Eulenburg’s appearance was, in fact, the most startling development in the trial, especially since the two men—Bülow and Eulenburg—were barely on speaking terms. Called as a character witness, Eulenburg swore under oath that Bülow was innocent of Brand’s allegations. He was unable to resist the temptation to clear his own name, moreover, and stated as well that he himself had never engaged in any homosexual “depravities” (Schmutzereien).38 In a lengthy statement, Eulenburg also explained his view of male-male friendship:
Concerning the theories that we have heard before from Dr. Hirschfeld, I must comment. All the fine nuances that he has constructed in his system result ultimately in the reality that no person can any longer feel secure not to be viewed as homosexual. I have been an enthusiastic friend in my youth and am proud of having had such good friends! Had I known that after 25–30 years a man would come forward and develop such a system according to which such potential filth in every friendship lurked, I would have truly forsaken the search for friends. The best that we Germans have is friendship, and friendship has always been honored! I have written letters that overwhelm with friendly emotions, and I will not reproach myself for that. As examples we have the letters of our great heroes, such as Goethe, etc., which are also effusive. I have written such letters myself, but they did not contain anything evil, bad, or filthy!39
If Eulenburg’s expansive defense of “friendship” was ill-advised, his categorical denial of ever having engaged in any homosexual acts turned out to be a fatal misstep. By denying any form of same-sex erotic contact, Eulenburg’s claim made the precise sexual acts prohibited by Paragraph 175 irrelevant. His testimony ultimately made him vulnerable to the charge of perjury. Harden and his Munich-based lawyer, Max Bern-stein, recognized their opening immediately, and began vetting plans for how they might exploit it. The challenge now was to locate any sexual partners or even witnesses who would attest under oath that Eulenburg had at some point in his life participated in a homosexual act. The prince’s sworn denials had lowered the bar, and made Harden’s work that much easier.40
Before continuing the campaign against Eulenburg, Harden faced trial a second time for libeling Moltke. The proceeding began on December 16, 1907, and ended January 3 with Harden’s defeat. This time Moltke and his lawyers, with the help of their own expert witnesses, were able to undermine the testimony of Lilly von Elbe by depicting her as an unstable hysteric. Once Moltke’s ex-wife had been discredited, the reliability of Hirschfeld’s assessment was called into question. Additionally, the sexologist withdrew his earlier diagnosis of “unconscious homosexuality,” possibly due to blackmail and the threat of the revelation of some sexual misdeed.41 But even now Harden and Bernstein continued to lay a trap for Eulenburg. Called as a character witness, Eulenburg swore yet again that he had “never engaged in any depravities.” Upon cross-examination, Bernstein pressed the prince to clarify what he meant and asked for a “precise answer.” When Eulenburg balked, Bernstein demanded to know if that included “mutual masturbation,” which was technically not a crime under Paragraph 175. Eulenburg finally responded by asking Bernstein, in turn, if he himself did not understand that as a depravity. Although Harden was convicted, Bernstein was able to provoke Eulenburg to swear under oath—now for the second time—that he had never engaged in any homosexual practices. Harden received a prison sentence of four months, which he appealed immediately to the imperial court in Leipzig.
It appeared that Harden’s attempt had failed, at least for the time being, and that Moltke and Eulenburg both would be spared public disgrace. The Kaiser was jubilant and at the beginning of 1908 prepared for the full rehabilitation of his friends. There was significant collateral damage, however. During the first Moltke-Harden trial, several soldiers, stationed in Potsdam, gave sensational accounts of homosexual orgies and even rape, which took place in an officer’s villa located next door to Moltke’s rented apartment. Moltke was never implicated in these sexual crimes, though the investigation of his alleged homosexuality exposed a startling characteristic of the Prussian officer corps. On January 22, military officials opened a court martial against Count Johannes von Lynar, a Prussian general, and the Lieutenant Count Wilhelm von Hohenau. Conducted in the military barracks in Moabit, the trial hall was filled with military figures in uniform as well as former retired officers in civilian garb. “One sees the profile of Count Hohenau,” according to one newspaper report, “with a massive, projecting brow…no sign of a weak, feminine element.”42 Among the thirty-seven witnesses were many soldiers: “The crowd included many sons of Mars,” according to one reporter, and “the scene is practically a parade ground.”43 The most important witness, Johannes Bollhardt, repeated his accusation from the first Harden-Moltke trial that Hohenau had raped him anally as Count Lynar looked on.44 This and many other accusations were ultimately discounted, and Hohenau was acquitted. Some six months later, however, Hohenau was stripped of his title and suspended from service by a military honor court, though allowed ultimately to keep his pension. Lynar fared worse and was given a fifteen-month prison sentence for the abuse of his authority and office and for dishonoring subordinates with inappropriate touching.45
In the meantime, Harden and Bernstein hired a private detective, who hunted for witnesses who could testify to having had sex with Eulenburg. This effort netted the Bavarian fisherman Georg Riedel, who had made Eulenburg’s acquaintance many years earlier at a spa resort at Starnberg Lake in southwestern Germany, where Eulenburg had regularly vacationed in the 1880s. Eulenburg not only befriended Riedel but eventually hired the young man to serve as his valet, a position he held for nearly five years. During this period the two were allegedly inseparable, not only in Starnberg but also on Eulenburg’s Liebenberg estate in Brandenburg. Although reluctant to come forward, Riedel was protected by the statute of limitations since the presumed homosexual acts had happened decades earlier. A second, though less credible, witness, Jakob Ernst, a day laborer with a record for petty theft, came forward about the same time after recognizing Eulenburg’s photo in a Bavarian newspaper.46
Harden’s challenge now was to find a sympathetic court in which to present Riedel’s and Ernst’s sworn testimony that they had had sexual contact with Eulenburg. Together Harden and Bernstein devised a brilliant strategy. They enlisted a friend, the editor of the Bavarian Neue Freie Volkszeitung, Anton Städele, to publish a story claiming that Eulenburg had bribed Harden for one million marks to suppress evidence of his homosexuality—meaning, in effect, that Eulenburg was able to buy off his tormentor Harden. In response to the article, Harden sued Städele for libel. This time the trial was held in a Munich court, in the kingdom of Bavaria, out of reach of the Prussian authorities. Ernst and especially Riedel were perfect witnesses: both were reluctant to testify, but, when pressured by Bernstein, they performed with great credibility. Neither had any apparent ulterior motive, and the statute of limitations shielded them from self-incrimination. On April 21, 1908, Harden and Bernstein were able to prove Eulenburg’s homosexual activity based on the sworn testimony of the two star informants. The Munich court was convinced, and Harden won the staged libel trial. Städele was fined for spreading untruths; Harden then reimbursed him for his trouble.47
The Munich verdict had dire consequences for Eulenburg. Suspected now of having perjured himself—not once but twice—the prince was immediately subjected to the scrutiny of Prussian officials. On April 30 three police investigators, including Commissioner Tresckow, a forensic physician, and the director of the Berlin State Court, arrived unannounced at the Liebenberg estate, where they questioned Eulenburg into the evening. Eulenburg denied all charges, and even gave Tresckow his “word of honor as a Prussian Prince” that he had never engaged in any homosexual act. (Tresckow reported later that he had never met a bigger liar.)48 At the beginning of May the Berlin State Court began preliminary investigations that included a formal discovery. On May 7 court officials brought the star witnesses from the Munich trial, the
Bavarians Ernst and Riedel, and staged a direct confrontation with the defendant. This was Eulenburg’s final opportunity to exonerate himself before formal charges would be filed. Unable to persuade either man to recant his Munich testimony, Eulenburg was arrested the following day. Although his doctor claimed he was too ill to travel, Eulenburg was deemed a flight risk. The court pressured the police to secure the alleged perjurer, even if medical care were required while in custody. As a result, Eulenburg was taken into custody and then transported to the Charité Hospital in Berlin.49 This resulted in Eulenburg’s ultimate alienation from the Kaiser’s court, and on May 22 he returned his many decorations, including the one conferred most recently for the Order of the Black Eagle.50
A second, more comprehensive search of the Liebenberg castle was conducted the week after Eulenburg’s arrest, turning up a packet of books from the Max Spohr Verlag. The titles were all produced by or related to the SHC and the homosexual rights movement. As one press report commented, “This literature is used almost exclusively by medical doctors or others with a personal interest.”51 On the packet was the name Count Edgar Wedel, Eulenburg’s old friend and an imperial court official, who denied to the police having owned the books or even knowing what the Max Spohr Verlag was. At trial Eulenburg admitted writing Wedel’s name on the packet, adding callously that it would not have harmed Wedel since he was a bachelor anyway. Eulenburg also mentioned that the books had been sent to the house—he had not ordered them himself. For poor Wedel, the unfortunate association with Eulenburg (coupled with Eulenburg’s mendacity) cost him his position and career at court. The Kaiser was reported to have said, “Think of it, our Edgar is also such a swine.”52
The perjury trial commenced on June 29, attended by Kuno von Moltke, Adolf Brand, and Magnus Hirschfeld, as well as dozens of domestic and foreign journalists. Some sixty witnesses were called, many of whom were forced to travel from Bavaria to Berlin for the proceedings. At the outset, Eulenburg maintained his innocence, though he tempered his earlier claim with an important qualification. As Eulenburg now explained, he had never engaged in any “punishable depravities,” referring, of course, to the specific sex acts of oral or anal copulation forbidden by Paragraph 175. This was truthful, perhaps, but no longer relevant, since the violation of Paragraph 175 was not the charge that Eulenburg faced. Accused of perjury, Eulenburg was now proven guilty, and of witness tampering as well. Even before the Munich trial, Eulenburg had sent a former factotum and confidante, Georg Kistler, to convince Riedel to avoid mentioning any inappropriate contact, including mutual masturbation. Foolishly, Eulenburg had committed these instructions to writing, and his letter was found in Riedel’s possession during discovery. His exact formulation was that “[e]verything [that happened] is beyond the statute of limitations.”53
Additional witnesses who had not been summoned in Munich gave statements that suggested an extended pattern of behavior, discounting the claim that Eulenburg had merely engaged in youthful indiscretions and confirming and complementing Riedel’s original testimony. The ship steward Karl Trost, who was posted to the imperial yacht Hohenzollern from 1896 to 1899, recounted the personal questions posed to him by Eulenburg: Did he have a girlfriend? Did he or other members of the crew visit bordellos? Did he masturbate, and if so, with other members of the crew? Other young men reported similarly inappropriate advances. Franz Dandl, who had worked as a servant in Starnberg, claimed that Eulenburg had placed an arm around his shoulder and then grabbed his thigh while praising him as a “slender beauty.” A blue-collar worker in Munich, Nepomuk Schömmer, claimed to have observed Eulenburg through the keyhole of a Munich hotel engaged in sex with another man.54
As the days passed, and the list of witnesses lengthened, Eulenburg’s health appeared to worsen. On July 13 he collapsed in the courtroom, and his doctor claimed the next day that he was now too weak to be transported from Charité. At this point court officials began to convene hearings in Eulenburg’s hospital room. Finally, on the seventeenth, the proceedings were prorogued, pending some improvement in his health. In September the prince was allowed to return to his Liebenberg home after posting a bail of 100,000 marks.55
The third and final Moltke-Harden trial took place on April 20, 1909, and ended the same day with a verdict against Harden, who was ordered to pay a fine of six hundred marks plus the court costs for all three trials, a sum amounting to forty thousand marks. Harden appealed, naturally. But by this time everyone involved, including Moltke, felt that the trials should end. After significant negotiation among Harden, Chancellor Bülow, Moltke, the industrial magnate Walther Rathenau, and the Hamburg shipping baron Albert Ballin, a settlement was reached. Moltke was required to recognize Harden’s patriotic motives in writing the articles and withdrew his original suit. In turn, Harden withdrew his appeal. Ballin agreed to pay Harden’s fines and costs, and was reimbursed discreetly from a fund administered by the imperial government.56
On July 7, 1909, the second and last Eulenburg trial began and ended like the first, with Eulenburg’s collapse. Until 1919 Eulenburg was examined biannually by court doctors, who always found him too ill to stand trial. For the rest of his life (until 1920)—a long one, indeed, considering his apparently perilously poor health—Eulenburg was effectively exiled. Every year some court-appointed forensic physician visited the prince to determine whether his physical condition might allow a resumption of the trial.57
The impact of the Eulenburg scandal extended far beyond the borders of the German Empire. And it was likely French journalists and their readers who drew the greatest pleasure from Prussia’s pink peccadilloes. Even before the Eulenburg affair appeared on the front pages of Europe’s dailies, in 1904, Oscar Méténier, naturalist author and son of a Parisian police officer, had published a popular study of Berlin’s homosexual subculture, Vertus et vices allemands (German virtues and vices). Méténier not only reviewed the public bars and restaurants frequented by “inverts” but also conferred with SHC members and the Berlin police taskforce assigned to monitor the homosexual community.58 Coverage of the Eulenburg trials could only stoke public interest. In 1907 the French author and critic Octave Mirbeau wrote an immensely popular travelogue based on his automobile journey through the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany. His closing chapter, “Berlin-Sodome,” affects mild shock at the “perverse” manners and mores of imperial Berlin, a clear reflection of the unfolding Eulenburg extravaganza.59 In the same year native Swiss journalist John Grand-Carteret compiled a collection of German and European caricatures related to the Eulenburg affair. “It appears,” Grand-Carteret claimed, summarizing the Berlin SHC, “that if one considers the numbers grouping themselves into societies that a new Freemasonry [of homosexuals] is being created.”60 In 1908 French journalists Henri de Weindel and F. P. Fischer produced yet another volume devoted to the “German vice,” L’homosexualité en Allemagne (Homosexuality in Germany), which reviewed the history of Paragraph 175 and its impact, the vibrant social life of Berlin’s homosexuals, the SHC, and, of course, the Eulenburg trials.61
The Eulenburg affair was a “cherry” on the cake, according to a recent account by literary historian Laure Murat, which “confirmed with éclat that the third sex had well and truly found a country: Germany.”62 Indeed, soon after the Krupp scandal, sexologists reignited discussion about the incidence of homosexuality within national contexts. Beginning in 1904, French, German, and Russian psychiatrists debated the size and character of French and German homosexual communities in the pages of Archives d’anthropologie criminelle (Archives of criminal anthropology), the leading French journal of criminology. Russian psychiatrist Raffalovich, a conservative Catholic who advocated celibacy outside of heterosexual marriage and who viewed sexual orientation as a product of culture, blamed the SHC and its political activism for the size and visibility of Berlin’s homosexual community. In response, German psychiatrist Paul Näcke (1851–1913), a close collaborator of Hirschfeld, defended the position that sexual ori
entation was congenital or inborn. Raffalovich responded by accusing Hirschfeld and the SHC of glorifying “inversion” and contributing to its spread.63
At the height of the Eulenburg proceedings, French psychiatrist “Dr. Laupts” (Georges Saint-Paul) attacked Näcke in the pages of Archives, claiming, “In France, except for the cosmopolitan mileux of the largest cities,…homosexuality has been completely exceptional.”64 Laupts was clearly suggesting that any “French” homosexuality was the result of foreign influence. In a subsequent letter published in the same venue, he reiterated that “homosexuality does not exist except as a very rare state of exception throughout French continental territory, meaning non-colonial.”65 Of course, Laupts’s 1896 textbook was subtitled “perverse sexualities and the prevention of inversion,” and he affirmed his conservative view (and his disregard for the SHC) in a subsequent letter published in Archives: “Homosexuality is contagious and spreads in France and in Germany at the moment when it is studied, discussed, and written about.”66 Another SHC member, Dr. Eugèn Wilhelm (1866–1951), a law professor and German court official in Strasbourg, countered Laupts’s assertions and defended Hirschfeld. Wilhelm later lamented the state of French sexology: “In France—it must be averred—that apart from some rare and meritorious exceptions, the men of science have neglected this material [questions related to sexuality].”67
Gay Berlin Page 18