March 13: as late as this date, Savonarola could write to Pope Alexander VI: 'you should worry about the state of your immortal soul': [Lettere (1984) 226-7]
March 14: Another pratica held by the Signory; Papal briefs read out; [Fachard, Denis: Consulte 1993: I, 42-61]. Martines summarizes:"The threat of a papal interdict had widened the splits in the political class, and many citizens while revering the Friar, were now ready to see him temporarily silenced, in the hope that Rome would refrain from imposing the city-wide anathema. Their feeling that all Italy was against Florence made the threatened interdict all the more ominous." [p. 209]Three of the sixteen Gonfalonieres changed their view and now thought the Signory and Florence should listen to the pope. As recently as the third of March, ten of them had been still willing to resist the Papal declaration that S suspend preaching. Now only seven, and less than the majority of this group, thought so.
The previous elected Twelve Good Men were still in near unanimous agreement to let the friar continue. But the next group of Twelve that had been elected but not assumed office yet, were for listening to the pope instead. So here was a clear shift.
"Speaking for the new Twelve, Giovanni Canacci made one of the most hostile speeches ever recorded against Savonarola... up to that point." [p. 209]The Captains of the Guelfs who had been praiseworthy now thought they should seek to satisfy the pope.
The Ten were of the same opinion as last time. Savonarola was a jewel and should continue with his sermons for Lent.
The Eight still stood in favor of the Friar as well. They too had nothing new to add to the discussion. What would turn out to be the new growing consensus was allowed greater room this day to speak. As Martines says:
"The debate had turned into a revealing performance. Something subtle was taking place. The Savonarolans were beginning to lose the initiative and vigour, not because their belief in the Friar or in the Republic was failing, but because the papal threat was now so strong, so urgent, that it was changing the Florentine political atmosphere. In short, action and fresh arguments were required, if the leaders of the Frateschi were to retain forcefulness in their ranks." [p. 211]The Monte Officials who oversaw the Treasury and trade sided with the Friar and, to let him preach. 'There had been interdicts before...'. [p.211]
Another speaker, this time speaking for the collected corps of doctors of law, one Guidantonio Vespucci stepped forward. He was both a lawyer defending those who were executed the previous August, and a diplomat with alliances in the anti-Savonarolan camps. His argument (slightly condensed from Martines' sharp exposition) was straight-forward and practical: "We are what we are in Italy."
Vespucci said, the ambassador was in Rome to get absolution from the Pope, and a decima. This was that special papal permission for the City to be allowed to collect a tenth of clerical income (in that City and her territorities) as a tax. If that could not be accomplished, he said, then the City could not cover its expenses. Since the City still desired control of Pisa and its incomes, it made no sense, and seemed counterproductive, to do or encourage things that were offensive to the Pope. Whether the Friar is in the wrong or not, the Pope thinks so, and if an interdict goes through, many there in the City would lose their things. Already merchants couldn't send their stuff to markets elsewhere. At least the Papacy he reminded them had the power to stop a thing through censure. Anyway, there was not even agreement in the City if the Friar actually did speak for God. If he did for certain, by all means, he should go ahead and preach. But we can't agree on that, so better to let him lay off for awhile, to see if that makes better relations with the See in Rome. Then the City might ask for more favorable conditions about Pisa from Rome. [p.212]
Those law doctors that still supported the Friar were represented by Antonio Malegonnelli who could admit the Pope was the supreme religious leader and understandably might think he could give out orders. The problem as he saw it was that other states in Italy had long been assailing the Friar, for years. It was these forces who attacked the Friar and thus divided the Florentine population against itself so dangerously. Because of this, the independence of the Friar should be supported and upheld. [p.212]
There were many who still thought he was a holy man that had saved the city from take-over, from civil war istelf, maybe even from the sword of God, by his form of impassioned shepherding. But to cut him off might open an avenue for some external force to sieze such an influential rudder to popular opinion, or rush in to fill the void left from his absence. On the other hand, if the City allowed the Pope to order them to deliver Savonarola up, then they were acting as hired police for the Pope. This was simply unseemly, using temporal, physical force to test or contain a spiritual force like the Friar or his movement's adherents. Next time, this Pope would ask for something else once this concession was granted. After all, another said, Pisa was already in the hands of Venice and Milan. [p. 213]
Giuliano Gondi, international merchant sided firmly against Savonarola. [p. 214]
There are still a couple more pages of these attitudes expressed in Martines gathered from those collected and edited by Denis Fachard, in Consulte e pratiche della repubblcca fiorentina 1498-1505, Geneva, 1993.
________________________________
quotes, notes, pagination from Martines, Lauro: Fire In The City: Savonarola and the struggle for the soul of Renaissance Florence; Oxford University Press, Inc.,NY 2006
March 17: S informed of papal brief of Mar 9
March 18: S preaches for last time
No comments:
Post a Comment