Faith, Reason, and the Plague in Seventeenth Century Tuscany

by Carlo M. Cipolla

Recreates the struggles within plague-stricken Italy, relating events that led to a confrontation between the advocates of science and the followers of faith. By the late fall of 1630, the Black Plague had descended upon northern Italy. The prentice Magistry of Public Health, centered in Florence, took steps to contain and combat the scourge. In this essay, Carlo Cipolla recreates the daily struggle of plague-stricken Monte Lupo, a rustic Tuscan village, revealing in the vivid terms of actual events and personalities a central drama of Western civilization - the conflict between faith and reason, Church and state.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Italy

134 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1977

About the author

Carlo M. Cipolla (August 15, 1922 – September 5, 2000) was an Italian economic historian. He was born in Pavia, where he got his academic degree in 1944.
As a young man, Cipolla wanted to teach history and philosophy in an Italian high school, and therefore enrolled at the political science faculty at Pavia University. Whilst a student there, thanks to professor Franco Borlandi, a specialist in Medieval economic history, he discovered his passion for economic history. Subsequently he studied at the Sorbonne and the London School of Economics.

Cipolla obtained his first teaching post in economic history in Catania at the age of 27. This was to be the first stop in a long academic career in Italy (Venice, Turin, Pavia, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa and Fiesole) and abroad. In 1953 Cipolla left for the United States as a Fulbright fellow and in 1957 became a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Two years later he obtained a full professorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M....

Reviews

[Andrea Petrullo · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm of the opinion that there are few things in this world better than a good outbreak of plague. Carlo Cipolla's retelling of the plague's visits to the small town of Monte Lupo is actually surprisingly funny. Cipolla draws on primary sources such as correspondance and public records dating to the 14th century to piece togeather clues as to why public health measures in Monte Lupo went so horrible wrong. Sanitation and quarentine laws broken almost as soon as they were passed, and the town had inadequate means of enforcing these laws on the rebelious populace. There doesn't seem to have been a single respectful, law-abiding inhabitant in all of Monte Lupo; the inhabitants were determined to cause enough chaos to make the officials go away. The efforts made by public health officials and the mad antics of the townspeople give this book a great deal of character.

The first time I read this, it was definatley under pressure. I had to read it all in one night to be ready for an in-class writing assignment on it by noon the next day. Luckily, it's hardly over 100 pages long. After the first chapter I was hooked, and I found myself laughing out loud at some of the things people did to undermine the public health board. It's really funny, and difinatley worth reading.

[Makomai · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leggere Cipolla e’ sempre rinfrescante. Con la sua solita arguzia, qui narra una delle microstorie cui ci ha abituati: il dissidio tra autorita’ civili e religiose in un piccolo paese toscano nel 1630, allo scoppiare di un’epidemia di peste. Il parroco di Monte Lupo organizza una processione “salvifica”, in spregio del divieto di adunanze emesso dal magistrato per evitare il contagio. Come sempre, Cipolla descrive con pochi tratti incisivi personaggi e mentalita’, con un linguaggio che ben si armonizza con gli arcaismi dei testi dell’epoca e con lo “spiritaccio” che gia’ nel XVII secolo caratterizzava i toscani. Ovviamente all’epoca dei fatti ne’ il clero ne’ gli ufficiali di Sanita’ avevano la minima idea dei veicoli di trasmissione della peste, per cui in realta’ la differenza tra le due posizioni non era tra errore e verita’, ma tra due errori, dei quali pero’ l’uno ciecamente ancorato all’ideologia, l’altro derivante da inadeguatezza dei mezzi di osservazione. L’ideologo irrideva agli empirici: “la cecita’ degli huomini i quali si pensano contra consilium Altissimi con le pure diligenze humane di riparare a questa mortalita’ che viene dal Cielo”. A supporto della sua tesi tutto quel che l’ideologo sapeva portare eran tre parole di latino maccheronico. Come sempre la forza dell’ideologo stava nella sua ottusa cecita’. Gli altri, i pragmatici, erano tormentati dalla complessita’ della ”esperienza” e dai dubbi interiori di una religiosita’ che giocava a favore del loro opponente. (cap. I). Inutile specificare a chi vadano le simpatie del Cipolla.
A pochi chilometri di distanza, Galileo stava affilando le armi.

[Eliszard · Rating 4 out of 5]

In summer 1631, don Antonio Bontadi, the priest of Monte Lupo, stages a procession to beg for an end to the plague that is sweeping through the Tuscan countryside. The civilian authorities, backed by Father Giovanni Dragone (in charge of the pest house and of the health board of the village), want to stop it, or at least to prevent women and children from attending, to avoid a worsening of the epidemic. The processions goes ahead, but the civilian authorities want to see the priest and his accomplices punished...

Using a remarkably complete set of original documents including letters, interrogation minutes, and death registries, Cipolla brings to life the village of Monte Lupo in the years 1630-1631, its inhabitants, social networks, intrigues, daily life, economy and beliefs. He shows how advanced health boards were in the region of Firenze, how much was already understood about epidemics and how to fight and contain them, and the constant (still unresolved?) battle that this new knowledge had to fight against religious and superstitious beliefs. Slim volume, very well written if at times slightly pedantic, it reads almost like a mystery, and manages to make the 'history of public health organization in seventeenth century Italy' the most exciting and alive topic ever.

[Jon Nguyen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a perfect little vignette of an Italian town that suffers from an outbreak of the plague in 1630-1631.

The author gives a good sense of the different people involved in the story and how they react to the situation. You also see the many of the dynamics in play during a plague: the effect of leadership quality, scientific uncertainty, religion, economic concerns, and human nature in general.

You'd think that after almost 400 years of progress, the human race would have progressed in its handling of outbreaks. But, reading this book in 2020, the funny thing is about how familiar it all seems—all of the problems described in it are the same ones that you read in the news every day.

[Melissa Tamayo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would've never read this for fun on my own, but I'm glad I was forced (class requirement) to do so. It is surprisingly very funny & informative; of course. The books tone is more narrative than your usual, typical dry & sometimes boring, textbook. It's about the plague, obviously, but what is the most interesting in the book (for me, at least..) are the peoples reactions, emotions & behavior during such a horrible epidemic in the small town of Monte Lupo. If you're a history buff, I recommend giving this tiny book a go.

[Aitana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Old but gold. A good look into the role documents play in historical research.

[Mr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite being published in 1979 and focusing exclusively on the plague during the seventeenth century, this book is far from irrelevant. As the coronavirus continues to spread, it has been disappointing to watch history repeat itself. The plague decimated European populations due to a variety of factors - one of the most important being the fact that physicians and politicians did not understand how it was transmitted exactly. However, the behavior of so many today during the coronavirus outbreaks sadly hearken back to the events that took place in a small village outside of Florence.

Our medical technologies are more advanced than they have ever been. Countless studies have been conducted on viruses and how they are transmitted, physicians now have access to a panoply of effective treatment methods to cure the most at-risk patients, healthcare systems across the globe have improved substantially over the past few centuries, and the Internet offers a wealth of information explaining how to combat contagions. Nevertheless, we originally downplayed the seriousness of the coronavirus and neglected the concerns of healthcare professionals around the world. What happened?

In Carlo M. Cipolla's essay, he delineates the beginning stages of a more rational populace. The plague posed many unresolvable problems, but Cipolla records the actions of many religious figures who understood that faith alone would not stall the epidemic. Reason and observation led many public health officials and clergymen to declare the importance of quarantines, social distancing, and cleanliness, while the church dismissed the threat of disease and carried on with multiple group-gatherings for sermons and long processions. The hubris of faith consistently trumped the genuine concerns of those who understood the need for circumspection and precautionary measures when faced with an epidemic.

Cipolla's writing is engaging and terse. The book is quite short and it is merely a supplement to more exhaustive accounts of the plague, but it is invaluable for understanding the social dynamics behind efforts to contain a disease. In this fascinating scholarly work, Cipolla manages to expose the beliefs and behaviors of a pre-Englightenment era where many were just beginning to understand the necessity of reason in a potentially hostile world, and faith was being sundered by observation and empiricism.

The spread of the coronavirus presents a different dilemma. Downplaying the consequences of not containing the virus caused many individuals, secular and religious alike, to discount the suggestions made by healthcare professionals. Today, the failures of containing our current pandemic are most related to a general distrust in the medical profession, an unwillingness to sacrifice autonomy and personal liberty for the health and well-being of others, and the promulgation of false information. Cipolla enables the reader to understand the historical contexts that underlie all epidemiological studies. Researching the reactions of individuals to the spread of a disease may offer a useful standpoint to assess the zeitgeist of certain historical periods. The study of history allows us to learn from our past mistakes, but government and individuals' reactions to the coronavirus are examples of how new mistakes can be made unexpectedly, leading to the loss of thousands of lives. History may not have repeated itself exactly, but the echoes being heard now are quite familiar to many.

[José Díaz-Bahamonde · Rating 3 out of 5]

PROS
Cipolla presenta los efectos de un brote de peste en 1630-1 en Monte Lupo, un pequeño pueblo de Italia próximo a Florencia.
Aunque suena a un tema muy local y de escaso interés, la documentación revisada permite a Cipolla construir una imagen de la situación que resulta universal y asombrosamente similar al mundo de hoy.
Los esfuerzos por contener la epidemia (cuarentenas) chocan con la pobreza (economía) y la ignorancia (dogmas) de los habitantes del pueblo. La rebeldía se vuelve agresión y amenaza constante. Cipolla nos presenta sujetos de carne y hueso, con sus grandezas y miserias, que se resisten a estar encerrados («rompen las rejas»), y quieren participar en procesiones y fiestas a pesar de las muertes causadas por la plaga.
No es un conflicto entre Iglesia y Estado, sino entre razón y dogma. Laicos y clérigos están en ambos bandos. Cipolla muestra la dificultad de avanzar a tientas para contener la enfermedad.

CONTRAS
Comparé la traducción castellana de Muchnik Editores con la versión en inglés (Faith, Reason, and the Plague in Seventeenth Century Tuscany) y hay importantes diferencias. El prefacio y el capítulo I son mucho más claros e informativos en la versión en inglés. Es posible que esto se deba a alguna exigencia del editor inglés, mientras que la versión castellana se habría traducido directamente del italiano.
Además, la versión castellana tiene problemas de impresión (p. 98, l. 22) y omite la bibliografía.

FINAL
Un notable ejercicio de microhistoria.

[Virginia · Rating 3 out of 5]

El autor se vale de un pequeño pueblo, Monte Lupo, para explicar, no solo las costumbres típicas del medievo, si no la repercusión social, económica y política que tuvo la epidemia de Peste en Europa. De forma similar que en el "Decameron" los habitantes piensan que estarán a salvo de la enfermedad mientras las rejas de la ciudad estén cerradas. El día que las rejas se abren, no solo será necesario atrapar al culpable de esta apertura ilegal, sino también luchar con el miedo, en forma casi de histeria colectiva, que afectará a la población.

Muy buena recomendación si te gusta la historia, ya que es un libro muy ameno y explicativo.

[Ray Quirolgico · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is a lot to learn from 17th Century Italy, reading this in the year 2020 in the United States: the effort to scientifically understand a disease outbreak that must deal with government institutions and social pressures which may both be contradictory to reason is quite a history to take in, now in the time of COVID-19. As stated in the book, a historical look back at how the Plague affected Italy back then is no solution for a current modern-day pandemic, but there is something rather reassuring about this history being so earnest, and ultimately proving to be the right thing to do.

[Bernard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short and factual book on how a small Italian town dealt with the plague during the 17th century. The dynamic between the church and the government is interesting.

The book may not yield very interesting insight, but I do appreciate the author plowing into the 1st hand historical materials and writing us this piece of microhistory.

[Pere Roca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una petita història, però que diu molt sobre l'època i l'entorn en el que està centrada. És increible com amb tantes poques pàgines pot il·lustrar tant bé la societat del moment. L'estil de Cipolla segueix sent increïble: divertit, concís i coherent.

[eulàlia! · Rating 5 out of 5]

fiu em fa vergonya admetre que em va encantar! visca la novel·la històrica que et fa entrar fins dins mentre aprens pila. mestreno amb aquest genere literari i repetiré sens dubte. cipolla dedicat a això que escrius guai quan és didàctic!

[Claudia Ortells · Rating 3 out of 5]

És interessant vore com fa 5 segles es va viure una situació sanitària molt pareguda a la de la actualitat però és un llibre massa tècnic

[Sam Ruddick · Rating 4 out of 5]

there are a couple slow moments but for the most part this is good story-telling, good history, and very funny. there's nothing funnier than unhappiness.

and it's short, too!

if it were fiction, i'd say it's a metaphor for the change that took place between the renaissance and the enlightenment. it's the transition between one phase of history and another, summarized surprisingly accurately in the form of an anecdote.

[Terry Earley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though very interested in this period of history, I never would have read this short book unless recommended. Thanks Sam.

By taking a very small slice of time in an obscure Italian village, Cipolla was able with the available record, to give a very personal picture of actual people of the time dealing with very real problems. Their lives became then, very real to me.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Microhistory in the style of Natalie Zemon Davis' The Return of Martin Guerre. I would assign it if I were teaching a class on disease history; the small example says a lot about the period. Cipolla is always a pleasure to read.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

subject matter also can be read about in The Plague (camus) and Narcissus and Goldmund (hesse); well-researched and explored subject.

[Michelle Smith taylor · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting, however, not as indepth as I would have liked. Very superficial.

[Stephanie Islas ♡ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Loved reading about rowdy peasants. Read this book for a class, but I really enjoyed it!

[Louise Garner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed it, although found it a bit short and "lite".