“Although not a writer whose psychological views can carry much scientific weight, Ulrichs appears to have been a man of most brilliant ability, and his knowledge is said to have been of almost universal extent; he was not only well-versed in his own special subjects of jurisprudence and theology, but in many branches of natural science, as well as in archæology; he was also regarded by many as the best Latinist of his time. In 1880 he left Germany and settled in Naples, and afterwards at Aquila in the Abruzzi, whence he issued a Latin periodical. He died in 1895.”--HAVELOCK ELLIS, _op. cit._, p. 33. Ulrichs enters into an elaborate classification of human types, with a corresponding nomenclature, which, though somewhat ponderous, has been of use. Among males, for instance, he distinguishes the quite normal man, whom he calls “Dioning,” from the invert, whom he calls “Urning.” Among Urnings, again, he distinguishes (1) those who are thoroughly manly in appearance and in mental habit and character (“Mannlings”), and who tend to love softer and younger specimens of their own sex; (2) those who are effeminate in appearance and cast of mind (“Weiblings”), and who love rougher and older men; and (3) those who are of a medium type (“Zwischen Urnings”) and love young men. Then again there is the “Urano-dioning,” who is born with a capacity of love in both directions, _i.e._, for women and for men. He is generally of the manly type. And besides these, some sub-species, like the “Uraniaster,” who is a normal man who has contracted the Urning habit, and the “Virilised Urning,” who is an Urning who has contracted the normal habit, though this is not really natural to him! The whole may be set out in a table as follows:-- { (_a_) Normal Man or Dioning--called Uraniaster when { he acquires Urning tendencies. { The { {1. Mannling. Human { {2. Zwischen-Urning. Male { (_b_) Urning {3. Weibling. { {4. Also called Virilised Urning when he { { acquires the normal habit. { { (_c_) Urano-dioning. If we add to this a corresponding table for the female we shall have an idea of the complication of Ulrichs’ system! Yet, complex as it is, and whatever criticisms we may make upon it, we must allow that it does not exceed the complexity of the real facts of Nature. (See K. H. ULRICHS’ “Memnon,” ch. iii.-v.) Krafft-Ebing’s analysis of the subject is fully as elaborate as that of Ulrichs. It is given by J. A. SYMONDS in the form of a table, as follows:--