The School of Venus: or; The Ladies Delight, Reduced into Rules of Practice

by Michel Millot, Anonymous (Translator)

Presented in two dialogues The School of Venus recounts the sexual enlightenment of our naive protagonist Katherine (Katy) under the sagely tutelage of older cousin and kinswoman Frances (Frank). The older takes great pleasure in sharing all those lascivious deeds and desires men are woman are naturally predisposed to practising. Frank goes on to explain the mechanics of erections, teaches the vocabulary used to refer to erotic anatomy, and describes the standard course of a sexual coupling.
When Roger drops by for a visit, Katy is keen to put into practice all of what she has learned.

In our second dialogue Katy tells Frank of what she and Roger got up, sparing no licentious detail in recounting the various poses, positions (front and back), and acts the two partook in. Frank then continues to educate Katy in other elements of physical intimacy such as the use of warm-milk-filled godemiches to how to use ones hands.

This classic of historical erotica is an eye opening example of sexual practices in the mid 17th century. Originally published in 1655 as L’Escole des Filles ou la Philosophie des dames by Michel Millot then anonymously translated in 1680 The School of Venus will make a rare fine addition to any collection of the graphic and once-suppressed. So naughty Samuel Pepys burned his copy after reading it.

The cover of this e-edition is from the frontispiece to the original 1680 English translation.

Genres: History, Erotica, Classics, French Literature, Nonfiction, Historical, Spicy

80 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1655

Reviews

[Shawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a scan of a 17th century sex manual as translated from French to English. As such, some parts of pages are missing, some pages were scanned multiple times, and the language can be hard to follow for a modern reader with outdated terms and s's that look like f's.

This is two conversations between cousins. In the first conversation, one sexually experienced cousin tells her virgin cousin, in very coarse and explicit terms about sex and about finding the right sex partners. In the second conversation, the virgin cousin has found a partner, is no longer a virgin, and tells her cousin of her experiences and asks some questions of the more experienced girl.

This is pornographic and funny. Having no access to any real information, the girls only know the coarse terms for the act and their body parts that they've learned from each other and their partners and, as such, share some very dodgy contraception methods.

It's an interesting read from a history of sex perspective and made me glad for modern sex education classes and Scarleteen. Access to real information and real contraceptives is important.

[Paras2 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was one of the most GRAPHIC sex manuals I've read. Like damn, no modern smut can even compare. The articles on this work and its influence on the libertine literature of 18th century were very interesting as well.

[Abigail]

I’m not sure what to say about this. It was strangely amusing; I genuinely laughed aloud several times while reading it. I think it was the juxtaposition of the formal conversational conventions and language of the era and the absolutely unhinged nature of the dialogue, mixed in with tedious levels of specification and detail. Basically, a pre-novel narrative published in 1650 in which a young woman is rationally convinced that being all modest and chaste is for losers and thus she makes a measured decision to become a sex addict. Completely bonkers, excruciatingly crude and historically speaking, exceptionally interesting; some very scientifically unsound advice about how to avoid getting pregnant! Apparently Samuel Pepys burnt his copy after reading.

[Jiya · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have no words. Reading 17th-cen literature, I'm genuinely surprised by how modern its treatment of desire and the art of intimacy feels. It's passionate, psychologically rich, and written with a level of elegance that many modern erotic novels rarely achieve. At times, I even found myself laughing at its boldness. In some ways, it feels far better written than much of today's erotic fiction even works like Fifty Shades of Grey.

[Rand]

This book made Samuel Pepys blush.

Read it yourself for free on google to learn all about "sweating and fluxing" 17th century style.

[Eiman · Rating 1 out of 5]

i really didn't think a 17th century french libertine novel would be this explicit but i was wrong :) anyways i have SO many thoughts on this that idek how (but also cba) to articulate. i am all for women talking candidly about sex and pleasure except this book was written by a man about very young women which makes it all the more weird when u actually read the kind of sex they're talking about

[Chuck · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tarses, c*nts and what to do with them. Hilarious, interesting and oddly modern in its philosophizing.

[Tero Niemi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read the finnish version from the 1970's and I didn't like the translation that much. Words chosen were much more vulgar than in the original or english version. Book itself is historically interesting and brutally descriptive in places. At some points it almost feels feminist for the time by applauding for women to have same rights to have sex as men, but then suddenly you remember that this is an old book when they tell that mutual orgasm is a good way to prevent pregnancy and by describing the optimal looks for attractive women and men.

Other questionable advices is that women should try to get married as soon as possible, because that way they can have sex with as many men as they wan't because if they become pregnant they can always say it's their husband. Most men don't want to risk having sex with unmarried women, because if they become pregnant men might be condemned in a court of law and have to pay the women and their family.

It's also brutally honest about physical characteristics etc of both sexes which feels quite toxic and hurtful nowadays. Nevertheless, it is a fun read and surprisingly open about stuff that you wouldn't dare to write even hundreds of years later. It also still has a lot of stuff to teach about primary needs that we so much try to deny they exists.

[Satya Allen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I hate to see all the negative reviews of such a phenomenal look into early modern reading aimed for a "female audience." This book is full of humor when reading it in the 21st century but in reality, as a book with a primarily male readership (you can quote me on that I have sources) it does wonders to show the distinction of female pleasure as a necessary mechanism. It speaks on the fears of pregnancy and the attempts to control anything unexpected (clenching your buttocks during the act will NOT cause you to be pregnant...we have disproven that thankfully).

Anyways, yes. This book is obscene. Samuel Pepys thought so in the 17th century. Authorities thought so in the 18th century. And 19th century. Oh, also the 20th century. But it is HISTORICALLY obscene. One of the first published erotic novels. So don't go into this book with your smartphone or your laptop or your book on historical erotica that you checked out from the public library (if you are a Luddite, I am all-inclusive) and not expect to read illicit, erotic material. If you cannot stand such things, simply do not read it.

[Tammuz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is of course very interesting in several respects and deserves a good rating, even if its literary value is nowhere near that of "Venus dans le Cloitre" (Venus in the Cloister) from 1683. But what has not been noticed so far in the reviews, as far as I can see, is the fact that the English translation mostly deviates more or less from the French original; either text is added or omitted, one could say in musical language that it is a (moderate) remix. An example from the dialogue:

(French)
Hélas! je pense que c'est là ta plus grande affaire, car tu ne sors presque point de la maison, et les femmes te peuvent bien venir voir à ta chambre si elles veulent, car pour les hommes, c'est comme un couvent de religieuses, et il n'y en entre non plus que s'il n'en était point au monde.

(English)
I think you do nothing else, you live here confined to your chamber, as if it were a nunnery; you never stir abroad, and seldom a man comes at thee.

[Patrizia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Si tratta di un 'libro proibito' scritto prima del settecento, concepito come un dialogo pseudo-filosofico tra due donne, una sposata ed ormai esperta, l'altra ingenua e desiderosa di sapere. L'autore è, tuttavia, un uomo, come si può evincere da qualche grave errore riguardo alla sessualità femminile e, soprattutto, dal tono, tipicamente maschile, con cui viene scartato come improbabile e irrilevante il rischio di maternità indesiderate.
Nel complesso, l'ingenua prosopopea con cui viene affrontato l'argomento ne fa una lettura piacevole.

[Sylvia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ummmmmm ok?? ....... This is just a sex manual? Thanks for assigning this Professor King it was definitely an interesting read. I mean not going to lie it was probably the most engaging read we have had in class. I do not really think that's like a good thing but whatever. Women are definitely portrayed in an extremely demeaning way which I guess is expected. If I was more immature I would have laughed at all the different synonyms this author found for the words "penis" and "vagina" He is def a creative! But luckily I am not immature and read this in an intellectual, analysis way.

[Andrea Zuvich · Rating 4 out of 5]

That was thoroughly dirty and very interesting. I learned quite a bit!

[Fatima · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the origins of scandalous texts. It is explicit and surprising modern in its openness.

[River · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sooo 17th century French sex ed? Lmao it gave me a lot of giggles and the language in this is explicit for even the 21st century and it’s fairly graphic. But it was fun to read haha!

[Rina Kait · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good of you know what they’re saying

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the funniest things I have ever read!

[Fern Banner · Rating 3 out of 5]

suffices vintage tastes

[Quanti · Rating 3 out of 5]

Docela sranda, přečíst si o sexu z pohledu 17. století :))

[Cody · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting from a historical perspective but really terrible in every other aspect.

[Isabelle Devitt]

For research purposes...
Very enlightening to the mindset of the 17th century (and other things)

[BigBadBear · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is great because I learned the F bomb had origins earlier than the 1600's and used as liberally as today.

[Sophie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly found this book really amusing to read, really short read it in one sitting

[Brian Watson · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most powerful and important pre-libertine and pre-Fanny erotic dialogues. Was significant in the shaping of obscenity and pornography for centuries to come. A further investigation here http://www.annalspornographie.com/?p=266

[Olivier Saint-vincent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant la grande source d'inspiration de Molière version soft Sade.

[Rosemary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting, if not exactly anatomically correct.

[Geoff Wooldridge · Rating 1 out of 5]

Quaint but essentially dull 17th century erotica.

[Lulu]

1655

trans 1680