Sara Della Vista

Varcare la soglia della Casa di correzione disciplinamento di «discoli», «oziosi» e «donne di mala vita»

Introduction

Varcare la soglia della casa di correzione disciplinamento di «discoli», «oziosi» e «donne di mala vita». Analisi della Casa di Correzione di Firenze (1782) e delle riforme di Pietro Leopoldo. Focus sul ruolo preventivo nel disciplinare "discoli", "oziosi" e "donne di mala vita".

Abstract

The House of Correction of Florence was established by Pietro Leopoldo in the city Fortress in 1782. First, this paper shows the context of the sovereign reforms and its foundation, then it focuses on its aims: the institute provided preventive tasks, more than corrective ones. In cooperation with the new police force reformed in 1777, the House of Correction didn’t just persecute illicit behaviors, but above all it tried to prevent disillusioned youth and licentious women from their bad habits and vices, through industry and religious education, not without contradictions with the guarantism of the Penal Code of 1786.

Review

The paper, "Varcare la soglia della Casa di correzione: disciplinamento di «discoli», «oziosi» e «donne di mala vita»," promises a compelling exploration of the House of Correction established in Florence in 1782 by Pietro Leopoldo. The abstract clearly outlines the study's scope, beginning with the crucial historical context of sovereign reforms that underpinned the institution's foundation. Its primary aim is to analyze the House of Correction's stated objectives, revealing a fascinating emphasis on *preventive* rather than purely corrective measures. This historical lens into early modern carceral institutions, particularly one focused on social discipline, immediately marks the paper as a significant contribution to the history of penal reform and social control in 18th-century Italy. The core strength of this research, as suggested by the abstract, lies in its nuanced portrayal of the institution's function. The House of Correction, operating in tandem with the newly reformed police force, actively sought to deter "disillusioned youth" and "licentious women" from perceived "bad habits and vices." This was achieved through a dual approach of promoting industry and providing religious education. Crucially, the abstract highlights an inherent tension: these preventative disciplinary practices existed "not without contradictions with the guarantism of the Penal Code of 1786." This central conflict between paternalistic social engineering and nascent legal protections offers a rich ground for analysis, promising to illuminate the complex ideological underpinnings of Enlightenment-era justice systems and their practical implementation. Overall, this paper appears to offer a valuable and insightful examination of a pivotal institution in Tuscan history. Its focus on prevention over correction, the specific demographics targeted, and the explicit acknowledgment of internal contradictions with contemporary legal frameworks make it highly relevant for scholars of penal history, social history, and gender studies. The promise of exploring how an institution simultaneously aimed to discipline "rascals," "idlers," and "women of ill repute" while navigating the complexities of emerging legal codes suggests a rigorous and thought-provoking analysis, providing fresh perspectives on the development of state-sponsored social control mechanisms in pre-modern Europe.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.