V. PATHOLOGICAL SEXUALITY IN ITS LEGAL ASPECTS. (continued 2)

“But that person cannot possibly be a man? That waist, that bust, those classic arms, the whole air and person are markedly feminine!

“I am told that ‘Lottie’ was once a book-keeper. To-day she, or, rather, he, is exclusively ‘Lottie,’ and takes pleasure in deceiving men about his sex as long as possible. ‘Lottie’ is singing a song that would hardly do for a drawing-room, in a high voice, acquired by years of practice, which many a soprano might envy. ‘Lottie’ has also ‘worked’ as a female comedian. Now the quondam book-keeper has so entered into the female rôle that he appears on the street in female attire almost exclusively, and, as the people with whom he lodges state, uses an embroidered night-dress.

“On closer examination of the assembly, to my astonishment, I discover acquaintances on all hands: my shoemaker, whom I should have taken for anything but a woman-hater—he is a ‘troubadour,’ with sword and plume; and his ‘Leonora,’ in the costume of a bride, is accustomed to place my favorite brand of cigars before me in a certain cigar-store. ‘Leonora,’ who, during an intermission, removes her gloves, I recognize with certainty by her large, blue hands. Right! There is my haberdasher, also; he moves about in a questionable costume as Bacchus, and is the swain of a repugnantly bedecked Diana, who works as a waiter in a beer-restaurant. The real ‘ladies’ of the ball cannot be described here. They associate only with one another, and avoid the woman-hating men; and the latter are exclusive, and amuse themselves, absolutely ignoring the charms of the women.”

These facts deserve the careful attention of the police, who should be placed in a position to cope with male prostitution, as they now do with that of women.

Male prostitution is certainly much more dangerous to society than that of females; it is the darkest stain on the history of humanity.

From the statements of a high police official of Berlin, I learn that the police of Berlin are conversant with the male demi-monde of the German Capital, and do all they can to suppress blackmail among pederasts,—a practice which often does not stop short of murder.

419The foregoing facts justify the wish that the law-maker of the future may, for reasons of utility, at least, abandon the prosecution of pederasty.

With reference to this point, it is worthy of note that the French Code does not punish it so long as it does not become an offense to public decency. Probably for politico-legal reasons, the new Italian Penal Code passes over the crime of unnatural abuse in silence, as do the statutes of Holland and, as far as I know, Belgium and Spain.

In how far such cultivated pederasts are to be regarded as mentally and morally sound may remain an open question. The majority of them suffer with genital neuroses. At least, in these cases, there are the stages of transition to acquired pathological contrary sexual instinct. The responsibility of these individuals, who are certainly much lower than the women who prostitute themselves, in general cannot be questioned.

The various categories of male-loving men, with respect of the manner of sexual indulgence, may be thus characterized in general:—

The congenital urning becomes a pederast only exceptionally, and eventually resorts to it after having practiced and exhausted all the possible immoral acts with males. Passive pederasty is for him the ideally and practically adequate form of the sexual act. He practices active pederasty only to please another. The most important point here is the congenital and unchangeable perversion of the sexual instinct.

It is otherwise with the pederast by cultivation. He has once acted normally sexually, or, at least, had normal inclinations, and occasionally has intercourse with the opposite sex. His sexual perversity is neither congenital nor unchangeable. He begins with pederasty and ends in other perverse sexual acts, induced by weakness of the centres for erection and ejaculation. At the height of his power, his sexual desire is not for passive, but for active pederasty. He yields himself to passive pederasty only to please another; for money, in the rôle of a male prostitute; or as a means, when virility is declining, to make active pederasty still occasionally possible.

420A horrible act, that must be alluded to, in conclusion, is pædicatio mulierum,^[145] and even uxorum. Sensual individuals sometimes do it with hardened prostitutes, or even with their wives. Tardieu gives examples where men, usually practicing coitus, sometimes indulged in pederasty with their wives. Occasionally fear of a repetition of pregnancy may induce the man to perform, and the woman to tolerate, the act.

Case 192. Imputation of pederasty that was not proved. Résumé from the legal proceedings:—

On May 30, 1888, Dr. S., chemist, of H., in an anonymous letter, was accused by his step-father of having immoral relations with G., aged 19, the son of a butcher. Dr. S. received the letter, and, astounded by its contents, hastened to his lawyer, who promised to proceed discreetly in the matter, and to ascertain from the authorities whether he would be publicly prosecuted.

On the next morning, G., who lived in the house of Dr. S., was arrested. At the time he was sick with gonorrhœa and orchitis. Dr. S. tried to induce the authorities to release G., and advised caution, but he was refused. In his statement to the judge, S. said that he became acquainted with G. on the street, three years previously, and then saw no more of him until the fall of 1887, when he met him in his father’s shop. After November G. supplied Dr. S.’s kitchen with meat,—coming in the evening to get the order, and bringing the meats the next morning. Thus S. gradually became well acquainted with G., and came to have a very friendly feeling for him. When S. fell ill and was, for the most part, confined to his bed until the middle of May, 1888, G. gave him so much attention that S. and his wife were much attracted to him on account of his harmless, child-like, and happy disposition. Dr. S. showed and explained to him his collection of curiosities, and they spent the evenings pleasantly together, the wife also being usually present; besides, S. and G. experimented in making sausages, jelly, etc. In February, 1888, G. fell ill with gonorrhœa. Dr. S., being his friend, and having studied medicine for several terms, took care of G., procured medicine for him, etc. In May, G. being still sick, and, for several reasons, inclined to leave home, S. and his wife took him into their own home to care for him. S. denied the truth of all the suspicions that had been raised by this relation, and defended himself by pointing to his life of previous respectability, his education, and to the fact that G., at the time, was suffering with a disgusting, contagious disease, and that he himself had a painful affection (nephritic calculus, with occasional attacks of colic).

421Opposed to this statement of Dr. S.’s must be mentioned the facts that were brought out in court, and which led to conviction in the first trial.

The relation of S. to G. had, by reason of its obviousness, given cause for remark by private individuals, as well as by those in public houses. G. spent almost all his evenings with S.’s family, and, finally, came to be quite at home there. They took walks together. Once, while out on such a walk, S. said to G. that he was a pretty fellow, and that he (S.) was very fond of him. On the same occasion, there was also talk of sexual matters, and also of pederasty. S. said he touched on these subjects only to warn G. With reference to the intercourse at home, it was proved that occasionally S., while sitting on a sofa, embraced G., and kissed him. This happened in the presence of the wife, as well as of the servant-girls. When G. was ill with gonorrhœa, S. instructed him in the method of using a syringe, and, at the time, took the penis in his hand. G. testified that S., in answer to his question why he was so fond of him, said, “I don’t know, myself.” When, one day, G. remained away, S., with tears in his eyes, complained of it to him when he returned. S. also told him that his marriage was unhappy, and, in tears, begged G. not to leave him; that he must take the place of his wife.

From all this resulted the just accusation, that the relation between the culprits had a sexual direction. The fact that all was open and known to everybody, according to the complaint, did not speak for the harmlessness of the relation, but more for the intensity of the passion of S. The spotless life of the accused was allowed, as well as his honesty and gentleness. The probability of an unhappy marriage, and that S. was of a very sensual nature, was shown.

During the course of the trial, G. was repeatedly examined by the medical experts. He is scarcely of medium size, pale, and of powerful frame; penis and testicles are very perfectly developed (large).

In consonance with the accusation, it was found that the anus was pathologically changed, in that there were no wrinkles in the skin about it and the sphincter was relaxed; and it was presumed that these changes pointed to the probability of passive pederasty.

The conviction was based on these facts. The judgment passed recognized that the relation that existed between the culprits did not necessarily point to unnatural abuses, any more than did the physical conditions found on the person of G.

However, by reason of the combination of the two facts, the court was convinced of the guilt of both culprits, and held it proved: “That the abnormal condition of G.’s anus had been caused by the frequently repeated introduction of the penis of S., and that G. voluntarily permitted the performance of this immoral act on himself.”

Thus the conditions of § 175, R. St. G. B., seemed to be covered. In passing sentence, there was consideration of S.’s education, which 422made him appear to be G.’s seducer; in G.’s case, this fact and his youth were given weight; and the previous respectability of both was held in view. Thus Dr. S. was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months, and G. for four months.

The culprits appealed to the Supreme Court at Leipzig, and prepared themselves, in case the appeal should be denied, to collect evidence sufficient to call for a new trial.

They subjected themselves to examination and observation by distinguished experts. The latter declared that G.’s anus presented no signs of indulgence in passive pederasty.

Since it seemed of importance to those interested to make clear the psychological aspect of the case, which was not touched on at the trial, the author was intrusted with the examination and observation of Dr. S. and G.

Results of the Personal Examination, from December 11 to 13, 1888, in Graz.—Dr. S., aged 37; two years married, without children. Ex-Director of the City Laboratory of H. He comes of a father who is said to have been nervous, owing to great activity; who had an apoplectic attack in his fifty-seventh year, and died, at the age of sixty-seven, of another attack of apoplexy. His mother is living, and is described as a strong person, who has been nervous for years. Her mother reached quite an old age, and is said to have died of a cerebellar tumor. A brother of the mother’s father is said to have been a drinker. The paternal grandfather died early, of softening of the brain.

Dr. S. has two brothers, who are in perfect health.

He states that he is of nervous temperament, and has been of strong constitution. After articular rheumatism, which he had in his fourteenth year, he suffered with great nervousness for some months. Thereafter he often suffered with rheumatic pains, palpitation, and shortness of breath. These symptoms gradually disappeared with sea-bathing. Seven years ago he had gonorrhœa. This disease became chronic, and for a long time caused bladder-difficulty.

In 1887 he had his first attack of renal colic, and he had such attacks repeatedly during the winter of 1887 and 1888, until May 16, 1888, when quite a large renal calculus was passed. Since then his condition had been quite satisfactory. While suffering with stone, during coitus, at the moment of ejaculation, he felt severe pain in the urethra, and the same pain on urinating.

With reference to his life, S. states that he attended the Gymnasium until he was fourteen, but after that, owing to the results of his severe illness, he studied privately. He then spent four years in a drug-store, and then studied medicine for six semesters at the University, serving, in the war of 1870, as a voluntary hospital assistant. Since he had no certificate of graduation from the Gymnasium, he gave up the study of medicine, and obtained the degree of doctor of philosophy. Then he 423served in the Museum of Minerals in K., and later as assistant in the Mineralogical Institute of H. Thereafter he made special studies in the chemistry of food-stuffs, and five years ago became Director of the City Laboratory.

He makes all these statements in a prompt, precise manner, and does not think long about his answers; so that one is more and more led to think that he is a man who loves and speaks the truth,—the more, since, on the following day, his statements are identical. With reference to his vita sexualis, Dr. S., in a modest, delicate, and open way, states that, in his eleventh year, he began to have a knowledge of the difference of the sexes, and for some time, until his fourteenth year, was given to onanism. He first had coitus at eighteen, and thereafter indulged moderately. His sensual desire had never been very great, but, until lately, the sexual act had been normal in every way, and accompanied by gratifying pleasurable feeling and full virility. Since his marriage, two years ago, he had cohabited with his wife exclusively. He had married his wife out of love, and still loved her, having coitus with her at least several times a week. The wife, who was also at hand, confirmed these statements.

All cross-questioning with reference to a perversion of sexual feeling toward men Dr. S. answered repeatedly in the negative, to repeated examination, and that without contradiction or any thought of the answers. Even when, in order to trap him, he is told that the proof of a perverse sexual instinct would be of avail in the trial, he sticks to his statements. One gains the important impression that S. has not the slightest knowledge of the facts of male-love. Thus it is learned that his lascivious dreams have never been about men; that he is interested only in female nudity; that he liked to dance with ladies, etc. No traces of any kind of sexual inclination for his own sex can be discovered in S. With reference to his relations with G., Dr. S. expresses himself exactly as he did at his examination before the court. In explanation of his partiality for G., he can only say that he is nervous, and a man of feeling and great sensibility, and very sensitive to friendliness. During his illness he had felt very lonesome and depressed; his wife had frequently been with her parents; and thus it had happened that he had become friendly with G., who was so gentle and kind. He still had a weakness for him, and felt remarkably quiet and contented while in his society.

He had had two such close friendships previously: when he was yet a student, with a corps-brother, a Dr. A. whom he also embraced and kissed; later, with a Baron M. When it happened that he could not see him for a few days, he became depressed, and even cried.

He also had a similar feeling and attachment for animals. Thus he had a poodle that died a short time ago, mourned like a member of the family; and he had often kissed the animal. (On relating this, the tears came to his eyes.) His brother confirmed these statements, with 424the remark, with reference to his brother’s remarkable friendship for A. and M., that in these instances there was not the slightest suspicion of sexual coloring or relation. Too, the most careful and detailed examination of Dr. S. gave not the slightest reason for such a presumption.

He states that he never had the slightest sensual feeling for G., to say nothing of erection or sensual desire. His partiality for G., which bordered on jealousy, S. explained as due merely to his sentimental temperament and his inordinate friendship. G. was still as dear to him as if he were his son.

It is worthy of note that S. stated that when G. told him about his love-adventures with girls, it had hurt him only because G. was in danger of injuring himself and ruining his health by dissipation. He had never felt hurt himself by this. If he knew a good girl for G. he would be glad to rejoice with him, and do all he could to promote their marriage.

S. states that it was first in the course of his legal examination that he saw how he had been careless in his intercourse with G., by causing gossip. His openness he explained as due to the innocence of the friendship.

It is worthy of note that S.’s wife never noticed anything suspicious in the intercourse between her husband and G., though the most simple wife would instinctively notice anything of that nature. Mrs. S. had also made no opposition to receiving G. into the house. On this point she remarked that the guest-chamber in which G. lay ill, was on the second floor, while the living apartments were on the fourth; and, further, that S. never associated alone with G. as long as he was in the house. She states that she is convinced of her husband’s innocence, and that she loves him as before.

Dr. S. states freely that formerly he had often kissed G., and talked with him about sexual matters. G. was much given to women, and in friendship he had often warned him about sexual dissipation, particularly when G., as often happened, did not look well. He had once said that G. was a handsome fellow; it was in a perfectly harmless relation.

The kissing of G. had been due to inordinate friendship, when G. had shown him some particular attention, or pleased him especially. In the act he had never had any sexual feeling. Too, when he had now and then dreamed of G., it was in a perfectly harmless way.

It appeared of great importance to the author to form also an opinion of G.’s personality. On December 12th, the desired opportunity was given, and G. was carefully examined.

G. is a young man, aged 20, of delicate build, whose development corresponds with his years; and he appears to be neuropathic and sensual. The genitals are normal and well developed. The author thinks he may be permitted to pass over the condition of the anus, as he does not feel called upon to pass judgment upon it. With prolonged association with G., one gets the impression that he is a harmless, 425kind, and artless man, who is light-minded, but not morally depraved. Nothing in his dress or manner indicates perverse sexual feeling. There cannot be the slightest suspicion that he is a male courtesan.

When G. is introduced in medias res, he states that S. and he, feeling their innocence, had told the matter as it actually was, and on this the whole trial had been based.

At first, S.’s friendship, and especially the kissing, had seemed remarkable, even to him. Later he had convinced himself that it was merely friendship, and had then thought no more about it.

G. had looked upon S. as a father-like friend; for he was so unselfish, and loved him so.

The expression “handsome fellow” was made when G. had a love-affair, and when S. expressed his fears about a happy future for G. At that time S. had comforted him, and said that his (G.’s) appearance was pleasing, and that he would make an eligible match.

Once S. had complained to him (G.) that his wife was inclined to drink, and burst into tears. G. was touched by his friend’s unhappiness. On this occasion S. had kissed him, and begged for his friendship, and asked him to visit him frequently.

S. had never spontaneously directed the conversation to sexual matters. G. once asked what pederasty was, of which he had heard much while in England; and S. had explained it to him.

G. acknowledges that he is sensual. At the age of twelve he had been made acquainted with sexual matters by school-mates. He had never masturbated, had first had coitus at the age of eighteen, and had since visited brothels frequently. He had never felt any inclination for his own sex, and had never experienced any sexual excitement when S. kissed him. He had always had pleasure in coitus normally performed. His lascivious dreams had always been of women. With indignation, and pointing to his descent from a healthy and respectable family, he repels the insinuation of having been given to passive pederasty. Until the gossip about them came to his ears, he had been innocent and devoid of suspicion. The anal anomalies he tries to explain in the same way that he did at the trial. Auto-masturbation in ano he denies.

It should be noted that Mr. J. S. claims to be no less astonished by the charge against his brother of male-love than those more closely associated with him. Yet he could not understand what attached his brother to G.; and all the explanations which S. made to him concerning his relation to G. were vain.

The author took the trouble to observe Dr. S. and G., in a natural way, while they were dining, in company with S.’s brother and Mrs. S., in Graz. This observation revealed not the slightest sign of improper friendship.

The general impression which Dr. S. made on me was that of a nervous, sanguine, somewhat overstrained individual, but, at the same time, kind, open-hearted, and very emotional.

426Dr. S. is physically strong, somewhat corpulent, with a symmetrical, brachycephalic cranium. The genitals are well developed; the penis somewhat bellied; the prepuce somewhat hypertrophied.

Opinion.—Pederasty is, unfortunately, not infrequent among mankind to-day; but still, occurring among the peoples of Europe, it is an unusual, perverse, and even monstrous manner of sexual gratification. It presumes a congenital or acquired perversion of the sexual instinct, and, at the same time, defect of moral sense that is either original or acquired, as a result of pathological influences.

Medico-legal science is thoroughly conversant with the physical and psychical conditions from which this aberration of the sexual instinct arises; and in the concrete and doubtful case it seems requisite to ascertain whether these empirical, subjective conditions necessary for pederasty are present. Too, it is essential to distinguish between active and passive pederasty.

Active pederasty occurs:—

I. As a non-pathological phenomenon:—

1. As a means of sexual gratification, in case of great sexual desire, with enforced abstinence from natural sexual intercourse.

2. In old debauchees, who have become satiated with normal sexual intercourse, and more or less impotent, and also morally depraved; and who resort to pederasty, in order to excite their lust with this new stimulus, and aid their virility, that has sunk so low psychically and physically.

3. Traditionally, among certain barbarous races that are devoid of morality.

II. As a pathological phenomenon:—

1. Upon the basis of congenital contrary sexual instinct, with repugnance for sexual intercourse with women, or even absolute incapability of it. But, as even Casper knew, pederasty, under such conditions, is very infrequent. The so-called urning satisfies himself with a man by means of passive or mutual onanism, or by means of coitus-like acts (e.g., coitus inter femora); and he resorts to pederasty only very exceptionally, as a result of intense sexual desire, or with a low or lowered moral sense, out of desire to please another.

2. On the basis of acquired contrary sexual instinct:—

(a) As a result of long years of onanism, which finally causes impotence for women with continuance of intense sexual desire.

(b) As a result of severe mental disease (senile dementia, brain-softening of the insane, etc.), in which, as experience teaches, an inversion of the sexual instinct may take place.

Passive pederasty occurs:—

I. As a non-pathological phenomenon:—

1. In individuals of the lowest class, who, having had the misfortune to be seduced in boyhood by debauchees, endured pain and disgust for 427the sake of money, and became depraved morally, so that, in more mature years, they have fallen so low that they take pleasure in being male prostitutes.

2. Under circumstances analogous to those of I, 1,—as a remuneration to another for having allowed active pederasty.

II. As a pathological phenomenon:—

1. In individuals affected with contrary sexual instinct, with endurance of pain and disgust, as a return to men for the bestowal of sexual favors.

2. In urnings who feel toward men like women, out of desire and lust. In such female-men there is horror feminæ and absolute incapability for sexual intercourse with women. Character and inclinations are feminine.

The empirical facts that have been gathered by legal medicine and psychiatry are all included in this classification. Before the court of medical science, it would be necessary to prove that a man belonged to one of the above categories in order to carry the conviction that he was a pederast.

In the life and character of Dr. S., one searches in vain for signs which place him in one of the categories of active pederasts which science has established. He is neither one forced to sexual abstinence, nor one made impotent for women by debauchery; neither is he congenitally male-loving, nor alienated from women by masturbation, and attracted to men through continuance of sexual desire; and, finally, he is not sexually perverse as a result of severe mental disease.

In fact, the general conditions necessary for the occurrence of pederasty are wanting in him,—moral imbecility or moral depravity, on the one hand, and inordinate sexual desire, on the other.

It is likewise impossible to classify the accomplice, G., in any of the empirical categories of passive pederasty; for he possesses neither the peculiarities of the male prostitute nor the clinical marks of effemination; and he has not the anthropological and clinical stigmata of the female-man. He is, in fact, the very opposite of all this.

In order to make a pederastic relation between the two plausible medico-scientifically, it would be requisite for Dr. S. to present the antecedents and marks of the active pederasts of I, 2, and G., those of the passive pederasts of II, 1 or 2.

The assumption lying at the basis of the verdict is, from a psychological stand-point, legally untenable.

With the same right, every man might be considered a pederast. It remains to consider whether the explanations given by Dr. S. and G. of their remarkable friendship are psychologically valid.

Psychologically it is not without parallel that so sentimental and eccentric a man as S.—without any sexual excitement whatever—should entertain a transcendental friendship. It suffices to recall the friendship of school-girls, the self-sacrificing friendship of sentimental young persons 428in general, and the partiality which this sensitive man sometimes showed even for domestic animals,—where no one would think of sodomy. With S.’s mental character, extraordinary friendship for the youth G. may be easily comprehended. The openness of this friendship permits the conclusion that it was innocent, much rather than that it depended upon sensual passion.

The defendants succeeded in obtaining a new trial. The new trial took place on March 7, 1890. There was much evidence presented in favor of the accused.

The previous moral life of S. was generally acknowledged. The Sister of Charity who cared for G. in S.’s house, never noticed anything suspicious in the intercourse between S. and G. S.’s former friends testified to his morality, his deep friendship, and his habit of kissing them on meeting or leaving them. The anal abnormalities previously found on G. were no longer present. Experts called by the court allowed the possibility that they had been due simply to digital manipulations; their diagnostic value in any case was contested by the experts called by the defense.

The court recognized that the imputed crime had not been proved, and exonerated the defendants.

Lesbian Love.^[146]

Where the sexual intercourse is between adults, its legal importance is very slight; it could come into consideration only in Austria. In connection with urningism, this phenomenon is of anthropological and clinical value. The relation is the same, mutatis mutandis, as between men. Lesbian love does not seem to approach urningism in frequency. The majority of female urnings do not act in obedience to an innate impulse, but they are developed under conditions analogous to those which produce the urning by cultivation.

These “forbidden friendships” flourish especially in penal institutions for females.

Kraussold (op. cit.) reports: “The female prisoners often have such friendships, which, when possible, extend to mutual manustupration.

“But temporary manual gratification is not the only purpose of such friendships. They are made to be enduring,—entered into systematically, so to speak,—and intense jealousy and a passion for love are 429developed which could scarcely be surpassed between persons of opposite sex. When the friend of one prisoner is merely smiled at by another, there are often the most violent scenes of jealousy, and even beatings.

“When the violent prisoner has been put in irons, in accordance with the prison-regulations, she says ‘she has had a child by her friend.’”

We are indebted to Parent-Duchatelet (“De la prostitution,” 1857, vol. i, p. 159) for interesting communications concerning Lesbian love.

According to this experienced author, repugnance for the most disgusting and perverse acts (coitus in axilla, inter mammæ, etc.) which men perform on prostitutes is not infrequently responsible for driving these unfortunate creatures to Lesbian love. From his statements it is seen that it is essentially prostitutes of great sensuality who, unsatisfied with intercourse with impotent or perverse men, and impelled by their disgusting practices, come to indulge in it.

Besides these, there are prostitutes who let themselves be known as given to tribadism; persons who have been in prisons for years, and in these hot-beds of Lesbian love, ex abstinentia, acquired this vice.

It is interesting to know that prostitutes hate those who practice tribadism,—just as men abhor pederasts; but female prisoners do not regard the vice as indecent.

Parent mentions the case of a prostitute who, while intoxicated, tried to force another to Lesbian love. The latter became so enraged that she denounced the indecent woman to the police. Taxil (op. cit. p. 166, 170) reports similar instances.

Mantegazza (“Anthropol. culturhistorische Studien,” p. 97) also finds that sexual intercourse between women has especially the significance of a vice which arises on the basis of unsatisfied hyperæsthesia sexualis.

In many cases of this kind, however, aside from congenital contrary sexual instinct, one gains the impression that, just as in men (vide supra), the cultivated vice gradually leads to acquired contrary sexual instinct, with repugnance for sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.

At least Parent’s cases were probably of this nature. The correspondence with the lover was quite as sentimental and exaggerated in tone as it is between lovers of the opposite sex; unfaithfulness and separation broke the heart of the one abandoned; jealousy was unbridled, and led to bloody revenge. The following cases of Lesbian love, by Mantegazza, are certainly pathological, and possibly examples of congenital contrary sexual instinct:—

1. On July 5, 1777, a woman was brought before a court in London, who, dressed as a man, had been married to three different women. She 430was recognized as a woman, and sentenced to imprisonment for six months.

2. In 1773, another woman, dressed as a man, courted a girl, and asked for her hand; but the trick did not succeed.

3. Two women lived together as man and wife for thirty years. On her death-bed the “husband” confessed her secret to those about her.

Coffignon (op. cit., p. 301) makes later statements worthy of notice.

He reports that this vice is, of late, quite the fashion,—partly owing to novels on the subject, and partly as a result of excessive work on sewing-machines, the sleeping of female servants in the same bed, seduction in schools by depraved pupils, or seduction of daughters by perverse servants.

The author declares that this vice (“saphism”) is met more frequently among ladies of the aristocracy and prostitutes.

He does not differentiate physiological and pathological cases, nor, among the latter, the acquired and congenital cases. The details of a few cases, which are certainly pathological, correspond exactly with the facts that are known about men of contrary sexuality.

The saphists have their places of meeting, recognize each other by peculiar glances, carriage, etc. Saphistic pairs like to dress and ornament themselves alike, etc. They are then called “petites sœurs” (little sisters).

7. Necrophilia.^[147]

(Austrian Statutes, § 306.)

This horrible kind of sexual indulgence is so monstrous that the presumption of a psychopathic state is, under all circumstances, justified; and Maschka’s recommendation, that the mental condition of the perpetrator should always be investigated, is well founded. In any case, an abnormal and decidedly perverse sensuality is required to overcome the natural repugnance which man has for a corpse, and permit a feeling of pleasure to be experienced in sexual congress with a cadaver.

Unfortunately, in the majority of the cases reported, the mental condition was not examined; so that the question whether necrophilia is compatible with mental soundness must remain open. But any one having knowledge of the horrible aberrations of the sexual instinct would not venture, without further consideration, to answer the question in the negative.

431

8. Incest.

(Austrian Statutes, § 132; Abridgment, § 189; German Statutes, § 174.)

The preservation of the moral purity of family life is a product of civilization;^[148] and feelings of intense displeasure arise in an ethically intact man at thought of lustful feeling toward a member of the same family. Only great sensuality and defective ideas of laws and morals can lead to incest.

Both conditions may, in tainted families, be operative. Drinking and a state of intoxication in men; weak-mindedness which does not allow the development of the feeling of shame, and which, under certain circumstances, is associated with eroticism in females,—these facilitate the occurrence of incestuous acts. External conditions which facilitate their occurrence are due to defective separation of the sexes among the lower classes.

As a decidedly pathological phenomenon, the author has found incest in states of congenital and acquired mental weakness, and infrequently in cases of epilepsy and paranoia.

In many of the cases, probably a majority, it is not possible, however, to find a pathological basis for the act which so deeply wounds not only the tie of blood, but also the feeling of a civilized people. But in many of the cases reported in literature, to the honor of humanity, the presumption of a psychopathic basis is possible.

In the Feldtmann case (Marc-Ideler, vol. i, p. 18), where a father constantly made immoral attacks on his adult daughter, and finally killed her, the unnatural father was weak-minded and, besides, probably subject to periodical mental disease. In another case of incest between father and daughter (loc. cit., p. 247), the latter, at least, was weak-minded. Lombroso (Archiv. di Psichiatria, viii, p. 519) reports the case of a peasant, aged 42, who practiced incest with his daughters, aged, respectively, 22, 19, and 11; he even forced the youngest to prostitute herself, and then visited her in a brothel. The medico-legal examination showed predisposition, intellectual and moral imbecility, and alcoholism.

There was no mental examination in the case reported by Schürmeyer (Deutsche Zeitschr. für Staatsarzneikunde, xxii, H. 1), in which a 432mother laid her son of five and a half years on herself, and practiced abuse with him; and in that given by Lafarque (Journ. Méd. de Bordeaux, 1874), where a girl, aged 17, laid her brother, aged 13, upon herself, brought about membrorum conjunctionem, and performed masturbation on him.

The following cases are those of tainted individuals: Magnan (Ann. méd.-psych., 1885) mentions an unmarried woman, aged 29, who, though indifferent toward other children or even men, suffered frightfully in the presence of her nephew, and could scarcely control her impulse to cohabit with him. This sexual peculiarity continued only as long as the nephew was quite young.

Legrand (Ann. méd.-psych., May, 1876) mentions a girl, aged 15, who seduced her brother into all manner of sexual excesses on her person; and when, after two years of this incestuous practice, her brother died, she attempted to murder a relative. In the same article there is the case of a married woman, aged 36, who hung her open breast out of a window, and indulged in abuse with her brother, aged 18; and also the case of a mother, aged 39, who practiced incest with her son, with whom she was madly in love, became pregnant by him, and induced abortion.

Through Casper we know that depraved mothers in large cities sometimes treat their little daughters in a most horrible fashion, in order to prepare them for the sexual use of debauchees. This crime belongs elsewhere.

9. Immoral Acts with Persons in the Care of Others; Seduction (Austrian).

(Austrian Statutes, § 131; Abridgment, § 188; German Statutes, § 173).

Allied to incest, but still less repugnant to moral sensibility, are those cases in which persons seduce those entrusted to them for care or education, and who are more or less dependent upon them, to commit or suffer vicious practices. Such acts, which especially deserve legal punishment, seem only exceptionally to have psychopathic significance.

433