Roticcio, 1679: a woman found dead in the water, a husband who fled and a second death four months later
Roticcio, Rutiz in the old documents, is a small hamlet of Vicosoprano, in the Bregaglia valley. It is the village where I grew up. I did not expect to find it, several times over, between the lines of a seventeenth-century register of deaths. Nor did I expect to find next to it a story that reads like a page from a court file.
After the cases of Bondo in 1805, Promontogno in 1736 and the revolver of 1849, this time I go up to the upper valley, to Roticcio, with two entries from the Vicosoprano register from the same year, 1679.
A note on method: I transcribe the entries from the published source, not from the original register. I distinguish between what is written, what can be inferred and what remains hypothesis. Surnames are given as initials. Translations are my own.
The source
The entries are published in Giacomo Maurizio, Le matricole parrocchiali della Bregaglia, offprint from Clavenna. Bollettino di studi storici valchiavennaschi, VII (1968), among the extracts from the death records of Vicosoprano (p. 45). According to Maurizio's heading, they date from the ministry of pastor Giacomo Azun di Lavino, probably Lavin, in the Engadine: another example of a pastor from outside the valley.
The two entries
«14-4-1679 – Ursa, moglie Batromé M., fu trovata morta nell'acqua del Valair di Molina, la Domenica mattina. Si fà vari giudizi, ed il suo marito è fuggito, dà gran sospetto.»
"14-4-1679 – Ursa, wife of Batromé M., was found dead in the water of the Valair di Molina, on Sunday morning. Various judgements are being made, and her husband has fled, which arouses great suspicion."
«19-8-1679 – Madalena qm. Antoni M., fu trovata morta nel toblato di Cha'd Brant.»
"19-8-1679 – Madalena, daughter of the late Antoni M., was found dead in the hayloft of Cha'd Brant."
Two lines, four months apart. Two women found dead. The same surname.
The first entry: Ursa
| Element | What it says | What it tells us |
|---|---|---|
| "Ursa, wife of Batromé M." | The victim and her husband | "Batromé" is a local form of Bartholomew |
| "found dead in the water of the Valair di Molina" | Where she was found | Most probably the Val Mulina, close to Roticcio: a mountain stream with a waterfall |
| "on Sunday morning" | When she was found | A precise detail, rare in the register |
| "Various judgements are being made" | The village is full of theories | The pastor records the community's mood |
| "her husband has fled" | The husband is gone | A fact, at least according to the pastor |
| "arouses great suspicion" | His flight raises strong suspicion | A judgement, not proof |
It is the most "investigative" entry I have found in the whole collection. The pastor does not merely record a death: he reports the village's rumours and points, without naming him as guilty, to a suspect.
The place: the Val Mulina
The register's "Valair di Molina" most probably corresponds to the Val Mulina, a place I know well: it lies a short distance from Roticcio, towards Soglio. It is crossed by a stream that forms a waterfall, and today you cross it on a small wooden bridge.
For an investigator, the nature of the place matters. A mountain stream with a waterfall is a place where you can fall, slip on wet rocks, be swept away by the current, especially in April, when snowmelt swells the water. But it is also an isolated place, where a body may be found far from where it fell. Geography alone does not tell us whether this was an accident or something else: it does tell us that the accident hypothesis is a real one, and that those making "various judgements" in the village must have known it as well as those who suspected the husband.
We do not know whether there was a crossing over the stream in 1679, nor exactly where the woman was found: the register does not say.
A detail about the calendar
There is a detail an investigator of old documents cannot overlook. If the date of 14 April 1679 were expressed in the Gregorian calendar, that day would be a Friday: the "Sunday morning" discovery would fall five days before the burial. If instead it were expressed in the Julian calendar, still long in use in many Reformed communities of the Grisons, 14 April would be a Monday: the woman would have been found on Sunday and buried the next day.
The second reading fits the customs of the time better. It is not proof, but it is a reminder that even a date, in an old document, must be checked before it is used.
The second entry: Madalena
| Element | What it says | What it tells us |
|---|---|---|
| "Madalena qm. Antoni M." | The woman and her father | "qm." stands for quondam, "the late": most probably Madalena was the daughter of Antoni M., already dead |
| "was found dead" | The circumstances | She too was found, rather than dying at home |
| "in the toblato of Cha'd Brant" | The place | Probably the hayloft of a house or place called Brant |
Here the pastor adds nothing: no cause, no comment, no suspicion.
Are the two deaths connected?
It is the question I asked myself on reading the page. Let us try to answer it with method.
The same surname
The two women share a surname. In a small seventeenth-century mountain village, however, the same surnames were very common: few families, many marriages within the same community. A shared surname makes a family link possible, not proven. Madalena might be a relative of Batromé, a relative of Ursa by marriage, or belong to another branch of the same family with no close ties.
The hypotheses
| Hypothesis | Elements in favour | Elements against or missing |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Coincidence: two independent deaths, in the same year, of two women with a common surname | The common surname; no link indicated by the pastor | The closeness in time and the fact that both were "found dead" |
| 2. Two women of the same family, dying in different, unconnected circumstances | The surname; the small community | No data on kinship |
| 3. A link between the two events | The suspicious death in April and the husband's flight; the second death a few months later | Nothing in the register: the pastor, who had reported the suspicions about Ursa, writes nothing about Madalena |
That last point matters. The same pastor who in April felt the need to record the rumours and the suspicion makes no connection in August. Had the village talked of a link between the two deaths, he might well have written it down. His silence proves nothing, but it is a piece of data.
The investigator's lesson. Two facts close in time and sharing one element immediately create, in the investigator's mind, the impression of a connection. It is a useful reflex, because it prompts questions. But it is also a trap, because coincidences exist. A connection must be proven with facts; until it is, it remains a hypothesis.
The husband's flight: a clue, not proof
The pastor writes that the husband has fled and that his flight "arouses great suspicion". It is an understandable reaction, then as now. But an investigator has to ask: why does someone run?
- Because they are guilty and fear punishment.
- Because they are innocent but fear they will not be believed.
- Because they fear justice itself.
That last reason, in 1679, was anything but theoretical. Vicosoprano was the seat of the valley's criminal justice. The Pretorio, built at the end of the sixteenth century, housed the council and the court; the old tower behind it, according to the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, was fitted with a prison, a torture chamber and a pillory. As the official Graubünden tourism page notes, several alleged "witches" were also tortured in the tower, and executions took place in the Cudin forest, where the two columns of the gallows still stand.
In a justice system that allowed torture to obtain confessions, a man suspected of his wife's death could have excellent reasons to run, even if innocent. Flight, in short, is a weighty clue, but on its own it cannot sustain an accusation.
Roticcio and the water
On the same page the name of Roticcio appears twice more, each time linked to a violent or accidental death:
- in 1675 Caterina, wife of Andrea Tön of Rutiz, is killed accidentally by a tree, the "legno trembel", perhaps an aspen, felled by her own son;
- in 1713 Anna, wife of Gian Tat of Rutiz, is found dead, suffocated, in the "Riäl d'acqua di Rutiz", that is, the stream that runs through the village.
There is no link between these episodes and the 1679 case. But together they say something about life at the time: the water of mountain streams, essential for mills, irrigation and livestock, was also one of the most frequent dangers. In these pages, many deaths are drownings. For an investigator this is essential context: a woman found dead in the water, in the seventeenth century, could be the victim of a crime, but also of a sadly common accident.
What the register does not say
The register does not say:
- how Ursa died: whether she drowned, fell or was struck;
- whether the Vicosoprano court opened an inquiry;
- where the husband fled and whether he ever returned, was caught or tried;
- what the village's "various judgements" were;
- how Madalena died, and why she was in the hayloft;
- whether the two women were related.
How the case could be reopened
| Source | What to look for |
|---|---|
| The original Vicosoprano register | The exact transcription, any marginal notes, other entries on the family |
| Baptism and marriage registers | Reconstructing the M. family: who Ursa was, who Madalena was, who Antoni was, and how they were linked |
| The records of the Vicosoprano criminal court | Minutes, interrogations, any proclamations against the fugitive husband, kept in the Bregaglia archives or the State Archives of the Grisons |
| Archives of neighbouring areas | The husband may have taken refuge elsewhere, for example in the lands subject to the Grisons or beyond the Alps |
| Local place names | The location of "Cha'd Brant" and the historical paths along the Val Mulina |
| Studies of the calendar in use | Checking which calendar the parish followed in 1679 |
It is the kind of research that, as someone from the Bregaglia and as an investigator, I would one day like to do in the archives.
Why I use only the initial
The published source gives the names in full. I give only the initial of the surname for two reasons: the register attributes to a man a suspicion that we do not know was ever proven, and a surname from the valley may still be borne by people who have nothing to do with this story.
What we can say, and what we cannot
| We can say | We cannot say |
|---|---|
| In April 1679 Ursa, wife of Batromé M., was found dead in the water | How she died and whether she was killed |
| Suspicions circulated in the village, and the husband had fled | That the husband was guilty |
| In August 1679 Madalena, daughter of the late Antoni M., was found dead in a hayloft | How she died |
| The two women shared a surname | That they were related, or that the two deaths were connected |
| Vicosoprano was the seat of the valley's criminal justice, with torture and capital punishment | Whether the case ever came before the court |
In short
Two lines from 1679 tell of a death in the water, a village whispering, a husband who flees and, four months later, another woman with the same surname found dead in a hayloft. It is a sequence that almost begs to be turned into a detective story.
But the investigator's task is not to write detective stories. It is to tell apart facts, rumours and coincidences. The facts are two deaths. The rumours are those the pastor had the honesty to call "judgements". The coincidence, for now, remains just that. The rest may lie in an archive, a short walk from the Pretorio where, more than three centuries ago, someone may have wanted to question a man who never came back.
Main sources: G. Maurizio, Le matricole parrocchiali della Bregaglia*, offprint from* Clavenna. Bollettino di studi storici valchiavennaschi*, VII (1968), p. 45; Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, entry "Vicosoprano"; Graubünden tourism, "Pretorio" page for Vicosoprano.*
Frequently asked questions
What do the 1679 entries say?
The first, dated 14 April 1679, records that Ursa, wife of Batromé M., was found dead in the water of the 'Valair di Molina', most probably the stream of the Val Mulina near Roticcio, one Sunday morning; the pastor adds that the village was full of various judgements and that her husband, having fled, aroused great suspicion. The second, dated 19 August 1679, records that Madalena, daughter of the late Antoni M., was found dead in the 'toblato' of Cha'd Brant.
Were the two women related?
The register does not say. They share a surname, but in a small mountain village the same surnames were very common. A family link is possible but not proven: baptism and marriage registers would be needed to check it.
Does the husband's flight prove he was guilty?
No. Flight is a clue with many possible explanations. In the seventeenth century, in a valley where criminal justice allowed torture, even an innocent suspect could have good reason to run. The register reports the community's suspicion, not proof.
What is a 'toblato'?
Most probably a local word for a hayloft or barn, similar to the Romansh 'tablà'. 'Cha'd Brant' seems to mean the house of a family or a place called Brant. Both readings would need to be checked with an expert in the Bregaglia dialect.
Where was criminal justice administered in Vicosoprano?
In the Pretorio, the late sixteenth-century building that housed the valley's council and court, with a prison, a torture chamber and a pillory. Executions took place in the Cudin forest, where the two columns of the gallows still stand.
Why are the names given only with the surname's initial?
The published source gives the names in full. I use the initial because the register reports a never-proven suspicion against a person, and because the surname may still be found in the valley.