Introduction: First reported in the 15th century, select married men in France were forced to publicly prove their virility in a court of law. At the time, Christianity deemed marriage the only acceptable context for sexual engagement, serving the goal of marriage: procreation. As such, impotence became a legal justification for divorce in many European jurisdictions. Impotence, or impuissance, was broadly defined by difficulties ranging from erectile dysfunction to inability to ejaculate to sterility. To determine the presence or absence of impotence, formal trials were held. These included a physical examination and the perverse épreuve du congrès, an act of copulation that was overseen by the Congress, an ecclesiastical judge. We present a brief overview of several impotence trials that occurred in prerevolutionary France.
Methods: We reviewed court documents from the Evans Early American Imprint Collection, book chapters from The Journal of Modern History, The Paris Review, and Pierre Darmon’s Trial by Impotence.
Results: Trials reviewed occurred throughout France between 1426 and 1712. The following cases highlight a number of common themes that emerged, such as the difficulty of determining potency as well as the various explanations used to justify such shortcomings. In 1603, Jacques de Sales claimed that he had been stripped of his virility by an evil spell cast by his wife. An annulment was granted, allowing both parties the opportunity to remarry. In 1657, the Marquis de Langley was accused of impotency by his wife but on examination, specialists determined each party to be physically fit. Madame de Langey protested so the Marquis insisted on a Trial by Congress. Public interest in the affair grew, with bets placed on the outcome. In 1659, the Marquis failed the Trial. Despite being prohibited from remarrying, the Marquis ignored this, fathering seven children with his 2nd wife. In 1712, the Marquis de Gesvres was accused by his wife of impotency. The Marquis had blamed this on an illness after eating an eel pie. A panel of physicians concluded that although there were no physical inadequacies evident, this was not sufficient to confirm his virility. Prior to the Trial, however, his wife withdrew her complaint.
Conclusions: With a mix of sincere and disingenuous claims, impotence opened the doors for many couples to end seemingly fruitless partnerships, albeit under intense public scrutiny. These trials mark a unique period in medicolegal history where personal medical information became a source of widespread intrigue and controversy.
.jpg)
.jpg)