and object; he identifies himself with his mother and sees in the object of his love his own youthful person.  And what, Jekels asks, is the aim of this mental arrangement?  It can scarcely by other, he replies, than in the part of the mother to stimulate the anal region of the object which has now become himself, and to procure the same pleasure which in childhood he experienced when his mother satisfied his anal eroticism.  Jekels regards this view as the continuation and concretization of Freud’s interpretation; and the main point in homosexuality, even when apparently passive, becomes the craving for anal-erotic satisfaction (L.  Jekels, “Einige Bemerkungen zur Trieblehre,” Internationale Zeitschrift fuer Aerztliche Psychoanalyse, Sept., 1913).  Most psychoanalysts are cautious in denying a constitutional or congenital basis to inversion, though they leave it in the background.  Ferenczi, in an interesting attempt to classify the homosexual (Internationale Zeitschrift fuer Aerztliche Psychoanalyse, March, 1914), remarks:  “Psychoanalytic investigation shows that under the name of homosexuality the most various psychic states are thrown together, on the one hand true constitutional anomalies (inversion, or subject homoeroticism), on the other hand psychoneurotic obsessional conditions (object homoeroticism, or obsessional homoeroticism).  The individual of the first kind essentially feels himself a woman who wishes to be loved by a man, while the other represents a neurotic flight from women rather than sympathy to men.”  The constitutional basis is very definitely accepted by Rudolf Ortvay who points out (Internationale Zeitschrift fuer Aerztliche Psychoanalyse, Jan., 1914) that the biological doctrine of recessives and dominants in heredity helps to make clear the emergence or suppression of homosexuality on a bisexual disposition.  “Infantile events,” he adds, “which, according to Freud, decide the sexual relations of adults, can only exert their operation on the foundation of an organic predisposition, infantile impressions being determined by hereditary predisposition.”  Isador Coriat, on the other hand, while recognizing two forms of inversion, incomplete and complete, boldly asserts that it is never congenital and never transmitted through heredity; it is always “originated through a definite unconscious mechanism” (Coriat, “Homosexuality,” New York Medical Journal, March 22, 1913).  Adler’s view of homosexuality, as of other allied conditions, differs from that of most psychoanalysts by insisting on the presence of an original organic defect which the subject seeks to fortify into a point of strength; he accepts two chief components of inversion:  a vagueness as to sexual differences and a process of self-assurance in the form of rebellion and defiance, and even the feminism of the invert may become a method of gaining power (A.  Adler, Ueber den Neuroesen Charakter, 1912, p. 21).

The mechanism of the genesis of homosexuality put