A Rare and Ambiguous 15th c French Legal Case

This is the most extensive article I’ve found concerning an early 15th century French legal case that is often cited in lists of medieval European evidence for lesbianism. It includes a full translation of the original records (although it doesn’t include the full original text). The article emphasizes interpreting this case in the context of other legal cases with which it shares features, specifically other applications for royal pardon and other records involving sexual offenses, especially those involving same-sex activity.

Here is a brief summary of the events leading to this case. Laurence, the 16-year-old wife of Colin Poictevin was approached by Johanne, the wife of Perrin Goulu while the two were performing agricultural tasks together. Johanne solicited Laurence for a sexual relationship, using somewhat ambiguous language, and the two had several sexual encounters in the following weeks, primarily while working in the fields and vinyards. Laurence is depicted (in her own testimony) as being a “passive” partner, while Johanne’s actions are described in active, masculine terms. When Johanne then approached Laurence at home, at night, when her husband was known to be absent, Laurence indicated unwillingness to continue the relationship, at which Johanne attacked her and wounded her with a knife.

There is no surviving record of what happened to Johanne after that—whether she was prosecuted similarly to Laurence, or fled, or any other possibility. There is no surviving record of what Laurence was charged with. It is reasonable to hypothesize that the charges related in some way to the sexual encounters, since those are the primary topic of the appeal.

The article first reviews prior scholarly treatments of these events, including the angles and interpretations brought to them, beginning in the 18th century. Although legal records of prosecutions for sexual activity were rare, especially for women, this doesn’t automatically imply that such conduct was acceptable. In general, records concerning women in all areas are scarcer than those considering men. But as a general observation, prosecutions for sexual offences overwhelmingly involved men, regardless of the gender of their partner.

The authors emphasize that scholars must be careful to distinguish “between sex acts and sexual or gendered identity,” and hesitate to use either “lesbian” or “lesbian-like” to describe what Johanne and Laurence engaged in. With regard to gender, they note that the evidence indicates that Laurence and Johanne lived as women and identified as women. They were both married to men and presumably had sex with their husbands. The detailed descriptions of the sexual encounters included in the legal record frame sex as involving inherently gendered roles, with Johanne described in terms associated with a masculine role, but that does not mean that she saw herself as having a masculine identity. Rather it meant that the understanding of sex at that time involved a gendered polarity. Indeed, the primary “identity” assigned to both women is that of “wife.”

As noted previously, it is a reasonable assumption that the initial prosecution was due to the sexual activity, although this isn’t stated directly. And because the original crime is not named, we can’t know whether it was categorized as “sodomy” (or under the general rubric “against nature”). Technically, any sexual activity that wasn’t reproductive sex within marriage was equally forbidden and it would be a mistake to apply a framing of heterosexual-vs-homosexual dichotomy to this case.

Johanne was depicted as an active male-coded participant who initiated sex and acted aggressively (even before the knife attack), while Laurence was coded as the passive, compliant female-coded participant. Since we have only Laurence’s version of the narrative, it must be considered that this framing was greatly to her advantage in seeking the pardon. A strategy often seen for female defendants was to lessen culpability by presenting their behavior as following feminine ideals of passivity and subservience.

In the next section of the article, the authors discuss medieval understandings of sexual dynamics and how those interacted with medieval understandings of gender, as well as the rather broad definition of “sodomy” in use at the time, which was not uniquely associatd with same-sex activities as it came to be later.

This is followed by a discussion of the dynamics of royal pardons: the types of cases and defendants that were typically involved, the types of evidence presented, and the reasons for granting or rejecting the appeal (which were not necessarily directly related to the specifics of the offense.) Pardons were rarely sought or received by women, but women were rarely prosecuted for the types of crimes seen in the pardon records, which are primarily among the most serious, usually violent crimes. When sexual crimes appear in pardon petitions, they are usually violent rape or abductions. In this context, Laurence’s appeal is highly unusual, not only for involving a woman, but for involving what could reasonably be considered mostly consensual sex. (Laurence’s testimony does include at least one encounter where she verbally consented, although other encounters could reasonably be interpreted as passive non-protest.)

There are several other axes beyond sexual roles on which Johanne can be seen as the “dominant” member of the pair. She is older than Laurence. She has more economic power, as seen by her ability to offer Laurence employment and gifts. She has more social power, as demonstrated by the pronoun use in the records where Laurence is quoted as addressing Johanne with the formal “vous” while Johanne uses the informal “tu” to Laurence. All these factors helped to frame Laurence as—if not a victim—a less culpable party.

The final confrontation also supports this framing. Rather than taking place in the fields (the archetypal location for illicit sex) during the day (ditto), Johanne enters Laurence’s home at night, disrupting the locus of marriage and licit sex. This is the context in which Laurence refuses Johanne’s advances and tells her that she (Laurence) doesn’t want to continue the relationship. This can be seen as drawing a clear boundary between illicit and licit sex that Laurence refuses to cross, acting as a sign of her repentance.

The next section of the article reviews legal evidence regarding sodomy accusations (primarily men, of course). The word sodomy (or any of its analogs) is never mentioned in the appeal record. There are examples of appeals for pardon for male homosexual acts, where the success aligned somewhat with claims of naivety or ignorance. But pardons were sometimes given for “unforgivable” crimes demonstrate the power of mercy, so it’s difficult to identify clear patterns.

Much is made in Laurence’s pardon appeal of her good standing and reputation in the community, and how she had no other offences on her record. This raises the question whether this was in spite of her relationship with Johanne or whether those who testified for her were ignorant of the events. In any case, Laurence emerged without the taint of scandal (which could be a significant factor in how serious an offense was considered). In fact, the authors suggest that it might have been the scandalous aspects of the physical assault that brought the issue to legal attention, rather than the sexual aspects themselves.

The article concludes with a complete translation of the appeal record, after the pardon was granted. (Although no transcript of the original is provided, a link to images of the original manuscript can be found here: http://himanis.huma-num.fr/app/index.php/ui/show/chancery/319/182.)

Of particular interest are the sexual descriptions.

In the first encounter, Johanne says “Laurence, if you want to be my friend I can do you a lot of good.” Laurence says she wanted that. Then Johanne “took the aforesaid Laurence and threw her on a wheat stack…and…unclothed the aforesaid Laurence and mounted her like a man does on a woman and this Johanne began rubbing her breasts and doing what a man does to his wife such that through the excitement she experienced, she spiller her seed in the said Laurence”.

In the second encounter, Johanne says “I have come to you to talk of love” and then “threw her on the ground and did to her what a man should do to a woman like spilling her seed into the aforesaid Laurence”.

In the third encounter, Johanne has offered Laurence work in the vineyard, for which she gets her husband’s permission. After they’d been working a while Johanne said she wanted to “do this to you” and Laurence said she wanted it, then Johanne “did it to her in a ditch”.

The two women regularly encounter each other on other days while working. On the fourth instance Johanne goes to Laurence’s home at night when her husband is away, finds Laurence in bed with a small child (no indication if it’s her child or if she’s just minding it). This time Laurence says she “didn’t want it and told her she had no further interest in her doing that to her”. Laurence tries to evade Johanne in the bed. Finally Johanne accuses Laurence of having lain with a man since the last time they were together and stabs her in the thigh with a knife.

In the end, the pardon is granted. Laurence’s good name and reputation are returned, and she will not have her goods confiscated. She is not to be further pursued for the case on the condition that she completes 6 months imprisonment form when she was first imprisoned. [Note: It’s unclear whether this is, in effect, “time served.”  The pardon is granted in November 1405 and the original events were two years earlier in August, but we don’t know how long the original case took.]