
The Woman Who Poisoned Rome for Hire
In 17th-century Rome, a fortune-teller named Giulia Tofana sold a cosmetic-looking poison to hundreds of women trapped in violent marriages. Her Aqua Tofana went undetected for decades until a confession unraveled an underground network — and forced the Church to confront how many quiet murders it had missed.
Listen in the Fylom app.
Giulia Tofana was likely a brand name for a poison network originating in seventeenth-century Sicily.
Aqua Tofana used arsenic to mimic natural gastric illnesses and leave no physical evidence.
Slow-acting doses allowed victims time to write wills before their deaths appeared natural.
Seventeenth-century Roman women used poison as a tool for self-preservation and financial independence.
The Spana Prosecution of sixteen fifty-nine investigated a criminal network of over forty people.
Five principal women were executed to reassert state control over domestic assassination rings.
- 01Intro1 min
- 02The Ghost of Giulia Tofana2 min
- 03The Chemistry of Silence2 min
- 04The Legal Trap3 min
- 05The Spana Prosecution2 min
- 06Outro1 min
- Aqua Tofana - Wikipedia
- Giulia Tofana - Wikipedia
- Giulia Tofana: poisoner, murderer, saviour? - Historia Magazine
- Giulia Tofana: Power & Poison - Aspects of History
- Did Giulia Tofana kill hundreds of men in Renaissance Italy?
- Aqua Tofana: slow-poisoning and husband-killing in 17th century Italy
- Spana Prosecution - Wikipedia
- Giulia Tofana — Wikipédia
- Giulia Tofana and the Poison Trade That Terrified Baroque ...
- A Murderous Marriage - Women in 17th Century Naples
- Divorce all'italiano: Tracking Rome's 17th-century black widows
- [PDF] Women, credit and dowry in early modern Italy
- The Place of Women in Renaissance Italy
- Women's Roles, Institutions, and Social Control in
Fylom generates episodes like this on any topic you're curious about.
Fylom episodes are researched, written, and voiced by AI. Automated checks help catch inaccuracies, but episodes aren't reviewed by a human and AI can still get things wrong. Treat them as a starting point, not a source of record — more in our accuracy disclaimer.