Jus Primae Noctis

(A study of Rights and Wrongs)
Address by Dr. Rick Rickards
Philosophical Club of Cleveland
Tuesday, April 9, 2002

If you wanted information about the Jus Primae Noctis and you looked in the 30 volume 2002 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you would find a small note that says: "Jus Primae Noctis (Feudal Law,) see Seigneur, Droit du.

If you turned to this entry, you find a brief description about two inches long which reads: "A feudal right said to have existed in medieval Europe giving the lord to whom it belonged the right to sleep the first night with the bride of any one of his vassals..." There are no references for further reading.

If you were curious enough to look in the Encyclopedia Americana, 2002, you will find no listing at all on either subject.

To begin with, let us define our terms. "JUS" means "LAW." "PRIMAE NOCTIS" means "of THE FIRST NIGHT." That much we know for sure. It could be said that some laws exist without having to be written down -- for example, the "LAW" of Gravity -- if you want to call it a law. On second thoughts, it would be more precise to say that the "FORCE" of Gravity exists. The so-called Law of Gravity is man's concept of the way that Gravity works -- it is not really a "law" at all.

Let's get back to the Jus Primae Noctis. If it were not really a law as such, perhaps it was an unwritten law? Or a right? Or a duty? The French called it the "DROIT DU SEIGNEUR"-- the right of the feudal landlord. They had at least thirty other names for it, such as "Droit de jambage" -- "Cuissage" -- "Cullage" -- all of which have vulgar overtones if your French goes that far.

The Germans called it, among other things, "Das Recht der ersten Nacht"-(The "Right" of the first night) and "Das Herrenrecht" (The Lord or Master's right). In Spain it was known as "Derecho de pernada" (the right to the legs) and the Italians called it "II diritto feudale" (the feudal right). Every language seems to have had a phrase or two to describe it and a large variety of slang expressions which were more explicit about this peculiar practice. The questions are how did the story all begin and why? Let us go back to ancient times and see what references we can find to the rites and privileges of defloration.

In approximately 3,000 BCE Gilgamesh, the King of Uruk in Mesopotamia, was depicted on clay tablets in the magnificent Sumerian story -- The Epic of Gilgamesh. "Gilgamesh. was the man to whom all things were known...the king who knew the countries of the world. He was wise. When the gods created Gilgamesh, they gave him a perfect body -- two thirds they made him god and one third man. His arrogance knows no bounds. His lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warrior's daughter nor the wife of the Noble; yet this is the Shepherd of the City, wise, comely and resolute." (3). It was believed that this King-Man-God was predestined to behave in this manner for the story continues..."Gilgamesh the King is about to celebrate marriage with the Queen of love (Ishtar), and he still demands to be first with the bride - the King to be first and the husband to follow, for that was ordained by the Gods from his birth, from the time the umbilical cord was cut." (4). As the story turned out, Gilgamesh "heaped insults" on Ishtar, the Queen of Love, and refused to marry her and she "fell into a bitter rage and sent down the Bull of Heaven to destroy him." Gilgamesh slew the bull -- but I digress. My purpose was to show that more than 1500 years before Homer's Iliad; 3,000 years before Christianity, somebody had written a story about the right of the first night! In spite of the Encyclopedias references of all kinds abound.

Heraclides Ponticus, in the 4th Century BCE described the "tyrant King of the Island of Cephalonia who made it a practice to deflower all of his maiden subjects. A man called Antenor took exception to this, disguised himself as a woman, and gained entrance to His Majesty's bedchamber. At the crucial moment, he pulled a sword from beneath his clothing and killed the King. The people were so pleased that they made Antenor the next King! Whether or not the new monarch re-instituted the same practice Ponticus does not say...(5).

In the Hebrew writings of the Babylonian Talmud, which date from about the 5th and 6th Century CE., we find a remarkable statement. The young bride may have to first have sexual intercourse with the Prefect or Tafsar before going to bed with her husband! (5) The Prefect was a royal dignitary. The Tafsar was a prince. Although the Jews were usually very uptight about a woman's virginity, allowances could be made for the bride when it was necessary for her to conform to local custom. The Talmud even refers to the Jus Primae Noctis twice by that name. (6)

Herodotus , the Greek historian in the fifth century BCE, made several reference to the Right of the First Night. He described the maidens of Adirmachides, a Libyan tribe, who were first turned over to the King. He deflowered them whenever he could find the time (and presumably the energy.') (7). Similar accounts occur in Valerius Maximus (8), and Lactantius (9) and Livy (10) . The Roman Senate allegedly granted the absolute power over all women to Caesar. Caligula is said to have been the first to take advantage of this right. (11). Emperor Maximinus insisted on being the praegustator (having the first taste) at all weddings! (12).

The Irish have a legend told in a 12th Century manuscript called "The Book of Leinster" (13). It tells about a King of Ulster called ConChobar, who lived at the beginning of the 1st. Century. The story goes that "…for every man who had a marriageable daughter, let her sleep the first night with him." In another Irish 12th Century document (14), the same monarch was said to have "Deflowered all the maidens of Ulster." It left the impression that it was not his pleasure.
but his duty to do so! (15).

Next we come to Scotland where we find the strange and significant story of King Evenus III. He was a contemporary of Augustus (Caesar) which puts him in the 1st. Century BCE. According to the "Hystory & Croniklis of Scotland, written by Boethius (1465-1536), also known as Hector Boece, we read the following: "Ane othir law he (King Evenus) maid, that wiffis of the Commonis sal be fre to the nobilis; and the Lord of the ground sal have the madinheid of all virginis dwelling on the same," (16). The so-called law was said to be in effect until 1089 when it was abolished by Malcolm III (1057-1093). This was due to his devout wife Margaret, who in 1250 CE became a Catholic Saint (17).

She also insisted that he rescind it for all time and in its place accept a symbolic payment of money, a "demi-marc" of silver. Hence, it was called MERCHETA MULIERUM (the payment for woman). It had many other similar names like Droit de Marquette, de Markotte and Maidenrent - but more of this monetary substitute later.

Meanwhile in England, according to the eminent scholar, Sir James Frazer (18), "The right of concubinage, with his tenant's wife on her wedding night...this custom (never) prevailed in England, though it certainly did in Scotland till abolished by Malcolm III." So here we find confirmation of the Boethius' story. In the Orient, there is a Chinese account from the end of the 13th Century stating that in the old Kingdom of Cambodia, Buddhist and Taoist Priests were to deprive their daughters of their virginity. The ceremony was called CHIN-THAN - "each Priest was allowed to deflower one girl only every year...and he was handsomely rewarded..." (19).

The famous explorer Marco Polo, in his 13th Century travels, tells of a country called Ziamba where "no young woman can be given in marriage, until she has first been proved by the King..." (20).

In the late l4th Century, Sir John Mandeville, also went on travels and described an Isle: "Where the custom is such that the first night that they be married they make another man to lie by their wives for to have their maidenhead...for they of the country hold it...so perilous for to have the maidenhead of a woman.. I asked them the cause why that they held such custom: and they said, that of the old time man had been dead for deflowering of maidens, that had serpents in their bodies that stung man upon their yards, (that's a flattering old English term for the male organ!) that they died anon." Who knows, maybe they did! (21),

Stories like these can be found in almost every language from savage and so-called civilized countries all over the world. Even up to the 20th Century, reports describing the practice of ritual defloration still occur in Russia and Albania (22). Up to this point, I have deliberately avoided mentioning the Droit du Seigneur as it occurred during the Middle Ages under the Feudal System.

According to historians, feudalism was the political system in Europe from the 9th to the 15th Century. It was based on the relationship of the Lord to the vassal as a result of land being held under a condition of homage and servitude. The Lords were vassals to the King and .the Villains [villeins] and surfs were vassals to the Lord. Each swore an oath of fealty (loyalty) and were bound with the obligation of feudal allegiance. The Lord had total and absolute control over the vassals, deciding what they should do, who they should marry and above all, extorting money for the privilege of working the soil. In exchange he protected them.

There was really nothing that the peasants could do, they could not read or write; they had no place where they could run away. They had the Lord of the Manor to bully them and the Church and the Clergy to console them. Both wanted the money they earned. Both got it. Many of the Clergymen were landowners too, but it is interesting to note that Kings and Noblemen didn't always trust the Church in this capacity. That is why they passed laws against Mortmain. This literally means the "Dead Hand." One of the few things that was admirable about nobility was the fact that they had the sense to restrain the greed of the clergy. The laws of Mortmain were made to prevent the church from owning too much land. This was being done by inheriting large sums of money and land from the faithful. Kings and Knights could foresee that in time, if uncontrolled, the Church would wind up owning everything.

In spite of their state of slavery, the peasants did occasionally stage an insurrection. For example, in France in the year 1358, the peasants (who had no names and were all known derisively as "Jacques") arose and tried to fight for a measure of freedom. The uprising was called the JACQUERIE (23). It was cruelly put down by King Charles II of Navarre and the Noblemen who organized the Counter-Jacquerie. Twenty thousand peasants died. They had been decimated by the plague in 1347, starved by the famine of 1349 and now they were being slaughtered because they were asking for rights.

In England, the peasants revolted in 1381, under the leadership of Wat Tyler. They seized Canterbury and marched on London burning prisons on the way. Richard II came to terms with Tyler and promised to abolish serfdom, feudal service and market monopolies. Then, on the second meeting with the King, Tyler was tricked by the nobility and killed by London's Mayor. The revolt was put down by force and all the promises forgotten (24).

Don't be misled into believing that these kinds of uprisings were based solely on economics. It is possible that the ignominious Droit du Seigneur was to many a Serf the last straw. Remember, too, that this very concept became an inflammatory theme in literature, theater, opera and art for centuries to come.

In the following Century, the 15th, Jack Cade the Irish-born English rebel staged an uprising defeating the royalists and marching into London in 1450. Listen to what Shakespeare has him say in Henry VI, Part 2: (25)"..hence forward all things shall be in common..the proudest peer in the realm shall not wear a head on his shoulders, unless he pay me tribute; there shall not a maid be married, but she shall pay to me her maidenhead ere they have it."

Then, later on, Cade says to his nervous followers: "You had recovered your ancient freedom but you are all recreants and dastards, and delight to live in slavery to the nobility. Let them break your backs with burdens, take your houses over your heads, ravish your wives and daughters before your faces. God's curse light upon you all!"

History tells us that the King cleverly pardoned Cade's followers and they all deserted him. Whereupon Cade was promptly killed and the rebellion crushed. Obviously Shakespeare was well acquainted with the Jus Primae Noctis concept when he put these interesting words into the mouth of the revolutionary Jack Cade!

There were more uprisings against the Nobility -- like the Peasant's War from1524-26 but this was also put down, with Martin Luther's approval, by the way. There was violence and loss of life, but to no avail. Serfdom continued in Germany for 300 years more (26).

It is only by understanding the social structure of mediaeval Europe that we can appreciate the significance which art, music and literature had in changing it. The theme of the Droit du Seigneur was used in innumerable plays and operas from the early 1600's to the present day. The cruelty of nobility, the hopelessness of the serfs were themes deliberately exploited to arouse the indignation of the audiences, and to excite the masses against the ruling class. Many famous authors invoked this theme. The well-known Spanish novelist, Cervantes, author of Don Quixote, wrote as his final work, Persiles Y Sigismundo, in 1617. This story takes place in Ireland and depicts the plight of the beautiful maiden Transila faced with the tyranny of the ruler who plans to enjoy the Droit with her. She and her husband manage to escape and finally live happily as Christians in England. There is a strong religious overtone which pervades the play (27).

In England, a few years later (1619), Fletcher and Massinger staged a four act drama based on the same story and called it -- The Custom of the Country. Others were quick to plagiarize the general idea.

In France, the Encyclopedists were intrigued with the concept and wrote about it at great length. Pierre Bayle was first with his so-called Dictionary.(28) Diderot (29) and Voltaire (30) gave it the full treatment in the following century. In fact, Voltaire wrote a five act play in verse called, "Le Droit du Seigneur" in 1760. On numerous occasions Voltaire attacked the Droit that he maintained was practiced by the clergy as well as the nobility.

The Droit du Seigneur became an ever more popular theme in literature and art. Mozart wrote an opera Le Nozze de Figaro, (31), based on Beaumarchais' original play The Marriage of Figaro (32) From the 17th to the 20th Century, more than thirty different works appeared -- everything from poetry to painting and from propaganda to pornography. I am much indebted to the research study of Dr. Frances Litvack, whose Ph.D. thesis in 1980 described much of the above in detail. (33). So there you have it, from the epic of Gilgamesh in 3,000 BCE to an epic of Hollywood in 1965 with a film called "War Lord" based on the Lord of the Manor and his right to a bride's virginity. It starred Charles Heston.

Was it the degradation of womanhood that triggered the peasant uprisings? Did the lechery of the nobility cause changes in the social order.? Did wealthy debauchery eventually lead to the French Revolution? Many people think so. Others disagree.

Let me now inform you that almost as much has been written denying the existence of the Droit du Seigneur as has been written describing it! Its antagonists proclaim that the whole story is fiction from beginning to end. It is said there never was a King Evenus in Scotland! Boethius, we are told, wrote legends not history. Mandeville was a liar and Marco Polo exaggerated a great deal. Furthermore, the naysayers maintain, in Feudal times the Droit never existed at all! According to these theories, the Jus Primae Noctis was originally based on two simple misunderstandings. The first was civil, the second religious. The Droit du Seigneur was in fact a tax that a Serf had to pay when his daughter married outside the estate. Women (that is Serf women) were considered as "livestock" and the tax was repaid the Seigneur for his loss. It was called "Pormariage" or "Maritagium." Now as for the religious overtones, the church required couples to maintain continence on their wedding night. This practice stemmed from decisions made at the Council of Carthage in 398 CE, but, for a price to the clergy, the rule could be waived!

These views were expounded by people like Louis Veuillot in the 19th Century France. He blamed the Protestants for what he called "pure invention." He fumed: "Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the archives of Justice authorizes us to say that our forefathers ever made a crime into a law. If we search the evidence and the literature we find the same silence everywhere. The Middle Ages had never heard of the Droit du Seigneur" (34),

Other writers echoed his opinions. The learned Karl Schmidt in Germany (35) wrote an exhaustive treatise on the Jus Primae Noctis in 1881. He and concluded that it was 'Ein Gelehrte Aberglaube" - "a learned superstition."

A more recent book denying the Droit was published in London in 1973 - the author, Mackrell, states: "…that the Philosophes used the Droit as a ploy to exaggerate the specter of oppressed Serfs. (For them) no charge was too absurd -- it was wishful thinking" and, he warns, ".. those who share the fantasy will be sad to learn that there is no reliable evidence that the Droit ever existed" (36).

If that's the case, then many famous people were deceived. People like Cervantes, Montaigne, Bayle, Voltaire, Diderot, Lauriere, Chateaubriand, Restif de la Bretonne, Beaumarchais and so many others. Were they all deceived? Maybe so. In the 20th century, Edward Westermark wrote three large volumes on the History of Human Marriage (37). One whole chapter, with many examples, was devoted to the Jus Primae Noctis. Dr. Otto Rank, disciple of Sigmund Freud, wrote and compared the Droit du Seigneur with the Don Juan Complex. (38). In 1975, Susan Brownmiller, Psychologist and woman's libber, stated in her book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape: "The custom of giving the manorial Lord the right to take the virginity of any one of his vassals, unless paid redemption dues, (was) certainly a form of rape..." (39). Maybe these authors were all deceived too?

As you can tell, the arguments will probably go on forever, but while
you are deciding the pros and cons of the experts let me introduce a comment of my own. Is it not remarkable in the 21st Century that we still use such an odd term of respect and deference for men of rank? The Germans say "Mein Herr" which means "my sire." The French say "Monsieur" that is essentially the same. The English say "Sir," as a term of respect, but when talking to the nobility, the proper term is "Sire." Maybe there was a time when these words actually made more sense than they do today?

In conclusion, lest you consider this subject to be purely acedemic you should ask yourselves this question. Is there really any difference between the alleged brutal treatment of Surf women in feudal Europe and the actual violations of slave women in the United States? I think not.

One final comment, if you ever need to do any historical research, don't depend on the Encyclopedia Brittanica!

REFERENCES