I just read that the practice was condemned by the church and punishable with excommunication but that it continued (I think into the early 1900âs) because some were so enamored of the sound of the castratiâs voices. Thereâs a sound byte by âthe last castratiâ on the net but I donât want to hear it. The whole thing just makes me sad.
I found one of my books on the history of singing. This one was the âAngels and Monsters - Male and Female Sopranos in the Story of Operaâ. The second paragraph of the chapter on castrati asks the question as to why families would allow their children to basically be emasculated by mutilation. The author says that for many, it was simply because of money. About one out of every 100 castrati would become wealthy, but those who didnât were still expected to be able to support themselves and families. The sad thing about it, according to this author, was that perhaps:
ten or fifteen out of a hundred - were able to do even this, but in largely impoverished communities those were attractive odds nonetheless. And unfavorable odds could be further discounted by the knowledge that the boys would be serving a âhigher cause,â the Church - they would be working ad honorem Dei, as Pope Clement VIIIâs edict had put it. Naturally, the Church condemned the practice of castration, but everyone knew it was prepared to turn a blind eye so as to ensure that church and monastic choirs had a good supply of male soprano voices to take the place of the female voices it had banned.
The author goes further to say:
For some families, especially those that owned land there was a further piece of contorted reasoning: celibacy was the most effective means of birth control and enforcing celibacy on a younger son, who just happened to have a God-given voice, must sometimes have seemed an attractive way of safeguarding the familyâs property rights and avoiding the subdivision of land that would be necessary to support another family.Greed, desperation and cruel calculation were frequently dressed up in practical or high-minded rationale.
Now, this book said that the height of popularity of the castrati was between 1650-1730. In Italy, where they were mostly from, you couldnât be a âchurchgoerâ and âremain ignorant of this practice. It was part of the culture and most Italians approved of it.â Their popularity started to go into decline by the mid 18th century when the economy got better and people didnât have to worry about the kinds of livings younger sons would have to make, they began to question the reasoning behind the practice, writers began to disparage the practice and then there were also fewer and smaller church and monastic choirs which made less of a demand for castrati. Any compositions for castrati in the 19th century were exceptions, as by that point the âidea was generally found repugnant.â So, it does make one wonder if more Catholic churches in the 19th century were using females in their choirs, especially by the late 19th century. OR did they just used boys instead? But I donât think Verdi intended to have boy sopranos and altos in his choir for his Requiem, and, if Iâm not mistaken, it was not composed to be a concert piece.
One of the weird things about it, especially in the Papal States, was that because women in the Papal States were not permitted to perform in public anywhere, they still needed soprano voices and castrati filled the ârolesâ perfectly⌠even more so. And even in other parts of Italy where women were allowed to perform on the stage, the castrati were still more welcomed because female singers were treated like âcourtesansâ, even if they were chaste women. Having the castrati caused less scandal and problems. It makes you wonder if female singers were treated like prostitutes, how having them in Church choirs would also be scandalous and how much more appealing using castrati would be even if the practice was officially condemned.
The rest of the chapter goes into the opera side of the castrati, but it does give you an idea of what the culture was all about in regards to them. The whole thing has always been very sad to me as well because most of these boys had no say in their mutilation, yet it appears that they were raised to believe that they were doing something almost noble and holy especially if they stayed working in the Church choirs.
Donât bother listening to the recording unless you want to do it for curiosityâs sake. Itâs not really a true representation of what it more than likely sounded like in real life and with a voice in its prime, as the singer was older. Castrati voices did not age well.
And I doubt that castration for religious purposes would make someone truly chaste.
I donât know about for religious purposes, but I do know that although some castrati remained chaste, many who were still able to have sexual intercourse did not and they became very popular among âlooseâ women in many parts of society, particularly amongst the aristocracy since they could not impregnate. They literally were the rock stars of their time, sleeping around with as many âgroupiesâ as they could. (The performer castrati, I mean⌠Iâm not sure about those who lived their lives out working in church choirs). And there were some few who risked their souls by getting married outside of the Church to women they loved.
My references are this: âWomen should not be part of a choir; they belong to the ranks of the laity. Separate womenâs choirs too are totally forbidden, except for serious reasons and with permission of the bishop.â (Sacred Congregation for Liturgy, decree 22Nov.1907)
Did they not know the children were being mutilated? Because thatâs what it is â the mutilation of children.
Itâs a pretty huge thing to exclude women from performing and would necessitate using men and boys only. Maybe that sounds too simple, but itâs huge.