Sodomites, Pederasts, and Tribades in Eighteenth-Century France: A Documentary History 9780271084183

Citation preview

Sodomites, Pederasts, and Tribades in Eighteenth-­Century France

S O D O M I T E S, P E D E R A S T S, AND TRIBADES IN E I G H T E E N T H - ­C E N T U R Y FR ANCE

A Documentary History

Edi ted by Je ffrey Me rrick

The Pennsylvania State University Press  |  University Park, Pennsylvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data Names: Merrick, Jeffrey, editor. Title: Sodomites, pederasts, and tribades in eighteenth-­century France : a documentary history / edited by Jeffrey Merrick. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : The Pennsylvania State University Press, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “Examines same-­sex relations in eighteenth-­century France through a variety of sources, translated and annotated by the author, including police records and other archival documents, news collections, traditional and Enlightenment texts, and literary works. Addresses the routine surveillance of the Parisian subculture as well as textual representations of same-­sex relations”—­Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2018061059 | ISBN 9780271083353 (cloth) Subjects: LCSH: Homosexuality—­France—­ History—­18th century—­Sources.

Classification: LCC HQ76.3.F8 S63 2019 | DDC 306.76/60944— ­dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc .gov/2018061059 Copyright © 2019 Jeffrey Merrick All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802-­1003 The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-­free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—­Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ANSI Z39.48-­1992.

For my nephews, Ryan and Nathan, and my nieces, Macy and Abby

CONTENTS

Preface (xi) List of Abbreviations (xiii) Glossary (xv) Introduction (1)

Part I: Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

(7)

Introduction to Part I (7) A. Reports from the Archives of the Bastille (14) Introduction (14) 1. François Marie de Vassy, Marquis de Brécey, 1722–­23, 1725, 1728–­29, 1738 (19) 2. Abbé Jacques Louis Roger de Brenouille, 1723 (25) 3. Charles Antoine Chevelet and Abbé Chrétien, 1723–­24  (29) 4. Pierre Deu and Jean Baptiste Dufour, 1723, 1729  (31) 5. Emery Eraux, 1723  (34) 6. Louis Fleury, 1723  (36) 7. Jean Fournier, 1723  (41)

8. Guillaume Gilbert, 1723  (42) 9. Léonard Gobert, 1723  (43) 10. Abbé Nicolas Philippe, 1723  (45) 11. Pierre Saget, 1722–­23  (50) 12. Joseph Sardet, 1723  (52) 13. Robert Surgis, Gabriel Brotel, and Jean Hubert, 1723  (53) 14. Louis de Launay, Pierre Nicolas Testu, and Jacques Vinx, 1728  (54) 15. Claude Gabriel Brisart, 1760  (58) 16. Jean Dosseur, 1760  (65) 17. Louis Dupré and d’Étam, 1765  (67)

B. Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires (74) Introduction (74) 18. Reports of the Watch/Guard, 1768–­81  (75) 19. François Tremaut and Claude Jean Baptiste Dugy, 25 April 1768  (78) 20. Louis Jacques Carton, 27 July 1768  (79) 21. Pierre Dumont and François Claude Duterat, 6 September 1769  (80)

22. Claude Michel Sébastien Mezierre, 20 February 1775  (82) 23. Charles Legroux, 21 July 1775  (83) 24. Philippe Klein and Antoine Clément, 22 July 1775  (84) 25. Jean Baptiste François Guillemet and Jean Frédéric, 8 August 1776  (85) 26. Louis Debat, 17 March 1777  (87) 27. Marc Lefèvre, 31 July 1779  (88)

viii | Contents C. Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires  (91) Introduction (91) 28. Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées, 1778–­89  (92) 29. Pederasty Patrol, 1 March 1782  (100) 30. Pederasty Patrol, 11 April 1782  (101) 31. Pederasty Patrol, 25 April 1782  (102) 32. Pederasty Patrol, 31 May 1782  (103) 33. Pederasty Patrol, 7 June 1782  (104) 34. Pederasty Patrol, 2 July 1782  (105) 35. Pederasty Patrol, 11 July 1782  (106) 36. Pederasty Patrol, 18 July 1782  (107)

37. Pederasty Patrol, 17 August 1782  (108) 38. Pederasty Patrol, 22 August 1782  (108) 39. Pederasty Patrol, 5 September 1782  (109) 40. Louis Antoine Charles Ruel, 8 September 1782 (110) 41. Pederasty Patrol, 16 November 1782  (111) 42. Pederasty Patrol, 28 November 1782  (111) 43. Pederasty Patrol, 25 May 1784  (112) 44. Pederasty Patrol, 21 June 1784  (113) 45. Pederasty Patrol, 26 July 1784  (114) 46. Pederasty Patrol, 14 August 1784  (116)

D. Reports of Commissaires Foucault and Desormeaux  (118) Introduction (118) 47. Claude Borin, Baurin, Borain, Baurain, 1780–­85  (120)

48. Jean Étienne Dessaud, Joseph Pierre Cluzel, and Abbé Jean Baptiste Champeneau de Viennay, 1782–­84  (124)

Part II: Representations of Same-­S ex Relations  (133) Introduction to Part II  (133) E. Gossip and Slander  (136) Introduction (136) 49. Armand Louis Joseph, Marquis de Brunoy, 1773  (137) 50. Sophie Arnould, 1774–­75, 1784  (139) 51. Jean François Bithemer, 1780  (141) 52. Louis Michu and Samuel Peixotto, 1780 (143)

53. Élisabeth Marie Pierrette Anne Dubois de Courval, Mme Joly de Fleury, 1783 (145) 54. Charles Roger, Prince de Bauffremont, Jacques Marie Boutet de Monvel, and Pierre Margantin, 1783  (146) 55. Charles Marie, Marquis de Créquy, and Father Césaire, 1784–­85  (153)

F. Tradition  (156) Introduction (156) 56. Pierre François Muyart de Vouglans (1713–­1791), “On Sodomy,” Foundations of Criminal Law (1757)  (157) 57. Fortunato Bartolomeo de Felice (1723–­1789), “Pederasty,” Encyclopedia, or Universal Reasoned Dictionary of Human Knowledge (1774)  (158)

58. Antoine Joseph Thorillon (b. 1742), Thoughts About Criminal Laws (1788) (164) 59. Nicolas Sylvain Bergier (1718–­1790), “Sodom, Sodomy,” Methodical Encyclopedia, Theology (1790)  (165)

Contents | ix G. Enlightenment  (167) Introduction (167) 60. Claude Adrien Helvétius (1715–­1771), “On Virtues of Prejudice and Genuine Virtues,” On the Mind (1758)  (169) 61. Helvétius, “On the Formation of Tribes,” On Man, His Intellectual Faculties and Education (1773)  (171) 62. Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach (1723–­1789), “On Christian Virtues,” Christianity Unveiled (1767)  (172) 63. François Marie Arouet de Voltaire (1694–­1778), “On Sodomy, in Which It Is Proved Against Mr. Larcher That This Crime Has Never Been Sanctioned,” Defense of My Uncle Against His Infamous Persecutors (1767)  (173) 64. Guillaume Thomas François Raynal (1713–­1796), Philosophical and Political History of European Settlements and Commerce in the Two Indies (1770, 1774, 1781) (175) 65. Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707–­1788), “Partridges,” Natural History of Birds (1771)  (176) 66. Jean Nicolas Demeunier (1751–­1814), “Pederasty” and “Tribades,” The Spirit of Customs and Practices of Various People (1776) (177)

67. Philippe Lefebvre, “On Sodomy and the Unusual Crime, Otherwise Known as Bestiality,” Plan for Legislation in Criminal Matters (1779)  (181) 68. Antoine Nicolas Servin (1746–­1811), “On Offenses Called Crimes Against Nature,” On Criminal Legislation (1782)  (182) 69. Charles Éléonore Dufriche de Valazé (1751–­1793), “Why Suicide, Pederasty and Bestiality Are Not Discussed,” Penal Laws (1784) (186) 70. “Friend,” Methodical Encyclopedia, Antiquities and Mythology (1786)  (187) 71. Joseph Elzéar Dominique de Bernardi (1751–­1824), “On Crimes Against Nature,” Principles of Criminal Law (1788) (188) 72. Jacques Peuchet (1758–1830), “Sapphic Love,” Methodical Encyclopedia, Jurisprudence (1789)  (189) 73. “Sappho,” Methodical Encyclopedia, History (1790)  (191) 74. Peuchet, “Prostitution,” Methodical Encyclopedia, Jurisprudence (1791) (192) 75. “Clitoris (Defects of ),” Methodical Encyclopedia, Medicine (1792)  (198)

H. Fictions  (200) Introduction (200) 76. Gabriel Sénac de Meilhan (1736–­1803), Fuckomania (1775)  (201) 77. Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, Comte de Mirabeau (1749–­1791), Bible of Love (1783) (203)

Notes  (215) Recommended Reading  (241) Index  (245)

78. Mirabeau, Correspondence of Eulalia (1785) (207) 79. André Robert Andréa de Nerciat (1739–­1800), The Devil in the Body (1803) (209) 80. Nicolas Edme Rétif de la Bretonne (1743–­1806), Ode to Buggers (1789)  (211)

P R E FA C E

This volume does not replace or repeat Homosexuality in Early Modern France: A Documentary Collection (out of print), which Bryant Ragan and I published in 2001. It complements Policing Homosexuality in Pre-­Revolutionary Paris (forthcoming), in which we have translated and analyzed all the relevant documents from one year (1781) in the papers of the official responsible for the surveillance of sexual relations between men in the capital of France from 1780 to 1783. Unlike that volume, this one is intended to illustrate the variety and complexity of relevant sources, including some unknown to us in 2001, that provide more information about sex between men (but, alas, not between women as well) in Paris than in any other city in the eighteenth century. Part 1 contains materials about men from several series of (mostly) unpublished police reports in Parisian archives. Part 2 includes published (but mostly unrepublished and untranslated) texts—­philosophy as well as pornography—­that address similar and different questions about both sexes. I have tried to provide an accurate and readable, though not slavishly literal, English version of the texts. I have, for example, omitted the (grammatical but superfluous) that in many subordinate clauses, used engaging contractions in direct discourse, and loosened tangled syntax without always dividing complex dated sentences into simple modern ones. I have left Mademoiselle (Mlle), Madame (Mme), Monsieur (M.), noble titles, and “commissaire” (commissioner sounds too much like a character in a modern TV police drama) in French, and I have translated nicknames and added the adjective female in the ones that involve feminine nouns in French. I have rendered raccrocher, when used intransitively, as “to cruise” and, when used transitively, as “to pick up” for the sake of simplicity, not in order to make eighteenth-­century sodomites and pederasts sound like twentieth-­century gay men. I have used brackets in the text to demystify terms and identify streets that have changed names or vanished (“nonextant”) as well as communes if the text does not name a nearby city or specify the province.1 The endnotes include biographical and bibliographical information.2

xii | Preface

I have modernized the spelling of street and place names as well as titles of publications. French subjects did not always know when they were born or how to spell, let alone write, their own names, and some names are difficult to decipher. I have standardized spelling within documents to avoid confusion, without assuming that the men in question would endorse my summary decisions about their given and family names. Two anonymous readers provided extensive and instructive comments that have improved this volume significantly. For assistance in matters large and small, on both sides of the Atlantic, my thanks to my friends Eric Albrand, Benjamin Bernard, Olivier Blanc, Joan DeJean, Tip Ragan, Julius Ruff, Stephen Shapiro, Michael Sibalis, and Gabrielle Verdier. It has been a pleasure, this time as last time, to work with the supportive and efficient staff of Penn State University Press to transform a digital file into a physical book.

A B B R E V I AT I O N S

AB Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, Archives de la Bastille AN Archives Nationales arr. arrondissement BN Bibliothèque Nationale de France CD François Marie Mayeur de Saint-­Paul, Le Chroniqueur désoeuvré, ou

L’espion du boulevard du Temple (London, 1782) CL Correspondance littéraire, philosophique et critique par Grimm, Diderot,

CS

DAF Le Roux

M&R

MS

Raynal, Meister, etc., edited by Maurice Tourneux, 16 vols. (Paris: Garnier, 1877–­82) Correspondance secrète, politique et littéraire, ou Mémoires pour servir à l’ histoire des cours, des sociétés et de la littérature en France depuis la mort de Louis XV, 18 vols. (London: John Adamson, 1787–­90) Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4th ed. (Paris: Veuve Bernard Brunet, 1762) Philibert Joseph Le Roux, Dictionnaire comique, satirique, critique, burlesque, libre et proverbial, new ed. (Amsterdam: Zacharie Chastelain, 1750) Jeffrey Merrick and Bryant T. Ragan, eds., Homosexuality in Early Modern France: A Documentary Collection (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) Mémoires secrets pour servir à l’ histoire de la république des lettres en France depuis 1762 jusqu’ à nos jours, 36 vols. (London: John Adamson, 1780–­89)

GLOSSARY

This glossary includes definitions and examples of usage extracted from a variety of sources.1 Thanks to digitization, it is now possible to locate many more examples through open sources like Google and Gallica and restricted databases like Eighteenth-­Century Collections Online, which includes French works published in Britain. antiphysical (antiphysique): “Against nature.”2 On the road in Italy, Charles de Brosses reported that “antiphysical love” was not tolerated there as much as his countrymen assumed.3 Voltaire did such a good job of lecturing the marquis de Villette, “so well known for the antiphysical sin,” that the young man married the old man’s protégée, Mlle de Varicourt.4 Law, reason, and prejudice proscribed “antiphysical love,” but there were “almost as many guilty of this crime in our large cities as there were in Athens and Rome.”5 bardache: “A young man or lad who serves another man as a succubus [seductive female demon or simply prostitute] and who allows sodomy to be committed upon him. These abominations are so common in France that women complain about them openly.”6 Julius Caesar was accused of serving Nicomedes in this way.7 A critic of royal despotism and debauchery characterized Mme du Barry’s blackamoor Zamor as “the bardache of Negroes.”8 On 3 April 1783, after 11 p.m., a group of men, including Villette, caused a scene in a café called the Cavern in the Palais Royal. During the shouting and shoving, one man called another a bardache. The latter replied, “As for bardache, I take these gentlemen as judges of it.” Passing his hand over his chin, he wondered, “Is it possible that a creature as ugly as me could pass for a bardache?”9 bugger (bougre): “A man who has young lads at his disposal, with whom he commits sodomy. In our language this word is quite insolent and indiscreet, such that one hardly ever hears a decent man use it.”10 The Greeks were buggers “because they had philosophers among them, and every philosopher is a born enemy of the cunt.”11 The orthodox accused the heretical Bulgarian Christians “of surrendering themselves to all sorts of vices, among others sodomy. From that came our word bugger (Bulgarian), the filthiest insult in our language . . . but which, in its original meaning, was only synonymous with heretic.”12 Abbé Servien pursued an uninterested and exasperated young man, who exclaimed,

xvi | Glossary

“What does this bugger of a priest want from me?” The clever abbé replied, “Sir, I do not have the honor to be a priest.”13 crime, debauchery (débauche), pleasure (plaisir) or sin (péché) against nature (contre nature): Everyone knows about the “excessive passion of the ancient Greeks and Romans for pleasures contrary to nature.”14 Native women’s affection for the Spaniards and aversion for their own husbands, “who surrendered themselves to unnatural debauchery,” facilitated the conquest of the New World.15 Italians “joke about the crime against nature, as we French do about gallantry.”16 “It can be said that calumny among Parisians is what the sin against nature was in Sodom and Gomorrah. It has been naturalized there.”17 cuff (manchette): Men of the cuff, another name for men sexually interested in men. The marquis de Vilaines played “a large role in the party of the cuff” and commanded the services of “some young folks, secret disciples of this nonconformity.”18 The knights of “the numerous order of the cuff” frequented the Palais Royal.19 Wealthy tax farmers maintained mistresses, and “rumor has it they indulge in the cuff with their servants” as well.20 One lackey described his arrest “for the cuff” as a “crying injustice.”21 ganymede (ganimède): Jupiter, in the form of an eagle, abducted this beautiful youth and made him his cupbearer in Olympus. A “young lad who gives pleasure, who allows the sin of sodomy to be committed upon him.”22 Julius Caesar played “the infamous role of Ganymede” to Nicomedes.23 Japanese inns offered voyagers prostitutes and ganymedes, “victims of an abominable passion unfortunately” common among polygamous peoples.24 The fictional “Andrins, few in number, were those who, setting no store in any feminine charm, entertained only Ganymedes.”25 giton: Younger, passive, and often venal partner in sexual relations between men. Caligula had pages who served him as gitons and ganymedes.26 Voltaire described one of his critics as a Worm born from the butt of Desfontaines, Worthy of his extraction in every way, Cowardly Zoilus, formerly ugly giton, This creature was named Jean Fréron.27

One of the critics complained that Voltaire maligned his literary adversaries “one as a dog and another as a giton.”28 “In an orgy so licentious that the courtesans who were there withdrew in horror,” a tax farmer “called for a giton and threw himself into the lists, shining with lust at age sixty.”29 infamy (infamie), infamous type (infâme): “Sordid and shameful action unworthy of a decent man.”30 The notorious Deschauffours “ran a lodging house that served as a rendezvous for all the infâmes there are.”31 The minister of the royal

Glossary | xvii

household ordered a crackdown on men who frequented the Tuileries Garden “to indulge in their infamous excesses.”32 In the Café Alexandre on boulevard du Temple, “one finds only cruisers and bardaches. Infamies and horrors it is not necessary to name take place in this café. The character of those who frequent it makes it easy enough to guess which. The police have it under surveillance, but their vigilant eyes are deceived. It would be wisest and safest to have this receptacle of tribades and sodomists closed.”33 minion (mignon): Favorite, younger, and passive male. According to Lucian, “pederasts” cited the examples of the minions of Jupiter, Apollo, and Hercules.34 Henri III was “corrupted by his minions” and deceived by his ministers.35 The duc de Bouillon elevated his courier Castoldy, whom he nicknamed Castor (Beaver), to the rank of lackey and, “some say, minion. It is possible. He is tall and rather well built.”36 This taste is not so ridiculous. Hylas was the minion of Hercules. . . . Even today it reigns in triumph Among the French.37

nonconformist (non-­conformiste): “This name is sometimes applied to sodomites in order to avoid that word, which is extremely odious.”38 It involves a play on words, since the French con means cunt. Some suggested that the orthodox accused Bulgarian heretics of sexual as well as religious “nonconformity.”39 The author of some satirical verses about a nonconformist reported that his taste endeared him to Roman prelates. They say it is because he claims to rebuild Sodom according to their plans, And he is working on the foundations/fundaments.40

Sophie Arnould allegedly expected women to be “strictly whores or tribades” and rejected any “truce with the non-­conformists.”41 pederasty (pédérastie), pederast (pédéraste): “Shameful passion, love between men.”42 The Greeks, who had the word pederasty in their language, “undoubtedly had the vice it named as well,” whereas peoples without this vice had no need of a word for it. 43 News of the execution of a Venetian nobleman for sodomy provoked surprise because “pederasty is much in vogue in Italy and is regarded as an amusement there. . . . This event has not failed to frighten our pederasts in France, where this vice is becoming more and more fashionable.”44 The marquis de Thibouville “was known in the republic of letters for giving the stage a tragedy entitled Thélamire in 1759 and for various fashionable works, but his larger reputation came from making pederasty fashionable in a way.”45

xviii | Glossary

Socratic love (amour socratique): “Love of man for man.”46 The Greeks were inclined to this “frightful vice.”47 One of Voltaire’s critics charged that the very title of the article on this subject in his Philosophical Dictionary “inspires the most frightful ideas about the horrors of the human race.”48 A French diplomat reported that a Russian officer introduced Socratic love and “filthy caresses” into the corps of cadets in Saint-­Petersburg.49 sodomy (sodomie), sodomite: “Antiphysical love, sin against nature, pederasty.”50 “An abominable and unnatural crime that was named after the city of Sodom, which perished through fire because of this execrable sin.”51 The fiery Portuguese “have only too much inclination” for “this odious vice,” and the corrupt Japanese “do not regard it as a vice.”52 tribade, tribadism (tribaderie): “Woman who misuses another woman.”53 A woman “who couples with a person of her sex and imitates the man,”54 who “hates commerce with men and finds her only pleasure in caressing women.”55 “A tribade is the creature most to be dreaded by men. There is no rival to be feared as much by them.”56

Introduction

When I graduated from high school fifty years ago, just weeks before the Stonewall riots, which changed the course of LGBT politics and history, I did not know that I would find my way to Greenwich Village more than a decade later. In 1969, I already expected to spend much of my life studying eighteenth-­century France. I did not know that the explosion of social history during my years of academic apprenticeship would eventually lure me from textual exploration of the Enlightenment and political culture to archival investigation of suicide, spousal conflict, and same-­sex relations—­from Diderot and his canonical confederates to ordinary Parisians who had no knowledge of or interest in the philosophes, from ideals and arguments preserved in accessible publications to elusive evidence about the heads, hearts, and hands of obscure men and women buried in police reports written in more or less legible script. Contributors to the encyclopedia edited by Diderot and d’Alembert recognized that everything from adultery to zealotry has a history. They explored differences in practices across cultures and changes in customs across centuries. In the same critical spirit, during the course of my career, several generations of diligent and creative historians of early modern Europe have examined new sources (parish registers, marriage contracts, wills, tax rolls, criminal and judicial records) and adopted new methods (from the social sciences and literary studies) to excavate and analyze many aspects of private and public life, including sexuality before, during, and outside of marriage. As Michel Foucault insisted in 1976 and many scholars have attested since, humans have not comprehended and experienced sexuality in the same ways throughout the past and around the globe.1 Instead of assuming that modern Western categories and dichotomies, such as homo-­versus heterosexuality, have universal validity, we must assemble and decipher evidence about sexual

2 | Sodomites, Peder asts, and Tribades in Eighteenth-­C entury Fr ance

conduct and concepts from any given time and place. It is my job as the author (of the introductions to the volume, parts, sections, and texts) and your job as a reader to track down, dig up, root out, and take in as much as we can about the operations and regulation of sexual desire and networks in eighteenth-­century France and to locate the patterns and insights we extract from the sources in the contexts of the society that produced them and of larger issues in the history of sexuality. In France, as in other countries, church and state regulated sexuality and criminalized nonprocreative activities—­masturbation, oral and anal intercourse within marriage, same-­sex relations, and bestiality, often combined under the umbrella of sodomy (see section F)—­long before 1700. In eighteenth-­century Paris, as in other cities, the police managed sexual disorder, including male solicitation and female prostitution, in public spaces and generally left private conduct to conscience, confession, and community. The records in part I display the common (from antiquity to modernity) pattern of sexual relations between older males of higher status in the active role and younger males of lower status in the passive role, for pleasure or profit. They contain exceptions—­some inversions of traditional hierarchy and more examples involving males of more or less the same age and rank—­as well as evidence that some men who desired men, a minority rather than the majority of them, had some sense that they were different from others who did not. With debates about immutable transhistorical identity behind us, we can study such awareness of difference in early modern Europe without misrepresenting it.2 Eighteenth-­century French men and women who desired their own sex resembled their own contemporaries more than they resembled homosexuals “medicalized” in the nineteenth century or gay men and lesbians liberated in the twentieth century. At the same time, it is enormously significant that sodomites created an urban subculture in Paris, as in London and Amsterdam, and that some of them invoked difference to make connections in their time, not with our time. They had no access to our categories, but we have some access to their mentalities, and we should not make them sound more modern than they were. Anyone and everyone who explores sexual relations between men in eighteenth-­century Paris walks in the footsteps and works in the shadow of Michel Rey (1953–­1993), who conducted systematic research and published a series of articles on the subject before his tragic death. It is time, twenty-­five years later, to expand his research and revise his judgments.3 We need to locate and digest hundreds of dossiers he did not find or use and revise his

Introduction | 3

conclusions about basic issues—­such as age, rank, and role—­as well as complex issues such as identity and community, through quantitative and qualitative analysis.4 Rey understated the importance of money and friendship in the subculture and overstated the resemblance in sexual consciousness between remote and recent times. We should not make claims about the minds and lives of men in the past based on a few literary sources, but we should—­ and indeed we must—­track them through series in the archives; in public spaces and private places; with strangers and comrades; as individuals with relatives, neighbors, employers or employees; and with privileges, obligations, reputations, options, and limits. Rey emphasized the disjunction between his subjects and their fellow Parisians. I have underscored traditional distinctions among men who desired men and the contextual linkages between them and others in the time and place in which they all lived. Sodomites and pederasts not only exercised agency in ways that violated conventional morality but also operated within social structures that were more flexible and durable than critics then and since have assumed. This volume includes more material about sodomites and pederasts than it does about tribades for the simple reason that women who desired women are underrepresented in police records as well as nonfictional treatments of same-­sex relations. This fact does not mean that we should subject them to the same neglect or that their history can be fairly and safely collapsed into that of men who desired men. Readers will find females—­mothers, aunts, sisters, wives, landlords, shopkeepers, employers, domestics, and prostitutes—­but not tribades in part I, which contains some discussion and evidence regarding another important issue in the history of sexuality: gendered assumptions about the capacities, character, and conduct of males and females. Some men who have sex with men, especially in the passive role, have been considered unmanned and effeminate, and some women who have sex with women, especially in the active role, have been considered unfeminine and mannish in various times and places. Randolph Trumbach has identified effeminacy as a distinctive characteristic of the homosexual role that emerged in eighteenth-­century England.5 French police records, as opposed to other types of sources, contain some direct evidence, from reports about assemblies of sodomites in the first half of the century, and more indirect evidence, for example about nicknames in the second half of the century. Even so, accusations and anxieties about deviations from gendered expectations about sexually differentiated behavior do not loom as large in archival documents about sodomy as, for instance, in archival documents about spousal conflict.6

4 | Sodomites, Peder asts, and Tribades in Eighteenth-­C entury Fr ance

Part II includes much more about women and gender, as well as food for thought about many other topics in early modern history, such as (institutional and intellectual) secularization, urbanization and integration/ disintegration, mobility (through migration and connections), sites and styles of sociability, marketplaces (of commodities, ideas, and bodies), critiques of privilege and corruption, domestic and exotic “others,” the personal body, and the body politic.

It is beyond the power of human laws to subdue certain passions. The objective of the police in a large city can only be to restrain their excesses.

Jean Charles Pierre Lenoir

PA R T I

SURVEILLANCE OF THE PARISIAN SUBCULTURE

Introduction

The police of eighteenth-­century Paris had and still have a reputation for treachery and tyranny (spies in cafés with the shadow of the Bastille in the background) that misrepresents their objectives and resources. Jean François Parot has humanized them in his popular mysteries starring the resourceful royalist detective Nicolas LeFloch.1 Vincent Milliot and others have depicted them as professional agents of urban order who protected public safety and promoted public welfare while royal ministers and intendants effected or at least attempted reform throughout the kingdom.2 The personnel who policed the capital—­the lieutenant general of police, the forty-­eight commissaires and twenty inspectors distributed throughout the city, and the various companies of guards who patrolled its promenades and boulevards—­did not have modern forces, not to mention modern machines, at their disposal.3 They could not and did not purge the capital of pickpockets, prostitutes, Protestants, or men called sodomites (from the name of the sinful city destroyed in Genesis 19) before and pederasts (from the Greek words for love of boys) after

8 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

midcentury. Part I documents regular surveillance and detention that left records in the archives, not methodical prosecution and execution that left ashes in the Place de Grève. As men who desired men became more numerous and visible, and perhaps more confident and assertive, in the 1780s, arrests actually decreased, well before the National Assembly omitted a long list of religious, moral, and sexual transgressions from the Revolutionary criminal codes promulgated in 1791. By the end of the ancien régime, men who desired men enjoyed more tolerance in practice than anyone thought they should enjoy in principle. According to the traditions of the ancien régime, sex between males violated divine and royal law, which prescribed death by fire for the guilty parties.4 Bruno Lenoir and Jean Diot, who were caught in the act in the street in the night, were burned at the stake on 6 July 1750.5 Jacques François Pascal, who attempted to rape and then kill an adolescent who resisted his advances, suffered the same fate on 10 October 1783.6 In 1750, a scrappy playwright objected that “there is no more harm in sodomy than in the sin of Onan [masturbation]. If this action were contrary to nature, it would be condemned by all nations by which the voice of nature has made itself heard, but is condemned only by Christians”—­or so he claimed.7 In 1783, a humane poet insisted that Pascal, stigmatized as “an unnatural debauchee and murderer, was only a sick man, a madman for the moment and not a villain.”8 We do not know if many or indeed any other Parisians reacted to these last and unrepresentative executions in the same way, by minimizing or redefining aberration. We do know that the magistrates withdrew from the business of enforcing traditional norms through traditional means, against the background of decades of disputes about the jurisdictions and prerogatives of church and state.9 They feared that the spectacle of exemplary retribution not only deterred some Parisians from misconduct but also publicized corruption that might lead others astray. One commentator suggested that “the punishment of the vile deed” in itself constituted “a public scandal.”10 The population of the capital (perhaps 500,000 at the dawn and 750,000 at the end of the century) included a sizable and permanent contingent of older and younger men of all ranks, natives and immigrants, who sought sex with men. The police had no illusions about eradicating sodomy and largely confined themselves to managing its manifestations in public spaces such as the Luxembourg, Tuileries, and Palais Royal Gardens, all of which belonged to the extended royal family, so the local police had no jurisdiction there. Men

Introduction | 9

also frequented the area beyond the Place Louis XV known as the Champs-­ Élysées, the vestiges of the fortifications outside the Porte Sainte-­A ntoine known as the Half-­Moon, the arches along the river under the rue Saint-­Louis on the Île de la Cité, the quays that lined the Seine, and the boulevards that encircled the capital, not to mention taverns on the Left and Right Banks. Women who desired women did not seek companions in public spaces, so police records contain very little information about their sexual activities, fortunately for them but unfortunately for us.11 The largest collections of documents that allow us to explore patterns and changes in sexual relations between men are located in the morals and prisoners series in the Archives of the Bastille (1715 to 1760s) and in the records of several companies of guards (1760s to 1780s) and the papers of the commissaires responsible for surveillance of sex-­same relations in the 1780s, both in the archives of the Châtelet, the royal municipal court with jurisdiction over the capital and its environs.12 Thanks to these sources, we know that the police implemented systematic entrapment in the gardens in April 1723 and nocturnal “pederasty patrols” in July 1780 and that arrests decreased in the last decade of the ancien régime, but we do not yet know why.13 We have more to learn about changes in personnel, strategies, and documents over the course of the century. Different policing activities, in any event, produced different types of reports that provide different types of details about and insights into men arrested in the capital and the subculture they populated. In the first half of the century, sodomites revealed a good deal about themselves in the course of conversations in public spaces in order to persuade others, including decoys, to have sex with them. In the 1780s, pederasts apprehended without entrapment concealed as much as they could about themselves in order to avoid or at least reduce punishment. Men from all walks of life, including some with wives and more without jobs, knew where to go and what to do and say in order to locate sexual companions. Police reports show how they made connections, for pleasure or payment, and how they made clumsy or clever excuses under arrest. The police had and used a number of options: release with reprimand or injunction, shorter or longer but not indefinite confinement in prison or the carceral hospital of Bicêtre, exile from Paris or to the native region, or permission to enlist in the army to escape incarceration.14 They treated most notables more gently (respect for rank trumped contempt for vice) and most backsliders as well as individuals guilty of other crimes such as extortion more sternly. The police did not condone sodomy, but the judges

10 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

did not condemn sodomites. Since the authorities did not execute these offenders or lock them up for life, many of the men arrested in public spaces returned to public spaces. The police hoped that the risk of exposure and punishment would deter them without assuming that it would correct them. They believed that incorrigible and predatory older males corrupted inexperienced and vulnerable younger males, but their own reports document many cases that do not fit that model. As for popular attitudes, the police received complaints from men against others who propositioned them and from parents and neighbors about men who corrupted boys. The French word garçon has several meanings: boy, bachelor, and assistant. Some assistants, especially in more skilled trades, were apprentices or even journeymen and therefore older than the word implies. Police records contain countless imprecise, incoherent, and incompatible references to young boys, boys, young men, and young folks. Many cases involve adolescents, but just a few involve males younger than teenagers. Parisians did not have a consistent and transparent vocabulary to describe the young, but they did have language for making negative comments about sodomites when they needed and wanted to. We can only wonder what they thought about the majority of same-­sex relations that did not involve unwelcome advances or abuse of children, not to mention violence, as opposed to the minority that did. How many others reacted as the glazier Ménétra did? He laughed when a gentleman asked him “if I am not a courier. I told him no. He suggested that I be his courier and enter his carriage. I told him, ‘I understand what you mean. I run after girls and not otherwise. Good-­bye.’ And I went off making fun of him.”15 Parisians coexisted with pederasts, whose stories and backstories locate them within the subculture as well as the larger urban context and structures of the ancien régime. Police records document sexual relations in public spaces and private places, in networks of friends, in homes of notables, and in sexually segregated environments.16 They contain references not only to priests, monks, abbés, students, and soldiers but also to fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, landlords, neighbors, employers, and protectors. Some men lived with relatives; others, like many immigrants from the provinces, lived in boarding or lodging houses. Workingmen who frequented the gardens and notables who employed the services of procurers were not just distinguished from others by their desire for their own sex but also connected with others through kinship, residence, employment, and patronage. They sought partners and pleasure outside family and convention,

Introduction | 11

in the unlicensed sexual marketplace, but they also operated within the established framework of rank and wealth. After much more research, we may manage to construct a database of (ten thousand?) names that will allow us to run correlations among demographic and interactive variables, to track individuals across geography and society, and to assess constants as well as changes between the first and second halves of the century.17 For now, readers will have the pleasure of discovering the old and the new, the ordinary and the unusual, in these remarkable documents, without finding definitive answers to all the questions they suggest. Did sodomites and pederasts know that the church condemned and the state proscribed sex between men? Most likely yes, if they kept their eyes and ears open in catechism and in their neighborhoods, but they and their fellow Parisians did not simply follow the injunctions of religious and secular authorities from dawn to dusk and beyond throughout their lives. Men who desired men knew that the police arrested men in public spaces, but they also knew that the judges did not execute these men, so they weighed desire versus prison, explored options, and took risks. All things considered, it seems less remarkable to me that some men vocalized difference than that many men exercised agency (as Parisians who committed suicide did) without regard to Scripture or nature, without reference to Greece or Rome, and without recourse to modern notions of privacy and liberty in circulation at the time (see part II for these issues).18 They lived in a very different world from ours, in which wearing a sword meant more and sharing a bed meant less than they do today, in which the streets were filled with servants on errands and the jails were not filled with prisoners for life. In this crowded, noisy, dirty, smelly, fluid world, the subculture within and beyond the gardens subsisted because sodomites and pederasts persisted and even resisted.

Paris in 1728 by abbé Jean Delagrive (detail). Image courtesy Joan DeJean.

Introduction | 13 Key 1. Luxembourg Gardens

The gardens adjacent to the Luxembourg Palace, constructed on the Left Bank in the first half of the seventeenth century, were considerably larger in the eighteenth century than they are today. Police reports mention the path that leads to the large circle on the west side and the path along the south wall, as well as the gates on the northwest and southeast sides, on rue de Vaugirard and rue d’Enfer. 2. Tuileries Garden

The formal gardens along the Seine and adjacent to the Tuileries Palace, begun in 1564 and destroyed in 1871, were landscaped by André Le Nôtre in 1664. Police reports mention the Path of Sighs, on the terrace of the Feuillants, on the north side, across from the monastery of the same name, and the swivel bridge over the moat at the west exit. 3. Palais Royal

This palace, the Parisian residence of the duc d’Orléans, was constructed in the 1630s and enlarged to its current dimensions in the 1780s, when it was known as the center of diversion and corruption in the capital. Police reports mention the courtyard of the fountains and the Café de Foy, located at 46 rue de Richelieu. 4. Champs-­É lysées

Police reports mention the entertainment complex called the Coliseum (demolished in 1780) and several private residences in this area on the west side of the city, under development in the second half of the eighteenth century, as well as the port aux Pierres and Cours de la Reine along the Seine. 5. Arches under the rue Saint-­L ouis

The arches at water level supported a row of buildings (demolished in 1810) on the south side of the street, on the Île de la Cité between quai des Orfèvres and pont Saint-­Michel. 6. Half-­Moon

Sodomites sought sexual companions at, in, or on the Half-­Moon of the Sainte-­ Antoine Gate, on the east side of the city, just north of the Bastille. The inner straight and outer curved walls of the external approach to the gate had defined rectangular and circular open spaces. The two curved walls, with the road running between them on both ends, resembled lunar crescents. More often than not, Half-­ Moon refers to the vestiges of the elevated triangular ravelin in the fortifications just north of the gate. This site lost its distinctive outline and parklike character when the gate was demolished and the area was redesigned in 1778.

SECTION A

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille

Introduction The Archives of the Bastille in the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal include a sizable, presorted, specific morals series, which Michel Rey explored several decades ago, and an oversized, unsorted, general prisoners series, which historians of same-­sex relations have only begun to explore.1 The smaller series, composed of 14 cartons, was extracted from the larger series by some unknown person at some unknown juncture for some unknown reason, presumably for access to records of surveillance of sodomy and other offenses. The morals series documents hundreds of arrests from 1715 to 1750 but includes just one case involving sex between men that is dated after 1750.2 The prisoners series, composed of 2,142 cartons, not only includes additional material about the individuals involved in that case but also documents hundreds of other cases from the seventeenth century, with any luck, through the 1760s.3 Both series are organized chronologically by year and alphabetically within year, although more than a few dossiers contain documents from more than one year and even about more than one case. The prisoners series, unlike the morals series, is indexed, but the index of names on dossiers in each carton does not include the offenses, so the only way to locate relevant dossiers is to browse the digitized cartons online and the undigitized cartons on-­site, on microfilm, or in the case of cartons not available in any other form, in manuscript.4 These records constitute our most substantial and instructive trove of information about the development of the sodomitical subculture in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, which has not been systematically investigated yet, and its evolution during the following decades.5 The morals series and the prisoners series document, respectively, forty and ninety-­six

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  15

arrests of infâmes, “infamous types,” in 1723. The thirteen cases from that year in this section, drawn from both series, illustrate the variety of sources in the dossiers and the variety of patterns in the subculture. The sources include reports of entrapment by decoys in the Luxembourg and Tuileries Gardens, letters from officers Simonnet and Haimier to Lieutenant General d’Argenson, denunciations by the zealous abbé Théru, petitions from prisoners and relatives, character references from employers and other advocates, and administrative correspondence with the minister of the royal household, whose portfolio included the department of Paris, regarding the fate of prisoners.6 The decoys, presumably selected for their age and looks, recorded their accounts of encounters after the fact and included more or less detail in doing so.7 These reports cannot be regarded as exact and complete records of what sodomites said and did, but they tell us as much as we will ever know about sodomitical solicitation in this time and place. Simonnet and Haimier arrested men outside the gates of palace gardens that belonged to the royal and Orléans families, in which the police had no jurisdiction, and elsewhere in the capital. They supplied the lieutenant general with additional intelligence collected from neighbors and others and sometimes offered suggestions about penalties. Théru exhorted him to punish infâmes strictly, and others exhorted him to release them quickly. D’Argenson weighed the evidence and decided on prison, exile, or freedom, and the minister always concurred. The reports from 1723 document the interplay of seduction and deception in public spaces as recounted by decoys, observers, and informants who rejected and reported sexual proposals. Infâmes prowled the gardens, exchanged signals, exposed themselves, accosted potential companions, related sexual adventures, made suggestive comments, asked explicit questions, and stroked or groped men they desired. They walked and talked, sat on benches or lay on the grass together, sought a remote corner for sex then and there, or, given the risks of arrest, headed for a nearby tavern or agreed to meet later and elsewhere. Most of them knew that decoys worked the gardens but did not recognize all of them, and some of them knew that Théru denounced men to the police. Some dossiers involve surveillance and encounters over days, weeks, or months. Sodomites performed their routines and bargained with partners with safety as well as pleasure and/or profit in mind. They met men in the gardens, but they also had safe, or at least safer, sex with friends and friends of friends in private places off the stage and therefore largely off the books. In the course of conversations in the Luxembourg and Tuileries,

16 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

infâmes revealed and concealed details about their biographies, preferences, and acquaintances. Since they wanted to persuade other men to have sex with them, they did not always tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Some prevaricated, for example, about their social or marital status, while others exaggerated about things like their endowments or connections. The police collected and digested all this information about them and their friends—­facts as well as lies and boasts, hearsay, and rumors—­for use in managing the subculture. The clergy, nobles, bourgeois, shopkeepers, artisans, workingmen, and servants involved in these cases, like others in the 1720s, include men of various ages from the capital and the provinces with various sexual interests and attitudes.8 Some wanted to play the active or passive role in anal intercourse, and others declared that they were “up for anything,” which could include masturbation, fellatio, fetishes, or threesomes. Some mentioned their “taste,” noted that they were “in on it,” or expressed dislike for women, but most did not. Sodomites who made these remarkable but unusual comments presumably did so not simply out of some sense of authenticity or solidarity but because they wished to impress and entice others. It is significant, of course, that they had ways of articulating some sense of sexual difference before the emergence of the modern concept of homosexuality and that they assumed that these words would make them more desirable to others. At the same time, we should be cautious about making generalizations about identity and community in the subculture as Michel Rey did, based more on literary sources than on extensive evidence from the archives. It seems unlikely that sexual connection erased social differences in the minds of men who met in the gardens. Once we locate all the relevant dossiers in the prisoners series, we can analyze expressions of self-­consciousness and group consciousness more responsibly and productively, with specific attention to who said what, when, where, and how. All the cases in this section exhibit typical as well as distinctive features. The incorrigible marquis de Brécey (#1) was arrested six times, after trying to escape more than once. The disreputable abbé Roger (#2), whose father could not or at least did not control him, explored bodies with relish and expressed desires with gusto. The jobless lackey Chevelet (#3) had an ongoing liaison with the disgraced abbé Chrétien, whom he met in the Luxembourg, but both had sex with other men as well. The dossiers of Deu and Dufour (#4) include two accounts, by two decoys, of the same meeting along the banks of the river and arrest in a notorious tavern. The persistent Eraux (#5) pursued a

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  17

young man who observed him for more than a year in order to secure more information about him. The prosperous Fleury (#6) protested his arrest in the name of personal freedom, and the indignant Simonnet challenged his protest in the name of collective order. The lonely Fournier (#7) sought more than sex on the spot and asked several younger males to live with him as a couple. The versatile Gilbert (#8) and Sardet (#12) served Roger as bardaches. The garrulous Gobert (#9) revealed much about his biography and psychology. The imprudent Philippe (#10) was interrogated by a commissaire, an officer not often involved in these cases, but the police and the clergy handled his case quietly. The attractive Saget (#11) did not escape punishment despite the intervention of his noble but ignoble master (also mentioned in #2), in no small part because his disgusted father abandoned him to the police. The adolescent Surgis, corrupted as a schoolboy, and his younger friends (#13) prostituted themselves in the garden where many of the men were arrested in 1723. These thirteen cases document the usual strategies of sodomites as well as the various reactions of men they accosted. We do not know what Simonnet and Haimier told decoys to do and say or just how far the officers told their operatives to go. We do know that decoys led infâmes on and tried to lead them out of the gardens sooner rather than later. In these examples, as in other dossiers, the reactions of men who did not work for the police are less straightforward and more intriguing. Some obviously responded to sodomites because they desired their bodies and/or their money. Others allegedly intended to have sodomites arrested and therefore played along with them. What about the rest, who talked to, walked with, and followed men they did not know into shadows or taverns or made and kept rendezvous for another time and place? What did they know, think, guess, feel, or want? As always, we only know what our sources allow us to know, directly or indirectly. We have little access to the minds of men who were ignorant or curious about sex with men, so these cases deserve intensive scrutiny. The case of Launay, Testu, and Vinx (#14) is included for other reasons that require some discussion. Evidence about sodomy and effeminacy in the 1720s is both elusive and inconclusive.9 More often than not, older males desired younger males, and one might therefore assume that they considered androgyny attractive, but in many cases, we do not know the ages of both parties (most notably of decoys). In most cases when we do, the younger males were adolescents, mostly in the later rather than early teens, and they presumably exhibited secondary sex characteristics. A few men used makeup

18 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

or fixed their hair like women in order to sell their services. An eighteen-­year-­ old cutler’s assistant had his hair curled and beauty spots applied “to make himself more pleasing to those who like attractive boys,” and a twenty-­year-­ old wigmaker’s assistant offered to curl a customer’s hair “in the bardache style.”10 A tailor’s assistant seated next to an older man described a younger man who walked by as “pretty” and “well suited to serve as a bardache,” or, as he explained, “a man who serves another as a woman/wife.”11 The records from the 1720s include several cases in which men served others in this way. At the same time, most men engaged in prostitution, presumably more often in the passive than the active role, did not modify their appearance, and infâmes did not gender the passive role or demean men who enacted it any more than police did. Some sodomites distanced themselves from women in conversations in the gardens, but in Paris, as in London and Amsterdam, some sodomites dressed and talked like women in assemblies in taverns or elsewhere, not for solicitation but for sociability.12 A twenty-­five-­ to twenty-­eight-­year-­old marine officer arrested in 1726 recalled dances and parties at which men wore female attire, used female titles, and had sex with each other. He noted “that this society had lasted for a long time” and that when it was exposed, orders were given to arrest its members.13 This “society,” unfortunately, left no other traces in the archives. The most extensive and impressive evidence about such activities in the prisoners series in the 1720s, as opposed to the morals series in the 1730s and 1740s, involves a group of men of mixed ranks and unknown ages who gathered weekly at a tavern called the Orangery in 1728, as documented in #14.14 These men curled their hair, made affected gestures, used feminine nicknames, and adjourned to the garden in pairs for sex.15 Beyond this case, the dossiers from the 1720s contain just a few examples of effeminacy, as opposed to the widespread use of feminine nicknames in later decades, which suggests diffusion of practices from assemblies throughout the subculture. In this regard, as in others, more research remains to be done before we can assess changes across the century. Last but not least, this section includes three cases from the underdocumented decades between 1750 and 1780 that suggest a good deal of continuity from the 1720s into the second half of the century. Men still sought men, but not always younger men, for themselves or for others, in the same spots and in the same ways. The police still entrapped men on the prowl for sexual and commercial connections, but the dossiers contain additional documentation about investigation before and interrogation after arrest. Unlike conversations

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  19

in public spaces, negotiations in custody encouraged sodomites to exculpate or even justify themselves. The thirty-­year-­old bourgeois Brisart (#15), who mentioned assemblies, disdained sex with women, and discussed the business of procurement in the Luxembourg, initially denied the charges against him but subsequently confessed. He blamed maternal cruelty and corrupted companions for his misconduct. The forty-­t wo-­year-­old servant Dosseur (#16) cited the danger of contracting disease from women and the pressure of unemployment, but he also acknowledged that he was debauched and had had sex with more than a few men before he lost his job. The twenty-­eight-­year-­old jobless cook Dupré and the surgeon Étam (#17) recruited sexual partners in their quarter and in the Tuileries. This case illustrates the police model of corruption of innocent younger males by culpable older males and the police method of collecting information about as many sodomites as possible, not only in the gardens but throughout the city.

1. François Marie de Vassy, Marquis de Brécey, 1722–­23, 1725, 1728–­29, 173816 a. Police Report, (date broken off) July or September 1722 The marquis de Brécey, living at the hôtel de Flandre on rue Dauphine and on his estate near Vrange in lower Normandy, was in the Luxembourg garden, in the path at the bottom of the garden adjoining the wall of the Carthusian monastery [south of the garden at 64 boulevard Saint-­Michel], where all the infâmes gather, between 8 and 9 p.m. M. de Brécey encountered a young man in that spot, and, seeing him, he pretended to piss, touching himself, and then accosted the young boy and asked him if he was getting hard. They took several turns in the garden together, and as they walked, he wanted at all costs to put his hand into the boy’s breeches, telling him that he was up for anything. He withdrew with him to a hidden spot in order to commit infamies there. Having observed him and recognized that he was a bad lot, he was arrested in the garden along with the same boy around 9 p.m. He said he knows abbé Choiseul, an ecclesiastical member of the Parlement who is known to be an infamous type.17 He likewise said he knows abbé Clisson.18 The marquis informed the young man he was with, a boy who is an unemployed lackey and was strolling the same path at the time, that he had

20 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

business with him. This lackey is named Jacques Bernard and was arrested on the same evening for the same reason. b. Note from Officer Simonnet to Lieutenant General d’Argenson, Undated M. d’Argenson will kindly let the marquis de Brécey understand that you have interrogated the young man who was arrested with him or had him interrogated and that he disclosed everything to you. c. Letter from Simonnet to d’Argenson, 14 April 1723 Sir, I was in the Tuileries last evening to observe several infâmes, some of them seeking to prostitute themselves and others to corrupt them. I noticed the marquis de Brécey in the paths and groves of the garden where all the infâmes gather. He was seeking good fortune, as he used to do before in the Luxembourg garden. Two of my agents who work with me also recognized him, having arrested him and conducted him to your residence. He well deserves to be exiled to Brécey, which is his estate. If he is allowed to remain in Paris longer, he will commit many crimes. [D’Argenson added this note on 17 April: “I wrote to M. de Brécey to speak with him next Wednesday.”] d. Police Report, 8 October 1725 The marquis de Brécey, from Lower Normandy, living at the hôtel de Flandre on rue Dauphine, arrived in Paris four days ago. At 7 p.m., M. Haimier was making his rounds in the [Tuileries] garden and spread out the watchmen. One of them encountered the marquis, who took him by the hand and asked him if he wanted to amuse himself with him. He found a bench, and they sat down. The marquis put his hand into the watchman’s breeches and asked him if he was getting hard and if he wanted to put it into him. M. Haimier passed by at that moment with one of his agents, and M. de Brécey told the watchman who was with him, “Let’s go to another location. The folks who are walking here offend me.” He got up at once and, holding the watchman by the hand, led him to a corner behind the palisades. Once there, he undid his breeches so the watchman could put it into him. M. Haimier, who had followed them, had him arrested at that moment. The marquis stated his name and handed over a letter addressed

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  21

to him to confirm the truth of what he said.19 M. Haimier told him that he was going to conduct him before M. Hérault.20 The marquis told him that he would rather stick his sword through his body and told him that he was a good friend of a brother of M. Hérault who lived in Lower Normandy. He would never set foot in the province again if he believed that [they would give?] what happened to him such [publicity?]. After much discussion, M. Haimier released him so as not to be obliged to use force with a man of rank who refused to account for his actions. e. Police Report, 6 June 1728 Marquis de  Brécey, from the province of Normandy, lodging on rue Guénegaud. Around 10 p.m., a man returning from walking in Roule [area in the 8th arr.] with three or four of his comrades, crossing the Tuileries, stopped to make water against a tree. He was very surprised to find himself hugged around the middle of the body by M. de Brécey, who even grabbed his cock and tried to undo his breeches by force, which provoked the man to shout. M. Haimier came running with his watchmen and saw that M. de Brécey was escaping. He had them chase and catch him. They brought him back to the man, who charged him with all that is above, which the marquis admitted. A few days ago, he was seen on the quai de Conti and in front of the collège des Quatre Nations [also called collège Mazarin, later Institut de France, quai de Conti] at the hour when the students leave class, trying to accost them in order to corrupt them. Note: M. de Brécey was arrested for the same reason on 9 October 1725. He was conducted before the magistrate [lieutenant general], to whom he admitted all that he was then accused of. [According to a note on the first page, Brécey “admitted it, begged that it not be talked about.”] f. Police Report, 22 June 1729 Marquis de Brécey, from the province of Normandy, lodging on rue Dauphine. At 9:30 p.m. today, M. de Brécey was walking in the groves and along the palisades [in the Tuileries]. He saw a man who was walking alone and accosted him. He told him that if he wished to allow him to fuck him, he would give him a gold louis [coin worth twenty livres], but for that deed they must not remain in the spot where they are. They would run too much risk

22 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

there. He gave him some change to drink to his health and told him to go to the terrace on the side of the Conference gate [between pont de l’Alma and pont des Invalides]. They would be in safety there since they could see anyone coming from any direction. The man alerted M. Haimier, who was walking in a path nearby, about the rendezvous he had and told him to go there. He followed him with his watchmen. De Brécey saw Haimier approaching, recognized him and decided to jump over the parapet. The watchmen pursued him. He saw that they were catching up with him, went down to the bank of the river and jumped in. A very agile watchman jumped in as well, got hold of him by his clothes and pulled him out. M. Haimier arrived, had him brought back into the Tuileries and conducted him before the magistrate. Note: M. de Brécey has already been arrested two other times for the same action, the first time on 9 October 1725 and the second time on 6 June 1728. g. Letter from Abbé Olivet to Lieutenant General Hérault, 23 June 172921 Sir, I do not flatter myself that you remember me, although I am one of your oldest admirers and I have seen you keep all your promises for twenty years. I cannot decline to do a service that is asked of me, no matter how much disgust I feel. The marquis de Brécey is here to assist with his advice the marquise de Charnacé, an old fool obliged to sell her lands to pay her creditors and incapable of managing on her own.22 Her attorneys and her barristers only contribute to her ruin. The marquis de Brécey, her nephew, came here solely to prevent the loss of everything. Of all the men in the world, he is the one I would have least suspected of the odious crime for which he was arrested yesterday in the Tuileries. He came this morning to admit it to me and assuredly to his shame and embarrassment. He made me well understand that most crimes carry their penalty in this world. The obligation that he would like to owe you, sir, and of which I am the guarantor, is that, with regard to his aunt’s situation, you might please to forget his crime for three weeks, which he will devote to completing the business, after which he will withdraw to his estate. I tell you nothing about his birth. It is known to you as one of the grandest in Lower Normandy. His crime requires punishment, but in the present circumstances, you could not punish him without its causing a dreadful scandal in Paris, in his family, in his whole province. You are prudent, and you have a good heart. It is up to you, sir, to consider if this is

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  23

not one of those sensitive occasions on which, out of fear of making things worse, the wise magistrate relaxes his most just severity. If the affair were of a different nature, I would have employed one of our mutual friends to obtain this favor from you. But the secret cannot be guarded too closely, for all sorts of reasons. I at least hope, sir, that you will forgive me for taking this liberty. The marquis de Brécey needed an intermediary. I am annoyed that his choice fell on me and that it is a matter of such odious matters when I have the honor to express to you in writing for the first time with what respect I am, sir, your most humble and obedient servant. Note: It occurs to me that I can discuss this matter with confidence with father Tournemine.23 [The lieutenant general had Brécey confined to the Bastille on 30 June, to make an example of him, and released on 22 July 1729 because he had a lawsuit in progress that required his presence.] h. Police Report, 14 July 1738 Marquis de Brécey, lodging at the hôtel de Flandre on rue Dauphine. While I was sitting on the parapet of the quai de Conti at 10:30 p.m., a man dressed in a gray summer outfit who placed himself near me looked into the water with a pocket glass [telescope] for a long time. Then he asked me, “Sir, what is that small fire I see there, in the middle of the water?” I told him, “Sir, it is the candle in the baths” [in barges moored in the Seine]. He asked me, “The baths are over there?” I told him, “It’s someone who’s bathing with a candle.” Then he struck up a conversation with me and told me that it was fine to bathe, that he had made a tour of the quays and seen a number of bathers. I told him that they could only be rascals and Savoyards [errand boys]. He told me that he had seen some who were not rascals, that he had seen some very pretty young folks and that there were several of them to whom nature had not been stingy. He had seen all types of them, among others a young man who did not seem to be more than seventeen years old, whose face was very pleasing, but it was something else altogether to see him naked because the Graces [goddesses of beauty and other personal qualities] had endowed him with what was most charming. In the end he went on making such speeches to me for half an hour. When we reached the parapet, he approached me and tried to put his hand into my breeches, saying, “Let’s see, then, if nature has been generous to you.” I told him that too many people were going by. He asked me, “Don’t you wish to let yourself be touched?” I

24 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

told him, “Sir, we’re not situated for that.” He told me, “Ha, the reason you don’t wish to let yourself be touched is that you apparently don’t have an erection, but that’s not surprising, for we’ve walked so much that it could’ve prevented you from having one. I tell you that it’s not the case with me and that if we had lain down together it surely would’ve come to you.” We took another turn and came back to the same spot, where he started the same thing over again. As I was not paying much attention, he put his member into my hand and asked me, “Here, if this were ready, would it be fine?” I withdrew my hand. He continued the conversation and told me, “Sir, if you wish, we’ll meet here tomorrow. We won’t take such a long route, we won’t transact any more business and we’ll take care not to tire ourselves so much, so that everything will be ready.” We parted with a promise to be at the rendezvous tomorrow at 9 p.m. I went along the quay to the rendezvous on the 15th. The marquis was there, but I avoided meeting him because I was accompanied by another person. i. Police Report, 16 July 1738 Marquis de Brécey, lodging at the hôtel de Flandre on rue [Dauphine]. Finding myself on the quai de Conti at 10 p.m., I encountered the marquis de Brécey, who approached me. After taking several turns on the promenade with me, during which we had a general and everyday conversation, he asked me if I lived in that area. I told him that I was not too far from there. He told me, “If you wish to give me your address, I’ll come to see you.” We entered rue Guénegaud so that I could show him where I lived. Once we had entered the street, he tried to put his hand into my breeches and told me, “Let’s see, then, if you have an erection,” which he started doing again several times. I restrained him and begged him to stop, telling him that I did not want to expose myself in the street but that I was going to show him my door. He had me pass and pass again several times by the door I had shown him as mine, telling me that I had only pointed it out to him and he wished to point it out to me, to show me that he had noted it well. We returned to the quay, and on the way, he told me, “Unbutton your breeches so I can see if you’re in good shape.” I told him I absolutely did not wish to expose myself in the street, since I had shown him where I lived. We returned to the quay, and after we took a turn, I told him, “Sir, I have the honor to wish you good evening. I’m going to retire.” He told me, “I’m going to escort you, but don’t point out your door. I want to see you in.” At the end of rue Guénegaud,

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  25

the marquis was arrested, taken to commissaire Parent’s residence and from there conducted to M. Hérault’s residence at midnight.24 Note: The marquis de Brécey admitted, at commissaire Parent’s residence, that he was arrested about ten years ago by M. Haimier, who conducted him before M. Hérault, and that M. Hérault sent him to the Bastille, which he left only with a letter of exile, and that he later secured his recall.

2. Abbé Jacques Louis Roger de Brenouille, 172325 a. Police Report, Undated Jacques Louis Roger de Brenouille, living with his father, master upholsterer, on rue Saint-­Guillaume, wore from a young age the surplice of the community of Saint-­Sulpice, from which he was expelled as much for his debaucheries as for trying to suborn several young folks, having induced them to steal from their parents in order to have money to have a good time.26 After leaving this community, he was noticed by the late M. d’Argenson, keeper of the seals, on account of his infamous debaucheries.27 Since that time, Roger came to live in the parish of Saint-­Étienne-­du-­Mont [church on place Sainte-­Geneviève], where he became affiliated with the clergy and from which his wicked life caused him to be expelled again, which led him to decide to leave Paris, from which he has been absent for about seven or eight months. He has returned, and since that time, his main occupation has been to go to all the public places to walk and seek the company of all the infâmes whose acquaintance he can make in order to prostitute them and procure other persons involved in this infamous trade for them. Specifically, on the afternoon of Tuesday, 4 March, around 4 or 5 p.m., Roger was in the Tuileries with Leblanc and Lepan, who are infamous sodomites and have even been arrested for that reason. They had an abominable conversation together and then separated. Roger alone remained. At around 7 p.m., he accosted a young lackey, an attractive boy, whom he had observed for a long time, who was lying on the grass in one of the groves commonly frequented by the sodomites. On Wednesday the 5th in the Tuileries, Roger met Leblanc, mentioned above, and another man he wished to know, and the three of them made a rendezvous for the next day, Ascension [of Christ] Day, the 6th, between 2 and 3 p.m. in the close of the Carthusian monastery. In order to round out the group, they added Petit, another infamous scoundrel, who was arrested by royal order in the Tuileries

26 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

on the 20th and has been in the hospital [Bicêtre] since that time.28 On Friday the 7th around 1 p.m., Roger was in the Tuileries again, alone, to seek company there. On Sunday the 9th, Roger came again to the Tuileries, where he met Lepan and Sardet, notorious sodomites who have since been arrested for the same reason, in leaving the garden.29 Roger’s conversations with all the men he accosts typically involve his saying that he is up for anything at all and through all ends, that if there is a man in the world more in on it than he was, he would kill himself, that if he found a hair on him that was not in on it, he would execute it himself, that if the king knew his merit on this score, he would make him the superintendent of all buggery, bardachery and several other infamies of this nature. It can be said truthfully that he is the most infamous scoundrel there is in the world. Roger takes debauchery so far that he brags about having a party with several young folks at which they had an omelet made, to which Roger added some of his sperm and ate some of it. b. Police Report, 29 May 1723 Jacques Louis Roger de Brenouille, tonsured abbé, thirty-­t wo years old, living with his parents on rue Saint-­Guillaume in faubourg [area outside the line of the old city walls] Saint-­Germain [7th arr.]. Around 9 p.m., Haimier, exempt of the provost of the Île de France, commander of the guards of the gates of the Tuileries, was in the groves and paths of the garden where many infâmes gather. Roger, whom I had watched for several days, was sitting on a bench and having an infamous conversation with two young folks wearing swords.30 A man known by honest people related to me what follows. In the course of the first conversation he had with Roger, which included Petit, whom I arrested on the 18th, Roger told him that he liked him very much, wanted to put it into him and in order to do it suggested that they go to the close of the Carthusian monastery. Roger did not fail to show up. The man, who had only made this rendezvous to see if he would come, suggested that they go to vespers instead of carrying it out. The abbé told him that he had not come there with that intention but went to vespers in hopes of corrupting him. During vespers, Leblanc showed up. Personal valet of the lieutenant colonel of the regiment of Navarre, he had served Roger as bardache. Seeing that the man objected to going into the close after leaving vespers, he decided to go away with Leblanc. The man went to the Tuileries that evening and ran into the abbé, who told him that he had gone to Leblanc’s room and fucked him twice. Several days later, Roger told him that he was waiting for the marquis

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  27

du Vivier, who arrived a moment later.31 The abbé left him and went away with the marquis. Some time later, he again encountered Roger, who told him that he had fucked the marquis twice, that the marquis had done the same to him and that the marquis had told him, the abbé, that he had the finest body in the world. Roger also told the man that he found himself some time ago with three others he did not name and that after having a very good time, they made an omelet of eggs and sperm, which they ate and found quite good. In another conversation, he told him that he had been the fourth member of a group in the Bois de Boulogne [forest on the west side of Paris], that he had been fucked seven times and that his pleasure was to have someone piss in his ass because it served him as an enema and refreshed him. He also said that he fucked in the mouth, in the thighs, in the tits, that if the king knew his merit in bardachery, he would make him superintendent of buggery, that if he had a hair on his body that was not in on it, he would tear it out and throw it in the fire, that he wished to be bardached by a duke in order to have the title of duchess. In accordance with everything above and what Haimier has seen and heard himself, he arrested the man named above and conducted him to the For-­l’Évêque, where he imprisoned him.32 c. Letter from Abbé Théru to d’Argenson’s Secretary Rossignol, 16 June 1723 Sir, I recalled denouncing abbé Roger to the late M. d’Argenson, keeper of the seals and lieutenant general of police at the time. I sought and found the depositions of the three young folks he debauched and the memo I wrote about him and sent to that wise magistrate. I have the honor of sending you a summary of it, which I beg you to read to M. d’Argenson, pointing out to him that it would be a great evil to release this infamous abbé, who has lived in abomination for almost fourteen years. Abbés and priests should be less spared than others. I implore you in the name of Jesus Christ to encourage and support this young magistrate. The marquis du Vivier, who claims M. Saget and has others claim him as well, has deserved and deserves the same treatment.33 Since there is a royal order to conduct Saget to Bicêtre, I do not see what prevents conducting him there. d. Summary of Théru’s Memo, Undated Abbé Roger has shown much inclination for libertinism since the age of fifteen or sixteen.

28 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

1. His libertinism and corruption prompted his exclusion from the ranks of the clerics of Saint-­Sulpice [2 rue Palatine]. 2. He contributed not a little to the profligacy of Messrs Jaris and Frontier, clerics of that parish, and he advised them to steal at home in order to have the means to have a good time together and engage in debauchery in a secret room he had near the Invalides [hospital for veterans, 7th arr.]. 3. He had dealings with several musketeers. 4. The abbé was expelled from the parish of Saint-­Sulpice, and, seeing that he was too well known there, he went to live near Saint-­Étienne-­du-­Mont, where he lured in young folks and corrupted, among others, M. de Beaulieu, son of a family on the rue du Four, two pages of the late duchesse de Vendôme, abbé Frontier, etc.34 The late M. d’Argenson, keeper of the seals and lieutenant general of police at the time, the scourge of corrupters of youth, was alerted about the abbé’s profligacy and gave him a terrible reprimand, after which the abbé went to Rome, where he certainly did not learn religious principles that condemn the detestable infamies and abominations that he has boasted about committing in Marseille with M. de Rougemont and that he has inflicted and undergone here since his return from Rome.35 We can thus regard him as a monster of iniquity, and it would be a great evil to liberate him. The father is quite blameworthy for not ever watching over the conduct of his detestable son. e. Letter from Officer Haimier to d’Argenson, 16 June 1723 Sir, In accordance with the order you did the honor of giving me, I made inquiries about abbé Roger. To that end, I went to Saint-­Sulpice, where I consulted M. de Landes, unbeneficed priest of the parish, who told me that he remembers well that Roger’s conduct was not orderly during the time he wore a surplice in that parish, that there was even some memo against him, but since it was almost twelve years ago, that he cannot account for what happened. Then, Sir, I went to see M. Jary, grocer living on the corner of the rue de Seine, who has a son who frequented Roger at that time. This shopkeeper’s wife told me that she was warned that Roger was a libertine and forbade her son to see him. During the time when they did see each other, she remembers well that Roger had a party with three other young folks, that they locked themselves in a room over a guard post near the Invalides, that Roger’s father heard about it and went there to find his son. She also told me that she knew

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  29

other details that propriety did not allow her to tell me, but she would avow them if obliged to. In the memo I had the honor to give you, Sir, I left out the fact that Roger was in Marseille and had dealings with Rougemont, who is currently in the hospital by your order. [According to the summary sheet, “This so-­called abbé is one of the most confirmed and odious scoundrels, and one cannot read the attached memos without horror. For the honor of the clergy, whose costume he wears, and for public welfare, it is appropriate to lock this wretch up in the hospital and detain him there for a long time.” Roger was transferred to Bicêtre in June and secured his release in September by enlisting in the infantry regiment of Burgundy. His parents gave their consent, and his captain promised not to give him leave to return to Paris.]

3. Charles Antoine Chevelet and Abbé Chrétien, 1723–­2436 a. Police Report, 11 May 1723 In the Tuileries as well as the Luxembourg, I have seen several different times Charles Antoine Chevelet, unemployed lackey, native of Franche-­Comté [province along the Swiss border]. He formerly served M. de Landes, sergeant in the royal household, and currently lodges with one of his friends, abbé Chrétien, living at Mlle Caillou’s house on rue Neuve-­Saint-­Étienne [later rue Rollin]. On Monday the 10th around 8:30 p.m., I encountered Chevelet in the Luxembourg. He accosted me and told me he had seen me in the Tuileries a few days ago. He was sitting on a bench there with a notorious sodomite. Our whole conversation was about his telling me some of his adventures, such as living with a schoolboy for three years, during which time both of them enjoyed all the infamous pleasures of sodomy, and with yet another young man in Lyon [Rhône] with whom Chevelet had dealings for two years. Since it was getting late, we were obliged to leave the garden and make a rendezvous on the next day, the 11th, between 8 and 9 a.m., in the Luxembourg garden. Chevelet did not fail to be there. After a bit of conversation, we went to a tavern in order to be safer. Chevelet, who lodges with abbé Chrétien, made his acquaintance in the Luxembourg two years ago. Since that time, the abbé has

30 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

not stopped seeing Chevelet, even in all the houses where he has lived. When Chevelet is out of work, he goes to lodge with this infamous abbé. They both sleep together and commit sodomy upon each other, based on what Chevelet told me. He was arrested by royal order in the tavern where we were, by M. Simonnet, who conducted him before a commissaire and then to the Petit Châtelet around 1 p.m.37 [According to the summary sheet, “It seems just to have this infâme put in the hospital and to have abbé Chrétien watched.” Chevelet was transferred to Bicêtre in May.] b. Memo by Théru, Undated Abbé Chrétien, twenty-­three years old or thereabouts, has lived in libertinism and corruption for a long time. The principal of the collège de Fortet [21 rue Valette], where he was a scholarship student for several years, was forced to expel him because of his profligacy. Since that time, instead of studying and making himself ready to do something, he has had dealings with infâmes and a young man called Chevelet, arrested by M. Simonnet in the Luxembourg, who stated that he slept with Chrétien and that they committed the worst infamies together. It is necessary to dispatch an order to send him into custody and make him serve as an example in the schools where he is known. He lodges on rue Neuve-­Saint-­Étienne-­du-­Mont. [The rector of the collège de Fortet not only confirmed the expulsion but also noted that Chrétien was “caught in the act” and debauched other students. The abbé was arrested and later transferred to Bicêtre in June, along with four men he did not know: Jean Huant and Louis Duplessis, bootblacks caught in the act in the Palais de Justice (complex of law courts on the Île de la Cité); Louis Carel, porter, entrapped on the quays; and Urbain Gautier, unemployed lackey, who likewise prostituted himself in public spaces.] c. Petition from Chevelet’s Sister to d’Argenson, Undated My lord, Marie Chevelet, unmarried sister of Claude Antoine Chevelet, her brother, has learned that her brother has been arrested and conducted to Bicêtre four months ago on the specious pretext of wicked conduct. The petitioner, his sister, has come specifically from Gray in Franche-­Comté to the city

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  31

of Paris to solicit the liberty of her brother Claude Antoine Chevelet from your excellency, given that he is not guilty of what he was falsely accused of and that those who arrested him knew the contrary quite well, since they demanded money from him to release him. He had none at that moment, so they detained him wrongly. He was on the point of returning to their native region. By granting her dear brother’s liberty, they will be obliged to wish for the preservation of your excellency. [Chevelet was released and exiled to his native region in November, but he never left Paris. He was arrested again on 3 October 1724, to the surprise of his employer, released and exiled again on the 14th, and then arrested again, under the name Charles Richer, on the 29th.] d. Police Report, 29 October 1724 M. Pierre Gaudelet, son of M. Gaudelet, dean of the auditors of accounts in Dijon [Côte-­d ’Or], and Charles Richer, unemployed lackey. M. Haimier noticed that the men named above followed and accosted each other and both showed each other their cocks, so he took care to have them watched and even followed them himself. Finally, after these two men took several turns around the mall [in the Tuileries] and its surroundings, M. Haimier saw them go behind the palisades that border the mall. He went there at once with some of his agents and found the two men with their breeches undone and committing abominations. He made them both come out. Gaudelet admitted his infamy, and Richer made a great deal of noise, saying that he was undone and that he had left the Petit Châtelet, where M. Simonnet had conducted him, a few days ago. He begged M. Haimier not to put him in that prison, in light of which he had them conducted to the For-­l’Évêque and imprisoned them by royal order. [After twenty more months in Bicêtre, Chevelet, now twenty-­five years old, was exiled to his native region again in July 1726.]

4. Pierre Deu and Jean Baptiste Dufour, 1723, 172938 a. Police Report, 31 October 1723 Jean Baptiste Dufour, unmarried, away from his father’s home, native of Versailles, twenty-­one years old, living in a room in Mme Fanechet’s apartment

32 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

on the third floor of a pastry-­maker’s house on rue Montorgeuil at the corner of rue du Bout-­du-­Monde [later rue Léopold Bellan], working as a fish porter at the market. Around 7 p.m. on the quai de la Ferraille [also called Mégisserie], I saw Dufour seeking good fortune there with his hand in his breeches all the time. He accosted me and told me in the course of conversation that he was up for anything one wanted, that he put it in and that others put it into him, that when he was with diverting company he shrank from nothing for the sake of pleasure, that he had always had this taste and did not like women. After I left Dufour in order to observe his actions further, he accosted another of M. Simonnet’s agents, to whom he made similar remarks and told him furthermore that this was only the third time he had come to this quay and that he went almost every day to the Half-­Moon at the Saint-­A ntoine gate and had a good time there. Dufour suggested to the man that they go down under the arches of the quai de la Ferraille to jerk off, but, seeing that the man did not respond to his designs, Dufour left him and went to lean on the parapet of the quay, where Pierre Deu, who had passed before Dufour several times, stopped. They placed themselves next to each other, and Dufour showed his cock to Deu, who also showed him his, and they handled each other. But as M. Delajanière [police agent] had observed some of this infamous maneuver, he passed before these two abominable types, which led them to decide to go to a tavern with the sign of the Magpie near the For-­ l’Évêque. After they entered, M. Simonnet, who had also observed them, at once sent one of his agents to the tavern, where he found them both handling each other. The agent reported it to M. Simonnet, who went immediately to the tavern to arrest Deu and Dufour by royal order and conducted them to the For-­l’Évêque prison around 9 p.m. [D’Argenson signed an order for Dufour’s release on 9 December, after he signed a promise not to frequent the public promenades.] b. Police Report, 31 October 1723 Pierre Deu, music master, native of Sées in Normandy, fifty years old, living in the monastery of Saint-­Germain-­des-­Prés [6th arr.], unmarried. While walking on the quai de la Ferraille around 7:30 p.m., I observed for a while all the actions of Deu, who passed before me several times and stared at me. He then went and placed himself along the parapet of the quay next to Jean Baptiste Dufour, an infamous sodomite who had accosted three different

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  33

agents of M. Simonnet not long before. He began by turning toward Deu and showing him his cock, and then, after they approached each other, Dufour handled Deu’s cock. I passed before them, which troubled them somewhat and led them to decide to go to a tavern with the sign of the Magpie, near the For-­l’Évêque, a place long known to receive these sorts of folks, in order to conceal their turpitudes better. One of M. Simonnet’s agents, who, like me, had observed their maneuvers, followed these two abominable types. A moment later, M. Simonnet sent someone there on the pretext of asking for someone. He found Deu and Dufour in the act, handling each other’s cocks. He reported it to M. Simonnet, who went immediately to arrest them by royal order, not wanting to give these infâmes time to carry their crime further. He conducted them to the For-­l’Évêque prison around 9 p.m. Note: Deu, long known as an infâme who does nothing but frequent all the public places and seek to corrupt young folks, once told one of M. Simonnet’s agents in the Tuileries, “I can see from your face, my friend, that your cock has a very pointy end.” [In a letter to Rossignol dated 5 November 1723, abbé de Vandermeulan suggested that sodomites should be deported to “the Mississippi” (Louisiana) or burned at the stake but requested an exception for Deu, his niece’s gifted music teacher. D’Argenson signed an order for his release the next day, after (Deu) signed a promise not to frequent the public promenades.] c. Letter from d’Argenson to Chevalier d’Orsay, 9 December 1723 I have just signed the order, Sir, necessary to have your sergeant Jean Baptiste Dufour released, whom you claim as your soldier in the letter you did the honor of writing to me. I can assure you that this is one of the most infamous debauchees in Paris, whose company can only be dangerous for the rest of your unit. I therefore beg you to have him watched closely, and I believe that you will think, as I do, that some time in prison is very useful to him for correcting him, if it is possible, or at least for making him realize that his status as a soldier is not a title of impunity for him. d. Police Report, 6 June 1729 M. Pierre Deu, music master, fifty years old. This man is known as a corrupter of youth. He haunts all the promenades, and when he finds someone alone, he accosts him and suggests that they get something to eat. He always takes great care to ask for a private room, with the expectation of succeeding in

34 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

satisfying his infamous passion. He was arrested three years ago in a tavern in the Porcherons [village incorporated into the 9th arr.] with a young man he wished to suborn. He was conducted before the magistrate, who gave him a severe reprimand and told him that if he ever heard him spoken of again, he would lock him up in the hospital for the rest of his days. Today, around 6 p.m., he was walking in the Tuileries and accosted a young man. After discussing indifferent matters with him, he suggested that they get something to eat and said that he knows a tavern with the sign of the Star on rue du Bac, where they had good wine. Suspecting nothing bad, the young man accepted the suggestion. They left together by the Pont Royal gate. M.  Haimier was there and recognized Deu. Seeing him with a young man, he had no doubt about his intention and had them followed by two of his agents, one of whom returned to report that he had asked for a private room, although a server had told him he would be better off in the garden. Haimier went there himself, went up to the room and asked the young man if he knew Deu. He replied no, that he was going to leave him because he had made infamous propositions to him, even wanted to use violence with him. Deu then threw himself on his knees to ask for mercy. M. Haimier had him taken and conducted to the Petit Châtelet prison. [Hérault added this note on the 8th: “Will remain in prison for a month.”]

5. Emery Eraux, 172339 a. Police Report, 26 October 1723 Emery Eraux, lace vendor, rue Saint-­Denis. About four years ago, in the Carthusian monastery, the man named above ran into a young man whom he accosted. The young man needed to speak to a monk, left Eraux and spent more than an hour with the monk. In leaving the monastery, he met Eraux, who was waiting for him and suggested that they go to a tavern. He told him they would have a good time together and that if he liked to be fucked, he had the finest cock in Paris. The young man rejected him, but they were together as far as the Saint Michael gate [56 boulevard Saint-­Michel], where they parted. Some days later, the young man encountered Eraux, accompanied by one of his friends. They urged him to go with them to a tavern, where Eraux ordered a carp to be cooked. While it was cooking, Eraux told the young man that he must divert himself with

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  35

them, that his friend was not too many and that they came there with that intention. In saying so, Eraux tried to unbutton his breeches. The young man did not wish to allow it and withdrew. About fifteen months later, the young man was walking in the Tuileries one morning. He ran into Eraux, who accosted him as soon as he noticed him, asked him if he were still as scrupulous as before. If he wished to be less cruel and have a good time with him, he would have every reason to be happy about it, but the spot where they were was not convenient for these sorts of pleasures. If he wished to return to the same spot, about 4 p.m., they would go to the Champs-­Élysées together and have a good time there without fear. He wanted to show him his cock, telling him that there was not a finer one in Paris. The young man told a man of probity what had happened, and he made him go to the rendezvous in order to try to learn the man’s name and address. He did not fail to be in the Tuileries at the designated time. On the way to the Champs-­Élysées together, Eraux told the young man that some time ago he had partied with a page, that they went to a tavern where the server who served them was of the same taste, that he, Eraux, put it into the page and the page put it into the server, all three at once, that the page told them that he had never experienced so much pleasure in his life and could not tell them which of the two prevailed over the other. When they reached the high ground in the Champs-­Élysées, he suggested to the young man that they enter a field, which the young man did not wish to agree to do. Eraux then did everything he could to undo his breeches. He had his own cock, which was as thick as a mule’s, in his hand. The young man had done everything he could to learn the man’s name and address, but the man did not wish to say anything about it unless he consented to his infamous propositions. He wanted to leave him, but Eraux grabbed his arm and stopped him, telling him that despite his cruelty, he wanted to pay for a bottle. To that end, he led him to a tavern, where he redoubled his entreaties to the young man, which obliged him to leave him. Eraux followed him as far as rue Saint-­Honoré. About a year ago, at the Croix Rouge [intersection, 6th arr.] in faubourg Saint-­Germain, the young man encountered Eraux, who accosted him and told him that he had often seen him enter the collège Mazarin and that there was a professor in that collège who was in good standing with the lieutenant general of police and that on the least suspicions, he submitted memos and got many young folks locked up. M. Baudry had sent for him, Eraux, and two of his friends and told them that if they did not change their ways, he would

36 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

have them put in the hospital. In the course of this summer, the young man has seen the man several times in the Tuileries and Luxembourg, seeking to pick up young boys. The young man was in the Tuileries this morning, saw Eraux there, pointed him out to me and related all that is above. I arrested him. b. Letter from Théru to Rossignol, 27 October 1723 Sir, For several years, people have often spoken to me about M. Emery Eraux, lace vendor on rue Saint-­Denis, as a corrupter. He has had dealings with some of those who were imprisoned in Bicêtre and had been admonished by Messrs Baudry and Machault.40 He has often been seen on the quays and in the public gardens, seeking some prey, and I have been informed that he wishes me ill because I had infâmes hunted down, which he would not have done and would not do if he regarded infamies with horror. He even tempted a young man, twenty-­t wo or twenty-­three years of age, to evil. He was on our quay and saw him leave the collège. He followed him and considered him suspicious. Since he is a well-­established man and may have decent folks in his family, M. d’Argenson might have him released and warned, or might warn him himself, to renounce the infamous passion for boys. Have the goodness not to involve me further and to divert all suspicions from me. The truth is that I had nothing to do with what happened to him, but I am not displeased about it. He can learn to be prudent at his expense and by renouncing this infamous business. [D’Argenson signed an order for his release on 27 October.]

6. Louis Fleury, 172341 a. Police Report, 19 June 1723 Louis Fleury, unmarried, thirty-­five years old, native of Lyon, living in Paris at the house of Mlle Marion on rue de l’Arbre-­sec, opposite the house of M. Desmoulin. I saw Fleury around 10 p.m. in the Tuileries, in the spots where all the infâmes usually go, seeking to pick up someone, greeting all those who passed before him. He accosted several persons of the sort, who left him. Seeing

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  37

that he greeted me likewise, saying good evening every time I passed before him, I replied with another greeting. He then replied, “You’re here quite late, Sir, and quite alone.” I replied that it was my custom. After one or two turns, he asked that we rest, and we sat down on a bench. He told me that he was getting as hard as a Carthusian and had a great desire to have a good time. He asked if I knew several young folks, since he liked groups. Did I know a young man who passed by there who was very well built? I replied no, but that it was surely another young man seeking good fortune, that he knew it very well because people only came to this spot for that. The young man had just passed by, so he greeted him likewise, spoke to him and begged him to sit down with us. Continuing the conversation with the young man, he told him as well that he was getting hard, that there was light in this spot, that he once accosted four young folks in the same way and had a very good time, that he went often to the Palais Royal, where there were more people than in the Tuileries. He asked if we wanted to go somewhere, the young man offered to pay for a bottle, and we agreed to go drink it. As we made our way down rue Saint-­Germain-­l’Auxerrois, Fleury said that he was getting so hard that he was obliged to put his cock under the belt of his breeches because it hindered his walking. He usually got hard that way. It prevented him from going bathing because when he bathed and saw fine asses and fine cocks, he got hard even in the water and discharged. He had diverted himself well several times in Lyon and had been debauched and turned to this taste there several years before by a young man from Paris. He had a very good time with him. He had gone that day to the Saint Bernard [or Tournelle] gate [quai Saint-­Bernard] to watch the bathers and to see if he could find someone there with whom he could have a good time. In conversing in this way, in passing opposite the For-­l ’Évêque, Fleury was arrested by royal order, by M. Simonnet, and put in the For-­l’Évêque, around 7:30 p.m. b. Letter from Barrister Fabry to d’Argenson, Undated42 Sir, I had the honor to present myself at your audience today in order to implore your justice in favor of M. Fleury, bourgeois de Lyon, who was committed to the For-­l’Évêque as a prisoner on Saturday. As your many affairs did not permit you to be at your residence, allow me, Sir, to tell you in writing some of what I would have explained to you in person. I can assure you that M. Fleury is a man with an intact reputation, that he has a wife with whom he has always lived with so much unity and

38 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

harmony, that he has eleven children by her. There is no man who has a talent for making more friends through his simple and friendly manner. M. de Belly, of one of the best families in Lyon, has just made him his heir, to the disadvantage of his own sister, and what is odd about it is that all Lyon approved this designation. Some business regarding this inheritance drew him to this city. The sister, who has publicly vowed his ruin, apparently seduced someone with money into attributing to him the desire to commit a despicable crime. He is therefore accused only of a desire alone. If he were unfortunate enough to have it, which I will never believe, the penitence he has done in prison for a week is very harsh and would suffice to bring him back to himself and cause him to make serious reflections for the future. I have always known him as such a decent man that I confide in him blindly about all the business I have in the provinces, and since he has been here, I have always had him at my table. Would it be possible for a person with the abominable inclination imputed to him to conceal it to the point that no one noticed it by his age, forty? If I merely suspected him of it, I would certainly avoid making myself his intercessor with you. I therefore beg you very humbly, Sir, to have some mercy for a man burdened with such a large family, a hundred leagues from his province. I know that several persons of rank, persuaded as I am of his innocence, have undertaken to solicit you actively in his favor. I will be infinitely obliged to you if he can owe his liberty to the very humble prayer I make to you, in order to be able to show him by it that I am most appreciative of all the good turns he has done me up to now. c. Petition from Fleury to Attorney General Joly de Fleury, Undated43 M. Fleury, bourgeois de Lyon, invokes your authority to secure reparation for the most frightful and horrible insult that can be offered to the father of a family whose probity is well known. He came to this city about two weeks ago to attend to several lawsuits. On Saturday the 19th, he was walking in the Tuileries garden and was curious to watch the closing of the swivel bridge [over the ditch at the west end of the garden], which obliged him to stay there until 9 or 10 p.m. While he was busy watching the machinery that makes the bridge turn, two men unknown to him accosted him in a polite manner. After they addressed several remarks to him, which propriety does not allow to be stated, as far as asking him questions about the crime that caused the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to be destroyed by fire; they offered him supper, which he took care to decline.

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  39

As he set about returning to the rue de l’Arbre-­sec where he lodged, the two men accompanied him, in spite of himself. As it was night and he did not know the streets of Paris well, after passing the quais du Louvre and de l’École [between the quai du Louvre and Pont Neuf], they had turned him into rue Saint-­Germain-­l’Auxerrois, leading him to understand that they were directing him into a street that would lead him directly to his lodging, but as soon as they arrived at the gate of the For-­l’Évêque, they seized him from behind and made him enter by force between the two wicket gates, where one of them, whom he has learned is named Simonnet, exempt, imprisoned him and had him placed in a cell where they left him for six whole days, lying on straw, without seeing the sun, without allowing anyone to speak to him and without interrogating him at all. Some friends of rank, sensitive to the glaring insult offered to him, made solicitations to secure his liberty. The same Simonnet went to the prison around 9 p.m. on Friday the 25th to release him, but it was only on the explicit condition that he blindly sign a document presented to him. After prolonged resistance, the love of liberty and the desire to leave a place as frightful at this one, whose name alone makes decent folks shudder, he found himself forced to sign this document, whose terms he does not know. He knows only that Simonnet told him to leave this city immediately. The next day he visited three different commissaires of the Châtelet to file a complaint, but, seeing that it would implicate Simonnet, they did not wish to receive it. This is how justice is dispensed by these sorts of officials, who, instead of cooperating in the punishment of such a deplorable outrage, are the first to tolerate them. But M. Desance, indignant at an insult as atrocious as the one offered to the petitioner, received his complaint, allowed him to have the violence executed against him investigated and gave him a written acknowledgment of the protest he lodged to proceed legally against the document that Simonnet made him sign through force and constraint while he held him in irons.44 But having learned that all procedures he might undertake would have no effect if he did not have recourse to your supreme authority, he prostrates himself very humbly at your feet to ask you for vengeance for the outrage against a married man with a large family who will be dishonored all his life if he does not receive proportional reparation for the insult and wrong done to him. He is in such despair at seeing himself defamed that he would prefer death to a life stained with the mere suspicion of a crime as abominable as the one in question.

40 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

The petitioner is not the only one whom Simonnet has insulted in this way. The For-­l’Évêque prison echoes with the pitiful cries of an infinity of unfortunates who groan in the cells, against whom he has exercised similar violence and who are as innocent as the petitioner. He therefore begs you very humbly, your excellency, by the profound piety that inspires all your actions, to interpose your authority to restore his honor and reputation and to secure permission for him to remain in this city as long as his business requires. His wife, eleven young children and he will pray to the Lord to cover you with the blessings that such a merciful and Christian exertion deserve. [Fleury told Desance that the two men went so far as “to ask him, the deponent, questions about the sodomist and to tell him that they were in erection.” He may have intended the awkward language (not repeated in his petition, presumably for the sake of propriety) to show that he did not mingle with infâmes.] d. Letter from Simonnet to d’Argenson, 25 July 1723 Sir, M. Fleury, who was arrested on 19 June for his abominations, is wrong to complain about being imprisoned and having to sign a promise not to frequent the public promenades and to return to his native region. If we wanted to render him all the justice he is due, we would subject him to a criminal trial. As for the significant damages he claims to have suffered, we would judge him by the laws of Sodom, as he expounds in his memo, if there were two persons who would give depositions about the content of the memo that I had the honor to send you and which you can have produced by M. Rossignol. You will have the goodness to note the great detail of the circumstances that could be repeated and judicially enumerated only by someone abandoned by God. When M. Fleury claims that justice must be done to him, it would be to have him locked up for a while, regardless of the family he might have, as he puts it, or at least to exile him to his native region. That is the mildest punishment His Majesty can inflict on him. If complaints by these sorts of folks are authorized in such cases, and if they are heeded, it will oblige me to abandon the work I have done only for the glory of God and the public, without regard to my own benefit. I took responsibility for this work twenty-­three years ago, and he, of all the great number I have arrested since I undertook this work, is the first to make such a complaint.

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  41

I think it would be appropriate, Sir, for you to write to commissaire Desance, the one who received M. Fleury’s complaint, to request a copy of it. Commissaire Tourton did not wish to receive it once he knew what it was about.45 He acted more prudently than M. Desance. At the least, he should have informed you about it before giving him a copy of the document. In matters such as this, which have always been handled discreetly, one cannot take too many precautions. It is a barrister who led M. Fleury in the actions he is taking. A decent man should not give such advice. I think, Sir, that it would be appropriate to speak to the barrister, with your approval. A great number of infâmes have tried to claim their innocence, but they have not succeeded and have been obliged to admit both the truth and their infamies. M. Fleury’s memo concludes with allowing him to remain in Paris to attend to his business and restore his honor and his regret that he signed the promise not to frequent the public promenades of Paris and to return to his native region. I had the promise that he signed, in keeping with royal order, shown to M. Rossignol. [According to the summary sheet, “It is not appropriate to allow officials charged with royal orders to be compromised in their functions, especially in such cases.” After spending a month in Bicêtre, Fleury was exiled to Lyon in July.]

7. Jean Fournier, 172346 Police Report, 18 August 1723 Jean Fournier, unmarried, native of Moulins in Bourbonnais [province in central France], thirty-­one years old, cook at the collège de Lisieux [1–­3 rue Cujas], where he lives, having a room on rue Férou. It has been more than three weeks since I saw Fournier for the first time in the Luxembourg garden. He was doing nothing but looking for good fortune. He accosted me and asked me what I was doing. It looked to him like I was out of work. Then he suggested that I wait for him for a while, saying that he would return. After a moment, he returned, bringing with him bread, wine and meat that he gave me, telling me that if I would serve him as wife/woman, he had his own room, which was not far from the garden, that he would set me up there, that he would nourish and maintain me, as he

42 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

had already done for several others, that I seemed to him to be a good boy and would not deceive him as the others had done.47 He also told me that he liked to put it in and that others put it into him. Every time I saw Fournier, he made the same propositions to me. On Tuesday the 18th, I met him in the garden, and he accosted me. After a conversation about the same matters, he told me that it was a bit late, that he had to go back, that if I wanted to be in the garden the next day at 3 p.m., we would go to his room together and would have a very good time together. On the 18th, Fournier did not fail to be there at exactly 3 p.m. As he had fallen asleep on the grass while waiting for me, and as it was late when he joined me, he begged me to postpone our party to the next day at 1 p.m. He would not fail to be there with a young man, a friend of his, to have a good time together. Coming to the gate on the side of rue d’Enfer [later rue Denfert-­Rochereau and boulevard Saint-­Michel] to leave, Fournier was arrested by royal order by M. Simonnet and conducted to the Petit Châtelet around 10 p.m. Note. More than four months ago in the Luxembourg Fournier likewise accosted another young man to whom he made the same propositions several times. One of these times, he led him to a tavern where he tried to commit the infamous act with him, putting his hand into his breeches. The man defended himself against it, and he suggested that he come another day to a rendezvous that he specified. The young man went there, and Fournier led him to his room and regaled him with wine and salt pork, after which he wanted to go the rest of the way. The young man avoided it through a specious pretext. Since that time, Founier has been angry with him. [According to a note at the top of the first page, Fournier was sent “to the hospital.”]

8. Guillaume Gilbert, 172348 Police Report, 4 June 1723 Guillaume Gilbert, from the province of Rouergue [in southern France], unemployed lackey. I, Haimier, exempt of the provost of Île de France, commander of the guard of the Tuileries garden, observed the man named above for several days. I saw him in the paths where all the infâmes gather and with Leblanc,

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  43

whom I arrested on 30 May, who was the bardache of abbé Roger and several nobles who are of the taste for sodomy. Someone assured me that he had seen him with a man of rank who is of the infâmes and that he had said that if he played around with this infâme, it was only his gain that made him do it because he was too old. He had found himself in several parties with those folks, in which he found no pleasure but was well paid for it. As for him, he did not care about having it put into him or putting it into others, but when he was with folks who were up for anything, he let them do what they liked, hoping to be well paid for it. Seeing a man of rank go by just then, he told me that he was in on it and that if I would leave him he would not fail to accost the man. I left him, and the man of rank at once accosted him by asking him if he was getting hard and if he had fucked. He showed him his cock and wanted to put his hand into his breeches. Gilbert told him there was everything to fear at the time. The man made a rendezvous with him on Monday at 8 p.m. in the same garden and [told him that he] would take him to the plain of Grenelle [on the west side of Paris] in a carriage, since he was obliged to go to Versailles today. After this man left, the other man rejoined Gilbert, who thanked him for the good acquaintance he had given him. He told him that he would give him even better ones down the road. Having heard all this conversation, I, the exempt, arrested him and conducted him to the For-­l’Évêque. [Imprisoned “for a crime that he detests,” Gilbert “maintains that he is not guilty of it in any way,” but one of his former masters recommended his transfer to Bicêtre, and the parish priest of Saint-­Sulpice recommended his detention there. Gilbert secured his freedom in November by enlisting in the regiment of Bourbon.]

9. Léonard Gobert, 172349 a. Police Report, 21 October 1723 Gobert has been known for many years as an infamous sodomite and corrupter of young folks, as well as for supplying such to the duc de Brancas in the past.50 For five or six years he has lived on the Montagne Sainte-­Geneviève [hill on the Left Bank crowned by the Pantheon], where he does not have a good reputation. He always has with him young folks from the neighborhood

44 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

whom he lured to his place and often made sleep with him. The neighbors as well as the late Michaud, used clothes vendor, in whose house Gobert then lived, informed the late M. d’Argenson, who ordered M. Simonnet to bring him in so as to speak with him, so that he would be reprimanded as he deserved and, in case of recidivism, sent to the hospital. The late Michaud found Gobert going up the hill with two children from neighborhood families whom he wished to corrupt, as they stated at the time. Since that time, this infâme has continued in more or less the same way. In order to hide his cards better, he bought for life a little house at the quarries that he fixed up as he liked. As he has stated, he has lived there with a young man for four years. He also said that he was a carpenter and that he put him up as a good friend. Gobert has always reserved a small room on the Montagne Sainte-­ Geneviève, in the house of a candlemaker named Gosset, in order to come there sometimes to amuse himself with his friends, especially young folks. He has also been known to M. Théru for a long time. On this day, Monday, 21 October, in the Luxembourg gardens around 6 p.m., I encountered Gobert, who was looking for a good time there in the places where all the infâmes go. Having seated myself on the grass, he placed himself next to me and showed me his penis through his shirt, while telling me the story of his adventures on the subject of sodomy, among others about a certain Cadeau who was arrested by royal order by M. Simonnet for the same reason, who went to the Mississippi, with whom he lived for a while as man and wife/woman.51 He missed him all the time, as one of the good-­looking boys of Paris. He also told me that he had had something to do with a priest he had met on the Half-­Moon. A month ago, he had moreover found a young man there with whom he had a good time, but he had caught something bad [venereal disease] out of it. A week ago, he had also met a man in the Luxembourg with whom he had gone to la Roquette [area in the 11th arr.] and had a good time together, which man Gobert invited to come see him in his house at the quarries. Gobert told me that he put it in and did not like women at all, that his whole pleasure was to have something to do with attractive boys and that he had been of this inclination all his life. Then Gobert suggested to me that we go drink a mug because he did not want to do anything in the garden because they arrested people every day, and we would be safe to amuse ourselves in a tavern. After leaving the garden by the gate on the side of the rue d’Enfer, Gobert was arrested by royal order by M. Simonnet, who conducted him to prison in the Petit Châtelet around 8 p.m.

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  45

b. Petition from Gobert to Minister Maurepas, 13 November 172352 My lord, Léonard Gobert, journeyman mason, currently prisoner in the Petit Châtelet, points out very humbly to your excellency that on 21 October he was arrested on rue d’Enfer in faubourg Saint-­Michel [14th arr.], on his way to his lawyer to attend to his business, by M. Simonnet, exempt, and this without knowing the reason for it. The petitioner, who is innocent and has nothing on his record, has not found the means to make himself understood and begs your excellency very humbly to grant him the honor of his patronage for his release after he gives a satisfactory account of his conduct. This favor that he hopes for from you, my lord, will make him redouble his wishes for the conservation of your excellency. [D’Argenson added this note to the summary sheet: “Have him released by promising” not to frequent the public promenades.]

10. Abbé Nicolas Philippe, 172353 a. Police Report, 19 June 1723 At 1:30 a.m. on Saturday, 19 June 1723, at the request of Pierre Dufresne, bourgeois de Paris, and Étienne Jacquemarre, sergeant of the watch, we, Jean Charles Levié, royal councilor [honorary title attached to judicial offices such as commissaire and inspector], commissaire of the Châtelet de Paris, went with them to the house of M. Grou, renter of coaches, on rue de Buci, and went up to a room on the second floor overlooking the courtyard of the house occupied by M. Dupont, lord of Vielle. Dufresne, living in the house of Marsan, manager of a lodging house on rue Mazarine, made a formal complaint to us about a man of average height wearing clerical costume, fully tonsured, who said he was named abbé Trullo, and said that yesterday, about 5 p.m., as the deponent was walking in the Luxembourg garden, in the main path that leads to the large circle where there used to be a fountain, he gestured to the deponent with his finger to come up to him. As soon as the deponent approached him, the man had him sit down on the lawn and caressed the deponent a thousand times. A while later, he suggested to him that he come and share a bottle with him, which the deponent accepted. The man led the deponent behind the walls of the Carthusian monastery, then

46 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

near the Gobelins [tapestry factory, rue Berbier-­du-­Mets], into a street he was not at all familiar with, where he entered a tavern at the man’s behest. The deponent recognized the street and the tavern afterward. In the tavern, they drank a bottle of wine together, ate a salad, and the man, who did not want the deponent to spend anything on it, paid his share. While they were drinking together, the man made the most filthy remarks to the deponent and sang the most lecherous songs. After they both left the tavern, the man suggested to the deponent, on the way, that he lead him to the room where the deponent slept, saying that he wanted to sleep with him that night, which the deponent refused. Upon this refusal, the man asked him for a place to sleep, since he did not wish to have him in his room, so the deponent pointed out the house where we are as a place to sleep, and they both went there around 9 p.m. The man addressed himself to Grout’s wife, whom he asked for a room to sleep in that night with the deponent, whom he called his cousin. Mme Grout gave him one, after which the man had supper brought to a room on the second floor adjacent to the one where we are. The man paid the costs of the supper, during which he again sang all sorts of unchaste songs and urged the deponent to do likewise. Moreover, he set about kissing the deponent several times, saying that he liked him a lot and that he would have him given good employment through the offices of the governor of Poitiers [Vienne], who was his relative. Around 11 p.m., he again suggested to the deponent that he sleep with him. When the deponent refused, he urged him to do so with all kinds of politeness, making a show of telling him that he was distressed, that he seemed ill and that he needed to rest. Then the man undressed and went to bed, begging the deponent to get into the same bed he was in. Won over by his promising words and politeness, the deponent also undressed except for his breeches, seeing which, the man grabbed the deponent by both arms, kissed him and pressed him to remove his breeches, which the deponent finally did and got into bed with the man, who laid hands on him and made every effort to commit the sin of sodomy with the deponent, who, in order to avoid participating in such a crime, started to shout. In response to his cries, various persons came running into the room, where they found the deponent trying to free himself from the hands of the man who held him in the space between the bed and the wall, where the deponent had taken refuge. The deponent files this complaint about all above without bringing formal action against the man. It is for the royal prosecutor to undertake what proceedings and prosecution seem appropriate to him, and he signed.

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  47

After which, we went into the adjacent room, where we found the man lying in a bed with high posts trimmed with gray curtains, whose covers and sheets were in great disorder. We ordered the man to get up, which he did, and then proceeded with his interrogation as follows, after he placed his hand over his heart and promised to tell the truth. Asked for his first and last names, age, status, origins, address and native region. Said he is named Nicolas Philippe, nonbeneficed priest of Saint-­Roch, native of Avranches [Manche], living in the clerical community of the parish of Saint-­Roch [church at 284 rue Saint-­Honoré]. Asked where he was yesterday. Said he returned from Versailles to Paris around 5:30 p.m. Asked where he was after that hour. Said he entered the Luxembourg garden. Asked what company he found in that garden. Said while he was sitting on the lawn near the wide path in the middle, Dufresne came by and sat down near him. After a while, he suggested leaving with him, which he did. Asked where he went then and what route he took. Said he was in the faubourg Saint-­Marceau [also called Saint-­Marceau, 5th and 13th arrs.] near the Carthusian monastery. Asked what he did in the faubourg Saint-­Marceau. Said he went to get a drink with Dufresne on a street whose name he does not know. Asked if he paid the bill. Said yes. Asked where he went after leaving the tavern. Said Dufresne led him down rue Mazarine to the house where he lodges to ask the manager to give him a more suitable room, which he did at Dufresne’s request. Asked where he went then. Said he came into the room where we are with Dufresne to sleep there. Dufresne suggested and pointed out this house, which he entered around 10 p.m. Asked what he did in this house. Said he supped with Dufresne there and paid the costs, twenty sols [or sou, coin worth twenty deniers]. Asked which room he supped in.

48 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Said the room where we are. Asked what he did after supping. Said he went to bed. Asked if he urged Dufresne to sleep with him. Said no. Asked if Dufresne finally slept with him. Said Dufresne left the room before he went to bed and urged him to go to bed. Asked once more if Dufresne slept with him. Said Dufresne returned to the room, locked its door and threw himself onto the bed in such an indecent manner that he, Philippe, was forced to withdraw and at the same instant, Dufresne started to shout and say words that modesty does not allow him to repeat. In response to Dufresne’s cries, two men unknown to him, one of whom he heard called Dupont and the other dressed in a gray outfit, entered the room by another door than the one locked by Dufresne. They threw themselves upon him, Philippe, slapped him twice and punched him on the right side of his head, grabbed him by the hair and pulled out a handful. Dupont even drew his sword and held it against his throat. Then they mistreated him some more, such that the manager of the house and his wife came in and begged the two men to stop mistreating Philippe. Asked again if Dufresne slept with him. Said Dufresne did not sleep with him but threw himself indecently onto the bed, which he could not endure. Asked to explain to us what he means by the indecent manner in which Dufresne threw himself onto the bed. Said by the word indecent he means almost complete nudity. It was in this posture that Dufresne threw himself onto the bed. Asked if it were not he, on the contrary, who threw himself upon Dufresne. Said far from throwing himself upon Dufresne, he withdrew far from Dufresne. Asked if he made every effort to commit the sin of sodomy with Dufresne. Said he did not even think about it. Asked if he sang dissolute songs while he was with Dufresne. Said he only sang a song that has nothing impure about it. It is the one he showed us. After his interrogation and his replies were read to him, he said his replies contain the truth, reaffirmed them and signed.

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  49

After which, we had M. Philippe conducted to the Grand Châtelet by Étienne Jacquemarre, sergeant of the watch and his squad, and imprisoned at the request of the royal prosecutor.54 b. Letter from Simonnet to d’Argenson, 19 June 1723 Sir, I have just learned from a trustworthy person that M. Nicolas Philippe, unbeneficed priest in the parish of Saint-­Roch, thirty-­eight years old, was arrested yesterday at 11 p.m. in the house of Grou, renter of coaches, living on rue de Buci, running a boarding house, on account of sodomy, for trying to seduce a young boy about eighteen years old, whose acquaintance he had made in the Luxembourg gardens and lured away with the intention of sleeping with him and committing the worst abominations. I was informed long ago that he was of this infamous character and suborned young folks wherever he went. I did not want to imprison or charge him by royal order before telling you about it, Sir, being a matter of the greatest consequence with regard to his character. It is commissaire Levié, rue Dauphine, who sent him to the Grand Châtelet. He was imprisoned only at the request of the royal prosecutor. I await the honor of your orders on this score. [D’Argenson’s decision is recorded on the first page of this letter: “Have him conducted to Yvernaux in Brie.55 M. Bence will generously pay his upkeep there for three or six months.56 Then exile him to his diocese and alert the bishop about it.”57] c. Letter from Abbé Bence to Rossignol, 20 June 1723 Sir, Since I left you, I have seen the royal prosecutor. He will allow all necessary measures to be taken regarding the matter in which you kindly take an interest. Yesterday he sent the report, of which you read a copy this morning, to the Cardinal prime minister and hinted at the same time that it would be good to hush up this matter.58 This accords with what M. d’Argenson would like to say. A million thanks for your generosity and your care for the welfare of religion. [According to the summary sheet, “It is important for the honor of religion and that of the clergy that a matter of this nature be hushed up,” and

50 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Philippe’s exile, effected before the end of the year, was “the best course one can take to conceal such a subject from the eyes of the public.”]

11. Pierre Saget, 1722–­2359 a. Notes by Agent Sanouret, 17 and 24 December 1722 Saget, called Dumoutier, eighteen years old, with blond hair, attractive boy, son of a tailor, was a lackey and now prostitutes himself to persons of rank and has dealings with the marquis d’Alincourt, son of the duc de Villeroy.60 He only frequents persons of rank. He lives in a furnished room on the third floor of a wigmaker’s house on rue des Mathurins in Paris. He often goes to Versailles. I guarantee to M. D’Argenson that the contents of this memo are true. He has lived for a while with M. de Villiers, whose titles could not be specified. He is unmarried, about thirty-­five years old. He passes this young man off as his friend, which I learned from his landlord, living on rue des Canettes in faubourg Saint-­Germain. He moved out on rue des Mathurins on Saturday, 19 December. b. Letter from Simonnet to d’Argenson, 26 December 1722 Sir, I take the liberty of sending you a short memo that M. Sanouret has signed regarding a young infamous libertine living only from his prostitution. I think it would be appropriate to place this young boy named Saget, called Dumoutier, eighteen years old, in custody for a while. I have the honor to observe to you that he changes names occasionally. The name Dumoutier that he uses is not his real name. [Théru identified Saget in the margin as “an abominable type who must be placed in custody in order to make an example of him to those who prostitute themselves.”] c. Letter from Simonnet to d’Argenson, 5 June 1723 Sir, In execution of the royal order dated 27 January, I have arrested Saget the younger, found in the promenades in the Tuileries garden, and conducted him to the For-­l ’Évêque prison, while waiting to conduct him to the hospital,

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  51

which is his destination. He had changed names. He had taken the names of Coly and Dumoutier. He told me that it was M. du Vivier who had him change names. This seems very suspicious to me on both their parts. d. Petition from Saget’s Father to d’Argenson, Undated [June 1723] My lord, Jean Saget, master tailor, parish of Saint-­Sulpice, who has made every effort to raise his children as well as possible, has just learned that one of them was arrested and conducted to prison on the 4th of this month for his misconduct. He dares to point out to you that he has eluded the authority of his father for the last three months and has plunged himself into frightful debauchery. As he has learned that there are persons who flatter themselves that they will get him released and out of fear that our good faith might be abused and that if he were released he would go to extremes of more unfortunate debauchery, he begs your excellency very humbly not to listen to solicitations and to have him deported to the islands [colonies in the Caribbean]. He will be bound to pray to God for the preservation of your health. e. Letter from Sergeant de Landes to Théru, 10 June 1723 You will not be annoyed, Sir, to learn that M. Saget, who lives at the home of the marquis du Vivier, was arrested and put in the For-­l ’Évêque for a trick that he played on an officer of the king’s regiment, who complained about it to M. d’Argenson, which resulted in this detention. The father, who just informed me about it, presented a petition to this magistrate as soon as he knew about it in order to prevent his release. It would be well for you to back him up and to exercise your zeal a bit on this occasion because you well know that people will not fail to bestir themselves, and you know with what ardor these sorts of folks are accustomed to do so. Therefore do not lose a minute. f. Letter from Théru to Rossignol, 11 June 1723 Sir, The memo regarding Saget, the report of his arrest drawn up by M. Simonnet, his father’s petition, and the letter from M. de Landes, cleric of Saint-­Sulpice, should show that it would be a great evil to release him instead of sending him to Bicêtre. The marquis du Vivier or other persons of rank will perhaps be bold enough to speak in his favor or feign an enlistment [in the army], but the zeal that you have for the glory of God and against vice should lead you to stand firm and to support M. d’Argenson against solicitations. Royal orders,

52 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

moreover, should not be suspended and impeded or modified by enlistments that are often fraudulent and fictitious. [Someone added these words at the top of the page: “The marquis du Vivier, living on rue d’Orléans Saint-­Honoré, lured in and often saw a lackey of Mme de Colandre.”] g. Letter from Marquis du Vivier to d’Argenson, 19 July 1723 Allow me, Sir, to remind you of the promise you made some time ago in favor of Pierre Saget, my personal valet, who is detained by your order in the For-­l’Évêque. I hope, Sir, that you have not forgotten that you promised me to release him soon after my departure. I made arrangements before I left Paris so that he can come here to join me in Vivier as soon as you grant him his liberty.61 I flatter myself, Sir, that you will no longer delay this favor, for which I will always remain thoroughly grateful. [According to the summary sheet, Saget was “one of the most corrupt sodomites,” and du Vivier was “of the same character.” The marquis claimed his valet, but “he was refused and obliged to leave Paris himself.” Saget enlisted in the regiment of Navarre, but his father refused to allow him to join the army.]

12. Joseph Sardet, 172362 Police Report, 30 May 1723 Joseph Sardet, living in Paris. The man named above is an acquaintance of abbé Roger, who was arrested on Saturday, 29 May 1723. He became acquainted with the abbé in Marseille, and the abbé took his virginity on the subject of sodomy. He said that he had supped with abbé de la Vieuville and fucked him and that this abbé had fucked him.63 The man who reported this saw Sardet cruising people in the garden of the Tuileries and offering to fuck and to be fucked, especially those who wanted thick cocks. Haimier, exempt of the provost of the Île [de France], commander of the guards of the gates of the Tuileries, observed him for three days and saw him several times with abbé Roger, named above, and with Leblanc, whom I also conducted up to the gate of the Tuileries and handed over to M. Simonnet, not wanting to arrest him myself. I even had

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  53

a conversation with him for almost an hour, in which he told me he is the abbé’s bardache. I asked him if he had seen him today, and he replied that he had looked for him but had not found him and that he already promised him a long time ago to make him a cuckold and that he would do it. The men named above were taken to the Grand Châtelet and imprisoned. [A marginal note specifies that Sardet lived in a furnished room and had no job. The summary sheet identifies him as the son of a merchant in Marseille. He was exiled to his native region in June.]

13. Robert Surgis, Gabriel Brotel, and Jean Hubert, 172364 Police Memo, 20 April 1723 Memo regarding Surgis, about eighteen years old; Gabriel Brotel, fifteen years old; and Jean Hubert, sixteen years old, all three scoundrels. Surgis, accompanied by a lackey dressed in yellow livery with braid, was in the Luxembourg at 8 p.m., seeking to get picked up in a path where these infâmes gather. After he took several turns with the lackey, he was immediately stopped by a young man dressed in a red outfit and wearing a sword. Then Surgis accosted me and told me it was a fine evening. I asked him who the servant I had seen him with was. He told me that he was a very pretty young man, was up for anything and had a very fine cock. We just needed some patience. They would come back in response to a whistling signal. Since the lackey was with someone and did not come, we decided to go drink a mug. During the conversation along the way, he told me that he was always hard and that he did not put it in. A few days ago, an old man and he left the Luxembourg by the gate of the Carmelites [on the west side of the garden] and jerked each other off behind a wall. He liked this little job better than other things. He had been of this taste from a young age, and his mother even caught him in the act. At the Jesuit school where Surgis studied, he told me that in his day, all the boarders had the same taste. And finally, when we were ready to leave the Luxembourg, Brotel, unemployed lackey, who followed us at a distance, led me to conclude what he might be through all the actions I had seen him perform. I asked Surgis who this young man was. He accosted him at once and asked him, “My friend, are you getting hard?” Brotel replied at once, “Yes, sir.” Surgis told him, “OK, come with us.”

54 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

He came, and both of them were immediately arrested by M. Simonnet, by royal order, in leaving the Luxembourg through the gate on the side of the rue d’Enfer at 9 p.m. At the same moment, I returned to the garden to look for Jean Hubert and found him. He had missed hooking up with a man who, according to what he told me, wanted to pick him up. As I had seen all their tricks, I told him. “Your comrade, along with another, is waiting for me at the gate.” He came with me and told me that he was up for anything. In leaving, he was arrested in the same way as the two named above. When all three were face-­to-­face, Brotel admitted that it was Surgis who taught them this infamous trade and that they could come to the Luxembourg boldly, that they found a way to amuse themselves and make money there. Surgis said publicly that if we wanted to set him free, he would identify many of them and that he knew almost all of them. [Surgis, Brotel, and Hubert were transferred from the Petit Châtelet to Bicêtre. Surgis secured his freedom by enlisting in the regiment of Picardy. His captain promised not to grant him leave to return to Paris.]

14. Louis de Launay, Pierre Nicolas Testu, and Jacques Vinx, 1728 a. Memo by Théru, Undated65 De Launay and de Vinx, who have already been in Bicêtre by royal order, and Testu, a very corrupt young man, are supposed to be at the Orangery in Grenelle next Thursday, the 28th, with seven or eight other libertines to engage in debauchery. It would be good to order Mr. Haimier to go there to observe them and after, confirming the facts, to arrest these three libertines, who are in effect the leaders of this infamous society. [On the 27th, Hérault directed Haimier to investigate.] b. Letters from Théru to Rossignol and Hérault, 29 October 172866 The assembly of a very large number of infâmes that is held at the Orangery on rue de Grenelle deserves all M. Hérault’s attention. M. Haimier, who has received an order to watch the place and confirm my memo, will undoubtedly

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  55

give a faithful account of it to this magistrate. If a large number of these infâmes are seized next Sunday, it will strike terror among them, and they will not dare to assemble anymore. If it is not done, the evil, the corruption, far from decreasing, will increase. It concerns the glory of God and the welfare of the city of Paris. . . . The assembly that is held at the Orangery and that I took the liberty of denouncing to you deserves your attention and that of all good folks. If a good share of the infâmes who are usually there are seized, the others will be intimidated and will not dare to hold assemblies anymore. M. Haimier should have confirmed my memo, and he will undoubtedly give you a faithful account of it. c. Report from Haimier to Hérault, 29 October 172867 Sir, Following your orders, I went yesterday to a tavern with the Orangery on its sign, located on rue de Grenelle in faubourg Saint-­Germain, for the purpose of observing what was supposed to happen there, according to the memo that was given to you. De Launay, de Vinx and Testu, two of whom have already been taken to the hospital in connection with their libertinage and moral corruption, made their way there around 4 p.m. Not long after arrived a lot of other young folks with well-­curled and well-­powdered hair, who gave each other many caresses and embraces. As they arrived, they called each other “My gossip” [commère]. At 6 p.m., they summoned violinists, and the dancing began among them. Then women entered, who prostituted themselves to the firstcomer. One offered herself to one of my men, whom I had brought in, and told him that last Sunday, one of the company asked her to go into the garden and obliged her to endure having it put into her in ways that are not usual. He caused her a great deal of pain and gave her nothing. Around 8 or 9 p.m. these women withdrew, accompanied by lackeys without livery and disguised soldiers. The three men named in the memo remained, and five or six others with them. Of their number were a personal valet of the duchesse de Bouillon and Mareuil.68 They supped together, and the violinists were still there, which favored the men I had appointed to observe what happened. The violinists withdrew. They urged one of my men to remain with them, which he did. During the supper, they talked only about infamous things. They got up from time to time, two by two, and went out into the courtyard. When they came back, they told the others, “We embraced each other, the countess and I.” One

56 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

of the band urged my man to go out with him, and he agreed. While they were in the courtyard, he wanted to touch him, which my man did not wish to allow, and came back in. When the other man returned, he complained to the company and said that he had masturbated for his sake. They dispersed around 11 p.m. and promised to meet again next Sunday. Mareuil told the others that he was going away with his new conquest, speaking of my man, and that he would not leave him until he had fucked him. When they had gone out into the street, he told him that he absolutely wanted to sleep with him. My man could not get rid of him. He told him that he lived on rue Saint-­Germain and went there with him. The guardsmen who followed them, who had seen some of what happened, arrested him and took him to the For-­l ’Évêque prison. Mareuil says that he is a gentleman from the province of Poitou [in western France], related by marriage to President Croiset and well known to the marquise de Nonant and her son, the marquis du Plessis Châtillon, whom he often served as secretary.69 He admitted to me the deeds he is accused of. He said it was Mme de Bouillon’s personal valet who led him to that place. He would never tell me this personal valet’s name. He is known to M. Théru as a truly nasty character. [postscript] [Agent] Jobmets tells me that all these libertines have a jargon among them to discuss pleasures regarding sodomy. Each has his name, one called countess, another called duchess, marquise, etc. They gave my man the name of duchesse of La Roche Guyon.70 d. Letter from Théru to Rossignol, Undated71 If M. de Mareuil, who was arrested yesterday and taken to the For-­l’Évêque prison, is released soon, he will not fail to warn those who compose the assembly of infâmes at the Orangery, where he was and where he played a nasty character. Have the goodness to pay attention to this, or he will make a fine strike fail. You will have a word about it with Mr. Hérault, lest he allow this warning to take place. e. Report from Haimier to Hérault, 31 October 172872 Dufresne, self-­styled soldier in the regiment of Dauphiné.73 This man is one of the infâmes about whom a memo was submitted to the magistrate and forwarded to me on the 28th of this month.

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  57

On that day, I went with some men to the place where these infâmes gather. I saw this man, who assumed a hundred indecent postures and gave lascivious kisses all around. He twice left the room where they were to go into the garden with another man. He made the acquaintance of one of my men, who had joined their company at my order. Dufresne made excuses to him for not being able to take advantage of his company that day, since he had made a rendezvous with a chevalier [minor title of nobility] to go to a ball with him. He urged him to come back to the same spot next Sunday and told him that he would not be sorry to have made his acquaintance. He left the assembly at 9 p.m. and went to his rendezvous. Today I returned with my men to the same spot, where the assembly takes place, to observe again what would happen there. Dufresne did not fail to show up. He joined my man, absolutely clung to him, gave him the name of the duchess of La Roche Guyon, proposed to him several times that he go out into the garden with him, which he never consented to do. The assembly concluded, but Dufresne never abandoned the man. He left with him and persuaded him to enter a café on rue de Buci. The man noticed that Dufresne was well known there and that he was asked if he would sleep upstairs. He replied no, having business of consequence that evening. When they left the café, Dufresne told the man that he would prefer his company to that of a person with whom he would have a good time, would earn a good supper, a good sleep and a gold louis the next morning. He added that he wanted to sleep with him and that he would put it into him up to the hair. The man could not get rid of Dufresne and conducted him (on the pretext of leading him to his room) to the residence of one of Mr. Haimier’s guardsmen. This same guardsman and two of his comrades, who had observed and followed them the whole time, since 6 p.m., entered at the same time they did, seized Dufresne and took him into custody to the For-­l ’Évêque prison. Note. Dufresne is called countess of Tripaillon [from tripaille, offal or garbage] among his comrades. He is a close friend of Mareuil, who is also called the Female Chevalier. They say Dufresne is ill. They declare that he has been maintained by the chevalier d’Hautefort. He even says he is still employed by him, as in the role of personal valet, but they claim that this lord abandoned him because he made himself too well known through his prostitution.74 [Dufresne was transferred to Bicêtre in December and released to the custody of his captain in February. According to the summary sheet, the “band” that

58 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

assembled at the Orangery included more than sixty men, who were not only well coiffed but also adorned with beauty spots. Their conversations consisted of “abominations,” and “the worst horrors” took place among them. In order “to unsettle this troop a bit,” Hérault secured authorization to have the three leaders arrested on 6 November. The widowed mothers of de Launay and Testu asked Hérault to release their sons, and Théru endorsed their requests.] f. Police Report, 11 November 172875 Jean Fouque, baker’s assistant, associate of de  Launay, Testu, Mareuil, Dufresne and Vinx. I was directed by royal order to arrest the men named above. For that reason, I went to the tavern on rue de Grenelle Saint-­Germain where the sign of the Orangery hangs and where these libertines engage in debauchery. I could not arrest them because of the multitude of people in the tavern. Fouque accosted someone I had appointed to observe them, who had mingled with them. Fouque proposed that he leave the company and go away with him. He said he would take him to a ball in faubourg Saint-­Jacques [14th arr.]. He promised to introduce him to an abbé who should be there, and they would have a good time together. He was a jolly fellow who had a fine cock. They would masturbate and have a lot of pleasure. But to this end, he needed to put on a masquerade costume, in order to be more sought after and desired. After they left the ball, he would go and sleep with him, and they would spend the rest of the night having a good time. The person to whom Fouque made all these propositions found means to detach himself from him while they were in a café and came to alert my men, who followed them and arrested him as they left the café and conducted him to the For-­l’Évêque prison. [Hérault noted in the margin, “Keep in prison for a month.”]

15. Claude Gabriel Brisart, 176076 a. Report from Agents Damotte, Delahaye, and Desuey to Lieutenant General Sartine, 17 August 176077 Sir, We have the honor to report to you that on watch in the Luxembourg yesterday, M. Delahaye was picked up by a man who, in accosting him, asked

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  59

him, “Are you getting hard, my lord?” M. Delahaye pretended not to hear such an announcement. This man asked him a second time, “Are you getting hard?” M. Delahaye told him, “I don’t understand.” This man asked him in a louder voice: “I’m asking you if you’re getting hard?” M. Delahaye asked him, “And you?” This man replied no and told him that the weather did not make him too hot but that it would not be very difficult for him [to get hard]. He asked him if he knew the good spots in the garden and told him that they were at the end of the path where they were, near the wall of the Carthusian monastery. M. Delahaye continued to walk all the while. This man asked him, “Well? I’m pleased to tell you that I’m a bugger in my soul and that I’m the first among the pimps of buggers in Paris. If you want to enjoy yourself and intend to pay, I’ll get you a good deal of pleasure. I know the chevalier de Vismes and the personal valet of the duc d’Elbeuf.”78 M. Delahaye told him, “There’s a fine title,” and asked him if he came to this garden often. This man replied that he came there sometimes, that he did not live far from it and that, even so, he liked the Tuileries much better. He asked him if he knew the good spots there. M. Delahaye told him, “I believe they are in the Path of Sighs [on the terrace of the Feuillants, on the north side of the garden, across from the monastery of the same name] and the adjacent paths and near the wall of the terrace overlooking the water.” This man told him, “It’s true, but you’re not there yet. In the triangles facing the octagonal basin near the swivel bridge, they buttfuck each other almost every day.” He asked him if he had ever been buttfucked. M. Delahaye told him, “I confess frankly that it’s never happened to me or even crossed my mind,” that he had been to the Tuileries sometimes to walk, that he had indeed heard, even seen, men cruising each other and sitting on benches or chairs to have a good time, but he did not pay much attention. This man told him, “I see clearly that you’re not in the know. I noticed it as soon as I approached you because you didn’t respond to the signs I made to you.” He added that the buggers had signs among themselves, as Freemasons had them among themselves, and that they were quite different, to be sure.79 They even held assemblies that they called the society of little brothers [frérots], and they buttfucked each other there. M. Delahaye asked him where these kinds of assemblies took place and told him he would be rather curious to go there. This man told him that it was in various locations and that if he wished, he would introduce him to five of the most likable young folks there were, among them a young man who was leaving the service of the duc de Penthièvre as a page, who was tall, well built, with a very attractive appearance, smooth skin, fine complexion and good

60 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

color, but it was of course necessary to pay him because he did not give himself for nothing.80 This enjoyment [orgasm] was worth 20 or even 40 livres. M. Delahaye told him it was very expensive. This man told him that it should not astonish him, that there were women who only allowed themselves to be fucked for 50 or 100 louis or even a thousand écus [silver coin worth 6 livres tournois]. M. Delahaye replied that it was paying a good deal for a moment of pleasure, that as for him, his pleasure was very limited. This man told him, “If you knew as I do the pleasure of buttfucking or fucking a woman, for it’s not the case that you haven’t fucked some women, you’d taste the difference between them clearly. There’s no greater delight. It’s a thousand pleasures combined that reach all the way to the heart.” He told him, moreover, “If your faculties do not allow you to pay so much, introduce me to some rich financiers. I can be found quite easily at 9:30, seated on a chair alone in the square at the end of the garden, near the wall of the Carthusian monastery.” He added that they did not buttfuck in the garden because there was cause to fear folks who placed themselves behind trees where they were not noticed, and, when they see some men together, they moved behind them. He had recently seen a young man who had been arrested by police inspectors for having a good time. This man told M. Delahaye, furthermore, that he knew many buggers, that he had been to some of their homes several times and that he had been buttfucked there and very little at his place. When he brought others to his place, he did it in such a way that they would not recognize the location. M. Delahaye told him, “It seems to me that you make a trade of being a pimp.” This man told him that he did not live wholly by this trade but that if he could manage to have 100 louis off investments, he would be satisfied with that, which would readily remove any hesitation. Besides, any trade was good if it supported its master, especially if one were a decent man, did not steal or kill. This conversation lasted half an hour, and the gates of the garden were closed, since it was 10:30. M. Delahaye led this man by the residence of M. Godart, inspector of the Luxembourg, where he arrested him, from whom he tried to escape and made a lot of trouble about giving his name, although he did state that his name is Claude Gabriel Brisart, thirty years old, native of Paris. He said that he feared nothing because he had not been caught in the act or done anything that tended to the crime for which he had been arrested. M. Delahaye has learned, in the rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Jacques, where Brisart lives, as well as in the rue de l’Anglade [absorbed by avenue de l’Opéra], where he lived for a while with his mother, that he is a libertine and a most

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  61

disreputable subject. They did not know exactly what he did, but they thought as much from his rages. At present, Brisart has only one aunt in Paris, who is a spinster around forty-­five years old, who is known as a very decent and virtuous woman, who told M. Delahaye that her nephew was a wretch whom she and his father and mother could never make anything of. To the best of her knowledge, this nephew fell into an infamous penchant at the very time he was at the collège de Fortet, after leaving the collège de Sainte-­Barbe [4 rue Valette]. b. Statement by Brisart, 18 August 1760 Claude Gabriel Brisart, thirty years old, living at the Red Hat in faubourg Saint-­Jacques in Paris, bourgeois de Paris, formally denies the facts contained in M. Delahaye’s report, says that they are entirely false, that it is M. Delahaye who spoke first and set traps. He did not make the speeches imputed to him, is not capable of it and even less of any action of this type. He only learned through public talk that some young folks had pretended to want to have a good time with an abbé in the Tuileries and robbed him. He says he has nothing to add. This statement was read to him, and he affirmed it and signed. c. Report from Delahaye to Sartine, 19 August 1760 Sir, I have the honor to report to you that I deposited Claude Gabriel Brisart in the Petit Châtelet yesterday and went at 4 p.m. to conduct him to Bicêtre. As we left your residence, where he had just appeared before you, I told him that if he had not been so insolent in denying the conversation that he held with me in the Luxembourg and if he had made a sincere and truthful statement before you about all he had done and all the people he knew in the type of crime for which I arrested him, if he had asked your pardon and promised not to fall into it any longer, you were generous and merciful enough to take his sincerity and repentance into account. I noticed, moreover, that he weakened in his stubbornness, which is why I did not conduct him at once to Bicêtre. I told him that if he wished to give me a fair statement, I would intercede for him with you so that he would not go to Bicêtre. He persisted in not wanting to say anything. It was only when he saw himself conducted there that he told me, “You promised me this morning that if I told the truth I wouldn’t go to Bicêtre.” I told him it was true but that there was no longer time, that he should blame only himself for his obstinacy. He then told me that if he had held such a conversation with me in the Luxembourg, he was

62 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

raving, that every wicked matter could be denied, that one should always fear the punishment for such a crime. Messrs. Damotte, Desuey and I exhorted him strongly to tell us all the people he knew given over to this crime. At that moment, he seemed ready to do so but told us only that he had known for seven months that Deruville was of that taste, but he had left Paris some time ago to go to Toulouse, from where he had lately received a letter from him. He told us nothing more. We noticed that he was very embarrassed, that it was shame for the crime and fear of more severe punishment that prevented him from telling us anything more about it. We told him that if he were ashamed to make a statement to us, he should make one to the magistrate like one he would make to a confessor, that there was no other way to regain his liberty. We assured him of your clemency and that no other penalties would befall him. He seemed quite disposed to do it. His aunt learned that this nephew was in prison and that it was not for theft. She suspected the reason and told me that he had begun to go astray and lose his way at the collège de Fortet. He never wished to follow her advice. She had done all she could do to get him to make a general confession last Easter. He began it but did not wish to atone for it. He had often given her sorrow, and she wished him to be in the islands. She begged me to get her the keys to this nephew’s room because the furnishings belong to a tapestry maker. I told her that I would have them held for her today. She told me that she would come to my residence herself for them and inquire about the magistrate’s decision. She came this morning with her nephew’s guardian, whom she had informed about his imprisonment.81 I told them that if this nephew, although guilty, had been less stubborn about denying the facts and had admitted them and asked the magistrate’s pardon, by submitting and promising to change his conduct, the magistrate would have been merciful to him, given his sincerity and repentance, but it made up his mind to send him to Bicêtre. I asked his aunt, if it would not bother her for me to do so, to go with her this afternoon to her nephew’s room to see if there were any addresses or letters from some of his acquaintances. She and this guardian, who told me he was an exempt of the prévôté de l’hôtel, told me that, on the contrary, it followed from my duty and vigilance. I told them that if I went there it was not with the objective of hurting this nephew, that the king’s intentions were to push aside all these types of folks and prevent such disorder. My colleagues and I, charged with the king’s orders in this regard, tried to discover the people given over to this crime in order to prevent the

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  63

unfortunate consequences that could follow from it. We wanted to destroy its roots and stems. I told them, moreover, that for whatever bother it might cause them, I would not go, that I had no orders for it, that even if I did, I could not go there with a commissaire. This aunt and guardian indeed persuaded me to go there, and I went there with them. In the papers they found, we found nothing but sermons the aunt had given this nephew to copy. d. Petition from Brisart to Sartine, September 1760 My lord, Although in irons, by your excellency’s order, I nevertheless do not grumble against you, persuaded that you have committed a just act in having me confined. I deserved it because of a conversation that presented all appearances against me. Might I have the good fortune to convince you, my lord, of my innocence on the score of a vice that to me is the height of corruption of the heart? I claim the testimony of all those who have known me, even since my childhood, about the integrity of my morals and, unfortunately, about the harshness of my mother, which I am forced to lay before your excellency’s eyes, since it is the cause of the sad fate to which I am reduced. Beaten in my youth, I did not fail to do passably in my studies. When I completed them, I respectfully stated that I did not wish to enter the ecclesiastical estate, which my mother wished to force me to do. She had me enlisted by force in the Dauphin infantry regiment, in which I served six years, I dare say, to the satisfaction of my officers, who saw in me some talent and pretty steady conduct. They softened my fate by employing me in ways useful to them and to me. On the basis of their favorable testimony, my mother released me, placed me in [the administration of] the excise taxes, in which I worked for three years, to the satisfaction of my superiors. I left this position only because M. Roques, stockbroker, promised my mother that as soon as I arrived in Paris, he would give me one at around 2,400 livres in the office that he said they were going to set up, for the collection of annuities on the king’s revenues and other sources, by officers responsible for it, of which number he said he was one. I therefore came from Auxerre [Yonne] to Paris, to my mother’s, in August 1759. About two months after my arrival, the promised position had not come through, and my mother renewed her harshness. She

64 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

reproached me for the bread she gave me, though it was quite dry and hardly abundant. These acts and others are known to all her neighbors, who had the goodness to make protests to her about it, in person and in writing. I even invoke the testimony of one of those men whose job it is to track down guilty parties, M. LeDoux, exempt of the prévôté de l’hôtel. He has hardly ever lost sight of me since my birth. I would have cause to fear his veracity if I had any grace to expect of it in the account he can give of my conduct, if my lord judges it suitable to listen to him. In the month of December 1759, my mother crowned her harshness by forcing me to leave her without giving me a sol, without giving me back any outfits or linen other than what I had on me when I left her place. I sought to earn my living while waiting for the promised position. I found sermons to copy. I applied myself to this work, but I did not have enough to keep me busy all the time. I spent my leisure time in going almost every day either to the faubourg Saint-­Jacques or to Butte Saint-­Roch [area in the 1st arr.] to learn from the neighbors about my mother, her condition and the illness from which she died on 15 June. These treks were most unlucky for me through my encounter with Tison, son of a tailor formerly in trade in Paris, with whom I had served in the Dauphin regiment. I thought he still had morals. I gave myself up to renewed acquaintance with him. He introduced me to Delaroche, son of a female wine vendor in Paris, married for the second time. I can provide very little information about the current fate and addresses of these two subjects because I realized the danger of frequenting them. I withdrew from it with my body unscathed but my imagination sullied. I admit the proof of it in blushing for the detestable conversation of 16 August. My heart contradicts it, and I throw myself at your excellency’s feet to ask his pardon very humbly and beseech him very humbly and very respectfully to end the rigors of my penitence with the offers I make to leave Paris and return to the excise taxes or to confine me in an attorney’s office, of which my lord will be informed. I have not dared to show myself for a very long time before the eyes of the decent folks who know me. Claude Gabriel Brisart, former clerk in the excise taxes, married, thirty years old, from Paris, detained in Bicêtre since 18 August 1760 by virtue of a royal order of the 17th of the same month and countersigned Phélypeaux.82 [Brisart was released on 16 November.]

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  65

16. Jean Dosseur, 176083 a. Report from Agents Damotte, Delahaye, and Framboisier to Sartine, 18 July 1760 Sir, We have the honor to report to you that on watch in the Tuileries yesterday, M. Delahaye was followed at various times from 9 until 10 p.m. by Dosseur, unemployed domestic. He always avoided this wretch, who was continually prowling and seeking to pick someone up, who came and blocked his way, put his hand on his breeches, in front and in back and kissed him. This officer told him that it was very indecent to do such things before others and in a public place, that he was not of that taste and that he was going to leave him. This infâme told him that he would go to his place if he wished and that they would enjoy themselves as he pleased, and he followed him. M. Delahaye arrested him at the exit of the Tuileries and conducted him to the For-­l ’Évêque. This domestic is known to these officers as a prowler. Last Saturday, in the same place, he wanted to pick up M. Delahaye, who avoided him. He then followed M. Framboisier, even left the garden with him and followed him at his side along the quai des Théatins [later quai Voltaire] and quai de Conti and on the Pont Neuf until 11 p.m., affecting to look at him passionately all the while. To get rid of him, M. Framboisier rejoined M. Delahaye, who was on watch at the end of the Pont Neuf with two of their men. Although this domestic saw them together, he remained beside them for a while. He was puzzled, however, when he saw M. Framboisier present himself at the door of a coach that Messrs. Damotte and Desuey were in with the man they had arrested, which made him make up his mind to go away. b. Statement by Dosseur, 18 July 1760 Jean Dosseur, domestic without a job for two months, native of Pontchartrain [Yvelines], forty-­t wo years old, became a domestic at the age of sixteen. He states that he served first the duc de Richelieu for three years, then M. de Sérigny, ensign, living most of the time in Rochefort, for two years.84 Before M. de Sérigny, he was in service for seven years with M. Lemoine, equerry to the duc d’Orléans, and lastly for one year with the comte de Faudoas, former captain in the cavalry regiment of La Viefville, living in Paris on the rue des Lions.85 During the two months he has been without a job, he

66 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

has lodged with M. LeRoy, who rents furnished rooms on rue Soly [later rue d’Argoult]. Today he was in the Tuileries with the intention of having a good time there, that is to say by stroking himself with those he encountered with the same intention. He has given himself over to this crime only during the two months he has been without a job. He promises the lieutenant general of police a fuller statement when he has the honor of appearing before him. After the preceding was read to him, he affirmed it and signed. c. Statement by Dosseur, 19 July 1760 Jean Dosseur, unemployed domestic, forty-­t wo years old, living at M. LeRoy’s lodging house on rue Soly, native of Pontchartrain. He admits that he has been in the Tuileries several times, in particular yesterday evening, and that the officer’s report conforms to the truth. He has never been inclined to this vice, but, after contracting an illness from prostitutes, he decided two months ago to find satisfaction by himself or with other men. To that end, he has been to the Tuileries and elsewhere several times and had a good time there through touching with those who presented themselves. He has never consummated the crime with anyone. It involved nothing more than touching to the point of pollution [ejaculation]. He was persuaded to take up this type of debauchery by M. Desbordy, doorman of M. de Lugny, maître des requêtes, at whose home he went to sleep several times.86 He also had a good time with LeBrun, domestic of M. Caze de La Bove, place Vendôme, whose home he went to several times.87 He also knows Latour, wearing a sword and living off his property, who lives in the Porcherons, whose home he has likewise been to and with whom he had a good time. In addition, it happened to him with unknown men he met and more or less in the same way. It was the late M. Lemoine, equerry to the duc d’Orléans, whose domestic he was, with whom he also had a good time more than once, who introduced him to Latour, but at that time, he did not yield as much to this vice. He has surrendered himself to it for two months. M. Latour knows many men of this taste. He also knows M. Perdreau to be of the same taste, and Latour is also of his acquaintance. His statement was read to him. He affirmed it and agreed not to frequent the Tuileries or other suspect places anymore the night after he was arrested and signed. [Convinced that Dosseur had engaged in pederasty “for a long time,” Sartine sent him to Bicêtre on 20 July and released him on 22 September.]

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  67

17. Louis Dupré and d’Étam, 176588 a. Letter from Buhot to Sartine, 7 May 176589 Sir, I have the honor to report to you that for six months, d’Étam, surgeon without title, has rented an apartment on the third floor of a potter’s house in rue Mazarine, across from the walls of the collège Mazarin. He has sublet part of it to Dupré, unemployed cook.90 These two men, antiphysical by inclination, associate through conformity to keep at their place young folks of various ranks who go there daily to drink and commit infamy with the greatest scandal. Jealousy between trades and rivalry soon divided these wretches, and their dissension has provoked further grumbling on the part of the neighborhood, inasmuch as few days pass without some uproar for various reasons, either among the young folks led to it through idleness and debauchery or through the mistreatment to which Étam and Dupré subject their creditors (Balmas is an example) when they come to ask for their due. Or finally because of parents who seek to pull their children back from the precipice down which these infâmes plunge them, as it happened two months ago to the personal valet of M. Gilbert de Voisins, head clerk of the Parlement, and his wife, whose seventeen-­year-­old son d’Étam corrupted.91 Restrained by the fear it might reach their master and cause them harm, this poor father and mother did not dare to complain about it. The neighbors as well have not dared to make complaints to you, sir, about the horrors that take place in these two places of prostitution because they fear d’Étam and Dupré and their followers. b. Letter from Buhot to Sartine, 21 May 1765 Sir, I have the honor to report to you that in consequence of the attached [documentation], I have seen M. Hugues, butler to the marquis de Vilennes, brother of M. Gilbert de Voisins, in order to collect information about the objects of complaints [that have been made] against the surgeon Étam for debauching his son.92 He told me he does not know the latter, but it is true, however, that his son disappeared a while ago. He learned from the inquiries he made that the latter fell in more than once with young lads among his comrades who went to Étam’s place. Mme Hugues told him one morning that she had learned from one of these comrades that his son was there with

68 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Étam, but she could not learn anything about the location of her son’s retreat. Several weeks later, they learned he was in Rouen [Seine-­Maritime] and a soldier in the regiment of Poitou. I had the house where Étam and Dupré lodge watched for several days. It was observed that the young folks who frequented it were for the most part some sorts of wigmaker’s assistants and lackeys wearing swords. They went there at all hours of the day. Dupré often provided meals at which a fairly large number of these unfortunates gathered. The meals were often followed by disturbances that were troublesome either because of the frequent brawls they had among themselves or because of outsiders. It seems that Dupré is much more [illegible] than Étam, who was extremely troubled. He rented part of his apartment to a tailor on the days when Dupré did not give suppers. He rarely has company at his place after 9 p.m., except for a young lad who seems to be eighteen or nineteen years old, who sleeps with him. c. Letter from Buhot to Sartine, 15 August 1765 I have the honor to inform you that, upon the notice given me yesterday evening, to the effect that Dupré, unemployed cook, whom you instructed me to arrest a while ago, was dining with several individuals of his type at the establishment of M. Bany, wine vendor, a man known by these nasty people to be of their taste, on rue du Château Bourbon [later rue du Bourbon-­le-­ Château]. I went there at 10 o’clock, accompanied by commissaire Chenu, and found Dupré, fifth at the table with the men whose names and statuses follow.93 Louis Dupré, unemployed cook, twenty-­eight years old, living on rue Mazarine. Jean Milon, same, twenty-­five years old, rue aux Ours. François Richard, thirty-­t wo years old, unemployed meat-­roaster, rue de la Mortellerie [absorbed by rue de l’Hôtel-­de-­ville].94 Claude Chartier, about sixteen years old, unaffiliated wigmaker, rue de la Mortellerie. Albert Bassigny, seventeen years old, same and same street. After questioning these men summarily, I had them conducted to prison: Dupré and Milon to the Petit Châtelet, Richard to the Grand Châtelet, Chartier and Bassigny to the For-­l’Évêque. They are all imprisoned in isolation, Sir, until you order otherwise.

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  69

I will continue my observations about Étam, former colleague and associate of Dupré, then his rival. Since he has been on his guard for a long time and yesterday’s foray will make him more so, it will become more difficult, but I am confident that his passion will win out over his fear, and before too long, I will find him sleeping with one of his minions. Last night, Étam was on the paved walk on the quai de l’École, called the Sofa [Canapé] by these gentlemen, where they gather daily and cause the most revolting scandal. Count [sic] Soltikow is usually there from 9 p.m. to midnight and sometimes even until 2 a.m.95 It is in this place that he generally makes his recruits. He is known there by the name of Roule. Prince Sapieha went there quite frequently before he fell out with Count Soltikow.96 He was called Guillaut there. Those who preside there are Count Soltikow; a baron whose name is not known, called the Baronness of Pins, flunky of the latter; Dupré, called the Female Liar; d’Étam, called d’Étam’s Mother, the Woman from Montpeyroux, the Woman from Polignac; Sardine, called Sartine, independent tailor living at the Queen of the Romans on rue Sainte-­Marguerite. It would be very easy to have a patrol remove all these infamous people, taking precautions to destroy these gatherings. [Sartine informed the comte de Saint-­Florentin that “these are infâmes, connected with a number of others, who commit the crime of pederasty daily with the most revolting scandal and about whom complaints have often been made to me.”97] d. Interrogation of François Richard, 25 August 1765 Interrogation of François Richard before us, Gilles Pierre Chenu, barrister in the Parlement, councilor and commissaire of the king in his Châtelet of Paris, in execution of the orders addressed to us, in which we proceeded as follows.98 On Sunday, 25 August 1765, in the afternoon, in the council chamber in the Grand Châtelet prison, where Richard was summoned for this reason and appeared. Asked for his first and last names, age, status, origins and address. After taking the oath to tell the truth and answer clearly, he said his name is François Richard, meat-­roaster, native of Blois [Loir-­et-­Cher], thirty-­t wo years old, and lives on rue de la Mortellerie, currently prisoner in the Grand Châtelet. Asked if he knows Dupré, for how long and in what circumstances.

70 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Said he has known him for about two years and has only consorted with him for a month. Asked if he has ever been to Dupré’s place, in his room. Said no. Asked how he found himself dining with Dupré and the others on the day when they were arrested. Said Dupré made a rendezvous with him the previous evening, for the next day on the quai de la Ferraille. He was there and went to drink a mug of wine with Dupré and another man, after which they parted. They met again the same night, and Dupré told the deponent he was on a binge with the other man, who was paying for dinner. If he wanted in on it, he had only to come and bring some acquaintances. He replied that he had no money, and Dupré told him it did not matter, it would not cost him anything. He then noticed two men, wigmakers whom he knew on the rue de la Mortellerie, and brought them to dine with the others. Asked if he knew about the bad reputation Dupré had. Said he had indeed heard people speak badly of Dupré. Asked if there was discussion of sodomy during dinner. Said Dupré indeed admitted that he had slept with one of the men present at the dinner with them and told the deponent that he had never seen or touched him, to which the deponent replied that it was true and that he would never make any progress with him on that score. Asked if he has ever been to the Grand Salon [tavern on rue Lamartine] in la Nouvelle France [area between rues du faubourg Montmartre and Saint-­ Denis] with Dupré or others of his clique. Said he has indeed been there, just for snacks, but never with Dupré or other folks of the type of he was suspected of being. Asked if he knows d’Étam. Said no. Asked if he believes the witnesses who have knowledge of the facts. Said yes, if they tell the truth. Asked if Dupré had suggested parties and earning money. Said no, that he promised him only to find him a position and that he never dined with him except for day they were arrested. He was very suspicious of Dupré after what he told him then, which he reported above. Asked if he has ever been in prison or arrested. Said he was in prison once, for only thirty-­six sols he owed. Once he knew the reasons, the lieutenant general of police had him released promptly.

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  71

After his interrogation and his replies were read to him, he said his replies contain the truth and reaffirmed them. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. e. Interrogation of Albert Bassigny, 26 August 1765 Interrogation of Albert Bassigny, before us, Gilles Pierre Chenu, barrister in the Parlement, councilor and commissaire of the king in his Châtelet of Paris, in execution of the orders addressed to us, in which we proceeded as follows. On Monday, 26 August 1765, in the afternoon, in the council chamber in the For-­l’Évêque prison, where Bassigny was summoned for this reason and appeared. Asked for his first and last names, age, status, origins and address. After taking the oath to tell the truth and answer clearly, he said his name is Albert Bassigny, wigmaker’s assistant, native of Dijon, about seventeen years old, and lives on rue de la Mortellerie, currently prisoner in the For-­l ’Évêque. Asked if he knows Dupré, for how long and in what circumstances. Said he does not know him. Asked if he knows Richard and for how long. Said he knows him from having seen him twice at an inn where the deponent spent two nights. Richard suggested that he give his hair a comb, which the deponent did, after which Richard suggested a drink, which he declined. Asked if he has not seen Richard at the wigmakers bureau. Said he has seen him there several times, as well as in the billiard parlor opposite, for which reason he assumed that he was also a wigmaker or surgeon. Asked how he found himself at the dinner during which he was arrested. Said he encountered Richard that day on the quai de la Ferraille. The deponent was with Chartier. Richard invited him to dinner and told him that his comrade would not be too many. As a result, they went there without suspecting anything wrong. Asked if during the dinner he heard remarks that made him think about the type of folks he was with. Said he indeed heard a man, whom he believes is named Dupré, one of the company, tell Richard that he had never seen or touched him, but in spite of these remarks, he did not suspect anything wrong. Asked if any propositions about parties or sleeping were made to him. Said no. Asked if he knows d’Étam. Said no.

72 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Asked if he has ever dined at Dupré’s on rue Mazarine. Said no. Asked if he is connected with individuals given over to the crime of sodomy. Said no. Asked if he believes the witnesses who have knowledge of the facts. Said yes, if they tell the truth. Asked if he has ever been in prison or arrested. Said no. After his interrogation and his replies were read to him, he said his replies contain the truth and reaffirmed them and signed. f. Letter from Buhot to Sartine, 26 September 1765 I have the honor to inform you that, in pursuance of your orders, I went to the prisons in which Dupré, Milon, Richard, Bassigny and Chartier are detained, in order to learn from these prisoners where they lived before their detention and then to confirm for you how they conducted themselves there, considering it unlikely that anyone would make inquiries there. I found everyone I consulted predisposed in their favor, and they gave me the following evidence about them. Dupré provided no information for making inquiries about him other than at the residence of the ambassador of Naples, where he served his apprentice­ship as a cook. They say nothing good or bad about him but, on the other hand, those who know him from other places regard him as an infâme. Milon was a kitchen assistant in the households of Mlle Pajot on rue de Paradis, President Corberon on rue Barbette and M. de Cuisy, tax farmer, on rue de  Clery, then cook for eight months at an eating-­house on rue des Récollets in Versailles, which he left when he was arrested.99 They spoke well of him everywhere. The keeper of the eating-­house in Versailles would have kept him longer if he had not been subject to vapors caused by charcoal that gave him a caustic humor that displeased him. But I do not suspect him any less of having a taste for men, and he has, as it were, admitted his failings. He is the brother of Mme Paul, mistress smelter on rue des Gravilliers, who has a good reputation. Furthermore, I do not think that Milon, despite his inclination, is a disreputable subject. Richard served his apprenticeship with M. Boette at the Croix Rouge, then spent four months as cook to Mme de Montauban on rue Beaurepaire and two months with the chevalier de Castel on rue de Sorbonne. They

Reports from the Archives of the Bastille  |  73

spoke well of him in these places, but as this does not account for the time since he completed his apprenticeship, it is proof that he was not employed often. It is well established that he is an antiphysical by taste. His conduct in this regard appears no better than Dupré’s. In entering the wigmakers bureau, he passed himself off as an assistant in that trade. That step, with moral certitude about the rest, seems to make him as reprehensible as Dupré. Bassigny worked at his trade of wigmaker for six months with M. Gauthier on rue de Sèvres and four months with Mlle Quillot on rue [later quai] de Gesvres. He conducted himself well enough in those two places. He has brothers in domestic service here who are very decent people and a sister-­in-­ law who is a cook to M. Dufour on rue de l’Université. They only blame Bassigny for being lazy. As the latter was caught in a lie by his parents, whom he led to believe he was employed in a shop when he was arrested, they want him to leave Paris in order to divert him from the bad company he seems to be connected with. Chartier, wigmaker’s assistant, worked at his trade for three months with M. Aubry on rue des Barres near the Ave Maria [convent, 22 rue de l’Ave-­Maria] and one month with M. Menet on rue de Harlay near the Palais [de Justice]. His masters noticed nothing reprehensible in him. They blamed him only for inconstancy and for liking to loaf in the shops, which meant that he was more often without work than at work. These responses seem to me to amount only to not saying directly anything negative about folks who were known to be in prison. As for Martin des Roches, I have continued to have his tavern watched. It served as a nest for all types of unsavory characters up until last week, when he left the key under the door and went away without paying what he owed his landlord. In the neighborhood, it is believed that he intends to reopen in the same business in the area of Roule, near the residence of Count Soltikow, former Russian minister to this court. Prince Sapieha left the day before yesterday to return to his country. He will pass through Holland, where he will meet the minions who preceded him and have awaited him for more than two months. [“As they deserve more severe punishment, and as it seems necessary to make an example that might restrain these infâmes,” Sartine had the prisoners transferred to Bicêtre in October. The parents of Chartier and Bassigny addressed petitions to Sartine and secured the release of their sons in December. The police noted that Chartier was “only” sixteen years old and “seems to have been debauched” by others and that Bassigny “seems sufficiently punished.”]

SECTION B

Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires

Introduction In the course of the eighteenth century, the older and smaller watch was replaced by the newer and larger guard, which staffed posts throughout the capital, patrolled its streets, and responded to calls for help from Parisians.1 The unindexed registers of the watch/guard, 1768–­91, provide basic details about thirty arrests involving sex between men (#18), which clerks labeled sodomy in 1768 and pederasty in 1781. The registers include some ambiguous language and cases. In these records, the verb debauch (8 August 1776) means “to lead astray,” specifically from duties to masters, not “to seduce or defile.” The two men who “slept with” each other (22 March 1779) simply shared a bed, as many men without resources and privacy did. At the same time, the words indecent, indecently, and indecency, in many other entries, denote not just immodest but sexual intention or behavior. Lacking other sources, it is difficult to know what to make of cases such as this one: “22 February 1779. Pierre Charles Berenger, former clerk at the barriers, arrested at 8 p.m. on rue de Seine [in the] Saint-­Germain [quarter, 6th arr.] for being found, disguised as a woman, under the bed of M. Droulin, captain of dragoons.” Men sometimes dressed as women, just as women sometimes dressed as men, for a variety of personal and practical reasons.2 We cannot assume that Berenger had or wished to have sexual relations with Droulin, who may well have summoned the watch/guard himself. The arrests documented in the registers involve men, mostly workingmen and domestics, who looked at, followed, talked to, propositioned, touched, assaulted, or had sex with other men, in the usual locations and elsewhere. The cast of characters includes five soldiers or sentinels and five teenagers. One of the youngsters pursued a man who rejected and reported him, and

Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires  |  75

at least two of the others had sex with older males without any mention of money, which does not mean that they did not sell their services. Speaking of money, one man tried to turn the tables on the two who turned him in by accusing them of robbery. Few of the entries include much detail, but all of them include the names of the commissaires who questioned the men arrested and delivered to them and had them detained or released. With these names in hand, it is possible to locate the extant reports, eight of them, scattered in the unindexed papers of the commissaires, which fill 5,290 cartons in the Archives Nationales.3 Without such external references, the only other option is to examine all the papers in all the cartons of all the commissaires from any given year. Scrutiny of all the cartons from 1725, 1750, 1770, and 1775 yielded no cases in the first three years and just one case in the third year not listed in the registers (#22). The reports of the commissaires reveal less about sexual interests and histories than the accounts of conversations in section A do, but they are instructive in other ways. Two of them (#19 and 24) involve consensual relations between adults, aged twenty-­four and thirty, in one case, and thirty-­ three and thirty-­nine, in the other. At least three others (#20, 23, and 26) illustrate the dynamics of propositions made not to decoys but to ordinary Parisians who complained to the watch/guard instead of ignoring unwelcome advances as others presumably did. One case (#25) documents extortion, mentioned in many records from the 1780s, and two others (#22 and 27) document cooperation between the guards in the Palais Royal, employed by the duc d’Orléans, and personnel who had no jurisdiction there.4 Last but not least, the reports demonstrate the diversity of reactions to the police on the part of the men they tracked: flight, denial, and excuses, such as taking a walk, doing an errand, and, of course, answering the call of nature to urinate or defecate.

18. Reports of the Watch/Guard, 1768–­8 15 *See details in commissaires’ reports below, #19–­27. 26 April 1768. François Tremaut, lantern bearer #39, and Claude Jean Baptiste Dugy, jeweler, found together in the Champs-­Élysées.6* 10 June 1768. André Fouyette, mathematician, living on rue de Sèvres, and Jean Mironbon Rivière, surgery student, rue de la Vannerie [nonextant,

76 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

7th arr.], arrested by M. Sarraire at the second passageway into the courtyard of the Louvre, accused of sodomy. 28 July 1768. Louis Jacques Carton, eighteen years old, in the service of count Dorsay, living at his residence in the petit hôtel de Luxembourg on rue Tournon, arrested at the request of Charles de Wynghene, Flemish gentleman, usually living in Ghent [Belgium], currently in Paris at chevalier Dugard’s riding school on rue de la Ville l’Évêque, for following and looking indecently at him in the Tuileries and Champs-­Élysées.7* 26 August 1768. Jean Galway, fifty-­t wo, from Rouen, currently in Paris, and Pierre Louis Papin, eighteen, saddler, who said Galway wished to play with him, both arrested in indecent postures at the Half-­Moon. 29 November 1768. Jacques Cavalier and Louis de Callay, carder, arrested in postures of the greatest indecency on the quai de l’École. 6 September 1769. François Claude Duterat, scribe, arrested as suspected of the crime of sodomy in rue la Cour du Maure [nonextant, 2nd arr.], after giving an unsatisfactory account of his conduct, and Pierre Dumont, chessboard maker, likewise arrested and released.* 15 September 1769. Jean Antoine Hardy, unemployed coachman for hire, arrested at the request of Pierre Alexandre Rayen, messenger, accused of leading him into a passageway, suggesting committing impurities with him and opening a letter he was carrying to Choisy [Val-­de-­Marne]. 19 December 1769. Louis Coullon from Nanterre [Hauts-­de-­Seine], pepper vendor, for indecent propositions made by him to the sentinel. 24 May 1770. Jean Baptiste Estienne, floor polisher, arrested at the Half-­ Moon on the boulevard with François Pierre LeSieur and Pierre Marchais, journeyman foundryman. These two men filed a complaint. Marchais said, specifically, that Estienne had undone his breeches and unbuttoned his own and committed frightful indecencies. Since the two men defended themselves and called for the guard, Estienne accused them of robbing him. 24 June 1770. Jean Einchemesse, domestic, François Joseph Artenaire, found with his breeches partly undone, and Guillaume Delasalle, arrested by the patrol of Saint-­Sévérin [church on rue des Prêtres de Saint-­Sévérin]. They were behind the stacks of wood, as Petit, night guardsman on the quai de l’École, stated. 1 August 1770. Jean Trumeau, retired wine vendor, and Jacques Laurent, unemployed domestic, both found in indecent postures. 9 July 1771. Jean Nicolas Durepois, water carrier, living on rue de Beauvais [nonextant, 1st arr.], and Pierre Galland, tailor’s assistant, living in faubourg

Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires  |  77

Saint-­Jacques, both arrested among the stones [for construction projects] at the Louvre as suspected of the crime of sodomy. 11 July 1771. Jean Riga, seventeen years old, in service with masons, living at his father’s residence on place Maubert, and another man, a cook’s assistant, who did not wish to give his name or address, found in indecent postures on the boulevards and arrested. 29 November 1771. Louis Houpelon, [illegible], Étienne Guenon, gardener, and Pierre Thomas, cowherd, arrested on rue Saint-­Honoré, prowling the streets and assuming indecent postures. 23 May 1774. Jean François Thomas, fifteen years old, living with his father, lodging on rue Montmartre, and Jean Baptiste Delaval, twenty-­five years old, shoemaker’s assistant, found and arrested in indecent postures in the Champs-­Élysées, in a little house belonging to M. d’Argenson.8 15 June 1775. Jean Baptiste Dufour and Alexandre Berton, caterer, arrested at 9:30 p.m. under the arches in the rue Saint-­Louis for conduct contrary to good morals. 16 June 1775. Nicolas Davoux and Joseph Cancade, both domestics, arrested at 9 p.m. under the arches in the rue Saint-­L ouis as suspected of [conduct contrary to] good morals. 21 July 1775. Charles Legroux, former domestic, arrested for touching Claude Grossin, domestic of the duchesse de la Vallière.9* 22 July 1775. Philippe Klein, domestic to M. Martin, royal painter, and Antoine Clément, master joiner, arrested at 9:30 p.m. under the arches in the rue Saint-­Louis in indecent postures.10* 13 August 1775. Alexandre Malerot, called Langevin, domestic of M. Girardin, and Jean Hervez, domestic of M. Robest, notary, found in indecent postures under the arches in rue Saint-­Louis and arrested. 5 September 1775. Jean Louis Vaucher and Charles Dambre, arrested at 3 a.m. in the Champs-­Élysées, found in indecent postures. 8 August 1776. Jean Baptiste François Guillemet, itinerant jeweler vendor, and Jean Frédéric, his assistant, arrested at 2 p.m. on rue Sainte-­Placide, accused of trying to debauch Griffon, apprentice hatter, and making propositions to him contrary to good morals.* 17 March 1777. Louis Debat, lapidary, arrested at 8 p.m. at the Saint-­ Antoine Half-­Moon for indecencies toward Vaquenay, gingerbread maker’s assistant.* 20 March 1777. Vincent Goutlerose, unemployed domestic, arrested at 9 p.m. in Nouvelle France for indecent propositions to two soldiers.

78 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

27 November 1777. Pierre Picard, history teacher, arrested at 12:30 a.m. for insults and propositions against morals he made to the sentinel of the French Guards on the Pont Neuf. 28 February 1779. Simon Nicolas Maudoit, tobacco vendor, arrested at 10 p.m. on the quai d’Orfèvres for propositions contrary to good morals he [had] made to a soldier of the Paris guard. 22 March 1779. Étienne Bidot, bookbinder, arrested at 7 a.m. on rue Contrescarpe for indecently touching a man he had slept with. 10 May 1779. Antoine Duchenois and Pierre Louis Bouvard, actors of the Opera Students [Théâtre des Elèves de l’Opéra, boulevard du Temple], arrested on the boulevards for indecencies committed in that theater. 31 July 1779. Marc Lefèvre, unemployed, arrested in the Palais Royal for making indecent propositions to a pantry boy in the service of the duc d’Orléans.11* 6 October 1781. François Levalsor, arrested at 8 a.m. on rue des Grands-­ Degrés for the crime of pederasty.

19. François Tremaut and Claude Jean Baptiste Dugy, 25 April 1768 12 At 9:30 p.m. on this day, Monday, 25 April 1768, at our residence and before us, Pierre Thierion, commissaire of the Châtelet, appeared M. Pierre Monet, corporal of the Paris guard posted at the Capuchin monastery on rue Saint-­ Honoré [numbers 235–­51].13 He reported to us that he had passed through the Champs-­Élysées, not [far from] Place Louis XV, on patrol about half an hour ago, and noticed, under some newly planted trees, two men lying on their sides on the ground in indecent postures. As he approached, one tried to flee, but one of his soldiers stopped him. Both were arrested, and he conducted them before us for our decision. And he signed. We gave M. Monet a record of this appearance and then summoned one of the two arrested men. Asked for his first and last names, age, origins, status and address and if it is true that he was found lying on his side on the ground, he replied, after taking the oath to tell the truth, that his name is François Tremaut, twenty-­four years old, native of the parish of Coublanc in the bishopric of Langres [Haute-­Marne], lantern bearer number 39, and lives at la Gervaise’s boardinghouse on rue de la Vannerie. He is wrongly accused of being found on his side with another man next to him. On the contrary,

Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires  |  79

he was lying on his back in order to button his breeches more easily after doing his business. He lowered them again because the guard did not want him to put them back on. After his interrogation and his replies were read to him, he said his replies contain the truth and reaffirmed them. Asked to do so, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. Asked for his first and last names, age, status, origins and address, and what he was doing at the time he was arrested by the guard in the Champs-­ Élysées, lying on his side with the other man who was arrested at the same time he was, the other arrested man replied, after taking the oath to tell the truth, that his name is Claude Jean Baptiste Dugy, thirty years old, native of the parish of Saint-­Eustache [church at intersection of rue Montmartre and rue de Turbigo] in Paris, snuffbox jeweler, and lives at the residence of the jeweler Fourniquet, his brother-­in-­law, on rue des Chantres. He was indeed lying down in the Champs-­Élysées to do his business but, it is true, near the other man, who was also doing his business. He was searched, and nothing suspicious was found in his pockets. After his interrogation and his replies were read to him, he said his replies contain the truth and reaffirmed them. And he signed. We left Tremaut and Dugy to M. Monet, to turn them over to the first officer of the watch and direct him to commit them to the Petit Châtelet by our order. They will remain there until it is ordered otherwise. He took charge of them and signed.

20. Louis Jacques Carton, 27 July 176814 At 9 p.m. on this day, Wednesday, 27 July 1768, at our residence and before us, Pierre Thierion, barrister in the Parlement, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared M. Pierre François Pezé, sergeant of the Paris guard posted in the faubourg Saint-­Honoré [8th arr.]. He told us that at our residence, he had met a man who told him his name was De Wynghene, living at chevalier Dugard’s Royal Academy.15 He had brought in a man who seemed suspect to him in the Champs-­Élysées as well as the Tuileries. The sergeant arrested him at his request and brought him before us for our decision. He requested a record of his report and signed. Also appeared M. Charles De Wynghene, Flemish gentleman, usually living in Ghent, currently in Paris at chevalier Dugard’s Royal Academy on

80 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

rue de la Ville l’Évêque in the parish of the Madeleine [church between rue Royale and rue Tronchet]. He told us that a week ago today, he was continually followed by the arrested man, from bench to bench, from chair to chair, in the Tuileries garden and then in the Champs-­Élysées, as far as the Academy. This man stared at him and looked at him in a way that made him think ill of him. Today this man came near him, and he got up with the intention of approaching him. This man fled, and the deponent chased him. He caught up with him and pressed him to come with him before us. It is to be presumed from his conduct with him that he is a disreputable subject. He requested a record of his statement and signed. Afterward, we, the commissaire named above, gave the deponent a record of what precedes and summoned the arrested man. Asked for his first and last names, age, status, origins and address, he replied, after taking the oath to tell the truth, that he is named Louis Jacques Carton, eighteen years old, native of Abbeville [Somme], domestic in the service of the comte Dorsay and lives at his residence in the petit hôtel de Luxembourg on rue de Tournon. Asked if it is true that a week ago today he followed M. de Wynghene in the Tuileries garden and the Champs-­Élysées and looked at him indecently and that he saw M. de Wynghene today near the Tuileries and fled after noticing him. Replied that he made no faces and did not accost M. de Wynghene. If he went as far as the Academy, it was because his route took him that way to meet his master and hunt swallows. After his interrogation and his replies were read to him, he said his replies contain the truth and reaffirmed them. And asked to sign, in keeping with the ordinance, he refused to do so. We left him in the hands of M. Pezé, who took charge of him to turn him over to the first officer of the watch in order to have him conducted and committed by the latter to the Petit Châtelet prison. And he signed.

21. Pierre Dumont and François Claude Duterat, 6 September 1769 16 At 10 p.m. on 6 September 1769, at our residence and before us, Claude Robert Coquelin, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared M. Antoine Faucourt, brigadier in the Paris guard.17 He told us that

Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires  |  81

in execution of the orders of the lieutenant general of police, he had patrolled rue Saint-­Martin and cour de Saint-­Martin [absorbed by rue de Réaumur] in order to arrest those men found there accused of committing the crime of sodomy there. After he entered cour de Saint-­Martin from rue Saint-­Martin, a man who had noticed him fled and thought he could escape through the other end of the street, but he was caught by one of his men whom he had taken the precaution of posting there. He also arrested another man found in that street, and he brought both of them before us to be heard. And he signed. We then summoned one of the arrested men before us. After taking the oath to tell the truth, he said that he is named Pierre Dumont, twenty-­four years old, native of Saulieu in Burgundy [province in east central France], chessboard maker, and lives on rue de Beaubourg. When he was arrested he was going to his master’s on rue Quincampoix. His wife, who lives at M. Carpentier’s on rue Michel-­le-­Comte, showed up and asked for him. We then summoned the other arrested man, who is the one who fled. After taking the oath to tell the truth, he replied that his name is François Claude Duterat, twenty-­four years old, native of Paris, scribe in the Palais [de Justice] and lives on rue du Dauphin Saint-­Honoré [nonextant, 1st arr.]. Asked where he was coming from and where he was going when he was arrested, Said he was coming from the Palais and going home. Asked why he fled when the guard arrived. Said he feared that he would be mistaken for someone else. Asked if he knows the other arrested man. Said no. Asked to tell us for what reason he went to rue Cour du Maure. Said he just bought some feathers on rue Saint-­M artin near rue des Ménétriers [nonextant, 4th arr.]. Pointed out to him that he had no need to take rue de la Cour du Maure to go home. Asked where he was going. Said he may have entered that street in order to do his business. Asked if it is true that he went there to commit the crime of sodomy. Said no. Asked if he had been arrested before. Said no. After his interrogation and his replies were read to him, he said his replies contain the truth and signed. Afterward, we, the commissaire named above, had Dumont released as not suspected and ordered Duterat, highly suspected of the crime in question,

82 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

to be conducted to the Grand Châtelet prison and to be detained there until ordered otherwise. For that purpose, we left him in the hands of M. Faucourt, who took charge of him to turn him over to the first officer of the watch and direct him to conduct him to prison by our order. And M. Faucourt signed.

22. Claude Michel Sébastien Mezierre, 20 February 177518 At 7 p.m. on Monday, 20 February 1775, at our residence and before us, Marie Joseph Chénon, because of the unavailability of François Jean Sirebeau, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared M. Antoine Vidor, sergeant of the Paris guard posted at the Barrier of the Sergeants [at the intersection of rue Saint-­Honoré and rue des Petits-­Champs].19 He told us that he was requested to go to the rue des Fontaines in the Palais Royal. When he got there with his squad, M. Baudin, the officer responsible for order inside the Palais Royal, handed over to him a man he had just arrested in the garden for making an indecent proposition to a man who was crossing the garden. Accompanied by M. Baudin, he conducted the man before us for our decision. And he signed. Also appeared Messieurs Henry Baudin and Martin Baudin, both officers in charge of order inside the Palais Royal. They told us that as M.  Liébault, governor of the Palais Royal, left the garden, he told them he had seen one man running after another and, approaching him, propose indecent things to him.20 The deponents went into the garden and made the rounds of the walks. In the one known as the Walk of the Small Trees, they indeed found the two men M. Liébault just spoke to them about. They could confront only one of them, since the other took flight. The one who remained gave inadequate answers to the questions they asked him and tried several times to get out of their hands. Assuming this man was such a one as M. Liébault described to them, they had him leave the garden. Once they were in the courtyard of the building, they sent for the guard from the Barrier of the Sergeants in rue Saint-­Honoré. They turned the man over to them in order to have him conducted to our residence. They came here to make this declaration before us and signed. We, undersigned royal councilor and commissaire, gave M. Vidor and Messrs. Baudin records of their above appearances, report and declaration. We summoned the man brought in. Asked for his first and last names, address, origins, status and address, he told us, after taking the oath to tell the truth,

Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires  |  83

that his name is Claude Michel Sébastien Mezierre, twenty to twenty-­t wo years old, native of Charny [Yonne], domestic without a job as of three days ago. He served the bishop of Le Mans and still lives at the bishop’s home on rue Saint-­Roch, opposite the residence of the parish clergy.21 Asked what he was doing in the Palais Royal garden at the time he was arrested there. Said he was taking a walk like everyone else when a man passing by looked at him boldly. Asked if he entered into conversation with a man who took flight when he was arrested. Said no. He was searched, and nothing was found in his pockets. After his interrogation and his replies were read to him, he said his replies contain the truth and reaffirmed them. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. After this, we handed Mezierre over to Messrs. Baudin to conduct him to the prison of For-­l’Évêque and have him imprisoned by the first officer of the watch, which they undertook. And they signed with us, commissaire and Vidor.

23. Charles Legroux, 21 July 177522 At 9 p.m. on Friday, 21 July 1775, at our residence and before us, Bernard Louis Philippe Fontaine, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared Joseph Sevin, corporal of the Paris guard posted in the Porcherons.23 He told us that he heard someone call for the guard outside his guard post, left it with his squad, found a man holding another by the collar and arrested the latter. The former complained he had made indecent propositions to him. He brought these men back to the guard post. The complainant said the accused tried to escape and asked him not to ruin him. The arrested man, who was present, did not disagree about it. I asked him questions, and he observed that he was trembling and could not speak. He brought them, one and the other, before us for our decision, produced a cane with a copper head with which the prisoner was armed and signed. Also appeared Claude Grossin, domestic in the service of the duchesse de la Vallière, at whose home he lives on place du Carousel, who told us that today, about 7 p.m., he was walking alone in the fields at the foot of

84 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Montmartre [village incorporated into the 18th arr.] and encountered the arrested man, who accosted him, speaking of the beauty of the spot and the earth. Chatting together, they walked down to the entrance to Plaine-­de-­ Monceaux [village incorporated into the 17th arr.]. The deponent entered a game cover with the design of collecting some flowers. The man followed him in and touched him indecently, which revealed the man’s intentions to him. Offended by the touching, the deponent reproached him. Just then someone approached, and they took the route to Paris. When they reached the guard post, the deponent told him that he was going to have him arrested for touching him. At this the man started trembling, asked him not to ruin him and tried to escape, but he grabbed him by the collar and shouted to the guard, who came out. He affirms the truth of this declaration and signed. We summoned the arrested man, who responded to the questions we put to him by saying that his name is Charles Legroux, fifty-­seven years old, native of Crépy-­en-­Valois [Oise], former domestic in the service of the prince de Salm, prince de Beauvau and the abbess of Saint-­A ntoine, currently living on his own means with his sister Mme Legroux, living on her own means in Mme Henard’s house on rue Notre-­Dame-­de-­Bonne-­Nouvelle.24 He encountered the complainant near Montmartre. They chatted, but he did not touch him indecently. When they were opposite the guard post, this man took him by the collar and had him arrested, claiming that he had touched him. It is true he asked him not to ruin him because he was upset about being arrested on his account, not being in the wrong. And he signed. Afterward, we, the undersigned commissaire, gave both parties records of their appearances, reports and declarations. Given what follows from everything above, we ordered that Legroux be conducted to the Grand Châtelet, to be imprisoned by the first officer of the watch and that his cane be handed over to the same officer, for him to deposit with the criminal clerk’s office of the Châtelet. Sevin received the orders, and he signed.

24. Philippe Klein and Antoine Clément, 22 July 177525 At 9:30 p.m. on 22 July 1775, at our residence and before us, Noël Louis Gillet, nobleman, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared Jacques Rigaud, corporal of the Paris guard posted at the New Market [on the Île de la Cité, between Pont Saint-­Michel and Petit Pont].26 He reported and told us that during patrol, at the horse trough on rue Saint-­Louis, near

Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires  |  85

the Palais de Justice, he noticed, under the arches in the same street, several men who were committing the crime of sodomy together. He approached them with his squad and arrested two of them, whose breeches were still down, such that they were found in the most indecent situation and posture. Asked by the deponent what they were doing, they told him that they just did their business. Since it is forbidden by the ordinances to prowl the riverbanks at night, the deponent conducted them before us for our decision and signed. We, the undersigned commissaire, gave M. Rigaud a record of the above appearance, report and declaration. We then summoned before us the first arrested man. After taking the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Philippe Klein, more than thirty-­three years old, native of Wilsen in Alsace [province along the Rhine], domestic in the service of M. Martin, royal painter, at whose home he lives on rue du Cimetière-­Saint-­A ndré [later rue Suger]. He does not know why he was arrested. Like many others, he was on the edge of the water without doing anything wrong. He is not guilty, did not know the spot was suspect and signed. Then we summoned the other arrested man. After taking the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Antoine Clément, almost thirty-­nine years old, native of Brive-­la-­Gaillarde [Corrèze], master joiner in Paris, and lives on rue Quincampoix. After bathing in the horse trough in rue Saint-­ Louis, he went under the arches in that street to do his business there, and he was very surprised to find himself arrested, without knowing why, since he was innocent of the crime he is accused of and signed. Given what is above and inasmuch as the responses of Klein and Clément seem inadequate to us, we ordered that they be conducted to the Petit Châtelet, to be imprisoned and remain there until ordered otherwise, to which end they will be handed over to the first officer of the watch, for which Rigaud accepted responsibility and signed with us, commissaire.

25. Jean Baptiste François Guillemet and Jean Frédéric, 8 August 177627 At 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, 8 August 1776, at our residence and before us, Antoine Joachim Thiot, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared corporal Louis Marthe, posted at the Petites Maisons [21 rue de Sèvres].

86 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

He told us that as he passed through rue Saint-­Placide on patrol, he was asked by someone to enter a tavern where there were two men who had filched four shirts and his hat from him two weeks ago Sunday. He arrested the two men, whom he brought before us for our decision. And he signed. Then appeared Antoine Griffon, apprentice hatter to M. Thevenart, hatter on rue de Sèvres, at whose residence he lives. He told us that while he was walking in the Tuileries at 7 p.m. on 21 July, he was stopped by a man who proposed to keep him company as he walked. He accepted this proposition and continued to walk as far as Place Louis XV, where he asked the man who had accosted him what time it was. The man replied that he did not have a watch and that it was not late enough to end the walk. They continued into the Champs-­Élysées, where the man paused and urged the deponent to come beside him. At that moment, another man showed up, whom the man who had accosted him in the Tuileries greeted and urged to take a rest next to them. After the second man sat down, the first man suggested to the deponent and the second man to have a good time together, meaning to commit indecencies, a proposition the deponent rejected with spirit. He got up with the second man. Indignant about the proposition made to him by the man who had accosted him, he wished to withdraw from his company. At the same moment, the second man grabbed the first by the collar and told him they were two b[uggers], which provoked an uproar between them that was overheard by two other men who showed up and arrested the deponent as well as the man who had accosted him. They called them b[uggers] and threatened to take them to the prévôté of the Tuileries [de l’hôtel]. On the way, they told them that they did not wish to ruin them and that if he had some personal effects to give them, they would let him go free. To encourage them to surrender those effects quickly, they gave them to understand that they were made to arrest b[uggers] and that if they deny that they are such, they were three against them who would affirm the fact with one voice. At that moment, the man who had accosted him pretended to give a watch to the men who had arrested them, who then let him go away. The deponent feared that the testimony of the three men who had arrested him would be believed. He let them take thirty sols he had in his pocket. Since his buckles, which they examined, did not suit them, he suggested giving them some shirts he had at his master’s, and they consented. He therefore led them to M. Thevenart’s residence on rue de Sèvres, where one of the three men entered and received four shirts from him, three of fine linen and the other of coarser linen marked with the letters PG. He gave his word to meet them the next day in the Luxembourg to recover two of the four

Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires  |  87

shirts in exchange for two new hats worth twelve livres each. He indeed went there but did not find them. Two of these men sent for him today from rue Saint-­Placide. He went there and took them into a tavern in order to make it easy to have them arrested by the guard as he did. After repeating to us the declaration he had made verbally before our colleague M. Léger on 22 July, he requested a record of it and signed.28 We summoned the two arrested men. They told us their names are, one, Jean Baptiste François Guillemet, thirty years old, native of Châteauneuf in [illegible], itinerant jewelry vendor, living at the residence of M. Bernard, chintz vendor on rue Saint-­Honoré, and the other, Jean Frédéric, seventeen years old, native of Strasbourg [Bas-­R hin], assistant of M. Guillemet, at the residence of M. Bernard, shopkeeper on rue Saint-­Honoré. They said that they do not know the man who got himself arrested in any way and that it is wrongly that he claims they accosted him in the Champs-­Élysées on 21 July. Asked to sign his name, Guillemet stated that he does not know how to do so. Frédéric does not know how to sign in French and did so in German. Afterward, we, the commissaire named above, gave records to Marthe of his report, Griffon of his declaration and Guillemet and Frédéric of their responses. In light of Griffon’s declaration, we sent Guillemet and Frédéric to the Grand Châtelet prison. We charged Marthe to turn them over to the first officer of the watch and direct him to commit them to the prison by police order. Of everything above, we had this report drawn up, to be used as thought proper. And M. Marthe signed with us.

26. Louis Debat, 17 March 177729 At 8:30 p.m. on 17 March 1777, at our residence and before us, Nicolas Noël Carlier, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared Antoine Chavonnet, corporal in the Paris guard stationed at the Saint-­Antoine gate.30 He told us that he heard someone call for the guard at the Half-­Moon, went there at once with his squad and found a man there who told him that another man, present there, had insulted him by sticking his hand into his breeches and that he had immediately called for the guard. He [Chavonnet] arrested that man and conducted him to our residence in order for us to decide what should be done, and he signed. The complainant also appeared. He said that his name is Louis Croquinoy, gingerbread maker’s assistant, and that he lives on rue Jean Beausire in

88 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

the parish of Saint-­Paul [church on rue Saint-­Paul]. He said that while he was making water [urinating] at the Half-­Moon, the arrested man, whom he does not know, came up to him, laid his hand on his [private] parts and asked him, “What have we here?” The deponent replied, “Wait, I’m going to tell you,” and at the same time punched him in the face and called for the guard. The other man likewise called for the guard, which showed up and conducted them before us. He makes this statement to us to be used as thought proper and states that he does not know how to sign his name. We had the arrested man summoned. After taking the oath to tell the truth, he said that his name is Louis Debat, lapidary, thirty-­eight years old, and that he lives in the house of M. Sire, innkeeper, on rue Beaubourg and works on rue de la Savonnerie. He went out to take a walk and take the air. He had hardly reached the Half-­Moon, where he wished to do his business, when he noticed the man who just appeared before us, who seemed to be making water and told him that the weather was pleasant, that it was too bad it was raining a bit, that there were no women in sight. The deponent told him that they were not rare. He does not know why this man punched him. The deponent ran off toward the guard while calling for it. The statement the man made against him is false and untrue. He has nothing else to say and signed. Afterward, we, royal councilor and commissaire as above, gave the deponents records of their appearances and statements. Thereafter and inasmuch as Croquinoy reaffirmed his statement and indeed just added that the arrested man even unbuttoned his breeches, we ordered that Debat should be conducted to the Grand Châtelet prison by the first officer of the watch, as suspected of egregious debauchery, and incarcerated there. To that end, we summoned M. Louis Bernard, sergeant of the guard at the Saint-­Paul market [behind the parish church], who took charge of him and signed.

27. Marc Lefèvre, 31 July 177931 At 10:30 p.m. on Saturday, 31 July 1779, at our residence and before us, Augustin Edme de Saint-­Père, barrister in the Parlement, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared Girard, corporal of the Paris guard posted at the Barrier of the Sergeants.32 He told us that he was requested to go to the courtyard of the fountains in the Palais Royal to arrest a man who was in the guard post of the Palais Royal guards, who was arrested for indecent talk, whom he brought to us to

Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires  |  89

have us decide what should be done, and Girard, asked to do so, states that he does not know how to write or sign his name. M. Nicolas Guibert, guard in the Palais Royal, living on rue de Richelieu, also appeared. He told us that he responded at once to the cries he heard in the Palais Royal garden. He found a man whom he arrested immediately upon the charges, which he denied, made by a young child, whom he brought to us here, that he made infamous propositions to this child. He immediately conducted the man to the guard post, where M. Liébault, governor of the Palais, came and questioned the man, who replied at first that he came to see someone in the pantry service of the duc de Chartres whose name he said he did not recall.33 As a result of this unsatisfactory answer and because every day at this time we have various people of this stripe who stroll in the garden, he sent for Girard. When he arrived, the man was handed over to him. The deponent makes this statement to us, to be used as thought proper, requested a record of it and signed. Augustin Michel Deschamps, almost fifteen years old, pantry boy in the service of the duc d’Orléans, son of Michel Deschamps, pantry master to the same prince, also appeared. He told us that returning from an errand, traversing the Palais Royal and crossing the edge of the lawn to meet his mother, who had told him she would wait for him near the Café de Foy [46 rue de Richelieu], he encountered the man arrested there, who asked him if he knew various young folks he named. After various questions, the man asked him in particular if he had a room of his own. He replied that he did not and lived with his father and mother. The man told him, “If I had one very nearby you would come with me.” The deponent replied no. The man then asked him if he had had a good time with those he just named, if he knew a [illegible] place, and if he would like to come to a café with private rooms to have some ice cream. The deponent refused these offers and told him that he was going to have supper. Still persisting, the man asked him if he would come after supper. To extricate himself, the deponent replied yes. Upon returning to his father and mother, he informed them of what had just happened. His mother went down into the garden with him and another woman. He led them both toward the side where he had left the man. Seeing him return, the man parted with a woman who was with him and accosted the deponent, to whom he said, “I am quite delighted to see you return.” And the woman who had just left him gestured to him not to persist because the deponent was followed by people he

90 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

knew. The man asked the deponent if he knew the individuals who followed him. The deponent replied that one of them was his mother, and the man told him, “I wish you all good evening. I will see you again.” When the deponent’s mother called for the guard, Guibert showed up and arrested the man. He makes this statement to be used as thought proper, requests a record of it and signed. Afterward, we, aforementioned royal councilor and commissaire, gave records of their reports to those who requested them and consequently summoned the arrested man before us. He told us his name is Marc Lefèvre, twenty-­t wo years old, native of Lons-­le-­Saunier in Franche-­Comté, occupied since his arrival with the affairs of his parents, living in Mme Dusouvier’s house on rue Neuve-­Saint-­François [later rue Française]. It is true that he met Deschamps in the Palais Royal garden. He mistook him for one Labitte, accosted him and called him by name. The young man told him that he was not Labitte but a pantry servant of the duc de Chartres. This reply gave him the idea of making inquiries for a pantry boy who had very recently left the household in order to learn if he could send him to a Russian prince who had directed him to find a knowledgeable pantry boy for him. He asked the young man if he lived in the Palais Royal, served the duke and if he had his own room. The young man told him he lived with his father and mother. He asked the young man all these questions only in order to locate a kitchen assistant by making his acquaintance. When the young man left him, he said he would return. It is not true that he made propositions to the young man and even told him to come to a café with him. Shortly after he saw the young man return to the garden, he accosted him and told him, “Ah, there you are. I am very glad to see you. Since it is late, I must leave.” As he left him he noticed the women, who followed him closely and addressed him in insulting terms. He asked the young man, “Do you know these women?” The young man told him no. He was prepared to leave when he was arrested. And he signed. We, aforementioned royal councilor and commissaire, made a record of the statement above, to be used as thought proper, and, given the outcome of this report, we left Lefèvre and a small cane of darkened wood in the keeping of Girard, who took charge of him to turn him over to an officer of the watch with instructions to conduct him to the Grand Châtelet by our orders and to deposit the cane at the criminal registry of the Grand Châtelet.34 And we signed.

SECTION C

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires

Introduction Swiss Guards patrolled the Luxembourg and Tuileries Gardens, where the police did not have jurisdiction, as well as the Champs-­Élysées, where they did. Ferdinand de Federici, commandant of the contingent stationed in this fashionable area, under development in the second half of the eighteenth century, addressed concise weekly reports to the comte d’Angiviller, superintendent of royal buildings and gardens.1 This section includes fifty entries about pederasts, dated 1778 to 1789, as well as seventeen records of patrols that commissaires Foucault and Desormeaux conducted in the Champs-­Élysées with the assistance of the Swiss Guards.2 Like the sources in section B, these shorter entries and longer reports document the mixing of Parisians—­provincials and foreigners, notables and men in domestic as well as military service, men with sexual needs and men with financial needs, novices and regulars—­in public spaces. They illustrate the variety of places, outfits, gestures, remarks, actions, and objects that the police considered suspect as well as a variety of reactions on the part of pederasts: vexation, resistance, denial, submission, contrition, and even attempted bribery. Federici noted, in the very first entry, that he rarely caught men in the act, but he did in fact catch more than a few in flagrante delicto, even though others escaped by running or swimming away. He described them in pejorative terms (“stinking sodomites” and “dirty pederasts”) and complained about leniency, most notably in the entry dated 21 March 1782 involving children, which may be compared with Simonnet’s letter to d’Argenson dated 25 July 1723 (#6). At the same time, he released more than a few men because of their

92 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

appearance, profession, families, or connections and agreed that “this crime should be hidden rather than exposed.” The reports of the commissaires, especially Desormeaux, provide more details (from the patrols as well as police records) about the individuals arrested in the Champs-­Élysées, including the ones Federici dismissed with the words “no one of note.” Although many of these men, aged eighteen to fifty-­t wo, are clustered in the texts, only four of them—­aged thirty-­six and thirty-­eight in one case and twenty-­seven and thirty-­eight in the other—­were captured in couples. The twenty-­seven-­year-­old dated his corruption back to childhood, and another pederast of the same age was denounced in the marketplace for corrupting a child. One man complained that another harassed him, and two assistants (just friends or more?), aged eighteen and twenty-­seven, who worked for and lived with the same shoemaker, made a public nuisance of themselves. The reports document several cases of recidivism, most notably that of the servant arrested, admonished, and released in 1782 and again in 1784. The commissaires considered many factors—­previous misconduct, employment, connections, appearance, circumstances of time and place, and even contents of pockets—­in deciding whether to lock prisoners up or let them go.

28. Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­É lysées, 1778–­8 9 *See details in commissaires’ reports below, #29–­46. 10 April 1778. On Friday around 10 p.m., a man guilty of pederasty was arrested and conducted to the guard post. As I had conclusive evidence that he was actually a captain, I gave him my word of honor not to name him. I thought it appropriate to release him after pointing out to him the infamous horror of his debauchery and exhorting him to let the lesson he has just received correct him. He was penetrated with shame and promised to correct himself of it. We often find these debauched prowlers around nightfall but never in the act like this man. 3 June 1778. Yesterday evening around 10 p.m., Étienne Fauconnier, pastrycook’s assistant, taking advantage of the deep sleep of Martin Agalin, the marquis de Mortagié’s gardener in Suresnes [Hauts-­de-­Seine], who was lying on his stomach under the trees, had the effrontery to undo his breeches

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  93

and set to work to commit the abominable crime of pederasty, when the guard caught him.3 He shouted, “Murder,” with all his force to create a distraction, but they seized him, secured his tools and did not give him time to pick up a sort of leaded cane he had put down in order to do his business. They conducted him to the guard post, and while he genuflected and prayed for his freedom, he escaped through an unexpected ruse. As Fauconnier was quite nimble, he would have escaped us if not for the help of a young mastiff I raised, which caught him at four hundred paces and did not let him go until he was retaken. He was turned over to the Paris guard. Commissaire Thierion sent him to the Petit Châtelet.4 5 August 1778. On Wednesday at 11:30 p.m., a clerk of the Chambre des Comptes [royal court with jurisdiction over issues involving finances and the royal domain] was caught in pederastical action. The active one [saillant], more nimble and less hampered, with his head up, took flight, but the other was taken and conducted to the guard post, where he first persisted firmly in denying everything, then admitted his crime and asked pardon for it. I hesitated for a few minutes, but after he gave me information about his name, address, wife and children, and inasmuch as he was rather drunk, I thought I should release him with a strong exhortation to correct himself. 20 January 1779. On Wednesday at 8 p.m., Claude Boulin, self-­styled unemployed cook, arrested and imprisoned on account of pederasty, [was] caught in the infamy of the scene in a very questionable place (in the corner of M. de Boujon’s garden).5 He showed resistance to the guard. I would have let him go, but I thought this example of severity necessary in order to expel these vile folks from this area, as we got them to abandon the quincunxes [arrangement of plants or trees in a square, with one in each corner and the fifth in the center] of the allee d’Antin [later avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt]. His companion, all thumbs, was caught with the help of the dogs, and, after uselessly offering all the money he had, ended up fighting so much that he pulled his arms out of a coat with green fur he was wearing and left, along with this hat, in escaping. These two items are at commissaire Legretz’s, where Boulin was likewise conducted.6 20 March 1779. On Saturday around 9 p.m., we arrested Fortier from the household of M. Duautier, gentleman in waiting to the duc de Penthièvre, and François Boisat, master hosier on rue Saint-­Denis, vehemently suspected of pederasty. The first is a very handsome and well-­dressed man. He offered twelve livres [coin worth twenty sous] in vain to escape the guard. The

94 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

second combines a very short stature with pig’s eyes, a monkey’s snout and very dirty old clothes. All in all, he was by far the most disgusting and ugly of these nocturnal birds. He absolutely required a night as dark as Saturday’s to avoid sending his customers off a hundred leagues. I sent them off a good distance from each other. 5 October 1779. On Tuesday around 9 p.m., we arrested M. [crossed out] Antioin, gendarme of the guard living on rue Saint-­Médéric [in Versailles], nephew of M. [crossed out], chevalier de Saint-­Louis [member of the military order of Saint-­Louis] living at [crossed out], because we caught him lying most indecently in the ditches in the Path of Widows [later avenue Montaigne] with a French Guard. The latter escaped across the marsh and broke off a hundred heads of cauliflower in doing so. Although the former was proved guilty of pederasty, I thought I should release him with only a good lecture. I believe this crime of a kind to be hidden rather than exposed, especially when it involves naming a soldier of a unit to the police. 19 December 1779. Yesterday, Sunday, around 7  p.m., we arrested M. Natte, living at the hôtel de Pologne on rue de l’Hirondelle at rue Hautefeuille near Saint-­A ndré-­des-­A rts [church on the street of the same name], on whom I found an envelope of his letters, for prowling the full length of the Champs-­Élysées several times and accosting all the people he encountered. After all the turns he took, he followed the corporal of the guard, who was making his rounds like the others, and was evidently mistaken about what he was looking for. After half an hour of this trickery, the corporal called one of his soldiers, and they arrested him. I examined this young man, who was tall and well dressed, to see if he had any offensive weapons and found nothing on him that indicated he was resolved on any crimes. He was rather one of those stinking sodomites who still prowl here despite our efforts. I thought I should release him after a good reprimand. He said in his defense that he is an orator for the French and his passion for this role is so great that everyone regards him as a madman. I perceived that the other passion is even stronger in him. 28 July 1780. M. Noël, police inspector, having been in the country, could not begin his patrol here until Friday. He had with him a commissaire, six police agents and a carriage. I received him as well as I could and provided him with sufficient reinforcements as well as information for arresting men of pederasty, who now know our guards too well to let themselves be caught by them. They arrested two men. M. Noël told me he had recently caught twenty-­four of them on the boulevards, all of whom have cristalline.7

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  95

11 September 1780. M. Noël, police inspector, whose mission is to arrest men of pederasty, which is always good for order here, will return again this evening to collect his tithe. 12 November 1780. I believe it is my duty to have the honor to let you know, before my next report, that M. Noël, assisted by his men and my guards, arrested five of those nasty characters between 7 and 10 p.m. They were all well dressed. Among them there was a soldier of the watch in street clothes and an Englishman. M. Noël as well as his men were dressed as civilians and knew the signals of these debauchees, consisting of putting a hat on, spitting, two sustained cane strokes against a tree, etc. They caught these jolly fellows in a trap without their noticing it and with full proof of guilt. 15 March 1781. On Thursday, we arrested Messrs. Paul, personal valet of the marquis de Thibouville; Lange, upholsterer; and Coffin, painter, at the request of a police agent, as being on record for pederasty and put them into a carriage under the escort of the Paris guard. 11 April 1781. On Wednesday, commissaire Foucault installed himself in my guardroom to question separately eight men of pederasty whom M. Noël, police inspector, with his men and the escort of my guards, arrested and brought in one by one. One was sorely wounded in the head by a tree while resisting. I had the necessary aid given him without the help of surgeons. Since these gentlemen have made a date with me to continue these patrols on Sunday and Monday, the 22nd and 23rd, I will be obliged to divide my forces and, on the latter date, to add the reinforcement of two men usually employed on holidays and Sundays. 22 April 1781. Among the five or six persons of pederasty arrested yesterday during police inspector Noël’s patrol, supervised by commissaire Foucault, was the baron de Lunas, who has been seen fairly often prowling here at night and whose outfit alone indicates vice.8 Although the baron made many entreaties to the commissaire, at the time when he dismissed him, not to mention it to M. Lenoir, this has not prevented him from prowling the fashionable promenade again.9 19 June 1781. On Tuesday, during commissaire Foucault’s and police inspector Noël’s patrol, no one of note was arrested. A young man jumped into the river and swam to escape. His clothes, which remained on the river­ bank, were brought in. 2 July 1781. On Monday at 11 p.m., we arrested a notary to whom I gave my word not to name him, as afflicted with and convicted of pederasty. I

96 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

believed I should have some consideration for his profession as well as a young wife, whose one child and another about to be born make their union dearer, and release him, but only after making him sense the danger to which his misconduct exposed him and securing reliable information that he really was who he said. 16 August 1781. On Thursday, M. Foucault, commissaire, and M. Noël, police inspector, arrested with their patrol and questioned here the marquis de Saint-­Vincent [Saint-­Clément, according to Foucault] as well as a Latin teacher from Savoy, caught in pederasty. Leaving here after midnight, the commissaire intended to conduct the marquis to M. Lenoir’s residence. 10 September 1781. On Monday, during commissaire Foucault’s patrol, a single man was arrested. 1 March 1782. On Friday evening, during commissaire Foucault’s and the police inspector’s large patrol against pederasty, only two men were arrested. One of them, a self-­styled watchmaker, had a well-­sharpened razor on him and responded vaguely to the questions put to him. He was sent to confinement at La Force.10 This young man, about twenty-­four years old, was arrested in the drop below M. de Montsauge’s house.11 In the same place, there were also two gentlemen whom the police agents did not dare to arrest because they wore gold lace. These gentlemen very quickly exchanged some words and escaped by unknown paths.* 21 March 1782. On Thursday, we arrested Messrs. Eustache and Gabriel (a third man escaped), who gave the commissaire other names and other addresses, as known for involvement in pederasty. For two hours, they followed three young children, who took refuge in the guard post. One of them even felt sick. Despite the offer they made me of their purse, in begging me not to ruin them, these two men were conducted to commissaire Carré, who released them.12 Since I could not see M. Lenoir the next day, I wrote this magistrate on the same day to request him to name a specific commissaire who would share my indefatigable and disinterested zeal for the maintenance of good order, all the more since I absolutely send the commissaire only those persons who deserve imprisonment, if only for twenty-­four hours, since the monetary penalties often levied by the commissaires suppress neither vices nor crimes. My diligence in my job would become worthless, and even dangerous, through impunity. 11 April 1782. On Thursday evening, commissaire Foucault as usual supervised the patrols that police inspector Noël, his men and the reinforcements

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  97

from my guards conducted. Ten persons were arrested, most of whom were unemployed domestics, except for one who belonged to M. de La Reynière, whom the commissaire had handed over to his personal valet.13 Another man, another unemployed domestic, extorted payments for a long time from pederasts in the name of the inspector named above. The most noteworthy, finally, was one of the actors from Châlons-­sur-­Saône [Sâone-­et-­Loire], who was released.* 21 April 1782. Yesterday, Sunday, we arrested M. Laurent de Varenne, bourgeois de Paris, at the request of M. Coutilier. He was handed over to M. Noël, police inspector, to be conducted to commissaire Foucault. 25 April 1782. On Friday, during commissaire Foucault’s large patrol against pederasty, five persons were arrested, but none of note.* 31 May 1782. On Saturday, during the commissaire’s patrol, no one was imprisoned but one Toulon, a young man, twenty-­four years old, native of Chaillot [village incorporated into the 16th arr.]. On 30 April 1781, he was found by the guards in the act with a domestic, who escaped.14 On the basis of my report addressed to the commissaire, Toulon was conducted to the Châtelet.* 7 June 1782. Commissaire Foucault was in the pavilion that evening, along with M. Noël, police inspector, for his patrol, in the course of which was arrested abbé Laurent, living at the residence of M. de Villette, both recorded in the police registers as pederasts.*15 14 June 1782. About midnight, we arrested abbé [crossed out], thirty-­five years old, living at Mme [crossed out]’s home on rue de Surène, faubourg Saint-­Honoré, because he was caught in an indecent state with a young man who escaped.16 The abbé was released after a good reprimand. 30 June 1782. Yesterday at 1:30 a.m., we arrested Antoine Bouche, mailman in the local postal service for faubourg Saint-­Honoré, because we found him in the act with Le Court, cobbler living in Chaillot, who escaped. The mailman, who still had a packet of letters to deliver, was released. 2 July 1782. On the second, during the commissaire’s and police inspector’s patrol, they arrested four men for pederasty, but none of note.* 11 July 1782. M. Dervelles, chevalier de Saint-­Louis, pensioned by the king, general inspector of the local postal service, came on Thursday to produce La Fosse, mailman in the local postal service who was arrested here in flagrante delicto on the 30th at 1:30 a.m., gave me one of his comrade’s name as his own and still had a packet of letters to deliver on rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Honoré.

98 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

His mind made up, M. Dervelles had him stripped of his uniform and cap, which he had taken away and left the man under my control. M. Lenoir’s letter to M. Dervelles spoke not only of depriving this man of his position but also of sending him away from Paris. To carry out the magistrate’s intentions, I thought I should send an express to M. Noël, police inspector, to ask him to come here, which he did. The man is in La Force.17 On the same day, during the commissaire’s patrol, three men were arrested.* 18 July 1782. On Thursday, during the commissaire’s patrol against pederasty, two men were arrested.* 17 August 1782. On Saturday, during commissaire Foucault’s and inspector Noël’s patrol for pederasty, no one was arrested.* 22 August 1782. During commissaire Foucault’s and inspector Noël’s patrol for pederasty, which took place on Thursday, no one was arrested.* 5 September 1782. During the commissaire’s patrol, which took place on Thursday, two men were arrested for pederasty.* 8 September 1782. Yesterday evening at 9 p.m., M. Ruelle, bourgeois living on rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Martin [10th arr.], was arrested as pederast and corrupter. He offered money three times and rebelled against the guard when he saw he was caught. He was sent to commissaire Foucault, whose name agitated him a good deal.* 16 November 1782. On Thursday, during commissaire Foucault’s large patrol, no one was arrested.* 28 November 1782. On Thursday, during commissaire Foucault’s patrol for pederasty, two men were arrested.* 16 March 1783. Yesterday, Sunday evening at 9 p.m., we arrested Jean Robin, haberdasher on rue Mazarine, and Augustin Roz, locksmith for carriages, living on rue de la Ferme-­des-­Mathurins [absorbed by rue Vignon, rue du Havre, and rue Tronchet]. They were released out of consideration for the fact that the latter had a wife and children. 20 March 1783. On Thursday, during commissaire Foucault’s patrol for pederasty, one man was arrested. 17 April 1783. On Thursday, during the commissaire’s patrol, no one was arrested. 18 April 1783. On Friday at 10 p.m., we arrested M. de [crossed out], Dutchman, living at the hôtel [crossed out], as a pederast.18 He was dressed in black and had a sword decorated with jewels. His mien was genuinely

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  99

distinguished, but he offered resistance to the guard when they tried to disarm him. I sent for the police inspector responsible for this matter to conduct him to commissaire Foucault’s residence. 9 May 1783. On Friday, during commissaire Foucault’s and inspector Noël’s large patrol, two unemployed domestics were arrested. 20 May 1783. During commissaire Foucault’s large patrol, no one was arrested. 1 June 1783. At 10 p.m., we arrested Carton, who had been observed prowling the fashionable promenade for several evenings. This man has already been in Bicêtre seven times for theft, extortion and pederasty. He has shown himself a deserter from the legion of Meudon. When he was in Bicêtre, he secured a letter of exile and promised to enlist. Someone in the police security force told me so. He is now locked up La Force by royal order. In searching this man, we found whitened liards [copper coin worth three deniers] that he passed off as twenty-­four sous coins, which duped several women who sell foodstuffs. He is locked up in the prison of La Force by royal order. 27 July 1783. During commissaire Foucault’s large patrol, which did not come to an end until four this morning, a gardener’s assistant, an employee of the Farms and a prostitute were arrested.19 5 May 1784. On Wednesday, during commissaire Desormeaux’s large patrol, two men were arrested. 25 May 1784. On Tuesday evening, during commissaire Desormeaux’s large patrol, only a domestic of M. de la Reynière was arrested. He was already arrested in April 1782.* 21 June 1784. On Monday evening, during commissaire Desormeaux’s large patrol, two men were arrested and released.* 26 July 1784. On Monday, during commissaire Desormeaux’s large patrol, two men were arrested.* 14 August 1784. On Saturday, during commissaire Desormeaux’s large patrol, three men were arrested, one of whom was imprisoned.* 14 September 1784. On Tuesday evening, during commissaire Desormeaux’s large patrol, no one was arrested. 15 April 1785. Friday morning, among the stones of the demolished Coliseum [entertainment complex at the roundabout in the Champs-­Élysées, demolished in 1780], we arrested a young man proved guilty of pederasty and seduction of children whom he found on their own. Since he comes from a decent family of the parish, known to me, and was claimed by the curé of

100 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

the Madeleine [Sainte-­Madeleine-­de-­la-­Cité, on the Île de la Cité], I believed I should alert this pastor.20 I handed the young man over to him. 30 October 1788. On Thursday around 10 p.m., we arrested a clergyman, an English preacher, caught in the act of pederasty, whose accomplice escaped. For his liberty, he offered both the Swiss Guards and me his purse and his watch, but I believed I should write the Duke of Dorset about it.21 When he returned, around midnight, he sent two people and many thanks for my deference to him. I handed over the clergyman, who, at the very name of the ambassador, told me, “Kill me, kill me, I am undone. I am lost.”22 31 December 1789. On Wednesday evening, in the quincunxes, the combined patrol sent fleeing a National Guard [created on 14 July 1789 for the security of Paris], a Swiss grenadier and two bourgeois, whose separation into couples with their backs against the trees obviously indicated the crime of pederasty.

29. Pederasty Patrol, 1 March 178223 At 7 p.m. on 1 March 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol in various places where these types of debauchees gather. At 8:30 p.m., we were in the Champs-­Élysées, and M. Noël arrested, in the subsidence behind the Coliseum, a man who told us his name is Louis Bouttemy, twenty-­four years old, native of Saint-­A rmou [Pyrénées-­ Atlantiques], watchmaker working at home, living in the baker Rigou’s house on rue Mouffetard opposite the rue de l’Arbalète. He left his place at six this evening, was at his godmother’s home on rue Neuve-­Guillemain [later rue du Four], and, when he was arrested, was going to look for work at the home of female polisher on rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Honoré, living in a baker’s house that he cannot specify since he has never been there. We had this man searched and found on him twenty-­four sols, a rag for wiping his shoes and a razor, with regard to which he did not give adequate explanations. The place where the man was found, the razor found on him and his outfit seemed suspect to us. We left him to M. Noël, who took charge of him to conduct him to the prison of La Force.24

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  101

Then we continued the patrol until midnight without finding any other contraventions. M. Noël signed with us.

30. Pederasty Patrol, 11 April 178225 At 6 p.m. on 11 April 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol. About 7 p.m., we were in the Champs-­Élysées, and M. Noël arrested there: Michel Berthelot, nineteen years old, native of Orléans [Loiret], tailor, in Paris just a week, lodging at the notary M. Lefebvre’s home on rue de Condé.26 François Desmares, twenty-­five years old, native of Fécamp in Normandy [province in northwestern France], unemployed domestic, who served a term in the Limousin regiment, living at the hôtel d’Artois on rue du Cimetière-­Saint-­A ndré. Berthelot, dressed like a pederast but not known as such, was released. Desmares, known for being a pederast and for still plying the same trade, cruising daily in the Tuileries, where he is known to go frequently, was left to M. Noël to conduct and commit him to the prison of La Force. At 9 p.m. in the same location in the Champs-­Élysées, M. Noël arrested: Léon Guillaume Mathe, thirty-­t wo years old, native of Marseille [Bouches-­du-­R hône], actor, principally in the Dijon company, lodging in Paris with Lefebvre, vinegar maker, on rue du Petit-­Lion [absorbed by rue Tiquetonne]. This man invoked the name of the marquis de Gouvernet a good deal and was released with the injunction to walk at a more seemly hour.27 At 9:30 p.m. in the same place, M. Noël arrested: François Troyhot, postilion to M. de la Reynière, rue des Champs-­ Élysées, found by the Swiss Guards with another man who escaped.

102 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Troyhot had his breeches unbuttoned and said he was doing what he needed to do. This man was handed over to Loyeu, personal valet to M. de la Reynière, who was sent for this purpose. And Étienne Badier, native of Boigny near La Ferté-­A lais [Essonne], domestic in the service of M. Couvert, at whose home he lives on rue de l’Échelle. This man did not seem suspect to us, and we released him. Then we continued the patrol in other places until midnight without finding anything contrary to ordinances and regulations. M. Noël signed with us.

31. Pederasty Patrol, 25 April 178228 At 6 p.m. on 25 April 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M.  Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol. At 10 p.m., we were in the Champs-­Élysées, and M. Noël arrested there: Jean Louis Joubert, twenty-­seven years old, native of Nogent-­le-­ Routrou [Eure-­et-­Loir], without occupation, living in Paris on rue Sainte-­Croix-­de-­la-­Bretonnerie. Jean Charles Guibaut, eighteen years old, native of Valenton [Val-­de-­ Marne], cook’s assistant living at the home of the marquise de Brunoy on rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Honoré.29 Joseph Torte, twenty years old, native of Turin [Italy], tailor’s assistant, living at an innkeeper’s home whose name he did not mention on rue du Pélican. Sulpice Simon Roussel, thirty years old, native of Rouen, cook in the service of the marquis de Sinéty at whose home he lives on rue du Montparnasse.30 Guibaut and Roussel were released. With regard to Joubert and Torte, they remained in the custody of M. Noël, who took charge of them to conduct and commit them to the prison of La Force.

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  103

As for the reasons, regarding the first, he was arrested in a suspect posture under the trees in the Champs-­Élysées, he is dressed like a pederast and he was found with an enlistment in the Belsunce regiment, signed by him the same day, on his person. He told us that he only signed it to put off someone he could not name and that he only enlisted because he expected Guibert would enlist with him. He refused to name the recruiter. As for the second, his admission of taking nocturnal walks in the Tuileries and the Champs-­Élysées, his attire, his exterior and his vague responses all reveal a pederast. Then we continued the patrol until midnight in the dives and interior of the city, and nothing suspicious was found. M. Noël signed with us.

32. Pederasty Patrol, 31 May 178231 At 9 p.m. on 31 May 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol. We were in the Champs-­Élysées, and M. Noël arrested there: At 9:30 p.m.: Jean Baptiste Saunier, household officer of the comtesse de Coëtlogon, at whose home he lives on rue Saint-­Dominique, faubourg Saint-­Germain.32 Jean Henri Toulaud, twenty years old, glazier, native of Chaillot, where he lives. At 10:00 p.m.: François Sauvé, twenty-­seven years old, native of Tours [Indre-­et-­ Loire], living on rue des Moineaux [absorbed by avenue de l’Opéra], Butte et passage Saint-­Roch, who sells vegetables on the outskirts of the Quinze-­Vingts.33 Charles Augustin Lelong, twenty-­four years old, native of Amiens [Somme], clerk to master Dupeuty, barrister in the royal councils, who lives at master tailor Siot’s home on rue d’Angiviller [absorbed by rue du Louvre].34

104 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Saunier, making his way, was accosted by Toulaud, with whom he was arrested. Released. Toulaud was arrested in flagrante delicto by the Swiss Guards on 30 April 1781 and conducted to the Châtelet. Today, he was found cruising and was left to M. Noël, who took charge of him to conduct him to the prison of La Force. Sauvé is suspected of pederasty and accused of debauching a child a while ago, for which he was reproached on the open marketplace. His nocturnal stroll lends some credibility to this talk. Released with the injunction not to be in the Champs-­Élysées at suspect hours anymore. Lelong was found on his own, looking suspicious, but he is not known to us. We had him released after a reprimand. Then we continued the patrol until quarter after midnight on the quays and in other suspect places, where nothing was found contrary to good order. M. Noël signed with us.

33. Pederasty Patrol, 7 June 178235 About 8 p.m. on 7 June 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol. At 10:30 p.m., we were in the Champs-­Élysées, and M. Noël arrested under the trees: Frédéric Christophe Cassolet, master chessboard maker, who lives at the Gold Crown on rue Guérin-­Boisseau. André Laurent, tonsured cleric of the diocese of Le Mans [Sarthe], secretary of the marquise de Villette, at whose home he lives on quai des Théatins. At 11 p.m. in the same place: De la Pommeraye, clerk to M. Loliée, attorney in the Chambre des Comptes, who lives at the marble mason M. Fixon’s on rue Meslay.36

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  105

After interrogating these men, we had them released. Then we continued the patrol until 1 a.m., on the quays and in other locations, where nothing was found contrary to good order. M. Noël signed with us.

34. Pederasty Patrol, 2 July 178237 At 8 p.m. on 2 July 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol. At 9:30 p.m., we were in the Champs-­Élysées, and M. Noël arrested under the thickest trees: Jean Duhameau, twenty-­seven years old, and Pierre Joseph Tison, eighteen years old. The first is a native of Montmartre, and the second is a native of Bouchain in Hainault [region in the province of Flanders]. Both are shoemaker’s assistants and say they live at the shoemaker Allianent’s home on rue Saint-­Honoré at the gate of the same name [422 rue Saint-­Honoré]. After 10 p.m., M. Noël arrested in the same place: Jean Pierre Huardot, twenty-­t hree years old, native of Torcy [Seine-­et-­Marne], hairdresser in the service of M. de Baudera, Portuguese, at whose home he lives in the hôtel de Londres on rue de Richelieu. At 11:30 p.m., M. Noël arrested in the same place: Frédéric Badeliou, twenty-­seven years old, native of Wittenburg [Germany], self-­styled wine merchant’s assistant, who left M. Dairot, wine merchant on rue Saint-­A ntoine at the corner of rue Saint-­Nicolas, on 17 May and now has no fixed abode. Huardot was released after an injunction not to be in the Champs-­Élysées so late.

106 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

As for Duhameau and Tison, inasmuch as they were found sitting on chairs, hugging each other closely, singing songs and making indecent remarks, and they contradicted each other on certain points, we left them, as suspects, to M. Noël to conduct them to the prison of La Force. As for Badeliou, inasmuch as he was walking for a long time at an unseemly hour in the most suspect location in the Champs-­Élysées, has no fixed abode and is known as a pederast, we likewise left him to M. Noël to conduct him to the prison of La Force. Then we continued the patrol on the quays until 1 a.m., and we found nothing contrary to good order. We drew up this report, and M. Noël signed with us.

35. Pederasty Patrol, 11 July 178238 About 8 p.m. on 11 July 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol. At 11 p.m., we were in the Champs-­É lysées, and M. Noël arrested there: Charles Perier, fifty-­t wo years old, native of Épernon [Eure-­et-­Loir], domestic of M. Dumoulin, attaché to prince Camille, living on rue de Rochechouart.39 Jean Rousset, thirty-­seven years old, native of Saint-­Étienne in Forez [province in central France], kitchen assistant who lives at the marquis de Retz’s home on rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Honoré.40 And Jean Couturier, thirty years old, native of Bourg de Migerue in Savoy [province along the Italian border], who lodges at Martin’s home on rue du Faubourg-­Montmartre [9th arr.]. These three men were arrested walking on their own, but in the most suspect location. They are not on record and have no charges against them. We had them released. Then we continued the patrol until 1 a.m. and drew up this report, which M. Noël signed with us.

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  107

36. Pederasty Patrol, 18 July 178241 About 8 p.m. on 18 July 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol. At 9  p.m., we were in the Champs-­Élysées, and Mr.  Noël arrested together there: François Perrée, domestic in the service of M. de Lugny, personal valet of the comte d’Artois, at whose home he lives on rue Mesnil near Maisons-­sur-­Seine [later Maisons-­Lafitte, Yvelines].42 And Louis François Brunet, twenty-­nine years old, native of Bethune [Pas-­de-­Calais], tailor’s assistant, who lives in Versailles. He arrived in Paris on Sunday with Fauvel, French Guard in the company stationed on the rue Neuve-­Sainte-­Geneviève [7–­11 rue de Tournefort]. Since his arrival in Paris, he has lodged at one Vannier’s home on rue Mouffetard. Perrée complained that he was sitting and that Brunet, without saying anything to him, sat down next to him and grasped his thighs. He got up immediately to get away from Brunet, who took a turn and came to rejoin him, still without speaking to him. This second time, Brunet took his hands. He was going to call for the guard when they were arrested. Brunet could not deny these facts or his very characteristic outfit. We left him to M. Noël, who took charge of him to conduct him to the prison of La Force. At 11 p.m., M. Noël arrested, under the darkest trees in the Champs-­ Élysées, a man dressed in a large blue levite [long and warm gown] who had been noticed in the same spot by the last patrol. The man told us his name is Alexandre Fragnet, thirty-­t wo years old, native of Aurillac in Auvergne [province in south central France], domestic in the service of M. de Retang, gendarme in the guard, at whose home he lives on rue Neuve-­des-­Bons-­Enfants [later rue Radziwell]. Fragnet, recognized as a pederast, nicknamed Comtois [from Franche-­ Comté] and Female Secondhand Dealer, procurer, thief and disreputable subject, was left to M. Noël, who took charge of him to conduct him to the prison of La Force.

108 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Then we continued the patrol on the quays until midnight and drew up this report, which M. Noël signed with us.

37. Pederasty Patrol, 17 August 178243 At 7 p.m. on 17 August 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol and visited the Champs-­Élysées, quays and other locations in this city. At 11:30 p.m., we were on the quai des Augustins [later quai des Grands-­ Augustins], and M. Noël arrested there as suspect: Philippe Lhuillier, forty-­four years old, native of Bauge in Beaujolais [region north of Lyon], self-­styled messenger for wine merchants, who lives in the house of M. LaCave, tailor, on rue du Four-­Saint-­ Honoré [nonextant, 1st arr.]. After questioning this man, we had him released. We continued the patrol until midnight. Of everything above, we drew up this report, which M. Noël signed with us.

38. Pederasty Patrol, 22 August 178244 At 7 p.m. on 22 August 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol and visited various areas in this city. At 11 p.m., we were in the Champs-­Élysées, and M. Noël arrested there: Jean Milton, twenty years old, native of Passy in Savoy, who lodges with the barkeeper [limonadiers sold beer, cider, fortified drinks, sweet liqueurs, ice cream, coffee, and chocolate] Jacard on rue de la Chaussée-­d ’Antin. And Joseph Moreau, nineteen years old, native of Conflans in Savoy, who lodges with the Leclerc woman, innkeeper, on rue de l’Egout [nonextant].

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  109

After questioning these men, we had them released. Then we continued the patrol until 1 a.m., in the course of which we found nothing contrary to the ordinances. And M. Noël signed with us.

39. Pederasty Patrol, 5 September 178245 At 9 p.m. on 5 September 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol. At 9:30 p.m., we were in the Champs-­Élysées, and M. Noël arrested there: Jean Wrie, forty-­five years old, native of Aousets, canton of Basel [Switzerland], domestic in the service of M. Ernest, captain in the Swiss Guards, at whose home he lives on rue d’Artois. Wrie was found with his breeches unbuttoned, in the company of a man who escaped. He repeatedly offered the Swiss Guards who arrested him an écu of six livres [silver coin] to let him go. At 10:30 p.m., M. Noël arrested in the same place: François Beau, thirty-­six years old, native of Vieilley near Besançon [Doubs], former domestic of the baron d’Orbec, major general, whom he left in Lausanne [Switzerland] without a certificate of good conduct from him.46 The baron lives at the hôtel de Champ-­Fleury on the street of the same name [nonextant, 1st arr.]. And Pierre Auguste Morlan, former soldier in the Royal Infantry Regiment, living on rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Honoré. Beau, pederast known by the name of the Devout Female, friend of the Damsel of Malzéville [Meurthe-­et-­Moselle], was found with several cards including his address on his person. After Morlan was questioned, he was released. As for Wrie and Beau, we left them to M. Noël, who took charge of them to conduct them to the prison of La Force.

110 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Then we continued the patrol until 2 a.m. and drew up this report, which M. Noël signed with us.

40. Louis Antoine Charles Ruel, 8 September 178247 At 11 p.m. on 8 September 1782, at our residence and before us, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared Jean Tabrin, corporal of the Paris guard stationed at Marigny [adjacent to the hôtel de Beauvau, 96 rue du faubourg Saint-­Honoré]. He showed us a paper dated today, 9 p.m., signed Federici, which is the report of the reasons for which a man he conducted before us was arrested in the Champs-­Élysées, which report remains attached to this one. We summoned the arrested man. He said his name is Louis Antoine Charles Ruel, forty-­one years old, native of Paris, bourgeois, who lives in the master mason Monier’s house on rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Martin. He told us that in passing through the Champs-­Élysées and seeing a flare in the air, he asked a man if it was from the fireworks for the joust [at the Coliseum]. Having observed to this man there were no whores in the Champs-­Élysées, this man told him one could secure one for an écu, and he offered this man an écu for a whore. When this man arrested him, he did not know what this meant. He called for the guard and was conducted to the post of the Swiss Guards. Asked to sign, he did so. M. Ruel could not have mistaken the uniform of the Swiss Guards, and he admitted, in a way, making the proposal, of another stripe, to the one guard. We left him to M. Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, summoned for this purpose, who took charge of Ruel to conduct him to the prison of La Force. Of the above, we drew up this report, which M. Noël signed with us. Note from Federici to Foucault, 9 p.m., 8 September 1782: I have the honor to send you a fine pederast who offered a soldier in my guard three livres and who pointed out to him the little alley in question for the site of consummation. It was in the vicinity of this alley that the Swiss Guards arrested him, but this man resisted, and the Swiss could not have managed without the Paris guard, who were there to lend them a hand. After he was arrested, he offered the Swiss money to let him go, which he rightly refused. Jacobay, soldier in my guard, firmly believes this man is the accomplice of the German who escaped last Thursday.48

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  111

41. Pederasty Patrol, 16 November 178249 At 5 p.m. on 16 November 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol and visited the Champs-­Élysées, the boulevard de Richelieu, the quays and other locations in this city. Around 10 p.m., we were on the quai des Augustins, and M. Noël arrested Jean Alexandre, twenty years old, native of Paris, living in the house of M. Pichaut, grocer, on rue de la Montagne-­Sainte-­Geneviève, for prowling. After subjecting Alexander to questioning, we enjoined him not to choose this location anymore for nocturnal promenades and had him released. We then continued the patrol in the adjacent streets until around midnight. Of the above, we drew up this report, which M. Noël signed with us.

42. Pederasty Patrol, 28 November 178250 At 6 p.m. on 28 November 1782, we, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, at the request of M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, accompanied him on pederasty patrol to visit various quarters of this city. Around 6:30 p.m., we were in the Champs-­Élysées, and M. Noël arrested: Antoine Marcel, forty-­six years old, native of Saint-­A rnoult in Picardy [province on the English Channel], domestic in the service of M. de Saint-­Martin, physician to the duc de Chartres, who lives in the Palais Royal. And Guillaume Michel Christophe, seventeen years old, native of Chaillot, salad vendor, living on rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Honoré. Both were found on the prowl. Marcel was released with an injunction not to be in public promenades at unseemly hours. Christophe was cruising and letting himself be cruised and is known for prowling the Champs-­Élysées. We left him to M. Noël, who took charge of him to conduct him to the prison of La Force.

112 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

Then we continued the patrol until after midnight, in the course of which no other suspect men were found. M. Noël signed with us.

43. Pederasty Patrol, 25 May 178451 At 8 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 May 1784, we, Charles Convers Desormeaux, barrister in the Parlement, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet, in execution of the orders addressed to us by the lieutenant general of police, accompanied M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, went to the Champs-­Élysées, Place Louis XV, Cours de la Reine [promenade and later avenue along the Seine, 8th arr.], port aux Pierres, adjacent small streets and Marais [area in the 3rd and 4th arrs.], quais des Tuileries, du Louvre and de l’École, the Sofa and other suspect locations known to be those where pederasts and people given over to this vice meet and gather. As a result of the measures and inquiries undertaken by us and the surveillance M. Noël has conducted and had conducted, M. Noël, by virtue of the orders he carries, arrested at 10:30 p.m. in a path in the Champs-­Élysées a man he had observed prowling for a long time in a very suspicious manner, who then pretended to make water, from one tree to the next. He is known for having been already arrested by the patrol in the Champs-­Élysées on 11 April 1782 and was instructed by our colleague M. Foucault not to be in suspect places at unseemly hours. We summoned this man, and after we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is François Tréhot [spelled Troyhot in #30], forty years old, native of Ecquevilly, near Saint-­Germain-­en-­Laye [Yvelines], postilion in the service of M. de la Reynière, director of the postal service, at whose home he lives on rue des Champs-­Élysées.52 He admitted he was already arrested and released on 11 April 1782. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he did not wish to sign his name. After this, we had Tréhot released after instructing him again not to be in and walk in suspect places in a suspect manner again at unseemly hours. And at half past midnight, M. Noël, by virtue of said orders, arrested on the quai de l’École, in the place called the Sofa, two men talking with each other. We summoned them, and after we instructed them and they both took the oath to tell the truth, they told us they are named, one of them, Jean Baptiste Porcher, thirty-­six years old, native of Paris, who sells haberdashery in the Champs-­Élysées, is married and lives on rue Baillet. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he did not wish to sign his name.

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  113

And the other, Jean Grehan, thirty-­eight years old, native of Soissons [Aisne], tripe vendor, lives on rue Baillet. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. And both said they met each other by chance in this location and struck up a conversation together without knowing each other. After this, we had Porcher and Grehan released and instructed them not to be in suspect places again at unseemly hours. Then we continued the patrol until 1 a.m., at which hour we retired. M. Noël signed with us.

44. Pederasty Patrol, 21 June 178453 At 8:30 p.m. on Monday, 21 June 1784, we, Charles Convers Desormeaux, barrister in the Parlement, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet, in execution of the orders addressed to us by the lieutenant general of police, accompanied by M. Jean François Royer Desurbois, royal councilor and police inspector, went to the Champs-­Élysées, port aux Pierres, Place Louis XV, the boulevards from the Saint-­Honoré gate to the Saint-­Martin gate [at the intersection of rue Saint-­Martin with the boulevards Saint-­Denis and Saint-­Martin], various quarters in the interior of the city and other locations where pederasts and other people given over to this vice usually meet, retreat and gather. As a result of the measures and inquiries undertaken by us and the surveillance M. Desurbois has conducted and had conducted, M. Desurbois, by virtue of the orders he carries, arrested at 10:30 p.m. in the Champs-­Élysées a man observed prowling there and that in a very suspect manner. We summoned the man, and after we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us that his name is Jacques Dancel, twenty-­seven years old, native of Dieppe [Seine-­Maritime], watchmaker, who lives at the Iron Cross on rue Saint-­Martin and that he was taking a walk. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. After this, Dancel was released, and we instructed him not to be and prowl in suspect places at unseemly hours. M. Desurbois also arrested, at midnight on the boulevard de Richelieu, a man known as a pederast of record, who was already arrested on 12 April 1781 and is known for continuing, since that time, to give himself up to pederasty, cruise the boulevards in the evenings and socialize with the most confirmed pederasts, notably with Berger,

114 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

called the Female Renter of Chairs, and is suspected of subjecting folks who yield to him to extortion.54 We summoned this man, and after we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Antoine Blot, called the Daily Lady, thirty years old, native of Paris, domestic in the service of Mme Cajou, at whose home he lives on rue de la Chaussée d’Antin.55 He admits he is connected with several pederasts, notably with the Female Renter of Chairs. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he knows how to but does not wish to sign his name. In addition, M. Desurbois arrested, in the same place at the same time, another man prowling there, known as a confirmed pederast, who was already arrested on the same boulevard on 28 July 1782 and since then has continued to cruise on the boulevards every evening.56 We summoned the man, and after we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Julien Élie, thirty-­nine years old, native of La Chapelle-­Moche [Mayenne], diocese of Le Mans, clerk of M. Dureche, living on rue du Mail. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not wish to sign his name. After this, Élie was handed over to M. Desurbois, who took charge of him to conduct him, by virtue of orders, to the prison of La Force. In addition, M. Desurbois arrested, at quarter past midnight on the boulevard, behind the garden of the hôtel de Montmorency [2 boulevard des Capucines], a man he had observed accost another man there and strike up a conversation with him, without knowing him. We summoned the man, and after we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Léger Michel Humille, thirty-­six years old, native of Paris, women’s hairdresser, living on rue de Cléry. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. After this, Humille was released, and we instructed him not to be in suspect places again at unseemly hours. Then we continued the patrol until 2 a.m. and retired. Of everything, we drew up this report, which M. Desurbois signed with us.

45. Pederasty Patrol, 26 July 178457 At 8 p.m. on Monday, 26 July 1784, we, Charles Convers Desormeaux, barrister in the Parlement, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet, in execution of the orders addressed to us by the lieutenant general of police, accompanied by M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector,

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  115

substituting for his colleague M. Jean François Royer Desurbois, went to the Champs-­Élysées, Place Louis XV, Cours de la Reine, port aux Pierres, quais des Tuileries, des Théatins, des Augustins and des Orfèvres, the Sofa, the Mousetrap [La Souricière, nickname for Chez Chazé, a disreputable café at the central market] and other locations where pederasts and people given over to this vice usually meet and gather. As a result of the measures and inquiries undertaken by us and the surveillance M. Noël has conducted and had conducted, M. Noël, by virtue of the orders he carries, arrested at 9:15 p.m. in the Champs-­Élysées a man known to give himself up to pederasty and frequent suspect places, having ribbons on his shoes, wearing a thick cravat and observed accosting another man in the Tuileries, with whom he passed into the Champs-­Élysées. And close to 10 p.m., in the Champs-­Élysées, [he arrested] another man known as a confirmed pederast for a long time and recorded under the name of Louis, [known for] frequenting suspect places and company. He was observed, in the path in the Tuileries where pederasts meet, accosting one of M. Noël’s agents, to whom he made obscene remarks about pederasty. After reaching an agreement, he took the agent’s arm and came to the Champs-­ Élysées with the design of having a good time with him there. We summoned these two men, and after we instructed them to take and they took the oath to tell the truth, the first one told us his name is François Lozeray, twenty-­seven years old, native of Dreux [Eure-­et-­L oir], unemployed shoemaker’s assistant, who lives at Café Fayard on rue des  Fossés-­Saint-­Germain-­l’Auxerrois [absorbed by rue Perrault]. Since childhood, he has given himself up to polluting himself with comrades. This happened to him in his native region, then in Paris, with his bedmates, for the eight years he has been there. He had a good time with Chemin, tonsured cleric from his region. He sometimes frequents the public promenades in the evening and knows Nollet, called the Big Tart.58 To tell the truth, he passed to the Champs-­Élysées from the Tuileries, with the man he met there, with the design of having a good time with him. The other man is named Nicolas Louis Laiguillon, nicknamed Saint-­ Louis, thirty-­eight years old, native of Sionne [Vosges], diocese of Toul [Meurthe-­et-­Moselle], unemployed cook, lodging at the landlady Petite’s on rue de Valois. He admits that he made the obscene remarks attributed to him to the man he met in the Tuileries and that they allowed themselves mutual touching on their breeches. He denies the design that led him from the Tuileries to the Champs-­Élysées, without, however, being able to give a reason

116 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

for his proceedings with a man unknown to him. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. After this, Lozeray and Laiguillon, called Saint-­L ouis, were handed over to M. Noël, who took charge of them to conduct them, by virtue of orders, to their destination. Then we continued the patrol until 2 a.m. Of everything, we drew up this report, which M. Noël signed with us.

46. Pederasty Patrol, 14 August 178459 On Saturday, 14 August 1784, we, Charles Convers Desormeaux, barrister in the Parlement, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet, in execution of the orders addressed to us by the lieutenant general of police, accompanied by M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector, substituting for his colleague M. Jean François Royer Desurbois, went through the full length of the Champs-­Élysées to the port aux Pierres, Cours de la Reine, the planned streets behind the site of the Coliseum, Place Louis XV, quais des Théatins, du Louvre and de l’École, the Sofa, café [illegible], quais des Augustins and des Orfèvres and other locations where pederasts and people given over to this vice usually gather. As a result of the measures and inquiries undertaken by us and the surveillance M. Noël has conducted and had conducted, M. Noël, by virtue of the orders he carries, arrested at 9:45 p.m. in the Champs-­Élysées a man observed prowling there in a very suspect manner. He bumped into one of the observers and sought to strike up a conversation with him. He was recognized as a man already arrested for the same reasons in the Champs-­ Élysées on 22 April 1781 and conducted to the Petit Châtelet, where he remained for a month. We summoned this man, and after we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Jean Brouzerd, forty years old, native of Mouloy near Bourg-­en-­Bresse [Ain], hosiery vendor in the streets, living on rue de Marivaux. He acknowledged that he had already been arrested for pederasty and said that he often goes to the Champs-­Élysées to walk and that such is his pleasure.60 Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. After this he was handed over to Mr. Noël, who took charge of him to conduct him, by virtue of orders, to his destination. At 10:30 p.m. in the Champs-­Élysées, M. Noël also arrested two men prowling separately there in a very suspect manner. We summoned them,

Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­Élysées and the Commissaires   |  117

and after we instructed them to take and they took the oath to tell the truth, one told us his name is Jean Nicolas Housseau, twenty-­three years old, native of Paris, building inspector for M. Aubert Ceje, architect, living with his father M. Housseau, master joiner, at the d’Aguesseau market [between rue de la Madeleine and chemin du Rempart]. He said he was looking for some ladies with whom he had made a rendezvous and denied speaking to the man arrested in the same place he was. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. The other’s name is Jacques Louis Mauger, twenty-­four years old, native of Paris, former barkeeper, currently living with his mother, widow Mauger, cooper, on rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Honoré, above rue des Champs-­Élysées. He said that he was taking a walk and that Housseau, whom he does not know, remarked, “The weather is fine,” in passing him, to which he replied nothing. This man seemed to follow him for a long time, which made him decide, disregarding his plans, to go and sit near a man and a woman. He had also been accosted twice by another man who looked like a baker’s assistant, who made vague remarks to him, to which he did not respond. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. After this, we had Housseau and Mauger released and enjoined them not to prowl suspect places at unseemly hours anymore, especially Housseau, who seemed suspect to us, on pain of prison. Around 1 a.m., on the quai des Tuileries near the Pont Royal [between the Tuileries and the Left Bank], M. Noël arrested a man who came to stand next to one of the observers, pretended to make water, turned toward him in an indecent manner and said, “Take hold of mine.” We summoned this man, and after we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Henri Marais, twenty-­eight years old, native of Longwy near Luxembourg, cook in the service of M. Boulanger, president in the Chambre des Comptes, living on his own in the house of M. Moret, master wigmaker, on rue du Vieux-­Colombier.61 He admits that he made water as he passed a man but denied saying anything to him. Ten very indecent engravings were found in his pockets.62 M. Noël took charge of them. Asked to do so following the ordinance, Marais stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. In point of fact, we had Marais released and enjoined him not to prowl suspect places in a suspect manner at unseemly hours. We then continued the patrol until 2 a.m. Of everything, we drew up this report, which M. Noël signed with us.

SECTION D

Reports of Commissaires Foucault and Desormeaux

Introduction Like dossiers in the Archives of the Bastille (section A), the papers of Pierre Louis Foucault and Charles Convers Desormeaux include several types of sources that name hundreds of men: records of regular surveillance by inspectors Louis Henri Noël and Jean François Royer Desurbois and their agents, reports of arrests by the watch/guard (section B) and periodic pederasty patrols (section C), interrogations of prisoners, accounts of domestic searches, and depositions about sexual predators by victims, parents, and neighbors. This section includes multiple documents about two scandalous and colorful characters who left more traces in the archives than most pederasts did.1 With just a modest number of texts to introduce here, it is possible to linger over the contents and scrutinize them more carefully. Unlike so many others, a cook (his masters included a Russian diplomat who employed procurers) and “inveterate pederast,” whose name is spelled five ways in five texts, confessed “that he has given himself over to pederasty” for more than a decade and “that this passion rules him to the extent that he cannot rid himself of it.” He was arrested at least five times, confined in Bicêtre and exiled from Paris. In 1779, he was caught in the act in the Champs-­Élysées. In 1780 and 1781, he accosted agents in the Palais Royal and the Tuileries and left the gardens with them. In the first case, they walked hand in hand (a suggestive or affective gesture?). In the second case, they made a rendezvous at midnight mass on Christmas Eve! A few years later, he supposedly knew all the agents by sight and avoided them. In 1784, he was accosted by and arrested with another man, “dressed in a suspect manner,” but there was no “pederastical engagement,” so they were released. In 1785, he was arrested not for having or seeking sex but for disregarding the royal

Reports of Commissaires Foucault and Desormeaux  |  119

order that exiled him. The cook’s encounters with the police may provide an object lesson on the decline of arrests based on personal history or sexual intention, as opposed to actual performance. In any case, the last of the five documents also mentions two assistants who made striking comments after arrest. One, twenty-­seven, admittedly “given over to pederasty for about five years,” wanted the police to know that he played the active, not passive, role for pay and expressed no awkwardness about earning money in that way. The other, fifteen, wanted them to know that he was “not given over to the vice of liking/loving men” and therefore refused pay to play the passive role.2 Did the confident older male consider and expect Desormeaux to consider the penetrative posture less problematic than the penetrated posture? Did the younger male consider and expect the commissaire to consider liking/loving men not just a vice but also a taste, like the cook’s incorrigible passion? Abbé Viennay, identified as “the most zealous partisan of buggery” in a satirical pamphlet published in 1790, operated in private places (he owned a house) as well as public spaces (he prowled the quays), on his own and through networks.3 A man who procured for him feigned ignorance of his activities (#48, a), and a man who allegedly did not know him although he had dined with him cited “the public’s suspicions” (#48, b). The police finally captured the man himself, in street clothes, after an agent he accosted led him near a guard post (#48, c). Viennay attempted to exculpate himself by accusing the agent of accosting him and pressuring him for money, but he admitted that he played along for a while “to see how far his tricks would go,” as if in order to have the man arrested if he went too far. Unlike the cook, Viennay insisted that “he has never fallen into pederasty” but added, oddly, “if he had, he would not go along with it,” as if he could have experienced desire for men but not sex with men? The 1784 report on the abbé, like the 1785 report on the cook, mentions two other men, both in their thirties. One of them, an artisan unknown to the police, admitted that he played the active role with the older man who “debauched” him “into the life of pederasty,” not just acts of pederasty, three years before. He sought male companions every other week, as if on schedule, and had sex for pleasure, without giving or taking money. The other man, known to the police as a prostitute, insisted that “he has never given himself over to pederasty” but acknowledged curiosity in order to explain why he followed a man who offered him money, as if he did not know what the man wanted. Like other sources in part I, the engrossing documents in this section do not tell us all we want to know because pederasts did not tell the police all they wanted

120 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

to know. They revealed more than we might expect, but they also concealed more than we would desire.

47. Claude Borin, Baurin, Borain, Baurain, 1780–­8 54 a. Police Report, 6 October 1780 At 10:30 p.m. on 6 October 1780, at our residence and before us, Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet de Paris, appeared Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector. He told us that he was in the Palais Royal garden around 10 p.m. and recognized, walking around, Borin, former cook of the comte de Buturlin, who had already been arrested and conducted to Bicêtre for pederasty.5 He frequents the public promenades daily and uses violence in cruising. To make sure of it, M. Noël had him watched. Borin approached Saint-­A ndré, one of his agents, told him where he lives and felt his hand. He told Saint-­A ndré that he was cold and kept his hand in his own to warm it up for him. Borin left the Palais Royal with Saint-­A ndré, and they were together, Borin still holding Saint-­A ndré’s hand, as far as the rue de l’Arbre-­sec, where M. Noël arrested him. He conducted him before us and signed. We gave Mr. Noël a record of this appearance and report and summoned the arrested man. He told us his name is Claude Borin, forty years old, native of Calais [Pas-­de-­Calais], in Paris on business, pork-­butcher in Calais, where he lives, lodging in Paris at the home of Martin, master wigmaker, on rue Bethisy [nonextant, 1st arr.]. We pointed out to this man that he is not saying his name correctly, inasmuch as his name is Varin and not Borin. He maintained that he had given us his true name. We had him searched and found on him a note signed comte de Thiange, in which an unnamed person requests a job as a cook6: “Contact M. Varin, hosiery merchant, rue and faubourg Saint-­Martin.” Also various notes and addresses, the latter indicating the residence of a known pederast. Asked why he took Saint-­A ndré’s hand and if the facts stated in the report are true, the man said that he took Saint-­A ndré’s hand and they came as far as the rue de l’Arbre-­sec together because he thought he was his neighbor. We left this man, recognized as Varin, pederast, to M. Noël, who took charge of him to conduct him to his destination. As for the seven items found on Varin, we left them in the hands of M. Noël, who took charge of them to

Reports of Commissaires Foucault and Desormeaux  |  121

produce them for use as evidence if the occasion arises. And of everything above, we drew up this report, to be used as thought proper. And M. Noël signed with us, commissaire. b. Police Report, 25 December 1781 At 1:30 a.m. on 25 December 1781, at our residence and before us, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector. He told us that one of his agents was on watch yesterday in the Tuileries and encountered Baurin, pederast, recently released from Bicêtre with a letter of exile that he is violating. This man suggested they have a good time together and go to the Champs-­Élysées. They left the garden, and the agent wanted to lead him toward the guard post. He did not know why, but Baurin did not want to go there. He did not assume, however, that Baurin suspected his intention of having him arrested, since he agreed to a rendezvous at midnight mass at the church of Saint-­Germain-­l ’Auxerrois [2 place du Louvre]. Baurin was indeed at the rendezvous. M. Noël went to the exit of the church, arrested him, conducted him before us and signed. We summoned the arrested man, who he told us his name is Claude Baurin, former cook and lives in the hôtel de la Meunière on rue Bethisy. Asked why he is not observing his letter of exile. Said after he left Paris, he fell ill several leagues from the city. He stayed there about a month and returned to Paris to take care of various matters. Pointed out if he was in Paris without permission, at least he should have lain low and not continued the infamous trade that has already led him to Bicêtre and for which he is exiled. Said he is in Paris for business, and he was not a thief. He did not know the man he spoke to in the Tuileries, who later helped arrest him. What is more, he goes to the Tuileries only to take the air and not to do anything wrong. Baurin is not only in violation of the royal orders but even continues the commerce that earned him the punishment inflicted on him and the penalty of exile imposed on him. We left him to M. Noël, who took charge of him to conduct him to the Petit Châtelet prison, and he signed with us. c. Police Report, 7 April 1784 At 6 p.m. on Wednesday, 7 April 1784, we, Charles Convers Desormeaux, barrister in the Parlement, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet,

122 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

in execution of the orders addressed to us by the lieutenant general of police, accompanied by M.  Louis Henri Noël, went through the whole length of the Champs-­Élysées, adjacent streets, roads beyond the barrier of Chaillot, the quays and various quarters inside the city, notably suspect places known to be those where libertines and people given over to the crime of sodomy gather. As a result of the measures and inquiries undertaken by us and the surveillance M. Noël has conducted and by virtue of the orders he carries, he arrested and conducted before us a man found in one of the dark pathways in the Champs-­Élysées, who was arrested for pederasty before, sent to Bicêtre and exiled. After we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Claude Borain, forty-­seven years old, native of Calais, domestic in the service of M. Mabile, at whose home he lives on rue Chaussée d’Antin. Returning from Longchamp [village west of Paris], he was accosted by another man, also arrested, who wished him good evening and asked him for the time. They walked together in the pathway in which they were arrested and talked about Longchamp, nothing else. He was exiled after he was imprisoned once in Bicêtre for pederasty, but through the protection of M. Mabile, his master, he was granted permission to remain in Paris by the lieutenant general of police. There was no question of a pederastical engagement between him and the other man. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to sign his name. M. Noël conducted before us another man he had arrested, by virtue of the same orders, along with Borain. This one is dressed in a suspect manner. After we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he said his name is Jean Baptiste Antoine Lurat, twenty-­t wo years old, native of Montier-­en-­Der in the diocese of Châlons in Champagne [province in northeastern France], unemployed pastrycook’s assistant, and lives at the hôtel de  Brienne on rue Saint-­Dominique in faubourg Saint-­Germain. He does not know the other arrested man. They met on the way back from Longchamp and talked about Longchamp, nothing else. Asked to do so in accordance following the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to sign his name. After this, we instructed Borain and Lurat to be more circumspect and not to frequent suspect places in a suspect manner again. We had them released. Then we continued the patrol until midnight and had this report drawn up, which M. Noël signed with us.

Reports of Commissaires Foucault and Desormeaux  |  123

d. Police Report, 7 April 1785 At 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, 7 April 1785, we Charles Convers Desormeaux, barrister in the Parlement, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet, in execution of the orders addressed to us by the lieutenant general of police, accompanied by M. Jean François Royer Desurbois, royal councilor and police inspector, we went to the quais des Orfèvres, des Augustins, de Conti and du Louvre and the places called the Mousetrap and the Sofa and the environs of the exits of the Tuileries gardens and other locations where pederasts and people given over to this vice are found and commonly gather. As a result of the measures and inquiries undertaken by us and the surveillance M. Desurbois has conducted and had conducted, M. Desurbois, by virtue of the orders he carries, arrested at 9:15 p.m. at the exit of the Tuileries a man named Baurain, an inveterate pederast who has already been detained twice for this reason in Bicêtre, which he left the last time on 2 June 1783, with an order of exile that has not prevented him from continuing to surrender himself to pederasty and from recently going to cruise every evening in the Tuileries gardens, where he has been seen many times without the possibility of arrest, since he knows all the observers and takes precautions to avoid them. And after 9:30 p.m., [he arrested] two other men, after they were observed prowling there in a very suspicious manner and cruising several individuals, notably observers whom they asked for money, and these two men already known as pederasts. We summoned the first arrested man. After we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Claude Baurain, fifty years old, native of Calais, cook in the service of M. Mabile, commissaire of war and administrator of the vingtième tax [5 percent tax implemented in 1749] in Rouen, at whose home he lives on rue de la Chaussée d’Antin.7 It is true that he was imprisoned twice in Bicêtre for pederasty and was released with an order of exile. It is true that he has given himself over to pederasty for more than twelve years and that this passion rules him to the extent that he cannot rid himself of it. We had him searched, and nothing suspect was found on him. And he signed. We summoned another arrested man, known to have been previously arrested by the patrol in the Champs-­Élysées on 22 April 1782. After we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Jean Toussaint Leclerc, twenty-­seven years old, native of Evreux

124 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

in Normandy, cobbler’s assistant, living at the home of M. Audrot, master cobbler, on rue de  Jory.8 He has been given over to pederasty for about five years and surrendered to this debauchery in the Tuileries several times with various men he did not know. He did not consummate the crime as a passive but consummated it as an active three or four times in the Champs-­ Élysées but knew none of the people he did it with. By this means, he earned about nine livres from various people. In the evenings, he often goes to the Tuileries. We had him searched and nothing suspect was found on him. And he signed. We summoned the third arrested man. After we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Louis Marion, fifteen years old, native of Clermont in Auvergne, wigmaker’s assistant, living at the home of M. Daste, master wigmaker, at the Boulainvilliers market [13–­17 rue du Bac]. He was only crossing the Tuileries and was accosted by a man he does not know who wanted to put his hand on his breeches and offered to give him three livres to put it into him from behind, but he refused him, not being given over to the vice of loving men. We had him searched and nothing suspect was found on him. And summoned to do so in keeping with the ordinance, he stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. After this, Baurain and Leclerc were handed over to M. Desurbois, who took charge of them to conduct them, by virtue of the orders he carries, to their destination. As for Marion, we instructed him not to go to the Tuileries and other suspect places in the evenings, on pain of imprisonment. We then continued the patrol until midnight and drew up this report about everything, which Desurbois signed with us.

48. Jean Étienne Dessaud, Joseph Pierre Cluzel, and Abbé Jean Baptiste Champeneau de Viennay, 1782–­8 4 9 a. Police Report, 20 February 1782 At 1 p.m., at our residence and before us, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet of Paris, appeared M. Louis Henri Noël, royal councilor and police inspector. He told us that he was on watch and, in passing along rue Saint-­Honoré, encountered Dessaud, known pederast, who lives with Rollin, disreputable subject. Dessaud attends abbé Viennay’s parties and is his pimp. He arrested

Reports of Commissaires Foucault and Desormeaux  |  125

this man, conducted him before us under the escort of the Paris guard and signed. We gave M. Noël a record of this appearance and summoned the arrested man, who told us his name is Jean Étienne Dessaud, thirty years old, native of Paris, bourgeois and lives at M. Adrien’s on rue Mazarine. Asked if he was employed in the Farms in Rouen and if he was dismissed from his job. Said he was employed in Rouen, and if he left his job, it was by his own choice. Asked what he does now in Paris. Said he does not have a job. The only purpose of his stay in Paris is to be useful to his family, which is in need. He undertook a small trade, which did not succeed. Asked if he knows Rollin, former cabinet maker. Said he is his father’s friend. They lodge together, and he helped him out. Asked if he knows abbé Viennay and what he went to do at his home with a young man he took there in August. Said he does not know what we mean. Dessaud is known to live with Rollin, known debaucher, and both of them cruise in the promenades. We left him to M. Noël, who took charge of him to conduct him to the prison of La Force. And M. Noël signed with us. b. Police Report, 25 April 1782 2 p.m. on 25 April 1782 Interrogation conducted by us, Pierre Louis Foucault, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet, in execution of the orders addressed to us and undergone by M. Joseph Pierre Cluzel, master jeweler in Paris. Asked for his first and last names, age, origins, status and address. He said his name is Joseph Pierre Cluzel, twenty-­six years old, native of Thiers in Auvergne, master jeweler, and lives on the Pont au Change, in the parish of Saint-­Jacques-­de-­la-­Boucherie [4th arr.]. Asked if he knows abbé Viennay. Said no. He knows him by name but not otherwise. He only went to his place with his father to see the fireworks set off when the king came to Paris [21 January 1782]. He was let in by the abbé’s workman, Dugas, who was raised by the abbé and lived with him until he came to live at the deponent’s home. He does not know what caused him to leave the abbé. Dugas told him only that he was obliged to have his things removed because

126 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

abbé Viennay owed some money, and he feared that his furniture might be seized and that he himself might be entangled in the matter. It is true that Dugas invited him to dinner and that he and his wife went to abbé Viennay’s for dinner. Having dined there, he thought he should repay Dugas for the favor and invite the abbé. They came to his home for dinner, and Trompeau was there. After the dinner, Trompeau shared with him the public’s suspicions regarding these two individuals. He stopped seeing them, except for business dealings with Dugas. Asked whom he generally socializes with. Said he does not see anyone in particular and only ever walks with M.  Chaurigout, master haberdasher on rue Greneta, who is from his native region, his aunt, named widow Bechon, Mlle Clingnoilles, on rue des Vieilles-­Étuves-­Saint-­Martin [nonextant, 3rd arr.], and his father. Asked if he has ever spent the night away from home. Said about a month ago, he attended the wedding of a Jew named Michael and slept at the home of the cane vendor Toteur on cour Saint-­Martin. He encountered him at the wedding, where he spent just the afternoon with his father, who left without saying anything to him. Asked if abbé Viennay wears clerical attire. Said every time he saw him, he always had his hair pulled back. Asked if he knows if the abbé has received the order of priesthood. Said he knows nothing about it but heard it said. Asked if he ever allowed himself to touch men indecently. Said he affirms before God that he has never allowed himself or even thought about allowing himself to touch men in the slightest way and that it is quite contrary to his manner of thinking and his tastes. Asked if he has ever been to the wine merchant’s at the corner of rue Saintonge on the boulevards. Said he was walking on the boulevards last Sunday, and the rain compelled him to enter there. He was with M. Chaurigout and his father. Afterward he walked M. Chaurigout home and went with his father to dine at his aunt’s. After his interrogation was read to him, he said his replies contain the truth, reaffirmed them and signed. c. Police Report, 13 November 1784 At 6 p.m. on Saturday, 13 November 1784, we, Charles Convers Desormeaux, barrister in the Parlement, royal councilor and commissaire of the Châtelet,

Reports of Commissaires Foucault and Desormeaux  |  127

in execution of the orders addressed to us by the lieutenant general of police, accompanied by M. Jean François Royer Desurbois, royal councilor and police inspector, went to the quais des Augustins and des Orfèvres, the place called the Mousetrap [nickname for the corridors under the Palais de Justice] and other locations where pederasts and people given over to this vice gather. As a result of the measures and inquiries undertaken by us and the surveillance M. Desurbois has conducted and had conducted, M. Desurbois, by virtue of the orders he carries, arrested at 7:30 p.m. on the quai des Orfèvres abbé Viennay, known to be quite given over to pederasty, observed this evening prowling the quay. He cruised Antoine, one of M. Desurbois’s agents, whom he wanted to touch him, to whom he suggested going to his room or a tavern but then told him he no longer wanted to go there because he had a rendezvous. Abbé de Viennay was dressed in a coat of gray fabric with stripes, vest of reddish sheared velvet, collar, cap-­like wig, without tonsure or skull cap, plain hat turned up around the edge and boots. M. Desurbois also arrested, under the vaults called the Mousetrap, three men found there in a suspicious manner and posture. We summoned abbé Viennay, and after we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Jean Baptiste Champeneau de Viennay, sixty-­nine years old, native of Paris, priest, who lives in Paris on rue Taranne [number 35] in the parish of Saint-­Sulpice. He said he was attacked on the quai de La Vallée [later quai des Grands-­Augustins] this evening by a man he does not know who pushed him toward the parapet. He asked him what he wanted from him. The man did not reply but continued to push him, in such a way that he placed his hand on the deponent’s breeches in back. The deponent said, “For shame!” to him. However, he still continued his tricks, saying, “Ah, I like to handle men.” At that, the deponent told him, “You won’t find what you seek,” and wanting to see how far his tricks would go, the deponent let him proceed for a minute. In the end, the business seemed tiresome and shameful to the deponent. He punched the man and told him, “Get lost; you are a rogue.” He replied, “It pleases you to say so, but I need money.” “Money?” replied the deponent. “If I had a cane, I would give you a hundred strokes with it.” Not leaving him, the deponent said, “I’m going to lead you to the guard post.” He indeed led him almost to the parapet, near the guard post, where, reflecting that it was still a disagreeable business for him, the deponent wished to avoid the guard post. As he was avoiding it, he found himself seized by another unknown person, who made him enter the guard post. He has never fallen into pederasty, and if he had, he would

128 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

not go along with it. The whole time he was with the man who accosted him this evening, the deponent did not remove his hands from his muff. Asked to do so following the ordinance, he did not wish to sign for the reason that it was not necessary. Antoine Baude, who lives at the central Market on rue de la Tonnellerie [later rue Baltard], appeared.10 He told us that walking on the quai des Orfèvres this evening, he saw abbé de Viennay there. He was leaning on the parapet and, as the deponent passed, tugged on his coat. He stopped and the abbé put his hand on his breeches in back and gave him two or three pats on the ass. The deponent did likewise to him and stuck his hand in the abbé’s breeches. The abbé told him, “Fuck me,” and asked him if he had a little room. He told him his room was on rue de la Tonnellerie. He said it was too far and suggested going to drink a bottle of wine in a tavern, which the deponent accepted. Then the abbé noticed another agent talking a turn around them, became suspicious and said he had to go because he had a rendezvous at 7:30 p.m. To detain him longer, the deponent told him, “You won’t go like this, without giving me something.” M. Viennay asked him, “How much do you need?” and he, raising his voice, told him, “I need ten thousand livres.” The abbé told him he was going to have him arrested and led him to the guard post. In fact, they went together, but near the guard post, instead of entering it, the abbé tried to flee and at that moment was arrested. Baude affirmed this declaration to be genuine and truthful and stated as much to abbé Viennay, to whom we read it and in whose presence he gave it. Asked to do so, Baude stated he does not know how to write or sign his name. M. de Viennay said Baude’s declaration is false, from beginning to end, and he signed. Then we, undersigned royal councilor and commissaire gave M. de Viennay a record of his replies and report and Baude a record of his declaration. In order to have the matter of de Viennay’s arrest settled, we had recourse at once to the lieutenant general of police, to whose residence we went with M. Desurbois, who took M. de Viennay there. After reading this report to him and hearing M. de Viennay, the lieutenant general of police had abbé Viennay released. At 10:30 p.m., back at our residence, to which we had the three other men conducted and where we had them detained, we summoned one of the men, who was arrested with his breeches down. After we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Philippe

Reports of Commissaires Foucault and Desormeaux  |  129

Rousseau, thirty-­two years old, native of Rouen, domestic of the widow Julien, fruit vendor, at whose residence he lives on rue aux Fers [absorbed by rue Berger]. He was led into pederasty about a year ago by a man he does not know and with whom he had a good time. Since then he had a good time again with a handsome young man he does not know. This evening on the quai des Orfèvres, he met another man with whom he went down to the place where he was arrested to have a good time, but they did not have the time. The deponent was arrested at once, and the other escaped. He has never seen women. He was searched, and nothing suspect was found on him. He added he also had a good time two weeks ago with a young man at the edge of the river on the quai de la Vallée side. He signed. We summoned one of the other two arrested men. After we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is François Louis Tournay, thirty-­five years old, native of Paris, master upholsterer. He sells charcoal in Paris and lives in Paris at the Golden Sun on quai Pelletier [later quai de Gesvres]. He was debauched into the life of pederasty about three years ago by an old man dressed in a gray coat whose name and address he does not know, who told him he would have problems if he continued to make babies with his wife. He began this crime as the active one with this old man, on two different occasions, once in an alley, the other time under the arches where he was arrested this evening. He also consummated this crime this evening, in the same place where he was arrested, with another man unknown to him, whom he met on the quai des Orfèvres. He goes to this location for this purpose about every two weeks. He has never received or expended any money on this account, except for a mug of wine he once bought for a young man, unemployed domestic, who goes every Sunday to the Mousetrap. He was searched, and nothing suspect was found on him. He signed. We then summoned the other arrested man, known as a pederast, by the nickname of Sheep’s Head, who cruises the quai de la Vallée and prostitutes himself. After we instructed him to take and he took the oath to tell the truth, he told us his name is Jean Baptiste Étienne Bidault, thirty-­t wo years old, native of Paris. He lived formerly in Doremy-­sur-­Tranches and lives now in Paris at landlord Orliat’s on rue de la Mortellerie. He has never given himself over to pederasty and never yielded to it. He went down to the location where he was arrested because he was persuaded to do so by another man he encountered on the quay, who suggested he earn three livres. He went

130 | Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture

down out of curiosity and did nothing wrong. He was searched, and nothing suspect was found on him. He signed. After this, Rousseau, Tournait and Bidault were handed over to M. Desurbois, who took charge of them to conduct them, by virtue of orders, to their destination. Of everything above, we had this report drawn up, and M. Desurbois signed with us.

Pederasty is as old as mankind and will last as long as nature, which it insults and disgraces.

Pensées nouvelles et philosophiques (Amsterdam, 1777)

PA R T I I

REPRESENTATIONS OF SAME-­S EX RELATIONS

Introduction

The ancien régime was not a monolithic and inflexible system in which monarchs, ministers, magistrates, noblemen, and clergymen shared a single vision of political, religious, and social order and collectively and effectively silenced critics of absolutism, orthodoxy, and privilege. It exhibited more complexity, mobility, and diversity than insiders acknowledged and outsiders recognized, in part because insiders and outsiders argued not only with each other but also among themselves. The reigns of Louis XV and his grandson witnessed undisguised infighting about theological and constitutional issues among actors endowed with status and voices by established structures. These disputes undermined traditional ideology and enabled the emergence of public opinion, as a construct between two covers and a presence in salons and markets, which all parties ventriloquized. While the parlements debated Jansenism and despotism with the Church and the crown, pamphleteers and philosophes (men of letters who described themselves as advocates of Enlightenment) invoked justice and reason in shorter and longer works intended to

134 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

resolve these public issues and secure their public places. Royal control over the printed word, through censorship before and censure after publication, broke down because of exceptions, complicity, and clamorous and conflicting appeals to “the public”—­not to mention the operations of hidden and foreign presses. Insiders embraced many aspects of Enlightenment, and outsiders infiltrated the system they never intended to demolish. Police and judges did not expect or attempt to purge Paris of pamphleteers and philosophes any more than pederasts. They did not punish subjects who practiced deviant sex or subjects who published subversive books according to the letter of the law. The sources in part I tell us a good deal about patterns and networks in the subculture, and about the assumptions and attitudes of the police, but nothing about women who desired women and little about the ways in which eighteenth-­century French people understood same-­sex relations in historical and cultural contexts. Unlike reports of arrests, the excerpts from nouvelles (collections of news) and libelles (libelous publications), traditional and Enlightenment texts, and literary works in part II address the causes and consequences of sex between men as well as sex between women against the background of larger debates about classical antiquity, Biblical authority, human nature, foreign cultures, masculinity and femininity, and social control and legal reform. It is not difficult to locate articles or sections about the subject in encyclopedias inspired by Diderot and d’Alembert and treatises inspired by Cesare Beccaria, marchese di Bonasana (1738–­1794), who published his influential Of Crimes and Punishment in 1764.1 He associated sodomy not with corrupt passions but with corrupt institutions, specifically schools, that segregated the sexes. It is more difficult to track down relevant passages in other types of sources, such as nouvelles and libelles, but readers today can search names as well as the words in the glossary in specific digitized texts or, more broadly, in databases, some of which (Gallica and Eighteenth-­Century Collections Online) allow them to limit by date and more. The authors of the excerpts in part II, exponents of tradition and Enlightenment alike, obviously did not have access to police reports and evidently did not know much about the sodomitical subculture populated by ordinary Parisians. They wrote not about workingmen who sought sex with each other or their betters but about noblemen, clergymen, actors, ancients, and, in more than a few cases, abstractions without faces and bodies. Unlike the police, they employed ridicule and invective, exposed assumptions about Scripture and nature, and wondered why some individuals desired their own sex and what society could and should do about the problem, if it was a problem.

Introduction | 135

Implicitly more than explicitly, some connected or contrasted patterns in and meanings of male and female same-­sex relations. They suggested that rank, age, and role structured sex between women as well as men, that sexual satiation (through dissipation) or deprivation (through segregation) could lead members of both sexes astray, and that members of both sexes could be corrupted for life through experience. These authors usually characterized sex between (subordinate) women as less problematic than sex between (independent) men because women, even if they exercised agency, supposedly could not have “real” sex by themselves. Their assertions and reflections raise questions about female anatomy and autonomy that deserve careful study. Given their bodies and their status, tribades did not have the same history as sodomites and pederasts did in the urban landscape and in the imaginations of their contemporaries.

SECTION E

Gossip and Slander

Introduction Police reports include scattered references to popular assumptions about and attitudes toward same-­sex relations. Nouvelles (collections of news) and libelles (libelous publications) include more abundant but less transparent evidence on this score.1 Gossip and slander, circulated in oral, written, and printed forms, both reflected and influenced what Parisians said about sodomites, pederasts, and tribades. Nouvellistes and libellistes collected, edited, and embellished news and tales about royal ministers and mistresses, noblemen and clergymen, authors, artists, and actors. In satirical or moralistic language, they not only documented what “the public” thought but also indicated what “the public” should think about current events and subjects largely excluded from serials licensed by the crown. They sometimes feigned reluctance to enlighten their contemporaries about scandalous if not salacious matters, much like the police and judges themselves, but they generally relished their role as self-­appointed social critics who exposed corruption high and low, in the glamorous world of the court and the dissolute world of the stage. Popular historians and biographers have mined these sources for bons mots and anecdotes about Versailles and Paris for more than two centuries. In recent decades, scholars have studied them more seriously and more critically as unauthorized commentaries on the ancien régime that illustrate the development and recognition of public opinion as a cultural and political force. The characters portrayed in the following texts had titles, functions, fortunes, or careers that made them public figures and therefore subjects for gossip and targets of slander. Most of them, male and female, were nobles or actors. Most of them were married or at least had sexual relations with members of both sexes. And most of them crossed social boundaries in their

Gossip and Slander  |  137

short-­term or long-­term liaisons. Nouvellistes and libellistes described some of the men as effeminate and some of the women as mannish, based on appearance, conduct, role, submissiveness, or independence. None of the authors condoned the tastes of pederasts and tribades, but some of them noted that the vices of both groups were more visible, and indeed fashionable, in the 1770s and 1780s than in the past. These sources document revealing differences in the ways in which individuals managed—­or at least massaged—­their reputations and in the consequences of their escapades, including laughter and thrashing, disgrace, and exile. From the eccentric nobleman who reportedly cohabited with employees on his country estate (#49) to the respected clergyman who allegedly propositioned a sentinel in the streets of Besançon (#55), these stories show how men and women who desired members of their own sex operated or, at least, allegedly operated inside as much as outside the structures of the ancien régime. These excerpts constitute a transition between part I and the following sections because it is possible to confirm and expand some of the stories with other sources, including police records, and because some of them raise questions about nature and gender ignored by the police but discussed by clergy, jurists, and reformers. In this section only, the indented eighteenth-­century texts precede the commentary, which follows and begins flush left.

49. Armand Louis Joseph, Marquis de Brunoy, 1773 The observations that have just been distributed in defense of the marquis de Brunoy, against his cousin M. Pâris de Meyzieu, who had his interdiction decreed by the Châtelet and seeks its confirmation by the Parlement, sheds much light on the conduct of this madman.2 The appended report of the hearing about the acts attributed to him constitutes a written memorial of his wisdom, his moderation and even his sagacity. He is certainly one of the most contradictory creatures one knows about. What makes this trial extremely serious and curious is the complaint that the marquis de Brunoy filed and the denunciation that he made to the attorney general of the calumnies about the shameful acts attributed to him.3 It is believed these acts involve accusations of pederasty with Senez, son of a paver, and Maréchal,

138 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

son of a saddler in Brunoy. He made one his intendant [household or business manager] and the other his secretary.4 When the wealthy banker Jean Pâris de Montmartel died in 1766, his titles and fortune passed to his only son. Armand Louis Joseph, marquis de Brunoy (1747–­1781) shunned the court as well as the capital and squandered his money on his country estate, where he fraternized with workmen and peasants and staged extravagant religious observances.5 He married Françoise Emilie de Pérusse d’Escars (1745–­1823) in 1767 but avoided her and fathered no children.6 “He never felt the charm of the sex to which a powerful attraction draws us.”7 Appalled by his eccentric and erratic behavior, Brunoy’s relatives attempted more than once, from 1769 on, to have him declared incompetent to manage his property and resources, and they eventually succeeded. His debts led to revelations and prosecutions that implicated, among others, the prolific nouvelliste Mathieu François Pidansat de Mairobert (1727–­1779), who penned the preceding paragraphs and committed suicide on 27 March 1779.8 The family’s lawyer suggested that “everything about him contradicts nature” and insisted that the marquis had “shameful tastes.”9 Brunoy’s lawyer denied that he was prodigal, imbecile, violent, or libertine.10 Some contemporaries gossiped more explicitly about his “follies,” including “very wicked” ones.11 The family charged that the marquis concluded the lavish festival of Corpus Christi (celebration of the doctrine of transubstantiation) in 1772 with “the spectacle of his habitual drunkenness and his indecent familiarities with his younger friends,” the sons of his paver, carpenter, cartwright, and saddler.12 One source specified that he spent that night “in abominable debauchery with the ones he had chosen as accomplices.”13 Well before 1772, and no doubt in response to the family’s concerns, the lieutenant general dispatched an agent to Brunoy to observe the marquis and question his neighbors, from 28 June to 15 July 1769. During those two weeks, the marquise arrived one day and returned to Paris the next day. As soon as she left, her husband sent for Senez, his “secretary, clerk, confidant and friend.” Brunoy ate and drank, took walks, hunted, and played billiards with “his favorite.” He had him “sleep in his room. Some say it is because he is fearful; others talk about it in different terms.” The neighbors complained that the marquis let himself be ruled by a rascal who “takes advantage of his weakness to enrich his family.” They thought the young man should be locked up. As for Brunoy, the author of the reflections appended to the police agent’s

Gossip and Slander  |  139

report recognized that he had “a rather unfortunate inclination” to do “the prohibited,” but “not in everything,” since “fear restrains him.”14 After his interdiction, the marquis was confined in monasteries for several years before he was allowed to retire to his estate at Villiers-­sur-­Mer in Normandy, where he died of smallpox contracted from a military school cadet named Pierre Lepreux (“leprous”) he had befriended. Extravagant to the end, Brunoy reportedly spent twenty thousand livres on the administration of the last rites. One contemporary summed up this curious character in four words: “a genuine moral phenomenon,” whose disregard for familial, patrician, financial, religious, and sexual proprieties marked him to many as a madman.15

50. Sophie Arnould, 1774–­75, 1784 The vice of tribades is becoming quite fashionable among our young ladies of the opera. They make no secret of it and regard this peccadillo as a kindness. Although she has proved herself in another manner, since she has several children, Mlle Arnould, now that she is older, partakes of this pleasure. She had another girl named Virginia whom she used in this way. This girl has changed positions and gone over to Mlle Raucourt of the Comédie Française, who adores her own sex and gave up the marquis de Bièvre in order to surrender herself to it more comfortably.16 One night recently in the Palais Royal, M. Vantes made a joke to Mlle Virginia about her breakup with Mlle Arnould, called Sophie in such parties of debauchery, and she, witness to these remarks, gave the gentleman a very good slap. He was obliged to laugh and ask the amiable tribade’s pardon.17 When all means of pleasure have been exhausted and one has exhausted oneself from pursuing them, debauchery and crapulence succeed desire, and libertinage pushed to excess leads to all types of disorders. For the last few years, our theater girls have surrendered themselves to the most blameworthy tastes. Licentiousness at the end of the last reign [Louis XV died on 10 May 1774] allowed it to be said publicly, “This woman maintains that other one.” Mlle Arnould married Mlle Raucourt.18

140 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

Arnould lived with several men with worthy titles and dignities, less out of interest than to conceal her natural penchant to love women, but the illustrious Raucourt cured her of this nicety, and these two tribades now take pleasure in letting all France know that they give each other perfect pleasure together. Arnould welcomes company to her place on Monday and Thursday. The male sex is completely excluded on Thursday, when the august senate is composed of the most renowned tribades. In these assemblies take place horrors that the least sensitive writer cannot mention without blushing. Rivals of those who escaped from Sodom, these women carry out the scenes portrayed by the Doorman of the Carthusians (1). They challenge their antagonists [sodomites] to experience more pleasure with their gitons than they enjoy together. As I already mentioned, Arnould had scruples. Worried about her reputation, she wanted to enlighten the well-­informed public through a skillful stratagem. A student in the art of Vitruvius [architecture] helped her out, and Paris was soon informed of the so-­called marriage of the young architect with Mlle Arnould.19 It was agreed, in the conditional bargain they made with each other, that there would be no question of intromission between them except for that she and her sisters practiced with such ardor in the general assembly.20 (1) Novel by M. Gervaise, barrister in the Parliament, who died in November 1782, famous for the filth it is filled with and for the philosophy included in it, which produces an odd contrast.21

Madeleine Sophie Arnould (1740–­1802) made her debut at the Opera on 15 December 1757. “The beauty of her voice, combined with her desire to please and improve, everything inspires the greatest hopes for her in those who love this sort of spectacle.”22 Nouvelles include dozens of paragraphs about her performances, rivalries, witticisms, and liaisons with men as well as women, most notably the comte de Laraguais, with whom she had several children, and Mme Raucourt, born Françoise Marie Antoinette Josephe Saucerotte (1756–­1815), the most notorious tribade of her generation.23 Arnould retired from the stage in 1778, left Paris in poverty during the

Gossip and Slander  |  141

Revolution, and received a pension under Napoleon. As these texts suggest, contemporaries knew that tribades did not gather in public gardens and assumed that they, or at least a select group of them, gathered in private salons.

51. Jean François Bithemer, 1780 By dint of working our way backward, we have reached Messrs Bordier and Bithemer.24 What a fine endpoint! How to begin this chapter? I would like to be able to speak well of them, but I have only the opposite to say. And how would I do otherwise? Judge me, reader. The first is a libertine, a night owl, a boozer, who owes both God and devil. The second is a minion who, through laziness, allows himself to be maintained by Le Prieur, royal sheathmaker, who uses him like Villette used the handsome Dansay, whom Voltaire celebrated.25 You see quite well, gentle reader, that it is better to draw a thick curtain over these matters than to show them in broad daylight. Is it not an act of beneficence on my part?26 No separate articles for these gentlemen, although the first of them, given his celebrity, would deserve, in all regards, that I undertake a detailed encomium of his rare qualities.27 But by entering into such vile details and taking the risk of enlightening the weak part of the public, which is not informed about a vice that is already only too well known, I would make myself guilty of an offense against morals. I, who pride myself on having some, who, with my face covered by the imposing mask of prudence and decency, am revered in my neighborhood on account of my honest appearance, am I going to lose the fruit of my cares all at once, in yielding to the pleasure of making a showy listing of M. Bithemer’s penchants? Would I be so foolish? No. Now, without seeking to portray the various hues in which this modern Ganymede indulges in sodomy, I wish to restrict myself at this time to entertaining you by sharing with you a rather mortifying adventure that happened to him during his time with the Opera Students. They were performing M. Delamotte’s Anti-­Pygmalion, a rather witty work but lifeless, without action and in which most of the merit lies in the arrangement of

142 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

several elegant sentences, which M. Rochefort had the skill to adapt to music composed in such a way as to justify the favorable notion the public has of his talents.28 Contrary to what usually happens at this theater, the house was sold out, and the first loges were decorated with rather distinguished people. M. Bithemer was in the parterre and directed his eyes from one side to the other, not to satisfy them with the enchanting spectacle of a thousand charming women who rivaled each other in beauty, but rather to find someone to fill the void caused by his rupture with M. Le Prieur. The cavaliers of the cuff apparently use signals intended to avoid mistakes, but chance, the father of many incidents, wished that a stout man positioned opposite him used these same signals, without any special design. What Bithemer did was to return the signals graciously, accost the man and make tender propositions. Out of distraction or curiosity, the gentleman encouraged his very humble suit, listening patiently, but he ended by replying to them with a volley of cane strokes and a threat to turn this minion over to the full severity of justice. Confused, desperate, concealing himself in his enormous levite, he escaped the gibes of the populace for the moment, but he could not erase the impression he made. This deed, recorded in the annals of the boulevard, informs posterity forever that Bithemer is a b[ardache]. When the marquis de Mirabeau felt another man make physical advances to him in the parterre at the Italians, he almost attacked the fellow but prudently contented himself with calling attention to the solicitation in terms that scared him off without exposing him.29 The less fortunate Jean François Bithemer, who misread the gestures of a curiously curious gentleman, made his debut at the Comic Medley around 1775 and played lead roles at Parisau’s Theater of the Opera Students.30 He had a questionable reputation before and after the “mortifying adventure” in June 1780, as indicated by this complaint filed by his mother. At 3 p.m. on Thursday, 3 May 1781, appeared at our residence and before us, Mathieu Vanglenne, etc., Marie Augustine Momineau, wife of M. Joseph Bithemer, master cobbler, living in Paris in rue de Bretagne, in the parish of Saint-­Nicolas-­des-­Champs [parish church

Gossip and Slander  |  143

at 254 rue Saint-­Martin] who filed a complaint with us against Mlle Masson, actress at the theater of the Comic Medley.31 She told us that on the first of this month, at about 9 p.m., in the café at that theater, this Masson said loudly and publicly that the plaintiff’s son, who is an actor at the theater, was involved in improper relations with men and that she would prove it. Yesterday morning Masson made the same remarks in the café in the presence of various people, notably several actors from the theater. And since these remarks, which are wholly false, tend to ruin her son’s reputation, she has the greatest interest in putting a stop to them and she was advised to come and file this complaint.32 Masson was dismissed from the company before the end of the year. Bithemer kept his situation but—­like Michu, in the next texts—­lost his reputation through unmanly sexual submission.

52. Louis Michu and Samuel Peixotto, 1780 M. Parisau, former director of the Opera Students, author and actor, had an official order to debut at the Italians.33 When he presented himself before the assembly to be accepted by the actors, M. Michu displayed annoyance and exclaimed, “I believe they want to pollute us with all the jokers from the boulevards.” M. Volange, present and humiliated by the aspersion, told him, “M. Michu, if I did not respect your sex, you would have business to settle with me.”34 The whole company laughed. He indeed has the reputation of a bardache and of belonging to the vilest b[ugger] in France, a very wealthy Jew named Peixotto, who maintains him as his mistress.35 Parisau, another boulevard performer, bankrupt director of the Opera Students, sought to make his debut at the Italian theater. They talked about it backstage. The effeminate Michu, who more than once made the infamous statement attributed to the emperor Nero, took it into his head to say, “So they are going to poison us with all the clowns from the boulevards!”36 Volange was nearby and came up to Michu, insisting that if he did not respect his sex, he would give him a hundred flicks and something more.37

144 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

Louis Michu (1754–­1801) made his debut at the Comédie Italienne on 18 January 1775 in the title role in the opera The Magnificent One.38 He looks androgynous in the contemporary print that portrays him in his “magnificent” costume.39 According to one critic, “It is hardly possible to see a more noble and engaging exterior, a more slender and lightweight figure, a more likable cast of countenance and more simple and natural graces. The imagination pictures sylphs and shepherds with these features. Although still quite young, he seems to have a good deal of theatrical experience. His voice has a small range, but he manages it with great skill and enunciates very clearly. The few faults noticed in his acting come from provincial habits, and no one doubts he will soon be cured of them.”40 Given his boyish, if not girlish, appearance, Michu had more success in the following years in feminine attire as the fairy Urgèle than in masculine attire as the heroic Theseus.41 He performed throughout the decade of the Revolution and directed the Theater of the Arts in Rouen from 1799 to 1802. After complaining about enemies and calumnies involving money rather than morals, he drowned himself in the Seine.42 Companies in Rouen as well as Paris gave performances for the benefit of his widow and three children, one of whom followed him onto the stage. The Jewish banker Samuel Peixotto (1741–­1805) made himself notorious through his dogged efforts to repudiate his wife as well as his sexual escapades. He married Sara Mendès da Costa (as much as ten years older than himself), a member of another diasporic Sephardic family, in London in 1762 and had three children with her in Bordeaux.43 After moving to Paris, he filed for annulment and then separation.44 He accused “his virtuous wife of misconduct, profligacy and libertinage,” which were, in fact, his own offenses.45 The sensational case, or rather, cases, complicated by his conversion to Christianity in 1781, unfolded against the background of lively public debates about marriage and divorce, sacraments and citizenship, “regeneration,” emancipation, and assimilation of Jews in France.46 Peixotto, meanwhile, consorted with courtesans and pederasts. He supposedly paid the dancer Mlle Dervieux, who enchanted audiences at the Opera, to walk around the room on her hands and knees, naked, with peacock feathers stuck in her anus.47 One version of the story includes an illustration of him not only sighing, “What a fine peacock,” but also masturbating during this performance.48 After Dervieux replaced him with other lovers, he took a jeweler’s young and pretty wife as his mistress.49 Known for “his bizarre and antiphysical tastes,” the banker reportedly sought partners of “one or the other sex.”50 He flaunted a taste

Gossip and Slander  |  145

“contrary to nature” by “publicly maintaining a very young and very pretty actor,” identified in a footnote as Michu.51 According to another footnote, in the apocryphal correspondence of the most famous madam in Paris, he paid Michu a thousand livres to spend the night with him.52 Back in Bordeaux, Peixotto purchased a large amount of nationalized ecclesiastical property after 1789. Over the next few years, legislators decriminalized sodomy and suicide and extended civil rights to actors and Jews, but prejudices persisted. A parish priest in Rouen refused to bury Michu’s body not because of his profession or reputation but because he took his own life.53 Like wealthy Jews, Peixotto was fined during the Terror, to the tune of one million francs for the Republic and two hundred thousand francs for the local sansculottes. Michu’s fiscal problems in Rouen could have been resolved with much less. Whether the younger, pretty, passive, surly actor and the older, ugly, active, wealthy banker spent one night or many nights together, contemporaries regarded them as an odd couple marked by multiple types of nonconformity. They found it disturbing and degrading for a male member of a marginalized people to maintain a male member of a marginalized profession who did not look like a real man onstage and acted like a kept woman offstage.

53. Élisabeth Marie Pierrette Anne Dubois de Courval, Mme Joly de Fleury, 1783 Mme Joly de Fleury, wife of the attorney general, withdrawn to the convent of Port-­Royal-­Faubourg [121–­25 boulevard de Port-­Royal] after being mad about the baronne de Brocas, amiable adventuress whom the perfumer Tombarelli secured for her and whom she loaded with favors, continues to maintain around her the most pretty, pliable and obliging chambermaids.54 Raucourt, maintained by the prince d’Hénin, has dismissed the little Souck, alternately at odds and made up with her.55 It is with Constance, principal dancer of the Comédie Française, that she went to eat fish stew, in a man’s outfit, in Gros-­Caillou or la Rapée [areas in the 7th and 12th arrs.].56 They have been on very good terms with each other for two months. Raymond, actor at the Italians, wanted to fight Desessarts, who wished to drill his rear end, as he had been free to do with Monvel.57

146 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

Élisabeth Marie Pierrette Anne du Bois de Courval (1753–­1794) married Omer Louis François Joly de Fleury (1743–­1784), attorney general of the Maupeou parlement (1771–­74), who was involved in an ongoing liaison with a married woman, on 3 April 1768.58 Ten years later, her father, a senior magistrate in the Parlement, had her confined in a convent for her own misconduct. Another ten years later, she provided an annual income for her companion Cécile de Latour. Pidansat de Mairobert portrayed her as the “mannish” Mme Furiel in the most famous account of sexual relations between women published in the eighteenth century, which concludes with the “Apology for the Anandrine Sect,” delivered by its president, Raucourt, who received financial assistance from Du Bois de Courval.59 Raucourt survived the Revolution, but her benefactor did not. She and her companion Isabelle Pigrais were guillotined just days before the fall of Robespierre.60 The sect portrayed by Pidansat de  Mairobert also included Mme de Luchet, the marquise de Sénectère, and the duchesse de Villeroy. The first, Suzanne Delon, daughter of a merchant in Geneva, married Jean Pierre Louis Luchet (1739–­1792), a Jesuit-­turned-­soldier-­turned-­man of letters, in 1765. He lived in Hesse, where he served the margrave as librarian, and she lived in Paris. The second, Marie Anne Perrette Henriette de Rabodanges (b. 1732), married Louis Philippe Thibault de La Carte, marquis de La Ferté-­Sénectère (1699–­1780), in 1746, and they had three children. The third, Jeanne Louise Constance d’Aumont de  Villequier (1731–­1816), married Gabrielle Louis François de Neufville (1731–­1794), duc de Villeroy, and they had no children. In 1781, the duchess reportedly abducted “a very young shopgirl, employed by a fashion merchant, who told her friends that every time she went to the townhouse to make deliveries, the duchess pestered her exceedingly and that she did not understand what she wanted from her.”61 Like Arnould, Raucourt, and Du Bois de Courval, she played a “male” role insofar as she pursued and maintained younger females for her pleasure.

54. Charles Roger, Prince de Bauffremont, Jacques Marie Boutet de Monvel, and Pierre Margantin, 1783 Since the punishment of Deschauffours, no sodomist had been executed. The government had feared making the sin against nature more common by making it known. It is thus that the prince de Bauf . . . , the actor Monvel, the notary Margantin and so many

Gossip and Slander  |  147

others caught in flagrante delicto have been punished only with exile, prison, Bicêtre or a simple police reproof, depending on the personages and circumstances. This vice, which was formerly called the fine vice, because it was attributed only to great lords, men of wit or Adonises [handsome young men], has become so fashionable that today there is no rank in the state, from dukes to lackeys and the populace, that is not infected with it. Commissaire Foucault, recently deceased, was responsible for this matter and showed his friends a thick book in which the names of all the pederasts known to the police were recorded.62 He claimed there were almost as many of them as of prostitutes in Paris, that is to say, around forty thousand. There are also public places of prostitution of this type and in the Tuileries garden there is an area assigned exclusively to gitons who come seeking their fortune. Justice has finally seen that it must wake up about a crime too widespread to have fears about disclosing it and not to demand a striking example. The day before yesterday it had a pederast named Pascal, who had taken the surname Chabannes, burned.63 It seems certain that he had been a Capuchin [member of a reformed Franciscan order] and that he was a priest. They did not give him any title in the sentence in order to spare the clergy and, moreover, not provoke its protest. This villain was first broken on the wheel, because, having met with resistance on the part of a young Savoyard who did not want to yield to his desires, he had showered him with seventeen knife thrusts and left him in danger of death. It was on 1 October that this horrible scene took place, in broad daylight and almost in view of the whole quarter. A more well-­attended execution had not been seen since Damiens. There were people all the way to the rooftops.64 The execution of the renegade Jacques François Pascal may or may not have attracted as many Parisians to the Place de Grève as the execution of the regicide Robert François Damiens did on 28 March 1757. In any case, this execution was not the first one for sodomy since 24 May 1726, when Benjamin Deschauffours was burned at the stake.65 Bruno Lenoir and Jean Diot suffered the same fate on 6 July 1750. Unlike Deschauffours and Pascal, they did not

148 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

coerce or assault anyone, and neither did the prince, the actor, and the notary mentioned in the first paragraph above. A month after she met Charles Roger de Bauffremont (1713–­1795), then known as the chevalier de Listenois, Mme Du Deffand described him as “a good man, gentle, easygoing, accommodating. As for wits, he has more or less what is needed, without spice, without spirit, without ardor, and a certain boring tone of voice. When he opens his mouth, one thinks he is yawning and is going to make others yawn. One is pleasantly surprised that what he says is not foolish, lengthy or silly. And given the passage of time, one concludes he is quite likable.”66 A year later she quoted the comical epitaph he had composed for himself, “which portrays him perfectly”: Lazy Charles Roger Had the sense to live happily. He did not do much good or bad. He discharges you from praying for him.67

In 1769, the lazy chevalier received the title of marshal after decades of military service as well as the title of prince after the death of his older brother Louis (1712–­1769), who was survived by his wife and daughter.68 Du Deffand predicted the new prince “will be obliged to marry” for the sake of the family, “and perhaps he will no longer be happy.”69 She was pleased that he retained “the peace of mind of the golden age,” but she was not sure “if his morals have all its purity. The laws men have made might reckon some of his excesses incorrect.” She obviously knew more about this friend than she wrote to other friends. Whatever his peccadillos, “All mothers solicit him for their daughters.”70 Eight months later, Du Deffand reported this prize catch had no desire to be “unusual” but still hesitated to marry. He never did, so the prince de Bauffremont in the marquis de Sade’s tale of “The Obliging Husband” must be his brother Louis.71 According to Sade, “all France” knew he had a predilection for anal intercourse. His young bride’s wary mother therefore instructed her to reject her husband’s “initial proposals” in these terms: “No, sir, a decent woman is not taken in this way. Anywhere else, as much as you please, but not there, certainly not.” On their wedding night, the prince tried to do his duty face-­to-­face, “at least for the first time,” and his

Gossip and Slander  |  149

inexperienced but indoctrinated wife objected. He protested, she persisted, and he obliged by seeking pleasure in his favorite location. More to the point, the prince de Bauffremont involved in the incident Diderot related to his mistress must have been Louis as well: “He was at Saint-­ Hubert [royal château five leagues from Versailles] with the king [Louis XV]. Among the guards there was a young Swiss whom he wished to persuade, in spite of all opposition, that with a pretty lad there were a hundred occasions in which one could do without a pretty woman. The king took the matter badly. M. de Bauffremont was relegated to his estates. He was deprived of the cordon bleu [insignia of the order of the Holy Spirit] that he was on the point of obtaining.”72 This incident earned Louis a few lines in Fuckomania, a “lewd poem” that mocked buggers (see section H). Will we pity them in their just disgrace? When Bauffremont, to the scandal of the court, Scorning the lessons of a lusty king, Dares, at Versailles, in the open gallery, Stoking his fires, to propose An act of buggery to a Swiss Guard, Should we lament that he lacks ribbons [honorific decorations], If the cherished cohort of female fuckers Undercut him and seize the rosettes?73

By the time the text was published in 1775, of course, readers might have assumed the Bauffremont in question was the current prince rather than his deceased brother. Six months after identifying him as a pederast, the Mémoires secrets reported that this Bauffremont maintained one Mlle Coulanges, who “has needs this old lord cannot satisfy,” so she shared her favors with anyone ready to pay.74 Whether or not he had sex with both sexes, he was elected to the estates general in 1789 and imprisoned in 1793 but survived the Terror. The prince left his wealth to a male fortune hunter with whom he was infatuated, but the courts nullified the will after his death.75 During his lifetime, he faced no exile, prison, or reproof, not to mention disgrace. The actor and the notary were not so lucky. Jacques Marie Boutet de  Monvel (1745–­1812) made his debut at the Comédie Française, on 28 April 1770. Two years later, one critic assessed

150 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

his merits and limits in these terms: “He is not an actor without talent. He has intelligence and enthusiasm but nature, unfortunately, has refused him everything else. He is short, small, slim. His voice cracks. He is so thin you pity him, like a lover you always desire to have fed. This is the type of person who should absolutely be excluded from the theatrical profession.”76 And yet, he had an extremely successful career, as an actor as well as author, at least until 1781, when he left the theater, Paris, and France—­not to mention his mistress and three children.77 His departure generated a good deal of gossip. The bankrupt Monvel “was said to have gitons, and they say this type of pleasure cost him a great deal. Whatever the case may be, the lieutenant general of police, having caught wind of the actor’s plans, sent for him several days before, got him to confess, gave him hope that things would work out and demanded his word of honor he would not leave, which he promised.”78 Just days later, the same source confirmed this report. M. Monvel’s business is clearing up, but in a manner more shameful for him. It is said to be certain he was caught in flagrante delicto in the Tuileries, where he was often noticed walking alone in the Path of Manure. This is the real subject of the lieutenant general of police’s order.79 As it was the fifth time, they say this magistrate enjoined him, on the contrary, to escape the punishment with which he was threatened through prompt flight. This crime, which has become very common and even very widespread at court, requires leniency that could not be used if the laws regarding it were enforced vigorously. They prefer to close their eyes to the guilty in order not to spread it even more through publicity. It is said today that M. Monvel is going to Stockholm, where he will direct the theater company, which will be worth 12,000 livres to him, and he will have an additional 6,000 livres in allowances from His Swedish Majesty.80 Another nouvelliste noted, on the same date, that Monvel “was long suspected of antiphysical love for very corpulent men. He confirmed this reputation in taking with him the fat Bathyllus who did not leave his side here.”81 A third explained that he left to avoid “the scandal of a taste he shares with some ancient and modern heroes.”82 The moralistic printer and bookseller Hardy reported,

Gossip and Slander  |  151

It was public knowledge that M.  Monvel, without a taste, without an inclination for the lovable and enchanting sex with the power, since the origin of the world, to subjugate the human race, to confound reason and philosophy, has just left the kingdom very precipitously and gone to Denmark, after having contracted in advance to exercise his talents there on stipulated conditions. He had the misfortune to expose himself to the inevitable pursuits of the police, whose penetrating gaze caught him, for the third time, they say, in the Champs-­Élysées, giving the most incontestable proof of his opposition to what it is natural to seek with such urgency and ardor.83 According to the sarcastic Mayeur de Saint-­Paul, wits made light of his flight. One joked that she was not surprised by his departure because “there are so many fires. The poor boy feared roasting”—­t hat is to say, burning at the stake. Another jested that “he was accused of stealing a pair of cuffs, and he was quite given to this type of knavery”—­namely, the misconduct of men of the cuff.84 The Swedish ambassador to France described the prodigal to Gustave III (who was also interested in men) as a “priceless find” and a “wonderful acquisition.”85 Monvel directed the French theater company in Stockholm for fifteen years. He survived the rumors about his death abroad, married an actress in 1786, returned to his native country, and embraced the Revolution. The author of the satirical petition of The Children of Sodom to the National Assembly (1790) recalled his “treacherously deflowering some schoolboys in the Champs-­Élysées and, forced by circumstances, going to Bavaria and giving public lessons in antiphysics.”86 The author of The Variety Theatre (1791) attributed the comedy to “Monvel the sodomite” and included the following epigraph on the title page: All right, who could portray these acts better than me? My inclinations, my tastes, my brutal lechery, The passionate art of deceiving nature, Are sure means of seeing you satisfied.87

The actual Monvel composed Revolutionary plays, most notably The Cloistered Victims, and delivered Revolutionary orations, most notably on the Festival of Reason (10 November 1793).88

152 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

The tales about Monvel’s conduct and exile illustrate not only some confusion about geography but also the variety of serious and humorous ways of describing and discussing sexual relations between men in his time. Since then, the tales have been dismissed or downplayed in accounts of his life. The massive nineteenth-­century “universal” biographical dictionary published by the Michaud brothers declined to repeat “conjectures” about the reasons for Monvel’s departure from France.89 According to the modern Dictionnaire de biographie française, he left the country “for unspecified reasons,” possibly including “awkward trouble about morals.”90 The author of the full-­length biography published in 1998 cites only one of the relevant sources and considers “an affair of morals” only one of several “plausible explanations” for the actor’s flight.91 Last but not least, Pierre Margantin transacted notarial business at 516 rue Saint-­Honoré, near rue de l’Échelle, from 1777 to 1789. His clients included Nicolas Bergasse, who solicited contributions to support the work of Franz Anton Mesmer, and the cardinal de Rohan, who thought he bought the infamous diamond necklace for Marie Antoinette. Federici scolded and released a married notary in the Champs-­Élysées on 2 July 1781. If the naughty notary in question was Margantin, he ignored the warning and was arrested again in October. Master Margantin, royal councilor, notary to the Châtelet of Paris . . . living on rue Saint-­Honoré near rue des Boucheries [nonextant, 1st arr.], the spouse of a very pretty person, daughter of M. Leblanc, jewelry merchant on quai des Orfèvres, from whom he received, judging from what people assert, fifty thousand écus with the marriage, has just been caught with a Savoyard, around 7 p.m. on one of the preceding days, by the patrol of the Swiss Guards appointed to maintain good order in the Champs-­Élysées.92 He has provided, most unfortunately for him, proof of a frightful as well as bizarre taste fought by watchful authority, which seeks to banish it from society, in proportion with the fact that, through inconceivable depravation, it seemed to become more common. After identifying himself to the patrol as a public official, he was conducted first to commissaire Foucault in rue du Coq Saint-­Jean-­en-­Grève, who is specifically charged by the police with establishing and reporting all acts of this type. This commissaire, although begged by master Margantin not to ruin him, could not refrain from reporting the

Gossip and Slander  |  153

offense and the circumstances to M. Lenoir, Lieutenant General of Police, who has now become the sole arbiter of punishment in such cases. In order to avoid scandal, people heard this notary will be forced to sell his office, but things would not go any farther with him. An attorney afflicted with and convicted of the same offense a while before was not spared in this way . . . he was shipped off to the islands.93 The well-­connected notary, unlike the unfortunate lawyer, suffered no punishment, and there is no trace of his arrest in Foucault’s papers. He did not sell his office until 1789, in which year he served as an elector and member of the new municipal government.94 It was not his civic distinction but his sexual reputation that inspired the author of The Children of Sodom to include this “roué of fashionable society,” along with Boutet de Monvel, among the delegates of the Order of the Cuff.95

55. Charles Marie, Marquis de Créquy, and Father Césaire, 1784–­85 Pederasty, the fine vice in fashion today, like tribadism among women, has been lately carried to such a high degree of scandal at court that His Majesty [Louis XVI, who reigned from 1774 to 1792] wished several lords caught in flagrante delicto to be treated harshly.96 There is talk of a sort of seraglio they had established at Versailles, to which bardaches for their use made their way. It was pointed out to the king that the clamor of judicial punishment would be very dangerous, would moreover dishonor many great families and, finally, would no doubt stimulate more and more taste for and curiosity about this sin. As a result of these remonstrances, the king contented himself with exiling some of them. They mention most notably the marquis de Cre***, honorary master of Madame’s household.97 They accused him of debauching one of the queen’s haidouks [guards dressed like Balkan rebels against the Turks].98 Since he has been absent and on his estate in Flanders [province in northern France] for two months, this rumor has gained currency to the extent that they assert his friend M. d’Angiviller wrote him that he would do well to return in order to demolish, by showing himself,

154 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

the troubling rumors that were circulating about him. However he has not yet arrived. On the same subject, they mention a famous Parisian preacher, Father Césaire, Barefoot Carmelite [mendicant order] friar, father Elysée’s cousin. They say people wanted to ruin him in the Franche-­ Comté, his native region, where he is presently, and he is accused of sodomy before the parlement of that province. We must await clarifications about this strange trial.99 Tribadism has always been in fashion among women, like pederasty among men, but they have never flaunted these vices with as much scandal and parade as today. With regard to the former, as it is not punished by the laws, it is less astonishing. Thus our prettiest women indulge in it, glory, triumph in it.100 Extract from a letter from Besançon, dated 8 February: I hear nothing more said about the trial of father Césaire, accused of sodomy, whom you asked me for news about. As he has in some sense judged and condemned himself through his flight, there is every appearance that the matter will stop there, given the danger of enlightening the public too much about these secret horrors. We are not as familiar with the vice of sodomy in the provinces as you are at court and in Paris. What a scandal, when one thinks about it, to see an old man, a monk, a provincial administrator of his order, a preacher, obliged to defend himself against such an accusation! What is more, the bugger is in Rome, they say, in the midst of those gentlemen.101 Charles Marie, marquis de Créquy (1737–1801), married Marie Anne Félix Du Muy (1745–­1820) in 1768, and they had one child, Tancrède (1769–­1770). After the boy’s death, the marquise moved to Switzerland. After a long military career, the marquis published a life of Marshal Nicolas de Catinat (1637–­1712) in 1775 and received the title of marshal himself in 1780. The entertaining but apocryphal memoirs with his mother’s name on the title page report that after a long illness, he left for Italy in the spring of 1784, but they do not mention the exile from court. Mother and son had difficult relations over the years. She opposed his marriage and challenged his will. In the spring of 1789, she complained that he never wrote and declared that no one could be “more awkward and less suited” for participation in the estates

Gossip and Slander  |  155

general than her lazy son.102 Like Bauffremont, he was arrested in 1793 but survived the Revolution. Césaire Bergerot joined the Barefoot Carmelites in Besançon at a young age. He taught philosophy for decades and eventually assumed regional administrative responsibilities. His cousin Jean François Copel (1726–­1783), known as father Elysée, joined the order in 1745. After a dozen years, he left for Paris, where he gained fame in the pulpit. Through his influence, no doubt, Césaire preached Lenten sermons at Versailles in 1768 and Notre Dame in 1769. He published the first volume of his late cousin’s sermons in 1784. The incident that prompted his departure from Besançon occurred toward the end of that year. Returning from dinner with local notables, the well-­dressed Césaire was accosted by a sentinel who asked him for the time. When the monk pulled out his pocket watch, the sentinel grabbed it and demanded a hundred écus for its return. When Césaire threatened to report him, the thief threatened to accuse him of giving him the watch in making “infamous” proposals. After his arrest, he did make this accusation. Without checking the criminal series in the uninventoried archives of the Parlement, it is not obvious who was prosecuted for what: attempted sodomy or actual robbery?103 Nineteenth-­century historians provide somewhat different accounts of the incident but agree about the outcome.104 The magistrates convicted the sentinel. And yet the well-­established, well-­respected, well-­connected Father Césaire left for Rome and later Naples, where he found an asylum in the Carmelite monastery and a position as chaplain to the French ambassador.105 The historians suggest he left Besançon to escape anticlerical harassment by the younger generation in the wake of the trial.

SECTION F

Tradition

Introduction The Catholic Church condemned same-­sex relations, but the French clergy rarely addressed this distasteful and dangerous topic in so many words—­in catechism, in confession, and in sermons—­because they did not want to lead uninformed parishioners into temptation. They discussed the destruction of the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), the commandment about adultery and, by extension, other forms of sexual misconduct (Exodus 20), and serious offenses punished by death in the Pentateuch (Leviticus 20) without discussing sex between men or women in detail.1 Jurists articulated the traditional condemnation of same-­sex relations more frequently and directly. They usually addressed various nonprocreative sexual activities—­masturbation, oral and anal intercourse within marriage, same-­sex relations, bestiality—­under the same umbrella, sometimes in Latin and sometimes in formulaic or elliptical language. The documentary volume Homosexuality in Early Modern France, edited by Merrick and Ragan, includes substantial discussions of the subject, published in 1715, 1771, 1780, 1785, and 1787, from treatises on and encyclopedias of jurisprudence.2 Like those texts, the selections in this section invoke Scripture as well as nature, history, and social order. Defenders of tradition engaged reformers on their own turf (section G) by exploring Greek and Roman sources and explaining the personal and collective consequences of sexual deviance. They deplored judicial laxity, but they also endorsed conventional distinctions in the punishment of men and women, adults and children, and private and public misconduct.

Tradition | 157

56. Pierre François Muyart de Vouglans (1713–­1 791), “On Sodomy,” Foundations of Criminal Law (1757)3 Muyart de Vouglans practiced law before the Parlement of Paris, which led the resistance to royal absolutism in the eighteenth century. Louis XV dismissed the parlements in 1771 and named him to the new court constituted by Chancellor Maupeou. Louis XVI restored the parlements in 1774 and appointed Muyart de Vouglans to another royal court. He defended tradition and denounced reform in this work as well as his refutation of Beccaria (1767) and treatise on The Criminal Laws of France (1780). In this article, he cited Jewish and Roman law and deplored the persistence of sodomy in his time, which he attributed, wrongly, to secrecy rather than laxity. The police, after all, arrested men in public spaces throughout the 1750s. This crime, which takes its name from the abominable city that is mentioned in Sacred History, is committed by a man with a man or by a woman with a woman. It is also committed by a man with a woman, when they do not employ the usual means of generation. It is committed, finally, by a man upon himself, what the canonists call “mollities” and the Latins “mastupration.” The penalty for such a great crime cannot be less than death. The terrible vengeance that divine justice inflicted on the impious cities where this crime was common shows well enough that it cannot be punished too severely and especially when it is committed between two persons of the same sex. This penalty is expressly stated in Leviticus 20, in these terms: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” The same penalty is prescribed by the Authentic [traditional name for Justinian’s Novellae] (“so that they may not be made dissolute”) against those who fall into this detestable crime.4 The law Cum vir, in the code on adultery, 31, provides that those who fall into this crime should be punished by burning alive.5 This penalty, which was incorporated into our jurisprudence, is applied to women as well as men, to minors as well as adults. There are authors, however, such as Menochio, who claim that, in the case of minors, it

158 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

is appropriate to order a form of capital punishment less severe than that by fire and even that it can be converted to corporal punishment when the minor is of a young age and less than fourteen years old.6 But if this crime warrants such severe punishment when it is committed by lay people and, with more reason, by priests and monks, who should provide an example of chastity, for which they have taken a specific vow. There have been sentences that discharged priests pursued for this crime of the accusation and at the same time excluded them nonetheless, on the basis of simple suspicion, from all functions or employments involving the education of children. Duperray cites one of this type dated 10 December 1687.7 Moreover, however rigorous the prohibitions and penalties associated with this crime may be, a crime that divine and earthly justice have taken arms against, it must be agreed, to the shame of our century, that it has not failed to perpetuate itself until our time. We have seen recent examples in the persons of Bruno Lenoir and Jean Diot, who, by a sentence dated 5 June 1750, were burned in the place de Grève. It is true that if the examples of punishment are not as common as the crime is, it can be said that is less as a result of the negligence of the magistrates than as a result of the secret precautions those who fall into it have the habit of taking, to conceal knowledge of it from the public.

57. Fortunato Bartolomeo de Felice (1723–­1 789), “Pederasty,” Encyclopedia, or Universal Reasoned Dictionary of Human Knowledge (1774)8 Italian Catholic professor turned Swiss Protestant translator, publisher, and journalist, Felice not only contributed this article but also edited the whole set in which it appeared. Known as the Encyclopedia of Yverdon because of its place of publication in Francophone Switzerland, this compendium is more voluminous and more traditional than its celebrated predecessor, edited by Diderot and d’Alembert.9 Felice located the issue of same-­sex relations safely in the past and insisted, correctly, that Greek and Latin sources not only condoned but also condemned same-­sex relations, with a variety of social and moral considerations in mind.

Tradition | 159

It is the crime of those who commit impurities with boys against the order of nature. This word is Greek and means “love of boys.” Divine and human laws condemned those guilty of this infamous crime to death. Sodom was consumed by fire, along with four other cities because their inhabitants were immersed in this crime. Divine justice decreed the death penalty against those who defile themselves through this crime. “They shall be put to death.” Leviticus 20.10 The law Cum vir, in the Julian code on adultery, orders that those who are convicted of this crime should be burned alive, a penalty that most European courts still inflict on those they can convict of such an excess. If ancient and modern history did not lead us, in the strongest manner, to believe that entire nations defiled themselves through this infamous crime, the honor of humanity would persuade us that men have always regarded this infamous impurity with horror. But alas, what a deceptive illusion! Let us content ourselves with giving a historical sketch of this crime among the ancients, and let us draw a curtain over the conduct of the men of our time. This crime is all the more pernicious, both to the public and to individuals, in that it overthrows natural and civil order at the same time. It thwarts generation, which is the greatest work of nature and its only end, leads to the destruction of the human race and accustoms males destined to be formed through vigorous and generous exercises to a lax life. As they advance in age, they can no longer make a profit from their bodies and are forced, in order to provide for themselves, to prostitute others and engage in other types of shameful traffic. I do not mention the pride and insolence inspired in young folks by the number of their admirers. Through flattery and shameful complaisance, the latter effeminize the souls along with the bodies of the former so thoroughly that, grown up and abandoned, they continue to cultivate the vices they contracted. What could be more unworthy of men, finally, than to make friendship, the most sacred of virtues, which nature gave them to unite their souls, serve the most detestable of passions? The Greeks were widely accused of this crime throughout antiquity. The learned Doctor Potter, who was later an archbishop, took great pains, in his excellent book on Greek Antiquities, to cleanse

160 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

them of this accusation.11 He claims that this love of boys, which has been regarded as such a great crime, was innocent and even virtuous. That would be desirable for the honor of humanity. I will not maintain that this love, which the Greeks are accused of, was always criminal and depraved. But it seems clearly proven to me that this abominable and unnatural vice was very common among them and that the public laws of several cities sanctioned it. I do not need other authorities than those Doctor Potter cites. Maximus of Tyre, one of these authorities, considers it an act of heroism in Agesilaus to have loved a young barbarian of great beauty, without requiring of him any complaisance other than allowing him to look at him and admire him.12 He praises this action as a victory greater than the one he won over the Greeks, as an act of virtue more admirable than the bravery of Leonidas, who died to save his fatherland.13 Maximus of Tyre, Dissertations, X. There is a passage in Epictetus in which Socrates is praised in an equally excessive manner on the same score.14 “Go,” he says, “and see Socrates reclining near Alcibiades and ignoring his youth and beauty.15 What a victory he was sure to win. What palms more glorious than those of the Olympic games! He well deserves to be saluted with these honorable titles: great conqueror, world conqueror!” Did Socrates deserve such great praise if this crime had not been so common in Athens? Epictetus, Dissertations, bk. II, ch. 18, §4.16 Such pompous praise would assuredly be quite ridiculous and most absurd if the love of boys were always innocent in Sparta, as Doctor Potter claims. The testimony of Xenophon and Plutarch is cited to show that this love, sanctioned by the laws of Lycurgus, was pure and praiseworthy.17 But the great partiality of these two authors in favor of the Lacedaemonians [Spartans], the high opinion they had of their laws and customs, their tendency to interpret favorably everything that concerned the republic of Sparta, weaken the weight of their testimony considerably. We will soon see that Plutarch is not in agreement with himself in what he asserts on this score. As for Xenophon, it must be noted that while he sang the praises of the Spartans, he accused the other Greeks of being given over to this criminal love and even consecrating it by their laws in some places. “I know,” he says, “that some cannot imagine that the love of boys was pure and innocent among the Lacedaemonians, and I am all

Tradition | 161

the more surprised that it became a criminal and unnatural passion in several other regions of Greece where the public laws sanctioned it.”18 This testimony of Xenophon against the other Greeks is all the stronger in that he was more favorable to the Lacedaemonians. This historian, so inclined to excuse the latter, would have done the same thing with regard to the others if they had been excusable. But Plato, his contemporary, whose testimony must be of greater weight, assumes in bk. X of his Treatise on Laws, that the love of boys, which he rightly condemns as a crime contrary to nature, was common among the Lacedaemonians and Cretans. Plato, On Laws, bk. VIII, Works, p. 645, G and H, Lyon edition.19 Doctor Potter does not agree, it is true, that this love was criminal among the Cretans. He claims that nothing took place between men in love with each other that was not in conformity with the strictest laws of virtue. On this he cites Maximus of Tyre and Strabo, who say the Cretans professed to love in boys not the outward beauty of the body but rather the virtuous dispositions of the soul, their courage and their prudent and orderly conduct.20 At least this was the pretext they used to excuse themselves and if this excuse was true with regard to some, it was surely not so for all. Let us examine what Strabo says attentively and we will see, as long as we are impartial, that he did not consider this love as completely innocent among the Cretans. This passage as a whole suggests the contrary. Such is the assessment of it that the learned M. Goguet gives in his book on The Origin of Laws, Arts and Sciences. He quotes Strabo’s words as proof that the laws of Crete sanctioned this vice against nature.21 Plutarch, who describes this love, in practice in Athens and Sparta, as having nothing blameworthy about it, condemns it in the Cretans, who gave it the same name (They called it “abduction.” Plutarch, The Education of Children, Works, vol. 2, p. 11, Xylander edition) by which it is designated in the passage of Strabo that was just mentioned.22 Strabo, bk. X, p. 739, 740, Amsterdam edition.23 Plato often reproaches the Cretans for their impurities of the same type, not only in book VIII of the Treatise on Laws, already cited, but also the first book. He says they invoke the example of Jupiter and Ganymede to justify themselves. Plato, On Laws, bk. I, p. 569, G, Lyon edition.24 Aristotle claims the Cretans feared excessive population and that it was for this reason they sanctioned the love of boys in that island by

162 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

a specific law. Aristotle, Politics, bk. II, ch. 10, Works, vol. 2, p. 333, A, Paris 1629 edition.25 Plutarch often contradicts himself in the judgments he makes of the love of boys practiced among the Greeks. Sometimes he seems inclined to approve, supposing it pure and virtuous. At other times he proves the contrary. In the life of Pelopidas he says that the legislators encouraged this love to soften the manners of the young and that it yielded fortunate results.26 But in his treatise of The Education of Children this great philosopher, who was certainly a bit too inclined to judge his Theban compatriots favorably, expressly declares that the love of boys is something to be absolutely avoided, although it was in practice in Thebes and Elis. Plutarch, The Education of Children, Works, vol. 2, p. 11, Xylander edition. And as he associates Thebes with Elis here, one cannot doubt that he is speaking of a criminal passion. For we learn from Maximus of Tyre that the inhabitants of Elis encouraged this license by law. Maximus of Tyre, Dissertation X, p. 128, Oxford 1677 edition.27 This author speaks about it this way in the very dissertation in which he claims to cleanse some Greek cities of this accusation. But what Plutarch says about it in his treatise entitled On Love, Ερωτιχος in Greek, Amatorius in Latin, proves in a tangible manner how common this abominable vice was in Greece and to what extent it was sanctioned there by custom and by laws. One of the interlocutors vindicates this love, praises it and greatly recommends it, citing the example of the Lacedaemonians, Boetians, Cretans and Chalcidians, who were quite given over to it. Another interlocutor, who probably expresses Plutarch’s true sentiments, condemns him in the strongest manner and demonstrates its pernicious effects.28 Athenaeus asserts that it was not only practiced but also sanctioned and encouraged in several Greek cities.29 Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, bk. XIII, p. 602, Lyon edition.30 It is true that there was a law in Athens that prohibited it. Plutarch seems to recommend the love of boys as virtuous, as it was practiced in Sparta and Athens. He considers it worthy of being copied, whereas he condemned it in Thebes and Elis. Plutarch, The Education of Children, Works, vol. 2, p. 11, Xylander edition. The ancient authors and Plutarch himself hardly agree in what they say about the laws of Lycurgus on this point. But whatever the intention of the legislators was, in ordering

Tradition | 163

the love of boys, we have sufficient reasons to believe that this law, too well observed by the Lacedaemonians, was not observed without crime. If we believe Plutarch on this score, Solon, the great legislator of the Athenians, was not always immune to the beauty of boys, and he did not have the courage to resist the force of love. It is true that his poems provide only too much evidence for these accusations. He loved Pisistratus because of his extreme beauty.31 He promulgated a law expressly prohibiting pederasty or the love of boys among slaves. No doubt, says Plutarch, because he considered this passion as something too grand and too noble for vile souls. This law, which did not concern free people, seemed to invite them to engage in actions that the legislator did not think he should prohibit for them. Plutarch, Life of Solon, at the beginning.32 Also, in the dialogue of the amorous Protogenes, one of the interlocutors does not fail to cite this law of Solon in favor of his opinion. Plutarch, Works, vol. 2, p. 751, Xylander edition. Maximus of Tyre, who says everything he can to exculpate Socrates, accused of this vice, agrees that at the time when this philosopher flourished, pederasty had reached the height of heinousness in all parts of Greece, but especially in Athens and that all the cities were full of unjust and wicked lovers and young lads who had been abandoned after being shamefully abused by them. Maximus of Tyre, Dissertation X, at the beginning.33 If, then, there was a law in Athens that prohibited this frightful practice, it was hardly in force, or rather this law concerned only slaves, as we have just seen. To all these testimonies let us add that of Cicero, who described this infamous vice as very common among the Greeks. He identified its cause in the license of the public games in which young folks were allowed to show themselves naked. He observes that their poets, their great men, their scholars and their philosophers, given over to this passion, like the populace, even dared to glorify it. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, bk. IV, ch. 33.34 It was a custom not only of some individual cities but of all Greece in general. In speaking of what contributed to the good fortune of Dionysius, he does not forget to mention the beauty of the minions he had, following Greek custom.35 “He had, according to Greek custom, certain young men joined to him in love.” Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, bk. V, ch. 20,

164 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

Davies ed.36 Lactantius has Cicero say that Greece had done something daring and dangerous by consecrating images of cupids in the public gymnasiums.37 “Cicero said that Greece undertook a great and bold design in consecrating the images of cupids and loves in the gymnasia.” Lactantius, Divine Institutes, bk. I, ch. 20 XX, p. 106. ed. Leiden, 1660. The shameful vice against nature we have accused the Greeks of was not less common among the Romans, especially in the later centuries. Some of their poets mention it frequently. Cicero portrays Cotta, a man of distinguished rank and genius in Rome, acknowledging himself guilty of this frightful vice, accusing the most distinguished Romans of it and discussing it in a relaxed and familiar manner, like an enjoyable entertainment, sanctioned by ancient philosophers, which could not be considered criminal or shameful.38 See Doctor Taylor’s notes to and paraphrase of the epistle to the Romans 1:26.39 Here is the passage from Cicero: “For how few men are beautiful? When I was at Athens, among troops of youths, scarcely one was to be found. I see you smile, but it is really so. Besides, we who, by the allowance of ancient philosophers, are admirers of young men are often pleased with deformities.” Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, bk. I, ch. 28. Cotta then cites the example of Alcaeus, then that of C. Catullus, in love with young Roscius who was strabismic [unable to direct both eyes at the same thing at the same time].40 From one of Seneca’s letters, it also seems this vice was nor rare or hidden or shameful in Rome. He says that in his time there were troops and armies of young lads distinguished by their origin or their color who were raised with great care to be used in this way. “Troops of unfortunate boys, armies of catamites sorted by nation and color.” Seneca, Letters, XV.41 (D. F.)

58. Antoine Joseph Thorillon (b. 1742), Thoughts About Criminal Laws (1788)42 Thorillon, former attorney in the Châtelet, collected these thoughts, as he stated in the preface, for the benefit of his fellow citizens. He despised pederasty, but he endorsed less severe and less public punishments for religious and practical reasons.

Tradition | 165

Pederasty or sin against nature, monster reborn from the ashes of Gomorrah. This crime is so horrible, especially some types of it—­there are three of them (see Novellae 77 and 141)—­that it revolts us and should not be discussed anywhere in writing, for fear of making those who are ignorant of its existence familiar with it.43 I still recall my state of incredulous astonishment when someone told me about it. I needed more than one attestation. The less a crime is known, and especially a crime against nature, the less it is committed. But unfortunately it has infected all ages (see Genesis 19), and it has been punished with death. In keeping with our morals, La Combe says, it is punished with the stake, etc.44 I agree that these men who resemble animals so much should be cut off from society, although they offend it less than God. Because of the scandal, which is one of the genuine evils they cause to civil order, and moreover to give them time to appease divine anger through sincere penitence, we must spare them physical death and substitute the penalties of the galleys, etc. that I have proposed. As for tribades, I think exile for a period of time is sufficient. Their crime does not have the same character of animality. But, for these shameful crimes, it is prudent to punish only secretly. As M. G*** observed to me in this regard, we have always seen that the more publicity is given to the punishment of pederasts, the more the guilty multiply. . . . He said we must seek to have the name and even the thought of this crime forgotten. For this reason I have proposed secret penalties. In this case, it cannot be said that I contradict the principle of publicity in punishment because it is better to ignore the crime than to learn its punishment.

59. Nicolas Sylvain Bergier (1718–­1790), “Sodom, Sodomy,” Methodical Encyclopedia, Theology (1790)45 As professor of theology in Besançon and canon of Notre-­Dame in Paris, Bergier defended orthodoxy against unbelievers, most notably d’Holbach, Rousseau, and Voltaire. He expounded its tenets in a ten-­volume dogmatic history (1780) and a three-­volume theological dictionary (1788) that was reprinted throughout the nineteenth century.

166 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

Sacred history (Genesis 19) describes the inhabitants of Sodom, a city in Palestine, as an abominable people, given over to disorders contrary to nature, whom God exterminated by making fire from heaven fall upon them and their neighbors. . . . Philosophers who reflected on the progress of human passions have observed that the habit of lewdness with women often leads to crimes against nature and this is proved only too well by experience. Saint Paul accuses pagans in general and especially pagan philosophers of these disorders (Romans 1:26–­27). The truth of this reproach is confirmed by Lucian, by other profane authors and by the Church Fathers. Several modern unbelievers have discussed it in a manner that proves they do not have for this crime all the horror it deserves. Our laws, as well as those of the Jews, condemn it to execution by fire, but unless the scandal is public, it is judged to be better to ignore it than punish it.

SECTION G

Enlightenment

Introduction Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu (1689–­1755), set the stage for debates about same-­sex relations in the second half of the eighteenth century in his monumental and influential Spirit of the Laws (1748), in which he explored patterns in the diversity of human customs across cultures and centuries.1 After renouncing any intention of excusing or defending “the crime against nature,” he attributed its incidence and persistence not to human sinfulness but to social practices: male nudity in Greek gymnasiums, male isolation in French schools, and male polygamy in Asian seraglios.2 Absent such practices, he asserted, nature would lead, if not drive, males to females through the pursuit of pleasure and desire for children. Whether or not the men of letters and literary lawyers represented in this section cited Montesquieu by name, they largely repeated and expanded his contentions and conclusions. They offered functional explanations without ethical vindications. Reformers addressed the condemnations of same-­sex relations in the Bible and in some ancient texts and laws, the occurrence of sodomy in other times and places, and the social causes and effects of sex between persons of the same sex.3 They cited classics, history, and travel accounts. They argued about whether men in Greece and Rome, the bedrocks of Western culture, actually had sex with males, and in doing so, they sometimes made the same sorts of important distinctions that the ancients themselves made about class, age, and role. They also argued about what to make of the baffling berdaches (native males who assumed female dress and roles) in the “uncivilized” Americas and “unnatural” practices among “undercivilized” peoples in the Old World, including the Chinese and the Turks.4 Some insisted that same-­sex relations endangered society by inhibiting procreation and feminizing men.

168 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

Others connected sodomy with sexually segregated institutions (churches, schools, and armies, not to mention seraglios) or with urbanization, which supposedly promoted both debauchery and celibacy. A few noted that some cultures had approved or at least allowed sodomy in order to prevent overpopulation, to promote male bonding among citizens and soldiers, or to provide a sexual outlet for husbands during their absences from their homes or the pregnancies of their wives. None of the reformers suggested that society could not legitimately stigmatize conduct with social causes (some but not all schoolboys turned sodomite, and they should be able to correct or at least control themselves) or, of course, that nature itself might make some humans desire their own sex. Most of them invoked the problematic notion of nature without recognizing its slippery character. Nature, descriptively, gives males and females distinct organs that they can use for reproduction, but nature does not, prescriptively, require all males and all females to use those organs exclusively for reproduction and not in other ways that produce pleasure. That injunction, stated in religious or secular terms, comes from culture. Buffon (#65) exposed the tension between objective empiricism and normative ventriloquism in his discussion of gray and red partridges. In his dissection of traditional jurisprudence, Servin (#68) argued that humans who desired their own sex used their bodies, like other resources, differently but not necessarily culpably. Authors who cited widespread concern about population did not realize that demographic growth was already under way in France and, more importantly, did not admit that some men who had sex with men and women who had sex with women also had sex with the opposite sex and that the rest could do likewise if necessary for the future of the species.5 Most reformers rejected the literal authority of the Bible but also considered same-­sex relations contrary to nature, by which they actually meant social utility (demographic necessity) or hostility (historic prejudice). Thus we see the adjectives abominable, criminal, depraved, disgusting, filthy, frightful, horrible, inconceivable, infamous, odious, perverted, shameful, and unspeakable scattered throughout these texts. Some of the most remarkable propositions about nature in this section concern women. Several reformers suggested that some ancient and modern women, deformed by nature, had an enlarged clitoris that allowed them to penetrate other women, without conceding that it was natural for them to do so.6 They assumed that nature intended men to penetrate women and that penetration without a penis could not result in satisfaction any more than procreation. Tribades enjoyed illusory pleasure as well as legal immunity, in

Enlightenment | 169

practice if not principle, since they did not have “real” sex. Peuchet (#72) claimed that Greek women were deformed by nature in other ways, in their features and figures as well as by offensive discharges, without arguing that it was therefore natural for men to seek pleasure with other men, who were much more attractive and alluring than such females. In other words, even if nature (speaking objectively) constituted humans in ways that made it possible for women to have sex with each other or probable for men to seek sex with each other, it would be unnatural (speaking subjectively) for them to do so. Men of letters and literary lawyers, some more fully and freely than others, considered why some humans desired members of their own sex as well as whether such desire was unnatural in itself or detrimental to society and whether it should be stigmatized and penalized. They did not address all these questions sequentially, exhaustively, or coherently. Helvétius (#60) insisted that private misconduct, as in Greece, did not always endanger public order and welfare, but others assumed that society had a vested interest in encouraging marriage and discouraging same-­sex relations, which they considered offensive (hostility) if not destructive (utility) as well. Reformers agreed, however, about the death penalty, which the magistrates no longer applied. In the course of debates about crime and punishment, fueled and refueled by essay competitions sponsored by French and foreign academies of arts, letters, and sciences, they rejected it more vociferously than they needed to. Like the police of Paris (as noted in the last paragraphs of #56), they thought that sex between males should be punished in ways that did not publicize it if and when it involved minors or provoked scandal and that sex between women did not require such measures. Without endorsing personal sexual liberty in principle, reformers left consenting and circumspect adults—­male and female—­to their own devices, subject not to judicial retribution but to collective condemnation. They rephrased religious reprobation in the language of natural imperative and endorsed traditional prejudice in the name of remedial opinion.

60. Claude Adrien Helvétius (1715–­1771), “On Virtues of Prejudice and Genuine Virtues,” On the Mind (1758)7 After thirteen years as a tax farmer, Helvétius sold his office and devoted himself to the life of letters. The Parlement, the Sorbonne, and the papacy

170 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

condemned this treatise, in which he outlined a materialist human science modeled on mechanistic natural science. In this passage, Helvétius, who enjoyed flagellation, made a decisive distinction between public with and private matters without political consequences.8 With regard to morals, we call all types of libertinage, and especially that of men with women, religious corruption. This sort of corruption, for which I am not an apologist, is no doubt criminal because it offends God, but it is not, however, incompatible with a nation’s welfare. Various peoples believed and still believe this sort of corruption is not criminal. It is in France, since it violates the country’s laws, but it would be less so if wives were common and children were declared children of the state. This crime would not be politically dangerous then. Indeed, if we look around the globe, we see it populated with various nations in which what we call libertinage is not only not regarded as moral corruption but is allowed by law or sanctioned by religion. . . . What a lot of evils, some will say, associated with this sort of corruption! But could we not reply that libertinage is politically dangerous in a state only when it is contrary to the country’s laws or when it is combined with some other vice in government? Some would add in vain that the peoples among whom this libertinage reigns are scorned by the whole world. But, without speaking of the Orientals and the savage or warlike nations that, given to all sorts of pleasures, are happy internally and fearsome externally, what people more famous than the Greeks? A people who are still today the wonder, marvel and honor of humanity. Before the Peloponnesian War, a period fatal to their virtue, what nation and what country more fertile in virtuous men and great men!9 We know, however, the Greeks’ taste for the most indecent love. This taste was so widespread that Aristedes, nicknamed the Just, that Aristedes whom the Athenians said people were tired of hearing praised all the time, had, however, loved Themistocles.10 It was the beauty of the young Stesileus, from the island of Teos, who, inspiring in their souls the most violent desires, lit the torches of hatred between them.11 Plato was a libertine. Even Socrates, declared the

Enlightenment | 171

wisest of men by Apollo’s oracle, loved Alcibiades and Archelaus.12 He had two wives and lived with all the courtesans. It is then certain, according to the notion people have of good morals, that the most virtuous Greeks would have been regarded as nothing but corrupt men in Europe. Now this sort of moral corruption, found in Greece, carried to the extreme in the very time when this country produced great men in all fields, when it made Persia tremble and shed the greatest luster.13 One might conclude that moral corruption, which I label “religious,” is not incompatible with a state’s greatness and happiness.

61. Helvétius, “On the Formation of Tribes,” On Man, His Intellectual Faculties and Education (1773)14 In this treatise, published posthumously, Helvétius explored the social, ethical, and political implications of the psychology expounded in On the Mind. In this passage, he described same-­sex relations as a product of social control, not just personal desire. The misfortunes occasioned by an excessive population were known to the ancients. Consequently there were no measures they did not employ to decrease it. Socratic love in Crete was one of them. According to M. Goquet, magistrate in the Parlement, this love was allowed there by the laws of Minos.15 If a young man hired for so much time escaped from his lover’s house, he was summoned before the magistrate and, by the authority of the laws, returned to the hands of the same lover for the appointed length of time. The reason for this strange law, according to Plato and Aristotle, was the fear in Crete of an excessive population. It was with the same view that Pythagoras required fasting and abstinence of his disciples.16 Fasters produce few children. The Pythagoreans were succeeded by the Vestals [celibate Roman priestesses] and finally monks, who, perhaps enslaved by the law of continence for the same reason, are consequently nothing but the heirs of the ancient pederasts.

172 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

62. Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach (1723–­1 789), “On Christian Virtues,” Christianity Unveiled (1767)17 D’Holbach, born in Palatine Germany and naturalized in France, contributed hundreds of articles to the encyclopedia edited by his friend Diderot and published a series of scandalous books about the architecture and operations of the natural and human worlds without his name on the title page. The Parlement condemned some of them, including this one. Here d’Holbach, like other philosophes, blamed sexual corruption on unnatural institutions. It was as a result of these fanatical ideas that, especially in the early ages of Christianity, the deserts and forests were peopled with perfect Christians who, in removing themselves from the world, deprived their families of support and their countries of citizens in order to devote themselves to a lazy and contemplative life. Hence those legions of monks and cenobites who, under the banners of various enthusiasts, enrolled themselves in a militia useless or harmful to the state. They believed they deserved heaven for burying talents necessary to their fellow citizens, for devoting themselves to inactivity and celibacy. It is thus that in countries where Christians are most faithful to their religion, a crowd of men oblige themselves through piety to remain useless and miserable all their lives. What heart is cruel enough to ignore the tears shed over the fate of these victims by an enchanting sex that nature destined to make ours happy? Unlucky dupes of youthful enthusiasm or forced by the selfish design of a controlling family, they are forever banished from the world. Rash vows bond them forever to boredom, solitude, slavery, misery. Promises contradicted by nature force them into virginity. It is in vain that a more mature spirit in them protests sooner or later and makes them moan about the imprudent vows. Society punishes them by ignoring their uselessness, their voluntary sterility. Cut off from their families, they spend in boredom, bitterness and tears a life forever troubled by offensive and despotic jailers. In the end, isolated, without assistance and connections, there remains for them only the frightful consolation of seducing other victims, who share with them the vexations of their solitude and torture without remedy. . . .

Enlightenment | 173

It seems that Christianity has done everything to turn people away from marriage and to make them prefer celibacy, which leads necessarily to debauchery, adultery and dissolution (1). (1) Nature, however, never loses its rights. Celibates feel needs like other men. They find outlets only in prostitution or adultery or in means that decency does not allow to be named. In Spain, Portugal, Italy, monks and priests are monsters of lewdness. Debauchery, pederasty, adultery are so common in these countries because of the celibates. Laymen’s vices would become more rare if marriage were not indissoluble.

63. François Marie Arouet de Voltaire (1694–­1 778), “On Sodomy, in Which It Is Proved Against Mr. Larcher That This Crime Has Never Been Sanctioned,” Defense of My Uncle Against His Infamous Persecutors (1767)18 In 1765, Voltaire published his Philosophical Dictionary, including an important article on “Socratic Love,” and The Philosophy of History, with the name of the late abbé Bazin on the title page.19 The classicist Pierre Henri Larcher (1726–­1812) critiqued it in his Supplement to the Philosophy of History (1767).20 Voltaire defended his work by adopting the voice of the putative author’s nephew. Here, as elsewhere, he downplayed same-­sex relations in ancient cultures and accused his enemies of immoral misconduct.21 Note the dismissive and derisive comments about unrefined “hackwriters” with “vile needs” and handy victims. My uncle, always cautious, always prudent, always convinced that laws could not have violated morality, expresses himself in this way in The Philosophy of History: “Nor will I believe Sextus Empiricus, who claims that pederasty was commanded among the Persians.”22 How pitiable! How to imagine that men could have made a law that, if it had been executed, would have destroyed the human race? On the contrary, pederasty was explicitly forbidden in the book of Zend, and that is what one sees in the abridged Sadder [abridged version of the Zend-­Avesta], where it is said (door 9) “that there is no greater sin.”23 Who would believe, my dear reader, that my family’s enemy is not satisfied with wishing all women to sleep with the first comer but he also wishes to introduce the love of boys in an artful manner.24

174 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

“The Jesuits,” he says, “have nothing to figure out on this score.”25 Well, my dear child, my uncle did not say a word about the Jesuits.26 I know very well he was in Paris when reverend father Marsy and reverend father Fréron were expelled from the college of Louis-­le-­ Grand for their escapades, but this has nothing in common with Sextus Empiricus.27 This writer doubted everything, but no one has doubts about the adventure of these reverend fathers. “Why disturb their spirits unseasonably,” you asked, in the defense of sodomy you composed.28 It is true brother Marsy is dead, but brother Fréron is still alive. There are only his works that are dead. When one says of him that he is dead drunk almost every day, it is by catachresis [figure of speech in which a word is used in an inappropriate context] or, if you will, by a sort of metonymy [figure of speech in which one word is substituted for an associated one]. You take delight in citing the dissertation by the late M. Jean Gesner that is entitled Socrates sanctus pederastes, Socrates the Holy Bugger (1).29 This is in truth intolerable. The same thing might well happen to you as befell the late M. Deschauffours. Abbé Desfontaines escaped it. Is it something quite remarkable in the history of the human mind that so many hackwriters should be morally unreliable? I have often sought the reason for it. It seemed to me the hackwriters are for the most part low types expelled from the colleges, who have never succeeded in being received in the company of ladies. These poor folks, beset by their vile needs, satisfy themselves with young boys who bring them proofs from the printshop to correct or with young bootblacks from the neighborhood. This is what happened to the ex-­Jesuit Desfontaines, predecessor of the ex-­Jesuit Fréron (2). Are you not ashamed, our friend, to recall all this filth in a Supplement to the Philosophy of History? What, you wish to write the history of sodomy? He says “he will have occasion to discuss it again in another work.”30 He seeks out a Syrian named Bardesanes who said that among the Welches [French] all the young lads committed this infamy.31 “According to the custom of the Gauls, the young men marry.”32 For shame, wretch! Do you dare to mix this smut with the prudent propriety my uncle took such pride in? Do you dare to offend ladies and show such lack of respect to the august empress of Russia, to whom I dedicated the instructive and judicious book of the late abbé Bazin?33

Enlightenment | 175 (1) Who would believe it, my dear reader? This is printed on page 209 of the book entitled Supplement to the Philosophy of History by M. Toxotès [Larcher].34 (2) See this epigram in the French Anthology:35 A chimney sweep with a swarthy face, Tools in hand, eyes covered with a headband, Went slipping into a chimney, When an aged beadle from Sodom Came to take on his bent figure.

64. Guillaume Thomas François Raynal (1713–­1 796), Philosophical and Political History of European Settlements and Commerce in the Two Indies (1770, 1774, 1781) 36 A priest turned journalist and historian, Raynal published multiple (more and more extensive and radical) editions of this critique of colonialism, which included contributions by Diderot and d’Holbach.37 The Parlement condemned the 1781 edition. In these excerpts, Raynal took swipes at both Chinese functionalism and Spanish fanaticism. The lack of population in some remote regions of China would be inexplicable if one did not know that in these vast territories, a fairly large number of children are smothered immediately after birth, that some of those who escape this cruelty are condemned to the most shameful of mutilations, that among those who are not subjected to the outrage of deprivation of their sex, many are reduced to slavery and deprived of the consoling ties of marriage by tyrannical masters; that polygamy, so contrary to the social spirit and reason, is in practice everywhere, that the debauchery that nature spurns with the greatest horror is very widespread and that the monasteries of bonzes [Buddhist teachers] contain hardly less than a million celibates. The writers of this superstitious nation [Spain] had no fear of announcing before the whole world that shortly before the discovery of the New World, it had been foretold to the Mexicans that there would soon arrive from the direction of the Orient an invincible people who would avenge, in a manner forever terrible, the gods provoked by the most horrible crimes, in particular by the one that

176 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

nature shuns with the greatest disgust and that this fateful prediction alone shackled the mind of Montezuma.38 This tribunal of blood, established in Spain in 1482, under Ferdinand and Isabella, as a result of political considerations and fanaticism, was no sooner adopted by John III than it inspired terror in all families.39 At first to assert and later to maintain its authority, it needed four or five hundred victims every year. It had a tenth of them burned and relegated the rest to Africa or Brazil. It attacked with fury those who were suspected of pederasty, a new disorder in the state but inevitable in a warm climate where celibacy became common; witches who, in these times of ignorance, were both dreaded and multiplied through credulity throughout bigoted and barbarous Europe; Mohammedans, greatly reduced in numbers since they lost control; and especially Jews, whose wealth rendered them suspect.40

65. Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707–­1 788), “Partridges,” Natural History of Birds (1771)41 The most celebrated naturalist of the Enlightenment directed the royal botanical garden in Paris and published voluminous histories of the earth, humans, quadrupeds, birds, and minerals, in which he distinguished fact from fiction. These passages about partridges illustrate the tension in eighteenth-­century discourse about “nature,” described in more objective or invoked in more subjective language. Gray and red partridges both follow their natural instincts and, unlike humans, cannot regulate their conduct through reason, so why portray the former more favorably than the latter? Gray partridges. They begin to pair off at the end of winter, after the hard frosts. That is to say every male then seeks a match with a female, but this new arrangement does not work out without very lively battles among the males and sometimes among the females. To make war and love are almost the same thing for most animals and especially for those in which love is a need as pressing as it is for the partridge. Thus the females of this species lay without having relations with the male, like ordinary chickens. Once partridges are

Enlightenment | 177

paired they do not leave each other and live in unfailing union and fidelity. . . . It is an observation fairly generally true of animals that the ardor they display for the act of generation is the measure of the care they take of the product of this act. Everything is consistent in nature, and the partridge is an example of it. There are few birds as lascivious, as there are few that care for their young with more assiduous and courageous vigilance. Red partridges. Aristotle says, in the third place, that the males mount each other and even that they mount their young as soon as they are able to walk.42 This assertion has been placed in the category of absurdities. I have had occasion, however, to cite more than one authentic example of this excess of nature, by which a male uses another male and anything movable as a female (1). This disorder must take place (with all the more reason) among birds as lascivious as partridges. The males, when they are well excited, cannot hear the call of their females without shedding seminal liquid, and they are so enraptured, and as if intoxicated, during the season of love, that despite their wild nature, they even come and land on the birdcatcher. The ardor is all the more lively in a climate as warm as that of Greece and when they have been long deprived of females as it happens during the period of incubation. . . . It is thus in distinguishing the physical from the moral and real facts from risky guesses that one discovers the truth in the history of animals, too often disfigured by human fictions and by the craze man has of lending to all the others his own nature and his manner of seeing and feeling. (1) See the history of the rooster, above, that of the rabbit and Edwards’s Gleanings, part II, page 21.43

66. Jean Nicolas Demeunier (1751–­1814), “Pederasty” and “Tribades,” The Spirit of Customs and Practices of Various Peoples (1776)44 Demeunier abandoned the study of theology in Besançon for the study of law in Paris and then joined the Republic of Letters. He edited the four

178 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

volumes of the Methodical Encyclopedia devoted to political economy and diplomacy. In these sections from his compilation and analysis of human cultures, composed in the spirit of Montesquieu, he offered a variety of explanations for male and female same-­sex relations. He juxtaposed observations about primitive and civilized peoples, the subjugation of women and substitution of men dressed like women, civic integration, and moral degradation without discerning any simple pattern across centuries and continents. Pederasty The misdirected needs of the senses produce pederasty, but this depravation does not have the same origin in all countries. Savages who lack women satisfy their passions with men. Europe was astonished when this infamous practice was found almost everywhere in America. The social structure of the savages, their scorn for the female sex and the hunts that separated them from their wives for several months led to corruption, which took various forms. Here it appeared without shame and there it made some effort to conceal itself. In Louisiana and among the Illinois some Indians were habitually dressed like women, and they prostituted themselves like courtesans (1). Although Battell reproaches the Negroes of Benguela for maintaining men in women’s clothes, although Laugier de Tassy adds that there are no women in most of the seraglios of Algiers, this vice does not seem to be as common in Africa as we would have cause to fear from the warmth of the climate, or at least voyagers say nothing about it.45 The profligacy of the ancients never ceases to surprise us. We cannot get used to the artless and simple way in which their writers talk about it. Horace, Catullus, Tibullus, Ovid and Virgil himself wrote to men as to their mistresses, and in these letters they prostituted all the delicacy and all the tenderness of love.46 Socrates and the philosophers approved of them through their writings and their examples (2). Plutarch goes as far as to say, “As for real love, women have no part in it” (3). And Lucian considers whether love of boys is preferable to that of women.47

Enlightenment | 179

Legislators authorized this love, and the philosopher of Chaeronea tells us that the Thebans ordained it to soften the manners of their young folks (4). The Amasians on the island of Crete abducted young boys in the past, as the Kamchatkans abduct their wives.48 As soon as they found one to their liking, they informed his parents of the love they had for him and the day when they wished to abduct him. The young man offered resistance if the abductor was not to his taste, but usually he let himself be taken away after some pretenses. The abductor kept him for several months and he later sent him back (5). They then filled the seraglios with them and they prostituted them publicly (6). Independently of the motive cited by the Thebans, according to Jerome the Peripatetic, this love spread because it gave courage and strength and was useful in expelling tyrants.49 Conspiracies took form between lovers. When they were discovered, they expired under torture rather than reveal their plots (7). Patriotism sacrificed everything to the prosperity of the state. They sought to join men through the lure of pleasure, and they thought this bond would strengthen the republic. Prudence excluded women from public affairs. They led a retired life. It was a weakness to love them. There was constant declamation against the effects of this love, and everyone took precautions to avoid it. The needs of the senses, however, made themselves felt, and they gave themselves up to men. Pederasty is the vice of warlike peoples. The Gauls thought themselves dishonored when someone refused their favors. Seated tranquilly on skins, they placed at their side two young men, whom everyone saw (8). Soldiers were corrupted in the army. The ancient republics were continually at war. Every citizen went to serve the state and retained the habit he had contracted in the camps. Religion also introduced this disorder. They worshipped the most infamous divinities. When a people reveres the loves of Jupiter and Ganymede, it copies the conduct of the master of the universe. Other causes and circumstances gave birth to pederasty in the Orient, where it has reigned since the most ancient times. Sextus Empiricus claims that it was ordained among the ancient Persians,

180 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

and if we wish to take his words literally, we could cite what Plutarch says about the Thebans. But we must moderate the assertions of these two authors, although the faulty reasonings of a legislator suffice to create such a law. M. de Montesquieu says that polygamy leads to this crime and the Turks regard it as simple peccadillo. After committing it with men, they commit it with women. Among most Mohammedans secret abuse stands in the way of the propagation of the species. Their theologians allow illicit unions throughout the year, if one excepts Lent. A Spanish scholastic almost admitted them into his country (9). One senses, furthermore, the dangers of this practice and its fatal influence on morals. In modern governments legislators decree death by fire for the guilty. If they cannot destroy them, at least they force them to conceal themselves. Tribades Voyagers never speak of tribades in describing the manners of savages. We do not know if this other corruption occurred in the infancy of societies. The disorder we have just discussed commonly precedes this one, which begins especially in large countries, in seraglios and in the era when luxury produces satiety and disgust. When laws allow tastes that are the most contrary to nature, the love of women is permitted in women. The Greeks based it on reasons of state. So that they would have little communication with men and that they would not meddle in the affairs of the republic, the Greeks were pleased to have the charms of pleasure embellish their solitude. Tribades did not need so much encouragement. We see from the dialogues of Lucian what frightful progress this license made. (1) Supplement to Anson’s Voyage.50 We have discussed this at length in the section on marriage.51 (2) [Cicero,] Tusculan Disputations, bk. I, ch. 4. (3) Treatise on Love. See Xenophon as well. (4) [Plutarch,] Life of Pelopidas. See Potter’s Archaeologia graeca as well. (5) Potter’s Archaeologia graeca and Strabo, who includes many details about this practice. (6) Laurentius, On Adultery and Prostitutes, and Martial.52

Enlightenment | 181 (7) Musonius, On the Excesses of the Greeks.53 (8) Diodorus Siculus, bk. 5, ch. 11.54 (9) See the Philosophical Inquiries about the Chinese, vol. 1.55

67. Philippe Lefebvre, “On Sodomy and the Unusual Crime, Otherwise Known as Bestiality,” Plan for Legislation in Criminal Matters (1779)56 We know nothing about the author, who drafted an essay for the competition announced by the Academy of Mantua in 1773 and revised it for the competition announced by the Economic Society of Bern in 1777. He mentioned Voltaire half a dozen times and specifically cited his treatise on crime and punishment published in 1777.57 Like many others, he condemned not only sodomy but also capital punishment for sodomy. Sodomy, otherwise known as pederasty, scandalizes the courts and makes them blush. It is a depravation of taste rather than a crime, as long as one does not debauch young folks. They tell us that Socrates and Caesar, the pride of their times, dishonored themselves through this turpitude. Constantine II and Constans, who were consuls after the conqueror, enacted severe laws against sodomy and criminalized what the conqueror of Rome [Julius Caesar] cherished and what Hadrian divinized.58 The previous Scantinian law was milder.59 It expelled the guilty from Rome and made them pay a fine. The wiser emperor Justinian later satisfied himself with inspiring the horror that such infamy merits.60 In the last century they lit a pyre in Montpellier to burn d’Assoucy, who prudently slipped away at the time of the execution.61 They say only women were seen running to this spectacle and they were enraged when they learned the poor d’Assoucy did not care to be roasted. I do not advise creating a tribunal of women to judge these gentlemen. Later it was thought to be less scandalous to lock them up. Abbé Desfontaines, who debauched even chimneysweeps in Paris, was fustigated [cudgeled] in Bicêtre, from which the influence of M. Voltaire extracted him. Even today they deal severely only with those found in flagrante delicto, and it happens very rarely. The

182 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

punishment of abbé Desfontaines seems appropriate to me and more equitable than the death they suffered before.

68. Antoine Nicolas Servin (1746–­1811), “On Offenses Called Crimes Against Nature,” On Criminal Legislation (1782)62 Servin, a lawyer in Rouen, composed an essay for the competition announced by the Economic Society of Bern in 1777 but then withdrew it. He later transformed it into a four-­hundred-­page treatise that includes a dozen references to Montesquieu. In this remarkable section, he questioned the authority of Scripture and the very concept of crimes “against nature” and argued that legislators must employ the standard of social consequences instead. He endorsed the pursuit of pleasure more openly than other reformers did but with the usual restrictions about scandal and minors. I imagine our criminologists would have a hard time responding to someone who asked them why serious offenses against morals have the privilege in their countries of being expiated through fire, which, to mention it in passing, must pervert the thinking of the people, by making them believe it is a greater evil to fail to produce a man than to kill one. As for transgressions against religion, if they have the same prerogative, the reason for it is clear. As has already been said, it is that the Creator of men and especially the founder of Christianity find genuine pleasure in seeing men burned, that the smoke emitted by the grilled entrails of those who offended them is an incense with an agreeable odor to direct toward their thrones. It was the same in all times, and Moloch [god worshipped by Canaanites and Phoenicians] and Saturn [Roman god overthrown by Jupiter] enjoyed seeing children consumed by fire in the arms of their statues. That is why society had to make these great sacrifices to the offended Divinity, without gaining any advantage from it. But these sorts of offenses, which are called crimes against nature, do not attack the Divinity directly. If they offend him, it is only like the other violations of his laws, which likewise invert the order he established in the universe. Why then have they been assimilated, and how are they handled, with crimes against religion?

Enlightenment | 183

It is said it is because they particularly offend nature. What does this offense mean, if not what I just stated, that they stray from the rules that God laid down for the reproduction of creatures, that they contradict the objective that he intended in his work, in employing members he gave men for one purpose in another way? But tell me, when you degrade your heart, which God made to love him, by forming attachments to creatures, when you make yourself the sole center of your actions, while natural law teaches you that they should all be related to God, do you not also stray from the rules and order God gave the world? Do you not also offend nature? Will you say that moral order matters less than physical order in the eyes of God, that he cares more that you do not abuse your body in any way than about the misuse you might make of your soul? If your feelings were depraved to this extent, I would refer you to the very text of your revealed morality, where you would see on the same level those who wound nature, by forming attachments between their hearts and perishable goods and those who contradict it in using males for forbidden work. Do not allege vague words any longer, then, to characterize an offense. Do not tell me any longer that the one in question is a horror that arouses nature in order to surrender yourself thereafter, without remorse, to all the ferocity of your character. And which of the two offends nature more, the brutal man who, carried away by the fire of an unmanageable temperament, loses something destined for precious reproduction, or you, the barbarian who burns him! After all, what harm does this unfortunate one do you? He disposes of something contrary to the intention of the depositor. But that is a matter between this depositor and him. Are you responsible for the former’s interests? Where is the commission he addressed to you? Will you say it is a wrong he does to society? But don’t you do a greater one yourself, in depriving it of a man who can be useful to it? But this something that he dissipated, couldn’t he keep it for himself, without any reproach on your part? Couldn’t a thousand circumstances render it fruitless for you, if he had destined it for you? Don’t a great number of men lose it every day, to your knowledge, without your making a crime of it? Let us go into some detail, for it is necessary. But it seems to me I see two sorts of men rise up against me here. One, scrupulous

184 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

Christians, will reproach me for discussing for too long a topic that should not even be named among us, as Saint Paul says.63 The other, atrabilious [melancholy] Christians, will not fail to suspect my morals because I condemn the cruelties practiced to maintain their purity. I reply to the former that I will gladly consent not to talk about the offenses in question if they assure me the civil and ecclesiastical tribunals will faithfully observe the same silence. But as long as men are condemned for these alleged crimes, I will doubtless have the right to raise my voice to defend them, and I am sure Saint Paul will approve of me from the heights of heaven. As for my morals, I am secure in their reputation. They are well known by all those it interests me they should be known to, and luckily in the region where I am, folks are no longer burned based on the outcries of the devout. I say then, loudly and without fearing anything, that all that is called “crime against nature” is not within the jurisdiction of judges, unless scandal and corruption of the young are involved. I say the same about all types of this offense because they are all just the same with respect to penal legislation. Indeed, I do not see any real difference between masturbation, which is considered the least type, and bestiality, which is the worst. Both guilty parties use for their pleasure alone what nature intended for the propagation of the species and what society has the right to claim for its growth. And that is what constitutes their offense, which is the same, as we see, although there is a difference between the instruments of pleasure used in the two cases. All that is commonly said to inspire horror of the last of these crimes is words devoid of meaning. As it is not productive, there is no conjunction of the sexes, the guilty party does not make himself one with a creature of an inferior species, which obviates what is found most revolting in the action. Let us revert, then, to judging it, like the others of the same type, by the damage that society incurs from it and the blow delivered to good morals. It seems to me the first will be suitably rectified by a fine, and the second will be punished in the manner I have indicated above. But, as I have stated, I would not accept any denunciation of

Enlightenment | 185

these sorts of offenses unless public scandal and corruption of the young are involved. In this last case, I would punish more severely, although still with the same type of penalty, the vile man who had made a child the plaything of his lubricity. And if the child had been entrusted to his care, with no matter what design, the deed itself tells us that such a crucial breach of trust deserves to be punished with infamy as well. I will not conclude this section without saying what I think about the origins of the penalties our European laws generally inflict for what are called crimes against nature. It is obvious that for sodomy, they wanted to imitate the vengeance that God took on the city that gave it its name and for the others to be guided by Judaic law. All the authors tell you that you cannot fail to judge these crimes as they deserve if you follow the judgment of God himself. I have already said, and I fear I will repeat it often without being completely understood, that we cannot derive any just notion of offenses from the books of the Old Testament because they are judged there only in relation to God, whereas in our human laws they should be judged only in relation to society. Our rule of justice cannot be the same as God’s because our relations with men are not of the same nature as His. God can punish or reward men as He will, give them life or death, sorrow or pleasure, poverty or riches because man is His creature, whom He made for Himself and whom He can dispose of as it pleases Him. But can we, without blasphemy, say as much of ourselves, and is not our conduct in this regard indeed what is called a crime of divine lèse-­majesté? Is it not obvious that we usurp the rights of the Almighty in giving ourselves an authority over the work of His hands that can only belong to Him? One thing astonishes me and surely astonishes me rightly. It is that our legislators have not included in the number of crimes punishable by the laws all those the books of Moses portray to us as abominable in the eyes of the Lord. There are a great number of them we have not seen in this light, although it is recorded quite distinctly. For example, why this extreme laxity in allowing the unchaste man who approached his wife in certain times of impurity to live? You understand me. The law is explicit. Why not stone such a detestable monster as soon as possible, along with many others who

186 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

are clearly condemned in the Holy Scriptures? Make haste, then, to shed streams of blood, make up for lost time. You cannot doubt this pleases God immensely and is a pure and sweet delight for tender humanity. What is more, you see that it will be a clear benefit for society, whose interests are entrusted to you, which must naturally increase in strength on account of the resources you remove from it.

69. Charles Éléonore Dufriche de Valazé (1751–­1 793), “Why Suicide, Pederasty and Bestiality Are Not Discussed,” Penal Laws (1784)64 The lawyer Dufriche de Valazé divided virtues and duties, vices and crimes into seven classes and reworked French jurisprudence in four hundred pages. Here he reassigned pederasty from the category of crimes to be punished physically and visibly by magistrates to the category of acts to be punished morally and quietly by opinion. If I were charged by the government with making a list of all the acts it has declared criminal, I would include these three and many others as well, but, free in my work, I write only what I think and I write for all times to come and for men who are not everywhere subject to the same laws. But if I were charged with making a list of men’s shameful acts and failings, which, without causing the overthrow of society, nonetheless debase and degrade them, I would begin by discussing what people have agreed to call crimes against nature and suicide. It is in vain that law threatens and struggles to punish them. It is time to abandon them to opinion, which has ranked them in their place. From now on the first ones will always be difficult to prove because, I dare say, Sodom and Gibeah will not be reborn among the civilized nations of the earth, in which a wholly different spirit has developed, which is still blamed for abuses, since there is nothing that is not susceptible to them, but these necessary abuses in a society in which industry is very well advanced are a proof that the shameful disorders that dishonored the old world and even the new, will not reappear, or at least they will be enveloped in impenetrable darkness. . . .65

Enlightenment | 187

In all times people have given too much significance to certain acts. They had only to divert attention from them, and they would have become more rare. The darkness that would have enveloped them and for which they were made would have prevented the danger of examples. If pederasty becomes scandalous in a subject, however, he should be marked with infamy.

70. “Friend,” Methodical Encyclopedia, Antiquities and Mythology (1786)66 The author of this article maintained that friendship among the ancient Greeks was not corrupted by “infamous” sexual relations between men and ignored the possibility, acknowledged in other sources, that sexual connections could strengthen political and even military structures. This name, which men given over to the most infamous debaucheries have profaned in all countries, designated among the wise and virtuous Greeks only a decent and very praiseworthy attachment. They have been slandered so often on this score that their apology must have a place in the Dictionary of Antiquities. It will not include those who dishonored themselves through shameful liaisons and who have unfortunately found imitators among all civilized peoples. It has been written that republics collectively sanctioned these infamous attachments by law. But it has not been noted with enough care that most of the individuals suspected of them, such as Socrates and several others, were legally married and, moreover, that men assembled to create or receive laws never accepted any that tended directly to limit population. These considerations should shed light on the laws and historical events regarding friendship between young Greeks. Their first lawgivers thought they could provide no better defense against the enemies of their republics than special regard or connection among the youth. As a result they saw these young friends, enflamed with the same zeal, show tyrants and usurpers how useful the friendship that united Aristogitons and Harmodiuses was for public welfare.67

188 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

The count of three hundred elite soldiers who constituted the sacred band of Thebes in itself must exclude any indecent notion that could defile the purity of their connection. The Spartans, previously invincible, succumbed to the valor of the three hundred friends, who were vanquished only on the plains of Chaeronea.68 It was there that their enemy and conqueror Philip, father of Alexander, bore authentic witness to the purity of their attachment. In traversing the battlefield he saw this sacred band, of which not a single soldier had survived its defeat.69 Overcome with pity and wonder, he cried, “Perish those who dare to suspect these brave warriors of committing crimes that offend nature!”70

71. Joseph Elzéar Dominique de Bernardi (1751–­1 824), “On Crimes Against Nature,” Principles of Criminal Law (1788)71 Bernardi, a lawyer in the Parlement of Aix, won second prize in the competition announced by the academy of Châlons-­sur-­Marne in 1780 with his Methods of Mitigating the Rigor of the Penal Laws in France without Impairing Public Safety.72 In this later and longer treatise, he cited Montesquieu three dozen times and argued that social remedies would control pederasty more effectively than legal penalties could. He urged his contemporaries to follow nature without explaining how they could marry sooner rather than later, despite financial obstacles that delayed matrimony for the majority, or why they should remain in the country, despite economic opportunities that lured so many to cities throughout the kingdom. We will not follow any other rule with regard to the crime against nature. “God forbid,” I will say with Montesquieu, “that I wish to diminish the horror people have for a crime that religion, morality and politics all condemn at once. It would be necessary to outlaw it if it did nothing but give one sex the weaknesses of the other and lead to a disreputable old age through a shameful youth.” Plato condemns those guilty of this crime only to infamy and deprivation of all the benefits of society. He further requires that the crime be well known and public (1). But in the system of Plato’s Republic, in which each citizen had an occupation, in which jobs and

Enlightenment | 189

wealth were distributed accordingly, such a crime must have been quite rare. It is large cities that are usually its setting. These wealthy cities, full of idle citizens, whom debauchery and satiation, born of too much experience of pleasures, lead to seek endlessly new means of exciting their deadened senses. Let marriages be facilitated. Let the inhabitants of the provinces be prevented from going to bury themselves and their morals in immense capitals. Let exorbitant riches not be accumulated in the hands of lazy and single men. We will soon see nature reclaim its rights. The very sex these infamies tend to subject to scorn will join the laws in proscribing them. Without these precautions, we would try in vain to restore morals through severe penalties. These penalties fail through their very rigor and they serve only to prove that tortures cannot take the place of morals. The habit of crime will gradually reduce the shame, and we will reach such a degree of depravation that the guilty will hardly even be exposed to some jests. They may even glory in their infamy (2). (1) Plato, The Laws, bk. VIII. (2) Augustus decreed the death sentence for the crime against nature, but for this it was necessary that it was accompanied by violence.73 The Christian emperors wanted it to be punished by death even when it was not accompanied by any aggravating circumstances. Charlemagne decreed death by fire for this crime in a cartulary of 780.74 In it he gave a very lively picture of the evils debauchery causes in society. We see that this vice is beginning to make progress in northern countries, which proves it is not a vice of climate. If it has been more common until now in southern countries, this pattern had its cause in legislation.

72. Jacques Peuchet (1758–­1830), “Sapphic Love,” Methodical Encyclopedia, Jurisprudence (1789)75 The lawyer, political economist, journalist, and archivist Jacques Peuchet edited the last two volumes (subtitled Police and Municipalities) of the jurisprudence series in the Methodical Encyclopedia.76 He attributed the depravation in question to nature and nurture in Sappho’s time and did not characterize it as a “public disorder” in his own time. Note the transition from the “error of the senses and imagination” caused by depraved (by what?) instinct, in

190 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

the first paragraph, to the more psychological “illness of the imagination” with physical and cultural causes—­as well as cultural remedies—­in the last paragraph. We use this term to designate a sort of depravation of instinct that leads a woman to seek in persons of her own sex the pleasures that nature has located for her in the male sex. A work that should identify the disorders of civilization, in order to make their remedies more known, should not remain silent about this error of the senses and imagination. The taste for it, too widespread, could pervert morals and disturb the happiness that results from the concord and love of the sexes. Plutarch claims that the women of Lacedaemonia were sometimes consumed with the fire of this love, with which Sappho burned.77 She herself portrayed the symptoms of this terrible malady in her verses. One can envision it as the summit of all perturbations to which the mind of the female sex was susceptible in Greece. As for the source of this malady, it is possible that a defective organization was the first cause of it, but one should not doubt that immoderate indulgence in the vices of Laconia [region including Sparta], even more violent than those of Lesbos [island in the Aegean Sea], contributed a great deal to intensifying it in individuals who found themselves naturally disposed to them. What is astonishing is that this illusory love was not cured by real love and that Sappho was so drawn by these two chains at once that she had to have recourse to the leap of Leucadia.78 But we do not know for sure if she ended her days there or if she was of the number of those who, as Strabo says, had feathers and wings applied to themselves in hopes of sustaining themselves after their fall, on the waters of the sea, where they were also helped by the priests of Apollo, who claimed this immersion calmed erotic frenzies.79 They treated those in love as doctors, for their part, treated hydrophobiacs, for great maladies, they say, require great remedies. It does not appear that Sapphic love was as much in vogue among the Romans as in Greece. This part of the world was made to offer models of virtue, vices and excesses of all types. The delicacy of organs, the influence of climate, the fruits, the liquors, the air, everything was conducive to the pleasures of the senses and to what

Enlightenment | 191

can multiply them. Women, although less subject to these effects than men, nonetheless felt strong blows from them, and the defect we reproach them with here is the proof of it. In our time Sapphic love lives in secret and is not a public disorder. Some women, in truth a small number, seem to be afflicted with it, but those who are carry this depravation to such an excess that is unbelievable. It is among prostitutes that one must look for the frenzies and follies they are capable of.80 Let us recall what Lucian said, in the third dialogue of courtesans.81 There is the picture of their strange delights, which, if we believe Brantôme, were much in fashion in his time.82 The police do not have any power over this vice. It is hidden, it is unknown and it is an illness of the imagination, caused by constraint, subjection, effervescence of the senses, rather than an actual disorder. It is common in cloisters and in some societies of women. It is up to religion, good society, natural love to destroy this inclination, much less unnatural than though just as odious as the analogous one among men. These women are called tribades. We may say more about them under this word.83

73. “Sappho,” Methodical Encyclopedia, History (1790)84 Unlike Peuchet, the author of this article acknowledged differences of opinion about whether Sappho was Sapphic. This woman distinguished in antiquity by her talent for poetry and decried for her morals was from Mitylene on the island of Lesbos. She lived about six centuries before Jesus Christ, at the same time as her contemporary Alcaeus, who was illustrious, as she was, in lyric poetry. Like Alcaeus, Sappho invented a specific verse meter, named sapphic after her, as alcaic verse bears the name of Alcaeus. This meter is quite lyrical, that is to say it lends itself to singing and dancing. Horace congratulated himself on combining all types and using the meters of Archilocus, Alcaeus and Sappho: Masculine Sappho forms her muse by the meter of Archilocus.85 This epithet “masculine” suggests less praise of Sappho’s verses than criticism of her morals. Mme Dacier claimed that Sappho has

192 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

been slandered.86 She could not bring herself to have a negative opinion of someone who wrote such fine Greek verses. Sappho had three brothers, Larichus, Eurygius and Caraxus. The last hopelessly loved the famous courtesan Rhodopis, who had one of the pyramids of Egypt built. Sappho savaged Caraxus and extolled Larichus in her verses. Only two fragments of hers survive. They justify the praise that all antiquity lavished on her, the name of Tenth Muse given to her and the honor the inhabitants of Mitylene bestowed on her by engraving her image on their coins. . . . It is believed that Sappho died a victim of the unfortunate passion she developed for the handsome Phaon, a young man of Lesbos. It is assumed that she did not have the means to please, since she did not please him, that she was as ugly as she was witty and that she threw herself into the sea out of despair from the promontory of Leucadia in Acarnania [region along the Ionian Sea]. This promontory had a reputation as a place for unlucky and desperate lovers, as the Tarpeian Rock in Rome [cliff on the Capitoline Hill from which criminals were thrown to their deaths] did for the guilty. “To take the leap of Leucadia” became a proverbial expression for throwing oneself into the sea as a result of amorous despair.

74. Peuchet, “Prostitution,” Methodical Encyclopedia, Jurisprudence (1791)87 This digressive but instructive article includes several pages about sexual relations among males, offers functionalist explanations for such depravity among the Turks and Greeks, and reports that pederasty (like tribadism, in “Sapphic Love”) no longer constituted a public disorder in late eighteenth-­ century Paris. Peuchet’s comments about police surveillance before 1789 are more accurate than his remarks about complete liberty after 1789.88 This last report [about a monk found drinking with a coachman] brings to mind a particular type of prostitution, quite fashionable in Paris, that Italian customs brought to France at the time of the wars of Charles VIII and later, when the duc de Nemours disbanded the auxiliary troops he brought to the siege of Lyon in 1562.89 His

Enlightenment | 193

Italian solders corrupted the young lads in the villages they passed through. . . . This love of boys, which gave birth to a particular type of prostitution, as that of women gave birth to another, seems, like the latter, to have been less frightful in the eyes of Greece, that country of arts and genius, than it is in our time. In Anacreon we find praise of the pleasures it provides, as of a licit and desired type of enjoyment.90 In the verses this poet addressed to Bathyllus, a young dancer from Samos, to whom Polycratus erected a statue, he portrays the beauties that seduced him and concludes, after a very erotic description, with this comment, more than erotic, in which he reproaches the painter who produced the portrait of Bathyllus for not having managed to reproduce all his charms: You possess a jealous skill that cannot portray his buttocks. Just as well. They are undoubtedly more beautiful.91

We know how much this type of prostitution was in vogue in Rome, but it did not have the same public nature and enjoy the same sort of approbation it did in Greece. In Athens, as in Rome, of course, there were laws against corruption of the young of both sexes. These laws were not intended to prevent enjoyment of them. They only prohibited seduction. A man who seduced a schoolboy was guilty of seduction. It is not clear he was punished for committing a crime against nature but just for abusing his power, his strength in seducing a child. But slavery provided a means of circumventing the laws in this regard. We can imagine how young girls and boys of this status could be used for entertainment by their masters without any fear. In the large cities, as in Paris, there were little rascals who picked up men, and despite the police, who sometimes expelled them, they always reappeared. Given the harsh and licentious manners of the Romans, this vice became more odious among them than in Greece. As Voltaire said, “What appears to be nothing more than a weakness in the young Alcibiades is a disgusting abomination in a Dutch sailor and a Muscovite sutler” [vendor who follows armies and sells supplies to soldiers].92 Horace captures Roman lubricity in these two verses:

194 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations [When you are aroused and] a boy is available to attack Then and there [would you rather endure desire?]93

The Turks have been reproached for a penchant for pederasty, and polygamy, sanctioned by their laws, has been blamed for it, but we could rather blame it on the customary exclusion of women from society. The habit of seeing nothing but men, the prohibition in Muslim law against any carnal intercourse between men and women outside the faith, a prohibition that is observed religiously, the hot climate and the sedentary and languid life of the Turks accustom them to pederasty early on. In adolescence they are seduced by the men they customarily live with. In maturity they in turn corrupt the youth who surround them. These vices persist, even after they are married and have several wives. Male and female slaves alike serve this shameful abuse of pleasure. Used to doing without women at the time when they most needed them, they form a habit of conducting themselves in the same way when they have several at their disposal. But these disorders are not the result of the plurality of wives. Their presence alone could, if not wholly destroy them, at least reduce their intensity, to the point of making it nothing more than the depraved taste of several individuals and put an end to the ubiquity that makes it, as they say, a national custom among the Turks. One thing that has deserved more attention, which would have largely explained the pederastism of the Turks, is the way in which the pages of the seraglios, who are forbidden to have any intercourse with women, are mainly raised. These young folks usually have Christian parents and were taken in war or brought from far away. They are all well formed, and none with the slightest physical defect would be accepted. They are presented to the sultan and sent to various seraglios to be instructed in the Turkish manner. They are entrusted to the custody of the eunuchs, who treat them very harshly and keep watch over them with as much care as with girls and perhaps in the same spirit. But this custody and strict care do not prevent these youths, attractive and surrounded by objects that can bring only voluptuous ideas to mind, from yielding to the most ardent passion of love. A veritable Socratic love reigns among these

Enlightenment | 195

pages, that is to say a deviation from natural instinct, with a burning desire to satisfy it. These slaves of the sultan pass the first years of their lives in the habit of forbidden pleasures and can never lose the memory of and bizarre taste for it thereafter. And as most of the high officers in the seraglio and even generals and governors, are drawn from this class of men, it is not surprising that the vice spreads and pederasty reigns throughout the nation. “Thus we see,” says Ricaut, “the most prominent men in the state share these disordered passions. Sultan Morat became so hopelessly enamored of an Armenian boy named Musa that he had some outlandish things done for him, although he was a wise prince otherwise. Another time he picked a young lad out of the novitiate of Galata [on the northern shore of the Golden Horn, opposite Istanbul] for his beauty. Sultan Mohammed Han, the fourth of this name, became so enamored of a page in his musical troupe that he made him his principal favorite” (1).94 It is true that the interaction of the sexes is necessary to prevent dangerous deviations of instinct during the course of youth. Women, even those subjected to enclosure and far from encounters with men, surrender themselves to disorders analogous to those of pederasty. The same author I just cited portrays almost all the sultan’s wives, especially those for whom his taste is jaded and those rendered unsuitable for satisfying the despot’s desires through some infirmity, as given over to the passion of love for women, a passion that persists throughout their lives because they acquired the habit in childhood. Without going to Constantinople, one can find examples of these errors of instinct elsewhere. See “Sapphic Love.” What the isolation in which women were kept produced in the places where it was practiced, their lack of beauty gave rise to among the Greeks. The depraved taste for which they have been blamed so much comes from this cause. Among them nature seemed to do for the sex that could do without beauty what it should have done for the other, for whom this quality has always constituted its major merit. Greek men had fine proportions and handsome structure, and some had perfectly regular features. Greek women, on the contrary, lacked freshness, soft form and regular contours that should have such a prodigious influence over the imagination of a people taken with

196 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

all sorts of beauty. They were widely subject to natural deformities, a type of discharge from the breast and genitals, which added more to their other defects. Dioscorides reports that they used astringent and ferruginous [containing iron] powders to remedy this problem, as long as the body was severely compressed below the ribs (2).95 “And it was to forestall the consequences of this lack of beauty in Greek women,” says M. de Pauw, “that the Athenians established the odd magistracy that constantly forced women to adorn themselves in a decent manner. This magistracy was extremely strict. It imposed an enormous fine of a thousand drachmas [ancient silver coin] on individuals who were either badly coiffed or dressed. Then they inscribed their names on a board exposed to the eyes of the people, such that the infamy of the matter even exceeded the magnitude of the punishment, for the women whose names appeared in such a list were forever lost in the minds of the Greeks.” “This magistracy’s severity,” the same author continues, “instead of working the good that people expected from it, caused a great problem they had not anticipated. To shelter themselves from such dishonoring censure, Athenian women went to the opposite extreme. That is to say they adorned themselves too much, brought ruinous luxury into their families, adopted the most extravagant fashions and ended up by abusing makeup in a manner so revolting that no such example had ever been seen in any civilized country” (3). Such details suffice to demonstrate that the women of Attica [region including Athens] were not endowed with charms that made them desired everywhere. And the men, on the contrary, emerged from the hands of nature endowed with the graces that Xenophon depicted in Autolycus and Plato in Charmides, who shone in Athens because of his beauty and who was always surrounded by a great cortege of admirers, just like Demus, son of Pyrilampus, whose name was seen written on the gates of the city and facades of houses, to preserve the name of such a well-­formed man.96 Given such a marked difference in the beauty of Greek men and women, it was therefore not too surprising that nature made a mistake and instinct became depraved to such an extent that pederasty became very common. It is therefore not in the gymnasia or schools that this vice was born. It was already known long before gymnastics were introduced in Greece. There are traces of it, in the

Enlightenment | 197

gods of Homer and in mythology, that date back much farther than the establishment of gymnastics in Attica. Finally, what proves it was the lack of beauty in the women and not a particular taste that caused them to be neglected and led the Greeks to make love to boys, is the fact that beautiful women inspired more enthusiasm among them than any other people in the world. “As soon as one appeared, which actually happened very rarely,” says M. de Pauw, “her name was repeated from mouth to mouth, from the extremities of the Peloponnesus [the large peninsula that constitutes southern Greece] to the borders of Macedonia [north of Greece]. The result was an agitation of spirits comparable to a contagious fire. The most tender wives could no longer restrain their husbands, and the most imperious mothers could no longer restrain their children. Finally, they saw the whole country prostrate at the feet of Laïs and all Greece subjugated by a Sicilian, which neither the weapons of the Persians nor the insidious stratagems of the Spartans could accomplish.”97 On the subject of the Greek taste for courtesans, it may also be noted that M. Thomas made a mistake in his Essay on Women, in which he attributed it to the confined life that Greek women led and the minimal education they received, while the courtesans were instructed in all the arts and pleasures of life.98 This cause might have contributed something, to be sure, but the most powerful one was the same that fostered pederasty among them, that is to say the defects and lack of beauty in women, as opposed to the graces and fine forms of young Greek men and courtesans. All these reflections explain quite clearly the license with which Greek writers discussed the love of boys. Habit made it a customary and tolerable vice in their eyes. Lucian left us an odd text on this score, in which we see, in part, the points we have just enumerated about women and young men. In the past pederasty was punished by death. Today it is only a matter handled by the police. This vice is regarded as a moral offense rather than an attack on public order. The police of Paris used to make this abuse of pleasure the object of a specific department headed by an inspector. He had a list of those who were known as active pederasts and those who prostituted themselves to others.

198 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

The latter were usually punished by six months or a year of prison in Bicêtre, when they were found cruising in the public gardens or on the promenades. Today this type of prostitution is quite free and far from a public scandal. They leave those who give themselves over to it or have a good time with it quite untroubled. See “Pederasty.” These infamous pleasures generally cost a good deal, much more than those of the same nature that the lowly class of prostitutes provides. There are some of them, like the voluptuous Corinthians [people of Corinth], who sacrifice more to Venus Callipyge than to Venus of Cnidus, that is to say, in plain French, who provide both types of prostitution in their shameful business.99 They are generally sought by young libertines, as lesbians are sought by the old.100 The latter, to use the words of the doctor Mercurialis, are those “who do business with a man’s penis and use the mouth instead of the cunt.”101 The agents of the former police were quite curious to identify women who prostituted themselves in public pederasty. They made them pay more than the others because they assumed they earned more. Today these women are no longer bothered more than the others. What is more, they seem persuaded by the decision of the rabbis, that man has the right to use and abuse woman. (1) History of the Ottoman Empire, book 1, ch. 7.102 (2) Dioscorides, book 5, ch. 159.103 (3) Philosophical Inquiries about the Greeks, part 1, p. 114.104

75. “Clitoris (Defects of ),” Methodical Encyclopedia, Medicine (1792)105 The author of this article restates the physiological argument, as old as the Greeks, that “structural defects” in female bodies enabled and encouraged sex between women. Deformity of the clitoris, when its length is excessive, does not pose an absolute obstacle to reproduction, but this defect is disgusting to husbands because it gives the wife the appearance of a man and chills his affection for an object that resembles him too much. Although this structure is rare, observers supply many examples of it. It was

Enlightenment | 199

well known to the ancients. In the times of dissolute manners, Greek and Roman women did not blush to acknowledge this state and to simulate among themselves the pleasures that require the union of the two sexes. If we are to believe history, some of them were led to the greatest acts of violence against these extraordinary lovers, out of jealousy, and punished them with death for their inconstancy. The ancients depict these illicit liaisons in the colors of the most consummate vice. Plato believed that Jupiter, to punish humans severely for arousing his anger, divided both sexes in half and that is the source of the violent love that has the effect of reuniting them but is nonetheless proof of the wrath of the gods. Plutarch says these fatal liaisons degrade human nature. The poets of ancient Rome speak of them only with indignation, and these disorders, like the structural defects that facilitate them, have always been regarded with horror.

SECTION H

Fictions

Introduction The playwright Charles Collé “planned for a long time to write a vaudeville against these gentlemen” (sodomites). “They are reprobates who are against nature, and this sin would deserve a devilish satire, but I do not know how to go about it in order not to offend modesty in mocking them. I am most unlucky that there is no rhyme for bugger [in French]. Without that difficulty, I would write something decent against them.”1 Concerns about decency and poetics did not deter the authors of the poems and novels excerpted in this section from addressing the subject unequivocally and imaginatively, in more pejorative or satirical language. Some referenced history, or at least mythology, but all acknowledged and envisioned sex between persons of the same sex as a reality in their own time and place, in the spirit of nouvellistes and libellistes more than reformers. The perplexed and hostile Sénac de Meilhan and Rétif de la Bretonne declared that nature made it hazardous for both sexes to engage in same-­sex relations that could cause more pain than pleasure in the end. They implied that perversion engendered maladies that justified the prejudice expressed in their verses. The more neutral Mirabeau and Nerciat assumed that nature made it possible for tribades as well as pederasts to enjoy genuine pleasure with each other, without dire consequences. They imagined that the experience of physical and emotional misfortune in relations with the opposite sex could lead members of both sexes to turn to their own sex. In doing so, they raised but did not answer questions about same-­sex preference not provoked and explained by misfortune. In any event, Mirabeau and Nerciat argued that male desire for men and female desire for women could be the product

Fictions | 201

of aversion and decision on the part of individuals rather than the result of corruption within the sexually segregated institutions discussed in section G. Their protagonists reject matrimony and embrace independence. Given the ability of novelists to read the minds of characters they created, we are more likely to find such explicit consciousness of difference and exercise of agency in fiction than in the reports in part I, in which sodomites and pederasts played cat and mouse with the police.

76. Gabriel Sénac de Meilhan (1736–­1803), Fuckomania (1775)2 Lawyer, intendant, and man of letters, Sénac de Meilhan published this “lewd poem” about human sexuality without his name on the title page. In these passages, he condemned dangerous and disgusting relations between men and between women in the language of nature. Why try to supersede nature Through cold imposture, though false art? She prevails, she lays down laws, Levies just dues on all hearts. She condemns and thwarts the exertions Of the hideous bugger, the perverse socratic. She sees with regret the lustful tribade, Antiphysical lover of her own sex, With cunt against cunt, waste her strength And ruin her body through curious exertions. These women experience sorry pleasures, Defying cocks, playing bold spirits, Abandoning themselves to infamous penchants, Shaking themselves, wearing themselves out in foolish frolics, Undertaking battle with an artificial cock. Faithless deserters from the camps of love, Beauties without hearts, female Ganymedes, Who, by turns active and passive, Without spice, without nerve go scratching each other’s cunts, Flaunting their rebellious acts Against cocks and their own affronts!

202 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

No, it is not for this fatal usage That Prometheus [Titan who created humans and gave them fire] armed the human race With cunts, with cocks, forged by his hand. The Creator wants useful homage! The destiny of cocks is to polish cunts. To give cocks a humble and fertile vessel, Such is the only legitimate and sure use, The uncomplicated fate of cunts. This system alone is certain, although hardly new. From Adam down to the old duc d’Elbeuf, They fucked only cunts, without trickery. Things changed. Tasting buggery, They deserted the cruel beauty, And sought pleasure in the butthole. They immersed themselves in an obscene cesspool, And the fuckers, in changing the scenery, In improvising, lost their health As the bitter price of infidelity. Should I complain of my frightful punishment, If, from pumping the impurity of butts, of cunts, The disease entered my veins, If I am infected with a slow poison? In avoiding the source of the pox, Rotten cunts, dangerous vaginas, Should I, on the other hand, contract cristalline, Combine the illness of filthy Africans With the burning gifts of deadly whores? Must one, hugging putrid shores, Deceive folks, murder butts, In spite of the odor, poke assholes? Mistaken cases! Sins against nature! Thrusts of Sodom! Excesses of lust! Which, sooner or later, engender disease And call forth the burn of hell Upon the destinies of fuckers, of fuckees. And then see the pitiful figures

Fictions | 203

That known buggers cut here. People mock them, avoid them, dismiss them. Will anyone pity them in their disgrace. . . . Prudent fucker, do not start off By flouting the cunt and, celebrating the butt, By working the mustard near the coccyx. If your Priapus in rut sometimes Goes to ensconce itself in a Christian’s oven, Through perverse taste, curiosity or carelessness, Do not make a sad habit of it. Return quickly to the cunt out of gratitude. Although lusty, be a good man.

77. Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, Comte de Mirabeau (1749–­1 791), Bible of Love (1783)3 Before he made himself famous through his oratory, Mirabeau made himself infamous through his profligacy. His accomplishments before 1789 include imprisonments, amorous adventures, and publication of subversive and scandalous books.4 In these sections, he analyzed the pleasures and dangers of sex between women and imagined that pederasts were classified by the police, not independent agents in the sexual marketplace. The most resolute passion of woman for woman has been seen in all times and in the most remote antiquity, as in ages closer to our own day. Lycurgus, the stern Lycurgus who dreamed such bizarre and sublime things, had games called gymnopedies held in public, in which young girls appeared naked. They were taught the most lascivious dances, poses, advances, embraces. The laws punished men who were bold enough to approach them with death. These girls lived with each other until they married. The lawmaker’s objective was evidently to teach them the art of feeling, which greatly embellishes that of loving, and to instruct them in all the nuances of sensations that nature provides or of which it is capable and, in a word, to turn all the subtleties they taught each other to the profit of the human species later on. Finally, they were taught to be in love before having lovers, for it is sometimes asserted that one can be in

204 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

love without love, as it is sometimes affirmed one can love without being in love. Anyone may not be in an amorous mood; anyone may not love. Lycurgus set forth a moral of this sort in his laws. Anacreon scattered this moral, like rose petals, throughout his immortal trifles. Who would have expected to find Anacreon and Lycurgus sharing the same principles? Before the poet of Teos [Anacreon], Sappho reduced them to a practical system and described their symptoms. What a painter and observer she was, this beauty devoured by all the flames of love! Sappho, who is known only through the fragments of her burning poetry and her unfortunate loves, may be regarded as the most illustrious of tribades. Among her tender friends were counted the loveliest females of Greece, who inspired her verses (1). Anacreon attests that all the symptoms of amorous fury may be found in them. Plutarch cites one of these pieces of poetry to prove that love is a divine fury that provokes raptures more violent than those of the priestesses of Delphi [site of the oracle of Apollo], the bacchantes [female votaries of Dionysius] and the priests of Cybele [mother goddess]. Think what fire enflamed the heart that inspired in this way (2)! But Sappho, long in love with her companions, gave them up for the ungrateful Phaon, who reduced her to despair. Would it not have been better for her to continue to pursue conquests that familiarities facilitated by the sameness in sex and the superiority of her mind should have made so easy for her? Especially since she was endowed with all the advantages one can desire in this passion, for which she seemed to be destined by nature, for she had such a fine clitoris that Horace gave this famous woman the epithet “female male,” which is to say, in French, masculine woman. It seems that the community of the Vestal Virgins may be regarded as the most celebrated seraglio of tribades that has ever existed, and one may say that the anandrine [tribade] sect received its greatest honors in the persons of these priestesses. Priesthood was not one of those institutions, common, humble and feeble at the beginning, that piety chances to produce and that owes its success only to caprice. It displayed itself in Rome only in the most august colors: vows of virginity, guardianship of the palladium [sacred image of Minerva], custody and maintenance of the sacred fire (3), symbol

Fictions | 205

of the preservation of the empire, the most honorable prerogatives, enormous influence, unbounded power. But how dearly they paid for all this through the complete deprivation of the happiness to which nature calls all creatures and the frightful torture that awaited the vestals if they succumbed to its voice! Young and capable of all the intensity of the passions, how could they escape it without the recourse of Sappho, while they were allowed the most dangerous freedom, and their worship itself summoned them to such voluptuous thoughts? We know that the vestals offered sacrifices to the god Fascinus [divine phallus], figured in the form of the Egyptian phallum. They observed odd ceremonies in these sacrifices. They attached this image of the male member to the chariots of victors. In this way the sacred fire they maintained was thought to spread throughout the empire by genuinely vivifying means, but it was hardly necessary to display such an object of contemplation in the sight of young girls pledged to virginity. . . . In tribadism, as in everything, excesses are harmful. They weaken instead of exciting. As a result of overdoing, strange and fatal mishaps sometimes occur in these types of exertions. A while ago in Parma, a girl accustomed to tribadizing with her girlfriend used a large needle with an ivory head, as long as a finger, that went the wrong way in the course of the shaking and fell into Domenica’s bladder.5 She did not dare to disclose the mishap, suffered and waited. She urinated drop by drop. After five months a stone had already formed around the needle, which was removed in the usual manner. Many such events have happened in convents, vast theaters of tribadism. Here it is an ear-­pick, there a pessary. In another case, a knitting needle guard or the tube from a syringe. Elsewhere a phial of queen of Hungary’s water [type of perfume], which lets it secrete drop by drop, a small weaver’s shuttle, a stalk of grain that rises on its own, that tickles the vagina, that the poor novice cannot withdraw, etc. One could fill a book with such anecdotes. In his travel accounts M. Poivre teaches us that the most celebrated tribades in the world are Chinese women.6 As women of quality do not walk much in that country, they tribadize through suspended hammocks. These hammocks are made of untwisted silk stitched in two-­inch squares. The body is stretched out slackly in them. The tribades swing back and forth and get excited without

206 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

taking pains to stir themselves. It is a great luxury for the mandarins to have twenty aerial tribades enjoying themselves before their eyes in a perfumed room. The seraglio of the great lord has no other purpose, for what would one man do with so many beauties? When the jaded sultan proposes to spend the night with one of those women, he has his sherbet brought to him in the room of towers, as it is called. The walls are covered with the most lascivious paintings. At the entrance to this room there is a dove on one side and a bitch on the other, by which one leaves, symbols of voluptuousness and lubricity. . . . In Paris the taste of pederasts makes great strides, though less in vogue than in the time of Henry III, in whose reign men aroused themselves together under the porticos of the Louvre. We know this city is a masterpiece of order. There are consequently public places authorized for this purpose. The young folks who intend to take up the profession are carefully classified, for the regulatory systems reach that far. They are examined, and those who can be active and passive, who are handsome, rosy, well built, chubby are reserved for the great lords or get themselves well paid by bishops and financiers. Those who lack testicles or, in terms of the trade (for our language is more chaste than our manners), do not have loom weights, but who give and take, compose the second class. They cost even more because women use them, while they also serve men. Those who are no longer capable of erections because they are so worn out, although they have all the organs necessary for pleasure, sign up as complete passives and compose the third class, but the woman who presides over these pleasures verifies their impotence. To this end the man is placed fully naked on a mattress with the bottom half uncovered. Two girls caress him as well as they can, while a third gently strikes the seat of venereal desires with budding nettles. After a quarter hour of these efforts, a long red pepper is inserted into the anus, which causes considerable inflammation. Fine mustard from Caudebec [Seine-­Maritime] is applied to the welts caused by the nettles and camphor to the glans. Those who resist these trials and show no sign of erection serve as passives for only a third of the cost. Oh, we have good reason to praise the progress of enlightenment in this philosophical century!

Fictions | 207 (1) Thelesyle, Amythone, Atthis, Anactorie, Cydno, Megara, Pyrrine, Andromeda, Mnais, Cirine, etc. (2) The inscription on the pedestal of the statue of Sappho by Silanion read: “Sappho, who praised lubricity herself and who was in love with a frenzy.”7 (3) “Vesta” comes from Greek and means fire. The Chaldeans and ancient Persians called fire “avesta.” Zoroaster entitled his famous book Avesta, guard of fire. The entrance door of houses was called “vestibule” because every Roman took care to keep this vestal fire burning at the door of his house. It is from this, no doubt, that the entrance of the vagina is called its vestibule, as the spot where the first fire of this temple burns.

78. Mirabeau, Correspondence of Eulalia (1785)8 The unnamed tribade in these excerpts is the daughter of a wealthy merchant in Lyon. She lost her mother at thirteen and was seduced by a nobleman at fifteen. After a miscarriage, she entered a convent, where she found female companionship and sexual satisfaction. Note that her aversion to men antedated her sequestration. Letter of Mlle Rosalie, 19 August 1782 This morning around 11:00 I was told a young man asked to speak with me. I ordered him to be taken to my salon, where I went to join him after checking to see if I was presentable. “Pardon my taking the step of coming to see you without being known to you,” he said, “but I have the greatest desire to enjoy your many charms. I hope you will not refuse me.” At the same time he placed a purse full of gold on my mantel and flew to give me a kiss full of fire, while drawing me to my sofa. Then he began to examine all parts of my body and cover them with burning kisses. All the while I anticipated a greater pleasure, and I thought everything he did was only to arouse himself. I wanted to help him out, but good God! How astonished I was when I discovered it was a woman. I got angry, but, throwing himself at my knees, he said, “Have mercy, dear Rosalie, do not prevent me from being the happiest of mortals.” In vain I wished to resist, but she had already given me very sweet sensations, and I was quite curious to see the denouement of this scene. I softened. She begged me to use my hands on her and, throwing herself on me, she put her tongue in the den of pleasure. Oh, God, with what skill she traversed all its parts. I experienced inexpressible pleasure and filled her mouth several times

208 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

with the liquor that gives us life. For her part, she flooded my hands. After an hour of this exertion she stopped. We were extremely tired. She asked me to have chocolate served. As we lunched, I expressed my surprise about her taste, given she was as pretty as she was. “Ah,” she replied, “if you knew my history your surprise would come to an end.” This piqued my curiosity, and I persuaded her to tell me. . . . My convalescence was a long one. I became melancholy and developed the greatest antipathy for men. It went almost as far as lessening affection for my father. I decided to enter the convent. I asked my father’s permission. He expressed surprise and said he sought to get me married. I assured him I had no desire to marry and gave my youth as a pretext. In the end, harassed by my prayers, my father gave his consent and sent me to the convent of ***. There, far from men, I began to recover my playfulness. I connected myself closely with sister Dorothy. Our friendship was rooted in her great aversion for the sex we had both been toys of. My friend made me acquainted with pleasures I had never experienced with the marquis. My affection increased to such a degree that I decided to become a nun so as not to leave Dorothy. My father opposed it, but an attack of gout carried him off, and I took the veil. My year as a novice was almost over, and I had only a month to go before taking the vows that would shackle me for life, when my dear Dorothy died. Her death hit me hard, and I thought I was going to join her, but my youth and the strength of my temperament won out. As soon as I recovered, I left the convent. I no longer had a vocation, and I could not stand to live in a place in which I enjoyed so much pleasure and recalled the image of Dorothy all the time. I had reached the age at which the laws left me mistress of my fortune. I sold my investments and bought an estate where I have lived for a year in the greatest solitude, surrounded only by women. But I felt I could not do without the pleasures to which my dear Dorothy, whom I will miss all my life, had accustomed me. I came to Paris to try to find a woman who pleases me and might replace her. I will share my fortune with her and make arrangements for her after me. I am vexed, my dear Victorine, that you cannot come to an agreement with me. Your appearance pleases me, but I have seen very well that you are not in my line, and you went along with my taste only out of kindness. “I hope you are no longer surprised.” I told her no, and I tried to talk her out of her antipathy for men. “No,” she said, “they will not deceive me a second time.” Then she begged me to let her enjoy my favors again, and I consented at once. Well, my friend, she made me experience new pleasures.

Fictions | 209

I admit to you that I would not want to lend myself often to such fantasies. I might become a tribade after the second encounter. My woman left another twenty-­five louis on the mantel when she departed. I ate a broth, went to bed and got up at 7 p.m. to recount to my dear Eulalia the amusing adventure that had befallen me. Letter of Mlle Rosalie, 8 September 1782 My dear friend, Here is a letter I received from my tribade: On the morning of the 6th

My dear Rosalie, I have met a charming person who could not be more amiable, who detests men and loves women as much as I do. I am leaving for my estate with her. There, in a retired manner, we will lead a rural and delightful life. We will be surrounded only by women. I do not want any men to serve us. If I had a minute, I would give you a hug and the small token of affection I enclose with my letter. I wish you as much happiness as I am going to have. Think of me sometimes. I will not forget the amiable Rosalie. The token of friendship she sent me was one of her tresses along with a bill of exchange for twenty-­five louis. I am very pleased that she found what she desired. The woman who is going to live with her will be happy. We must marvel how one finds all one wants in Paris. People have good reason to say there is only one Paris in the world.

79. André Robert Andréa de Nerciat (1739–­1 800), The Devil in the Body (1803)9 This cosmopolitan novelist spent time in and out of military service in France as well as Denmark, Germany, and Holland and completed The Devil in the Body before the Revolution. In this passage, as in #78, an embedded story provides an explanation for same-­sex desire rooted in traumatic personal misfortune. Count Chiavaculi [Buttkey] is a Neapolitan lord who is missing half of each leg. We will have the pleasure of hearing the story of the accident from his lordship’s own mouth (1). This Italian infamously

210 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

abhors what is most attractive in ladies and likes in their sex only that which they have in common with males. . . . Count: One more point. (He reads) Twentieth couple: chevalier de Pasimou [“mou” means soft or limp], Mme des Clapiers [rabbit warren or lowly brothel]. (Spoken) I sniffed both of them out, those Clapiers. I know few so accommodating. Marquise: Scoundrel, shut up. (To the countess) He is going to give us some other ridiculous commentary. Count: You criticize me! Well then, to make you mad, I add on good grounds / with fundament that I also used this Pasimou while he wore a cassock. Let us check the note. (He reads) The handsomest young man one could see and perhaps the most likable. Former abbé. (Spoken) Exactly, it is the same person. (He reads) He is now an excellent officer. (Spoken) I am pleased. (He reads) He has some faults. (Spoken) I knew he had that of being a bardache, but so many decent folks are! (He reads) Women take care of him. (Spoken) If he pleases, men would be gladly/strongly at his service. (1) Since these details are not found anywhere in the doctor’s work, we made inquiries about this Chiavaculi, and here is what we collected regarding this unfortunate character. Handsome as an angel at the age of twenty, he had the misfortune to fall in love with a prude. Having failed to seduce this dragon of virtue, the ardent young man imagined he could succeed through rape, and to that end a certain bribed maid cooperatively left a bedroom window open. At the hour when the presumptive Tarquin assumed the heartless one would surely be asleep, he attempted the assault, but she was awakened by some slight noise, threw herself out of bed, saw a man ready to straddle her, got confused, got angry and pushed him back so unluckily for him that, overturned with his ladder, he remained stuck in it by the legs, which broke above the calves.10 After the alarm was given within, before anyone could go see what was happening without, two rogues turned up. Stumbling along, they found a man in a swoon, disentangled him, not to help but so as to rob him more readily in a nearby cul-­de-­sac. It was there that the poor devil, abandoned without clothes, having to spend a long and cold night, had plenty of time to deplore his fatal passion and to curse, along with his cruel lover, the whole sex that bestows love. He felt his life was in danger and vowed, if he escaped death, never in his life to having anything to do with women. Daylight finally brought him relief, but too late. They could not save him unless he agreed to the sacrifice of his untreatable legs. The count, recovered, became extravagantly devout. At the end of two years, nature, repressed for too long, rebelled and took charge. Out of respect for the vow noted above was born

Fictions | 211 the palliative taste for gitons. He yielded to it. It grew. It became a passion, in the end a frenzy. All those like the count do not have as good excuses to give for their depravation.

80. Nicolas Edme Rétif de la Bretonne (1743–­1 806), Ode to Buggers (1789)11 This prolific novelist produced an extraordinary portrait of the capital (Les Nuits de Paris) and an extraordinary account of his own life (Monsieur Nicolas). He has been identified as the author of the satirical pamphlet Dom Bugger to the Estates-­General (1789).12 Like Sénac de Meilhan, he invoked nature and referenced mythology, but he ignored tribades and suggested that bardaches (not pederasts in general) exhibited effeminacy or at least artificiality. Monsters that nature brings forth among us, Bardached bardaches, objects of my anger, Execrable anglers of excrement Whose unworthy race I see increase every day, And provide material for my pencil all the time, Buggers, withdraw. I am going to celebrate the cunt. Oh you who sees me ready to praise all your charms, Mother of the universe, adorable Venus, Their crimes are not unknown in your eyes! Goddess, avenge yourself on this mass of infâmes. Plunge these enemies of women into hell. Nature made us to love tits But not to paw frightful in-­the-­butters. What pleasure can an abominable bugger have In caressing the ass of a fellow bugger? What fruit does he collect from his brutality? A lover who studies a beautiful young woman Tastes, when he fucks her, a rapture in his soul That goes as far as delirium and makes him swoon. But a bugger, in his dirty desires, feels Only the idea of happiness and false pleasures. Does he enjoy it? What horror his posture inspires! Just thinking about it makes nature shudder.

212 | Representations of Same-­S ex Relations

The sun, with regret, lends its rays to it And, tracing its gold veins in the breast of the seas, Goes to blush from seeing this dreadful crime. Or recoils in horror, as he did from the table At which Tantalus long ago, in entertaining the gods Served them the flesh of an unfortunate man on a platter.13 But if he sees a lover push his blade In front of the jewel that the female wears, This good and lewd god [Apollo], thinking of his Daphne, Moans from not being lucky as he is.14 Then intensifying his light with a flash, He illuminates the throne as well as the hut, Orders his sister [Diana, goddess of the moon] who follows him, like a sovereign, Not to interrupt the man in his charming retreat. Oh, what happy sighs, what divine pains These lovers feel in tightening their chains! What happiness and what contentment easy to conceive. Has a bugger ever, in his shameful manner, Felt such full and complete sweetness? These bardaches are handsome. Their rumps are well formed. Their faces are painted with the finest colors. Their bodies are perfumed with the best heat of lust. They have tight anuses, without hair and dung. Yes, buggers, yes, but it’s not as good as the mound [of Venus]. Black daughter of the Styx [river in Hades], whose many serpents Frighten the dead as well as the living, Who guard the frightful dwelling of hell, Come running at my call. Make me fertile at once. Invent new tortures with me. Let’s become the executioners of the frightful buggers, After suffering cristalline here, May they fall beneath the weight of your divine hand, Cast down by Venus from Tartarus [abyss below Hades], May they welcome the phantom of their perversities In these places full of sadness and fury, With their cocks erect, inhaling buttfuckery, Their bardaches in tears, attached to the chain, Their butts plugged by decree of Minos,

Fictions | 213

Who tells them, as well as their minions, in anger, Buggers, whose cocks scorned cunts, Who live under my laws in my dark realm, Whose numbers I see multiply every day, Do you think, armed with your tool, you’re going To stretch our anuses here, as they do in Berlin?15 Be aware that neither buggers nor bardaches Have given our curly asses a frontal assault down here. A feminine hand alone has this power. If your hope is founded on this pleasure, You have not, as they say, counted on your host. And to punish you for it, I deprive you forever of The ability to buttfuck, to discharge, Without ever being able to relieve yourselves with your hands. With you in this state in my presence, I want My honorable court, seated at my side, Lauding my justice with a hundred redoubled cries, Far from pitying your pains, to revile you And sing in your face, on a hundred different tones, A hymn composed to the glory of cunts.

NOTES

Preface 1. For streets and sites in Paris, see Jacques Hillairet, Dictionnaire historique des rues de Paris, 2 vols. (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1963) and eighteenth-­century sources such as Jacques René Hébert, Almanach parisien en faveur des étrangers et des personnes curieuses, first published in 1761, ed. Daniel Roche (Saint-­Etienne: Publications de l’Université Saint-­Etienne, 2001); and Pierre Thomas Nicolas Hurtaut and Pierre Magny, Dictionnaire historique de la ville de Paris et de ses environs, 4 vols. (Paris: Moutard, 1779). For communes, see Dictionnaire général des communes de France et des principaux hameaux en dépendant (Paris: J. Smith, 1818), which allows browsing for names spelled creatively in police reports. 2. For individuals, see the Dictionnaire de biographie française (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1933–­) or the older dictionaries by Hoefer, Jal, and Michaud. Researchers have uploaded valuable information to several genealogical websites and “Projet Familles Parisiennes,” accessed 10 October 2018, https://​w ww​.famillesparisiennes​ .org/. The annual Almanach royal, available in Gallica, lists office holders, including bishops, parish priests, ministers, magistrates, tax farmers, commissaires, and ambassadors. Many reference works on the

nobility have been digitized, and Google provides leads to books or sites, too numerous to list here, on other groups, such as generals, financiers, lawyers, notaries, artists, actors, and journalists.

Glossary 1. The ARTFL (American and French Research on the Treasury of the French Language) Project’s “Dictionnaires d’autrefois” database, University of Chicago, accessed 10 October 2018, https://​a rtfl​ -project​.uchicago​.edu/​content/​dictionnaires​-dautrefois, includes some eighteenth-­century dictionaries, and many others are available online. For modern lexicons, see Claude Courouve, Vocabulaire de l’ homosexualité masculine (Paris: Payot, 1985); and Jean Luc Hennig, Espadons, mignons et autres monstres: Vocabulaire de l’ homosexualité masculine sous l’ancien régime (Paris: Cherche Midi, 2014). 2. Dictionnaire universel, français, et latin, vulgairement appelé Dictionnaire de Trévoux, new ed. (Paris: Compagnie des Libraires Associés, 1771). 3. Charles de Brosses, Lettres historiques et critiques sur l’Italie, ed. Romain Colomb, 2 vols. (Paris: Alphonse Levasseur, 1836), 1:273 (3 October 1739). One police agent reported that sodomites spoke

216 | Notes to Pages xv–xvi Italian among themselves “because Italy was extremely infected with this crime.” AB 10989, fol. 226. Le Roux listed “sodomite” as one meaning of Italian. 4. MS, 10:367 (17 November 1777). Charles Marie, marquis de Villette (1736–­1793), the most notorious pederast of his generation, married and had one child. Jeffrey Merrick, “The Marquis de Villette and Mme de Raucourt,” 30–­53. For the satirical pamphlet about Villette published in 1791, see M&R, 198–­203. 5. Pierre François Huges d’Hancarville, Monuments du culte secret des dames romaines, pour servir de suite aux Monuments de la vie privée des XII Césars (Caprée: Sabellus, 1784), xvi. 6. Le Roux. 7. Antoine Furetière, Dictionnaire universel, 2nd ed. (Hague: Arnoud et Reiner Leers, 1701). Nicomedes ruled Bythnia, in northern Turkey, 94–­74 BCE. Reference works provide different dates for births, deaths, and even reigns in antiquity, so most such dates in notes should be considered approximate. 8. Mathieu François Pidansat de Mairobert, Anecdotes sur Mme la comtesse du Barry (London, 1775), 264. Jeanne Bécu, comtesse Du Barry (1743–­1793), mistress of Louis XV. Louis Benoît Zamor (1762–­1820), born in Bengal. 9. CS, 14:231–­33 (10 April 1783). 10. Le Roux. 11. Le Petit fils d’Hercule (n.p., 1701), 17. 12. Charles de Brosses, “Essai de géographie etymologique sur les noms donnés aux pays scythes anciens et modernes,” Mémoires de l’Académie de Dijon 2 (1774): 475. 13. Charles Pinot Duclos, Mémoires secrets sur le règne de Louis XIV, la Régence et le règne de Louis XV, 2 vols. (Paris: Foucault, 1829), 1:255. 14. Hancarville, Monuments, 22. 15. Guillaume Thomas François Raynal, Précis de l’Histoire philosophique et politique des établissements et du commerce

des Européens dans les deux Indes (Amsterdam: J. F. Rosart, 1782), 135. 16. Carlo Carasi, L’Ordre de Malte dévoilé, ou Voyage de Malte, 2 vols. (n.p., 1790), 2:215–­16. 17. Louis Sébastien Mercier, Le Nouveau Paris, 6 vols. (Brunswick, 1800), 3:152–­53. 18. René Louis de Voyer, marquis d’Argenson, Journal et mémoires, ed. E. J. B. Rathery, 9 vols. (Paris: Mme Veuve Jules Renouard, 1859–­67), 3:87–­88. Nicolas Pardoux, marquis de Vilaines. 19. Journal d’un bourgeois de Popincourt: Lefebvre de Beauvray, avocat au parlement, 1784–­1787, ed. Henri Vial and Gaston Capon (Paris: Lucien Gougy, 1902), 13. 20. Cahier des plaintes et doléances des dames de la halle et marché de Paris (Paris, 1789), 11. Tax farmer, a member of the association of financiers who leased the collection of taxes and operation of monopolies from the crown. 21. AB 11041, fol. 261v. 22. Le Roux. 23. Histoire nouvelle de tous les pays du monde, 41 vols. (Paris, 1779–­85), 36:301. 24. Pierre Claude Lejeune, Observations critiques et philosophiques sur le Japon et sur les Japonais (Amsterdam: Knapen et fils, 1780), 19–­20. 25. André Robert Andréa de Nerciat, Les Aphrodites, excerpted in L’Oeuvre d’Andrea de Nerciat, 235. 26. Code, ou Nouveau règlement sur les lieux de prostitutions dans la ville de Paris (London, 1775), 11. Caligula, Roman emperor, reigned 37–­4 1 CE. 27. “Le Pauvre diable,” in Oeuvres complètes, 10:103. Pierre François Guyot Desfontaines (1685–­1745), journalist, arrested for sodomy in 1724 and again in 1725, released through the intervention of Voltaire and others. Zoilus (400–­320 BCE), Greek philosopher, archetypal jealous critic. Élie Catherine Fréron (1719–­1776) married and had one child.

Notes to Pages xvi–xviii | 217 28. Jean Marie Bernard Clément, Mon dernier mot (Geneva, 1775), 11. 29. Pidansat de Mairobert, Espion anglais, 1:250–­51. 30. DAF. 31. AB 108709, fol. 96. Benjamin Deschauffours, executed on 24 May 1726. 32. Louis Auguste Le Tonnelier, baron de Breteuil, minister of the royal household, to Louis Pierre Quentin de Richebourg, marquis de Champcenetz, governor of the Tuileries, and François Jean Greban, lieutenant general of the prévôté de l’hôtel, 17 November 1784, AN, O1 425, fols. 427–­28. 33. CD, 47–­8. 34. Hancarville, Monuments, 23. Lucian (125–­180 CE), Greek satirist. 35. Jean Godefroy, La Véritable fatalité de Saint-­Cloud au R. P. . . . (n.p., 1720), 466. Henri III reigned 1574–­89. 36. Charles Henri Godefroy de La Tour d’Auvergne, duc de Bouillon (1730–­1807), married and had four children. He married Castoldy to his former mistress (“despite the public’s presumption about the prince’s taste”), Mlle Montigny, and named him captain of his hunts. Paris sous Louis XV: Rapports des inspecteurs de police au roi, ed. Camille Piton, 5 vols. (Paris, 1908–­15), 4:205–­6 (24 September 1756). 37. “Les Plaisirs du cloître,” in Théâtre gaillard, 2 vols. (London, 1788), 2:174. Hylas, beautiful young companion of Hercules. 38. Dictionnaire de Trévoux. 39. Furetière, Dictionnaire universel. 40. Pierre Antoine de la Place, Amusements, gaïtés et frivolités par un bon Picard (London, 1783), 230. 41. MS, 27:305 (11 October 1774). On Sophie Arnould, see section E. 42. DAF. 43. François Vincent Toussaint, “Des inductions qu’on peut tirer du langage d’une nation par rapport à sa culture et à ses moeurs,” Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences et belles lettres, année MDCCLXV (Berlin, 1767), 503.

44. MS, 7:88 (1 November 1773). 45. MS, 26:68–­69 (19 June 1784). Henri Lambert d’Herbigny, marquis de Thibouville (1710–­1784), married but had no children. A police agent reported that he consorted with actresses only “to confound those who accused him of being an outrageous bugger.” Archives de la Bastille, ed. François Ravaisson Mollien, 19 vols. (Paris: A. Durand et Pedone-­L auriel, 1866–­1904), 12:295 (23 October 1748). According to another source, he was even more devoted than Villette to “the cult of the love that our sages have proscribed so severely but which those of ancient Greece excused with so much indulgence.” CL, 12:55 (February 1778). For more comments about his “unnatural” taste and “filthy” vice, see Charles Collé, Journal historique, 3 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie bibliographique, 1807), 2:307 (November 1759); and Jean François Marmontel, Mémoires, ed. Maurice Tourneux, 3 vols. (Paris: Librairie des bibliophiles, 1891), 1:164. 46. Le Roux. 47. Jean Baptiste de Boyer d’Argens, Lettres cabalistiques, ou Correspondance philosophique, historique et critique entre deux cabalistes, divers esprits élémentaires, et le seigneur Ast, 7 vols. (Hague: Pierre Paupie, 1754), 4:23. 48. Laurent François, Observations sur la Philosophie de l’ histoire et le Dictionnaire philosophique, 2 vols. (Paris: Pillot, 1770), 2:12. For the article “Socratic Love,” see M&R, 156–­59. 49. Un Diplomate français à la cour de Catherine II, 1775–­1780: Journal intime du chevalier de Corberon, chargée d’affaires de France en Russie, ed. Léon Honoré Labande, 2 vols. (Paris: Plon-­Nourrit, 1901), 1:268. 50. Timothée Hureau de Livoy, Dictionnaire de synonymes français, new ed. (Paris: Nyon l’aîné, 1788). 51. Claude Joseph de la Ferrière, Dictionnaire de droit et de pratique, contenant l’explication des termes de droit,

218 | Notes to Pages xviii–8 d’ordonnances, de coutumes et de pratique, avec les jurisdictions de France, new ed., 2 vols. (Paris: Saugrain, 1771), 2:621. 52. Charles Frédéric de Merveilleux, Mémoires instructifs pour un voyageur dans les divers états de l’Europe (Amsterdam: H. du Sauzet, 1738), 2 vols. in 1, 1:141. François Marie de Marsay, Histoire moderne des Chinois, des Japonais, des Indiens, des Persans, des Turcs, des Russiens etc., 30 vols. (Paris: Saillant et Nyon, 1755–­78), 2:407. 53. DAF. 54. Pierre Richelet, Dictionnaire français (Geneva: J. H. Widerhold, 1680). 55. Le Roux. 56. Simon Pierre de Mérard de Saint-­ Just, Folies de jeunesse de Sir Peter Talassa-­Aitheï, 3 vols. (London, 1777), 3:23.

Introduction 1. On the evolution of the history of sexuality, see Carolyn Dean, Sexuality and Modern Western Culture (New York: Twayne, 1996); Anna Clark, Desire: A History of European Sexuality (New York: Routledge, 2008); or Katherine Crawford, European Sexualities, 1400–­1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 2. For two sensible and instructive articles that redirected historical analysis after prolonged debates, see David Halperin, “How to Do the History of Male Sexuality,” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 6, no. 1 (2000): 87–­123; and Judith Bennett, “‘Lesbian-­Like’ and the Social History of Lesbianisms,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 9, nos. 1–­2 (2000): 1–­2 4. 3. In addition to the articles listed in the recommended reading, Rey also published several articles for general readers, most notably “Le Mariage d’un serrurier: Les rites d’initiation des sodomites au 18e siècle,” Gai Pied 37 (April 1982): 43–­46;

and “Des journées entières sous les arbres: L’art de ‘raccrocher’ au XVIIIe siècle,” Masques 24 (1984–­95): 91–­100. 4. Jeffrey Merrick, “Patterns and Concepts in the Sodomitical Subculture of Eighteenth-­C entury Paris,” Journal of Social History 50, no. 2 (2016): 273–­306. 5. Randolph Trumbach, “The Transformation of Sodomy from the Renaissance to the Modern World and Its General Sexual Consequences,” Signs 37, no. 4 (2012): 832–­47; and “From Age to Gender, c. 1500–­1750: From the Adolescent Male to the Adult Effeminate Body,” in The Routledge History of Sex and the Body, 1500 to the Present, ed. Sarah Toulalan and Kate Fisher (London: Routledge, 2013), 123–­4 1. Trumbach has published many instructive articles—­for example, about soldiers, extortion, and prostitution—­t hat could and should inspire research on the same topics in Paris and elsewhere. “The Heterosexual Male in Eighteenth-­C entury London and His Queer Interactions,” in Love, Sex, Intimacy and Friendship Between Men, 1550-1800, ed. Katherine O’Donnell and Michael O’Rourke (London: Palgrave, 2006), 99–­127; “Blackmail for Sodomy in Eighteenth-­C entury London,” Historical Reflections / Réflexions historiques 33, no. 1 (2007): 23–­39; and “Male Prostitution and the Emergence of the Modern Sexual System: Eighteenth-­C entury London,” in Prostitution and Eighteenth-­Century Culture, ed. Ann Lewis and Markman Ellis (London, 2012), 185–­2 01. 6. Jeffrey Merrick, “Gender in Pre-­ Revolutionary Political Culture,” in From Deficit to Deluge: The Origins of the French Revolution, ed. Thomas Kaiser and Dale Van Kley (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 198–­219; and, most recently, “‘Ces affaires sont toujours fâcheuses’: The Marital Separation Case of the Comte and Comtesse de Sainte-­ Maure, 1724–­31,” French History 31, no. 4 (2017): 420–­39.

Notes to Pages 7–9 | 219

Part I: Surveillance of the Parisian Subculture 1. Parot published the first novel in the series in 2000 and the fourteenth in 2017. The books, which include a few references to sex between men, have spawned not only translations but also a French television series, a website, even serious scrutiny by Pascale Arizmendi in Nicolas Le Floch: Le Tableau de Paris de Jean François Parot (Perpignan: Presses universitaires de Perpignan, 2010). 2. Vincent Milliot, Un Policier des Lumières, suivi des mémoires de J. P. C. Lenoir (Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 2011); and“L’Admirable police”: Tenir Paris au siècle des Lumières (Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 2016). Alan Williams, The Police of Paris, 1715–­1789 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1979) remains very useful. The extensive bibliography in Milliot’s book on Lenoir includes important articles by previous historians—­from Alan Williams to David Garrioch, Paolo Piasenza, and others—­who explored the work of the police in the same spirit. 3. On the personnel mentioned here, see Williams, Police, chaps. 2–­3. On commissaires and inspectors, see Justine Berlière, Policer Paris au siècle des Lumières: Les commissaires du quartier du Louvre dans la seconde moitié du XVIIIe siècle (Paris: École des Chartes, 2012); Rachel Couture, “‘Inspirer la crainte, le respect et l’amour du public’: Les inspecteurs de police parisiens, 1740–­1789” (PhD diss., Université du Québec à Montréal, 2013); and Milliot, L’Admirable police, chaps. 1–­2. Julian Gomez Pardo found just one case in the records of the rural constabulary that patrolled the environs of the capital. La Maréchaussée et le crime en Île-­de-­France sous Louis XIV et Louis XV (Paris: Les Indes Savantes, 2012), 277. 4. Claude Courouve’s incomplete list of trials, published in 1978 and republished frequently, includes seven executions in

the eighteenth century. I have compiled and will publish a more reliable list based on the inventory of criminal cases adjudicated by the Parlement of Paris, the royal appeals court with jurisdiction over a third of the kingdom. 5. Claude Courouve, L’Affaire Lenoir-­ Diot (Paris: self-­pub., 1980); Maurice Lever, Les Bûchers de Sodome: Histoire des “ infâmes” (Paris: Fayard, 1985), 383–­84; and M&R, 77–­79. Diot and Lenoir have been memorialized in a plaque imbedded in the pavement at 67 rue Montorgeuil. 6. Lever, Bûchers, 384–­88; and Jeffrey Merrick, “‘Brutal Passion’ and ‘Depraved Taste’: The Case of Jacques François Pascal,” in Homosexuality in French History and Culture, ed. Jeffrey Merrick and Michael Sibalis (New York: Haworth Press, 2001), 85–­104. 7. Nicolas Boindin of the Academy of Inscriptions to Guillaume Francois Rouelle of the Academy of Sciences at the café Procope, quoted in Claude Lauriol, La Beaumelle, un protestant cévenol entre Montesquieu et Voltaire (Geneva: Droz, 1978), 176. 8. Bernard de Bonnard, quoted in Simone Gougeaud-­A rnaudeau, La Vie du chevalier de Bonnard (1744–­1784) (Paris: Harmattan, 2005), 213. 9. Jeffrey Merrick, The Desacralization of the French Monarchy in the Eighteenth Century (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1990). 10. Louis Sébastien Mercier, Le Tableau de Paris, ed. Jean Claude Bonnet, 2 vols. (Paris: Mercure de France, 1994), 1:938. 11. For two cases, see M&R, 37–­39, 74–­75. 12. In exploring the prisoners series, I have discovered some cases adjudicated by the Châtelet and not transmitted to the Parlement, which I have analyzed in an article under review. For other sources, most notably the records of the prévôté de l’hôtel, which had jurisdiction over royal residences, and the dispatches of the

220 | Notes to Pages 9–14 ministry of the royal household, see Jeffrey Merrick, “New Sources and Questions for Research on the Social History of Sexual Relations Between Men in Eighteenth-­ Century France,” Gender & History 29, no. 1 (2018): 9–­29. The dispatches, indexed by address but not by subject, include a good deal of information about sex between men. 13. The number of sodomy dossiers in the prisoners series increased from zero in 1720 to fourteen in 1721 to thirty-­ three in 1722 and exploded the next year. One dossier from 1723 includes a reference to “the decree that Monseigneur the duc d’Orléans issued against sodomites,” but this text has eluded me thus far. AB 10772, fol. 73. Commissaire Foucault’s extant papers include nothing between April and October 1780, but Federici’s reports mention a patrol in July. By the late 1780s, it appears that pederasty patrols arrested only men caught in the act. This matter deserves and demands further research. For now, see section A, #6, in which Fleury’s lawyer distinguishes desires and actions, and #15, in which Brisart “feared nothing because he had not been caught in the act.” 14. The extant prison records of the Grand Châtelet and Bicêtre in the Archives de la Préfecture de Police, series AB, contain some information about sodomites and pederasts. 15. Jacques Louis Ménétra, Journal de ma vie, ed. Daniel Roche (Paris: Montalba, 1982), 197. Ménétra was arrested in the company of several pederasts in 1786. Daniel Roche, “Ménétra dans le Paris pré-­ révolutionnaire et révolutionnaire (1762–­1802),” Histoire, Économie & Société 37, no. 2 (2018): 57–­69n13. 16. In exploring the prisoners series, I have discovered multiple lists of sodomites that document sexual relations offstage, which I have analyzed in an article under review. 17. The database, currently under construction, is the core of a digital

humanities project hosted by Colorado College. The website (http://​coloradocollege​.website/​phs/) includes sample documents, background essays, and a comprehensive bibliography. 18. Jeffrey Merrick, “Patterns and Prosecution of Suicide in Eighteenth-­Century Paris,” Historical Reflections / Réflexions historiques 16, no. 1 (1989): 1–­53; and, most recently “Sodomy, Suicide, and the Limits of Legal Reform in Eighteenth-­Century France,” Studies in Eighteenth-­Century Culture 46 (2017): 183–­203.

Section A: Reports from the Archives of the Bastille 1. AB 10254-­67, 10330-­12471. Stephen Shapiro is preparing a French edition of selections from these series. 2. For the first cluster of cases, see Jeffrey Merrick, “Sodomites and Police in Paris, 1715,” Journal of Homosexuality 42, no. 3 (2002): 103–­28. The cases from 1751 to 1769 involve sexual relations between clergymen and prostitutes. 3. The series includes no sodomy cases from 1770, 1775, 1780, or 1785. Many documents from these decades were probably dispersed or destroyed during or after the attack on the Bastille on 14 July 1789. 4. At the BN’s “Archives et manuscrits” page, accessed 10 October 2018, http://​ archivesetmanuscrits​.bnf​.fr/, click on “Bibliotheque de l’Arsenal,” then “Archives de la Bastille,” then “Dossiers des prisonniers,” then “Sous-unites de description,” then year, then carton number. With names in hand, you can search individuals through the homepage, but you will obtain false hits and cannot locate references inside dossiers in this way. 5. For a seventeenth-­century case from another series, see Jeffrey Merrick, “Chaussons in the Streets: Sodomy in SeventeenthCentury Paris,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 15, no. 2 (2006): 167–­203.

Notes to Pages 15–19 | 221 6. Marc Pierre de Voyer d’Argenson (1696–­1764), lieutenant general, 1720, 1722–­2 4. Simonnet, exempt de la robe courte, an officer in charge of one of the brigades under the command of the lieutenant criminal of the Châtelet. Haimier, exempt de la prévôté et maréchaussée, an officer in charge of one of the brigades of the rural constabulary. On these companies, see Williams, Police, 84–­89. Nicolas Théru, professor at the collège Mazarin, subject of research in progress by Benjamin Bernard, graduate student in history at Princeton University. 7. At least some decoys were, and others may well have been, men arrested for sodomy who worked for the police to avoid prison. My projects in progress include an article about decoys. I have discovered some notes written in phonetic French and more than thirty names. 8. Police records provide abundant documentation about sodomitical noblemen and clergymen, who deserve further study. Chad Denton, Decadence, Radicalism, and the Early Modern French Nobility: The Enlightened and the Depraved (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2017) includes a chapter on “The Liberated Sodomite,” based on literary sources. Myriam Deniel-­Ternant, Ecclésiastiques en débauche (1700–­1790) (Ceyzérieu: Champ Vallon, 2017) includes a section on “Espaces de sociabilité de l’homosexualité,” based on the morals series. We know almost nothing about same-­sex relations outside the capital, so information about provincial origins and adventures in Parisian sources should be collected and analyzed. Additional references are buried in the papers of the local courts (bailliages and sénéchaussés) and municipal authorities, unpublished mémoires de maîtrise based on research in these sources, and the voluminous secondary literature on sexuality and criminality in early modern France. 9. The following conclusions are based on scrutiny of all the relevant dossiers in

cartons from the years 1720 to 1730. The word effeminate appears once as a noun in these cartons (AB 10989, fol. 201) and once as an adjective in the extant records of the trial of Deschauffours. Les Procès de sodomie aux XVIe, XVIIe, et XVIIIe siècles, publiés d’après les documents judiciaires conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale, ed. Ludovico Hernandez (Paris: Bibliothèque des curieux, 1920), 176. 10. AB 10729, fol. 205; 10256, fol. 280. 11. AB 10257, fol. 261. 12. For the earliest use of the word assemblies located thus far, see M&R, 42. On gendered conduct in this set of documents from 1702, see Gary Ferguson, Same-­Sex Marriages in Renaissance Rome: Sexuality, Identity, and Community in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2016), chap. 10. 13. AB 10908, fol. 216. 14. One report from 1727 mentions assemblies of sodomites, aged 27–­30, “masked and disguised as women,” without further details. AB 10987, fol. 13. On the 1730s and 1740s, see Michel Rey, “Parisian Homosexuals Create a Lifestyle, 1700–­1750,” Eighteenth-­Century Life 9, no. 3 (1985): 186–­88; and “1700–­1750: Les sodomites parisiens créent un mode de vie,” Cahiers Gai-­Kitsch-­Camp 24 (1994): xxv–­x xx. 15. The assembly included female prostitutes, at least for a while, but note that one man had anal rather than vaginal intercourse with one of them. 16. AB 10254, dossier Brécey; 10256, fols. 191–­93; 10257, fols. 183–­88; 10258, fols. 416–­19; 11040, fols. 183–­93. Vassy married and had two children, born in 1714 and 1717. He must have been in his thirties by 1722 and could have been in his fifties by 1738. 17. Joisel (a.k.a. Chiverny, Choiseul, La Neuville, or Saulne), mentioned in many police reports. AB 10741, fols. 126–­27; 10255, fol. 55; 10761, fol. 43; 10812, fols. 176–­77; 10821, fol. 68; 10850, fol. 51.

222 | Notes to Pages 19–49 18. Arrested on 24 June 1738 and released two days later. AB 10268, fols. 331–­32. 19. Letter from a female friend who signed herself Saint-­Gilles de Grayes, appended to the report. 20. René Hérault (1691–­1740), lieutenant general, 1725–­40. 21. Olivet, Pierre Joseph Thoulier (1682–­1768), professor at the collège Louis-­le-­Grand, elected to the French Academy in 1723. 22. Jacques Philippe de Girard, marquis de Charnacé (1674–­1720), married but had no children. 23. René Joseph de Tournemine (1661–­1739), Jesuit and journalist. 24. Charles Jacques Etienne Parent, commissaire, 1723–­50. 25. AB 10794, fols. 2–­4, 13, 20–­21, 24. The word abbé, strictly speaking, means abbot, but the French applied it to any clergyman. 26. Community, more properly the Society of the Priests of Saint-­Sulpice, founded by Jean Jacques Olier, parish priest of Saint-­Sulpice, in 1645. Roger claimed that he had received the minor orders and subdiaconate, but his own parents contradicted him. 27. Marc René de Voyer d’Argenson (1652–­1721), lieutenant general, 1697–­1718. For excerpts from his unpublished and published papers, see M&R, 37–­52. 28. Hospital on rue du Général Leclerc, Kremlin-­Bicêtre, in the southern suburbs of Paris. 29. On Sardet, see section A, #12. 30. In theory, only nobles wore swords. In practice, working men sometimes dressed like bourgeois or nobles. 31. Joseph Henri, marquis du Vivier (b. 1697). 32. Prison on rue Saint-­Germain l’Auxerrois, demolished in 1783. 33. On Saget, see section A, #11. 34. Marie Anne de Bourbon (1678–­1718) and Louis Joseph, duc

de Vendôme, a notorious sodomite, had no children. 35. Jeffrey Merrick, “‘A Fabric of Infamy’: The Sodomitical Life of Jean François de Rougemont,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 26, no. 1 (2017): 1–­25. 36. AB 10770, fols. 26–­27, 30, 37, 109. 37. Prison on the Left Bank between the Petit Pont and Pont au Double, demolished in 1782. 38. AB 10254, dossiers Deu and Dufour. 39. AB 10254, dossier Eraux. 40. Louis Charles de Machault d’Arnouville (1666–­1750) and Gabriel Taschereau de Baudry (1673–­1753), lieutenants general, 1718–­20 and 1720–­22, respectively. 41. AB 10778, fols. 61–­64, 67–­68, 71–­72. 42. Fabry, barrister in the Parlement. 43. Guillaume François Joly de Fleury (1675–­1756), attorney general, 1705–­46. 44. François Desance, commissaire, 1723–­31. 45. Jean François Tourton, commissaire, 1697–­1731. 46. AB 10782, fols. 282–­83. 47. The French word femme applies to both adult and married females. 48. AB 10779, fol. 220. 49. AB 10254, dossier Gobert. 50. Louis, duc de Brancas de Villars (1663–­1739), married and had one child. 51. Cadeau or Cadot, also mentioned by Pierre Lacombe, 42–­43, unemployed domestic, arrested on 11 December 1723. AB 10783. 52. Jean Frédéric Phélypeaux de Maurepas (1701–­1781), minister of the royal household, 1718–­48. 53. AB 10792, fols. 2–­5, 8. He entered/ exited the Grand Châtelet on 19/23 June. 54. Prison on the Right Bank between the Pont Notre-­Dame and Pont au Change, demolished in the first decade of the nineteenth century. 55. Yvernaux, monastery located in Brie, region east of Paris.

Notes to Pages 49–65 | 223 56. Jacques Bence performed the functions of parish priest of Saint-­Sulpice in 1723 and secured the title in 1726. 57. Roland François de Kerhoën de Coëtanfao, bishop of Avranches, expelled Philippe, then vicar of Champs, from the diocese in 1718 because he was “accused of Jansenism and suspected of the crime of sodomy.” E. A. Pigeon, “Chronique d’Avranche aux dix-­septième et dix-­huitième siècles,” Mémoires de la Société d’archéologie, littérature, sciences et arts des arrondissements d’Avranches et de Mortain 7 (1885): 228. 58. Guillaume Dubois (1656–­1723), cardinal as of 1721 and prime minister as of 1722. 59. AB 10796, 2–­3, 27–­28, 30, 32, 34. 60. François Camille de Neufville de Villeroy (1700–­1732), marquis d’Alincourt, exiled from court in 1722, never married. 61. The marquis wrote this letter from Chalon-­sur-­Sâone in Burgundy. 62. AB 10796, fol. 203. He entered/ exited the Grand Châtelet on 30 May / 26 June 1723. 63. Jacques Vincent Bidal d’Asfeld (1664–­1745), abbé de la Vieuville and royal almoner, arrested in 1729. 64. AB 10797, fols. 226–­27. 65. AB 11006, fol. 168. 66. AB 11013, fols. 216, 214. 67. AB 11606, fols. 165–­67. 68. Louise Henriette Françoise de Lorraine (1707–­1737), fourth wife of Emmanuel Théodose de La Tour d’Auvergne, duc de Bouillon. They had one child. 69. Louis Alexandre Croiset, marquis d’Etiaux (1645–­1728), president (senior magistrate) in the fourth chambre des requêtes in the Parlement, married and had children. Jeanne Marie Fradet de Saint-­ Août (d. 1738) and Jacques du Plessis Châtillon, marquis de Nonant, had one child. Louis du Plessis Châtillon, marquis de Nonant, married and had children.

70. In 1728, that title belonged to the widowed Madeleine Charlotte le Tellier (1664–­1735). 71. AB 11013, fol. 217v. 72. AB 11006, fols. 297–­98. 73. Jean Baptiste Dufresne, thirty years old. 74. The dossier includes two letters from Hautefort, who washed his hands of Dufresne, who had rendered himself “unworthy . . . of the honor of my protection through his dissipation.” 75. AB 10257, fol. 119. 76. AB 10264, fols. 75–­85v. 77. Antoine Gabriel de Sartine (1729–­1801), lieutenant general, 1759–­74. 78. Pierre Martin de Vismes (1711–­1777), tax farmer, married and had four children. Emmanuel Maurice de Lorraine, duc d’Elbeuf (1677–­1763), a notorious sodomite, had two wives and no children. 79. In Brotherly Love: Freemasonry and Male Friendship in Enlightenment France (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014), chap. 3, Kenneth Loiselle compared Freemasons with sodomites instructively but without this kind of evidence from inside the subculture. He argued, unpersuasively, that French Masons founded sister lodges to deflect suspicions about sodomy. 80. Louis Jean Marie de Bourbon, duc de Penthièvre (1725–­1793), married and had eight children. 81. Guardian, actually the executor of his mother’s will, Louis LeDoux is identified in the next document. 82. Louis Phélypeaux, comte de Saint-­ Florentin (1705–­1777), minister of the royal household, 1749–­75. 83. AB 12070, fols. 279–­83. 84. Louis François Armand de Vignerot du Plessis, duc de Richelieu (1696–­1788), mentioned by several men arrested in 1723, had three wives and two children with the second one. Judging from Dosseur’s numbers, he entered Sérigny’s service in 1737, so the former

224 | Notes to Pages 65–75 master in question must be Pierre Joseph Charles Antoine Lemoine de Sérigny (1668–­1734). 85. Louis, duc d’Orléans (1703–­1752), son of the regent, married and had two children. Joseph Marie, comte de Faudoas, had two wives and two children with the first one. 86. The list of maîtres de requêtes, officials who staffed royal councils and played other administrative roles, in the 1760 Almanach royal includes no one with this name. 87. Gaspard Henri de Caze de la Bove (1711–­1750), maître des requêtes, married and had one child. 88. AB 10267, unpaginated; 12255, fols. 264, 266–­69, 270, 273–­74; 12240, fols. 273–­76. The condition of the first two documents necessitates some guesswork, shown in brackets. 89. Pierre Etienne Buhot, inspector responsible for surveillance of foreigners in Paris. 90. François Fontaine, master tailor, and his wife, who lived in the same building as Dupré and d’Étam, reported that the unemployed cook’s assistant had committed “the frightful crime of sodomy” on their son. Undated petition addressed to the lieutenant general. AB 12254, fol. 15. 91. Roger François Gilbert de Voisins (1690–­1767), head clerk as of 1717, did not marry. 92. Nicolas Gabriel Gilbert de Voisins, marquis de Villennes (1685–­1767), had two wives and no children. 93. Gilles Pierre Chenu, commissaire, 1747–­91. 94. He entered the Grand Châtelet on 15 October 1765 and was transferred to Bicêtre on 22 October. 95. Le Canapé, between the Louvre and the Pont Neuf, known as such “among men of this type.” AN, Y13408, 3 November 1780. Count Alexander Soltikow, Russian ambassador to France as of 1762.

96. Title granted to Michal Franciszek Sapieha (1670–­1700) for life by Emperor Leopold I and to his descendants by the Polish parliament in 1768. Aleksander Michal Pawel Sapieha (1739–­1780), married and had seven children. 97. AB 12240, fol. 264. 98. Commissaires routinely used the archaic plural “us” rather than the singular “me.” 99. Pierre Daniel Bourée de Corberon (1717–­1794), president in the first chamber of inquests in the Parlement of Paris as of 1751, married and had four children. Philippe de Cuisy (1691–­1779), tax farmer as of 1762, married and had one child.

Section B: Reports of the Watch/Guard and the Commissaires 1. Jean Chagniot, “Le Guet et la garde de Paris à la fin de l’ancien régime,” Revue d’ histoire moderne et contemporaine 20, no. 1 (1973): 58–­71. 2. There is no comprehensive and comparative analysis of transvestism in eighteenth-­century France, including female workers and soldiers, the chevalier d’Eon, and much more. 3. AN, Y10719–­16009. For names, dates of service, assignments, and addresses, see the digitized Répertoire numérique des archives du Châtelet de Paris, Série Y, vol. 2: Les commissaires, accessed 10 October 2018, http://​w ww​.archivesnationales​ .culture​.gouv​.fr/​chan/​chan/​pdf/​repertoire​ -Y​-minutes​-commissaires​.pdf. 4. The archives of the Orléans family contain no reports of the guards who patrolled the Palais Royal. 5. AN, Y10620–­32. 6. Parisians could hire lantern bearers to light the way through the streets at night.

Notes to Pages 76–91 | 225 7. Pierre Gaspard Marie Grimod d’Orsay (1748–­1809) had two wives and one child with each of them. 8. Antoine René de Voyer de Paulmy d’Argenson (1722–­1787), who married and had four children, or his cousin Marc René de Voyer de Paulmy d’Argenson (1722–­82), who married and had two children. 9. Anne Julie Françoise de Crussol (1713–­1797) and Louis César La Baume Le Blanc, duc de La Vallière, had three children. 10. Jean Baptiste Martin the younger, named after his more famous father. 11. Louis Philippe, duc d’Orléans (1725–­1785), had two wives and three children with the first one. 12. AN, Y10895B, 25 April 1768. 13. Thierion, commissaire, 1755–­79. 14. AN, Y10895B, 27 July 1768. 15. Académie Royale d’Equitation. Dugard conducted classes in the courtyard of the Tuileries Palace. Mercure de France, April 1767, 192. 16. AN, Y13674, 6 September 1769. 17. Coquelin, commissaire, 1762–­73. 18. AN, Y15664, 20 February 1775. 19. Chénon and Sirebeau, commissaires, 1773–­91 and 1752–­91, respectively. 20. Jacques Louis Liébault, whose titles in the household of the duc d’Orléans included concierge of the Palais Royal. 21. Louis André de Grimaldi (1736–­1804), bishop of Le Mans, 1767–­78. 22. AN, Y13127B, 21 July 1775. 23. Fontaine, commissaire, 1757–­91. 24. Louis Charles Othon, prince de Salm-­Salm (1721–­1778) or Philippe Joseph, prince de Salm-­Kyrburg (1707–­1779). Charles Juste, prince de Beauvau-­Craon (1720–­1793), married and had one child. Gabrielle Charlotte de Beauvau-­Craon (1724–­1790), abbess of the Cistercian convent of Saint-­A ntoine-­des-­Champs, later transformed into a hospital (12th arr.). 25. AN, Y13685, 22 July 1775.

26. Gillet, commissaire, 1774–­87. 27. AN, Y13793, 8 August 1776. 28. Antoine Bernard Léger, commissaire, 1760–­91. 29. AN, Y11194, 17 March 1777. He entered/exited the Grand Châtelet on 17 March / 14 April 1777. 30. Carlier, commissaire, 1754–­82. 31. AN, Y15207, 31 July 1779. He entered/exited the Grand Châtelet on 21 July / 29 August 1779. 32. Saint-­Père, commissaire, 1777–­79. Barristers argued cases in court, and attorneys did other types of legal work. 33. Louis Philippe Joseph, duc de Chartres, later duc d’Orléans and Philippe-­Egalité (1747–­1793), married and had five children. 34. Lefèvre was released on 29 August 1779.

Section C: Reports of the Swiss Guard in the Champs-­ Élysées and the Commissaires 1. Charles Claude Flahaut de la Billaderie, comte d’Angiviller (1730–­1810), director of royal buildings, 1774–­89. Arlette Farge published the unindexed reports, in AN, O11589, with an informative introduction but many unmarked changes in the texts: Flagrants délits sur les Champs-­Elysées: Les dossiers de police du gardien Federici (1777–­1791) (Paris: Mercure de France, 2008). The reports of the two commissaires are located in AN, Y13401B-­13410A and Y11679B-­11733. Some documents have vanished from both sets since Bryant Ragan and I completed our initial research in the 1990s. On Foucault, see Jeffrey Merrick, “Commissioner Foucault, Inspector Noël, and the ‘Pederasts’ of Paris, 1780–­3,” Journal of Social History 32, no. 2 (1998): 287–­307. For examples from Desormeaux’s papers, see M&R, 79–­92.

226 | Notes to Pages 91–101 2. For the reports of the 1781 pederasty patrols in Foucault’s papers, see Merrick and Ragan, Policing Homosexuality in Eighteenth-­Century Paris, forthcoming. 3. Federici misspelled the name, like many others, and it is not clear which marquis he means. 4. No documentation of this case in his papers. 5. Nicolas Beaujon (1718–­1799), financier, owned the Palais de l’Élysée, later the official residence of French presidents, from 1773 to 1786. 6. Romain Armand Legretz, commissaire, 1764–­82, listed in Les Enfants de Sodome à l’Assemblée Nationale (Paris, 1790), in M&R, 183. No documentation of this case in his papers. For more about Boulin, see section D. 7. The northern boulevards on the Right Bank replaced the city walls demolished in the seventeenth century and formed a semicircle between the Saint-­ Honoré and Saint-­A ntoine Gates. The more irregular ring of boulevards on the Left Bank extended from the Invalides to the Salpetrière. Cristalline, a type of venereal disease commonly associated with but not necessarily caused by “shameful intercourse disavowed by nature.” Jacques de Horne, “Cristalline,” Encyclopédie méthodique, Médecine, ed. Félix Vicq-­ d’Azyr, 13 vols. (Paris: Panckoucke, 1787–­1830), 5:229. 8. Antoine Pierre Viel de Lunas (1760–­1837) did not marry. The characteristic and presumably fashionable costume or outfit of pederasts deserves further research. 9. Jean Charles Pierre Lenoir (1732–­1807), lieutenant general, 1774–­75 and 1776–­85. 10. Prison located on rue Pavée, constructed in 1782 and demolished in 1845. 11. Denis Philibert Thiroux de Montsauge (1715–­1786), tax farmer, 1756–­89. His house on the Champs-­É lysées was

constructed in 1778–­79 and relocated to 38 rue du Faubourg-­S aint-­Jacques in 1928. 12. Adrien Louis Carré, commissaire, 1776–­90. No documentation of this case in his papers. 13. Laurent Grimod de la Reynière (1733–­93), tax farmer, 1751–­78. His house on the Champs-­Élysées was constructed in 1775 and demolished in 1931. His son, Alexandre Balthazar Laurent Grimod de La Reynière, barrister, gastronome, and eccentric, had “a certain aversion for women” and entertained male friends lavishly. MS, 22:72 (7 February 1783). 14. Not documented in Federici’s reports. 15. Both names are crossed out but legible. 16. The name crossed out in the manuscript does not seem to match that of any abbé named in Foucault’s papers from 1780 to 1783. 17. Louis La Fosse, mailman, called Picard, was arrested and imprisoned again on 10 July 1782. 18. The name crossed out in the manuscript does not seem to match any name in Foucault’s papers from 1780 to 1783. 19. The crown leased the collection of taxes and operation of monopolies to an association of wealthy financiers known as farmers general or, more commonly in English, tax farmers. 20. The priest of the parish, as of 1764, was Daniel Pierre Denoux. 21. The name is crossed out but legible. John Frederick Sackville, Duke of Dorset (1745–­1799), English ambassador to France, 1784–­89, did not mention this case in his published dispatches. 22. Federici recorded the words in both French and English. 23. AN, Y13409, 1 March 1782. 24. Foucault and Noël searched his room and found nothing of interest. AN, Y13409, 8 March 1782. 25. AN, Y13409, 11 April 1782.

Notes to Pages 101–118 | 227 26. Jean Baptiste René Lefebvre, notary, 1778–­88 on rue de Condé. 27. Jean Frédéric de La Tour du Pin Gouvernet (1727–­1794), married and had two children. 28. AN, Y13409, 25 April 1782. 29. For more on Brunoy, see section E. 30. André Marie, marquis de Sinéty (1758–­1832), married and had three children. 31. AN, Y13409, 31 May 1782. 32. Charlotte Emilie de Ségur (1725–­1784). 33. Literally, fifteen twenties or three hundred, the name of a hospital for the blind with that many beds, on rue Saint-­ Honoré at rue Saint-­Nicaise, relocated to 28 rue de Charenton in 1779. 34. Avocat aux conseils as of 1779. 35. AN, Y13409, 7 June 1782. 36. Attorney in the Chambre des Comptes as of 1758. 37. AN, Y13409, 2 July 1782. 38. AN, Y13409, 11 July 1782. 39. Camille Louis de Lorraine, prince de Marsan (1725–­1782), married but had no children. 40. Pierre Adam François, marquis de Retz de Bressolles de Pelamourgue (1757–­1821), married and had eight children. 41. AN, Y13409, 18 July 1782. 42. Charles Philippe, comte d’Artois (1757–­1836), brother of Louis XVI and Charles X. 43. AN, Y13409, 17 August 1782. 44. AN, Y13409, 22 August 1782. 45. AN, Y13409, 5 September 1782. 46. Jacques Guy Georges Henri de Chaumont, baron d’Orbec (1731–­1779), married and had two children, including Henri Victor Guy Jacques Georges Hervé de Chaumont Quitry, baron d’Orbec (1765–­1848), who married and had one child. The list of major generals in the 1782 Almanach royal does not include any baron d’Orbec. The Chaumonts, father and son, attained the rank of colonel.

47. AN, Y13409, 8 September 1782. 48. Not mentioned in Federici’s reports. 49. AN, Y13409, 16 November 1782. 50. AN, Y13409, 28 November 1782. 51. AN, Y11723, 25 May 1783. 52. One of twelve general administrators of the postal service listed in the 1784 Almanach royal. 53. AN, Y11723, 21 June 1784. 54. For the arrest in 1781, see Merrick and Ragan, Policing Homosexuality, forthcoming. 55. La Dujour, or perhaps Dujoure, with a feminine e at the end. Noël had arrested and Foucault had released Blot three years previous. AN, Y13408, 11 April 1781. 56. The arrest in 1782 is not documented in Foucault’s papers, but another commissaire might have handled the case. 57. AN, Y11724, 26 July 1784. 58. Noël had arrested and Foucault had released Michel Nollet, jewelry merchant, three years before. AN, Y13408, 5 February 1781. 59. AN, Y11724, 14 August 1784. 60. The name Brouzerd does not appear in Foucault’s report on the pederasty patrol on 22 April 1781 or elsewhere in his papers from 1780 to 1783. 61. Jacques Louis le Boulanger (d. 1808), president as of 1770, married and had one child. 62. Police reports include a few references to but no descriptions of images of sodomy.

Section D: Reports of Commissaires Foucault and Desormeaux 1. The last report about sex between men in Foucault’s papers is dated 21 May 1783. The Journal de Paris reported his death on 7 September of that year. The

228 | Notes to Pages 119–138 first report about sex between men in Desormeaux’s papers is dated 2 October. 2. Note that the first man collected about nine livres for three or four encounters in the active role and the second man rejected three livres for one encounter in the passive role. Police reports contain enough details for systematic, not just anecdotal, comparison of male and female prostitution. Erica Marie Benabou, La Prostitution et la police des moeurs au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Librairie académique Perrin, 1987) includes a few pages on “la police des sodomites” (180– ­84). 3. Enfants de Sodome, 4. For more on Viennay, commendatory abbot of Tupernay, see AN, Y13408, 15 March and 16 October 1781; Merrick and Ragan, Policing Homosexuality, forthcoming; and M&R, 82 (25 April 1784). 4. AN, Y113407, 6 October 1780; Y13408, 25 December 1781; Y11723, 7 April 1784; Y11725, 7 April 1785. 5. Petr Aleksandrovich, count Buturlin (1731–­1787), Russian ambassador to Spain, married and had two children. Robineau, one of his procurers, invited an unemployed “pretty lad,” nineteen, to his place and introduced him to the count as well as other men. AN, Y13407, 14 April 1780. Six months later, Robineau accosted an actor turned soldier, eighteen, in the Palais Royal and presented him to Buturlin, “who spoke to him, put his hand on his pants, induced him to come back the next day and gave him a gold louis.” Six weeks later, on the boulevards, the young man encountered the count, who wanted to take him to Russia. When asked “if he has ever given in to satisfying the passion of some men,” the soldier said no, “although he had been much urged to do so.” AN, Y13407, 7 October 1780. An unemployed domestic, twenty-­three or twenty-­four, and a cook, thirty-­five, also procured for Buturlin. AN, Y13406, 25 October and 10 December 1780.

6. Jean Pierre Damas, comte de Thiange (1734–­1800), married but had no children. 7. The 1785 Almanach royal includes Mabile’s name and offices. 8. Leclerc had been previously arrested and released on 22 April 1781. 9. AN, Y13409, 20 February and 25 April 1782; Y11724, 23 November 1784. 10. Baude was arrested and imprisoned at least once. He evidently worked for the police thereafter. AN, Y13408, 4 January 1781.

Part II: Representations of Same-­S ex Relations 1. Beccaria discussed sodomy in chap. 31. André Morellet translated the Italian text into French in 1765.

Section E: Gossip and Slander 1. “Gazettes européennes du 18e siècle,” Institut d’histoire des représentations et les idées dans les modernités and Institut des sciences de l’homme, accessed 10 October 2018, http://​w ww​.gazettes18e​.fr/. This site includes links to digitized, searchable journals, nouvelles, and the daily Journal de Paris (as of 1 January 1777). For extracts from one of the most famous libelles, see M&R, 134–­37. 2. Jean Baptiste Pâris de Meyzieu (1718–­1778). 3. Guillaume François Louis Joly de Fleury (1710–­87), attorney general, 1746–­71 and 1774–­87. 4. Pierre Théodore Senez and Jean François Maréchal. Mathieu François Pidansat de Mairobert, Journal historique de la révolution opérée dans la constitution de la monarchie française par M. de Maupeou, 7 vols. (London, 1774–­76), 4:37 (18 January 1773). 5. Located twenty-­one kilometers southeast of Paris, later purchased by the

Notes to Pages 138–142 | 229 comte de Provence, Louis XVI’s brother, and destroyed during the Revolution. 6. He reportedly acknowledged that an unusual medical treatment, a champagne enema, left him chronically impotent. MS, 14:126–­27 (23 July 79). His wife spent most of her time at the townhouse at 45 rue du Faubourg-­Saint-­Honoré, constructed in 1779 and demolished in 1930. 7. Nicolas Toussaint Lemoyne Desessarts, Choix de nouvelles causes célèbres avec les jugements qui les ont décidées, 15 vols. (Paris, 1785–­87), 5:36. 8. Jeffrey Merrick, “Le Suicide de Pidansat de Mairobert,” Dix-­huitième siècle 35 (2003): 331–­40. 9. Desessarts, Choix, 5:16, 34. Pierre Jean Baptiste Gerbier published Précis pour le sieur Meyzieu contre le marquis de Brunoy (Paris: Cellot, 1773). 10. Etienne Pierre Carré published Mémoire pour Pâris Montmartel, marquis de Brunoy, contre Pâris de Meyzieu (Paris: Cellot, 1773). 11. Correspondance secrète inédite sur Louis XVI, Marie-­Antoinette, la cour et la ville, 1777 à 1792, ed. Mathurin François Adolphe de Lescure, 2 vols. (Paris: Plon, 1866), 1:102 (9 October 1777). 12. Desessarts, Choix, 5:40. 13. CS, 7:369 (3 April 1779). 14. Reports of Inspector Marais, BN, Manuscrits, Fonds Français 11360, fols. 443, 430. Brunoy spent many evenings with Senez’s father and gave his sister a dowry of twenty thousand livres. 15. Mercier, Tableau de Paris, 1:572. 16. Françoise Marie Antoinette Josephe Sauceroutte (1756–­1815), the most notorious tribade of her generation, did not marry. Jeffrey Merrick, “The Marquis de Villette and Mme de Raucourt: Representations of Male and Female Sexual Deviance in Late Eighteenth-­Century France,” in Homosexuality in Modern France, ed. Jeffrey Merrick and Bryant T. Ragan Jr. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). For the satirical pamphlet

about Raucourt published in 1791, see M&R, 204–­12. François Georges Maréchal, marquis de Bièvre (1747–­1789), known for his plays on words, did not marry. 17. MS, 7:215 (11 July 1774). 18. CS, 1:209 (25 February 1775). 19. The student in question is François Joseph Belanger (1744–­1818), who met his patron, the comte d’Artois, through his mistress, Arnould. 20. Mayeur de Saint-­Paul, Le Vol plus haut, ou L’espion des principaux théâtres de la capitale (Memphis: Sincere, 1784), 45–­47. 21. Jean Charles Gervaise de La Touche (1715–­1782) published Dom Bougre, portier des Chartreux in 1741. 22. CL, 3:477–­78 (February 1758). 23. Louis Léon de Brancas, comte de Laraguais (1733–­1824), married and had two children. 24. François Bordier (1758–­1789), actor, hanged for his role in the attack on the intendent’s residence in Rouen on 3 August 1789. 25. François Etienne Prieur. Dansay is not mentioned in Voltaire’s published works. 26. CD, 101–­2. 27. The gentlemen in question are Bithemer, Moreau, and Michu. Moreau (1755–­1817), known as the Little Harlequin, actor in boulevard theaters. 28. Anti-­Pygmalion, with music by Jean Baptiste Rochefort and libretto by François Martin Poultier d’Elmotte, premiered in Paris in June 1780. 29. Jeffrey Ravel, The Contested Parterre: Public Theater and French Political Culture, 1680–­1791 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 47–­48. 30. Nicolas Médard Audinot (1732–­1801) opened the Ambigu Comique on the boulevard du Temple in 1769. See CD, 95–­114. Pierre Germain Parisau (1753–­1794), parodist and journalist,

230 | Notes to Pages 143–144 directed the Théâtre des Elèves de l’Opéra. See CD, 29–­46. 31. Vanglenne, commissaire, 1770–­91. Joséphine Louise Masson. 32. Quoted in Emile Campardon, Les Spectacles de la foire, 2 vols. (Paris: Berger-­ Levrault, 1877), 1:153. The report is located in AN, Y15988. 33. The Italian actors performing Italian plays merged with the Opéra Comique in 1762 under the name Comédie Italienne. After the prohibition of Italian plays in 1779, French actors replaced Italian actors in the renamed Opéra Comique. Its new theater on rue Mauconseil opened on 28 April 1783. As this text indicates, Parisians still referred to the company as “the Italians.” 34. Maurice François Rochet (1756–­1808) took the stage name Volange during his years in boulevard theater and made his debut at the Comédie Italienne on 22 February 1780. He married twice and had four children. 35. MS, 8:28–­29 (18 October 1780). 36. Given Nero’s colorful sexual history, recounted most graphically by the Roman historian Suetonius, it is not clear which infamous statement Michu repeated. 37. CS, 10:138 (25 November 1780). 38. Le Magnifique, with music by André Ernest Modeste Grétry and libretto by Michel Jean Sedaine, premiered in Paris on 4 March 1773. 39. For the costume, available in Gallica: select “Images” and search “Michu.” 40. CL, 11:24 (January 1775). For more comments on Michu’s appearance and performance, see Journal de politique et de littérature 1 (1775): 188 (15 February 1775); and Journal des théâtres 2 (1775), 4:278–­79 (15 June 1778). After his death, one critic recalled that he did not “exactly” look like a man, such that “anyone who saw him costumed as a shepherdess could have

been completely fooled by the disguise.” Revue des comédiens 2 (1808): 179. 41. La Fée Urgèle, with music by Charles Simon Favart and libretto by Claude Henri de Fusée, abbé de Voisenon, premiered in Paris on 4 December 1766. MS, 9:272 (26 August 1776). Ariane à Naxo, with music by Georg Anton Benda and libretto by Johann Christian Brandes, premiered in Paris on 20 July 1781. CL, 12:535 (July 1781). 42. Michu disappeared on 7 plûviose (26 January), and his body was recovered from the Seine on 8 ventôse (26 February). 43. The banker constructed the château that is now the city hall of Talence [Gironde]. 44. The proceedings are summarized in Pierre Jean Jacques Guillaume Guyot, Repertoire universel et raisonné de jurisprudence civile, criminelle, canonique et bénéficiale, 17 vols. (Paris: Visse, 1784–­85), 5:750–­51. At the time of da Costa’s death, she lived in rented quarters in rue Saint-­A ndré-­des-­A rts, and Pexitto lived in the hôtel du Parlement d’Angleterre at 5 rue du Coq-­Héron. 45. Mathieu François Pidansat de Mairobert, L’Espion anglais, ou Correspondance Secrète Entre Milord All’eye et Milord All’ear, 10 vols. (London: John Adamson, 1779–­84), 9:215 (23 July 1778). 46. He was baptized Charles Joseph Paul Peixotto de Beaulieu in Spain on 18 April 1781. Back in Paris, he attended mass at Notre-­Dame des Victoires, where “he prostrates himself and beats his chest with all the fervor of a neophyte who did want the Inquisition to prevent him, by burning him, from gaining several millions.” No one was fooled by his pious display, if only because of his “Hebrew” features. CS, 10:192 (10 December 1781). 47. Anne Victoire Dervieux (1752–­1826). Slanderous verses published in MS, 19:292 (26 December 1770) labeled her a “female giton.”

Notes to Pages 144–147 | 231 48. Louis Gabriel Bourdon, Le Parc au cerf, ou L’origine de l’affreux déficit (Paris, 1790), unnumbered plate preceding page 123. 49. CS, 7:283 (29 August 1779). 50. Honoré Gabriel de Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau, Correspondance d’Eulalie, ou Tableau du libertinage de Paris, 2 vols. (London: Jean Nourse, 1785), 1:93 (17 August 1782). 51. Pidansat de Mairobert, Espion anglais, 9:214. 52. Charles Thévenau de Morande, Correspondance de Mme Gourdan, dite la comtesse (London: Jean Nourse, 1784), 30 (between 4 May and 6 June 1778). Marguerite Gourdan (d. 1783) provided venal partners of both sexes for clients of both sexes. 53. Annales de la religion 12 (year IX): 479. 54. Jeanne de la Salle (1701–­1769), wife of Bernard François de Castelnau, baron de Brocas, or Julie Constance de Beynac (d.1768), wife of Pierre François de Castelnau, baron de Brocas. Simon Tombarelli, member of a family (originally Italian) of prominent perfumers in Grasse and Paris. 55. Charles Joseph Alexandre Marc Marcellin d’Alsace de Hénin-­Liétard (1744–­1794), married but had no children. Souck refers to Jeanne Françoise Marie Sourques. 56. Constance made her debut in August 1779. 57. Guillaume Imbert de Boudeaux, Receuil de lettres secrètes, Année 1783, ed. Paule Adamy (Geneva: Droz, 1997), 361–­63 (8 August 1783). Gabriel François Raymond made his debut at the Théâtre Italien on 14 December 1779 and married the next year. Denis Déchanet (1737–­1793), called Desessarts, made his debut at the Comédie Française on 4 October 1772. On Monvel, see #54. 58. Jeanne Louise Catherine Voidet, wife of Denis Simon, a barrister in the Parlement of Paris. This paragraph is

based on Olivier Blanc, Les Libertines (Paris: Librairie académique Perrin, 1997), 163–­80. 59. Pidansat de Mairobert, Espion anglais, 10:179–­228, excerpted in M&R, 137–­51. 60. Pigrais married Sylvain Rataud de Mursin in 1786 and divorced him in 1793. 61. Jacques Bruno de Kageneck, Lettres de M. Kageneck, brigadier des garde du corps au baron Alströmer, conseiller de commerce et directeur de la Compagnie des Indes à Gothembourg, sur la période du regne de Louis XVI de 1779 à 1784, ed. Louis Antoine Léouzon Le Duc (Paris: G. Charpentier, 1884), 379 (26 December 1781). 62. Mercier, who maintained that “it is not good to reveal turpitudes that degrade man,” expressed surprise and horror about the existence of this register, “which contained all the names of pederasts.” Mercier, Tableau de Paris, 2:1269. 63. Some contemporary “verses addressed to several nonconformists” linked Pascal with two of the pederasts named in this text: Margantin, Monvel and Villette And you, gentlemen of the cuff, You are much more refined Than Pascal, your colleague. At least you do not murder Those you take from behind. “Poèmes satiriques du XVIIIe siècle,” Université Jean Monnet, Saint-­Etienne, accessed 10 October 2018, http://​satires18​ .univ​-st​-etienne​.fr/. 64. MS, 23:204–­5 (13 October 1783). 65. The copies of the trial records in BN, Manuscrits, Fonds Français 10970, are available online through Gallica and in print in Ludovico Hernandez (pseudonym for François Fleuret and Louis Perceau), Les Procès de sodomie aux XVIe, XVIIe, et XVIIIe siècles (Paris: Bibliothèque des curieux, 1920). For an English version, see

232 | Notes to Pages 148–151 Jim Chevallier, Sodomites, Tribads and “Crimes Against Nature” (North Hollywood: Create Space, 2010). On this case, see Paul d’Estrée [Henri Quentin]. Les Infâmes sous l’ancien régime (Paris: Gougy, 1902), reprinted in Cahiers Gai-­Kitsch-­ Camp 24 (1994), chaps. vi–­x; Lever, Bûchers, chap. 8; and M&R, 76–­77. I have discovered and will publish new evidence about some of the accomplices and associates. 66. Marie Anne de Vichy-­Chamrond, marquise Du Deffand, to Horace Walpole, 30 April 1768, in his Correspondence, ed. W. S. Lewis, 48 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937–­83), 4:64. 67. Du Deffand to Walpole, Correspondence, 10 May 1769, 4:236. 68. He married Marie Suzanne Simonne Ferdinande de Tenarre de Montmain in 1753. Their daughter Louise, born in 1750, married her uncle Joseph de Bauffremont in 1762. 69. Du Deffand to Walpole, Correspondence, 16 May 1769, 4:238. 70. Du Deffand to the duchesse de Choiseul, 24 May 1769, in Correspondance complète de Mme du Deffand avec la duchesse de Choiseul, l’abbé Barthélemy et M. Craufort, ed. Louis Clair Beaupoil de Sainte-­Aulaire, 2 vols. (Paris: Michel Lévy Frères, 1866–­77), 1:209. 71. “L’Epoux complaisant,” published in Sade’s Historiettes, available in multiple editions. For love between women, see his “Augustine de Villeblanche” in the same collection. 72. Denis Diderot to Sophie Volland, 4 August 1762, in his Oeuvres complètes, ed. Jules Assézat and Maurice Tourneux, 20 vols. (Paris, 1875–­77), 19:92. 73. Gabriel Sénac de Meilhan, La Foutromanie, poème lubrique (Sardanapolis, n.d. [1775]), 46–­47. 74. MS, 25:179 (18 March 1784). 75. Olivier Blanc, “The ‘Italian Taste’ in the Time of Louis XVI, 1774–­92,” Journal of Homosexuality 41, nos. 3–­4 (2002): 71.

76. CL, 10:69 (October 1772). 77. His works include several melodramas. Another playwright condemned the genre as “theatrical sodomy.” Collé, Journal historique, 3:542 (August and September 1771). 78. MS, 17:246 (23 June 1781). 79. Lenoir’s papers include a reference to Monvel, “expelled from the Comédie on account of pederasty.” Bibliothèque municipale d’Orléans, ms 1423, Mélanges, 138. 80. MS, 17:148 (27 June 1781). 81. CS, 11:328 (27 June 1781). Bathyllus, beautiful young man loved by the tyrant Polycrates and the poet Anacreon. Joseph Sauze dit Desguillons (1750–­1822) accompanied Monvel to Sweden and was “inseparable from him” there. Roselyne Laplace, Monvel, un aventurier du théâtre au siècle des Lumières (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1998), 170. He married Anne Marie Milan, another French expatriate, and they ran the French drama school in Stockholm. 82. CL, 12:516 (June 1781). 83. Siméon Prosper Hardy, “Mes loisirs,” BN, Manuscrits, Fonds Français 6683:489 (3 July 1781). Pascal Bastien, Sabine Juratic and Daniel Roche have published six volumes of this journal thus far. The project website includes an index. “Le Journal de Hardy, 1753–­1789,” Institut d’histoire modern et contemporaine, Université de Québec â Montréal, accessed 10 October 2018, https://​journaldehardy​ .uqam​.ca/​journal​_ hardy/. 84. CD, 66–­67. Mayeur de Saint-­Paul identified Barrachin, director of the Sèvres porcelain works (not listed with this title in the Almanach royal), as Monvel’s lover (on page 70) and reported that he initiated the famous dancer Vestris (Gaetano Apoline Balthazar Vestri) into the mysteries of buggery. Vol plus haut, 91. 85. Gustav Philip Creutz, La Suède et les Lumières: Lettres de France d’un ambassadeur à son roi (1771–­1783), ed. Marianne Molander Beyer (Paris: Michele de Maule, 2006), 455.

Notes to Pages 151–157 | 233 86. Enfants de Sodome, in M&R, 173. This pamphlet includes Michu’s name at the end but no such comments about him. 87. Maurice Tourneux, Bibliographie de l’ histoire de Paris pendant la Révolution, 5 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Nouvelle, 1890–­1913), 4:32. Variétés Amusantes, theater on boulevard du Temple, relocated and renamed Variétés du Palais Royal in 1785. See CD, 123–­4 4. According to one pamphleteer, Monvel—­bardache, intimate friend of Villette, “corrupter of youth,” and “public plague”—­“vegetated” there after his return to Paris. Confessions générales des princes du sang royal, auteur de la cabale aristocratique (Aristocratie: Main-­ morte, 1789), 16. 88. Les Victimes cloîtrées, melodrama in prose, premiered on 28 March 1792. 89. Article signed Fabien Pillet, Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne, 52 vols. (Paris: L. G. Michaud, 1811–­28), 30:50. 90. Article signed M. Prévost. 91. Laplace, Monvel, 137. 92. Margantin married Marie Louise Leblanc. 93. Hardy, “Mes loisirs,” 6684:36 (14 October 1781). 94. The electors selected the delegates of the third estate to the estates general. Margantin represented the Saint-­Joseph district. 95. Enfants de Sodome, in M&R, 174, where the name is spelled Marcantin. 96. For another scandal at court involving another Créquy, see M&R, 118. 97. Marie Joséphine Louise of Savoy (1753–­1810) married Louis XVI’s brother, later Louis XVIII, known as Monsieur, but they had no children. She was more interested in women than in men. 98. For what it is worth, Créquy’s mother, according to her apocryphal memoirs, employed haidouks. 99. MS, 27:50–­51 (4 December 1784). 100. MS, 27:101 (31 December 1784). 101. MS, 28:129–­30 (19 February 1785).

102. Renée Caroline Victoire de Froulay de Tessé, Lettres inédites de la marquise de Crequi à Sénac de Meilhan, 1782–­1789, ed. Edouard Fournier (Paris: L. Potier, 1856), 233–­34. 103. Archivist Florent Bouquin of the Archives départementales du Doubs verified that this series does include documents from 1784: BPB 4364–­75, 4593–­94, 8024–­36. 104. For somewhat different versions, see Jules Sauzay, Histoire de la persécution révolutionnaire dans le département du Doubs, de 1789 à 1801, 10 vols. (Besançon: Tubergue, 1867–­73), 1:40–­4 1; “Le Père Césaire et la légende du saint patron,” Académie des sciences, belles-­lettres et arts de Besançon, Année 1881 (Besançon: Imprimerie Dodivers et Cie, 1881), 221–­22; and Jean Marie Suchet, Histoire de l’ éloquence religieuse en Franche-­Comté (Besançon: Paul Jacquin, 1897), 84–­85. 105. Césaire had already visited Naples and preached there. Fernando Galiani, Lettres de l’abbé Galiani à Mme d’Epinay et al., ed. Eugène Asse, 2 vols. (Paris: G. Charpentier, 1882), 2:28 (27 March 1773). Baptiste Charles François de Clermont d’Amboise (1728–­1792).

Section F: Tradition 1. For some seventeenth-­century texts, see M&R, 2–­13. 2. M&R, 17–­25. 3. Pierre François Muyart de Vouglans, Institutes au droit criminel, ou Principes généraux en ces matières, suivant le droit civil, canonique, et la jurisprudence du royaume (Paris: Le Breton, 1757), 509–­10. 4. Novella 77 begins with the words cited in the text. The Civil Code, Including the Twelve Tables, the Institutes of Gaius, the Rules of Ulpian, the Opinions of Paulus, the Enactments of Justinian, and the Constitutions, ed. Samuel Scott, 17 vols.

234 | Notes to Pages 157–163 (Cincinnati: Central Trust Company, 1932), 16:288–­89. 5. Civil Code, 15:17. 6. Giacomo Menochio, De arbitrariis iudicum quaestionibus et causis (Venice: Somaschus, 1569), case 329, n. 5. 7. Michel Duperray, Traité des moyens canoniques pour acquérir et conserver les bénéfices et biens ecclésiastiques, 4 vols. (Paris: Pierre Augustin Paulus Du Mesnil, 1726–­29), 3:519–­20. 8. Fortunato Bartolomeo de Felice, ed., Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné universel des connaissances humaines, 42 vols. (Yverdon, 1770–­25), 32:599–­602. 9. For the article on sodomy, see M&R, 155. 10. Leviticus 20:13. 11. John Potter, archbishop of Canterbury, 1737–­47. Archaeologia graeca or the Antiquities of Greece (London, 1697–­98), bk. 4, chap. 9. 12. Agesilaus, Spartan king, reigned 400–­360 BCE. 13. Leonidas, Spartan king, killed at the battle of Thermopylae (480 BCE). 14. Maximus of Tyre, The Dissertations of Maximus of Tyre, trans. Thomas Taylor, 2 vols. (London: C. Whittingham, 1804), 1:101. Agesilaus, Stoic philosopher. 15. Athenian general and statesman, famously portrayed with Socrates in Plato’s Symposium. 16. Epictetus, The Works of Epictetus, trans. Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 2 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1890): 1:181. 17. Xenophon, Greek historian (430–­354 BCE). Plutarch, Greek historian and biographer (40–­120 CE). Lycurgus, supposed author of the Spartan code of laws (eighth century BCE). 18. Xenophon, The Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, trans. G. W. Bowersock (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925), 2.12–­14. 19. Plato, Laws, trans. Robert Gregg Bury (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), 8.838e–­839b.

20. Strabo, Greek geographer and historian (69–­23 BCE). 21. Antoine Yves Goguet, De l’Origine des lois, arts et sciences et leurs progrès chez les anciens peuples, 5 vols. (Paris: Knapen, 1778), 3:167: “Every citizen was obliged to marry, but with what astonishment do we see that a legislator could have approved a means as infamous as the one the Cretans used not to be burdened with too large a number of children. Either because the fertility or acreage of land did not suffice for the number of inhabitants or because bodies were more robust or women more fertile there, Minos sanctioned by his laws a passion that nature shuns and allowed excesses that modesty never mentions without trembling.” 22. Wilhelm Xylander’s translation of Plutarch’s works, published in Paris in 1624. 23. Strabo, Geography, trans. J. R. Sitlington Sterrett (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917), 10.4.21. 24. Plato, Laws, 636c–­d. 25. Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1908), 2.10.9. 26. Theban general and statesman (400–­364 BCE). Life of Pelopidas, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917), 19.1. 27. Maximus of Tyre, Dissertations, 109. 28. Plutarch, “Dialogue on Love,” trans. William Watson Goodwin, in Morals (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1874), 4–­5. 29. Athenaeus, Greek rhetorician (second to third century). 30. Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, trans. Charles Burton Gulick (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), 13.77. 31. Athenian tyrant (608–­527 BCE). 32. Plutarch, Life of Solon, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914), 1.2–­3. 33. Maximus of Tyre, Dissertations, 95.

Notes to Pages 163–171 | 235 34. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, trans. C. D. Yonge (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), 4.33. 35. Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse (432–­367 BCE). 36. John Davies edition, published in Cambridge in 1709. 37. Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (240–­320). 38. Caius Aurelius Roman Cotta, orator (129–­73 BCE). 39. John Taylor, A Paraphrase with Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, 4th ed. (London, 1769), 248. 40. Cicero reported that the Greek poet Alcaeus found a mole on a boy’s knuckle charming. Quintus Lutatius Catullus, Roman general. Quintus Roscius Gallus, Roman actor. 41. Seneca, Letters, trans. Richard Motte Gummere (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925), 95.24. 42. Antoine Joseph Thorillon, Idées sur les loix criminelles (Paris, 1788), 108–­9. 43. Articles in the Justinian Code. Civil Code, 16:16, 288–­89, and 17:160–­61. 44. Nicolas Guy du Rousseaud de Lacombe, Traité des matières criminelles, 7th ed. (Paris: Théodore Le Gras, 1768), 31. 45. Nicolas Sylvain Bergier, Encyclopédie méthodique, Théologie, 3 vols. (Paris: Panckoucke, 1788–­90), 3:517–­18.

Section G: Enlightenment 1. Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, bk. 12, chap. 6, in M&R, 154. 2. Montesquieu explored the dynamics and politics of polygamy in The Persian Letters (1724). 3. The best overview of the subject is Bryant T. Ragan Jr., “The Enlightenment Confronts Homosexuality,” in Homosexuality in Modern France, ed. Jeffrey Merrick and Bryant T. Ragan Jr. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 8–­29.

4. On the New World, see Michel Delon, “Du goût antiphysique des américains,” Annales de Bretagne 84, no. 2 (1977): 317–­28; Guy Poirier, L’Homosexualité dans l’ imaginaire de la Renaissance (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1996); Laurence Hérault, “Transgressions et désordre dans le genre: Les explorateurs français aux prises avec les ‘bardaches’ américains,” Etnográfica 14, no. 2 (2010): 337–­60; and Heather Martel, “Colonial Allure, Normal Homoeroticism and Sodomy in French and Timucuan Encounters in Sixteenth-­ Century Florida,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 22, no. 1 (2013): 34–­64. 5. Although the population increased after midcentury, so did the average age of marriage and the rate of celibacy. More men married later or not at all. Perhaps some of them because they did not desire women? For the issues and debates, see Carol Blum, Strength in Numbers: Population, Reproduction, and Power in Eighteenth-­C entury France (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). 6. For medical opinions on this subject, see M&R, 26–­30. 7. Claude Adrien Helvétius, De l’esprit (Paris: Durand, 1758), 146–­47, 150–­51. 8. Moussa Baccus, “Helvétius et la sexualité,” in Sexualité, mariage et famille au XVIIIe siècle, ed. Olga Cragg (Montreal: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1998), 53–­60. 9. The wars between Athens and Sparta lasted from 430 to 404 BCE and ended in the defeat of Athens. 10. Aristedes (530–­468 BCE) and Themistocles (524–­459 BCE), Athenian generals and statesmen. 11. Plutarch, Life of Themistocles, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914), 3.2. 12. Athenian philosopher (fifth century BCE). 13. The wars between the Greeks and Persians lasted from 499 to 449 BCE and ended in the defeat of the Greeks.

236 | Notes to Pages 171–175 14. Helvétius, De l’ homme, de ses facultés intellectuelles et de son éducation, 2 vols. (London: Société Typographique, 1773), 2:82. 15. Legendary king of Crete. 16. Greek philosopher (570–­495 BCE). 17. Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach, Le Christianisme dévoilé (London, 1767), 189–­91, 199–­200. 18. François Marie Arouet de Voltaire, “De la sodomie, où l’on prouve contre M. Larcher que ce crime n’a jamais été autorisé,” in La Défense de mon oncle contre ses infâmes persecuteurs, in Oeuvres complètes, ed. Louis Moland, 52 vols. (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1877–­85), 27:153–­54. 19. “Socratic Love,” in M&R, 156–­59. 20. Pierre Henri Larcher, Supplément à la philosophie de l’ histoire de feu M. l’abbé Bazin (Amsterdam: Changuion, 1767). 21. For quotable examples, see Voltaire, Examen important de milord Bolingbroke (1767) and La Bible enfin expliquée (1776) in Oeuvres complètes, 27:64, and 31:21–­22. 22. Sextus Empiricus, Greek philosopher. Outlines of Scepticism 1.152. 23. The Zend-­Avesta, ed. James Darmesteter, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1883–­95), 1:7. See also La Philosophie de l’ histoire par feu l’abbé Bazin, in Oeuvres complètes, 10:27. 24. Larcher discusses prostitution and polygamy among various ancient peoples. 25. Larcher, Supplément, new ed. (Amsterdam, 1769), 129. 26. Voltaire did not mention Jesuits in The Philosophy of History but identified them as sodomites elsewhere. He even jested that the word Jesuit should be pronounced “sodomite.” Notebooks, ed. Theodore Besterman (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1952), 602. 27. François Marie de Marsy (1710–­1763), professor at Louis-­le-­Grand, left the Jesuits in 1738. Fréron, professor at Louis-­le-­Grand, left the Jesuits in 1739. He criticized the philosophes in his journal L’Année littéraire, and Voltaire vilified him. In his Anecdotes sur Fréron, he

reported that his bête noire had played both active and passive roles with his Jesuit brothers. Voltaire himself attended this Jesuit college, founded in 1563 as the Collège de Clermont and later renamed after Louis LXIV. 28. Larcher, Supplément, 129, 132. “He takes what I have just said as reason to impute pederasty to me. I have only discussed this disgusting vice, however, with all imaginable circumspection and because I was forced to do so by my subject.” 29. Johann Matthias Gesner, Socrates sanctus paederasta, published in a journal in 1752 and as a book in 1769. 30. Larcher (Supplément, 131) writes only that he will return to the subject of Plutarch’s comments on pederasty among the Persians. 31. Bardaisan, The Book of the Laws of Countries, trans. H. J. W. Drijvers (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1965), 49: “The boys who are handsome serve the men as wives, and a wedding feast, too, is held then. This is not considered shameful or a matter of contumely by them because of the law obtaining among them.” 32. Larcher (Supplément, 131) writes that Bardaisan claimed that “there was a law among the Gauls by which young lads married each other” but added “it is not possible that all Gauls surrendered to such infamy.” 33. Catherine the Great, reigned 1762– ­96. 34. Larcher (Supplément, 305) refers readers to Gesner for discussion of the charge that Socrates corrupted the youth of Athens. 35. Not in Jean Monnet, Anthologie française, 3 vols. (n.p., 1765). 36. Guillaume Thomas François Raynal, Histoire philosophique et politique des établissements et du commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes, 10 vols. (Geneva, 1781), 1:137–­38; 3:37, 426. 37. For example, “On the Antiphysical Taste of the Americans,” in M&R, 162, included in the 1780 edition of Raynal.

Notes to Pages 176–180 | 237 38. Aztec king (d. 1520). 39. Ferdinand, king of Aragon as of 1479, and Isabella I, queen of Castile as of 1474, married in 1469 and established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. John III of Portugal ascended the throne in 1521 and established the Portuguese Inquisition in 1536. 40. The reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula culminated in the recapture of Granada and expulsion of Muslims in 1492. 41. Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, 9 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1770–­83), 2:404-­4-­5, 408-­4-­9, 425, 427. 42. Aristotle, History of Animals 6.8. 43. Buffon, Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, 2:68–­69. Buffon notes that Plutarch mentioned a law that “condemned every rooster convicted of this excess of nature to the flames.” Histoire naturelle, générale and particulière, 15 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1749–­67), 6:304. George Edwards, Gleanings of Natural History, 3 vols. (London: Royal College of Physicians, 1758–­64), 2:xxi: “M. Willughby, in his History of Birds, 168, speaking of partridges in general, says they are very salacious birds, infamous for masculine venery, &c., which account I received as romantic till of late years I kept some of the small bantam poultry, the hens of which being lost and three or four of the young cocks remaining where they could have no communication with hens, they soon laid aside their former animosities, creased to fight and each endeavored to tread his fellow, though none of them seemed willing to be trodden. Reflection on this odd circumstance hinted to me the reason why the natural appetites in some of our own species are diverted into wrong channels.” 44. Jean Nicolas Demeunier, L’Esprit des usages et des coutumes des différens peuples, 3 vols. (London: Pissot, 1776), 2:309–­14.

45. Andrew Battell, The Strange Adventures of Andrew Battell of Leigh, in Hakluytus Posthumus (1625), ed. Samuel Purchas, reprinted in 20 vols. (Glasgow: J. MacLehose, 1905), 6:371. Jacques Philippe Laugier de Tassy discusses sodomy but not seraglios in Histoire du royaume d’Alger (Amsterdam: Henri du Sauzet, 1725), 80–­81. 46. Horace (65–­27 BCE), Catullus (84–­54 BCE), Tibullus (55–­19 BCE), Ovid (43–­17 BCE), and Vergil (70–­21 BCE), Roman poets. 47. Erotes or Amores, Greek dialogue on love of males and females, most likely not by Lucian. 48. Jean Chappe d’Auteroche, Voyage en Sibérie, 2 vols. (Paris: Debure, 1768), 2:111–­12. 49. Heironymous, or Jerome of Rhodes, Aristotelian philosopher. Fragment 35 in Stephen White, “Heironymous of Rhodes: The Sources, Text and Translation,” in Lyco of Troas and Heironymous of Rhodes, ed. William Fortenbaugh and Stephen White (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2004), 79–­276. 50. Richard Wilson published A Voyage Round the World in the Years MDCCXL, I, II, III, IV, compiled from the papers of admiral George Anson, in 1748. A Supplement to Lord Anson’s Voyage Round the World, Containing A Discovery and Description of the Island of Frivola by the Abbé Coyer appeared in 1752. Gabriel François Coyer did not mention the Illinois in his satire of French customs and manners, published in the Hague and Paris in 1751, but many other authors discussed their sexual practices, for example Pierre François Xavier Charlevoix, Histoire et description générale de la nouvelle France, 3 vols. (Paris: Rollin fils, 1744), 3:303. 51. Bk. 3, in vol. 1. 52. Jos Laurentius, De adulteris, ac meretricibus tractio (Leiden: P. Vander, 1699). Martial, Roman poet (first century CE).

238 | Notes to Pages 181–191 53. Caius Rufus Musonius, De luxu graecorum, published in 1532 and 1699. The Stoic philosopher Musonius (25–­95 CE) insisted that the only objective of sex was procreation and therefore regarded sexual relations between men as unnatural. 54. In his Bibliotheca historica 5.32, the Greek historian actually wrote that the men slept on skins on the ground and had sex with younger men beside them. 55. Cornelius de Pauw, Recherches philosophiques sur les Egyptiens et les Chinois, 2 vols. (Berlin: G. J. Decker, 1773), 1:124–­25. Demeunier copied the last three sentences from this text. 56. Philippe Lefebvre, Plan de législation sur les matières criminelles (Amsterdam: Barthelemi Vlam, 1779), 148–­49. 57. For the section on sodomy, see M&R, 160. 58. The conqueror Constantine reigned 306–­37 CE. His sons Constantine II and Constans reigned 337–­40 and 340–­50, respectively. Hadrian reigned 117–­38 and deified his lover Antinous, who died in 130. 59. The Lex Scantinia criminalized sexual relations with freeborn minors. 60. He reigned 527–­65. 61. Charles Coypeau d’Assoucy (1605–­1677), musician and poet, imprisoned in Montpellier in 1655. 62. Antoine Nicolas Servin, De la législation criminelle (Basel, 1782), 216–­22. 63. Ephesians 5:3. 64. Charles Éléonore Dufriche de Valazé, Lois pénales, dédiées à Monsieur, frère du roi (Alençon: Malassis le jeune, 1784), 180–­81. 65. The story of the Levite in Gibeah (Judges 19), like the story of Lot in Sodom (Genesis 19), involves men demanding to “know” men. 66. Encyclopédie méthodique, Antiquités, 1:144. 67. They killed Hipparchus, one of the tyrannical sons of Peisistratus, in

514 BCE. Another encyclopedist applied the phrase “salutary love” to their relationship. “Amitié,” in Encyclopédie méthodique, Logique, métaphysique et morale, ed. Jean Charles Dominique de Lacratelle, 4 vols. (Paris: Panckoucke, 1786–­91), 4:319. 68. The sacred band defeated the Spartans at Leuctra in 371 BCE and perished at Chaeronea in 302 BCE. 69. Philip of Macedon reigned 359–­36 BCE. Alexander the Great (356–­323 BCE). 70. Plutarch, Life of Pelopidas 18.5. 71. Joseph Elzéar Dominique de Bernardi, Principes des loix criminelles (Paris, 1788), 151–­53. 72. For the section on crimes against nature, see M&R, 164. 73. He reigned 27 BCE–­19 CE and promulgated the Lex Julia on adultery in 18 BCE. 74. Charlemagne, king of the Franks as of 768 and Holy Roman Emperor as of 800. The cartulary in question is a mid-­ninth-­century forgery. 75. Jacques Peuchet, Encyclopédie méthodique, Jurisprudence, 10 vols. (Paris: Panckoucke, 1782–­91), 9:320–­21. The same volume includes an article on pederasty (in M&R, 92). For the article on sodomy by André Jean Baptiste Boucher d’Argis, see M&R, 24–­26. He also wrote the article on sodomy in Guyot’s Répertoire (in M&R, 23). 76. For some more relevant selections from these volumes, see M&R, 22. 77. Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914), 18.4: “This sort of love was so approved among them that even the maidens found lovers in good and noble women.” Sappho, poet known for her verses celebrating love of women. 78. Sappho supposedly threw herself into the sea from this island out of unrequited love for Phaon. 79. Strabo, Geography 10.2.9. 80. Police records include abundant documentation about prostitution, which

Notes to Pages 191–203 | 239 has not been systematically explored for evidence about sexual relations between women. 81. Lucian, Dialogues of the Courtesans 5. 82. Pierre de Bourdeilles, seigneur de Brantôme, “Sur les dames qui font l’amour et leurs maris cocus,” Recueil des dames, in M&R, 103–­8. 83. No such entries. 84. Encyclopédie méthodique, Histoire, 5 vols. (Paris: Panckoucke, 1784–­91), 4:711–­12. 85. Greek poet (680–­645 BCE). Horace, Epistles 1.1.28. 86. Anne Le Fèvre Dacier, Les Poésies d’Anacréon et de Sappho traduites de grec en français, new ed. (Amsterdam: Veuve Paul Marret, 1699), 246. For more on Dacier and Sappho, see Joan DeJean, Fictions of Sappho, 1546–­1937 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989). 87. Peuchet, Encyclopédie méthodique, Jurisprudence, 10:685–­87. 88. Michael Sibalis, “The Regulation of Homosexuality in Revolutionary and Napoleonic France,” in Homosexuality in Modern France, ed. Jeffrey Merrick and Bryant T. Ragan Jr. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 80–­101. 89. Charles VIII reigned 1483–­98 and invaded Italy in 1495. Jacques de Savoie, duc de Nemours (1531–­1585). Lyon changed hands several times in several years during the French civil wars. 90. Anacreon, Greek poet (582–­485 BCE). 91. Ode 29. The painter, unlike the poet, cannot portray the front as well as the back. Plycraus, tyrant of Samos (574–­522 BCE). 92. “Socratic Love,” in M&R, 156. 93. Horace, Satires 1.2.117–­18. 94. Paul Rycaut (1629–­1700), English diplomat and historian. 95. Pedanius Dioscorides (40–­90 CE), Roman physician.

96. Autolycus, son of Hermes and Chione. Xenophon, Symposium 1.8. Charmides and Demus, in Plato’s Charmides. 97. De Pauw, Recherches, 1:124. Laïs of Hyccara (d. 340 BCE), courtesan from Sicily. 98. Antoine Léonard Thomas, Essai sur le caractère, les moeurs et l’esprit les femmes dans des différents siècles (Amsterdam, 1772), 21–­23. 99. Venus of the lovely buttocks, ancient statue of the goddess exposing her rear end. Venus of Cnidus (a Greek city in Turkey), ancient statue of the goddess covering her genitals with one hand. 100. No dictionaries and few texts from the eighteenth century include the word lesbienne. 101. Girolamo Mercuriale (1530–­1606), Italian physician. Quotation from De Arte gymnastica, first published in Venice in 1569. 102. Paul Rycaut, Histoire de l’ état présent de l’empire ottoman (Amsterdam: Albraham Wolfgank, 1670), 91. 103. De Materia medica. 104. Recherches philosophiques sur les grecs, 2 vols. (Berlin: G. J. Decker, 1787–­88), 1:114–­15. 105. Encyclopédie méthodique, Médecine, 4:885. For background on this subject, see Katherine Park, “The Rediscovery of the Clitoris: French Medicine and the Tribade, 1570–­1620,” in The Body in Parts: Fantasies of Corporality in Early Modern Europe, ed. David Hillman and Carla Mazzio (New York: Routledge, 1997), 171–­93.

Section H: Fictions 1. Collé, Journal historique, 2:346 (1760). 2. Sénac de Meilhan, La Foutromanie, 29 and 41. 3. Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, Comte de Mirabeau, Erotika Biblion (Rome, 1783), 89–­97, 134–­35.

240 | Notes to Pages 203–213 4. For more by Mirabeau, see M&R, 152–­53. 5. The case of Domenica B. was recorded in multiple sources—for example, Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences, Année 1735 (Paris, 1738), 22. 6. Pierre Poivre does not make this point in his Voyages d’un philosophe (Yverdon, 1768). 7. Silanion, Greek sculptor (fourth century BCE). 8. Mirabeau, Correspondance d’Eulalie, 1:94–­9, 104–­8, 128–­30. 9. “Le Diable au corps,” excerpted in L’Oeuvre d’Andrea de Nerciat, ed. Guillaume Apollinaire (Paris: Bibliothêque des curieux, 1927), 189–­90 and 199–­200. 10. The rape of Lucretia by Sextus, son of Lucius Tarquinus Superbus (reigned 534–­509 BCE), provoked the abolition of the monarchy and establishment of the republic.

11. “Ode aux bougres” (n.p., 1789), republished in Le Nouveau Dom Bougre à l’assemblee nationale (1790). For Rétif ’s authorship, see the modern edition edited by Branko Aleksić (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 2007). 12. M&R, 172. 13. After the gods banned Tantalus from Olympus for stealing ambrosia, he served them the flesh of his own son. They consigned him to Hades, where water receded when he stooped to drink it and fruit retreated when he reached for it. 14. Apollo, god of the sun, pursued the nymph Daphne, and her father, the river god Peneus, transformed her into a laurel tree. 15. Berlin, capital of Prussia, ruled from 1740 to 1786 by Frederick II, who married but had no children and preferred the company of men.

RECOMMENDED READING

The website of the digital project “Policing Male Homosexuality in 18th-­Century Paris” (http://​coloradocollege​.website/​phs/) includes a comprehensive bibliography on homosexuality in early modern France. Blanc, Olivier. L’Amour à Paris au temps de Louis XVI. Paris: Librairie académique Perrin, 2002. ———. “The ‘Italian Taste’ in the Time of Louis XVI, 1774–­92.” Journal of Homosexuality 41, nos. 3–­4 (2001): 69–­84. Also published in Homosexuality in French History and Culture, edited by Jeffrey Merrick and Michael Sibalis. New York: Haworth Press, 2001. ———. Les Libertines: Plaisir et liberté au temps des lumières. Paris: Librairie académique Perrin, 1997. Bonnet, Marie Jo. Un Choix sans équivoque: Recherches historiques sur les relations amoureuses entre les femmes, XVIe –­X Xe siècles. Paris: Denoël, 1981; Odile Jacob, 1995. D’Estrée, Paul [Henri Quentin]. Les Infâmes sous l’ancien régime: Documents historiques inédits recueillis à la Bibliothèque Nationale et à l’Arsenal. Paris: Gougy, 1902. Reprinted in Cahiers Gai-­Kitsch-­Camp 24 (1994). Lanser, Susan. The Sexuality of History: Modernity and the Sapphic, 1565–­1830. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.

Lever, Maurice, Les Bûchers de Sodome: Histoire des “ infâmes.” Paris: Fayard, 1985. Merrick, Jeffrey. “‘Brutal Passion’ and ‘Depraved Taste’: The Case of Jacques François Pascal.” Journal of Homosexuality 41, nos. 3–­4 (2001): 85–­104. Also published in Homosexuality in French History and Culture, edited by Jeffrey Merrick and Michael Sibalis. New York: Haworth Press, 2001. ———. “Commissioner Foucault, Inspector Noël, and the ‘Pederasts’ of Paris, 1780–­3.” Journal of Social History 32, no. 2 (1998): 287–­307. ———. “Constructions of Sodomy in the Reign of Louis XVI.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Western Society for French History 29 (2003): 263–­70. ———. “‘A Fabric of Infamy’: The Sodomitical Life of Jean François de Rougemont.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 26, no. 1 (2017): 1–­25. ———. “Father, Lackey, Son, Friend, and Voltaire: Pederasty and Publicity in Pre-­Revolutionary France.” Eighteenth-­Century Life (forthcoming 2019).

242 | Recommended Reading ———. “The Marquis de Villette and Mme de Raucourt: Representations of Male and Female Sexual Deviance in Late Eighteenth-­Century France.” In Homosexuality in Modern France, edited by Jeffrey Merrick and Bryant T. Ragan Jr., 30–­53. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. ———. “New Sources and Questions for Research on Sexual Relations Between Men in Eighteenth-­Century France.” Gender & History 30, no. 1 (2018): 9–­29. ———. “Patterns and Concepts in the Sodomitical Subculture of Eighteenth-­Century Paris.” Journal of Social History 50, no. 2 (2016): 273–­306. ———. “Sodomites and Police in Paris, 1715.” Journal of Homosexuality 42, no. 3 (2002): 103–­28. ———. “Sodomitical Inclinations in Early Eighteenth-­Century Paris.” Eighteenth-­Century Studies 30, no. 3 (1997): 289–­95. ———. “Sodomitical Scandals and Subcultures in the 1720s.” Men and Masculinities 1, no. 4 (1999): 373– ­92. ———. “Sodomy, Suicide, and the Limits of Legal Reform in Eighteenth-­ Century France.” Studies in Eighteenth-­Century Culture 46 (2017): 183–­203. ———. “Tribadism and Propriety in French Legal Discourse, 1783–­4.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 52, no. 3 (forthcoming 2019). Merrick, Jeffrey, and Bryant T. Ragan Jr., eds. Homosexuality in Early Modern France: A Documentary Collection. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Ragan, Bryant T., Jr. “The Enlightenment Confronts Homosexuality.” In Homosexuality in Modern France,

edited by Jeffrey Merrick and Bryant T. Ragan Jr., 8–­29. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. ———. “Same-­Sex Sexual Relations and the French Revolution: The Decriminalization of Sodomy in 1791.” In From Sodomy Laws to Same-Sex Marriage: International Perspectives, edited by Sean Brady and Mark Seymour. London: Bloomsbury Academic, forthcoming 2019. Rey, Michel. “Justice et sodomie à Paris au XVIIIe siècle.” In Droit, histoire, et sexualité, edited by Jacques Poumarède and Jean Pierre Royer, 175–­84. Villeneuve-­d ’Ascq: Publications de l’Espace juridique, 1987. ———. “Parisian Homosexuals Create a Lifestyle, 1700–­1750.” Eighteenth-­ Century Life 9, no. 3 (1985): 179–­91. Also published in ’Tis Nature’s Fault: Unauthorized Sexuality During the Enlightenment, edited by Robert Maccubbin, 171–­91. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ———. “Police and Sodomy in Eighteenth-­Century Paris.” Journal of Homosexuality 16, nos. 1–­2 (1989): 129–­46. Also published in The Pursuit of Sodomy in Early Modern Europe, edited by Kent Gerard and Gert Hekma, 129–­46. New York: Haworth Press, 1989. ———. “Police et sodomie à Paris au XVIIIe siècle: Du péché au désordre.” Revue d’ histoire moderne et contemporaine 30, no. 1 (1982): 113–­2 4. ———. “1700–­1750: Les sodomites parisiens créent un mode de vie.” Cahiers Gai-­Kitsch-­Camp 24 (1994): xi–­x xxiii. ———. “Les Sodomites parisiens au XVIIIe siècle.” Mémoire de maîtrise (MA thesis), Université de Paris VIII, 1980.

Recommended Reading | 243 Sibalis, Michael David. “Homosexuality in Early Modern France.” In Queer Masculinities, 1550–­1800: Siting Same-­Sex Desire in the Early Modern World, edited by Katherine O’Donnell and Michael O’Rourke, 211–­31. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. ———. “Male Homosexuality in the Age of Enlightenment and Revolution, 1680–­1850.” In Gay Life and Culture, edited by Robert Aldrich, 102–­23. London: Thames & Hudson, 2006. ———. “The Regulation of Homosexuality in Revolutionary and Napoleonic France.” In Homosexuality in Modern France, edited by Jeffrey Merrick and Bryant T. Ragan Jr., 80–­101. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Taeger, Angela. “Analysis of Records in Historical Research on Criminal

Law: Criminal Records on Male Homosexuality in Paris in the 18th Century.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung [Forum: Qualitative Social Research] 3, no. 1 (2002), article 19, accessed 10 October 2018, http://​w ww​.qualitative​-research​ .net/​index​.php/​fqs/​a rticle/​view/​883/​ 1926. ———. “Du péché à la pécadille: La sodomie et la rationalisation du droit des mœurs en France au XVIIIe siècle: Du sexuel à la sexualité.” Francia 27 (2000): 103–­18. ———. Intime Machtverhältnisse: Moralstrafrecht und administrative Kontrolle der Sexualität im ausgehenden Ancien Régime. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1999. ———. “Soziale Praxis und ziviler Ungehorsam von anderen Männern im Paris des 18. Jahrhunderts.” Saeculum 51, no. 2 (2000): 212–­28.

INDEX

Entries for men identified as sodomites or pederasts in part I include, in parentheses, available information about age and occupation. Agesilaus, 160 Alcaeus, 164, 191 Alexandre, Jean (20), 111 Alincourt, François Camille de Neufville de Villeroy, marquis d’, 50 Anacreon, 193, 294 Antionin (gendarme), 94 Aristedes, 170 Aristogiton, 187 Aristotle, 161, 171, 177, 188, 193 Arnould, Madeleine Sophie, xvii, 139–41 Artenaire, François Joseph, 76 Assoucy, Charles Coypeau d’, 181 Athenaeus, 162 Badeliou, Frédéric (27, wine merchant’s assistant), 105–6 Badier, Étienne (domestic), 102 Bany (wine vendor), 68 Bassigny, Albert (17, wigmaker’s assistant), 68, 71–72, 73 Bathyllus, 150, 193 Bauffremont, Charles Roger, prince de, 146, 148–49, 155 Bauffremont, Louis, prince de, 148–49 Beau, François (36, domestic), 109 Beccaria, Cesare Beccaria, marchese di, 134, 157 Berger, 113–14 Bergerot, Césaire, 154–55 Bergier, Nicolas Sylvain, 165–66

Bernard, Jacques (lackey), 19–20 Bernardi, Joseph Elzéar Dominique de, 188–89 Berthelot, Michel (19, tailor), 101 Berton, Alexandre (caterer), 77 bestiality, 2, 156, 181, 184 Bible, 11, 134, 167, 168, 182, 186 Exodus, 156 Genesis, 7, 156, 165, 166 Leviticus, 156, 159 Old Testament, 185 Romans, 166 Bidault, Jean Baptiste Étienne (32), 129–30 Bidot, Étienne (bookbinder), 78 Bithemer, Jean François, 141–43 Blot, Antoine, (domestic), 114 Boisat, François (master hosier), 93 Bordier, François, 141 Borin, Claude (cook), 93, 118–19, 120–24 Bouillon, Charles Henri Godefroy de La Tour d’Auvergne, duc de, xvii Boutet de Monvel, Jacques Marie, 145, 146, 149–53 Bouttemy, Louis (24, watchmaker), 100 Bouvard, Pierre Louis (actor), 78 Brancas de Villars, Louis, duc de, 43 Brécey, François Marie de Vassy, marquis de, 16, 19–25 Brenouille, abbé Jacques Louis Roger de (32), 16, 17, 25–29, 43, 52

246 | Index Brisart, Claude Gabriel (30, bourgeois de Paris), 19, 58–64 Brocas, Jeanne de la Salle, baronne de, 145 Brotel, Gabriel (15, lackey), 53–54 Brouzerd, Jean (40, hosiery vendor), 116 Brunet, Louis François (29, tailor’s assistant), 107 Brunoy, Armand Louis Joseph, marquis de, 137–39 Buffon, Georges Louis Leclerc, comte de, 168, 176–77 Buturlin, Petr Aleksandrovich, count, 118, 120 cafés, 7, 12, 57, 58, 89, 116, 143 Café Alexandre, xvii Café Fayard, 115 Cavern, The, xv Callay, Louis de (carder), 76 Cancade, Joseph (domestic), 77 Carel, Louis (porter), 30 Carton, Louis Jacques (18, in service), 76, 79–80, 99 Cassolet, Frédéric Christophe (master chessboard maker), 104 Catullus, Caius, 164 Cavalier, Jacques, 76 Champs-­Elysées, 9, 12, 35, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 86, 87, 91–117, 118, 121, 122, 124, 151, 152 Chartier, Claude (16, wigmaker), 68, 71, 73 Châtelet, 9, 137, 152, 164 Chemin, abbé, 115 Chevelet, Charles Antoine (lackey), 16, 29–31 Chrétien, abbé (23), 16, 29–31 Christophe, Guillaume Michel (17, salad vendor), 111 Cicero, 163–64, 180 Clément, Antoine (38, master joiner), 77, 84–85 Cluzel, Joseph Pierre (26, master jeweler), 125–26 Coffin (painter), 95 colleges collège de Fortet, 30, 61, 62 collège de Lisieux, 41 collège de Louis-­le-­Grand, 174

collège des Quatre Nations or Mazarin, 21, 35, 36, 67 commissaires, 7, 9, 17, 30, 39, 63, 74–117 Carlier, Nicolas Noël, 87–88 Carré, Adrien Louis, 96 Chénon, Marie Joseph, 82–83 Chenu, Gilles Pierre, 68, 69, 71 Coquelin, Claude Robert, 80 Desance, François, 39, 40, 41 Desormeaux, Charles Convers, 91, 111– 17, 118–19, 121–24, 126–30 Fontaine, Bernard Louis Philippe, 83–84 Foucault, Pierre Louis, 91–92, 100–112, 118–21, 124–26, 147, 152–53 Gillet, Noël Louis, 84–85 Léger, Antoine Bernard, 87 Legretz, Romain Armand, 93 Levié, Jean Charles, 45, 49 Parent, Charles Jacques Etienne, 25 Saint-­Père, Augustin Edme de, 88–90 Sirebeau, François Jean, 82 Thierion, Pierre, 78–81, 93 Thiot, Antoine Joachim, 85–87 Tourton, Jean François, 41 Vanglenne, Mathieu, 142 convents, 145, 146, 191, 205, 207–8 Cotta, 164 Coullon, Louis (pepper vendor), 76 Couturier, Pierre (30), 106 Créquy, Charles Marie, marquis de, 153–55 Crete, 161, 171, 179 cross-­dressing, 74, 145, 207 Cum vir, 157, 159 Dambre, Charles, 77 Dancel, Jacques (27, watchmaker), 113 Davoux, Nicolas (domestic), 77 Debat, Louis (38, lapidary), 77, 87–88 Delasalle, Guillaume, 76 Delaval, Jean Baptiste (24, shoemaker’s assistant), 77 Demeunier, Jean Nicolas, 177–80 Desbordy (doorman), 66 Deschauffours, Benjamin, xvi, 146, 157, 174 Desfontaines, abbé Pierre François Guyot, xvi, 174, 181–82

Index | 247 Desmares, Francois (24, domestic), 101 Dessaud, Jean Étienne (30, bourgeois de Paris), 124–25 Deu, Pierre (50, music master), 16, 31–34 Diodorus Siculus, 1801 Dioscorides, 196, 198 Diot, Jean, 8, 147, 158 Dosseur, Jean (42, domestic), 19, 65–66 Duchenois, Antoine (actor), 78 Dufour, Jean Baptiste (21, fish porter), 16, 31–34 Dufour, Jean Baptiste, 77 Dufresne (soldier), 56–57, 58 Dufriche de Valazé, Charles Éléonore, 186–87 Dugy, Claude Jean Baptiste (30, jeweler), 75, 78–79 Duhameau, Jean (27, shoemaker’s assistant), 105–6 Dumont, Pierre (24, chessboard maker), 76, 80–81 Duplessis, Louis (bootblack), 30 Dupré, Louis (cook), 19, 67–73 Durepois, Jean Nicolas (water carrier), 76 Duterat, François Claude (24, scribe), 76, 80–81 Einchemesse, Jean (domestic), 76 Elbeuf, Emmanuel Maurice de Lorrraine, duc d’, 59, 202 Elie, Julien (clerk), 114 Enlightenment, 1, 133–35, 167–99 Eraux, Emery (lace vendor), 16, 34–36 Estienne, Jean Baptiste (floor polisher), 76 Étam (surgeon), 19, 67–73 Eustache, 96 extortion, 9, 99 by guards, 31 of nonsodomites, 86–­87 of sodomites, 97, 114, 119, 127–­28 Fauconnier, Étienne (pastrycook’s assistant), 92–93 Federici, Ferdinand de, 91–100, 110, 152 Felice, Fortunato Bartolomeo de, 158–64 Fleury, Louis (35, bourgeois de Lyon), 17, 36–41 Fortier (servant), 93

Fouque, Jean (baker’s assistant), 58 Fournier, Jean (31, cook), 17, 41–42 Fouyette, André (mathematician), 75 Fragnet, Alexandre (32, domestic), 107 Frédéric, Jean (17, jewelry vendor’s assistant), 77, 85–87 Gabriel, 96 Galland, Pierre (tailor’s assistant), 76 Galway, Jean (52), 76 Gaudelet, Pierre, 31 Gautier, Urbain (lackey), 30 gender, 3, 137 effeminacy in men, 17–­18, 27, 54–­58, 143–­4 4, 159, 167 masculinity in women, xviii, 146, 191, 204, 211–­12 Gilbert, Guillaume (lackey), 17, 42–43 Gobert, Léonard (journeyman mason), 17, 43–45 Goutlerose, Vincent (domestic), 77 Greece, 11, 156, 158, 167, 170, 171, 177, 187, 193, 198 Athens, xv, 161, 162, 163, 164, 170, 193, 196, 197 sex between men, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, 159–­64, 193 sex between women, 180, 190–­91, 192, 195–­97, 199, 204 Sparta, 160, 161, 162, 163, 188, 190, 197 Thebes, 162, 179, 180, 188 Grehan, Jean (38, tripe vendor), 113 Guenon, Étienne (gardener), 77 Guibaut, Jean Charles (18, cook’s assistant), 102 Guillemet, Jean Baptiste François (30, jewelry vendor), 77, 85–87 Half-­Moon, 9, 13, 32, 44, 76, 77, 87, 88 Hardy, Jean Antoine (coachman), 76 Harmodius, 187 Hautefort, chevalier d’, 57 Helvétius, Claude Adrien, 169–71 Hervez, Jean (domestic), 77 Holbach, Paul Henri Thiry, baron d’, 165, 172–73, 175 Horace, 178, 191, 193, 204 Houpelon, Louis, 77

248 | Index Housseau, Jean Nicolas (23, building inspector), 117 Huant, Jean (bootblack), 30 Huardot, Jean Pierre (23, hairdresser), 105 Hubert, Jean (16), 53–54 Humille, Leger Michel (36, hairdresser), 114 Jesuits, 53, 146, 174 Jews, 126, 143–45, 157, 166, 176 Joly de Fleury, Élisabeth Marie Pierrette Anne Dubois de Courval, Mme, 145–46 Joubert, Jean Louis (27), 102 Julius Caesar, xv, xvi, 181 Klein, Philippe (33+, domestic), 77, 84–85 Lafosse (mailman), 97–98 Laiguillon, Nicolas Louis (38, cook), 115–16 Lange (upholsterer), 95 Latour, Cécile de, 146 Launay, Louis de, 17, 54–58 Laurent, abbé André (secretary), 97, 104 Laurent, Jacques (domestic), 76 Laurent de Varenne (bourgeois de Paris), 97 Lebrun, (domestic), 66 Leclerc, Jean Toussaint (27, cobbler’s assistant), 123–24 Lecourt (cobbler), 97 Lefebvre, Philippe, 181–82 Lefèvre, Marc (22), 78, 88–90 Legroux, Charles (57, domestic), 77, 83–84 Lelong, Charles Augustin (24, clerk), 103–4 Lemoine (equerry), 66 Lenoir, Bruno, 8, 147, 158 LeSieur, François Pierre, 76 Levalsor, François, 78 Lex Scantinia (Scantinian law), 181 Lhuillier, Philippe (42, messenger), 108 lieutenant general of police, 7, 15, 21, 23, 34, 35, 66, 70, 122, 128, 150 Argenson, Marc Pierre de Voyer d’, 15, 20, 27, 28, 33, 36, 37, 40, 49, 50, 51, 52, 91

Argenson, Marc René de Voyer d’, 25, 27, 28, 44 Baudry, Gabriel Taschereau de, 35 Hérault, René, 21, 22, 25, 54, 55, 56, 58 Lenoir, Jean Pierre Charles, 95, 96, 98, 153 Machault d’Arnouville, Louis Charles de, 36 Sartine, Antoine Gabriel de, 58, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73 Lozeray, François (27, hosemaker’s assistant), 115–16 Luchet, Suzanne Delon, Mme, 146 Lucian, xvii, 166, 178, 180, 191, 197 Lunas, Antoine Pierre Viel, baron de, 95 Lurat, Jean Baptiste Antoine (22, pastrycook’s assistant), 122 Luxembourg Garden, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 29, 30, 36, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49, 53, 54, 58, 60, 61, 86, 91 Malerot, Alexandre (domestic), 77 Marais, Henri (28, cook), 117 Marcel, Antoine (46, domestic), 111 Marchais, Pierre (journeyman foundryman), 76 Maréchal, Jean François, 137–38 Mareuil, 55–56, 57, 58 Margantin, Pierre, 146, 152–53 Marion, Louis (15, wigmaker’s assistant), 124 masturbation, 2, 8, 15, 156, 184 Mathe, Léon Guillaume (32, actor), 101 Maudoit, Simon Nicolas (tobacco vendor), 78 Mauger, Jacques Louis (24, barkeeper), 117 Maximus of Tyre, 160, 161, 162, 163 Mezierre, Claude Michel Sébastien (domestic), 82–83 Michu, Louis, 143–45 Milon, Jean (25, cook), 68, 72 Milton, Jean (20), 108 Mirabeau, Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, marquis de, 200, 203–9 monasteries, 165, 171, 172–73 Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de, 167, 178, 180, 182, 188 Moreau, Joseph (19), 108 Morlan, Pierre Auguste (soldier), 109

Index | 249 Mousetrap, 115, 123, 127, 129 Muslims, 176, 180, 194 Muyart de Vouglans, Pierre François, 157–58 Natte, 94 nature, 23, 137, 150, 172, 173, 175, 189, 195, 196, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 211 “against nature,” xv, xvi, xviii, 164, 165, 166, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186 “against the order of nature,” 159 assumptions about, 134 concept of, 167–­69, 183–­85 “contradict nature,” 138 “contrary to nature,” 8, 145, 180 “deceive nature,” 151 “natural deformities,” 196 “natural instinct,” 195 “naturally disposed,” 190 “natural penchant,” 140 “offend nature,” 183, 188 “supersede nature,” 200 “unnatural,” 160, 161 “wound nature,” 183 Nerciat, André Robert Andréa de, 200, 209–11 New World, xvi, 167, 175, 176, 178 Nicomedes, xv, xvi Nollet, Michel (jewelry merchant), 115 nonconformity, xvi, xvii nouvelles and libelles, 134, 136–55 Palais Royal, xv, xvi, 8, 12, 37, 75, 78, 82, 83, 88–90, 118, 120 Papin, Pierre Louis (18, saddler), 76 Parlement of Paris, 19, 137, 157, 169, 171, 172, 175 Pascal, Jean François, 8, 147 Path of Sighs, 12, 59 Paul (valet), 95 Peixotto, Samuel, 143–45 Perier, Charles (52, domestic), 106 Perrée, François (domestic), 107 petitions, 15, 22, 30, 38, 45, 51, 63 Peuchet, Jacques, 169, 189–91, 192–98 Philippe, abbé Nicolas, 17, 45–50 Picard, Pierre (history teacher), 78 Pigrais, Isabelle, 146 Plato, 161, 170, 171, 180, 188, 189, 196, 199

Plutarch, 160, 161, 162, 163, 178, 180, 190, 199, 204 police, 7–11, 14–130, 191, 197–98. See also commissaires; lieutenant general of police decoys, 9, 15, 16, 17 Baude, Antoine, 127–28 Saint-­A ndré, 110 entrapment, 9, 15–16, 17, 18, 19–130 inspectors, 7 Desurbois, Jean François Royer, 113–17, 118, 123, 126, 127, 130 Framboisier, 65 Noël, Louis Henri, 94–112, 114–16, 118, 119–22, 124 officers Haimier, Jacques, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 34, 42, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57 Simonnet, 15, 17, 20, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 49, 51, 52, 54, 91 pederasty patrols, 9, 92, 94–118 Polycratus, 193 Pommeraye, de la, 104 Porcher, Jean Baptiste (36, haberdashery vendor), 112–13 prisons Bastille, 7, 23, 25 Bicêtre, 9, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 73, 99, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 147, 181, 198 For-­l ’Evêque, 27, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 65, 68, 71, 83 Grand Châtelet, 49, 53, 68, 69, 82, 84, 87, 88, 90, 97, 104 La Force, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 109, 111, 114 Petit Châtelet, 30, 31, 34, 42, 44, 45, 54, 61, 68, 79, 80, 85, 93, 116 prostitution female, xvi, xvii, 2, 3, 7, 55, 66, 99, 110, 147, 191, 202 male, 18, 20, 25, 30, 42, 43, 50, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 67, 75, 119, 129, 147, 159, 198, 206

250 | Index punishment, 9–11, 157–58, 159, 165, 166, 169, 181–89, 197–98. See also prisons deportation, 44, 51, 153 exile, 9, 20, 31, 33, 40, 41, 44, 50, 51, 99, 119, 121, 122, 123, 133, 147, 152, 181 Raucourt, Mlle (born Françoise Marie Antoinette Josephe Sauceroutte), 139–40, 145, 146, 147 Raynal, Guillaume Thomas François, 175–76 Rétif de la Bretonne, Nicolas Edme, 200, 211–13 Richard, François (32, meat-­roaster), 68, 69–71, 72 Riga, Jean (17, in service), 77 Rivière, Jean Mironbon (student), 75 Robin, Jean (haberdasher), 98 Rollin (cabinet maker), 124–25 Rome, 11, 156, 167 sex between men, xv, xvi, 164, 181, 193 sex between women, 190, 199, 204–­5 Rougemont, Jean François de, 28, 29 Rousseau, Philippe (32, domestic), 128–30 Roussel, Sulpice Simon (30, cook), 102 Rousset, Jean (37, kitchen assistant), 106 Roz, Augustin (locksmith), 98 Ruel, Louis Antoine Charles (41, bourgeois), 98, 110 rue Saint-­L ouis, 9, 13, 77, 84 Saget, Pierre (18, valet), 17, 27, 50–52 Saint-­Clément, marquis de, 96 Sapieha, Aleksander Michal Pawel, prince, 69, 73 Sappho, 189–91, 191–92, 195, 204, 205, 207 Sardet, Joseph, 17, 26, 52–53 Sardine, 69 Saunier, Jean Baptiste (household officer), 103–4 Sauvé, François (27, vegetable vendor), 103–4 Scantinian law. See Lex Scantinia (Scantinian law) Sénac de Meilhan, Gabriel, 200, 201–3, 211 Sénectère, Marie Anne Perrette Henriette de Rabodanges, marquise de, 146

Senez, Pierre Théodore, 137–38 seraglio, 153, 167, 178, 179, 194, 204, 206 Servin, Antoine Nicolas, 168, 181–86 Sextus Empericus, 173, 174, 179 Socrates, xviii, 160, 170, 174, 178, 181, 187 Sodom, xvi, xvii, xviii, 38, 40, 140, 153, 156, 157, 159, 165, 166, 175, 185, 186, 202 sodomites and pederasts age, 19, 75, 92 children, 10, 44, 89, 91, 92, 96, 99, 104, 185, 193 older and younger males, xv, xvi, xvii, 10, 17 old men, 43, 53, 129, 154, 175, 198, 292 assemblies, 3, 18, 19, 54–58, 59 aversion to women, 16, 42, 44, 151 costume, 101, 103, 107, 115, 118, 122 glossary, xv–xviii antiphysical, xv, xviii, 67, 73, 144, 150, 151, 201 bardache, xv, xvii, 17, 18, 26, 27, 43, 53, 142, 143, 153, 210, 211, 212, 213 buggery, xv–xvi, 26, 27, 59, 60, 86, 119, 149, 154, 174, 200, 201, 202, 203, 211, 212, 213 cuff, xvi, 142, 151, 153 ganymede, xvi, 141, 161, 179, 201 giton, xvi, 140, 147, 150, 211 minion, xvii, 69, 73, 141, 163, 164, 213 Socratic, xviii, 171, 173, 194, 201 married, 37, 39, 40, 64, 92, 93, 96, 98, 112, 129, 136, 138, 144, 148, 152, 154 nicknames, 3, 18, 56, 57 popular attitudes, 10, 17, 70, 75, 126, 136, 142 sexual activities anal sex, 20, 21, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 45, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 128, 148, 202 masturbation, 8, 16, 53, 56, 58, 66 oral sex, 16, 27 sexual assault, 8, 21, 34, 46, 147 sexual community, 10, 48 sexual identity, 2–3, 16, 30, 32, 44, 123 sexual inclination or taste, 32, 38, 44, 65, 66, 67, 119, 123, 144, 150, 151, 170, 191, 211

Index | 251 sexual roles, xv, xvi, xvii, 2, 3, 16, 18, 93, 119, 124, 129, 145, 167, 206 sex with men and women compared, 60, 211 social status, 9, 16, 21, 22, 39, 42, 136 unemployed, 19, 29, 31, 53, 65, 66, 67, 68, 76, 77, 78, 83, 93, 97, 99, 101, 115, 122 Sofa, 69, 112, 115, 116, 123 Soltikow, count Alexander, 69, 73 Strabo, 161, 180, 190 Surgis, Robert (18), 17, 53–54 Swiss Guard, 91–117, 132, 149, 152 taverns, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 29, 34, 35, 42, 44, 46, 47, 58, 73, 86, 87, 128 Grand Salon, 70 Magpie, The, 32, 33 Orangery, The, 54–­58 Testu, Pierre Nicolas, 17, 54–58 Théru, abbé Nicolas, 15, 27, 30, 35, 36, 44, 50, 51, 54, 56 Thibouville, Henri Lambert d’Herbigny, marquis de, xvii, 95 Thomas, Jean François (15), 77 Thomas, Pierre (cowherd), 77 Thorillon, Antoine Joseph, 164–65 Tison, Pierre Joseph (18, shoemaker’s assistant), 64, 105–6 Torte, Joseph (20, tailor’s assistant), 102 Toulaud, Jean Henri (20, glazier), 103–4 Toulon (24), 97 Tournay, François Louis (35, master upholsterer), 129–30 Tremaut, François (24, lantern bearer), 76, 78–79 tribades, xviii, 153–­54, 168–69, 180, 190–91, 201, 203–9, 211. See also Arnould, Madeleine Sophie; Joly de Fleury, Élisabeth Marie Pierrette Anne Dubois de Courval, Mme; Sappho aversion to men, xviii China, 205–­6 compared with sodomites and pederasts, 135, 136–­37, 165, 200 contemporary, 191, 198, 207–­9 documentation, 3, 9, 134

Greece, 180, 190–­91, 195–­96, 199, 203–­4 Rome, 190, 199 Turkey, 195, 206 usage of “tribade,” xvii, 139, 153–­54, 180, 191, 201, 204, 205, 209 Troyhot, François (postilion), 99, 101–2, 112 Trumeau, Jean (wine vendor), 76 Tuileries Garden, xvii, 8, 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 50, 52, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 76, 79, 86, 91, 101, 103, 115, 118, 121, 123, 124, 147, 150 Vaucher, Jean Louis, 77 Vendôme, Marie Anne de Bourbon, duchesse de, 28 venereal disease, 19, 44, 94, 202, 212 Versailles, 31, 34, 43, 47, 50, 72, 94, 107, 136, 149, 153, 154, 155 Viennay, abbé Jean Baptiste Champeneau de, 119–20, 124–30 Vieuville, abbé Jacques Vincent Bidal d’Asfeld de la, 52 Vilaines, Nicolas Pardoux, marquis de, xvi Villeroy, Jeanne Louise Constance d’Aumont de Villequier, duchesse de, 146 Villette, Charles Marie, marquis de, xv, 97, 104 Villiers, de, 50 Vinx, Jacques, 17, 54–58 Vismes, chevalier de, 59 Vivier, Joseph Henri, marquis du, 25–26, 27, 51, 52 Voltaire, François Marie Arouet de, xv, xvi, xviii, 141, 165, 173–75, 181, 193 watch/guard, 7, 74–90, 118 wife/woman, 41, 44 women, 211 aversion to sodomites, xv, 181 Greece, 195–­97 Parisian, mentioned in texts, 88, 89, 90, 142 sexual excess with, 166 Wrie, Jean (45, domestic), 109 Xenophon, 160, 161, 180, 196