Patriarchal Government.—Ecclesiastical Legislation.—Trade Guilds.—Enactments in 1700.—Inquiry in 1717.—Enactment in 1792.—Police Order, 1795.—Census.—Increase of illicit Prostitution.—Syphilis.—Census of 1808.—Ministerial Rescript and Police Report, 1809.—Tolerated Brothels closed.—Re-enactment of the Code of 1792.—Ministerial Rescript of 1839.—Removal of Brothels.—Petitions.—Ministerial Reply.—Police Report, 1844.—Brothels closed by royal Command.—Police Embarrassment, and Correspondence with Halle and Cologne.—Local Opinions.—Public Life in Berlin.—Dancing Saloons.—Drinking Houses.—Immorality.—Increase of Syphilis.—Statistics.—Illegitimacy.—Royal Edict of 1851.—Recent Regulations.
Among the warlike Germans in the days of Herminius, sexual intercourse was looked upon as enervating to youth, and discreditable or even disgraceful to men until their valor had been proved by deeds of arms, and their experience authorized them to assume the duties of husbands and fathers.
In the Middle Ages, when the legislative and executive functions were vested in one individual, and the rights and obligations of the governing power were of a paternal or patriarchal character, we find much of their law-giving directed to the preservation of morality, the repression of extravagance, and the minute regulation of public economy. In their edicts against prostitution this paternal spirit was visible, in conjunction with what may be considered a due regard to the rights and interests of the law-givers, the punishments being professedly directed against a breach of morality or a public scandal, because it was a disgrace to families, and a peril to husbands and fathers, rather than a vice in itself. The provisions tacitly sanctioned its existence; and while they severely punished any invasion of domestic peace or infraction of marital rights, it seems to be conceded that, when no such relationships were involved, illicit intercourse was regarded as an allowable solace or an actual necessity for the physical requirements of unmarried men.
We learn from the German historian Fiducin (“Diplomatischen Beitrage zur Geschichte der Stadt Berlin”), that the German laws rendered it obligatory on every honorable man to espouse a virtuous maiden, and the term “hurenkind” (illegitimate child) was the bitterest form of reproach. The early statutes were very severe in the punishment of immodest females, and some carried this principle so far as to require that a woman who led an unchaste life in her father’s house should be burned at the stake. The ecclesiastical legislation moderated this severity, and crimes against morality became sins which were expiated by public penance. The citizens of Berlin became convinced that the penances of the Church were not sufficiently potent to counteract the evil, the morals of the clergy themselves being frequently impeached, and secular government was suggested in place of ecclesiastical. This seemed especially necessary, because the canon law, which ordained the celibacy of the priesthood, pronounced it to be a work of mercy to marry an erring woman, in opposition to the Berlin sheriff law (schoffen recht) declaring the children of such marriages illegitimate; and persons were not wanting who held the opinion that the work of mercy recommended by the Church was at times advocated by the clergy as a means of covering their own frailties.
The same writer records instances as late as the close of the sixteenth century in which adultery was punished by death, the offenders in each case being married persons. He also cites the records of the fourteenth century to show that the same punishment was inflicted on those who acted as procurers or procuresses, wherever family honor was encroached on.
In the sixteenth century the law required that an immodest woman belonging to any reputable family should be publicly shorn of her hair, and condemned to wear a linen veil; nor was any distinction made between unmarried women and widows against whom the offense was proved.
About the same period the trade guilds enacted stringent laws prohibiting the admission of improper characters to their public festivals, and restraining their members from marrying women of that class. To attain this end, any master tradesman who designed to marry was compelled to introduce his intended bride at a meeting of the company, that all might be convinced of her discreet character and conduct, and any who married without observing this requirement were expelled the association. The guilds inflicted the same penalties on any of their members who had intercourse with improper characters, or who seduced a virtuous woman and subsequently married her.
A certain recognition of the existence of public women may be traced throughout these regulations, which appear to have admitted the necessity from regard to the rigorously enforced sanctity of the domestic circle, but, at the same time, endeavored to prevent the increase of immorality by attaching odium to its followers.
Again, turning to the pages of Fiducin, we find that, “in all the great towns of the German Empire, the public protection of women of pleasure (lust dirnen) seems to have been a regular thing,” in proof of which he says, “Did a creditor, in taking proceedings against his debtor, find it necessary to put up at an inn, one of the allowed items of his expenditure was a reasonable sum for the company of a woman during his stay (frauen geld).” This was a question of state etiquette in Berlin in 1410, a sum having been officially expended in that year to retain some handsome women to grace a public festival and banquet given to a distinguished guest, Diedrich V. Quitzow, whose good-will the citizens desired to cultivate.
During this period of toleration the expediency of controlling public women was unquestioned; but the first Berlin enactment of material importance to this investigation bears date in 1700, and is remarkable as clearly enunciating the principles which have been adhered to, with only a short interval, ever since. The first section declares, “By law this traffic is decidedly not permitted (erlaubt), but simply tolerated (geduldet) as a necessary evil.”