The Roman Inquisition appointed a lead inquisitor by the name of Roberto Bellarmino, a theologian, to handle the Bruno case (in English, he’s known as Robert Bellarmine and was canonized as a saint in the 1930s). Bellarmino was sharp and he had a well-defined sense of obedience and discipline. He had extensive philosophical training. His specialty was to untangle theological disputes, simplify them, and then with intellectual dexterity, drive home his point. This is exactly what we see in his investigation of Bruno.
As the investigation went forward, Bellarmino conducted an in-depth review of all of Bruno’s writings. He extracted eight specific propositions from Bruno’s works and the Inquisition asked Bruno to abjure them as heretical. Unfortunately, the original document containing the eight propositions seems not to have survived, but scholars have succeeded in plausibly reconstructing it.
There is still some debate with regards to its contents. Some scholars, for instance, think that the list of propositions included Bruno’s Copernicanism and his view of an infinite cosmos. Others disagree. During the trial, Bruno agreed to abjure most of the propositions, but the majority of experts agree that the one proposition Bruno refused to abjure was his view on the soul.
Contrary to the Christian article of faith of the disembodied soul, “Bruno saw the individual soul as unable to survive the dissolution of the body, both of them returning on death into the infinite ocean of universal being,” [11] explained Hillary Gatti, a Bruno researcher. This was the “crux marking the distance between his philosophy and Christian theology…” [12]
There’s also a summary of the trial, drafted in 1598, that provides some clues about what those eight propositions were. Ingrid Rowland lists four subjects from the summary on which Bruno refused to budge, even knowing he was risking torture and death [13]: his skepticism of the Trinity, divinity, and incarnation; his belief that there are multiple worlds; his stance “on the souls of men and beast;” and his view “on the art of divination.” [14]
[11] Gatti, Hilary. Essays on Giordano Bruno. Princeton University Press, 2010. Epilogue, pages 315 ff.
[12] Gatti. Epilogue, pages 315 ff.
[13] Though facing torture and death is – I would say almost universally – intimidating, it’s not clear whether the fear of these consequences influenced Bruno’s stance. That’s because torture was ubiquitous and a regular part of the judicial process.
British neurobiologist Colin Blakemore agrees with Tyson that Bruno was not a scientist (my experience with atheists and skeptics usually portray Bruno as a scientist) [4], and he claims that his death was a huge blow against Italian science. Blakemore narrates that in the Reformation, scholars who speculated about the nature of the world were deemed as heretics. Bruno is given as an example, saying that he was captivated by the Copernican theory that the earth moved around the Sun, making it appear to be the same reason Bruno was punished. [5]
Regardless of how people accounted for Bruno (whether he is a scientist or not), I think those who propagate a conflict thesis between science and religion will agree with Blakemore in this:
I think Bruno’s execution marked the beginning of a battle between faith and reason. The dangers I faced for my science came from a small group of fanatics. But during the Renaissance, most threats to scientists had the backing of the mighty Catholic church. [6]
…The facts convey that Bruno was a hermetic philosopher and a magician, not a scientist.
[4] Some articles that depict Bruno as a scientist was Nick Greene’s entitled, “Biography of Giordano Bruno, Scientist and Philosopher (2019).” Another was Alberto Martinez’s, “Was Giordano Bruno Burned at the Stake for Believing in Exoplanets? (2018).” The former explicitly labeled Bruno as a scientist, the latter focused on arguing that Bruno was condemned mainly for his belief that there are other worlds. Though Martinez did not label Bruno explicitly as a scientist, I think it could be taken as an implicit claim by virtue of making it seem that Bruno was condemned for believing in exoplanets.
[5] Blakemore, Colin. “Christianity — God and the Scientists,” July 15, 2015. https://youtu.be/UcZ44kQphlo?si=PVHgA37SicTfk9BI
—Omar Rushlive L. Arellano, “Overblown Religious Myths: Is Giordano Bruno a Condemned Scientist?” Medium, May 31, 2024
Bruno’s afterlife as a character and a philosopher (Canone 1998; Ricci 1990; 2007) shows a great variety, not mutually exclusive, of interpretations of his philosophy. The history of his fame encompasses many possible interpretations of his philosophical aims. During the trial of Bruno in Rome, the German recent convert Kaspar Schoppe wrote a witness report of the testimony, which was first published in print by the Hungarian Calvinist Peter Alvinczi to vilify the Catholics (Alvinczi 1621, 30–35; Schoppe 1998). With his fate, Bruno began to symbolize the struggle between religious persecution and freedom of thought, thus inaugurating philosophical modernity.
https://iep.utm.edu/giordano-bruno/#H3
—Paul Richard Blum, “Giordano Bruno (1548—1600),” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.
Bruno’s case is not new to me. He is very interesting because of the contrast with Galileo. Galileo was condemned for tending toward heresy and not for heresy itself, and he abjured under threat of death. Galileo was scientifically correct.
Bruno was scientifically correct in some of his views but not in others. He apparently held heretical views. He was not, strictly speaking, a scientist. He was a freethinking, highly speculative philosopher. If he walked around today, he would be considered eccentric and harmless.
The real issue in the condemnations of Galileo and Bruno is the ideological hegemony of religion over political society. The oppression of Christians in Pakistan, the repressive theocracy in Iran, and the irreconcilable division in the U.S. between those who fight for the “right” to abortion and those who oppose it are illustrative of the fact that this issue, which incites murderous violence on practically all sides, is not at all settled.
THE CASE OF GIORDANO BRUNO
ReplyDeleteThe Roman Inquisition appointed a lead inquisitor by the name of Roberto Bellarmino, a theologian, to handle the Bruno case (in English, he’s known as Robert Bellarmine and was canonized as a saint in the 1930s). Bellarmino was sharp and he had a well-defined sense of obedience and discipline. He had extensive philosophical training. His specialty was to untangle theological disputes, simplify them, and then with intellectual dexterity, drive home his point. This is exactly what we see in his investigation of Bruno.
As the investigation went forward, Bellarmino conducted an in-depth review of all of Bruno’s writings. He extracted eight specific propositions from Bruno’s works and the Inquisition asked Bruno to abjure them as heretical. Unfortunately, the original document containing the eight propositions seems not to have survived, but scholars have succeeded in plausibly reconstructing it.
There is still some debate with regards to its contents. Some scholars, for instance, think that the list of propositions included Bruno’s Copernicanism and his view of an infinite cosmos. Others disagree. During the trial, Bruno agreed to abjure most of the propositions, but the majority of experts agree that the one proposition Bruno refused to abjure was his view on the soul.
Contrary to the Christian article of faith of the disembodied soul, “Bruno saw the individual soul as unable to survive the dissolution of the body, both of them returning on death into the infinite ocean of universal being,” [11] explained Hillary Gatti, a Bruno researcher. This was the “crux marking the distance between his philosophy and Christian theology…” [12]
There’s also a summary of the trial, drafted in 1598, that provides some clues about what those eight propositions were. Ingrid Rowland lists four subjects from the summary on which Bruno refused to budge, even knowing he was risking torture and death [13]: his skepticism of the Trinity, divinity, and incarnation; his belief that there are multiple worlds; his stance “on the souls of men and beast;” and his view “on the art of divination.” [14]
[11] Gatti, Hilary. Essays on Giordano Bruno. Princeton University Press, 2010. Epilogue, pages 315 ff.
[12] Gatti. Epilogue, pages 315 ff.
[13] Though facing torture and death is – I would say almost universally – intimidating, it’s not clear whether the fear of these consequences influenced Bruno’s stance. That’s because torture was ubiquitous and a regular part of the judicial process.
[14] Rowland. Chapter 26, pages 226 ff.
https://historyhub.info/the-forces-behind-the-killing-of-giordano-bruno/
—Joseph Nichol, “The Forces Behind the Killing of Giordano Bruno,” HistoryHub.info, January 29, 2021
To be continued
Gonzalinho
THE CASE OF GIORDANO BRUNO
DeleteContinued
British neurobiologist Colin Blakemore agrees with Tyson that Bruno was not a scientist (my experience with atheists and skeptics usually portray Bruno as a scientist) [4], and he claims that his death was a huge blow against Italian science. Blakemore narrates that in the Reformation, scholars who speculated about the nature of the world were deemed as heretics. Bruno is given as an example, saying that he was captivated by the Copernican theory that the earth moved around the Sun, making it appear to be the same reason Bruno was punished. [5]
Regardless of how people accounted for Bruno (whether he is a scientist or not), I think those who propagate a conflict thesis between science and religion will agree with Blakemore in this:
I think Bruno’s execution marked the beginning of a battle between faith and reason. The dangers I faced for my science came from a small group of fanatics. But during the Renaissance, most threats to scientists had the backing of the mighty Catholic church. [6]
…The facts convey that Bruno was a hermetic philosopher and a magician, not a scientist.
[4] Some articles that depict Bruno as a scientist was Nick Greene’s entitled, “Biography of Giordano Bruno, Scientist and Philosopher (2019).” Another was Alberto Martinez’s, “Was Giordano Bruno Burned at the Stake for Believing in Exoplanets? (2018).” The former explicitly labeled Bruno as a scientist, the latter focused on arguing that Bruno was condemned mainly for his belief that there are other worlds. Though Martinez did not label Bruno explicitly as a scientist, I think it could be taken as an implicit claim by virtue of making it seem that Bruno was condemned for believing in exoplanets.
[5] Blakemore, Colin. “Christianity — God and the Scientists,” July 15, 2015. https://youtu.be/UcZ44kQphlo?si=PVHgA37SicTfk9BI
[6] Ibid., 12:45–13:05. https://youtu.be/UcZ44kQphlo?si=PVHgA37SicTfk9BI
https://reasonablefaithphqc.medium.com/overblown-religious-myths-is-giordano-bruno-a-condemned-scientist-80dc1bcc3a58
—Omar Rushlive L. Arellano, “Overblown Religious Myths: Is Giordano Bruno a Condemned Scientist?” Medium, May 31, 2024
Bruno’s afterlife as a character and a philosopher (Canone 1998; Ricci 1990; 2007) shows a great variety, not mutually exclusive, of interpretations of his philosophy. The history of his fame encompasses many possible interpretations of his philosophical aims. During the trial of Bruno in Rome, the German recent convert Kaspar Schoppe wrote a witness report of the testimony, which was first published in print by the Hungarian Calvinist Peter Alvinczi to vilify the Catholics (Alvinczi 1621, 30–35; Schoppe 1998). With his fate, Bruno began to symbolize the struggle between religious persecution and freedom of thought, thus inaugurating philosophical modernity.
https://iep.utm.edu/giordano-bruno/#H3
—Paul Richard Blum, “Giordano Bruno (1548—1600),” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.
Bruno’s case is not new to me. He is very interesting because of the contrast with Galileo. Galileo was condemned for tending toward heresy and not for heresy itself, and he abjured under threat of death. Galileo was scientifically correct.
Bruno was scientifically correct in some of his views but not in others. He apparently held heretical views. He was not, strictly speaking, a scientist. He was a freethinking, highly speculative philosopher. If he walked around today, he would be considered eccentric and harmless.
The real issue in the condemnations of Galileo and Bruno is the ideological hegemony of religion over political society. The oppression of Christians in Pakistan, the repressive theocracy in Iran, and the irreconcilable division in the U.S. between those who fight for the “right” to abortion and those who oppose it are illustrative of the fact that this issue, which incites murderous violence on practically all sides, is not at all settled.
Gonzalinho