Amongst the various manifestations of madness within medieval courts of law, Maud Ternon encounters the criminal furiosus, the melancholic, and the spendthrift (prodigue) who squanders his or her means. Referred to by various names, all were believed to have lost their sense and understanding. The setting of royal tribunals in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries offers the author the opportunity to study the perceptions of madness among judges and among society at large. From a practical standpoint, she also considers the judicial treatment of mental illness and the ways in which it was addressed. The study is put into perspective by the works of Muriel Laharie, Jean-Marie Fritz and Huguette Legros on the discourse of madness, by those of Danielle Jacquart on its medical aspects, and by Bernard Guenée’s study on the social and political implications of mental illness. Ternon’s study of the connections between madness and justice deepens the insights offered by Annie Saunier, Annick Porteau-Bitker, and Annie Talazac-Laurent, and it also profitably draws on anglophone and Italian historiography. Finally, without renouncing the heritage of Michel Foucault, the point of view afforded by judicial and juridical sources invites us to put aside the literary and pictorial motif of the Ship of Fools.

The 2015 Jean Favier prize of the Société des Amis des Archives de France was awarded to the thesis in medieval history, supervised by Claude Gauvard and Patrick Gilli, from which this book is drawn. This recognition reminds us of the extent to which archive materials form the basis of this high-quality historical work. Ternon’s study is supported by the series of royal court documents conserved at the Archives Nationales, and particularly on the X^1A sub-series of the civil Parlement and the civil sentences of the Paris Châtelet. The criminal component is primarily based on letters of remission from the Trésor des Chartes. These sources are juxtaposed with thirteenth- and fourteenth-century customaries and learned doctrine. Beyond criminal cases connected to madness, particular attention is given to civil justice. In total, 126 judicial acts of the Paris Parlement, thirty acts of the Châtelet, and over sixty letters of remission are collected together within this study. Ten documents have been edited and translated as an appendix.

Beginning with a description of the signa furoris, the author examines the evidentiary standards of madness (Chapter 1). In the remission letters, the aggressive furiosus is depicted as wandering aimlessly, breaking with dietary norms, uttering senseless words. The causes of madness are attributed to the consequences of a sickness, a physical or emotional trauma, to the immaturity of youth, or to the dementia of the elderly. When supernatural visions are raised, the royal notary evokes, at a distance, the “temptacion de l’Ennemi.” Throughout the work, Maud Ternon balances a vision of the whole with a very lively description of particular cases: violent madness is illustrated by Philippe Testard (pp. 29–31), dementia in old age by Jean de Bourgogne (pp. 34–37), maternal depression by Jeanette Voidié (p. 177). The judges of the Parlement identify cases of furor by observed facts and judicial investigation, without soliciting the counsel of medical experts: the recognition of madness remained in the hands of judges.

In civil courts, curatorship and lawsuits on the invalidation of wills and contracts raise the theme of prodigality, itself often associated with madness. After illuminating the assignment of curatorship and interdiction procedures (Chapter 2), the role of relatives and public authorities is examined (Chapter 3). The earliest legal curatorships for the mad and for spendthrifts date to the early fourteenth century, and it was not until the 1330s that they became part of common usage, without leading to the abandonment of customary custody and bail. At the end of the fourteenth century, the Châtelet permitted curatorships without interdiction for the spendthrift, while Parlement permitted them only for those who were regarded as insane. When intellectual deficiency is associated with prodigality, the court imposes interdiction and curatorship, conforming to the logic of Roman law. The dissemination of Roman law also imposed the judicialization of familial arrangements, although situations continued to be settled in informal ways. In these situations, “amis charnels” play an essential role: they present the request, they give testimony, and rank among the curators. The king of France did not have the same prerogative as the king of England, who was enabled to take custody over the possessions of the insane. The illness of Charles vi did not transform the position of the sovereign in this regard; rather, it was the activity of judicial personnel that modified the relationship with mad subjects.

The study concludes by exploring judgements of criminal insanity in homicide, often inter-familial and without premeditation (Chapter 4). The rarity of these judgments is explained by the extra-judicial responses to this kind of violence and by the cancellation of lawsuits in cases of madness. Beyond the lack of criminal responsibility for the madman, “who is punished by his own madness alone,” Ternon observes that the relatives charged with guardianship are seldom held responsible for negligence. Among responses to violence, justice imposes restrictions on the movements of the madman, confining him to his domicile, either by bonds or in irons, but incarceration remains the exception: “madness more often leads to leaving prison than to entering it” (p. 219).

This rigorous study, cautious in its approach toward the motive opinions or lack thereof in medieval judicial decisions, and paying special attention to the rules of writing specific to remission letters, allows for a very complete exploration of penal as well as civil treatment of madness, the latter having until recently been little understood. Ternon’s work equally gives attention to the various actors that accompany cases of madness in everyday life. Paradoxically, the physician is conspicuously absent from these texts. Medical treatment is rarely mentioned, despite this being a period characterized by a populace having frequent recourse to medical practitioners. Good guardianship is instead manifested by therapeutic pilgrimages. What’s more, royal judges did not draw on medical expertise for their understanding of madness, as evidenced by Sara M. Butler’s findings in England, where the determination of insanity in court was likewise not yet the preserve of physicians. Medical considerations seldom entered into trials concerning the insane. The reader of Ternon’s work will not learn a great deal about the medical etiology on disorders affecting the imaginative and memorative faculties seated in the brain, provoking aberrations from reason, insofar as these did not influence the course of justice. By contrast with the absence of physicians, a good deal of attention is paid to the relatives of the mad, given the extent of their involvement in the lives of their family members thus afflicted, which constitutes an important theme in this work. Alongside the crimes issuing from madness, conflicts surrounding property and goods also erupt within the familial circle, and many of these played out in the courts. “Amis charnels” and the guardians of inheritance play an important role in the judicial process. Thus, when confronting madness, justice tends to protect the equilibrium of the family and to re-establish order in familial lineages.