In May 2024, I found in the London Consistory records this highly unusual case of an apparent intersex person. She[1] was Margaret Bradley of Edmonton and Hackney, Middlesex, whose husband Christopher sued her in 1522 to annul their marriage. Six women, three midwives and three apparent neighbours of Christopher in Hackney, testified in significant anatomical detail that Margaret had both a vagina and a penis, though neither was fully functional. This is very rare evidence for a specific medieval intersex individual, as opposed to theoretical discussion of “hermaphrodites,” which was plentiful among medieval legal, medical, and theological thinkers.[2] Even rarer in medieval evidence are direct statements from the intersex individual in question, as appears in this case: Margaret Bradley herself responded to her husband Christopher’s claims. Other aspects of early sixteenth-century English life about which we know relatively little are also illuminated by the records in this case, especially the role of midwives as medical experts in law courts and in obstetrical care in London and Middlesex. I’m collaborating with Cora Wilson on an article on the case and so in due course we will have much more to say. In the meantime, below you will find both a transcription of the original Latin and an English translation of the surviving evidence for the case.
Acknowledgements: Much gratitude to Christopher Whittick, who thoroughly vetted the transcription and translation. Further thanks for highly useful comments and suggestions to Judith M. Bennett, Sara Butler, Charlie Donahue, Bronach Kane, Ruth Mazo Karras, Neil M. Kennedy, Sara McDougall, Rachel Moss, Eric Reiter, Miriam Shadis, and Tess Wingard.
| How to cite this page (Chicago style): “Christopher Bradley c. Margaret Bradley,” ed. and trans. Shannon McSheffrey, Consistory: Testimony in a Late Medieval London Church Court (2024), consistory.org/2018/05/14/bradley-c-bradley/ (date accessed). |
6 Sept. to 10 Oct. 1522; London Metropolitan Archives, DL/C/0207, Consistory Court of London Deposition Book, Jan. 1520/21 – Jun 1524, fols. 119r-122r.
| English Translation | Latin Transcription |
| Response of Margaret Bradley, 6 Sept. 1522 [fol. 119r] | |
| In the time of the Reverend father Lord Cuthbert, by divine permission elected and confirmed bishop of London[16] Here follow the responses of Margaret Bradley made personally before Master Geoffrey Wharton, vicar general and Official of the Consistory of the Reverend father the bishop of London, 6 September [1522], in the Lord Official’s house in Ivy Lane, to the positions ministered against her on the part of Christopher Bradley To the first position, she responds affirmatively. To the second, she responds affirmatively. To the third, she responds negatively, because she says that this witness and the aforesaid Christopher have made one flesh by carnal copulation various times since the solemnization of matrimony between them. To the fourth, this witness responds and says that she has a certain deformity in the secret parts of her body, which deformity as she says is no impediment to conjugal relations. And she also says that she is knowable and capable for virile embraces such that she is capable of having sexual intercourse with the said Christopher, as the said Christopher and this witness various times since the solemnization of matrimony between them have in fact joined together and carnally commingled as she has said above, and otherwise she responds negatively. To the fifth, she responds and believes it to be true. To the sixth, she responds negatively and says as she said to the third. To the seventh, she responds affirmatively. To the eighth, she responds negatively and says that it is claimed by the plaintiff, though not lawfully as she says. To the ninth, she responds that she believes what she has affirmed and denies what she has denied and says that she believes the fame in the libel* circulates in the parish of Edmonton where this witness lives, and this from the tales and assertions of the aforesaid Christopher and not otherwise, as she believes. [*the plaintiff’s statement of claim] | Tempore Reverendi patris domini Cuthberti, permissione divina London Episcopie electi et confirmati Responsiones Margarete Bradley personaliter facte coram Magistro Galfrido Wharton, vicario generali et officiali Consistorii dicti Reverendi patris Episcopi London, sexto die mensis Septembris in domo domini officialis in Ivy Lane situato, posicionibus per partem Christopheri Bradley contra eam ministratis sequuntur Ad primam posicionem respondet affirmative. Ad iidam, respondet affirmative. Ad iiitiam, respondet negative quia dicit quod ista jurata et prefatus Christoferus affecti fuerunt una caro per carnalem copulam diversis vicibus citra solemnisacionem matrimonii inter eos factam. Ad iiiitam, respondet et dicit ista jurata quod habet quandam deformitatem in secretis partibus corporis sui, quequidem deformitas ut dicit non est aliquomodo impeditiva commercio conjugali. Et etiam dicit quod est agnoscibilis et ad viriles amplexus apta adeo quod[17] potest coire cum dicto Christofero, prout dictus Christoferus et ista jurata diversis vicibus citra solemnisacionem matrimonii inter eos factam de facto insimul coierunt et carnaliter commiscuerunt ut superius dixit, et aliter respondet negative. Ad vtam, respondet et credit eandem esse veram. Ad vitam, respondet negative et dicit prout ad terciam respondebat. Ad viinam, respondet affirmative. Ad viiinam, respondet negative et dicit quod est querelatum, non tamen legitime ut dicit. Ad ixnam, respondet et credit credita et negat negata et dicit quod credit famam libellatam laborare in parochia de Edmonton ubi ista jurata moratur et hoc ex relacione et asseracionibus predicti Christoferi et non aliter, ut credit. |
| Deposition of Elizabeth Combe, 26 Sept. 1522 [fol. 119v] | |
| On behalf of Bradley c. Bradley 26 [September], in the house of my lord Master Smyth, in my, R. Jonson’s, presence. Elizabeth Combe, widow, of the parish of St. Giles without Cripplegate, where she has lived from the last feast of Christmas, born in the town of Arundel in the county of Sussex, sixty-two years of age or thereabouts, of free condition, as she says, and midwife admitted and approved by the ordinary, produced as a witness etc. And first examined regarding her knowledge of the contesting parties, she says that she did not know the parties before the day of her production [as a witness] in this case, as she says. To the first article, she knows nothing to depose. To the second, she knows nothing. To the third and fourth, she says that on the said day that she was produced as a witness in this case, that is on 22 September, in the house assigned by the judge for this purpose, this witness on the mandate of the lord Official inspected and handled the secret members of the said Margaret, from which inspection this witness says that in her opinion the said Margaret has never been carnally known by any man. And she says that Margaret has a certain opening in the part of her abdomen where women have their secret members, that is an issue, though she does not have a formation or [anything] resembling female organs; this opening, as she says, is so narrow and constricted that in no way could it admit or receive a penis. Moreover, she says that the same Margaret has a penis in the place where men usually have them, that is a bit above the opening, which is the length of a finger, with a scrotum[18] just as men have, but without testicles, as she says. And this witness says that she knows this by the inspection of Margaret’s body, as she has said before. There were present in the said house at the time of the inspection this witness and four women from Hackney, witnesses produced in this case. And otherwise she knows nothing. To the fifth, she knows nothing to depose. To the sixth, she says that its contents are true, for the reasons that she specified in the third and fourth articles. To the seventh, she knows nothing. To the eighth, she says that its contents are true in her judgment. To the ninth, she says that the aforesaid deposed above by her is true and as for the fame in the libel, she knows nothing to depose. | Ex parte Bradley contra Bradley xxvi die [Septembris] in domo Magistri Smyth domini mei, in presencia mei R Jonson Elisabeth Combe, vidua, parochie sancti Egidii extra Crepulgate, ubi moram fecit a festo natalis domini ultimo elapso, oriunda in villa de Arundell in Comitatu Sussex, lxii annorum etatis vel circiter, libere ut dicit condicionis, ac obstetrix admissa et approbata per ordinarium, testis producta et cetera. Et primo super noticiam partium litigantium examinata, dicit quod easdem partes ante presentem diem produccionis sue in hac causa non novit ut dicit. Ad primum articulum, nescit deponere. Ad iidum, nescit. Ad iiim et iiiitum, dicit quod eodem die quo erat producta in testem in hac causa, videlicet xxiido die instantis mensis Septembris in domo ad hoc per judicem assignata, ista jurata ex mandato domini Officialis inspexit et palpavit secreta membra dicte Margarete, ex qua quidem inspeccione ista jurata dicit quod in conscientia sua dicta Margarete nunquam fuit per aliquem virum carnaliter cognita. Et dicit quod Margareta habet quoddam foramen in ea parte ventris ubi mulieres habent membra sua secreta, videlicet an yssew, tamen non habens plasma seu similitudinem vasis muliebris, quod quidem foramen ut dicit est adeo arctum et strictum quod nullo modo potest admittere nec recipere virilum membrum. Preterea dicit quod ipsa Margareta habet virgam virilem in loco ubi viri solent habere, videlicet paulo supra huiusmodi foramen, ad longitudinem unius digitis, cum glanda utpote vires habent, sine tamen testiculis, ut dicit. Et ista jurata dicit hec se scire per inspeccionem corporis ipsius Margarete, ut predeposuit. Presentibus in dicta domo tempore inspeccionis huiusmodi ista jurata et quatuor mulieribus de Hakeney, testibus in hac causa productis. Et aliter nescit. Ad vtum, nescit deponere. Ad vitum, dicit quod continet veritatem propter causas per eam in iiitio et iiiito articulis specificatas. Ad viitum, nescit. Ad viiitum, dicit quod continet veritatem judicio suo. Ad ixum, dicit quod premissa per eam predeposita sunt vera et quoad famam libellatam, nescit deponere. |
| Deposition of Christian Long, 22 Sept. 1522 [fol. 120r] | |
| Examined in the house of me, Andrew Smyth, and by me, by the lord’s commission, in my house on 22 September, A.D. 1522. Christian Long, wife of Thomas Long, of the parish of Hackney, where she has lived for sixteen years, born in the parish of Barking, London diocese, thirty-four years of age or thereabouts, of free condition, as she says, etc. Produced as a witness, etc. And examined first regarding her knowledge of the parties, she says that she has known Christopher Bradley for half a year and Margaret Bradley since the time of her production as a witness and not before. To the first and the second, she knows nothing to depose. To the third and fourth, she says that after the time of her production as a witness at the mandate of the lord official, she inspected and handled the said Margaret’s secret members, from which examination this witness says that in her opinion the said Margaret has never yet been carnally known, because she says that the opening of her vulva is so narrow and constricted that in no way could it admit or receive a penis unless in some way it could be cut and opened, as she says. She says moreover that the said Margaret has a penis of the length of one thumb, with a large scrotum, though dead, as she says, and she says that she does not have testicles. And this the witness says she knows by the inspection of the body as she deposed previously, because she inspected her twice in the house assigned to her by the judge at another time for this inspection, that is first on 15 September, present then [and] there this witness, Joan Myddylton, Hawise Blount, and Beatrice Dobson, witnesses produced with this witness, and another midwife of the city of London whose name she does not know. And on the second time in the same house on this present day, before noon, present with her the abovenamed fellow witnesses, together with Elizabeth Combe also a previous witness, and Cecily Paynter of the said City of London. And otherwise she knows nothing. To the fifth, she knows nothing to depose. To the sixth, she says that its contents are true for the reasons that she specified above in the third and fourth articles. To the seventh, she says that its contents are true. To the eighth, she says that its contents are true in her judgment. To the ninth, she says that what she deposed above is true and as for the fame, she knows nothing. | Examinata in domo mei Andree Smyth, et per me ex comissione domini, in domo mea, xxiido die Septembris, anno domini 1522do Crystiana Longe, uxor Thome Long, parochie de Hakney ubi moram fecit per xvicim annos, oriunda in parochia de Berkynge, London diocesis, xxxiiii annorum etatis vel circiter, libere ut dicit condicionis et cetera. Testis producta et cetera. Et primo super noticia partium examinata, dicit quod Christofer Bradley per dimidium anni et Margareta Bradley citra productionem suam et non antea. De primo et iidum, nescit deponere. Ad iiitium et iiiitum, dicit quod ipsa citra tempus productionis sue ex mandato domini officialis inspexit et palpavit secreta membra dicte Margarete, ex qua quidem inspeccione ista jurata dicit quod in conscientia sua dicta Margareta nunquam fuit adhuc carnaliter cognita, quia dicit quod foramen vulve est tam arctum et strictum quod nullo pacto potest virilum membrum admittere nec recipere nisi aliqua arte possit scindi et apperiri, ut dicit. Preterea dicit quod eadem Margareta habet virgam virilem longitudinis unius policis, cum magna glande, mortua tamen ut dicit, et dicit quod nullos habet testiculos. Et hec ista jurata dicit se scire per inspeccionem corporis ut predeposuit, quia bis inspexit eandem in domo alias eidem per judicem pro huiusmodi inspeccione assignata, videlicet primo in xvto die instantis mensis Septembris, presentibus tunc ibidem ista jurata, Johanna Myddylton, Avicia Blount, Betricia Dobson, testibus cum ista jurata productis, ac alia obstetrice civitatis London quam nescit nominare. Item secundo in eadem domo isto die ante meridiem, presentibus contestibus supranominatis unacum Elisabeth Combe etiam preconteste, et Cecilia Paynter dicte Civitatis London. Et aliter nescit. Ad vtum, nescit deponere. Ad vitum, dicit quod continet veritatem propter causas superius in iiitio et iiiito articulis specificatas. Ad viimum, dicit quod continet veritatem. Ad viiimum, dicit quod continet veritatem judicio suo. Ad ixmum, dicit quod predeposita per eam sunt vera et quoad famam, nescit. |
| Deposition of Joan Myddylton, 22 Sept. 1522 [fol. 120v] | |
| Examined with Christian Long Joan Myddylton, wife of Robert Myddylton[19], of Hackney, London diocese, where she has lived for two years and more, born in the parish of Catsfield,[20] Chichester diocese, forty-two years of age or thereabouts, of free condition as she says, produced as a witness etc. And first examined concerning knowledge of the parties, she says that she has known Christopher for half a year or thereabouts and the said Margaret since the time of her production in this case and not before, as [she says]. To the first and second, she does not know. To the third and fourth, she says that the said Margaret in her opinion has never been known carnally by any man, because she says that she inspected Margaret and saw that her vulva has so narrow an opening and so constricted an entry that in no way could it admit a penis nor could she go with a man for the sake of conceiving a child from the man. She says moreover that the aforesaid Margaret has a penis in the place where men have, though without testicles as she says. And otherwise this witness knows nothing to depose. And she says that twice she inspected the same Margaret in the house assigned by the judge for this, that is first on 15 September, present then and there this witness, Christian Long, Beatrice Dobson, and Hawise Blounte, her fellow witnesses, and another woman of the city of London whose name she does not know. And then the second time, that is on this day before noon, present this witness and her aforesaid fellow witnesses and Elizabeth Combe a previous witness and Cecily Paynter of the City of London. To the fifth, she knows nothing to depose. To the sixth, she says that its contents are true for the reasons in her testimony above. To the seventh, she says that the aforesaid by her deposed previously is true and that fame circulated in the parish of Hackney about what she deposed above and otherwise she knows nothing. | Examinata cum Christiana Long Johanna Myddylton, uxor Roberti Myddylton, de Hakney London diocesis ubi moram fecit per duos annos et amplius, oriunda in parochia de Cattysfeld Cicestrensis diocesis, xlii annorum etatis vel circiter, libere ut dicit condicionis, testis producta et cetera. Et primo super noticia partium examinata, dicit quod dictum Christoferum per dimidium anni vel circiter et dictam Margaretam citra tempus produccionis sue in hac causa et non antea, ut [dicit]. Ad primum et iidum, nescit. Ad iiitium et iiiitum, dicit quod dicta Margareta in conscientia sua nunquam fuit cognita carnaliter ab aliquo, quia dicit quod inspexit eandem Margaretam et vidit membrum muliebre eiusdem quod habet tam arctum os et tam strictum introitum ut nullo parte possit admittere membrum virile nec cum viro coire ad effectum[21] concipiendi ex viro prolem. Dicit preterea quod prefata Margareta habet virgam virilem in loco ubi viri habent, sine testiculis tamen ut dicit. Et aliter ista jurata nescit deponere. Et dicit quod bis inspexit eandem Margaretam in domo per judicium ad hoc assignata, videlicet primo xvto die instantis mensis Septembris, presentibus tunc ibidem ista jurata, Cristiana Longe,[22] Beatrice Dobson et Avicia Blounte, contestibus suis, ac alia muliere civitatis London quam nescit nominare. Item secundo videlicet isto die ante meridiem, presentibus ista jurata et predictis contestibus suis ac Elisabeth Combe preconteste et Cecilie Paynter civitatis London. Ad vtum, nescit deponere. Ad vitum, dicit quod continet veritatem ex causis superius per eam superius depositis. Ad viimum, nescit deponere. Ad viiimum, dicit quod continet veritatem. Ad ixum, dicit quod premissa per eam predeposita sunt vera et dicit quod super predepositis per eam fama laboravit in parochia de Hakeney et alias nescit. |
| Deposition of Beatrice Dobson, 22 Sept. 1522 [fol. 121r] | |
| Examined with Christian Long Beatrice Dobson, wife of Thomas Dobson, midwife and commonly practising that craft for the space of two years in the parish of Hackney, of the parish of Hackney London diocese, where she has lived from the time of her birth and where she was born, fifty-eight years of age or thereabouts, of free condition as she says, produced as a witness etc. And first examined regarding her knowledge of the parties, she says that she has known Christopher Bradley for almost two years and that she has known Margaret for a quarter of a year or thereabouts. To the first and second, she says she has nothing to depose. To the third and fourth, this witness says that the aforesaid Margaret has never been known carnally by any man nor could she be known by any man for the sake of conceiving from such intercourse, because she says that she saw, inspected, and handled her both on 15 September and also on this day before noon in the house assigned by the judge for this purpose, where she saw that the said Margaret’s vulva had such a narrow opening that it would be impossible for it to be able to admit or receive a penis for the purpose of conception. And this witness also says the aforesaid Margaret has a penis of the length of this witness’s thumb in the place where men usually have such a member, though without testicles as she says, and otherwise she knows nothing. And she says that she twice inspected the same Margaret in the house assigned for this by the judge, that is first on 15 September, in the presence of this witness, Christian Long, Joan Myddylton, and Hawise Blounte, produced as witnesses in the case, and another woman of the City of London whose name she does not know. And then for the second time, that is on this day before noon in the said house, when were present this witness and her fellow witnesses named above, and Elizabeth Combe also having previously testified, and Cecily Paynter of London. To the fifth, she knows nothing to depose. To the sixth, she says that its contents are true for the reasons about which she deposed above in the third and fourth articles. To the seventh, she says that its contents are true. To the eighth, she says that its contents are true in her judgment. To the ninth, she says that the aforesaid deposed by her above is true and as to the fame in the libel, she knows nothing to depose. | Examinata cum Christiana Long Beatrix Dobson, uxor Thome Dobson, obstetrix et illam artem communiter exercens per spacium duorum annorum in parochia de Hakney,[23] parochie de Hakney London diocesis, ubi moram fecit a nativitate sua et ibidem oriunda, lviii annorum etatis vel circiter, libere ut dicit condicionis, testis producta et cetera. Et primo super noticia partium examinata, dicit quod Christoferum Bradley fere per spacium duorum annorum et quod prefatam Margaretam novit per quarterium anni vel circiter. Ad primum et iidum, dicit quod nescit deponere. Ad iiitium et iiiitum, dicit ista jurata quod prefata Margareta nunquam fuit carnaliter cognita ab aliquo viro nec potest ab aliquo viro cognosci ad effectum concipiendi ex tali coitu, quia dicit quod vidit, inspexit, et palpavit eandem tam in decimo quinto die instantis mensis Septembris quam isto die ante meridiem in domo per judicem ad hoc assignata, ubi vidit membrum muliebre dicte Margarete habentem tam arctum os ut impossibile sit illud posse admittere vel recipere virile membrum ad effectum concipiendi. Et etiam dicit ista jurata quod prefata Margareta habet membrum virile ad longitudinem policis istius jurate in loco ubi viri solent habere huiusmodi membrum, tamen sine testiculis ut dicit, et aliter nescit. Et dicit quod bis inspexit eandem Margaretam in domo per judicem ad hoc assignata, videlicet primo in xvto die instantis mensis Septembris, presentibus tunc ibidem ista jurata, Cristiana Long, Johanna Myddylton, et Avicia Blounte, testibus cum ista jurata in hac causa productis, et alia muliere Civitatis London cuius nomen nescit exprimere. Item secundo videlicet isto die ante meridiem in dicta domo, presentibus ista jurata et contestibus suis superius nominatis, ac Elisabetha Combe, etiam preconteste suo, et Cecilia Paynter Civitatis London. Ad vtum, nescit deponere. Ad vitum, dicit quod continet veritatem ex causis predepositis per eam in tercio et iiiito articulis. Ad viitum, dicit quod continet veritatem. Ad viiivum, dicit quot continet veritatem judicio suo. Ad ixum, dicit quod premissa per eam superius deposita sunt vera et quoad famam libellatam, nescit deponere. |
| Deposition of Hawise Blounte, 22 Sept. 1522 [fol. 121v] | |
| Examined with Christian Long Hawise Blounte, wife of Thomas Blounte of the parish of Hackney, London diocese, where she has lived for twenty years, born in the parish of Welling in the county of Kent, forty years of age, of free condition as she says, produced as a witness etc. And first examined on her knowledge of the parties, she says that she has known Christopher Bradley for half a year and more and Margaret Bradley by sight from last Easter, as she says. To the first and second, she knows nothing to depose. To the third and fourth, she says that in her opinion the aforesaid Margaret has never been carnally known by any man nor can she be thus known for the sake of conceiving as she says, because she says that she saw, inspected, and handled Margaret’s vulva on September 15 and that on this day before noon also she saw the same organ, in the house assigned for that purpose by the judge, and that the said Margaret’s vulva has such a tight opening and a constricted entry that in no way could it admit or receive a penis for the purpose of conception, as she says. And moreover she says that the same Margaret has a penis of the length of a thumb and more, with a dead scrotum in the place where men usually have that member, though without testicles, as she says. And otherwise she knows nothing. Present and seeing and performing the aforesaid in the said house were on the first occasion this witness, Christian Long, Joan Myddylton, and Beatrice Dobson, previous witnesses, and a certain woman of the city of London whose name she does not know; and on the second occasion this witness and the aforesaid previous witnesses, Elizabeth Combe, also a previous witness, and Cecily Paynter of the City of London. To the fifth, she says that she knows nothing to depose. To the sixth, she says that its contents are true for the reasons about which she deposed in the third and fourth articles. To the seventh, she says its contents are true. To the eighth, she says that its contents are true in the judgment of this witness. To the ninth, she says that the aforesaid deposed above by this witness is true and that public voice and fame circulated concerning what she deposed above in the parish of Hackney. | Examinata cum Christiana Long Avicia Blounte, uxor Thome Blounte parochie de Hakney London diocesis, ubi moram fecit per xxti annos, oriunda in parochia de Wellyng in comitatu Cancie, xlta annorum etatis, libere ut dicit condicionis, testis producta et cetera. Et primo super noticia partium examinata, dicit quod Christoferum Bradley per dimidium anni et amplius et Margaretam Bradley per inspeccionem vultis a festo pasche ultimo elapso novit ut dicit. Ad primum et iidum nescit deponere. Ad iiiium et iiiitum, dicit quod in consciencia sua prefata Margareta nunquam fuit ex aliquo viro carnaliter cognata nec potest sic cognosci ad effectum concipiendi ut dicit, quia dicit quod vidit, inspexit, et palpavit instrumentum muliebre eiusdem Margarete xvto die instantis mensis Septembris et quod isto die ante meridiem etiam vidit huiusmodi ipsius membrum in domo per judicem ad hoc assignata et quod illud membrum muliebre dicte Margarete habet tam arctum os et strictum introitum ita quod nullo modo potest admittere aut recipere membrum virile ad effectum concipiendi ut dicit. Et ulterius dicit quod eadem Margareta habet instrumentum virile ad longitudinem unius pollicis et amplius cum glanda mortua in loco ubi viri solent habere huiusmodi membrum, tamen sine testiculis ut dicit, et aliter nescit. Presentibus et premissa videntibus et facientibus in dicta domo videlicet primo ista jurata, Cristiana Long, Johanna Myddylton, et Beatrice Dobson, precontestibus, et quadam muliere civitatis London quam nescit nominare; item iido ista jurata et predictis precontestibus, Elisabeth Combe etiam preconteste, ac Cecilia Paynter civitatis London. Ad vtum, dicit quod nescit deponere. Ad vitum, dicit quod continet veritatem ex causis per eam in iiio et iiiitoarticulis predepositis. Ad viimum, dicit quod continet veritatem. Ad viiivum, dicit quod continet veritatem judicio istius jurati. Ad ixvum, dicit quod premissa per istam juratam superius deposita sunt vera et quod super predepositis per eam laboraverunt in parochia de Hakeney predicta publica vox et fama. |
| Deposition of Joan Karter, 10 Oct. 1522 [fol. 122r] | |
| On behalf of Bradley the woman [or wife] concerning the matter brought forth against Bradley the man [or husband], 10 October, before the lord official, A.S. [Andrew Smyth, the scribe] Joan Karter, midwife of the parish of St. Andrew Holborn in the suburbs of London, where she has lived for twenty-six years, born in Cleobury Mortimer in Shropshire, sixty years of age or thereabouts, of free condition, sworn as a witness etc. Examined concerning her knowledge of the parties she says that she has never seen the husband except once, while she has [seen] the wife for the last two days. To the first, she knows nothing to depose. To the second, she says that on that day she inspected the said Margaret in the house of Cecily Paynter, midwife, in the parish of St Michael le Querne in the city of London. And she says that the said woman is knowable by a man who has only a medium-sized penis and she showed at the time of the examination a certain object made from stuffed silk in the likeness of a penis, of which object she says that the said Margaret is wide enough [to admit], which object she left with the registrar. Moreover, she says that the said woman has above her vulva also a man’s penis of the length of one thumb, and below that a scrotum without testicles; she says, though, that the said woman has between her thigh and abdomen a glandular body[24] that this witness believes to be a testicle. Moreover, she says that she believes that the said woman could never conceive because the said Margaret does not menstruate in the manner of women who customarily conceive, as Margaret herself told this witness. And she deposes about these things from her sight and inspection and from her credibility and experience in the craft of midwifery. There were present at the time of this inspection a certain woman named Clerke and Rombelow’s wife. And otherwise she knows nothing to depose concerning the third and fourth. To the fifth, she says that what she deposed above is true and concerning the fame she knows nothing to depose. | Ex parte Bradley mulieris super materia contra Bradley virum producta xo Octobris coram domino officiali AS Johanna Karter obstetrix parrochie sancte Andree de Holbourn in suburbiis London ubi moram traxhit xxvi annos, oriunda in Mortemasklybery in comitatu Salop, lx annorum etatis vel circiter, libere condicionis, testis jurata et cetera, examinata super noticia partium dicit quod virum nunquam vidit nisi semel, mulierem autem per duos dies iam ultimo elapsos. Ad primam, nescit deponere. Ad iidam, dicit quod isto die inspexit dictam Margaretam in domo Cecilie Paynter obstetricis in parrochia sancti Michaelis ad bladum civitate London. Et dicit quod dicta mulier est cognoscibilis a viro qui habet nisi mediocrem virgam, et ostendebat tempore examinacionis quandam rem ex cerico farcinato factam ad similitudinem virilis membri, cuius rei dicit dictam Margaretam esse [cc?] satis capacem, quam rem reliquit penes registrarium. Preterea dicit quod dicta mulier habet supra membrum muliebre etiam virgam virilem longitudinis unius policis et sub eo silliquam sine testiculis; dicit tamen quod dicta mulier habet inter tibia et ventrem unum le carnell quod ista jurata credit esse testiculum. Ulterius dicit quod credit dictam mulierem nunquam posse concipere pro eo quod dicta Margareta non emittit menstra more mulierum quod solent concipere prout eadem Margareta retulit huic jurate. Et hec deponit de visu et inspectione sua ac de credulitate et experientia quam habet in arte obstetricia. Presentibus tempore inspectionis huiusmodi quadam muliere cognominata Clerke et Rombelows wyff. Et aliter nescit deponere ad iiito et iiiitum nescit. Ad vtum dicit quod predeposita per eam sunt vera et de fama nescit deponere. |
[1] I use she/her pronouns for Margaret because she herself insisted on her female identity in her examination and throughout the other depositions the clerk identified her with feminine pronouns. See also the heading for the last deposition, where she is explicitly labeled “woman.” This is consistent with medieval conceptualizations: though bodies with nondimorphic genitals were known to exist, gender was firmly binary, so that “hermaphrodites” (as learned texts labeled such bodies) must be assigned one gender or another. See especially Leah DeVun, The Shape of Sex: Nonbinary Gender from Genesis to the Renaissance (Columbia University Press, 2021), 106, 121–29, 134–44.
[16] Cuthbert Tunstall was consecrated as bishop of London 19 Oct. 1522, his predecessor Richard Fitzjames having died January 1522. D. G. Newcombe, “Tunstall, Cuthbert,” ODNB (2013).
[17] habet potestatem coeundi deleted.
[18] It is hard to know what word in English the deponents might have used for the body part the scribe has rendered into Latin as glanda, though (as Christopher Whittick suggested) scrotum appears most likely to be the body part meant, rather than the glans. The word gland itself is not used in English until the seventeenth or eighteenth century.
[19] A Robert Mydleton of Hackney left a Commissary court will (9171/14, 4v, 1556) which I have not yet been able to consult.
[20] Catsfield, Sussex.
[21] procreandi deleted, replaced by concipiendi.
[22] Johanna Myd deleted.
[23] obstetrix … Hakney inserted from upper margin of page.
[24] The MS has in the vernacular le carnell, or kernel, in sense n.1.5a (OED), “A gland or glandular body, … a rounded fatty mass.”
Consistory 
One thought on “Christopher Bradley c Margaret Bradley”
Comments are closed.