some eminence, also filled the office, it is said, of first physician to Pope John the Twenty-second, at Avignon. For three years, from 1322 to 1325, he taught astrology and philosophy in the University of Bologna. While he filled a professor's chair there, he published his commentaries on the sphere of John of Sacrobosco, the Irish scholar; Aledosi calls him "Sottillissimi Dottore de filosofia e de medicina." Being accused of holding heretical opinions at Bologna, some proceedings were taken against him by the Inquisition. Cecco betook himself to Florence as a place of safety, but it was out of the frying pan of Bologna fanaticism with him, into the real fire of persecution at Florence. He indiscreetly formed a horoscope for Maria of Valois, the consort of Charles, duke of Calabria, by no means complimentary to the continence of the lady or her lord. The chancellor of the duke, the bishop of Aversa, had discovered flat heresy in the opinions of the wretched astrologer, who had cast a disagreeable horoscope for the liege lord and lady of Calabria. Cecco was delivered over to the Inquisition by the chancellor, and then handed back by the Inquisition to the secular arm of the State, and was burned at the stake in his seventieth year, in 1327.*

The poor astrologer left an indifferent poem in sesta rima, entitled "L'Acerba," the principal cause of his condemnation, that treats of moral and natural philosophy and of metaphysics, and several other subjects, interlarded well with judicial astrology. "This poem," says Tiraboschi," is not worth much, either for solidity of matter, or for elegance of style. But, nevertheless, nineteen editions of it had been called for up to the year 1546, since which year, there has been no re-publication of it." So much in favour of that much-abused institution the Inquisition. The publishers of the worthless poem of an old astrologer, would doubtlessly have lost the sale of sixteen or seventeen of those editions, had it not been for the notoriety obtained for the author by the Inquisition. It is surprising, that the gentlemen of Paternoster Row, when works hang heavy on their hands, and the public atten* Tiraboschi, tomo v. part i. p. 205.

tion cannot be secured for their merits, have never thought of getting some member of parliament to bring in a short bill for enabling magistrates to deal summarily with suspicious books that won't sell, and burning them in Smithfield, without the authors, on account of the squeamishness and morbid sentimentality that a proposal to include the latter in the sentence, might possibly have to encounter.

Modern publishers of books, only reflect on the great fact, I beseech you, nineteen editions of a bad poem to go off wholly and solely because the author was reduced to ashes by a sentence of the Inquisition; this was no ordinary stroke of trade and of Inquisition wisdom and forethought, it must be admitted.

It remained, unfortunately, for two religious orders to attempt the revival of this barbarous practice in the latter part of the fifteenth century.

If we were to receive the account given by Bayle of this matter, we should be led to form very erroneous opinions of the part played by the Franciscans in this business, and very unjust ones, in respect to the conduct of the Dominicans, and especially of Savonarola on this occasion.

Bayle, with his usual animosity towards the monk who sincerely believed in Christ and in Christianity, thus speaks of the close of the career of Fra Girolamo, and of the ordeal proposed by the Franciscans: "What completed the destruction of Savonarola was, that having agreed that his doctrines should be verified by the trial of fire, he visibly shuffled when the time came for executing his engagement.'

The reader who would know the truth must refer to the original sources, from which all useful information can be obtained on this subject-the works of Burlamacchi, Mirandola, Guicciardini, Nardi, and the diary of Burchard.

Burlamacchi states, that although some persons disapproved of the proposed ordeal, as contrary to the canons of the church, many were of a contrary opinion, affirming, in the way of example, that Heleno, bishop of Heliopolis, in order to put down a

* Bayle's Critical Dictionary, vol. v. Art. Sav. p. 62.

heresy, entered the fire, and came out unhurt; that a most holy monk, named Campers, an adversary of the Manichees, for a similar reason entered the fire, and remained in it half an hour, and came out unhurt; that San Giovanni Gualberto, in order to convince a certain Florentine bishop of an error, caused one of his monks to enter the fire at Badia, outside of Florence, in testimony of the faith.

The Signoria of Florence seemed to be in doubt about the lawfulness of the proposed ordeal in 1498; for before they gave their final consent, they despatched letters to Rome, praying his holiness, the Pope, to advise them in this matter, and if the trial by Ordeal was licit, to give his consent to the proposed experiment.

A consistory was immediately called on the arrival of the messenger of the Signoria, and the cardinals concluded that it was not licit, and should not be carried into effect.

"The Pope," says Burlamacchi, "was doubtful, if the thing succeeded according to Fra Girolamo's expectations, whether he might not lose the tiara, and therefore he refused permission for it."*

It was one of the calamities of the conduct of Alexander the Sixth, that it was almost unreasonable to attribute any good motive to him for any of his acts.

The consistory certainly took the view that might be expected from that council, one in conformity with the dictates of religion and the interests of humanity.

The proposal to undergo the ordeal by fire, Burlamacchi distinctly states, incorrectly, originated with Savonarola previous to 1497: "Seeing every day fiercer hostility springing up against him with injury to religion, besides the other challenges as tests of truth already referred to, he (Fra Girolamo) declared that he would enter the fire with any adversary of his, in order to manifest in this way on whose side the truth was, which proposal for a long time remained altogether unnoticed.

"But in 1497, Fra Domenico da Pescia, preaching in San Domenico de Prato, there was present a Franciscan friar, named

* Burlamacchi, p. 560.

Francesco Zoccolante, who had always been a most determined adversary of his. At the end of Lent, however, preaching at Pieve, Fra F. Zoccolante said that he was ready to go into the fire, and uttered many injurious words against Fra Girolamo.

"On which account, the father, G. Bartoli, companion of Fra Domenico, went to him to have an understanding of his intentions, but nothing came of this interview. But in the meantime many men of letters and of worth interposing in the business, it was agreed they should meet to settle the matter on the third day after Easter Sunday; and pressing again the Franciscans to undergo the ordeal by fire, he accepted the proposal for an appointed day.

"But on the second day after Easter the Franciscan made his apology, saying that his superiors, on business of great importance, had called him away from Prata.*...

"But some time after, in 1498, this Franciscan returned to Florence, and preached in Santa Croce, while Fra Domenico preached in San Lorenzo, and Fra Girolamo in the Duomo. The Franciscan in the pulpit then began de novo to proclaim his readiness to enter the fire with Fra Domingo da Pescia. Father Girolamo," continues Burlamacchi, "no sooner was apprised of this declaration, than he put himself in communication with certain laymen of his most intimate friends. But their deliberation led to no specific resolution- essendo senza frutta. In the meantime the Franciscan ceased not to inveigh against Fra Girolamo in the pulpits, and at length he brought the matter before the Signoria, where Fra Domenico appeared, and likewise the Franciscan.

"The Dominican signified his readiness to enter the fire with the Franciscan.

"The latter replied in a dubious manner, shifting from one thing to another, and ultimately declaring he had nothing to do with Fra Domenico, but with Fra Girolamo, and with him aloue, who was the principal in this business.

* Burlamacchi, p. 559.

"Fra Domenico reminded him that the first origin of this proposal was in Prata, between them both, and them alone.'

This observation of Fra Domenico plainly shews that Burlamacchi was mistaken in stating that the proposal originated with Savonarola. And the diary of Burchard, the most authentic document of all, in reference to this matter, inasmuch as the account he gives of it is the official report of the whole transaction made to the Pope by his envoy at Florence, gives it to be understood that the proposal originated with the Franciscans, and not with Savonarola.

The fact of Savonarola's displeasure at the engagement entered into with the Franciscans by Fra Domenico, may be perceived in the evident vexation manifested in the question brusquely put by Fra Girolamo to Fra Domenico, in the midst of the controversy about the mode of making the trial by ordeal -"What have you promised to these Franciscan friars?"

After a long discussion before the Signoria, it was finally agreed, that the Franciscan then present should enter the fire with Fra Girolamo, and that with Fra Domenico da Pescia, the Franciscan friar, Zoccolante, should enter.

A public document, embodying this agreement, was drawn up, in presence of the Signoria, by their notary.

It is to be observed that Fra Girolamo was not present when this agreement was drawn up. Fra Domenico must have taken it for granted that the proposal would be accepted by him, and therefore had undertaken to answer for him.

"Fra Girolamo," says Burlamacchi, "hearing of these things, declared his readiness to go into the fire, but on this condition, that all the ambassadors of the Christian powers in Florence were present, and also the Pope's legate, they promising and declaring solemnly, that, should he come forth from the fire uninjured, the work should be set about at once, with the aid of God, of making a reform of the universal church."

"The adversaries of Fra Girolamo refused to agree to this, saying, that this was a mere excuse-a pretence had recourse to,

* Burlamacchi, p. 359.