- Speaker #0
Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we're going back in time, you know, to the 16th century to Geneva, the city of John Calvin. Okay. We're going to uncover how they dealt with what they called madness.
- Speaker #1
Interesting.
- Speaker #0
Our main source for this Deep Dive, the Geneva Council Registers. Ah,
- Speaker #1
the Register.
- Speaker #0
A treasure trove of, you know, historical records. They could just look into this era and how they thought.
- Speaker #1
It's fascinating, isn't it? Yeah. These records are more than just, you know, laws and what they did to people. Right. They offer us a glimpse into the lives of people.
- Speaker #0
Yeah.
- Speaker #1
Those labeled mad. Yeah. And how society tried to deal with something they didn't really understand. Right.
- Speaker #0
It's going to be a fascinating journey, especially considering we're talking about almost 500 years ago. I mean, their approach to mental illness. Totally different. Was completely different from how we see it today. Yeah. To understand it better. Yeah. Let's set the stage. Okay. Geneva. Back then had a very structured social system, right? Absolutely. Like everyone had their place.
- Speaker #1
It was a three-tiered hierarchy. Oh, wow. At the top were the bourgeois and citizens. Okay. They had full political rights. Got it. Then came the subjects. Okay. These were Genevans living in the surrounding countryside.
- Speaker #0
So like the suburbs of Geneva?
- Speaker #1
You could say that. Okay. And then lastly, you had the inhabitants. The inhabitants. Foreigners and transients. Okay. Allowed to stay and work. Yeah. But without any political rights.
- Speaker #0
So basically imagine living in Geneva back then. Yes. Dealing with mental health issues.
- Speaker #1
Your experience would be very different. Right. Depending on your social standing. Makes sense. The Geneva Council registers. Yeah. They reveal that two key factors determine how madness was handled.
- Speaker #0
Okay.
- Speaker #1
One, Genevan citizenship. Oh. And two, the individual's behavior.
- Speaker #0
Okay. So Genevan or not. and then how they acted.
- Speaker #1
Specifically whether they were causing a public disturbance or not.
- Speaker #0
Okay, let's unpack this. Sure. So if you were Genevan, kept to yourself, you were probably left alone.
- Speaker #1
Yeah, generally. Okay. The city had an obligation to care for its citizens and subjects. Okay. We see this in how they allocated aid and resources.
- Speaker #0
So they took care of their own?
- Speaker #1
Yeah. But foreigners, they were often left to fend for themselves. No. Or even faced expulsion.
- Speaker #0
But being a foreigner was rough.
- Speaker #1
It wasn't easy.
- Speaker #0
Okay, let's look at some examples from the records. Okay. Seems like families were generally expected to care for mentally ill members, right? Yes. Whether they were Genevan or foreign.
- Speaker #1
That's accurate. Okay. And the city would often step in to help Genevan families.
- Speaker #0
Yeah.
- Speaker #1
Struggling financially to care for a mentally ill family member.
- Speaker #0
So they helped out their own.
- Speaker #1
Yes. There are many instances recorded of families requesting and receiving assistance to care for Children out of their senses.
- Speaker #0
Children out of their senses.
- Speaker #1
This is how they often phrased it. Okay,
- Speaker #0
so there was a system of support in place? Yes. At least for Genevans.
- Speaker #1
Yes. And it wasn't just financial aid. Yeah. The council would appoint guardians or curators. For? Individuals deemed incapable of managing their own affairs. Okay. Primarily to protect them from financial exploitation.
- Speaker #0
Makes sense.
- Speaker #1
This shows that they recognize vulnerability. Yeah. And they wanted to protect those who couldn't protect themselves.
- Speaker #0
That's actually pretty progressive for the time.
- Speaker #1
It's interesting, isn't it?
- Speaker #0
What about foreigners, though? Did they get similar support?
- Speaker #1
Unfortunately not.
- Speaker #0
Really?
- Speaker #1
If a foreign family couldn't support themselves, including a mentally ill member, their appeals for help were usually denied. Oh, wow. In many cases, they were banished from the city.
- Speaker #0
So citizenship really mattered.
- Speaker #1
It made all the difference. Wow. These weren't just policies on paper. Right. They had real consequences. Yeah. Often harsh consequences for individuals and families.
- Speaker #0
It's hard to imagine. Yes. Okay. So belonging to the city made a huge difference. Now things get even more complicated when we look at cases of what they called disruptive madness. The council registers are full of examples of people causing disturbances. Yes. Often during sermons. Can you imagine? You're in the middle of a Calvinist sermon and suddenly.
- Speaker #1
Someone starts shouting or acting erratically. Yeah. It seems. These disruptions were a common problem.
- Speaker #0
Oh, really?
- Speaker #1
And the reactions were usually swift.
- Speaker #0
So what did they do?
- Speaker #1
If the disruptive person was Genevan,
- Speaker #0
Yeah?
- Speaker #1
their family was told to keep them confined at home.
- Speaker #0
Oh, okay.
- Speaker #1
Makes sense. But if they were a foreigner, banishment. Wow. Often for the whole family. The whole family. And under threat of punishment if they tried to come back.
- Speaker #0
Wow, they weren't messing around.
- Speaker #1
No.
- Speaker #0
So keeping order especially... especially during religious services, was really important to them. Very important. But how did they handle repeat offenders, individuals who kept disrupting things because of mental illness?
- Speaker #1
That's where we see the complexities and the inconsistencies in their approach. Right. The case of Nicholas DiMali is a perfect example.
- Speaker #0
What happened to him?
- Speaker #1
He was imprisoned multiple times.
- Speaker #0
Oh, wow.
- Speaker #1
For aggressive behavior.
- Speaker #0
So they knew he had mental health issues.
- Speaker #1
It seems so.
- Speaker #0
But still felt the need to protect the community.
- Speaker #1
Exactly.
- Speaker #0
Tough situation.
- Speaker #1
It reflects their struggle. Yeah. To balance compassion with public safety.
- Speaker #0
I can see that.
- Speaker #1
They were dealing with a challenge. Yeah. Without clear solutions.
- Speaker #0
Another interesting case is Claude Sautier.
- Speaker #1
Ah, yes. Briganton.
- Speaker #0
Briganton. That was his nickname. Yes. Okay, so what happened to him?
- Speaker #1
His violent outbursts led to imprisonment. Okay. And even... Being shackled.
- Speaker #0
Shackled.
- Speaker #1
Yes. But his family appealed for a chained room.
- Speaker #0
A chained room.
- Speaker #1
So they could care for him at home safely.
- Speaker #0
So they were trying to help him.
- Speaker #1
Yes. And the council.
- Speaker #0
Yeah.
- Speaker #1
Out of pity.
- Speaker #0
Out of pity.
- Speaker #1
Eventually agreed to remove his shackles.
- Speaker #0
Wow. It's hard to imagine. Yes. Being chained up like that.
- Speaker #1
It's a difficult image.
- Speaker #0
And then they removed the shackles.
- Speaker #1
Out of pity.
- Speaker #0
Interesting.
- Speaker #1
Fascinating, isn't it? Yeah. This mix of emotions. Yeah. And the lack. of clear solutions yeah they were trying to find the best way to handle things yes limited knowledge and resources right their actions weren't driven solely by cruelty right they were facing a challenge they didn't understand it makes you think doesn't it it does about how much we've learned since then absolutely okay and speaking of challenges yes the case of benoit jacon this
- Speaker #0
one is really thought-provoking it is her views on marriage and accusations of adultery
- Speaker #1
They caused a lot of problems.
- Speaker #0
Yeah, they really stirred things up.
- Speaker #1
Among Calvin and the ministers. Yeah,
- Speaker #0
they are not happy. No. Her case really shows how mental illness, religious beliefs, and social control all kind of got mixed up.
- Speaker #1
It's a perfect example of that.
- Speaker #0
In Calvin's Geneva, she was first imprisoned for her controversial statements, but then...
- Speaker #1
Leader released.
- Speaker #0
Released.
- Speaker #1
And encouraged to reconcile with her husband.
- Speaker #0
Oh, okay.
- Speaker #1
Paramount. He actually blamed himself. for her mental state.
- Speaker #0
Interesting.
- Speaker #1
Said his mistreatment of her was the cause.
- Speaker #0
So they were trying to be compassionate.
- Speaker #1
It seemed so.
- Speaker #0
Hoped a stable home life would help her.
- Speaker #1
It's possible.
- Speaker #0
But things didn't work out that way, did they?
- Speaker #1
No, they didn't.
- Speaker #0
The council registers document? Yes. A lot more scandals?
- Speaker #1
Anna Moe kept asking for a divorce.
- Speaker #0
Really?
- Speaker #1
He blamed her behavior.
- Speaker #0
So even though they tried to reconcile them, Yes. it didn't last.
- Speaker #1
No, Benoit was ultimately condemned.
- Speaker #0
Condemned to what?
- Speaker #1
To be chained for life.
- Speaker #0
Chained for life.
- Speaker #1
Yes, after further accusations of adultery and blasphemy.
- Speaker #0
Wow. Her story is a powerful reminder. Yes. Of how societal norms and expectations really affected how they saw and treated mental illness.
- Speaker #1
Especially for women.
- Speaker #0
Right, especially for women.
- Speaker #1
Her case raises questions about freedom and autonomy for women back then.
- Speaker #0
It really does.
- Speaker #1
And how much control they had over their own lives.
- Speaker #0
And we can't forget how influential religious figures like Calvin were.
- Speaker #1
Oh, yes. They had a lot of power.
- Speaker #0
In shaping those societal attitudes.
- Speaker #1
Absolutely.
- Speaker #0
These are just a few examples from the Geneva Council registers.
- Speaker #1
Yes. Just a glimpse.
- Speaker #0
There are tons of other cases.
- Speaker #1
Many more.
- Speaker #0
That shed light on how they dealt with madness.
- Speaker #1
It's fascinating. It is. But before we dive into those. Okay. I think it's time we hear from our expert.
- Speaker #0
Okay.
- Speaker #1
On how these cases. Yeah. They show a variety of approaches. Okay. And how their decision making wasn't always straightforward.
- Speaker #0
Right,
- Speaker #1
right. It wasn't always about punishment.
- Speaker #0
Okay.
- Speaker #1
Sometimes they were trying to change behavior.
- Speaker #0
Interesting.
- Speaker #1
It's really important to remember. Yeah. We can't judge their actions. Right. Based on our values and understanding today.
- Speaker #0
That's a really great point.
- Speaker #1
It's crucial to consider the context of the time.
- Speaker #0
And we'll talk more about that in part two. Yes,
- Speaker #1
we will.
- Speaker #0
Of our deep dive into madness in Calvin's Geneva. Stay with us.
- Speaker #1
I'm excited to continue.
- Speaker #0
You too.
- Speaker #1
Welcome back to our deep dive into the Geneva Council registers.
- Speaker #0
It's good to be back.
- Speaker #1
We're uncovering how 16th century Genevans dealt with what they called madness. Right. As we saw, citizenship and public behavior played huge roles.
- Speaker #0
He did.
- Speaker #1
But like any historical period, there were always exceptions to the rule.
- Speaker #0
Right. Like we've talked about how societal structures shaped their approach. But did they ever show compassion? Even to those outside of their social hierarchy?
- Speaker #1
They did. Really? We see compassion and support. Okay. Even for foreigners. Okay. Alongside the harsh punishments.
- Speaker #0
Interesting.
- Speaker #1
Like take the case of Jacques Merle. Jacques Merle. He was a foreigner. Okay. Arrived in Geneva. Yeah. Lost in the fantasies of the Anabaptists.
- Speaker #0
Lost in the fantasies.
- Speaker #1
That's what they said. Okay. He was considered mad. Yeah. But instead of being banished.
- Speaker #0
They banished a lot of people.
- Speaker #1
They did.
- Speaker #0
So what happened to him?
- Speaker #1
He was allowed to stay with a cousin who agreed to take care of him.
- Speaker #0
So family support could really change things. It could.
- Speaker #1
The council recognized the importance of someone responsible.
- Speaker #0
Yeah.
- Speaker #1
Taking care of someone with mental illness. It makes sense. It was a better alternative. Right. Than imprisonment or banishment.
- Speaker #0
So it was more humane approach.
- Speaker #1
You could say that.
- Speaker #0
Recognizing the value of social connections and community support in addressing these issues.
- Speaker #1
It's an important factor.
- Speaker #0
Were there other examples of this kind of approach?
- Speaker #1
There are. Okay. Think about Amy Rage.
- Speaker #0
Amy Rage.
- Speaker #1
He was considered mentally incapable. Okay. And the council appointed a guardian. For, for. To manage his property.
- Speaker #0
Oh, okay.
- Speaker #1
And prevent exploitation.
- Speaker #0
So they were looking out for him.
- Speaker #1
Yes. Even in cases of severe mental illness. They tried to safeguard his well-being.
- Speaker #0
It's kind of nice to hear that. They were trying to protect vulnerable people. Even though they didn't fully understand mental illness.
- Speaker #1
It shows a sense of social responsibility. It does. That you might not expect. Right. From that time period.
- Speaker #0
But their responses weren't always consistent.
- Speaker #1
Right. No, they weren't.
- Speaker #0
We saw that with Nicholas de Molle and Claude Satie. Yes. Any other examples of this inconsistency?
- Speaker #1
A few stand out. Okay. For instance, the Madwoman of Vandov.
- Speaker #0
Madwoman of Vandov.
- Speaker #1
She was known for disrupting sermons.
- Speaker #0
Oh, yeah. Those sermons were important.
- Speaker #1
They were.
- Speaker #0
So what did they do to her?
- Speaker #1
Imprisoned her for three days.
- Speaker #0
Three days in prison just for interrupting a sermon?
- Speaker #1
Calvin and the ministers didn't like interruptions.
- Speaker #0
I guess not.
- Speaker #1
especially during their theological pronouncements. Right. They really valued order during those services.
- Speaker #0
Yeah, public order was key.
- Speaker #1
It was.
- Speaker #0
Especially during religious services.
- Speaker #1
Yes. But then we see a different approach. Yeah. The madman in Nightingale.
- Speaker #0
Okay, another madman.
- Speaker #1
He also disrupted sermons.
- Speaker #0
Okay.
- Speaker #1
But instead of just punishing him.
- Speaker #0
What did they do?
- Speaker #1
The council told the local official to use imprisonment as a means of correction. Correction.
- Speaker #0
Yes. So sometimes it wasn't about punishment.
- Speaker #1
Sometimes it was.
- Speaker #0
But about changing behavior.
- Speaker #1
Trying to.
- Speaker #0
It's a good reminder.
- Speaker #1
It is.
- Speaker #0
Not to judge the past based on what we know today.
- Speaker #1
We can't apply modern standards to historical situations.
- Speaker #0
It shows how complex their decision making was. I guess. So many factors at play.
- Speaker #1
Like the severity of the disruption. How much they thought the person understood. Right. Maybe even the mood of the council members.
- Speaker #0
It makes you wonder. Hmm. What their conversations were like.
- Speaker #1
By closed doors.
- Speaker #0
Yeah. Did they argue about the best course of action?
- Speaker #1
We can only imagine. The registers don't tell us everything. Right. But they give us enough to see how difficult their job was.
- Speaker #0
It really was a different time. Yeah. And that's what's so fascinating about history.
- Speaker #1
It is.
- Speaker #0
It's not about finding easy answers. No. Or judging people.
- Speaker #1
It's about understanding the past. Yeah. On its own terms. Right. Understanding that people faced. different challenges.
- Speaker #0
It made different choices.
- Speaker #1
Based on what they knew.
- Speaker #0
Okay. So what can we take away from all of these cases? What are the key takeaways from our deep dive into madness in Calvin's Geneva?
- Speaker #1
I think one of the biggest is citizenship mattered. Okay. Genevans had more support from the city. Okay. While foreigners were more likely to be banished. Right.
- Speaker #0
Or left to fend for themselves. Exactly. So even in a small city state like Geneva, social structure had a... big impact on people's lives.
- Speaker #1
They did. Especially those dealing with mental health issues.
- Speaker #0
And public behavior was a major factor.
- Speaker #1
It was.
- Speaker #0
In how they handled things. Yes.
- Speaker #1
Those who threatened public order.
- Speaker #0
Especially during those sermons.
- Speaker #1
Yes. Especially during religious services.
- Speaker #0
Yeah. They faced serious consequences. They did. Maintaining order and religious decorum.
- Speaker #1
Very important.
- Speaker #0
They were serious about it. Yes. But we also see inconsistencies in how they treated people.
- Speaker #1
Some people got compassionate treatment.
- Speaker #0
Yeah.
- Speaker #1
Well. others in similar situations were punished more harshly.
- Speaker #0
So personal circumstances played a role.
- Speaker #1
Seems so.
- Speaker #0
Family support. Maybe even the personalities of the council members.
- Speaker #1
Yes. All those things could have influenced the outcome.
- Speaker #0
Their system was complex.
- Speaker #1
It was.
- Speaker #0
They wanted order, but it could also be kind of arbitrary.
- Speaker #1
I think that reflects how little they understood mental illness.
- Speaker #0
It was a mystery to them.
- Speaker #1
In many ways, they often blamed it on supernatural forces or moral failings.
- Speaker #0
Right. Like with Benoit Chapon.
- Speaker #1
Yes.
- Speaker #0
Her unconventional views on marriage.
- Speaker #1
They saw that as madness. Right. And it got mixed up with accusations of adultery and blasphemy.
- Speaker #0
It's a good example. It is. Of how religious beliefs. Yes. And social norms really shaped their view of mental health. So their responses. which seem harsh to us today. They do. Really reflect the limited knowledge they had.
- Speaker #1
At the time.
- Speaker #0
And as we head into the final part of our deep dive, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on... on how these historical insights can help us understand mental health today. It's amazing to think about how far we've come, but also how much we can still learn.
- Speaker #1
Yeah, looking back at how past societies dealt with mental illness gives us a lot to think about.
- Speaker #0
Yeah, we see the progress we've made.
- Speaker #1
Definitely. Challenges that remain. The Geneva Council registers. They really show how closely linked social structures, religious beliefs, And perceptions of mental illness were back then.
- Speaker #0
And that makes me wonder, are we really that different today?
- Speaker #1
Good question.
- Speaker #0
I mean, we've replaced banishment with involuntary commitment and shackles with medication. But have we really moved beyond those old ways of thinking? Have we really created a society that understands and supports mental well-being?
- Speaker #1
That's the key,
- Speaker #0
isn't it? Yeah.
- Speaker #1
Our understanding of mental health has come a long way. Right. But there's still stigma. And many people still struggle to get the help they need. It's true. We're still learning.
- Speaker #0
Yeah.
- Speaker #1
Just like the Geneva Council all those years ago.
- Speaker #0
It's looking back at ourselves in a distorted mirror.
- Speaker #1
Yeah. Seeing echoes of the past in our present.
- Speaker #0
Think about Benoit Chacon. Yeah. And how they saw her views on marriage as madness. Today, she might be considered a free spirit.
- Speaker #1
Or a rebel.
- Speaker #0
Yeah.
- Speaker #1
But we still have a tendency to label people as sick.
- Speaker #0
Right.
- Speaker #1
If they challenge the norms.
- Speaker #0
It's true.
- Speaker #1
Progress isn't always a straight line.
- Speaker #0
Right. We move forward.
- Speaker #1
And sometimes we take a step back. Yeah. The important thing is to keep questioning.
- Speaker #0
Our assumptions. Yeah. And to strive for a more compassionate approach to mental health.
- Speaker #1
Exactly.
- Speaker #0
That's why I think these historical deep dives are so important. They are. They give us a new perspective. A chance to look at our own biases.
- Speaker #1
And to learn from the past.
- Speaker #0
Yeah. We might not have all the answers, but understanding how they dealt with things back then.
- Speaker #1
It helps us.
- Speaker #0
We can better handle the challenges of mental health today.
- Speaker #1
Yes, and create a better future.
- Speaker #0
A more supportive and inclusive future. Absolutely. The Geneva Council registers.
- Speaker #1
They're fascinating.
- Speaker #0
They are.
- Speaker #1
They're more than just old records.
- Speaker #0
Right. They tell a story about how people tried to make sense of the human mind.
- Speaker #1
The complexities of the human mind.
- Speaker #0
It's been an amazing journey. It has. Going back in time. exploring the lives of people who lived in such a different world.
- Speaker #1
And even though their methods might seem strange to us now, they teach us valuable lessons.
- Speaker #0
They do about compassion, the importance of support,
- Speaker #1
and how our understanding of mental health is always changing.
- Speaker #0
Thank you for joining us on this deep dive into madness in Calvin's Geneva.
- Speaker #1
It's been a pleasure.
- Speaker #0
We hope you've gained some new insights and a deeper understanding of mental health. Then and now, keep exploring. Keep asking questions.
- Speaker #1
And keep the conversation going.
- Speaker #0
We'll see you next time on The Deep Dive.
