PRUSSIA.

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.”

Sections 2, 3, and 4 require the keeper of any house of prostitution to give notice to the commissary of the quarter when any of his women leave him, or when he receives a new one, and restrain him from keeping more women than are specified in his contract.

Sections 5 to 9 provide that a surgeon shall visit every woman once a fortnight, “for the purpose of protecting the health of revelers (schwarmer), as well as that of the women themselves;” that every woman shall pay him two groschen for each visit; and that, upon observing the slightest signs of disease, the surgeon shall require the housekeeper to detain the woman in her room. If the keeper neglect this order, he is made responsible for the entire costs of the illness which any visitor could prove was contracted from one of his women. If the surgeon finds the woman already so far infected that she can not be cured by cleanliness and retirement alone, he is authorized to order her removal to the CharitÉ, “where she will be taken care of in the pavilion free of charge.”

Sections 10 and 11 provide that the debts of a woman must be paid before she can remove from one house of prostitution to another, or before she can leave one house to commence another on her own account.

Section 12 enjoins that any woman who desires to quit her mode of life altogether shall be entirely discharged from any debts to the housekeeper.

The last section requires every housekeeper who has music to pay six groschen a year for the permit to his musicians, the money to be applied to the benefit of the poor-house.

The “toleration but not authorization” clause is the noticeable feature in these regulations, and indicates the policy which was then generally adopted throughout the kingdom.

In reference to the period succeeding the issue of these rules, which continued in force till 1792, we find some information in the pages of Fiducin. Thus, in 1717, an inquiry proved that the inmates of brothels, and also the secret prostitutes, were mostly the children of soldiers, who “had been brought to vice as a trade, either from the want of a proper bringing up or of a skillful handicraft.”... All measures for the extermination of the evil having been found ineffectual, “they were obliged to adopt the system of a larger toleration of common brothels, to be strictly watched over by the police, as a necessary outlet for the tendency to immorality.” The number of houses of ill fame increased in proportion to the population, the influx of strangers, and the additions to the garrison made under Frederick II.; and still more so after the close of the seven years’ war. In the year 1780, there were one hundred such houses in Berlin, each containing eight or nine women. They were divided into three classes; the lowest were those in which the women dressed in plain clothes, and were frequented mostly by Hamburg or Amsterdam mariners; the second class of women paraded themselves with painted faces, haunted the more retired corners of the town, had little attractive about their persons or dress, and were principally visited by mechanics and laborers; the third, and apparently the most select of the kind, was a description of coffee-house, frequented by females, who were designated “Mamselles:” these did not live in the houses, but used them merely as a convenient rendezvous.

In 1792 a new code of regulations appeared, the bulk of which continued in force in Berlin and other towns for many years. The rules of 1700 were too vague, made no provision for a variety of cases likely to arise, and were silent as to the question of private prostitution. Many inconveniences had arisen from these omissions, and, in consequence, a memorial was addressed to the government by the police director, Von Eisenhardt, containing suggestions for amendments to the law.

The preamble of the royal reply to this application acknowledges the attention of the police to the matter with much satisfaction; admits prostitution (hurenanstalten) to be “a necessary evil in a great city where many men are not in a position to marry, although of an age when the sexual instincts are at the highest, in order thereby to avoid greater disorders which are not to be restrained by any law or authority, and which take their rise from an inextinguishable natural impulse;” but expressly reiterates that it is “only to be tolerated (zu dulden);” and that it can not, “without impropriety and consequences injurious to morality, be established by the public laws, which do not contain any sanction whatever to common prostitution.”

The sections following this preamble provide that any one who seduces a woman, or induces her to carry on a venal traffic with her person, shall be liable to one year’s imprisonment in the House of Correction, and on repetition of the offense, besides doubling the punishment, shall be whipped and driven from the country; declare any man or woman who communicates the venereal disease liable for the expenses of the cure and incidental damages (sonstigen interesse), together with imprisonment for three months, commutable by paying a fine of one hundred dollars; prohibit taking young women from the country into houses of prostitution by any device against their will, and authorize the punishment of any man who willfully infects a common woman.

In reference to the special directions touching brothels and prostitutes, the document provides, “as a leading point, that every thing which exceeds the mere gratification of the natural passions, and tends to the advancement of debauchery, or the misuse of our toleration of a necessary evil, must be prevented;” and accordingly the women are prohibited from increasing their attractions “by painting or distinguishing attire,” and also from soliciting passengers in the public streets, or at the doors or windows of their houses, “as this is not only in contravention to public morals, but especially perilous to male youth; and such means of increasing the gains of people seeking their livelihood in this manner is not to be tolerated.” For similar reasons, the keepers of houses were restrained from offering wines or other strong drinks to their visitors, although it is admitted “they can not be prevented from providing refreshments,” yet stimulants are forbidden, “because they are great inducements to debauchery, whereby other excesses may be caused.”

The orders farther provide that no woman shall become a resident in a house of prostitution without previously appearing before the police, and obtaining permission from them; and the police are directed not to allow this permission to any female under age, unless they are satisfied that she has previously made a trade of prostitution. The section containing this stipulation is prefaced by a statement that “keepers of these houses seek especially to obtain blooming young girls, who can not be procured without infamous seduction, calculated to lead to debauchery.”

In reference to precautions against infection, it provides that the prostitutes and keepers of houses shall be instructed by some competent surgeon in the signs of venereal diseases, so that they may detect it in their visitors or themselves; also that any man communicating infection to a prostitute may be sentenced to make ample compensation if the woman can identify him; and farther, that the punishment inflicted upon girls infecting their visitors shall also be inflicted on the housekeepers, “as, although they may be innocent, their being included in the punishment for an incident of their trade is for the general weal.” All fines received were to accrue to the medical institutions provided for the cure of syphilis.

Again, it was deemed that “the venereal disease was much extended by common street-walkers,” and no women but such as resided in the known houses, where medical visits of inspection were constantly paid, were to be tolerated, and the night-watch were instructed to arrest those common women who were in the habit of plying their trade in the streets after dark—a portion of the penalty exacted being awarded to the officers who made such arrests, “to encourage their zeal.” But they were strictly cautioned against annoying innocent persons, “inasmuch as blunders in such matters create ill impressions against the authorities, and because the honor and happiness of the person might be irretrievably injured, so that it would be better to pass over a guilty person here and there, than to inculpate a single innocent one.” The royal rescript concludes by directing that a strict surveillance be kept over the females of the garrison, many of whom are stated, in very plain language, to be of improper character.

These directions were subsequently embodied in the general statute, or law of the land (landrecht), and upon that the police regulations which we quote hereafter were based.

The statute formally declares procurers and procuresses liable to imprisonment for from six months to three years in the House of Correction, with “a welcome and farewell;” Anglice, a sound whipping when admitted, and another when discharged. In the cases of parents or guardians who may aid in or connive at the prostitution of their children or wards, the term of imprisonment is doubled, and made more severe. It requires all common women to reside in the tolerated houses “under the eye of the state,” which houses are only to be permitted in populous cities, and “not elsewhere than in retired and back streets therein, the consent of the police authorities having been first obtained.” And in any case where a house of prostitution was established without this consent, or in defiance of the public orders, the keeper was to be liable to one or two years’ imprisonment. The police are strictly commanded to keep all tolerated houses under strict and constant surveillance; to make frequent visits in company with medical men, so as to check the progress of venereal disease; to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors therein; to see that no woman was introduced without the knowledge and permission of the authorities, under a fine of fifty thalers, for each offense; and, more especially, that no innocent female was, by force or deceit, compelled or induced to live therein; which latter offense imposes “a public exhibition,” in the stocks or pillory, we presume, and from six to ten years’ imprisonment, with “welcome and farewell,” on the keeper, who was not to be allowed to keep such a house again under any circumstances.

The police are farther enjoined to see that the mistress of the house informs the authorities of the pregnancy of any woman residing in the house as soon as she is aware of it herself, but if it is concealed she (the mistress) is liable to imprisonment, especially if a secret birth takes place. The mistress is required to take charge of any woman who becomes pregnant, if there is no public institution to which she can be removed, and is at liberty to seek compensation from the father of the child, or, if he can not be found, she has a claim upon the mother. The child must be removed from the house as soon as it is weaned, and is to be cared for at the public cost if the parents have not means to do so.

If the keeper of the house, or the inmates themselves, conceal any venereal infection from the knowledge of the police, they render themselves liable to imprisonment from three months to a year, with “welcome and farewell.”

If thefts, assaults, or other offenses occur in such houses, the keeper is, in all cases, liable to the injured party, who can not in any other way obtain his indemnity, and is also suspected of complicity in the offense so long as the contrary can not be substantiated; and if it is proved that he did not exert all his power to prevent such occurrences, his neglect is to be punished by fine or imprisonment.

No woman desirous of leaving a tolerated house to change her mode of life, and support herself honestly, can be retained against her inclination, and no difficulties may be thrown in the way of her doing so; nor will the master be allowed to force her to remain, even though she may be in his debt, under the penalty of the loss of his permission from the police.

Prostitutes who do not conform to the regulations and place themselves under supervision, are to be arrested and imprisoned for three months, and, when their term of imprisonment has expired, are to be sent to the “work-houses,” and detained there until they have inclination and opportunity for honorable employment. Any females, not being inmates of the tolerated houses, who had intercourse while suffering from disease, and thereby infected men, are declared liable to an imprisonment for three months.

This comprehensive legal enactment left many matters of detail to the discretion of the police, and accordingly they issued their rules. The opposition these subsequently encountered makes them important in the history of Prostitution in Berlin, and although they are in many points a mere repetition of the terms of the statute, we give them in extenso. They are entitled,

The royal rescript, the statute, and the police ordinance of 1792 are founded upon the principle that prostitution is a necessary evil, which, if unregulated, tends to demoralize all society, and inflict physical suffering on its votaries; but, as it can never be suppressed, it is tolerated in order that those who practice it may be brought under supervision and control. In furtherance of this idea, another police order was promulgated in 1795, prohibiting music and dancing at the tolerated houses, and limiting the resort of prostitutes to public places of amusement. The immediate effect of this measure was to close several coffee-houses served by women (mÄdchen tabagieen). At the same time, the women were classified into first, second, and third classes, and the monthly tax graduated to one thaler (sixty-eight cents), two thirds of a thaler, and one third of a thaler, which was appropriated to the healing fund, as directed by the regulations of 1792. This impost was doubled at a subsequent period in consequence of public calamities.

To enforce the police directions and collect the tax, a census of the public prostitutes in Berlin was taken in June, 1792, when they amounted to 311. The toleration was withdrawn from some of these for various reasons, and the numbers were, in

in a population of 150,000.

In the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the police of Berlin, as in most other cities of Continental Europe, they found it necessary to extend their toleration so as to include in their supervision those private prostitutes who could not be permitted to reside in the tolerated houses because they had not reached the age prescribed by law, which in Prussia fixes majority at twenty-four years; and also another class who were secretly visited at private lodgings by those wealthy libertines whose pride would not allow them to enter a common brothel, and whose amours consequently exposed them to liabilities which the spirit of the law justified the police in encountering. The persons (mostly widows) with whom the private prostitutes resided were made answerable to the police, and subjected to the same rules as the tolerated houses.

Under the new scale of impost there were, in 1796,

About this period, an epoch of general political movement, men of the highest rank in Prussia began to doubt the propriety of tolerating prostitution, and orders were given, in opposition to the remonstrances of the police, to take measures which would effectually compel brothel-keepers to close their houses. This appears to have been the first positive attempt at absolute repression, and the police intimated that illicit prostitution would be its inevitable result. In reply, they were directed that, if their prediction should be verified, they must pursue the vice more closely. In 1800 the number of registered women had decreased to 246, but it was notorious that illicit prostitution had increased largely. This fact was not denied by the police. They ascribed it, very justly, to the restrictions imposed on the tolerated houses, which were now actually less than ever, at a time when the resident population of Berlin was twenty thousand more than at the last computation, exclusive of a large influx of troops and foreigners. They were not supported in their views, but were ordered, on the ground of extensive disease among the soldiery, to “crush out” the illicit prostitution, and this order they vainly endeavored to accomplish. An inquiry into the comparative state of the venereal disease was directed at the same time, and the state physician reported that there was less disease among registered than illicit prostitutes, and inferred that a diminution of tolerated, but strictly guarded regular brothels, was not for the public benefit.

The year 1808, when the French army overran Europe, was a period of general war and trouble; the police regulations fell into abeyance, and prostitution became comparatively free and uncontrolled. The French military commanders in Berlin made complaints to the police of the lawless state of the town, particularly specifying some of the brothels, which had become nests of gamblers, wherein robbery, duels, suicides, and other offenses were of frequent occurrence. The results of an inspection were as follows:

There were also seventy dance-houses, which were known as places of accommodation. The population at this time was about 150,000. The figures thus given, from an official enumeration, are the best practical commentary upon the effects of the abandonment of a tried system of surveillance.The state of affairs disclosed by this inquiry called forth a ministerial rescript, dated May 8, 1809, which we copy:

“The brothel-houses are, by reason of the great influence they have on morality and health, a very important branch of police administration. We should desire to be satisfied whether it is more desirable to suppress or tolerate them. In any case, it is, however, improper and injurious to license them, and thus to give them a certain sanction; still less can they be tolerated in public neighborhoods of a city. It is rather to be desired that, upon every convenient and properly occurring opportunity, they should be stamped with the well-merited brand of the deepest depravity and infamy. We have therefore commanded the Police Directory to effect the removal of all such houses into quiet, retired streets of the suburbs and liberties, and we direct you to take into consideration whether a like regulation can not be accomplished here in the city of Berlin; whereupon you will make to us a well-considered report. You are also to take into consideration what can be done to brand such places with the deepest depravity and infamy.”