Dona Judith’s Two Husbands
Jayme (or Haym) Levy Azancot was born March 27, 1876, in Lisbon, “filho legitimo” (legitimate son) of Yamtob (or Antonio) Azancot, a businessman who had immigrated from Tangier and died in 1890, and of Mary Levy Azancot (née Benuyli), who had died on August 1, 1900, almost eight years to the day before the marriage of Jayme, her second-youngest son.[1] Judith is, of course, now the “filha perfilhada” (recognized daughter) of Francisco dos Reis Ramos and of his widow, Maria da [sic] Carmo Ramos.[2] Jayme was then thirty-two years old; Judith, twenty-eight. His family could not have approved the match—his bride was a solteirona (old maid), a gentile, with whom he had been cohabiting for at least ten months.
The marriage did not last. On March 26, 1912, Jayme sued Judith for divorce.[3] Divorce had only been introduced in Portuguese law in November 1910, one of many secularizing reforms enacted by the newly installed First Republic.[4] Although no-fault grounds were admissible and mutual consent divorce would have been allowed in this case, since husband and wife were both well over twenty-five years old and had been married for more than two years, Jayme chose to sue Judith on the grounds of adultery and abandonment of the marital residence.[5] According to Jayme, Judith’s whereabouts had been unknown since she had left him on February 17 of that year.[6]
Tracking her down proved difficult. After an attempt was made to deliver the summons to Jayme’s residence at 43 Rua Rodrigo da Fonseca, third floor,[7] a witness reminded the court that “a citanda não esta [sic] em caza nem tampouco sabe onde esta pois que se ausentou para parte incerta” (the person served is not at home, nor does he know where she is, since she has absented herself for parts unknown).[8] Eventually, her summons took the form of a classified advertisement in Novidades (Novelties) (May 10–11) and the Diário do Govêrno (Government Journal) (May 25).[9] By June 29, she had failed to appear.[10] On July 30, the judge appointed a lawyer for her in her absence.[11] Finally, on November 1, five witnesses—all for the plaintiff—were summoned to the courtroom: a government official, two maids, and two chauffeurs.[12]
One of the maids, Augusta da Silva, recounted that her suspicions were aroused when the lady of the house began writing letters and taking them to the post herself. Later, Augusta learned that her mistress was also concealing the letters she received. “Per estes factos” (By these signs), the clerk recorded, “e per que a ré todos os dias salia de casa . . . sem o auctor saber . . . ella testemunha e a outra creada, desconfiadas do que a ré tivesse relações com algum homem além do auctor, embóra na presença d’ella testemunha [que] o auctor tractasse sempre a ré muito bem” (and because the defendant went out of the house every day . . . without the plaintiff knowing . . . she, the witness, and the other maid, suspecting the defendant of having relations with some man who was not the plaintiff, now, in her presence, testifies [that] the plaintiff always treated the defendant very well).[13] On February 17, at three in the afternoon, the defendant left her house. Over the next few days, Augusta told the news to anyone who would listen, adding that the plaintiff’s lover was “um homem educado” (an educated man), one Alvaro Teixeira.[14] According to Augusta, the affair had gone on for sixteen months—a claim that, if true, allows us to date its beginning to October 1910.[15]
The second witness, Carlos Pereira Santa Rosa, a chauffeur known as “Paliteiro” (Toothpick), went further. Not only had he driven his employer, Alvaro Teixeira, all over Lisbon so that he and the defendant could be “a sós” (by themselves), in an automobile with “cortinas portas, de modo que nada se viu para dentro do carro” (curtained windows, so nothing inside the car could be seen), they had not been his only passengers. According to Paliteiro, there were two other women: Júlia de Moraes Sarmento and Olga de Moraes Sarmento.[16] Olga de Moraes Sarmento is known to scholars of French, English, and Portuguese lesbian history.[17] Júlia de Moraes Sarmento, almost certainly her mother or an older sister, would have accompanied the group as Olga’s ostensible chaperone or perhaps even as a participant in their sexual activities. (More on their significance in the next section, “The Women in Her Life.”) Neither Olga nor Júlia has been identified as Judith Teixeira’s lover, until now.
One of their destinations was “uma casa arrendada” (a rented house) on the Rua de São Bernardo—a house which, Paliteiro emphasized, his employer “já tinha antes de ter relações com ella” (already had before having relations with her). The defendant, then, would have been one of many women to pass through its doors. At least, she was one of two—once, Paliteiro saw the defendant, Júlia de Moraes Sarmento, and Alvaro Teixeira all entering the house together.[18]
Paliteiro also overheard “varias conversações” (various conversations) among Judith, Júlia, Olga, and Alvaro, of which he claimed to remember “apenas d’uma” (only one). In this exchange, which took place between Judith, Júlia, and “a referida Dona Olga quando haverá dez meses partir para Paris” (the said Dona Olga, ten months before she was to leave for Paris), Olga and Júlia both urged Judith to leave her husband: “Era melhor . . . para fóra como o mencionado Teixeira, pois o auctor podia desconfiar das relações que ella ré com este mantinha, e a ré respondia que não queria ir para fora” (It was better . . . to go abroad like the aforementioned Teixeira, since the plaintiff might suspect the relations the defendant maintained with him, and the defendant responded that she did not wish to go abroad). To Judith’s refusal, Olga replied “que lá esperasse ambos em Paris de braços abertos” (that she would await them both in Paris with open arms).[19]
When Judith eventually did leave Jayme, on Saturday, February 17, 1911, it was in the midst of Carnival. Alvaro told Paliteiro to wait with the car for him at Largo do Rato; when Alvaro arrived, Judith was with him. Over the next few days, Judith and Alvaro were chauffeured by Paliteiro to the town of Luso, where (after spending one night in Torres Vedras and another in Leiria) they arrived on Tuesday, at two o’clock in the morning.[20] Since then, Paliteiro heard from Alvaro’s father and from one Almeida Araujo—neither of whom, Paliteiro believed, would have spoken openly of Judith—that Alvaro had gone abroad.[21] If Paliteiro’s testimony is reliable, we can infer that there was at least one polyamorous configuration among Judith, Olga, Alvaro, and Júlia. Did Judith, Olga, and Alvaro form what modern polyamory practitioners call a “triad,” with all three participants are linked by strong emotional and/or sexual connections? Or a “V,” in which one participant (Judith) is the center? What of Judith, Alvaro, and Júlia? Could Olga and Júlia both have been involved in the same quadrangle, despite their close familial relationship?[22]
The third witness, another chauffeur, mysteriously disappeared. On November 27, Jayme informed the court that “ainda lhe não foi possivel descobrir a actual morada da testemunha Luis Tuñon” (as yet it was impossible for him to uncover the current whereabouts of the witness Luis Tuñon); on December 4, Jayme submitted a request: “Estando para partir para o estrangeiro Luis Tuñon . . . se digne designar com a possivel brevidade dia para a inquiração d’essa testemunha” (Since Luis Tuñon is about to leave the country . . . please designate, as soon as possible, a day for the witness’s examination).[23] Imminent flight risk was not the only problem. On December 7, Judith’s court-appointed lawyer, who had remained relatively quiet throughout the proceedings, submitted a typewritten statement on her behalf. Judith objected to the fifth witness, one Emilia de Jesus Martinho, because, she claimed, Emilia had never actually worked in her household but had left after receiving an offer of employment.[24] Given the inflammatory nature of Paliteiro’s testimony, it seems likely that someone—perhaps Judith herself, perhaps Alvaro or his father—was attempting to preempt the other witnesses, by any means necessary.
Luis did testify, confirming Paliteiro’s account of the curtained car, the house on Rua de São Bernardo, the companionship of “duas senhoras de appelido Sarmento” (two ladies of the surname Sarmento), and Judith’s elopement with Alvaro during Carnival.[25] Further, Luis claimed to have seen “o Doutor Teixeira dar beijos e abraços á ré e ainda dar-lhe apappões [sic], estando ambos agarrados um ao outro” (Doctor Teixeira kissing and embracing the defendant and even feeling her up, both of them clinging to each other).[26] The maids, he added, had assured him that his employer and the defendant had spent the night in the same bed.[27] The melodrama did not end there. Two chauffeurs traveled in two directions: Santa Rosa conveyed the fugitives to the town of Biarritz, on the coast of the Pyrenees, while Luis returned to Lisbon, having been told by Santa Rosa that they were staying in Bussaco (Buçaco), a luxury hotel about fifteen miles northeast of Coimbra.[28] Shortly thereafter, Luis received a letter, ostensibly from Santa Rosa but really from Alvaro, warning him to conceal their whereabouts when asked, as “o auctor andava a dizer que queria matar ambos com um revolver” (the plaintiff was going around saying he’d kill them both with a revolver).[29]
Witness number four, Raymundo Venancio Bettencourt Rodrigues, was none other than the husband of Judith’s younger half-sister, Ermengarda, whom she had sued only three years ago.[30] Raymundo did not mention the lawsuit directly, but he hinted that it was still very much on Ermengarda’s mind: “O auctor usa geralmente do nome de Jayme L. Azancot e . . . a ré já usou do nome de Judith dos Reis Ramos, quando solteira, assim como a mulher d’elle testemunha, quando solteira, usou do nome de Ermengarda dos Reis Ramos” (The plaintiff generally goes by the name of Jayme L. Azancot and . . . the defendant once went by the name of Judith dos Reis Ramos, when she was single, just as the wife of the witness, when she was single, went by the name Ermengarda dos Reis Ramos).[31] For Raymundo, the divorce trial was a golden opportunity to retaliate against his sister-in-law and to affirm his wife’s legitimacy as the daughter of Francisco dos Reis Ramos. His testimony was brief: Judith and Jayme had no children, nor had they engaged in sexual relations for some time.[32]
Eventually it was determined that Emilia de Jesus Martinho had worked in the Azancot household and would be allowed to testify as witness number five. Emilia confirmed the date of Judith’s departure and added that it was she, aided by the cook, who had informed the master that the mistress of the house had gone missing. Of course, she was not the one who ran into the street to tell the world her employers’ private business—that had been Augusta, the cook.[33] A sixth witness, Henrique Ribeiro Soares, chauffeur’s assistant, confirmed the car rides, the house on Rua de São Bernardo and other places of assignation, the presence of “duas Senhoras que já se achavam preparadas para salir, uma d’edade ou outra ainda nova” (two Ladies who were already dressed to go out, one of age and the other still young), and Judith’s departure with Alvaro during Carnival.[34] Henrique offered little new information, apart from the relative ages of the two ladies, whose names he seems not to have known. One suspects that at the trial, too, the chauffeur’s assistant was merely along for the ride.
The judge, of course, ruled for the plaintiff.[35] The divorce took effect on April 1, 1913, and was published later that month, the defendant still “ausente em parte incerta” (absent in parts unknown).[36] Judith was—at least temporarily—a free woman. The following year, on April 14, 1914, she and Alvaro were married in Bussaco. Judith had learned from her first marriage—the second took place under “o regimen [sic] de separação de bens” (the separation of property regime), which was confirmed beforehand by a notary’s assistant.[37] Whatever happened, Judith could be certain that her possessions—including the rights to her literary work—would continue to belong to her.
Notes
[1] Azancot marriage certificate, f. 12v; Abecassis, Genealogia hebraica, 1:466–68. Jayme Levy Azancot had six brothers and two older sisters. Of the sons, the eldest, Jacob, became a planter on the island of São Tomé; the second, Abrahão, eventually moved to Valparaíso; Jonas, like Jayme, became a businessman in Lisbon; Salomão died in Sintra; Isaac, the youngest, stayed in Lisbon. The elder daughter, Fortunata (Messoda), was married; the younger, Henriqueta, died in 1891, when she was only eighteen years old.
[2] Azancot marriage certificate, f. 13r.
[3] Lisbon, Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa, cível antigo, 6a. Vara, 2a. Secção, proc. 8081/1912, mç. 225, cx. 547, sala 1, corpo 57 (PT/TT/JUD/TCLSB02/A/695/01038), Divórcio litigoso sendo intervenientes Jaime Levy Azancot e Judite Ramos Azancot. (Hereafter cited as Azancot divorce.)
[4] Miriam Halpern Pereira, The First Portuguese Republic: Between Liberalism and Democracy (1910–1926)(Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2019), 41; Maria Clara Sottomayor, “The Introduction and Impact of Joint Custody in Portugal,” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 13 (1999): 247.
[5] Sottomayor, “Joint Custody,” 247; Azancot divorce, f. 2r.
[6] Azancot divorce, ff. 2r–v, 8r–9v.
[7] Azancot divorce, f. 8r.
[8] Azancot divorce, f. 9r.
[9] Azancot divorce, ff. 17r, 19v, 21r.
[10] Azancot divorce, f. 22v–23r, 28r.
[11] Azancot divorce, f. 26r.
[12] Azancot divorce, f. 33r–v.
[13] Azancot divorce, f. 42v. The phrase “na presença d’ella” (in her presence, i.e., in the presence of the defendant) may well be purely formulaic, as there is no indication that Judith was actually present in the courtroom.
[14] Azancot divorce, f. 43r.
[15] Azancot divorce, f. 42r.
[16] Azancot divorce, f. 44v.
[17] My thanks to literary translator and scholar Suzanne Stroh, who suggested looking into Olga de Moraes Sarmento even before I had found her name in the trial records.
[18] Azancot divorce, f. 45f.
[19] Azancot divorce, ff. 45v–46r.
[20] Azancot divorce, ff. 46v–47r.
[21] Azancot divorce, f. 47v.
[22] On terms and definitions, see Franklin Veaux, “Glossary: Learning the Lingo,” More Than Two, https://www.morethantwo.com/polyglossary.html (accessed 19 January 2026), cited in Janet Bennion, “Polyamory in Paris: A Social Network Theory Application,” Sexualities 25, no. 3 (March 2022): 173–97, esp. 190.
[23] Azancot divorce, ff. 53r, 55r.
[24] Azancot divorce, f. 57r.
[25] Azancot divorce, ff. 63r–64r.
[26] Azancot divorce, f. 64v.
[27] Azancot divorce, ff. 64v–65r.
[28] Azancot divorce, 65r.
[29] Azancot divorce, 65r–v.
[30] Azancot divorce, ff. 73r, 74r.
[31] Azancot divorce, f. 74r.
[32] Azancot divorce, ff.74r–v.
[33] Azancot divorce, ff. 76r–v.
[34] Azancot divorce, ff. 77r–80v, esp. 78r.
[35] Azancot divorce, ff. 93r–94r.
[36] O Diário do Govêrno, 25 April 1913; Diario de Noticias, 24 April 1913; O Seculo, 24 April 1913: all in Azancot divorce, ff. 99r, 101v, 103v.
[37] Lisbon, Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa, cível antigo, 5.a Vara, 4.a Secção, proc. 2944/1931, mç. 320, cx. 235, sala 1, corpo 51, Divórcio litigoso sendo intervenientes Alvaro Virgílio Franco Teixeira e Judite Ramos (PT/TT/JUD/TCLSB02/A/695/00231), ff. 4r–7v. Hereafter cited as Teixeira divorce.