The sexual life of our time in its relations to modern civilization / by Iwan Bloch ; translated from the sixth German edition by M. Eden Paul.

  • Bloch, Iwan, 1872-1922.
Date:
1908
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The sexual life of our time in its relations to modern civilization / by Iwan Bloch ; translated from the sixth German edition by M. Eden Paul. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    3/820
    r-uöUfcHERS SUMMONED- At Bow-street, before Mr. Ctirtis JEtejmetfc, Messr ßebman and Co., publishors, of Shaftesbury-avenuc were sunnnoned to show cause why a nuuiber of copte of a book published by them should not be destroyod. Mr. H. Mußkett (Wontner and Sons) prosecuted on behalf of the Commissioner of Police; Mr. A. H. Bodkin appesired for tho defendants. Mr. Muskett said fche book in question was called, “The Sexual Life of Our Time,” and it was alleged that it was obscene within fche meaning of the Obscene Trinis Act, 1857. The Commissioner of Police was moved in the matter by the Home Office, acting upon a oomplainfc made by a member of fche public, and Detective-inspector Lawrence was directed to see if he could purchase a copy of fche book. He went to the defendants’ place of busmess and purchased the volume in the ordinary way, without any inquiry being rnade. Were it otherwise these proeeedings mighfc never have been taken, having regard to the natu re of the work. The book was submitted to a magisfcrate, by whom a search-warranfc was granfced, and 272 copies of it were seized by the police. It was submitted that, from the first page to the last, no worse obscene matter could be presented t.o the public afc large. Mr. Muskett dealt at length with the legal definition of obscenity, as laid down by the judges in the cases of Steele v. Brannan and Rex v. Hicklin in 1868 and 1872. He added that Messrs. Rebman were so reputable and highly respect- able a firm that io was not fchought desirable that the proeeedings should be taken in such a form as to »ecessifcate it being asked that fchey should be put to fche indignity of being committed for trial. Mr. Bodkin said he could not ad mit that Mr. Muskett’s applioation of the priniciples enunciated in the fcwo cases he had cited was in this instance correct. The book in question was an absolute] y accurate and faitihful taranslatdon of a Standard German scientific work, the aufchor of which, Dr. Bloch, was >a professor and physician at one of the feest-kraown hospitals in Berlin. It was published in Bnglish in August last, and had been reviewed in a large number of English newspapers from the ^fcandpoinfe of a scientific treatise. It was pub- lished—doubtiess for the purpose of limiting its cir- eulation to a proper area—at the price of one guinea net, and therefore it would not be likely to get into the handis of an ordinary mernber of the public. Messrs. Rebman’s business was to a large extent in scientific and medical books, and these facts put the case in a very different light from the cases wh-ich ordinardly came before the Courts under this Statute. The whoie of the book was vvritten and fcranslated in a qukt, logical, scholarly, and reasoned style, and ifcs language was such that nine out of ton peoplo would not fully understand. It dealt with evils which the aufchor believed. should not be ignored, but which thinking men and women should be inte- resfced in afcamping oufc. It mighfc be that the views taken by fche translatons of the book, and by tho defendants, wene in advance of the age, but their ©oirfcention was that, it being a reoognised scientific work, it did not come within the definition of obseene quofced by Mr. Muskett, which should be read by a nrnch more modern view of the subject. The magisträte remarked that tihere was no doubt i S 1 1 < i i t t Med K36251