Abstract
This article examines cases of fornication and illegitimacy as they were regulated by the Genevan Consistory, a morals discipline court that John Calvin created in 1541 to eradicate sin from the community. We argue that ordinary people failed to live up to the moral standards of Calvinist reformers as they practiced illicit sex and had bastard children. The authorities did their best to correct such behavior and provide for illegitimate children.
Scholars of sixteenth-century Geneva have long focused their attention on the Consistory, a morals discipline institution that French reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) established in 1541 to regulate such matters as adultery, spousal abuse, and errant religious practices. Meeting weekly, the Consistory members (elders and pastors) sought to strengthen the ethical and religious fiber of the Genevan community and to further the success of the Protestant Reformation by summoning people to account for their sins. After questioning parties, the pastors and elders, working in tandem with local investigators (officials called dizainiers working for the city) who reported suspicious behaviors, utilized several forms of chastisements, including verbal reprimands and temporary or permanent excommunication from the Lord's Supper, to correct moral infractions. Particularly serious cases that were civil or criminal in nature were referred to the Small Council, a civil institution that meted out punishments like imprisonment and banishment. 1
This article expands the scholarly dialogue on the Consistory by exploring cases of fornication (illicit/extramarital sex between individuals, including adultery) that resulted in unexpected pregnancies and the births of illegitimate children. Karen Spierling and William Naphy have begun to investigate this topic, discussing the ways in which the Consistory determined paternity and forced fathers to provide for their bastard children, but their articles analyze only several cases of illegitimacy -- Naphy's from later years and Spierling's only from the 1550 s. 2 Our study, based on research of one hundred cases from the Consistory transcripts from 1542 to 1558, furthers a discussion, by looking at cases before the 1,550 s (and into the 1,550 s), that hopefully will be continued by us and/or other scholars in the future. We analyze in depth several cases in this essay, finding that many Genevans (men and women) practiced extramarital sexual behaviors and lifestyles for diverse reasons (for instance, sexual desire or money) and in a multitude of circumstances and settings. The cases then go on to tell us that many female parties became pregnant by their male partners, and most women ended up giving birth to these illegitimate children. Indeed, pregnancies out of wedlock came to the attention of the Consistory because it denoted illicit sex. These fornication and illegitimacy stories have been chosen for specific reasons. For one, they illustrate the nature of sexual behavior of many people in Reformation Geneva as well as the demands (material, for instance) of unwed mothers (and children) who faced the realities of pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood. For instance, women who came to the Consistory demanding male seducers acknowledge the paternity of bastard children and provide for these babies were instrumental in influencing the institution's decisions or rulings.
We put forth three central arguments in this article. First, common individuals, by presenting their demands and recounting their stories to the Consistory, challenged, by disobeying, Calvinist definitions of family, marriage, and sexual practices. In other words, sex and procreation for many Genevans were not embraced with the same standards, values, and expectations that Calvinist reformers advocated, namely, monogamous marital unions and having children within wedlock. Indeed, the women and men in these cases failed to live up to the moral standards that Calvinist reformers put forth for the community, and in these ways common Genevans contested this Reformed morals agenda. Secondly, the Consistory elders and pastors shaped their own definitions of family, sexuality, and marriage. The Consistory officials tried to uphold Christian teachings of monogamy and responsible procreation and childrearing by, for instance, punishing sinners who fornicated and providing for the welfare of illegitimate children. Third, we posit that although the Consistory and Small Council viewed fornication as a serious sin (it undermined the sanctity of marriage and premarital sex), bastard children were not stigmatized for being illegitimate. In other words, the officials in both institutions felt it more imperative to provide for the financial and spiritual well being of these children. Indeed, bastards were still welcomed, valuable members of the church community. We will see below that Calvin in fact believed children were vital to the growth and sacredness of the church.
A Note on Primary Sources
The research for this article is based on the published minutes of the Genevan Consistory from 1542 to 1558, representing a significant portion of the case load heard during Calvin's tenure as the lead pastor in this institution before his death in 1564. Scholars, including Jeffrey and Isabella Watt, have been painstakingly transcribing the original records for many years. Close analysis of these primary sources reveals much about the mentalities and behaviors of those parties summoned before this body. We can also glean a considerable understanding of the demands and decisions of the Consistory. In short, the published minutes remain a valuable window into sixteenth-century Genevan society.
John Calvin on Marriage and Sex
Before we consider the Consistory cases of fornication and illegitimacy, we must examine the views and arguments of John Calvin, which he presented in sermons, laws, and other writings, on the institution of marriage (including marital sex), for the rulings of the Consistory in our cases can be explained largely by reformers’ beliefs that sex should be practiced only within marriages that were properly made. 3 Like many Protestant reformers, Calvin saw marriage as a secular contract. Nevertheless, Calvin professed that marriage symbolized the union between Christ and His Church. Calvin's Biblical commentaries on marriage tell us much about how the reformer defined marriage. He utilized the Bible to formulate his understanding of marriage as a union that God created. In his Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, (1546), Calvin argues that “marriage was appointed by God with the purpose that the two shall become one.” 4
Calvin reiterates his spiritual definitions of marriage in another of his writings, Concerning Scandals (1550), where he maintains that “Before men had been corrupted, marriage was bestowed on them – and allowed them – as a unique blessing. We maintain that it is intolerable that this blessing of God be snatched away from mortal man. Now on account of incontinence of the flesh, there has been even greater necessity for this, the primary institution of God.” 5 These articulations of marriage and sexuality informed, as will be seen, the decisions of the Consistory. Calvin and his colleagues expected Genevan people to conform to these ideals. Aside from the spiritual definitions of marriage, Calvin formulated specific ideas about the place of sex within marriage, which he thought spouses should use to channel their sexual passions and stay faithful and monogamous to one another. In Calvin's commentaries on Paul, the reformer argues that marriage (marital sex in particular) helped to promote monogamy in European society. Calvin argues, “I answer that where the wife is a help to her husband, making his life happy, then that is in accordance with God's intention. For God so ordered it in the beginning that the man without a wife was half a man, as it were … and felt himself lacking in help which he particularly needed; and the wife was … the completion of man.” 6 Calvin's definitions of marriage as companionate and lasting, therefore, show us that he believed matrimony served certain purposes for Christians, that marriage was an institution through which couples could enhance their sprirituality and morals by practicing monogamy and by loving each other.
Children in Calvinist Thought and in Sixteenth-Century Genevan Society
This section will address Calvin's views toward children, for instance, their place within the church community and in Genevan society more generally. We will also consider how religious (including the Consistory) and civil authorities treated children in this Reformed city during the sixteenth century, such as providing for the spiritual and material needs of children, many of whom were born in unfortunate situations. A number of historians have written about Calvin's views of children, arguing that Calvin saw or defined children as valuable members of the Reformed Church and society. In a seminal article on this topic, Barbara Pitkin has explored the ways in which Calvin expressed (in sermons and other writings) his esteem of children; the reformer felt that children were vital members of the church. Calvin also stipulated the spiritual formation of children. Pitkin describes Calvin's provisions for the inclusion of children in the sacraments (baptism and communion) as part of their spiritual development. Children were to obtain religious education (catechisms and sermons) in order to prepare for receiving the sacraments. Indeed, in 1536, when Geneva officially became a Reformed community, religious leaders posited that children were to be educated in the faith and they called for the establishment of new schools for such education. Religious education could even take place within the household. Jeffrey Watt has argued that Calvinist reformers expected parents (especially fathers) to educate their children (both girls and boys) in the Protestant faith. Children were to learn the catechism, read the Bible, and say their prayers with the help of their parents as well as with the guidance of the clergy, something Catholic families did in pre-Reformation Geneva as well. 7
Other historians have addressed the material welfare of children, particularly the efforts of religious and government officials in making sure needy children were supported financially. Karen Spierling has argued that leaders in the church and the government often gave financial assistance to poor children (or to their parents) or ordered parents to provide for the material wellbeing of their children. “In Geneva, as in the Netherlands, church deacons held the responsibility of distributing charity and overseeing the Hopital-General, which cared for needy Genevans ranging from orphaned children to impoverished elderly inhabitants.” 8
In these ways, we can see how Reformed leaders in the church and government felt about and treated children. The young were valuable members of premodern Genevan society and steps were taken to ensure children were raised in a godly, safe, and comfortable environment. Such values informed the Consistory's rulings when dealing with illegitimate children; the elders and pastors desired to see children provided for and to have parents take responsibility for their offspring.
The Legal and Social Aspects of Illegitimacy in Early Modern Europe
What were the legal and social aspects of illegitimacy in the sixteenth century? This section seeks to describe some of the legal and social underpinnings of illegitimacy in early modern Europe. Because the topic is complex – for example, bastardy laws varied from place to place in Europe and litigation over bastard children was often messy – we will offer only an abbreviated discussion of this subject. In Geneva, a 1547 law stipulated that pregnant women who had committed fornication were to “ask mercy from God and from justice” publicly in church. We will see, as presented in this article, that illegitimacy (coupled with fornication) were serious matters that the Consistory and Small Council regulated. Most of the cases we encountered ended with chastisements such as verbal reprimands, prison sentences, even banishment from the city. Illegitimacy undermined the sanctity of the Christian family; it deterred from its moral integrity and presented problems and confusion concerning the care and welfare of illegitimate children. Finally, many men denied the paternity of these children, a pattern that was also of concern to Calvinist reformers. 9
Aside from the Genevan case, we can also look at some of the legal definitions and social implications of illegitimacy in other locations of early modern Europe (Italy and France) in order to gather a broader understanding of how government, judicial, and religious authorities defined bastardy. Thomas Kuehn has written insightfully and thoroughly about bastardy in Renaissance Florence, examining many of the laws (local ordinances and the ius commune, or common law) surrounding illegitimacy. He argues that jurists, theologians, lawyers, and other individuals put forth a variety of definitions of illegitimacy. He writes that bastard children had varying degrees of rights as well as legal preclusions. For example, since medieval times, illegitimate children could not enter the priesthood. Moreover, illegitimate children faced a myriad of other problems, including issues of inheritance, for instance, whether bastards could inherit family wealth or not. 10 The law was supposed to safeguard family property. 11 Other local ordinances addressed bastard children and slavery: “Any free man who impregnated another's slaves had to pay the costs of birth and alimentation … . The child was to have the legal status of the father, not the slave.” 12
But aside from the legal underpinnings of illegitimacy, there were also social and cultural ramifications for bastard children. Kuehn writes: “The personhood of an illegitimate was marked indelibly with the relationship at play in conception. Personhood in law was about having and being in relationships … It was the father's identity (and within it, his relationship with the mother) that affected the personhood of the illegitimate. But paternity was not susceptible to proof so much as admission and presumption.” 13 Therefore, illegitimacy was a question of dishonor because these children challenged the social and moral integrity of the family and marriage.
Did illegitimate children in Renaissance Florence have recourses to becoming legitimate by law? Bastard offspring indeed had some options, including obtaining letters of legitimation from the civil government, but “Legitimation by subsequent marriage was designed only for naturales … . Basic law was the legal ability of the parents to marry – something lacking for spurious, adulterine, and incestuous bastards.” 14 Illegitimate children could also be adopted by families. 15 Early modern French jurists also put forth legal definitions of bastardy. In a seminal and formidable book on this subject covering the 1,500 s to the 1,700s, Matthew Gerber explores early modern laws and legal treatises on bastardy, noting that there was much confusion over the definition of illegitimacy. He writes, “Confusion … surrounded other terms commonly associated with illegitimacy, such as ‘foundling’ (enfant trouvé), ‘orphan’ (orphelin), ‘exposed child’ (enfant exposé), and ‘abandoned child’ (enfant abondonné).” 16 One of the central legal treatises that Gerber discusses is Jean Bacquet's Traité de droit de bâtardise (1577). This royal attorney wrote about such issues as the parental rights to the property of illegitimate children who had no heirs of their own and other matters. 17 Gerber also argues that illegitimacy was contingent on the validity of marriages. In other words, many French laws defined bastards as children born of invalid marital unions. He pinpoints the laws of 1556 and 1557 that the state promulgated in order to secure “the collective interests of elite and upwardly mobile lineages.” 18 The laws, therefore, sought to protect family property and names. “For jurists, the theoretical problem of ‘the bastard’ was the extent to which he or she should be granted be granted rights associated with membership in a household or a lineage. The problem of ‘the foundling,’ by contrast, was who should be responsible for his or her education when resources of private charity fell short.” 19
The above discussions about marriage and illegitimacy can, hopefully, frame our analysis of fornication and illegitimacy in Reformation Geneva. As evidenced by pre-modern laws and legal treatises, bastard children posed challenges to legal, social, and political worlds. Illegitimacy was not only a social stigma. It carried with it a multitude of implications for the bastard's family as well as the illegitimate child him/herself. We would add that, as evidenced by Calvin's Geneva, illegitimacy also presented religious and moral ramifications as well. Having children out of wedlock was not just a legal matter, but one that raised questions pertaining to illicit sex and broken relationships, matters that Protestant reformers vehemently opposed and sought to eradicate from the community.
Calvin's Definitions of Moral Discipline and The Procedure of the Consistory
A study of the Consistory cases should be grounded in an understanding of Calvin's definitions of morals discipline as well as the functions or procedure of the Consistory. Scott Manetsch has argued that Calvin's reading of the Bible, particularly the letters of Saint Paul and the Gospel of Matthew, shaped and strengthened the French reformer's definitions of morals and church discipline. Moreover, while in Strasbourg, Calvin was influenced by Martin Bucer's agenda of morals reform. Like Bucer, Calvin believed that Christians had a duty on earth: a responsibility to correct one another's sins and thus maintain a godly community. 20 Calvin brought these ideas with him to Geneva in 1541 after being exiled in Strasbourg since 1538. He set to work outlining his definitions of morals reform and discipline as well as structures and functions of the Protestant Church in Geneva.21
The legal stipulations on sexual transgressions that civil and religious leaders put forth in sixteenth-century Geneva also underline the gravity of sexual sin. The 1545 ruling of the Small Council defined illicit sex as a moral transgression that would be punished with a harsher penalty than that which had been utilized before. Sexual offenders of any kind would now be imprisoned for six (instead of three) days on bread and water and would pay a fine of five florins. The Small Council also proposed to the Council of Two Hundred (another civil institution) that a prison reserved specifically for fornicators would be established. 21
How did the Consistory deal with cases of fornication and illegitimacy? Did the elders and pastors adhere to the law when chastising sinners? We have found that the Consistory was indeed faithful to the tenets of the city ordinances. In these cases, the Consistory and Small Council tried repeatedly to regulate sexual infractions for reasons that reflected Reformed values of sexual propriety – specifically, that fornication was a sin that needed to be eradicated from the community because it defiled the body as well as the integrity of monogamous marital unions. These values and mentalities are manifested poignantly in the records; sinners were punished or corrected with fines, whipping, and banishment from the city, chastisments suggesting that the officials felt sexual sin was serious and even threatening to the community more generally. Sexual offenders could have potentially, we can presume, influenced others to fall into the same sins.
Did the officials of the Consistory and Small Council punish or correct sexual offenders differently according to gender? We have found no apparent discrimination based on sex in the records, but again, we can look again to William Monter for an assessment. Monter has argued that “When the Consistory applied these principles to specific problems of sexual misconduct, men's responsibility was taken as seriously as women's. The Calvinist doctrine of original sin may have led the ministers and judges toward misanthropy but not necessarily toward misogyny. Consider, for instance, the 2,000 city dwellers and 500 peasants excommunicated by the Consistory between 1564 and 1569.” 22 Elsewhere Monter writes also about the laws regarding illicit sex and whether they exhibited gender discrimination: “the unpopular laws of 1566, championed by the clergy, prescribed exactly equal punishments for both sexes in cases of simple fornication (three days imprisonment on bread and water, six days for second offenders), for adultery between a married and an unmarried person (banishment), and for adultery between two married people (death). Previous Genevan law law had banished women but merely imprisoned men for adultery. There are instances in the 1,560 s when both parties to adulteries were killed, but there are other instances when only women were drowned for adultery.” 23
On another level, the cases of fornication and illegitimacy raise pertinent issues and questions regarding the behavior of ordinary Genevans who appeared before the Consistory. Individuals had sex (willingly in most cases) with others outside of wedlock for reasons that were not always clear, although we can surmise that sexual desire was paramount. Their stories, at times convoluted and complicated as conveyed in the Consistory minutes, show us the intricacies and complexities of pre-modern lives. Sixteenth-century Genevans, then, found it difficult to adhere to the standards of sexual propriety church and civil leaders put forth. In this way, ordinary people challenged, with their moral failures, the morals agenda of Reformed officials.
Fornication and Illegitimacy in Calvin's Geneva: The Consistory Cases, 1542–1558
We can now turn to a thorough discussion of the cases of fornication and illegitimacy that came before the Genevan Consistory. As stated earlier, we have chosen one hundred cases for research and we will analyze thirteen in this section
The first case that we will discuss is one of suspected seduction. Marguerite Bernard came to the Consistory on March 19, 1556, when she was reprimanded for committing fornication. She denied having sexual relations with a man, but we learn that she was pregnant with a child she conceived with François de la Planche, dit le Mottu, who apparently was the seducer. We learn that in November 1555, the Consistory had accused Marguerite “of having fornicated and for carrying an illegitimate baby … After having initially denied having sexual relations, Marguerite finished by claiming she was pregnant and having fornicated with the butcher, François de la Planche, dit le Mottu.” We then learn that the “lovers were convoked before the Consistory … and sent to the Small Council to be punished.” They were placed in jail in late November. François testified that Marguerite had sexual relations with other men and he denied that he was the father of her child, a claim that Marguerite countered (“that the child is indeed that of François de La Planche”). Later that year, Marguerite (“ready to give birth”), was brought in again for questioning. She again reiterated that the father of her child was in fact François. After Marguerite gave birth, the Small Council ordered de La Planche to pay for the care of this woman as well as the child. 24
This case, though brief, is telling. Here we find a woman who was caught in a troublesome situation; she had sexual relations with a man and an unexpected pregnancy resulted. Marguerite was successful in getting the Consistory to help her; the elders and pastors ordered the father of the child to provide for his/her wellbeing. The Consistory's actions or decisions, moreover, reflect the seriousness with which the court took Marguerite's case. Indeed, Karen Spierling has explored this topic in detail. In a seminal article, she argues that Calvinist reformers did their best to arrange for the care of children in sixteenth-century Geneva. Religious and civil authorities did so because they not only valued children in the Reformed community and church. Providing for illegitimate children, a form of charity and love, was also a core value of Protestantism. 25
Another instance where a woman confessed to being pregnant out of wedlock and one that involved baptism was that of Pernette Tissot, a servant, a case which came to the Consistory on September 11, 1550. The minutes tell us that Pernette was a servant in the home of Aime Plonjon “when she conceived an illegitimate child with another servant … . named Jean Roquet.” Moreover, “The Consistory learned that Jean Roquet left the city out of fear of being imprisoned for fornication and because he did not want to be obligated to marry Pernette Tissot.” But Aime denied that the child was his. The Small Council next took up the case, and after the birth of the child, who remained unbaptized, the Council decided to have the baby baptized “out of great necessity … as a bastard.” The child was named Abraham. 26 This case is shows us not only that the unexpected pregnancy was a concern for the Consistory, but that the spiritual welfare of the child was as well, hence the baptism.
Men denied having fathered children in many cases. This is evidenced in the case of Collette Magnin, who came to the Consistory on February 14, 1555 about a man she knew, a gentleman by the name of Jean du Bourg. The minutes tell us that the previous year (August 1554), she appeared before the Consistory (“under the name Collette Fournier”) when “she accused Jean Du Bourg of having fornicated with her.” Jean denied this act. Indeed, Jean accused Collette of promiscuity. Interestingly, the Consistory decided to postpone dealing with the case for several months (“ignoring whether the woman was pregnant”). Finally, in December, “her pregnancy was confirmed.” Collette again presented her accusations against Jean, and so the case was remitted to the Small Council. We next learn that after the birth of the baby, Jean du Bourg “did not want to ‘take’” the child. The Small Council ordered Jean to give financial aid to Collette. 27
This case, like the one preceding it, is poignant. For one, it underscores the problems which men and women encountered in sixteenth-century Geneva. Here two individuals had sexual relations with each other, a union that resulted in pregnancy. The issue of sexual impropriety was compounded with the man's denial of the paternity of the child, a common dynamic found in other cases.29
Servants appear in dozens of Consistory cases of fornication and illegitimacy, revealing the exploitation of such women (and in some instances, male servants) at the hands of their masters. Some of these cases were also compounded with accusations and findings of adultery. The case of Claude Durand came to the Consistory on April 24, 1544, when he was questioned about committing fornication with his female servant, Pernette Milliaud. He admitted that he had indeed “offended God and the authorities, that he had sexual relations with his maid … and believes she is pregnant, and that he is married.” Pernette also appeared before the Consistory, informing the elders and pastors that she had lived with and worked for Claude for three and a half years. She admitted to “having his company” and “asked mercy from God and the authorities.” She also claimed to feel the child within her for about a month. She said Claude had promised to marry her and that she is “a poor orphan girl.” The Consistory decided to investigate further this case and ordered that Claude and Pernette be reprimanded and remitted to the Small Council, where Claude confessed to having fornicated with Pernette. The Council asked this woman about her religious life. Finally, the Small Council “ordered that Claude Durand be put in prison for nine days on bread and water and that he pay a fine. The Council remitted the punishment of Pernette Milliaud until after the birth.” 28
This case is another example of the household dynamics between masters and servants in early modern Europe. Here the master of the household, Claude Durand, admitted to having relations with his servant, Pernette. What compounded the matter was that Claude was married, making his relationship with Pernette adulterous as well. It is noteworthy, however, that Claude recognized his sin; he conceded that his actions were serious. Pernette's story or testimony evidences, on her part, the vulnerability and desperation she felt, especially as she was pregnant with her master's child. She may even have wanted Claude to marry her, for she claimed he promised to do so. The chastisement in this case, a prison sentence for Claude (nine days on bread and water) finally, underscores the severity of the case.
Another case involving domestic servants was that of Jeanne Fol, which began in the Consistory on March 24, 1552, when the officials found she was pregnant, supposedly with the child of her master, Paquenot. The Consistory ordered questioning of the parties involved. We learn from the editorial team's notes that “In 1547, Jeanne Fol, daughter of Claude Fol … had an illegitimate child with a certain Pierre Roget … During this investigation, she claimed to be pregnant again, attributing the paternity of the child to Estienne Chardon who, like her, was a servant in the house of Thivene Paquenot. The Consistory and Conseil suspected, to the contrary, that Paquenot was the father of the child.” The Small Council punished Jeanne (it is unclear how). 29
Another case of a pregnant servant, Louise Blanc, ended with her suspension from the Lord's Supper. She came before the Consistory on April 15, 1557, and was suspected of having fornicated with someone. She said she did have a son with a man named Jean Grangier, her master and employer. She also stated that the baby was being fed and was baptized. The Consistory, after barring her from communion, remitted her to the Small Council. The minutes then tell us that “Louise Blanc recognized having had an illegitimate child with her former master, Jean Grangier … She is thus suspended from communion.” Louise may have shown signs of remorse, for we then next learn that she was pardoned and readmitted to the Lord's Supper. As for Jean, he was also penitent, but was temporarily suspended “until the end of May.” 30
This case further evidences the value Reformed authorities placed upon repentance and reconciliation into the church. Here the readmission of Louise to the church and taking communion reveals she was a welcomed and important member of the church community. The Consistory forgave or pardoned her.
Jean Clerc and his wife appeared before the Consistory in March of 1557 when they were questioned about their female servant, Claude, who had been living with them. Jean claimed he had not seen the servant in over a year. Claude, also called before the Consistory, claimed that she was pregnant, but that she did not know who the father was. The Consistory called for more questioning of the various parties. The transcripts next tell us that “Jean Clerc and his wife were accused of having housed a certain Claude, pregnant, and of having accompanied her to Evian to hide her.” The Consistory, we find, believed that the father was either a merchant named Michel Gerbel or his servant, Pierre. The child was indeed considered illegitimate (“enfant illegitime”). After questioning in the Small Council, Pierre Ottin, the male servant of Michel Gerbel, was imprisoned for three days, but then was released after paying a fine of ten florins. The Consistory forbade the parties from associating with one another. There is no further information for this case, unfortunately, but it is, again, one of failed responsibility, confused accusations and identities, and a child caught in the middle of an unseemly situation. 31 Here, sinners were chastised for their actions; the prison sentence underscores the gravity of their wrongdoing.
Adultery was the subject of many of the cases we studied. One case in point was that of François Favre, who appeared before the Consistory on February 25, 1546. He was married, but had sexual relations with a servant in his home. The maid then became pregnant from the union (François denied knowing about the pregnancy). Present in the Consistory was Calvin himself, who reprimanded François, who was then remitted to the Small Council. 32 The case continued the next year, when the Small Council ordered François to be imprisoned for adultery. We have no other information for this case, but it is obvious that the decisions taken underscored the gravity of adultery and the subsequent pregnancy of the servant in question. Adultery undermined the sanctity of marriage, including the monogamy couples were to practice. 33
Some cases centered around the issue of divorce. A case where a man asked for betrothal separation was that of Jacques Gibellin, who came to the Consistory on March 14, 1555. He had presented a supplication the previous week. He was petitioning to be released from a marriage promise because his fiancée had sex with another man. Gibellin had to provide more proof of this from his native France. We then learn that he had committed fornication with a woman who became pregnant with his child. Allegedly, a marriage promise had transpired between them, a pledge that Jacques now wanted to rescind. Indeed, he asked the Consistory to “annul his marriage promise.” But the Consistory refused. We have no other information for this case, but it is apparent here that the pastors and elders felt Jacques’ behavior did not warrant the sympathy he was seeking. 34
Other cases involved widows who came before the Consistory because of their sexual behavior and illegitimate children. The case of Claude Cuvilliez dite Bogenet began in July of 1550 when the Consistory asked her when she had her last child. She said she had a baby nine years ago. The transcripts tell us that Claude was the widow of Andrian Bogenet, a man who had been chastised for beating her. “She was here accused of having given birth to an illegitimate daughter and having left her with her nurse in the village of Vulbens.” The Consistory, after interrogating several witnesses from this village, summoned a man named Pierre Girod, who was questioned about whether he was the father of the child. He denied this when he appeared before the Consistory in February of 1551. After questioning other witnesses, the Consistory (in 1558) found the true father to be Pierre Gallatin. “Finally, in December 1558, she (Claude) admitted to having a child in Vuache and had him/her baptized” in the Catholic faith. Claude identified Pierre Gallatin as the father and that she had lied previously in the Consistory about this. After a brief stay in prison, Claude was banished from Geneva for fornication. Finally, in 1562 she petitioned the Consistory to return to the city, and the institution requested that the Small Council allow her back into Geneva. 35
This case presents more evidence of the experiences that ordinary men and women had within and outside of marriage. We learn that Claude was a woman who was beaten by her late husband, Andrian. She then was charged with having a bastard child some time after the passing of her spouse. She admitted to having the child and baptizing it in the Catholic tradition. The father of the child, Pierre Girod, denied being the father of the child. Again, the case is telling; it highlights various questions and issues, including widowhood, religion, illicit sex, and an illegitimate birth. That Claude was a widow may have even exacerbated the problems at hand; for she was imprisoned and then banished from Geneva. Moreover, she had lied to the Consistory, which worsened her punishment. Nevertheless, the Small Council was merciful enough to accept her back into the city.
Another widow, a woman named Gonine Malliet, came to the Consistory in September of 1556 when she confessed that she was pregnant (since March) with François Malva's child. She had sexual relations, she said, with him several times “since the death of her late husband.” We next learn that Malva, also before the Consistory, “doubted that the child is his,” but “He finished by consenting to concern himself with the child on condition that Gonine swears he is not the father.” The Small Council imprisoned both Gonine Malliet and François Malva “on bread and water for having fornicated.” 36 We also find that Gonine “presented to the Small Council a request” that Malva “administer the necessary things to live and to receive his child.” François, however, again tried to refuse the child despite the Gonine's continued claims that he was indeed the father of the child. The Small Council ordered that François “receive and take the fruit and child with whom she is pregnant,” and to pay Gonine five florins. This is yet another case of unexpected pregnancy and sexual relationships outside of marriage. The couple was imprisoned for sexual impropriety, but what is equally important to note is that the father of the child was ordered to provide for the child, something the Consistory repeatedly did for the benefit of both unmarried mothers and their children so that the costs of bringing up the child would not burden the common purse of Geneva's hospitals. 37 We do not know why he consented to providing for the child.
There was also a case concerning a newborn (a foundling) whose parents were nowhere to be found, that of Martin de Loermoz dit Belten, which came to the Consistory on August 6, 1551. Martin testified that he found an infant in a basket, “newly born, and with a letter saying that this baby belonged to Phillibert de La Mart.” He kept the child and fed him/her. The Consistory ordered further investigation of the affair. Next we learn that “Martin de l’Olme … dit Bellen … reported in the Consistory the following facts: he found, two weeks ago, an abandoned baby in his yard. Next to the child, there was a note indicating that his father was Phillibert de La Mare, … The child continued to live with l’Olme during the investigations of the Consistory and Council.” We then find that Philibert denied that he was the child's father. The minutes tell us that Calvin was worried because the childwas not baptized yet. We also learn that Philibert “had been accused of fornication with Jeanne Suavard… he was again summoned before the Consistory in 1554 and accused of fornication.” 38 There is no further information for this case in the Consistory records, but it testifies again to such matters as child baptism, fornication, and a foundling. The Consistory found it imperative to care for the abandoned baby, including having him/her baptized, and sought to punish the said fornicators accordingly. 39
Another case of premarital sex and an infant death involved a man named Vincent Brolion, who came to the Consistory on January 10, 1544 because he was suspected of committing fornication. The minutes tell us that “Regarding the fornication, he asked forgiveness … and cannot hide his sin … and he repents greatly.” We also learn that his child was dead by the time he appeared before the Consistory. The case continued when Ayma, the daughter of Claude de Gallaz de La Rochet, testified that she had a child who died within a half hour of birth (“l’enfant est mort et ne vesquit de dymi heure”). She had another child with a man to whom she was engaged (apparently a different relationship). The Consistory admonished Ayma and remanded her to the Small Council. Vincent was to be reprimanded. On June 9, 1544, Vincent Brolion was imprisoned for three days on bread and water “for having committed fornication before marriage. He was freed on 13 June 1544.” 40 The outcome or decisions in this case testify to the gravity of extra- or premarital sex (fornication).
A case involving an alleged marriage promise and where a woman was questioned for fornication and subsequent pregnancy was that of Pernette, the daughter of Jean Challon. Pernette appeared before the Consistory in March of 1554 because she had been impregnated by a man named Cristoble Albergou. She confessed that she was not married and that she had indeed copulated with Cristoble. The Consistory remitted her to the Small Council. In the Consistory a second time, Pernette told the judges that Christoble “had promised marriage,” but that “in the absence of witnesses,” Christoble “did not deny the fornication,” but that he did not promise to marry Pernette. The case was finally remitted to the Small Council, where it was discussed. Here Christoble denied the marriage promise. 41
This case is informative on a variety of levels. For one, it is one of unexpected pregnancy as a result of sex out of wedlock. Pernette thought she was going to marry Cristoble and so she consented to having sexual relations with him. Indeed, the issue of the broken or unfulfilled marriage promise (here alleged) was common in early modern Geneva. Individuals and couples often contested such claimed promises. 42 The presence of the child only confounded matters, posing another challenge for the parties involved. Again, illegitimate children would have undermined the financial and moral integrity of the family. That the Consistory remitted the case to the Small Council also attests to the severity of the case.
Sometimes clergymen were accused of fathering bastard children. The case of Antoine Anjoz (a woman) began in the Consistory on February 23, 1542. The elders and pastors asked if she was married, to which she responded in the negative. She did admit, however, that she “was pregnant” with the child of a man named Pierre de Chieu, and that “she has already two children, one from Monsieur Jean Cornuti and the other from Pierre d’Orbaz.” 43 Antoine was apparently penitent, for she “asked mercy from God and from justice.” The Consistory, after reprimanding Antoine, decided to call in Pierre de Chieu for questioning. 44 The minutes then tell us that Jean Cornuti was a priest: “The priest Jean Cornuti was the father of Antoine's first child, a son named Jean.” We learn that the boy was born “before the Reformation” in Geneva, hence the Catholic affiliation of the father, a priest. Finally, the records reveal that Antoine was banished from Geneva “for a year and a day, under penalty of being whipped ‘for having committed fornication three times.’” 45 The seriousness of the parties’ sin here (fornication and illegitimacy) merited a severe sentence (banishment and possible whipping) which the Small Council gave him.
Finally, our last case is that of Thibaud Gaultier, who appeared in the Consistory on April 15, 1557. He was suspended for having illicit sex with and impregnating Claude Livron, the nurse of his own child. He was forbidden to associate with her. We have no further information for this case except that he “was punished for having conceived an illegitimate child with the nurse who cared for his son.” 46 This case evidences the severity of extramarital sex and illegitimacy; the chastisement for this case was censure from communion (probably temporary), a sacrament central to the spiritual welfare of Christians in early modern Europe.
Conclusion
The cases of fornication and illegitimacy that the Consistory regulated from 1542 to 1558 disclose valuable information about a variety of problems and questions plaguing not only Reformation Geneva, but early modern Europe more broadly. In an era of religious and secular reform of morals, illicit sexuality was increasingly regulated as a way to establish morality in Protestant (and Catholic) communities. The stories we have heard of past lives and behaviors in Calvin's Geneva reveal civil and religious leaders believed sexual immorality and illegitimacy posed grave problemes for the moral fiber of the Genevan community. The Consistory and Small Council were reasonably successful in many cases (correcting people of their sins) and so we can say that Reformed values were implemented in this city with vigor. Nonetheless, this success was limited and sometimes hard to achieve as many parties (both men and women) struggled and even sometimes resisted changing their ways. Indeed, that they committed sexual misbehaviors or sins (again we can use the authorities’ definitions here) underscore the difficulty which numerous Genevans had with being monogamous. Many also found it hard to raise children. Their sexual infractions and begetting of children out of wedlock challenged the morals agenda for the Reformed community that Calvin and his followers envisioned. These cases, then, disclose valuable information about the moral agenda of the Consistory and Small Council, namely, that they repeatedly helped unwed mothers and their children by determining paternity, arranged for the financial support of illegitimate children, and, finally, punished illicit sex as practiced by both women and men. They raise important questsion regarding gender, social constructions of sexuality, and religious reform in early modern Genevan society.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
