|
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) (1), (2nd item, "Bruno's Revenge," below)
Between Copernicus and Galileo in time, we find the fascinating figure of Giordano Bruno from Nola, near Naples. Unlike Copernicus, Bruno didn't believe in soft-pedaling what he believed to be the truth. He was flamboyant, vain and loud. He was also, most improbably, a monk for eleven years of his young adulthood at the Franciscan monastery in Naples before renouncing his vows in order to set off around Europe as a wandering teacher of philosophy. And unlike Galileo, he not only didn't fear torture and death, but his last words on the subject—literally his last words on the subject, (spoken to his tormentors just after they had sentenced him)—were defiant: "Perhaps you who pronounce my sentence are in greater fear than I who receive it." Giordano Bruno still fascinates us today. (Indeed, even James Joyce used to puzzle his friends by references to "the Nolan," and on occasion paid homage to this fellow heretic and believer in the magical power of words by using the pen-name "Gordon Brown"!) Bruno was caught, so to speak, between two ages in our civilization. He was a mystic, a devout man who brought with him from the past a belief in numerology, astrology and alchemy and even an interest in the revival of ancient Egyptian magic. He was, however, also a universal and tolerant man—one who wanted the universe to make sense, and, in that, he was a forerunner of the Age of Reason. He was, thus, ill at ease with the confining theology of his day, which proclaimed the Earth the center of all things. He believed in an infinite universe, a literal interpretation of the biblical "worlds upon worlds," a universe in which nothing is fixed, not even the stars, and where everything is relative, including time and motion, a universe in which we are but a tiny part of the great unknown and in which God becomes more of a universal mind, a substance inherent in all things, not a personal, external Prime Mover. Unorthodox views like this were to put him on a collision course with the Inquisition. In the early 1580s Bruno traveled to England where he lectured at Oxford and met the great men of English letters, perhaps, they say, even Shakespeare. Then, he left England and returned to France, Germany and back to Italy, where he thought he would be able to convince the Inquisition that he was no heretic and that his views were reasonable. He had, after all, time and again as a monk apologized for his doubts and, now, before the Inquisition, offered to defend his views. The Inquisition, of course, was not interested in debate; they wanted penitence, and Bruno would not give it to them. He spent eight years in prison, being "examined and questioned". On February 19, 1600, he was burned at the stake in the Piazza de' Fiori in Rome. Bruno was no Copernicus or Galileo in the scientific
sense. His vision of the cosmos was not based on
puzzling over the apparent retrograde orbit of planets
or on observations through telescopes. His was more of a
philosophical, aesthetic stance. In order to make sense,
the universe had to be greater, infinitely greater, than
his contemporaries imagined. Or, in his own words (from
De la Causa, principio et uno):
add: Jan 2011
Bruno's RevengeIn 1885, at a time when Rome had been the capital of the new united Italy for 15 years, a committee formed in the city to promote erecting a statue to Bruno at the spot where he had been burned at the stake, Piazza de' Fiori. The committee had the international support of the likes of Spencer, Ibsen and Hugo. The Holy See, of course, considered this a slap in the face and was against the idea; indeed, the nation, itself, split on the issue. (The Pope, Leo XIII, at one point, threatened to move to Austria and take his Vatican with him!). For a while, it seemed that the pro-Vatican city council of Rome would torpedo the idea just by procrastination, yet with the full support and power of prime minister Crispi, the statue was, indeed, built and put in place on June 9, 1889. The issue cropped up again later. In 1929, the Fascist state of Italy finally settled the "Roman Question" through the so-called Lateran Accords (from the name of the Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano, where the accords were signed). In effect, in exchange for the Church's recognition of the modern state of Italy—with Rome as the capital—Italy recognized the sovereignty of the Holy See in the State of Vatican City and agreed to pay a sum of money to the Holy See for the loss of its property and territory brought about by Italian unification in the previous century. As a little extra, the Vatican tried to get Mussolini to take down the offensive statue and replace it with a chapel to The Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Duce, always a pope-baiter, refused—the statue stayed, but Mussolini did have a fruit market put in the square! The event, though so distant now as to seem irrelevant, is not. It captured international attention, as, indeed, the figure of Giordano Bruno still fascinates us. From the New York Times of Nov. 5 , 1889: "The encyclical letter of his Holiness the Pope, which was read in the Roman Catholic churches of this country, and presumably of all the world, last Sunday...is calculated to give rise to reflections... It is, in fact, a protest against the erection in the city of Rome of a statue to GIORDANO BRUNO. The protest is based, not upon the artistic demerits of the work, in which case it would be highly readable, since an infallible art critic would be an interesting novelty....The Pope regards the erection of a good statue to Bruno as an outrage upon faith and morals and a personal affront to himself... In his capacity of the spiritual father of Christendom the Pope has no more to do with the municipal embellishments of Rome than of New York. If his Holiness were to take a stroll through Central Park... he would see many statues that would give pain to his orthodoxy as well as to his aesthetic sensibilities. The sculptural commemoration of a notorious free thinker like Goethe and of a loose liver like Burns could scarcely meet his infallible views, and yet he would not feel called upon to enter a protest against it and certainly it would not occur to him that it was an insult to himself. |