ones) and regaining the status of an intellectual center with the help of the New Philosophy. Of course, Rome could not make the "New Universal Philosophy" its official doctrine, but the fact is that at that time the papal throne patronized the teachings alternative to Aristotle,no doubt about it. And here Giordano Bruno played his vivid role. From 1578 to 1590, he made an unprecedented tour of the largest universities in European cities: Toulouse, Sorbonne, Oxford, Wittenberg, Marburg, Helmstadt, Prague. All these universities were either "Protestant" or influenced by Protestantism.
In his lectures or debates with local professors, Bruno undermined precisely the philosophy of Aristotle. His sermons about the movement of the Earth and many worlds questioned the Ptolemaic cosmology, built precisely on the teachings of Aristotle.
In other words, Giordano Bruno clearly followed the strategy of the New Philosophy. Was he on a secret mission for Rome? Given his "immunity", as well as mysterious patronage, it is very likely.
More terrible than the order of the Knights Templar
Giordano Bruno spent eight years under investigation. This was a record for the Inquisition's legal proceedings! Why so long? For comparison, the trial over the Templars lasted seven years, but there it was about the whole order. At the same time, as many as nine cardinals were involved in the sentencing, in which, we recall, there was actually no indictment! Couldn't the nine inquisitors general have been able to find words to describe the "heretical" deeds of a Dominican monk with a good memory?
One passage is curious in the verdict: “Moreover, we condemn, condemn and prohibit all of the above and your other books and writings, as heretical and erroneous, containing numerous heresies and delusions. We command that from now on all your books, which are in the holy service and in the future will fall into her hands, be publicly torn and burned in St. Peter before the steps, and as such were included in the list of forbidden books, and may it be as we commanded. But apparently the voice of the nine cardinals was so weak that Bruno's books could be freely purchased in Rome and other Italian cities right up to 1609.
Another detail is interesting: if in Venice Giordano Bruno very quickly justifies himself about accusations of violating Catholic dogmas, then in Rome he suddenly changes his tactics and, according to the materials of the investigation, begins not only to admit this, but also to flaunt his anti-Christianity. At the trial, he even throws to the judges:
“Perhaps you pronounce the verdict with more fear than I listen to. I am dying a martyr willingly and I know that my soul will ascend to heaven with its last breath."
Did the Venetian Inquisition seem to Bruno more convincing in its ferocity, and the atmosphere of humanism and philanthropy reigned in the torture chambers of the Vatican?
Who burned at the stake?
The only written evidence of the execution of Giordano Bruno has come down to us. The witness was a certain Caspar Shoppe, a “repentant Lutheran,” who went into the service of the cardinal. Shoppe wrote in a letter to his comrade that the "heretic" accepted death calmly: "Bruno, unrepentant of his sins, went to his fictional worlds to tell what the Romans are doing with blasphemers." I wonder why Shoppe thought that Giordano Bruno's heresy lay in his view of the universe - in the verdict nothing was said about this?
Shoppe, by the way, pointed out one interesting detail in his letter to a friend - Giordano Bruno was erected on the fire with a gag in his mouth, which was not in the tradition of the inquisitorial burns. The organizers of the execution were hardly afraid of the possible dying curses of the sentenced person - this, as a rule, was the format of any execution. As, however, and repentance. Why a gag? It is unlikely that in a matter of minutes of execution, even an intellectual and polemicist like Bruno could convince an illiterate crowd of the infidelity of Aristotelian cosmology. Or the executioners were simply afraid that the condemned suddenly, in a moment of absolute despair, would suddenly shout out the terrible: "I am not Giordano Bruno!"