Sufi Abbaspour

The execution of convicts has always caught the attention of humanity. The reason for public executions is to scare people away from sinning.

In the sixteenth century, the artfulness of public execution reached its peak, it was one of the most powerful impressions. Two examples of the most sensational and unforgettable spectacles were the executions of Anne Boleyn and Mary Queen of Scots. After the execution of Charles I of England in 1649, the law turned capital punishment into a more mechanical and dehumanizing event.

In the 16th century, a style called mannerism developed. It was known for its violence in artistic creations, like paintings and sculptures, as well as in the artistic creations of capital punishment. A lot of emphasis was put into things like clothing, gestures and last words to make it as conspicuous as possible. Shearman called it the “more cultured age”. Now a day we are too alienated towards the high-class affectation to appreciate the style of mannerism, generally. During this time period, people were more and more accepting and getting in to the taste of violence. This was of course the time of inquisitions and witch trials. People were very keen on being stylish. Style was more important than content.

During the 17th and 18th century, people were still trying to avoid medieval attitudes, which lead to a favour in scientific pragmatism. This was the time, when the west started to dominate the world. Capital punishment started to become more practical than aesthetical. They used different kinds of machinery (guillotine, hangman’s trap, electrical chair, etc.). It became an impersonalized, efficient act, which supposedly was more humane.

In the 16th century, people who were executed weren’t as afraid, since it meant for them leaving this one world and going to another one. It had a lot to do with Christian symbolism. The fact that it was so much of a spectacle made them seem like heroes and more likely to receive salvation. A woodcut called the ‘Bambergische Halsgerichtsordnung’ of 1508 shows how crime was more often dealt with by punishing, rather than rehabilitation. Pieter Brueghel, an Italian painter was one of the first people to question capital punishment. During the 16th century in Europe, capital punishment was so common, that there was hardly anyone who did not watch such spectacle. The legal system was looked at as the earthly version of gods “master plan”. The symbolism in the architecture, painting and sculptures of the city halls and courtrooms turned these views into a ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’. The most mannerist organization was in Rome, the ‘Archonfraternity’ of San Giovanny Decollato, John the Beheaded. They serviced the condemned. This fraternity held some of the most famous pieces of mannerist art in Italy.

Edelyne Bernal

This article discusses the role of the arts in the ‘spectacularization’ of public executions in the sixteenth century. Samuel Edgerton argues that art influenced and encouraged society to believe that anything substantially ugly (i.e. decapitation) can be turned into something “inventively fascinating and beautiful” (69). Mannerist aesthetics (maniera), high art that focuses on style over content, was specifically mentioned by the author due to its direct relevance to sixteenth-century’s prominent fondness to style/visual impression.

Edgerton notes the decapitation of Charles I of England (1649) as the point of realization that “no man had [the] divine right to [act like] God” and that death, even with capital punishment, is not the end of life. With this, Edgerton introduces the Christian symbolism of capital punishment. He mentions that the psychological effect of capital punishment was not as devastating as it is today. Death was considered a transition: leaving of the soul from the present world to another. (He even mentioned a parallel between the sacrificial death of Christ and the death of a criminal.) Decapitation was considered diginified, compared to other kinds of punishment (e.g. quartering, burning at the stake). The lack of humaneness of the execution methods was then easily excused for their aesthetic appeal.

Edgerton explicitly suggests that public execution was affected by art and that artists at the time were particularly responsible for encouraging the public to overlook ethics for visual appeal. Art was indeed deeply incorporated in the process of execution. This is reflected in the actual architecture and decoration of law courts, wherein architecture, paintings, and sculpture are strategically placed to evoke/reinforce a certain mood for specific people during the proceeding (e.g. criminal faced the judges seated under a mural of the Last Judgment). This was considered a Gesamtkunstwerk.

Religious orders consisting of lay brothers were established to provide comfort to the condemned prisoners. One example of these that exhibited very mannerist practice was in Rome—the Archconfraternity of San Giovanni Decollato, Saint John the Beheaded. They hold before the eyes of the prisoners during their last hours little painted panels, designed to help them gain spiritual strength. During the seventeenth century, the order held out a public art exhibition featuring Italian painters as well as noted mannerist artists (e.g. Pirro Ligorio, Jacopino del Conte, Francesco Salviati) who produced frescoes with maniera esthetics (such as the gruesome depiction of the beheading of John the Baptist). These paintings, particularly those displayed during an execution, were expected to provide “empathic inspiration” to the condemned on their final journey to death (86).

This kind of maniera esthetics was also used to humiliate public enemies, also known as pitture infamanti. Artists were commissioned to render pictures of notorious criminals, shown in their most uncomplimentary poses, placed on walls of buildings. This kind of practice put artists in a risky position that sometimes they had to pretend the paintings were not done by them.

Mechanization eventually became the reason for the abandonment of the much-enjoyed decapitation in the sixteenth century. The emergence of the guillotine and the mannaia resulted to the depersonalization of the punishment and detheologizing of the supposedly “religious ritual”. The public came to realize that capital punishment has not been an “earthly preview of the Last Judgment” but more like a “cruel exhibition of man’s brutality to man” (98).

Is art today as powerful as it was in the sixteenth century—so powerful that it influenced the belief of society on capital punishment? Have things changed? What is the motive behind death punishments today? Is it really for justice?

Hannah Davy

Samuel Y. Edgerton Jr. begins with the idea of morbid fascination in the sixteenth century. Public execution was dramatized and stylized and was a popular event. The author believes that capital punishment in the Middle Ages was more like a performance. Public execution was so common then that the painters often included executions in their art which has enabled us to see how things were back then. Painters also brought to light why public execution was socially necessary and promoted the idea that execution was a fascinating spectacle. Paintings were even part of the executions many of the times. In the sixteenth century, having such a high and grand style when it came to violence was not only seen in capital punishment but also through the art, specifically the many mannerist paintings that portrayed many hangings, beheadings etc. Capital punishment became part of art just as much as art affected the violent executions as they became more stylized, and accepted by the public.

Edgerton’s main point in this excerpt is that in the sixteenth century, capital punishment was a visually attractive event but when decapitation later went from an executioner to a guillotine, it became depersonalized and ugly and was no longer acceptable to the public. This is because during the Middle Ages when the executioner existed, the act of public execution was very much like a religious ritual specifically involving Christianity.

The idea back in the sixteenth century was that the victims who were being executed were more like martyrs. The victims were often encouraged to confess their sins and ask for forgiveness before they died in order to go to heaven. The victims were also made to believe that the act of being executed was very much like what Christ did when He died on the cross, making it seem as if the victims were saints who were doing a very noble thing by dying. Many paintings of executions were filled with images of the crucifix. So to the public, this was an acceptable religious act. Furthermore, the judge was deemed to be the Vicar of Christ and the executioner acted as the devil and so made the entire “ritual” complete and satisfying as a religious act that took a person from one life to another that was said to be much better.

The author believes that when the executioner was replaced by a machine, the entire religious aspect was taken away as the devil was no longer present which made the public think that the idea of public execution was depersonalized and horrifyingly wrong and ugly and thus lost its artistic stylized look.

Public execution in any form should not be acceptable. Also, the fact that back then you got to die a certain way because of your status and not because of what you did does not make any sense. Beheading and dying on the cross were considered noble as they were both symbols of Christianity. They were both not considered humiliating at all even though Christ’s death on the cross was filled with humiliation. Hanging was only for people with a low status because the victim’s body would hang to rot with humility.

Although public execution is not that big an issue right now, there are still many acts of violence around the world. Perhaps they are not connected to art as much as public execution was in the sixteenth century but violent acts are still very commonly found in many art forms. Why is it that humans are fascinated with violence to a point where they integrate it into art and stylize it into an entertaining spectacle?