In the 3rd episode of the Bizzarro Bazar Web Series we talk about some scientists who tried to hybridize monkeys with humans, about an incredible raincoat made of intestines, and about the Holy Foreskin of Jesus Christ.
[Be sure to turn on English subtitles.]
If you like this episode be sure to subscribe to the channel, and most of all spread the word. Enjoy!
A little boy went out to play.
When he opened his door he saw the world.
As he passed through the doorway he caused a riflection.
Evil was born!
Evil was born and followed the boy.
(D. Lynch, Inland Empire, 2006)
It was a nice late-summer afternoon, in 2013. I remember well.
A friend had invited me to the opening of his latest exhibition. He had picked an unusual place for the event: an ancient and isolated parish church that stood high up on a hill, the church of Nanto. The building had been recently renovated, and it was open to the public only on specific occasions.
Once there, one immediately feels the urge to look around. The view is beautiful, but it pays the price of the impact the construction industry (I was almost about to say “architecture”) has had on the surroundings, with many industrial buildings covering the lanscapes of Veneto region like a tattoo. Better go inside and look at the paintings.
I was early for the opening, so I had the artist, his works and the entire exhibition area all for myself. I could walk and look around without any hurry, and yet I felt something disturbing my peace, something I couldn’t quite pin down at first: it kind of wormed its way into my visual field, calling for attention. On a wall, as I was passing from one painted canvas to the next, I eventually spotted a sudden, indefinite blur of colors. A fresco. An image had been resting there well before the exhibition paintings were placed in front of it!
Despite the restoration, as it happens with many medieval and Renaissance frescoes, some elements were still confused and showed vanishing, vaporous outlines. But once in focus, an unsettling vision emerged: the fresco depicted a quite singular torture scene, the likes of which I had never encountered in any other artwork (but I wouldn’t want to pass as an expert on the subject).
Two female figures, standing on either side, were holding the arms of a blonde child (a young Christ, a child-saint, or a puer sacer, a sacred and mystical infant, I really couldn’t say). The kid was being tortured by two young men: each holding a stiletto, they were slicing the boy’s skin all over, and even his face seemed to have been especially brutalized.
Blood ran down the child’s bound feet into a receiving bowl, which had been specifically placed under the victim’s tormented limbs.
The child’s swollen face (the only one still clearly visible) had an ecstatic expression that barely managed to balance the horror of the hemorrhage and of the entire scene: in the background, a sixth male figure sporting a remarkable beard, was twisting a cloth band around the prisoner throat. The baby was being choked to death!
What is the story of this fresco? What tale does it really tell?
The five actors do not look like peasants; the instruments are not randomly chosen: these are thin, sharp, professional blades. The incisions on the victim’s body are too regular. Who perpetrated this hideous murder, who was the object of the resentment the author intended to elicit in the onlookers? Maybe the fresco was a representation — albeit dramatic and exaggerated — of a true crime. Should the choking, flaying and bleeding be seen as a metaphor for some parasitic exploitation, or do they hint at some rich and eccentric nobleman’s quirkiness? Is this a political allegory or a Sadeian chronicle?
The halo surrounding the child’s head makes him an innocent or a saved soul. Was this a homage, a flattering detail to exhalt the commissioner of this work of art? What character was meant to be celebrated here, the subjects on the sides who are carrying out a dreadful, but unavoidable task, or the boy at the center who looks so obscenely resigned to suffer their painful deeds? Are we looking at five emissaries of some brutal but rational justice as they perform their duties, or the misadventure of a helpless soul that fell in the hands of a ferocious gang of thugs?
At the bottom of the fresco, a date: «ADI ⋅ 3 ⋅ APRILE 1479».
This historical detail brought me back to the present. The church was already crowded with people.
I felt somehow crushed by the overload of arcane symbols, and the frustation of not having the adequate knowledge to interpret what I had seen. I furtively took a snapshot. I gave my host a warm farewell, and then got out, hoping the key to unlock the meaning of the fresco was not irretrievably lost in time.
As I discovered at the beginning of my research on this controversial product of popular iconography, the fresco depicts the martyrdom of Saint Simonino of Trent. Simone Unverdorben, a two-year-old toddler from Trent, disappeared on March 23, 1475. His body was found on Easter Day. It was said to have been mauled and strangled. In Northern Italy, in those years, antisemitic abuses and persecutions stemmed from the widely influential sermons of the clergy. The guilt for the heinous crime immediately fell upon the Trent Jewish community. All of its members had to endure one of the biggest trials of the time, being subjected to tortures that led to confessions and reciprocal accusations.
During the preliminary investigations of the Trent trial, a converted Jew was asked if the practice of ritual homicide of Christian toddlers existed within the Hebrew cult. […] The converted Jew, at the end of the questioning, confirmed with abundant details the practice of ritual sacrifice in the Jewish Easter liturgy.
Another testimony emerged from the interrogation of another of the alleged killers of the little Simone, the Jewish physician Tobia. He declared on the rack there was a commerce in Christian blood among Jews. A Jewish merchant called Abraam was said to have left Trent shortly before Simone’s death with the intention of selling Christian blood, headed to Feltre or Bassano, and to have asked around which of the two cities was closer to Trent. Tobia’s confession took place under the terrifying threat of being tortured and in the desperate attempt to avoid it: he therefore had to be cooperative to the point of fabrication; but it was understood that his testimony, whenever made up, should be consistent and plausible. […] Among the others, another converted man named Israele (Wolfgang, after converting) was also interrogated under torture. He declared he had heard about other cases of ritual murders […]. These instances of ritual homicides were inventions whose protagonists had names that came from the interrogee’s memory, borrowed to crowd these fictional stories in a credible way.
(M. Melchiorre, Gli ebrei a Feltre nel Quattrocento. Una storia rimossa,
in Ebrei nella Terraferma veneta del Quattrocento,
a cura di G.M. Varanini e R.C. Mueller, Firenze University Press 2005)
Many were burned at the stake. The survivors were exiled from the city, after their possessions had been confiscated.
According to the jury, the child’s collected blood had been used in the ritual celebration of the “Jewish Easter”.
The facts we accurately extracted from the offenders, as recorded in the original trials, are the following. The wicked Jews living in Trent, having maliciously planned to make their Easter solemn through the killing of a Christian child, whose blood they could mix in their unleavened bread, commisioned it to Tobia, who was deemed perfect for the infamous deed as he was familiar with the town on the account of being a professional doctor. He went out at 10 pm on Holy Thursday, March 23, as all believers were at the Mass, walked the streets and alleys of the city and having spotted the innocent Simone all alone on his father’s front door, he showed him a big silver piece, and with sweet words and smiles he took him from via del Fossato, where his parents lived, to the house of the rich Jew Samuele, who was eagerly waiting for him. There he was kept, with charms and apples, until the hour of the sacrifice arrived. At 1 am, little twenty-nine-months-old Simone was taken to the chamber adjoining the women’s synagogue; he was stripped naked and a band or belt was made from his clothes, and he was muzzled with a handkerchief, so that he wouldn’t immediately choke to death nor be heard; Moses the Elder, sitting on a stall and holding the baby in his lap, tore a piece of flesh off his cheek with a pair of iron pliers. Samuele did the same while Tobia, assisted by Moar, Bonaventura, Israele, Vitale and another Bonaventura (Samuele’s cook) collected in a basin the blood pouring from the wound. After that, Samuele and the aforementioned seven Jews vied with each other to pierce the flesh of the holy martyr, declaring in Hebrew that they were doing so to mock the crucified God of the Christians; and they added: thus shall be the fate of all our enemies. After this feral ordeal, the old Moses took a knife and pierced with it the tip of the penis, and with the pliers tore a chunk of meat from the little right leg and Samuel, who replaced him, tore a piece out of the other leg. The copious blood oozing from the puerile penis was harvested in a different vase, while the blood pouring from the legs was collected in the basin. All the while, the cloth plugging his mouth was sometimes tightened and sometimes loosened; not satisfied with the outrageous massacre, they insisted in the same torture a second time, with greater cruelty, piercing him everywhere with pins and needles; until the young boy’s blessed soul departed his body, among the rejoicing of this insane riffraff.
Very soon Simonino (“little Simone”) was acclaimed as a “blessed martyr”, and his cult spread thoughout Northern Italy. As devotion grew wider, so did the production of paintings, ex voto, sculptures, bas reliefs, altar decorations.
Despite the fact that the Pope had forbidden the cult, pilgrims kept flocking. The fame of the “saint” ‘s miracles grew, together with a wave of antisemitism. The fight against usury led to the accusation of loan-sharking, extended to all Jews. The following century, Pope Sistus V granted a formal beatification. The cult of Saint Simonino of Trent further solidified. The child’s embalmed body was exhibited in Trent until 1955, together with the alleged relics of the instruments of torture.
In reality, Simone Unverdorben (or Unferdorben) was found dead in a water canal belonging to a town merchant, near a Jewish man’s home, probably a moneylender. If he wasn’t victim of a killer, who misdirected the suspects on the easy scapegoat of the Jewish community, the child might have fallen in the canal and drowned. Rats could have been responsible for the mutilations. In the Nineteenth Century, accurate investigations proved the ritual homicide theory wrong. In 1965, five centuries after the murder, the Church abolished the worship of Saint “Martyr” Simonino for good.
A violent fury against the very portraits of the “torturers” lasted for a long time. Even the San Simonino fresco in Nanto was defaced by this rage. This is the reason why, during that art exhibition, I needed some time to recognize a painting in that indistinct blur of light and colors.
My attempt at gathering the information I needed in order to make sense of the simulacrum in the Nanto parish church, led me to discover an often overlooked incident, known only to the artists who represented it, their commissioners, their audience; but the deep discomfort I felt when I first looked at the fresco still has not vanished.
La cara Pasifae
Suggested bibliography:
– R. Po – Chia Hsia, Trent 1475. Stories of a Ritual Murder Trial, Yale 1992
– A. Esposito, D. Quaglioni, Processi contro gli Ebrei di Trento (1475-1478), CEDAM 1990
– A. Toaff, Pasque di sangue: ebrei d’Europa e omicidi rituali, Il Mulino 2008
Why has the new millennium seen the awakening of a huge interest in “cabinets of wonder”? Why does such an ancient kind of collecting, typical of the period between the 1500s and the 1700s, still fascinate us in the internet era? And what are the differences between the classical wunderkammern and the contemporary neo-wunderkammern?
I have recently found myself tackling these subjects in two diametrically opposed contexts.
The first was dead serious conference on disciplines of knowledge in the Early Modern Period, at the University of PAdua; the second, a festival of magic and wonder created by a mentalist and a wonder injector. In this last occasion I prepared a small table with a micro-wunderkammer (really minimal, but that’s what I could fit into my suitcase!) so that after the talk the public could touch and see some curiosities first-hand.
Two traditionally quite separate scenarios – the academic milieu and the world of entertainment – both decided to dedicate some space to the discussion of this phenomenon, which strikes me as indicative of its relevance.
So I thought it might be interesting to resume, in very broad terms, my speech on the subject for the benefit of those who could not attend those meetings.
For practical purposes, I will divide the whole thing into two posts.
In this first one, I will trace what I believe are the key characteristics of historical wunderkammern – or, more precisely, the key concepts worth reflecting upon.
In the next post I will address XXI Century neo-wunderkammern, to try and pinpoint what might be the reasons of this peculiar “rebirth”.
Mirabilia
Evidently, the fundamental concept for a wunderkammer, beginning from the name itself, was the idea of wonder; from the aristocratic cabinets of Ferdinand II of Austria or Rudolf II to the more science-oriented ones like Aldrovandi‘s, Cospi‘s, or Kircher‘s, the purpose of all ancient collections was first and foremost to amaze the visitor.
It was a way for the rich person who assembled the wunderkammer to impress his court guests, showing off his opulence and lavish wealth: cabinets of curiosities were actually an evolution of treasure chambers (schatzkammern) and of the great collections of artworks of the 1400s (kunstkammer).
This predilection of rare and expensive objects generated a thriving international commerce of naturalistic and ethnological items cominc from the Colonies.
The Theatre of the World
But wunderkammern were also meant as a sort of microcosm: they were supposed to represent the entirety of the known universe, or at least to hint at the incredibly vast number of creatures and natural shapes that are present in the world. Samuel Quiccheberg, in his treatise on the arrangement of a utopian museum, was the first to use the word “theatre”, but in reality – as we shall see later on – the idea of theatrical representation is one of the cardinal concepts in classical collections.
Because of its ability to represent the world, the wunderkammer was also understood as a true instrument of research, an investigation tool for natural philosophers.
The System of Knowledge
The organization of a huge array of materials did not initially follow any specific order, but rather proceeded from the collector’s own whims and taste. Little by little, though, the idea of cataloguing began to emerge, which at first entailed the distinction between three macro-categories known as naturalia, artificialia and mirabilia, later to be refined and expanded in different other classes (medicalia, exotica, scientifica, etc.).
Naturalia
Artificialia
Artificialia
Mirabilia
Mirabilia
Medicalia, exotica, scientifica
This ever growing need to distinguish, label and catalogue eventually led to Linnaeus’ taxonomy, to his dispute with Buffon, all the way to Lamarck, Cuvier and the foundation of the Louvre, which marks the birth of the modern museum as we know it.
The Aesthetics of Accumulation
Perhaps the most iconic and well-known aspect of wunderkammern is the cramming of objects, the horror vacui that prevented even the tiniest space from being left empty in the exposition of curiosities and bizarre artifacts gathered around the world.
This excessive aesthetic was not just, as we said in the beginning, a display of wealth, but aimed at astounding and baffling the visitor. And this stunned condition was an essential moment: the wonder at the Universe, that feeling called thauma, proceeds certainly from awe but it is inseparable from a sense of unease. To access this state of consciousness, from which philosophy is born, we need to step outof our comfort zone.
To be suddenly confronted with the incredible imagination of natural shapes, visually “assaulted” by the unthinkable moltitude of objects, was a disturbing experience. Aesthetics of the Sublime, rather than Beauty; this encyclopedic vertigo is the reason why Umberto Eco places wunderkammern among his examples of “visual lists”.
Conservation and Representation
One of the basic goals of collecting was (and still is) the preservation of specimens and objects for study purposes or for posterity. Yet any preservation is already a representation.
When we enter a museum, we cannot be fully aware of the upstream choices that have been made in regard to the exhibit; but these choices are what creates the narrative of the museum itself, the very “tale” we are told room after room.
Multiple options are involved: what specimens are to be preserved, which technique is to be used to preserve them (the result will vary if a biological specimen is dried, texidermied, or put in a preserving fluid), how to group them, how to arrange their exhibit?
It is just like casting the best actors, choosing the stage costumes, a particular set design, and the internal script of the museum.
The most illuminating example is without doubt taxidermy, the ultimate simulacrum: of the original animal nothing is left but the skin, stretched on a dummy which mimics the features and posture of the beast. Glass eyes are applied to make it more convincing. That is to say, stuffed animals are meant to play the part of living animals. And when you think about it, there is no more “reality” in them than in one of those modern animatronic props we see in Natural History Museums.
But why do we need all this theatre? The answer lies in the concept of domestication.
Domestication: Nature vs. Culture
Nature is opposed to Culture since the time of ancient Greeks. Western Man has always felt the urge to keep his distance from the part of himself he perceived as primordial, chaotic, uncontrollable, bestial. The walls of the polis locked Nature outside, keeping Culture inside; and it’s not by chance that barbarians – seen as half-men half-beasts – were etymologically “those who stutter”, who remained outside of the logos.
The theatre, an advanced form of representation, was born in Athens likely as a substitute for previous ancient human sacrifices (cf. Réné Girard), and it served the same sacred purposes: to sublimate the animal desire of cruelty and violence. The tragic hero takes on the role of the sacrificial victim, and in fact the evidence of the sacred value of tragedies is in the fact that originally attending the theatrical plays was mandatory by law for all citizens.
Theatre is therefore the first attempt to domesticate natural instincts, to bring them literally “inside one’s home” (domus), to comprehend them within the logos in order to defuse their antisocial power. Nature only becomes pleasant and harmless once we narrate it, when we turn it into a scenic design.
And here’s why a stuffed lion (which is a narrated lion, the “image” of a lion as told through the fiction of taxidermy) is something we can comfortably place in our living room without any worry. All study of Nature, as it was conceived in the wunderkammern, was essentially the study of its representation.
By staging it, it was possible to exert a kind of control over Nature that would have been impossible otherwise. Accordingly, the symbol of the wunderkammern, that piece that no collection could do without, was the chained crocodile — bound and incapable of causing harm thanks to the ties of Reason, of logos, of knowledge.
It is worth noting, in closing this first part, that the symbology of the crocodile was also borrowed from the world of the sacred. These reptiles in chains first made their apparition in churches, and several examples can still be seen in Europe: in that instance, of course, they were meant as a reminder of the power and glory of Christ defeating Satan (and at the same time they impressed the believers, who in all probability had never seen such a beast).
A perfect example of sacred taxidermy; domestication as a bulwark against the wild, sinful unconscious; barrier bewteen natural and social instincts.
In several medieval cemeteries of west-central France stand some strange masonry buildings, of varying height, resembling small towers. The inside, bare and hollow, was sufficiently large for a man to climb to the top of the structure and light a lantern there, at sundawn.
But what purpose did these bizarre lighthouses serve? Why signal the presence of a graveyard to wayfarers in the middle of the night?
The “lanterns of the dead”, built between the XII and XIII Century, represent a still not fully explained historical enigma.
Part of the problem comes from the fact that in medieval literature there seems to be no allusion to these lamps: the only coeval source is a passage in the De miraculis by Peter the Venerable (1092-1156). In one of his accounts of miraculous events, the famous abbot of Cluny mentions the Charlieu lantern, which he had certainly seen during his voyages in Aquitaine:
There is, at the center of the cemetery, a stone structure, on top of which is a place that can house a lamp, its light brightening this sacred place every night as a sign of respect for the the faithful who are resting here. There also are some small steps leading to a platform which can be sufficient for two or three men, standing or seated.
This bare description is the only one dating back to the XII Century, the exact period when most of these lanterns are supposed to have been built. This passage doesn’t seem to say much in itself, at least at first sight; but we will return to it, and to the surprises it hides.
As one might expect, given the literary silence surrounding these buildings, a whole array of implausible conjectures have been proposed, multiplying the alleged “mysteries” rather than explaining them — everything from studies of the towers’ geographical disposition, supposed to reveal hidden, exoteric geometries, to the decyphering of numerological correlations, for instance between the 11 pillars on Fenioux lantern’s shaft and the 13 small columns on its pinnacle… and so on. (Incidentally, these full gallop speculations call to mind the classic escalation brilliantly exemplified by Mariano Tomatis in his short documentary A neglected shadow).
A more serious debate among historians, beginning in the second half of XIX Century, was intially dominated by two theories, both of which appear fragile to a more modern analysis: on one hand the idea that these towers had a celtic origin (proposed by Viollet-Le-Duc who tried to link them back to menhirs) and, on the other, the hypothesis of an oriental influence on the buildings. But historians have already discarded the thesis that a memory of the minarets or of the torch allegedly burning on Saladin‘s grave, seen during the Crusades, might have anything to do with the lanterns of the dead.
Without resorting to exotic or esoteric readings, is it then possible to interpret the lanterns’ meaning and purpose by placing them in the medieval culture of which they are an expression?
To this end, historian Cécile Treffort has analysed the polysemy of the light in the Christian tradition, and its correlations with Candlemas — or Easter — candles, and with the lantern (Les lanternes des morts: une lumière protectrice?, Cahiers de recherches médiévales, n.8, 2001).
Since the very first verses of Genesis, the divine light (lux divina) counterposes darkness, and it is presented as a symbol of wisdom leading to God: believers must shun obscurity and follow the light of the Lord which, not by chance, is awaiting them even beyond death, in a bright afterworld permeated by lux perpetua, a heavenly kingdom where prophecies claim the sun will never set. Even Christ, furthermore, affirms “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn 8:12).
The absence of light, on the contrary, ratifies the dominion of demons, temptations, evil spirits — it is the kingdom of the one who once carried the flame, but was discharged (Lucifer).
In the Middle Ages, tales of demonic apparitions and dangerous revenants taking place inside cemeteries were quite widespread, and probably the act of lighting a lantern had first and foremost the function of protecting the place from the clutches of infernal beings.
But the lantern symbology is not limited to its apotropaic function, because it also refers to the Parable of the Ten Virgins found in Matthew’s gospel: here, to keep the flame burning while waiting for the bridegroom is a metaphor for being vigilant and ready for the Redeemer’s arrival. At the time of his coming, we shall see who maintained their lamps lit — and their souls pure — and who foolishly let them go out.
The Benedictine rule prescribed that a candle had to be kept always lit in the convent’s dorms, because the “sons of light” needed to stay clear of darkness even on a bodily level.
If we keep in mind that the word cemetery etymologically means “dormitory”, lighting up a lantern inside a graveyard might have fulfilled several purposes. It was meant to bring light in the intermediary place par excellence, situated between the church and the secular land, between liturgy and temptation, between life and death, a permeable boundary through which souls could still come back or be lost to demons; it was believed to protect the dead, both physically and spiritually; and, furthermore, to symbolically depict the escatological expectation, the constant watch for the Redeemer.
One last question is left, to which the answer can be quite surprising.
The theological meaning of the lanterns of the dead, as we have seen, is rich and multi-faceted. Why then did Peter the Venerable only mention them so briefly and in an almost disinterested way?
This problem opens a window on a little known aspect of ecclesiastical history: the graveyard as a political battleground.
Starting from the X Century, the Church began to “appropriate” burial grounds ever more jealously, laying claim to their management. This movement (anticipating and preparing for the introduction of Purgatory, of which I have written in my De Profundis) had the effect of making the ecclesiastical authority an undisputed judge of memory — deciding who had, or had not, the right to be buried under the aegis of the Holy Church. Excommunication, which already was a terrible weapon against heretics who were still alive, gained the power of cursing them even after their death. And we should not forget that the cemetery, besides this political control, also offered a juridical refuge as a place of inviolable asylum.
Peter the Venerable found himself in the middle of a schism, initiated by Antipope Anacletus, and his voyages in Aquitaine had the purpose of trying to solve the difficult relationship with insurgent Benedictine monasteries. The lanterns of the dead were used in this very region of France, and upon seeing them Peter must have been fascinated by their symbolic depth. But they posed a problem: they could be seen as an alternative to the cemetery consecration, a practice the Cluny Abbey was promoting in those years to create an inviolable space under the exclusive administration of the Church.
Therefore, in his tale, he decided to place the lantern tower in Charlieu — a priorate loyal to his Abbey — without even remotely suggesting that the authorship of the building’s concept actually came from the rival Aquitaine.
This copyright war, long before the term was invented, reminds us that the cemetery, far from being a simple burial ground, was indeed a politically strategic liminal territory. Because holding the symbolic dominion over death and the afterworld historically proved to be often more relevant than any temporal power.
Although these quarrels have long been returned to dust, many towers still exist in French cemeteries. Upright against the tombs and the horizontal remains waiting to be roused from sleep, devoid of their lanterns for centuries now, they stand as silent witnesses of a time when the flame from a lamp could offer protection and hope both to the dead and the living.
I lived in Catania for several years, first as a student at the liberal-arts college, then on the account of my work. Art always fascinated me, and being ale to live and travel throughout Sicily allowed me to discover this place where the highest expressions of human creativity lived together for thousands of years, sometimes blending together with unique results.
Visiting one of Catania’s churches, I happened to notice how the marble on the altar formed curious shapes: through the veinings, one could almost grasp grotesque faces, animal masks, bizarre figures.
The practice of putting two marble stones near each other in order to obtain a specular image is known as “macchia aperta” (book matched). Used for thousands of years, such a technique combines two consecutive slabs, which are cut and then put side by side, so that the veinings can form the image that up until then had been “sleeping” in the marble.
I started to visit other churches in town, only to find the phenomenon was quite widespread. The cutting of slabs and their arrangement were intentional, and these examples cannot be explained with pareidolia — the subconscious illusion that leads us to interpret artificial or natural visual stimuli as recognizable shapes.
Perhaps we should better think of these marble figures in relation to the concept of Gamahés, implying a sacred aspect of images and forms, which the Anima Mundi impresses within the stone in the shape of faces, animals, symbols or even whole landscapes, as in the case of the Paesina Stone. Through the same occult process, pictures could be ingrained in the marble by that very creative force, the natura naturans generating every aspect of reality, and they could be waiting for a sharp wit who, thanks to his sensitivity, will be able to bring them to light.
All these churches have in common the fact that they’ve been rebuilt from scratch after the devastating earthquake which on January 11, 1693, destroyed Catania. The city suffered huge losses, about 16.000 victims on a 20.000 citizen population.
A huge emergency project was set afoot to bring things back to normal in reasonable time. The reconstruction of the city shows how the catastrophe entailed a search for innovative architectural solutions of the highest quality. These innovations, which were applied in various degrees to all the villages struck by the earthquake in the Noto valley, were elaborated by what could be considered as a “unique experimental workshop of Baroque international models”.
In the particular case of Catania, the unity of this project can be seen on a structural level, as shock-absorbing materials were used in view of a possible new shake, and on a urban level. The city was completely re-planned, with broader streets and escape routes [1].
One of the marbles used in churches, the Libeccio Antico of Sicily, is also called Breccia Pontificia, because it was also used in the Vatican. This rare and precious marble, extracted from the Custonaci caves, is perfect for macchia aperta manufacturing, so that the internal veinings can emerge.
The fact that its figurative use was intentional is quite evident in the S. Agata la Vetere Church where, on the side altar that once contained the remains of the Martyr, these marbles can be found.
It looks like this red jasper slab was meant to represent the outline of the Saint’s body laying in a sarcophage. If we rotate the image, the composition is even clearer.
We can see the head, shoulders, the arms bent on her chest, her hips, legs, and her feet emerging from the garment.
Suggestion may go even further. On the silhouette’s chest, for example, one could almost see a Flaming Heart. A spherical shape is at the base of the figure, which is surrounded by a sort of aura.
The whole shape is consistent, in its proportions, with a female body.
The visual stimuli such a contour can suggest, if we consider it as standing on a globe, refer to the iconography of the Virgin Mary. This hypothetical “transfer” would be justified when applied to a female Saint, as in Christian tradition all female figures are in fact manifestations of the Sacred Feminine archetype.
Another example of the intentionality of these marble depictions can be found in the Church of St. Micheal Archangel. Here, like in other churches in town, the representations often appear in couples, at the bottom of the columns near the side altars.
These marbles show two stylized figures, of which we can make out the head, neck, stretched-out arms, chest and tunic. Behind these silhouettes are shapes that could be interpreted as wings, of which the veinings even seem to trace the plumage. The whole figure could refer to the Byzantine iconography of the Archangel.
In Catania’s churches, marbles take us on a trip through beasts, men, Saints and demons.
The following mirrored marbles seem to represent several faces, each wearing a hat that resembles a wolf’s head. This depiction could refer to the iconography of Hades, god of the Underworld, wearing the kunée, the Helm of Darkness.
If we suppose that marble workers acted freely, without their ecclesial clients knowing, we can imagine that their craftmanship combined with a knowledge of treatises was used to explore this figurative expression, and it could testify the existence of a clandestine ideology. These marbles could offer an example of such underground symbolism.
Here are two grotesque faces, of which we can identify the eyes, nose, mouth, and what looks like a mitre.
Here’s another curious image emerging from these slabs: a grinning creature, with what could be its hands (the veinings seem to outline the fingers) held before its chest, in a triangular shape.
The peculiarity of this grotesque face is that it can be found behind an altar, hidden from direct view. Is this an example of the typical Baroque need to fill out every empty space, of the horror vacui?
In the church of S. Francesco all’Immacolata we can find the following marbles, showing what looks like a donkey-headed seated figure. We can see its long ears, its snout, its nostrils. The hands, coherent in proportions, are in its lap and the symmetrical neinings on the slab’s sides give the perspective idea of a throne. What is interesting is that this figure has been created with an inlay work, using both the natural veinings and an artificial technique in order to obtain a specific figurative suggestion. This practice was already documented by Pliny, who in his Naturalis historia reported how, in his time, marble-cutters managed not only to cover with marble the walls of temples and public buildings, but even to carve them and insert small stones in shape of animals and other things. They actually began “painting with stone” (“coepimus et lapide pingere”, Nat. hist., Liber xxxv, 3).
The composition of these marble slabs seem to copy the structure of a railing from Samothracia, an important place for Mystery (Orphic) Cults in the Greek world. Here we have veinings that take the form of two bucrania on each side, and in the middle — where in the Samothracian version there was an eight-petal flower — a greek cross with four additional rays, as if to remain faithful to the original symbology.
We can imagine that such compositions sometimes referred to pre-existing models, and thus marble-makers were researching those exact shapes in the stone, while in other cases the veinings themselves suggested an image. These simulacra manifested themselves both with the firmness of symbols, archetypes, and the ever-changing uncertainty of the colored surface, the evanescent shape given by an immanent Nature.
The interesting aspect of this unsung chapter of Sicilian Baroque is that the Monstrous, the Grotesque, the Uneven which had not been adopted in religious or civil buildings, actually penetrated them in disguise. From three-dimensional sculpture to two-dimensional slabs, subtly flattened on the walls, decorating the altars right near those very paintings which were used to maintain the Church’s power in the form of Biblia pauperum, these marbles were a kind of parallel stone pinachoteca.
We do not know the ultimate goal of this figurative expression.
We can be sure it was intentional, and it was a thousand-year old decorative system which found its use in representing the bizarre and the grotesque, typical of Baroque culture and especially of the Sicilian Baroque. Probably known in the ecclesial environment at the time, at least in its highest levels, this art form was kept secret and not divulged to the masses.
The inherent ambiguity of these visual stimuli is similar to the lack of objectivity in the Rorschach inkblots, a projective test for which there are no correct answers but rather a subjective meaning.
One could ponder if clients and marble-workers considered the eventuality of the believers noticing these hidden compositions, only apparently chaotic. But even if someone became aware of it, he would had probably never mentioned it without risking the Inquisition, which was active on the island and only abolished in 1782.
Why then selecting rare and precious marbles to compose figures depicting grotesque masks? Was it a simple aesthetic pleasure for a selected few, or rather a specific apotropaic function, the monstrous image used as a spell to ward off the danger of a catastrophe similar to the one that destroyed the city?
The motivation behind such representations is still open to analysis. Several hypothesis could be put forward, just like many analogies can be found with the esoteric tradition — but we should not forget that “there is nothing an enchanted glare cannot recognize in shapes, spots, profiles within the stone” (Roger Caillois, La Scrittura delle Pietre).
To complete our visit to the Stone Pinachoteca, the slab which best represents the beginning and the end of this Voyage is one we can call “The Jester”.
Its vibrant eyes, sardonic smile, cap and bells. It reminds us of The Fool, the tarot card whose value is 0, the great multiplier. It is the archetype of everything beyond comprehension, the pilgrim on its Way, emerging from the stone to shout his warning: “Open your eyes!“
[1] Giuseppe Lanza Duke Camastra, who was nominated general vicar, and architect Giovan Battista Vaccarini were the two personalities mainly remembered for the reconstruction of Catania, while the documents from the Historic Archive and other sources do not report specific information about the workers, who remained anonymous.
Of the few names mentioned in the first years of re-building after the earthquake, a notable one is architect Salvatore De Amico, who is sometimes called Caput Magister, and was born in Aci S. Antonio, a feud belonging to the bishop of Catania. De Amico for five years acted as a bridge between the bishop’s curia and the construction sites: he himself managed funds, hired, coordinated and directed workers, evaluated and bought the materials and the necessary plots of land (Le maestranze acesi nella fase iniziale di ricostruzione di Catania, S. Condorelli).
The architect also designed the new map, and directed works, for the epicopal Palace and five other churches in the city.
The Episcopal curia was the direct client for these works and it is very likely that some religious personalities, among which the bishop Andrea Riggio (son of luigi Riggio Branciforte prince of Campofiorito, renowned aristocrat and diplomat), visited the building sites during construction, and were therefore aware of the decor that would adorn the interiors. ⇑
And maybe it is for revenge, maybe out of fear Or just plain madness, but all along You are the one who suffers the most If you want to fly, they drag you down And if a witch hunt begins, Then you are the witch.
(Edoardo Bennato, La fata, 1977)
Saint Calocero, Albenga. 15th Century.
A 13-year-old girl was being buried near the church. But the men who were lowering her down decided to arrange her face down, so that her features were sealed by dirt. They did so to prevent her from getting up, and raising back to life. So that her soul could not sneak off her mouth and haunt those places. They did so, ultimately, because that little girl scared them to death.
Not far from there, another woman’s body was lying in a deep pit. Her skeleton was completely burned, and over her grave, the men placed a huge quantity of heavy stones, so she could not climb out of her tomb. Because women like her, everybody knew, were bound to wake up from the dead.
The “witch girl of Albenga”, and a second female skeleton showing deep signs of burning, are two exceptional findings brought to light last year by a team from the Pontifical Institute of Christian Archeology, directed by Professor Philippe Pergola and coordinated by archeologist Stefano Roascio and Elena Dellù. Scholars were particularly puzzled by the proximity of these two anomalous burials to the ancient church which hosted the relics of martyr Saint Calocero: if these two women were considered “dangerous” or “damned”, why were they inhumed in a privileged burial ground, surely coveted by many?
One explanation could be that burying them there was a “sign of submission to the Church”. But there is still extensive analysis to be conducted on the remains, and already skeletons are revealing some clues which could shine a light on this completely forgotten story. Why would a child, not even 60 inches tall, instill such a deep fear in her fellow citizens?
Researchers found out small holes in her skull, which could show she suffered from severe anemia and scurvy. These pathologies could involve fainting, sudden bleeding and epileptic fits; all symptoms that, at the time, could have been easily interpreted as demonic possession.
A possible kinship between the two women has still to be confirmed, but both skeletons seem to show signs of metopism, a genetic condition affecting the suture of the frontal bones.
According to radiocarbon dating, the burials date back to a period between 1440 and 1530 AD – when the infamous witch hunts had already begun.
In 1326, the papal bull Super illius specula by Pope John XXII set the basis for witch hunts: as incredible as it may sound, until then intellctuals and theologists had dismissed the idea of a “commerce with the Devil” as a mere superstition, that had to be eradicated.
Therefore in those churches they are given custody of priests have to constantly predicate to God’s people that these things are completely false. […] Who has never experienced going out of one’s body during his sleep, or to have night visions and to see, while sleeping, things he had never seen while wide awake? Who could be so dull or foolish as to believe that all these things which happen in the spirit, could also happen in the body?
Instead, starting from the XIV Century, even the intelligentsia was convinced that witches were real, and thus began the fight not just against heresy, but also against witchcraft, a persecution the Church entrusted to mendicant orders (Dominicans and Franciscans) and which would last over four centuries. Following the publishing of Malleus Maleficarum (1487), an actual handbook about witchcraft repression, the trials increased, ironically in conjunction with the Renaissance, up until the Age of Enlightenment. The destiny of the “witch girl” of Albenga has to be framed in this complex historical period: it is not a real mystery, as some newspapers have claimed, but rather another tragic human story, its details vanishing in time. Hopefully at least a small part of it will be reconstructed, little by little, by the international team of researchers who are now working on the San Calocero excavations.
Castrillo de Murcia è un piccolo borgo di 500 anime nella provincia di Burgos, nella Spagna del Nord. Il paesino è sonnacchioso, e non vi succede nulla di eclatante; ma per un giorno all’anno, Castrillo si guadagna l’attenzione dei media e di un manipolo di turisti incuriositi dalla strana tradizione che vi si svolge da quasi 400 anni.
Nata nel 1620, la festa di El Colacho si svolge nel giorno del Corpus Domini (in Maggio o in Giugno), ed è curata dalla Confraternita del Santísimo Sacramento de Minerva. Un prescelto si veste con un abito tradizionale dai colori sgargianti che ricordano le fiamme dell’Inferno: si tratta infatti di una vera e propria personificazione del Diavolo, che indossa una minacciosa maschera di sapore carnevalesco. El Colacho si aggira per le vie paesane, accompagnato in processione dai membri della Confraternita, e rincorre di tanto in tanto i passanti e i bambini, frustandoli giocosamente con una sorta di gatto a nove code.
Ma è la seconda parte della processione che è la più impressionante. Giunto nella piazza cittadina, El Colacho si appresta al rituale tradizionale che ha reso celebre la festività. Vengono preparati dei materassi, su cui sono adagiati dei bambini, tutti rigorosamente nati nei dodici mesi precedenti: alcuni degli infanti piangono, altri ridono, altri ancora dormono di gusto.
Ed ecco che, una volta pronti questi affollati lettini, El Colacho prende la rincorsa e comincia a saltarli, uno dopo l’altro, atterrando a pochi centimetri di distanza dalle testoline dei piccoli. Un passo falso potrebbe essere davvero pericoloso: ma, a quanto si dice, fino ad ora non si è mai verificato alcun incidente.
Perché una madre dovrebbe voler posizionare il proprio figlioletto di pochi mesi sul materassino, affinché un uomo vestito da diavolo vi salti sopra, di fronte a una folla plaudente? Il rito, secondo la credenza popolare, è salvifico e benefico: il passaggio di El Colacho rimuove il Peccato Originale, e porta con sé ogni male, proteggendo i neonati dalle malattie.
Ovviamente, la Chiesa non si limita a storcere il naso di fronte a questo tipo di tradizioni, ma le condanna apertamente, poiché secondo la dottrina ufficiale soltanto il sacramento del battesimo può sollevare il peso del Peccato Originale. Ma gli abitanti di Castrillo de Murcia, per quanto devoti, non rinuncerebbero per niente al mondo alla loro tradizione: si è sempre fatto così, e tutti coloro che battezzano i propri figli in questo strano modo sono stati a loro tempo sottoposti al salto del Colacho.
Se il salto del Colacho può sembrare estremo e pericoloso, non è nulla in confronto al battesimo che si celebra in alcune parti dell’India, in particolare negli stati di Karnataka e Maharashtra; si tratta di un rito praticato indistintamente da musulmani ed induisti.
Un uomo scala con una corda le mura del tempio, mentre sulla sua schiena penzola un secchio. Una volta arrivato in cima, il devoto mostra a tutti il contenuto del secchio – un bambino (di massimo due anni): dal tetto, alto una decina di metri, esibisce il neonato alla folla sottostante, tenendolo per le braccia e i piedini. Dopo aver invocato la protezione divina, di colpo lo lancia nel vuoto.
Nella piazza, una quindicina di uomini stanno aspettando l’atterraggio del bambino, tendendo una coperta per salvarlo. Il piccolo rimbalza sul telone, viene acchiappato al volo, rapidamente fatto passare di mano in mano e riconsegnato alla madre o al padre. Il tutto dura pochi secondi, anche se ci vogliono svariati minuti perché il bambino si riprenda dallo shock.
Il salto, ancora una volta, ha lo scopo di portare fortuna e salute al neonato; per la sua pericolosità, si tratta comunque di un rituale controverso, e diverse associazioni per i diritti umani hanno cercato di proibirlo. Nel 2011 queste proteste sono state ufficialmente ascoltate, ma la legge che mette al bando tale pratica è regolarmente ignorata dai fedeli, e perfino la polizia preferisce non interferire con i riti.
Visto anche il carattere sensibile della questione, è facile immaginare lo scandalo e la rabbia di chi è estraneo a questo tipo di tradizioni, e certamente si può (e si deve) discutere sull’opportunità che certi rituali rischiosi continuino ad essere riproposti al giorno d’oggi. Ma, per quanto il rito in questione sia stato tacciato di essere barbarico, “assurdo”, “senza logica né ragione”, per chi ha un minimo di dimestichezza con l’antropologia il suo senso è cristallino – in verità, esso mostra molte caratteristiche classiche di qualsiasi rito di passaggio.
Il bambino viene innanzitutto separato dai genitori; la guida lo conduce fino al confine, fino alla prova – eminentemente fisica – che egli dovrà affrontare da solo (il salto); infine, una volta completata l’essenziale fase di “transizione”, cioè il superamento della difficoltà, avviene la reintegrazione del bambino con il nucleo familiare e, più genericamente, con la società. Il bambino, com’è ovvio, è ora un individuo nuovo, e gode dei benefici del nuovo status (immunità dalle malattie).
Il salto del Colacho, così come il lancio dei bambini dalla moschea, sono “battesimi del fuoco” portatori di un senso profondo: i riti di passaggio sono talmente fondamentali per l’uomo da sopravvivere anche nelle nostre società industrializzate, cibernetiche e all’avanguardia. Non è tanto il valore di queste tradizioni che andrebbe messo in discussione, quindi, quanto piuttosto la modalità d’esecuzione. Forse, piuttosto che bandire e proibire, sarebbe più produttivo incentivare l’elaborazione di varianti ritualistiche meno cruente, come si è provveduto a fare in molti altri casi nel mondo.
La piccola cittadina francese di Loudun, situata nella regione Poitou-Charentes, divenne nel 1600 il teatro di uno degli episodi storici più oscuri e affascinanti. Un affaire in cui politica, sesso e fanatismo religioso sono mescolati assieme in un torbido e inquietante ritratto dell’Europa del tempo.
La Francia, all’epoca, era sotto lo scettro di Luigi XIII, ma soprattutto del Cardinale Richelieu, suo primo ministro. Il progetto politico di Richelieu era quello di rendere la monarchia assoluta, assoggettando i nobili e reprimendo qualsiasi ribellione in nome della “ragione di Stato” (che permette di violare il diritto in nome di un bene più alto); dal punto di vista religioso, inoltre, si era in pieno periodo di Controriforma, e Richelieu doveva fare i conti con il pressante problema degli Ugonotti calvinisti, i protestanti francesi. Per far fronte al dilagare dei riformisti, Richelieu era pronto a una guerra senza esclusione di colpi.
Loudun era una città in cui da tempo serpeggiava il protestantesimo, ma a farla finire nell’occhio del ciclone fu il canonico della chiesa di Sainte-Croix, padre Urbain Grandier. Prete coltissimo e controverso, teneva dei sermoni infiammati a cui accorrevano le folle anche dalle città vicine: le posizioni di Grandier erano sempre sul filo del rasoio, il suo spirito era rivoluzionario e anticonformista, e non temeva di contraddire o attaccare i canoni della Chiesa o Richelieu stesso.
Seduttore impenitente, Grandier aveva intrattenuto relazioni sessuali e affettive con diverse donne in maniera sempre più aperta e spavalda, fino ad arrivare a mettere incinta la figlia quindicenne del procuratore del Re. Dopo questo scandalo, incominciò una relazione con Madeleine de Brou, orfanella di nobile casata a cui egli faceva da guida spirituale; i due si innamorarono, e Urbain Grandier commise il primo dei suoi errori diplomatici. Avrebbe potuto mantenere nascosta la loro relazione, anche se in realtà le voci circolavano da mesi; invece, decise che avrebbe sposato Madeleine, in barba ai precetti della Romana Chiesa e della Controriforma. Scrisse un pamphlet intitolato Trattato contro il celibato dei preti, e in seguito officiò con la sua amata una messa di matrimonio, notturna e segretissima, in cui egli ricoprì il triplice ruolo di marito, testimone e prete. Arrestato, riuscì a vincere il processo e tornare a Loudun, ma le cose non si misero a posto così facilmente.
Qui entra infatti in gioco Jeanne de Belcier, priora del convento di Suore Orsoline di Loudun, chiamata anche suor Jeanne des Anges. Anima tormentata, dedita secondo la sua stessa autobiografia al libertinaggio nei primi anni di clausura e in seguito duramente repressa e ossessionata dal sesso, la madre superiora comincia ad avere delle fantasie erotiche su Urbain Grandier dopo aver sentito parlare delle sue avventure amatorie, nonostante non l’abbia mai conosciuto di persona. Gli propone quindi di diventare il confessore della comunità delle Orsoline, ma padre Grandier rifiuta. La scelta di Jeanne cade quindi su padre Mignon, un canonico nemico giurato di Grandier che comincia fin da subito a complottare contro il prete. Nei dieci anni successivi, assieme ad alcuni nobili della città (incluso il padre della giovane che Grandier aveva ingravidato), intenterà diversi processi contro Grandier, accusandolo di empietà e di vita debosciata.
Nel 1631 la tensione politica si innalza, perché Richelieu ordina che il castello di Loudun sia distrutto. Egli infatti aveva appena fondato, poco distante, una cittadina che portava il suo stesso nome, e non desiderava affatto che Loudun rimanesse un covo di Ugonotti, per di più fortificato. Urbain Grandier si oppose strenuamente all’abbattimento delle mura, scrivendo violenti pamphlet contro Richelieu e ponendosi quindi in aperto contrasto con le disposizioni del cardinale. Loudun diventò così una roccaforte sotto virtuale assedio delle guardie del Re, e a peggiorare le cose all’inizio del 1632 arrivò una terribile epidemia di peste a colpire la città.
Fu a partire da settembre di quell’anno che scoppiò il vero putiferio. Secondo gli storici Jeanne des Anges, la madre superiora del convento di Orsoline, era ancora fuori di sé per il rifiuto ricevuto da Grandier. Per vendicarsi, nel segreto del confessionale raccontò a padre Mignon che il prete aveva usato la magia nera per sedurla. Accodandosi a lei, diverse altre religiose dichiararono che il prete le aveva stregate, inviando loro dei demoni per costringerle a commettere atti impuri con lui. A poco a poco, le suore vennero prese da un’isteria collettiva. In una di queste crisi di possessioni demoniache, durante le quali le religiose si contorcevano in pose impudiche e urlavano oscenità e bestemmie, una suora fece il nome di Urbain Grandier.
Fino a pochi anni prima una dichiarazione rilasciata da una persona posseduta dal demonio non sarebbe stata ritenuta legalmente valida, in quanto proveniente dalla bocca del “padre della menzogna” (Giovanni 8:44). Ma il famoso caso delle possessioni di Aix-en-Provence del 1611, il primo nel quale la testimonianza di un indemoniato era stata accolta come prova, aveva creato un precedente.
Grandier venne processato e inizialmente rilasciato, ma non poteva finire lì. Richelieu non aspettava di meglio per mettere a tacere una volta per tutte questo prete scomodo e apertamente indisciplinato, e ordinò un nuovo processo, affidandolo stavolta a un suo speciale inviato, Jean Martin de Laubardemont, parente di Jeanne des Anges; impose inoltre una “procedura straordinaria”, così da impedire che Grandier potesse appellarsi al Parlamento di Parigi. Il prete sovversivo era stato incastrato.
Urbain Grandier venne rasato (alla ricerca di eventuali marchi della Bestia) e sottoposto a tortura, in particolare con il terribile metodo dello “stivale”. Si trattava di una delle torture più crudeli e violente, tanto che, a detta dei testimoni, tutti i membri del Consiglio che la ordinava invariabilmente chiedevano di andarsene appena iniziata la procedura. Le gambe dell’accusato venivano inserite fra quattro plance di legno strette e solide, fermamente legate con una corda: dei cunei venivano poi battuti a colpi di martello fra le due tavolette centrali, imprimendo così una pressione crudele sulle gambe, le cui ossa si frantumavano a poco a poco. I cunei erano di norma quattro per la “questione ordinaria”, cioè il primo grado di inquisizione.
Dopo la tortura, i giudici produssero alcuni documenti come prova dei patti infernali di Grandier. Uno dei documenti era in latino e sembrava firmato dal prete; un altro, praticamente illeggibile, mostrava una confusione di strani simboli e diverse “firme” di diavoli, incluso Lucifero stesso (“Satanas“).
A questo punto, Grandier venne dichiarato colpevole e condannato a morte. Ma prima, i giudici ordinarono che si procedesse con la “questione straordinaria”. Grandier fu sottoposto nuovamente a tortura, questa volta con otto cunei a stritolargli le gambe. Nonostante le sofferenze, rifiutò di confessare e continuò a giurare di essere innocente. Venne quindi bruciato sul rogo il 18 agosto 1634. Le possessioni demoniache andarono scemando, e terminarono nel 1637.
Jeanne des Anges, vittima di stigmate a partire dal 1635 e poi miracolosamente guarita, godette di crescente reputazione fino ad ottenere addirittura la protezione di Richelieu in persona, garantendo così prosperità al convento. Jean Martin de Laubardemont, l’inviato del cardinale, divenne famoso per aver convertito numerosi protestanti. Il clamore del caso dei demoni di Loudun portò nella città una nuova ondata di curiosi e visitatori che diedero nuova spinta all’economia e al commercio. Richelieu, una volta morto Grandier, riuscì nel suo intento di distruggere il castello.
La storia delle possessioni di Loudun è raccontata anche in un romanzo di Aldous Huxley, portato poi sullo schermo da Ken Russell nel suo capolavoro I Diavoli (1971), opera accusata di blasfemia, osteggiata, sequestrata e “maledetta”, tanto che ancora oggi è praticamente impossibile reperirne una copia non censurata.
Stow Bardolph è piccolo villaggio del Norfolk, in Inghilterra, che conta 1000 abitanti, quasi tutti contadini. Un turista che per caso si trovasse a passare per quelle piatte campagne disseminate di pecore non troverebbe nulla di particolarmente interessante da visitare nel minuscolo borgo, e finirebbe a rintanarsi di fianco al focolare nell’unico pub di Stow Bardolph, chiamato Hare Arms, che più che un pub è una tenuta, attorniato com’è da giardini in cui beccheggiano pavoni e galline.
Anche una visita alla chiesetta del paese, dedicata alla Trinità, potrebbe ad una prima occhiata rivelarsi deludente, visto l’interno spoglio e “povero”. Eppure, in un angolo, c’è uno strano armadietto chiuso. Chi l’ha aperto, giura che non scorderà più quel momento.
“Avevo visto sue fotografie negli anni, da quando l’avevo scoperta a scuola, ma nulla mi avrebbe potuto preparare al brivido della porta dell’armadietto che si apriva. Allora ho capito il motivo di questa porta — lei è terrificante, il suo volto tozzo, verrucoso, lo sguardo sprezzante“, riporta un visitatore.
Ma chi è la donna ritratta nella scultura?
La macabra effigie in cera contenuta nell’armadietto è quella di Sarah Hare, morta nel 1744 all’età di 55 anni dopo che, secondo la leggenda, aveva osato cucire di domenica, nel giorno di riposo dedicato al Signore; si era quindi punta un dito, forse per punizione divina, soccombendo in seguito alla setticemia. A parte questo episodio, la sua vita non era stata per nulla eccezionale. Eppure il suo testamento, se da un lato ostentava una carità e una generosità notevoli, dall’altra includeva una strana disposizione: “Desidero che sei uomini poveri della parrocchia di Stow o Wimbotsham mi sotterrino, e ricevano cinque scellini per il servizio. Desidero che tutti i poveri di Alms Row abbiano due scellini e una moneta da sei penny ciascuno davanti alla mia tomba, prima che mi calino giù. […] Desidero che la mia faccia e le mie mani siano modellati in cera, con un pezzo di velluto color porpora quale ornamento sulla mia testa, e messi in una cassa di mogano con un vetro antestante, e che siano fissati a questo modo vicino al luogo dove riposa il mio cadavere; sul contenitore potranno essere incisi il mio nome e la data della mia morte nel modo che più si desidera. Se non riuscirò ad eseguire tutto questo mentre sono ancora in vita, potrà essere fatto dopo la mia morte”.
Non sappiamo se i calchi del volto e delle mani vennero eseguiti mentre Sarah Hare era ancora viva, oppure post-mortem: quello che è chiaro è che il suo testamento venne rispettato alla lettera. Possiamo immaginarci la solenne processione con cui il busto venne portato, nell’armadio di legno, fino alla cappella di famiglia che l’avrebbe infine ospitato per i secoli a venire.
Di sculture funebri in marmo che ritraggono il defunto è pieno il mondo, ma la statua in cera di Sarah Hare è l’unica di questo tipo in Inghilterra, se si escludono le effigi presenti nell’abbazia di Westminster. La cosa più straordinaria è l’ordinarietà del soggetto – una donna non celebre, né nobile, di certo non bella, che nella sua vita non diede alcun contributo particolare alla Storia.
Nel 1987 la statua venne restaurata da alcuni esperti che lavoravano anche per Madame Tussauds, assieme all’armadio che negli anni era stato attaccato dai roditori, e all’antica stoffa di velluto rosso ormai quasi distrutta. Oggi quindi l’immagine di cera resiste ancora, quasi 270 anni dopo la sua morte.
In questi 270 anni si sono avvicendati re e regine, l’impero Britannico è sorto e crollato, sono state combattute sanguinose guerre di dimensioni inaudite, il mondo e la vita sono cambiati radicalmente. Ma, in uno sperduto paesino di campagna, dietro un’anta di mogano, ancora non è finita la lunga, immobile e silenziosa veglia che Sarah Hare si è scelta come propria personale forma di immortalità.
Qualche tempo fa Lidia, una nostra lettrice, ci segnalava la presenza della statua di un écorché (“scorticato”, una delle raffigurazioni classiche dell’anatomia umana) proprio all’interno del Duomo di Milano: si tratta del celebre San Bartolomeo di Marco D’Agrate. Eccolo qui sotto.
Lidia si chiedeva: com’è possibile che una statua simile venisse posta all’interno di un Duomo, proprio in un periodo (il XVI secolo) in cui l’utilizzo di cadaveri per la dissezione comportava la scomunica?
Questo apparente paradosso ci dà la possibilità di fare luce su alcuni miti relativi al Medioevo, in particolare riguardo ai rapporti fra la Chiesa cattolica e lo studio dell’anatomia.
L’idea che molti hanno degli albori degli studi anatomici e chirurgici si ricollega all’idea di Medioevo come di un’epoca buia, pervasa da ignoranza e superstizione; in questo contesto, i primi studiosi dell’anatomia sarebbero stati dei pionieri “fuorilegge”, che riesumavano cadaveri ed eseguivano le loro dissezioni di nascosto, perché su queste azioni gravava la pena della scomunica o, ancora peggio, la reclusione. Leonardo da Vinci, responsabile delle prime dettagliate illustrazioni dell’interno del corpo umano, e inventore del moderno disegno anatomico (quello “esploso”, che mostra come gli organi siano posizionati e si rapportino l’uno all’altro), effettuò le sue dissezioni in gran segreto, o almeno così ci hanno sempre raccontato, per evitare ritorsioni dalla Chiesa.
Preparatevi però a una sorpresa: queste idee sono state grandemente ridimensionate dagli studiosi a partire dagli anni ’70, fino ad arrivare a sostenere che la Chiesa cattolica non abbia mai condannato né le dissezioni, né lo studio dell’anatomia, né tantomeno la chirurgia.
Da cosa nasce allora questa confusione? Principalmente dalla cosiddetta “tesi del conflitto”, nata in ambito positivista nel XIX secolo: alcuni studiosi di storia infatti (White e Draper in particolare) sostennero che la Chiesa fosse da sempre stata in conflitto con la scienza, perché quest’ultima contraddice i miracoli; lo sviluppo delle materie scientifiche, quindi, sarebbe andato contro gli interessi del Pontefice e della comunità ecclesiastica, entrambi intenti a mantenere salvi i proventi della loro “vendita dell’Agnus Dei”. Quest’idea godette subito di grande popolarità, benché le fonti coeve non riportassero esplicitamente traccia di questa lotta acerrima fra scienza e religione. Gran parte degli autori, a dir la verità, non citava e spesso non si prendeva nemmeno la briga di verificare e studiare approfonditamente il diritto canonico e gli atti dei concili.
A complicare le cose, ci furono un paio di canoni e bolle papali che vennero interpretati in maniera errata o parziale. È vero infatti che alcune restrizioni erano state decise dalla Chiesa per vietare a parte del clero di studiare l’anatomia. Ad esempio, un canone approvato in diversi concili ecclesiastici prevedeva che fosse proibito a monaci e canonici regolari lo studio della medicina. Ma se si leggono approfonditamente le motivazioni di questa proibizione, si scopre che essa veniva messa in atto per limitare quella “prava e detestabile consuetudine” che alcuni monaci avevano preso di studiare “giurisprudenza e medicina al fine di ricavarne un guadagno temporale”. Un monaco avrebbe dovuto dedicarsi alla preghiera e al conforto delle anime – ma al tempo molti si dedicavano invece alla medicina e alla giurisprudenza come secondo lavoro; ed era questa sete di guadagno che, secondo il canone, male si addiceva a degli uomini di fede. D’altronde il canone è tutto incentrato sul problema dell’avidità, e vi si proibiscono anche simonia e usura: il fatto che ai monaci venisse vietato anche lo studio della giurisprudenza fa capire bene come non fosse la medicina il problema essenziale.
Un altro canone si scagliava contro quei membri della Chiesa che erano soliti “lasciare i loro chiostri per studiare le leggi e preparare medicine, con il pretesto di aiutare i corpi dei loro fratelli malati […] stabiliamo allora, con il consenso del presente concilio, che a nessuno sia permesso di partire per studiare medicina o le leggi secolari dopo aver preso i voti ed aver fatto professione di fede in un certo luogo di religione”. Anche in questo caso non viene mai proibita la pratica della medicina; vengono accusati quei ministri di Dio che abbandonano il loro chiostro per perseguire scopi differenti. Come a dire, una volta che hai preso i voti, la tua strada deve essere quella del Signore, a quello devi dedicarti, senza che altre discipline ti distraggano dai tuoi compiti.
Un altro dilemma morale era che la chirurgia curava di certo molti malati, ma spesso portava alla morte del paziente. Questo mal si conciliava con l’assunzione ad alte cariche nella Chiesa, e pertanto praticare la chirurgia fu proibito agli Ordini Maggiori (insieme, per esempio, al divieto di pronunciare sentenze di morte o di essere a capo di uomini che spargono sangue). Ancora una volta, nessuna traccia della proibizione della pratica chirurgica in sé; e ancora una volta questi divieti erano limitati soltanto a una specifica parte del clero.
Ma forse il più incredibile fra i miti relativi alla Chiesa è l’editto denominato Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine (“La Chiesa aborre dal sangue”). Questa frase, citata e ricitata nei secoli a riprova della distanza fra Chiesa e chirurgia, venne attribuita a un fantomatico editto: eppure esso non è presente in alcun canone di alcun concilio! Pare che uno storico del XVIII secolo, citando un passo delle Recherches de la France di Étienne Pasquier, abbia deciso di tradurlo in latino e di scriverlo in corsivo. Da quel momento, tutti gli storici successivi presero il motto come una citazione diretta da qualche canone, senza controllarne l’effettiva provenienza.
E le dissezioni? Anche qui, ben poco che ci confermi una presunta presa di distanza della Chiesa. Ci fu, è vero, la bolla De sepulturis, nata con l’intento di combattere l’usanza, fiorita in Terra Santa durante le Crociate, di tagliare a pezzi il corpo dei nobili e di bollirli per separare la carne dalle ossa e riportare più agevolmente le spoglie a casa, oppure per seppellirle in diversi luoghi ritenuti sacri. Nella bolla non si proibiva di fare a pezzi un corpo per scopi scientifici (la preoccupazione era rivolta appunto a quella pratica di sepoltura definita “abominevole”), ma forse la bolla poté essere liberamente interpretata e usata per limitare in alcuni rari casi anche le dissezioni anatomiche.
Quello che è certo è che i monasteri erano da sempre i depositari dei maggiori testi di anatomia e medicina, che una buona parte del clero studiava queste discipline, e che le dissezioni vennero praticate durante tutto il Medioevo senza particolari problemi. Già nel XIII secolo le autopsie erano utilizzate e legalmente permesse come pratiche sperimentali per accertare le cause di un decesso e prevenire eventuali epidemie. È proprio dal XIV secolo che la pratica della dissezione, partendo da Bologna, iniziò a diffondersi gradualmente in tutte le altre università italiane ed europee, senza trovare alcun ostacolo.
E, se ancora non siete proprio convinti che la Chiesa non avesse problemi con la dissezione di un cadavere, pensate a quello che succedeva ai corpi dei santi, spesso letteralmente smembrati appena morti, ad opera degli stessi ecclesiastici… per farne reliquie.
In 1326, the papal bull Super illius specula by 
