Episode 41: Trial by Fire

I Take History With My Coffee Podcast
Episode 41
Title: Trial by Fire

 “That day many of his friends turned from him, and the great majority of the people became very hostile.  The next day saw his deluded supporters abused by the people, while his enemies were emboldened by the support of the populace, by the backing of the armed Compagnacci, and by the fact that a Signoria sympathetic to them sat in the palace.”

Francesco Guicciardini, History of Florence, c. 1508

Welcome back to the I Take History With My Coffee podcast where we explore history in the time it takes to drink a cup of coffee.


In the previous episode, we saw that by the end of 1497, Girolamo Savonarola’s popularity and support were beginning to wither in the face of growing opposition from within Florence and the issuing of a papal excommunication of the friar.  On top of this, the city faced the threat of a papal interdict upon Florence which would have damaging ramifications for her relationship with other states as well as commerce.  

On March 9, 1498, a papal ultimatum was delivered to the Signoria and it was evident that it created a deep divide among the city’s citizens.  The papal brief launched a full-scale attack on Savonarola, accusing him of arrogance, presumption, illegal preaching, scandalous behavior, and daring to argue that he had not been excommunicated.  The newly elected Signoria discussed Savonarola's fate on March 3 and then again on the 14th. Growing hostility arose from the threatened interdict’s impact upon Florentine merchants. The dilemma involved sending him to Rome, arresting him, stopping his preaching, or continuing his protection.  The Signoria reached a consensus that Savonarola should cease his preaching, despite some still viewing the papal brief as an insult to the republic.

Behind the scenes, the initially divided Signoria eventually secured the crucial votes in favor of the Pope. This shift allowed them to silence Savonarola and pave the way for potential harsher measures. Despite disagreements among the factions, they all feared the consequences of arresting the friar, apprehensive about provoking civil unrest in the city.  

In March 1498, Florence faced a crisis driven by political tensions between supporters of Savonarola and those seeking his expulsion. That year’s Carnival witnessed clashes between devout marchers and the Compagnacci, an armed gang opposed to the friar.

On March 25th, Franciscan friar Francesco da Puglia challenged Savonarola's defenders to a trial by fire. Domenico Buonvicini da Pescia, a top assistant of Savonarola, accepted the challenge and immediately became the most talked about subject in the city.  The government intervened and oversaw the legalities of the agreement between the Franciscans and Dominicans.

In the traditional ordeal or trial by fire, individuals were challenged to walk through a raging bonfire, trusting in divine grace to protect them. This practice, while seemingly irrational to modern ears, was a significant part of the cultural and religious landscape of the Italian Renaissance.

Despite the revival of classical learning during the Renaissance, the gods and heroes of pagan antiquity were more of a fascination for the elite than an actual belief system for the masses. In times of crisis, ordinary Italians turned to their Christian faith, seeking solace and protection through prayer, particularly to figures like the Virgin Mary.  Saints and martyrs were revered as supreme heroes and religious themes dominated the art and intellectual discourse of the time. Figures like Michelangelo were deeply religious, and even the most prominent intellectuals of the era, such as Pico della Mirandola and Angelo Poliziano, had close ties to the church.

The situation escalated as both sides prepared for the ordeal. The zeal among Savonarola's followers was such that many volunteered to enter the fire, believing in the possibility of a miracle. However, Savonarola himself, a logical thinker, harbored doubts about tempting fate. Despite his initial hesitation, Savonarola eventually agreed with the ordeal. Opponents, including the Arrabbiati and Compagnacci, strategized to undermine Savonarola's credibility.  Details were finalized by the beginning of April.  Only fra Domenico's survival could validate Savonarola's claims.  Any other outcome meant exile for the friar.  The news of the planned ordeal spread to Rome, prompting displeasure from Pope Alexander VI.  Despite opposition from Florentine legal quarters, the Signoria proceeded, viewing it as an opportunity to heal city divisions.

The ordeal was scheduled for April 6 but moved to April 7, the Saturday preceding Palm Sunday.  Foreigners were ordered out of Florence, and the gates were locked.  The Piazza della Signoria was heavily guarded, with armed companies, including Savonarola's private guard and the Compagnacci, positioned around the piazza. The presence of soldiers aimed to prevent potential unrest. The spectators, mainly on the northern side, included women and children, with windows, balconies, and roofs filled with onlookers.

A large wooden platform had been constructed in the piazza. Enclosed by a low brick wall, logs were stacked along each side, soaked in oil, pitch, resin, and gunpowder to intensify the fire. A narrow passage down the middle was designated for the rival friars. The Dominican and Franciscan would enter the inferno from opposite ends.

The morning passed as the two sides haggled over procedural points, debating finer points of philosophy and theology.  But as these finer points were nitpicked, the waiting crowd in the piazza grew more impatient and then angry.  Then, as if God was done with the spectacle, a thunderstorm rolled over the city with heavy rain, lightning, and hail.  So me saw it as a sign of the friar’s sanctity, and others saw it as him summoning demonic forces to stop the ordeal.  Within hours, the ardent popular feeling of Florence transformed into raging hatred and contempt.  They had gathered to see a miracle, and now many in Florence felt cheated or tricked.  The storm of rage Savonarola had long feared now crashed upon him.

Tensions in Florence had reached a critical mass.  The next day, Palm Sunday, witnessed targeted assaults on Savonarola's associates, the Frateschi.  These included the Valori, Soderini, and others. The Compagnacci and other groups sought to provoke the populace. The city's anger escalated rapidly, fueled by discontent with the friar.  The situation worsened as a cry to march on San Marco convent echoed through the streets, and the confrontation devolved into armed fights. In anticipation of such a situation, Savonarola's supporters, with the cooperation of some friars, had smuggled weapons into San Marco. 

The assault on San Marco on Palm Sunday, April 8th, was initiated by an enraged crowd, and for approximately two hours, the Signoria did nothing to stop the attack. This delay was deliberate, driven by the fear that the armed citizens, likely sympathetic to Savonarola, might resist government interference. Those in the government against Savonarola aimed to create an atmosphere of menace against the friar and his supporters, leaving the turmoil in the hands of the Compagnacci.

As the crowd advanced towards San Marco, the friars inside rang the convent's bell as a call for help, but no help arrived. The friar, known for his fighting spirit, endorsed using arms. Armed men from the convent met the crowd and joined the battle.  This resulted in casualties on both sides.

The Signoria sent ultimatums to the besieged and deployed stone-throwing machines for the assault. Many women and laymen had already left the convent, fearing for their lives. Francesco Valori, attempting to gather armed support, escaped through a tunnel, but his house was attacked, his wife was killed, and Valori himself was brutally murdered near the church of San Procolo.  The siege continued with the aggressors setting fire to gates and attempting to breach walls. The defenders resisted fiercely, using various weapons, including harquebuses. The battle endured for about six or seven hours, with intense fighting in the innermost part of the convent. 

Facing a well-armed force and with Savonarola engrossed in prayer, the friars eventually capitulated. The government, threatening the destruction of the convent, compelled their surrender. A frenzied crowd outside, seemingly eager to carry out the threat, heightened the urgency.  Meanwhile, in other parts of the city, groups sought leaders like Giovanbattista Ridolfi and Paolantonio Soderini, resulting in attacks on the houses of the wealthy, driven by the desperation of a populace grappling with famine and unemployment.  Government representatives negotiated the surrender, assuring the safety of Savonarola and his aides during the journey to the government palace. 

This dramatic turn of events underscored the abrupt end of Savonarola's four years in public life. The disappointment of the failed trial by fire and the accumulated resentments, including Florence's military setbacks and the unfulfilled promises of prayers and processions, converged in a burst of contempt and cruelty during Savonarola's procession through the hostile streets. The captives were subjected to insults, kicks, punches, and other forms of physical abuse.  The brutality extended beyond the lower class, involving noblemen in the Signoria and government advisers who, driven by anger and disdain, seized the opportunity to act within the framework of the law. 

The fate of the friar hung in the balance, with all eyes on the Signoria. The crucial question was whether he would be sent to Rome or face trial in Florence. Alternative options like exile or confinement were notably absent from any discussions. Florentines, especially the political elite, favored holding and judging him in the city where his alleged transgressions occurred.

The local populace staunchly opposed relinquishing control over the case to Rome. Despite being a foreigner, he had become integral to their identity, and they insisted on the spectacle unfolding within Florence. Responding to the charged atmosphere, the Signoria appointed a seventeen-member inquisitorial commission.

However, a significant segment of Florence had already condemned the friar. Painted as guilty, he was deemed a liar, cheat, heretic, and dangerous agitator. The prevailing ethos of vengeance, repression, and fear stifled calls for a fair trial, contrasting sharply with the treatment of the five traitors in August 1497, who were afforded at least the luxury of a defense counsel.

The composition of the commission of seventeen exacerbated the perceived bias against Savonarola. It included individuals who harbored intense hatred towards him, with notable figures such as Doffo Spini, the leader of the Compagnacci, and three others chosen from the Council of Ten. The commission, officially established on April 11, belied its formation date, as the interrogation of the friar commenced on April 9, possibly in the late morning. This intense scrutiny, interspersed with breaks, persisted until April 24, only to be later resumed by two papal envoys on May 20.

The so-called trials, conducted in April and May, were, in essence, mere question-and-answer sessions punctuated by the cruel rhythm of torture.

The issue of documentation warrants a cautionary note. The contentious nature of the Friar's three trial proceedings poses a challenge. From the examination of detailed sources, the conduct of the trials and the record itself strongly indicate potential tampering with Savonarola's testimony.

The three trials, orchestrated by two attorneys, particularly cast suspicion on Ser Francesco Barone, who appears to have operated as a spy for Savonarola's adversaries. Adding to the skepticism is the mysterious disappearance of all original trial transcripts. The earliest available record, dating back to 1498, exists in a printed format with editions in Florence and Venice. Manuscript copies, aligning with the 1498 printed text, only emerge in the second quarter of the sixteenth century. Consequently, validating or challenging the printed record becomes an elusive task, leaving uncertainty about Savonarola's actual endorsements and the contents of the confession presented to the Great Council on April 19, 1498.

Notably, a revealing element of dubious evidence lies within the record itself. Savonarola's recurrent flat phrases, incongruent with his usual expression, confessing to actions undertaken for worldly fame and reputation, raise suspicion. This turn in language seems easily insertable at various points in the printed testimony.  Complicating matters further, the record was tainted by the use of torture in obtaining much of Savonarola's testimony. Historians remain divided on the nature and extent of fraudulent alterations within the record, and the issue has yet to be thoroughly debated. 

The interrogation and subsequent confession of Savonarola during his trial provide a comprehensive insight into his religious and political activities. During the interrogation, a broad range of topics was addressed, emphasizing Savonarola's involvement in both religious and political spheres. He was accused of deceit and manipulation in matters of faith, alongside heavy interference in Florentine politics. Additionally, allegations of orchestrating an illicit political faction centered in San Marco and a concerted effort to control the Great Council were brought forth. Savonarola was also accused of extracting political secrets through confessions and utilizing armed forces in political conflicts.

In his confession, Savonarola admitted that his prophetic declarations were not divinely inspired and that he had never directly communicated with God. Instead, his motivations were grounded in pursuing earthly glory and recognition, particularly within Florence. He supported the newly established republic and sought to shape its direction per his objectives. Savonarola confessed to favoring certain political factions, such as the Great Council, and opposing others, such as the Arrabbiati faction. He also acknowledged his efforts to promote individuals aligned with his beliefs, facing resistance from other leaders within the Frateschi movement. Furthermore, Savonarola disclosed the identities of individuals who acted as messengers and intermediaries for his political endeavors.

Regarding his political strategies and plans, Savonarola elaborated on his methods of maintaining influence in Florence by aligning with sympathetic citizens. While he denied direct involvement in selecting new officials, he admitted to encouraging virtuous citizens. He revealed private communications with Florentine ambassadors in Rome and admitted to receiving intelligence regarding appointing new Priors. Savonarola defended the employment of guardsmen for government security, citing the necessity to protect against perceived threats from his adversaries. Additionally, he opposed the ordeal by fire and described his efforts to prevent it, relying on divine intervention. Despite initially defying the Pope's orders to travel to Rome out of fear for his safety, Savonarola openly opposed his excommunication.

Leading the papal inquisition was Francesco Remolins, a fellow Spaniard of the pope.  At 36, Remolins earned two doctorates in law, was a top-rated judge in Rome, and held four bishoprics in Italy.  A careerist, he was a protege of Pope Alexander VI and the pope’s son, Caesar Borgia.  During the interrogation by Remolins, Savonarola faced questions regarding various accusations against him. Initially, he affirmed the truth of his previous confessions, albeit under duress, implying the coercion used in extracting testimony. He swore before God that discussions about the Church's future, particularly regarding a Council, were limited to a select few, primarily men of holy orders, and denied divulging confessional secrets.  Despite initial denials, Savonarola later admitted to seeking a Council out of pride and mentioned contacts with certain cardinals, particularly those potentially opposing Pope Alexander VI. However, his statements failed to provide substantial evidence against these cardinals.

Remolins repeatedly threatened Savonarola with torture and there is evidence that he made good on those threats. Savonarola addressed each accusation, acknowledging some truths while disputing others, often claiming misunderstandings or misinterpretations of his words.  Torn between fear and a desire to confess, he oscillated in his responses, expressing regret and pleading for forgiveness for his actions.  In subsequent interrogations, Savonarola recanted previous statements made under pressure, admitting to fabricating claims out of fear. He revealed his involvement in political maneuvering, aligning with certain factions and advocating for their interests within the Great Council.  This dynamic hinted at the psychological pressure he faced and his attempts to navigate the delicate balance between maintaining his convictions and avoiding the severe consequences of his statements.

Ultimately, Savonarola was found guilty of heresy and schism.  Despite his previous successes in saving prominent citizens and the city itself from various threats, Savonarola could not evade his adversaries this time. His fate was sealed as he, along with two other friars, faced execution in the Piazza della Signoria .

The scene was set with a platform adorned with a mound of firewood, symbolizing the impending execution by fire. The structure was altered to resemble a gallows rather than a cross to prevent any association with martyrdom. Savonarola and his companions spent their final night attended by sympathetic citizens, finding solace in their faith and each other's company.

On the morning of May 23, 1498, the execution proceedings began with the ceremonial stripping of Savonarola and his fellow friars of their priestly garments, symbolizing their degradation and removal from the clergy. This ceremony, steeped in tradition dating back to Roman law, was performed before a large crowd, including representatives of both church and state.  Once stripped of their vestments, the condemned friars were handed over to the secular authorities for execution. As they were led to the gallows, they accepted a plenary indulgence from Pope Alexander, offering them forgiveness and salvation. Despite attempts by angry spectators to hasten their deaths, Savonarola and his companions met their fate with stoic resolve, enduring hanging followed by burning at the stake.

The gruesome spectacle was further marred by the actions of some onlookers, who attempted to mutilate the bodies of the deceased friars. Yet, despite the chaos, authorities ensured that nothing remained of the executed men, disposing of their remains in the Arno River to prevent any relics from being venerated.

So what are we to make of Girolamo Savonarola?  I want to take a moment and talk about his role as a reformer in relation to later reform movements led by Luther and Calvin in the 16th century.  Can Savonarola be considered a forerunner of the Protestant Reformation?

Savonarola's critique of Church corruption and emphasis on individual piety certainly echoes early Reformers' sentiments. He condemned the opulence of the Catholic Church, especially clergy lavishness and indulgence sales, calling for a return to simpler Christianity. His focus on scripture authority and personal connection with God aligns with Protestant principles, emphasizing Bible study and rejecting some traditions akin to the later priesthood of all believers concept. His conflicts with the papacy resemble later Reformer-Catholic clashes, reflecting growing dissatisfaction with ecclesiastical power centralization, setting the stage for the Reformation. While not directly shaping Protestant theology, Savonarola's critiques, piety advocacy, scripture emphasis, and papal clashes foreshadowed themes later seen in figures like Luther and Calvin.

However,  one must consider the distinct differences in their theological foundations, the nature of their criticisms, and the broader historical context.  Savonarola's emphasis on moral reform and condemnation of the excesses of the Catholic Church does not inherently align with the theological concerns that would underpin the Protestant Reformation. Furthermore, Savonarola's rejection of secular art and culture in favor of a more ascetic lifestyle was not a central theme in the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers were more concerned with theological doctrines and ecclesiastical practices than with society's broader cultural and artistic aspects. This divergence in focus implies that Savonarola's influence was primarily localized within the context of Florence.  Additionally, his turbulent relationship with the papacy didn't lead to lasting institutional change, unlike the Reformation's transformative impact. While sharing some similarities, Savonarola's influence wasn't a direct precursor of the Reformation's comprehensive reforms in the 16th century. 

So why did Savonarola fail while Luther and Calvin succeeded? Per Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince: “If Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus had been unarmed they could not have enforced their constitutions for long — as happened in our time to Fra Girolamo Savonarola, who was ruined with his new order of things immediately the multitude believed in him no longer, and he had no means of keeping steadfast those who believed or of making the unbelievers to believe.”  In other words, Savonarola did not have the authority or the power of the state behind him, and those of his supporters in the government simply did not understand the friar’s message. Martin Luther, on the other hand, would have the committed protection of German princes and their personal armies.  

In the next episode, we will take up the renewal of warfare on the Italian Peninsula and look at the most militant of popes, Pope Julius II.  This episode will set up a three-part examination of one of the great political thinkers of the Renaissance: Niccolo Machiavelli.  

As always, maps and other supporting resources for all episodes are listed in the episode description. In the meantime, for more historical content, please visit the “I Take History With My Coffee” blog at itakehistory.com and also consider liking the I Take History With My Coffee Facebook page.  Feedback and comments are welcome at itakehistory@gmail.com.  Or you can leave a review on Apple Podcasts or on Spotify.  You can also help support this podcast by buying me a coffee at buymeacoffee.com/itakehistory.  If you know anyone else who would enjoy this podcast, please let them know.  And thanks for listening.