Introduction

1The accidental smothering of infants has represented for centuries a relevant issue for the society and the institutions designated to govern it, with a particular emphasis on the emotional significance it implies and for the connection that often has been made between this “practice” and infanticide, both historically and in the contemporary societies.

2Defined alternatively by historiography as a concealed form of infanticide, the result of a general inadequate regard towards new-borns in societies struggling with individual survival, or as the outcome of a medical syndrome, it has been part of the social and judicial actions of the Church and secular authorities as a very relevant subject and has been dealt with through specific measures.

3The aim of this contribution is to focus on this issue using the documentation produced by the ecclesiastical Court of Jesi and especially a series of specific and concrete cases regarding the deaths of new-borns, in order to estimate both the impact of this phenomenon on the social structures and the response of the episcopal institution.

4Jesi, the Vetus urbs regia Aesium, and its diocese are central to our research and their historical development has been widely described by the local historians since the sixteenth century [1]. After the papal recapture of central Italy led by Albornoz in the middle of the fourteenth century, the city became part of the Marca Anconitana and, since 1585, it became directly subject to Rome. Jesi belonged to an area of the Papal States of major importance for the Papal power and also because of its tight relations with the centre (Zenobi, 1994, 118-119).

5From the beginning of the sixteenth century, the institutions of the Comune developed into a stable government. Furthermore, the control of the surrounding territory, though resulting of a long process, appeared henceforth consolidated, even if it kept on generating quite insolvable problems and conflicts.

6The Respublica was formed of a relatively vast territory of approximately 350 square kilometres (Cherubini, 1982). From a demographic point of view, the population of this territory increased steadily, from nearly 16,000 inhabitants around the end of the sixteenth century to 23,000 souls according to the data of the 1656 pontifical census (Corridore, 1906), which, aside from its lack of accuracy (Tittarelli, 1973), gives a credible picture of the population in this period.

7In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the city of Jesi was clearly the most significant urban centre with more than 8,000 inhabitants, even if some of the subjected castelli, such as Massaccio (2,500), Belvedere (1,850) or Montecarotto (1,800), had a population of remarkable importance (Bertarelli, 1950; Anselmi, 1979). The other villages gradually decreased in size, reaching the level of 400 residents for San Paolo di Jesi and Scisciano.

8Naturally, from a demographic point of view, the instability caused by the recurring alimentary crises and the epidemics produced significant fluctuations. Such a combination of factors occurred in 1590-92, when a series of bad harvests reduced the food supplies and when a following outbreak of typhus caused extremely high mortality levels (Giacomini, 1992).

9During the two centuries, a decisive change took place in the social framework of the city. Two main factors influenced this process: first, the gradual prevalence of a local oligarchy, which obtained an economic advantage by controlling the communal estates; then, the process of imbussolamento, which led to the exclusion of the general population apart from the members of the oligarchy from all government offices (Molinelli, 1988, 49).

10The economic structure of the city and its contado was also controlled by the local oligarchy that maintained a decisive influence on the distribution of estates, including the ecclesiastical ones. The development of the commercial and manufacturing activities of the area followed a more general pattern, shared in central Marches. This pattern was characterized by the irreversible decline of the economy centred on the mountain zone in favour of the hillside and coastal cities (Gobbi, 1989) and reinforced the predominance of the agricultural productions.

11All these factors clearly reflect the concentration of power in the hands of a very few number of families and their clients in the context of early modern Jesi. These families and their network held the power uninterruptedly up to the end of the eighteenth century. This situation left an important part of the population in a state of persisting insecurity. The poor of the city, seeking assistance from the scarce resources of the community, remained a very significant percentage of the total population, more than forty percent of the inhabitants during the most intense phases of crisis (Molinelli, 1988, 87).

12The Church had a very important role in all aspects of the city life: political, spiritual and economical. The ecclesiastical institutions owned nearly 33% of the total land in the diocese in the late sixteenth century. Therefore, as the local oligarchy had a great influence over the clergy, there were many similarities in their actions among the Church and in the local government.

13Nevertheless, the role of the ecclesiastical institutions was much more complex and diverse, promoting actions and organizations very significant to the community, such as the Confraternite and their aid system such as hospitals or Monte di Pietà (Ceccarelli Isopi, 2000; Barchi, 2011).

The historiography on the accidental smothering of infants

14Analysing the historiographical production on the subject enables to understand the soundness and accuracy of the supported hypotheses. The interest for this matter has varied among times. The accidental smothering of infants has been considered in many studies as a part of a wider analysis (Prodi, 2000, 303) or in important works on the suffocation of infants (Prosperi, 2005, 264). Most of these researches focused on the smothering while studying the infanticide practices. In this context, smothering was considered a specific form of this practice, leading people from various social origins to use it in a concealed way to escape possible moral and criminal consequences. One of the first studies focusing on this hypothesis was published 40 years ago by Richard Trexler, using the records of Florence Ospedale degli Innocenti and the archives of the diocese of Fiesole (Trexler, 1973). Leaning on various sources such as wet nursing contracts, episcopal absolutions and hospital accounts, this American historian suggested that infanticide was a widespread practice among both married couples and parents entrusting their children to wet nurses. In a context where the lay and ecclesiastical authorities couldn’t provide children with any moral or legal protection, the author observed that infant deaths too frequent to be purely accidental, especially when the infants were entrusted to wet nurses. He then considered likely that the wet nurses, inspired by economic motives, provoked these “accidental” smothering in order to get new contracts with the city hospitals. Richard Trexler finally highlighted the disproportionate percentage of females among the dead new-borns, caused by a clear preference towards males. This essay also contained among the first observations about the methodology of the episcopal absolutions through public penances.

15A decade later, Christiane Klapisch-Zuber studied the role of wet nurses from 1300 to 1500 in Florence (Klapisch-Zuber, 1985). Following Trexler’s ideas, she underlined the preventive measures taken to avoid suffocation, the so called “arcuccio”, and reached a substantial agreement with him on the idea that the deaths represented a form of concealed infanticide. However, the limits of this approach have been highlighted by a contribution of Philip Gavitt published in 1996. He sustained the lack of substantial proof for describing this phenomenon as a form of concealed infanticide and argued in favour of an interpretation related to SIDS, the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (Mitchell, 2004, 234-238), considered as the real cause of the deaths ascribed to the smothering (Gavitt, 1996).

16We should also note the study by Takahashi, based on the same documents of the Ospedale degli Innocenti of Florence. It includes interesting observations both on the role of wet nurses, who, for the most part, subscribed only one contract with the hospital during their lifetime and therefore did not obtain any advantage in killing the new-borns, and on the diffusion of a more general type of infanticide, described in this work as extremely common (Takahashi, 2003).

17Another relevant contribution has been published by Gregory Hanlon in 2003, focusing on the infanticide among married couples in early modern Tuscany (Hanlon, 2003). Through the reconstruction of the demographical data of Montefollonico, a village of the Siena area, the author formulates the thesis of an infanticide routine practice put in place by the families, especially in the moments of economical and food supply crisis, also by means of smothering, which, according to Hanlon, is substantially tolerated by both the authorities and the community. Moreover, the couples would implement a selection of the children at birth through the suppression of the females, once more accentuated by the recurrent periods of crisis. The author concludes that one can observe a widespread routine killing of new-borns before baptism, combined with a slow generational renewal following the crises, by means of which the parents tried to manage their families according to the available resources. Following this approach Laura Hynes has examined a sample of twenty-eight baptismal registers of the Parma diocese to reach the conclusion that infanticide, both general and selective, was common in the seventeenth century in the region in order to control the demographic system of the families (Hynes, 2011).

18Finally, it is worth mentioning a contribution which briefly examines the reaction of the ecclesiastical authorities on the issue. In his book about Bishop Carlo Borromeo in Counter- Reformation Milan, De Boer highlights the matter of the smothering of new-borns and the related disciplinary and social issues in the Milanese diocese and in the actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (De Boer, 2004, 234-241). The conclusions show the clear discrepancy between the disciplinary sternness of the hierarchy and the progressive realism of the clergy in the parishes, where the cases of smothering were treated almost always as accidents.

19This historiographical review aims to clarify the predominant theses elaborated by the historians about this issue, theses which can be summed up in five main points:

20a) For a majority of historians, the main difference between infanticide and smothering is based, above all, on the fact that the “typical” murderer of a new-born is a woman, relatively young and not married, who tries to avoid the dishonour and the possible judicial problems related to an illegitimate pregnancy. The smothering instead represents a phenomenon exclusively related to married couples, whether it regards their own children or the ones entrusted to them for wet nursing.

21b) Married couples carried out smothering of new-borns significantly, especially in the moments of economical and food supply crisis.

22c) This practice shows a clear preponderance of female deaths because of their assumed weaker economic value.

23d) These behaviours lead to a male surplus.

24e) The actions are substantially pardoned by the secular and religious authorities by means of minor punishments and are not at the centre of the attention of the ecclesiastical government.

25These points have been disputed, as already mentioned, by Gavitt and others who consider this approach not respondent to the real conditions of the historical development.

The judicial perspective: ecclesiastical and secular

26We can now examine in specific terms the stance of the Church on the topic. In general terms, the considerable importance of this subject for the Church is emphasized by the fact that it has been discussed since the early medieval period, as shows the work of Regino of Prum, De Synodalibus Causis et Disciplinis Ecclesiasticis, written at the end of the tenth century. In canon LX, the author refers to the Council of Mainz of 848 which decided that, if an infant has been smothered by mistake and after the baptism, the punishment for those responsible must consist in seventy days on bread and water, abstinence from vegetables, legumes and sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the sinners must observe penance for three years on festive days and three Lents per year [2]. We still are fully in the area of “tariff penance”, typical of the early medieval penance books (Rusconi, 2002, 22), but the issue is clearly defined. This subject will persist through the years as a very significant issue for the Church. Nevertheless, it will only find its final resolution, both in a legal and religious meaning, in the dynamic led by the Council of Trento to progressively assert a strong control of the Church upon the religious and social aspects of the society.

27This issue remains at the centre of the ecclesiastical and pastoral activities through the various canonical resolutions, starting from the Laterano Council of 1215 whose canon Omnis utrisque sexus imposed a mandatory confession to both sexes once a year, and is reminded in the rulings of almost all local synods. These synods included among the maxima or graviora sins listed in their canons the action of keeping in bed children under one year of age, whether it was practiced by parents or wet nurses; and they reserved to the Bishops the absolution for these offences, which could lead to a de jure excommunication (Prodi, 2000, 297-306).

28This is a key point for the analysis of this topic, because the crimen gravior is here identified as a sin that can only be redeemed by the authority able to revoke the canonical excommunication. Therefore, it became part of the reserved cases, e. g. the sins for which the confessor couldn’t pardon the sinner and had to refer him back to the Bishop, the only one capable to grant forgiveness in this case. The reserved cases constitute a very relevant issue and dealing with them represent a turning point in the controversies among the various Christian churches. The catholic doctrine on this matter was specified during the session XIV of the Council of Trento, dedicated to confession. The catholic clarification had important consequences (Brambilla, 2006, 51-65; 2010, 290-291; Prodi, 2000, 297-306).

29The accidental smothering of infants was therefore included in this very important casuistry and was constantly mentioned in all the more relevant canonical and theological works. The smothering issue is thus present in one of the most popular manuals for the use of the confessors published in 1490 (Prosperi, 2009, 313-317), the Confessionale by Antonino da Firenze, a Dominican friar and vicar: “And not only is reserved to the Bishop the voluntary homicide, but also the accidental one, like the one of the mother or the wet nurse, when they accidentally killed their children while sleeping. For this reason, the confessor must give notice, and strictly command to mothers and wet-nurses not to keep infants with them in bed, to avoid such a case.” (Antonino da Firenze, 1566, 30) [3].

30The development of the Church’s doctrine on the subject of new-borns suffocation grows significantly among the ample literature on the reserved cases from the beginning of the sixteenth century, and becomes a relevant part of many of these works which outline specifically the issues related to this subject. An example of these treaties is the work by the Bishop and inquisitor of Liège Jean Chapeauville: the Tractatus de casibus reservatis, published in 1596, which defines with an extreme rigor the differences between the accidental smothering and the voluntary suffocation. The second one must be evaluated as a mortal sin and as a homicide, in particular as a parricidium [4]. In addition, the author gives a list of eight exceptions to this general rule, from the mothers who try to protect their children from the cold weather to the prostitutes who put their offspring in a foundlings’ hospital. Finally, Jean Chapeauville reminds that the power of absolution for this sin is reserved to the Pope for the voluntary smothering, while, for the accidental cases, the Bishop represents the authority in charge [5].

31Another relevant work is the one written by Giacomo Graffi, Pratica Quinque Caso Summo Pontefici Reservatorum that broadens the perspective on the issue in a chapter focused on the problem of new-borns’ killing both by guilt or negligence [6]. The more interesting part of the chapter lies in the distinction between guilt, malice and coincidental events. The three configurations are differentiated, for the malice is generated by an evil tendency of the soul that despises honesty, while a coincidental event follows unpredictable incidents. The infants smothering is therefore a sin produced by a lack of conscientiousness and not by a malevolent act as the strangulation which should be punished as a homicide. There, we can see the recurrence of the theme of parricidium and the indication that smothering is a crime pertaining to the forum animae (the inner “court” of the soul), and not to the forum contentiosum (the external judiciary court), a sin against the appropriate care of life. This passage is followed by a list of specific cases arising from the ones already mentioned and by the reaffirmation of the exclusive authority of the Bishops in absolution matter (Graffi, 1609, 560-571).

32Concerning the Marches region, we can cite the work of Pietro Bellocchio [7], who collected the episcopal and synodal canons of the Piceno area (Bellochio, 1627) regarding the theological and moral practice on the reserved cases. In this treaty, a chapter is dedicated to the subject: Qui infantes ante completum annum in lecto detinuerit. Pietro Bellochio specifies that all individuals who keep children under one year of age in their bed commit a sin implying excommunication ipso facto. Once again, we find here a list of exceptions to the rule: if some precautions have been taken to avoid suffocation, if the families are very poor or if the breastfeeding mothers are ill (Bellochio, 1627, 114-117).

33Less than thirty years later, the Milanese theology professor Oliviero Mazuchelli, in his work on the reserved cases derived from the canons of the Milan synods, dedicates an ample Appendix to the subject of children under one year of age sleeping with adults in the same bed without any precaution (Mazuchelli, 1655, 678). For him, the concerned adults must be immediately excommunicated. After reasserting this general principle, the theologian lists in details the possible exceptions and their justifications, among which he points out, once again, the case of poor mothers trying to protect their offspring from various dangers (Mazuchelli, 1655, 689).

34The final part of the chapter is particularly interesting: it describes the disciplinary path that the parish priests must prescribe to the sinners in such cases. The clergymen had to admonish the sinners in a document, written in the presence of witnesses, confirming this way the exclusion from all sacraments, and they could absolve them publicly, with the written permission of the Bischop, only after a long period of penance (ibid., 690).

35All these works constitute some examples of the very ample literature regarding the reserved cases, but they clarify well the relevance of the subject and its continuity in the pastoral care.

36The secular jurists dealt with this issue as well, and we can quote the opinion of Giulio Claro, in the central period of the 1500’s, which qualifies the smothering as parricidium but, taking the parental love for children into account, reduces it to a simple form of negligence (Claro, 1739, V, 140) [8]. The thought of Prospero Farinacci in his Praxis et Theorica Criminalis, in the 1590’s, is much more complex. In the argumentum dedicated to parricide, the Roman jurist develops for the smothering, one of the limitations to the general principles referred to this crime: considering the smothering as a serious matter, he doesn’t define it as worthy of the capital punishment and suggests instead a penance of multiple years, as long as there may be no direct fault. As a conclusion, the author strongly advises to carefully discern the forum animae poenitentiali and the forum contentiosum [9]. The first one (Foro Poenitentiali) ought to be in charge of all cases of accidental suffocation. In any case, parental love seems to prevail over crime and negligence is usually to blame for the child’s death rather than malice (Farinacci, 1686, 192) [10].

The episcopal action: Jesi

37These principles previously exposed can be found in many canons of various diocesan synods, issued from the late sixteenth century to the end of the eighteenth century. All canons included, among the reserved cases, the accidental death of new-borns, as it can be observed during more than two centuries, from the fourth provincial Council of Milan in 1576 (AEM, 1599, 136) to the synod of Chieti in 1636 (SD Teatina, 1636, 76), and from the synod of Torcello in 1676 (SD Turcellana, 1676, 35) to the one of Ancona in 1738 (Synodus Anconitana, 1738, 11).

38In Jesi, the diocesan synod held in September 1572, lists in its canons the sins reserved to the Bishop, including the suffocatio infantium [11]. These decisions are confirmed almost verbatim in the synod of 1683, summoned by Bishop Petrucci and whose decrees we keep the first printed version. The issue of accidental smothering is mentioned in decree XVII, De Censuris et Casibus Reservatis. The text reminds of the specific nature of these cases and defines them as sins only to be absolved by the Bishop’s authority (Synodus Aesina 1, 1695, 54-55) [12]. In the list of reserved cases, accidental suffocation is mentioned in third position: “the parents and wet-nurses who keep infants less than one year old in their bed, leading to smothering” [13]. This approach is confirmed anew during the synod held in 1741, under the authority of Bishop Fonseca (Synodus Aesina 2, 1761, 26).

39These positions, both canonical and legal, are followed by the action of the ecclesiastical structure, and the documents produced by the Jesi Bishop’s court include very significant papers about this subject. Among them, we used records of pardons, covering a 150 years period, between 1544 and 1693. Even with some gaps in the records’ continuity, this source allows an important insight into the court’s functioning [14]. In addition to these documents, we also considered a series of trials and letters directly produced by the Court, which offered further understanding of the action performed by this institution.

40The records of pardons consist of 420 papers referring to criminal proceedings led by the Bishop’s Court. Among them, twenty-two drew our attention because they didn’t ask the Bishop for forgiveness in a context of pending or already closed proceedings: these 22 requests were presented by married couples for the accidental smothering of their own children.

41These papers, produced between 1566 and 1602, originate from various locations of the diocese: Jesi (7), San Paolo di Jesi (4), Montecarotto and Massaccio (3), Castelbellino (2) and one each from Maiolati, Poggio San Marcello and Rotorscio. The geographic distribution includes the whole diocese, while, from a demographical point of view and considering the levels of population of each area, the cases are distributed in an unbalanced way, in favour of the periphery [15].

42Nearly all the pardon requests are produced by the personnel of the Court and addressed to the Bishop’s Vicar. They are written out by the notary in unvarying formulas and according to pre-established schemes based on the juridical praxis (Fosi, 2002, 343-350; Ciotti, 2012). The structure of these appeals is typical and they are all submitted in the name of the married couples asking for forgiveness. In February 1574, Donna Valeria, wife of Andrea Nicoli of Jesi, presents such a request [16]. The petitioner emphasizes the tragic fortuity of the events that provoked the suffocation of her six months old daughter. She claims that the suffocation was caused by an excess of love for the new-born who has been taken into bed with the couple to prevent her from the cold weather. Furthermore, she insists on the fact that the tragic outcome was completely against her will. It’s worthy to underline that, in this case, the excommunication has been imposed by the parish priest immediately after the woman made the death of the infant public, a sign of the controlling role of the clergy on the daily life of the community. The final part of the document highlights the position of the Bishop’s court regarding this topic: the couple is given full absolution with a limited amount of penances [17]. The episcopal approach clearly differs from the theoretical strictness of theologians, the court dealing with the problem in very practical terms, as it always does (Pedrini, Dubbini, 2018, 32-34). The Bishop’s decision, pragmatic and moderate, embodies the possibility of mediation between the demand of control of the society and the everyday life of the members of the community.

43In the approach of the Bishop’s court, studying the penitential choices seems the most interesting. They mostly consist in the excommunication measure imposed because of the failed compliance with the synodal precept and the specific penances imposed to the couples or women who presented the smothering cases to the court.

44The violation of the synodal canon is always justified by the couples in their requests of pardon. This justification is carried out in multiple ways, usually emphasizing the awareness of the canonical rules’ violation: Donna Ludovica of San Paolo declares that she kept the baby in a wooden cot but: “because he was crying, she took him with her in her bed and breastfed him” [18], causing the suffocation. Likewise, Donna Martina of Jesi states in her petition that she just wanted to protect the baby from the cold while Thoma Nicolai and his wife Lisabetta admit that they kept their son in the bed to feed him but only to meet the needs of their new-born [19].

45From these statements, we can understand the will to clear the parents of infanticide suspicion. Moreover, mentioning the means used to avoid suffocation and repeating in the request the practical and emotional reasons that tragically led to the new-born’s death paved the way to the absolution of the parents or mothers. On this base, the episcopal court developed a very clear way of dealing with these cases. After the mandatory excommunication following the event sanctioned by the parish priest, a plea for pardon was presented almost at once and always accepted by the Vicar. The acceptance of the request was followed by the absolution of the couple or the woman by the Vicar, often described as “public”, even if, in the foresaid case, the absolution didn’t command public ceremonies of penance, and by a period of fasting as well as the obligation to make offerings to churches or other pious institutions. In our documents, the offering of wax to one of the local Confraternities, was always mentioned. Since 1579, year of the new Vicar’s (Francesco Guidotti) arrival in Jesi, the prescribed measures were completed, from then on, by an additional condition to receive forgiveness, consisting in a pilgrimage to the Marian church of Loreto.

46The proceedings and penances absolutely correspond to the unequivocal interpretation we found in the works regarding the reserved cases. First of all, accidental suffocation of a new-born isn’t a crimen justifying the action of secular courts, but it is a sin falling under the jurisdiction of the forum conscientiae and, as such, only to be redeemed in a process of penitential absolution. This specific way to deal with this sin results from its specific nature. Accidental suffocation of a new-born, although coming from a violation of canonical rules, isn’t in itself an act produced by malice, but is ascribable to an act of carelessness regarding life and more specifically the new-born.

47Other proceedings clarify further the approach of the Bishop about this subject, outlining clearly the method used to solve it. In June 1593 in Castelplanio, is registered the apparent smothering death of the seven months old daughter of Pier Mattia Giovanni Battista and his wife. The court, informed of the event but having received no pardon request, summons the father to Jesi to testify. Pier Mattia tells the court: “I found my wife alone crying and the baby girl was dead, and she said that she put her in a little blanket between the wall and the bed, and that she breastfed her, and then she fell asleep turning her back to the baby girl and when she woke up, she found her dead where she has left her” [20]. The witness adds that he has been absolved by the priest in charge of one of the Confraternity of the village, the Compagnia del S.S. Sacramento, but the Vicar does not accept the solution and decides to imprison the man. Pier Mattia strongly opposes this decision in his statements, because he has already paid the clergyman with a purchase of wax for the Compagnia and complied with his order of fasting. Finally, the court frees him and certifies, in a note, that the episcopal justice will deal directly with the priest of the Compagnia [21]. These proceedings clearly show the system of the reserved cases in action and also how the principle of the reservation to the Bishop was strongly guarded and centralised by the hierarchy.

48The events, which took place in Montecarotto in 1630, show another relevant case. Once again, a new-born has been accidentally smothered, nevertheless, in this case, the records do not consist of a “direct” parental request but of a series of letters sent by the parish priest, Don Giulio Leoni, to the Vicar, both on behalf of the new-born’s father and directly from himself in order to inform his superiori. The priest’ attitude reveals his concern as he decides to consult the public midwives of the village to confirm the accidental nature of the death. The two women declare: “Like Lady Maddalena di Gio. Maria and Lady Lucia di Domenico da Monte Ruberto certify that this death was accidental” [22], confirming the unintentional cause of the events and detailing their findings related to the examination of the child’s body. The conclusion of the procedure is summarized by the orders issued by Don Leoni: “To aforesaid Bartolomeo and his wife Lady Cecilia, by order of milord the vicar, at risk of a 100 scudi fine and excommunication, they will be summoned to come and appear before the aforesaid milord the vicar, for the aforesaid reason” [23]. Interestingly, the priest feels the need to add the following sentence to his letter: “It is necessary to worry about smothering because there had been two cases in the course of one year in our castello” [24].

49This case arises interest in many ways: first of all, the examination of the dead new-born shows, at this time, the increasing will of the court to define in a more rational way the causes of suspicious deaths (Siraisi, 2001; Pastore, 2006, 85-99). Furthermore, the letters of Don Giulio Leoni highlight the way the episcopal court controls the territory, through the parish priest as vicar “foraneo”, and the repetition of the exculpatory procedure through the penances. Finally, the observation on the repetition of the smothering episodes underlines the recurrence of the problem over time.

50In Jesi, the bishops’ attitude towards this specific matter reflect their close attention to the new-borns’ safety, both regarding the smothering issue and more generally. Their attention is also visible in the decree of 1657 issued by Bishop Alessandro Cybo, which forbids in an imperative manner to carry infants for baptism from the villages to the cathedral in Jesi, as it may put their health in danger: “And there is a great peril that during this travel they pass away without being baptized, especially in winter” [25]. Hefty penalties are imposed on the perpetrators and all clergyman must report possible violations.

Conclusion

51We have seen the clear relevance of this subject within both the theological thought and the judicial action and its repercussions inside the community.

52The first point that emerges is the one regarding the nature of the phenomenon itself from both disciplinary and normative points of view. As mentioned above, the smothering has often been qualified as a form of infanticide carried out by married couples and substantially tolerated by the authorities. This analysis however poses a problem. First of all, defining the smothering as an infanticide links it to a description and an interpretation which emerge only later in the judicial and medical sources across Europe (Jackson, 1996, 6-8), and may, therefore, lead to a misrepresentation of the way ecclesiastical and secular authorities dealt with the matter in the earlier periods. For both, the only chosen solution is to define the smothering of new-borns by married parents as a form of accidental parricidium and not as a homicide, consequently considering the act not worthy of serious penalties and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the forum conscientiae.

53There is evidence of this not only in the archives of the courts based in Jesi, but also in the whole contemporary theological and canonical literature as well as among the canons of so many diocesan synods. Even in the only death sentence issued by the Bishop’s Court for the crime of suffocating an infant, the smothering seems not to be the decisive factor of the court’s decision: in July of 1573, Donna Michelangela of Jesi is accused of having suffocating her son and sentenced to death, but it appears that the court took much more into account the fact that she hided the body afterwards, leading it to be taken by animals, than the smothering itself [26]. This case could be seen as typical, as it involves a famula, that is to say a housemaid, living and working in the house of a member of the oligarchy, Filippo Nobili. After an affair with an unidentified man, she got pregnant and found herself in a very difficult predicament, not being able to obtain marriage from the man who had sex with her. We do not know the circumstances of the infant’s death, because the court focuses only on the fact that Michelangela left the remains unattended and avoided to follow the procedure of reporting the episode to the parish priest. This chain of events echoes the stories of many other young women who found themselves facing impossible choices and subjects of various proceedings by the courts in the Ancien Régime [27].

54In order to summarize the concepts expressed above, we can bring back the thought of Abbot Graffi: the accidental smothering, being the result of a lack of care and not of malice, is in its substance a sin that must be reserved to the Bishop who can absolve the sinners in the foro poenitentiali; and not a crime for the secular courts to deal with (Graffi, 1609, 79).

55From this starting point, if we focus our attention on the actions taking place in the diocese of Jesi, the practical fulfilment of these principles is evident. First, the Vicar, and then, the Penitenziere [28] give the absolution by means of the requests of pardon. They act this way precisely because they believe in the principle of the petitioners’ good faith; and because they, and all the clergymen with them, are fully aware of the difficult living conditions of the population.

56We can see here another very potent factor: the substantial homogeneity of the community of the city and the villages. Even facing the most serious violations, the community uses a system of negotiated justice to keep normality and “peace” among the members of the community, while the outsiders are treated with inflexibility (Sbriccoli, 2002, 194).

57The requests of pardon for the smothering of new-borns show how strong is the control of the Church, together with the one exerted by the community. This control, by continuously adapting the social relations at a local level, allowed a substantial stability through a compromise between repression and pardon (Wrightson, 2003, 46-48). The interaction between the community and the power of the Bishop’s apparatus in one of the areas of the “perfect” periphery of the Papal States, shows clearly the model of the Church action on the diocesan territory.

58With the action of the parish priests, the individuals responsible for the smothering of new-borns become part of the Bishop’s justice and they are absolved from the excommunication without further proceedings. The inspiring principles of this system are the control of the territory and a moderate repression against those belonging to the local community.

59A structure composed of theological canons, concrete actions by the Bishops and their hierarchy, and the reaction of the population can bring us to define the new-borns smothering as a set of actions and reactions perfectly tuned with the objective to gain social control by means of pardon.