The fatal blow to this disgusting custom was given by a decree of the Parliament of Paris, under the presidency of the celebrated Lamoignon, dated Feb. 18, 1677, which decree forbids the practice by any other court whatsoever, ecclesiastical or civil. It is supposed that the ridicule cast upon it by the following lines of Boileau had no small share in causing its suppression.
"Jamais la biche en rut, n'a pour fait d'impuissance Trainé du fond des bois, un cerf à l'audience; Et jamais juge, entre eux ordonnant le congrès, De ce burlesque mot n'a sali ses arrêts."[71]
Three causes were alleged for the abolition of the Congress—its obscenity, its inutility, and its inconveniences. Its obscenity; for what could be more infamous, more contrary to public decency and to the reverence due to an oath than the impurity of the proof, both in its preparation and execution? Its inutility; for what could be less certain and more defective? Can it be, for one moment, imagined that a conjunction ordered by judges between two persons embittered by a law-suit, agitated with hate and fury against each other, can operate in them? Experience has shown that, of ten men the most vigorous and powerful, hardly one was found that came out of this shameful combat with success; it is equally certain that he who had unjustly suffered dissolution of his marriage, for not having given a proof of his capacity in the infamous Congress, had given real and authentic evidences of it in a subsequent marriage. This degrading mode of proof, in short, far from discovering the truth, was but the cause and foundation for impotence and falsehood. Its inconveniences; these are—the declared nullity of a legitimate marriage—the dishonour cast upon the husband, and the unjust damages, oftentimes exorbitant, which he is condemned to pay—two marriages contracted upon the dissolution of the first—both of which, according to purity and strictness, are equally unlawful—the error or the malice discovered, ex post facto, and, nevertheless, by the authority of the law, became irreparable.
It was in the power of the magistrate, upon a complaint of impotency being alleged by a wife against her husband, to order examiners to make an inspection of the husband's parts of generation, and upon their report to decide whether there was just cause for a divorce; and this without proceeding to order the congress. The following are a few cases of this description, and are extracted from the reports and judgments of the Officialty at Paris in cases of impotency.
Case I. Jean de But, master fringe maker, was, in 1675, charged with impotency by Genevieve Helena Marcault, his wife; he being inspected by Renauolot, a physician, and Le Bel, a surgeon, by order of the official; they declared that, after a due and thorough examination of all the members and parts of the said De But, as well genital, as others which might throw a light upon the case and likewise his condition of body, his age, the just conformation and proportion of his limbs, but especially his penis, which was found to be of as proper a thickness, length and colour as could be wished: and likewise his testicles, which exhibited no perceptible viciousness or malformation, they are of opinion that from all these outward marks, which are the only ones they consider themselves justified in judging from, the said De But is capacitated to perform the matrimonial act. Signed by them at Paris, July 18, 1675, and attested by the Sieur de Combes. And on August 23, 1675, by the sentence of M. Benjamin, official, the said Marcault was non-suited and ordered to return to her husband and cohabit with him.
Case II. Inspection having been ordered by the official of Paris of the body of Joseph Le Page, who is taxed with impotency by Nicola de Loris, his wife, the said inspection was made by Deuxivoi and De Farci, physicians, and Paris and Du Fertre, surgeons; their report is as follows:—
"We have found the exterior of his person to be like that of other men's, the penis of a good conformation and naturally situated, with the nut or glans bare, its adjoining parts fringed with soft, fine hair, the scrotum of an unexceptional thickness and extent, and in it vessels of good conformation and size, but terminating unequally; on the right side, they end in a small, flabby substance instead of a true testicle; and on the left side we observed a testicle fixed to the extremity of one of the vessels, as usual, invested in its tunicle, which left testicle we do not find to be at all flabby, but of a middling size: upon the whole, we are of opinion that the said Le Page is capable of the conjugal act but in a feeble manner. Signed and dated March 5, 1684. By the sentence of M. Cheron, the official, the said De Loris's petition is rejected, and she is enjoined to return to her husband.
Case III. Peter Damour being accused of impotency by his wife Louisa Tillot an inspection was ordered to be made by Rainset and Afforti, physicians, and Franchet and Colignon, surgeons. They report as follows:—"We have proceeded to inspect Peter Damour, master saddler at Paris, and having attententively examined his parts of generation, we have found them well constituted and in good condition as to their size, conformation and situation for the conjugal act; according, however to the statement of the said Damour himself, the erection is imperfect, the penis not being sufficiently rigid for perforating the vagina; admitting this, however, to be the case, we are of opinion that the imperfection may be remedied, repaired, and rectified, in time, by proper remedies. Signed January 16, 1703. In consequence the official, M. Vivant, refused Villot's demand, and ordered her to go home to her husband and cohabit with him as her lawful spouse.
Case IV. In the suit of Demoiselle Maris Louise Buchères accusing of impotence Antoine de Bret, an inspection was ordered and performed by Venage and Lita, physicians, Lombard and Delon, surgeons. They reported as follows: "We find the string of the foreskin shorter than it should be for giving the nut free scope to extend itself when turgid:—that the body of the left testicle is very diminutive and decayed, its tunicle separated, the spermatic vessels very much disordered by crooked swollen veins—that the right testicle is not of a due thickness, though thicker than the other: that it is somewhat withered and the spermatic vessels disordered by crooked swollen veins. On all which accounts we do not think that the natural parts of the said Sieur de Bret have all the disposition requisite for the well performing the functions they were designed for; yet we cannot say that he is impotent until we have inspected the wife. Paris July 11, 1703, Signed. On the 22d of July, 1703, the wife was inspected by the said physicians and surgeons and by two matrons; the result of which was that they observed no visciousness of conformation in her womb: the valvula were circular and the carunclæ myrtiformes, placed in the neck of the vagina, were soft, supple, flexible, entire, and did not seem to have suffered any violence or displacing, and the cavity of the womb-pipe was free and without any obstacle. Therefore they are of opinion that she is not capable of the conjugal act, and that there has been no intromission, consequently that she is a virgin, and that if the marriage had not been consummated, it is her husband's fault, because of his great debility and defective conformation of his parts of generation. Another inspection of the same parties was ordered Aug. 1, 1703. Bourges and Thuillier being the physicians, and Tranchet and Meri the surgeons, who declared that after due and careful examination they had found no defect which could hinder generation. Their report is dated Paris, Aug. 13, 1703. M. Chapelier ordered, in consequence, both parties,—viz., the Sieur De Bret and the said Buchères to acknowledge each other for man and wife.
Case V. On the 2nd April, 1653, the Chevalier René de Cordovan, Marquis de Langey, aged 25 years, married Maria de Saint Simon de Courtomer between 13 and 14 years of age. The parties lived very happily for the first four years, that is to say, up to 1657, when the lady accused her husband of impotency. The complaint was heard before the Lieutenant Civil of the Chatelet, who appointed a jury to examine the parties. The examination was made, and the report declared that both parties were duly and fully qualified for performing the conjugal act. In order to invalidate this report the lady affirmed that if she was not a virgin it was in consequence of the brutal efforts of one whose impotency rendered him callous as to the means he employed to satisfy himself. The Chevalier de Langey, much incensed at this imputation, demanded the Congress; the judge granted the petition, the wife appealed from the sentence, but it was confirmed by the superior courts.