Copyright by Alexander Edward Taft 2019
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Copyright by Alexander Edward Taft 2019 The Report Committee for Alexander Edward Taft Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Report: “Had He Not Been Abused Against Nature?” Priests, Italians, and Children in French Sodomy Trials, 1540-1670 APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE: Julie Hardwick, Supervisor Judith Coffin “Had He Not Been Abused Against Nature?” Priests, Italians, and Children in French Sodomy Trials, 1540-1670 by Alexander Edward Taft Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts The University of Texas at Austin December 2019 Abstract “Had He Not Been Abused Against Nature?” Priests, Italians, and Children in French Sodomy Trials, 1540-1670 Alexander Edward Taft, M.A. The University of Texas at Austin, 2019 Supervisor: Julie Hardwick Though scholarship on the history of sexuality has at times been oriented towards a narrative of the cultural creation of the “homosexual,” the act of sodomy was itself extraordinarily complicated in its meanings, its practices, and its prosecution. In this paper, I draw on cases from the early modern Parlement of Paris, the court of last instance for the northern half of metropolitan France, to explore this sexual act on a scale from small villages to large cities. Sodomy as an act had multitudinous meanings for early modern people. Despite its premodern status as an “unnatural vice,” it increasingly fell to secular authorities to determine punishment for sodomy in the early modern period. Between 1540 and 1670, as many as 137 men were prosecuted for male-male sodomy in the Parlement of Paris. The details of their cases suggest that specific factors pushed neighbors to denounce these men over others. These relatively few individuals were prosecuted for a common sexual practice because they exhibited markers of difference which placed them on the margins of their communities. This analysis demonstrates that key markers of difference, when combined with sodomitical activities, were clerical status, foreign origins iv (particularly association with Italy), and age relative to their victims of possible “abuse.” However, there were also components of these identities, such as clerical privileges, which could be leveraged to advantage a sodomite in the course of prosecution. I argue that sodomy as a practice was common in early modern French cities as well as in rural villages and that these markers, particularly association with Italians, represented a kind of dog- whistle for criminal sodomitical intentions that could lead to denunciations which were serious enough to be heard in the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Parlement of Paris. v Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 I: Practices of Sodomy in Early Modern France ............................................................... 28 II: Rank as a Marker: Nobles and Priests .......................................................................... 36 III: Foreign Origins as a Marker: The “Italian Vice” ........................................................ 46 IV: Child Abuse as a Marker: Clergy and Schoolmasters ................................................ 52 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 66 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 70 vi List of Figures Figure 1: Rates of Appeal for Sodomy Cases Heard in the Parlement of Paris, 1540-1670 .. 20 Figure 2: Jurisdiction of Parlements in 1765 .................................................................... 24 Figure 3: Concentration of Sodomy Prosecutions in the jurisdiction of the Parlement of Paris 1540-1670 .............................................................................................. 30 vii Introduction In the late Spring of 1654, two clergymen of the Order of Saint Basil, identified as Greek, sought the aid of the bailiff of St-Germain-des-Prés to protect them from two fiendish terrorizers.1 The attackers were described as a large man with a blond beard and a younger accomplice who had both come several times to the place where these two devotees lived and had broken windows, beaten them, and then threatened them with death. Out of overwhelming fear for their lives, they asked that an inquiry be opened into these two men so that these ecclesiastics could be protected by the King’s justice.2 The local bailiff, while investigating these events, realized that underlying these violent acts was a much more serious pattern of behavior. Testimonies from witnesses and neighbors described the two harassers as a “ so- called Albanian archbishop” (occasionally also “Greek”), Cirille or Xirille Stasopolous, and a secular assistant, an Italian man named Paulo, who had himself been frequently jailed for sundry minor offenses.3 Jacques Aublanc, who was a former servant to Stasopolous, 1 Basilian monks were members of the Greek Catholic Church which retained an allegiance to Rome despite their retention of Byzantine Rites. Charles Herbermann, ed., Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton, 1913). 2 Archives Nationales (hereafter AN) Z/2/3513, Parlement criminel, Dossier Stasopolous, April 28, 1654. 3 “Un particulier soi disant archevesque greq…” (sic). Ibid. This work relies on Alfred Soman’s interpretation and transcription of these documents. Unless otherwise noted, all English translations are my own. Because of the non-standard and dated spellings and word-choices in these documents, “sic” notations follow the entire quotation. These names, as with nearly all names in the court records of early modern France, were recorded by a clerk of the court using a loosely phonetic spelling which varied throughout the document. Rather than modernize spellings, I have included the closest rendering of the original documents as transcribed by Soman. Alfred Soman Papers, the George Washington University, Jacob Burns Law Library, Washington, D.C. Original archival material and case numbers collected from selections in AN X/2A/907-997 and AN X/2A/999-1154, Plumitifs du conseil de la Tournelle, 1543-1790 and AN X/2A/1201-1229, Dépôt secret des procès, 1560-1780. 1 testified that soon after entering his service, Statsopolous had asked him to share his bed. Once there, Stasopolous attempted to engage in anal sex with Aublanc, who refused. Aublanc reported that from that day on, Stasopolous frequently masturbated in front of him and repeatedly raised the subject of his desire “to commit the sin of sodomy.”4 After these testimonies had been gathered, the bailiff officially referred the case for criminal prosecution in the Prévôté of Paris, the primary judicial institution for civil and criminal disputes. Numerous further witnesses were deposed, including one of the original harassed priests, who added, for the first time, that he too had been pursued by Stasopolous for more than a year to commit his “bad designs” (read: sodomy) and had even been offered money in exchange for sex.5 The court, once Stasopolous was summoned for trial, described him as the Archbishop of Trebizond, a key Ottoman entrepot where overland routes converged to enter the Black Sea and from there the great Mediterranean system. Stasopolous explained that he had been in France under the protection of the French clergy and the recording clerk noted that his interrogation had to be conducted in Latin as he had no control of the French language. This interrogation, summarized by the clerks of the court, was made four months after the original inquiries. He called his denouncers “foreigners” or “strangers” who 4 “Xiriel luy fit prandre ses partyes honteuses et luy faisoit faire des polutions nocturnes… Et touttes les nuitz pendant les temps qu’il demeurant aveq luy, il l’entretenoit sur ce subject pour commettre le pesché de sodomie” (sic). AN Z/2/3513, Parlement criminel, Dossier Stasopolous, April 28, 1654 Testitmony of Jacques Aublanc, April 29, 1654. 5 “… luy a voulu bailler de l’argent pour ce sujet… Ensuitte d’autres discours qu’il luy tenoit pour obliger luy deposant à executter son muavais dessein” (sic). AN Z/2/3513, Parlement criminel, Dossier Stasopolous, April 29 and 30, 1654. The victimized priest also claimed that his refusal was the original motivation for Stasopolous’ violent behavior. 2 insulted his religion by making “false and calumnious accusations.”6 Up until this statement, Stasopolous was apparently unaware of the investigation at all. He dismissed this case as a personal affront which had no standing save the claims of two angry accusers (why they were angry he did not specify).7 Stasopolous relied on both his righteously indignant tone and his status under “protection by the Messieurs of the French Clergy” to avoid punishment.8 The court apparently accepted his contestation and no more documents were produced.9 Though these original denunciations concern a relatively small group of individuals who were in many ways outsiders to their neighborhood, the process Stasopolous went through from an unknown fiend to a notorious sodomite and then to a cleric with lofty connections is instructive for how early modern