LHMP #380j Vermeil 1765 Mémoire pour Anne Grandjean

On l'accuse d'avoir profané le Sacrement de mariage. Il ne l'a pas profané, s'il étoit de bonne foi: c'est le second objet que nous nous étions proposé de démontrer.

Zie is accused of having profaned the Sacrament of Marriage. He did not profane it, if he was in good faith: this is the second point we set out to demonstrate.

SECOND OBJECT

Point de profanation si l'Accusé étoit dans la bonne foi.

SECOND ISSUE

No profanation if the accused was in good faith.

{HRJ: This is, in fact, the strongest point of the lawyer’s argument. That “profanation” requires intent to profane, and that Grandjean clearly did not have that intent. I’m going to have little commentary on this next section because the narrator lays it out very clearly.}

Nous nous occupons uniquement ici d'un point de Droit sur lequel nous ne prévoyons pas de difficulté sérieuse.

We are dealing here only with a point of law on which we do not foresee any serious difficulty.

Pour remplir notre objet avec exactitude, il faut voir d'abord ce que c'est que profaner le Sacrement de mariage, & nous verrons ensuite si l'on peut dire que celui qui le contracte dans la bonne foi, en soit profanateur.

To fulfill our purpose accurately, we must first see what it is to desecrate the Sacrament of Marriage, and then we will see whether one who contracts it in good faith can be said to be a profaner.

Profaner le Sacrement de mariage, c'est en abuser: on peut en abuser de trois manieres; ou parce qu'on n'est pas libre, ou parce qu'on n'est pas capable, ou parce qu'on use mal de sa capacité,

To profane the sacrament of marriage is to abuse it: one can abuse it in three ways; either because one is not free, or because one is not capable, or because one misuses one's capacity,

Nous disons d'abord qu'on abuse du Sacrement de mariage, quand on le contracte sans avoir la liberté de le faire.

We say first of all that the Sacrament of Marriage is abused when one contracts it without having the freedom to do so.

Le maríage, chez les Peuples sauvages, est une union sujette au caprice, & dont les liens peuvent être aussi facilement détruits que formés. Chez plusieurs Peuples policés, mais qui ne jouissent pas du précieux avantage d'être éclairés par les lumieres de la Foi; c'est un contrat civil qui peut être résolu dans les cas prévus par les Loix. Chez une Nation chrétienne & catholique, il est contrat civil & Sacrement tout ensemble, écrit dans le Ciel & sur la terre; c'est le symbole de l'union de Jesus-Christ avec l'Eglise: il est indissoluble, individual, & le lien formé par lui ne peut être rompu que par la mort.

Marriage, among savage peoples, is a union subject to caprice, and whose bonds may be as easily destroyed as formed. Among many civilized peoples, but who do not enjoy the precious advantage of being enlightened by the lights of the Faith, it is a civil contract which can be resolved in the cases provided for by the Laws. In a Christian and Catholic Nation, it is a civil contract and a sacrament at the same time, written in Heaven and on earth; it is the symbol of the union of Jesus Christ with the Church: it is indissoluble, individual, and the bond formed by it can only be broken by death.

{HRJ: Oh dear. He’s getting his rhetoric on again.}

Une conséquence naturelle résulte de ces principes: c'est que parmi nous, les hommes ou les femmes qui sont mariés, ne peuvent pas contracter valablement un second mariage du vivant de leurs femmes ou de leurs maris: s'ils le font avec la pleine certitude que leur chaîne subsiste, ils abusent du Sacrement, & méritent des peines.

A natural consequence follows from these principles: it is that among us, men or women who are married cannot validly contract a second marriage during the lifetime of their wives or husbands: if they do so with the full certainty that their chain will remain, they are abusing the Sacrament, and deserve punishment.

{HRJ: "Their chain" meaning "the bond, the contract, the thing that binds them." This bullet point is talking about bigamy, which is not relevant to Grandjean's situation, but is part of the lawyer gradually building his case.}

Nous avons dit, en second lieu, qu'on pouvoit abuser du Sacrement par le défaut de capacité. Le mariage est établi pour donner des citoyens à la Patrie & des habitans à l'Univers; il faut donc, pour le contracter valablement, être capable de remplir son objet. Le défaut de capacité peut avoir deux causes différentes; celle qui naît de la frigidité, de l'innertie de l'homme; ou celle qui nait d'un vice d'organisation, soit dans l'homme, soit dans la femme: ainsi quiconque se croit inhabile à remplir le vœu du mariage, doit s'abstenir d'un engagement dont la sainteté  seroit par lui profanée.

Secondly, we have said that the Sacrament can be abused through lack of capacity. Marriage is established to give citizens to the country and inhabitants to the universe; it is therefore necessary, in order to contract it validly, to be capable of fulfilling its purpose. Lack of capacity may have two different causes: that which arises from frigidity, from the innertness of the man; or that which arises from a defect of organization, either in the man or in the woman: thus anyone who believes himself unfit to fulfill the vow of marriage must abstain from a commitment whose sanctity would be profaned by him.

{HRJ: This is an argument that people were still making in regard to same-sex marriage in 21st century USA—that the essential purpose of marriage is procreation, and that lack of the ability to procreate, whether for psychological or physiological reasons, means one should be barred from marriage. But, of course, as argued in the 21st century, that principle was not typically used to bar male-female couples from marrying—for example oi the woman were past childbearing age—if there were no other issues.}

Enfin on peut encore abuser du Sacrement & de l'état du mariage, en usant mal de sa capacité. L'attrait du plaisir rapproche deux époux, & de leur union doit résulter un nouvel étre; la nature sur cette union a prescrit des regles, & l'instinct seul suffit pour nous mettre en état de les suivre. Si ces regles sont violées, si l'un des deux époux ou tous les deux à-la-fois préferent le plaisir au devoir, quand ils peuvent réunir l'un & l'autre; s'ils usent des organes de la volupté d'une maniere contraire à leur destination, c'est un tort envers la Patrie, qui leur demande des citoyens; c'est un larcin qu'ils font à la Nature, c'est un crime aux yeux de son Auteur.

Finally, the Sacrament and the state of marriage can still be abused by misusing its capacity. The attraction of pleasure brings two spouses together, and from their union must result a new being; nature has prescribed rules for this union, and instinct alone is sufficient to put us in a position to follow them. If these rules are violated, if one or both of the spouses prefer pleasure to duty, when they can unite the one and the other; if they use the organs of voluptuousness in a manner contrary to their purpose, it is a wrong to the Fatherland, which requires citizens of them; it is a petty theft that they make from Nature, it is a crime in the eyes of its Author.

{HRJ: So, in other words, if you get married and plan to have a good time, sexually, but avoid anything that could result in pregnancy, then you’re abusing the sacrament of marriage. This was a significant dividing point between Catholic views of marriage and some Protestant views, which allowed for a chaste companionate marriage, if the participants were so inclined, or allowed for non-procreative sex as an activity that helped bind the couple emotionally. But we see here an inkling of the view of “procreation as patriotism” that would emerge in the early 19th century in both France and England. It's unclear whether the lawyer is allowing for some non-procreative activity within a marriage, as long as procreation is also a goal, or whether each sex act is evaluated on this basis.}

Dans cette derniere espece il n'y a point d'excuse, & les époux ne sauroient dire qu'ils sont de bonne foi.

In this latter case there is no excuse, and the spouses cannot say that they are acting in good faith.

Mais il n'en est pas de même des deux précédentes.

But this is not the case with the two preceding ones.

{HRJ: That is, there are cases (which the narrator is about to discuss) where someone might be not free, or not capable of marriage and unaware of it, but not where someone might be in it purely for non-procreative pleasure and not aware of it.}

Celui qui croit être libre au moment où il contracte & qui ne l'est pas, ne profane point le Sacrement; son erreur peut avoir une cause légitime. Un volcan qui renverse une ville ou qui l'engloutit, un champ de bataille couvert de morts, un vaisseau abymé dans la profondeur des mers, voilà des causes propres à justifier l'erreur. Si le mari habitoit la ville engloutie, s'il étoit dans les troupes qui ont soutenu le choc du combat, ou dans le vaisseau qui a péri dans l'onde, & que depuis un tems considérable son épouse n'en ait point eu de nouvelles, elle aura des raisons suffisantes pour le croire mort, elle pourra contracter un engagement nouveau. Cet époux vient-il par la suite à réparoitre, le second mariage sera déclaré nul; mais la femme n'aura pas profané le Sacrement, parce qu'elle étoit dans la bonne foi.

He who believes himself to be free at the moment he contracts & who is not, does not profane the Sacrament; his error may have a legitimate cause. A volcano which overturns a city or engulfs it, a battlefield covered with dead, a ship sunk in the depths of the sea, these are all causes which may justify the error. If the husband lived in the sunken city, if he was among the troops who sustained the shock of the battle, or in the ship that perished in the waves, and if his wife has not heard from him for a considerable time, she will have sufficient reason to believe that he is dead, and she will be able to enter into a new engagement. If the husband subsequently dies, the second marriage will be declared null and void, but the wife will not have profaned the Sacrament because she was in good faith.

{HRJ: This is making an interesting distinction between the legal and spiritual status of such a marriage. Bigamy is a legal matter and unaffected by intent. But profanation requires knowledge and intent.}

A Pari, si un homme se croit capable de remplir le vœu du mariage; si la nature, quelquefois sujette à des caprices, ne lui a pas fait éprouver cette langueur, cette frigidité, cette inertie perpétuelle que l'on nomme impuissance absolue, il peut se croire digne du Sacrement qu'il desire; & quand bien même après le mariage il se trouveroit inhabile, il n'est point profanateur; on ne peut le punir comme tel, sa bonne foi le justisie.

By analogy, if a man believes himself capable of fulfilling the vow of marriage; if nature, which is sometimes subject to caprices, has not made him experience that langor, that frigidity, that perpetual inertness which is called absolute impotence, he may believe himself worthy of the Sacrament he desires; and even if after marriage he finds himself unfit, he is not a profaner; he cannot be punished as such, since his good faith justifies him.

{HRJ: This argument could apply not simply with regard to impotence, but also with regard to fertility from various angles. Although the lawyer doesn't take this angle, it could apply in the case where Grandjean sincerely believed their confessor had the power and ability to change their sex, not simply to recategorize their gender. And whether or not Grandjean believed that, the argument could be presented in court as a strategy. This is, to some extent, what the lawyer does later when invoking the initial legal and social recognition of Grandjean's recategorization.}

Enfin, pour rentrer dans notre espece, si un individu tel quell conçoit un violent amour pour une fille, s'il éprouve à son a approche des sensations vives, avec un développement d'organes qui ne se rencontre point dans les femmes s'il eft froid & tranquille auprès des hommes; si ces organes développés lui présentent les attributs de la masculinité; si dans l'usage antérieur qu'il en a pu fạire, elles ont produit la même sensation chez la femme, alors cet individu, qui n'est point obligé d'être 'naturaliste, aura raison sans doute de se croire appellé au mariage en qualité d’homme; & quand une experience plus longue & des lumieres plus sûres viendront après son mariage lui faire connoître quelque vice d'organisation dans sa personne, on ne pourra pas dire sans doute qu'il ait profané le Sacrement, parce que lorsqu'il a contracté, ses intentions étoient pures, & sa bonne foi non équivoque.

Finally, to return to our category [of hermaphrodite], if an individual such as this conceives a violent love for a girl, if he experiences at her approach vivid sensations, with a development of organs which is not found in women if he is cold & quiet around men; if these developed organs present him with the attributes of masculinity; if in the previous use he may have made of them, they have produced the same sensation in women, then this individual, who is not obliged to be a naturalist [i.e., a biologist, a scientist], will be justified without doubt in believing himself called to marriage in the capacity of a man; & when longer experience & surer lights come after his marriage to make him aware of some defect of organization in his person, it will not be possible to say without doubt that he has profaned the Sacrament, because when he contracted, his intentions were pure, & his good faith unequivocal.

{HRJ: Once again, the narrator is fixated on the idea that the polarity of desire defines gender identity. If Grandjean experiences sexual arousal toward women and is sexually indifferent toward men, this validates the assumption of male identity. It isn’t simply that the narrator believes this proves Grandjean to be essentially male, but that it can be argued as a rational basis for Grandjean to believe themselves male.}

En un mot, la profanation est un crime; point de crime sans la volonté de le commettre; point de volonté de le commettre, si celui qui épouse est dans la bonne foi.

In a word, profanation is a crime; no crime without the will to commit it; no will to commit it, if the one who marries is in good faith.

Mais pouvons-nous dire que l'Accusé fût dans la bonne foi au tems de son marriage? C'est le point de fait qui nous reste maintenant à discuter.

But can we say that the accused was in good faith at the time of his marriage? This is the point of fact which remains for us to discuss.

{HRJ: One has to pause in admiration at the way Grandjean’s lawyer is constructing his case.}