Science, sexuality, and gender in the fin de siécle: Otto Weininger as baedeker

History of Science

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 1992, Pages 249-279

  Sengoopta, Chandak ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRIA; HISTORY; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

AUSTRIA; HISTORY OF MEDICINE, MODERN; SEX BEHAVIOR;

EID: 0026924619     PISSN: 00732753     EISSN: 17538564     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/007327539203000302     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. The standard biographies are Lucka Emil, Otto Weininger: Sein Werk und seine Persönlichkeit (Vienna, 1905), Abrahamsen David, The mind and death of a genius (New York, 1946), and Le Rider Jacques, Der Fall Otto Weininger: Wurzeln des Antifeminismus und Antisemitismus, translated by Hornig Dieter (Vienna, 1985). The last is a revised and expanded translation of Le cos Otto Weininger: Racines de l'antiféminisme et de l'antisémitisme (Paris, 1982). See also Le Rider Jacques and Leser Norbert (eds), Otto Weininger: Werk und Wirkung (Vienna, 1984); Labanyi Peter, “‘Die Gefahr des Körpers’: A reading of Otto Weininger's Geschlecht und Charakter”, in Carr G. J. and Sagarra Eda (eds), Fin de siècle Vienna: Proceedings of the second Irish symposium in Austrian studies (Dublin, 1985), 161-86; Brude-Firnau Gisela, “Wissenschaft von der Frau? Zum Einfluß von Otto Weiningers ‘Geschlecht und Charakter’ auf den deutschen Roman”, in PaulsenWolfgang,(ed.), Die Frau als Heldin und Autorin: Neue kritische Ansätze zur deutschen Literatur (Bern, 1979), 136-49; Schoenberg Barbara Z., “‘Woman-defender’ and woman-offender', Peter Altenberg and Otto Weininger: Two literary stances vis-à-vis bourgeois culture in the Viennese ‘belle epoque”’, Modern Austrian literature, xx, no. 2 (1987), 51-69; Klein Viola, The feminine character: History of an ideology, 2nd edn (Urbana, Il., 1971), 53-70; and Johnston William M., The Austrian mind: An intellectual and social history 1848-1938 (Berkeley, Cal., 1972), 158-62. For a trenchant critique of Johnston's approach, see Janik Allan, “Therapeutic nihilism: How not to write about Otto Weininger”, in SmithBarry,(ed.), Structure and gestalt: Philosophy and literature in Austria-Hungary and her successor states (Amsterdam, 1981), 263-91. On Weininger as a “self-hating Jew”, see Lessing Theodor, Der jüdische Selbsthass (Berlin, 1930; repr., Munich, 1984), 80-100; Gilman Sander L., Jewish self-hatred: Anti-semitism and the hidden language of the Jews (Baltimore, Md, 1986), 244-8; and Janik Allan, “Viennese culture and the Jewish self-hatred hypothesis: A critique”, in Oxaal Ivar Pollak Michael, and Botz Gerhard (eds), Jews, antisemitism and culture in Vienna (London, 1987), 75-88.
2. See Janik, “Therapeutic nihilism” (ref. 1); idem, “Weininger and the science of sex: Prolegomena to any future study”, in PynsentRobert B.,(ed.), Decadence and innovation: Austro-Hungarian life and art at the turn of the century (London, 1989), 24-32; and idem, “Writing about Weininger”, in his Essays on Wittgenstein and Weininger (Amsterdam, 1985), 96-115. I do not, however, follow Janik in his hyperbolic claim (in his “Weininger and the science of sex”, 24) that “Weininger was indeed a scientist”. Jacques Le Rider's chapter on the scientific elements in Geschlecht und Charakter (in Der Fall Otto Weininger (ref. 1), 59-77) suffers from a very narrow conception of the nature of scientific activity in general and the work of nineteenth-century scientists in particular.
3. Allan Janik has identified at least four “analytic moments” in Geschlecht und Charakter: Nietzschean cultural criticism; biology of sexuality; an idiosyncratic neo-Kantian ethics; and Diltheyan psychology of “lived experience”. See Janik, “Weininger and the science of sex” (ref. 2), 26. Each of these “moments” — and possibly others — is vital to understanding Weininger's position. The present paper, however, deals with only a few aspects of one.
4. On this issue, see Foucault Michel, The history of sexuality, i: An introduction, translated by Hurley Robert (New York, 1976); and Davidson Arnold I., “Sex and the emergence of sexuality”, Critical inquiry, xiv (1987), 16-48. Laqueur Thomas W., Making sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, Mass., 1990) takes an interestingly different approach to the subject. For the specifically medical context, see Hull Isabel V., “The bourgeoisie and its discontents: Reflections on ‘Nationalism and respectability”’, Journal of contemporary history, xvii (1982), 247-68, especially 259-60; Bullough Vera L., “The physician and research into human sexual behavior in nineteenth century Germany”, Bulletin of the history of medicine, lxiii (1989), 247-67; and Wettley Annemarie and Leibbrand Werner, Von der ‘Psychopathia sexualis’ zur Sexualwissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1959). David Luft, “Science and irrationalism in Freud's Vienna”, Modern Austrian literature, xxiii, no. 2 (1990), 89-97, makes a preliminary attempt to identify the causes of the widespread Viennese interest in the scientific study of sexuality.
5. The diversity of Weiningers sources has often been overlooked by English-speaking readers because the anonymous English translation published in 1906, Weininger Otto, Sex and character, authorized translation from the sixth German edition (London and New York, [1906]), did not include the appendix entitled “Zusätze und Nachweise” which occupied some 135 pages of small print in the original text. Incidentally, Ludwig Wittgenstein described this translation as “beastly”. See Wittgenstein, Letters to Russell, Keynes and Moore, ed. by von Wright G. H. (Ithaca, NY, 1974), 159. Allan Janik has counted that in his notes to the first part of Geschlecht und Charakter, Weininger referred to 230 scientific works by 160 different authors. See Janik, “Wittgenstein and Weininger”, in his Essays on Wittgenstein and Weininger (ref. 2), 68, note 23.
6. Abrahamsen, The mind and death of a genius (ref. 1), 210.
7. Rodlauer Hannelore, “Fragmente aus Weiningers Bildungsgeschichte (1895-1902)”, in idem (ed.), Otto Weininger, Eros und Psyche: Studien und Briefe 1899-1902 (Vienna, 1990), 12-51.
8. Swoboda Hermann, “Gedenkrede für Otto Weininger”, 4 October 1958 at PEN Club, Vienna; unpublished. Quoted in Le Rider, Der Fall Otto Weininger (ref. 1), 24.
9. See Otto Weininger's contribution to the “Discussion” on Joire Paul M.-J., “De la nécessité de l'emploi de nouvelles méthodes et en particulier de méthodes expérimentales dans l'étude de la psychologie”, in JanetPierre,(ed.), IVe Congrès international de psychologie (tenu à Paris, du 20 au 26 Aoùt 1900): Compte rendu des séances et texte des mémoires (Paris, 1901), 642-3.
10. Swoboda Hermann, Die gemeinnützige Forschung und der eigennützige Forscher (Vienna, 1906), 6-8; Abrahamsen, Mind and death (ref. 1), 43-45. To put the Freud-Fliess-Swoboda-Weininger affair in an inadequate nutshell, Wilhelm Fliess accused the deceased Weininger of having plagiarized his conception of the universal bisexuality of all human beings. Fliess alleged that Freud had passed on his theories (details of which had not been published yet but which he and Freud had discussed extensively in their correspondence) through Swoboda to Weininger. Freud's replies to these charges were too ambivalent to satisfy Fliess and the dispute became public with the publication of acrimonious pamphlets by Fliess, his supporter Richard Pfennig, and Swoboda. The friendship of Fliess and Freud was never resumed. For further details, see Sulloway Frank J., Freud, biologist of the mind: Beyond the psychoanalytic legend (New York, 1979), 223-9; Eissler K. R., Talent and genius: The fictitious case of Tausk contra Freud (New York, 1971), 162-71; Mahony Patrick, “Friendship and its discontents”, Contemporary psychoanalysis, xv (1979), 55-109; Peter Heller, “A quarrel over bisexuality”, in Chappie Gerald and Schulte Hans H. (eds), The turn of the century: German literature and art, 1890-1915) (Bonn, 1981), 87-115; Lebzeltern Gustav, “Zu Unrecht vergessene Freud-Briefe”, Dynamische Psychiatrie, xv (1982), 97-113.
11. Rodlauer Hannelore, “Von ‘Eros und Psyche’ zu ‘Geschlecht und Charakter”’: Unbekannte Weininger-Manuskripte im Archiv der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften”, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse: Anzeiger, cxiv (1987), 110-39, pp. 113, 130. Weininger's correspondence with the Akademie is reprinted in Otto Weininger, Eros und Psyche (ref. 7), 75-76. The study Eros und Psyche is reprinted in the same volume, pp. 143-89.
12. Rodlauer, “Von ‘Eros und Psyche’ zu ‘Geschlecht und Charakter”’ (ref. 11), 120. See also Weininger's undated [probably October 1901] letter to Swoboda (in Otto Weininger, Eros und Psyche (ref. 7), 87) where he reports that Freud told him that the world does not want thoughts but proof (”… die Welt will nicht Gedanken, sie will Beweise!”). Nor was this Weininger's first visit to Freud. Swoboda reminded him in a letter that he had been to Freud once before.
13. Le Rider, Der Fall Otto Weininger (ref. 1), 32-33. The two chapters were “Das Wesen des Weibes und sein Sinn im Universum” and “Das Judentum”, respectively chaps. 12 and 13 of the second part of Geschlecht und Charakter.
14. Jodl and Müllner's reports on the dissertation have been reprinted in Otto Weininger, Eros und Psyche (ref. 7), 211-14.
15. Other prominent Viennese Jews who converted to Protestantism were Victor Adler, Peter Altenberg, and Arnold Schoenberg. Steven Beller has interpreted this preference as the sign of a spiritual allegiance to the culture of northern Germany. See Beller, Vienna and the Jews, 1867-1938: A cultural history (Cambridge, 1989), 152-3. Weininger himself seems to have chosen Protestantism for very similar reasons. See Le Rider, Der Fall Otto Weininger (ref. 1), 34.
16. Le Rider, Der Fall Otto Weininger (ref. 1), 38-55.
17. Weininger Otto, Geschlecht und Charakter: Eine prinzipielle Untersuchung, 3rd edn (Vienna and Leipzig, 1904), pp. v-vi. All quotations from Geschlecht und Charakter in this paper are taken from this edition and henceforth, references to it will be given as page numbers within parentheses in the text. Translations represent my revisions of the English version, Sex and character (ref. 5). All other translations, unless otherwise mentioned, are mine.
18. Weininger's dissertation grew out of two separate ways of looking at sexuality that were represented in the two separate outlines he had sent to the Academy of Sciences. Hannelore Rodlauer argues that the first part of Geschlecht und Charakter corresponds thematically, epistemologically, and methodologically to the first outline (Eros und Psyche) sent by Weininger to the Akademie der Wissenschaften whereas the second part of the book corresponds in similar ways to the second outline, Zur Theorie des Lebens. In between writing the two outlines, Weininger's interests and beliefs had undergone a dramatic shift as Rodlauer proves from his correspondence. She argues that the structure of the published book and its incongruity of parts are manifestations of that intellectual metamorphosis. See Rodlauer, “Von ‘Eros und Psyche’ zu ‘Geschlecht und Charakter”’ (ref. 11), 131-3.
19. The importance of the “Woman Question” to Weininger is further supported by the self-description of his book that he contributed to a philosophical journal. The very first sentence reads: “The theme of the book is the woman question, not as a question of economic life or politics, but as a theoretical problem of sexual difference between man and woman in consonance with all problems that are linked to it.” See Kant-Studien: Philosophische Zeitschrift, viii (1903), 484-5, p. 484.
20. On this point, see Labanyi, “‘Die Gefahr des Körpers”’ (ref. 1), 168-70.
21. For a detailed account of feminist — and antifeminist — discourse in turn-of-the-century Central Europe, see Evans Richard J., The feminist movement in Germany 1894-1933 (London and Beverly Hills, Cal., 1976). Evans has noted the influence of Weininger on antifeminist thinkers such as Hans Blüher.
22. See Alaya Flavia, “Victorian science and the ‘genius’ of woman”, Journal of the history of ideas, xxxviii (1977), 261-80; Duffin Lorna, “Prisoners of progress: Women and evolution”, in Delamont Sara and Duffin Lorna (eds), The nineteenth century woman: Her cultural and physical world (London and New York, 1978), 57-91; Mosedale Susan Sleeth, “Science corrupted: Victorian biologists consider ‘the woman question”’, Journal of the history of biology, xi (1978), 1-55; and Russett Cynthia Eagle, Sexual science: The Victorian construction of womanhood (Cambridge, Mass., 1989).
23. Russett, Sexual science (ref. 25), 54-57.
24. Quoted in Dijkstra Bram, Idols of perversity: Fantasies of feminine evil in fin de siècle culture (New York, 1986), 170.
25. See the analysis of Weininger's position vis-à-vis the antifeminist discourse of the fin de siècle in Le Rider, Der Fall Otto Weininger (ref. 1), 142-68.
26. Wittgenstein Letters (ref. 5), 159. See also Monk Ray, Ludwig Wittgenstein: The duty of genius (New York, 1991), 19-25, 312-13; and the two studies by Allan Janik, both in his Essays on Wittgenstein and Weininger (ref. 2): “Wittgenstein and Weininger” (pp. 64-73); and “Philosophical sources of Wittgenstein's ethics” (pp. 74-95). On Kraus's response to Weininger, see Le Rider, Der Fall Otto Weininger (ref. 1), 147-50; Timms Edward, Karl Kraus, apocalyptic satirist: Culture and catastrophe in Habsburg Vienna (New Haven, Conn., 1986), 88-93; and Wagner Nike, Geist und Geschlecht: Karl Kraus und die Erotik der Wiener Moderne (Frankfurt am Main, 1987), 152-62. For Strindberg's comments on Geschlecht und Charakter and his highly appreciative obituary of Weininger, see Le Rider, Der Fall, 51-52; 154-155.
27. See the following representative reviews: Halban Josef, in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, xvi (1903), 1282-3; Praetorius Numa, in Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, vi (1904), 525-6; Ostwald Wilhelm, in Annalen der Naturphilosophie, iii (1904), 342-3; Möbius P. J., in Schmidt's Jahrbücher der in- und ausländischen gesammten Medicin, cclxxix (1903), 213; Kleinwächter Friedrich Jr, in Der Frauenarzt: Monatschefte für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, xix (1904), 266-9; Hensel Paul, in Biologisches Centralblatt, xxv (1905), 588-92; and Ellis Havelock, in Mind, new ser., xvi (1907), 446-7.
28. Jacques Le Rider claims that Geschlecht und Charakter struck the fancy only of philosophers, artists and journalists, a readership, in other words, that did not have the specialized knowledge to judge Weininger's scientific claims. Therefore, Le Rider concludes, Weininger was a pseudoscientist. See Le Rider, Der Fall Otto Weininger (ref. 1), 101, 258. The point, however, is that Weininger was not a scientist at all. And yet, he was so well-acquainted with the biological and medical literature of the day and used them with such sophistication for his own purposes that his arguments cannot be understood fully without bearing in mind their scientific context.
29. On this, see again Foucault, The history of sexuality, i (ref. 4); Davidson, “Sex and the emergence of sexuality” (ref. 4); and Wettley and Leibbrand, Von der “Psychopathia sexualis” (ref. 4).
30. This idea is associated with an ambiguous set of terms. In this paper, I shall use the terms bisexuality and sexual intermediacy interchangeably to denote the idea that every individual human, regardless of actual genital anatomy, simultaneously possesses attributes associated with both males and females, be these attributes anatomical, physiological, psychological, or behavioural. (Thus, hermaphroditism would be a physical variety of bisexuality or sexual intermediacy.) This usage, which is in line with nineteenth-century biomedical conventions, differs from the tendency in our times to use ‘bisexuality’ to signify psychological and/or behavioural manifestations of homo- and heterosexual desire in the same individual and ‘hermaphroditism’ to denote ambiguities in genital anatomy.
31. On the idea of androgyny in mythology and religion, see Von Römer L. S. A. M., “Über die androgynische Idee des Lebens”, Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, v (1903), 707-940. On androgyny in art and literature, see Aurnhammer Achim, Androgynie: Studien zu einem Motiv in der europäischen Literatur (Cologne and Vienna, 1986). Historians of science have devoted relatively little attention to this subject. See, however, the brief treatments in Wettley and Leibbrand, Von der “Psychopathia sexualis” (ref. 4), 70-76; Sulloway, Freud, biologist of the mind (ref. 10), 158-60, 292-6; and Moscucci Ornella, “Hermaphroditism and sex difference: The construction of gender in Victorian England”, in BenjaminMarina,(ed.), Science and sensibility: Gender and scientific enquiry, 1780-1945 (Oxford, 1991), 174-99. Factually rich but essentially self-justifying historical accounts are available in the work of three professional sexologists: Havelock Ellis, Studies in the psychology of sex (2 vols, New York, 1936), i, Pt 4 (Sexual inversion), 310-17; Hirschfeld Magnus, Die Homosexualität des Marines und des Weibes (Berlin, 1914), 197-215; and, most recently, Money John, “Androgyne becomes bisexual in sexological theory: Plato to Freud and neuroscience”, Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, xviii (1990), 392-413.
32. This consensus is reflected in all relevant biological or medical texts of the period that I have seen. See the following selection of technical and popular texts, each a leading work in its field or genre: Gegenbaur Carl, Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie, 2nd edn (Leipzig, 1870), 876; Geddes Patrick and Thomson J. Arthur, The evolution of sex (New York, [1889]), 32-33, 78-79; Weismann August, The germ-plasm: A theory of heredity, translated by Parker W. N. and Rönnfeldt H. (London and New York, 1892), 352; Müller Robert, Sexualbiologie: Vergleichend-entwickelungsgeschichtliche Studien über das Geschlechtsleben des Menschen und der höheren Tiere (Berlin, 1907), 177. See also the concise review of contemporary research in the area by Born Gustav, “Die Entwickelung der Geschlechtsdrüsen”, Ergebnisse der Anatomie und Entwickelungsgeschichte, iv (1894), 592-616. Many of the works used by Weininger (and cited in subsequent references) also participated in the consensus.
33. On hereditarian theories of sex-determination and their early vicissitudes, see Farley John, Gametes and spores: Ideas about sexual reproduction, 1750-1914 (Baltimore, Md, 1982), 218-51; and Maienschein Jane, “What determines sex? A study of converging approaches, 1880-1916”, Isis, lxxv (1984), 457-80, especially pp. 476-80. See also Morgan T. H., “Recent theories in regard to the determination of sex”, Popular science monthly, lxiv (1903), 97-116; and Allen Garland E., “Thomas Hunt Morgan and the problem of sex determination, 1903-1910”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cx (1966), 48-57. On the rediscovery and gradual acceptance of Mendel's ideas, see Bowler Peter J., The Mendelian revolution: The emergence of hereditarian concepts in modern science and society (Baltimore, Md, 1989), 110-27. On the German response to Mendelian genetics, see Harwood Jonathan, “The reception of Morgan's chromosome theory in Germany: Inter-war debate over cytoplasmic inheritance”, Medizinhistorisches Journal, xix (1984), 3-32. The many controversies among Central European biologists regarding sex-determination and sexual development were ably summarized in the very year of publication of Geschlecht und Charakter by v. Lenhossék M., Das Problem der geschlechtsbestimmenden Ursachen (Jena, 1903).
34. Jacques Le Rider ignores this important point while accusing Weininger of relying on outdated theories of sexual development. See Le Rider, Der Fall Otto Weininger (ref. 1), 68.
35. Tiedemann F., Anatomie der kopflosen Missgeburten (Landshut, 1813), 79-88. For biographical information and a selected bibliography, see Kruta Vladislav, “Tiedemann, Friedrich”, in GillispieCharles Coulston,(ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography, xiii (1976), 402-4.
36. This did not necessarily imply a belief in the organic descent of higher organisms (e.g., humans) from the lower. Theories of recapitulation were eminently compatible with belief in a static chain of being and only later did the notion become enshrined within an evolutionary paradigm. See Gould Stephen Jay, Ontogeny and phytogeny (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), 36.
37. On the importance of this research program, see Lenoir Timothy, The strategy of life: Teleology and mechanics in nineteenth century German biology (Dordrecht, 1982), 54-111.
38. Rathke Heinrich, “Beobachtungen und Betrachtungen über die Entwicklung der Geschlechtswerkzeuge bei den Wirbelthieren”, Neueste Schriften der naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Danzig, i (1825), 1-145, pp. 120-1. See also his posthumously published Entwickelungsgeschichte der Wirbelthiere (Leipzig, 1861), 175-6.
39. Müller Johannes, Bildungsgeschichte der Genitalien aus anatomischen Untersuchungen an Embryonen des Menschen und der Thiere (Düsseldorf, 1830), 2, 118-19; Valentin Gabriel Gustav, Handbuch der Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen mit vergleichender Rücksicht der Säugethiere und Vögel (Berlin, 1835), 386-7.
40. Rathke, “Beobachtungen und Betrachtungen” (ref. 42), 127-30.
41. Hertwig Oscar, Lehrbuch der Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen und der Wirbeltiere, 8th edn (Jena, 1906), 460, emphasis added. The 7th (1902) edition was not available to me. My analysis of Hertwig's discourse parallels feminist critiques of contemporary biology, particularly Bleier Ruth, Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women (New York, 1984); and Fausto-Sterling Anne, Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men (New York, 1985).
42. De Beauvoir Simone, The second sex, translated by Parshley H. M. (New York, 1968), pp. xv-xvi. See also Whitbeck Caroline, “Theories of sex difference”, Philosophical forum, v (1973-74), 54-80.
43. Although the word ‘Homosexualität’ was coined in 1869 by the Hungarian man of letters (and physician manqué) Karl Maria Kertbeny (1824-82), it became popular among German-speaking physicians only much later. They usually preferred to use the phrase ‘konträre Sexualempfindung’, often translated into English as ‘antipathic sexuality’ or ‘contrary sexual feeling’. I shall avoid nineteenth-century terminology and use the word ‘homosexuality’ throughout this paper. A comprehensive review of the older terms is available in Ellis Havelock, Studies in the psychology of sex (ref. 34), i, pt 4, 310-17. On Kertbeny and his coinage, see Herzer Manfred, “Kertbeny and the nameless love”, Journal of homosexuality, xii, no. 1 (1985), 1-26; and Féray Jean-Claude and Herzer Manfred, “Homosexual studies and politics in the 19th century: Karl Maria Kertbeny”, translated by Peppel Glen W., Journal of homosexuality, xix, no. 1 (1990), 23-47.
44. The most detailed account of the construction and subsequent revision of the medical model of homosexuality is Sulloway, Freud, biologist of the mind (ref. 10), 277-319. For the cultural context, see Greenberg David F., The construction of homosexuality (Chicago, 1988), 397-433; Chauncey George Jr, “From sexual inversion to homosexuality: The changing medical conceptualization of female ‘deviance”’, in Peiss Kathy Simmons Christina, and Padgug Robert A. (eds), Passion and power: Sexuality in history (Philadelphia, 1989), 87-117; and Halperin David M., “One hundred years of homosexuality”, in his One hundred years of homosexuality and other essays on Greek love (New York, 1990), 15-40.
45. On ‘degeneration’, see Wettley Annemarie, “Zur Problemgeschichte der ‘Dégénérescence”’, Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften, xliii (1959), 193-212; and Pick Daniel, Faces of degeneration: A European disorder, c.1848-c.1918 (Cambridge, 1989), 37-106. For the classic formulation of homosexuality as a manifestation of degeneration, see von Krafft-Ebing Richard, Psychopathia sexualis: A medicoforensic study, anonymous translation, [12th edn] (New York, 1939), 284-5. A detailed review of other degenerationist formulations is available in Moll Albert, Untersuchungen über die Libido sexualis (Berlin, 1897), 646-60.
46. On Krafft-Ebing, see Fuchs Alfred, “Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing”, in KirchhoffTheodor,(ed.), Deutsche Irrenärzte: Einzelbilder ihres Lebens und Wirkens (2 vols, Berlin, 1921-24), ii, 173-83; and Lesky Erna, The Vienna medical school of the 19th century, translated by Williams L. and Levij I. S. (Baltimore, Md, 1976), 341-6. On the importance of his Psychopathia sexualis, see Wettley and Leibbrand, Von der “Psychopathia sexualis” (ref. 4), 55-65.
47. Pausanias had distinguished between two kinds of love associated with two Aphrodites. The “heavenly” Aphrodite was the daughter of Uranus alone and had no mother. She inspired the love of male youths (but not immature boys) by men. The “common” Aphrodite was the daughter of Zeus and Dione — she moved “the meaner sort of men” and the love she inspired did not discriminate between women and youths and preferred “the body rather than the soul”. See Plato, Symposium, in Benjamin Jowett (trans. and ed.), The dialogues of Plato, 4th edn (4 vols, Oxford, 1953), i, 503-55, pp. 512-13. Ulrichs named his homosexual men “Urnings” and his heterosexual men “Dionings”. Evidently, he was creating a dichotomy that is not there in the Platonic conception. Ulrichs's Dioning was exclusively heterosexual and his Urning was far from lacking in physical desire.
48. Kennedy Hubert, Ulrichs: The life and works of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, pioneer of the modern gay movement (Boston, 1988) is the definitive study. See also Ulrichs K. H., “Vier Briefe von Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (Numa Numantius) an seine Verwandten”, Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, i (1899), 36-70, pp. 64-69; Inclusa (1864), 16-25; Memmon (1868), 184; and Formatrix (1865), 62-78. The last three texts (individually paginated) are available in Ulrichs K. H., Forschungen über das Rätsel der mannmännliche Liebe (Leipzig, 1898; repr., New York, 1975). On Krafft-Ebing's relations with Ulrichs, see Kennedy, Ulrichs, 192.
49. Kiernan J. G., “Insanity. Lecture XXVI: Sexual perversion”, Detroit lancet, vii (1884), 481-484.
50. Charles Darwin (1809-82) had argued that on the basis of an examination of the morphology and embryology of vertebrate animals, “some extremely remote progenitor of the whole vertebrate kingdom appears to have been hermaphrodite or androgynous”. See Darwin C., The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (2 vols in 1, London, 1871; repr., Princeton, NJ, 1981), i, 213. Haeckel Ernst (1834-1919), a vigorous advocate of evolutionary biology in Germany, pointed out that hermaphroditism continued to be the norm in present-day lower animals and, therefore, it was highly probable that the primordial, invertebrate ancestors of the human species had been hermaphroditic too. The fact that early human embryos were potentially bisexual made Haeckel's idea fit perfectly with his own “Biogenetic Law” which claimed that the development of the individual embryo recapitulated the evolutionary lineage of the species. See Haeckel E., The evolution of man: A popular exposition of the principal points of human ontogeny and phylogeny, anonymous translation (2 vols, New York, 1879), ii, 395. See also his “Gonochorismus und Hermaphrodismus: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von den Geschlechts-Umwandlungen (Metaptosen)”, Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, xiii (1913), 259-87, especially p. 287.
51. Kiernan, “Insanity. Lecture XXVI” (ref. 53), 481.
52. Lydston G. F., “A lecture on sexual perversion, satyriasis and nymphomania”, in his Addresses and essays, 2nd edn (Louisville, Kentucky, 1892), 243-64, p. 247.
53. Chevalier Julien, Une Maladie de la personnalité: L'Inversion sexuelle (Lyon and Paris, 1893), 409-11.
54. Von Krafft-Ebing Richard, “Zur Erklärung der conträren Sexualempfindung”, Jahrbücher für Psychiatrie und Neurologie, xiii (1895), 1-16. He had not yet jettisoned his belief that degeneration was the ultimate cause of sexual perversions. At this point, he accepted the ‘bisexual’ hypothesis merely as a causal mechanism. The error that triggered off the development of the latent sexual germ was itself caused by degeneration. However, one year before his death, Krafft-Ebing affirmed that degeneration or disease had no necessary etiological connection with homosexuality which was simply a congenital developmental anomaly. See Krafft-Ebing, “Neue Studien auf dem Gebiete der Homosexualität”, Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, iii (1901), 1-36, pp. 5-7.
55. Hirschfeld Magnus, “Die objektive Diagnose der Homosexualität”, Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, i (1899), 4-35; and Ellis Havelock [and J. A. Symonds], Das konträre Geschlechtsgefühl, translated by Kurella Hans (Leipzig, 1896). Interestingly, the English original of the last text became available only after the German translation. See Grosskurth Phyllis, Havelock Ellis: A biography (New York, 1980), 471.
56. On the movement, see Steakley James D., The homosexual emancipation movement in Germany (New York 1975). For specific information on Hirschfeld's involvement, see Wolff Charlotte, Magnus Hirschfeld: A portrait of a pioneer in sexology (London, 1986); and Fout John C., “Sexual politics in Wilhelmine Germany: The male gender crisis, moral purity, and homophobia”, Journal of the history of sexuality, ii (1992), 388-421. For the biological convictions of the liberationists, see Schmidt Gunter, “Allies and persecutors: Science and medicine in the homosexuality issue”, Journal of homosexuality, x, nos 3-4 (1984), 127-40.
57. See the “Petition an die gesetzgebenden Körperschaften des deutschen Reiches behufs Abänderung des §175 des R.-Str.-G.B. und die sich daran anschliessenden Reichstags-Verhandlungen”, composed by Hirschfeld, signed by the members and numerous sympathizers of the Comitée, and published in Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, i (1899), 239-66.
58. In 1907, the Comitée split into two factions. The splinter group, called the “Sezession des Wissenschaftlich-humanitären Comitées” and led by the biologist Benedict Friedländer, described the ‘anomaly’ argument as “a non-masculine way to effect the abolition of the law which hangs over our heads”. Friedländer and his associates saw homosexuality as the ideal masculine way of life. See Schmidt, “Allies and persecutors” (ref. 60), 131-2.
59. See Wolff, Magnus Hirschfeld (ref. 60), 227-8.
60. Hirschfeld, “Die objektive Diagnose der Homosexualität” (ref. 59).
61. Hirschfeld did not depart from the theoretical perspective of his 1899 article even in the encyclopaedic Die Homosexualität des Marines und des Weibes (ref. 34), published eleven years after Weininger's suicide. A detailed analysis of Hirschfeld's theories is available in Seidel Ralf, Sexologie als positive Wissenschaft und sozialer Anspruch: Zur Sexualmorphologie von Magnus Hirschfeld (Inaugural-Dissertation, University of Munich, 1969), 72-76, 84-118.
62. Hirschfeld, “Die objektive Diagnose der Homosexualität” (ref. 59), 8-9.
63. See Von Schrenck-Notzing Albert, The use of hypnosis in psychopathia sexualis with especial reference to contrary sexual instinct, translated by Chaddock C. G. (New York, 1956). This is a reprint of the 1895 edition.
64. See Borell Merriley, “Brown-Séquard's organotherapy and its appearance in America at the end of the nineteenth century”, Bulletin of the history of medicine, 1 (1976), 309-20; idem, “Organotherapy and the emergence of reproductive endocrinology”, Journal of the history of biology, xviii (1985), 1-30. On the identification of Sequardine as the agent used by Weininger, see Rodlauer, Otto Weininger, Eros und Psyche (ref. 7), 72.
65. On Eugen Steinach, see his intellectual autobiography, Sex and life: Forty years of biological and medical experiments, anonymous translation (New York, 1940). For those of Steinach's animal experiments felt to be relevant to human homosexuality, see Hirschfeld Magnus, “Die Untersuchungen und Forschungen von Professor E. Steinach über künstliche Vermännlichung, Verweiblichung und Hermaphrodisierung”, Vierteljahresberichte des Wissenschaftlich-humanitären Comitées/Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, xvii (1917), 3-21. For the account of the first castration/implantation operation on a homosexual, see Steinach E. and Lichtenstern R., “Umstimmung der Homosexualität durch Austausch der Pubertätsdrüsen”, Münchener medizinische Wochenschrift, lxv (1918), 145-8.
66. See Schmidt, “Allies and persecutors” (ref. 60).
67. Hirschfeld M., “Operative Behandlung der Homosexualität”, Vierteljahresberichte des Wissenschaftlich-humanitären Comitées/Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, xvii (1917), 189-90.
68. See Hirschfeld's preface to Die Homosexualität des Marines und des Weibes, 2nd edn (Berlin, 1920), p. xiv. On Steinach's histological research, see Steinach E., “Histologische Beschaffenheit der Keimdrüse bei homosexuellen Männern”, Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen, xlvi (1920), 29-37. His claims were rejected by other researchers: See Mühsam Richard, “Über die Beeinflussung des Geschlechtlebens durch freie Hodenüberpflanzung”, Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift, xlvi (1920), 823-5.