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 extreme 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.

Yet this could not be the final dispensation. Although the ordeal itself fell under the jurisdiction of the Signoria of Florence, those taking part in it were members of the Church, which meant that it would also require the permission of Alexander VI. The Signoria sent a despatch to the Florentine ambassador in Rome; but when Bonsi was granted an audience with Alexander VI, His Holiness informed the ambassador that he could not possibly give his official consent to such an ordeal. On the other hand, it soon became clear that the pope was going to issue no Brief condemning it. However, a covert message now reached the Signoria, probably by way of Fra Mariano da Genazzano in Rome to the Augustinians in Florence, that Alexander VI was in fact in favour of the ordeal taking place. This would be the end of Savonarola, and as soon as he was exiled from Florence, Alexander VI would have him arrested and brought to Rome.

Ironically, Savonarola himself reacted to the prospect of the ordeal with a remarkably similar ambiguity. Initially, he had abhorred the entire idea of an ordeal by fire. But as he fasted alone in his cell at San Marco the secret belief had grown within him that this event might indeed produce the miracle that would justify him and all his actions. This would be akin to the fulfilment of his prophecies, just as when Charles VIII had arrived as the ‘scourge of God’. Several contemporary sources confirm this change of heart in Savonarola, alluding to a series of events that brought it about.

One of Savonarola’s closest followers amongst the monks at San Marco was Fra Silvestro Maruffi, a man of deep spirituality who was prone to ill-health, hypochondria and insomnia, a condition that rendered him susceptible to having visions similar to those of his prior. Savonarola had formed the most profound respect for Fra Silvestro, to the point where he now placed as much faith in the other monk’s visions as he did in his own. At this time, Fra Silvestro described to Savonarola a vision he had experienced in which the guardian angels of both Fra Domenico and Savonarola himself had promised him that Fra Domenico would pass through the flames unscathed. This, combined with Fra Domenico’s unwavering faith and enthusiasm for taking part in the ordeal, had finally convinced Savonarola that he should give it his blessing. Savonarola then sent word to the Signoria confirming that he did so, saying that it should take place a week later, on Friday 6 April. Several contemporary sources corroborate this, as well as what happened next, differing only in detail. Guicciardini gives the general picture:

The day having been decided, Fra Girolamo was given permission by the Signoria to preach; and preaching in San Marco he showed the great importance of miracles and said that they should not be used except in necessity when reason and experience proved inadequate. Because the Christian faith had been proved in infinite ways and the truth of the things predicted by him had been shown with such efficacy and reason that anyone who was not obstinate in evil living could understand them, he had not made great use of his ability to perform miracles so as not to tempt God. Nevertheless, because they had now been challenged, they willingly accepted this challenge, and all could be sure that on entering the fire the result would be that their friar would emerge alive and unharmed while the other would be burned. If the opposite took place, they might boldly state that all he had preached was false. He went on to say that not only his friars but anyone who entered the fire in defence of this truth would emerge in a similar fashion. And then he asked them whether, if necessary, in the cause of so great a work ordained by God, they too would be willing to go through the fire. With a great shout almost all present answered that they would: this was the most amazing thing, for without any doubt, if Fra Girolamo had told them to, very many would indeed have entered the fire.⁷

This sermon was delivered before a packed congregation consisting of friars and nuns, as well as lay Piagnoni, women and children. Savonarola’s preaching must have inspired a collective hysteria that went far beyond those who had taken holy orders.

The ordeal was to be held in the Piazza della Signoria so that the miracle, or the sight of the victims burning alive, could be witnessed by as many of the population as possible. In the midst of the piazza a raised walkway consisting of brick and rubble covered with earth was constructed. This was seven feet high, ninety feet long and sixteen feet wide.^fn3 On either side of the walkway were heaped two lines of logs, covered with brushwood and boughs, and ‘all the wood was soaked with oil, spirit and resin to make it burn better’.⁸ For the ordeal, these two incendiary lines were to be set alight along their entire length until they blazed like an inferno. Between the two lines was a pathway just five feet in width, and the contestants in the ordeal were each to start simultaneously at opposite ends of this ninety-foot-long path, walking through the inferno until they emerged at the other end unscathed, or were consumed by the flames.

News of this coming event was by now spreading to all the major cities of Italy and even beyond the Alps. The courts, the monasteries and the merchant classes all had their own information networks by way of ambassadors, travelling friars, commerce routes, couriers and so forth. Such had been the interest generated by Savonarola and his previous activities, especially his sermons and his prophecies, that news of this latest development quickly filtered down to the public at large. The coming ordeal by fire was a topic of speculation, from the taverns and market places to the palazzi and the priories. Was Savonarola really capable of perfoming a miracle? This time there could be no question of fakery or mass delusion, or even prophetic coincidence: this ordeal would take place for all to see.

It could hardly be claimed that this would represent a turning point in the evolution of human consciousness, yet there can be no doubt that the result of such a sensational event, which had so taken hold of the public imagination, might be seen as a contributory factor to the lengthy process of transformation that was taking place during this era, which we now refer to as the Renaissance. Concrete physical confirmation, or a single practical disproof, of the belief in miracles would at this point doubtless spread ripples of speculation far and wide amongst those of an enquiring disposition. Here, at the earliest dawning of the new scientific understanding, the truth was to be judged by an experiment whose result was verifiable. (‘The ordeal by fire’ was called in Italian L’esperimento del fuoco. A century later, Galileo and his contemporaries, the true pioneers of scientific experimental method, would start using the word esperimento to describe the tests, or ordeals, to which they subjected their practical ideas.)

During the days leading up to the ordeal, Savonarola himself wrote and published a short document entitled Riposta, in which he attempted to justify himself and his attitude towards the coming event. This ends:

Those who know themselves to be genuinely inspired by the Lord will certainly come through the flames unharmed, if the ordeal actually takes place, which is by no means certain. As for me, I am keeping myself for a greater cause, for which I shall always be prepared to lay down my life. The time is at hand when the Lord will manifest himself in supernatural signs and omens, but these will not come about as a result of the beseeching or the will of men. For the time being, let it be sufficient that, by sending some of our brethren, we will be equally exposed to the wrath of the people if the Lord does not allow them to pass unscathed through the fire.⁹

During the final days leading up to the ordeal, Savonarola ordered the gates of the monastery of San Marco to be locked: no one was permitted to enter or leave. Sealed off from the outside world, the community of friars embarked upon a vigil of continuous prayer on behalf of their two brethren who were about to take part in the ordeal.

Then, on Thursday 5 April, the very eve of the ordeal, the Signoria suddenly announced that it would be postponed for a day. The Signoria evidently had reason to believe that a message from Alexander VI forbidding the ordeal was on its way from Rome. Yet within twenty-four hours the Signoria mysteriously appear to have convinced themselves that no message forbidding the ordeal would be forthcoming, and decreed that it should go ahead the next day, Saturday 7 April. At the same time they issued an unpexpected new decree, modifying their previous one, and specifically stating: ‘In the event that Fra Domenico is burned, Fra Girolamo is to leave Florentine territory within three hours.’¹⁰

The combination of the Signoria’s certainty that no papal Brief would arrive, and the issuing of the new decree immediately banning Savonarola from Florentine territory (under the circumstances, the border would almost certainly have taken longer than three hours to reach) further indicates that the Signoria must have received covert instructions, perhaps by way of Genazzano and the Augustinians, from Alexander VI. The specific details of Savonarola’s speedy banishment would have meant that in just three hours from the moment the result became clear at the event itself, at which he was certainly expected to be present amidst the packed Piazza della Signoria, he would have had to flee through the angry throng (in some danger of his life even then) and make his way to a fast horse that had been kept waiting in preparation. Not only did Savonarola abhor this privileged form of transport, but it would have been unthinkable to him to make prior arrangements for what he would have seen as a cowardly flight in the event of his loyal friend’s excruciating death. Even so, he would certainly have been apprehended after three hours, by which time he would no longer have been deemed under Florentine protection, even if he was still travelling through Florentine territory. This would have meant that he could have been intercepted and arrested on behalf of the pope within hours of leaving the city gates, by whichever band of armedArrabbiati or Compagnacci was lying in wait for him, having already been commandeered for this very task. In a matter of days he would have been delivered to Rome, into the hands of Alexander VI. Here the ‘little friar’ who had had the temerity to send letters to the rulers of Europe, encouraging them to call a Council of the Church intended to depose the pope, could have expected little mercy from a man such as Alexander VI.

^fn1 There would appear to be no hypocrisy or misuse of reason in Savonarola’s argument here. Even modern psychology does not deny that such experiences may indeed seem all too real to those who undergo them.

^fn2 As well as ordeal by fire, during the medieval era there had been in various parts of Europe ordeals by the other three elements: ordeal by water (which could result in drowning), earth (that is, burial) and air (being cast from a high tower or cliff).

^fn3 The details of this construction can be found in Landucci, Diario, p.135, where he gives the proportions in the contemporary measurements of braccia. Braccio means ‘arm’, and this was effectively a length of just under two feet. Thus Landucci gives the height of the walkway as four braccia, its length as fifty.