User talk:CBGunns
Overview[edit]
The Scarith of Scornello is a set of controversial artifacts discovered in November of 1634 in Italy by a young nobleman named Curzio Inghirami. The find consists of hair and tar capsules filled with supposed Etruscan oracles written on scraps of fabric. It is widely accepted that the discovery was in fact a hoax.
Curzio Inghirami[edit]
Curzio Inghirami was the son of an Italian Nobleman, born in the early 17th century on December 29, 1614. His family hailed from Scornello, the family villa south of Volterra in Tuscany and was influential within political and military circles. Curzio was raised alongside his younger sister Lucrezia Inghirami and educated by the family's tutor, Father Domenico Vadorini. At the time of the discovery, Curzio was 19 years old. Curzio was expected to become a lawyer and had a deep love of history and a sly sense of humor. He was known to be quick witted and excelled in his studies, including classic literature and various languages.[1]
The "Discovery" and Excavations[edit]
According to Curzio, the first scarith was discovered by chance on Saint Catherine's Day, 1634 when he and his sister decided to go fishing in the river Cecina near their home and were walking along the riverbank. While waiting on household servants, Curzio passed time by tossing around rocks from the shore when he noticed what he described as "a small blackish clod." [2] The "scarith," as the small capsules were finally named, were made of layers of pitch (resin) , fabric, and wax. Inside were clumps of hair and scraps of linen paper inscribed with characters of Etruscan script. Curzio claimed that the script was a prophecy written down by an Etruscan augur named Prospero of Fiesole living at the time of Cicero and the Catilineconspiracy. After the initial scarith was found, Curzio and his father, Inghiramo, returned to the place Curzio indicated to continue investigating. The two only found bits of broken clay pottery and Inghiramo decided that continuing was not worth the effort.[3]
The first excavation following he and his father's failed attempt was carried out by Curzio and the family tutor, Father Domenico Vadorini following Saint Lucy's Day on December 13, 1634. The men organized a group of tenant farmers from the estate, returned to the river, and commenced digging, uncovering a low stone wall and stone urn containing another scarith. After consulting local scholarly records at the Palazzo Maffei, Curzio and Vadorini broke open the next scarith, whose documents were in Latin as well as Etruscan. At the time, Etruscan was largely undeciphered and so Curzio's translation of the Latin characters were the only way of uncovering the meaning of the prophecy. Following their latest discovery, the men contacted Curzio's father in Florence with details of his find. The exciting news eventually came to the attention of Ferdinando II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany who threw his support and sponsorship behind further excavations at Scornello.
On December 29, Curzio started his next series of excavations with additional workers, uncovering more scarith holding texts in Latin and Etruscan. He sent news to the Grand Duke that his men had also discovered "fragments of marble, rusted iron, human bones, decayed and burned." Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
Prospero and the Oracles[edit]
Curzio's scariths revealed supposedly ancient texts, hidden away for the future by Prospero, a novice priest or soothsayer of Etruria who is trained in the ancient art of Augury. Within the texts, he references various Astronomic icons and types of divination, Nordic legends, and even the birth of Christ. He claims to believe in one great creator god named Aesar who bore striking similarities to the Christian God and claims that the city of Volterra was in fact founded by Noah. Prospero then told the dramatic story of the fall of the Volterra to Florence, following the failed conspiracy by Lucius Sergius Catilina to overthrow the government in 64 B.C.[4] The young Oracle describes his attempt to flee with his household gods as Roman soldiers sacked and burned the rebellious city.[5]
Widespread Dissent[edit]
Tuscan Scholars were suspicious of Inghirami's scarith and criticized the find due to some key flaws. It seemed suspect that that this Prospero told the story of the Catiline rebellion, a very familiar story to Curzio and his peers, who learned Latin by studying the writings of Cicero. The prophecies of Prospero also appeared to draw on ideas at the forefront of Italian thought at the time and made brief slips into modern Tuscan dialect. When discussing Aesar, Prospero described him as a god who gave the world free will, an issue which was central to the Thirty Year's War, which had only recently ended. The scarith went on to support theories about the ancient Etruscans currently being researched by leading scholars.
Another point of contention with the academics of Volterra was the paper the prophecies were written on. Trusted Roman writers of the past agreed that Etruscans recorded information on rolls of linen instead of paper, so though the scarith prophecies appeared old, more doubt was cast on them. Curzio argued that the "linen books" were referring to paper made of linen scraps, exactly like paper was made during the later Renaissance. In light of dissent among the scholarly communities in Florence, Pisa, and Volterra, Grand Duke Ferdinando at this point called for a police investigation to determine whether the the scarith were a legitimate archaeological discovery or a well-executed hoax as many were beginning to believe.
Investigation[edit]
Curzio Inghirami had the distinct advantage of being a member of an influential family in Tuscany. His family held power in trade and politics in the region that made them extremely wealthy as well as having a prominent standing in the Italian Navy through Curzio's great uncle Jacopo Inghirami and eleven other relatives who were Maritime Knights of Saint Stephen. The Inghirami family funded the arts and construction in the local community chapel. This high status made scholars and police alike very reluctant to accuse Curzio of fraud. The police were also influenced by the ruling Medici family who sought to keep Tuscany firmly under their control. Academia and Naval power kept the various cities of Tuscany united. It was assumed that a controversy within the different universities would fracture the solidarity of the region.
Curzio's older and wiser relatives knew that his future as a lawyer and the reputation of the family as a whole would be jeopardized if the investigation discovered that the young nobleman had indeed faked the whole thing. Using their influence in the community to shield Curzio, the adult members and especially Cavaliere Giulio wrote letters to and met with members of other influential families in the area.[6] Italian nobility during the seventeenth century were rarely questioned or accused of crimes and could usually use political ties or bribery to avoid scandal. Family reputations were protected stubbornly and the Inghirami family was no exception.
Outcomes[edit]
The Inghirami family was extremely proactive in brushing aside the police investigation and pressed for license to publish the texts found in Curzio's scarith. Older uncles wrote letters to secure authentication of the site and authorities and fellow nobles were invited to view the riverside excavation. By pulling together, the family led more credibility to young Curzio. Cultural pride was strong in Tuscany at the time and it was popular to create family ties to the illustrius Etruscan ancestors. The cultural undercurrents and pressure from the House of Inghirami soon convinced the granducal agents to decide the scarith were 'genuinely buried and were very, very old.'[7] Effectively, Curzio's family had saved him from the disgrace of legal charges.
Publication[edit]
Inghirami published an initial report of his excavations in Florence in 1636. The Inghirami family then spared no expense in publishing the book titled Ethruscarum Antiquitatum Fragmenta in 1645. The book avoided local censorship and drew the attention of the scholarly world quickly. Curzio's publication actually fueled the argument of authenticity among academia however, though scholars had to stifle their accusations. The young man and his book were presented at live debates in Volterra, Pisa, and Florence. His conduct at the debate won him the respect of the northern communities, but certainly not the respect of those outside Tuscany. When scholar and nobleman Vincenzo Noghera later posed further suspicion and dissent, he was swiftly and completely silenced by an Inghirami lawsuit. The fame of the scarith soon grew to represent the prestigious past of Tuscany as a whole in the face of continued opposition from other scholars like Paganino Guadenzio, and Heinrich Ernst from Denmark. Curzio's foreign skeptics grew in number but he was protected within Italy by the nationalism inspired by the Etruscan finds.
The Hoax and Curzio's Later Life[edit]
Curzio Inghirami was a voracious reader of history and had a deep interest in the ancient past of Volterra. He was well schooled in the story of the Etruscans and even knew many of words deciphered from the Etruscan language at the time. After studying the writings of Cicero, Curzio would have been well-versed in the tale of his native Tuscany. Over the course of his studies, Curzio became interested in the story of Annio da Viterbo, a monk famous for his historical forgeries and was likely inspired by it.
To pull off the elaborate hoax, Curzio threaded well-known local histories into Prospero's oracles, carefully selecting lineages, chivalric orders, and landmarks still recognizable to the Tuscan population of the time. He cited records that were in Volterran archives and drew in believers by providing grand ancestors for the community to admire and be proud of. The volume of local fact within his story seemed to lend credibility to his finds. It is believed that Curzio and his sister Lucrezia created the scarith together by hand, attempting to age their inventions by burying them alongside legitimate Etruscan artifacts such as tin statues, pottery shards, and the remains of city walls. The debate over the legitimacy of the Scornello scarith stretched on throughout Curzio's life and even after his death. Only after his death did someone studying the scarith notice a watermark from a local paper factory on the supposedly ancient paper.[8] Curzio went on defending his finds throughout his life, eventually becoming a sort of local hero who stood for the history of all Etruscan finds. His fame soon awarded him recognition as a scholar, legal mind, authority on Etruscan history, linguist, and eventual Knight of Saint Stephen like his uncles and grandfather before him in spite of the widespread knowledge of his forgery.[9]
Bibliography[edit]
Connell, William J. "The Scarith of Scornello: A Tale of Renaissance Forgery (review)." Rev. of The Scarith of Scornello: A Tale of Renaissance Forgery. Renaissance Quarterly 3rd ser. 58 (2008): 903-04. Project Muse. Web. 6 Nov. 2012. <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ren/summary/v058/58.3connell.html>.
Grimes, William. "A True Whodunit From Antiquity With Devious Minds Much Like Today's." Rev. of The Scarith of Scornello: A Tale of Renaissance Forgery. The New York Times 5 Jan. 2005: 1. The New York Times, 5 Jan. 2005. Web. 7 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/books/05grim.html>.
Rowland, Ingrid D., Arthur Freeman, and Janet Ing Freeman. The Scarith of Scornello: A Tale of Renaissance Forgery. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2004. Print.
Wills, Gary. "'The Scarith of Scornello': False Prophet." Rev. of The Scarith of Scornello: A Tale of Renaissance Forgery. The New York Times 16 Jan. 2005: 1-2. The New York Times, 15 Jan. 2005. Web. 7 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/books/review/16WILLSL.html?_r=0>.