[27] First printed in _The Atlantic Monthly_, March, 1890.
I
On Saturday, the 23d of May, 1592, Giovanni Mocenigo, son of the late
excellent Marcantonio Mocenigo, addressed to the Father Inquisitor of
Venice a letter containing charges of heresy against Giordano Bruno,
the Nolan. Among other things, he alleged that Bruno had said “that it
is a great blasphemy to say, as Catholics do, that bread is changed
to flesh; that he is hostile to the mass; that no religion satisfies
him; that Christ was a good-for-nothing, and did wretched tricks to
seduce the people, and ought to have been hanged; that there is no
separating God into persons; that the world is eternal; that worlds
are infinite, and God makes an infinite number of them continually;
that Christ wrought apparent miracles and was a magician, and so were
the Apostles; that Christ showed that he died unwillingly, and evaded
death as long as he could; that there is no punishment of sins; and
that souls created by the agency of nature pass from one animal into
another; and that as the brutes are begotten of corruption, so also are
men. Further, he has denied that the Virgin could have borne a child;
he asserted that our Catholic faith is full of blasphemies against
the majesty of God; that he wished to give himself to the diviner’s
art, and draw the whole world after him; that St. Thomas and all the
doctors were blockheads compared with himself. Therefore, urged by my
conscience and by command of my confessor, I have denounced this Bruno
to the Holy Office. Suspecting that he might depart, I have locked him
up in one of my rooms, at your requisition; and because I believe him
possessed of a demon, I pray you to take speedy resolution concerning
him.”
Two days later, this Mocenigo, of whom we know no more than that
he belonged to one of the illustrious families of Venice, and was
thirty-four years of age, added to his accusations: “On that day when
I had Giordano Bruno locked up, on my asking him if he would teach me
what he had promised, in view of the many courtesies and gifts he had
had from me, so that I might not accuse him of the many wicked words
which he had said to me, both against our Lord and against the Holy
Catholic Church, he replied that he was not afraid of the Inquisition,
because he offended nobody in living as he chose; and then that he
did not remember to have said anything bad to me, and that even if he
had said it he had said it to me alone, and that he did not fear that
I could harm him in this way, and that, even should he come under the
hand of the Inquisition, it could at the most force him to wear his
friar’s gown again.”
On May 29, Mocenigo, who had in the mean time, at the suggestion of
the Inquisition, dredged in the slimy depths of his memory for other
charges, informed the Father Inquisitor that he had heard Bruno say
“that the forms which the Church now uses are not those which the
Apostles used, because the Apostles, by preaching and by example
of a good life, converted the people, but that now he who will not
be a Catholic must suffer the rod and punishment, because force is
used, and not love; that the world could not go on thus, because
now only ignorance, and not religion, is good; that the Catholic
religion pleased him more than the others, but that it had need of
great formalities, which was not right, but very soon the world would
see itself reformed, because it was impossible that such corruption
should endure. He told me, too, that now, when the greatest ignorance
flourishes which the world ever had, some glory in having the greatest
knowledge there ever was, because they say they know what they do not
understand,--which is, that God can be one and three,--and that these
are impossibilities, ignorances, and most shocking blasphemies against
the majesty of God. Besides this, he said that he liked women hugely,
and that the Church committed a great sin in calling sin that which is
according to nature.”
After these charges, we hear no more of this latter-day Judas, Giovanni
Mocenigo. Honest we can hardly deem him, for he confesses that he
intended to betray Bruno long before he did betray him, and only
delayed till he should gather sufficient damning evidence against him.
And so we dismiss him to join the despicable crew of those who were
traitors to their lords and benefactors.
The Inquisition examined four other witnesses. Two booksellers,
Ciotto and Bertano, deposed that they had known Bruno at
Frankfort-on-the-Main, whither they went to attend the famous
book-fairs; that they had not heard him say aught which caused them to
believe he was not a Catholic and a good Christian; but that he had
the reputation of being a philosopher, who spent his time in writing
and “in meditating new things.” Andrea Morosini, a gentleman of noble
birth, testified that during the recent months Bruno had been at his
house, whither divers gentlemen and also prelates were wont to meet to
discuss letters, and principally philosophy; but that he had never
inferred from Bruno’s remarks that he held opinions contrary to the
faith. Finally, Fra Domenico da Nocera, of the Order of Preachers,
deposed that “one day, near the feast of Pentecost, as I was coming
out of the sacristy of the church of John and Paul, a layman, whom I
did not know, bowed to me, and presently engaged in conversation. He
said he was a friar of our province of Naples, a man of letters; Fra
Giordano of Nola, his name. So we sought out a retired part of the
aforesaid church. Then he told me how he had renounced the gown; of
the many kingdoms he had traversed, and the royal courts, with his
important exercises in letters; but that he had always lived as a
Catholic. And I asking him what he was doing in Venice, and how he was
living, he said that he had been in Venice but very few days, and was
living comfortably; that he proposed to get tranquillity and write a
book he had in his head, and to present it to his Holiness, for the
quiet of his conscience and in order to be allowed to remain in Rome,
and there devote himself to literary work, to show his ability, and
perhaps to obtain a lectureship.”
So far as we know, the Holy Office examined no other witnesses. That
tribunal of the Inquisition at Venice was composed, in 1592, of the
Apostolic Nuncio, Monsignor Taberna; of the Patriarch, Monsignor
Lorenzo Priuli; of the Father Inquisitor, Giovanni Gabriele da Saluzzo,
a Dominican; and of three nobles appointed by the State, and called
the _savii all’ eresia_ (sages or experts in heresy), who reported all
proceedings to the Doge and Senate, and stopped the deliberations when
they deemed them contrary to the laws and customs of the State, or to
the secret instructions they had received. These three sages were, in
that year, Luigi Foscari, Sebastian Barbarigo, and Tomaso Morosini.
Before this tribunal, which sat at the prison of the Inquisition,
appeared the prisoner, Giordano Bruno, on Tuesday, May 26, 1592. He
was a small, lean man, in aspect about forty years old, with a slight
chestnut beard. On being bidden to speak, he began:--
“I will speak the truth. Several times I have been threatened with
being brought to this Holy Office, and I have always held it as a jest,
because I am ready to give an account of myself. While at Frankfort
last year, I had two letters from Signor Giovanni Mocenigo, in which he
invited me to come to Venice, as he wished me to teach him the art of
memory and invention, promising to treat me well, and that I should be
satisfied with him. And so I came, seven or eight months ago. I have
taught him various terms pertaining to these two sciences; living at
first outside of his house, and latterly in his own house. And, as it
seemed to me that I had done and taught him as much as was necessary,
and as was my duty in respect to the things he had sought me for, and
deliberating, therefore, to return to Frankfort to publish certain
of my works, I took leave of him last Thursday, so as to depart. He,
hearing this, and doubting lest I wished to leave his house to teach
other persons the very sciences I had taught him and others, rather
than to go to Frankfort, as I announced, was most urgent to detain me;
but I none the less insisting on going, he began at first to complain
that I had not taught him all I had agreed, and then to threaten me
by saying that, if I would not remain of my own accord, he would find
means to compel me. And the following night, which was Friday, seeing
me firm in my resolution of going, and that I had put my things in
order, and arranged to send them to Frankfort, he came, when I was
in bed, with the pretext of wishing to speak to me; and after he had
entered, there followed his servant Bortolo, with five or six others,
who were, as I believed, gondoliers of the sort near by. And they made
me get out of bed, and conducted me up to an attic, and locked me in
there, Master Giovanni saying that, if I would remain and instruct him
in the terms of memory and of geometry, as he had wished hitherto, he
would set me at liberty; otherwise, something disagreeable would happen
to me. And I replying all along that I thought I had taught him enough,
and more than I was bound, and that I did not deserve to be treated in
that fashion, he left me till the next day, when there came a captain,
accompanied by certain men whom I did not know, and had them lead
me down to a storeroom on the ground-floor of the house, where they
left me till night. Then came another captain, with his assistants,
and conducted me to the prison of this Holy Office, whither I believe
I have been brought by the work of the aforesaid Ser Giovanni, who,
indignant for the reason I have given, has, I think, made some
accusation against me.
“My name is Giordano, of the Bruno family, of the city of Nola,
twelve miles from Naples. I was born and brought up in that town; my
profession has been, and is, that of letters and every science. My
father’s name was Giovanni, my mother’s Fraulissa Savolina; he being
a soldier by profession, who died at the same time with my mother. I
am about forty-four years old, being born, according to what my people
told me, in the year 1548. From my fourteenth year I was at Naples,
to learn humanity, logic, and dialectics, and I used to attend the
public lectures of a certain Sarnese; I heard logic privately from an
Augustinian father, called Fra Theofilo da Vairano, who subsequently
lectured on metaphysics at Rome. When I was fourteen or fifteen, I
put on the habit of St. Dominick at the convent of St. Dominick at
Naples. After the year of probation I was admitted to the profession,
and then I was promoted to holy orders and to the priesthood in due
time, and sang my first mass at Campagna, a town in the same kingdom.
I lived there in a convent of the same order, called St. Bartholomew,
and continued in this garb of St. Dominick, celebrating mass and the
divine offices, and obedience to the superiors of the said order and
of the priors of monasteries, till 1576, the year after the Jubilee.
I was then at Rome, in the convent of the Minerva, under Master Sisto
de Luca, procurator of the order, whither I had come because at Naples
I had been brought to trial twice: the first time for having given
away certain representations and images of the saints, and kept only
a crucifix, wherefore I was charged with spurning the images of the
saints; and, again, for saying to a novice, who was reading _The
History of the Seven Joys_ in verse, what business he had with such a
book,--to throw it aside, and to read sooner some other work, like _The
Lives of the Holy Fathers_; and this case was renewed against me at
the time I went to Rome, together with other charges, which I do not
know. On this account I left the order, and put off the gown.
“I went to Noli, in Genoese territory, and stayed there about four
months, teaching small boys grammar, and reading lectures on the sphere
[astronomy] to certain gentlemen; then I went away, first to Savona,
where I tarried about a fortnight, and thence to Turin. Not finding
entertainment there to my taste, I came to Venice by the Po, and lived
a month and a half in the Frezzaria, in the lodging of a man employed
at the Arsenal, whose name I do not know. Whilst I was here, I had
printed this work [_On the Signs of the Times_], to make a little
money for my support; I showed it first to Father Remigio de Fiorenza.
Departing hence, I went to Padua, where I found some Dominican fathers,
acquaintances of mine, who persuaded me to wear the habit again, even
if I should not choose to return to the order; for it seemed to them
more proper to wear that habit than not. With this view I went to
Bergamo, and had made a garment of cheap white cloth, and over it I
put the scapular, which I had kept when I left Rome. Thus attired I
set out for Lyons; and at Chambèry, going to lodge with the order,
and being very decently entertained, and talking about this with an
Italian father who was there, he said to me, ‘Be warned, for you will
not meet with any sort of friendliness in these parts; and you will
find less the farther you go.’ So I set out for Geneva. There I lodged
at the hostelry; and, a little after my arrival, the Marquis de Vico,
a Neapolitan who was in that city, asked me who I was, and whether I
had gone there to settle and to profess the religion of that place. I
replied to him, after giving an account of myself and the reason why
I had left the order, that I did not intend to profess that religion,
because I did not know what it was; and that therefore I wished to
abide there to live in liberty and to be safe, rather than for any
other purpose. Being persuaded to put off that habit in any case, I
took these clothes, and had a pair of hose made, and other things; and
the marquis, with some other Italians, gave me a sword, hat, cloak, and
other necessary articles, and, in order that I might support myself,
they procured proof-reading for me. I kept to that work about two
months, going, however, sometimes to preaching and sermons, whether of
the Italians or of the French who lectured and preached there: among
others, I heard more than once Nicolo Balbani, of Lucca, who read
the Epistles of St. Paul, and preached on the Evangelists. But when
I was told that I could not stay long in that place unless I should
accept its religion, because I would have no employment from them, and
finding, too, that I could not earn enough to live on, I went thence to
Toulouse, where there is a famous university. Having become acquainted
with some intelligent persons, I was asked to lecture on the sphere to
divers students, which I did--with other lectures on philosophy--for
perhaps six months. At this point, the post of ‘ordinary’ lecturer in
philosophy, which is filled by competition, falling vacant, I took
my doctor’s degree, presented myself for the said competition, was
admitted and approved, and lectured in that city two years continuously
on the text of Aristotle’s _De Anima_ and other philosophical works.
Then, on account of the Civil Wars, I quitted and went to Paris, where,
in order to make myself known, and to give proof of myself, I undertook
an ‘extraordinary’ lectureship, and read thirty lectures, choosing for
subject Thirty Divine Attributes, taken from the first part of St.
Thomas. Later, being requested to accept an ‘ordinary’ lectureship,
I would not, because public lecturers in that city go generally to
mass and the other divine offices, and I have always avoided this,
knowing that I was excommunicated because I had quitted my order and
habit; and although I had that ‘ordinary’ lectureship at Toulouse, I
was not forced to go to mass, as I should have been at Paris. But
conducting the ‘extraordinary’ there, I acquired such a name that the
king, Henry III, sent for me, and wished to know whether my memory was
natural or due to magic art. I satisfied him, both by what I said, and
proved to him, that it was not by magic art, but by science. After
this I published a work on the memory, under the title _De Umbris
Idearum_, which I dedicated to his Majesty,--on which occasion he made
me ‘lecturer extraordinary,’ with a pension; and I continued to read
in that city perhaps five years, when, on account of the tumults which
arose, I took my leave, and with letters from the king himself I went
into England to reside with his ambassador, Michael de Castelnau.
In his house I lived as a gentleman. I stayed in England two years
and a half, and when the ambassador returned to France I accompanied
him to Paris, where I remained another year. Having quitted Paris on
account of the tumults, I betook myself to Germany, stopping first
at Mayence, an archiepiscopal city, for twelve days. Finding neither
here nor at Würzburg, a town a little way off, any entertainment, I
went to Wittenberg, in Saxony, where I found two factions,--one of
philosophers, who were Calvinists, the other of theologians, who were
Lutherans. Among the latter was Alberigo Gentile, whom I had known
in England, a law-professor, who befriended me and introduced me to
read lectures on the _Organon_ of Aristotle; which I did, with other
lectures in philosophy, for two years. At that time, the son of the
old Duke having succeeded his father, who was a Lutheran, and the son
being a Calvinist, he began to favor the party opposed to those who
favored me; so I departed, and went to Prague, and stayed six months.
Whilst there, I published a book on geometry, which I presented to the
Emperor, from whom I had a gift of three hundred thalers. With this
money, having quitted Prague, I spent a year at the Julian Academy in
Brunswick; and the death of the Duke[28] happening at that time, I
delivered an oration at his funeral, in competition with many others
from the university, on which account his son and successor bestowed
eighty crowns of those parts upon me; and I went away to Frankfort to
publish two books,--one _De Minimo_, and the other _De Numero, Monade,
et Figura_, etc. I stayed about six months at Frankfort, lodging in the
convent of the Carmelites,--a place assigned to me by the publisher,
who was obliged to provide me a lodging. And from Frankfort, having
been invited, as I have said, by Ser Giovanni Mocenigo, I came to
Venice seven or eight months ago, where what has since happened I have
already related. I was going anew to Frankfort to print other works
of mine, and one in particular on _The Seven Liberal Arts_, with the
intention of taking these and some other of my published works which I
approve--for some I do not approve--and of going to Rome to lay them at
the feet of his Holiness, who, I have understood, loves the virtuous,
and to put my case before him, with a view to obtain absolution from
excesses, and permission to live in the clerical garb outside of the
order.... I said I wish to present myself at the feet of his Holiness
with some of my approved works, as I have some I do not approve,
meaning by that that some of the works written by me and sent to the
press I do not approve, because in them I have spoken and discussed too
philosophically, unbecomingly, and not enough like a good Christian;
and in particular I know that in some of these works I have taught and
maintained philosophically things which ought to be attributed to the
power, wisdom, and goodness of God according to the Christian faith;
founding my doctrine on sense and reason, and not on faith. So much for
them in general; concerning particulars, I refer to the writings, for I
do not now recall a single article or particular doctrine I may have
taught, but I will reply according as I shall be questioned and as I
shall remember....
[28] “Who was a heretic” is written on the margin of the original
_procès-verbal_.
“The subject of all my books, speaking broadly, is philosophy. In all
of them I have always defined in the manner of philosophy and according
to principles and natural light, not having most concern as to what,
according to faith, ought to be believed; and I think there is nothing
in them from which it can be judged that I professedly wish to impugn
religion rather than to exalt philosophy, although I may have set forth
many impious matters based on my natural light.
“I have taught nothing directly against Catholic Christian religion,
although [I may have done so] indirectly; as was judged at Paris,
where, however, I was allowed to hold certain disputes under the title
of _One Hundred and Twenty Articles against the Peripatetics and Other
Vulgar Philosophers_ (printed with permission of the superiors); as it
was permitted to treat them by the way of natural principles, without
prejudice to the truth according to the light of faith, in which manner
the books of Aristotle and Plato may be read and taught, which are in
similar fashion, indirectly contrary to faith,--nay, much more so than
the articles propounded and defended by me in the manner of philosophy:
all these can be known from what is printed in my last Latin books
from Frankfort, entitled _De Minimo_, _De Monade, de Immenso et
Innumerabilibus_, and in part in _De Compositione Imaginum_. In these
particularly you can see my intention and what I have held, which is,
in a word, I believe in an infinite universe,--that is, the effect of
infinite divine power; because I esteemed it unworthy of the divine
goodness and power that, when it could produce besides this world
another, and infinite others, it should produce a single finite world:
so I have declared that there is an infinite number of particular
worlds similar to this of the earth, which, with Pythagoras, I consider
a star, like which is the moon, other planets, and other stars, which
are infinite; and that all these bodies are worlds, without number,
which make up the infinite university in infinite space, and we call
this the infinite universe, in which are numberless worlds: so that
there is a double infinitude, that of the greatness of the universe,
and that of the multitude of the worlds,--by which indirectly it is
meant to assail the truth according to faith.
“Moreover, in this universe I place a universal Providence, in
virtue of which everything lives, vegetates, moves, and reaches its
perfection; and I understand Providence in two ways: one in which it is
present as the soul in all matter, and all in any part whatsoever, and
this I call Nature, the shadow and footprint of the Deity; the other
in the ineffable way with which God, by essence, presence, and power,
is in all things and over all things, not as a part, but as Soul, in a
manner indescribable. In the Deity I understand all the attributes to
be one and the same substance,--just as theologians and the greatest
philosophers hold; I perceive these attributes, power, wisdom, and
goodness, or will, intelligence, and love, by means of which things
have, first, being (by reason of the will), then, orderly and distinct
being (by reason of the intelligence), and third, concord and symmetry
(by reason of love); this I believe is in all and above all, as nothing
is without participation in being, and being is not without its
essence, just as nothing is beautiful without the presence of beauty;
so nothing can be exempt from the divine presence. In this manner, by
use of reason, and not by use of substantial [theological] truth, I
discern distinctions in the Deity.
“Regarding the world as caused and produced, I meant that, as all being
depends on the First Cause, I did not shrink from the term ‘creation;’
which I believe even Aristotle expressed, saying that God is, on
whom the world and Nature are dependent; so that, according to the
explanation of St. Thomas, be the world either eternal or temporal
according to its nature, it is dependent on the First Cause, and
nothing exists in it independently.
“Next, concerning that which belongs to faith--not speaking in the
manner of philosophy--about the divine persons, that wisdom and that
son of the mind, called by philosophers _intellect_ and by theologians
the _Word_, which we are to believe took upon itself human flesh, I,
standing within the bounds of philosophy, have not understood it; but I
have doubted, and with inconstant faith maintained,--not that I recall
having shown a sign of it in writing or in speech, excepting as in
other things indirectly one might gather from my belief and profession
concerning those things which can be proved by the reason and deduced
from natural light. And then concerning the divine spirit in a third
person, I have been able to comprehend nothing in the way in which one
ought to believe; but in the Pythagorean way, conformable to that way
which Solomon points out, I have understood it to be the soul of the
universe, or assistant in the universe, according to that saying in the
_Wisdom of Solomon_, ‘The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world; and
that which containeth all things hath knowledge of the voice.’[29] This
seems to me to agree to the Pythagorean doctrine explained by Vergil
in this passage of the _Æneid_:--
‘Principio coelum ac terras camposque liquentes,
Lucentemque globum Lunae Titaniaque astra,
Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem.’[30]
[29] Chap. I, v, 7.
[30] Book VI, 724-27.
“I teach in my philosophy that from this spirit, which is called the
Life of the Universe, the life and soul of everything which has life
and soul springs; that it is immortal, just as bodies, so far as
concerns their substance, are all immortal, death being nothing else
than division and coming together; this doctrine seems to be expressed
in _Ecclesiastes_, where it says, ‘There is no new thing under the sun.
Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new?’ and so on.”
_Inquisitor._ “Have you held, do you hold and believe, the Trinity,
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in essence, but distinct in person, as
is taught and believed by the Catholic Church?”
_Bruno._ “Speaking as a Christian, and according to theology, and as
every faithful Christian and Catholic ought to believe, I have indeed
had doubts about the name ‘person’ as applied to the Son and the
Holy Spirit; not understanding these two persons to be distinct from
the Father, except as I have said above, speaking in the manner of
philosophy, and assigning the intelligence of the Father to the Son,
and his love to the Holy Spirit, but without comprehending this word
‘persons,’ which in St. Augustine is declared to be not an ancient
but a new word, and of his time: and I have held this opinion since I
was eighteen years old till now, but in fact I have never denied, nor
taught, nor written, but only doubted in my own mind, as I have said.”
_Inquisitor._ “Have you believed, and do you believe, all that the Holy
Mother Catholic Church teaches, believes, and holds about the First
Person, and have you ever in any wise doubted concerning the First
Person?”
_Bruno._ “I have believed and held undoubtingly all that every faithful
Christian ought to believe and hold concerning the First Person.
Regarding the Second Person, I declare that I have held it to be
really one in essence with the First, and so the Third; because, being
indivisible in essence, they cannot suffer inequality, for all the
attributes which belong to the Father belong also to the Son and Holy
Spirit: only I have doubted, as I said above, how this Second Person
could become incarnate and could have suffered: nevertheless I have
never denied nor taught that, and if I have said anything about this
Second Person, I have said it in quoting the opinions of others, like
Arius and Sabellius and other followers of theirs. I will tell what I
must have said, and which may have caused scandal and suspicion, as was
set down in the first charges against me at Naples, to wit: I declared
that the opinion of Arius seemed less pernicious than it was commonly
esteemed and understood, because it is commonly understood that Arius
meant to say that the Word is the first thing created by the Father;
whereas I declared that Arius said that the Word was neither creator
nor creature, but midway between creator and creature,--as the word
is midway between the speaker and the thing spoken,--and therefore
that the Word was the first-born before all creatures, not _by_ which,
but _through_ which everything has been created, not _to_ which but
_through_ which everything is referred and returns to the ultimate end,
which is the Father. I exaggerated on this theme so that I was regarded
with suspicion. I recall further to have said here in Venice that Arius
did not intend to say that Christ, that is the Word, is a creature, but
a mediator in the sense I have stated. I do not remember the precise
place, whether at a druggist’s or bookseller’s, but I know I said this
in one of these shops, arguing with certain priests who made a show of
theology: I know not who they were, nor should I recognize them if I
saw them. To make my statement more clear, I repeat that I have held
there is one God, distinguished as Father, as Word, and as Love, which
is the Divine Spirit, and that all these three are one God in essence;
but I have not understood, and have doubted, how these three can get
the name of persons, for it did not seem to me that this name of person
was applicable to the Deity; and I supported myself in this by the
words of St. Augustine, who says, ‘_Cum formidine proferimus hoc nomen
personae, quando loquimur de divinis, et necessitate coacti utimur_;’
besides which, in the Old and New Testaments I have not found nor read
this expression nor this form of speech.”
_Inquisitor._ “Having doubted the Incarnation of the Word, what has
been your opinion about Christ?”
_Bruno._ “I have thought that the divinity of the Word was present
in the humanity of Christ individually, and I have not been able
to understand that it was a union like that of soul and body, but
a presence of such a kind that we could truly say of this man that
he was God, and of this divinity that it was man; because between
substance infinite and divine and substance finite and human there is
no proportion as between soul and body, or any other two things which
can make up one existence; and I believe, therefore, that St. Augustine
shrank from applying that word ‘person’ to this case: so that, in
conclusion, I think, as regards my doubt of the Incarnation, I have
wavered concerning its ineffable meaning, but not against the Holy
Scripture, which says ‘the Word is made flesh.’”
_Inquisitor._ “What opinion have you had concerning the miracles, acts,
and death of Christ?”
_Bruno._ “I have held what the Holy Catholic Church holds, although
I have said of the miracles that, while they are testimony of the
divinity [of Christ], the evangelical law is, in my opinion, a stronger
testimony, because the Lord said ‘he shall do greater than these’
miracles; and it occurred to me that whilst others, like the Apostles,
wrought miracles, so that, in their external effect, they seemed like
those wrought by him, Christ worked by his own virtue, and the Apostles
by virtue of another’s power. Therefore I have maintained that the
miracles of Christ were divine, true, real, and not apparent; nor have
I ever thought, said, nor believed the contrary.
“I have never spoken of the sacrifice of the mass, nor of
transubstantiation, except in the way the Holy Church holds. I have
believed, and do believe, that the transubstantiation of the bread
and wine into the body and blood of Christ takes place really and in
substance.”
_Inquisitor._ “Did you ever say that Christ was not God, but a
good-for-nothing, and that, doing wretched works, he ought to
have expected to be put to death, although he showed that he died
unwillingly?”
_Bruno._ “I am astonished that this question is put to me, for I have
never had such opinions, nor said such a thing, nor thought aught
contrary to what I said just now about the person of Christ, which is
that I believe what the Holy Mother Church believes. I know not how
these things are imputed to me.” At this he seemed much grieved.
_Inquisitor._ “In reasoning about the Incarnation of the Word, what
have you held concerning the delivery of the said Word by the Virgin
Mary?”
_Bruno._ “That it was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of Mary as
Virgin; and when any one shall find that I have said or maintained the
contrary, I will submit myself to any punishment.”
_Inquisitor._ “Do you know the import and effect of the sacrament of
penance?”
_Bruno._ “I know that it is ordained to purge our sins; and never,
never have I talked on this subject, but have always held that
whosoever dies in mortal sin will be damned. It is about sixteen years
since I presented myself to a confessor, except on two occasions:
once at Toulouse, to a Jesuit, and another time in Paris, to another
Jesuit, whilst I was treating, through the Bishop of Bergamo, then
nuncio at Paris, and through Don Bernardin de Mendoza, to reënter
my order, with a view to confessing; and they said that, being an
apostate, they could not absolve me, and that I could not go to the
holy offices, wherefore I have abstained from the confessional and
from going to mass. I have intended, however, to emerge some time from
these censures, and to live like a Christian and a priest; and when
I have sinned I have always asked pardon of God, and I would also
willingly have confessed if I could, because I have firmly believed
that impenitent sinners are damned.”
_Inquisitor._ “You hold, therefore, that souls are immortal, and that
they do not pass from one body into another, as we have information you
have said?”
_Bruno._ “I have held, and hold, that souls are immortal, and that they
are subsisting substances, that is rational souls, and that, speaking
as a Catholic, they do not pass from one body into another, but go
either to paradise or to purgatory, or to hell; but I have, to be sure,
argued, following philosophical reasons, that as the soul subsists in
the body, and is non-existent in the body [that is, not an integral
part of it], it may, in the same way that it exists in one, exist in
another, and pass from one to another; and if this be not true, it at
least seems like the opinion of Pythagoras.”
_Inquisitor._ “Have you busied yourself much in theological studies,
and are you instructed in the Catholic resolutions?”
_Bruno._ “Not a great deal, having devoted myself to philosophy, which
has been my profession.”
_Inquisitor._ “Have you ever vituperated the theologians and their
decisions, calling their doctrine vanity and other similar opprobrious
names?”
_Bruno._ “Speaking of the theologians who interpret Holy Scripture, I
have never spoken otherwise than well. I may have said something about
some one in particular, and blamed him,--some Lutheran theologian, for
instance, or other heretics,--but I have always esteemed the Catholic
theologians, especially St. Thomas, whose works I have ever kept by me,
read, and studied, and honored them, and I have them at present, and
hold them very dear.”
_Inquisitor._ “Which have you reckoned heretical theologians?”
_Bruno._ “All those who profess theology, but who do not agree
with the Roman Church, I have esteemed heretics. I have read books
by Melanchthon, Luther, Calvin, and by other heretics beyond the
mountains, not to learn their doctrine nor to avail myself of it,
for I deemed them more ignorant than myself, but I read them out of
curiosity. I despise these heretics and their doctrines, because they
do not merit the name of theologians, but of pedants; for the Catholic
ecclesiastical doctors, on the contrary, I have the esteem I should.”
_Inquisitor._ “How, then, have you dared to say that the Catholic faith
is full of blasphemies, and without merit in God’s sight?”
_Bruno._ “Never have I said such a thing, neither in writing, nor in
word, nor in thought.”
_Inquisitor._ “What things are needful for salvation?”
_Bruno._ “Faith, hope, and charity. Good works are also necessary; or
it will suffice not to do to others that which we do not wish to have
done to us, and to live morally.”
_Inquisitor._ “Have you ever denounced the Catholic religious orders,
especially for having revenues?”
_Bruno._ “I have never denounced one of them for any cause; on the
contrary, I have found fault when the clergy, lacking income, are
forced to beg; and I was surprised, in France, when I saw certain
priests going about the streets to beg, with open missals.”
_Inquisitor._ “Did you ever say that the life of the clergy does not
conform to that of the Apostles?”
_Bruno._ “I have never said nor held such a thing!” And as he said this
he raised his hands, and looked about astonished. In answer to another
question, he continued: “I have said that the Apostles achieved more
by their preaching, good life, examples, and miracles than force can
accomplish, which is used against those who refuse to be Catholics;
without condemning this method, I approve the other.”
_Inquisitor._ “Have you ever said that the miracles wrought by Christ
and the Apostles were apparent miracles, done by magic art, and not
real; and that you have enough spirit to work the same or greater, and
wished finally to make the whole world run after you?”
_Bruno_ (_lifting up both his hands_). “What is this? What man has
invented this devilishness? I have never said such a thing, nor has it
entered my imagination. O God, what is this? I had rather be dead than
that this should be proposed to me!”
_Inquisitor._ “What opinion have you of the sin of the flesh, outside
of the sacrament of matrimony?”
_Bruno._ “I have spoken of this sometimes, saying, in general, that
it was a lesser sin than the others, but that adultery was the chief
of carnal sins, whereas the other was lighter, and almost venial.
This, indeed, I have said, but I know and acknowledge to have spoken
in error, because I remember what St. Paul says. However, I spoke thus
through levity, being with others and discussing worldly topics. I have
never said that the Church made a great mistake in constituting this a
sin....
“I hold it a pious and holy thing, as the Church ordains, to observe
fasts and abstain from meat and prohibited food on the days she
appoints, and that every faithful Catholic is bound to observe them;
which I too would have done except for the reason given above; and God
help me if I have ever eaten meat out of contempt [for the Church]. As
for having listened to heretics preach, or lecture, or dispute, I did
so several times from curiosity and to see their methods and eloquence,
rather than from delight or enjoyment; indeed, after the reading or
sermon, at the time when they distributed bread according to their form
of communion, I went away about my business, and never partook of their
bread nor observed their rites.”
_Inquisitor._ “From your explanation of the Incarnation there follows
another grave error, namely, that in Christ there was a human
personality.”
_Bruno._ “I recognize and concede that these and other improprieties
may follow, and I have stated this opinion, not to defend, but only to
explain it; and I confess my error such and so great as it is; and had
I applied my mind to this adduced impropriety and to others deducible
from it, I should not have reached these conclusions, because I may
have erred in the premises, but certainly not in the conclusions.”
_Inquisitor._ “Do you remember to have said that men are begotten of
corruption, like the other animals, and that this has been since the
Deluge down to the present?”
_Bruno._ “I believe this is the opinion of Lucretius. I have read it
and heard it talked about, but I do not recall having referred to it as
my opinion; nor have I ever believed it. When I reasoned about it, I
did so referring it to Lucretius, Epicurus, and their similars, and it
is not possible to deduce it from my philosophy, as will readily appear
to any one who reads that.”
_Inquisitor._ “Have you ever had any book of conjurations or of similar
superstitious arts, or have you said you wished to devote yourself to
the art of divination?”
_Bruno._ “As for books of conjurations, I have always despised them,
never had them by me, nor attributed any efficacy to them. As for
divination, particularly that relating to judicial astrology, I have
said, and even proposed, to study it to see if there is any truth or
conformity in it. I have communicated my purpose to several persons,
remarking that, as I have examined all parts of philosophy, and
inquired into all science except the judicial, when I had convenience
and leisure I wish to have a look at that, which I have not done yet.”
_Inquisitor._ “Have you said that the operations of the world are
guided by Fate, denying the providence of God?”
_Bruno._ “This cannot be found either in my words or in my writings; on
the contrary, you will find, in my books, that I set forth providence
and free will.... I have praised many heretics and also heretic
princes, but not as heretics, but only for the moral virtues they
possessed. In particular, in my book _De la Causa, Principio et Uno_, I
praise the Queen of England, and call her ‘divine;’ not as an attribute
of religion, but as a certain epithet which the ancients used also to
bestow on princes; and in England, where I then was and wrote that
book, it is customary to give this title ‘divine’ to the Queen; and I
was all the more persuaded to name her thus because she knew me, for I
often went with the ambassador to court. I acknowledge to have erred in
praising this lady, who is a heretic, and especially in attributing to
her the epithet ‘divine.’”...
_Inquisitor._ “Are the errors and heresies committed and confessed by
you still embraced, or do you detest them?”
_Bruno._ “All the errors I have committed, down to this very day,
pertaining to Catholic life and regular profession, and all the
heresies I have held and the doubts I have had concerning the Catholic
faith and the questions determined by the Holy Church, I now detest;
and I abhor, and repent me of having done, held, said, believed,
or doubted of anything that was not Catholic; and I pray this holy
tribunal that, knowing my infirmities, it will please to accept me into
the bosom of the Holy Church, providing me with remedies opportune for
my safety and using me with mercy.”
Bruno was then re-questioned concerning the reason why he broke away
from his order. He repeated, in substance, the testimony already given,
adding that his baptismal name was Philip.
_Inquisitor._ “Have you, in these parts, any enemy or other malevolent
person, and who is he, and for what cause?”
_Bruno._ “I have no enemy in these parts, unless it be Ser Giovanni
Mocenigo and his followers and servants, by whom I have been more
grievously offended than by any other man living, because he has
assassinated me in my life, in my honor, and in my goods,--having
imprisoned me in his own house, confiscating all my writings, books,
and other property; and he has done this, not only because he wished
me to teach him all I knew, but also because he wished that I should
not teach it to any one else; and he has always threatened my life and
honor if I did not teach him what I knew.”
_Inquisitor._ “Your apostacy of so many years renders you very
suspicious to the Holy Faith, since you have so long spurned her
censures, whence it may happen that you have held sinister opinions
in other matters than those you have deposed; you may, therefore, and
ought now to purify your conscience.”
_Bruno._ “It seems to me that the articles I have confessed, and all
that which I have expressed in my writings, show sufficiently the
importance of my excess, and therefore I confess it, whatsoever may
be its extent, and I acknowledge to have given grave cause for the
suspicion of heresy. And I add to this that I have always had remorse
in my conscience, and the purpose of reforming, although I was seeking
to effect this in the easiest and surest way, still shrinking from
going back to the straitness of regular obedience.... And I was at this
very time putting in order certain writings to propitiate his Holiness,
so that I might be allowed to live more independently than is possible
as an ecclesiastic....
“Beginning with my accuser, who I believe is Signor Giovanni Mocenigo,
I think no one will be found who can say that I have taught false and
heretical doctrine; and I have no suspicion that any one else can
accuse me in matters of holy faith. It may be that I, during so long
a course of time, may have erred and strayed from the Church in other
matters than those I have exposed, and that I may be ensnared in other
censures, but, though I have reflected much upon it, I have discovered
nothing; and I now promptly confess my errors, and am here in the hands
of your Excellencies to receive remedy, for my salvation. My force does
not suffice to tell how great is my repentance for my misdeeds, nor to
express it as I should wish.” Having knelt down, he said: “I humbly
ask pardon of God and your Excellencies for all the errors committed
by me; and I am ready to suffer whatsoever by your prudence shall be
determined and adjudged expedient for my soul. And I further supplicate
that you rather give me a punishment which is excessive in gravity than
make such a public demonstration as might bring some dishonor upon the
holy habit of the order which I have worn; and if, through the mercy of
God and of your Excellencies, my life shall be granted to me, I promise
to make a notable reform in my life, and that I will atone for the
scandal by other and as great edification.”
_Inquisitor._ “Have you anything else to say for the present?”
_Bruno._ “I have nothing more to say.”