“THE KISS OF THE VIRGIN MARY.”
Reality of the Iron Virgin--Researches of Mr. Pearsall in
Germany--His discoveries in Austria--Description of the
Machine--Its origin in Spain--Victims of the Virgin.
Cruelty, as we have seen, is the distinguishing characteristic of the
Romish Inquisition. And torture, as employed by that hated court upon
its unhappy, helpless victims, was inflicted in various modes. These are
described, generally, in Chapter XIII. But there is one particular
machine for punishment, referred to in Chapter XIX., as employed by the
inquisitors in Spain, of the most horrible kind; and which Colonel
Lehmanowsky, who witnessed it in the Inquisition at Madrid, correctly
declares, that it “surpassed all others in fiendish ingenuity.” This
machine was denominated “THE VIRGIN,” or “THE VIRGIN MARY.”
Many persons have denied its existence, as too horrible to be credible;
but, besides the evidence already adduced, from the testimony of that
military officer, and of Madame Faulcaut, who had seen it in the
Inquisition of Saragossa, it appears to have been common in Germany. The
following testimony is from a work called “THE KISS OF THE VIRGIN; a
Narrative of Researches made in Germany, during the years 1832 and 1834,
for the purpose of ascertaining the mode of inflicting that ancient
punishment, and of proving the often denied and generally disputed fact
of its existence: by R. L. PEARSALL, of Willsbridge, Esq., in a Letter
to the Rev. H. T. Ellacombe, F.S.A., Vicar of Bitton in
Gloucestershire.”
This narrative was read, January 12th, 1837, before the Society of
Antiquaries, and published in their “Transactions,” vol. xxvii., pp.
227-256.
Mr. Pearsall remarks, “In England, thanks to the publicity of our
judicial proceedings, those who fell under the hands of the executioner
perished before the eyes of the world, in a mode prescribed by the law.
This was not the case in other countries. Wherever there was a despotic
monarch, or an irresponsible corporation endowed with an unlimited
criminal jurisdiction, men were accused, imprisoned, and never more
heard of. Their probable fate could be guessed only from circumstances,
or from some unguarded expression from the lips of such as were likely
to be aware of it.
“‘PASSER PAR LES OUBLIETTES,’ was a well-known phrase in France; and yet
few were able to define its meaning accurately. Every one, however,
understood that when a man was considered by the tribunals to be guilty
of certain crimes, he was doomed to pass, as it were, into oblivion, by
descending through trap-doors, called _oubliettes_, into the nether
regions of the prison, from which he never returned.
“‘THE KISS OF THE VIRGIN,’ (or _Jungfern-Kuss_), was an equally
well-known phrase in Germany, and its import was almost as little
understood. A general impression, however, reigned among the multitude,
that, in certain towers and prisons, there was a terrible engine, which
not only destroyed life, but also annihilated the body of the person
sacrificed; and this, from being constructed in the form of a young
girl, was called ‘_The Virgin_.’
“During a residence in Germany, some years ago, chance threw me in the
way of hearing much of this engine, without being able clearly to
understand what it was, excepting that it exercised the functions of
executioner in the form of the Virgin Mary, and exterminated its victims
by hugging them in arms furnished with iron blades. Thus they were soon
deprived of life. It was said to have existed in many towns and castles,
and even _convents_. Some represented it to be an image of the Virgin
Mary, which the culprit was told to kiss, and which, on being touched by
him, was set in motion by inward machinery, which caused the figure to
fall down and crush him. Others said, that its arms expanded and clasped
him to a breast, out of which poniards protruded. Others, again,
represented it merely as an emblem of _Justice_, placed above a
trap-door, on which the culprit trod, as he advanced to pay her his
homage, and which, being left unbolted, sank underneath his weight, and
precipitated him into an abyss.
“The difficulty of obtaining evidence respecting it, and the
contradictory and, consequently, unsatisfactory nature of the little
that I did for some time obtain, made me begin to treat the stories
which I had heard as the result of popular error. Added to this, I found
almost all the members of the modern school of philosophy prepared to
treat the thing as an old woman’s tale; and one of them told me that the
whole affair was a mere monkish lie.
“Discouraged as I was by the result of my inquiries, I could not
altogether hold the thing as utterly without basis. And being loath to
treat as mere idle rumour that which had been heard of by every German,
and was believed by the great majority of the people, I was tempted to
take a middle course between belief and unbelief, and to conclude that
the _Virgin_ must have been the _plank_, or German _guillotine_. The
conclusion which I arrived at was, however, disturbed by a passage which
I accidentally met in a book, entitled, ‘Materialen zur
Nürnber-gerisehen Geschichte herausge geben von D. T. C. Siebenkees,
Nürnberg, 1792.’
“The passage in question is represented to have been extracted from a
Chronicle (which the author has not indicated), and may be thus rendered
in English:--‘In the year of our Lord 1533, the Iron Virgin was
constructed, for the punishment of evil-doers, within the walls of the
Frogs-Tower, opposite the place called _Die Sieben Zeiler_--that is to
say, the Seven Ropes; so, at least, it was publicly given out, to
justify the thing. Therein was an _iron_ statue, _seven feet high_,
which stretched abroad both its arms in the face of the criminal, and
death by this machine was said to send the poor sinner to the fishes.
For, so soon as the executioner moved the step on which it stood, it
hewed, with broad hand-swords, the criminal into little pieces, which
were swallowed by fishes in hidden waters. Such secret tribunals existed
formerly in many countries.”
Mr. Pearsall pursued his inquiries with indefatigable industry in the
German cities, and made many discoveries in secret “torture chambers.”
“Many persons of the better class,” he remarks, “to whom I spoke on the
subject, denied that the Virgin had ever existed in Austria; but my
_laquais de place_, and others of the lower class, told me, that when
they were young, it was said to be standing in a tower which hangs over
the canal that runs through Vienna into the Danube, and that whenever
the water there looked a little red (as was usually the case after a
storm), nothing was more common than to hear people say, ‘So, the Virgin
has been at her work again.’”
Mr. Pearsall made important discoveries at Nuremberg. There he was aided
by Dr. Mayer, keeper of the archives of the city. “Dr. Mayer told me,”
says he, “that the passage from the Chronicle, quoted by Siebenkees, was
no fable; that the machine had formerly stood in a vault near to the
_Sieben Zeiler_, and that he himself had seen part of the machinery
which belonged to it, although the figure itself had disappeared. ‘The
figure,’ said he, ‘stood at the brink of a trap-door; and when the
individual who had suffered by its embraces was released from them, he
fell downwards through it on a sort of cradle of swords, placed in a
vault underneath, and which were arranged so as to cut his body in
pieces, which dropped into running water, over which the machine stood.’
“Desirous of seeing the spot where the Virgin stood, I procured
permission to visit it from the city architect, who sent me the keys by
a man named Kiefer. This man has been a long time in the employment of
the magistrates, and he accompanied Dr. Mayer and myself to the spot in
question. He was a stranger to Dr. Mayer; but he had himself, many years
back, been in the vault. He found no stream of water there, although the
place was extremely wet and damp; and on one side of the vault, which
was drier than the other, _there was a sort of grave, in which were many
human skulls and bones_. He told me that in his youth he had known an
old man, named Kaiferlin, who had seen the machine in a perfect state.
He stated, also, that Kaiferlin told him, that two or three days before
the entry of the French into Nuremberg, the Virgin and all the
instruments of torture formerly kept in the place where she was, were
taken away by night in a cart, and that neither she nor they had ever
been heard of since.”
Mr. Pearsall at length found this Virgin in the Castle of Feistritz.
Baron Diedrich informed him, “I bought it of a person who obtained it,
_with the left hand_, during the French revolution, and had with it a
great part of the contents of the arsenal of Nuremberg. From him I
received it _in a cart_, with several things which had formerly belonged
to that arsenal. It came to me rusted and in bad condition, deprived of
its machinery, but accompanied by the pedestal on which it now stands,
and which seems to have been made for it.”
“The construction of the figure,” says Mr. Pearsall, “was simple enough.
A skeleton, formed of bars and hoops, was coated over with sheet iron,
which was laid on and painted, so as to represent a Nuremberg citizen’s
wife of the sixteenth century. The front of the machine opened like
folding doors, the two halves of the front part of it being connected by
hinges with the back part. On the inside of its right breast are
_thirteen_ quadrangular poniards. There are _eight_ of these on the
inside of the left, and _two_ on the inside of the face. These last were
clearly intended for the eyes of the victim, who must have, therefore,
gone backwards into it, and have received, in an upright position, in
his breast and head, the blades to which he was exposed. That this
machine had been formerly used cannot be doubted; because there are
evident blood-stains yet visible on its breast, and on the upper part of
its pedestal. How it was worked is not known, for the mechanism which
caused it to open and shut is no longer attached to it; but that there
was some such mechanism, is clear from the holes and sockets which have
been cut out on the surface of the pedestal, showing the points where
parts of the apparatus intended to work it must have been inserted. It
stands, at present, on castors, and there are two iron springs, which
its present proprietor has caused to be placed in it, for the purpose of
making its sides to open whenever it is moved forward; but this is done
to startle, by way of pleasantry, those who see it for the first time.”
Mr. Pearsall traces the origin of this machine to Spain, and in
connexion with the Inquisition. He says, “In the year 1835, I met at
Liege with a very well educated and accomplished man of letters; he was
a Frenchman by birth, and had been attached to the court of Joseph
Buonaparte, when he was promoted by his brother Napoleon to be king of
Spain. There, my informant told me, that he had an opportunity of
inspecting the chamber of the Inquisition at Madrid, and that, among
other instruments with which it was provided, he found an image of the
Virgin Mary, composed partly of wood and partly of iron. This engine was
called ‘_Mater Dolorosa_,’ and with it was administered the last and
severest degree of torture. Its ordinary position was that of a woman
standing erect, with her arms crossed on her bosom; but there was a
contrivance by which she was made to expand her arms, and then the
inside surfaces of them were seen to be garnished with a number of small
points or stilettoes. The person to be tortured was placed opposite to
her, breast to breast, and then her arms were brought round his back,
and by means of a powerful screwing implement made to grasp him tightly,
so as to inflict great pain, and to render it impossible that he could
fall from her gripe. Whilst she held him thus firmly, a trap-door was
opened under his feet, so as to cause him to hang in agony over an
abyss. In this position he was importuned to confess his guilt, while
the arms of the machine were slowly and gradually screwed tighter and
tighter, till life was squeezed out of his body. The corpse was then
released, and fell through the trap-door into a sort of _oubliette_.
Now, I am much inclined to think that the machine in the possession of
Baron Diedrich was made to do its inhuman duty somewhat in the same
manner as the machine in the Spanish Inquisition.”
Priestly cruelty in Spain appears to have derived this instrument from
the invention of this kind by Nabis, tyrant of Sparta. See Hampton’s
Polybius, vol. ii., p. 291. Mr. Pearsall remarks, “Perhaps, also, the
merit of having invented the Virgin is due to the genius of Spain; and
it is by no means impossible that it was thence transplanted into
Germany during the reign of Charles V., who was monarch of both
countries. According to M. de Pfeffel, (_Abrégé de l’Histoire
d’Allemagne_, p. 414) there were great tumults in Germany during the
years 1531 and 1532, and continual quarrels at Nuremberg, between the
Protestants and Catholics. ‘In 1532 was published,’ says he, ‘the famous
Criminal Code of the Empire, which was the most severe and the least
observed in Europe.’ In 1533 the Iron Virgin was, according to the
Chronicle cited by Siebenkees, constructed at Nuremberg.
“I cannot fix the time when this machine was first employed in Spain;
but I was told by Mr. Gévay, a learned Hungarian in the Imperial
Library at Vienna, that he had read of this machine in Spanish romance
of the early part of the _sixteenth_ century, which proves that it was
known in Spain at the period in question. The author, also, of a French
romance, published at Paris in 1828, and entitled ‘Cornelia Borogina,’
makes mention of it as Spanish, and this attributes it to the same
epoch. Add to this, that it is an instrument much more congenial with
the genius of the Spanish nation than with that of the Germans.
“Probably one might find in Spain other specimens of this machine;
perhaps some may exist in Italy; for I have heard that at the close of
1814, there was something like it at Florence. But after having seen the
engine in the possession of Baron Diedrich, one can no longer doubt that
others of its species were employed as appendages to the ancient
tribunals; and one is, therefore, obliged to regard the story of ‘_The
Kiss of the Virgin_,’ not as a popular legend, but as history.”
Reflecting on popery, existing thus in Rome and other countries called
Catholic, degrading all classes of the community in every nation, we
cannot but consider it deserving the execration of mankind. It is a
system of priestcraft grafted on the Gospel, a “mystery of iniquity,”
utterly at variance with the first principles of humanity, as well as
the letter and spirit of Christianity, as taught in the Scriptures. Its
dreaded Inquisition, in all its various agencies, is regarded with the
utmost abhorrence by the more intelligent people of Rome and of the
other States of Italy. The Catholic priests, too, are hated generally,
as the crafty oppressors of the laity; and, though this might be denied
by the adherents of the Pope, the fact is notorious, from the late
revolutions in Europe, and especially from the present condition of the
Italian States, whose governments require to be severally supported by
the military power of Austria, while Rome itself is occupied by a French
army, as indispensable to the support of “_the Most Holy Father_,”
against his _beloved children_, in _his own city_!
Intelligent persons, in all popish countries, regard the Romish
priesthood with mingled contempt and dread. This is testified by every
well-informed writer. As an evidence of this, it may be stated, that a
merchant from Portugal, recently in London, being asked by an English
merchant, freely, in his counting-house, whether he allowed his own
parish priest familiarly to visit his family,--consisting chiefly of
daughters,--replied, “No, indeed! on no account whatever would I suffer
him to enter my house!” and, laying his hand upon the desk, he declared,
with peculiar emphasis, “I would rather suffer this hand to be chopped
off, than allow the priest to associate with my family!”
Priestly influence is reluctantly endured by the Catholics, though
ignorant of pure Christianity, while sensible men groan under its
oppressive intolerance. Hence, the intelligent author of “Rome in the
Nineteenth Century,” referring to the jealousy and domination of the
priests, remarks, concerning a Catholic friend, who had travelled in
other countries, that he cherished the utmost repugnance regarding the
established practice of _Confession_. But still he complied with the
custom, for fear of the priests; arguing, “What can I do? If I neglect
it, I am reprimanded by the parish priest; if I delay it, my name is
posted up in the parish church; if I persist in my contumacy, the arm of
the church will overtake me, and my rank and fortune only serve to make
me more obnoxious to its power. If I choose to make myself a martyr to
infidelity, as the saints of old did to religion, and to suffer the loss
of property and personal rights, what is to become of my wife and
family? The same ruin would overtake them, though they are Catholics:
for I am obliged, not only to conceal my true belief, and profess what I
despise, but I must bring up my children in their abominable idolatries
and superstition; or, if I teach them the truth, make either hypocrites
or beggars!”
Romanism, as will appear from these various facts, instead of promoting
the pure and saving knowledge of Jesus Christ--by keeping the people in
ignorance of the holy Scriptures, it impedes the advancement of true
religion. And, while the intolerant jealousy of the priests disgusts the
people, their whole system produces that infidelity which so fearfully
prevails in all the states of Europe, to the hindrance and dishonour of
pure Christianity. Our confidence is, however, that the whole system of
popery will, in due time, be utterly destroyed, by “the brightness of
the coming of Christ,” in the full light of the holy Scriptures!
J. Unwin, Gresham Steam Press, 31, Bucklersbury, London.
Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:
the most renowed=> the most renowned {pg 63}
that was establised=> that was established {pg 339}