Futility Closet - 096-The Abduction of Edgardo Mortara

Episode Date: March 7, 2016

On June 23, 1858, the Catholic Church removed 6-year-old Edgardo Mortara from his family in Bologna. The reason they gave was surprising: The Mortaras were Jewish, and Edgardo had been secretly baptized. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll tell the story of little Edgardo and learn how his family's plight shaped the course of Italian history. We'll also hear Ben Franklin's musings on cultural bigotry and puzzle over an unexpected soccer riot. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and all contributions are greatly appreciated. You can change or cancel your pledge at any time, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation via the Donate button in the sidebar of the Futility Closet website. Sources for our feature on Edgardo Mortara: David I. Kertzer, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, 1997. Bruce A. Boyer and Steven Lubet, "The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara: Contemporary Lessons in the Child Welfare Wars," Villanova Law Review 45 (2000), 245. Steven Lubet, "Judicial Kidnapping, Then and Now: The Case of Edgardo Mortara," Northwestern University Law Review 93:3 (Spring 1999), 961. Donald L. Kinzer, "Review: The American Reaction to the Mortara Case, 1858-1859," Mississippi Valley Historical Review 44:4 (March 1958), 740-741. Alexander Stille, "How a Jewish Boy's Baptism Changed the Shape of Italy: The Notorious Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara," Forward, Aug. 1, 1997. "Pope John Paul Faces Politics of Sainthood," Associated Press, Sept. 2, 2000. Ellen Knickmeyer, "Pope Moves Two Toward Sainthood," Spartanburg [S.C.] Herald-Journal, Sept. 4, 2000. Garry Wills, "The Vatican Monarchy," New York Review of Books, Feb. 19, 1998. Garry Wills, "Popes Making Popes Saints," New York Review of Books, July 9, 2013. Justin Kroll, "Steven Spielberg Boards Religious Drama ‘Edgardo Mortara’," Variety, April 17, 2014. Ben Franklin's "Remarks Concerning the Savages of North-America" was published in 1784 by Franklin's Passy Press in France. This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Tommy Honton, who sent these corroborating links (warning: these spoil the puzzle). You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Welcome to Futility Closet, a celebration of the quirky and the curious, the thought-provoking and the simply amusing. This is the audio companion to the website that catalogs more than 9,000 curiosities Welcome to Episode 96. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. In 1858, the Catholic Church seized a six-year-old boy from his Jewish family in Bologna. In today's show, we'll tell the story of little Edgardo Mortara and learn how his family's plight shaped the course of Italian history. We'll also hear Ben Franklin's musings on cultural bigotry and puzzle over an unexpected soccer riot.

I have to thank listener Jason Cutler for suggesting this one. On the evening of June 23rd, 1858, an officer of the police knocked on the door of Momolo Mortara, who was a Jewish merchant living in the Italian city of Bologna. The police said they wanted to question Momolo and his wife about the names and ages of their eight children, and they seemed particularly interested in the sixth of the eight, a six-year-old boy named Edgardo. They told Martara, your son Edgardo has been baptized, and I've been ordered to take him with me. This confused Momolo because he said, we're Jewish, we don't baptize our children. But the officer insisted that Edgardo had to go with him and that he was only following orders. But the officer insisted that Edgardo had to go with him and that he was only following orders. The next day, Mariana's uncle and brother-in-law went to see the city's inquisitor, Father Pier Feletti.

The inquisitor was charged by the church with combating heresy and defending the faith, so it would have been his office that ordered Edgardo to be taken. But Feletti said also that he was only following orders and he couldn't tell them any more than they already knew. He refused to tell them why he thought that Edgardo had been baptized, saying that this was confidential, but they were keeping the boy. Baptism, if Edgardo had been baptized, it would be a problem because that would mean in the eyes of the church he was irretrievably a Catholic now. And it was against the rules for Christians to be raised by members of other faiths. That's why the church would have taken him. He would have to be brought up instead and educated by the church. The officers who took him didn't say when he'd been baptized or by whom, so they didn't have much to go on, but suspicion naturally turned to the Christian servants. Under the rules, normally Christians weren't allowed to be servants in the

households of Jews, but that was very commonly done because both sides benefited from it. The Christians could get employment that way, and the Jews could get work done on the Sabbath, so the church kind of turned a blind eye to that. And it happened quite commonly there. So commonly, in fact, that often when, if you were a Jewish household that employed a Christian servant, when she left your employ, you would actually get a notarized affidavit from her saying that she hadn't baptized anyone in your house, just to avoid situations like this one. So the Moritares did have a Christian servant at the time and questioned her, but she denied vehemently that she'd had anything to do with this if he had been baptized. The servant they'd had before that was a woman named Anna Morisi, who had worked with

them for six years and gotten quite close with the children. But after she'd left them, she'd returned to her country home and gotten married. So they went to the country and found her there and found her actually in tears. She said that five years earlier, unbeknownst to them, when she was 14 or 15 and Edgardo was only one year old, he'd gotten very sick. And she was very worried about this. This was in the end of August 1852. He was just over a year old. He'd gotten very sick. And she was very worried about this. This was in the end of August, 1852. He was just over a year old. Not knowing what to do, she went to the grocer, a man named Lepori, who suggested that she baptize him so that when he died, he would go to heaven.

She said, I don't know how to baptize someone. He told her all she had to do was say, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Take some water from a well and sprinkle a few drops on the boy's head. Normally, this was legal. It was against the rules to baptize someone of another faith, but there was an exception to this. And that was in the case when someone, the case of a life-threatening illness, because it was thought then the importance of allowing a soul to go to heaven outweighed all other considerations. It was an emergency situation, basically. Basically, yeah. Which makes sense from their viewpoint. And she thought that was happening here.

So she did baptize him in the way that the grocer had explained it to her, but then Edgardo just recovered and they went on with their lives. No one ever knew about this. Anna made the mistake of telling a friend of hers that she had done it and word began to spread, and that's how it eventually got to the Inquisitor who finally ordered that Edgardo had to be taken because now he was a christian according to how these things work all this takes place in the context of a really interesting period in european history what we think of as the modern state of italy is actually a relatively

recent creation as recently as the middle of the 19th century, it was just a collection of duchies and kingdoms and different principalities all existing on the same peninsula. One of these in about the middle of the peninsula where Rome is, was called the Papal States. And it was run by the Pope. He was the spiritual head of the church, but he was also like any other king or prince in Europe. He was the sovereign over a region of the of the

continent and ran it like any other king would and increasingly now that was a problem because the the values of the french enlightenment were sweeping across uh the continent and they were increasingly coming to conflict with with theal states, which is more authoritarian, and was increasingly seen as an anachronism and a throwback to medieval times. And increasingly, that was a cause of a lot of dissension in a lot of ways, but particularly in this one episode is particularly poignant and vivid. In the view of the Pope, who was Pius IX, the order of things was the way it was because God had ordained it. He had sort of an authoritarian view of the world and thought the tradition was the proper basis of authority rather than reason or the consent of the governed. And any inequality was divinely ordained. Basically, the world was as it was because God had ordained it in progress as heresy.

In contrast, the new values that were sweeping across Europe were the products of the Enlightenment. They believed in the power of reason, the inevitability of progress, and the equality of citizens. And inevitably, there was a clash between these two. And this is one particularly vivid example of this. It's not clear, I should say, whether Pius IX knew and approved of Edgardo's abduction, taking, however you want to put it. Right, whether that went all the way up to the post. Yeah, it's possible that word of it got to the church, and the Inquisitor interviewed Anna, and he may have said, well, this is a clear case where we have to take custody of Edgardo, and Word only got afterward to Pius, who may even privately have regretted

having to do it, but as spiritual head of the church, he had to uphold it in institutions, so he did so, whatever his private feelings were. At the same time, it must be said that he got pretty strong and I guess I'd say defensive about having done it because there was a lot of criticism of this action, not just in Italy, but eventually in Europe and around the world, that they had taken a six-year-old from his parents and refused to give him back, particularly in view of these new European values. Pius once told Edgardo, my son, you have cost me dearly and I have suffered a great deal because of you. And to other people, he said, both the powerful and the powerless tried to steal this boy from me

and accused me of being barbarous and pitiless. They cried for his parents, but they failed to recognize that I too am his father. It should be said that the church tried to be as sensitive as they could about this. They weren't really callous. The officers of the Inquisition didn't react harshly or hastily to the news of his baptism. In fact, they didn't act at all until they could satisfy themselves that Anna's testimony had all the earmarks of truth, that she really had baptized Edgardo. And even then, the Inquisitor let six months go by while he checked with all his superiors in Rome saying, it really seems like this is something that we have to do. And then they did it as carefully and defensively as they

could. I'm not excusing taking a six-year-old from his parents, but from their point of view, they were trying to be as- They were following the rules, basically. The poor police officer, who was the one who showed up that night and actually took Edgardo later, said, quote, I would have a thousand times preferred to be exposed to much more serious dangers in performing my duties than to witness such a painful scene. Because the parents that night were on their knees begging him not to take Edgardo. But one writer, one legal writer about this when I was doing the research said, But one writer, one legal writer about this when I was doing the research said the way to see this in current terms is if you learned of a six-year-old boy who was in conditions that you thought were unsafe or not in his best interest, the authorities would feel not just the right but the obligation to take him out of those circumstances in his own best interest. That's how the church saw they were doing something that was really essential for Edgardo's own well-being.

However, his family and the rest of the world might have felt about it. It would be natural to ask what the boy himself wanted in all this, and unfortunately that we don't really know. Edgardo's largely offstage in this whole drama, and in fact two different narratives emerged. One said that he just was frightened and wanted to go back to his family, his faith, and the life that he knew. The other was that he embraced his new life. The soldier who took Edgardo to Rome said that he was persuaded, when Edgardo was persuaded to put on a Christian medal, after kissing its cross, a miraculous transformation came over. He dropped his resistance and asked to go into Christian churches along the way, memorized Christian prayers, and learned the catechism perfectly and wanted his parents to

convert to Christianity. You can decide where the truth lies in all this. And there were all Christian prayers and learned the catechism perfectly and wanted his parents to convert to Christianity. You can decide where the truth lies in all this. And there were all kinds, especially in the press, there were all kinds of stories told on both sides, and who knows how much of this is true. The story is told that his mother, on seeing a Christian medal on her son, ripped it off, which proved that she was unfit. And the Pope's newspaper claimed that the boy had to be kept for his own safety then, because it was said that Jewish parents would probably torture him into giving up his faith or kill him for retaining it. The parents were told that, look, if you just convert, we'll give him back to you.

Our only objection is that it's not acceptable for a Christian to be raised by Jews. When they refused to do this, that was taken as further proof of their unfitness. So both sides are sort of digging in here, and it's not really clear what Edgardo himself would have wanted. He was only six when he was taken as further proof of their unfitness. So both sides are sort of digging in here, and it's not really clear what Edgardo himself would have wanted. He was only six when he was taken. During all this, and partly because of it, Italy started to go into a reunification, turning into what's currently the modern Italian state in 1859 and 1860.

And as part of that, the papal state shrunk. Instead of being a full, proper kingdom, it shrank down to just the area around Rome. And the Inquisition was abolished. The Inquisitor, who had approved the taking of Edgardo, was tried, but he was acquitted. It's found that he really was just following orders. and his memories of his parents were getting hazy. He hadn't seen them since 1858. So perhaps understandably, by the time he was 13, he decided to devote his life to the church. And in fact, he took the name Pio honoring Pius IX,

his spiritual and sort of adoptive father. He wrote repeatedly to his family, trying to convince them to convert to the Catholic faith. They were by this time living in Florence. They wrote back to him that they still loved him, but they saw less and less of the boy they knew, which is probably true, in him. He was only six when he was taken and so had sort of become a different person in the caretaking of the church. Eventually, he was ordained as a priest in France in 1873, and he spent most of the rest of his life traveling Europe and preaching, which made a particularly good story. The way he told it,

of his life traveling Europe and preaching, which made a particularly good story. The way he told it, God had chosen a simple servant girl to invest a small child himself with divine grace, and in so doing rescued him from a Jewish family who were good people but on the wrong path, which made a compelling story, at least to Christians at the time. And that's how he spent actually the rest of his life. Historically now, this whole thing is looked back on as one episode in the sweeping of the Enlightenment and gradually the loss of this more medieval authoritarian way of seeing the world. I'm getting a lot of this from an excellent book by the Brown University historian David Kertzer called The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, which was nominated for a National Book Award in 1997. The interesting thing there is Kircher said when he first heard this story, he assumed it would be very well known among educated Italians

because it's so bound up with Italian history. But he says, I was amazed to discover how mistaken I was. He found that even modern Italian historians were unfamiliar with it, but that Jewish historians knew it well. It's sort of fallen into, I don't know how, or you can sort of guess why, I guess. But it seems like it's more seen as an episode in Jewish history than in the history of Italy, written more large. It probably had a lot more meaning for the Jewish community. Yeah, and you can see why.

Nonetheless, Pius IX was beatified in 2000 over much controversy, still over this one episode i mean he was he was the longest serving pope at the time and is seen now i think as very conservative in a lot of ways he opposed freedom of religion a lot of other things that we see as sort of more natural rights now again looking back to an earlier way of life uh elena mortara who was edgardo's great great niece said at the time of the beatification really i cannot understand it Pius has caused so much suffering. The wound of the Mortara case still aches in my family and in all our community. That actually Steven Spielberg, I found, was looking at one point into making this whole thing into a film and may still be doing it. It was in Variety in April 2014. They said that a screenplay was being written by Tony Kushner, who'd written Lincoln and Munich. I don't quite know how these things work. It might still be on the development slate somewhere, but that's the most recent mention I can find of it.

But that's still pretty impressive that it had gone from pretty big obscurity to up to being considered by steven spielberg uh and that's basically a big part of what's remembered about pious the ninth is this whole episode of taking a little six-year-old boy for what he thought were the best reasons but really in the eyes of the new world they'd be more questionable the pope wrote to edgardo in 1867 you are are very dear to me, my little son, for I acquired you for Jesus Christ at a high price. Your case set off a worldwide storm against me in the apostolic sea. Governments and peoples, the rulers of the world, as well as the journalists, declared war on me. People lamented the harm done to your parents because you were regenerated by the grace of holy baptism and brought up according to God's wishes.

We want to thank everyone who helps support our podcast. It takes us many hours a week to put together this show, and we just wouldn't be able to keep doing it if it weren't for the donations and pledges that we get from our wonderful listeners. If you'd like to make a one-time donation to help us out, you can find a donate button on the sidebar of the website at futilitycloset.com. And if you'd like to join our Patreon campaign and pledge a recurring donation to help keep us going, you can get access to our activity feed, where you can find out what's going on behind the scenes of the show, get outtakes and extralateral thinking puzzles, and find out what Sasha, our show mascot, has been up to lately.

You can check out our Patreon campaign at patreon.com slash futilitycloset, or see the link in the show notes. And thanks again to everyone who helps us keep making the show. We really wouldn't be able to keep doing this without you. we really wouldn't be able to keep doing this without you. In the early 1780s, Ben Franklin was serving as ambassador to France, but while he was over there, he set up his own press and published a few things, one of which I've always liked is an essay called Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America, in which he basically says that the Native Americans aren are nearly as impressed with the white man as the white man is with himself for a number of reasons, one of which

is that just in their way of life, he found the Indians didn't have many artificial wants, so they had a lot more leisure than the white men did, which they could spend in just relaxing or having conversations. And he said the white men's laborious manner of life compared to theirs, they esteemed as slavish and base, and the learning that the white people were so proud of, the Indians thought was just frivolous and useless. Here's the part I like. An instance of this occurred at the Treaty of Lancaster in Pennsylvania, anno 1744, between the government of Virginia and the Six Nations. After the principal business was settled, the commissioners from Virginia acquainted the Indians by a speech that there was at Williamsburg a college with a fund for

educating Indian youth, and that if the Six Nations would send down half a dozen of their sons to that college, the government would take care that they should be well provided for and instructed in all the learning of the white people. It is one of the Indian rules of politeness not to answer a public proposition the same day that it is made. They think it would be treating it as a light matter, and that they show it respect by taking time to consider it as of a matter important. They therefore deferred their answer till the day following, when their speaker began by expressing their deep sense of the kindness of the Virginia government in making them that offer,

for we know, says he, that you highly esteem the kind of learning taught in those colleges, and that the maintenance of our young men while with you would be very expensive to you. We are convinced, therefore, that you mean to do us good by your proposal, and we thank you heartily. But who are wise must know that different nations have different conceptions of things, and you will therefore not take it amiss if our ideas of this kind of education happen not to be the same with yours. We have had some experience of it. Several of our young people were formerly brought up at the colleges of the northern provinces. Thank you. an enemy, spoke our language imperfectly, were therefore neither fit for hunters, warriors, or counselors. They were totally good for nothing. We are, however, not the less obliged by your kind offer, though we decline accepting it, and to show our grateful sense of it, if the gentlemen of

Virginia will send us a dozen of their sons, we will take great care of their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them. He also says that it's very hard for missionaries to convert Indians. The Indians are naturally very polite and would just agree sensibly with everything that was told to them, but not actually take it in with any conviction, which made it hard on the missionaries. Here's the part I like of that section. A Swedish minister, having assembled the chiefs of the Susquehanna Indians, made a sermon to them, acquainting them with the principal historical facts on which our religion is founded, such as the fall of the first parents by eating an apple, That's what he took from it. It is better to make them all into cider.

We are much obliged by your kindness in coming so far to tell us those things which you have heard from your mothers. In return, I will tell you some of those that we have heard from ours. In the beginning, our fathers had only the flesh of animals to subsist on, and if their hunting was unsuccessful, they were starving. Two of our young hunters, having killed a deer, made a fire in the woods to broil some part of it. They said to each other, some to her. They presented her with a tongue. She was pleased with the taste of it and said, Your kindness shall be rewarded. Come to this place after thirteen moons, and you shall find something that will be of great benefit in nourishing you and your children to the latest generations. They did so, and to their surprise found plants they had never seen before, but which from that ancient time have been constantly cultivated among us to our great advantage. Where her right hand had touched the ground, they found maize. Where her left hand had touched it, they found kidney beans. And where her backside had sat on

it, they found tobacco. The good missionary, disgusted with this idle tale, said, What I deliver to you are sacred truths, but what you tell me is mere fable, fiction, and falsehood. The Indian, offended, replied, My brother, it seems your friends have not done you justice in your education. They have not well instructed you in the rules of common civility. You saw that It's Greg's turn to try to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. I'm going to give him an odd-sounding situation, and he has to try to work out what's going on asking only yes or no questions. Are you

ready? Yes. Okay. This week's puzzle was sent in by Tommy Haunton. Okay. Tommy says, in order to prevent violence and rioting, a new security measure is tried at a crowded stadium. The measure goes off as planned,

but instead of helping curtail disorder, a riot and destruction ensue. What happened? Okay. This actually happened, I suppose. Yes, it did. Do I need to know the particulars about where, like what stadium?

No. Or was it a sporting event? It was a sporting event. And a particular game, I guess, when this happened? Yeah. So it was just like one night that this, whatever it was, took place? No. Or was it a sporting event? It was a sporting event. And a particular game, I guess, when this happened? It was, yeah. So it was just like one night that this, whatever it was, took place? Yes. Do I need to know what country or anything like that?

No. I mean, this is more likely to have happened in some countries than in others, but it could have happened in any country. It's not like it absolutely had to be in a particular country. Okay. And how do you describe this? You said it's a measure? A security measure. A security measure to stop, okay. And you said to stop violence a particular country. Okay. And how do you describe this? You said it's a measure? A security measure.

A security measure to stop, okay. And you said to stop violence and rioting. Yeah. Do we need to know the, so the authorities, whoever put this in place, were worried about that breaking out? Yes. In response to some particular eventuality? In other words?

Yes. Okay. And something to do with the game? Yeah. As opposed to something else? Right. You mean like is it something unconnected to sporting events the game? Yeah. As opposed to something else? Right. You mean like is it something unconnected to sporting events? Yes.

Yeah. Right. Connected to sporting events. Okay. So they were worried that something would happen during the game. No? In the game itself? That's what I'm trying to get at.

Yeah. I mean. Maybe not? Yeah. Not exactly. Okay. But it was some specific happenstance, some specific eventuality that they were.

Concerned about. Not just broadly, maybe someday a rival. Right, yes. Okay. Would it help me to try to work that out or should I go in from another angle? I'm not sure. Well, let me try that.

You said it might not be the game itself. Was it related? This game. This game. Right. But it's something that had happened in the past, something that these crowds were prone to do? itself. Was it related? This game. This game. Right. But it's something that had happened in the past, something that these crowds were prone to do? No.

Was it related to the calendar? No. Something about the condition of the crowd, like that they would get inebriated or something like that? No. And it wasn't related to this specific, you said it was a stadium? It was a stadium, right. Nothing related to this particular venue itself.

This could have happened elsewhere? Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm trying to think of how to best particular venue itself. This could have happened elsewhere? Yes. Yes. I'm trying to think of how to best answer your questions without misleading you. If you can't answer it, just say it. Yeah, yeah. Okay.

It depends exactly what you mean. All right. I'm going to skip over that then and for now. Whatever it was, it happened, right? Whatever they were afraid of happened. Yeah. And would you call it a riot? Yeah.

Broke out. Yes. As they expected. As they feared. As they feared. Okay, and this is the part that I got to get straight. They had put some measure in place to prevent this happening. Yes.

Would you say that it- Hoping to prevent it happening. Would you say that this measure just failed to take effect or that it didn't have the intended effect? It didn't have the intended effect? It didn't have the intended effect. Okay, so whatever it was went forward as they'd planned. The security measure, yes, the security measure went off as planned. That happened as they had intended it to, but you would almost say that the security measure itself—

Exacerbated that. Yes, exactly. All right, this is all way too abstract. Okay. I suppose you seemed to hesitate when I asked if it was something to do with the game itself. Sort of. So let me focus on the measure then. Yeah.

Was it something that applied to everyone in the stadium? Yes. So when I arrive at the stadium that night, am I given something? No. Is something done to me? No. Something is put in place in the physical stadium itself? No.

Not, well, what do you mean by put in place? I don't know. I'm just imagining something to do with the seating or something that would inhibit people from rioting. Never mind. Take that off the table. Apparently that's not it. Did it involve human beings? I mean, did they bring in personnel like guards or something?

These are good questions. This is good. They're getting me nowhere. Yes, yes, but you're cutting out a whole bunch of possibilities. Okay, how do you stop a riot? Was it something that would be done to a rioting crowd after they'd started writing no like spraying them with a hose or something no nothing like that um separating them no getting them out of the stadium hurt quickly no um how would you put this sort of quieting them down no punishing them somehow no um how do you quiet a crowd this isn't this isn't intended to quiet them after the fact

this was intended to prevent before the fact before the before the riot would happen yes oh really to prevent okay good that helps so this prevent them from okay so some event happens that we haven't figured out yet right that would lead to a riot normally. Yes. And this prevents them from perceiving that that's happened? Yes. Really? Yes. Really? Yes. That's very good. Okay. So it's been very abstractly good. All right. So it seems like I got to figure out what it was. Do you know- Or how did they prevent, how would you prevent people from knowing what's happened? Well, is it something to do with like screens or something? Like actually withholding information from them that they otherwise would have got?

Partially. Partially. Visual information, would you say? Possibly. Possibly not. Broader than that. Was it to do with a broadcast of any kind? Like they stopped some information

from getting to the crowd electronically? Broader than that, yes. Broader than that. But that's sort of to the crowd electronically? Broader than that, yes. Broader than that. But that's sort of on the right track? Yeah. Yes, it is on the right track. They prevented the crowd from getting information as part of it. Okay.

And that worked, but somehow it exacerbated the riot. Yes, because that was part of it. They prevented the crowd from getting information. And even worse... It somehow made it... Oh, okay. What else could you do that would be even worse than that? Oh, giving them the wrong information. Yes!

That they misunderstood. Was it to do with the score? Of this game that's being played? Well, yes. Okay, let's say yes. No! But that was a hint in my question. Of games generally?

Is it something to do with the scoreboard in the stadium? No. Something to do with the score of other games? Yes. Elsewhere? Yes. Really? Yes.

Okay, so there's a game going on in this stadium. Yes. And in order to prevent rioting here, they prevented the crowd from getting information about the results of games elsewhere. Yes. Because this was part of a tournament or something. Yes. Where the outcome of those other games would have a bearing on the significance of this game.

Exactly. Okay, I'm getting somewhere. So they prevented them from getting information. What's the broadest way you could do that? Well, if it's coming in from other games elsewhere, then it would have to be by interfering with broadcasts or Wi-Fi or something. Exactly. And then put it together. And then what's the other thing you said that they did?

That they gave them the wrong scores. Right. Which made the current game look even more dire, I guess, or the results of the whole tournament look more upsetting? No. I'm not quite there, am I? Flip it around. What would you do to pacify a crowd, but then they would get very upset about if they would discover that you had done it?

Well, I think I'm almost there. Right. They gave them incorrect information about the results of scores elsewhere. Yes. Which would lead them to think what? Well, I guess what they were trying to do is they would make them think that their team was doing better. The results of the current game that they're watching are either less important or more satisfactory than they really were. Yes.

Okay, I get it. And then the crowd found out the truth. Yes. And rioted for that reason. Exactly. That's very good. That's about as much as you're going to be able to get on your own, and that's really good. This happened in what we Americans call soccer. In May 15th in 2015 in Iran, they had between 80,000 and 90,000 fans packed into a stadium which had a listed capacity of only 70,000, okay, to watch the home team, Tractor Sazzy, play.

And they had never won a league championship before, but were very close to winning it. But there was another game being played at another stadium. And since the season records were close, it was going to come down to the results of the other game plus the current game that they were watching, right? So before the results of the other game could be announced, there was a mysterious communication blackout at the stadium. Cell phones, radio, everything went dead, and officials announced that the other game had ended in a tie,

which meant that the home team, Tractor Sazi, had only to end their game in a tie to win the championship. And this would have been their first win in the crowd. Very, very excited, over-packed crowd. The game ended 10 minutes game in a tie to win the championship. And this would have been their first win in the crowd. Very, very excited, over-packed crowd. The game ended 10 minutes later in a tie, and thousands of Tractor Sazzy fans ran onto the field, jubilantly celebrating their team's title. Yay, everybody's very happy.

But the other game hadn't ended in a tie. The other team had won their game, which meant that Tractor Sazzy couldn't win the league championship. So another team had actually won. Tractor Sazi finished in second. And the news somehow trickled into the stadium. And as people began spreading it, the crowd just turned into furious anger and began rioting and damaging the stadium and beating each other up for some reason.

I'm not clear on, but a lot of people ended up in the hospital. So news reports hinted that the government had been concerned that the old overfilled stadium might riot if they found out that their team hadn't won the league championship. So they deliberately triggered the blackout and fed the misinformation. They were hoping that the fans would disperse peacefully

after being excited and go home and then learn the news. And be upset individually. And be upset individually in their own homes. But the whole thing backfired, leading to exactly what they had wanted to avoid. Wow. You did really well with that. I was afraid that was a little vague.

No, that's a good story too. But it was really good. So thank you, Tommy, for sending that in to us. And if you have a puzzle you'd like to send in for us to use, you can send it to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. That wraps up another episode for us. If you're looking for more quirky curiosities, you can check out our books on Amazon or visit the website at futilitycloset.com

where you can sample more than 9,000 Extonius Evulgations. At the website, you can also see the show notes for the podcast and listen to previous episodes. Just click podcast in the sidebar. If you'd like to support Futility Closet, please consider becoming a patron to help keep us going. You can find more information at patreon.com slash futilitycloset. You can also help us out by telling your friends about us or by clicking the donate button on the sidebar of the website.

If you have any questions or comments about the show, you can reach us by email at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Our music was written and produced by the talented Doug Ross. Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next week. you