Montaigne gives us a curious story upon this subject, which he introduces thus: "I am not satisfied and make a very great question, whether those pleasant ligatures with which the age of ours is so fettered—and there is almost no other talk—are not mere voluntary impressions of apprehension and fear; for I know by experience, in the case of a particular friend of mine, one for whom I can be as responsible as for myself, and a man that cannot possibly fall under any manner of suspicion of sufficiency, and as little of being enchanted, who having heard a companion of his make a relation of an unusual frigidity that surprised him at a very unseasonable time, being afterwards himself engaged upon the same account, the horror of the former story so strangely possessed his imagination that he ran the same fortune the other had done; he from that time forward (the scurvy remembrance of his disaster running in his mind and tyrannizing over him) was extremely subject to relapse into the same misfortune. He found some remedy, however, for this inconvenience by himself frankly confessing and declaring beforehand to the party with whom he was to have to do, the subjection he lay under, and the infirmity he was subject to; by which means the contention of his soul was, in some sort, appeased; and knowing that now some such misbehaviour was expected from him, the restraint upon those faculties grew less, and he less suffered by it, and afterwards, at such times as he could be in no such apprehension as not being about any such act (his thoughts being then disengaged and free, and his body being in its true and natural state) by causing those parts to be handled and communicated to the knowledge of others, he was at last totally freed from that vexatious infirmity. After man has once done a woman right, he is never after in danger of misbehaving himself with that person, unless upon the account of a manifest and inexcusable weakness. Neither is this disaster to be feared but in adventures where the soul is over-extended with desire or respect, and especially where we meet with an unexpected opportunity that requires a sudden and quick despatch; and in these cases, there is no possible means for a man always to defend himself from such a surprise as shall put him damnably out of countenance. And yet I have known some who have secured themselves for this misfortune by coming half-sated elsewhere, purposely to abate the ardour of their fury, and others who being grown old, find themselves less impotent by being less able; and particularly one who found an advantage by being assured by a friend of his that had a countercharm against certain enchantments that would defend him from this disgrace. The story itself is not much amiss, and therefore you shall have it.—A count of a very great family, and with whom I had the honour to be familiarly intimate, being married to a very fair lady, who had formerly been pretended to and importunately courted by one who was invited to and present at the wedding. All his friends were in very great fear, but especially an old lady, his kinswoman, who had the ordering of the solemnity, and in whose house it was kept, suspecting his rival would, in revenge, offer foul play, and procure some of these kinds of sorceries to put a trick upon him, which fear she also communicated to me, who, to comfort her, bade her not trouble herself, but rely upon my care to prevent or frustrate any such designs. Now, I had, by chance, about me, a certain flat piece of gold, whereon were graven some celestial figures good to prevent frenzy occasioned by the heat of the sun, or for any pains of the head, being applied to the suture; where, that it might the better remain firm, it was sewed to a ribbon, to be tied under the chin. A foppery cousin-german to this of which I am speaking was Jacques Pelletier who lived in the house, presented to me for a singular rarity and a thing of sovereign virtue. I had a fancy to make some use of this quack, and therefore privately told the count that he might probably run the same fortune other bridegrooms had sometimes done, especially some persons being in the house who, no doubt, would be glad to do him such a courtesy; but let him boldly go to rest, for I would do him the office of a friend, and if need were, would not spare a miracle that it was in my power to do, provided he could engage to me, upon his honour, to keep it to himself, and only when they came to bring him his candle (a custom in France being to bring the bridegroom a candle in the middle of the night, on his wedding night) if matters had not gone well with him, to give such a sign, and leave the rest to me. Now, he had his ears so battered and his mind so prepossessed with the eternal tattle of this business, that when he came to it, he did really find himself tired with the trouble of his imagination, and accordingly, at the time appointed, gave me the sign. Whereupon I whispered him in the ear, that he should rise under pretence of putting us out of the room, and after a jesting manner, pull my night-gown from my shoulders, throw it over his own, and keep it there till he had performed what I appointed him to do, which was that when we were all gone out of the chamber, he should withdraw to make water, should three times repeat such and such words and as often do such and such actions; that at every of the three times be should tie the ribbon I put into his hand about his middle, and be sure to place the medal that was fastened to it (the figures in such a posture) exactly upon his reins; which being done, and having the last of the three times so well girt and fastened the ribbon that it could neither untie nor slip from its place, let him confidently return to his business, and withal not to forget to spread my gown upon the bed so that it might be sure to cover them both. These ridiculous circumstances are the main of the effect, our fancy being so far seduced as to believe that so strange and uncouth formalities must of necessity proceed from some abstruse science. Their inanity gives them reverence and weight. However, certain it is that my figures proved themselves more Veneran than Solar, and the fair bride had no reason to complain."
Upon a due consideration of this singular superstition, it must be obvious to any person of sense that these pretended ligatures are, in fact, the consequence of an enfeebled constitution, weak intellects, and sometimes of an ardent imagination, an over-excited desire which carries the vitality to the head, and diverts it from its principal direction. Do away with these circumstances and imagine a man in full health, and gifted with a young and vigorous constitution, alike incapable of allowing himself to be acted upon by vain terrors, and of permitting his passions an uncontrolable course; and all the charms and incantation of these redoubted point-tiers would immediately cease. Who, for instance, could pretend to point-tie that hero of ancient Greece so famous for his twelve labours, of which by far the most brilliant was the transforming, in the course of one night, fifty young virgins into as many women![67]
The most singular circumstance, however, connected with impotency is, that for a long time there existed exclusively in France a particular kind of proof called—The Judicial Congress. In the old jurisprudence of that country but little value was attached to moral proofs; all was made to depend upon material ones, which were made by witnesses. The whole enquiry after truth was made to depend upon the establishment of the fact, and, too frequently, the administrators of the law were not over-scrupulous as to the nature of the testimony by which it was to be proved. Provided there were such testimony, no matter of whatever kind, no matter how contradictory to common sense, justice pronounced itself satisfied, for, relying upon this testimony it was enabled to pronounce its decision, and this was all it required. Hence all those personal examinations of litigants, so often practised formerly, and hence the judge, whatever might be the nature of the suit or complaint, ordered a report to be made by parties chosen to that effect, and who were called experts or examiners. This mode of procedure was employed in cases in which a woman applied for a divorce from her husband on the ground of impotency: hence arose the Congrés, in which the justice of the application was to be proved in the presence of examiners appointed to give in a report upon the case to the court. "Ce qui est encore plus honteux," says a writer of the 17th century, "c'est qu'un quelques procés, les hommes ont visité la femme, et au contraire, les femmes ont été admises à visiter l'homme, qui a été cause d'une grande irrison et moquerie, que telles procédures ont servi de contes joyeux et plaisans discours en beaucoup d'endroits."[68] The whole was a most disgusting procedure, which, although greatly abused, was for a long time encouraged as offering a legal mode of dissolving a marriage which was incompatible with the happiness of both the parties, but which the law declared to be indissoluble. The judges who introduced or maintained the Congress, who, in fact, protected it, only contemplated it, but certainly most erroneously as a proper means of legalizing divorces.
All historians, and other writers who have treated of this disgraceful institution, pretty generally agree in giving it an origin not further back than the commencement of the 16th century; it is, however, but the extension of a custom almost as obscene which prevailed in the first ages of Christianity. This was nothing less than the subjecting a young girl, whether nun or otherwise, accused of fornication, to a rigorous personal examination, whence was to result the proof of her innocence or guilt. Siagrius, Bishop of Verona, and who lived towards the close of the fourth century, condemned a nun to undergo this disgusting and insulting examination. St. Ambroise, his metropolitan, disapproved of the Bishop's sentence, declared the examination as indecent, thus attesting its existence. The opinion, however of this prelate, supposed as it was by that of several others, did not prevent the continuance of this custom for a very long time. The ecclesiastical and civil tribunals frequently directed this proof to be made; and Venette[69] cites the procès-verbal of a similar examination made by order of the Mayor of Paris in 1672, in the case of a woman who complained of violence committed on her by a man of dissolute habits.
We prefer giving the following curious description of the manner of conducting the Congress in the original quaint and antiquated French:
"La forme duquel Congrez est, qui le iour et heure prins, et les Expers connenus ou nommez (qui sont ordinairement ceux mêmes qui ont fait la visitation lesquels partant n'ont garde de se contrarier ny de rapporte que l'homme y a fait l'intromission ayant desia (déjà) rapporté sa partie vierge et non corrompüe) le juge prend le serment des parties, qu'elles tascheront de bonne foy et sans dissimulation d'accōplir l'œuvre de mariage sans y apporter empeschement de part ny d'autre: des Expers qu'ils ferōt fidelle rapport de ce qui se passera au Congrez; cela fait les parties et les expers se retirent en une chābre pour ce préparée, où l'homme et la femme sont de rechef visités, l'homme, afin de sçavoir s'il a point de mal, s'en estans trouué à aucuns l'ayans gaigné depuis avoir esté visité qui n'ont laissé d'estre séparés encore, qu'il parust assez par là qu'ils n'estoient impuissans, la femme pour considérer l'estat de se partie honteuse et, par ce moyen cognoistre la difference de son ouverture et dilatation, auant et après le Congrez, et si l'intromission y aura esté faicte, ou non: sans, toutefois, parler en leur rapport de la virginité ou corruption de la femme, reputée vierge, ayant vne fois esté rapportée telle, sans qu'on la visite plus pour cela. En quelques procès (comme en celuy de Bray, 1578) les parties sont visités nues depuis le sommet de la teste iusques à la plante des pieds, en toutes les parties des leurs corps, etiam in podice, pour sçavior s'il n y a rien sur elles qui puissent auancer ou empescher le congrez, les parties honteuses de l'homme lavées d'eau tiéde (c'est a sçavoir à quelle fin) et la femme mise en demy bain, où elle demeure quelque temps. Cela fait, l'homme et la femme se couchent en plein iour en un lict, Expers présens, qui demeurent en la chambre, ou se retirent (si les parties le requièrent on l'vne d'elles, en quelque garde-robe ou gallerie prochaine, l'huis (la porte) entreouvert toutefois, et quand aux matrones se tiennent proche du lict, et les rideaux estant tirez, c'est à l'homme à se mettre en devoir de faire preuve de sa puissance habitant charnellement avec sa partie et faisant intromission: ou souvent aduiennent des altercations honteuses et ridicules, l'homme se plaignant que sa partie ne le veut laisser faire et empesche l'intromission; elle le niant et disant qu'il veut mettre le doigt et la dilater, et ouvrir par ce moyen; de sorte qu'il faudroit qu'un homme fust sans appréhension et pire qu'aucunes bêstes, ou que mentula velut digito uteretur, s'il ne desbandsit cependant au cas qu'il fust en estat, et si nō obstant ces indignitez il passait autre iusques à faire intromission; encore ne sçauroit il, quelque érection qu'il face (fasse), si la partie veut l'empescher si on ne lui tenoit les mains et les genoux ce qui ne se fait pas. En fin, les parties ayās esté quelque tēps au lict, comme une heure ou deux, les Espers appellex, ou de leur propre mouvement, quand ils s'ennuyent en ayant de subject, si sint viri, s'approchent, et ouvrans les rideaux, s'informent de ce qui s'est passé entre elles, et visitent la femme derechef, pour sçavoir si elle est plus ouverte et dilatée que lorsqu' elle s'est mise au lict, et si intromission a été faicte aussi, an facta sit emission, ubi, quid et quale emissio. Ce qui ne se fait pas sans bougie et lunettes à gens qui s'en seruent pour leur vieil age, ni sans des recherches fort sales et odieuses: et font leur procès verbal de ce qui s'est passé au Congrez (ou pour mieux dire) de ce qu'ils veulent, qu'ils baillent au juge, estant au mesme logis vne salle, ou chambre à part, avec les procureurs et patriciens, en cour d'Eglise, attendant la fin de cet acte lequel rapporte est tousiours (toujours) au desaduantage des hommes à faute d'auoir fait intromission, sans laquelle, l'érection etiam sufficiens ad coeundem, ny l'émission n'empeschent la séparation, comme il se voit par les procès verbaux des Congrez de De Bray des onziesme et vingt unsiesme d'Apuril, 1578. Auxquels Congrez, principalement au premier, il fit érection rapportée suffisante ad copulem carnalem, et emisit extra vas, sed non intromisit, et pour cela fut séparé; laquelle intromission ne peust aussi estre faite au Congrez par quelque homme que ce fut, si la femme n'y preste consentement, et empesche, comme il est tout notaire.
The first judicial sentence which ordered a Congress is said to have been caused by the shameless effrontery of a young man who, being accused of impotency, demanded permission to exhibit proof of his powers before witnesses, which demand being complied with, the practice was introduced into the jurisprudence of the country. But, as we have already shown, the custom of the Judicial Congress may be referred to a far earlier period, in fact, to the remotest times of the middle ages, and that it originated with the Church, when the public morals were far from being well ascertained, as is proved by many well-known privileges belonging to the Seigneur or Lord of the Manor. Pope Gregory the Great, who was raised to the Pontificate in 590, appears to have been the first who conferred upon bishops the right of deciding this description of questions. It was, doubtless, from considerations of tender regard for female modesty that the Church took upon itself the painful duty of investigating and deciding upon questions of this nature. Numerous instances prove this, especially the dissolution of the marriage of Alphonso VI. of Portugal and his Consort, pronounced in 1688, and mentioned by Bayle.[70] The great antiquity of this custom is proved by the 17th Art. of the Capitulars of Pepin, in the year 752, which bears a direct allusion to it: inasmuch as that article established as a principle that the impotency of a husband should be considered as a lawful cause for divorce, and that the proof of such impotency should be given, and the fact verified at the foot of the Cross—exeant ad crucem, et si verum fuerit, separantur.
That the Congress originated with the Church, who considered it as an efficacious means for deciding questions of impotency, is still further proved by the President Boutrier and by other writers, who assert that the ecclesiastical judges of other times were alone empowered (to the exclusion of all secular ones) to take cognizance of cases of impotency.
It is well attested that during the 16th and 17th centuries all the courts of law in France held the opinion that a marriage be anulled on the demand of a wife who claimed the Congress.