Lesbian Historic Motif Project: #2 – Puff 2000

(I explain the LHMP here.)

The first entry was an intriguing story about an adventurous but well-behaved woman with no overt lesbian connection. This second one is pretty much the opposite. I would have a hard time writing Katherina Hetzeldorfer as an entirely sympathetic character (though certainly not deserving of her ultimate fate). But the wealth of detail regarding her exploits and methods is invaluable.

* * *

Puff, Helmut. 2000. "Female Sodomy: The Trial of Katherina Hetzeldorfer (1477)" in Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies: 30:1, 41-61.

For sheer soap-opera fascination, the trial of Katherina Hetzeldorfer in 1477 in Speier explodes a number of potential myths about lesbian activity in medieval Europe -- whether that there was none, or that it was given no official or legal notice.

Katherina was passing, at least nominally, as a man and had arrived in town with a female companion, initially presented as her “sister” but with whom she eventually confessed to a sexual relationship. (The court records suggest that at some point Katherina described herself to others as the woman’s “husband”.) Although there were some suspicions regarding this relationship, what brought Katherina to the attention of the law was a serious of sexually aggressive adventures, including offering women money for sex and entering women’s houses at night for the purpose of sexual assault. The trial focused on her transgression of gender boundaries in her appearance, but the testimony includes extensive evidence of her sexual behavior. Some aspects of the testimony must be suspect as her partners must have felt the need to present themselves as victims of a gender hoax rather than as willing participants. Katherina’s original companion testified that Katherina had “deflowered her and had made love to her during two years.” Another woman asserted that Katherina had “grabbed her just like a man” … “with hugging and kissing she behaved exactly like a man with women.” And the most detailed testimony concerned how Katherina used an artificial penis both as gender disguise and as a sexual aid. “She made an instrument with a red piece of leather, at the front filled with cotton, and a wooden stick stuck into it, and made a hole through the wooden stick, put a string through, and tied it round; and therewith she had her roguery with the two women….” Katherina’s repertoire also included manual stimulation, with one partner describing, “she did it at first with one finger, thereafter with two, and then with three, and at last with the piece of wood that she held between her legs as she confessed before.”

The details come from notes and transcripts of the court case in which she was condemned and afterwards executed by drowning.

The author includes passing references and citations of other legal cases involving sexual activity between women.

A German case in 1514 in Mösskirch concerns a servant girl Greta who "did not take any man or young apprentice … but loved the young daughters and went after them … and she also used all the bearings and manners, as if she had a masculine affect.” There was never any mention that she used an instrument, and her activities don't seem to have been popularly condemned, but she was investigated on suspicion of being a hermaphrodite, though doctors determined that she was “a true, proper woman”. (hat sie die jungen döchter geliept, denen nachgangen … auch alle geperden und maieren ob sie als ain mannlichen affect hat … ain wahr, rechts weib gesehen worden.)

Another German case in Rottweil in 1444 involving a religious woman Katharina Güldin who practiced the “vice against nature which is called sodomy” with an unnamed lay woman. In this and the previous case there is no indication that the women were trying to pass as men, although their behavior (with women) was labeled “masculine”.

The article includes transcripts of the original records of Hetzeldorfer’s trial, along with a full translation. The notes and bibliography are useful for tracking down details of other similar cases, although Puff seems to have included all the relevant summaries. Much of the discussion of this record concerns how the courts discussed and labelled sexual activity between women, often having no clear term for it at all.

keywords: crossdressing passing sex marriage dildo trial discovery execution

Wherein I conclude my Alpennian language geekery, this time on reference

Titles, Forms of Address, and Courtesy Among and Between Classes

To conclude my essay on Alpennian language and names, I’ll cover some issues of pragmatics and socio-linguistics. (You can take the girl out of academia, but you’ll never take academia out of the girl.)

I’ve created what is probably a very oversimplified system of honorifics and forms of address, but since I deploy them liberally to indicate nuances of relationships between characters (on a level that is probably under the radar for most readers) I felt it was important to have a clear structure. So here goes.

Everyone, no matter at what level of society, has an honorific prefixed to their name (given name or surname) on formal occasions and when respect is being shown. As Margerit notes, “Even the scullery maid is Mefro Lutild on Sundays.” These honorifics are marked for gender and for class, but not for marital status.

Working-class Mefro (f) and Mefroi (m) (derived from the word for “my” plus the derivation of an old germanic root “fraujo/frauja” that originally meant “lord/lady”)

Middle-class Maisetra (f) and Maistir (m) (from Latin Magistra/Magister)

Upper-class Mesnera (f) and Mesner (m) (from the word for “my” plus the Alpennian derivation of the Latin root “senior” which also gave use French “signeur” and Spanish “señor(a)”).

The linguistic gender distinctions in the latter two pairs are something of an anomaly, possibly driven by a deliberate conservatism due to awareness of the Latin roots. The gender distinction in mefroi/mefro is native to Alpennian and is seen similarly (and for the same root) in the nouns burfroi/burfro indicating a person of the middle class (i.e., “bourgeois”).

There is some flexibility in formality in whether the honorific is used with the given name or surname. One of your own servants might be Mefro(i) [given name] except for those with special status like the housekeeper or butler. But generally if you want to show respect (and especially for a stranger) you’d use it with the surname. A child might be Maisetra/Maistir [given name] but for an adult you’d always use the surname (hence Margerit takes note of who continues to addresses her as Maisetra Margerit rather than Maisetra Sovitre). I can imagine that there might be contexts in the upper class where someone might address a child as “Mesner(a) [given name]”, but in general there would be more of a polarization between someone familiar enough to use the given name alone or not familiar and so using the more formal version with the surname.

For the even smaller set of noblemen or noblewomen with a title, they might be addressed by the full title (Baron Saveze) or by honorific+surname (Mesner Lumbeirt), but in general if being referred to in the third person it will be with the title. Another titled individual, especially one with a close relationship or if there’s a hint of less-than-complete respect may address someone just by title (Saveze). Similarly at all levels, a familiar or not entirely respectful relationship may be reflected by addressing someone by surname alone without an honorific. So, for example, when Charul Pertinek (a noble) addresses Margerit’s uncle simply as “Fulpi”, it’s to put him in his place, not as a sign of friendship.

When referring to someone in the third person when they aren’t present, the level of formality used will generally reflect the relationship between the speakers, not the relationship of the speaker to the person being referred to. So members of the upper class who are on a first-name basis with each other will habitually refer to others not present by plain surname or title in conversation, but if speaking of the same person to someone of a lower class, or someone of their own class who isn’t a close friend, will always use a formal version.

There is the usual overlap between a “friendly familiar” address and the familiarity of address that is either an expression of social dominance or an outright insult. Use of a given name is the ultimate indication of familiarity for both of these. It’s extremely rare for someone to refer to a person of higher status by given name, and even rarer to do it in direct address. Pay close attention to the circumstances under which Barbara uses “Margerit” rather than “Maisetra Sovitre” even in the privacy of her thoughts, much less in speaking to others. And the occasions when she directly addresses Margerit by her given name (up to the point when they become lovers) are always very marked circumstances of intense emotion. (And a giveaway of how she feels about Margerit.) This is part of the status imbalance between the two of them because Barbara has no known surname for most of the story and her social status is highly ambiguous. So she is always addressed and referred to simply as “Barbara” which, in any other circumstance, would be disrespectful.

Conversely, Barbara always makes a point of referring to Estefen Chazillen as “Estefen”, even after he has the title, as a mark of her scornful opinion of him. (Never to his face because there’s no context when they’re speaking directly.) There are a few other key “tells” involving the use of given names. At one point when LeFevre is talking to Barbara and refers to the old baron as “Marziel” it’s a hint that their long friendship and partnership had eroded the barriers of class and of the employer/employee relationship significantly -- though he never would have addressed him that way in person when he was alive. For that matter, pay attention to the one occasion in the entirety of Daughter of Mystery when someone refers to LeFevre by his given name. It’s a major give-away of something that is otherwise only very subtly indicated. (And, to some extent, I did that as a bit of an “Easter Egg” for those who picked up on the subtleties.)

Overall, the rules of address and reference are a major but covert tool that I used for establishing and reflecting relationships between people and for indicating attitudes. Because of the nuanced way I was using them for these purposes, I had to start with some fairly simple and rigid structures to play off, otherwise the readers would have no hope of picking up on when the variations were meaningful. The rules and how they’re bent and broken aren’t meant to be something that jumps out at the reader, but rather as something that might be noticed as an afterthought and that subtly shaped the reading experience.