It is not possible to write the history of blasphemy, anticlericalism and religious scepticism in the Early Modern period without taking into consideration the variety of their different manifestations (not only words but also gestures), as well as the flexibility of the boundary separating blasphemy as an emotional outburst from blasphemy as a conscious act of rebellion against the Church as an institution and God as an idea. The author investigates these issues by looking at materials of the Republic of Venice in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He tries to answer three overlapping questions: how the Inquisition and secular courts coordinated their activities in response to this broad field of jurisdiction; how different forms of blasphemous sayings and actions correlated with religious scepticism and the theoretical elaboration of unbelief; and how in society, where disrespectful words and gestures toward sacred persons and objects were part of everyday life, the Church tried on the one hand to eradicate blasphemy, and on the other hand to reconcile itself with blasphemy's ingrained existence.

Keywords: blasphemy, Italy, Veneto, Inquisition, Catholic Church, canon law.

The article was originally published in a special issue of the electronic journal Les Dossiers du Grihl, which was devoted to the "limits of acceptable": Barbierato, F. (2012) " Tolérer ce que l'on ne peut accepter. Blasphème et athéisme dans la pratique judiciaire de l'Inquisition romaine au XVIIe siècle", Les Dossiers du Grihl [http://dossiersgrihl.revues.org/5045, accessed on 05.06.2017].

Barbierato F. How to accept the unacceptable. Blasphemy and atheism in the judicial practice of the Roman Inquisition in the 17th century.Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii I za rubezhom [State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad]. 2017. N 2. pp. 74-91.

Barbierato, Federico (2017) "How to Accept the Unacceptable: Blasphemy and Atheism in the Judicial Practice of the Roman

Inquisition in the Seventeenth Century", Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 35 (2): 74-91.

page 74
RECENTLY, new approaches to the question of the relationship between forms of dissent and the actual content of unorthodox discourse have allowed us to revisit the debate about atheism and "popular" disbelief. Within the framework of this issue, many works have been published that have considered the phenomenon of blasphemy from a social and cultural point of view. Most importantly, they see blasphemy as a kind of language on which, paradoxically,a religious anthropology of the early Modern period can be built. 1
I will not dwell here on theoretical questions, no matter how interesting they may be, and I prefer to take this opportunity to touch on one difficult and - for me, as an Italian from a region like Venice-more than relevant subject. The question of blasphemy - and more generally of popular anti - clericalism and anti-Christian sentiments-is so difficult primarily because it is difficult to define them clearly. So I will start by describing in general how the Inquisition and the secular courts positioned themselves in relation to blasphemy, so that I can get to the more specific question of the correlation between blasphemy and unbelief, and then move on to what were the limits of tolerance for blasphemy in different situations.

The key question is: are there any words or phrases that are enough to confirm someone's "disbelief"just by saying them? As I have already said, it is still relevant for a resident of Venice: in many regions of Italy (Venice, Friuli, Tuscany, Emilia-Romagna), blasphemy is still a form of expressive communication that has more to do with syntax,

1. Among the great number of works devoted to blasphemy, I will mention only a few: Loetz, F. (2009) Dealings with God. From Blasphemers in Early Modern Zurich to a Cultural History of Religiousness. Farnham: Ashgate; Nash, D. (2007) Blasphemy in the Christian World. A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Cabantous, A. (1998) Histoire du blasphème en Occident. XVIE-XIXE siècle. Paris: Albin Michel. For Venice specifically, see Derosas, R. (1980) " Moralita e giustizia a Venezia nel '500-'600. Gli esecutori contro la bestemmia", in G. Cozzi (ed.) Stato società e giustizia nella Repubblica veneta (sec. XV-XVIII). Rome: Jouvence; Horodowich, E. (2003) "Civic Identity and the Control of Blasphemy in SixteenthCentury Venice", Past and Present 181: 3-33; Horodowich, E. (2008) Language and Statecraft in Early Modern Venice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See also: Barbierato, F. (2002) Nella stanza dei circoli. Clavicula Salomonis e libri di magia a Venezia nei secoli XVI-XVIII, pp. 131-145. Milan: Edizioni Sylvestre Bonnard.

page 75
punctuation and rhythm of speech, rather than disbelief 2. Blasphemous phrases literally permeate the speech of people from the people (although, of course, not only them), both young people and older people. They are used to reinforce an utterance, emphasize how appropriate it is at the moment, express disagreement with the other person, and so on. In such cases, the structure of blasphemy turns out to be simple and stereotypical: most often, epithets are attributed to God that belittle him, relegating him to a " low " animal principle (usually these characteristics).

2. See, for example: Capuano, G. R. (2007) Turpia: sociologia del turpiloquio e dellabestemmia. Milan, Costa e Nolan.; Turina, I. (2000) "La bestemmia italiana. Note per una prospettiva sociolinguistica", Versus: Quaderni di Studi Semiotici 85-87: 461-476. However, first of all, it is worth paying attention to the reflections and literary experiences of the writer Luigi Menegello, starting with his story about the competition in blasphemy and the conclusion that he draws from it.: "Blasphemy is quite an important institution; it is not true that it is just an auxiliary means of expressing the unarticulated; rather, it is also just one side of human blasphemy, especially blasphemy that is cheerful and harmless, which, I think, makes even the Lord and the saints smile. True blasphemy, on the other hand, is a violent blasphemy that "subverts" the supernatural and expresses a fundamental judgment - ignorant but independent - about the structure of the world. The blasphemer would not venture to say openly that if things go wrong, it is essentially the fault of the powers above; but in the act of blasphemy, he does just that, and contrasts the point of view of heretical sanity with that of traditional piety. An emancipated youth who blasphemes for sport (or a man who blasphemes out of annoyance) evokes in the young a sense of challenge-unholy but attractive, in which one feels with a delicious sinking feeling the difference between what one really believes and feels and what one should believe and how one should feel." The "anthropological" attempt to explain the phenomenon of blasphemy to the British allies also seems interesting: "However, they hardly understood what blasphemy was. We patiently explained that this is an important institution in Catholicism, and used examples to show how it works and works. They pretended to understand, but they didn't. Blasphemy in the sense of substituting a blasphemous subject or predicate in a pious phrase is truly incomprehensible to one who does not have faith" (Meneghello, L. (1989) Libera Nos a Malo, pp. 106-107. Milan, Rizzoli). Let us not forget the story of his own first blasphemy: "That day I uttered the first blasphemy of my life. There were about ten of us in a hut in the middle of the forest. We made a delicious meal - I think it was meat-and sat around the fire, having a leisurely conversation, while the English listened to us with restrained attention. Shortly after lunch, right in the middle of a conversation, I caught myself uttering a blasphemous expletive that ended in an. At first, this caused a slight confusion, then a wave of satisfaction joined it. In my part of the world, Catholics swear profanely often, some of them constantly; the Belluno boys used to swear constantly, too, and now I did. The first blasphemy, in "an", came spontaneously; as the conversation continued, many others began to come: rough and soft, simple and compound, each in its own place, correct, natural. So we said goodbye to the guys from Belluno, carefully responding to their friendly greeting curses" (Meneghello, L. (1999) I piccoli maestri, p. 56, 69. Milan: Mondadori).

page 76
they are reduced to a comparison with pigs and dogs) or to the "body bottom" in the spirit of Rabelais. The same applies to saints, although they are rather reproached for not paying enough attention to earthly affairs (after all, they had high hopes!). This explains the use of adjectives that emphasize their sexual promiscuity (first of all, they are accused of sodomy). The same characteristics are often transferred to the Mother of God, whose virginity and righteousness are called into question - she is credited with numerous lovers, as well as a penchant for unnatural sexual practices.

This typology of blasphemy has remained almost intact since the early Modern period - only a few of the blasphemies that were fairly common before the end of the eighteenth century now seem to have disappeared or have already lost their emotional power: "the blood of the Lord "or" I am God " no longer resents anyone. It is all the more surprising that they are already found in Alessandro Tassoni, Giorgio Baffo and even in Torquato Tasso 3.

The question should be put this way: can we be sure that the person who uttered such blasphemies fully and completely agreed with what came out of his mouth? In other words, to what extent did the church authorities allow deviations from the norm and to what extent were they willing to tolerate blasphemy? And what was the position of the secular courts here?

The Inquisition early secured the right of prosecution for blasphemy. As Thomas Aquinas wrote, blasphemy itself implies heresy: heresy denies any of the attributes of God, and therefore fits into the broader category of blasphemy. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over blasphemers was proclaimed by Pope Gregory IX (Decretals 5, 26, 2) .4 Canonists and theologians usually distinguished between two types of blasphemy: that which attributes to God (and indirectly to the Mother of God and the saints) certain properties that they do not possess; and that which, on the contrary, denies them any of their properties.

3. Alessandro Tassoni (1565-1635), Giorgio Baffo (1694-1768), Tarquato Tasso (1544-1595) - Italian writers of the early Modern period. - Note. ed.

4. For all questions related to the Catholic Church's position on blasphemy, see Prosperi, A. (2010) "Bestemmia", in Dizionario Storico dell'inquisizion, pp. 184-185. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, vol. I. It is also worth paying attention to the chapters devoted to more general subjects in the book: Loetz, F. Deals with God. From Blasphemers in Early Modern Zurich to a Cultural History of Religiousness.

page 77
The problem of blasphemy was also of great concern to the secular justice system. As a result, the Inquisition, which sought to combat verbal sins, entered into competition with secular tribunals. They argued for their intervention by saying that they were obliged to avenge the insult inflicted on the Lord in order to avert his punishment from the city. The laws of various Italian states prescribed extremely harsh punishments for blasphemy: from public flagellation to curtailment of the language. In parallel, the task of eliminating the habit of blasphemy was set by fraternities (for example, the brotherhood of the Most Holy Name of God - Santissimo nome di Dio), as well as the authors of numerous works on good manners. So, Castiglione in his "Book of the courtier" instructed:

It is also important to avoid unholy talk and avoid trying to sharpen your wit by inventing more and more blasphemies in order to gain fame by something that deserves not only blasphemy, but also severe punishment; this is why those who seek to show off their wit by speaking disrespectfully of God deserve to be banished from noble society.5
Giovanni della Casa, in his famous "Galatea" (1558), recorded a social canon that considered blasphemy committed by a person against God as a manifestation of bad taste and disrespect for other people:

One should not intentionally say anything against God or the saints, nor laugh at them, especially since they seem to favor people [ ... ]; to do so is not only blasphemous, but also simply discourteous. 6
Nevertheless, the civil laws and theologians ' constructions continued to accuse blasphemers of having created a new religion.

5. "E ancora da fuggire che il motteggiare non sia impio; ché la cosa passa poi al voler esser arguto nel biastemmare e studiare di trovare in cio nuovi modi; onde di quello che l'omo merita non solamente biasimo, ma grave castigo, par che ne cerchi gloria; il che è cosa abominevole; e pero questi tali, che voglion mostrare di esser faceti con poca reverenzia di Dio, meritano esser cacciati dal consorzio d'ogni gentilomo" (Castiglione, B. (1969) Il libro del cortegiano con una scelta dalle Opere minori, a cura di Bruno Maier, (cap. LXVIII), p. 291. Turin: UTET).

6. Della Casa, G. (1666) Galatée ou l'art de plaire dans la conversation, p. 45. Paris: Guignard.

page 78
blasphemy against the Lord can provoke God's wrath against the entire society, if it does not punish the guilty in the most revealing way.

Among the clergy, this issue was considered by both bishops and inquisitors. The intervention of the Inquisition in such matters was argued by the fact that blasphemous speeches could contain heresy. So, in his treatise Directorium inquisitorum, Nicholas Aymeric singled out in a huge array of blasphemous statements those that not only offend God, but also contradict the dogmas of faith, and therefore represent a form of heresy. This distinction was established in tradition and later applied by the inquisitors, as evidenced by the comments of Francisco Peña to his Directorium (1587). The question of blasphemy twice - under Julius III (Constitution In multis depravatis, 1554) and under Pius V-required the intervention of the Roman See. At the same time, the most severe and radical formulation belongs to Paul IV. In two decrees (October 17, 1555, and April 18, 1556), he decreed that in the Papal State all matters relating to blasphemy should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, and ordered the maintenance of special registers devoted entirely to such matters.

Subsequently, the strict requirements imposed under Pope Paul IV (Carafe) were relaxed. The rules of confession adopted under his rule required priests to question penitents about matters within the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, and in case of any violations, send them to its tribunal. As a result, the judges were faced with the fact that they had to consider a lot of denunciations of blasphemy, where no traces of heresy were visible. In 1585, a decree of the Roman Inquisition decreed that a person who hears blasphemy should report it to the tribunal only if he sincerely believes that this blasphemy contains heretical judgments. As for other blasphemies, it was recognized that they were subject to both secular and ecclesiastical justice. However, where the line between superficial and heretical blasphemy runs remained a hotly debated topic. To help confessors and judges in their work, inquisitor manuals have carefully classified the various types of blasphemy.7
7. On this issue, see the article we have already cited above: Prosperi, A. "Bestemmia".

page 79
A convincing description of all the forms of unbelief in seventeenth-and eighteenth - century Venice is difficult, if not impossible. The direct or indirect denial of the existence of God or of his basic attributes, the evidence that has been given to support such propositions, and the forms in which they have been clothed, all combine to leave the impression of superficial disbelief. It seems that we are dealing with a world where the boundaries between faith, unbelief, or unstable faith were mobile, and people constantly crossed them. Just as faith could be superficial, so could unbelief be superficial.8 Its gradations depended on the circumstances, the intellectual tools at the individual's disposal, and his vocabulary; therefore, the most categorical denial of the existence of God or the soul did not necessarily imply a rejection of the belief in the reality of the other world in the broadest sense of the word. The supersensible world was in demand, for example, when a person wanted to summon demons or make a pact with the devil in order to obtain economic or sexual benefits, or simply to enlist the protection of demonic forces. However, it often happened that the refusal to believe in the reality of demons (in which a person was strengthened due to the fact that they did not appear at his call) led to the fact that he was completely dissuaded from the existence of the other world postulated by Christianity. Hence, on the one hand, the interest in doctrines that led to the rejection of faith in the devil, on the other - the increased attention that attracted exorcism 9.

Another set of questions is related to the spread of disbelief and nonconformist beliefs in general at that time. Criticism of various manifestations of religion could take many forms that are difficult to fit into any rigid typology. In this context, even the simplest and most concise language sometimes served to express and convey skeptical feelings and ideas that were probably much more complex than it seems at first glance.

8. As Giovanni Scarabello wrote about those who fell into the millstones of the inquisition in Venice in the seventeenth century," we are not looking at convinced dissenters, but rather people of an irreverent or ironically cynical turn, or those who were trying to find a place for themselves in society "(Scarabello, G. " Paure, superstizioni, infamie", Storia della cultura veneta, Il Seicento, 4 / II, p. 374).

9. Let me refer to the cases mentioned in my work: Barbierato, F. Nella stanza dei circoli. Clavicula Salomonis e libri di magia a Venezia nei secoli XVI-XVIII, pp. 131-145.

page 80
Blasphemy here was an extreme case - it was so familiar and ingrained in the life of Venice that in order to curb the most egregious manifestations of this phenomenon, which, as it was believed, could pose a real threat to society and the security of the state, a special court was created - Esecutori contro la bestemmia (bailiffs against blasphemy)10. In order to present the scale of the tasks they set themselves, it is worth mentioning that when in 1684 the Esecutori decided to no longer rely on incoming denunciations, but to switch to the inquisitorial procedure, in just one day in one parish of San Jeremiah, 23 violators were identified, 5 of whom were immediately taken under arrest. the guard. Among them was Vice-Grand Captain Antonio Coa, who was to be tried by the heads of the Council of Ten. However, the assiduous persecution by Esecutori did not last long, including, no doubt, because otherwise the prisons would simply have been overcrowded.

The thin line separating blasphemy with elements of heresy from mere blasphemy as an angry tirade that did not question the prerogative of the Almighty was barely perceptible. Dogmatically, it was recognized at the time that blasphemy itself was not heresy. This issue was legally extremely important, since the Venetian authorities strictly followed the practice, which was then codified by Paolo Sarpi.:

Abuses involving mere blasphemy should not remain under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition; in accordance with the principles of law and custom accepted throughout Christendom, they belong to the jurisdiction of a secular court... So-called heretical blasphemies, in which there are signs of heresy, are subject to the jurisdiction of the inquisition in relation to these signs and suspicions, and the jurisdiction of the secular court in relation to blasphemy itself; each of these courts, having opened the trial, must fulfill its mission; the one who first begins the investigation, He will be the first to open the trial; each of the sentences handed down must be carried out separately [ ... ] This applies to all those who cause damage

10. ASV (Archivio di Stato di Venezia), Consiglio di Dieci, Parti criminali, b. 116, Esecutori contro la bestemmia, 8 февраля 1683 г.

11. Paolo Sarpi (1552-1623) - Venetian historian and statesman (editor's note).

page 81
the same applies to public ungodly ridicule, such as the performance of parodic psalms or obscene and blasphemous litanies 12.

Thus, the secular and ecclesiastical authorities entered into a fierce competition to assert their jurisdiction over blasphemy, insults to holy images, etc. This struggle continued throughout the XVII-XVIII centuries, sometimes leading to open confrontation, but more often limited to a hidden "tug of war" in conditions of chronic tension. In this context, blasphemy became one of the other crimes (sollicitatio ad turpia13 bigamy, etc.) over which both sides sought to establish their jurisdiction. 14
In any case, anyone who, because of their profession, encountered blasphemous speeches quite regularly, clearly understood that simple blasphemy is not a reason to condemn someone as a heretic. It is likely that the cavadenti, such as Giovan Battista Cocciolo, who was interrogated in 1682, heard a fair amount of blasphemy. However, they seemed to be absolutely justified to him-neslu-

12. "Gli eccessi di biastema ordinaria non doveranno esser lasciati all'ufficio della inquisizione, ma giudicati al foro secolare, conforme alla disposizione della legge ed uso di tutto il cristianesimo [...] Le biasteme chiamate ereticali, che rendono indicio e suspicione di eresia, quanto a questa parte dell'indicio e suspicione spettano all'ufficio dell'inquisizione, ma quanto alla sceleratezza della biastema sono del foro secolare; ed ambidoi doveranno far la parte sua, espedendo il suo processo; prima quello che sara stato il primo ad incomminciarlo; e fatte ambedue le sentenzie, si dara l'esecuzione ad ambedue [...] Il che si osservera contra chi dasse ferite o tirasse pietre nell'immagini di Cristo nostro Signore o delli santi [...] Il simile sara delle biasteme publiche ditte per irrisione, come cantando salmi contrafatti o litanie obscene ed impie" (Sarpi, P. (1958) "Sopra l'officio dell'Inquisizione", in P. Sarpi, G. Gambarin (Dir.) Scritti giurisdizionalistici, p. 125. Bari: Laterza).

13. This concept from canon law covered those cases when the priest or bishop who receives confession inclines the confessor to carnal sin (approx. ed.).

14. See Fabiana Veronese's simultaneously large-scale and extremely thorough study: Veronese, F. (2010) "Terra di nessuno". Misto foro e conflitti tra Inquisizione e magistrature secolari nella Repubblica di Venezia (XVIII sec.). Venise: Universita Ca' Foscari; Veronese, F. (2013) "La giurisdizione sulla stregoneria e sui reati diabolici nella Repubblica di Venezia (xviii sec.)", Società e storia 139: 81-111.

page 82
However, he hastened to clarify to the inquisitor that he had never encountered blasphemy, except "when he tore his teeth." 15
But then there was gambling: think of" Pietro, the Lost Gambler "from Matteo Bandello's Novellas (1544). Of course, he blasphemed. And how could it be otherwise?

This, then, was the end of the lost gambler, Pietro, who had another great vice: he was, as far as I know, the worst apostate and blasphemer of God and the saints in those parts. But there was nothing surprising in his blasphemy, for this vile vice is as inherent in players as heat is inherent in fire and light in the sun.

There is nothing surprising here: Pietro was not only a blasphemer and gambler, but also a Venetian 16. Similarly, Count Mario Tolomeo Nerucci uttered such outrageous and ornate blasphemies during the game that a series of charges were brought against him in Rome and Venice. He often played in the barber shop of Onorato d'arbes in San Salvador, where, as was then the custom, he dropped in just to chat. There he was nicknamed" te la strappo "("I'll rip you out"), because he liked to say:

"Saint Peter, I will pull out your beard" ("san Pietro ti strappo quella barba"). He often said: "If I had lived in the time of the ancient Jews, I would have treated Christ as I should. I want to go to Saxony to renounce Christ, but I've already rejected him for a long time." And sometimes he also added that in fact Christ did not die on the cross at all, but was hanged on a rope for stealing money.

15. ASV, Sant'Uffizio, b. 122, the trial of Giuseppe Toscani, surnamed the Orvietan, testimony of Giovan Battista Cocciolo, March 5, 1682.

16. См. "Новеллы" Маттео Банделло (III, 4): "Cotale fu adunque il fine del malvagio giocatore Pietro, il quale aveva anco un altro peccato grandissimo, ché, per quanto m'intendo, era il maggior bestemmiatore e rinegatore di Dio e de' santi che fosse in quei contorni. Ma meraviglia non era che bestemmiasse, essendo questo scelerato vizio di modo unito e congiunto ai giocatori come è il caldo al fuoco e la luce al sole" (Bandello, M. (1911) Le novella, p. 154. Bari: Laterza).

17. "Se fossi stato al tempo degl'hebrei, haverei fatto la mia parte contro Christo. Voglio andar in Sassonia per renegar Christo, se bene e un pezzo che ti ho renegato" (ASV, Sant'Uffizio, b. 124, trial against Mario Tolomeo Nerucci, self-initiated testimony Giovan Battista Confalonieri, July 5, 1685; testimony of Onorato d'arbes, November 29, 1685).

page 83
In cases like this, things were difficult: the line between heretical and non-heretical statements depended on the speaker's intentions, and therefore on what kind of person he was. To do this accurately, it required careful consideration of other factors - the blasphemer's habits, his ("good" or "bad") lifestyle, and more importantly, whether he accompanied such blasphemies with some lengthy reasoning. I will only briefly mention one more snag - blasphemy in a peculiar way could indicate the blasphemer's faith. Casanova recounted that the accusers who brought him to Piombi "stated with certainty that when I lost at cards, that is, at a time when all the faithful are blaspheming, I cursed only the devil." 18
In addition, there were often cases when blasphemy was used for practical purposes - to frighten someone. This is how, around 1730, it was used by Giovanni Sagramora, captain of ships of the Council of Ten, the sailor Giacomo "Cospettazzo" and Alviso Malipiero, who blasphemed "to instill fear in the locals or to extort the best price from sellers and artists for the things they needed to buy" 19. In other cases, blasphemy undoubtedly played the role of a syntactic bundle or was the result of a gradual reduction of a concept to its most elementary elements. This process could go through many stages: when squerarolo (a worker in the workshop where the gondolas were made) Marco Rutene, in 1675, declared that "the Lord was illegitimate and Mary Magdalene was his mistress." 20 His words undoubtedly led to blasphemy, but they were not blasphemy in themselves. They contain echoes of the Libertine tradition, which tried in various ways to desacralize the genealogy of Christ and his very life, and various blasphemous formulas were already multiplying around it. One of the most popular topics for on-

18. "che quando perdevo al gioco, invece di bestemmiare Dio come facevano tutti i credenti, scagliavo le mie maledizioni al diavolo" (Casanova, G. (1827) Mémoires, p. 309. Leipzig: Brockhaus, Vol. IV).

19. "o per farsi temere dagl'habitanti della contrada [...] o per esigere a miglior prezzo dai venditori et artisti le cose che respettivamente occorevagli comprare" (ASV, Consiglio di Dieci, Parti criminali, b. 134, 22 января 1730 г.).

20. " Il signor Idio non era legittimo, e che la Madalena era sua donna "(ASV, Sant'Uffizio, b. 117, trial against Caterina de Zuliani, sitting June 18, 1675, handwritten notes, Katrina herself did not specify dates.

page 84
The relationship between Christ and Mary Magdalene was funny. Christ was credited with sexual desires and actions that were designed to satisfy them, so that he was exposed as an absolutely ordinary, weak and sinful person. Consider, for example, the story of Giuseppe Rossi and Tobia Haselberg, whose reasoning was based on the following premise: "Christ who became man was not the true son of God", but a deceiver. They always repeated that "Christ drugged Lazarus with opium to make it easier to use his sister Mary Magdalene, and then resurrected him with an antidote made from herbs." 21
The observations I made in the case of Master Rutene no doubt apply to the Neapolitan doctor Leonardo Bruni, who practiced in Venice in the 1740s and often remarked to his interlocutors that "Turks have a better chance of being saved than Christians" and "that the probability that Christ is now incarnated in the world is not always clear." the body of the Virgin Mary is as insignificant as the fact that his wife is an honest woman." At the same time, he explained that "holy men are pimps, and women are whores."22 So, unorthodox statements were kept in a completely different key in form, sometimes more or less close to blasphemy. In other words, anyone who was used to blaspheming with gusto and pleasure could do it out of habit or simply by repeating well-established formulas. However, sometimes a person expressed his rebellion against the Lord in such a public and clear way. This rebellion sometimes led the blasphemer to invoke demons, to turn completely away from God, and to place himself at the mercy of his antagonist. Statements and beliefs inspired by obvious disbelief were often combined with a fascination with witchcraft, magical texts, and practices.-

21. "Christo humanato non era vero figliolo di Dio"; "che Christo fece adormintare con Lazzaro con l'oppio per godere la Maddalena sua sorella con piu liberta, e doppo lo fece risuscitare con un antidoto d'erbe" (ASV, Sant'Uffizio, b. 126, proceedings against Tobia Haselberg, undated records signed by A., presented by Domenico Paterno during the meeting on May 22, 1692).

22. "che se salva melio li turchi che li christiani"; "se Christo tornase a incarnarse in corpo del Maria versene et ge disise che somegier [so mogier] se dona da bennon lo credera"; "i santi rufiani et le sante putane" (ASV, Sant'Uffizio, b. 103, the notebook of Justin Sugolot, an anonymous and undated denunciation against Leonardo Bruni. Since the author's spelling is important here, I reproduce his lines without changes.

page 85
kami, which meant turning to demons and completely submitting to their power 23.

In addition to the oral element, which, in its infinite variety, remained the main channel for expressing unorthodox ideas, they could also manifest themselves in gestures and actions. Thus, blasphemy was often accompanied by disrespect for church images. One can recall, for example, the innkeeper Alessandro Monti di Breganze, who in 1666 and in 1676 appeared before the inquisitorial tribunals of Vicenza and Padua for "heretical blasphemies and destruction of holy images" (ob blasphemias hereticales, et percussionem sacrarum imaginum).

Of course, if someone blasphemed, or " roasted Christ in the fire and burned images,"we cannot say with certainty that his behavior was based on justified unbelief. 24 It is, of course, very likely that the person was committed to a particular set of ideas or ideas that they had absorbed, but they had no other tools to express them or even think about them. For example, Girolama Bonotti in the 1670s, unable to separate thought from action, earned a reputation as "an impious woman [who] did not even want to hear prayers, never went to church or confessed." Having been widowed and, as was then customary, living in a room hung with images of saints, she once became enraged: "What the hell, what nonsense did you put in my room? Let the Lord do his own business, and I'll do mine." She collected the images and tore them to shreds, which fit well with her vision of a world "ruled not by God, but by chance, and where when a person dies, nothing remains of him." 25
23. For links between demon worship and skepticism in the Republic of Venice, see Barbierato, F. Nella stanza dei circoli. Clavicula Salomonis e libri di magia a Venezia nei secoli XVI-XVIII, pp. 131-145.

24. ASV. Sant'Uffizio, b. 110. Trial against Fra Cherubino da Venetia and Fra Giovan Battista da Este, testimony of Fra Girolamo de Piove di Sacco in the Inquisition of Padua (August 19, 1663), c. 25 v. ACDF (Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede), S.O., Decreta 1676, c. 198r, 14 сентября 1676 г.

25. "donna sceleratta [che] non voleva sentir né meno dir orationi, e mai andava né in chiesa e a confessarsi"; "che santi, che vanie mi havete messo in cotesta camera, che Dio stia da sua posta ed io da mia posta"; "Dio non ne governa, ma che quel che se ritrova sé a caso, e morta la persona è morto il tutto" (ASV. Sant'Uffizio. b. 121, процесс против Джироламы Бонотти; донос, сделанный Джованни Радичио 22 августа 1679 г.).

page 86
In the absence of an adequate vocabulary, such feelings were expressed exclusively in the form of action - first of all, as violence against images. In 1683, Laura Tagliapietra began to blaspheme and throw crucifixes, and then struck several blows with scissors at the images of Our Lady 26. She accompanied her actions with clear (albeit extremely brief) comments explaining what prompted her to do them: "I don't believe in God, what other God. If someone does good to whomever they want, what does God have to do with it? I don't believe there is a God. There is a devil. " 27 Such iconoclastic attacks were quite common. They were often conceived as a demonstrative challenge to prevailing norms and authority, and were regularly combined with a refusal to honor the accepted Deity to whom the demon cult was preferred.

When talking about disbelief, one should pay attention to how attitudes and theories could be transformed into concrete actions. On the night of January 21-22, 1695, a resident of Vicenza smeared an image of the Virgin Mary with "some black greasy substance" - I do not know whether he was a convinced unbeliever, a merry reveller, or just an aesthete who caused an artistic protest with this image. However, in any case, what it does is

"with the help of spots, he drew a mustache with a beard and other signs on her face," clearly indicated a very free attitude to the sacred 28. The behavior of an anonymous person who stabbed several times the images of Christ and St. John the Baptist in Conegliano in 1736. Antonia, and then reinforced his gesture with a portion of blasphemies, also looks quite clearly 29.

Such cases of "disrespect for sacred images" were not uncommon, especially in the villages and towns of Terrafarm 30. As a rule, it was an outburst of anger, an unrestrained rebellion, most often directed against the Church. Of course, only mo-

26. ASV. Sant'Uffizio, b. 122, notebook of Angela Soave; trial against Laura Tagliapietra; denunciation by Giovan Battista Dolobella, July 29, 1683.

27. "Non credo a Dio, che dii, da del ben a chi vuol, non è Dio, che Dio, non credo vi sia Dio. Vi è il diavolo" (Там же. Testimony of Maddalena Bertazzo, March 16, 1684).

28. "piu segni di onticcio nero nella faccia in forma di mustacchi, barba et altri segni" (ASV. Consiglio di Dieci, Parti criminali, b. 122, 19 декабря 1696 г.).

29. A certain Giovan Battista Bianchi was first accused of these acts, and as a result spent nine months in prison, but was later acquitted (ASV. Consiglio di Dieci, Parti criminali, b. 140, July 30, 1736; Ibid., b. 141, April 5, 1737).

30. Terrafarm - the name of the mainland possessions of the Republic of Venice (editor's note)

page 87
tiv overlapped with others. Take the case of Lorenzo Pillon of Belluno: here, I think, the anti-clerical sentiment was more significant than the tendency to heresy or disbelief. Even if we assume that the anonymous denunciations contained a fair amount of rhetoric, there was clearly a factual foundation in the description of his actions, since the informer managed to identify 137 witnesses. He accused Pillon of chanting litanies backwards one night in the streets of Belluno, blaspheming God and the Virgin Mary, and adding "ora pro nobis" ("pray for us") after each tirade. That same evening, he tied a piece of meat to the bell rope of a Capuchin monastery. "And when the dogs began to ring, the poor monks hurried to check who was calling, and Pilone laughed, joked, blasphemed the name of God, scoffed and made fun of the poor monks, saying all sorts of obscene things, insults and abominations." In addition, one Friday, he began to eat meat and persuade his comrades to do the same. When they refused, "he began to laugh and make fun of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints, saying: Madonetta, Madonetta, St. Carlo, St. Carlo." 31
We also know of cases where aggression against the State clearly concealed more complex forms of dissent. For example, in 1740, Gherardo Mercandelli of Brescia, a long - established blasphemer, was accused of breaking off the legs of Christ from a wooden crucifix that he had taken with him to an inn. Mercandelli offered him a drink, and when he didn't respond, he got angry. And in this case

"disrespect" indicated a fairly deep-rooted disbelief, since Mercandelli repeatedly denied the existence of God.32 However, we are much less aware of many other episodes that occurred in the mainland possessions of Venice. For example, we don't know much about the chalice, napol-

31. "... cosi gli cani alla medema suonava il campanello, onde venendo gli poveri religiosi a vedere chi batteva, allora il Pilone ridendo, scherzando, et bestemiando il nome di Dio, derideva et burlava gli religiosi, dicendoli molti improperii, ingiurie e villanie"; "diceva ridendo et burlandosi della beatissima Vergine, et santi queste parole: Madonneta, Madonneta, san Carlo, san Carlo" (ASV. Consiglio di Dieci, Parti criminali, b. 84, анонимный донос, оглашенный в Совете десяти 16 января 1653 г. After five votes, he decided not to continue the investigation).

32. ASV. Senato, Deliberazioni Roma, Expulsis papalistis, Fol. 53 (letter to Alvise Mocenigo III, Captain of Brescia, dated 27 January; entry consultori fra Paolo Celotti and Trifone Mediciena, dated 9 March and partly dated 19 March 1740).

page 88
found in 1690 in the cathedral of Kavardzere 33. The perpetrator of another similar prank, Antonio Breggiolin d'arzignano, had a much harder time getting away with it. At the end of 1715, he and a friend went to the church of the Capuchin monastery and there smeared the holy cross with human excrement [ ... ] and the image of St. Felix hanging in a frame [ ... ] Running through the streets, he insulted and insulted some residents of the quarter in their homes with obscene shouts and blasphemies, without any reason, but solely out of his violent and vicious temper 34.

All this clearly shows that the history of disbelief cannot be reduced to abstractions, arguments, and ideas.35 The forms that non-believers - or those who did not believe 100% or did not believe at a particular time-could use to express their feelings were not limited to the verbal sphere, but also covered other modes of communication. Gestures, postures, demeanors, tastes - to express or emphasize your point, everything went into action. However, it is not easy to establish a causal relationship between a person's behavior and their innermost beliefs. If someone, say, ate meat during Lent or walked naked around the monastery (if we limit ourselves to two examples for which we have detailed sources), we cannot say for sure that he was a convinced unbeliever. Maybe he's just a drunk. Or, say, a person who constantly blasphemed and accompanied his attacks with appropriate reasoning, could simply get used to this form of utterance and was not at all going to express a fundamental disagreement with orthodoxy. Nor can we say that unbelief in itself led to a life of debauchery and the removal of all moral inhibitions. Of course, for many, the rejection of the usual ethical norms served as a basis-

33. ASV. Consiglio di Dieci, Parti criminali, b. 119, 20 июня 1690 г.

34. "con sterco humano il segno della santissima croce [...] e l'imagine di san Felice affissa in un quadro [...] scorrendo quelle strade con insolentissime grida, ingiuriando e strapazzando nelle proprie case con bestemie, et espressioni indecenti alcune persone di quel vicinato senz'alcun motivo, ma condotto unicamente dall'inquieto e pravo suo genio" (Ibid., b. 132, 10 января 1716 г.).

35. Wootton, D. (1992) "New histories of atheism", M. Hunter, D. Wootton (eds.) Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, pp. 14-53. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

page 89
However, this was not always the case due to their own behavior.

The problem of how the behavior and external (even violent) manifestations of dissent relate to a person's intentions, which are only indirectly and partially accessible to us, is important for understanding how religious dissent spreads. First, the fact that a person uses a certain type of verbal or nonverbal language and a specific vocabulary provides information about the phenomenon itself. After all, the forms of expression had to clearly relate to the content that everyone knew and easily identified as deviant. Secondly, along with how and for what purpose a person said or did something, it is important to pay attention to those who listened to him, who understood and interpreted these formulas based on their own views. Even if we can't talk about a set of ideas here, we have a certain repertoire of words and gestures that could be used in society.

However, if a person "gave himself up to the devil" and did not value the Christian teaching, did this mean that he did not believe in God? To blaspheme his name and act as if he didn't exist - did that mean denying his existence? Obviously not: the history of blasphemy in early Modern Italy is written precisely at the intersection of gray areas, selective indifference, and intermittent short-lived repression. One of the goals of the Counter-Reformation was to reforge souls. Fortunately, she didn't succeed. At least, it didn't succeed until the end. Its success in changing language and forms of expression has also been somewhat shaky.

Translated from the French by Michael Maisuls

References

Archival materials

ASV (Archivio di Stato di Venezia)

ACDF (Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede)

Literature

Bandello, M. (1911) Le novella. Bari: Laterza.

Barbierato, F. (2002) Nella stanza dei circoli. Clavicula Salomonis e libri di magia a Venezia nei secoli XVI-XVIII, pp. 131-145. Milan: Edizioni Sylvestre Bonnard.

page 90
Cabantous, A. (1998) Histoire du blasphème en Occident. XVIE-XIXE siècle. Paris: Albin Michel.

Capuano, G.R. (2007) Turpia: sociologia del turpiloquio e dellabestemmia. Milan, Costa e Nolan.

Casanova, G. (1827) Mémoires. Leipzig: Brockhaus, Vol. IV.

Castiglione, B. (1969) Il libro del cortegiano con una scelta dalle Opere minori, a cura di Bruno Maier. Turin: UTET.

Della Casa, G. (1666) Galatée ou l'art de plaire dans la conversation. Paris: Guignard.

Derosas, R. (1980) "Moralita e giustizia a Venezia nel '500-'600. Gli esecutori contro la bestemmia', in G. Cozzi (ed.) Stato società e giustizia nella Repubblica veneta (sec. XV-XVIII). Rome: Jouvence.

Horodowich, E. (2003) "Civic Identity and the Control of Blasphemy in Sixteenth-Century Venice", Past and Present 181: 3-33.

Horodowich, E. (2008) Language and Statecraft in Early Modern Venice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Loetz, F. (2009) Dealings with God. From Blasphemers in Early Modern Zurich to a Cultural History of Religiousness. Farnham: Ashgate.

Meneghello, L. (1989) Libera Nos a Malo. Milan, Rizzoli.

Nash, D. (2007) Blasphemy in the Christian World. A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prosperi, A. (2010) "Bestemmia", in Dizionario Storico dell'Inquisizion. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, vol. I.

Sarpi, P. (1958) "Sopra l'officio dell'Inquisizione", in P. Sarpi, G. Gambarin (Dir.) Scritti giurisdizionalistici, pp. 119-212. Bari: Laterza.

Scarabello, G. "Paure, superstizioni, infamie", Storia della cultura veneta, Il Seicento, 4/II, pp. 343-376.

Turina, I. (2000) "La bestemmia italiana. Note per una prospettiva sociolinguistica", Versus: Quaderni di Studi Semiotici 85-87: 461-476.

Veronese, F. (2010) "Terra di nessuno". Misto foro e conflitti tra Inquisizione e magistrature secolari nella Repubblica di Venezia (XVIII sec.). Venise: Universita Ca' Foscari.

Veronese, F. (2013) "La giurisdizione sulla stregoneria e sui reati diabolici nella Repubblica di Venezia (xviii sec.)", Società e storia 139: 81-111.

Wootton, D. (1992) "New histories of atheism", M. Hunter, D. Wootton (eds.), Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, pp. 13-53. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

page 91

Permanent link to this publication: