The SPD is Germany’s oldest still-extant political party, and it adopted its current name in 1890. Among its forerunners was the Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiterverein (ADAV), founded in 1863. Even older than the SPD is a sex scandal from 1862 in which Johann Baptist von Schweitzer (1833–1875), one of the early leading Social Democrats, was involved. The affair concerned sex with a “boy,” which at the time was perceived as a homosexual scandal. Politically, the episode apparently did him little harm: Schweitzer subsequently served as a Reichstag deputy of the North German Confederation from 1867 to 1871 and as president of the ADAV.
The act and the conviction
Schweitzer was arrested on August 4, 1862, in Mannheim’s Stadtgarten on suspicion of “inducing a boy under 14 to perform an indecent act.” About a month later—on September 5, 1862—Schweitzer was sentenced to two weeks in prison. Because the boy had fled after the incident and his exact age had not been determined, Schweitzer was, according to his biographer, convicted of “excitation of public nuisance” rather than a “crime against morality” (Gustav Mayer: “Johann Baptist von Schweitzer und die Sozialdemokratie. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung,” 1909, pp. 432-433).
To document the arrest and conviction, I found 13 newspaper articles, which—like the newspaper Vaterland (August 12, 1862)—mostly described a “vergehen gegen die Sittlichkeit” (an offense against morality). They did not elaborate on the details of the act, or the same‑sex context, and they did not comment on the incident. Schweitzer served his sentence in Bruchsal Prison. This facility, built between 1841 and 1848 as a “Männerzuchthaus,” persists today as JVA Bruchsal.
Was Johann Baptist von Hofstetten sein Lebenspartner?
From the scandal onward, Schweitzer had known Johann Baptist von Hofstetten, with whom he and Schweitzer founded the newspaper Der Social-Demokrat in 1864. Until their later falling out a few years later, the two were co-owners and editors of the publication. Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller notes in his biographical lexicon “Mann für Mann” (2010, vol. 2, pp. 1104–1105) that Hofstetten became Schweitzer’s “closest friend and life partner” for three years after the 1862 scandal, citing Hofstetten’s 1869 pamphlet “Mein Verhältnis zu Herrn von Schweitzer und zum ‘Social-Demokrat’.” However, the pamphlet’s 31 pages merely document a long friendship; it does not establish a life partnership. Perhaps Hergemöller was aware of the homoerotic framing in Hofstetten’s dedication in Schweitzer’s 1863 work, Die österreichische Spitze (pp. III, V‑VIII), even if he did not list it as a source. Below I address why that dedication does not constitute proof of a romantic relationship.
Why Schweitzer’s interest in antiquity?
In addition to his political work, Johann Baptist von Schweitzer wrote several historical plays. One such piece centers on the Athenian statesman and orator Alcibiades (found in: Johann Baptist von Schweitzer: Alcibiades. Canossa. Dramatic Poems, 1871, pp. 1–130). In this drama Schweitzer depicts Alcibiades as a heterosexual man who loves a woman named Dora and even swears his love to her, “as far as I can distinguish Plato’s back from Venus’ bosom” (p. 46). In this work Schweitzer repeatedly references Plato’s Symposium (Satyros), and it is clear he was familiar with the idea that in that work Alcibiades gives a speech praising Socrates and is linked to a form of homoerotic attraction. Schweitzer’s drama thus raises questions about whether he associated antiquity with broader acceptance of same‑sex relationships—it remains uncertain, but the portrayal casts doubt on a simple, modern‑style endorsement of such relationships.
August Bebel’s reactions
August Bebel (1840–1913), a founder of the German Social Democratic movement and a towering figure in its history, recounts Schweitzer’s scandal in his autobiography, Aus meinem Leben (1910; here in the 2011 edition, Part II, pp. 10–11). He notes that the boy could not be located and adds: “Yet other boys were found whom Schweitzer had approached. (… ) Whatever one may think about same‑sex love, attempting to satisfy it in broad daylight in a public park and with a school‑age boy was, in any case, a dishonorable act.” Bebel also remarks that Schweitzer chose not to appeal the initial ruling, which he suggests would have happened if Schweitzer had believed himself innocent. Bebel also characterizes Schweitzer’s conduct and a separate accusation (theft) as “features of his character.” He also criticizes the dedication Schweitzer wrote for Hofstetten, describing it as a “sweltering flattery” that suggested Alcibiades addressing one of his favorites. This ornamental dedication in Die österreichische Spitze (1863, pp. III, V–VIII) has sometimes been read as homoerotic, but Bebel’s remarks indicate it is a literary flourish rather than a firm biographical assertion. In 1863, many homosexuality scandals had drawn public attention, and Bebel’s interpretation cannot be read as evidence of a life partnership; it reflects the public discourse of the time rather than a factual relationship.
Another source is the journalist and court reporter Hugo Friedländer (1847–1918), who, under the pseudonym “F. Hugländer,” quotes Lassalle as saying about Schweitzer’s act: “The deed is not beautiful, but I do not see it as a crime. In any case, it should not lead us to deprive such a capable man of his strength. Sexual activity is a matter of taste and should be left to individuals as long as they do not harm others. I would not, however, give my daughter to such a man.” The exact wording of this quotation is somewhat uncertain; a slightly different version appears in a Frankfurt newspaper article from January 9, 1910 (as cited in JfsZ, 1909/10, pp. 426–427). The broader point is that, even when discussing the deed, Lassalle’s stance is shaped by a complex, nuanced view of sexuality rather than a simple endorsement of a relationship.
The reaction of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) and Karl Marx (1818–1883) were among the most influential theorists of socialism and communism. Thousands of letters between them survive. In a TheColu.mn article from June 22, 2019, I already examined how Engels’s letter to Marx (June 22, 1869) expressed homophobic and belittling views toward the homosexual activist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and, in that context, mentioned Schweitzer. Hubert Kennedy’s 1995 article in the Journal of Homosexuality, “Johann Baptist von Schweitzer: The Queer Marx Loved to Hate” details how Marx and Engels expressed deep-seated homophobia in various statements. Kennedy shows Schweitzer’s political ties in this context as well. Engels’s letter to Marx even references Schweitzer with a “warm-brotherly” note (September 26, 1868), though the content does not directly address homosexuality (the earlier letter from Schweitzer’s side does not pertain to that topic). Engels’s style toward Schweitzer is sometimes crude, as when Engels writes to Marx in October 12, 1868: Schweitzer’s ambition “goes beyond his strength”—a colorful Italian idiom that roughly translates to “he’s trying to squeeze higher than his tail.”
Marx and Engels’s attitude toward sexuality extended to their remarks about other men as well, such as the socialist physician Carl Boruttau. Engels asked Marx, “Who is this coy Doctor Boruttau?” (July 21, 1868) and Marx replied with a sardonic line about Boruttau’s “sodomy”—though this is often read as a slur rather than a concrete judgment that Boruttau was homosexual. Kennedy contends that Boruttau was subjected to homophobic labeling without Marx and Engels truly believing him to be gay.
Reactions of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs
The early gay activist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825–1895) wrote a dozen works on the “riddle of male‑male love” (1864–1880) and repeatedly commented on Schweitzer. Initially anonymous (yet decipherable), Ulrichs noted that a “Dr. v. …” from Frankfurt was sentenced to 14 days in prison for a confrontation with a journalist whom he felt defamed him. Ulrichs later named Schweitzer in his writings, describing Schweitzer’s case as a “trivial affair with a young apprentice” and repeated reports from various newspapers about Schweitzer’s conviction in 1862. Ulrichs’s discussion of Schweitzer and Schweitzer’s “preference for young mason’s apprentices” appears in a 1869 Frankfurt newspaper article and a second piece in the Constitutionellen Bozner Zeitung (August 11, 1869). The implication is that a homosexual orientation could disqualify a person from political leadership, an assertion Ulrichs uses to highlight moral double standards in the political sphere.
Ulrichs campaigned for Schweitzer’s release and, in 1862, sent his first pamphlet Vindex to the judge for forwarding to Schweitzer’s defender. To aid Schweitzer’s defense or “moral exoneration,” Ulrichs placed two notices in the Badische Landeszeitung on July 13 and July 15, 1864. In his third pamphlet, he thanked a neutral intermediary (a certain “Dioning,” a heterosexual man from Karlsruhe) who helped place the notices.
The biographer Gustav Mayer’s remarks
The 1909 biography of Schweitzer by historian Gustav Mayer (Johann Baptist von Schweitzer und die Sozialdemokratie, 1909, pp. 432–433) has been cited above. Reading Mayer’s statements, one quickly notices a lack of neutrality on this issue: Mayer argues that Schweitzer’s opponents exploited the scandal for political gain. Schweitzer reportedly insisted on his innocence and claimed that everyone who knew him believed his version of events. Mayer likewise treats the affair as a political plot. He notes that the relevant court documents were no longer available by 1909 in his attempt to dig up the background.
Readers of Mayer’s Schweitzer biography should also consult the detailed review by the Social Democratic journalist and politician Franz Mehring (in Die Neue Zeit, 1910, Part 1, Nos. 23/24, pp. 431–436, and Part 2, Nos. 25/26, pp. 696–701). Mehring discusses Schweitzer’s 1862 scandal on pp. 436, articulates reasons he believes Schweitzer is innocent, and explains the political consequences of the scandal for Schweitzer.
The early homosexuality movement: Magnus Hirschfeld
Magnus Hirschfeld, a towering figure in the early homosexual rights movement, is often cited with a selection of sources and quotes aimed at promoting gay emancipation. In his book Die Homosexualität des Mannes und des Weibes (1914), Hirschfeld repeatedly references Schweitzer (pp. 670, 1013). As noted above, he presents Lassalle as “very tolerant of same‑sex attraction” (p. 522; cf. p. 983). In a later passage, Hirschfeld questions August Bebel’s stance toward Schweitzer, arguing that Bebel did not engage with Hirschfeld’s own cause because Bebel was Schweitzer’s time’s political ally in the Reichstag against Paragraph 175. Hirschfeld also notes Schweitzer’s alleged conflicts with the law over “homosexual relations with a mason” (pp. 983, cf. p. 522). This reading, however, may be a misreading born of Hirschfeld’s reliance on Ulrichs’s quoted material rather than on a careful review of original sources. If Hirschfeld had claimed abuse of a minor, Schweitzer’s case would have been reframed as a crime against a child rather than a discussion about consensual adult relationships; the nuance matters in the historical assessment of Schweitzer’s life and legacy.
In the 1920s, Hirschfeld again mentioned Schweitzer in “Von einst bis jetzt” (1986) with similar, though still contested, references to a “young mason’s apprentice.” He notes Schweitzer’s bitterness over his fate and his habit of visiting the Berlin National Theatre, a meeting place for educated homosexuals at the time (pp. 95–96). These remarks, though subtle, echo a broader attempt to interpret Schweitzer’s life through a lens of homosexuality, while also acknowledging Schweitzer’s social and political activity. Hirschfeld’s later caution about Bebel’s attitude—that Bebel admired Schweitzer’s abilities while not sharing Schweitzer’s sexual predilections—illustrates the complex interplay between political solidarity and personal life in this era.
Hirschfeld also mentions Schweitzer’s relatively strong theatrical work, Die österreichische Spitze, tying Schweitzer’s historical interest to a broader cultural milieu. In a 1872 drama, Schweitzer frames a scene with a monarch seeking clemency for a condemned man and recalling the friendship between Frederick II and his companion Katte, a relationship that some scholars interpret as homoerotic. Hirschfeld’s mention of Die österreichische Spitze appears to hinge on the recurring theme of close male friendships in historical contexts and how readers interpret them today.
The early homosexual movement: Richard Linsert
Richard Linsert (1899–1933), who led the Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee (WHK) from 1926 to 1929 and knew Hirschfeld personally, wrote in Kabale und Liebe. Über Politik und Geschlechtsleben (1930, pp. 176–179; here pp. 177) that Schweitzer’s “traffic with a young boy” allegedly drew public nuisance through carelessness. Linsert does not specify the boy’s exact age. He also details how August Bebel lamented Schweitzer’s judgments, yet refrains from offering a personal verdict of his own. Linsert’s account underscores that the way Schweitzer’s conduct was received depended heavily on contemporary attitudes about sexuality and the politics of the era.
The SPD and homosexuality
The Schweitzer affair sparked the SPD’s first sustained debate about homosexuality. There would be many more sex scandals involving party members in the years to come. In a prior TheColu.mn piece about August Bebel (Wie August Bebel gegen die schwulen “Hintermänner” austeilte, February 22, 2020), I examined the case of Theodor von Wächter (1865–1943), an evangelical theologian and SPD member who was forced to leave the party in 1895 after his homosexuality became public. The Krupp scandal—industrialist Friedrich Alfred Krupp (1854–1902), revealed by the SPD newspaper Vorwärts (November 15, 1902)—and Franz Siedersleben (1867–1908) also belong in this discussion; Siedersleben’s life work on the “Cause of Homosexuals” and the social question is chronicled in his 2023 memoir Mein Lebenslauf (Männerschwarm). Franz Siedersleben identified as a socialist and dedicated himself to the cause of same‑sex emancipation as part of the broader social reform movement.
The director of the Institute for Democratic Research, Franz Walter, likens Schweitzer’s case to the 2014 Sebastian Edathy affair in his online piece “Edathy—or: What fits with Social Democracy?” in which he argues that the 1862 incident did not define Schweitzer’s political work and that early party leaders normalized certain private behaviors in the service of broader political goals.
Despite the variety of scandals, what they reveal is not merely what individuals did, but how their parties and political networks—friends and foes with different motives—either defended or attacked them. The political connections, as I have only begun to show here with Schweitzer, must be taken into account to understand the arc of events.
The queer community needs a strong journalistic voice—especially now. Make your contribution to ensure TheColu.mn continues its work.
Is this article aimed at the SPD in general? No!
Critical articles about a particular party can sometimes trigger a reflexive assumption that they are directed against that party as a whole. In June 2019, I criticized Engels for his homophobic stance on TheColu.mn. In response, reader comments by Bodo Niendel (then-the SPD parliamentary group’s queer-policy adviser and former board member of Berlin’s CSD e. V.) accused me of trying to “settle scores” and pointed to the shadows cast by other historically significant figures. While Niendel is correct that every historical personality has its shadows, I still dispute this reaction as a form of whataboutism. I do not claim that my 2019 piece was a broad “settling of accounts,” and the 2024 piece on a CDU member (June 5, 2024) is not a broad attack on the CDU, nor is this article an attack on the SPD. I am wary of all parties. Queer people should not assume that any party will always represent their interests unconditionally, now or in the future.
