Psychopathia sexualis: With especial reference to contrary sexual instinct / A medico-legal study

by R. von Krafft-Ebing

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 served 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 the 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.