Produced by Turgut Dincer, Les Galloway and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
book was produced from images made available by the
HathiTrust Digital Library.)





Transcriber’s Notes

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations
in hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other
spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.

The book contains a number of decorative borders and separators. These
have been ignored.

Anchors for footnotes 27 and 59 were missing and have been added in
appropriate places.

The Orphean hymn in footnote 12 is in error. The correction is shown
with the footnote.

(the act the Lesbian) in footnote 327 is erroneous but could be ‘to
act ...’ or ‘the act of ...’ so remains uncorrected.

In footnote 382 “The word θηλείας even in the edition mentioned stands
both in text and margin as γρ. δειλίας.” makes little sense and has
been altered to “The word θηλείας in the edition mentioned stands in
text; and in the margin as γρ. δειλίας.”

The footnotes are located at the end of the book.

In the main text, italics are represented thus _italic_, however this
marking indicates letter-spacing in Latin and Greek passages. Bold is
indicated thus =bold=.

An index to both volumes is included in volume II. This has been copied
into the end of this volume by the transcriber.




                                THE

                          PLAGUE OF LUST

                             VOLUME I




      _This work, printed for a small number of subscribers,
              Medical Men—Experts and Specialists in
              Nervous Diseases—Lawyers—Psychiatrists
               Travellers and Anthropologists—is not
                sold to the Trade, and is strictly
                      limited to FIVE HUNDRED
                         NUMBERED COPIES._

                       _The present copy is_

                             =No. 105=




                                THE

                          PLAGUE OF LUST,

                BEING A HISTORY OF VENEREAL DISEASE

                                IN

                       CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY,

          AND INCLUDING:—DETAILED INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE
           CULT OF VENUS, AND PHALLIC WORSHIP, BROTHELS,
            THE Νοῦσος Θήλεια (FEMININE DISEASE) OF THE
             SCYTHIANS, PAEDERASTIA, AND OTHER SEXUAL
                 PERVERSIONS AMONGST THE ANCIENTS,

                     AS CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS

            THE EXACT INTERPRETATION OF THEIR WRITINGS

                                BY

                       Dr. JULIUS ROSENBAUM

       TRANSLATED FROM THE SIXTH (UNABRIDGED) GERMAN EDITION
                                BY

                          AN OXFORD M.A.

                     THE FIRST OF TWO VOLUMES

                              =Paris=

                        CHARLES CARRINGTON

       PUBLISHER OF MEDICAL, FOLK-LORE AND HISTORICAL WORKS.

                    13, FAUBOURG MONTMARTRE, 13

                              MDCCCCI

         The price of this work complete is FIVE GUINEAS.




                        TRANSLATOR’S FOREWORD.


The Translator of Dr. Rosenbaum’s great book, the _Geschichte der
Lustseuche im Alterthume_, feels that no apology is required for
presenting a Work of this calibre and importance in an English
dress,—for the first time. Needless to say the Book in no way
appeals,—or is meant to appeal,—to the general reading public. It is
a book for Students and Specialists, as is recognized indeed by the
conditions of the present publication, in a limited edition and at a
high price.

To Historical Students and Medical Specialists alike it is of the
highest value and interest, and in many respects an indispensable
addition to their Library. The object the Writer proposed to himself
was a History of Venereal Disease, to trace its existence, symptoms
and incidence, from the earliest notices of its occurrence recorded
in Literature onwards. This ambitious programme he has only partially
carried out in the present Work, which forms Part I. of the projected
Treatise as a whole, and deals with the Disease under its various forms
and successive manifestations throughout Antiquity. In it he devotes
his efforts to proving,—and we think with conclusive success,—the
existence, denied by so many, of the dread Disease in different
shapes in Europe, Asia and Africa long before the Christian era, and
all through the period of Classical Antiquity, scouting utterly, the
popular theory of its first introduction at the end of the Fifteenth
and beginning of the Sixteenth Centuries from America.

With this end in view the learned and laborious Author collects an
enormous _apparatus criticus_ of quotations from Greek and Latin
writers, both in prose and verse, and this not merely from the
better known authors of Antiquity, but equally from later and much
less familiar sources. Obscure Erotic Writers, historical fragments,
Christian Fathers,—all is fish that comes to his comprehensive, though
not undiscriminating, net; and probably there is not to be found in
the whole range of Scholarship so wide and complete a collection of
historical and literary illustrations and allusions brought together
with the express purpose of throwing light on one special subject of
enquiry.

Such in briefest outline is the scope and achievement of Dr.
Rosenbaum’s masterpiece. But brief as it is, it suffices to show to
how many classes of Students and Scientists the work appeals. First
and foremost it is of direct service to Physicians in general and
Specialists in Venereal Disease in particular, to Enquirers into the
problems of Insanity and the morbid manifestations of a diseased brain,
as well as to Anthropologists and all scientific observers of Humanity.
On another side, in virtue of its wealth of curious and recondite
quotation, it is of the highest interest and attraction to Classical
Scholars and every Student of Antiquity and Ancient Literature; while
midway between these two categories, Students of Morals and Human
Institutions cannot possibly afford to neglect a storehouse of “human
documents” so invaluable in the domain of their studies.

Even to the general Historical Student, who without laying any claim to
the proud title of Specialist, is deeply interested in the conditions
of human life on our planet in former days, and eager to enquire into
all matters relating to the health and happiness of mankind, the Book
has a great deal to offer. Few things have more profoundly modified
these factors of human well-being than Venereal disease and its ravages
in all ages; while any systematic enquiry into this most important
subject cannot fail to throw many side-lights,—lurid enough, but none
the less instructive,—on life and morals, social relations and sexual
aberrations, among different Peoples and at different Epochs. What can
be more interesting,—painful as the interest often is,—than much of the
information here afforded, at first hand and from authentic citations
of Ancient writers, of social and sexual habits and ideals, of strange
rites and rituals and abominable practices, prevalent as well in
the free Republics of Greece as under the corrupt sway of the Roman
Emperors.

Great and wonderful no doubt were the Communities of the Ancient world,
beautiful the fine flower of graceful living, and high the level of
philosophic and literary culture attained, consummate the artistic
relics they have left us; but what a seamy side this same Classical
Civilization had to show,—what unspeakable abominations underlay its
social life, what atrocities of foulness, cruelty and lust,—some of
them flourishing under the sanction of Religion itself,—counterbalanced
the virtues of wise citizenship and warlike valour and Stoic
self-denial. Lurid and terrible indeed are some of the pictures of
horror that shape themselves from certain of Dr. Rosenbaum’s pages,—the
whole Section, for instance, in Vol. I. dealing with “Brothels and
Courtesans”, and in an even higher degree that on “Paederastia” and the
diseases consequent on this unnatural practice. Specially graphic and
vivid sections again, in Vol. II., are those treating of the practice
of “Depilation” among Greeks and Romans, and the Baths and Bathing
habits of Antiquity.

To return for a moment to the Medical and Anthropological aspects
of the Work. Perhaps no single branch of Scientific Enquiry has
made such noteworthy strides of late years as Anthropology, and in
particular the special Department of that Science devoted to morbid
and anomalous manifestations of the sexual appetite,—unnatural lusts,
sensual aberrations, sexual inversions, and all the rest. The subject,
no doubt, is repulsive, but it is none the less profoundly important
from the scientific side, in connexion both with the general advance
of our knowledge of Mankind, and with the special Study of Insanity
and Madness, as well as from the humanitarian point of view as giving
material for the eventual alleviation of many of these manifestations
of Mental Disease. Out of a host of names, it is only necessary to
mention two, those of Lombroso and Krafft-Ebing, to demonstrate the
high place these investigations have vindicated for themselves among
the scientific triumphs of the Century that has just closed. On this
side the _Geschichte der Lustseuche_ is of the highest importance,
supplying as it does innumerable instances of those very phaenomena of
morbid sexual perversions that constitute the subject matter of this
rapidly progressive branch of Science, one likely in the near future to
prove of infinite benefit to afflicted humanity.

Of the Author personally there is no need to say much, nor indeed
is there much to be said. His life was quiet and uneventful, as a
Scholar’s and Savant’s should be. After holding a Professorship at
Berlin, he was summoned to fill a similar post at the University of
Halle, where he succeeded to the Chair left vacant by the death of the
celebrated Dr. Baumgarten-Crusius; and it was here that he completed
his great Work,—in spite of difficulties and lack of books, which he
naïvely and rather pathetically laments in his Preface. Halle had
already been made illustrious by an earlier and even more distinguished
worker in the same field, the famous Sprengel (died March 15, 1833),
author of a masterly _History of Medicine_ and many other professional
works; and with a characteristic touch of Teutonic sentimentality
our Author dates the Preface to his own _Geschichte_ on Sprengel’s
birth-day.

A by no means unimportant feature of Dr. Rosenbaum’s book, and one
according well with his patient and laborious methods, is the very
extensive and valuable Bibliography, which will be found at the end of
the Work. This embraces almost everything that has been written on the
subject in all languages, and should prove of inestimable service to
the serious student.

For any errors that may have crept into his version, the Translator
must crave indulgence. Some such are inevitable, more particularly in
the renderings of the innumerable Latin and Greek quotations, many of
which are involved in diction and obscure in allusion, and some of
disputed interpretation. The labour involved has been no small one,—the
mere proof-reading itself being a heavy task in a book like the present
crammed with citations from several languages.

For the general appearance and get up of the Book, the Publisher, Mr.
Charles Carrington, of Paris, is responsible, and his name, so well
known in connection with the production of Medical and Scientific works
of this kind, is a sufficient guarantee of excellence.

In conclusion, the Translator offers with confidence the result of his
labours to all Englishmen interested as Specialists in the History of
Medicine, in Anthropology and the Scientific Study of Insanity, as
also in Classical Scholarship and the Study of Antiquity and Ancient
Literature, as well as to Enquirers generally into the History of
Morals and the life and life conditions of earlier days. In doing
so, he feels sure of a favourable reception for so important and
scholarly a Work, throwing such a flood of light on all these different
departments of study.

OXFORD, June 14, 1901.




                            DR. ROSENBAUM’S

                 PREFACE TO THE FIRST (GERMAN) EDITION




                           AUTHOR’S PREFACE

                                TO THE

                        FIRST (GERMAN) EDITION.


It is now six years ago, during my residence in Berlin, and with a
view to a historical Survey of miliary fevers, that I began a closer
and more systematic study of the Epidemics of the XVth. and XVIth.
Centuries. In the course of these enquiries my attention was inevitably
directed to the subject of Venereal disease, which exerted so powerful
an influence at that epoch both on the physical and the moral life of
nations. Accustomed as I was to regard History as being something more
than a mere quasi-mechanical aggregation of facts, the observation
was soon borne in upon me that only through a painstaking examination
of the contemporary conditions of epidemic disease could the Venereal
Disease of the period be really understood. Consequently I felt I must
isolate this terrible scourge of humanity from the general survey,—so
general as to be well-nigh all-embracing,—and consider it as a
phænomenon apart.

Once started on these lines, I occupied myself specially with the
subject, and arrived at the surprising result, that the Venereal
Disease of the XVth. Century owed its terrible characteristics solely
and entirely to the contemporary exanthematic-typhoïdal _Genius
Epidemicus_, which made itself known in the South of Europe by
petechial fevers and by the _Sudor Anglicus_ (English Sweating-fever)
in the North. I concluded further that the disease was not epidemic
at all, merely liable to arise under epidemic influence; and must
consequently have been already extant before the arrival of the said
_Genius Epidemicus_.

Time and circumstances compelled me to remain satisfied provisionally
with this general conclusion, and only after I had fixed my abode
permanently at Halle, could I resume my earlier investigations. Yet
again these were interrupted, partly by my work on the Diseases of the
Skin for the Dictionary of Surgery edited by Prof. Blasius, partly by
my Habilitation (formal entry on the Staff) at the University of that
place, to which I had been repeatedly invited after the unexpected
death of the late Dr. Baumgarten-Crusius. Eventually I was enabled
to devote the greater part of my leisure hours to this subject, one
which in the meantime was never quite lost sight of. I began to sift
and arrange the material I found accumulated, but in a short time I
convinced myself that in its treatment I had to strike out a different
road from that followed hitherto, if I ever intended on my own
account to reach important results; and I felt it would be impossible
to complete the whole Survey in a single moderate-sized volume.
Consequently I proceeded to limit myself to the enquiry whether or
no Venereal disease had been extant in Ancient times, and it is this
investigation that I now publish as a first Part of the History of
Venereal disease.

The general plan I have followed in my treatment of the subject is
sufficiently explained in the Introduction; while a perusal of the text
will show in what relation my investigations stand towards those of
my predecessors, and at the same time to what extent these have been
made use of, or indeed could be made use of, in my work. Owing to the
very nature of the subject the Survey as a whole was bound to assume
a critical character, dealing as it does not solely with the history
of the Disease, but also with the examination of an extensive array of
views and opinions already formulated. The conduct of this examination
I leave the reader to judge of; but I believe I can confidently assert
it was always the matter, never the man, that I subjected to critical
treatment. Accordingly I laid little stress on brilliant results, and
made no effort to conceal lack of facts by dazzling hypotheses; instead
I made it my supreme object to come at the truth as near as possible,
and preferred to confess my ignorance, if the helps and authorities
I had at my disposal failed me, rather than advance propositions the
baselessness of which a sober criticism is only too soon in a position
to demonstrate.

“I imposed this law on myself—to believe no man’s mere assertion; to
depend on original authorities; to look at every passage with my own
eyes, and read it in connexion with its context; to pick out the plain
fact observed from the Chaos of hypotheses, and to accept as exact
only what I could deduce from the authorities myself and see to be
the evident purport of the observation,—absolutely unconcerned how
each arbitrary theory might be affected or the sacrosanct authority
of such or such a Scholar stand or fall. Why should we deem great men
infallible? why find it impossible to honour them and yet dissent
from them in opinion?—I felt I owed to my reader a corresponding
impartiality in statement of the facts and arguments based upon them.
If I was determined to take nothing on trust, but to examine and see
for myself, I could not reasonably demand faith from the reader and
refuse to communicate to him the proofs and original documents I had
drawn upon. It was no case of mere quotation from books,—I was bound
to lay open the original evidence for his inspection.” These words of
Hensler’s I took as my guiding-principle, and if I have deviated from
their standard in the Third Section, this only happened because the
greater part of the passages there quoted have been repeatedly handled
by my predecessors, and I feared to increase the bulk and consequently
the cost of the Book to the prejudice of the reader.

I am well aware that the method I have adopted hardly corresponds
with the taste of the present day; and if the public choose to find
in my work nothing but an idle display of quotations, I cannot fail
to be mortified. Nevertheless I prefer to encounter, if needs be, the
reproach of pedantry rather than that of superficiality. With the
difficulties I met with in connection with particular investigations I
need not trouble the reader at greater length, as they are sufficiently
familiar to everyone engaged in similar researches. I may be allowed
to point out what a task was presented by the co-ordination of so
considerable a number of scattered data. These I had, in the almost
total absence of earlier works on the same subject, to collect mostly
by my own reading from very widely separated Authors; and anything like
symmetry of arrangement was made still more difficult when, as occurred
more than once, the discovery of a single passage forced me to entirely
re-write a substantial part of my manuscript, often within a short
time of its going to Press. For the same reason the indulgent reader
must excuse it, if here and there a later observation involves the
supplementing and in some degree correcting of a previous statement,—a
thing that would have been done much more frequently, had I not dreaded
treating my material in too rambling a fashion. It would be quite easy
now to subjoin in the form of appendices a multitude of additional
proofs, of course only corroborating views already laid down,—proofs
I owed to further reading of the Ancient authors. However absolute
completeness is impossible of attainment for the individual; and I can
only hope the humble request I hereby express,—a request addressed
specially to professional students of Antiquity,—that others may favour
me with contributions and remarks relevant to my subject, may be not
entirely without result. So later on perhaps the material accumulated
may be utilised more efficiently, if the interest manifested by
the learned in my undertaking is of such a nature as to demand a
re-modelling of the whole Investigation.

The necessity I found myself under of expressing this request for
countenance on the part of students of Antiquity is the very thing
that specially induced me to strongly recommend the First Part of my
work, even on its Title-page, to their particular consideration; and it
will be a source of self-congratulation if the attempts incidentally
introduced to gain a better insight into the relics of Antiquity,
meeting with their approval, become an inducement to the Physician in
his professional studies to offer a helping hand to human weaknesses.
The question at issue is nothing less than that of gaining a clear
insight into the nature and origin of the operation of a Disease that
destroys the very marrow of Nations. Without such insight the Physician
cannot hope, whether in the particular case or speaking generally,
to obtain a radical cure; and of all forms of Disease the Venereal
is pre-eminently that where obscurity in the history of the malady
conditions obscurity in its curative treatment. For the first time it
is successfully proved with irrefragable certainty that the Ancients
were infested with this _morbus mundanus_ (World-disease) just as
much as the Moderns. Honourable nations are freed from the shameful
reproach of fathering this Complaint; and at the same time Physicians
see themselves forced to seek a reason for the untrustworthiness they
recognise at the present day as belonging to the so-called “Specifics”,
not in the nature of these remedies, but in the changes which the
Disease has undergone under external influences. Moreover they will
find that the non-mercurial treatment nowadays so highly extolled is
far from being the mere creature of fashion; rather it is the direct
consequence of the alteration in the common and universal _genius_ of
the Complaint, which appears at this moment to be again tending to a
gradual disappearance. The grounds for this assertion I have already
more than once explained to my hearers in my repeated Lectures on
Venereal Disease; and I propose to communicate them fully in the Second
Part of my History of the Disease, framed on the same principles as the
First.

When I shall publish this Second Part, if ever, will depend first
on the reception of the preceding volume; secondly on whether
more favourable external conditions provide the leisure that is
indispensably necessary for Historical investigations of the sort, and
at the same time put at my disposal a more complete literary apparatus
than has hitherto been the case. For historico-medical studies in
general there exists hardly a more unfavourable[1] place than Halle;
and this is specially and peculiarly so with regard to epidemic
diseases. As far as Venereal Disease is concerned the whole literary
wealth of our University Library amounts to something like ten or
twelve Works, half of which are all but worthless. I myself shrank from
no expense to obtain possession of the literary helps required, and
my collections, particularly on the subject of Epidemics, might boast
of being not inferior to those of any private individual; yet they
are quite insufficient for my purpose, so much, especially from the
earlier Centuries, being no longer procurable by way of purchase.

But when all that is extant in writing is procured, the business is
still far from being done. I am still in want of quite a formidable
array of facts that can only be the fruit of observations in more
recent times. For this reason may I appeal to my elder professional
brethren, and above all to the different medical Unions and
Associations at home and abroad with the request that they will,
whether directly or indirectly, help me to the possession of the facts
in question. Such are in particular facts concerning the influence of
the _Genius Epidemicus_ on the different forms or Venereal Disease,
and first and foremost it behoves me to learn—_what influence Typhus
manifested during the first fifteen years of this Century, particularly
since 1811, in different Countries_. That such an influence, and a
disastrous one, _did_ take place is evidenced not only by the 364
pp. of collected Authorities, but also by the data of the brilliant
SACHS in his “Concise Dictionary of Practical Therapeutics”, II. Pt.
1. (Article: Guajac) p. 637. To my sorrow I have only just, since
the appearance of the Index to that valuable Work, become acquainted
with these data, which appealed to me all the more from the fact that
throughout they corroborate the results reached by myself in the
historical sphere.

SACHS, and so far as I know he was the first to express this opinion
openly, holds as a fully established conclusion that the Venereal
Disease of the XVth. Century owed the characteristics it then possessed
merely to the prevailing _Genius epidemicus typhodes_; though at the
same time I cannot favour his assumption of a leprous-syphilitic
Diathesis (general condition of body) as already existent. Nothing is
better fitted to give a clear insight into these earlier conditions
than a knowledge of the period of the Thirty Years’ War and of the
Typhus epidemics at the beginning of the present Century. Would it had
happened to any of those heroes of the healing art who played an active
part in the great Drama of that time to have crowned his day’s-work
by leaving us a more detailed medical recital of the incidents. The
number of men qualified for the task grows daily fewer, the possibility
of gathering the material required daily harder of realization; and,
though it is not so yet, the work may later on be impracticable[2].

In conclusion—may I be allowed hereby to offer my sincere thanks to
all who in any way have granted me active support in the course my
enquiries. I should be glad to give their names, did I not fear they
might dislike seeing themselves recorded in connection with a History
of Venereal Disease. In spite of this scruple I feel compelled to make
an exception in the case of one of them, viz. my friend, Dr. ECKSTEIN,
Headmaster of the Royal High-School (Pädagogium) of Halle. He shared
with me the exceedingly laborious duty of correcting the proofs; and
both myself and my readers into the bargain owe him a debt of warmest
gratitude for so doing.

Written on the birth-day of C. SPRENGEL.




                               CONTENTS

                                  AND

                         GENERAL INTRODUCTION.




                     CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.


                             INTRODUCTION:

                                                                    PAGE
  CONCEPTION AND CONTENTS OF THE HISTORY
  OF A DISEASE IN GENERAL                                            XXV

  POSSIBILITY OF THE HISTORY OF A DISEASE IN GENERAL
  AND OF VENEREAL DISEASE IN PARTICULAR                           XXVIII

  ABSTRACT OF OPINIONS                                              XXXI

  GENERAL SCHEME OF TREATMENT                                      XXXIV


                              FIRST PART.

                    Venereal Disease in Antiquity.

  AUTHORITIES DISCUSSED                                                3

                             FIRST SECTION

  INFLUENCES WHICH PROMOTED THE GENERATION OF DISEASE CONSEQUENT
  UPON USE OR MISUSE OF THE GENITAL ORGANS                            10

  THE CULT OF VENUS                                                   12

  THE LINGAM AND PHALLIC WORSHIP                                      33

  MALADIES OF THE GENITAL ORGANS AT ATHENS                            39

  MALADIES OF THE GENITAL ORGANS AT LAMPSACUS                         41

  PLAGUE OF BAAL-PEOR                                                 49

  BROTHELS AND COURTESANS                                             64

  PAEDERASTIA                                                        108

  DISEASES CONSEQUENT ON PAEDERASTIA                                 126

  THE ῥέγχειν (SNORING, SNORTING) OF THE INHABITANTS OF TARSUS       133

  Νοῦσος Θήλεια (FEMININE DISEASE) OF THE SCYTHIANS                  143

  BIBLIOGRAPHY: AUTHORITIES AND HISTORIANS                           257




                             INTRODUCTION.

    Conception and Contents of the History of a Disease in general.


If we would undertake to write the history of a Disease, the very first
thing needful is to frame in one’s own mind a clear conception of what
the History of a Disease in a general way is, for it is from a right
preliminary conception, that the right conditions will follow which
a Historian as such is bound to fulfil. Consult experience,—in other
words enquire what has been usually understood under the name History
of a Disease, and you find to be included in the idea,—first, a more or
less complete chronological comparison of the different observations
and views of different Physicians at different times on such or such
a Disease, secondly, a survey of the course of the Disease in the
individual case. The first is properly only a history of the opinions
of Physicians, the History of the Literature so to speak of the
Disease, which must come before the _actual_ History, while the latter
is nothing else than a history of a Disease in a single instance, that
is to say the history of a particular case of disease, the history
of individual patients; and this we have long been in the habit of
reckoning a part of Clinics.

Nay, the _sum_ of such clinical histories if taken all together will
not help us to the actual history of a Disease, so long as they merely
give an account of the visible symptoms by which the disease makes its
presence known. By this means we shall be learning merely the ideal
course of the Malady, getting a pictorial representation of it such
as is demanded by Pathological specialists,—as it were the _internal_
history of the Disease. We cannot write the history of a single Man or
of a single Nation so as to be a sufficient basis for the understanding
and right appreciation of them, if we grasp only their inner history,
that of their _internal_ development, and consequently view them by
themselves as a something separated off from all surroundings, instead
of bearing in mind as we should the forms their relations take to
environment, to the outer world generally,—in fact their _external_
history. Similarly we are just as little in a position to furnish the
history of a _Disease_, if we include in the matter of our enquiry only
the course of the disease and not its external relations as well.

It is only the inner genetic co-ordination of the two, viz. the
internal and the external history (for Disease has also an external
history) that can conduct to the _actual History_ of the Disease.
This may be defined as _a genetic co-ordination and statement of the
symptoms of a Disease under different conditions and in different
individuals, from the first moment at which they arose and came under
observation down to the time when the report is made_; or, expressed
more briefly, the History of a Disease is _a genetic co-ordination and
account of its development and progress in time_ (as conditioned by
time). Supposing Time, Relations, and Number of individuals definitely
limited, a Special History is the result; while the General History
of a Disease properly speaking can _never_ be viewed as isolated from
its surroundings. In that case the conditions on which the generation
and origin of the particular Disease depend would necessarily cease
entirely and for ever to exist.

Now if we analyse the conception of the History of a Disease into its
component parts, we shall get to know its special _contents_, the
efficient factors of which it is compounded, and which the Historian
has to comprehend and express. The function of History is to exhibit
something that has happened; naturally therefore the first thing the
Historian must do is to look out for the point of time at which the
process of change began. But certain generating factors and influences
are indispensable to every process of change, and their activity again
is dependent on certain favourable external conditions; and so it
becomes the next duty of the Historian to authenticate the existence
of the said favourable influences as well as of the generating
factors, and concurrently to determine in what manner they came into
active operation. Inasmuch as it happens however sometimes that the
interposing or favouring as well as the generative factors are known to
be present, and yet no outbreak of disease occurs, so far as we see, or
only an incompletely developed one, those influences also will require
authentication which hindered or modified the potential activity of the
factors.

Only after all this has been systematically and sufficiently analyzed,
will it become possible to trace the development and course of
the Disease itself and to mark the successive changes offered to
observation from its first appearance to the time when its history
was recorded. Now these changes are imposed upon it either by its own
proper nature or from outside, and so the Historian must explain also
the internal and external relations involved. Again in any individual
case the various manifestations or signs of a Disease by no means
appear all together at one time, but rather develope in a series; so in
the _general_ course of a Disease, as recorded historically, a similar
continuous series of symptoms will be more or less clearly noticeable,
yet without implying that it is dependent solely on external
conditions. Further, as every Disease is liable at any given time to
come into conflict with another, the Historian will in this case also
have to point out, what forms the relations of either took at the
moment, whether the disease in question showed itself as determining
the other or was itself determined by it, whether it consented to enter
into combinations, whether it led to the annihilation of its adversary
or was itself annihilated, or whether lastly both remained in a manner
neutral. Finally account must be taken of the influence of medical aid,
and generally of the relation of the Physician to the Disease.

These different points once successfully and in a competent manner
co-ordinated into a kind of organic connexion, the resulting History
of Disease, a clinical History, yet as wide as humanity itself, will
supply the most momentous factor towards an insight into the nature and
essence of Disease. It will not merely afford the theoretical enquirer
the necessary materials for his speculations as to Disease in general
and systems of treatment, but also teach the practical Physician the
conditions of a rational method of Therapeutics; and will consequently
be equally interesting, and what is more, equally needful to both. Such
an organic connexion can only be established on the condition that
the Historian calls to remembrance step by step, as he proceeds, the
sciences of Physiology and Pathology. Only by their help is it possible
always and everywhere to mark the inner necessity of the relation of
cause and effect and to distinguish the essential from the accidental.


  Possibility of the History of a Disease in General and of Venereal
                        Disease in Particular.

Having learned the Conception and proper Contents of the History of a
Disease, we naturally proceed to another closely connected question,—do
all Diseases admit of such a historical exposition? It may be taken
for granted at the outset with tolerable certainty that the answer to
this question will be affirmative for the majority of actual Diseases;
at any rate hardly an objection can be alleged from the theoretical
stand-point. At the same time practical Experience must be allowed a
voice on this point.

Unhappily we gain but little that is comforting from experience. It can
scarcely be said that even a beginning has been made so far towards
writing the History of a Disease in the indicated sense; and besides
this, diseases have been primarily selected for consideration in which
the historical factor obtrudes itself, as it were, on the attention, to
wit the epidemic diseases. For the rest hardly anything at all has been
done, excepting only in the case of Leprosy and the Venereal Disease,
for which with singular unanimity an epidemic character has always been
claimed. The Proteus-like character of these Maladies hindered every
attempt of speculation to penetrate their nature, and so enquirers
saw themselves forced to consult History. But the merest superficial
glance at the treatment of Venereal disease by its Historians (and
this applies equally to Leprosy) will show that little more than an
insufficient collection of materials towards an actual History of the
disease has thus far seen the light; and this in spite of the fact that
no contemptible number of the most distinguished Scholars have devoted
time and trouble to the subject, in many cases making it their life’s
work.

However, if the matter is looked into more closely, it will be evident
that a large proportion of these scholars directed their attention to
one single point only, viz. the antiquity and time of origin of the
Disease; and regarded all the other factors only in so far as they
supported one or other of the views they had formulated. Besides the
co-ordination of these factors is seen to be so loose that no general
result of any stringency could ever be obtained. The few men whose
definite purpose it was to arrive at such a result, failed, in view of
the difficulty of collecting the material, to reach the completeness
they had proposed, and so deferred working up what they had accumulated
till death put an end to their enterprise. In especial this was the
case with _Hensler_, and the non-appearance of the Second Part of his
History of the Venereal Disease must doubtless long continue to be
mourned as an irreparable loss.

The Past, on which all experience must draw, affords us so little
assistance here that it is to the Future we must look for everything.
The Present cannot show us in existence any history of Venereal disease
as we understand it, but this in no way entitles it to deny the
possibility of such a History. Thus it is of the highest importance
to make the attempt to arrange and sift the material now ready and
accessible, so far as it concerns the Venereal Disease, on principles
conformable to the Conception and proper Contents as indicated above
of the History of a Disease, and for this a relative completeness of
the collected materials suffices. If in this way we are successful in
sketching the history of Venereal Disease at any rate in its general
outlines, it can quite well be left to the continued efforts of
other Investigators to fill in the individual lines of the picture,
especially as then and then only is the particular point ascertained by
anticipation, at which later accessions must be worked in.

In every History, what comes first and foremost is to get to know the
original Authorities from which the material for its treatment can be
drawn, and this forms the proper Contents of the _Literary_ history
of the Disease. Accordingly our first duty will be to give a general
survey of the literary helps lying ready to hand for the use of the
Historian of Venereal Disease, and at the same time to specify how far
these were accessible to ourselves. Thus the reader will be enabled
at the very outset to form a judgement as to the completeness of the
information supplied; and succeeding Enquirers will learn the gaps that
are left remaining for them to fill up.

This will conclude a Survey of the historical results so far obtained
in connection with the antiquity and time of origin of the Disease; and
it will then be possible to indicate the special Scheme we propose to
follow in our treatment of the task before us.


Abstract of Opinions advanced at various Periods on the question of the
           Antiquity and First Rise of the Venereal Disease.

The different Opinions advanced at various periods on the question of
the Antiquity and Origin of the Venereal Disease may at the outset be
brought under two main divisions, according as the disease is supposed
to have been already known to the Ancients and from their time onwards
to have been continuously observed, _or_ on the other hand regarded as
having first arisen in the ninetieth year of the XVth. Century. Both
views were framed much about the same time, and depended largely on the
position and education of the person delivering judgement. The former
may be styled the view of the learned, the latter the popular view,
though indeed at their first inception it was not so much scientific
reasons in either case as men’s prejudices that formed their basis.

The few really learned Physicians of the end of XVth. Century and
beginning of the XVIth. took as the theme of their study not Nature but
rather the medical Writings of the Greeks and Arabians, a field that
had long been left unappropriated by them, and all were far too firmly
convinced, that _Hippocrates_, and still more _Galen_ and _Avicenna_
had already included in their Works everything that could ever be the
subject of scientific treatment at any given time.

Attention was concentrated upon the Skin Affection that was the
predominant form at first, and this was naturally enough taken for a
kind of Leprosy, and called sometimes Elephantiasis (_Seb. Aquilanus_,
_Phil. Beroaldus_), sometimes “Formica” (_Schellig_, _Cumanus_,
_Gilinus_, _Leonicenus_, _Steber_), by others “Saphat” (_J. Widmann_,
_Nat. Montesaurus_, _Jul. Tanus_, _Jo. de Fogueda_, _Sim. Pistor_).
Hence the view advanced subsequently by _Sydenham_, _Haller_, _Plenk_,
_Thierry_, _Haward_, and held for a time by _Sprengel_, that the
original form of the Venereal Disease was the “Yaws” or “Piana”, and
consequently that Africa must be assigned as the original home of the
disease; and in this way the Moors also were brought in as part of the
concatenation. Later on, when the conviction grew up that the beginning
of the Disease consists in local affections of the genital organs,
it was easy to show that these had always been in existence from the
most ancient times. But as no direct information on the relation
between affections of the Genitals and Skin-disease was to be found in
the earlier Writers, enquirers were driven to the supposition, that
Syphilitic affections of the Skin had been confounded by the Ancients
with Leprosy.

A view, which _Becket_ first sought to establish on precise grounds,
appeared on the contrary too bold to other investigators, who thought
to find some way of evading it. This was to the effect that Leprosy
under favourable conditions had changed into Venereal Disease, and
the increased rarity of the former seemed to speak for this opinion.
Supporters of this last view are in especial _Sprengel_ and _Choulant_
in his Preface to Fracastori’s “Syphilis”. Whilst the particular home
of the Disease was fixed in this way by some authors, _Swediaur_ and
_Beckman_ thought to find it in the East Indies, and held that the
“Dschossam”, a familiar Indian disease, or else the “Persian Fire”
must be looked upon as the original form of the Complaint. _Schaufus_
agreed with them in part; he believed Venereal disease to have been
brought by the Gypsies from India to Europe. _Dr. Wizmann_[3] made
the disease arise in the IInd. Century in Dacia, which at that date
was transformed into a Roman Colony and had to welcome the licentious
Roman soldiery. The excesses of these colonists, in a strange climate,
and seconded by a combination of conditions favourable to epidemic
sickness, produced the disease, which he says is generated to this
day in its genuine form in Turkey. Accordingly _Wizmann_, as also
_Sprengel_ and _Choulant_, and to some extent _Gruner_, who considered
the Moors to be the parents of the Venereal disease, may be regarded as
taking up an intermediate position between the two extreme views, and
as making a sort of transition to the opinions of those who look upon
the Disease as a new one.

The special supporters of this view were, as mentioned above, the
non-medical, though a considerable number of men calling themselves
Physicians agreed with them, though on other grounds, differing only
as to the mode in which the Disease arose. The prevailing astrological
views found the original cause of the Disease in the Conjunction of
the Planets, a conjunction declared beforehand by prophecy to bode
disaster. With this were included as contributing to the effect
Inundations, the oppressed condition of Nations, Famine and the
like. The disease was called an epidemic, or what at that period was
practically synonymous, a pestilential disease, a Plague, and ascribed
of course to the wrath of God. There were other accounts given, that
still carry some show of probability; the Disease was referred to the
poisoning of wells and of wine (Caesalpinus), to the admixture of
gypsum with the flour (Fallopia), or actually to indulgence in human
flesh.

When coition could no longer be denied as an interposing factor, rumour
resorted to all sorts of wild tales, the copulation of a courtesan with
a Leper, copulation with animals, and particularly with asses, and
finally with the voluptuous Indian women of America. From the latter
story grew up by degrees the theory of the American origin of Venereal
Disease, which found its chief supporters in _Astruc_ and _Girtanner_,
and in spite of Hensler’s exertions seems even yet not absolutely
forgotten.


                     General Scheme of Treatment.

It now becomes important to consider more closely these various views,
as well as the reasons advanced for them, and to subject them to
examination. But as the result of this examination will cover to some
extent the same ground as the formal History, it will be expedient to
treat the two as far as possible in connection with one another. By
this method it will _ipso facto_ appear how far the individual views
are tenable, and how far the grounds alleged in their favour valid. And
this is all the more necessary for two reasons, first because by this
means a host of repetitions is avoided, secondly because only in this
way are such gaps as still remain clearly recognised and made tangible.

All the different views fall, as already stated, into two groups,
according as they maintain the antiquity or the modernness of the
Venereal Disease. In conformity with this division we must separate
our investigation from the outset into two parts, of which Part I is
to comprise the Venereal Disease in Antiquity, Part II the Venereal
Disease to the end of the XVth. Century. To this will be added further
as a Third Part, the History of the Disease down to our own day.

Each of the two earlier Parts will open, in accordance with the views
declared above, with a statement and examination of the Authorities.

After that will follow an investigation of the influences that evoked
diseases as a consequence of the use or misuse of the Genital organs
and are favourable to their genesis, as well as those influences
capable of staying, or in the case of diseases already established,
modifying their progress. The difficulty of such an investigation is as
striking as is its necessity; for on this subject there is an almost
total lack of previous Works of any use to consult; and yet it is only
by their help we can possibly win a deeper insight into the history of
Venereal Disease.

The attitude of medical Science in face of these influences and their
consequences will next claim our attention, so far as it is competent
to exert a determining and modifying effect on the form and character
of the Disease. In this connection it is especially important to
determine whether the Physicians correctly diagnosed these diseases for
what they are, or generally speaking had any opportunity of doing so.

Having come to a clear understanding, as far as is possible, on
all these points, we shall then be in a position to give a genetic
exposition of the development of the Disease itself. This will form the
conclusion of each separate part, as well as of the whole Work; and
then and then only we shall be able to say our task is fulfilled.




              THE PLAGUE OF LUST IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY.

                              FIRST PART.




                             AUTHORITIES.


In Antiquity we find that for a considerable length of time the medical
sciences were far from being confined to a distinct profession, and
further, where this does seem to be the case, there is always a not
insignificant proportion of such knowledge that comes to us merely
as popular or traditional Medicine. It is therefore evident, that if
we would gain definite information as to the existence of a Disease
among the Ancients, we ought by no means to confine our attention to
the medical writers. This becomes still more necessary, if we are
bound at the same time to try and discover the ætiological relations
of such a disease, of which it can be stipulated at the outset that it
is intimately connected with the whole life and activity of peoples.
The Historian accordingly is absolutely compelled to test and examine
thoroughly everything that can possibly enlighten him as to these
relations,—to interrogate the Literature of whole Nations.

But here comes in the drawback that only comparatively speaking a very
restricted proportion of the Authors of Antiquity have come down to us,
even after due account has been taken of the possibility that many an
unknown author may lurk concealed in some corner or other of the globe.
Then again the Authors that _have_ been preserved are almost without
exception Greeks or Romans, so that for the major part of the nations
of Antiquity the national authorities are all but entirely lacking,
or else, where something of the sort does exist, it is written in
a language the correct interpretation of which is still partially
to seek. From all this it clearly follows that a complete and final
explanation of any controverted matter of Ancient times can never
strictly speaking be expected, and in particular that it would be a
very rash conclusion to declare positively that a Disease did not exist
in Antiquity, _because_ in the extant and known books no mention occurs
of it.

But in as much as this general incompleteness of information exists
with regard to all relations of Antiquity, and yet for many of them
sufficient explanations have already been obtained, it is obviously
incumbent on us to undertake for our subject also the enquiry how far
the extant authorities are capable of throwing light on it,—a task that
exceeds indeed the powers of any individual, even should he be able to
bring to it all the qualifications indispensable for the understanding
of the said authorities. Consequently there is no other course left
open for him but to institute at the outset a survey of what has so far
been accomplished and ascertained, and then to bring into line with
this whatever he has gleaned from his own study of the authorities,
in the hope that another enquirer, like-minded and better equipped,
may follow on in the track of his endeavours, and so by dint of united
efforts the intended goal may one day be reached.

It would be unprofitable for us, having laid claim, as authorities for
our special enquiry into the ætiological relations, to the remains
of Antiquity in their entirety, to consider them in detail in this
place. At the same time it might well seem expedient to specify more
exactly such of them as are in a position to afford us information as
to the Disease itself. These fall into two classes, viz. physicians
and laymen. The estimation of the first class as authorities for the
Venereal disease demands a number of conditions which we shall only get
to know in the course of our subsequent exposition of the ætiological
relations themselves, and will therefore more conveniently find its
place after this,—in that part of the work where the question is
discussed of the influence of medical aid on the disease. Similarly
only a part of the lay authorities come in here,—authorities from
whom, as may be supposed, we have only to expect rather fragmentary
information, but who are all the more important, when they do exist, as
by their evidence is proved men’s wide, in fact universal, acquaintance
with the disease; and they cannot be charged with having made their
observations of it through such or such a pair of theoretical
spectacles.

The more copious the materials the Historian provides as to the
ætiological relations, the more scanty will be his contributions on the
question of the existence of the disease, as historical characters of
highest importance, or conspicuous frequency of the disease, give him
occasion to mention it.

The case is different, from the first with the _Poets_. The _Satirists_
and _writers of Comedy_ it is true can only supply hints, and these
are often quite unintelligible for later times, if Scholiasts and
Commentators had not taken on them the task of explanation,—though
again their statements must often be used with caution, as they are
so apt to impute to earlier times the opinions of their own. But here
also the field of these hints is very circumscribed, as they are only
admissible so far as it is possible to extract from the subject-matter
a ridiculous, satirical _motif_ (_versus iocosi_, _carmina plena
ioci_,—jesting verses, songs full of jest, are demanded by the very
personality of Priapus); and even then acquaintance with the fact
alluded to in general terms is presupposed on the part of hearer and
reader. We see from this how ill-considered is the contention of those
who say that poets like _Horace_, _Juvenal_ or _Martial_, if they had
been acquainted with the injurious consequences of sexual intercourse
with Hetaerae, could hardly have failed to allude to them on occasion
in _unequivocal_ terms. Hensler[4] excellently observed long ago:—“In
our Century certainly no German poet says one word about it,—neither
the dallying light-o’-love versifiers nor the serious poets. But from
this to draw the conclusion,—_then_ Venereal disease did not exist
among the people, _then_ it has never been seen in Germany this year,
would make physicians and barber-surgeons smile!”

Then again consider the widely different character of the Peoples and
their Languages. The flowery Asiatic and Hindoo was, to begin with,
far enough removed from the spirit of Satire, and on all occasions
preferred to have recourse to images that to us may well seem more
than obscure. The Greek writers of Iambi (Satiric verses in the Iambic
metre) are all but completely lost to us, while of the Comedians
we possess only _Aristophanes_, in the interpretation of whom we
are certainly not yet far enough advanced to make all his allusions
plain to us. Above all, those who pronounce so dogmatically as to the
existence of the Disease on the evidence of hints, appear to have
hardly a notion of the condition in which the Lexicography of both
Greek and Latin is,—a condition still in many respects deplorable.

Besides this the Greeks, and for a time to an almost greater degree the
Romans,[5] were above all things reticent in speech. The Roman still
preserved intact through all the frivolity of his later days certain
shrines, that were never broken open until the period of the utter
corruption of morals; and then no doubt afforded all the richer booty.
But in Satire it was not the fact that became matter of derision, but
the habits of the voluptuary merely _as affecting morality_, as for
instance is clearly seen from a perusal of the passages of Juvenal[6]
read in their mutual connection. Moreover the following account will
sufficiently prove that even among the Romans affections of thee
genitals were never ascribed to _natural_, only to _unnatural_ coition,
Paederastia and the like; and that it was the vice that was derided,
and not properly speaking its consequences.

After the Satirists come the _Epigrammatic poets_, near akin to them.
Whether in this province the Greeks will afford much material, later
investigations must decide; how abundantly the Roman _Martial_ has
rewarded our repeated perusals, the reader will soon be enabled to
convince himself.

From the _Erotic poets_ who composed their lays under the inspiration
of Aphrodité surrounded by the Graces or of the roguish Eros, no one
will expect to gain anything towards our object. The fact that the
_lascivious_ Erotic writers of Antiquity have for the most part been
lost can only be deplored by the Historian of the Venereal disease; for
undoubtedly such works were in existence in considerable profusion,
only as in our own day they were carefully kept concealed from the
eyes of the uninitiated. That the Greeks were not poor in such-like
productions Cynulcus teaches us, who says to a Sophist[7]: “Thou
lyest in the tavern, not in company with friends, but with harlots,
hast a throng of panders round thee, and carriest always with thee
the works of _Aristophanes_, _Apollodorus_, _Ammonius_, _Antiphanes_
and the Athenian _Gorgias_, _who all of them have written of the
Athenian Hetaerae_. One may fitly call thee a _Pornograph_, like the
painters _Aristides_, _Pausanias_ and _Nicophanes_.” Writings of the
same character were still extant in _Martial’s_[8] time, for the
lascivious epigrams on the walls of the grottos, temples and statues of
Priapus[9], on garden-walls, and so forth, afforded an inexhaustible
mine for collecting amateurs, to whom we owe the Priapeia that have
come down to the present day. Had they all been preserved to posterity,
we should doubtless have had no need to bewail the lack of clear
information as to the Venereal disease among the Ancients.

Connected with the poems are the myths and legends of Antiquity. These
however being difficult to understand when studied for their own sake
owing to the confusion that still reigns in all the interpretations and
discussions of them, hardly admit of being used for our purpose with
advantage.

Finally we have yet to mention the Fathers as authorities for the
history of the Venereal disease, for their “Orationes contra Gentes”
(Denunciations of the Gentiles) especially afford much valuable
material towards a knowledge of the moral condition of the nations
of Antiquity. True it is very likely these only too willingly allow
exaggerations at the cost of Paganism, and attribute to an earlier time
as already existing then, what really belongs to their own day. Still
these drawbacks lose much of their importance in so far as the question
for the present is only,—whether previously to the end of the XVth.
Century the Venereal Disease existed or no.

The difficulties that arise in the systematic study and manipulation
of all these authorities require no further discussion here, being
sufficiently well known to every investigator of Antiquity—be he
physician or layman.




                            FIRST SECTION.


Influences which promoted the generation of Disease consequent upon the
                 Use or Misuse of the Genital Organs.

                                 § 1.


Directly it becomes a question of studying the diseases of a particular
part or organ, diseases occasioned by the nature of the use made
of that particular part or organ, it is primarily requisite to
investigate more precisely the different forms of this use. Then and
then only shall we be in a position to define the share which secondary
influences are competent to have in producing the said diseases. The
_natural_ use of the genital organs is simply the performance of the
acts necessary to beget children. On this depends the preservation
of the whole species. It is therefore improbable that Nature should
have made such use liable to produce disease. As a matter of fact the
experience of all ages shows that in a judicious marriage, the natural
aim and object of which is the procreation of children, diseases of the
genitals seldom, if ever, arise.

There must then be a secondary use of the genital organs, which is
carried out without any view of begetting offspring, or in which
this plays only a subordinate part, and consequently some other
than the _natural_ object is that pursued. This object is _Sensual
gratification_, which is associated with the use of the genital organs,
and the use of the genital organs for the attainment of this object is
_Sensuality_. Every misuse of any given organ cannot but be associated
with detriment both to the organ itself and to the whole organism as
well. This must of course also be the case with the genitals,[10]
and it is in the misuse of them, in Sensual practices, that the most
prominent efficient cause of maladies of these organs must be sought.
Now it is our business to give a history of the maladies of the genital
organs; and this is only possible on the condition that we have first
of all gained a clear insight into the history of Sensuality.

Doubtless it is a melancholy task for the Historian to follow up and
reveal the moral degradation of Peoples and Nations even to its most
revolting details, and the Ethical philosopher might find not a few
objections to raise against an undertaking of the kind. None the less
is the Physician compelled to search out under all forms the traces
of Vice in its most secret hiding-places, and so fathom the nature of
the Disease in each individual case; and still more with Nations as a
whole is he permitted,—nay! it is his bounden duty, to fix his eyes on
their doings and those of each of their component parts. Thus only can
he detect the nature of a Disease, which destroys the marrow of Peoples
more surely and more terribly for this very reason that its genesis
proceeds in secret.

The reproach that the Moral repute of Nations is hereby ruined, and
the general mass saddled with the guilt of vices which of course only
individuals ever committed, has no place here, for it is solely through
the precise knowledge of the doings of these individuals that a due
appreciation is possible of the danger that threatens the whole body
politic from this source. Had not a false ideal of Morality hitherto
restrained the individual, as it did the mass, from speaking out the
truth, we should be much farther advanced than we are in the knowledge
of a Disease, whose characteristic symptom it is that those who suffer
from it endeavour, as far as they possibly can, to conceal its cause!


                        The Cult of Venus[11].

                                 § 2.


The imaginative son of the South, already of his very nature prone to
attribute all that his unpractised intellect failed to comprehend to
the influence of a special Deity, was bound to do this pre-eminently
in the case of an act that is even yet to us moderns wrapped in
impenetrable obscurity,—the act of generation and conception. How
could he think of this Deity[12], that used his own body as its
instrument and in so doing bestowed on him the highest pleasure of the
senses, otherwise than under the shape of a Being equally alluring and
loving, convinced that this Being must be infinitely more alluring[13]
than even the beloved form that he held in his arms? “The young man’s
fancy” craves a lovely maiden; the maiden needed a loving sister, into
whose arms she could trustingly throw herself, who intuitively divined
all her soft, sweet emotions, to express which she sought in vain for
words, which she scarce dared to own to herself that she was conscious
of, and understood them!

To the Goddess’ Temple she wandered, before her poured out the longings
that filled her heart to overflowing[14], and at the last offered up
herself a gift at the holy place, that so Aphrodité Ἀφροδίτη εὔκαρπος,
κουροτρόφος, γενετύλλις,—Aphrodité rich in fruit, giving offspring, of
the birth-hour) might be glorified in her, and herself be a participant
in the highest happiness of Woman,—the joys of Motherhood. First she
prepared herself by bodily purification[15] before she trod the
Temple threshold, then at the Temple altar she received spiritual
purity; and thus thrilled through and through with the influence of the
holiest, the Priest’s hand[16] led her to the arms of her Lover, who
as unspoiled yet and unsophisticated as she, had not sought to unveil
the most august secrets of Nature with audacious hand. Intoxicated with
rapture he drew his darling on to the Torus (sacred couch) bedecked
with fragrant blossoms, and almost unconsciously to himself, became the
creator of a being wherein both saw themselves made young again.

If Man is really the noblest of created Beings, made by the Creator
in his own image, in very truth then the power that unconsciously
raises Man to the level of his Maker must be a divine power too, and
that act in the exercise of which it comes itself into play an act of
most sublime worship. Are we to suppose there never was a time when
Man, pure as he came from the hand of his Creator, followed in the
singleness of his heart no other law but that written in his heart?
Surely not merely in the dreams of the Poet was found the legend of an
Eden, from which Man was driven out by his own guilt; more true to say
that to this day we are all of us born therein. But alas! others’ guilt
or our own tears us away from out the garden of Paradise, ere we have
yet been able often to raise our eyes to take delight in its glory.
Thus it is that many a man now and again has the memory of a Dream,
that accompanies him on his pilgrimage through life, and he hopes to
find in the future what long ago, before he grew conscious of its
existence, became a thing of the past. Perchance it may be the fatal
tasting of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was nothing else than the
misuse of the genital organs, to content bestial longings, to arouse
the titillation of an enervating pruriency[17]. “And the eyes of them
both were opened, and they knew that they were naked!” The bestial had
won the victory over the divine, which fled away from the desecrated
altar; and the Genius of Mankind wept over their Fall!

Here is the History at once of Man individually and of whole Peoples.
Over the Temple-worship of Aphrodité also impended such a crisis;
and sooner or later the holy courts of Venus Urania (Heavenly Venus)
changed into the Lupanar of Venus Vulgivaga (Brothel of Venus of the
Streets).


                                 § 3.

A precise knowledge of the extension of the Venus-cult in chronological
order would readily supply us the means of following up historically
the moral deterioration of the Peoples of Antiquity; but so long as we
do not possess this, History cannot be expected to give us anything of
great value. All that we are for the present in a position to give,
pertinent to the object we aim at, is as follows:

“The worship of this Urania,” says Pausanias[18], “the Assyrians first
introduced amongst themselves, after the Assyrians the Paphians in
Cyprus[19], and among the Phoenicians[20] the inhabitants of Ascalon in
Palestine. From the Phoenicians the inhabitants of Cythera[21] learned
to know and worship her. At Athene Aegeus introduced her worship.” It
was at Babylon then that the cult of Venus originated as _Mylitta_
worship, spread over the inland parts to Mesopotamia as the Sabaean[22]
religion, and was passed on by the Phoenicians to the seaboard peoples
as Astarté-worship. For at the spot where this cult first arose, it
lasted longest in its original purity, and _Herodotus_[23] could report
how at Babylon the daughters of the country were compelled _once_ in
their life-time to give themselves for money to a strange man to win
the favour of the goddess, then to return to their dwelling all the
more virtuous for the sin, and neither promises nor gifts, however
great these might be, availed ever again to draw them into the arms of
a stranger. Later indeed it was different even here, perhaps through
the influence of the Phoenicians, who had manifold dealings with them.
For _Herodotus_ himself relates elsewhere (Bk. I. 196), that after the
capture of Babylon by the Persians, the poorer classes, dreading the
forcible abduction of their daughters, if means of subsistence failed
them, made them harbour-wenches[24]. And accordingly _Q. Curtius_[25]
felt bound to write of Babylon:

“Nihil urbis eius corruptius moribus, nihil ad irritandas
illiciendasque immodicas voluptates instructius. Liberos coniugesque
cum hospitibus stupro coire, modo pretium flagitii detur, parentes
maritique patiuntur.... Feminarum convivia ineuntium in principio
modestus est habitus, dein summa quaeque amicula exuunt, paulatimque
pudorem profanant: ad ultimum ... ima corporum velamenta proiiciunt;
nec meretricum hoc dedecus est sed matronarum virginumque apud quas
comitas habetur vulgati corporis vilitas.”

(Nothing can well be more corrupt than the manners of this City,
nothing more artfully adapted to excite the passions and allure to
voluptuous excesses. Strangers are permitted by parents and husbands,
provided the price of shame is forthcoming, to have lustful intercourse
with their children and their wives.... At their first entrance to the
banquet-room the women’s dress is modest, presently they remove their
outer robes one by one, and little by little violate all modesty, ...
at the last stripping off the innermost coverings of their persons. And
this is no mere abomination of harlots, but the habit of matrons and
maids, who consider that in thus making themselves cheap and exposing
their bodies they are showing courtesy). This custom we find again
carried still further amongst the Armenians, who _Strabo_[26][27] says
consecrate their daughters for some considerable length of time to
Anaitis, and only after this suffer them to marry. _Herodotus_[28]
relates the same custom of the Lydians, degenerated in the same
way as had been the case in later times at Babylon, for here too
the lower classes used to abandon their daughters to prostitution
for a livelihood. Still in its original purity the usage reached
the Phoenicians[29], but with them also would seem to have early
degenerated, although in particular towns of Phoenicia the practice
appears to have been followed only under certain circumstances.
_Lucian_[30] relates that the women, of Byblus, where was a Temple of
Ἀφροδίτη βυβλίη (Venus of Byblos), _if_ they would not allow their hair
to be cut off at the Funeral-feast of Adonis, were bound in honour of
Venus for one whole day to abandon their bodies to strangers. Among the
Carthaginians[31] also, as in Cyprus[32], maidens had to earn their
dowry, and the Tyrant Dionysius introduced the same custom, no doubt
with a secondary design of a profit for himself, amongst the people of
Locri.[33]


                                 § 4.

As to the _reason_ for this custom, one might be found in the opinion
that prevailed almost universally in Antiquity amongst the Asiatic
peoples, that the first-fruits of everything were consecrate to the
Deity, and accordingly the virgin’s hymen must be offered up to Venus.
But this will not in any way explain why the self-surrender must nearly
always take place with a _Stranger_ (ἀνδρὶ ξείνῳ) of all people in the
world. _Heyne_[34] and _Fr. Jacobs_[35], who paid special attention to
this custom, are it is true agreed in thinking that a religious motive
lay at the bottom of it, though they differ in their conception of what
it was; but neither of them hit on the right explanation. A careful
distinction must be made between the _Ceremony_ and the _Act_ of the
self-surrender. The first was a matter of religion, the second not; for
the women were conveyed at Babylon outside the Temple-precincts, in
Cyprus to the sea-shore, for the purpose of yielding their bodies to
strangers[36]. Had the act been regarded at that period as a religious
one, it would of necessity have been practised, as was the case before
and again later, in the Temple or at least within its precincts, and of
course with fellow-countrymen, strangers not being allowed to take part
in any native religious practice.

The discrepancies however soon disappear if it is remembered that in
Antiquity, as to this day amongst many savage peoples, not only was the
menstrual blood (of which more fully later) held to be impure, but also
the blood that flowed, when a virgin was deflowered, from the rupture
of the hymen, and consequently the act of defloration as well. The same
held good in the case of coition with widows, because it was believed
that with them the menstrual blood accumulated in greater quantity,
then was discharged on occasion of the first coition, and must
necessarily cause injury to the man. This also explains why _Herodotus_
(loco citato) says γυναῖκες (women) and not simply κόραι or παρθένοι
(girls, virgins); and removes at once _Heyne’s_ doubts (p. 32) and the
difficulties raised by _Heeren_[37].

The dwellers on the sea-coast, who enjoyed more active intercourse
with the rest of the world, left to strangers the polluting act of
defloration, whilst among inland peoples this office was undertaken
for those of the higher classes[38] by the priests, or else an idol,
specially appropriated for the purpose, a Priapus or Lingam (see
later) was employed. Subsequently several mistaken reasons may well
have been alleged for the custom; the only idea that continued to be
consistently held was that defloration was not a proper function of
the bridegroom. It was rather made a matter of honour, and accordingly
brides offered themselves first to the wedding-guests, as among the
Nasomonians in Africa[39] and in the Balearic Islands[40], where the
right of preference went by age.

We must then take into consideration _several_ causal factors to help
us to an explanation of the custom in question. The original motive
may very well have been in every case the consecration of the maiden’s
virginity to the goddess,[41]—Hieroduli (Temple hand-maids) in the
earlier meaning. Further again the maiden was bound to pay her tribute
to the goddess of sexual Pleasure[42], so as to co-operate with the
husband with a view to the procreation of children. Little by little
the custom lost its purer character. After a time it ceased to be any
longer one of universal obligation, and became binding only for the
poorer classes, who found in it an opportunity of earning a dowry[43]
for their daughters. Meantime the rich adopted the habit of presenting
female slaves to the temple of the goddess, thereby giving occasion
for the establishment of the regular Hieroduli,—who subsequently grew
into _filles de joie_ in the proper sense, and laying the foundation
of the brothel system (see later). Out of the idea of consecration
was subsequently developed on the one hand that of initiation for the
married state,—an idea found again in the “proof-nights” custom of the
Middle Ages, and on the other the idea of bondage that grew into the
“Jus primae noctis” (Right of first night).

As second factor then must be reckoned the belief in the harmfulness
of the blood resulting from rupture of the hymen at defloration; and
connected with this the actual injury that the man’s genital organs
are occasionally exposed to in deflowering a maid with narrow vaginal
orifice, or at any rate the effort necessarily called for to perforate
the hymen, a motive not without actual weight amongst indolent
Asiatics[44]. To this day the bridegroom at Goa gives thanks to the
_Priapus_ (Lingam), that has loosed his bride’s virgin-zone, with
marks of the deepest adoration and gratitude for having performed this
honourable service and so relieved him of a heavy task[45].

For the maid defloration is yet more painful, and as she had to go
through it once and once only with a stranger, she might readily get
the idea that it was the stranger alone that was to blame; consequently
that every surrender to a stranger must involve the same sufferings.
This would deter her from a second experience of the kind, and all the
more so because the subsequent embraces of the husband stirred in her
only pleasurable sensations. So the wife had no inducement to break the
marriage vow.


                                 § 5.

When and under what circumstances the cult of Venus first came into
_Greece_ can hardly be discovered, though indeed _Pausanias_ states in
the passage quoted above that it was Aegeus (Erechtheus) who brought it
to Athens. For a long period it played only a subordinate part, being
kept under by the primeval god Eros (Love)[46]. No doubt the physical
element may have come in early times from abroad[47], but before long
the stamp of the spiritual was strongly impressed upon it (the Graces
were added as handmaidens to Aphrodité!),—so strongly that the idea
of the procreating power fell henceforth into the background, to give
place to that of Love, an idea that was entirely foreign to Asia. The
amalgamation of Eros and Aphrodité, who was now first hallowed by him,
or as the poet puts it, now first brought forward into the assemblage
(Order) of the Gods, came about so gradually and imperceptibly that
it would hardly be possible to obtain a clear conception of the views
of the Greeks on the point. In consequence of the growing intercourse
with the peoples of Asia, and particularly the Phoenicians[48],
foreign customs and usages came to be introduced and adopted with ever
increasing frequency; and during the flourishing period of Greece
we see the Asiatic character of the Venus ritual come into ever
greater prominence, and the goddess herself in a sense re-introduced.
Especially was this the case in the Islands and the seaport-towns,
where as a rule the worship of Aphrodité first arose. Hence she was
entitled the goddess “born of the (Sea) Foam”, and temples were built
to her as “Protectress of Havens.”[49]

But the Greek genius found this physical Cult too strongly opposed
to its own spirit. The Greek could not bring it into unison with his
Eros-worship; and accordingly distinguished his goddess, under the name
of Aphrodité Urania (Heavenly Aphrodité)[50], from that worshipped by
other Peoples as Aphrodité Pandemos[51] (Aphrodité Common to all Men).
The latter was relegated to the Islands[52], and particularly Cyprus;
and never properly speaking became a national Deity.

It is very interesting as a general fact that the Venus Urania always
belongs, so it appears, to the inland regions, the Venus Pandemos on
the contrary to the sea-ports and islands[53]; for it was as a rule
from East to West along the coast-lines that the Asiatic form of the
Cult spread, a thing that could not have happened except through the
instrumentality of a people early practising navigation, such as the
Phoenicians.

It cannot fail to have an important bearing on our subject to make
a more precise acquaintance with the geographical distribution of
the Venus-cult. We propose to give here a brief enumeration of the
localities where she had her temples. The passages in evidence for this
will be found given with tolerable completeness in _Manso_,—p. 46, also
pp. 158 sqq.

In _Cyprus_: at Paphos, whither came yearly a great concourse of people
at the festival time[54]; in _Pamphilia_; _in Asia Minor_; along the
_Coast-line of the Aegean_; in Caria (Cnidos); Halicarnassus; Miletus;
Ephesus; Sardis; Pergamus; Pyrrha; Abydos (Aphrodité πόρνη—harlot); in
_Thessaly_; at Tricca; in _Boeotia_, (Tanagra—on the Sea); in _Attica_,
(Athens, Colias, Pera[55], on the Cephissus); in the Islands of the
_Aegean Sea_, (Ceos, Cos, Samos, where the temple was built from the
earnings of the Hetaerae); in the _Peloponnese_: at Argolis, Epidaurus,
Troezen, Hermioné, (was visited by maids and widows before their
marriage); in _Laconia_, (Amyclae, Cythera); _Arcadia_, (Megalopolis,
Tegea, Orcomenus); _Elis_, (Olympia, Elis); _Achaia_, (Patrae,
Corinth); on the _Coast of the Corinthian Gulf_. From Greece we come to
_Sicily_, where the temple of Venus on Mount _Eryx_ was hardly inferior
to that of Paphos, also at Syracuse[56].

Not without importance for our purpose is the statement of
_Strabo_[57], that in the island of Cos in the temple of Aesculapius
was an effigy of Venus Anadyomené (coming from the bath), while
according to _Pausanias_[58] in a wood near the temple of the same god
at Epidaurus was built a chapel of Aphrodité, since very possibly this
may throw some light on the question of the knowledge of complaints of
the genital organs possessed by the physicians of Cos. _Böttiger_[59]
is of opinion that it was from the infirmaries and lazarettos of
the Phoenicians that the earliest medical science of the Greeks was
introduced—to the island of Cos; to Aegina, on the Peloponnesian
coasts, especially at Epidaurus. Probably these establishments were
originally under the protection of the national deity, until the latter
was superseded by the god Aesculapius.

As regards the cult of Aphrodité itself and the manner in which it was
celebrated in Greece, there appears to be a great lack of particulars
capable of supplying a general knowledge of the subject, and especially
so where the Pandemian Aphrodité is concerned. Accordingly we will
limit ourselves here to mentioning the female _Hieroduli_[60] who as
bondswomen of Aphrodité dwelt within the precinct of her Temple, and
performed the necessary observances in her honour. These were, as
already pointed out, of Asiatic origin, and to be found in greater
numbers particularly at Ameria[61] and Comana[62] in Pontus, where
they united with the temple-service the traffic of their bodies, (τῶν
ἐργαζομένων ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος—of women who traffic with their body), just
as in later times male Hieroduli gave up their persons for Paederastia.

When the cult of Venus came into Greece, the Hieroduli were introduced
along with it. But they stripped off in Greece their Asiatic character,
which they assumed again only in particular sea-port towns at the
period of the decline of the moral greatness of the Nation, in places
where the temple of Aphrodité Πόρνη (Harlot) was found. Specially was
this so at Corinth[63], in which city were more than a thousand female
Hieroduli, who were presented as slaves to the Temple. These attracted
a great concourse of strangers to the place, and in particular used
to prey upon sea-faring visitors. Possibly however in this case as in
others a confusion took place between the Hieroduli properly so-called
and the Hetaerae (Lady-Companions), who were euphemistically entitled
Priestesses, Handmaids of Aphrodité, because they were under the
patronage of that goddess, just as in a general way sexual enjoyment
was called an offering to Venus.

This would offer the best solution of the question, early debated, of
the morality of the Hieroduli. It was quite opposed to Greek feeling to
worship Aphrodité after the Asiatic manner in her temples; and so the
Greek distinguished his Venus Urania from the Venus Pandemos, and on
the same principle separated her temples into two categories, and made
the temples of Aphrodité Pandemos, Porné and Praxis (Common to All,
Harlot, Sexual Intercourse) into the οἰκήματα τῆς Ἀφροδίτης (houses of
Aphrodité) serving as ordinary brothels, the latter being only intended
for Foreigners originally.

How and under what form the cult of Venus came into Italy is uncertain,
but the legend represents Aeneas as having brought it from Troy to
Lavinium and Laurentum[64], and already in the time of Romulus a Venus
Myrtea (Venus of the Myrtle) was venerated at Rome. In addition a
Venus Cloacina, Erycina, Victrix, and Verticordia (Venus—the Purifier,
of Mount Eryx, of Victory, the Turner of Hearts) are mentioned, as
also a Venus _Calva_ (bald), whose worship King Ancus is said to have
introduced, at a time when the Roman women had lost their hair through
a plague and it had grown again by the help of Venus[65]. Not only are
the notices as to Venus worship in Italy very scanty, but everything on
the subject points to the fact that what there was of it in later times
showed little of the Asiatic impress; and we can conveniently leave
the matter where it is. Some questions belonging to the subject will be
discussed later under the heading _Brothels_. In Spain too the worship
of Venus was so unimportant that there is no need to enter more closely
into the point.


                    The Lingam and Phallic Worship.


                                 § 6.

Whilst the cult of Venus sprang up in the interior of Asia and was
disseminated from thence over other parts of the world, it is in
India that the Lingam ritual took its rise, a ritual more closely
corresponding with the egotism of man. The idea that was early
formed as the result of observation, that the man’s genitals were
the determining element in the process of generation, was bound to
conceive these organs themselves as being, in the prevailing system of
Pantheism, under the Government of a Deity, and therefore as specially
holy[66]. Now how could this Deity be represented to the eyes of men
otherwise than by that organ whereby he pre-eminently showed himself
efficacious? The later legend it is true put the matter into another
shape; and we find in _Sonnerat_[67] the myth of the Lingam-ritual
amongst the worshippers of Vishnu related in the following form:

“The Penitents had by means of their sacrifices and prayers attained
great power; but their hearts and their wives’ hearts must ever
remain pure, if they would continue in possession of it. Now Siva
had heard the beauty of these latter highly extolled, and formed the
determination of seducing them. With this aim in view he took on him
the form of a young mendicant[68] of perfect beauty, bade Vishnu
transform himself into a fair maiden and resort to the spot where the
Penitents dwelt, in order to make them fall in love with him. Vishnu
betook himself thither, and as he passed through their midst threw them
such tender glances that they were all enamoured. They left all their
sacrifices to follow after the youthful fair one.[69]

Their passions grew all the fiercer, till at last they seemed all
lifeless and their languishing bodies resembled wax that melts near the
fire.

Siva himself hied to the dwelling-place of the women. In mendicant
guise he carried in one hand a water-bottle, and sang as he went, as
beggars do. Now his song was so entrancing, that all women gathered
round him, and thereupon under the gaze of the fair singer fell into
complete distraction. This was so great with some that they lost their
ornaments and clothing, and followed him in the garb of nature without
noticing the fact.

When he had marched through the village, he left it, but not
unaccompanied, for all followed him into a neighbouring thicket, where
he had his will of them. Soon afterwards the Penitents became aware
that their sacrifices no longer possessed their former efficacy, and
_that their power was no more the same as before_. After a period of
pious contemplation they now learned that it had been Siva who in the
form of a Youth had seduced their wives into profligacy, and that they
themselves had been _led astray_ by Vishnu in the likeness of a Maid.

Accordingly they determined to slay Siva by means of a sacrifice.

(After many vain attempts), ashamed to have lost their honour without
being able to avenge themselves, they made a last desperate effort;
they united into one all their prayers and expiations, and directed
them against Siva. It was the most terrible of their sacrifices, and
God himself could not withstand the effects of its operation. They went
forth like a flame of fire and fastened on Siva’s organs of generation
and severed them from his body. Enraged with the Penitents, Siva now
resolved to set the whole world in conflagration to punish them.
The fire was already beginning to seize all around, when Vishnu and
Brahma, on whom it was incumbent to save the living creatures in the
world, thought of means to put a stop to it. Brahma took the form of a
pedestal (?) and Vishnu that of the female organs of generation, and in
this way copied Siva’s organs of generation, and thereby the universal
conflagration was stayed. Siva suffered himself to be appeased by their
prayers, and promised not to burn up the world, if men would pay divine
honours to the dissevered organs.”

Now if we consider this myth, as related here, more closely, we can
scarcely avoid the suspicion that it is one of those that in later
times were fabricated in many forms and foisted in as genuine. For
it is entirely adapted to explain the origin of the Venereal disease
in a way that leaves little to be desired; for which reason it was
used by _Schaufus_ as the basis of his argument that the Venereal
disease was introduced into Europe from India. But on the other hand
this particular story is so accordant with the ancient creed of the
Hindoos in general that, if it is of later origin, it must have been
put together with the assistance of older legends. The continued union
with the god, the power which the Penitents owed to him, was connected
with purity of heart, with avoidance of sensuality[70]; directly they
indulged in the latter, they were deprived of the divine influence,
just as in the Mosaic legend resulted from the Fall of Man. This is
one part of the legend,—manifestly a double one, while the other
includes the punishment of the being who wrought this profanation. His
genitals were destroyed by burning, which was attacking the World (i.e.
men through the women seduced by Siva?), and ceased only through the
prayers of the Penitents, which again became efficacious; thereupon the
organs thus happily made sound again were suspended as thank-offerings
in the temple of the god.

It would seem then that it was the sickness of the male genitals which
gave occasion for their consecration and worship; and this is so far
not inconsistent with reason, as the external position of the sexual
parts in the male make every affection and injury perceptible at
once with but little trouble, while the female organs lie in a more
concealed situation. So that to the present day diseases of the male
genitals are far more precisely known and appreciated than those of the
female.

Should the enquirer push his search for an explanation further still,
he might, arguing from what is said as to Vishnu’s having copied
Siva’s sexual organs that had been blighted by the fire under the
form of female genitals, allege a sort of natural cause for the
conflagration, to wit the suggestion of a mode of cure which was
frequently recommended and practised in the Middle Ages, when persons
thought to drive away the clap by coition with virgins. But this is
surely nothing else than an explanation of the Lingam[71] superimposed
on the symbol of the _Juni_, the feminine principle, in the form of the
triangle, which Böttiger holds to be identical with the navel-stone of
the Paphian goddess.

_F. G. Klein_[72] professes to have proved from annals of Malabar that
long before the discovery of the West Indies Venereal disease was
known in the East Indies, for the Malabar physicians _Sangarasiar_
and _Alessianambi_, who lived more than nine hundred years ago, and
other physicians even before them, make mention he says of the Disease
and its cure by means of Mercury. But in Antiquity affections of the
genitals must have certainly been rarities amongst the inhabitants of
India, for the Greeks[73] count them amongst the longlived peoples,
as owing to their moderation they were subject to few diseases. Again
the climate of India is by no means to be considered as a factor
favourable to the disease, _Munro_[74] assuring us that simple herbs
and moderate mode of life make the Hindoo recover, when no European
could fail to succomb.


                                 § 7.

Whether the Phallus ritual in Egypt, where it is supposed to have
arisen from the generative organs of Osiris cut off by Typho, have
an Indian origin or no, it is impossible to decide[75]. But that it
existed is certain, for not only are miniature Phalli often found
with Mummies, but it was also portrayed in the Temple of Karnak[76];
and Herodotus[77] mentions it, and adds at the same time that in the
statutes the Phalli were _movable_. Perhaps from it was developed in
part the cult of _Mendes_, of which we shall speak later. Although
_Herodotus_[78] declares that the Egyptians were the first people
who had forbidden the accomplishment of coition in the temples, yet
_Strabo_[79] writes that they dedicated to Zeus the fairest and
best-born maidens, whom the Greeks called Pallades, and compelled them
to give themselves to men until their menstruation began for the first
time, whereupon they were married.

As regards Greece on the contrary there is scarcely a doubt that
the worship of Bacchus, and with it the Phallic ritual[80], was
transplanted to that country from India. To explain the occasion of
this introduction there is a legend related in the highest degree
worthy of attention in connection with the history of affections of the
genitals. It is told by _Natalis Comes_[81] in the following terms:

“Fuerunt et Phallica in Dionysi honorum instituta, quae apud
Athenienses agebantur, apud quos primus Pegasus ille Eleutheriensis
Bacchi cultum instituit, in quibus cantabant quem ad modum Deus hic
morbo Athenienses liberavit et quem ad modum multorum bonorum auctor
mortalibus extitit. Fama est enim quod Pegaso imagines Dionysi ex
Eleutheris civitate Boeotiae in Atticam regionem portante Athenienses
Deum neglexerunt neque, ut mos erat, cum pompa acceperunt: _quare
Deus indignatus pudenda hominum morbo infestavit, qui erat illis
gravissimus_: tunc eis ab oraculo, quo pacto liberari possent
petentibus, responsum datum est: solum esse remedium malorum omnium,
si cum honore et pompa Deum recepissent; quod factum fuit. Ex ea re
tum privatim tum publice lignea virilia thyrsis alligantes per eam
solennitatem gestabant. Fuit enim Phallus vocatum membrum virile. Alii
Phallum ideo consecratum Dionyso putarunt, quia sit autor creditus
generationis.”

(There were Phallic rites too established in honour of Dionysus,
(these were observed among the Athenians; for it was at Athens that
the far-famed Pegasus first established the worship of Eleutherian
Bacchus)[82], at which men chanted hymns telling how the god freed the
Athenians from a plague, and how he was the giver of many good gifts
to mortals. For the story relates that Pegasus brought the images of
Dionysus from Eleutherae, a city of Boeotia, to the land of Attica; but
the Athenians slighted the god, and did not, as was the wont, receive
him with a procession. _Wherefore the god was wroth, and afflicted the
men’s private parts with a disease that was most grievous to them._ So
they consulted the oracle, asking in what way they might be freed from
the plague, and received the answer: there was one only remedy for all
their ills, viz. that they should welcome the god with due honour and
fitting procession. And this they did accordingly. And in commemoration
thereof they used to bind _virilia_ (male generative organs) of wood to
the thyrsi (Bacchic staves), and carry them thus at the solemnity in
question; and this was done both privately and publicly. For _Phallus_
is the name given to a man’s privy member. Others again considered that
it was consecrate to Dionysus for this reason, because he was deemed
the author of procreation).

Still more striking is the legend which the same author, _Natalis
Comes_[83], gives of the introduction of Priapus worship into
Lampsacus, though it bears so great a resemblance to the preceding that
the one might almost be thought to have been taken from the other.
Aphrodité, he says, on the occasion of Bacchus’[84] progress to India
was made pregnant by him, and on her return to Lampsacus was brought to
bed of _Priapus_, whose deformity was caused by the goddess Juno[85],
who afforded succour to the mother at the time of his birth:

“Deinde, cum adolevisset (Priapus) pergratusque foret Lampsacenis
mulieribus, Lampsacenorum decreto ex agro Lampsaceno exulavit.—Fuerunt
qui memoriae prodiderint Priapum fuisse virum Lampsacenum, qui cum
haberet ingens instrumentum et facile paratum plantandis civibus,
gratissimus fuerit mulieribus Lampsacenis. Ea causa postmodo fuisse
dicitur, ut Lampsacenorum omnium ceterorum invidiam in se converterit,
ac demum eiectus fuerit ex ipsa insula. At illud facinus aegerrime
ferentibus mulieribus et pro se deos precantibus, post cum nonnullis
interiectis temporibus _Lampsacenos gravissimus pudendorum membrorum
morbus_ invasisset, Dodonaeum oraculum adeuntes percunctati sunt an
ullum esset eius morbi remedium. His responsum est: morbum non prius
cessaturum, quam Priapum in patriam revocassent. Quod cum fecissent,
templa et sacrificia illi statuerunt, Priapumque hortorum Deum esse
decreverunt.”

(Subsequently when he—Priapus—had come to man’s estate, and was now
exceedingly pleasing to the women of Lampsacus, by a decree of the
Lampsacenes he was exiled from the territory of Lampsacus.—Some there
are to tell the tradition that Priapus was a man of Lampsacus who had
a huge “instrument” ready and willing for the making of new citizens,
and who on that account was most pleasing to the Lampsacene women.
Wherefore it is said afterwards to have come about that he incurred the
envy and hatred of all the rest of the men of Lampsacus, and eventually
was expelled from the island altogether. But this was a disaster that
the women most bitterly regretted; so they prayed to the gods to help
them, and after some interval of time had elapsed _a most grievous
disease of the private parts attacked the men of Lampsacus_. Then they
reported to the oracle of Dodona, and enquired of the god if there
were any remedy for this plague. The reply was to the effect that the
disease would not cease till they had recalled Priapus to his native
land. This they did; and furthermore built temples and established
sacrifices in his honour, and decreed that Priapus should be the god of
gardens).[86]

Whatever interpretation we may give to these legends of Bacchus and
Priapus, this much at any rate may be gathered from them without fear
of contradiction, that affections of the male genitals at the time when
they first became prevalent were taken to be the original cause of the
introduction of Phallic worship,—in connection with the defloration of
virgins mentioned in § 4. This is not without importance as bearing on
the antiquity of the well-known Indian legend of the Lingam-ritual; and
at the same time shows clearly that those affections of the genital
organs must have borne a malignant character that men could not explain
to themselves otherwise than as proceeding from the wrath of a Deity, a
deity who on the other hand alone possessed the power to remove these
ills. Another factor of great importance in connection with affections
of the genitals in Antiquity, and of all the greater importance in as
much as it leads us to the conclusion that resort was had for their
cure not to human but to divine assistance, partly indeed depends on
reasons which we shall discuss more exactly later on. However these
reasons may in part be gathered at once from the following _supremely
important_ poem in the Priapeia[87], to which _de Jurgenew_ first
called attention in his Dissertation, p. 11, but without communicating
it in its entirety:


                             VOTI SOLUTIO.

  Cur pictum memori sit in tabella
  Membrum quaeritis unde procreamur?
  _Cum penis mihi forte laesus esset,
  Chirurgique manum miser timerem,
  Diis me legitimis, nimisque magnis_
  Ut Phoebo puta, filioque Phoebi
  _Curatum dare mentulam verebar_.
  Huic dixi, fer opem, Priape, parti,
  Cuius tu, pater, ipse par videris:[88]
  Qua salva _sine sectione_ facta,
  Ponetur tibi picta, quam levaris,
  Parque consimilisque concolorque.
  Promisit fore: mentulam movit
  Pro nutu deus et rogata fecit.


                             PAYING A VOW.

(Why, you ask, is portrayed on the tablet the member whereby we are
begotten? _When, as it befell, my penis was damaged, and like a
wretched coward I dreaded the Surgeon’s hand, I was afraid to entrust
myself and the cure of my organ to the great official gods, that
were too high for me_, such I mean as Phoebus and Phoebus’ son. “To
the member, I said, do thou, Priapus, give aid,—the member that thou
art fashioned in the likeness of[88]. Then when it has been healed
_without the knife_, a painted image of the part thou has relieved
shall be dedicated to thee,—a match, a perfect match in form and in
hue.” Thus he made his vow; the god nodded his penis in token of
assent, and answered his prayers.)

This poem, whoever its author may have been[89], testifies most
explicitly that the Poet’s genital organs were seriously affected (by
Phimosis and Ulcers?), that he from fear (_timerem_) of the Surgeon’s
knife, from shame (_verebar_) before the regular physician in view of
the part affected and of the way in which he had got the disease, had
recourse to prayer and vow before the image of Priapus, and thereupon
happily recovered without medical assistance!

The veneration of Priapus was pretty well universal in Italy, as the
Roman poets teach us, and equally so the Phallic worship, of which
the frequent representations of the Phallus that we find at Pompeii
bear witness; in fact the latter, as _Knight_ shows, maintained itself
in connection with the veneration of Saints _Cosmus_ and _Damian_
down to the last Century at Isernia. The just quoted Poem from the
Priapeia might perhaps serve to afford us an indication as to how the
Phallus ritual has come to be connected with these Christian Saints;
for probably patients attacked by the Venereal disease prayed to them,
just as the Romans did to Priapus. Possibly examples of such cures by
the saints in question are found in the “Acta Sanctorum Bollandi”.
(Bollandist Lives of the Saints),—under Sept. 27.; but we are not able
to consult the book. These Saints however were not the only ones that
were venerated in the Middle Ages in the same way as the Priapus of the
Ancients. In France unfruitful wives used to pray to St. Guerlichon, in
Normandy to St. Giles, in Anjou to St. René, in connection with whom
they practised rites which _Stephanus_ declares himself ashamed to
specify[90].


                         Plague of Baal-Peor.


                                 § 8.

Although the period at which the worship of Priapus was introduced
among the different Peoples cannot be always definitely fixed, and
although Classical Mythology invariably counts him as belonging
to the newer[91] gods, yet he appears in quite early times to have
played a not unimportant part in Syria[92],—if that is to say the
conclusion[93], pretty generally believed on other grounds, is well
founded, that the god Baal Peor was a sort of Priapus, in whose
temple, situated on Mount Peor[94], young Maidens were offered up.
The Rabbis[95] derive the name from פְּעוֹר _aperire_ sc. _hymenem
virgineum_, (to open _sc._ the hymen of a virgin), as if it had sprung
from the Phallus ritual, as still found in Italy. At Goa indeed a man’s
member made of iron or ivory is fastened in the Pagoda, which in the
case of every bride is pushed by the parents and relations into her
vagina, until it brings away with it visibly the bloody traces of the
rupture of the hymen[96]; a proceeding that is connected, as shown in
§ 4., with the belief in the malignity of the menstrual blood, and in
that of blood coming from the ruptured hymen. On the Coromandel Coast
likewise a wooden Priapus is to the present day most ardently venerated
by the inhabitants[97].

Here again we encounter a legend, which is not without importance
for the history of the affections consequent upon the misuse of the
genital organs, to wit the story of the _Plague_ that broke out amongst
the Jews at Shittim in consequence of their having taken part in the
worship of Baal-Peor. _Sickler_[98] was the first who, as a champion of
the antiquity of the Venereal disease, made this the subject of a more
precise examination. However, in order to obtain as clear an insight
into the matter as possible, it will be needful to quote at length the
passages of the Old Testament connected with the subject, according to
the English Revised Version[99]:

        Numbers, Ch. 25. verses 1-18: “And Israel
       “abode in Shittim, and the people began to
       “commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab:
    2) “for they called the people unto the sacrifices
       “of their gods, and the people did eat, and
    3) “bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined
       “himself unto Baal-Peor: and the anger of the
    4) “Lord was kindled against Israel. And the
       “Lord said unto Moses, Take all the chiefs of
       “the people, and hang them up unto the Lord
       “before the sun, that the fierce anger of the
    5) “Lord may turn away from Israel. And Moses
       “said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every
       “one his men that have jointed themselves unto
    6) “Baal-Peor. And, behold one of the children
       “of Israel came and brought unto his brethren
       “a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses,
       “and in the sight of all the congregation of
       “the children of Israel, while they were weeping
    7) “at the door of the tent of meeting. And
       “when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son
       “of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from
       “the midst of the congregation, and took a
    8) “spear in his hand; and he went after the man
       “of Israel into the pavilion, and thrust both of
       “them through, the man of Israel, and the
       “woman through her belly. So the plague was
    9) “stayed from the children of Israel. And those
       “that died by the plague were twenty and four
       “thousand[100].... Now the name of the
  14)  “man of Israel that was slain, who was slain
       “with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the
       “son of Salu, a prince of a fathers’ house among
  15)  “the Simeonites. And the name of the Midianitish
       “woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter
       “of Zur; he was head of the people of a fathers’
  16)  “house in Midian.—And the Lord spake unto
  17)  “Moses, saying, Vex the Midianites, and smite
  18)  “them: for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith
       “they have beguiled you in the matter of
       “Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter
       “of the prince of Midian, their sister, which
       “was slain on the day of the plague in the
       “matter of Peor.”
         Numbers, Ch. 31. verses 7-24: “And they
       “warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded
  9)   “Moses; and they slew every male.... And
       “the children of Israel took captive the women
       “of Midian and their little ones; and all their
  14)  “cattle, etc.... And Moses was wroth with
  15)  “the officers of the host, ... and Moses said
       “unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
  16)  “_Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through
       “the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against
       “the Lord in the matter of Peor, and so the plague
  17)  “was among the congregation of the Lord._ Now
       “therefore kill every male among the little ones,
       “and kill _every woman that hath known man by
  18)  “lying with him_. But all the women children,
       “that have _not_ known man by lying with him,
  19)  “keep alive for yourselves. And encamp ye
       “without the camp seven days: whosoever hath
       “killed any person, and whosoever hath touched
       “any slain, purify yourselves on the third day
       “and on the seventh day, ye and your captives.
  20)  “And as to every garment, and all that is made
       “of skin, and all work of goats’ hair, and all
       “things made of wood, ye shall purify yourselves.
  21)  “And Eleazar the priest said unto the
       “men of war which went to the battle, This is the
       “statute of the law which the Lord hath commanded
  22)  “Moses: howbeit the gold, and the
  23)  “silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the
       “lead, every thing that may abide the fire, ye
       “shall make to go through the fire, and it shall
       “be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with
       “the water of separation (impurity): and all that
       “abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through
  24)  “the water. And ye shall wash your clothes
       “on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean,
       “and afterward ye shall come into the camp.”

Besides these passages in the Books of Moses we find the plague
of Baal-Peor further mentioned in the following places in the Old
Testament:

         _Joshua_, Ch. 22. v. 17: “Is the iniquity of
       “Peor too little for us, _from which we have not
       “cleansed ourselves unto this day_, although there
       “came a plague upon the congregation of the
       “Lord?”
         _Psalm_ 106. verses 28-30.: “They joined
       “themselves also unto Baal-Peor, and ate the
  29)  “sacrifices of the dead (idols). Thus they
       “provoked him to anger with their doings; and
  30)  “the plague brake in upon them. Then stood
       “up Phinehas, and executed judgement: and
       “so the plague was stayed.”
         _Hosea_, Ch. 9. v. 10.: “I found Israel like
       “grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers
       “as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first
       “season; but they came to Baal peor, and
       “consecrated themselves unto the shameful thing,
       “and became abominable like that which they
       “loved.”


                                 § 9.

We find the Jews on their march towards Canaan already arrived at
the Jordan, from which river Shittim lay at a distance of 60 Stades
or 2½ leagues according to _Josephus_[101], and the neighbouring
Peoples in a state of terror at their near approach and at their
victories. The King of the Moabites, Balak, had sent to the soothsayer
Balaam, that the latter by his arts (his curse) might annihilate the
threatening foe. Balaam however, inspired by the spirit of the Lord,
blessed the sons of Israel instead of cursing them, but gave Balak
counsel how he could in another way bring about the ruin of the Jews.
This counsel is indicated in the passage quoted, Numbers Ch. 31, v.
16, without being explicitly stated; but what it was can indeed be
partially gathered from the context of the whole passage, and was
apparently so understood by the author of the Apocalypse, when he
says:[102] “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast
there some that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumblingblock before the children of Israel, _to eat things sacrificed
to idols, and to commit fornication_.” Both _Philo_ and _Josephus_, who
perhaps lived only a little later, picture the course of events in full
detail, though, it is true, from unknown authorities.

_Philo_[103] writes as follows:

“Quae prius, inquit (Bileam), dixi oracula sunt omnia et
vaticinationes: de reliquo quae loquar, animi mei coniecturae
erunt.—Age vero praeclara eius monita videamus, quibus artibus
instructa fuerint ad certissimam offensionem eorum, qui semper
vincere poterant. Cum enim intelligeret Hebraeos una tantum ratione
capi posse, violata facinore aliquo lege, per stupri libidinem et
intemperantiam, magna mala, ad maius impietatis scelus inducere
studebat voluptatis esca. Huius enim, aiebat, regionis, o rex, mulieres
specie reliquis longe praestant: viri autem nulla re facilius quam
mulieris forma expugnari possunt. Proinde si formosissimas quaestum
facere prostareque permiseris, iuventutem adversariorum velut hamis
capient. Ita autem doceri eas oportet, ne statim floris sui volentibus
copiam faciant. Nam molestus ille aculeus simulatae recusationis
libidinem acrius excitabit, et amorem accendet, actique libidine
tanquam obtorto collo trahuntur, quidvis et facere et pati in animum
inducent. Amatorem igitur ut quaeque sic affectum nacta erit, quae
ad venationem illam subornantur, ferociter dicat: tibi consuetudine
mea frui nefas est, nisi a patriis institutis desciveris, mutataque
sententia eadem iuxta mecum colere coeperis. Huius defectionis fides
ea demum mihi perspecta fuerit, si libamentorum eorundem et sacrorum
particeps esse volueris, quae simulacris et statuis reliquisque signis
ex ritu facere solemus.—Sic igitur ille tum consulebat: rex ista non
abs re dici ratus, sublata de adulteris lege et abrogatis omnibus
de stupro corruptelaque sanctionibus, proinde quasi nunquam rogatae
essent, liberam facit mulieribus quibuscum vellent consuescendi
potestatem. Illae vero licentia et impunitate data adolescentulorum
multitudinem illiciebant, multo ante eorum animis circumventis et
illecebrarum praestigiis ad impietatem impulsis: usque dum postremo
pontificis filius Phinees, facta ista supra modum indignatus
(teterrimum enim ei videbatur eodem tempore corpora et animos pro
deditiis, illa voluptatibus, hos sceleri et impiae fraudi tradi
iuvenilis audaciae memorabile facinus viroque dignum forti edidit. Nam
quendam sui generis sacris operatum ad scortum ingredi conspicatus,
neque submittentem in terram vultum, neque latere cupientem, neque,
ut assolet, clanculum aditum suffurantem, sed inverecundam fiduciae
intemperantiam prae se ferentem et in flagitio ridiculo velut in re
praeclara magnifice se efferentem, exacerbatus indignitate rei et
iusta repletus ira, cursu irrumpens adhuc in lecto iacentes amatorem
et meretriculam confodit, genitaliaque eis praeterea desecat,
quibus incestum satum patrarant. Istud exemplum aliqui continentiae
et religionis studiosi iussu Mosis imitati, omnibus qui initiati
fuerant simulacris manu factis, propinquis iuxta necessariisque
occidione occisis, scelus gentis expiarunt inexorabili sceleratorum
supplicio,—unoque die viginti quatuor millia hominum caesa sunt, et
una statim sublata est communis labes, qua totus exercitus maculosus
polluebatur.”

(All my words, said he (Balaam), thus far are dark sayings and
prophecies; what I shall speak henceforth will be the counsels of my
own mind.—But come let us look into his excellent advice, in what
artful ways it has been framed for the sure and certain destruction
of our ever-victorious foes. For perceiving that the Hebrews could be
overcome in one fashion only, viz. through their violating the law by
some terrible wrongdoing, he set himself, employing the bait of lust,
to lead them on by way of fornication and incontinence, great offences
in themselves, to the still greater crime of impiety. For this land,
he said, oh! King, far excels all others in the beauty of its women;
and by no other thing may men’s minds be so readily mastered as by a
woman’s fairness. So if thou suffer the fairest amongst them to play
the harlot and offer their beauty for a price, they will catch the
young men of our enemies, so to speak, on their hooks. But they must be
instructed not to surrender the enjoyment of their persons straightway
at the first offer. For the sharp sting of a feigned refusal will, as
thou knowest, excite their longing more keenly than ever, and inflame
their passion, till driven on by lustfulness they are dragged along, as
it were, by a halter round their necks, and there is nothing they will
not consent to do or suffer. Accordingly the lover that each of the
fair women who are set on to this task has won for herself and brought
to this condition, must be bluntly told: It is impossible for thee to
enjoy my love unless thou break with the customs of thy fathers, and
change thy heart, and undertake the observance of the same rites as
we. And this desertion of thy people’s faith will I then only hold as
manifested, when I shall see thee willing to partake in those same
libations and sacrifices that we are wont duly to pay to our idols and
statues and other images.—Now such was the advice Balaam then offered;
and the King deeming that he spake much to the purpose, repealed
the law as to unlawful intercourse, and removed all punishments for
fornication and licentious conduct, and made them as though they had
never been, giving free licence to the women to lie with any man
they pleased. And the latter, permission being granted and impunity
guaranteed, soon ensnared a great number of the young Jewish warriors,
whose minds indeed had long beforehand been entangled and by every
trick and allurement impelled towards impiety.

At the last the high-priest’s son, Phinehas, above measure indignant
at such deeds of shame, and convinced that both souls and bodies were
at one and the same time being enslaved, the one by sensual pleasures,
the other by wickedness and craft and impiety[104], did a deed at once
memorable for youthful daring, and worthy of a hero. For when he saw
a kinsman of his own and one of the priestly order go in to a harlot,
and this without any look of shame fixed on the ground, without any
attempt at concealment, without any stealing up privily and making,
as men are wont in such a case, a surreptitious entrance, but instead
carrying it off with an air of shameless self-confidence and bearing
himself proudly as though his act were one to merit renown and not
ridicule, he was fired by the indignity, and filled with righteous
anger rushes up and bursts in on the lover and his wanton actually
lying on the bed. He pierces them through, and furthermore cuts away
those organs wherewith they were satisfying their unholy passion.
This example was followed, by command of Moses, by other zealous
partisans of purity and religion; and those who had been initiated
into the service of idols died the death at the hands of their family
and kinsfolk, and so the wickedness of the nation was expiated by a
merciless punishment of the wrongdoers;—and in one day four and twenty
thousand men were slain, and thereby was straightway removed the common
stain wherewith the whole host was spotted and polluted).

In much the same way, only still more fully, _Josephus_[105] relates
the circumstance. Licentiousness had laid hold of almost the entire
host, and ancestral institutions were in danger of being abandoned
altogether. Consequently, Josephus says, Moses appointed an assemblage
of the People and in a speech drew attention to the perils that
threatened. Sambrias (Simri) however made a defence, maintaining that
they had long enough obeyed tyrannous laws and would fain live free
henceforth. Hereupon he quitted the assembly, and was assassinated in
his tent by the enraged Phinehas. Josephus (§ 12.) proceeds:

“Iuvenes autem omnes, qui virtutis aliquid sibi vindicarent et
honestatis studio tenerentur, Phineesis fortitudinis exemplo accensi,
eiusdem cum Zambria criminis reos interfecerunt. Multi itaque
illorum, qui leges patrias violarant, horum egregia virtute perempti
sunt. Peste autem reliqui omnes perierunt, deo hunc illis morbum
immittente. Et quotquot e cognatis, qui cum prohibere debuerint, eos
ad haec impulerant, a deo pro sceleris sociis habiti, pariter sublati
erant.”[106]

(But all the younger men who laid any claim to manly virtue and tried
to live honorably, fired by the example of Phinehas’ bold deed, slew
all that were guilty of the same crime as Sambrias. And so by their
singular courage and patriotism numbers of the men who had broken
their ancestral laws were destroyed. But all that survived perished
by a plague, that God sent upon them. Moreover such of their kinsfolk
as ought to have hindered them, but instead had urged them to these
courses, these God deemed accomplices in the wickedness, and they also
were cut off.) Philo and Josephus are not indeed to be regarded as
authentic eye-witnesses of what they record; still the passages quoted
from them prove this much, that in their time the opinions they express
were generally held.

The Jews were thus led astray by the daughters of the Moabites, and
both practised fornication with them and made sacrifice in their
temples to the god of the country, whose priestesses, as Balaam
declared, were conspicuous above other women for their beauty. The
_consequence_ of these excesses was an infectious disease, (according
to _Josephus_ it communicated itself, but, he says, only to kinsmen!),
which cost many[107] their lives. The number however fell far short
of 24000, for these perished mainly by the sword of their brethren,
as _Philo_ and _Josephus_ expressly remark, and the author of the
Pentateuch intimates, when he says (Numbers Ch. 26. v. 5.), “And
Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that
have joined themselves unto Baal-Peor.” The narrator declares that
by this slaughter the plague was stayed for the sons of Israel; but
it certainly cannot have ceased altogether, as is manifest from the
passages quoted from Joshua, where Phinehas asserts: that to that day
the people was not yet cleansed from the misdoing of Peor.

The disease therefore cannot have been merely some passing disorder. It
must evidently have been somewhat widely disseminated by the Moabitish
women, and have been of very common occurrence among them; and that
it was readily infectious follows from the whole course of Moses’
proceedings. The latter was angry because the woman had been suffered
to live, and commanded to put to death all of them that had known men
in carnal intercourse, but to keep alive the young virgins,—and their
number was, according to Ch. 31. v. 35., thirty-two thousand!—who
were brought into the camp as prisoners and there divided amongst
their captors. So we see the executions took place not in order that
opportunity for intercourse with the heathen women,—a thing which
might very well on its own account have been an abomination to the
Lord,—might be altogether removed, (for how in that case account
for the maidens being saved alive, brought into camp, and divided
as booty?)[108] but that by this means the risk of the further
dissemination of the disease might be for ever prevented.

The imminence of this risk in Moses’ opinion is shown finally by the
purification of the host which he had despatched for the massacre
of the Moabites and their women. He made it, prisoners and all the
spoil included, halt for a period of seven days outside the camp, and
twice over submit to a thorough purification. The Jews had slain many
thousands of men in their previous wars, nay! just before they marched
against the Moabites, they had actually slaughtered 24000 of their own
youth; yet they had never been ordered to leave the camp for seven
days, and twice over during this time to purify themselves and all
their possessions. Only after the annihilation of the Moabitish women
(not of the Moabite men), from the accomplishment of which they had
just returned, had this happened. All this points to some most cogent
reason. Here comes into operation the same law which was enforced on
occasion of purification after Leprosy and after foul discharge: and
indeed also after contact with a dead person,—even where they had
first caused the death of the said person! Thus no one can very well
dispute the view taken by _Philo_,[109] when he says with regard to the
purification after the annihilation of the Moabites:—

“Nam ut legitima hostium caedes sit, attamen qui hominem interfecit
quamquam iure, quamquam vim propulsans, quamquam coactus, non insons
esse videtur nec extra noxiam, propter summam illam et communem hominum
inter ipsos cognationem. Quo nomine piacula suscipienda fuerunt
interfectoribus ad luendum scelus, quod conceptum censebatur.”

(For whereas the slaying of enemies is lawful, nevertheless whosoever
has killed a man, whether lawfully, or whether initiating the violent
act, or whether on compulsion, seems not to be innocent or free
from responsibility; and this is owing to that supreme and general
relationship of all mankind with one other. Wherefore certain
expiations had to be undertaken by any man who had killed another, to
wipe out the guilt that was deemed to have been incurred).

What was the precise nature of the disease that the Jews had brought
on themselves by their intercourse with the Moabitish women cannot
indeed be determined; but that it affected the genital organs can
hardly admit of a doubt. The fact, if it is a fact, that not a few lost
their lives owing to it, need be no objection, since the ulceration
of the genitals that prevailed at the end of the XVth. Century caused
similar fatalities, and as we shall presently see, the uncircumcised
_Apion_ met his death in some such way. Now the Jews were almost
without exception still uncircumcised at that time, for it was
_Joshua_[110] who first on his arrival in Canaan, at the bidding of
Jehovah, circumcised the children of Israel with stone knives on the
hill Araloth. When the people adopted the worship of Baal Peor, we may
be sure they ceased at the same time to observe the ancestral laws of
purification,—if indeed these latter even as regards foul discharge
and leprosy as well as intercourse with women during menstruation were
not perhaps, as might almost be believed, _first_ enacted in all their
severity only in consequence of the plague of Baal Peor. Again it may
well have been this experience that first taught the inhabitants of
Palestine the necessity of circumcision, which was then laid down as an
ordinance by command of Jehovah!


                     Brothels and Courtesans[111].


                                 § 10.

There is no doubt that it was in the Asiatic cult of Venus that the
first elements were given for sexual excesses. It is hardly a matter
of surprise therefore if these same elements came constantly, as has
been shown above, into greater and greater prominence, and in this
way pushed the original form of the Worship into the background. By
degrees as enlightenment increased and the respect felt towards the
gods diminished, Venus also soon lost her old character as goddess of
procreation and sank into the patroness of sensual gratification. Her
temples as well as her holy groves lost their exclusive title to bestow
the blessing of fruitfulness on the embraces of the sexes, and came
merely to serve as appointed trysting-places of carnal pleasures. The
offerings made at her shrines were no longer to win an assurance of
posterity; they became bribes paid to buy a free opportunity for the
indulgence of sensuality. They degenerated into fornication-fees, as
her temples did into brothels. The priestesses of Astarté or Mylitta
stood at the beck and call alike of strangers and natives, and the
opportunity was ever open for sexual enjoyment. Hence too it is that a
special designation for the brothel will be looked for in vain in Asia.
The thing existed there without the name being required; and the State
found no need to establish an institution, which had long ago, without
any intervention on its part, taken form under the cloak of religion.

Even amongst _the Jews_, who frequently enough, but always as a
temporary aberration merely, adhered to the foreign cult, brothels in
the strict sense seem never to have existed[112]. Although courtesans
are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, and even the dwelling
of a Wanton as well as her behaviour pictured with considerable
fullness of detail[113], yet all this would seem to have had more of a
private than of a public character,—due heed being given to the fact
that not a few passages are to be taken only in a figurative sense.
Prostitution as a regular calling was strictly prohibited[114] to the
daughters of Israel; and such women as practised it openly seem to have
been mainly foreigners, perhaps natives of Phoenicia and Syria, who
at the same time entertained with dancing and the music of stringed
instruments[115]. But the attempt to draw a conclusion from this as to
the pre-eminent chastity of the Jewish women, as e.g. _Beer_ (on p. 25
loco citato) wishes to do, would be justifiable neither for earlier nor
yet for later times. The passages of the Old Testament dealing with
Sodom and with the dissoluteness under Mannasseh even in the very
Temple at Jerusalem are sufficient by themselves to prove the contrary.

As to _Macedonia_ there is a passage in _Athenaeus_, quoted from
_Hermesianax_ to this effect: ἀλλὰ Μακεδονίης πάσας κατενίσατο λαύρας
(But he went through all the alleys of Macedonia), where _Dalechamp_
translates the word λαύρα by brothel, but _Casaubon_ even in his time
threw doubt on this rendering.[116] Possibly however this judgement
is connected with similar licentious practises among the Macedonians
to what we find among the Persians[117], who indulged in sexual
intercourse with their own mothers, daughters, etc., and begat children
upon them,—a practice which _Euripides_[118] makes the Barbarians
generally guilty of.

But if there _were_ actually brothels existing in Macedonia, this would
be the less surprising, as its inhabitants may well be reckoned amongst
Greeks in many respects.

The Greek knew perfectly the boundary between the physical and the
ethical, and sought ever to subordinate the former to the latter. His
whole life belonged in the first instance to the State, of it he
was bound to be a citizen, and for it to endeavour to produce good
citizens. Consequently polygamy early disappeared in Greece, and so
too community of wives, a custom which prevailed down to historical
times at Sparta only. Monogamy was the first law of marriage, and
marriage was the bounden duty of every true citizen[119], to save his
family from dying out. But while the Asiatic prided himself on the
number of his children, the Greek’s boast was of their excellence.
Only with the object of procreating offspring was the Greek husband
to rest in the arms of his spouse (ἐπ’ ἀρότῳ παίδων γνησίων—for the
sowing, procreation of lawful children), and not to desecrate the holy
Torus (marriage-couch) by mere lustfulness. Where this was stirred in
him, he ceased to be free; a slave of lust, he must consort only with
slave-women, and not with free citizenesses[120]. Nay! even this was
permitted solely to avoid greater evils; and illicit coition never
ceased to be held as something οὐ καλόν—unseemly[121], particularly
when it was indulged in by married men.

It has been shown how under the clearer skies of Greece the Asiatic
worship of Venus took on a form more worthy of mankind, how the Greek
distinguished his Venus Urania (Heavenly Venus) from the Venus of the
rest of the world, the Pandemian (Venus common to all), and so set up
a barrier to the flood of dissoluteness,—a barrier however that was
little by little broken down in later times. Foreigners, especially the
voluptuous inhabitants of Asia, when they saw that the Greek cult did
not like their native worship abet their carnal appetites, imported
slave-women. These were purchased by the Greeks, and handed over as
offerings to the temple of Aphrodité under the title of Temple-servants
or “Hieroduli”[122]; and acquainted as they were with the needs of
their fellow-countrymen, sought in every way to supply them,—as was in
particular the case at Corinth.

This example could not well remain without influence on private
life. The Greek indeed took no part in the Asiatic form of the
Venus-worship; all the same illicit connection grew more and more
universally prevalent, and as it could not be gratified in any other
way, wives[123] and daughters of fellow-citizens were imperilled. To
avert this danger _Solon_ (B. C. 594) according to the statements of
_Philemon_ and _Nicander_[124] introduced actual _brothels_, οἴκημα,
πορνεῖον, (house, brothel) and public women, πόρναι (prostitutes),
who were accessible at a trifling charge. The houses of ill-fame were
situated, as _Pollux_ informs us, at Athens in the neighbourhood of
the Harbour[125], and in the Ceramicus according to _Hesychius_[126],
in later times also in the city itself[127]. They were presided
over by a Whoremaster (πορνοβοσκός, πορνοτρόφος—harlot-maintainer,
harlot-keeper). As to the internal arrangements of brothels among the
Greeks we have been unable so far to discover anything more precise,
but in all probability the same conditions held good as among the
Romans.

Besides the regular brothels, women were also kept at the taverns[128]
(καπηλεία, καπηλεῖον, καπήλιον, πανδοκεῖα,—tavern, inn), which likewise
were situated chiefly near the Port. The women were bought slaves, as
the passages quoted above (p. 70. note 2.) show; and even such free
Greek women[129] as at a later period undertook the calling, were
then looked upon as slaves[130]. All women of this class, as well as
the whore-masters, were professionally under the supervision of the
Ἀγορανόμοι (Market Commissioners[131], who fixed how much each was
allowed to receive for her services. This fee was called μίσθωμα,
διάγραμμα or ἐμπολή,—fee, scale, purchase). It varied in amount;—8
Chalci— = 1 obol, a little less than twopence (τριαντοπόρνη,—an
obol, two-penny, girl)[132], 2 obols— = about three-pence halfpenny
(διωβολιμαῖα, χαλκιδῖτις,—a two obol, three-pence halfpenny,
girl)[133], a drachma—a franc, say ten-pence[134], a Stater—= 4
drachmae, say three and three-pence (στατηριαία,—a stater, three and
three-penny, girl)[135].

The Hetaera (Lady-Companion) seems in this respect to have enjoyed a
greater liberty of choice, and a knowledge of their prices to have
been regarded as something out of the common[136]. The well-known
_Gnathaena_ at Athens asked 1000 Drachmae for a night from a foreign
Satrap[137]; _Phryné_ a mina (= 100 drachmae, something over four
pounds sterling). But the most notorious of all was _Lais_ at Corinth
for the high price at which she sold the marks of her favour, from
which arose the proverb: Non cuivis homini contingit adire Corinthum,
(It is not every man that can go to Corinth)[138].

Licences to follow the calling were granted to the whore-masters, and
also the women, on payment of a fixed duty, called “prostitute tax”
(τέλος πορνικόν)[139], which was leased out yearly by the Magistracy,
and collected by professional _farmers of the prostitution-tax_ or
Collectors, known as πορνοτελώναι, who kept a complete list, in which
were included even the “Pathici” (pathic sodomites), of all liable to
the impost. From the proceeds of this prostitution-tax _Solon_ would
seem to have built a temple at Athens to Aphrodité Pandemos[140].
From this an idea may be formed, even if nothing more than a sort of
brothel is to be understood by the term, of the large number of women
of this character and of the considerable revenue of the city.

The public women were either such as lived in the brothels (πόρναι,
αἱ προστᾶσαι τῶν οἰκημάτων,—harlots, prostitutes of the “houses”),
where they used to stand at the doors, and that in rows (ἐπὶ κέρως
τεταγμένας,—drawn up in column) more or less stripped, in almost
transparent dresses (γυμναὶ, ἐν λεπτοπήνοις ὑμέσιν,—stripped, in
fine-woven robes)[141], or else they were kept partly as ἑταῖραι
μουσικαί—“musical” hetaerae, like the harp-girls in German beer-halls,
or with procurers (μαστροπός, προαγωγός,—bawds, procurers) in their
taverns (προαγωγεῖα, μαστρόπιον, ματρύλλεια,—procurer’s house,
bawdy-house, brothel). Or again they followed their trade in the
Port-Market (the δεῖγμα) as δεικτηριάδες (Market-girls)[142], in
the στοὰ μακρὰ, (Long Portico), and generally in the Lanes of that
neighbourhood (χαμαιτύπαι[143], χαμαιευνάδες, χαμαιεύνης, χαμαιτηρίς,
χαμεύνης,—all nick-names for common strumpets, “ground-thumpers,”
“sleepers on the ground”), where they either surrendered themselves on
the spot or hied to recognised harlots’ dens (χαμαιτυπεῖον) or houses
of accommodation (τέγος)[144].

The place of their abode shows at once what class of men frequented
“filles de joye” of the sort. It was foreign sailors[145] in particular
who here indemnified themselves for their compulsory continence at
sea. Of Greeks only the dregs of the people and debauchees who had
lost all self-respect came here; and even these used by preference
the taverns[146], where procuration was carried on as well[147],—for
which reason they had fallen into general disrepute. For as late as
Aristophanes’[148] time the lower class of citizens felt no hesitation
about taking their pleasure along with their wives in inns. On the
other hand persons of repute, prominent by office and dignities, were
actually forbidden by law to visit such places. “Were an Areopagite
to have been seen but once in an Inn,” says _Hyperides_[149], “his
colleagues would no longer have tolerated him as a member of the
Areopagus.” Later, matters changed, for the moralizing _Isocrates_[150]
says, “Nay! no well-conducted slave dares even eat or drink anything in
an Inn”; and _Theophrastus_, portraying the character of a madman quite
devoid of shame gives this as a trait,—he would be quite capable of
keeping an Inn!

The hetaera (female-companion) must be distinguished from the πόρνη
(harlot), though both were under similar conditions as to police
surveillance. The hetaera was also strictly speaking a slave-woman,
usually stolen as a child or otherwise obtained by procuresses, or
bought by older hetaerae. They were educated[151] in all that was
understood by the Ancients under the name “Music”, that over and above
their charms of person, they might especially captivate their lovers
by their intellectual cultivation, who bought them to give them their
freedom,—and then more often than not were presently abandoned by them.
The great nursery of hetaerae was above all places Corinth, from which
centre they travelled through all parts of Greece, as e.g. did Neaera,
and frequently acquired enormous riches. The better class of them were
everywhere held in high esteem; and many a hetaera, grown weary of
her condition, gave her hand to a husband, in order to close her life
as an honest wife[152], or else retired so as at any rate to lead a
blameless existence[153]. Frequently indeed they were also “Dames de
Maison”, and often kept a considerable number of girls under the title
of hand-maids. This was the case with Nicareta, just mentioned, at
Corinth, as well as with the famous Aspasia at Athens, the latter of
whom flooded all Hellas with her protegées[154]. Such as were held in
less respect often put themselves under the protection of their more
renowned sisters, or else carried on the calling on their own account,
and this especially when they were not so well educated, not “musical”
(πέζαι ἑταίραι—_prose lady-companions_)[155], at Athens going to
settle at the Peiraeus to entice the merchants who arrived in the port,
whilst the more choice merely showed themselves there[156]. They often
followed the troops on service in crowds, accompanying for instance
the general _Chares_[157] and _Pericles_ to Samos, where they made so
large an income that they even built a temple of Ἀφροδίτη ἐν Καλάμοις
(Aphrodité at Calami,—the Reeds)[158]. For the remaining details as
to the life of the hetaerae the classical Treatise of _Friedrich
Jacobs_[159] should be consulted.

Even these regular “filles de joie” at first existed almost exclusively
for foreigners, who often squandered prodigious sums in their arms;
the Athenians at any rate up to the time of Themistocles did not go
with them[160]. But the example proved too strong to resist. Little by
little the younger men acquired a taste for the freer society of the
highly educated and luxuriously bedecked[161] courtesans, who on their
side were possessed of tact enough to subordinate the purely sensual
to the intellectual, in order to captivate the Greek sense of beauty.
Even older men might easily be seen at their feet, for the Greek
ladies had but too little aptitude for stepping beyond the household
sphere[162]. And so it was no longer matter for surprise when _Chares_
took with him on his expedition, as stated above, a large number of
hetaerae. The Athenian youth was already in the habit of killing time
in their society[163]; and the important rôle they played in the time
of _Pericles_ needs to be no further insisted on. The Greek however
never descended to the lowest level of shameless, brutal, coarseness.
Before he threw himself into the arms of the foreign Wanton, he first
raised her to some equality with himself; and of the handmaid and slave
made a friendly companion or hetaera!

The account here given applies particularly only to Athens, for our
efforts to discover anything more precise as to brothels and courtesans
in the remaining States and Cities of Greece have not so far been
crowned with success.


                                 § 11.

With the Roman, who could spare hardly a thought to any other feeling
than his pride, love played but an insignificant rôle in his existence.
Even the deference he showed towards marriage and the married woman was
not really so much the outcome of a pure morality as of the interest
that the State must of necessity feel in the nursing-mothers of each
succeeding generation; in fact it can scarcely be regarded as much
more than a mere measure of policy. When a Censor like _Metellus_ in
a public Speech intended to encourage matrimony could say[164]: Si
sine uxore possemus, Quirites, esse, omnes ea molestia careremus:
sed quoniam ita natura tradidit, ut nec cum illis satis commode, nec
sine illis ullo modo vivi possit, saluti perpetuae potius quam brevi
voluptati consulendum. (If we could live without a wife, Quirites,
we should all be free from such inconvenience; but since nature
has arranged it in this wise that neither with women in any real
comfort, nor without them at all, can existence be carried on, we
ought to think of our life-long well-being rather than of a momentary
gratification),—and when even the strict _Cato_ declared[165]: In
adulterio uxorem tuam si deprehendisses, sine iudicio impune necares:
illa te, si adulterares, digito non auderet contingere, _neque ius
est_. (If you should have detected your wife in adultery, you might
kill her without trial and be scatheless; but she, if _you_ were the
adulterer, would not dare to lay a finger upon you, _nor is it lawful_
she should),—it can hardly surprise us to find a complete lack of the
ideal or intellectual element in the relations of the sexes. These
never really rose among the Romans much above the level of the bestial;
and harlots are found already in evidence at the very threshold of
Roman history[166], whilst association with them far from ever being a
subject of blame, is rather represented as being a custom sanctified by
immemorial usage that had never been forbidden[167].

In spite of this however, and of the fact that the _Etruscans_[168],
at a time when Rome was hardly more than _coming_ into existence,
already led a life that was worse than licentious, while _Messapians_,
_Samnites_ and _Locrians_, as has been shown, habitually gave up their
daughters to prostitution,—in spite of all this I say, the sexual
excesses of the Romans were for the first 500 years on the whole
insignificant. Their way of life as warriors and husbandmen hardly
suffered them to sink into indolent sloth, the beginning of all vicious
living, whilst the law of the XII Tables, “_coelibes prohibeto_” (be it
forbidden to remain bachelors)[169] forced men in the vigour of their
powers to satisfy the impulse of nature in the arms of the lawful
wife. But more and more did the Romans come into contact with foreign
Peoples, and began to adopt more and more their customs and vices. In
the year 513 A.U.C. (B.C. 240) the Floralia were introduced, which
even granting they cannot have had the origin that _Lactantius_[170]
assigns them, yet by the very nature of the celebrations were an
outrage on all good morals. Yet so universally popular were they that
_Cato_ could win no greater concession to his indignant zeal against
them than that their closing scenes should be delayed until he had
retired[171].

The enormous wealth the Romans had won as booty in their continual
Wars of spoliation, could not be hoarded unused, it must be enjoyed;
and how enjoyed, the warriors knew already. The younger members of the
Equestrian and Patrician orders went on travels, and learned in the
arms of Greek and Asiatic wantons how to lavish their money _secundum
artem_. Then on their return to Rome finding the native Scorta (common
harlots) no longer to their taste, they brought home with them their
freed-woman “Amica” (Mistress), who was a fair match for the Greek
hetaera in greed, if not in refinement. It was not long before the
old-fashioned Roman matron succumbed in the struggle with her for
supremacy, and by dint of her only too successful endeavours to outdo
the foreign courtesan in _recherché_ vice and effrontery, became but
the more despicable in the eyes of the proud Roman. She had indeed
learned to be a mother, but not to love. At the same time the Roman
himself, surrounded as he thus was by no softening influences, ceased
not only to be a citizen of the state, but even to be a man at all;
and the Ruler of the World sank at last to such a depth of exaggerated
viciousness that it became his glory and boast to be without a rival in
its enormity.

The conclusion then is indisputable that only subsequently to the
Wars in Asia was Roman morality undermined[172]. At the same time it
is impossible from the information given above to assign any definite
point of time at which brothels and public women came into vogue at
Rome, or at any rate when their existence as such was officially
recognized by those in charge of the police supervision of the city.
With the regulations and arrangements however we are more precisely
acquainted. The brothels, _lupanaria_[173], _fornicas_[174], were
situated chiefly in the Second District (Secunda Regio) of the
city[175], the _Coelimontana_, particularly in the Subura (Suburbana)
that bordered the town-walls, lying in the Carinae,—the valley between
the Coelian and Esquiline Hills. In the same district was the _Macellum
magnum_, or Great Market, for all sorts of provisions[176] along
the banks of the Tiber, as well as the Cookshops, Stalls or Shops
(Tabernae)—of the Barbers, even of the Public Executioner[177], and
the Castra peregrina, (Foreign Camp), barracks for foreign troops
quartered in Rome under the Emperors as a garrison,—all circumstances
that occasioned a great concourse of men[178]. To the North the Subura
marched with the “Isis and Serapis”,—the Third District (Tertia
Regio), where was situated the temple of Isis with its gardens and
groves. The regular brothels are pictured to us as being in the
highest degree uncleanly and dirty[179], so that their frequenters
carried away the smell with them. They possessed a definite number of
“chambers”, _Cellae_[180], and above the door of each of these was
inscribed the name of the girl, that which she had adopted on her first
admission[181], and the price of her embraces[182]. In each “chamber”
was to be found a bed (_pavimentum_, cubiculum, pulvinar,—pavement,
sleeping-place, couch), which was spread with a particular kind of
coverlet, _lodix_, _lodicula_, (blanket, little blanket)[183], and a
lamp, _lucerna_[184].

As for the brothel-keeper, the Romans seem to have had no special word
to express this; they use in fact _leno_ in this signification, though
the word properly means the Procurer who merely offers his house for
the purpose, but does not keep women, giving them board and wage.
Perhaps this arose from the fact that in earlier times no regular
brothels existed in Rome; the women merely hired a lodging, and the
owner of the house had nothing at all to do with their business, whilst
the match-maker or pandar confined _his_ efforts to procuring girls for
his patrons and letting out his “chambers” for a fixed charge _merces
cellae_ (hire of the chamber)[185], paid by each visitor. Only when
the business became more profitable, did Lenones or Lenae (Procurers,
Procuresses), for women also carried on Lenocinium (procuration),
actually keep girls, whom they bought, as slaves[186]. The Leno had
his _Villicus puellarum_ (Superintendent of the Maids), who assigned
name and price, provided the girls with clothes[187], and kept a
list of them and what they earned[188]. In fact such of the women as
were bond-servants were obliged,—and this applied equally to those
that were not slaves,—to deliver up not merely the As for the hire of
the chamber, but the whole fee as well, according to the amount fixed
by the brothel-keeper (Leno)[189], though much underhand trickery of
various sorts occurred in connection with this regulation[190].

The brothels were not allowed to be opened before the ninth hour (four
o’clock in the afternoon), so as not to draw young men away from
their duties[191]. The girls either stood (Prostibula—women who stand
in front)[192] or sat (Proseda—women who sit in front)[193] before
the “chambers” or Lupanaria (brothels), to call the passers-by to
them. Did a lover make his appearance, then the door of the “chamber”
was carefully fastened[194], and “_occupata_” (engaged) written
over the door[195], an unoccupied “chamber” being called _nuda_
(naked)[196]. Towards morning the “chambers” were opened, and the
Leno (brothel-keeper) let the girls go[197]. It would seem to follow
from this that these either did not live in the brothel-keeper’s
house at all, or that the “chambers” were situated somewhere else,
away from head-quarters. From a passage in _Juvenal_[198] it has,
perhaps wrongly, been concluded that these “chambers” were at the
Circus Maximus. Such places are at any rate mentioned by _Dionysius
of Halicarnassus_ as existing at the Portico above the shops[199];
and without doubt several passages are to be found in Latin authors
to prove that the women plied their trade even after the close of
the Representations[200], and we know that besides the regular Ludi
Circenses (Games of the Circus) other performances of a similar kind
were held in the Circus.

Besides the brothels, we find, particularly in the Taverns (cauponae,
tabernae—inns, taverns) and Cookshops (popinae, ganea—cookshops,
eating-houses)[201], women kept by the hosts for the gratification of
their patrons. As a rule these also were bought slave-women, who served
the guests, entertained them with dance and music, and surrendered
their persons on desire. The hostesses themselves devoted their
attention to both trades, as e.g. is shown by the “Copa” (Mine Hostess)
ascribed to _Virgil_; and hence they, and their husbands with them,
stood in the eye of the Magistrate on the same footing with Lenones
and Meretrices (Brothel-keepers and Prostitutes)[202].

Now who frequented these places? Down to the time of the Empire only
the lowest class of the people, particularly Sailors[203], Freedmen
and Slaves[204], though indeed later, when _Claudius_ and _Nero_[205]
set so eminent an example, high and low equally might be found both
in brothels and in Taverns and Cookshops. The bakers, envious of the
profits made by the inn-keepers, organized their tabernae (bread-stalls
or shops) in the mills in such a way that they too could provide
their customers with what they wanted[206]. This appears to have been
done first in Campania[207]. But not solely in regular Houses and
“Chambers” were “filles de joie” to be met with. They carried on their
trade also as _Scorta erratica_ (wandering whores, street-walkers) the
commonest sort, in all public places, at the corners of streets[208],
round the tombs and monuments[209], in out-of-the-way nooks of the
town and the surrounding plantations in its neighbourhood[210]. In
these places they carried on their trade, some no doubt on their
own account, other perhaps as slaves working for their masters and
mistresses and bound to deliver in a fixed sum daily.

The different kinds of “filles de joye” so far particularized were
all of them slave-women, but over and above these there were in Rome
a large number of Gay Women who carried on their profession entirely
on their own account, either merely as a second string to their
bow, like the Mimes, Dancers, Harp-girls, Ambubaiae[211], or else
as sole aim and object of their lives, in the character of _Scorta
nobilia_ (noble whores) or _bonae meretrices_ (good harlots) to
use _Plautus’_ expressions. They were all of them foreigners, and
generally freed-women[212], and were distinguished not only for their
more elaborate dress[213], but also on account of their education,
which far and away surpassed that of the Roman ladies. In this respect
however they fell short of the level reached by the Greek hetaerae
in the best times of Greece, and for this reason never obtained the
influence at Rome on the life of the city and of the State which the
former possessed at Athens. They were not so much friends (Amicae) as
mistresses (Dominae) of their Roman lover, and their relations with him
bodily only and not intellectual. For the rest this class yet awaits
a _Friedrich Jacobs_ to be its historian. They were either kept by an
individual lover, or else gave themselves only to rich admirers at
their own private lodgings,[214] that lay _perdu_ far from the bustle
of street and market; but no doubt descended, when the time of youth
and beauty was over, to the condition of common courtesans or even of
mere street-walkers.

Just as happened in Greece, immodesty spread not a little among the
daughters and wives of the Roman citizens also, and already in the
reign of _Germanicus_, _Tacitus_ could report[215]: “Eodem anno
gravibus senatus decretis libido feminarum coercita, cautumque ne
quaestum corpore faceret, cui avus aut pater aut maritus Eques Romanus
fuisset.” (This same year severe decrees of the Senate were passed to
restrain unchastity on the part of women, and it was forbidden for any
to give her person for hire, whose grandfather, father, or husband had
been a Roman knight). So it cannot cause any great surprise to find
_Martial_[216] declaring:

  “Quaero diu totam, Sophroni Rufe, per urbem:
    Si qua puella neget; nulla puella negat.”

(I have long been searching the city through, Sophronius Rufus, if
there is e’er a maid to say no; there is not one!) To this result
the introduction at Rome of the worship of Isis had contributed not
a little[217]. Under pretence of serving Isis, the matrons found an
opportunity of wantoning unhindered in the arms of paramours[218], for
the husbands dared not ent10217
er the temple precincts while their wives
offered were performing their ten days’ devotion there. Probably in
cases of disease of the genitals Roman women offered their prayers to
Isis, as the men did to Priapus, for the temples of the goddess were
full of images of parts of the body that had been healed and of maimed
organs[219], and contained numerous establishments for the care of
sick persons of this particular character.

But of more influence than all the rest was the example which
the Emperors _Tiberius_, _Nero_, _Caligula_ and the infamous
_Messalina_[220] gave. Not contented with the possession of a
_Harem_, they set up actual brothels in their palaces,—a practice the
aristocracy soon copied, organizing similar establishments on their
estates, to be able to wallow indisturbed in the mire of bestial
lusts[221].

Of vice as practised in the Baths and of male whores in the brothels we
shall speak later.

Now how were Brothels and Courtesans affected in connection with the
police of the State in Rome? It has been shown already that no penalty
whatever attached either to illicit intercourse or to prostitution in
general, because the disgrace to individuals involved in the commission
of such offences in the eyes of their fellows was thought sufficient to
ensure at any rate the daughters of citizens against unchastity. But
the case was different with married women who were guilty of a breach
of marriage honour. Of the manifold punishments we will mention only
one here: the offender was imprisoned and obliged to surrender her
person to all comers, whilst each time this took place a notification
was given by the ringing of a bell;—a procedure that continued till
finally abolished by the Emperor Theodosius[222].

They sought indeed to avoid the punishment by declaring themselves
engaged in Lenocinium (Procuration) as a calling, or by joining the
ranks of the the actresses; but the Lex Papia included provisions to
put a stop to this irregularity[223].

_Lenocinium_ (Procuration) in fact as well as the _licentia stupri_
(fornication permit) had to be notified before the Aediles[224], whose
especial duty it was to see that no Matron became a prostitute[225].
With this object they were bound to frequently search all such
places as have been specified above (_loca aedilem metuentia_—places
that fear the aedile)[226]; but dared not themselves indulge in any
immorality there[227]. When that pure-minded prince _Caligula_ became
Emperor, he introduced the Whore-duty (_vectigal ex capturis_—tax on
prostitution-fees) as a State impost[228]. This, _Alexander Severus_
retained, it is true, but assigned the revenue from it to the
maintenance of the public buildings, that it might not contaminate the
State Treasure.[229]

The information here collected, imperfect as it may be in many
respects, is yet sufficient to throw some light on the external
relations of brothels and courtesans. It shows convincingly that in
the entire absence of police supervision on the sanitary side, such
diseases as arose generally in Antiquity consequent upon coition must
have had their especial home and chief focus in the brothels and their
denizens. But of what nature these diseases were, and what parts of the
body they attacked, we shall only then be able to determine, when we
come to consider more precisely the actual excesses that led to them,
whether within or without the walls of the brothels.


                             Paederastia.


                                 § 12.

In the preceding investigations we have shown how the natural aim and
object of coition, viz. procreation of children, fell more and more
into the background, in order to make way for sensual gratification;
and we have made acquaintance with the establishments that grew up in
course of time for its indulgence. The facility with which the bestial
instinct could be satisfied and the titillation of carnal pleasure
procured, was bound to rob the customary manner of sexual indulgence
of the charm of novelty, and to set the depraved imagination of the
voluptuary at work to solve the problem of how to import manifold
variations into the simple act of copulation. This stage reached, it
inevitably followed that the natural ways of union of the sexes began
to appear insufficient, and the methods of so-called _unnatural_ Love
(Venus illegitima) grew up, wherein at last almost every trace of the
specific purpose of the genital organs was lost sight of.

The “figurae Veneris legitimae” (modes of natural Love) are not
altogether without interest for the physician[230], but their study
is less necessary for our particular purpose. The modes of “Venus
illegitima” (unnatural Love) are what concern us here. The major part
of these have unfortunately never been included by writers on the
history of Venereal disease within the range of their enquiries. Hence
it has come about that while on the one hand they have given quite
false interpretations of various morbid affections, they have on the
other mistaken for the names of diseases expressions signifying nothing
more than forms of the unnatural sensual indulgence alluded to. The
historical enquirer into these subjects must indeed tread very slippery
ground. Supposing him to rise superior to the possible reproaches of
morality, fortified by the words of St. Paul[231], still he can find
absolutely nowhere in his investigations any secure stopping-place,
he must make up his mind to dispense with all external help and to
be thrown utterly on his own resources. Not only do the best and
fullest Dictionaries of the Greek and Latin languages leave him almost
completely in the lurch, but above and beyond this he has very often to
struggle with positive errors both in the Dictionaries and on the part
of the professional Philologists in their annotations to the writings
of the Ancients. These mistakes he must first of all discover, and
afterwards correct. What such an undertaking involves, what powers it
demands, will be obvious to anyone who is in any degree conversant
with the systematic study of Antiquity. Nevertheless the task should
not remain unattempted, if that is, we wish ever to come to a clear
understanding of the relations of words and things in this connection;
and on this ground the following researches no less than others find a
legitimate place here. These we offer as the best that the limitation
of our powers allowed,—at the same time gladly acknowledging the no
small assistance we have received from the Treatises of Forberg[232]
and Meier[232].

Paederastia appears, as is the case with all sexual perversions, to
owe its origin to the stimulation of the Asiatic climate, the mother
of exuberance and voluptuousness. The primary condition of its genesis
may be easily traced, if side by side with the dictum of Forberg (loco
citato, p. 235): “Et voluptas quidem paediconis facile intelligitur,
cum omnis voluptas mentulae pendeat ex frictione” (And the pleasure
indeed of the sodomite is readily intelligible, since all voluptuous
pleasure depends on friction of the penis), we take into consideration
the fact that the genital organs of Asiatic women,—a fact true also of
Italian and Spanish women[233]—like their whole bodies, exhibit great
looseness, and further note that the “Sphincter ani”[234] muscle far
and away surpasses the “Constrictor cunni” in strength. So it is by no
means improbable that the Apostle Paul is accurate when he says[235]:
“Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto
uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonoured among themselves;
_for their women changed the natural use into that which is against
nature_: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working
unseemliness.”

In Asia _natural_ copulation formed a part of the Temple service of
Venus, and in course of time Paederastia as well was joined with it,
as is seen from the following passage of St. Athanasius[236]: “Sane
olim Phoeniciae mulieres in idolorum templis prius prostabant, suique
meretricii quaestus primordia diis, qui illic colebantur, consecrabant,
suam deam stupris propitiam reddi, benevolamque hoc pacto effici ratae.
_Viri quoque propriam ementiti naturam, nec amplius mares se esse
patientes, in feminas se converterunt, pergratum et honorificum matri
deorum se ita facturas arbitrati._ Omnes denique una cum perditissimis
vivunt, et secum ipsi pugnant ut peiores quotidie evadant, atque ut
dixit sanctus Christi minister Paulus:—(Here follows the passage just
quoted from the Epistle to the Romans.)—Haec autem et similia agendo,
fatentur certe et arguunt deos, quos ipsi colunt, huiusmodi vitam
duxisse, scilicet ex Jove puerorum corruptiones atque adulteria, ex
Venere meretriciam vitam ... ex aliis alia didicere, quae quidem cum
leges puniunt, tum probi homines abhorrent.”

(Indeed the Phoenician women used in former times to prostitute
themselves for hire in the temples of their idols and to offer up the
gains of their fornication as first-fruits to the deities that were
worshipped therein, deeming that in this way they won the favour and
goodwill of their goddess. Moreover men, perverting their own proper
nature, and no more enduring to be males, turned themselves into the
likeness of women, supposing that by so doing they rendered a service
most grateful and honourable to the Mother of the Gods. In one word
they all consort with the most abandoned of mankind, and strive one
with the other how they may grow worse and worse day by day; and as St.
Paul the Apostle of Christ says:—(Here follows the passage just quoted
from the Epistle to the Romans.)—By such and such-like acts they verily
confess and show forth that those gods that themselves worship led
lives of a like kind. Thus from Jupiter they learned to seduce boys and
to commit adultery, from Venus harlotry, and so on from the other gods
other vile practices,—practices which are at once punished by the laws
and abominated by every honourable man). The same passage explains also
how the Old Testament comes to designate Cinaedi (on pathic Sodomites)
by the expression קָדֵשׁ (kadêsh, sanctus,—holy, consecrated). This
originally implied nothing more than a person who devoted himself for
the glory of a God as a servant in his Temple; and we have good reason
for believing we can establish the conjecture that the whole cult of
the Priests of Cybelé, etc., who had to practice emasculation and
who were known by the name of _Galli_, rests originally on a simple
misunderstanding of the expressions εὐνοῦχοι and ἀνδρόγυνοι (eunuchs,
men-women),—expressions which will be discussed later on,—these words
having meant at first nothing more than _Cinaedi_ (sodomites). It was
only in later times that Paederastia became a motive for Castration,
as by this means the body of the male could be made to preserve for
a longer period the youthful boyishness that approximated it to the
female form. This is shown in the following passage of Lucian[237], a
passage of special interest for the history of Paederastia:

“So at first when men still lived the old heroic life and reverenced
virtue that brought them nearer the gods, they obeyed the laws that
nature had laid down and marrying in due proportion of age became the
fathers of noble children. But little by little the age degenerated
from that high level to the pit of sensual indulgence, and struck out
new and abnormal modes of gratification. Soon a reckless licentiousness
broke the very laws of nature; and for the first time a lover looked
on a _man_ as on a woman to lust after him, and worked his wicked
will either by superior force or by dint of artful persuasions. So in
one bed came together one and the same sex. And each seeing himself
in the other, took no shame in anything they did or in anything they
suffered to be done. Wasting their seed on barren[238] rocks, as the
saying goes, they bought a brief pleasure at the cost of deepest
infamy. Indeed with some to such a height of overmastering force did
their reckless passion rise that they actually violated nature with the
knife; and only when they had emptied men of their manliness did they
attain the summit and acmé of their gratification.

“But the wretched and unhappy creatures, that they may remain longer
boys, suffer themselves to be no more men,—an ambiguous riddle midway
between the sexes, neither preserving the sex they were born to, nor
yet having any other to belong to. The bloom that was kept a while in
youth withers in old age and makes them wither with it in premature
decay. At one moment they are counted as boys, then lo! they are old
men; there is no middle time of manhood between the two. Thus wanton
luxury, the foul mother of every evil thing, contriving shameful
pleasures one to cap the other, fell into the slough of that _disease_
that cannot even be named with decency, (μέχρι τῆς οὐ ῥηθῆναι δυναμένης
εὐπρεπῶς νόσου) that no province of impurity might remain unexplored.”

In later times indeed castration was resorted to after the attainment
of man’s estate, in order that the Eunuchs might be able to appease the
titillation of sensual desire in the women without fear of impregnating
them[239].

In Syria, where this vicious practice of paederastia was especially in
vogue, the Jews also appear to have been acquainted with it[240]. From
Asia, whether through the instrumentality of the Phoenicians, or as
_Welcker_[241] maintains, through that of the Lydians, Paederastia came
in the first instance to Crete, and spread from thence over the whole
of Greece[242].

Just as was the case with the cult of Venus in that country, so
the “love of boys” assumed quite a different form in Greece. As
_Paedophilia_ (Affection for boys) it took rank as one of the means of
education, being consecrate to the heavenly Eros, while Paederastia
(Carnal love of boys) fell to the province of the common Eros. Down to
quite modern times Paedophilia has been confounded with Paederastia,
and in this way a shameful stigma attached to the Greek _nation_,—a
stigma that _Meier_, following the initiative of _Jacobs_ and _K. O.
Müller_ (loco citato), was the first to free the Greeks from. Granted,
the two things approached very near each other; still _Paederastia
was never approved by the Greeks_[243]. At Sparta the violation of
boys was punished by loss of civil rights, exile or death[244], and
it was the same at Athens, as _Meier_ (loco citato) pp. 167 sqq. has
sufficiently proved. The fact that the laws relating to this offence
were promulgated at Athens only after the time of _Solon_ shows that
paederastia, as well as brothels, did not come into use there till
about that time. True Athens in later times was quite as notorious
for the prevalence there of paederastia as Corinth was for its Gay
Women[245]; and Aristophanes’ Comedies show only too abundantly how
much occasion he could find for scourging the “Pathics”, and how the
Gymnasia and Palaestrae (Wrestling-grounds) also were responsible for a
great deal of the harm done.

For, as Aristophanes[246] says:

  ἐν παιδοτρίβου δὲ καθίζοντας, τὸν μηρὸν ἔδει προβαλέσθαι
  τοὺς παῖδας, ὅπως τοῖς ἔξωθεν μηδὲν δείξειαν  ἀπηνές.
  εἶτ’ αὖ πάλιν αὖθις ἀνισταμένους ξυμψῆσαι, καὶ προνοῆσαι
  εἴδωλον τοῖσιν ἐρασταῖσιν τῆς ἥβης μὴ καταλείπειν.

(Of old when boys sat at the trainer’s, they were bound to throw
out the thigh, so as not to expose to the spectators’ gaze anything
unbecoming; then again when they got up again, they had to scrape out
the mark in the sand, and take care not to leave behind a model of
their youthful shape,—an incitement to lovers).

Besides the Gymnasia and Palaestrae, the barber’s shops
(κουρεῖα)[247], perfumers’ shops (μυροπωλεῖα)[248], Surgeries
(ἰατρεῖα)[249], Money-changers’ counters (τράπεζαι)[250],
bath-houses[251], and to a greater or less extent all kinds of
workshops (ἐργαστήρια)[252], particularly when in situations handy
to the Market, served as trysting-places of the paederasts and
pathics. Here the former sought victims for their vicious desires,
and the latter opportunities to sell their persons; while many of
the proprietors of such places may well have acted as Procurers
(προαγωγοί, μαστροποί,—Procurers, Pandars) for this purpose. The vice
itself was chiefly practised in lonely, obscure parts of the town, and
particularly on the Pnyx hill[253].

The Eleans and Bœotians are not only reproached with paederastia, but
the violation of boys is alleged to have been _allowed_ among these
peoples[254]. Megara it is true is charged with ὕβρις (shameful
violence), a common designation for paederastia[255], but we may
certainly doubt whether the temple of Ἀφροδίτη πρᾶξις there, which
_Pausanias_[256], mentions, had anything to do with this vice. The
author in question says: “After the sanctuary of Dionysus is shown
a temple of Venus. The image of Venus is of ivory, and is called
Aphrodité _Praxis_. It is the most ancient image in the temple.” No
other author however mentions any such cult as existing in Megara, and
even though the word πρᾶξις (intercourse), as _Meier_ (loco citato p.
153, note 49) has shown by examples, is used specially of paederastia,
yet at the same time the passage of _Euripides_, Ion 894.

    θεὸς ὀμευνέτας ἆγες ἀναιδείᾳ
    Κύπριδι χάριν πράσσων.

(Thou, god, partner of my bed, didst lead me, in shamelessness _doing
favour to Cypris—Love_), clearly proves that πράσσειν (to do, to have
intercourse) was used of coition generally[257].

Moreover in the passage of _Plutarch_ quoted a little above
paederastia is called χάρις ἄχαρις (a grace that is without grace)
and further down Ἔρως, Ἀφροδίτης μὴ παρούσης,—Ἔρως χωρὶς Ἀφροδίτης,
(Love—Eros—where Aphrodité is not, Love without Aphrodité); so how can
it have been regarded by the Greeks as under the _patronage_ of Venus?
Undoubtedly πρᾶξις is here synonymous with πόρνη (harlot), and the
Ἀφροδίτη πρᾶξις at Megara is nothing else than the Ἀφροδίτη πόρνη of
other cities.

_Chalcis_ had gained such notoriety for paederastia[258], that
χαλκιδίζειν (to act the Chalcidian) was said proverbially for
παιδεραστεῖν (to practise paederastia). It was the same with _Chios_
and _Siphnos_, as the expressions χιάζειν and σιφνιάζειν (to play
the Chian, the Siphnian) in _Hesychius_ prove. Hesychius says indeed
_σιφνιάζειν_: i.e. to finger behind; for the Siphnians are ill-spoken
of as enjoying boy-lovers. To act the Siphnian then means, to poke with
the finger. But the first explanation by καταδακτυλίζειν (to finger
behind), as well as the gloss of _Suidas_[259], show clearly that the
inhabitants of the island of Siphnos,—one of the Cyclades, practised a
species, if we may use the expression, of _Onania postica_ (back-door,
posterior masturbation),—like the cobbler at Vienna, who to allay the
Prurigo ani (itching of the anus) pushed his hammer up his posterior,
and then alas! could not pull it out again. In the same way the
Siphnians used the fingers[260].

The inhabitants of Italy were according to _Suidas_ (under the name
Θάμυρις—Thamyris) inventors of paederastia; and Etruscans, Samnites and
Messapians, as well as the Greeks dwelling in Magna Graecia, lay under
the reproach of practising the most vicious forms of love with men and
violation of boys[261]. In all probability the vice spread from here to
Rome, where it is found as early as the year 433 A.U.C.[262]. To such
an extent did it increase that in 585 A.U.C. (B.C. 169), as _Meier_ has
demonstrated, the _Lex Scantinia_ had to be passed against it. Yet all
this amounted as yet to nothing in comparison with the scenes of horror
that were enacted under the Emperors _Tiberius_, _Caligula_, etc., of
whom _Martial_[263] says:

  Tanquam parva foret sexus iniuria nostri
    Foedandos populo prostituisse mares[264],
  Iam cunae leonis erant, ut ab ubere raptus
    Sordida vagitu posceret aera puer,
  Immatura dabant infandas corpora poenas.
    Non tulit Ausonius talia monstra pater:
  Idem qui teneris nuper succurrit ephebis,
    Ne faceret steriles saeva libido viros.
  Dilexere prius pueri, iuvenesque senesque:
    At nunc infantes te quoque, Caesar, amant.

(As though it were a small wrong done our sex to make males
prostitutes[264] to be debauched by the crowd, cradles now became a
part of the brothel-keeper’s stock in trade, that the baby-boy torn
from the breast might solicit a sordid wage by his wailing, and
immature bodies paid horrible penalties. Horrors such as these the
great Father of Italy (Domitian) would not suffer: that same good
Emperor who of late came to the rescue of tender youths, that raging
lust might not make men unfruitful. Heretofore boys loved him,—and
young men and old; now the very infants too love thee, Caesar).

Yet this was of little avail; the vice descended from generation to
generation, and passed on to the Christian nations, just as the Roman
punishments did in their legal codes.


                  Diseases consequent on Paederastia.


                                 § 13.

If we consider, first that the contractile power of the _Sphincter ani_
muscle offered great resistance to the paederast, a resistance only to
be overcome by the exertion of considerable force, secondly that the
glands of the _rectum_ exude a malodorous secretion, which under the
influence of climate,—a subject to be dealt with more precisely later
on,—assumes a more or less acrid quality, it will not surprise us to
find that manifold forms of disease showed themselves in Ancient times
both among paederasts and cinaedi (pathics). These were no doubt all
the more serious in cases where the one set of organs or the other
was already morbidly affected. As to the paederast indeed the direct
evidence is scanty, yet it is not entirely wanting, as may be seen from
the following Epigram of _Martial_[265]:


                             IN NAEVOLUM.

  _Mentula cum doleat puero, tibi_, Naevole, _culus_,
        Non sum divinus, sed scio quid facias.

(To Naevolus.—When I see _pained and sore the boy’s penis and your
posterior_, Naevolus,—I’m no wizard, but I know what it is you do).
Here we see both parts suffering from disease, the paederast in his
penis, the pathic in his posterior: and _Martial_ concludes Naevolus
was a _cinaedus_.

But more especially must phimosis and paraphimosis have had a tendency
to be set up in the case of the paederast. These at first, because
the continuous state of erection of the _penis_ which is a feature of
these affections was obviously the most visibly conspicuous symptom,
were designated by the name Satyriasis, the usual appellation of the
latter condition. This will also give a probable explanation of the
mortality from this cause observed by _Themison_ in _Crete_[266],—a
locality notorious, as we have seen, for the dishonouring of boys,—and
generally for the frequency of Satyriasis, which often took an almost
epidemic character in that island. Paraphimosis it should be noted
in passing had already been only too frequently noted as affecting
masturbators. Physicians indeed say nothing as to the predisposing
causes, and explain the disease as arising from an _Acrimonia humorum_
(Acridness of the humours) or from drinking a Philtre (Love-potion).
_Naumann_[267] appears to wish to make the Satyriasis that prevailed
in Crete some form of leprous affection, but for this view we can find
absolutely no ground.

Much more frequent mention is found of affections of the _rectum_ among
the pathics as consequences of paederastia. First come fissures, and in
their train ulcers of the _rectum_; whence the expressions _sectus_,
_percisus_ (cut), and the like are applied so often in Roman writers to
the pathic, and to his vice generally. So _Martial_[268] says:


                              IN CARINUM.

  _Secti podicis usque ad umbilicum_
  Nullas reliquias habet Carinus,
  Et prurit tamen usque ad umbilicum.
  O quanta scabie miser laborat!
  Culum non habet, est tamen cinaedus.

(To Carinus.—Carinus has no relics left of _his fundament, cut up
to the very navel_; and yet he itches with desire up to the very
navel. Oh! what a vile itch torments the unhappy man! He possesses no
posterior, and nevertheless is a cinaedus (pathic).)


                           IN LESBIAM[269].

  De cathedra quoties surgis, jam saepe notavi,
    _Paedicant miseram_, Lesbia, _te tunicae.
  Quas cum conata es dextra, conata sinistra
    Vellere, cum lacrimis eximis et gemitu._
  Sic constringuntur gemina Symplegade culi,
    Et Minyas intrant Cyaneasque nates.
  Emendare cupis _vitium deforme_? docebo.
    Lesbia, nec surgas censeo, nec sedeas!

(To Lesbia.—As oft as you rise from your chair, Lesbia, I have many
a time noticed the fact, _your undergarments, poor lady, play the
paederast with you. You endeavour to pluck them away first with the
right, anon with the left hand; finally you release them with tears
and groaning_. So drawn together are the twin Symplegades of your
fundament, and enter in between Minyan and Cyanean buttocks. Would you
fain cure _this ungraceful defect_? I will tell you how: I think,
Lesbia, you’d better not get up, nor yet sit down!)

Usually indeed the Pathic tried to conceal his complaint, and to make
it pass under some other name, as does Charisianus:


                          DE CHARISIANO[270].

  Multis jam, Lupe, posse se diebus
  Paedicare negat Charisianus.
  Caussam cum modo quaererent sodales:
  _Ventrem_, dixit, _habere se solutum_.

(On Charisianus.—Charisianus says, Lupus, that for many days he has
been unable to indulge in paederastia. When his comrades asked the
reason; _his bowels_, he said, _were relaxed_!)

But most frequently of all are the fig-like swellings on the fundament
(Ficus, Mariscae,—figs, large figs) mentioned by Ancient authors as a
consequence of paederastia.


                          DE SE PRIAPUS[271].

  Non sum de fragili dolatus ulmo;
  Nec quae stat rigida supina vena,
  De ligno mihi quolibet columna est,
  Sed viva generata de cupresso.—
  Hanc, tu quisquis es, o malus, timeto:
  Nam si vel minimos manu rapaci
  Hoc de palmite laeseris racemos:
  _Nascetur_, licet hoc velis negare,
  _Inserta tibi ficus a cupresso_.

(Priapus on Himself.—I am not hewn of fragile elm, nor is my pillar
that stands bent back with penis stiffly erect of any chance wood, but
born of the living cypress.—Beware this image, thief, whoe’er thou
art; for should you damage with plundering hand the tiniest clusters
of this stem, _there shall grow a fig_, deny it if you will, _of
cypress-wood inserted up your fundament_.)


                           DE LABIENO[272].

  Ut pueros emeret Labienus, vendidit hortos,
    Nil nisi _ficetum_ nunc Labienus habet.

(On Labienus.—To buy boys Labienus sold his gardens; nought but a
_fig-garden_ does Labienus now possess.)


                         AD CAECILIANUM[273].

  Cum dixi _ficus_, rides quasi barbara verba.
    Et dici _ficos_, Caeciliane, iubes.
  Dicemus _ficus_, quas scimus in arbore nasci,
    Dicemus _ficos_, Caeciliane, _tuos_.

(To Caecilianus.—When I have said _ficus_, you laugh, Caecilianus, as
though I had committed a solecism, and declare _ficos_ should be the
word. We will say _ficus_, meaning the figs that we know grow on the
tree, but your figs, Caecilianus, we will call _ficos_).

Now too we shall understand the _medico ridente_ (the doctor grinning)
in the following passage of _Juvenal_ (II. 12):

                    Sed podice laevi
  Caeduntur _tumidae_, medico ridente, _mariscae_.

(But from your smooth posterior are cut, the doctor grinning the while,
_the bloated swellings_). Just as it admits of no doubt that in the
passage of _Horace_[274]:

  Nam, displosa sonat quantum vesica, pepedi
      Diffissa nate _ficos_.

(For as loud as a burst bladder sounds, I farted my swellings
(ficos—figs) away, splitting the rump), _ficos_ and not as commonly
_ficus_ must be read.

That these morbid growths were not entirely free from contagious matter
seems to be indicated by the following passages. In the _Priapeia_
(Carm. 50) we read:

  Quaedam, si placet hoc tibi, Priape,
  Ficosissima me puella ludit,
  Et non dat mihi, nec negat daturam;
  Causasque invenit usque differendi.
  Quae si contigerit fruenda nobis,
  Totam cum paribus, Priape, nostris
  Cingemus tibi mentulam coronis.

(A certain girl, if it please you to listen, Priapus, is playing with
me. Most sorely afflicted is she with swellings; and she will not give
herself to me, yet does not say she never will, and ever finds excuses
for putting off and putting off. Now if ever she shall be mine to
enjoy, I and my comrades with me, will wreath all thy _penis_, Priapus,
with garlands). The girl, who was badly affected with these swellings,
and that presumably in the secret parts, refuses her lover coition. The
latter does not insist, but prays to Priapus, as was habitually done
in all cases of affections of the genitals (see p. 74 above) and vows
to deck his penis with garlands. It follows that the lover was aware
these swellings would be injurious to him, if he should constrain the
girl, of whom the poet says, _nec negat daturam_ (yet does not say she
will _not_ give herself), to lie with him. Still clearer evidence of
this may be found in the following Epigram of _Martial_, where a whole
family is affected with these swellings or tumours:


                    De familia ficosa.[275]

  Ficosa est uxor, ficosus et ipse maritus,
    Filia ficosa est, et gener atque nepos.
  Nec dispensator, nec villicus, _ulcere turpi_,
    Nec rigidus fossor, sed nec arator eget.
  Cum sint ficosi pariter iuvenesque senesque,
    Res mira est, ficus non habet unus ager.

(On a tumourous household.—The goodwife is tumourous, tumourous the
goodman her husband, tumourous the daughter of the house, and the
son-in-law and the grandson. Neither house-steward nor factor is free
of the foul ulcer, nor the rugged ditcher, nor yet the ploughman. Now
when all alike, young and old have tumours (ficos, ficus), the strange
thing is, not a single field has fig-trees (ficus)). For the rest
the words _ulcere turpi_ (foul ulcer) show that _ficus_, like σύκος
and σύκωσις (fig, fig-like swelling) in Greek, signifies not only a
fig-shaped swelling, but also an ulcer with granulous surface, like
a fig cut in two. Or possibly it would be better to understand here
swellings that have passed into the ulcerated stage[276].

Seeing how plainly the passages just quoted from non-medical Writers
point to these swellings being a consequence of paederastia, it is
surprising that not one of the Ancient physicians, spite of _Juvenal’s_
_medico ridente_ (the doctor grinning the while), ever so far as we
know, alleges this form of licentiousness as cause of affections of the
sort. On the other hand we cannot help remarking that the frequency of
these swellings in the time of _Martial_ and _Juvenal_ can hardly be
explained as arising solely from the general prevalence of paederastia.
More probably, then as now, the _Genius epidemicus_ (Epidemic
influences) bore no unimportant share in bringing about the result,
just as was the case (see later) with _Mentagra_ (Eruption of the chin).

However not merely primary affections of the posteriors were the
punishment of the _Cinaedus_, but also secondary ones of the _mouth_
and _throat_. First and foremost was hoarseness of the voice, to which
_Martial_[277] alludes, when he makes the champion of the baths the
_cinaedus_ Charinus speak _raucidulo ore_ (with a weak, hoarse voice).
This we find, following Reiske’s[278] indication, more explicitly
dealt with in _Dio Chrysostom_[279]:—

“But this is surely worth mentioning, and it is a thing no one can
deny. I mean the noteworthy fact that a disease has attacked so many
in this city,—one which I used to hear of as prevailing much more
frequently with others than amongst you. What is it I mean? Even though
I could explain myself no more clearly, yet you might easily guess the
answer. Do not think I am speaking of secrets, of hidden doings, when
the astounding fact itself speaks plainly enough. For there are many in
this city that are asleep, even while they walk and stand and speak;
though they may appear to most observers to be awake, yet it is not
really so.

“Now they give, in my opinion, the clearest proof that they are
asleep,—they snore (ῥέγχουσιν). I cannot, by heaven, express myself
more clearly with decency. True only a few of the sleepers are
suffering from the complaint I mean, and of the others it affects only
the drunken, the overfed and such as have lain ill. But I maintain
this vicious practice (ἔργον) shames the city and brands it publicly.
The grossest ignominy is brought down upon their native city by these
sleepers by day, and they ought, I say, to have been expelled your
borders, as has been their fate everywhere else. For it is not now
and then, nor here and there, they are met with; but at all times and
in all places in the city occasion may be found to threaten, scorn or
deride them. For the rest the practice has actually penetrated now to
boys still young, and adults that yet would fain be reputable, suffer
themselves to be led away into regarding the matter as a trifle, and if
they refrain from the decisive step, yet it was their wish to take it.

“If there were a city in which wailing were to be heard all day
long, and no one could walk about in it, no! not one minute,
without listening to the sound of lamentation, tell me, what man
would willingly stay here? Now wailing, as all agree, is a sign of
unhappiness; but that other sound is the sign of shamelessness and
lewdness the most scandalous. Surely one would much rather choose to
associate with unhappy men than with paederasts[280]. I might avoid
listening, if a single man were to be blowing the flute everlastingly,
but if in a particular place there is an everlasting noise of flutes,
singing or guitar-playing,—such as might be where the rocks ever ring
with the Syrens’ song,—I could not, having arrived there, endure to
remain. And this unmusical and harsh tone of voice[281], what man of
any virtue can abide it? If a man passes in front of a home in which
he catches the sound, he says, “Of a surety there is a brothel there!”
Now what shall be said of a city where nothing _but_ this tone of voice
prevails universally, so that no exception can be made of time or day
or place whatever? For in streets and houses, in public places, in the
theatre and in the Gymnasium, _paederastia_ is rife[282].

“Again I have never yet heard a flute-player of a morning in the city,
but this horrible sort of din is raised[283] from earliest dawn.

“I do not indeed shut my eyes to the fact that it will be said I am
talking silly nonsense most likely, in making such allegations, and
that there is nothing in it. Nay! but surely you are only carrying
pot-herbs in your cart, and behold with indifference profusion of white
bread on the road, as well as salt and fresh meat. But just consider
the thing (πρᾶγμα i. e. paederastia) in this way too: If any one of
these objectors should come into a city, where all men, when they
point to a thing, point at it with the middle finger[284], when any
one gives the right hand, gives it with this same gesture, and when
he stretches out the hand, as the people does in voting or the judges
in giving decisions, does so in the same way, what, pray will he think
of such a city? What, if further all men walk in this city with skirts
up-raised, as if wading in a quagmire? For do you not really and truly
know what has given occasion to the defamation you suffer; what it
is has offered matter to such as are unfriendly disposed to you for
censure on our city? Tell me, what is the reason they nickname you
“hawks” (κερκίδες)[285]?

“Well, but you opine the question is not what others say of you, but
what you really do yourselves? Good; but if a single disease of such
a sort attacks a people that they all of them acquire women’s voices,
and no man, neither stripling nor grey-beard, can utter a word in a
man’s voice, is not this a horrible thing, and harder to bear, I should
suppose, than any Plague? For it is not _shameful_ to have a fever, nor
even to die.

“Nay! but to speak with women’s voice is after all to speak with human
voice, and no one is filled with aversion when he hears a woman. But,
tell me, whose is this voice; does it not belong to the _Androgyni_
(men-women), the Cinaedi? or to such as have had the genitals
amputated? True it is not invariably found with all such, but it is
characteristic of them and a sign of what they are.

“Well then! suppose a stranger from a distance to judge from your
voices, what kind of men you are, and what are your pursuits
(πράττειν,—what it is you do). You are not fit, I tell you, to be
neatherds or shepherds. I wonder would any one take you for descendants
of the Argives, as you profess to be, or indeed for Greeks at all,—you
who outdo the Phoenicians in lubricity? At any rate I do think it would
behove a man of any morality in such a city to close his ears with wax
far more than if he were sailing past the Syrens’ shore. There he would
run the risk of death, but here of foulest licence, of violation, of
the vilest seduction.

“Once Ionic harmony was in vogue, or Doric, or yet another sort, the
Phrygian and Lydian, now it is the music of Aradus and the Phoenician
modes that please you; you love this rhythm _par excellence_,
as others do the Spondaic. Was ever a race of men that were good
musicianers—through the nose?!

(p. 409). “But such a rhythm must needs have something to follow. You
would seem not to know what; just as with other nations the wrath
of the gods overtook some single part, the hands, the feet or the
face[286], in the same way among you an endemic disease has attacked
the nose. Just as the angry Aphrodité they say made the Lemnian women’s
armpits abominable, know now that the gods in their anger have played
havoc with the noses of most of your fellow citizens, and that is why
they have this characteristic voice of their own. Indeed from where
else could it have come?

“But _I_ say this thing is the mark of most infamous lewdness, of most
infamous madness, of contempt for all decency (all morality), and (a
proof) of the fact that there is no more any single thing held to be
disgraceful. Their speech, their gait, their look, proclaim it.”

From this passage of Dio Chrysostom, who lived at the end of the First
and beginning of the Second Century A.D., we see that at that period
the vice of paederastia prevailed at Tarsus to an appalling extent;
and very possibly it is this circumstance that gave occasion to the
declaration of the Apostle St. Paul[287], whose native town of course
Tarsus was, when he says:

“Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto
uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonoured among
themselves.... For their women[288] changed the natural use into
that which is against nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the
natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another,
men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that
recompense of their error which was due.” This recompense was no doubt
the ῥέγχειν (snoring), which according to _Reiske_ was the consequence
of an affection of the throat and nose in which the breath was exhaled
with a characteristic noise. To corroborate this view he quotes in
his edition of Dio Chrysostom the following passage from _Ammianus
Marcellinus_[289], who picturing the habits of the Romans in the
middle of the Fourth Century, wrote thus: “Haec nobilium instituta. Ex
turba vero imae sortis et pauperrimae, in tabernis aliqui pernoctant
vinariis: nonnulli velabris umbraculorum theatralium latent, quae
Campanam imitatus lasciviam Catulus in aedilitate sua suspendit omnium
primus; aut pugnaciter aleis certant, _turpi sono fragosis naribus
introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes_.” (Such are the usages of the
nobles. But of the masses, those of lowest and poorest lot, certain
spend the night in wine-taverns, some lurk under the curtains of the
theatre awnings,—which Catulus in his aedileship, imitating Campanian
luxury, was the very first to erect; or quarrel and fight at dice,
_making an ugly rattling sound the while by drawing in the breath
through their rough nostrils_).

Now we know that paederasts had foul breaths, as _Martial_[290] indeed
noted, consequently the mucous membrane of the mouth was morbidly
affected in its action, and further that they spoke _raucidulo ore_
(with hoarse voice)[291], which must have been with many the ordinary
consequence of a thickening of the tissues by previous ulceration; and
at this fact this Speech of Dio Chrysostom, as _Reiske_ understands it,
may very well hint. But to take the main gist of his speech, the author
of the “Tarsica” signifies by ῥέγχειν (to snort) something quite
different from this, as the whole context shows clearly.

It was in fact a signal or mode of solicitation, by which the
pathics sought to allure the paederasts to them and invited them
to lewdness, as comes out more plainly in the following passage of
_Clemens Alexandrinus_[292]: Αἱ δὲ _ἀνδρογύνων συνουσίαις_ ἥδονται·
παρεισῥέουσιν δὲ ἔνδον κιναίδων ὄχλοι, ἀθυρόγλωσσοι· μιαροὶ μὲν τὰ
σώματα, μιαροὶ δὲ τὰ φθέγματα, εἰς ὑπουργίας ἀκολάστους ἠνδρωμένοι,
μοιχείας διάκονοι, κιχλίζοντες καὶ ψιθυρίζοντες, καὶ _τὸ πορνικὸν
ἀναίδην εἰς ἀσέλγειαν διὰ ῥινῶν ἐπιψοφοῦντες ἐπικιναίδισμα_, ἀκολάστοις
ῥήμασι καὶ σχήμασι τέρπειν πειρώμενοι, καὶ εἰς γέλωτας ἐκκαλούμενοι,
πορνείας παράδρομον· ἔστι δ’ ὅτε καὶ ὑπεκκαιόμενοι διὰ τὴν τυχοῦσαν
ὄργην, ἤτοι πόρνοι αὐτοὶ ἢ καὶ κιναίδων ὄχλον εἰς ὄλεθρον ἐζηλωκότες,
_ἐπικροτοῦσι τῇ ῥινὶ_, βατράχων δίκην, καθάπερ ἔνοικον τοῖς μυκτῆρσι
τὴν χολὴν κεκτημένοι. (But they delight in the _assemblies of the
Androgyni_ (men-women); and crowds of pathics hurry along to join them
within, everlasting chatterers, abominable in person and abominable in
voice; reared up to manhood for unchaste ministrations, servants of
adultery; tittering and whispering, and _sounding though their nose
the debauched cinaedus’ call to shameful licentiousness_, striving to
please with indecent words and gestures, and challenging to laughter, a
race and competition in harlotry. Then again at times kindled by some
chance gust of anger, whether debauchees themselves or roused to a
fatal emulation with the crowd of pathics, they make a rattling sound
with the nose, like frogs, as though they kept their stock of gall up
their nostrils).

But possibly the Tarsians were also _Fellatores_ (ii qui penem alienum
in os admittunt, ibique eo sugunt ut voluptas quaedam libidinosa
paretur,—those who allow another’s penis to be put in their mouth,
and suck it) (see later), and snorted as _fellatores_ did at their
task,—for the word ῥέγχειν (to snort) is manifestly used in several
different senses. It only remains to mention that a _pale complexion_
was also reckoned one of the signs of a _Cinaedus_, a fact to which
_Juvenal’s_ (II. 50.) words refer: _Hippo subit iuvenes et morbo pallet
utroque_. (Hippo submits to men, and is pale with two-fold disease). Of
these marks of the _Cinaedus_ we shall speak in greater detail directly.


               Νοῦσος Θήλεια (Feminine Disease)[293].


                                 § 14.

The passage of _Dio Chrysostom_ discussed in the preceding section
brings us, in virtue of a variety of hints it contains, to the much
canvassed Νοῦσος Θήλεια (feminine disease) of the Scythians. _Stark_
has collected with the greatest care everything that has so far been
adduced by different authors in explanation of the subject; and on his
Work we must base our own efforts in the investigations that follow.

_Herodotus_[294] relates how the Scythians had made themselves masters
of all Asia, and how some of them on their homeward march had plundered
the very ancient temple of _Venus Urania_ at Ascalon, a town of Syria;
and then proceeds as follows:

“On such of the Scythians as plundered the temple at Ascalon, and on
their posterity for successive generations, the goddess inflicted the
θήλεια νούσος—feminine disease. And the Scythians say themselves it
is for this cause they suffer the sickness, and moreover that any who
visit the Scythian country may see among them what is the condition
of those whom the Scythians call Ἐναρέες”. (a Scythian word, probably
having the same meaning as Greek ἀνδρόγυνοι—men-women).

The different views that have been formulated at different times as to
the nature of the νοῦσος θήλεια may be readily classified as follows.
It was regarded as:—

1. _a Vice_, this vice being,

a) _Paederastia_; manifestly the oldest explanation,—already alluded
to by _Longinus_, but specially championed by _Bouhier_[295], also
entertained by the interpreters of _Longinus_, _Toll_ and _Pearce_, as
well as by _Casaubon_ (Epistolae) and _Costar_[296];

b). Onanism (Self Masturbation),—a view _Sprengel_[297] is inclined to
decide in favour of.

2. _a bodily Disease_,—to wit,

a). _Haemorrhoids_ (Piles); an opinion maintained by _Paul Thomas de
Girac_[298], _Valckenaar_ in his Notes to Herodotus, _Bayer_[299], and
the authors of the “General History of the World”[300];

b). _actual Menstruation_, for which _le Fèvre_ and _Dacier_ would seem
to have declared;

c). _Gonorrhoea_ (Clap), which _Patin_[301], _Hensler_[302] and
_Degen_[303] understood to be meant;

d). _actual loss of the Testicles, true Eunuchs_, _Mercurialis_[304]
considered must have been implied; and with this view _Stark’s_
conclusion in part coincides, who understood a disease involving
complete loss of virile power, both corporeal and mental, and producing
an actual metamorphosis of the male type into the female.

(3). _a mental Disease_, in fact a form of Melancholia. This is the
view adopted by _Sauvages_[305], _Heyne_, _Bose_, _Koray_[306] and
_Friedreich_.

It would naturally be our task to examine the reasons alleged for
and against these separate views. Supposing however we succeed in
satisfactorily proving one of them to be the right one, then _ipso
facto_ all the rest come to nothing; and so we propose here to essay
the advocacy of the oldest of them,—the view that makes the νοῦσος
θήλεια to be the vice of paederastia. _En passant_ we must call
attention to the fact that under the name of paederastia must be
understood not only the vicious habit of the paederast pure and simple,
of the man that is who _practices_ the act, but also of the _pathic_,
who offers opportunities for its commission. This is a point which
above all others has been quite left out of sight by the adversaries of
the view in question.

The next question we have to answer would seem to be this: Could
paederastia be regarded as a consequence of the vengeance of Venus?
As it is the Scythians that are in question, the first thing would
naturally appear to be to determine what conception the Scythians had
of Venus. But inasmuch as the data are lacking for any demonstration
of the sort, while the Scythians themselves ascribe the νοῦσος θήλεια
to the vengeance of Venus, we may very well refer for a reply to this
first question to the general character of the cult of the goddess[307]
and what has been said on the whole subject above; and herein there
seems to exist no reason why we should not answer the query asked above
in the affirmative. Granted that Venus was regarded as goddess of
fruitfulness or as dispenser of the joys of Love, then in either aspect
it was but natural she should withdraw the marks of her favour from
the culprits (the paederasts). These neither wished for posterity nor
enjoyed the delights connected with _natural_ coition, but were equally
indifferent towards the one and towards the other[308]; and the first
sign of the vengeance of the goddess consists in the withdrawal of her
benefits.

How _Stark_, following the lead of an anonymous French author quoted
by _Larcher_[309], can maintain there is no question of punishment
here, as in that case Venus would be acting against her own interest,
we fail to understand; and _Larcher_ himself calls this unknown writer
_un homme d’esprit, mais peu instruit_ (witty but superficial). This
is proof sufficient in our opinion that only a jest is intended, but
one that _Stark_, p. 7 (notes 19 and 20.), has taken with the utmost
seriousness.

However our view is _directly_ supported by another myth, which _Dio
Chrysostom_ mentions, speaking of the sweating at the armpits with
which the Lemnian women were afflicted. According to this legend Venus
punishes the women of Lemnos[310]:

“Haec Dea veluti etiam ceteri, sua sacrificia praetermitti non
aequo animo ferebat: quae cum Lemniae mulieres Veneris sacrificia
sprevissent, Deae maxime iram in se concitasse creditae sunt, quod
etiam non impune putantur fecisse. _Nam tantum foetorem illis excitasse
feminis Dea perhibetur, ut a suis maritis contemnerentur._” (This
goddess, no less than other deities, could not bear the neglect of her
proper sacrifices with equanimity. Thus the women of Lemnos, having
omitted to perform these sacrifices of Venus, are believed to have
brought down on themselves the most serious anger of the goddess,
and this they are accounted not to have done with impunity. _For
the goddess, as is related, caused such a foul odour to arise among
the women, that they were scorned by their husbands._) If the view
mentioned just above as taken by the Apostle Paul and by St. Athanasius
is the right one, it would seem that the Lemnian women had suffered
themselves to be used by their husbands for purposes of paederastia;
then as a consequence there had been set up the evil odour of the mouth
and breath, and this had driven the men to desert their wives to live
with the captive Thracian slave-women (_Apollonius_).

But indeed the Ancients generally, or at any rate the Greeks and
Romans, seem to have always held the opinion that unnatural coition,
as well as all the similar forms of indulgence taking its place, were
a consequence of the wrath of Venus, against whom the individuals had
offended[311]. This appears also from the play of _Philoctetes_, of
whom the _Scholiast_ to _Thucydides_[312] says: “Moreover Philoctetes,
having on account of the death of Paris fallen sick of the _feminine
disease_, and being unable to bear the shame of it, left his country
and founded a city, which in memory of his misfortune he named
Malacia—Effeminacy.” _Martial_[313] had the same myth in his mind when
he wrote:

                  In Sertorium

  Mollis erat, facilisque viris Paeantius heros,
    Vulnera sic Paridis dicitur ulta Venus.
  Cur lingat cunnum Siculus Sertorius, hoc est,
    Ex hoc occisus, Rufe, videtur Eryx.

(To Sertorius.—The Hero, son of Paeas (Philoctetes), was effeminate
and easy of access to men; in this way Venus is said to have avenged
the murder of Paris. Why should Sicilian Sertorius lick the pudendum
of women? this is why, because it would appear, he was the slayer,
Rufus, of a man of Eryx.) Of course there can be no question here of
the disease which detained Philoctetes at Lemnos and prevented his
taking part in the expedition to Troy; and if the older legend says
nothing as to the νοῦσος θήλεια of Philoctetes, it is clear from this
(as Meier, loco citato, has shown) that only in times when paederastia
was becoming prevalent, were all these legends invented, to get as it
were a sort of excuse by alleging a distinguished predecessor in the
practice. So _Martial_ says, addressing _Gaurus_:[314]

  Quod nimio gaudes noctem producere vino,
    Ignosco: vitium, Gaure, Catonis habes.
  Carmina quod scribis Musis et Apolline nullo,
    Laudari debes: hoc Ciceronis habes.
  Quod vomis: Antoni, quod luxuriaris: Apici;
    Quod fellas—vitium dic mihi, cuius habes?

(That you love to prolong the night with excess of wine, I can excuse;
you have the vice, Gaurus, of Cato. That you write verses with no
inspiration of Muses and Apollo, for this, you should be praised; it
is a fault of Cicero’s you have. That you vomit, well! ’twas a habit
of Antony’s; that you are a gourmand, ’twas Apicius’ weakness.—That
you suck (as a _fellator_), whose vice have you here, pray tell me!)
The above Epigram of _Martial’s_ (To Sertorius) shows very clearly
how the poets represented each form of unnatural indulgence of the
sexual impulse as vengeance of Venus. It is a _cunnilingus_ that is
in question here, and his vice is accounted for in this way:—just as
Philoctetes on account of the slaying of Paris had been punished by
Venus with paederastia, so the Sicilian Sertorius probably became a
_cunnilingus_ because he had killed an inhabitant of Eryx, where was
situated a famous temple of the goddess. Similarly it will not surprise
us if besides paederastia Philoctetes was saddled with the vice of
Onanism at a later period, as is implied in the following poem of
_Ausonius_:[315]

            SUBSCRIPTUM PICTURAE CRISPAE MULIERIS IMPUDICAE

  Praeter legitimi genitalia foedera coetus,
  Repperit obscoenas Veneres vitiosa libido.
  _Herculis haeredi quam Lemnia suasit egestas_,
  Quam toga facundi scenis agitavit Afrani,
  Et quam Nolanis capitalis luxus inussit;
  Crispa tamen cunctas exercet corpore in uno:
  Deglubit, fellat, molitur per utramque cavernam,
  Ne quid inexpertum frustra moritura relinquat.

(Inscribed beneath a Portrait of Crispa,—an immodest woman.—Over and
above the natural modes of intercourse in legitimate coition, vicious
lust has discovered impure ways of love: the way that his loneliness
at Lemnos taught the heir of Hercules (Philoctetes), that which the
comedies of eloquent Afranius displayed on the stage, and that which
deadly luxury branded on the men of Nola. But Crispa practises them all
in her sole person: she skins, she sucks, she works by either aperture,
that she may not leave anything untried, and so have lived in vain!)

No doubt _Stark_, p. 19, is quite right in saying this passage has
nothing to do with the θήλεια νοῦσος; but the poet has by no means,
as he puts it in his note, _temporum ordine lapsus_,—committed an
anachronism. He makes no mention whatever of any vengeance of Venus,
saying nothing more than that loneliness led the inheritor (of
the arrows) of Hercules to Onanism. This is not merely advancing
a conjecture, as _Stark_ does, but (to say nothing of the _Lemnia
egestas_—Lemnian loneliness), admits of being legitimately developed
from the whole sequence of thought in the Epigram. Crispa’s vices are
mentioned in the order of their shamefulness. The least disgraceful is
Onanism, such as Philoctetes practised, next comes the vice of the
_cinaedus_ and of the _pathic_, for which Afranius serves as example,
and lastly _fellation_. Thus it shows a complete want of comprehension,
when the commentators quote the scholion to Thucydides given a little
above as an explanation. Had Philoctetes been referred to as a
_pathic_, the succeeding verse would be entirely superfluous; which
verse does not receive a word of notice from the expositors, presumably
because they failed to understand the allusion. The true explanation is
afforded by a passage in _Quintilian_:[316] “Togatis excellit Afranius,
_utinamque non inquinasset argumenta puerorum foedis amoribus_, mores
suos fassus.” (Afranius excels in _fabulae togatae_ (polite comedies),
and it were to be wished he had not defiled his plots by disgusting
intrigues with boys, thereby discovering his own morals). _Forberg_,
loco citato p. 283, quotes this passage indeed, but explains (both here
and on p. 343) the _libido_ (lust) of Philoctetes as being that of the
_pathic_.

To prove that Venus manifested her wrath in the way specified, we may
further cite the race of the daughters of Helios, whom she punished by
the infliction of licentious love. Thus _Hyginus_ says:[317] Soli ob
indicium (concubitus cum Marte) Venus ad _progeniem_ eius semper fuit
inimica, (Because of the Sun’s revelation (of her intrigue with Mars)
Venus was ever a bitter enemy of his posterity); and Seneca:[318]

  Stirpem perosa Solis invisi Venus
  Per nos catenas vindicat Martis sui
  Suasque: _probris_ omne Phoebeum genus
  Onerat _infandis_.

(Venus, loathing the posterity of the hated Sun, punishes on us the
fetters that bound her lover Mars and her. _With abominable and
disgraceful practices_ she afflicts the whole race of Phoebus).

An example of such vengeance is afforded by Pasiphaë, of whom
the Scholiast on the passage of Lucian cited below relates how,
Ἡλίου οὖσα ἐκ μήνιδος Ἀφροδίτης ταύρου ἠράσθη, (being a
daughter of the Sun, she became enamoured of a bull through the
influence of angry Aphrodité), a fable which might very well be
explained—for ταύρος (a bull), like κένταυρος (a Centaur), occurs
in the sense of paederast—as meaning that she had become a female
pathic. So Theomnestus says in _Lucian_:[319] “So lecherous a look
resides in the eyes, that compelling all beauty to its will, it can
find no satiety. And often was I uncertain whether this were not some
spite of Aphrodité. Yet am I none of the children of Helios, neither
a natural heir of the Lemnian women, nor puffed up with the scornful
insensibility of Hippolytus, that I could have provoked against me such
an implacable hatred on the part of the goddess)”. _Philo Judaeus_[320]
also represents paederastia as a punishment of such men as married a
woman legally repudiated, and the like: πρὸς δὲ συμβάσεις εἴ τις ἐθέλοι
χωρεῖν ἀνὴρ τῇ τοιαύτῃ γυναικὶ, _μαλακίας καὶ ἀνανδρίας ἐκφερέσθω
δόξαν_, ὡς ἐκ τετμημένος τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ βιωφελέστατον μισοπόνηρον
πάθος.... δίκην οὖν τινέτω σὺν τῇ γυναικί. (But if any man should wish
to enter into contracts with such a woman, let him bear the _ill-repute
of softness and effeminacy_, as having eradicated from his soul that
sentiment of hatred for ill-doers which is most useful for life,—So
let him pay his penalty along with the woman). In _Athenaeus_ one
of the speakers exclaims (Deipnos., XIII. p. 605 D.): Ὁρᾶτε οὖν καὶ
ὑμεῖς, οἱ φιλόσοφοι _παρὰ φύσιν τῇ_ Ἀφροδίτῃ χρώμενοι, καὶ _ἀσεβοῦντες
εἰς τὴν θεὸν_, μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν διαφθαρῆτε τρόπον. (Beware then ye too,
philosophers who indulge the pleasures of Aphrodité _against nature,
and act impiously towards the goddess_, that ye be not destroyed in the
same way).

According to _Diodorus_ (V. 55) the sons of Neptune in consequence of
the wrath of Venus plunged into such madness that they violated their
mother. The Propontides, who had denied the godhead of Venus, were cast
by her into such an amorous phrenzy that they publicly gave themselves
to men, and they were subsequently turned into stones.[321] Myrrha,
whose mother proclaimed herself to be fairer than Venus, was driven by
the goddess into unchastity with her own father.[322]

In later times this idea was even transferred to the Star of Venus. The
following appears in _Firmicus_ “In octavo ab horoscopo loco, Mercurius
cum Venere, si vespertini ambo, inefficaces et apocopos reddent, et qui
nihil agere possint.” (In the eighth place of the horoscope, Mercury
in conjunction with Venus, if both are evening stars, will make men
impotent eunuchs and such as can effect nothing.)—a notion that first
arose perhaps from the name Hermaphroditus[323].

Thus there would be nothing inconsistent with the views universally
held in Antiquity in considering the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease)
of the Scythians, and equally that of Philoctetes, as consequences
of the wrath of Venus. That paederastia was invariably regarded
as a _Vice_ by the Ancients (and particularly by the Greeks) we
have already, following the lines laid down by _Meier_, we think
sufficiently proved. _Stark_, who repeatedly (pp. 12, 16, 20.) denies
this, has been led into error merely by the mistake that was generally
prevalent in his time of confusing paedophilia and paederastia; and it
is on this misapprehension he bases his argument. How the Scythians
came to hold this belief that the wrath of Venus was to blame for
what they suffered, must indeed be left an open question. But it
should be remembered it was not the _pathics_ themselves who advanced
this opinion, but only the rest of the Scythians; for Herodotus says
expressly, λέγουσί τε οἱ Σκύθαι διὰ τοῦτο _σφεας_ νοσέειν (and the
Scythians say that for this cause _they_ were afflicted). Again it was
only ὀλίγοι τινὲς αὐτῶν ὑπολειφθέντες (a few of the Scythians who were
left behind), a few of the stragglers, who would seem to have plundered
the temple of Aphrodité; and it certainly was only later that this act
of impiety was brought into connection with the vice,—in the same way
as the killing of Paris by Philoctetes was with the legend of his lewd
practices.


                                 § 15.

The second question we have to answer will be this: how could Herodotus
write _that the descendants of these few stragglers alive in his time
suffered from the νοῦσος θήλεια_ (_feminine disease_)? From the
fact that, while descendants are named, strictly speaking only _male_
descendants can be in question, it is clear the statement is only a
general one, and must not be understood to imply more than that certain
members of these families were Cinaedi, not of course that the _whole_
posterity was afflicted with the νοῦσος θήλεια. We see at the
present day how the impurity of the father passes on to the son; so
it need be matter for no surprise whatever to find the vice of the
cinaedi descending in the same way among certain members of a family.
As a matter of fact these Scythian temple-robbers are by no means the
only examples Antiquity holds up to us of such a thing, for the Orator
_Lysias_[324] says of the family of _Alcibiades_, that _most members of
it had become prostitutes_.

What is more, the opinion was avowedly and directly held by the
Ancients, that pathics were born with the predisposition to the
vice. In particular _Parmenides_ (509 B.C.) expressed this view in a
Fragment, which _Caelius Aurelianus_[325] has preserved in a chapter of
his Work. This chapter treats solely of the vice of the pathic, and is
of the greatest importance for our subject. We could not forgo quoting
it in full, particularly as it is the sole authority for the views held
by physicians on this vice, and up to now appears to have been entirely
overlooked.


      DE MOLLIBUS SIVE SUBACTIS; QUOS GRAECI _μαλθακοὺς_ VOCANT.

“Molles sive subactos Graeci μαλθακοὺ vocaverunt, quos quidem esse
nullus facile virorum credit. Non enim hoc humanos ex natura venit in
mores, sed pulso pudore, libido etiam indebitas partes obscoenis usibus
subiugavit. Cum enim nullus cupiditati modus, nulla satietatis spes
est, singulis Sparta non sufficit sua. Nam sic nostri corporis loca
divina providentia certis destinavit officiis. Tum denique volentes
alliciunt veste atque gressu, et aliis femininis rebus, quae sunt a
passionibus corporis aliena, sed potius corruptae mentis vitia. Nam
saepe tumentes [timentes], vel quod est difficile, verentes quosdam,
quibus forte deferunt, repente mutati parvo tempore virilitatis
quaerunt indicia demonstrare, cuius quia modum nesciunt, rursum
nimietate sublati, plus quoque quam virtuti convenit, faciunt et
maioribus si peccatis involvunt. Constat itaque etiam nostro iudicio,
hos vera sentire. Est enim, ut Soranus ait, malignae ac foedissimae
mentis passio. Nam sicut feminae _Tribades_[326] appellatae, quod
utramque Venerem exerceant, mulieribus magis quam viris misceri
festinant et easdem, invidentia pene virili sectantur, et cum passione
fuerint desertae, seu temporaliter relevatae, ea quaerunt aliis
obiicere, quae pati noscuntur, iuvamini humilitate [iuvandi voluptate
ex] duplici sexu confecta, velut frequenti ebrietate corruptae in novas
libidinis formas erumpentes, consuetudine turpi nutritae, sui sexus
iniuriis gaudent, illi comparatione talium animi passione iactari
noscuntur. Nam neque ulla curatio corporis depellendae passionis causa
recte putatur adhibenda, sed potius animus coercendus, qui tanta
peccatorum labe vexatur. Nemo enim pruriens corpus feminando correxit,
vel virilis veretri tactu mitigavit, sed communiter querelam sive
dolorem alia ex materia toleravit. Denique etiam a Clodio historia
curationis data ascaridarum esse perspicitur, quos de lumbricis
scribentes vermiculos esse docuimis longaonis[327] in partibus natos.
_Parmenides_[328] libris quos de natura scripsit, _eventu_, inquit
_conceptionis molles aliquando seu subactos homines generare_. Cuius
quia graecum est epigramma et hoc versibus intimabo [imitabo]: Latinos
enim, ut potui, simili modo composui, ne linguarum ratio misceretur.

  Femina, virque simul Veneris cum germina miscent
  Venis, informans diverso ex sanguine virtus
  Temperiem servans bene condita corpora fingit.
  At si virtutes permixto semine pugnent,
  Nec faciant unam, permixto in corpore dirae
  Nascentem gemino vexabunt semine sexum.

Vult enim seminum praeter materias esse virtutes, quae si se ita
miscuerint et [ut] eiusdem corporis [vim unam] faciant, unam congruam
sexui generent voluntatem. Si autem permixto semine corporeo virtutes
separatae permanserint utriusque Veneris natos adpetentia sequatur.
Multi praeterea sectarum principes genuinam dicunt esse passionem
et propterea _in posteros venire cum semine_, non quidem naturam
criminantes, quae suae puritatis metas aliis ex animalibus docet: nam
sunt eius specula a sapientibus nuncupata: sed humanum genus, quod ita
semel recepta tenet vitia, ut nulla possit instauratione purgari, nec
ullum novitati liquerit locum, sitque gravior senescentibus mentis
culpa, cum plurimae genuinae, seu adventitiae passionis corporibus
infractae consenescant, ut podagra, epilepsia, furor et propterea
aetate vergente mitiores procul dubio fiant. Omnia et enim vexantia
validos effectus dabunt firmitate opposita subiacentium materiarum,
quae cum in senibus deficit, passio quoque minuitur, ut fortitudo; sola
tamen supra dicta, quae subactos seu molles efficit viros, senescenti
corpore gravius invalescit et infanda magis libidine movet, non quidem
sine ratione. In aliis enim aetatibus adhuc valido corpore et naturalia
ventris [veneris] officia celebrante, gemina luxuriae libido non
divititur, animorum nunc faciendo, nunc facie iactata [animo eorum nunc
patiendo nunc faciendo iactato]: in iis vero qui senectute defecti
virili veneris officio caruerint, omnis animi libido in contrariam
ducitur appetentiam, et propterea femina validius Venerem poscit. Hinc
denique coniiciunt plurimi etiam pueros hac passione iactari. Similiter
enim senibus virili indigent officio, quod in ipsis est nondum, illos
deseruit.” (On effeminate men or _subservients_, called μαλθακοὶ—soft,
effeminate, by the Greeks.—Effeminate men, or _subservients_, were
called by the Greeks μαλθακοὶ. A _man_ finds it difficult to believe
in the existence of such creatures. For it was not nature prompted the
introduction of this as part of human habits; rather was it lust that,
expelling shame, subjected to foul uses parts of the body that should
never have been so employed. For no limit being set to passion, and
no hope of satiety being entertained, the several members find each
its own realm insufficient; whereas divine providence destined the
different portions of the body to perform definite functions. In fine
they go out of their way to allure by dress and gait and other feminine
attributes, things unconnected with bodily emotions, being rather due
to a corrupted mind. For often, moved by fear, or (however difficult to
believe) by shame, towards persons whom they happen to respect, they
change of a sudden and for a brief space seek to show marks of manly
power; but not knowing where to put the limit, they are again carried
away by excess, and going beyond what is fit for an honest man are
involved in yet greater offences. Thus it is evident, in _our_ opinion,
that such men have a sense of the true state of things. For theirs
is, as Soranus declares, the passion of a corrupt and utterly foul
mind. For as women that are called _Tribades_, because they practise
the love of either sex, are eager to have intercourse with women more
than with men, and pursue these with a jealousy almost as violent as
a man’s, and when they have been deserted by their love or for the
time being superseded, seek to do to other women what they are known
to suffer, and winning from their double sex a pleasure in giving
pleasure, like persons deboshed by constant drunkenness, being nurtured
on evil habitude, delight in wrongs to their own sex,—even so these
men (pathics) are seen by a comparison with women of this sort to be
tormented with a passion that is of the mind. For no bodily treatment
it is rightly deemed should be adopted to expel the passion, rather
must the mind be disciplined which is afflicted with such a pollution
of vices.

For no man ever remedied a prurient body by foul practices as a woman,
nor got mitigation by contact of the male member, but concurrently he
suffered some complaint or pain from a different (material) cause. So
in fact the history of a cure given by Clodius is found to be really
a case of recovery from “ascaridae”, which writers on intestinal
worms have shown are a kind of worm born in the region of the rectum
or straight gut. _Parmenides_ in his books on natural science says
“_Effeminate men or _subservients_ occasionally bring forth as a
result of conception_.” But as his Epigram is in Greek, I will imitate
it in verse; so I have composed Latin lines like the original so
far as I could make them, that there might not be a mixture of the
two languages:—“When a woman and a man together mingle in the veins
the seeds of love, the formative virtue that moulds of the diverse
blood, if it keep due proportion, makes well-framed bodies. But if the
virtues are discordant in the commingled seed, and have no unity, in
the commingled body furies will torment the nascent sex with two-fold
seed.” He means that over and above the material seed there are certain
virtues residing in it; and if these have commingled in such a way as
to have one and the same operative force in the same body, then they
produce one single will that tallies with the sex. But if when the
bodily seed was commingled, the virtues remained separate, the appetite
for love of both kinds must pursue the offspring.

Many leading doctors of the schools moreover declare that the passion
is innate, and _therefore passes on with the seed to descendants_, not
indeed hereby incriminating nature, which teaches men the bounds of
its purity by the example of other animals (for animals are called by
wise men nature’s mirrors), but rather the human race that retains so
obstinately vices once adopted, that by no renewal can it be purified,
and has left no room for change. Similarly a _mental_ depravity grows
graver as men advance in life, whereas most affections of the _body_,
whether innate or adventitious, get weaker as men get older, for
instance gout, epilepsy and madness, and so as age advances undoubtedly
grow milder. For all troublesome factors will produce strong effects in
proportion to the firmness to resist possessed by the affected parts,
and as this firmness is deficient in old men, so the complaint or
passion diminishes in intensity, as does the general strength. _But_
that passion which makes men subservient or effeminate, grows stronger
and more serious as the body grows old and stirs the sufferers with yet
more abominable lustfulness,—and not without a reason. For at other
ages, the body being still strong and capable of performing the natural
offices of love, there is no division of lust into double forms of
wantonness, through their mind being tossed to and fro now by passive
now by active lewdness. But in such as have failed from age, and become
incapable of the manly office of love, all the wantonness of the mind
is directed on the appetite for the opposite form of gratification; and
for this cause a woman demands love more strongly than a man. In fact
many conjecture it is for this reason that boys also are tormented by
this passion. For they resemble old men in lacking power for the virile
function. It is not yet born in boys; old men have lost it.)

To leave on one side for the present the many inferences of various
sorts that this passage of _Caelius Aurelianus_ must necessarily lead
us to, as they will find a more suitable place later on, and to return
to our question,—the mere fact of Herodotus mentioning posterity at
all ought of itself to be sufficient to negative any idea of actual
eunuchs, of loss of the generative power. For had the Scythians
returning from Ascalon lost this power, they could have had no more
descendants, and therefore the νούσος θήλεια could not have passed on
to these, but must have become extinct with the original sufferers. On
the other hand children already begotten by them before that period
could have been in no way influenced by a disease communicable through
the act of generation. Accordingly the νοῦσος θήλεια cannot possibly
have affected _these_ Scythians so as to annihilate the power of
generation. Both must have co-existed side by side; and the contrary
can never be proved from anything _Herodotus_ says. As to another
passage of Herodotus that might seem to demand some notice here, where
the expression ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman) is put side by side with ἐνάρεες,
we will speak subsequently.


                                 § 16.

_But_, it is maintained by those who take a different view,—the
individuals who suffered from the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease)
could be recognized as doing so by their looks; thus it cannot have
been a mere vice, it must have been an actual bodily complaint. We
will not say a word more insisting on the declarations general amongst
ancient writers, for example the words of _Ovid_: _Heu! quam difficile
est crimen non prodere vultu_ (Alas! how difficult it is not to betray
a vice by the look), but will simply ask the question,—_had the
Ancients really no bodily marks of identification_ by which they could
recognise in an individual the vice of the pathic or cinaedus? On this
point we must look to the Physiognomists for information, and as a
matter of fact they supply it in considerable completeness. First of
all Aristotle[329]:

“_Distinguishing Masks of the Cinaedus_:

“An eye broken-down, as it were, knees bent inwards, inclination of the
head to the right side; movements of the hands always back downwards
and flaccid, the gait double, as it were, one leg being crossed over
the other in walking, the gaze wandering; such a man for example was
the Sophist Dionysius.” Polemo enters into greater detail[330]:

“_Distinguishing Marks of the Androgynus_ (_Man-woman_): “The
_man-woman_ has a lecherous and wanton look, he rolls his eyes and
lets his gaze wander; forehead and cheeks twitch, eyebrows are drawn
together to a point, neck bent, hips in continual movement. All
the limbs twitch spasmodically, knees and hands seeming to crack;
like an ox he glares round him and fixes his eyes on the ground. He
speaks with a thin voice, at once croaking and shrill, exceedingly
uncertain and trembling.” In very similar terms the pathic is sketched
by Adamantus[331]. _Dio Chrysostom_ in his speech cited a little
above[332] relates how “a physiognomist had come into a certain city,
in order to give an exhibition of his art there, and declared he could
tell by looking at any individual whether he were brave or timid, a
boaster or a debauchee, a cinaedus or an adulterer. A man was brought
to him who had a meagre body, eyebrows grown together, a dirty look,
who was in evil condition, with callosities on his hands, and dressed
in coarse gray clothing, one that was overgrown with hair to the
knuckles, and ill-shaved, and the physiognomist was asked, what sort
of a man he was. When he had looked at him a considerable time, and
at the end was still uncertain, as it seems to me, what he should
finally say, he declared he did not know and ordered the man to go. But
when the latter sneezed, just as he was going, he cried out instantly
he was a cinaedus. Thus the sneeze betrayed the man’s habits, and
prevented them, in spite of all the rest, from continuing hid.” No
doubt the man’s walk had already given the Physiognomist an indication,
and the gesture he made when he sneezed, quickly confirmed his
Diagnosis. In fact the cinaedus probably made a grip at his posterior
as he sneezed, so as to close the orifice, the weakened or possibly
ruptured _Sphincter ani_ no longer being able to perform this office
(χαυνοπρώκτος,—wide-breeched, in Aristophanes!). Indeed with a healthy
_Sphincter_ it is often hardly possible during a sneeze to keep back
the out-rush of wind and even of the more liquid faeces.[333]

Further the following passage of Lucian should be quoted in this
connection:[334]

“But I tell you, pathic,—your habits are so obvious that even the
blind and the deaf cannot fail to recognise them. If you only open
your mouth to speak, only undress at the baths, nay, if you do not
yourself undress, but only your slaves put off their garments, what
think you,—are not all your secrets of the night at once revealed? Now
just tell me, if your Sophist Bassus, or the flute-player Batalus, or
the cinaedus Hemitheon of Sybaris, who wrote your beautiful laws, how
you must polish the skin, and pluck out the hair (with tweezers), how
you must submit to the performance of paederastia, and how yourselves
perform it,—now if one of these men should throw a lion’s skin round
him, and enter with a club in his hand, what would the spectators
really believe?—that it was Hercules? Surely not, unless they were
utterly blear-eyed. A thousand things betray such a masquerade,—gait,
look, voice,[335] the bowed neck, the ceruse, the mastich, the paint on
the cheeks that you make yourselves up with; in a word it were easier,
as the proverb says, to hide five elephants under your armpit than to
conceal one cinaedus!”

Now if the _natural_ marks of identification that have been specified
were sufficient to betray the cinaedus, even when he was devoid of all
external adornment from art,[336] how much more readily recognizable
must the pathic become, if he arranged his get-up and costume to match
his shameful practices,[337] and that this was so _Martial_ affords
evidence in countless places. In fact these male whores used to have the
beard quite clean shaven (ἐξυρημένοι close-shaven) and not merely on the
posteriors but generally all over the body, with the exception of the
head, carefully removed the hair, so as make themselves more like women.

  αὐτίκα γυναικεῖ’ ἢν ποιῇ τις δράματα,
  μετουσίαν δεῖ τῶν τρόπων τὸ σῶμ’ ἔχειν,

(Directly, if a man play women’s parts, the body must have its share
in the characterization), Aristophanes makes Agatho say at the
Thesmophoria, where Mnesilochus has been transformed into a woman
by means of depilation, so as to be able to back up the women in
opposition to Euripides in their attacks on him at that festival.

On the other hand cinaedi let the hair of the head grow long[338]
(comae,—long locks), and dressed altogether like women. Hence the reply
of the Cynic _Diogenes_[339] to a young man clothed after this fashion,
who had asked him a question on some subject or other; he would not
answer, he said, till his questioner had lifted up his clothes, and
shown him his sex! Equally important is the conversation of _Socrates_
with _Strepsiades_ in the “Clouds” of _Aristophanes_:[340]

  _Στρεψιάδης_.... Λέξον δή μοι τὶ παθοῦσαι,
  εἴπερ Νεφέλαι γ’ εἰσὶν ἀληθῶς, θνηταῶς εἴξασι γυναιξίν·
  οὐ γὰρ ἐκεῖναί γ’ εἰσὶ τοιαῦται....

  Σωκράτης. Γίγνονται πάνθ’ ὅ τι βούλονται· κᾆτ’ ἢν μὲν ἴδωσι κομήτην,
  ἄγριόν τινα τῶν λασίων τούτων, οἷόν περ τὸν Ξενοφάντου,
  σκώπτουσαι τὴν μανίαν αὐτοῦ, Κενταύροις ᾔκασαν αὐτάς.

  Καὶ νῦν ὅτι Κλεισθένη εἶδον, ὁρᾷς, διὰ τοῦτ’ ἐγένοντο γυναῖκες.

(_Strepsiades._—Now tell me, how comes it that, if these are really and
truly clouds, they resemble women? Common clouds are not like that....
_Socrates._—They can easily make themselves anything they please. And
so, if they but catch sight of one of those long-haired, ruffianly,
shaggy fellows, such a man as Xenophantus’ son for example, straightway
in derision of their folly they change into Centaurs. And now when they
beheld Cleisthenes, see you? they became women!) _Cleisthenes_ was a
notorious cinaedus at Athens, whom Aristophanes had made a special
butt for his wit; for example, he makes Mnesilochus, mentioned just
above, after his transformation into a woman, say,—he looks just like
Cleisthenes now.

The evidence adduced will, we think, be sufficient to show that the
Scythians had good reason for saying, that with persons in this case
(cinaedi) it was easy to _recognise by looking at them_ what stamp of
men they were: and that _Juvenal_[341] was right when he wrote:

                                Verius ergo
  Et magis ingenue Peribomius: _hunc ego fatis
  Imputo, qui vultu morbum incessuque fatetur_.

(More truly then and more candidly Peribomius says: the man I consider
a victim of fate, who in face and gait betrays the disease he suffers
from.)—a passage that strongly confirms what has been advanced.
Peribomius is quite candid, he confesses to being a pathic, for in any
case his appearance would betray the fact. He finds the less reason to
deny it, as he regards the vice which has mastered him as an infliction
of providence (_fatis imputo_). Here is proof that the opinion of the
Greeks as to the pathic’s being one who had incurred the anger of
the gods, was still commonly held in Juvenal’s time, though perhaps
less as a matter of conviction than in order to provide an excuse for
indulgence. So we must further read _hoc_ for _hunc_ in the passage
(_hoc ego fatis imputo_,— _this_ I regard as an infliction of fate);
unless indeed we construe thus, _ego, qui morbum vultu incessuque
fatetur, hunc (sc. morbum) fatis imputo_. “I in truth,—as for the man
who confesses by look and gait his disease, _this disease_ I regard
as an infliction of fate.” The words are obviously Peribomius’ own
expression of opinion; and directly afterwards the poet goes on:

  Horum simplicitas miserabilis, his furor ipse
  Dat veniam: sed peiores, qui talia verbis
  Herculis invadunt et de virtute locuti
  Clunem agitant.

(These men’s simplicity moves our pity; their very infatuation craves
pardon. But worse are they who enter such courses with Hercules’ words
on their lips, and prating of manly virtue, heave the wanton buttocks.)


                                 § 17.

But the passage just quoted from _Juvenal_ is of still greater
importance for another reason. In it the vice of the cinaedus is
called _morbus_ (a disease); and in virtue of its explicitness it is
sufficient by itself to settle all doubts as to this being a usual
mode of expression with the Romans, who ordinarily designated any
vice by this name[342]. The only question remaining will be, Did the
_Greeks_ also use this form of expression? Any scholar possessed of a
special acquaintance with the Greek language will most certainly not
hesitate an instant to answer this question in the affirmative, the
Lexicographers having long ago collected an exhaustive list of examples
of such use[343].

_Plutarch_[344] says, comparing the action of the Sun with that of
Love:— Καὶ μὴν οὔτε σώματος ἀγύμναστος ἕξις ἥλιον, οὒτε Ἔρωτα δύναται
φέρειν ἀλύπως τρόπος ἀπαιδεύτου ψυχῆς· ἐξίσταται δ’ ὁμοίως ἐκάτερον καὶ
_νοσεῖ, τὴν του θεοῦ δύναμιν, οὐ τὴν αὑτοῦ μεμφόμενον ἀσθένειαν_.—(ch.
XXIII.) Τὴν μὲν πρὸς ἄῤῥενα ἄῤῥενος ὁμιλίαν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀκρασίαν καὶ
ἐπιπήδησιν εἴποι τις ἂν ἐννοήσας,

  _Ὕβρις_ τάδ’ _οὐχ_ ἡ Κύπρις ἐξεργάζεται.

Διὸ τοὺς μὲν ἡδομένους τῷ πάσχειν εἰς τὸ χείριστον τιθέμενοι γένος
κακίας, οὔτε πίστεως μοῖραν, οὔτε αἰδοῦς.... Ἀλλὰ πολλὰ φαῦλα καὶ
μανικὰ τῶν γυναικῶν ἐρώτων· Τὶ δὲ οὐχὶ πλείονα τῶν παιδικῶν; Ἀλλ’
ὥσπερ τοῦτο παιδομανία _τὸ πάθος_, οὐδέτερον δὲ Ἔρως ἔστιν. (And in
fact neither can an untrained body bear the sun, nor can any fashion
of uneducated soul bear Love (Eros) without pain; but each equally is
disorganized and grows sick, having to blame the power of the god,
not its own weakness.—ch. XXIII.—Now intercourse of male with male
one would rather call, after due reflection, incontinence and violent
assault.

“’Tis _overmastering insolence_ works this result, not love
(Cypris).”[345]

Wherefore such as take pleasure in pathic lust, devoting themselves
to the vilest kind of wickedness, have no portion in honour or in
modesty.—Indeed much there is base and insane in amours with women; how
much more so in those with boys! Now the name of the latter passion is
paedomania—[346]madness for boys,—but _neither_ kind is Love—Eros).

These passages are of the highest importance in connection with our
subject, as confirming in the most distinct manner what has been said
above as to the wrath of Venus; but for the sake of greater clearness
they had to be held over for discussion till now. It is clearly stated
in them: that paederastia is no work of Venus, i.e. not an expression
or consequence of the customary activity of the goddess, but a ὕβρις
(act of insolent violence) and the consequence of ὕβρις i.e. of some
act that has roused the anger of the gods. Here we have the oldest
view of all: that paederastia is a consequence of the vengeance of
Venus, arising in consequence of a ὕβρις, and again in turn itself
constituting a ὕβρις.[347]

But besides this the later view of a more enlightened time is also
implied. According to this it was not any δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ (operation
of a god’s might), but simply an ἀσθενεία or ἀκρασία[348] (weakness,
incontinence) of the individual that was in question, (and it is
for this reason _Plutarch_ quotes the line of _Manetho_, an old and
obscure poet, in this sense); Paederastia was called a πάθος, a form
of insanity (παιδομανία—madness for boys), and was not looked upon
in any sense as a consequence of the power of Eros—Love. That the
vice was also called νόσος (a disease) is shown,—not to mention the
expression νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine _disease_), which we have yet to
fully explain,—by the Speech of Dio Chrysostom cited above, as well as
by a number of passages quoted in the course of our investigation,—e.g.
on p. 125. In the “Wasps” of _Aristophanes_, _Xanthias_ relates how a
son had confined his father and put him under surveillance, and then
goes on (vv. 71 sqq.):

  _νόσον_ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἀλλόκοτον αὐτοῦ _νοσεῖ _,
  ἣν οὐδ’ ἂν εἷς γνοίη ποτ’ οὐδὲ ξυμβάλῃ,
  εἰ μὴ πύθοιθ’ ἡμῶν· ἐπεὶ τοπάζετε·

(For his father is _sick_ of a portentous _sickness_, one that no one
would ever know or conjecture the nature of, unless he should have
learned it from us; for if you doubt me, guess yourselves.)

Love of play is suggested, and love of drink, love of sacrifice
and finally love of winning guests and seeing them at his house
(φιλόξενον—lover of guests), which last conjecture Sosias understands
in an obscene sense as implying a cinaedus, and (vv. 84 sqq.) says:

  μὰ τὸν κύν’, ὦ Νικόστρατ’, οὐ φιλόξενος,
  ἐπεὶ καταπύγων ἐστὶν ὅγε Φιλόξενος,

(No! no! by heavens! Nicostratus, not a lover of guests (φιλόξενος)
for our friend Philoxenus is a man given to unnatural lust,) where
φιλόξενος and καταπύγων are explained as being synonymous. Now if
paederastia had not been a disease, how should they have come to call a
man φιλόξενος, when guessing the form his sickness took? For the rest
there was a well-known cinaedus Philoxenus, to whom allusion is made.
The scholiast quotes a very noteworthy line from _Eupolis_ (in the
“Urbes”) or else from Phrynichus (“in the Satyrs”) as follows:

  ἔστι δέ τις _θήλεια_ Φιλόξενος ἐκ Διομείων.

(And there is a certain _female_ Philoxenus of Diomeia);

The healthy good sense of the Greeks could not possibly regard the vice
of the Pathic otherwise than as a deviation from Nature, an _unnatural_
appetite; _and_ every _unnatural_ appetite (ἀκολασία—“intemperance”)
was a νόσος or πάθος (disease, or suffering, passion), or a consequence
of these, as the passages quoted from _Aristotle_ and elsewhere show
conclusively. From the point of view of the paederast reasons perhaps
were to be discovered, that appeared to justify his peculiar taste; and
the mode in which he obtained the titillation of sensual pleasure was
looked upon merely as one way of getting rid of the semen, as a _figura
Veneris_ (mode of Love) standing in close relationship with Onanism.
The paederast was relegated to the category of voluptuaries, but
without his incurring any special condemnation. On the other hand for
the pathic who lent himself as subject of the vice, no excuse of this
sort was forthcoming. His lust was not seen (this was impossible at the
time) to have a bodily origin in “prurigo ani” (itching of the anus),
and could only be regarded as springing from a _depraved imagination_
(ἀνίατον νόσον ψυχῆς ἡγούμενος—deeming it an incurable disease of the
soul); it must be that a demon had dragged him along irresistibly in
his train, and drove his victim who was incapable of helping himself
(ἀσθενής—“weak”) to degradation.

All men thus held in thrall by evil demons were supposed to have
offended against the gods, to have roused their anger, and were avoided
and shunned by their fellows. If in addition they showed any traces of
mental aberration, madness, epileptic convulsions, or the like, rude
peoples saw in _these_ the manifestation of a god’s influence, and took
the victim’s sayings and dreams for oracles. So _Herodotus_ relates
(IV. 67.) that the Scythians considered the ἐναρέες to have received
the gift of prophecy from Aphrodité,—οἱ δὲ ἐναρέες οἱ ἀνδρόγυνοι,
τὴν Ἀφροδίτην σφισι λέγουσι μαντικὴν δοῦναι (now the ἐναρέες, the
men-women, declare that Venus brought madness on the object of her
anger), and held the vice of the pathic to be due to the goddess’s
wrath, or at a later time to be an (incurable) disease of the soul
(ψυχή),—as is proved again by the passage of _Caelius Aurelianus_
already quoted; but they did _not_ ascribe to such men the power of
prophecy, though in a certain sense every actual madman was supposed to
possess it[349]. For the vice of the pathic was not in the eyes of the
Greeks actual madness, but rather a vice (νόσος—disease) that robbed
the sufferer of the power of governing himself[350], in the same sense
as they called sexual love a madness. From this point of view therefore
the commentators who saw in the νοῦσος θήλεια a mental affliction, had
some grounds for their view; but should not have lost sight of the fact
of its being a _vice_ at the same time.

But why did the νοῦσος (disease) receive the epithet θήλεια (feminine)?
Taking the word to be used _passively_,—as obviously is done by those
who make out the νοῦσος θήλεια to have been an affection similar in
character to menstruation,—we might find its explanation in the dictum
of Tiresias, who, as is well known, ascribed to the woman the greater
pleasure in the act of coition. From this fact,—if it is a fact,—a
greater longing on the part of the woman for coition may be deduced;
for which reason _Plato_ compared the _uterus_ (womb) to a wild beast.
Thus the νοῦσος θήλεια would be _feminine concupiscence_. Just as the
woman longs intensely for natural coition with the man, in the same way
and with a like intensity does the pathic long after unnatural[351].
Thus the punishment inflicted by Venus would have consisted in the
goddess having implanted in the man the concupiscence of a woman.

If on the other hand θήλεια (feminine) is taken in an _active_
sense, as it is by _Stark_ and other interpreters,—and with greater
correctness, then the νοῦσος θήλεια is _a form of lust that transforms
men into women_,—and this can be said of paederastia in several senses,
as is manifest from what has been said already on preceding pages. The
Pathic becomes a woman, because he renounces his man’s prerogative, as
being the stronger, to play the _active_ part[352], and assumes instead
the _passive_ rôle of the woman[353], Entering into competition as
he does with the ladies of pleasure in courting the favour of men, he
has recourse to all the arts they invoke to gain their object; and
seeks by artificial means to bring his body into as close a resemblance
as possible to the female form. He dresses himself out like a woman
of pleasure, adopts female dress, and lets the hair of the head grow
long, whilst at the same time he carefully eradicates by the process
of _dropacismus_ (use of pitch-ointment as a depilatory) every trace
of hair on other parts of the person, even sacrificing what was the
chief ornament of a man in Ancient times,—his beard[354]. All this
was done by the hero of _Aristophanes’_ “Thesmophoriazusae”, and
without a doubt an underlying irony _à propos_ of the pathics was at
the bottom of the poet’s conception. Care of the skin, such as women
adopt, by means of baths, friction with pumice-stone, etc. complete
the feminine appearance[355],—hence the expressions μάλακος, μαλθακός
(soft or effeminate) for the pathic, μαλακία, μαλθακία (softness,
effeminacy) for the pathic’s vice; and outraged Nature avenges herself
by seconding his endeavours. In consequence of the stretching of the
fundament, the buttocks become broader towards the lower part, and the
space between them wider, causing the hips to take more the shape they
have in a woman, the pelvis itself seems to be enlarged, while the
legs lose their straightness and the knees bend more and more inwards
(γονύκροτος—knock-kneed,)—in short the whole of the lower half of the
body assumes the _feminine_ type.

Deterioration of body is followed by deterioration of mind, and the
character also grows womanish.[356] The pathic despises intercourse
with women, and will not enter into marriage, so long as he continues
to find his lust satisfied. When this ceases to be the case as years
advance, Nature herself forbids his propagating his race; the genital
organs that have withered through disuse and refuse their office.[357]
Driven from the society of men, he takes refuge, neither woman nor man
himself, with the women, who in contempt use him as a slave, and like
Omphalé of old with Hercules, put the distaff into his hands! Thus from
the νοῦσος θήλεια, the vice, an actual disease has sprung; and we can
now see that _Longinus_[358] was surely right in calling the expression
of _Herodotus_ ἀμίμητος,—an _inimitable_ one, for certainly in no more
concise or better way can the facts and the consequences of the vice of
the Pathic be characterized.

However if any one should consider all this still insufficient to
prove the case, and regard the indication given by _Longinus_ as not
explicit enough, he may learn from _Tiberius the Rhetorician_[359]
that as a matter of fact the Ancients understood the νοῦσος θήλεια in
Herodotus in this and in no other sense. He says:

“Now a paraphrase is when authors alter a simple, straightforward
statement of fact that is complete, for the sake of style or effect
or sublimity of phrase, and express the matter in other words, and
these more forcible and suitable; as e.g. in _Herodotus_, when he
wrote ἐνέσκηψεν ἡ θεὸς θήλειαν νόσον (the goddess afflicted them with
_feminine disease_) instead of “made them men-women or cinaedi”. The
word ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman) is used here in the same way as in another
passage where _Herodotus_ says[360], οἱ δὲ ἐνάρεες, οἱ ἀνδρόγυνοι
(and the ἐνάρεες, the men-women). The false interpretation of this
word has more than anything else led to misunderstanding as to the
νοῦσος θήλεια, for it was supposed that by ἀνδρόγυνοι (men-women)
actual eunuchs were intended, whereas pathics are meant and nothing
more. How the case really stood might have been seen from _Suidas_,
who tells us: _ἀνδρόγυνος_· ὁ Διόνυσος, _ὡς καὶ τὰ ἀνδρῶν ποιῶν καὶ
τὰ γυναικῶν πάσχων_· ἢ ἄνανδρος καὶ Ἑρμαφρόδιτος· καὶ ἀνδρογύνων,
ἀσθενῶν. γυναικῶν καρδίας ἐχόντων. (_man-woman_: Dionysus, _as both
performing a man’s part and suffering a woman’s_. Synonyms, “unmanly”,
and “Hermaphrodite”. Also of men-women, weakly men, having the hearts
of women.) Dionysus[361] then _performed the act of coition as a man,
and suffered himself to be used as a woman_, and for this reason was
called ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman). We find the word used in the same way
in _Plato_[362], in the passage of _Dio Chrysostom_ quoted a little
above, in various places in the _Writers on Physiognomy_, in _Philo_,
loco citato, and in Artemidorus[363]. From the last we quote a passage
highly interesting for our purpose:

“A man saw in a dream his penis covered with hair to the extreme tip,
shaggy with very thick hair that grew all of a sudden on it. He was a
notorious cinaedus, indulging in every abominable pleasure, effeminate
and a man-woman; only never using his member as a _man_ does. In this
way it happened that that part was so little employed, that through
not being rubbed against another body hair actually grew on it.” The
same author relates in another place[364]: “A man saw in a dream the
rôle[365] of a man-woman played on the stage; _his privy member fell
sick_. A man thought he saw a priest of Cybelé (a castrated man); _his
privy member fell sick_. This happened in the first instance because of
the name, in the second because of the coincidence of the fact with the
spectator’s condition. And indeed you know what κωμῳδεῖν (to represent
in comedy) signifies in dreams, and what it means to see a priest
of Cybelé. You remember too that if any one dreams he sees a Comedy
or Tragedy and remembers it afterwards, the event can be predicted
according to the plot of the piece dreamed of.”

The passage affords us yet another proof as to the causes that were
supposed in Antiquity to condition the rise of diseases of the
genitals, and we need certainly feel no surprise if we find the
ætiological relations of these complaints even in professional writers
wrapped in all but impenetrable obscurity.

Now what _is_ the word ἐναρέες? Some scholars take it to be Greek;
and accordingly would read ἐναγέες (persons who have sinned against
the godhead), as _Bouhier_ did, and perhaps _Caelius Rhodoginus_
even in his time, or else ανάριες (_imbelles, ad luctum_ veneream
inepti,—unwarlike, i.e. unfit for the struggle of love), which was
_Coray’s_ emendation. _Stark_ does not believe in any corruption of
the word, but thinks it should be derived from ἐναίρω (_spolio_,—I
rob, spoil), ἔναρα (_spolia_,—spoils), making it signify _virilitate
spoliati_,—men robbed of their virility. But ἐναίρω according to
_Buttmann’s_ Lexilogus, p. 276., means “to send down to Hades”, to
slay, ἔναρα the spoils taken from the _slain_, and from this comes the
idea of spoliation, deprivation. The word undoubtedly occurs (Homer,
Iliad XXIV. 244.) in the sense of “to be slain”, but the meaning
_virilitate spoliari_ (to be deprived of virility) without the addition
of some supplemental word can certainly not be authenticated in old
Writers. Supposing this derivation to be correct, ἐναρέες might signify
simply (Temple) robbers, and as a matter of fact the glosses give
ὁπλίται (warriors) as an explanation. It is a surprising thing that
those who make out the νοῦσος θήλεια to have been gonorrhœa (clap),
should not have derived the word from ἐάρ, the sap, the seed, with
inserted ν.

However a Greek origin of the word is rendered unlikely by one simple
circumstance. _Herodotus_ writes τοὺς καλέουσι Ἐναρέας οἱ Σκύθαι,
(whom the Scythians call Ἐναρέες,—which is obviously the same thing as
saying, “in the language of the Scythians they are called Ἐναρέες”.
And again why should _Herodotus_ have explained it by ἀνδρόγυνοι
(men-women), if it was a word that every Greek could understand. In
this view moreover _Wesseling_ and _Schweighäuser_, scholars possessing
a special, critical knowledge of their Herodotus, concur. We do not
indeed know to what family of speech the Scythian belongs; but it
may be assumed that the word signifying the disease took its origin
from the same country where the νοῦσος θήλεια itself arose. We
believe ἐναρέες[366] to have been originally a Syrian word, which the
Scythians, or more likely the Greeks[367], first adopted into their
own idiom. The Greeks were particularly good at the transformation or,
if you please, distortion, of foreign names! The word which we think
must be claimed as the original is the Semitic נַעֲרָה (_naãrâ_),—the
_girl_, the _woman_ in the abstract; and we conjecture _Herodotus_
wrote ναρέες, a form which is actually found according to _Coray_ in
one Manuscript. The meaning then would be the _womanish_ man, and this
gives a complete correspondance with νοῦσος θήλεια and ἀνδρόγυνος.
Another conjecture is based on the name of the Babylonish Praefect or
Ἄνναρος, to which _Coray_ calls attention, adding: _mais qui pourroit
bien être un surnom altéré par les copistes, et relatif à sa vie
effeminée et au milieu des femmes_. (but which might very possibly be
a surname changed by the transcribers and referring to his effeminate
life and his living surrounded by women.) In _Athenaeus_[368] we read
in fact: Κτησίας δ’ ἱστορεῖ, _Ἀνναρον_ τὸν βασιλέως ὕπαρχον καὶ τῆς
Βαβυλωνίας δυναστεύσαντα στολῇ χρῆσθαι γυναικείᾳ καὶ κόσμῳ· καὶ ὅτι
βασιλέως δούλῳ ὄντι κ. τ. λ. (Ctesias relates in his History that
Annarus, the King’s Praefect and Governor of Babylon wore a woman’s
robes and ornaments; and that being a slave of the King, etc.) Still as
a matter of fact it is difficult to see _why_ the transcriber should
have introduced the name as Ἄνναρος, the whole form of the sentence
demanding a proper name. _Coray_ refuses to admit that ἐναρέες is a
foreign word at all, for he says, “cette manière de s’exprimer n’est
souvent qu’une version littérale du mot étranger dans la langue de
l’écrivain qui l’emploie”. (such a mode of expression is very often
nothing more than a literal translation of the foreign word into the
language of the writer using it). But if this were the case, and the
word one that a Greek would have understood, why did _Herodotus_ go out
of his way to explain it by ἀνδρόγυνοι? Supposing a transcriber to have
inserted Ἄνναρον into the text, yet even then the word must have been
familiar to him in the sense of _womanish, unmanly_. But if it _has_
this meaning, Coray’s conjecture,—to read ἀναρέες for ἐναρέες, should
be unhesitatingly adopted,—if that is (a point to which Prof. _Pott_
has drawn attention) the derivation is taken from Sanskrit or Zend.

In Zend in fact man is _nara_, woman _narî_; in Sanskrit _nrî_ is
the stem, nom. _nâ_, pl. _nar-as_,—or else _nara_ the stem and nom.
_naras_, from which has come the Greek ἀνήρ (man) by addition of
the prosthetic, (not privative), α. Now from _nara_, by prefixing
α privative, which exists both in Zend and Sanskrit, may be formed
_a-nara_, with the meaning of _not-man, unmanly_,—a meaning which is
preserved in the name Ἄναρος (the doubling of the ν is undoubtedly
wrong); and so ἀναρέες would be literally the same by etymology with
Hippocrates’ ἀνανδριεῖς (unmanly men), occurring in a passage to be
presently discussed. This, and equally ἀνανδρία, ἀνάνδρος (unmanliness,
unmanly) are all expressions for the pathic and his vice, as is shown
again and again by passages quoted in the course of our investigation.

But again, if with _Coray_ an actual verbal translation of a foreign
word is supposed, then ἀνανέρες (ἀ-ν-ἀνέρες) might be read,—a word
which though quite legitimately formed, was not in actual use by the
Greeks, and for this reason _Herodotus_ naturally enough explained it
by ἀνδρόγυνοι. In any case the remarkable fact remains that no one of
the ancient Lexicographers, _Suidas_ for instance or _Hesychius_[369],
should have thought the word, in whatever form it may have been read,
worthy of notice in his Dictionary.


                                 § 18.

We have now, we think, adequately discussed the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine
disease) in the preceding Sections, and proved that the oldest view
of all, viz. that _the vice of the Pathic_ must be understood by that
term, may be justified from every point of view. It only remains
to subject to examination passages from such other authors as have
employed the expression. These _Stark_, §§ 11-18., has most carefully
collected. In this way we shall see how far they may be brought into
harmony with the view adopted.

_Philo_[370] relates among a number of other evidences of the
outspokenness of Diogenes the Philosopher, when he was a captive and
exposed for sale as a slave, how his fellow-prisoners all stood sad
and cast down, but _he_ again and again gave free course to his witty
humour. “For instance when he cast his eye on one of the buyers, who
suffered from the _feminine disease_, he would seem to have gone up to
the man, whose outward appearance announced him to be an _unmanly_ man,
and said: ‘Do you buy me, for you seem to be in want of a man!’ The
buyer, conscious and ashamed, slunk away among the crowd, whilst the
bystanders marvelled at Diogenes’ wit and boldness.”

In another place[371] _Philo_ says, after having spoken of the Laws
of Moses against harlotry: “Yet another evil much more serious than
the one mentioned, has crept into states, _paederastia_ to wit, the
bare naming of which was _formerly_ an outrage. But now it is a matter
of boast, not only with those who _practise_ it, but also with the
_pathics, the men of whom it is customary to say,—They suffer from
feminine disease_. In fact they are effeminated in body and soul, and
not one spark of manliness do they suffer to appear in them. They braid
and deck their hair to look like women, they smear and paint their
faces with ceruse and cosmetics and such like things, anoint their
persons with fragrant ointments,—for a fragrant smell is an attraction
much sought after by such. Expending every possible care on their
outward adornment, they are not ashamed even to employ every device _to
change artificially their nature as men into that of women_. Against
such it is right to be bloodthirsty, obeying the Law, which commands:
to slay,—and fear no penalty,—the _man-woman_ who transgresses the
law of nature, to let him live not a day, not an hour,—shaming as he
does himself, his family, his country, nay! the whole race of mankind.
The _paederast_ must endure the same penalty, for he pursues after a
pleasure that is contrary to Nature, and, so far as in him lies, makes
States desert and empty of inhabitants, annihilating the begetting of
children. More than this he endeavours to entice others and lead them
away into two most abominable vices, _unmanliness_ and _effeminacy_,
bedizening youths (like women), and womanizing men in the vigour of
their age, just at the time when they ought rather to be roused to aim
at strength and hardihood. In a word, like a bad farmer, he lets the
rich and fertile ploughland lie untilled, and makes it unfruitful,
but labours day and night where he can expect no harvest whatever.
Now this comes, I think, from the fact that in most States prizes
are really offered for _incontinence_ and _effeminacy_,—the vices
of the paederast and the pathic. At any rate these men-women may be
seen constantly strutting in the _agora_ at the hour of high market,
walking in procession at the sacred festivals, sharing, unholy as they
are, in holy offices, participating in mysteries and sacrifices, even
engaging in the rites of Demeter. Some of them have brought the charm
of their youth to such a pass that _craving a complete transformation
into women, they have amputated their generative members_; and now
clad in purple robes, as if they had wrought some great benefit to
their country, and surrounded by a body guard, they enter in state,
all eyes fixed on them. Now if only such indignation as our Lawgiver
has expressed, were generally entertained against those guilty of such
effrontery, and if they were banished, as expiating the common guilt of
their country, without appeal, this would do much to improve many of
their companions. The punishment of such as had been condemned, if in
no possible way to be shirked, would contribute no little to checking
any imitation of these lusts on the part of others.”

In the third passage, _Philo_[372] is speaking of the difference
between the _symposia_ (banquets) of his time and those of the Greeks,
and says:—“The Platonic banquet has to do almost entirely with Love,
but not the love of men for women, or of women for men,—for these are
passions that are satisfied conformably with the law of Nature,—but
the love of men whose affections are directed to youths. For all the
noble things that are said besides about Eros (Love) and the heavenly
Aphrodité are to be taken as mere fine talk. By far the most part
in fact concerns Ἔρως κοινὸς and Ἔρως πάνδημος (Common Love, Public
Love), which destroys all manliness, the virtue that is most needful
in war and peace, _infecting the mind with the “feminine disease”,
and turning men into men-women_, whereas they should be equipped with
everything conducive to manly vigour. Instead of this it ruins young
men’s manliness, and gives them the nature and character of a wanton;
also inflicting injury on the Lover in the most important factors of
life,—body, soul and property. For the thoughts of the paederast must
needs be all centred on the boy he loves, and his gaze quick to see
that object only: while for all other concerns, private or public, his
eyes are blinded and useless, and this especially if he is unhappy in
his love. His worldly condition takes hurt in two ways, partly through
neglect, partly through expenditure on the loved one. Associated with
this is yet another, and a greater because general, mischief. Such men
bring about the depopulation of Cities, and cause a lack of a good,
sound strain of men, producing barrenness and unfruitfulness. They
resemble those that are unskilful in husbandry, etc.”

In a fourth passage again, one overlooked however by _Stark_,
_Philo_[373] says, speaking of the inhabitants of Sodom and their
unbridled dissoluteness and vice:—

“For not only being mad after women did they form disgraceful
unions with strange women, but actually, men as they were, they had
intercourse with males: they that practised the vice had no shame
for the sex they shared in common with those that suffered it, but
were guilty of wasting their seed and disdaining the generation of
offspring. But conviction of guilt was of no avail to restrain men
mastered by an overpowering lust. Later, learning by degrees the custom
for such as were born men yet to endure the treatment proper to women,
_they brought upon themselves feminine disease, a curse they could in
no wise contend against_. For not merely womanizing their bodies by
effeminacy and wanton luxury, but utterly unsexing their very souls,
they destroyed, so far as in them lay, all the manliness of their sex.
In fact, if Greeks and Barbarians had been unanimous and had all been
eager at once after such intercourse, the consequence would have been
to make every city desolate, as though wasted by some pestilential
sickness.”

In the fifth and last passage of all _Philo_[374] is speaking of those
whose entry into the sanctuary was interdicted by the Lawgiver: “He
forbad all that were unworthy to frequent, the Temple, beginning _with
the men-women, those that are sick of the true (the feminine) disease_,
who transgressing the established law of Nature, _annex the lust and
looks of incontinent women_. He expelled all eunuchs, those with
strangled testicles and those with amputated, who carefully safeguard
the bloom of youthfulness against decay, and transform the manly type
into a womanish shape. He expelled not only harlots, but harlots’
children as well, etc.”

If we review systematically and in detail these passages of _Philo_,
given by _Stark_ only in fragments, any unprejudiced reader must see
that there is not one of them that does not refer to the vice of the
Pathic. As to the second and third passages _Stark_ himself (pp. 13
and 22.) admits this, while as to the fourth we do not know what he
thought, it having been unknown to him: thus it is only in relation to
the _first_ and _fifth_ passages that we have to examine his reasons
for supposing this not to be the case. After quoting the text and
_Mangey’s_ Latin translation, _Stark_ remarks à propos of the _first_
passage,—that dealing with Diogenes:—“Quin hic verum corporis, nec
animi vitium seu morbum indicetur, quo laborantes virilitate orbarentur
et hanc suam impotentiam corporis habitu atque oris specie proderent,
nullus dubito. Nam hoc et verborum series aperte declarat et ex eo
colligi potest, quod ille, qui hoc crimine tactum se sentiret, pudore
movetur.... Si vero Pathicorum labes, quam ab interpretibus quibusdam
hic suspicari video, ita intelligenda esset, haec _neque ex vultu
coniici_ poterat _neque a Graecis tam turpi macula notabatur_, ut huic
vitio deditis causa esset, quam ab rem eius opprobrium effugerent.
Tantum enim abfuit, ut Pathici dedecus suum occultarent, ut potius
multo fastu atque pompa prae se ferrent.... Verum autem Eunuchum
genitalium exsectione redditum his verbis significari, non crediderim,
quia hi neque inter licitatores, sed potius inter vendendos reperiri,
neque ob harum partium defectum pudore tangi solerent.” (I have no
doubt whatever that a real fault of body, and not of mind, in other
words a disease, is intended here,—a disease that robbed the sufferers
of virility, who then betrayed this impotence by the condition and
appearance of body and countenance. This indeed is fully shown by the
context, from which it may also be gathered that the sufferer who felt
himself touched by this vice, has a feeling of shame.... But if it is
the taint of the pathics that is to be understood here, as I see is
conjectured to be the case by some commentators, this taint could not
be guessed at from the face; nor yet was it marked by the Greeks with
so strong a stigma of disgrace, as to cause those who were given to
it to strive to escape the opprobrium. For so far were pathics from
wishing to conceal their shame, that they actually made a point of
displaying it ostentatiously.... On the other hand I should not be
inclined to suppose that a Eunuch, an actual Eunuch by amputation of
the genitals, is meant by these words. These were hardly likely to
be found among the bidders, but rather with the slaves for sale: nor
were eunuchs accustomed to feel shame on account of the loss of these
organs.)

In § 16 above it has been abundantly proved that the recognition of
a pathic ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως, _ex voltu_, (by the look), was a simple and
familiar thing with the Ancients, and especially so if we understand,
as is only reasonable, by ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως not merely by the _face_, but
by the whole appearance of the person as well. We can only wonder at
_Stark’s_ repeated denials of the existence of such external marks
of recognition, and all the more so, as every Text-book of Medical
Jurisprudence making any pretensions to complete detail (e.g. _Masius_,
_Mende_) gives information on the point. Again, it is proved that
paederastia was always regarded by the Greeks, till the time when
they lost their independence, as a disgraceful vice,—the reason why
the buyer spoken of slunk away with a blush. As for the ostentatious
show of pathics, and particularly their importance and the power they
acquired, to which _Stark_ refers (p. 12. in his Note—28), this is only
true for times as late as _Philo’s_ own, (he lived 40 A.D.), whereas
_Diogenes_ appears in History in the middle of the 4th. Century B.C.
_Stark_, again, cites as evidence the words from the second passage:
_Puerorum amor, de quo vel loqui olim probrum fuit maximum, nunc laudi
ducitur_, (The love of boys, merely to speak of which was formerly
a deep disgrace, but which now is made a boast),—without observing
that his contention as to paederastia not being held disgraceful in
Antiquity is most obviously contradicted by it. Undoubtedly actual
castrated eunuchs were not meant, but the reasons _Stark_ brings
forward to show this are without force, for he will hardly be able
to prove that in Asia the Castrated never acquired importance and
wealth, so as to be in a position to buy themselves slaves. Further
it may be gathered that the man Diogenes addressed was rich or held
an important station from the fact that the bystanders marvelled at
Diogenes’ boldness and outspokenness, a point that _Stark_ indeed has
forgotten to mention. For _Philo’s_ own times the second passage is
evidence enough. Equally do we fail to see why a castrated eunuch would
be unlikely to blush, when the fact is thrown in his face. _Stark_ (p.
22) explains the νοῦσος θήλεια as _vitium corporis_ or _effeminatio
interno morboso corporis statu procreata_, (a fault of body, condition
of effeminacy produced by an internal morbid state of body). Now if
it were really this, how could he possibly speak of the sufferers as
_crimine tactos_, (touched by his _vice_)? They had nothing to be
ashamed of, unless indeed they had acquired the disease in a shameful
way, but this was not the case according to his original assumption.
This is confirmed by _Clement of Alexandria_.[375]

So far as the _fifth_ passage is concerned, Stark declares castrated
eunuchs to be certainly intended, and blames the editor of _Philo_
(_Mangey_) for wishing to read for ἀπὸ τῶν νοσούντων τὴν _ἀληθῆ_ νόσον
ἀνδρογύνων (with the men-women, those that are sick of the _true_
disease) τὴν _θήλειαν_ νόσον (the _feminine_ disease). He says in his
note 30.: “_Mangetius_ (a mistake for _Mangey_) reponit θήλειαν. Quare
hoc fieri, non dicam debeat, sed ne oporteat quidem, non video. Nam
νόσος ἀνδρογύνων idem est, quod νόσος θήλεια. Si igitur haec vox verbis
superioribus adiiciatur, iners atque inutilis appareat et pleonasmum
vanum efficiat, necesse est: τὸ ἀληθῆ contra, quod ille demit, non
vacuum ceteris additur verbum, ut eo perspicue demonstraretur, hic
_verum morbum_ seu _illud corporis vitium_ esse intelligendum, quod
viros exsecando paritur, nec hanc animi labem, qua contaminati solum
muliebria patiuntur, quaequae iisdem verbis nuncupatur, ut loci mox
laudandi docebunt.” (Mangetius restores θήλειαν—feminine. I cannot see
why he should do this; in fact he had no business to do so whatever.
For νόσος ἀνδρογύνων (disease of men-women) is the same thing as νόσος
θήλεια (feminine disease). So if this expression is added on to the
preceding words, it can only appear redundant and useless and make a
silly pleonasm. Τὸ ἀληθῆ (the word _true_ disease) on the other hand
is not otiose when added to the other words. It shows distinctly that
the _true disease or notorious vitiation of body_ was meant to be
understood, that which arises from castrating men, and not merely the
taint of mind that makes the men whom it affects endure the treatment
proper to women, and which is called by the same name,—as will be shown
in passages to be cited presently.)

These last words evidently refer to the third passage, where we read:
Θήλειαν δὲ νόσον ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἀπεργαζόμενος καὶ ἀνδρογύνους κατασκευάζων
(infecting the mind with feminine disease, and turning men into
men-women), for _Stark_ himself explains the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine
disease) as being identical with the ἀνδρογύνων νόσος (disease
of men-women). So he is bound to explain this sentence too as a
_Pleonasmus vanus_ (silly, useless, pleonasm), for as a matter of fact
those suffering from νοῦσος θήλεια _are_ men-women (ἀνδρόγυνοι). But if
a pleonasm is found in these latter words, it is difficult to see why
there should not be one equally well in the fifth passage.

Yet for all he says, it is far from being demonstrated that this
pleonasm _is_ useless and silly. The sequence of thought is evidently
this: Common Eros (Love) infects the soul (ψυχή) with the νοῦσος
θήλεια, rousing the insatiable craving to play the part of the woman,
to be pathic in fact; and then, this craving being indulged, the man
becomes a man-woman (ἀνδρόγυνος). As long as he goes on practising
the vice of the pathic, he is sick of the νοῦσος θήλεια, and so it is
perfectly correct to speak of the νοῦσος θήλεια ἀνδρογύνων (feminine
disease of men-women). A man-woman, that is a person who suffers
coition to be consummated with him as with a woman, and concurrently
also consummates coition with women as a man, or at any rate has the
ability to do so,—this anyone may quite well be, without suffering for
all that from the νοῦσος θήλεια. For instance he may be constrained
by force to be a pathic, or may regard it as a way of earning money,
like the male prostitutes of Greece and Rome; and in that case has no
interest further in the vice of the pathic as such. On the other hand
if he is urged to it by _prurigo ani impudica_ (lascivious itch of
the anus), this is sheer lubricity, not to be expected in a sensible,
healthy-minded man. It can only be the consequence of a morbid
condition of temperament and body. Such a man is the victim of νοῦσος
θήλεια, the craving to be a woman! This is just the position taken in
the fifth passage, as the subsequent words show quite plainly.

But granted that _Philo_ actually wrote in this fifth passage τὴν
ἀληθῆ νόσον ἀνδρογύνων (the true disease of men-women), would a
bodily defect, castration, be signified by the expression? Certainly
not. We could then take it in no other way but this, “he began with
the men-women, who suffered from the true disease,” and should be
constrained to ask, “_what_ disease?”,—a definite disease being
manifestly intended, as the addition of the definite article (τὴν)
shows. But this would imply that men-women who were not suffering from
this particular disease were _not_ excluded from visiting the Temple.
Yet most certainly _Philo_ would never make any such statement. However
_Stark_ translates with _Mangey_: _Exorsus a vero semivirorum morbo
laborantibus_ that is, “he began with those suffering from the true
disease of men-women”, from which it would follow that there were other
persons who suffered from the _apparent_ disease of the men-women, or
no reason exists for the special emphasis the definite article gives.

Really the question all along is not of castrated persons at all, and
cannot be, if the sense of the whole passage is taken into account;
for these (castrated persons) are specially and separately forbidden
access to the Temple in the next sentence,—a fact which nothing but the
introduction into the text of the conjunction γὰρ (for) by _Mangey_,
(following a MS. it is true), has obscured. The words as they stand are
Θλαδιὰς [γὰρ] καὶ ἀποκεκομμένους τὰ γεννητικὰ ἐλαύνει, (he expells all
eunuchs, those with strangled testicles, and those with amputated).
So if the men-women who suffered from the νοῦσος θήλεια were actual
eunuchs, this would indeed be a _Pleonasmus vanus et ineptus_ (silly
and idle pleonasm). _Stark_ has evidently been led to maintain the
opinion he does, and to blame Mangey’s emendation, which is in any
case justified, by a mistake as to the construction of the sentence.
_Stark_ construed νοῦσον ἀνδρογύνων (disease of men-women), whereas
the construction requires: τὴν ἄρχην ποιούμενος ἀπὸ ἀνδρογύνων, τῶν
νοσούντων τὴν θήλειαν (ἀληθῆ) νόσον (beginning with men-women,—those
that were sick of the feminine—true—disease), the latter words being
simply in apposition to ἀνδρογύνων.


                                 § 19.

We now proceed to consider the passages from the historian _Herodian_
(170-240 A.D.). He relates[376]:

“Now he (Antoninus) had two generals, of whom the one, an oldish man
but stupid and quite unacquainted with state affairs, was yet held to
be a good soldier; his name was _Adventus_. The other who was called
_Macrinus_, was not inexperienced in forensic practice and possessed
besides some knowledge of law. Now the latter _Antoninus_ frequently
assailed in public with gibes, saying he was neither a soldier nor a
man, going so for as positive _insult_. For having heard that he led a
somewhat free life, and abominated scanty, rough eating and drinking
(in which _Antoninus_ as a hardy soldier took a pride), and wore a
woman’s cloak or other elegant raiment, he accused him of ἀνανδρία
and θήλεια νοῦσος (_unmanliness_ and _feminine disease_), and was
constantly threatening to put him to death. _Macrinus_ could not endure
such treatment and was very much exasperated. And this was the result
... etc.” Here ἀνανδρία and θήλεια νοῦσος (unmanliness and _feminine
disease_) are laid to _Macrinus’_ charge by _Antoninus_ by way of
insult, but it is not in any way stated that he had become actually
impotent or Pathic. True ἀνανδρία (_unmanliness_) is frequently used
of the Pathic, but here it refers simply to a womanish way of life in
connexion with eating and drinking, whilst the θήλεια νοῦσος (_feminine
disease_) is inferred from the female costume, a thing in which, as we
have seen, the Pathics delighted[377].

_Stark_ indeed gives the following note on the passage: “Ego
quidem impotentiam virilem et illam morbosam in sexum sequiorem
degenerationem, quae per animi mollitiem aeque ac per corporis
mutationem se prodit, hic accipiendam esse credo, nec video, cur
interpres labem illam qua muliebris tolerantiae viri maculantur,
intellectam velit.” (In fact I consider we must take to be here meant
impotence and that morbid degeneration towards the inferior sex which
betrays itself at once by effeminacy of mind and bodily deterioration;
at the same time I see no reason for a commentator thinking that
specific pollution to be signified whereby men are affected who suffer
themselves to be treated as women.) However if only _Stark_ had chanced
to read through the succeeding 13th. chapter of _Herodian_ as well, he
would have found _Antoninus_ only meant to put upon the man an ordinary
coarse jest; for he there makes the very same reproach against the
Centurion _Martialis_, whose brother he had had executed a few days
previously; αὐτῷ τε τῷ Μαρτιαλίῳ ἐνύβρισεν, _ἄνανδρον αὐτὸν καὶ ἀγεννῆ
καλῶν_ καὶ _Μακαρίνου φίλον_, (And he insulted Martialis himself,
_calling him unmanly and ignoble and a friend of Macarinus_.) In any
case the passage shows that even at that period Paederastia was held to
be dishonourable and the name of Pathic involved an insult.

The Church Historian _Eusebius Pamphili_ (264-340 A.D.) relates in his
Life of _Constantine_[378] that on a part of the peak of Mount Lebanon
stood a Temple of Venus: “Therein was a school of vice for licentious
persons of every description, for all such as dishonoured their bodies
in various ways; womanish men, that are no men at all, abrogated their
natural dignity and propitiated the goddess by θήλεια νοῦσος (feminine
disease); and again unlawful unions of women, lecherous embraces,
abominable and abominated acts, were indulged in in this Temple, as
in a spot where neither law nor religion held good. And there was no
one to overlook their doings, for no respectable man dared go near the
place.” Now to any one examining the whole drift of the passage, it
cannot for a single moment remain doubtful that by θήλεια νοῦσος is
here meant some particular form of vice; and the words of the text are
such that, even if the expression only occurred here and nowhere else
at all, absolutely no other meaning could be assigned to it but that of
the vice of the Pathic. We have already shown that the words ἀκόλαστος
(licentious person), πράξις, πράττειν (action, to act) are
used of the Pathic, whilst the phrase τὸ σεμνὸν τῆς φύσεως (natural
dignity) finds its explanation in the τὸ φύσεως νόμισμα (custom of
nature) of _Philo_, and γύννιδες (womanish men) is interpreted in
_Zonaras_[379] by ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman), μαλακός (soft, effeminate),
and in Eustathius[380] by θηλυδρίας μὴ εὖ διακέιμενος πρὸς τὰ
ἀφροδίσια (womanish man, one not properly behaved with regard to
love),—meanings the real force of which we have elsewhere verified, but
which most certainly are not to be taken as implying actual castration,
as _Stark_ (§ 16) thinks. Indeed the last named says, commenting on
the passage of Eusebius: “Haec verba non solum de mera morum atque
cultus mutatione muliebri rationi magis congrua, intelligi posse, sed
etiam per veram evirationem genitalium truncatione confectam aptissime
explicanda esse, cum verborum series et Eustathii, Hesychii ac Zonarae
atque Valesii auctoritas me suadet, tum multo magis illud monet, quod
in cultu Veneris virorum exsectionem solemnem fuisse compertum habemus.
Sin autem contenderis, viros tales exsectos et effeminatos etiam
muliebria passos esse, ego quidem non repugno, exploratam vero rem esse
atque ratam, ex ipsis auctoris verbis non liquet.” (That these words
may be understood not merely of a simple change of mode of life and
habit to one more closely assimilated to the female type, but that they
are most suitably to be explained as implying an actual effemination of
the individual produced by amputation of the genitals, both the context
of the passage and the authority of Eustathius, Hesychius, Zonaras and
Valesius induces me to believe, and still more am I led to this view by
the fact we already know, viz. that the castration of men was customary
in connection with the cult of Venus. But if you further maintain that
such men so castrated and effeminated submitted to the treatment proper
to women, I do not deny it; I only say that this point is not duly
ascertained and certified on the showing of the Author’s own words.)

Certainly we have already seen from the passage of _Lucian_ and from
_Philo_ that Paederastia supplied a motive for the making of Eunuchs;
but the passages quoted from _Athanasius_ and other Authors have
also taught us that the pollution of boys was carried out in honour
of Venus in her temples. As for the _auctoritas Valesii_ (authority
of Valesius), _Stark_ adds in his notes (49): “Eandem vim his verbis
tribuit, ut ex interpretatione ejus Latina Eusebii videre est. Histor.
scriptor. ecclesiast. Paris 1677. fol. p. 211. B.” (He assigns the same
force to these words, as may be seen from his Latin translation of
Eusebius). To our regret we are unable to refer to this edition,—which
it appears to us would have been a highly desirable precaution; for
the one which lies before us,[381] a word for word, only more correct,
re-impression of the Paris edition, gives the version of Valesius
entirely in our sense: “Quippe effeminati quidam et feminae potius
dicendi quam viri, abdicata sexus sui gravitate, _muliebria patientes_,
daemonem placabant.” (Whereas certain effeminate men, that should
rather be called women than men, abrogating the dignity of their sex,
and suffering treatment proper to women, used in this way to propitiate
their deity.) The same holds good of the translation given by _Stark_:
“Viri effeminati et non viriles, naturae dignitatem ultro exuentes,
_morbo muliebri_ deam placabant.” (Effeminate men and unmanly, of their
own will putting off their nature dignity, used to propitiate the
goddess _with feminine disease_.) Ought this to be taken as implying
a claim on his behalf to the translation generally as adduced by him
or merely to the rendering of the word γύννιδες by _viri effeminati_?
The previous authorities, _Eustathius_, _Hesychius_ and _Zonaras_, at
any rate refer only to γύννιδες, while _Stark_ himself assigns it the
meaning of the _Vice of the Pathic_ in the last words quoted.

Bishop _Synesius_ (378-431 A.D.) in his Speech _De Regno_[382]
addressed to the Emperor Arcadius exhorts the latter to set bounds to
the insubordination in the army, and for the foreign subject peoples,
that are continually meditating treason, to attack them and really
conquer them, rather than wait till their hostile temper break out in
open revolt. That the renown of the Romans stood fast, that they were
victorious, wherever they came and marched through the countries of the
world, like the gods, supervising men’s insolence and government. “But
those Scythians, Herodotus tells us so, and we see it for ourselves,
are all fallen under the νόσος θήλεια (feminine disease). And it is
they of whom the subject peoples mainly consist, etc.” He goes on
to say how they had submitted only in appearance, while secretly
they laughed at the folly of the Romans, who took their submission
seriously, etc. Now in the first place we must remember the fact
that _Synesius_, like all Greek Orators and Fathers of later times,
considered it his special duty to cite the Classical Greek authors as
frequently as possible, and with this object made almost any peg do to
hang a quotation on. He says of the Romans that they, ὡς Ὅμηρός φησι
τοὺς θεούς

  Ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίαν ἐφέποντες

(as Homer says of the gods, “visiting the insolence and good government
of men”), and to explain this ὕβρις (insolence), he recalls the
statement of Herodotus to the effect that the Scythians suffered
from the νοῦσος θήλεια, a statement which, he adds, still holds good
of them; that the vice had prevailed amongst them from the earliest
times, that it was quite inveterate, and that accordingly men of such
abandoned character could never be trusted, trained as they were to
dissemble; all this _Synesius_ is specially anxious to enforce strongly
upon Arcadius! In this sequence of thought we find a sufficient
explanation of the καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρῶμεν (and we see it for ourselves); this
refers not so much to the ocular recognition of the νοῦσος θήλεια, the
possibility of which however we have demonstrated elsewhere, as to the
fact that the disease was _still_ to be met with among the Scythians,
in order to show which Synesius laid special stress on the phrase,
and added—undoubtedly to the sacrifice of truth—the word ἅπαντας (all
of them). Besides which, _Dionysius Petavius_ reminds us in his notes
on this passage that the name “Scythian” is used here, as it is in
_Strabo_, in its widest signification, and includes Goths, Alani,
Vandals, Germans, Huns, in fact all the Northern peoples. This is the
more interesting as _Sextus Empiricus_[383] relates of the Germans
that they practised Paederastia, Prof. _Meier_ (loco cit. p. 131. Note
20.), who cites the passage, doubted the truth of the statement, on the
ground that Sextus Empiricus is the only author, and even he does so
only as a matter of hearsay (ὡς φασιν—as men say), to lay this vice to
the charge of the Germans, whose purity of morals is not impugned by
any other Writers. But surely he did not take into consideration that
Sextus Empiricus lived about 200 years after Christ, and is speaking of
the Germans of his own times, not of the old Germans such as _Tacitus_
and _Caesar_ knew them. It is hardly likely the Germans of Sextus’ and
Synesius’ day should have entirely escaped the universal degeneracy of
all Nations; and again, with what object did German Emperors at a later
date promulgate laws against the vice of Paederastia, Sodomy, etc., if
it did not exist among their people?

_Clement of Alexandria_, after speaking of the objectionable character
of the worship of the different gods of the Heathen, goes on to relate
as follows[384]:

“All blessings befall that King of the Scythians, whatever his name
may have been, who when one of his subjects copied the service of the
Mother of the gods usual among the people of Cyrené, beating the drum
and clashing the cymbals hung at his neck, and dedicating himself
as a Menagyrtes (Priest of Cybelé), shot him dead, as a man who had
been made _no man_ (ἄνανδρος) among the Greeks, and as a teacher of
the _feminine disease_ (νόσος θήλεια) to the rest of the Scythians.”
_Herodotus_[385] who tells the same story, calls the King Saulius and
the offending citizen Anarcharsis[386], but makes no mention, any more
than do _Diogenes Laertius_ and _Philo_[387], of the θήλεια νοῦσος
(feminine disease). Accordingly we must evidently regard this as an
_addition_ on the part of Clement of Alexandria, who judging from his
own times, when the Priests of Cybelé universally practised paederastia
with each other, and in order to further lay stress on the fact that
the Scythian king had done right in killing the man who was introducing
a heathen, and besides an exceedingly licentious, form of worship, felt
no hesitation in making the addition. And as a matter of fact, how
widely paederastia prevailed in the time of Clement of Alexandria, and
how intimately he was acquainted with it, is proved by the passages
quoted on previous pages from his writings. _Stark_ prefers here also
to understand a _vera eviratio_ (true effemination), i.e. that they
were actually castrated, maintaining that this was the case with the
priests of Cybelé, whilst _Larcher_ considers merely the womanish cult
of the _Dea Mater_ (Goddess Mother) to be indicated.

The last passage in which the expression θήλεια νοῦσος (feminine
disease) occurs, is a _scholion_ on the word γαλλιαμβικὸν (viz.
μέτρον—galliambic metre) in _Hephaestion_[388]. The Scholiast says:
Γαλλιαμβικὸν δὲ ἐκλήθη, ἐπεὶ λελυμένον ἐστὶ τὸ μέτρον· οἱ δὲ Γάλλοι,
διαβάλλονται ὡς _θήλειαν νόσον_ ἔχοντες, διὸ καὶ σώματα φόρον ἐτέλουν
Ῥωμαίοις εἰς τοῦτο· οἱ τοιοῦτοι δέ ἱερεῖς εἰσὶ Δήμητρος. (Now it was
called galliambic, because the metre is loose; and the Galli are evil
spoken of as having _feminine disease_. Wherefore also they used to
pay their bodies as tribute to the Romans—_or_, their bodies used
to pay tribute to the Romans—to this day; and such men are priests
of Demeter.) _Stark_ gives (p. 21.) the following translation of
this. “Galliambicum vocabatur, quod solutum est metrum; Galli enim
utpote _morbo muliebri_ laborantes inculpantur, quod Romanis corpora
ad hoc (tanquam) tributum persolverent,” (It was called galliambic,
because the metre is loose; for the Galli are accused as suffering
from _feminine disease_, inasmuch as they used to pay their bodies to
the Romans to this day as it were a tribute),—but without committing
himself to any more precise explanation of the words. The meaning
of the first two sentences is plain enough: The metre is called the
galliambic, because it is loose, resolved, i. e. instead of long
syllables short are used, and so the metres changed from masculine
to feminine. Now the Galli are charged with practising θήλεια νόσος
(feminine disease) (as _Homer_, Odyssey I. 368., says: ὑπέρβιον ὕβριν
ἔχοντες—having, practising very audacious insolence). But what do
the words that follow mean: διὸ καὶ σώματα φόρον ἐτέλουν Ῥωμαίοις
εἰς τοῦτο? The _tanquam_ (as it were) added in the Latin translation
shows that the translator took the sentence in a figurative sense. But
what is the subject of the sentence? is it σώματα or Γάλλοι—ἔχοντες?
The translator must necessarily have taken the latter as the subject:
“wherefore they paid or offered up their bodies to the Romans as it
were for tribute”; and this could imply nothing less than that the
Galli gave themselves up to the Romans as Pathics. Now does the
arrangement of the words admit of this? We think not; for in that case
the Scholiast must needs have put ἑαυτῶν with σώματα or at any rate the
article τὰ.

Therefore if we take the sentence literally and regard σώματα as being
the subject, it reads: “wherefore also the bodies (of the Galli) were
subject to tax to the Romans to this day.” We have seen already how the
word τέλος signified among the Greeks the “prostitution tax,” and how
the Septuagint translators rendered the Hebrew קְדֵשָׁה (Kêdeshah) and
קָדֵשׁ (Kâdesh), by which names the Priests of Cybelé were understood,
by τελεσφόρος and τελισκόμενος (subject to tax, paying tax), how the
Priests of Cybelé are characterised by other writers as men who were
Pathics in honour of their goddess, and how as a matter of fact the
_Cinaedi_ or _Exoleti_ at Rome in the time of the Emperor Severus had
to pay an impost similar to the prostitution-tax. The _scholion_ then
shows us that the Galli also were subjected to this impost payable to
the State. Were it a question merely of Castrated persons or indeed of
anything else but actual Paederastia, the whole _scholion_ would be
unintelligible; yet _Stark_ maintains that simply Eunuchs are intended,
and this because of the words that are appended, to the effect that the
Galli were Priests of Demeter. No doubt they may have been castrated,
but this is a side issue; the important point is, that they were
Pathics.

Finally we have still a passage from _Dio Chrysostom_[389] to mention,
in which however the hitherto almost stereotyped expression θήλεια
νόσος (feminine disease) is exchanged for γυναικεία νόσος (womanly
disease). The author is here expounding how all acts are under the
governance of a definite Genius or Spirit, and says: “for a weakling
and faint-hearted Spirit of this sort leads readily to the γυναικεία
νόσος (womanly disease) and other shames, to which is attached
punishment and disgrace.” Then in the following sentences the life and
appearance of one governed by this Spirit are more exactly described,
in such a way that there can be no possibility of supposing anything
else to be intended than the vice of the Pathic, and even _Stark_ (p.
12.) admits this much.

On reviewing once again what has been said, we find that the Scythians
in Asia became acquainted with paederastia, when Pathics returned from
foreign lands, and henceforth practised the vice at home as well. Their
fellow-countrymen could only suppose an evil demon animated them. So
when at length as a natural result of their vice they fell sick in
body and in mind, when nervous disorders and imbecility visited the
unfortunates, they never for a moment ascribed this to the vice these
men practised, but rather regarded their condition as a consequence of
the avenging wrath of Venus, whose temple they had robbed, and thus
brought into connection an earlier incident and a later.

When the Greek became acquainted with the vice, he of course shared
at first the notion of the avenging action of a deity, but he directed
his attention less to the consequences of this vice, which in Greece
were generally slighter, than to the Vice itself, which robbed the
man of his manly characteristics and normal activity, and drove him
to take on him the rôle of the woman in exchange for that of the man.
But to be a woman was invariably among all nations a disgrace for the
man, whom _Plato_ (Timaeus 42.) considered the γένος κρεῖττον (superior
sex), while _Aristotle_ not merely represents the woman as owing her
existence to an ἀνάγκη (unavoidable necessity), but calls her an ἄῤῥεν
πεπηρωμένον (crippled male), an ἀναπηρία φυσική (natural crippling),
even a παρέκβασις τῆς φύσεως (aberration of nature)[390]. But no man of
sound intellect could possibly suffer himself to be used as a woman;
therefore he must needs be sick, be afflicted with a disease that
assimilated him to a woman (θήλεια—feminine). When _Herodotus_ wrote,
the Greeks to be sure knew the vice which was practised with _boys_
(Paederastia) or youths, who had not yet reached man’s estate, but
these were always first corrupted by adults; they did not practise the
vice of their own impulse and could not as a rule be held accountable.
When however they saw adults, men who were already in possession of
manly prerogatives, appear as Pathics—not merely boys and youths not
yet capable of the procreative act,—they could in no way explain the
phenomenon to their satisfaction except by supposing them to have been
attacked by a disease that changed them into women[391]. This also
gives the reason why the expression νοῦσος Θήλεια (feminine disease)
occurs so seldom in the Greek writers, for it was the violation of
boys, not the violation of _men_, that was a familiar fact to them.
For in the fact that the beautiful form of a boy was capable of firing
a sensual longing to enjoy it, the Greek saw nothing at all unnatural;
and he found excuses for the momentary forgetfulness of self-respect
on the part of the paederast, as he did in the case of the boy or
youth. But if there had been seduction, then the offence was strongly
reprobrated, unless the Pathic had been a slave.

Neither bodily nor psychical consequences of the vice of the Pathic
ever attained in Greece, as has been said, any very high degree of
development; and most of the characteristic marks of the _Cinaedus_
were regarded as artificial, worn half intentionally by him for show.
Even in his peculiar gait, voice and look, the Greeks saw more an
invitation to the perpetration of the vice than anything else; and if
_Plato_ denies to this class of persons the wish for natural coition,
this is rather a sign how completely the vice mastered them than a
proof of the annihilation of their power to procreate at all.

Even when positive diseases did actually occur in consequence of the
vice, public opinion was far from ascribing these to the vice itself;
nervous and mental affections were regarded as a punishment from the
gods, or else they were treated according to their several symptoms
without any examination into the original cause. Bodily ailments,
especially if they did not affect the posterior or penis, were set down
to any cause but the true one, often to quite ridiculous ones. The
νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) was invariably thought of merely as a
form of vice dependent on a morbid imagination, while its consequences
as such were left entirely out of consideration. _Nam neque ulla
curatio corporis depellendae passionis causa recte putatur adhibenda,
sed potius animus coercendus, qui tanta peccatorum labe vexatur_, (For
the right opinion is this: no bodily treatment should be applied in
order to expel the complaint, rather should the mind be disciplined
that is vexed by so foul a stain of sinful indulgences), are the words
of _Coelius Aurelianus_ in the passage quoted on page 159.

From this it is evident the later enquirers quoted above could take the
νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) for a purely mental affection, and be
right in a sense,—but a sense that certainly never entered into their
heads to consider. For they looked upon the intellectual imbecility
that resulted from the vice of the Pathic as being the essence of the
νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease), and the bodily derangements as merely
secondary and dependent on the psychica disturbances. Thus to some
extent they confounded cause and effect, putting one for the other; yet
without hitting on the true explanation, against which the meritorious
_Stark_ has tried so hard not perhaps to shut his eyes, but rather to
forcibly remove it in any possible way out of the range of his ideas.
For this very reason it has pursued him from beginning to end of his
investigations, and in spite of all his struggles has found at last a
reluctant and partial recognition from him.

As to the remaining views cited above, no attentive reader surely needs
any further confutation of these.


                                 § 20.

We have now, we think sufficiently, proved that _Herodotus_ as well
as the other writers who use the expression νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine
disease), denoted by it merely a _Vice_, which lent a feminine
character to the behaviour and indeed to the whole look and mode
of life of a man, assimilating him equally in body and in mind to
the woman. Throughout the enquiry we have kept our eyes fixed on
the _cause_ of this transformation; and we shall now find it easy
to estimate the value of a passage of _Hippocrates_, originally
brought forward by _Mercurialis_ (loco citato, p. 143. Note 10.)
later by _Zwinger_[392] and others, but which _Stark_ in particular
has characterised as _a more complete delineation of the disease,
merely pointed out and named νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease)by
Herodotus_. On the other hand _Bouhier_ specially and strenuously
denies the identity of the two, yet without accurately recognising the
true relationship.

Hippocrates in his well-known Work on _Air, Water and Environment_,
describes the country of the Scythians as a bare but well-watered
tableland, with so cold and damp a climate that a heavy mist covered
the fields all day long and only a short summer was enjoyed. The
inhabitants he says are arrogant, puffed up and exceedingly idle
creatures, in outward look and mode of life having little distinctly
marked characteristics of sex, the men having only very moderate desire
for coition, and the women, whose menstruation is less frequent,
possessing little capacity for conception. Then he goes on[393]:
“Moreover there are very many men amongst the Scythians resembling
Eunuchs (εὐνουχίαι); these not only follow women’s occupations
(show feminine inclinations, behave as women?—γυναικεῖα ἐργάζονται)
just like the women, but also bear a name signifying this, for such
men are called No-men (ἀνανδριεῖς). The natives ascribe the cause
to a deity; they are afraid of these men, and show them a slavish
respect (προσκυνέουσι[394]), though each individual dreads such a
fate for himself. It seems to me that affections of this sort may
be said to have come from a deity to exactly the same degree as all
other diseases,—no single one is more than any other in a sense of
divine origin. Each one of them has its own peculiar nature, and
nothing happens outside its nature. Now how these affections arise in
my opinion, I will proceed to state. From constant riding they get
κέδματα[395] (varicose dilatations), because their feet always hang
away from the horse. Hence they become lame, and get, those that are
seriously ill, ulcers on the hips (in the region of the _ischium_,
festering of the _cotyla_ or joint-socket?[396]). Then they treat
themselves with a view to cure in the following fashion. So soon as
the complaint breaks out, they open their veins on either side of the
ear; then when the blood has flowed, they fall asleep from weakness,
and go on sleeping till they wake, some of them cured and some of
them not. But it appears to me that by such a treatment they ruin
themselves[397]. For there lie near the ears certain veins, and
when these are severed, the men so cut become seedless (unfruitful);
and it is these veins that, _as I think_, they sever. But when
subsequently they approach women, and find themselves in no condition
to use them (to consummate coition with them), at the first they are
not discouraged, but keep quiet. However later, after they have tried
twice, three times, or oftener, with no better success, they believe
themselves to have sinned against the deity, whom they hold to be
to blame, put on a woman’s frock, and acknowledge their unmanliness
(ἀνανδρίην), behave as women, and in company with the women perform the
same tasks as they do. The like of this however happens only to the
rich Scythians, not to the poor, in fact to the nobler classes and such
as have attained to some considerable wealth, to a smaller degree to
those of lesser position, because these latter do not ride.

But surely the complaint, since it is above all others of divine
origin, must attack not solely the noblest and richest Scythians, but
all equally,—or even to a greater extent those who possess little,
and therefore fail to make offerings; if that is to say the gods take
pleasure in (active) veneration on the part of men and see that they
win a due return for it[398]. For naturally the rich offer much to
the gods, bring correspondingly great contributions from their goods
as marks of their veneration; but the poor less, because they possess
nothing. Then are these discontented, because they have given them no
wealth; so that those who possess little suffer more of the punishments
for such faults than the rich. But as a matter of fact, as I have said
before, these things come from the deity to just the same degree as the
others; for everything happens in accordance with nature, and so does
this affection arise among the Scythians from the original cause I have
pointed out. Now it is precisely the same among the rest of mankind;
where riding is practised most and most continuously, there very many
suffer from κέδματα (varicose dilatations), hip and foot affections,
and accomplish coition very badly (are only slightly disposed to
coition). And this is the case with the Scythians, and they are of all
men most like eunuchs, for the following reasons: Because they always
wear trousers, and besides that pass the greatest part of their time
on horseback, so that they cannot touch the genitals with the hand,
through cold and lassitude forget the desire for coition and coition
itself, and (in their senseless infatuation) think of nothing else but
how to resign their manly privilege[399]. This is an account of how it
is with the stock of the Scythians.”

Now if we separate the facts which are brought forward in this passage
of Hippocrates from his attempted explanations, there can be no doubt
that the same thing is in question here as that which Herodotus
describes. There are men amongst the Scythians who behave as women,
speak as women, perform women’s work and keep with the women, and their
condition the Scythians consider as something sent by the deity, and
for this reason honour and fear these men. All the rest is part of
the attempted explanations of the author, who brings together every
possible consideration in order to discover a natural cause of the
phenomenon, leaving utterly and entirely unrecognized all the time the
most natural cause of all. This of course was due to no other reason
except that it was _unknown_ to him, and that he was acquainted with
the circumstances not from his own observation, but only from hearsay.
This is a conjecture which _Heyne_ (_loco citato_) had already made
in his time, but which has met with many opponents, yet without the
argument having ever been properly brought to the test of the evidence.
In favour of Heyne’s view a passage from the book περὶ ἄρθρων (On
Joints)[400] might be cited, in which the limping of the men of the
Amazons in consequence of the dislocation of the limbs is clearly
declared to be an unauthenticated myth; for which reason _Gruner_[401]
denied Hippocrates’ authorship of this work in opposition to the
general witness of Antiquity.

But really and truly we are as well without the passage; for if what he
relates were the result of his own observation, how could the author
write in connexion with his remark that the Scythians bled themselves
behind the ears, ταύτας τοίνυν _μοι δοκέουσι_ τὰς φλέβας ἐπιτάμνειν
(now these are the veins, _as it seems to me_, that they cut)? Is the
actual fact possibly, that all these attempted explanations flowed
from the pen of some later, or of several later, writers? At any rate
for ourselves, we have never yet been able to get rid of a suspicion
to that effect. But be this as it may, so much at least is certain,
as was stated above; viz. that the Author was unacquainted with the
actual cause of attempts to explain it, probably from misunderstanding
the effemination of the Scythians, and that all of the words ἀνανδρίες
and εὐνουχίαι (unmanly, eunuch-like), aim at referring the loss of the
generative power, i.e. ἀνανδρία in its strict sense, to some natural
reason, while the effemination is looked upon merely as a secondary
circumstance.

That Hippocrates was not, any more than the later Physicians of
antiquity, fully and exactly acquainted with the consequences of the
vice of the Pathic as affecting the body, we see from the following
passage, appearing in an exceedingly corrupt form in the text of
Foesius[402]: εὐνοῦχος ἐκ κυνηγεσίης καὶ διαδρομῆς ὑδραγωγὸς γίνεται·
ὁ παρὰ τὴν Ἐλεαλκέος κρήνην· ὁ περὶ τὰ ἓξ ἄτεα _ἱππουρίν_ τε καὶ
βουβῶνα καὶ _ἴξιν_ καὶ κέδματα· ὁ τὸν _κενεῶνα_ φθινήσας ἑβδομαῖος
ἀπέθανεν, _προπιούντων ἄπεπτον_, ἁλμυρὰ μετὰ μέλιτος· _πορνείη ἄχρωμος_
δυσεντερίης ἄκος. (a eunuch by hunting or running becomes dropsical;
he that is beside the fountain of Elealces; he that about six years
[suffered from] “_horse-tail_” [a disease of the groin due to too
much riding], swelling of the groin, _varicocele_ and dilatations;
he that was sick in the _flank_ died the seventh day, when they were
about to administer a raw drink, salt liquid with honey; inordinate
fornication is a cure for dysentery.??) All editors of Hippocrates
have been especially scandalized by the connection in which πορνείη
ἄχρωμος (inordinate fornication) stands in this passage; only _Foesius_
defended it, referring to other passages in _Aëtius_[403] and _Paul
of Aegina_[404], in which coition is recommended in chronic diarrhœa
as drying up the humours. This he might equally well have established
from Hippocrates himself, for the latter says (Epidem. bk. VI. sect. 5.
note 29.), λαγνεία τῶν ἀπὸ φλέγματος νούσων ὠφέλιμον (lasciviousness
is advantageous in diseases that arise from phlegm) and (note 26.),
μίξις τὰ κατὰ τὴν γαστέρα σκληρύνει (sexual intercourse hardens the
contents of the belly)[405]. However this holds good only of the
man who performs coition, inasmuch as the effusion of semen compels
the body to supply what is lost, and this can only be done at the
cost of other secretions, and so must stop the flow of any morbid
secretions as well to a greater or less degree. But the question here
is not of the coition the man performs, but of that which he suffers
another to perform on him, in fact the vice of the Pathic, as the word
(fornication) clearly shows; and that Pathics have habitually a pallid
complexion has been already mentioned (p. 144).

To bring some sort of sense into the passage quoted above,
_Mercurialis_ would read πόρνη ὡς ἄχρωμος (like a shameless
harlot), _Dacier_ πορνείη ἄχρωμον ἄκος, (fornication is a shameless
remedy ...) and _Richard Mead_ προῤῥοὴ ἄχρωμος (an inordinate
effusion). But _Triller_[406] was the first to come to the conclusion
that the words were in the wrong order, and emends the sentence thus:
ὁ τὸν _αἰῶνα_ φθινήσας, _πορνείῃ_ ἄχρωμος, ἑβδομαῖος ἀπέθανεν,
_προϊόντων ἀπέπτων_. Ἁλμυρὰ μετὰ μέλιτος δυσεντερίης ἄκος, (he that
destroyed his life and vigour, being inordinate in fornication, died
on the seventh day, undigested matters coming from him. Salt drinks
with honey are a remedy for dysentery). This certainly makes it more
readable, particularly if πορνείη ἄχρωμος is put _before_ ὁ τὸν αἰῶνα,
inasmuch as the pallid complexion was undoubtedly a forerunner of
phthisis. His reasons, which we beg the reader to peruse for himself in
the author’s work, are at any rate to us so convincing that we do not
hesitate a moment to adopt his emendations. These have unfortunately
hitherto gone entirely unnoticed; for _Grimm_, who appears to have
taken no exception to the passage generally, has translated entirely
in accordance with the old text, and not added any note at all. The
same is the case with _Lilienhain_, who has more recently gone over the
same ground again; though both have restored instead of κενεῶνα (belly)
αἰῶνα (life) previously conjectured by _Foesius_.

Granted that by these means the last sentence is made intelligible, and
justice done Hippocrates by no longer making him recommend coition as a
remedy against dysentery, still the preceding sentence likewise stands
in need of correction. For ἴξιν obviously ἰξίαν or ἰξίας (varicosities)
must be read, which indeed was done by former translators, and long
ago suggested by Foesius; but as to ἱππουρίν, no sufficient account
has ever yet been given by any editor. The word appears to us to be
corrupt, and to have got into the text owing to the fact that in the
Manuscript, instead of προπιούντων,—which indeed no single Codex has,
the majority reading ὑποπνοιούντων, there stood in the next line
ὑποπορούντων, ὑποῤῥυόντων or ὑπποῤῥεόντων. _Cornarius_ read, περὶ ἓξ
ἔτεα _ἐξ ἱππασίης_ βουβῶνα, ἰξίας, κ. τ. λ. (for about six years, _in
consequence of riding_, inguinal swellings, varicosities, etc.), but
without assigning his reasons; in all probability however he made this
conjecture, which does not commend itself at any rate to us, with the
passage about the Scythians in his mind’s eye.

But we can only arrive at a probable emendation on the condition that
we correctly estimate the sequence of the sentences as a whole. If we
are not greatly mistaken, it is as follows: First of all the question
is of a Eunuch who became dropsical; then in connection with this, the
_rest_ is added applying to _another Eunuch_. In the Book περὶ γονῆς
(Of the Seed), (Vol. I. p. 273. K.) we read: οἱ δὲ εὐνοῦχοι διὰ ταῦτα
οὐ λαγνεύουσιν, ὅτι σφέων ἡ δίοδος ἀμαλδύνεται τῆς γονῆς—αὕτη δὲ ἡ
δίοδος ὑπὸ τῆς τομῆς _οὐλῆς_ γενομένης στερεὴ γέγονεν. (Now Eunuchs
are not lascivious, because in them the passage of the seed is wasted
away, ... and this passage has become hardened by the wound where they
were cut getting _skinned over but festering within_). Now we might
well be tempted to read in the text: ὁ περὶ τὰ ἓξ ἔτεα ὑπὸ τῆς τομῆς
οὐλῆς καὶ βουβῶνα, that is to say, the man suffered for six years in
consequence of the skinning over of the cut from swelling in the groin,
etc. However this could hardly be justified, and we think it much
better to join ὑπὸ and οὐλῆς and either to read ὕπουλος, ὑπουλῶς or
ὑπουλὴν περὶ τὰ βουβῶνα, that is, he had had for six years festering
places in the inguinal region,—which idea possibly Calvus may have had
in his mind, or else ὑπουλήν τε καὶ βουβῶνας, he had had for six years
festering places (fistulas), inguinal swellings, etc., or finally,
what might seem the best of all, ὕπουλον βουβῶνα, a festering inguinal
region[407]. In the _De morbis mulierum_, (On the Diseases of Women),
bk. I., edit Kühn, Vol. II. 680. we read, ὀδύνη ἔχει καὶ τὰς ἰξύας
καὶ τοὺς κενεῶνας καὶ τοῦς βουβῶνας (pain holds both the loins and
belly and the inguinal regions),—so we might perhaps similarly read
here, ὕπουλον (ἔχει) καὶ βουβῶνα καὶ ἰξύα καὶ κενεῶνα καὶ κέδματα,
πορνείη ἄχρωμος, φθινήσας κ. τ. λ. (he has in a festering condition
both inguinal region and loin and belly and also varicosities, being
inordinate in fornication, in pain etc.), which would give κέδματα
the meaning of _Varices_ (varicosities), and the sense of the whole
passage would then be as follows: “A Eunuch in consequence of hunting
and running became dropsical; another at the fountain of Elealces, who
for six years had had festering (fistulous) ulcers in the inguinal
region, the loins and in the region of the _os sacrum_, as well as
varicosities, had grown pallid and suffered wasting through indulgence
in the vice of the pathic, died, after making involuntary evacuations,
to counteract which he had taken salt with honey, a usual remedy
against dysentery, on the seventh day.”

Be this as it may, at any rate it is shown very distinctly by the
passage that its author was but very slightly acquainted with the
consequences resulting from the vice of the Pathic, for he ascribes
to it nothing but the pallidness of complexion, whereas the whole
series of morbid symptoms might very well have been due to it (Comp. p.
180.). Certainly the Author is to be excused, for as a rule the bodily
consequences resulting from the vice of the Pathic were in Greece very
slight and of rare occurrence, neither did the vice in that country
reach anything like such a height. Again among the pastoral Scythians,
whose racial character in other respects was but little marked, the
local bodily consequences fell rather into the background, while the
assimilation of the whole person to the female type occurred the
more readily; but at the same time stood out all the more glaringly
conspicuous to the eyes of a foreign observer, as he had noted nothing
to correspond at home. Thus it was easy for him to be misled in
considering the marvellous phœnomenon into forgetting its real origin,
which no doubt was, in seeming, somewhat remote; and was apt to think
of any other cause rather than the vice of the pathic, the consequences
of which even distinguished Physicians of more modern times failed
adequately to appreciate. Is it for us to throw a stone on these
grounds at Hippocrates and his contemporaries?

In confirmation of our view as to the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease)
we might further cite from more modern times the examples given by
_Reineggs_ and _J. von Potocki_ in the case of the Mongolian race of
the Nogay, and by the older Historians of America, particularly in
connection with Florida and Mexico. Notoriously down to the present day
Paederastia is in Asia one of the common vices, while as to America
some reporters when speaking of the Men-women and Hermaphrodites of
that Continent, expressly state that they indulged in the vice. But
as the original Authorities are not accessible to us, we can only
refer to _Heyne_, loco citato, p. 41. and _Stark_, loco citato, pp. 29
and 31., especially as without this the subject has already occupied
overmuch space. Still we trust the less blame may attach to us on this
account from the fact that so distinguished a scholar as _Stark_, whose
conclusions even professed Philologists have endorsed, may naturally
claim of a younger enquirer in the same field who challenges his views,
not mere general phrases, but the most complete and satisfactory
reasons possible. This much merit we trust he cannot deny us!




                             BIBLIOGRAPHY.

                      AUTHORITIES AND HISTORIANS.




                             BIBLIOGRAPHY.


                             AUTHORITIES.

1) _Nicolai Leoniceni_, Vicentini, et _Joannis Almenar_, Hispani, 1.
de morbo Gallico, _Angeli Bolognini_, Bononiensis, de cura ulcerum
exteriorum et unguentis communibus in solutione continui lib. II.
_Alexandri Benedicti_ Veronensis, 1. de pestilenti febre, _Dominici
Massariae_, Vicentini, de ponderibus et mensuris medicinalibus lib.
III. Papiae ex offic. Bernhardini de Garaldis. MDXVI. fol.

(_Nicholas Leonicenus_, of Vicenza, and _Joannes Almenar_, Spaniard,
“On Syphilis”; _Angelas Bologninus_, of Bologna, “On the Treatment
of External Ulcers and on Common Ointments applied in Breach of
Continuity”,—2 books; _Alexander Benedictus_, of Verona, “On Malignant
Fever”; _Dominic Massaria_, of Vicenza, “On Medical Weights and
Measures”,—3 books. Pavia (printed by Bernhardinus de Garaldis) 1516.
fol.).

The Work is rare; and appears only to have been seen by _Astruc_, II.
p. 623. Comp. _Girtanner_, II. p. 41. _Gruner_, Aphrodisiac. pt. IV.

2) _Nicolai Massae_, Veneti, Artium et Medicinae Doctoris, Liber de
morbo Gallico, mira ingenii dexteritate conscriptus. _Joannis Almenar_,
Valentini Hispani, Philosophi ac Medici, Liber perutilis de morbo
Gallico, VII capitulis quidquid desideratur complectens. _Nicolai
Leoniceni_, Vicentini, fidissimi Galeni interpretis, compendiosa
ejusdem morbi cura. _Angeli Bolognini_, Medici eximii, libellus de cura
ulcerum exteriorum: et de unguentis in soluta continuitate a Modernis
maxime usitatis, in quibus multa ad curam Morbi Gallici pertinentia
inserta sunt s. l. MDXXXII 8.

(_Nicholas Massa_, of Venice, Doctor of Arts and Medicine, “Treatise
on Syphilis,—a Work of extraordinary Hability and Competence”.
_Joannes Almenar_, of Valencia (in Spain), Philosopher and Physician,
“A Treatise of the greatest Utility on Syphilis, embracing in Seven
Chapters all Information required”; _Nicholas Leonicenus_, of Vicenza,
the most faithful Translator of Galen, “Compendious Treatment of
Syphilis”; _Angelus Bologninus_, a highly renowned Physician, “Pamphlet
on the Treatment of External Ulcers: and on Ointments applied in Broken
Continuity as mostly Employed by the Moderns, wherein are included
many Particulars concerning the Treatment of Syphilis.” (no place of
publication) 1532. 8vo.).

This Work was in the Sloane (Sir Hans Sloane), and in the Trew
(Christopher James Trew) Libraries. _Astruc_, II. p. 652. conjectures
that the book was printed at Venice; which _Haller_, Bibliotheca Med.
Pract. (Library of Medical Practice), I. p. 535. wrongly gives as
proved.—Comp. _Girtanner_, II. p. 70., _Gruner_, Aphrod. p. V.

3) _Liber de morbo Gallico_, in quo diversi celeberrimi in tali
materia scribentes medicinae continentur auctores, videlicet _Nicolaus
Leonicenus_, Vicentinus. _Ulrichus de Hutten_ Germanus. _Petrus
Andreas Matheolo_, Senensis. _Laurentius Phrisius._ _Joannes Almenar_,
Hispanus. _Angelus Bologninus._ Venetiis per Joannem Patavinum et
Venturinum de Ruffinellis. Anno Domini MDXXXV. 8.

(“_Treatise on Syphilis_,” in which the various most Celebrated Authors
writing on that Department of Medicine are contained viz. _Nicholas
Leonicenus_, of Vicenza; _Ulrich von Hütten_, German; _Petrus Andreas
Matheolo_, of Sienna; _Laurentius Phrisius_; _Joannes Almenar_,
Spaniard; _Angelus Bologninus_. Venice, printed by Joannes Patavinus
and Venturinus de Ruffinellis. Anno Domini 1535. 8vo.).

In the copy from the Sloane Library which _Astruc_, II. p. 659., had
before him, was, printed on the same paper and with the same type,
although the Title-page made no mention of it: _Nicholas Poll_,
Medicinae Professoris et Sacrae Caesareae Majestatis Physici, Libellus
de Cura Morbi Gallici per lignum Guajacanum (_Nicholas Poll_, Professor
of Medicine and Physician to the Holy Roman Emperor, Pamphlet “On the
Treatment of Syphilis by the Guajac wood”. _Gruner_, Aphrod. p. V., who
possessed the same edition, does not mention this, but says the book
is printed without pagination, and that each book has a separate Title
(nova cuique libro inscriptione praefixa,—a fresh Title being prefixed
to each book), so that a Part might easily be missing. _Trew_ and
_Hensler_ also possessed the Work. Comp. _Girtanner_, II. p. 73.

4) _Morbi Gallici curandi ratio exquisitissima_ a variis iisdemque
peritissimis medicis conscripta: nempe _Petro Andrea Matheolo_,
Senensi. _Joanne Almenar_, Hispano. _Nicolao Massa_, Veneto. _Nicolao
Poll_, Caesareae Majestatis Physico. _Benedicto de Victoriis_,
Faventino. Hic accessit _Angeli Bolognini_ de ulcerum exteriorum medela
opusculum perquam utile. Ejusdem de unguentis ad cujusvis generis
maligna ulcera conficiendis lucubratio. Cum indice rerum omnium quae in
curationem cadere possunt copiosissimo. Basileae apud Joann. Bebelium.
MDXXXVI. 299 S. 4.

(“_The Most Approved Method of treating Syphilis;_” by Several and
these the Most skilful Doctors, viz. _Peter Andreas Matheolo_, of
Sienna; _Joannes Almenar_, Spaniard; _Nicholas Massa_, of Venice;
_Nicholas Poll_, Physician to His Imperial Majesty; _Benedictus de
Victoriis_ of Faenza. To this is added: _Angelus Bologninus_, On
the Medical Treatment of External Ulcers,—a Pamphlet of the Highest
Utility. By the Same Author, Treatise on the Compounding of Ointments
against Malignant Ulcers of every Kind. With a most Copious Index of
all Matters incidental to the Treatment. Bâle, published by Joann.
Bebelius, 1536. pp. 299. 4to.).

This Edition, according to the Dedication to _Adam Bresinius_ (Basil.
Idibus Martii 1536.—Bâle, 15th March 1536.), was seen through the
press by _Joseph Tectander_ from Cracow. The Tract of _Benedictus de
Victoriis_ included in it is a College Exercise which Tectander had had
copied down and printed without the author’s knowledge. Comp. _Astruc_,
II. p. 266.—_Girtanner_, II. p. 74.—_Gruner_, Aphrod. p. V.

A pirated impression of this Edition appeared at Lyons: Lugduni 1536,
expensis Scipionis de Gabiano et fratrum, mense Augusto,—(Lyons 1536,
at the cost of Scipio de Gabiano and his Brothers, August) pp. 280,
and 16. (printed in cursives). Comp. _Astruc_ II. p. 660. and _H.
Choulant_, Fracastori Siphilis. Leipzig 1830. p. 8.

5) _De morbo Gallico omnia quae extant apud omnes medicos cujuscunque
nationis_, qui vel integris libris, vel quoque alio modo hujus affectus
curationem methodice aut empirice tradiderunt, diligenter hinc inde
conquisita, sparsim inventa, erroribus expurgata et in unum tandem
hoc corpus redacta [_ab Aloysio Luisino_, Utinensi]. In quo de ligno
Indico, Salsa Perillia, Radice Chyne, Argento vivo, ceterisque rebus
omnibus ad hujus luis profligationem inventis, diffusissima tractatio
habetur. Cum indice locupletissimo rerum omnium scitu dignarum, quae in
hoc volumine continentur. Opus hac nostra aetate, quo Morbi Gallici vis
passim vagatur, apprime necessarium. Catalogum scriptorum sexta pagina
comperies. [_Sebast. Aquilanus_, _Nicol. Leonicenus_, _Nic. Massa_,
_Natal. Montesaurus_, _Anton. Scanarolus_, _Jac. Cataneus_, _Joan.
Benedictus_, _Hier. Fracastorius_, _Georg. Vella_, _Joan. Paschalis_,
_Nic. Poll_, _Petr. Andr. Mathaeolus_, _Ulr. ab Hutten_, _Wendelinus
Hock de Brackenau_, _Coradinus Gilinus_, _Laurent. Phrisius_,
_Gonsalvus Fernandez de Oviedo_, _Joan. Almenar_, _Aloysius Lobera_,
_Leonh. Schmaus_, _Petr. Maynardus_, _Anton Benivenius_, _Alphons.
Ferrus_, _Joan de Vigo_, _Anton. Gallus_, _Casp. Torella_, _Joan. Bapt.
Montanus_, _Andr. Vesalius_, _Leonhard. Fuchsius_, _Joan. Manardus_,
_Joan. Fernelius_, _Benedictus Victorius_, _Amatus Lusitanus_,
_Anton. Musa Brassavolus_, _Alex. Fontana_, _Nic. Macchellus_, _Hier.
Cardanus_, _Gabr. Fallopius_, _Ant. Fracantianus_, _Joan. Langius_,
_Petr. Bayr_]. Tomus _prior_. Venetiis apud Jordanum Zilettum. 1566. 8.
736 u. 28 S. fol.

_De morbo gallico Tomus posterior_, in quo medicorum omnium celebrium
universa monumenta ad hujus morbi cognitionem et curationem attinentia,
quae hucusque haberi potuerunt nunquam alias impressa, nunc primum
conjecta sunt. Cum indice locupletissimo rerum omnium scitu dignarum,
quae in hoc volumine continentur. Catalogum scriptorum quarta pagina
comperies. [_Bartholomaeus Montagnana_, _Martin. Brocardus_, _Benedict.
Rinius_, _Francisc. Frizimelica_, _Petr. Trapolinus_, _Bernard
Tomitanus_, _J. Sylvius_, _Mich. J. Paschalius_, _Prosp. Borgarutius_,
_Bartholom. Maggius_, _Alex. Trajan. Petronius_]. Venetiis MDLXVII. ex
officina Jordani Ziletti. 24 u. 216 S. fol.

_Appendix tomi prioris de morbo gallico_, in quo, qui eidem jam antea
destinati fuerant, reliqui congesti sunt autores. Cum indice rerum
memorabilium in eo contentarum abunde amplo et copioso. Catalogum
scriptorum quarta pagina comperies. [_Anton. Chalmeteus_, _Leonh.
Botallus_, _Dominic. Leonus_, _Augerius Ferrerius_, _Petr. Haschardus_,
_Guilielmus Rondeletius_, _Dionys. Fontanonus_, _Jos. Struthius_].
Venetiis MDLXVII. Ex officina Jord. Ziletti. 4, 96 und 6 S. fol.

(“_On Syphilis—All Works Extant on this Subject by All Doctors of
Every Nation_, who whether in separate Books or in any other Manner
have dealt methodically or empirically with its Treatment, carefully
compiled from various Sources, with original remarks interspersed, and
errors removed, the Whole arranged for the first time in One Work, (by
_Aloysius Luisinus_, of Udine,—Friuli). In which India wood (Ironwood,
Guajac), Sarsaparilla, China Root, Quicksilver, and all other means
discovered for the destruction of this contagion, are most copiously
considered. With a very full Index of all Matters worthy of note
contained in this Volume. A Work pre-eminently necessary in our Day
when the infection of this Complaint is so widely diffused. List of
Authors will be found on page 6. First Volume. Venice, published by
Jordanus Ziletti, 1566. 8vo. 736, and 28. fol.

“_On Syphilis_,” Second Volume,—in which are included all the Works of
all the Celebrated Doctors concerning the Diagnosis and Treatment of
this Disease that have been thus far obtainable, now for the first time
printed. With a very full Index of all Matters worthy of note contained
in this Volume. List of Authors will be found on page 4. Venice 1567,
(printed by Jordanus Ziletti). pp. 24, and 216. fol.

_Appendix to First Volume “On Syphilis”_, in which are collected the
remaining Authors intended from the first to be included, but not
hitherto printed. With a most ample and copious Index of noteworthy
Matters contained therein. List of Authors will be found on page 4.
Venice 1567 (printed by Jord. Ziletti. pp. 4, 96, and 6. fol.)

_Astruc_, II. p. 780., rightly censures the unsystematic arrangement
of the different Writings, the omission of Prefaces, Dedications and
indeed all matter except the actual texts. This edition received
subsequently a new Title-page, as is shown, according to _Astruc_, II.
p. 846., by the fact that not only does the number of pages, lines and
words closely agree with the above mentioned edition, but also at the
end of the First Part the name of the printer Ziletti occurs with the
date 1556. The new Title reads as follows:—

“_Aphrodisiacus_ sive _de lue venerea in duo volumina bipartitus_,
continens omnia quaecunque hactenus de hac re sunt ab omnibus Medicis
conscripta, ubi de ligno Indico, Salsa parillia, Radice Chinae,
Mercurio ceterisque omnibus ad hujus luis profligationem inventis,
diffusissima tractatio habetur ab excellente _Aloysio Luisino_,
Utinensi Medico celeberrimo novissime collecta. Venet. apud Baretium et
socios. 1599. fol.

(“_Aphrodisiacus: or A Treatise on the Venereal Disease,—in Two
Volumes_, containing all that has been written on this subject to
the present day by all Doctors, and in which Indian wood (Ironwood,
Guajac), Sarsaparilla, China Root, Mercury and all other remedies
discovered for the Destruction of this Disease are most fully treated,
compiled and newly edited by the excellent _Aloysius Luysinus_, a
Celebrated Physician of Udine,—Friuli. Venice, published by Baretius
and Associates, 1599. fol.

6) _Aphrodisiacus_ sive _de lue venerea_; in duos tomos bipartitus,
continens omnia quaecunque hactenus de hac re sunt ab omnibus Medicis
conscripta. Ubi de Ligno Indico, Salsa Perilla, Radice Chynae, Argento
vivo, ceterisque rebus omnibus ad hujus luis profligationem inventis,
diffusissima tractatio habetur. Opus hac nostra aetate, qua Morbi
Gallici vis passim vagatur apprime necessarium: ab excellentissimo
_Aloysio Luisino_ Utinensi, Medico celeberrimo novissime collectum,
indice rerum omnium scitu dignarum adomatum. Editio longe emendatior,
et ab innumeris mendis repurgata. Tomus primus et secundus. Lugd.
Batav. apud. Joann. Arnold. Langerak et Joh. et Herm. Verbeck.
MDCCXXVIII. 1366 gespaltene Seiten, ohne 11 Blatt Vorrede und 10½
Blatt Index. fol.

(“_Aphrodisiacus: or A Treatise on the Venereal Disease,—in Two
Volumes_, containing all that has been written on this subject to the
present day by all Doctors. In which Indian wood (Ironwood, Guajac),
Sarsaparilla, China Root, Quicksilver and all other remedies discovered
for the Destruction of this Disease are most fully treated. A Work
pre-eminently necessary in our Day when the infection of this Complaint
is so widely diffused; the whole collected for the first time by the
most excellent _Aloysius Luisinus_, of Udine,—(Friuli), a most famous
Physician, and provided with an Index of all Matters worthy of note.
Much improved Edition, freed from very numerous errors. Vols. I and
II. Leyden, published by Joann. Arnold. Langerak and Joh. and Herm.
Verbeck, 1728. pp. 1366, besides 11 leaves Preface and 10½ leaves
Index. fol.

Is, as _Astruc_, II. p. 1071., justly observes, a mere reprint of the
Venice edition, the only alteration being that the Appendix to the
First Part is added immediately after the First Part. Comp. _Choulant_,
p. 9. The Preface at the beginning by Boerhave contains his views
on the Venereal Disease, and has been several times since printed
separately and translated.

7) _Daniel Turner_: Aphrodisiacus, containing a Summary of the Ancient
Writers on the Venereal Disease, under the following heads: I. of its
Original; II. of the Symptoms; III. of the various Methods of cure.
London, printed for John Clarke. MDCCXXXVI. 8vo.

An Abridgement from the “Aphrodisiacus” of Luisinus, arranged under
the three heads named on the Title-page. (_Astruc_, II. p. 1110.)

8) _John Armstrong_: A Synopsis of the history and cure of the Venereal
Disease. London 1737. 8vo.

Another Abridgement from Luisinus. (_Girtanner_, iii. p. 430.)

9) _Aphrodisiacus sive de lue venerea_ in duas partes divisus, quarum
altera continet ejus vestigia in veterum auctorum monimentis obvia,
altera quos Aloysius Luisinus temere omisit scriptores et medicos et
historicos ordine chronologico digestos, collegia notulis instruxit,
glossarium indicemque rerum memorabilium subjecit _D. Christianus
Gothofredus Gruner_ etc. Jenae apud Christ. Henr. Cunonis heredes.
MDCCLXXXVIIII. XIV. 166 und 16 S. fol.

(“_Aphrodisiacus: or A Treatise on the Venereal Disease_, divided
into two parts, whereof the one contains Traces of this Disease to be
met with in the Writings of Ancient Authors, the other Those Writers,
whether Doctors or Historians, whom _Aloysius Luisinus_ has without
sufficient reason omitted, arranged in chronological order. Collected
and edited, with Notes, Glossary, and Index of noteworthy Matters, by
_D. Christianus Gothofredus Gruner_, etc. Jena, published by heirs of
Christ. Henr. Cuno. 1789. pp. XIV, 166 and 16. fol.).

A second additional Title-page bears: Volume Third. In the Preface
Gruner accepts the Moorish origin of the Disease, which he further
maintains in the Book itself, and gives a survey of the Bibliography.
In the first Part he gives the passages from the Bible, the Greek,
Roman, Arabic and Arabist Works, so far as they had been discovered at
that time. The second Part contains the Works wanting or imperfectly
given in Luisinus’ Collection, and passages from the following Authors:
“_Joan Nauclerus_, _Steph. Infessura_, _Petr. Delphinius_, _Joan.
Burchardus_, _Philipp. Beroaldus_, _Alex. Benedictus_, _Conrad.
Schelling_, _Jac. Wimphelingius_, _Chronicon Monasterii Mellicensis_,
_Joan. Salicetus_, _Marcellus Cumanus_, _Chronica von Cöln_, _Joan.
Trithemius_, _Universitas Manuasca_. _Sebast. Brant_, _Joh. Grünbeck_,
_Decretum Senatus Parisiensis_, _Proclamatio Anglica_, _Joan. Sciphover
de Meppis_, _Bartholom. Steber_, _Simon Pistoris_, _Anton. Benivenius_,
_Petr. Pinctor_, _Joan. Bapt. Fulgosus_, _Christoph. Columbus_,
_Petr. Martyr_, _Franciscus Roman. Pane_, _Elias Capreolus_, _M.
Anton. Coccius Sabellicus_, _Albericus Vesputius_, _Wendelinus Hock
de Brackenau_, _Petr. Crinitus Linturius_, _Clementius Clementinus_,
_Joan. Vochs_, _Angel. Bologninus_, _Francisc. Guiccardinus_,
_Berlerus_, _Leo Africanus_, _Petr. Bembus_, _Paul. Jovius_, _Joan. de
Vigo_, _Symphor. Champegius_, _Francisc. Lopez de Gomara_, _Ulric. ab
Hutten_, _Desider. Erasmus_, _Missa de ben. Job._, _Joannes le Maire_,
_Gonsalvus Ferdinandus de Oviedo_, _Joan. de Bourdigne_, _Joan. Ludov.
Vives_, _Aureolus Theophr. Paracelsus_, _Magnus Hundt_, _Leonh. Fuchs_,
_Sebast. Frank_, _Sebast. Montuus_, _Joan. Bapt. Theodosius_, _Hieron.
Benzonus_, _Petr. de Cieça de Leon_, _Joan. Fernelius_, _Michael Angel.
Blondus_, _Augustin. de Zaratte_, _Joan. Stumpf_, _Rodericus Diacius
Insulanus_, _Hieron. Montuus_.”

10) _De morbo gallico scriptores medici et historici_ partim inediti
partim rari et notationibus aucti. Accedunt morbi gallici _origines
maranicae_. Collegit, edidit. glossario et indice auxit _D. Christ.
Gothofr. Gruner_. Jenae sumptibus bibliopolii academici 1793. XVIII.
XXXVI. 624. S. 8.

(“_Medical and Historical Writers on Syphilis_” some not before
published, others rare, with Notes. To which are added Moorish
_Sources_ of Syphilis. Collected and edited, with the addition of a
Glossary and Index, by _D. Christ Gothofr. Gruner_. Jena,5824
 at the cost
of the University Press, 1793. pp. XVIII, XXXVI, 624. 8vo.).

Forms the second Supplement to the Collection of Luisinus, and
contains Works and passages from the following Authors, etc.:
“Ancient Laws of Nüremberg,” “_Matthaeus Landauer_, _Julianus
Tanus_ (de saphati), _Antonius Codrus_, _Anonymi prognosticatio_,
_Jacob. Unrestus_, _Bilibaldus Birkheimer_, _Augustinus Niphus_,
_Hieron. Emser_, _Philipp. Beroaldus_, _Leonard. Giachinus_, _Janus
Cornarius_, _Thomas Rangonus_, _Joan. Anton. Rovellus_ (de patursa),
_Remaclus Fuchs_, _Aloysius Mundella_, _Anton. Fumanellus_, _Hier.
Cardanus_, _Hier. Bonacossus_, _Bernard. Corius_, _Joan. Langius_,
_Joach. Curaeus_, _Joan. Hessus_, _Thom. Erastus_, _Achill. Pirmin.
Gasserus_, _Joan. Crato_, _Thom. Jordanus_ (luis novae Moravia exortae
descriptio,—Description of new Disease and its Moorish Origin).“ Comp.
N. allg. deutsch. Bibl. Vol. IX. p. 183.”

11) _D. Christ. Goth. Gruner_ Spicilegium scriptorum de morbo gallico.
Spic. I-XV. Jenae 1799-1802. 4.

(_D. Christ. Goth. Gruner_, “Selection of Writers on Syphilis”,
Selections, I-XV. Jena 1799-1802. 4to.).

This third Supplement to Luisinus was never regularly published; the
separate Selections were issued as “Programs” in connection with
the Public Announcements of Doctorial Graduations in the Faculty of
Medicine at Jena. Selections I-VI. contain Investigations as to the
History and Nature of the Disease; VII-XI. Passages from the Poems
and Letters of _Conrad Celte_, from a Letter of _Albert Durr_, from
Symphorian. (_Champerius_, Vocabulorum Medicorum Epitoma); XII,
Passages from the Poems of _Henric. Bebelius_, _Hel. Eoban. Hessus_
and a quotation from a Work of _Petr. Parvus_; XIII, XIV. Passage from
_Erasmus_, _Jac. von Bethencourt_, _Jo. Lud. Vives_, _Enric. Cordus_,
_Georg_, _Bersmannus_, _Engelbert_, _Werlichius_, and the Latin
translation of a Fragment from a Book written in the Coptic language
which the Society of Missions had sent to Cardinal Borgia; _Domeier_
communicated it to _Baldinger_ and the latter handed it on to _Gruner_
to make use of in his Collection.

In Selection XV. _Gruner_ makes some objections against the view
expressed by _Hensler_ in his “Program,” “De herpete seu formica
Veterum”. This Collection belongs in part to the Works mentioned in the
next section (“Historians”), but appears to be little known generally,
for it has escaped even _Choulant_ in his usually complete Survey of
the “Scripta Historica de Morbo Gallico”,—Historical Works on Syphilis,
in the Edition of the Poem of Fracastor, pp. 5-9. _Hacker_, p. 20.
mentions it indeed, but appears not even to have seen it, as he gives
nothing more precise as to its contents.


                             BIBLIOGRAPHY.

                              HISTORIANS.

1) _Patin_, Carol. Eques. D. Marci Paris. primar. Prof. Luem veneream
non esse morbum novum; Oratio habita in Archilyceo Patavino die V.
Nvbr. 1687. Patavii 1687. 4.

(_Patin, Carolus._ of Paris, Chevalier of St. Mark, First Prof. of
Surgery at Padua, “The Venereal Disease not a new Complaint: Speech
delivered in the High Schools of Padua on Nov. 5th 1687.” Padua 1687.
4to.)

_Astruc_, II. p. 991., knew this Speech only from a citation of _Zach.
Platner_, who equally had not seen it, and supposed it had probably
never appeared, since _Nic. Comnenus Papadopoli_ in his “historia
gymnasii Patavini” (History of the High School of Padua) Vol. I. sect.
2. ch. 25. No. 159., does not mention it at all, though he cites freely
from _Patin’s_ Speeches and his separate Works. _Girtanner_, II. p.
279., however cites the complete Title as above; and must consequently
have seen the book, though he remarks nothing further about its
contents than, “He recapitulates the old well-known Reasons for the
Antiquity of the Venereal Disease”. For the rest, _Patin_ seems to
have taken the main part from the _Lettres Choisies_, Vol. III, Letter
370, p. 95, of his father _Guy Patin_, where the latter defends the
antiquity of Venereal Disease.

2) Quaestio medica quodlibetarius disputationibus mane discutienda die
Jovis 9 Dcbris 1717. _M. Johanne Baptista Fausto Alliot de Mussay_,
Doctore medico praeside. _An Morbus antiquus Syphilis?_ Proponebat
_Johannes Franciscus Leaulté_, Parisinus, Anno R. S. H. 1717. Typis
Johann. Quillau, facultatis medicinae Typographi. 8 Blatt. 4.

(“Medical Question to be discussed in open disputation for and against
in the morning, Thursday, 9th of December 1717. _M. Joannes Baptista
Faustus Alliot de Mussay_, Doctor of Medicine, presiding:—_Is Syphilis
an Ancient Disease?_ Raised by _Johannes Franciscus Leaulté_ of Paris.
1717. Printed by Johann. Quillau, Printer to the Faculty of Medicine. 8
leaves. 4to.)

According to _Astruc_, II. p. 1054., this Dissertation consists of 8
Corollaries, of which only the fifth seeks to establish the antiquity
of Venereal Disease, arguing from: _Horace_, Odes bk. I. 37. Sat. bk.
I. 5. 62 (morbus campanus,—the Campanian disease); _Juvenal_, Sat II.;
_Martial_, Epigr. bk. I. 66.; _Tacitus_, Annals bk. IV.; _Suetonius_,
Vita Octav. Augusti ch. 80.; _Lucian_, Pseudologista; _Valerius
Maximus_, Memorab. bk. III. ch. 5.; _Lucius Apuleius_, Metamorphos.
bk. X. The refutation given by _Astruc_ repeats almost word for word
_Girtanner_ vol. II. p. 357-363., though he gives it, as usual, as his
own Production.

3) _Becket_, William. An attempt to prove the Antiquity of the Venereal
Disease long before the discovery of the West-Indies. In Philosophical
Transactions. Vol. XXX. 1718. No. 357. p. 839.—A letter to Dr. _W.
Wagstaffe_ concerning the antiquity of the Venereal Disease. Ibid. Vol.
XXXI. 1720. No. 365. p. 47.—A letter to _Dr. Halley_, in answer to some
objections made to the history of the Venereal disease. No. 366. p. 108.

In England _Nic. Robinson_, “_A New Treatise of the Venereal Disease_”,
in three parts, London 1736. 8 vols., Pt. I. ch. 1., seeks to further
confirm the Reasons laid down by _Becket_ for the antiquity of the
Disease. According to _Astruc_, vol. II. p. 1058, _Sir Hans Sloane_,
“_Voyage to the Islands of Madeira, Barbadoes, Nevis, St. Christopher
and Jamaica_, with the Natural History,” London 1707. fol., Vol. I. in
the Introduction, pp. 2, 3., would seem to have already indicated the
most important passages cited by _Becket_.

4) _Sanchez_, (Antonio Nunhez Ribeiro) Dissertation sur l’origine de la
maladie vénérienne, pour prouver: que le mal n’est pas venu d’Amérique,
mais qu’il a commencé en Europe, par une Epidémie. à Paris chez
_Durand_ et _Pissot_. MDCCLII. 110 S. 8. Reprinted 1765. 12.

(_Sanchez, Antonio Nunhez Ribeiro._ “Dissertation on the Origin of the
Venereal Disease, to prove: that the Malady did not come from America,
but that it began in Europe by an Epidemic.” Paris, published by
Durand and Pissot. 1752. pp. 110. 8vo. Reprinted 1765. 12mo.)

The first issue of this Work published without the name of the Author,
must have been ready, as early as the year 1750, for not only is the
“Privilegium” (licence to print) subscribed in that year (August and
October), but also Sanchez says himself in the Preface to the second
Part that this First Part had appeared in Paris in 1750, published
by Durand. It runs thus: “M. _Castro_, Médecin de Londres, ayant
traduit en Anglais une dissertation avec ce titre: Sur l’origine de
la Maladie Vénérienne; imprimée à Paris, chez Durand 1750, envoya un
Exemplaire de la traduction à M. le Baron de Van-Swieten”,—M. _Castro_,
Physician in London, having translated into English a Dissertation
entitled: _On the Origin of the Venereal Disease_; printed at Paris
1750, and published by Durand, sent a Copy of the Translation to the
Baron Van-Swieten). The Title of this English Translation is: “_A
Dissertation on the Origin of Venereal Disease; proving that it was not
brought from America, but began in Europe by an Epidemical Distemper.
Translated from the original MS. by an Eminent Physician_”. London
1751. 8vo. According to this the Translation must have appeared very
nearly at the same time as the original.—A German Translation came out
under the Title: “_Treatise on the Origin of the Venereal Disease_,
in which is proved: that this Evil did not come from America, but
took its beginning in Europe by an Epidemic,” translated from the
French; edited by _Georg Heinrich Weber_. Bremen 1775. pp. 94. 8vo.—An
Abstract from the Original may be found in: “_Commentaria de rebus
in scientia naturali et medicina gestis_”—(Records of Achievements
in Natural Science and Medicine): Supplement. Leipzig 1772. pp.
156-159.—Allgem. deutsche Bibliothek, Vol. 28. p. 461.—_Tode_, Med.
Chir. Bibliothek. Vol. IV. Pt. I. p. 49.—_Haller’s_ Tagebuch. Vol.
III. p. 331.—The Work itself is divided into 7 Sections.—The _First
Section_ contains: Arguments proving that in most parts of Europe the
Venereal Disease became known and disseminated since 1493, and last of
all in the month of June 1495. pp. 1-10.—_Second Section_: When did
Christopher Columbus discover the Island of Hispaniola and when did he
return to Spain from his first and second voyages? pp. 11-20.—_Third
Section_: Did the Venereal Disease come from America at the time of
Columbus’ return from his second voyage? pp. 21-39.—_Fourth Section_:
Did the Troops of Fernandez Cordova communicate the Disease to the
French? pp. 40-47.—_Fifth Section_: Answer to some objections that
may be raised to prove that Venereal Disease took its origin from
America, pp. 47-79.—_Sixth Section_: Reasons which caused Writers on
Venereal Disease since the year 1517 to believe this Malady came from
America, pp. 79-87.—_Seventh Section_: Venereal Disease is an Epidemic
Complaint, which began in Italy and almost at the same time spread
over France and the rest of Europe, pp. 88-108.—_Recapitulation_: The
Disease existed in Italy and France before Columbus returned from
his second Voyage; the Troops of Cordova could not have communicated
it to the French, for the two never came into contact; the Disease
displayed all the appearance of an Epidemic; the discovery of the drug
“Guajac” gave occasion to the assumption of the American origin of
the Disease.—_Van Swieten_, who had received the English Translation
sent to him by Castro, only ought to weaken the proofs brought forward
in this book in his “Commentar. in Boerhavi Aphorismos” (Commentary
on Boerhaave’s Aphorisms), Leyden 1772., Vol. V. pp. 373 sqq., which
occasioned _Sanchez_ to issue the following Work, also published
anonymously.

5) Examen historique sur l’apparition de la maladie vénérienne en
Europe, et sur la nature de cette epidémie. A Lisbonne MDCCLXXIV. pp.
VIII. and 83. 8vo.

(“Historical Inquiry concerning the First Appearance of the Venereal
Disease in Europe, and the Nature of that Epidemic.” Lisbon 1774. pp.
VIII, and 83. 8vo.).

_H. Dav. Gaubius_ had this Work again re-printed together with the
preceding (Leyden 1777. 8vo.) and a Preface. An English Translation
was edited by _Jos. Skinner_. London 1792. 8vo.—The Work falls into
8 Divisions. Div. 1. Extracts from Pet. Pintor, Sebast. Aquitanus,
Pet. Delphinus, Petr. Martyr, pp. 1-24.—Div. 2. Symptoms of the so
called Venereal Disease, as they were observed in Italy in the month
of March 1793 and 1794. pp. 24-31.—Div. 3. In the history of Medicine
there is no Description of an epidemic Disease resembling in all its
consequences that which invaded Italy, Spain and France in the years
1493 and 1494. pp. 31-42.—Div. 4. The Venereal attacks, which have
been observed since the time of Hippocrates, were not the consequence
of the inflammatory or chronic Venereal Disease, such as it has
been observed since the years 1493 and 1494. pp. 42-45.—Div. 5. On
certain passages in _Astruc’s_ book “On the Venereal Disease”. pp.
45-54.—Div. 6. Conclusions from the passages of Pet. Pintor and Pet.
Delphinus concerning the Venereal Epidemic in Italy, France and Spain
in the years 1493, 1494. pp. 54-61.—Div. 7. Did the early Voyages who
discovered the Harbours and Peoples of North and South America observe
the Venereal Disease, and was their Manhood infected with it? pp.
62-72.—Div. 8. On the Spread of infectious Diseases by sea, and the
Quarantine observed during the Plague on the different coasts of the
Mediterranean Sea. pp. 73-81.—_Recapitulation_: The Venereal Disease
prevailed as a “Febris Pestilentialis” (pestilential fever) in March
1493, and after the arrival of Charles VIII in Italy (1494) took the
name of “Morbus Gallicus” (French Complaint); the Venereal affections
observed in Antiquity are distinct from the Venereal Disease as known
since 1494; the Spaniards imported it into the Antilles, and the French
were already infected when they came into Italy, where the Disease had
been prevalent before their arrival. The early Voyages mention not a
word of having found the Disease among the Savages. America, Africa
and the East Indies have never communicated their epidemic and endemic
Diseases to Europe; therefore the Venereal Disease cannot have been
brought by the Spaniards from America to Europe.—Both Works of Sanchez
are now rare. Comp. _Girtanner_, vol. III. pp. 460-471.—_Richter_,
Chirurg. Bibliothek. vol. III. p. 381.

6) _Berdoe_, Mermaduke: An essay on the Pudendagra. Bath 1771. 8vo.

_Girtanner_, vol. III. p. 577., says: the Author has collected
everything that is found in the older Writers on the subject of the
“Pudendagra”, and shows wherein it is distinct from the Venereal
Disease.

7) _Ph. Gabr. Hensler_, Geschichte der Lustseuche, die zu Ende des XV.
Jahrhunderts ausbrach. _Erster_ Band. Altona 1783. 335. 134 S. 8. Neuer
Abdruck oder Titel? 1794.

(_Ph. Gabr. Hensler_, “History of the Venereal Disease, which broke out
at the End of the XVth. Century.” First Volume. Altona 1783. pp. 335
and 134. 8vo. New Impression or new Title? 1794.)

The Work is divided into two Books. _First Book_: Notices of
contemporary Works on Venereal Disease, pp. 1-140. Section I., Works
before Leonicenus, pp. 5-26. Sect. II., Works from Leonicenus to
Almenar, pp. 27-68. Sec. III., Works of contemporary Writers directed
towards diminishing the Disease, pp. 69-140.—_Second Book_: Description
of the Disease. Sec. I., Local Affections. 1. Infection of the private
parts, pp. 144-150. 2. Scalding and Urine-Scalding before and at the
time of the Attack, pp. 151-168. 3. Discharge from the Penis in Men,
pp. 169-203. 4. Discharge in Women, pp. 204-217. 5. Foul Ulcer, pp.
228-244. 6. Abscesses of the groin, pp. 245-264. 7. Local Sequelae of
foul Discharge and Ulcer, pp. 265-275. (Swellings of the Testicles,
Ulcers of the Urethra, Scalding Urine, Sharp Urine, Ulcers and Fistulae
of the Perinaeum, Phimosis and Paraphimosis, Wasting of the Genitals).
8. Other Local Affections of the secret parts, pp. 277-302. (Eruptions,
Morbid Growths, Ulcers of the Anus, Piles). 9. Traces of the earlier
Taint in non-medical Writers, pp. 307-328.—Forming an Appendix, pp.
1-134, are excerpts from _Schellig_, _Wimpheling_, _Cumanus_, _Brant_,
_Grunpeck_, _Widmann_, _Steber_, _Pinctor_, _Grünbeck_, _Benedictus_,
different Historians of the XVth. and XVIth. Centuries, _St. Job_,
and _Christ. Columbus’_ “Epistola de insulis nuper in mari Indico
repertis,” (Letter on the Islands lately discovered in the Indian Sea).

8) _Ph. Gabr. Hensler_, über den westindischen Ursprung der Lustseuche.
Hamburg 1789. 92. 15 S. 8.

(_Ph. Gabr. Hensler_, “On the West-Indian Origin of the Venereal
Disease.” Hamburg 1789. pp. 92 and 15. 8vo.)

Also under the Title: “History of the Venereal Disease etc.” Second
Volume, Second Part. The First Part of this Vol., which was to
contain the Description of the Disease, never appeared. The Work is
particularly directed against _Girtanner_; and investigates. (2)
The exact Time of the appearance of the Disease in Italy. (3) The
eye-witnesses of the importation of Venereal Disease from Hispaniola
to Spain. (4) Eye-witnesses of the existence of Venereal Disease in
Hispaniola as its home. (5) Testimonies to the fact that Venereal
Disease was once endemic on the main-land of America. (6) Later
witnesses of the importation into Spain of the Venereal Disease
previously endemic in Hispaniola. The proofs are from (pp. 1-15):
_Oviedo_, _Welsch_, _Lopez de Gomara_, _Roman. Pane_, _Pedro de Cieça
de Leon_, _Augustin. de Zaratte_, _Hieron. Benzoni_.

9) _Phil. Gabr. Hensler_, Programma de Herpete seu Formica veterum
labis venereae non prorsus experte. Kilon. 1801. 64 S. 8.

(_Phil. Gabr. Hensler_, ““Program” (College Exercise) on the _Herpes_
(Creeping eruption) or _Formica_ of the Ancients,—a Malady not
unconnected with the Venereal Disease.” Kiel 1801. pp. 64. 8vo.)

This “Program”, which _Hensler_ wrote on his resignation as Dean and
for the Public Announcement of certain Graduations, is divided into
10 Divisions, of which Div. 1 gives a survey of the Contents, Div. 2
considers certain passages from the genuine Writings of Hippocrates
(Prorrhetic. 11, 18, 21, “de aere, aquis et locis”—“of the effects
of air, water and locality”, II. Aphorism. V. 22.) dealing with
_Herpes_, from which we gather that under the name _Herpes_ were
understood eating (phagedenic) Ulcers, that the _Herpes esthiomenes_
attacked especially the abdomen and the Genitals, that _Epinyctis_ was
pre-eminently a disease of adults, whence a suspicion arises of its
being communicated by coition. Div. 3 gives medical opinion on the
different kinds of _Herpes_ down to _Celsus_. Div. 4 gives the same on
_Epinyctis_, special importance being given to the pains at night. Div.
5 discusses the _Therioma_ of _Celsus_ (V. 28. 3.), which according
to _Pollux_, Onomast. IV. 15., specially affects the Genitals, and is
closely akin to the _Epinyctis_. Div. 6 gives the views of _Galen_ on
_Herpes_. Div. 7. The Author proceeds to the _Formica_ of the Arabians,
and shows that they have designated several distinct Skin-diseases by
this name. Div. 8 treats the views held by Arabic writers down to the
XVth. Century; whilst Div. 9 gives the shape these views took _during_
the XVth. Century. In Div. 10 _Hensler_ draws the following conclusions
from the evidence he has adduced: _Formica_ was the same thing as the
_Herpes_ of the Greeks; under both names, yet by no means exclusively,
were indicated syphilitic affections. Immorality at all periods
generated Venereal Disease, which arose at first rather sporadically,
but towards the end of the XVth. Century in consequence of its
universal diffusion became virtually epidemic. The early neglect of
Etiology, as well as the Galenian hypotheses of deteriorations of the
humours, stood in the way of the right understanding of the Disease.
Venereal Disease is not a single Malady, but a Diathesis (General
Condition of Body), which in accordance with time and circumstances
may manifest itself in different forms. “Hujusmodi vero lues mihi
illa _omnis_ esse videtur, quae _ipso coitu_, quo quidem loco luis
praecipuus focus est, facillime cum aliis _communicari_ et ad ipsam
prolem propagari possit. _Summa_ ejus _genera_ esse equidem arbitror
_Lepram_, malum, quod _Pians_ vocant, ipsamque Syphilidem.” “This
contagion seems to me to be a general one, and of this sort that it
is capable of being very readily communicated to others by the act of
coition, where indeed is the chief _nidus_ of the Disease, and of being
propagated even to posterity. Its main forms are, in _my_ opinion,
Leprosy, a Malady called _Pians_, and Syphilis itself.” (p. 54). The
_Pians_ would seem to be Pox, the seeds of which the Moors disseminated,
Syphilis a “Morbus Europae inquilinus” (a Disease native to Europe).
The three Diseases are akin, and merge into one another.

10) La America vindicada de la calumnia de haber sido madre del mal
venereo. Madrid 1785. 4.

(“America Vindicated from the Calumny of having been the Mother of the
Venereal Disease.” Madrid 1785. 4to.)

_Sprengel_ in the Annotations to _P. Ant. Perenotti di Cigliano_, “Of
the Venereal Disease”, p. 348., calls this Work, which would seem to
be in the University Library of Göttingen: “a well-written Tract,
wherein, from p. 34 onwards, it is demonstrated that Venereal Disease
did not come from Hayti.” Comp. Götting. gelehrte Anzeig. 1788. Sect
169 p. 1614.

11) _P. Ant. Perenotti di Cigliano_, Storia generale dell’ origine dell’
essenza e specifica qualita della infezione venerea. Turin 1788. 8.

(_P. Ant. Perenotti di Cigliano_, “General History of the Origin,
Essence and Specific Quality of the Venereal Contagion”. Turin 1788.
8vo.)

This Work with another of the same Author dealing with the treatment
of Venereal Disease was translated into German and furnished with
appendices by _C. Sprengel_, under the Title: _P. A. Perenotti di
Cigliano_, “Of the Venereal Disease, translated from the Italian,
with Appendices.” Leipzig 1791. pp. XVI, 384. large 8vo. The Author
maintains the antiquity of the Disease.

12) _Will. Turnbull_, An inquiry into the origin and antiquity of the
lues venerea, with observations on its introduction and progress in the
Islands of the South-Sea. London 1786. 8vo.

Of this there appeared a German translation by _Dr. Christ. Friedr.
Michaelis_. Zittau and Leipzig 1789. pp. 110. large 8vo. The Author
maintains the American origin, and especially seeks to confute _Becket_
and _Raynold Forster_.

13) _Just. Arnemann_, De morbo venereo analecta quaedam ex manuscriptis
musei Britannici Londinensis. Götting. 1789. 4.

(_Just. Arnemann_, “Certain Extracts from Manuscripts in the British
Museum in London dealing with the Venereal Disease.” Göttingen 1789.
4to.)

This Work contains according to _Girtanner_, III. p. 733., fresh proofs
for the American origin.

14) _M. Sarmiento_, Antiquitad de los bubas. Madrid 1788. 32 S. 8.

(_M. Sarmiento_, “Antiquity of Buboes.” Madrid 1788. pp. 32. 8vo.)

Comp. the English Review. 1778. p. 221.—Allgem. Literaturzeitung 1789.
vol. II. p. 647.

15) _M. S. G. Schmidt_, praeside (et auctore) _C. Sprengel_, de
ulceribus virgae tentamen historico-chirurgicum. Halae 1790. 8.

(_M. S. G. Schmidt_, (_Editor and part-Author, C. Sprengel_), “On
Ulcers of the Penis,—a Historico-Surgical Essay.” Halle 1790. 8vo.)

16) _Christ. Gothofr. Gruner_, Morbi Gallici origines Maranicae. Progr.
Jen. 1793. 4.

(_Christ. Gothofr. Gruner_, “Moorish Sources of Syphilis”. (University
“Program”) Jena 1793. 4to.)

Is re-printed in the above cited, p. 12. No. 10., Collection of
“Scriptores de Morbo Gallico” (Writers on Syphilis).

17) Sind die Maranen die wahren Stammväter der Lustseuche von 1493?
Im Journal der Erfind., Theorien und Widersprüche in der Natur- und
Arzneiwissenschaft. Stück III. Gotha 1793. S. 1-34. Stück IV. Gotha
1794. S. 119-129.

(“Are the Moors the true Parents of the Venereal Disease of 1493?” In
the Journal of Discoveries, Theories and Refutations in Natural Science
and Medicine. Part III. Gotha 1793. pp. 1-34. Part IV. Gotha 1794. pp.
119-129.)

Both these Papers would seem to have had _Prof. Fr. Aug. Hecker_,
of Erfurt, as Author; and are directed especially against the just
mentioned Work of _Gruner_, and the Moorish origin generally. _Gruner_
sought to maintain his views in the following Papers:

18) Die Maranen sind die wahren Stammväter der Lustseuche von 1493; in
s. _Almanach_ Jahrgang 1792. S. 51-92.—Geschichte der Maranen und der
Eroberung von Granada. _Ebendaselbst_ S. 158-196.—Die Maranen dürften
doch wohl die Stammväter der Lustseuche von 1493 sein. _Ebendas._ 1793.
S. 69-89. 1794. S. 229-268.

(“The Moors are the true Parents of the Venereal Disease of 1493;” in
his _Almanach_, Year 1792. pp. 51-92.—“History of the Moors and the
Conquest of Granada.” Ibid. pp. 158-199.—The Moors must be admitted the
Parents of the Venereal Disease of 1493.” Ibid. 1793. pp. 69-89. 1794.
pp. 229-268).

Comp. also some earlier Papers in Year 1784. pp. 224-237, Year 1790 pp.
139-157.

19) _Sim. N. H. Linguet_, Histoire politique et philosophique de Mal de
Naples. Paris 1796. 8.

(_Sim. N. H. Linguet_, “History, Political and Philosophical, of the
Neapolitan Disease.” Paris 1796. 8vo.).

This Work seems to be no longer on the market; at any rate we were
unable by any means to procure it

20) _C. Sprengel_, Ueber den muthmasslichen Ursprung der Lustseuche
aus dem südwestlichen Afrika. In dessen Beiträgen zur Geschichte der
Medicin. Halle 1796. Bd. I. Hft. 3. S. 61-104.

(_C. Sprengel_, “On the probable Origin of the Venereal Disease in
South-Western Africa.” In his Contributions to the History of Medicine.
Halle 1796. Vol. I. Pt. 3. pp. 61-104).

The Author maintains, following up a previous suggestion of
_Hensler’s_, that _Yaws_ and _Pians_ are the original forms of Venereal
Disease.

21) _J. F. B. Bouillon la Grange_, Observations sur l’origine de
la maladie vénérienne dans les Isles de la mer du Sud. In Recueil
périodique de la societé de Santé. T. I. 1797. 38-47.

_J. F. B. Bouillon la Grange_, “Observations on the Origin of the
Venereal Disease in the Islands of the South Sea.” In Periodical Review
of the Health Society. Vol. I. 1797. 38-47).

22) _Wilh. Ernest. Christ. Aug. Sickler_, Diss. exhibens novum ad
historiam luis venereae additamentum. Jenae 1797. (VIII. April.) 32 S.
8.

(_Wilh. Ernest. Christ. Aug. Sickler_, “Dissertation containing some
fresh Material towards a History of the Venereal Disease.” Jena 1797.
(Apr. 8.) pp. 32. 8vo.).

The Author here treats some of the passages from the Old Testament
referring to the Plague of the Jews that spread amongst them on account
of their worshipping Baal Peor, which had not before been used. The
little Work seems not to have been made use of by later Writers;
neither _Hacker_ nor _Choulant_ note it. The Author’s brother had first
called attention to the passages in _Augusti_ “Theologische Blätter”,
Gotha, No. 13.

23) _Dr. Schaufus_, Neueste Entdeckungen über das Vaterland und die
Verbreitung der Pocken und der Lustseuche. Leipzig 1805. 160 S. 8.

(_Dr. Schaufus_, “Latest Discoveries with regard to the Original Home
and Dissemination of Pox and Venereal Disease.” Leipzig 1805. pp. 160.
8vo).

Comp. _Ehrhardt_, Med. Chirurg. Zeitung. Insbruck 1806. Vol. I. p. 375.
_Pierer_, Allgem. Med. Annalen. 1866. p. 364.

The Author derives Venereal Disease from the East Indies and makes the
Gypsies bring it to Europe. From p. 65 to the conclusion of the Work he
treats fully of the Venereal Disease in the islands of the South Sea,
and at the same time gives an exhaustive list of the authorities on
this subject.

24) _Carol. Sam. Törnberg_, Spic. inaug. med. sistens sententiarum de
vera morbi gallici origine synopsin historicam. Jenae XXIX. August.
1807. 26 S. 8.

(_Carol. Sam. Törnberg_, “Selection of Medical “Programs”,—giving a
Historical Synopsis of Views as to the True Origin of Syphilis.” Jena
29 Aug. 1807. pp. 26. 8vo.).

The Author decides for the American origin, but without adducing
anything fresh.

25) _J. B. C. Rousseau_, New observations on Syphilis, tending to
settle the disputes about its importation, by proving that it is a
disease of the human race, that has and will always exist among the
several Nations of the Globe. In _Coxe_, Philadelph. med. Museum. 1808.
Vol. IV. No. 1. pp. 1-11.

26) _H. A. Robertson_, Historical Inquiry into the Origin of the
Venereal Disease. Pts. I. II. in the London Medical Repository 1814.
Vol. II. pp. 112-119, 185-192.

The Author maintains the antiquity of Venereal Disease, but denies
that the Malady which prevailed amongst the French at the siege of
Naples was true Syphilis; he supposes it rather to have been a fever
resembling the Plague accompanied by pustulous eruptions. A later
Paper in the same Periodical, 1818. vol. IX. pp. 465-495., contains
the result of his observations in Spain during the War, so far as they
confirm his earlier views.

27) _Rob. Hamilton_, On the early History and Symptoms of Lues. In the
Edinburgh medical and surgical Journal 1818. Vol. XIV. pp. 485-498.

The Author seeks to prove that the Disease at the end of the XVth.
Century was not “Lues Venerea”, but “Sibbens”. Comp. _Ehrhardt_, Med.
Chirurg. Zeitung. 1819. Vol. I. p. 198.

28) _Gust. Adolph Werner_, de origine ac progressu luis venereae
animadversiones quaedam. Diss. inaug. med. Lips. 1819. 29. S. 4.

(_Gust. Adolph Werner_, “Some Thoughts on the Origin and Progress of
the Venereal Disease,”—a Medical Graduation Exercise. Leipzig 1819. pp.
29. 4to.).

Maintains the antiquity of the Disease, citing again the passages
already known. The Ancients, he says, confounded Syphilis with Leprosy;
the Immorality prevailing at the end of the XVth. Century and the
arrival of the Moors in Italy were the original cause and occasion
of the general extension of the Disease. According to _Choulant_ in
_Pierer_, Allgem. Med. Annalen, Year 1825. p. 237., _Prof. Heinrich
Robbi_ was the Author of this Dissertation.

29) _J. L. W. Wendt_, Bydrag til historien af den veneriske sygdoms
begyndelse og fremgang i Danemark. Kjöbnhavn 1820. 8. Deutsch in
Hufelands Journ. 1822. Bd. 55. S. 1-51.

(_J. L. W. Wendt_, “Contribution to the History of the Origin and
Progress of the Venereal Disease in Denmark.” Copenhagen 1820. 8vo. In
German in Hufeland’s Journ. vol. 55. pp. 1-51).

Shows that Venereal Disease became known in Denmark after 1495; that
its treatment was given over especially to the Surgeons and quacks;
also an account of the medical Police-regulations against the Disease.

30) _Nicol. Barbantini_, Notizie istoriche concernanti il contagio
venereo, le quali precedono la sua opera sopra questo contagio. Lucca
1820. 8.

(_Nicol. Barbantini_, “Historical Notices concerning the Venereal
Contagion,—introductory to his Work on this Disease.” Lucca 1820. 8vo.).

Appears to be not yet at all well known in Germany. Neither through the
booksellers nor in any other way could we obtain the Work. It would
seem to be out of print.

31) _Domenico Thiene_, Lettere sulla storia de’ mali venerei. Venezia
1823. 303. S. gr. 8.

(_Domenico Thiene_, “Letters on the History of Venereal Maladies.”
Venice 1823. pp. 303. large 8vo.).

Contains 9 letters as follows: I. On the common opinion of the American
origin of the Venereal Disease,—to Signor _C. Sprengel_, pp. 7-27,
in which the American Source and _Girtanner’s_ Arguments for it are
confuted. He cites here in the Notes, p. 238, an Italian poem of
George Summaripa, a Patrician of Verona (1496), not previously known,
in which the Disease is represented as having come from Gaul; which a
letter of _Nicolaus Scillatius_ re-printed on p. 236 confirms. This
had already been given in _Brera_, Giornale di Medicina, August 1817,
vol. XII. p. 123, and borrowed and made use of by _Huber_, p. 37.,
and _Sprengel_, Geschichte der Medicin, 3rd ed., vol. II. p. 701., in
correction of _Choulant’s_ statement, as cited below p. 238.—II. Of
Discharge from the Penis (Scolagione) or Gonorrhœa of the Ancients,—to
Signor _Christ. Goff. Gruner_[408], shows that the Gonorrhœa of the
Ancients was no mere Spermatorrhœa, but actual Gonorrhœa (Clap) pp.
31-48.—III. Of Discharge from the Penis (Scolagione) or Gonorrhœa of
the Middle Ages,—to Signor _F. Swediaur_, pp. 51-73. Shows that actual
Gonorrhœa existed in the Middle Ages.—IV. Of Ulcers, Buboes and other
such Affections of the Secret Parts in Antiquity,—to Signor _Nic.
Barbantini_, pp. 77-92.—V. Of the true Venereal Disease or Syphilis,—to
Signor _Anton Scarpa_, pp. 95-119. Survey of the Venereal Disease to
the end of the XVth Century and of its changes, with special reference
to the sympathy of the Genital organs and those of the Throat.—VI. On
certain modern Forms of Disease referable to the Venereal Taint,—to
Signor _Cullerier_, pp. 123-144. Considers the Brünn Sickness in the
year 1577, the “Sibbens, Amboina pox, Canadian Disease,” “Scherlievo”
and “Falcadina”.—VII. Of certain ancient Forms of Disease referable to
the Venereal Taint,—to Signor _Dr. Cambieri_, pp. 148-178. In this are
more exactly described the “Yaws”, “Pians”, “Judham”, Mentagra, Malum
mortuum and Morphea, and the near relationship of leprosy with Venereal
Disease hinted at.—VIII. Of the Origin of the Venereal Disease,—to
Signor _Filip. Gabr. Hensler_, pp. 182-208. The Author considers the
Disease endemic in Africa, whence it came into Italy with the Moors,
and to America with the Negro slaves.—IX. On the public Hygiene of
Venereal Maladies,—to _Franc. Aglietti_, pp. 212-235. Chronological
Survey of Legislation as to Brothels. The book ends, pp. 230-303, with
Annotations in which he gives specially the documentary proofs on which
his conclusions rest, and that too arranged according to the numbers
given in the text.

An Abstract of this Work, rare apparently in Germany, is given by
_Choulant_ in _Pierer’s_ Allgem. Med. Annalen, Year 1825. pp. 236-244.

32) _V. A. Huber_, Bemerkungen über die Geschichte und Behandlung der
venerischen Krankheiten. Stuttgart und Tübingen. 1825. 124 S. 8.

(_V. A. Huber_, “Remarks on the History and Treatment of Venereal
Diseases.” Stuttgart and Tübingen 1825. pp. 124. 8vo.).

The Author specially combats the American origin, and to this end
examines particularly the Spanish Chroniclers. Without exactly wishing
to arrive at a definite conclusion for or against, he contents himself
with exposing the inconsistencies in the reasoning of the supporters of
either view.—Commendatory notices of the Book are found in: Heidelberg
Jahrb. 1825. Pt. XII. pp. 1194-1199.—_Hecker’s_ Lit. Annalen 1826. Vol.
IV. pp. 77-97.—_Hufeland’s_ Bibliothek d. prakt. Heilde. 1826. Vol. LV.
pp. 262-268.

33) _Alex. Dubled_, Coup d’œil historique sur la maladie vénérienne.
Paris 1825.?

(_Alex. Dubled_, “Historical Survey of the Venereal Disease.” Paris
1825.?

_Hacker_, p. 164, says: “would seem to contain much of interest.” We
have not been able to obtain a sight of this Work; however it appears
to quite agree with what _Dubled_ has repeated in a later work,
“Statement of the new Doctrine as to Venereal Disease,” transl. from
the French. Leipzig 1830. pp. VI-VIII and pp. 1-10. He says, p. V of
the Preface,—“Finally, inasmuch as the systematic historical study of
the Venereal Disease seems also to confirm the truth of my view, I
have prefixed to this Work the Historical Survey, which at the time
of its composition I read before the Surgical Section of the Royal
Academy of Medicine. A Report that should have been rendered by it
never appeared.” Then follows a Preface belonging to the Historical
Survey, subscribed—Paris, October 1823, to which year accordingly must
be assigned the above-mentioned Work. But the whole publication, as may
be supposed from the scanty number of pages, is more than superficial.

34) _S. J. Beer_, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Syphilis. In _Okens_
Isis. Jahrg. 1828. Bd. II. S. 728-731.

(_S. J. Beer_, “Contributions to the History of Syphilis.” In _Oken’s_
Isis. Year 1828. Vol. II. pp. 728-731).

The Author, a Jewish Physician, seeks to prove that the Moors did not
suffer from Venereal Disease, because they as Martyrs of their Faith,
could not therefore be dissolute, immoral men, because (Deuteronomy,
Ch. 33. v. 17.) excesses in love, especially with Gentiles (Nehemiah
Ch. X. vv. 29, 30) are strictly forbidden, finally because _Don Isac
Abarbanel_, born 1437, in his Exposition of the Prophets (printed
1650), on Zachariah Ch. XIV. v. 12. says expressly, that the Disease
“Zarfosim” occurs only amongst the “Goiem” (Gentiles) and not amongst
the Jews. The Author promises eventually to issue a Treatise on
Syphilis which he has in hand on a larger scale; but to our knowledge
it has not appeared.

35) _H. Spitta_, Beitrag zur Geschichte der Verbreitung der Lustseuche
in Europa. In _Heckers_ lit. Annalen 1826. Bd. IV. S. 371-374.

(_H. Spitta_, “Contribution to the History of the Spread of the
Venereal Disease in Europe.” In _Hecker’s_ Lit. Annalen 1826. Vol. IV.
pp. 371-374).

The contribution is a passage from the following book: “Libro que
trata de las cosas, que traen de las Indias Occidentales, que sirven
al uso de medicina, y de la orden qui se ha de tener en tomar la Rayz
de Mechoacan etc. Hecho y copilado por el Doctor _Monardes_, medico
de Sevilla. 1565.” (Book treating of Substances imported from the
East Indies and used in Medicine, and of the Course to be observed in
taking the Mechoacan Root, etc. Written and compiled by _Dr. Monardes_,
Physician of Seville. 1565). This work treats of the drug “Guajac”,
and lays down the American origin of Venereal Disease as confidently
as if the Author had been on the spot when it happened! The value of
the whole argument may be judged from this passage, “Our Creator willed
that from that same country whence Venereal Disease (el mal de las
buvas,—the malady of buboes) came, should come also the Means of its
cure.”

36) _Pet. de Jurgenew_, Luis venereae apud veteres vestigia. Diss.
inaug. Dorpati Livon. 1826. 54 S. 8.

(_Pet. de Jurgenew_, “Traces of the Venereal Disease amongst the
Ancients.” Medical Graduation Exercise, Dorpat (in Livonia) 1826. pp.
54. 8vo.).

An industrious, partly critical, Collection of the passages connected
with this subject down to Peter Martyr in chronological order, of
which however perhaps only those given on given p. 11, though these
are incomplete, from the “Lusus in Priapum” or “Priapeia” had not
previously been noted. Comp. Recension by _Struver_ in _Rust’s_ and
_Casper’s_ Krit. Repertor. Vol. XX. p. 141.

38) _Friedr. Alex. Simon_, Versuch einer kritischen Geschichte
der verschiedenartigen, besonders unreinen Behaftungen der
Geschlechtstheile und ihrer Umgegend, oder der örtlichen Lustübel, seit
der ältesten bis auf die neueste Zeit, und ihres Verhältnisses zu der
Ende des XV. Jahrhunderts erschienenen Lustseuche; nebst praktischen
Bemerkungen über die positive Entbehrlichkeit des Quecksilbers bei
der Mehrzahl jener Behaftungen, oder der sogenannten primairen
syphilitischen Zufälle. Ein Beitrag zur Pathologie und Therapie der
primairen Syphilis, für Aerzte und Wundärzte. I. Thl. Hamburg. 1830.
XVIII. 253 S. II. Thl. 1831. XVI. 543 S. gr. 8.

(_Friedr. Alex. Simon_, “Essay towards a Critical History of the
different sorts of Infections, particularly of foul Infections, of
the Sexual parts and their Neighbourhood, in other words of Local
Venereal Maladies, from the earliest times to the most recent, and
of their Relation to the Venereal Disease that made its appearance
at the end of the XVth Century; together with Practical Remarks as
to the positive Needlessness of Mercury in the case of the majority
of those Infections, or the so-called primary Syphilitic Symptoms. A
Contribution to the Pathology and Therapeutics of Primary Syphilis,
for Physicians and Surgeons.” I Part. Hamburg 1830. pp. XVIII, 253. II
Part. 1831. pp. XVI, 543. large 8vo.).

The first Part of this Work, one displaying great care and diligence,
contains the History of Gonorrhœa, Swellings of the Testicles, Ulcers
and warty Growths in the Urethra, Scalding Urine, Strictures, Ulcers
and Fistulae in the Perinœum, so far as these subordinate affections
were observed _before_ the appearance of the Venereal Disease; the
second Part the History of the Ulcers or Shankers in the Sexual
organs, particularly after coition where infection is suspected, down
to the most recent time. The promised Critical History of the Venereal
Disease with reference to its appropriate Treatment has unfortunately
never yet appeared, though only then can we estimate the justice of
many of the Author’s views and statements touching the local Symptoms.
Would that an end might be put to the delay!

38) _Math. Jaudt_, de lue veterum et recentium. Diss. inaug. med.
Monachii 1834. 23 S. 8.

(_Math. Jaudt_, “On Syphilis amongst Ancients and Moderns.” Medical
Graduation Exercise. Munich 1834. pp. 23. 8vo.).

In this somewhat cursory Treatise the Author assumes with the English
writers a “Lues antiqua” (ancient Contagion), which manifested itself
only through affections of the Genitals of a similar nature, and a
“Lues universalis” (general Contagion) since 1494-1496, both of which
now occur; hence he would deduce the distinction in the treatment with
Mercury,—Mercury not being necessary for the former, but required for
the latter.

39) _Max Ludov. Schrank_, de luis venereae antiquitate et origine.
Dissert inaug. Ratisbonae (Monachii) 1834. 24 S. 8.

(_Max Ludov. Schrank_, “On the Antiquity and Origin of the Venereal
Disease.” Graduation Exercise. (Ratisbon Bavaria) 1834. pp. 24. 8vo.).

The Author seeks to prove by citation of the familiar passages of
the ancient writers: (1) “luem veneream antiquissimis temporibus
jamjam cognitam itidemque contagiosam, sub finem saeculi XV. majorem
malignitatis gradum, conditionibus secundis concurrentibus, ostendisse,
ideoque, (2) Americam ejusdem patriam non esse habendam” (that the
Venereal Disease was already known in the most ancient times, that
towards the end of the XVth. Century, under the concurrence of
favouring conditions, it exhibited a greater degree of malignancy;
consequently that America is not to be considered its place of origin.
He seems especially to have made use of _Huber’s_ Work.

40) _Prof. Naumann_, zur Pathogenie und Geschichte des Trippers, in
_Schmidt’s_ Jahrb. der in- und ausländ. gesammt. Medicin Jahrg. 1837.
Bd. XIII. S. 94-105.

(_Prof. Naumann_, “Pathology and History of Gonorrhoea”, in _Schmidt’s_
Jahrb. der in- und ausländ. gesammt. Medicin, Year 1837. Vol. XIII. pp.
94-105).

Contains valuable notices on the history of Venereal disease, specially
dealing with Gonorrhoea in Antiquity; cites several very important
passages from _Galen_ previously overlooked, and by their help
maintains the antiquity of the Disease. The matters dealt with in this
Treatise had already been gone into by the same Author in the Seventh
Volume of his Handbook to Medical Clinics.

41) _August Zennaro_, Diss. inaug. de syphilidis antiquitate et an sit
semper contagio tribuenda, Patav. 1837. 32 S. gr. 8.

(_August Zennaro_, “Graduation Exercise, on the Antiquity of Syphilis;
should it be considered always Contagious?” Padua 1837. pp. 41. large
8vo.).

42) _Jos. Ferd. Masarei_, Diss. sist. argumentum, morbos venereos esse
morbos antiquos. Viennae 1837. 8.

(_Jos. Ferd. Masarei_, “Exercise maintaining the thesis that: the
Venereal diseases are ancient Diseases.” Vienna 1837. 8vo.).

Besides the above Works, specially devoted to the History of Venereal
Disease and dealing exclusively with this, the subject is discussed
also by most of the larger Hand-books and Manuals on this Malady, e.g,
_Swediaur_, _Bertrandi_, _Foot_, _Barbantini_, _Jourdan_. However we
must particularize:

_Joan. Astruc_, de morbis venereis libri sex. In quibus disseritur tum
de origine, propagatione et contagione horumce affectuum in genere:
tum de singulorum natura, aetiologia et therapeia, cum brevi analysi
et epicrisi operum plerorumque quae de eodem argumento scripta sunt.
Paris 1736. XVIII. 20. 628. 50 S. 4. Paris (Nachdruck zu Basel). 1738.
4.—Translated by _Will. Borrowby_. Lond. 1737. 8.—_Editio secunda_: de
morbis venereis libri IX. Paris 1740. 4. Vol. I. XXXVI. 608 S. (Enthält
zugleich Dissertatio I. de origine, appellatione natura et curatione
morborum venereorum inter Sinas S. DXXXVII-DLXVI). Vol. II. 537-1196
S. (Unsere Citate beziehen sich auf diese Ausgabe).—Paris 1743. Vol.
I-IV. 12. Die ersten 4 Bücher wurden von _Boudon_ und _Aug. Franc.
Jault_ ins Französische übersetzt. Paris 1740. 12. Vol. I-III.—_Editio
tertia_ aucta per _Jo. Astruc_ et _Ant. Louis_. Paris 1755. Vol. I-IV.
12. Nachdruck Venetiis 1760. 4. mit Hinzufügung von _Gerardi_ van
_Swieten_, Epistolae duae de mercurio sublimato und _Jos. Mar. Xav.
Bertini_, diss. de usu mercurii.—Translated by Sam. _Chapmann_. Lond.
1755. 1. deutsch von _Joh. Gottlob Heise_. Frankf. und Leipz. 1784. gr.
8. _Editio quarta_: Paris. 1773. Vol. I-IV. 12.—_Editio quinta_, cura
_Ant. Louis_. Paris 1777. Vol. I-IV. 12.

(_Jean Astruc_, “On Venereal Diseases,—Six books. In which is
discussed the Origin, Propagation and Contagion of these Maladies
generally; secondly the Nature, Etiology and Therapeutics of the same
individually; together with a brief Analysis and Appreciation of most
of the Works dealing with this Subject.” Paris 1736. XVIII, 20, 628, 50
pp. 4to. Paris (pirated edition, Bâle) 1738. 4to.—Translated by _Will.
Borrowby_, Lond. 1737. 8vo.—_Second Edition_: “On Venereal Diseases,—IX
books.” Paris 1740. 4to. Vol. I. pp. XXXVI, 608. (Contains also
Dissertation I, “On the Origin, Nomenclature, Nature and Treatment
of Venereal Diseases amongst the Chinese”, pp. DXXXVII-DLXVI). Vol.
II. pp. 537-1196. (Our citations refer to this Edition).—Paris
1743, Vols. I-IV. 12mo. The first 4 books were translated into
French by _Boudon_ and _Aug. Franc. Jault_. Paris. 1740. 12mo, Vols.
I-III.—_Third Edition_ enlarged by _Jo. Astruc_ and _Ant. Louis_.
Paris 1755. Vols. I-IV. 12mo. Pirated edition, at Venice 1760. 4to.,
with addition by _Gerardi van Swieten_, “Epistolae Duae de Mercurio
sublimato” (Two Letters concerning Mercury Sublimate), and _Jos. Mar.
Xav. Bertini_, “Diss. de usu Mercurii”. (Dissertation on the Use of
Mercury).—Translated by _Sam. Chapmann_. Lond. 1755. 8vo.; in German by
_Joh. Gottlob Heise_. Frankfort and Leipzig 1784, large 8vo.—_Fourth
Edition_: Paris 1773. Vols. I-IV. 12mo.—_Fifth Edition_, edit. _Ant.
Louis_. Paris 1777. Vols. I-IV. 12mo).

To _Astruc_ belongs the credit of having been the first who began to
collect on a comprehensive plan and to sift the material for a history
of the Venereal Diseases that had been accumulating for Centuries. His
historical results are imperfect and one-sided, in so far as they are
directed solely to maintaining the American origin; but at the same
time his chronological Review of the Writers from 1475 to 1740 is even
now almost indispensable, as he gives comprehensive Extracts from all
the Works that were at his disposal, that fill the whole of the second
Volume of his Book. Down to _Hensler_, almost all later Historians owe
to him their Bibliography of Authorities, though they are not always
honest enough to specify the mine from which they drew their knowledge.
According to _Bertrandi_, “Treatise on the Venereal Diseases”, transl.
from the Italian by _C. H. Spohr_, Vol. I. p. 44. Note k., _Astruc_
has copied almost the whole of the first book of this Work, without
naming the Author(!?), from: _Charles Thuillier_, “Observations sur
les maladies vénériennes avec leur cure sûre et facile, lettres sur les
accidents, l’origine et les progrès de la vérole,” (Observations on the
Venereal diseases, with a sure and easy method of cure: Letters on the
Symptoms, Origin and Progress of the Pox.) Paris 1707. pp. 211-261. 8vo.

_Christoph Girtanner_, Abhandlung über die venerische Krankheit. I. Bd.
Götting. 1788. 459 S, II. und III. Bd. 1789. 933 S. gr. 8. _Zweite_
Ausgabe 1793. III Bde. gr. 8.—_Dritte_ Ausgabe vom I. Bde. 1796.—Vierte
Ausgabe vom I. Bde., mit Zusätzen und Anmerkungen herausgegeben von
_Ludw. Christoph Wilh. Cappel_ 1803. XVI. 455 S. gr. 8. (_Christoph
Girtanner_, “Treatise on the Venereal Disease.” I Vol; Göttingen 1788.
pp. 459, II and III Vols. 1789. pp. 933. large 8vo.—_Third_ edition of
Vol. I. 1796.—_Fourth_ edition of Vol. I., edited with Addition and
Notes by _Ludw. Christoph Wilh. Cappel_, 1803. pp. XVI, 455. large
8vo.).

In the _First_ Volume the Author gives, Bk. I. Pt. 1. pp. 1-57, a
history of the Venereal disease, in which he employs every possible
artifice and perversion of the facts in his endeavour to prove the
American origin of the Disease. In the _Second_ and _Third_ Vols. (in
which the pages run on continuously, pp. 808) he gives a general review
of all the Works that have appeared on Venereal disease from 1595 to
1793, the total—including Supplements—amounting to 1912. As far as
_Astruc_ served, he has often translated him word for word,—without
declaring the fact. But as only those Works which support his own
views, in particular the American origin, are estimated with any
accuracy, while the rest are summarily disposed of,—often without any
precise account of the Contents, it is properly speaking solely for the
sake of the Titles that the Review as a whole is of use to Historians.
A Continuation of this Bibliographical review is found in:

_Heinr. August Hacker_, Literatur der syphilitischen Krankheiten vom
Jahr 1794 bis mit 1829, etc. Leipzig 1830. 264 S. gr. 8. (_Heinr.
August Hacker_, “Literature of the Venereal Disease from the year 1794
down to and including 1829, etc.” Leipzig 1830. pp. 264. large 8vo.).

Unfortunately a major portion of the Books, particularly of the foreign
ones, did not actually come into the hands of the Author, so that he
was forced often to content himself with merely citing the Titles;
and in such as are more precisely designated, he omits, as indeed is
the case also with _Girtanner_, to give the length (pagination, or
number of sheets) of the Works, from which at any rate a relative
judgement might be made as to their completeness. Then since its
publication almost another decade has passed, and the continuation of
his Collection is still awaited on the part of the Author; consequently
a second edition, carried on so as to cover the latest period, one
that has been very prolific in Literary productions, is both necessary
and desirable, and in it what is deficient might easily be supplied.
Again from earlier Literature many additions might well be made and
supplements giving what was overlooked or only cursorily noted by
_Girtanner_. However would it not on the whole be more expedient to
undertake an entirely new Work dealing with the whole Literature of
Venereal Disease, but on other principles than those of _Girtanner_?
Indeed for such a task the use of a Library such as Göttingen would be
required. It would undoubtedly be of very great utility.

_George Rees_, On the primary Symptoms of the lues venerea, _with a
critical and chronological account of all the English writers on the
subject, from 1735 to 1785_. Lond. 1802. 8vo.

Finally we have to mention the Writers on the History of Medicine who
have treated more or less fully the History of the Venereal Disease. To
this class belong in especial:

_J. Freind_, histoire de la médicine, traduit de l’Anglais par Etienne
Coulet. Leide 1727. 8. T. III. S. 192-277. (_J. Freind_, “History of
Medicine,” translated from the English by Etienne Coulet. Leyden 1727.
8vo. Vol. III. pp. 192-277).

Seeks to prove the American origin.

_Chr. Godfr. Gruner_, Morborum antiquitates. Vratislav. 1774. gr. 8. S.
69-101. (_Chr. Godfr. Gruner_, “Antiquities of Diseases.” Breslau 1774.
large 8vo. pp. 69-101).

Decides for the American origin.

_Curt. Sprengel_, Versuch einer pragmat. Geschichte der Arzneikunde. 3.
Auflage. Halle 1828. Bd. II. S. 521-525. 697-714. Bd. III. S. 204-217.
Bd. V. S. 579-594. (_Curt. Sprengel_, “Attempt at a Pragmatic History
of Medicine.” 3rd. edition. Halle 1828. Vol. II. pp. 521-525, 697-714.
Vol. III. pp. 204-217. Vol. V. pp. 579-594).

The Author accepts the Development of Venereal disease from Leprosy.

In connection with other Diseases the Venereal is also dealt with in
the following Works:

_Franc. Raymond_, Histoire de l’éléphantiasis, contenant aussi
l’origine du Scorbut, du Feu St. Antoine, de la _Vérole_ etc. Lausanne
1767. 132 S. 8. (_Franc. Raymond_, “History of Elephantiasis,
containing also the Origin of Scurvy, St. Anthony’s Fire, Pox, etc.”
Lausanne 1767. pp. 132. 8vo.).

The Author maintains the Antiquity of the Disease. Comp. “Commentar. de
rebus in Scientia naturali et Medicina gestis” (Record of Exploits in
Natural Science and Medicine). Leipzig Vol. XVI. pp. 455-460.

_Gerhard Gebler_, Diss. Migrationes celebriorum morborum contagiosorum.
Götting. 1780. 4. (_Gerhard Gebler_, “Dissertation: The Migrations of
the more important Contagious Diseases.” Göttingen 1780. 4to.)

According to _Girtanner_ the portion dealing with Venereal Disease is
word for word from _Astruc_.


                       END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.


                                 INDEX
                                  OF
                         GREEK AND LATIN WORDS
                        EXPLAINED IN THE TEXT,
                              AND OF THE
                          SUBJECTS DISCUSSED
                            IN BOTH VOLUMES




                                 INDEX

                   OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR EMENDED.


  Ausonius, 153, II. 67.
  Aristophanes, II. 62, 163.
  Aristotle, 183.

  Dio Chrysostom, 134.

  Eusebius, 222.

  Galen, II. 7, 10, 48, 52.

  Hephaestion, 230.
  Herodian, 219.
  Herodotus, 17, 144.
  Hippocrates, 239, 250, II. 9, 54, 171, 172.
  Horace, 93, 131, 178, II. 196.

  Juvenal, 174.

  Lucian, 156.

  Martial, 152, II. 41, 64, 67, 80.
  Moses, 52, II. 156.

  Palladius Heliopolitanus, II. 127.
  Persius, II. 37, 68.
  Philo, 207.
  Pliny, II. 71.
  Pollux, II. 319.

  Seneca, 89.
  Septuagint, The, II. 141.
  Synesius, 226.

  Thucydides, II. 179.


                                 INDEX

                       OF GREEK WORDS EXPLAINED.


  ἀγριολειχῆναι, II. 80.
  ἄγριος, 135, II. 80.
  ἀγριοψωρία, II. 80.
  ἀκόλαστος, 135.
  ἀλώπηξ, II. 46.
  ἀλωπεκία, II. 46.
  ἀνανδρία, 219.
  ἀνάρσιος, 206.
  ἀνδρόγυνα λούτρα, II. 219.
  ἀνδρόγυνος, 195
  ἀφροδισιάζεσθαι, 235.

  βαλλάδες, II. 80.
  βάταλος, 225.

  γλωσσαλγία, II. 31
  γρυπαλώπηξ, II. 23.
  γυμνός, II. 230.
  γυναικεία ἐπιθυμία, II. 128.
  γυνή, 190.
  γύννιδες, 223.

  δασύπους κρεῶν ἐπιθυμεῖ, 200.
  δεικτηρίαδες, 76.
  διάγραμμα, 72.
  διαλέγεσθαι, II. 128.
  διονυσιακός, II. 108.
  διωβολιμαῖα, 73.

  ἕλκεα Αἰγύπτια, II. 37.
  — Βουβαστικά, II. 37.
  — σηπεδόνα, II. 247.
  — Συριακά, II. 37.
  ἕλκος, II. 128.
  ἐμπολή, 73.
  ἐνάρεες, 201.
  ἐνοίκιον, 76.
  ἐπίπαστα, II. 51.
  ἔργον, II. 10.
  ἐσχάρα, II. 129.
  ἑταῖραι μουσικαί, 76.
  — πέζαι, 79.
  εὐνοῦχος, 199.

  θηρίωμα, II. 296.
  θύμιον, II. 311.
  θύμος, II. 311.

  ἰατρεῖα, 120.
  ἰατρίναι, II. 248.
  ἰποτήριον, II. 282.
  ἵππος, II. 103.
  ἴσχια, 242.

  καθῆσθαι ἐπ’ οἰκήματος, 18, 71.
  καπηλεία, 73.
  καπηλεῖον, 73.
  καπήλιον, 73.
  καταδακτυλίζειν, 123.
  καταπορνεύειν, 18.
  κέδματα, 242.
  κέρας, II. 108.
  Κεραστία, II. 319.
  κῆπος, 47.
  κίναδος, II. 114.
  κίων, II. 310.
  κουρεῖα, 120.
  κρεμαστῆρες, II. 277, 284.
  κρητίζειν, 117, 123.
  κτείς, 51.
  κυναλώπηξ, II. 46.
  κύων τεῦτλα οὐ τρώγει, 200.

  λαλεῖν, II. 163.
  λειχὴν ἄγριος, II. 80.
  λειχῆνες, II. 74.
  λεσβιάζειν, II. 4.
  λεῦκαι, II. 56.

  μάργος, II. 10.
  μαστρόπιον, 76.
  μαστροπός, 76, 121.
  ματρύλλεια, 72, 76.
  μίσθωμα, 72.
  μύζουρις, II. 15.
  μυλλοί, 29.
  μυοχάνη, II. 14.
  μυριοχαύνη, II. 16.
  μυσάχνη, II. 15.
  μυσιοχάνη, II. 15.

  νοῦσος θήλεια, 144.
  νόσος, 179, 180.
  — γυναικεία, 234.

  οἴκημα, 71.
  ὀλισβόκολλιξ, 162.
  ὄλισβος, 162.
  ὀπή, II. 67.
  ὄφις, 200.

  παιδοκόραξ, II. 50.
  παραστάται, II. 285.
  πασχητιασμός, 190.
  πέος, 51.
  περιλαλεῖν, II. 163.
  πορνεῖον, 71.
  πόρνη, 71, 76.
  πορνοβοσκός, 72.
  πορνοτελώνης, 74, 75.
  πορνοτρόφος, 72.
  πράττειν, 123.

  προαγωγεῖα, 72, 76.
  προαγωγός, 76, 122.

  ῥέγχειν, 134, 143.
  ῥιναυλεῖν, II. 26.
  ῥιναύλουρις, II. 26.
  ῥινοκολοῦρος, II. 24.
  ῥοδοδάφνη, II. 5.
  ῥοδωνία, II. 7.

  σαράπους, II. 15.
  σάρξ, II. 158.
  σαπέρδιον, II. 19.
  σῆφις, II. 247.
  σιφνιάζειν, 123.
  σκύλαξ, II. 46.
  σκυτάλαι, 198.
  σόφισμα, II. 4.
  στατηριαῖα, 74.
  στεγανόμιον, 76.
  στομαλγία, II. 31.
  στῦμα, II. 10.
  στυμάργος, II. 9.
  στῦω, II. 10.
  στωμύλλεσθαι, II. 163.
  συκίνη ἐπικουρία, 197.
  σύκον, II. 310.
  σφιγκτήρ, 112.
  σφιγκτής, 112.

  τέγος, 76.
  τέλος πορνικόν, 74.
  τιμᾶσθαι, 244.
  τριαντοπόρνη, 72.
  τρόπος, II. 14.

  φθίνας, II. 57.
  φοινία, 229.
  ἐν Φοινίκῃ καθεύδεις, II. 51.
  φοινικέη νόσος, II. 52.
  φοινικίζειν, II. 48.
  φοινικιστής, II. 61.
  φύγεθλον, II. 303.
  φύματα, II. 169.

  χαλεπός, 135.
  χαλκιδίζειν, 123.
  χαλκιδίτις, 72.
  χαμαιευνάδες, 76.
  χαμαιεύνης, 76.
  χαμαιτηρίς, 76.
  χαμαιτύπαι, 76.
  χαμαιτυπεῖον, 76.
  χαμεύνης, 76.
  χιάζειν, 123.
  χοιράς, II. 303.
  χρυσάργυρον, 108.


                                 INDEX

                       OF LATIN WORDS EXPLAINED.


  aes uxorium, 84.
  alicariae, 99.
  ambubaiae, 100.
  amica, 101.
  albus, II. 196.
  aquaculare, II. 214.
  aquam sumere, II. 213.
  aquarioli, II. 213.

  baccariones, II. 214.
  basiare, II. 88.
  basiator, II. 88.
  basium, II. 88.
  bustuariae, 100.

  capitalis luxus, II. 102.
  capra, 134.
  captura, 94.
  caput demissum, II. 103.
  catamitus, 179.
  cellae, 89.
  — lustrales, 100.
  consistorium libidinis, 91.
  corvus, II. 50.
  cunnus albus, II. 196.

  diobolaria, 94.
  digitus infamis, 136.
  — medius, 136.
  dogma, II. 4.

  effeminatus, 194.
  equus, II. 103.

  fellare, II. 3.
  femina, 191.
  ficus, 131.
  fornix, 88.
  frons, 89.

  grex, 179.

  Harpocratem reddere, II. 19.
  hortus, 47.

  illauta puella, II. 213.
  imbubinare, II. 130.
  inguen, II. 303.
  irrumare, II. 3.

  leno, 93.
  lepus pulmentum quaeris, 200.
  lomentum, II. 196.
  longano, 162.
  lupanar, 88.
  lustrum, 100.
  luxus, II. 102.
  — capitalis, II. 102.

  merces cellae, 92.
  meretrices bonae, 100.
  — lodices, 91.
  moechus, II. 24.
  morbus, 177.

  navis, 133.
  nervus, II. 277.
  nonaria, 95.
  nudus, II. 230.

  oscedo, II. 100.

  patientia feminea, 228.
  patientia muliebris, 228.
  penis, 51.
  percidi, 127.
  pollutiones, II. 210.
  proseda, 95.
  prostibula, 95.
  pustulae lucentes, II. 61.

  quadrantaria permutatio, II. 214.

  robigo, II. 57.

  salgama, II. 51.
  sanctus, 113.
  sarapis, II. 19.
  scorta devia, 103.
  — erratica, 99.
  — nobilia, 101.
  — vestita, 103.
  sectus, 126.
  sicca puella, II. 213.
  summoenianae, 88.
  Syrii tumores, II. 67.

  tacere, II. 32.
  titulus, 89.
  togata, 93.

  uda puella, II. 220.

  villicus puellarum, 93.


                          INDEX OF SUBJECTS.


  A.

  _Acrochordon_ (kind of wart), II. 314.

  _Aediles_ have supervision over the Brothels, 107,
    keep a list of the public prostitutes, 107.

  _Ætiology_, Neglect of, II. 243.

  _Afranius_, Paederast, 154.

  _Agoranomi_ at Athens have supervision over the Brothels and
    Whoremasters, 72.

  _Alcibiades_, most members of his family Pathics, 160.

  _Anginae_ (quinsies) common in Egypt, II. 36,
    among Fellators, II. 32.

  _Anthrax_ (malignant pustule), II. 125,
    consequent upon sexual intercourse, II. 128,
    Epidemic in Asia, II. 179.

  _Anus_, Ulcers, 134, II. 295,
    Condylomata, 130,
    Rhagades, 129, II. 302.

  _Aphaca_, Temple of Aphrodité at, 222.

  _Aphrodité_ ἀναδυομένη (rising from the sea) in the Temple of
    Aesculapius, 30,
    εὔπλοια (giving a prosperous voyage), 27,
    λιμενίας (of harbours), 27,
    οὐράνια (heavenly), 27,
    πάνδημος (of the people), 27,
    ποντιά (of the sea), 27,
    πραξις (doing, sexual intercourse), 121,
    φιλομήδης (laughter-loving, _or_ loving the genitals), 39.

  _Apion_, II. 124.

  _Armenian women_ bound to give themselves up an offering to the
    honour of Venus, 19.

  _Athens_, Brothels at, 71,
    Plague, II. 180,
    Diseases of Genital organs in consequence of Neglect of worship
     of Bacchus, 78,
    Ulcers on the foot common, II. 38,
    Inns, 8, 78.


  B.

  _Baal Peor_, 52.

  _Babylonian women_ bound to give themselves up an offering to the
    honour of Venus, 18.

  _Bacchus_ ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman), 195,
    is lascivious, 43,
    Pathic, 194,
    practises “Onania postica”, 195,
    his worship, 79, 195.

  _Bachelors_ at Rome, Tax on, 84.

  _Barbers’ Shops_ at Athens, Resorts of the Pathics, 120,
    in Rome, II. 221.

  _Bassus_ Cinaedus, 171.

  _Batalus_ Cinaedus, 171.

  _Bathing_ after Coition, II. 209,
    in common, II. 219,
    gives occasion for Vice, II. 219.

  _Baths_ at Athens, Resorts of the Pathics, II. 120,
    in Rome, II. 221.

  _Blood_, vaginal, unclean, II. 320,
    mucus, II. 121.

  _Bones_, affections of the, II. 318.

  _Bordeaux_, derivation of name, 28.

  _Brothels_ do not exist in Asia, 64,
    in Greece under supervision of the Agoranomi, 72,
    established at Athens by Solon, 70,
    in Rome, 88,
    were under supervision of the Ædiles, 107,
    on country estates, 105,
    in Palaces, 105.

  _Bubonic swellings_, II. 238, 303,
    among Eunuchs, 253,
    in connection with ulcers of the foot, II. 238.


  C.

  _Caesar_ a Pathic, II. 41.

  _Campanus Morbus_, II. 99.

  _Carthaginian women_ bound to give themselves up an offering in
    honour of Venus, 22.

  _Castration_ of Pathics, 116,
    in Elephantiasis, II. 154.

  _Catheter_, II. 281.

  _Chancres_, II. 286,
    called θηρίωμα (malignant sore), II. 296,
    robigo (blight), II. 57,
    φθινὰς (wasting), II. 57,
    in Egypt have tendency to form scabs, II. 149,
    on the posteriors, II. 301,
    on the glans penis, II. 295,
    on the female genital organs, II. 296,
    on the skin of the penis, II. 155,
    on the mons Veneris, II. 155,
    on the prepuce, II. 293.

  _Circumcision_, or Cutting, of Maids, II. 206.

  _Cleanliness_ checks the rise of Venereal disease, II. 187.

  _Cleopatra_ keeps Cinaedi, 178.

  _Climate_, II. 115,
    influence on genital organs, II. 120,
      on diseases of the genital organs, II. 135,
      on activity of generation, II. 117.

  _Coition_ in Temples, 23,
    Unnatural Coition due to vengeance of Venus, 151.

  _Complexion_, pale, of Cinaedi, 143,
    of Cunnilingues, II. 64.

  _Condylomata_, II. 313,
    on the posteriors, 130, II. 311,
    on the genitals, II. 310.

  _Contagion_, views of the Ancients as to, II. 246,
    in Southern countries more transient, II. 164.

  _Corpse_ unclean, II. 189.

  _Crete_, paederastia in, 117,
    Satyriasis common there, 127.

  _Cunnilingus_, II. 46,
    practises vice with women at time of Menstruation, II. 188,
    diseases of the, II. 63.

  _Cyprus_ is called Κεραστία (horned), II. 319,
    its inhabitants frequent sufferers from Bony Outgrowths (Exostosis)
     of the Skull, II. 319,
    their daughters bound to give themselves up an offering in honour
     of Venus, 22.


  D.

  _Defloration_, its performance impure, 25.

  _Depilation_, II. 191,
    executed by women on men, II. 192,
      by men on women, II. 192,
    of Pathics, 172, II. 192,
    of the anus, II. 192,
    of the genital organs, II. 192.

  _Diatriton_ (fasting until the third day), II. 237.

  _Diseases_, bodily, brought on by men’s own fault are
    disgraceful, II. 231.

  _Diseases_, Names of, II. 249.

  _Dispensaries_ at Athens, resort of the Pathics, 120.

  _Dolores Osteocopi_ (Pains that rack the Bones), II. 319.

  _Doctors_ have few opportunities of observing diseases of the
    Genitals, II. 225,
    inexperienced “in re venerea” (in Venereal matters), II. 237,
    lewd-minded, II. 236,
    Doctors from Egypt cure the Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin) at
     Rome, II. 91.

  _Doctors’ shops_ at Athens, resort of the Pathics, 120.

  _Dogs_ used as cunnilingi, II. 48.

  _Dowry_, earned by maidens by prostitution, 21, 25.


  E.

  _Egypt_, quinsies common, II. 37,
    and ulcers of the neck, II. 35,
    form taken there by Venereal disease, II. 149,
    inhabitants lascivious, II. 91,
    offer up their daughters to Zeus, 40,
    Physicians experienced in the cure of Mentagra (Tetter of the
     Chin), II. 91.

  _Elephantiasis_, II. 97, 154,
    communicated by Coition, II. 154,
    infectious, II. 163.

  _Epinyctis_, II. 309.

  _Erotic_ poets, lascivious, 8.

  _Eunuchs_, kept by distinguished women, 116, 178,
    do not suffer from Calvities (Baldness), II. 153,
      nor from Elephantiasis, II. 154.

  _Exanthema_ of the Genital organs, II. 319.

  _Excrescences_ on the Genital organs, II. 311.

  _Exostosis_ (Bony outgrowths) of the Skull, II. 108, 319,
    common in Cyprus, II. 319.


  F.

  _Fakeers_ in India, 34.

  _Fellator_, Diseases of the, II. 3.

  _Felt-lice_ (Pediculi pubis), II. 197.

  _Fish_ diet induces Leprosy and Ulcers, II. 38, 39.

  _Floralia_ at Rome, 84.


  G.

  _Galerius_ Maximianus, II. 140.

  _Galli_, Priests of Cybelé, 231,
    pay prostitution-tax to the Romans, 231.

  _Gangrene_ of the Genitals, II. 176,
    during the Plague of Athens, II. 179,
    of the limbs, II. 182.

  _Genitals_, their purification after coition, II. 208,
    exposure in the case of Youths at Athens, II. 229,
    compulsory by law at Rome, II. 229.

  _Genitals, Diseases of_ induced by Dreams, 200,
    at Athens, in consequence of the neglect of the Worship of
     Bacchus, 43,
    at Lampsacus in consequence of the banishment of Priapus, 44,
    Cure is won by prayers to Priapus, 45,
    women treated by women’s Physicians, II. 248.

  _Genius Epidemicus_ its influence on Venereal Disease, II. 167,
    on Ulcers of the Genitals, II. 172.

  _Germans_ practise Paederastia, 228.

  _Glans penis_, male, more active secretion from glands of this part
    in hot countries, II. 124,
    liable to Inflammation and Ulceration, II. 295,
    Ulcers of, II. 124,
    Thymus (warty excrescence) II. 313.

  _Gonorrhœa_
    in Hippocrates, II. 171,
      Moses, II. 130,
    common in Southern countries, II. 136,
    is ignominious, II. 234, II. 265,
    in man, II. 260,
    in woman, II. 269.

  _Greece_, Climate, II. 134,
    Cult of Venus, 27.

  _Groin_, tumours in the, a consequence of riding, 242.


  H.

  _Hæmorrhoids_, II. 310,
    among Pathics, 130,
    common in the time of Martial and Juvenal, 133.

  _Hair_, Affection of the, II. 156,
    in Leprosy and Elephantiasis, II. 157.

  _Hares_,—androgynic (sometimes male, sometimes female), 200.

  _Hand_, left—ill-reputed, II. 209,
    used for Onanism, II. 209,
    in purification of the Genital organs, II. 213.

  _Heliades_ punished for licentious love, 154.

  _Helos_ (callosity) on the glans penis, II. 296.

  _Hemitheon_, Cinaedus, 172.

  _Hermaphroditus_, statues of—in front of Baths, II. 220.

  _Hero_ suffers from ulcers on the genitals, II. 127.

  _Herod_, disease from which he suffered, II. 140.

  _Herpes_ (creeping eruption), II. 308.

  _Hetaerae_, 79,
    dress of, 81,
    Seminary at Corinth, 79,
    follow the Greek armies, 80.

  _Hieroduli_, female, 30.


  I.

  _Ignis Persicus_ (Persian fire), II. 130.

  _India_, Venereal disease in, 40.

  _Infection_, views of the Ancients on, II. 248,
    in the South more transient, II. 164.

  _Inguinal tumours_, a consequence of riding, 242.

  _Inns_ of ill-repute at Athens, 76,
    fornication practised in them, 8,
    at Rome, 98.

  _Irrumator_, II. 3.

  _Ischuria_ (Retention of urine) in case of ulcers of Urethra, II. 170.

  _Isis_, Worship of—at Rome, 103.


  J.

  _Jews_, their Diseases at Shittim, in consequence of worship of
    Baal-Peor, 52,
    their daughters give themselves up an offering to the honour of
    Astarté, 66.

  _Juno_, Patron-goddess of Lust, 44.


  K.

  _Kissing_ disseminates Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin), II. 88.

  _Kissing_, Mania for,—at Rome, II. 88.


  L.

  _Lame men_ are lecherous, 240.

  _Lampsacus_, affections of the genitals among the men there in
    consequence of the expulsion of Priapus, 44.

  _Lemnos_, women of,—their evil smell, 148.

  _Lepra_ (scaly leprosy), Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin) changes into
    it, II. 72,
    produced by vicious practices, II. 163, II. 317.

  _Leprosy_, connection with Venereal disease, II. 150,
    a punishment from the gods, II. 189, II. 315,
    spreads from the genital organs, II. 154, 156.

  _Lesbos_, women of—are fellatrices, II. 4,
    tribads, 161.

  _Liber_, another name of Bacchus, 43.

  _Lingam-worship_ in India, 33.

  _Locris_, women of—give themselves up an offering in honour of
    Venus, 22.

  _Lydian_ women give themselves up an offering in honour of Venus, 21.


  M.

  _Matrix_, dilater of the, II. 299.

  _Matrix_ (or injecting) syringe, II. 300.

  _Mena_, goddess of Menstruation, 25.

  _Mendes_, cult of—in Egypt, II. 113.

  _Menstrual blood_ unclean, 23,
    liable to putrefaction, II. 126,
    injurious consequences in Coition, II. 121, 149,
    produces skin-affections, II. 149.

  _Menstruation_, women during—Coition with such, II. 130,
    produces affections of the genital organs in man, II. 127,
      Leprosy, II. 149.

  _Mentagra_ (Tetter of the Chin), II. 71,
    is subject to epidemic influence, II. 100,
    changes into Lepra and Psora, II. 72.

  _Miletus_, women of—are artificial tribads, 162.

  _Morbus Campanus_, II. 98,
    _Phoeniceus_, II. 54.

  _Mucous membrane_, its secretions in the South more copious and
    acrid, II. 121.

  _Mutuus_, the Priapus of the Romans, 26.

  _Myrmecia_, II. 314.

  _Myrrha_ punished by Venus, 157.


  N.

  _Names_ of Diseases, II. 249.

  _National_ diversities influence the rise of Venereal
    disease, II. 131, 321.

  _Neuralgia_ of the testicles and spermatic cord, II. 284.


  O.

  _Ointments_ for the skin, II. 139.

  _Oscans_ are licentious, II. 100,
    are Cunnilingues, II. 101.

  _Ozaena_ (fetid polypus), II. 317.


  P.

  _Paederastia_, 108,
    at Athens, 119,
    in Bœotia, 121,
      Chalcis, 122,
      Chios, 122,
      Crete, 117,
      Elis, 121,
      Germany, 228,
      Greece, 117,
      Italy, 124,
      Rome, 124,
      Siphnos, 124,
      Syria, 116,
      Tarsus, 139,
    practised in Temples, 111,
    is a mental disorder, 182,
    inclination to it is innate, 236,
      and hereditary, 160,
      due to vengeance of Venus, 146, 172, 182.

  _Paederasts_, diseases of, 126.

  _Paedophilia_, 117.

  _Paralysis_ of the Tongue due to the practices of the
    Cunnilingue, II. 64.

  _Parmenides_, Fragment of, 163.

  _Patients_ suffering from affections of the genital organs deceive
    the Physician, II. 235,
    dread the knife, 46, II. 241,
    treat themselves, II. 238.

  _Pathics_, signal of invitation employed by, 143,
    condition at Athens, 120,
    kept in the Roman brothels, 124,
    had to pay Prostitution-tax, 126, 231,
    characteristics, 169,
    dress, 172,
    allow the hair of the head to grow long, 173,
    depilate their persons, II. 191,
    resemble women, 189,
    seed-ducts in their case go to the anus, 235,
    bear children, 235,
    diseases of, 126,
    pale complexion, 143,
    foul breath, 142,
    suffer from affection of the mouth, 134, 142,
      ulcers on posteriors, 127,
      hæmorrhoids, 130.

  _Penis_, artificial, 161, 198.

  _Phallus-worship_, 40,
    in Egypt, 40,
      Greece, 41,
      India, 33,
      Syria, 49.

  _Philoctetes_ is Onanist, 155,
    Pathic, 152.

  _Phlyctaenae_ (blisters) on the skin in diseases of the
    Uterus, II. 153.

  _Phoeniceus Morbus_, II. 54.

  _Phoenician women_ give themselves up an offering in honour of
    Venus, 21.

  _Physicians_ have few opportunities of observing diseases of the
    Genitals, II. 225,
    inexperienced “in re venerea” (in Venereal subjects), II. 237,
    lewd-minded, II. 235,
    Physicians from Egypt cure the Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin) at
     Rome, II. 91.

  _Piles_ (hæmorrhoids), II. 310,
    among Pathics, 130,
    common in time of Martial and Juvenal, 133.

  _Polyandry_, II. 120.

  _Polygamy_, II. 120.

  _Prepuce_, ulcers, II. 293,
    rhagades (chapped sores), II. 293,
    thymus (warty excrescence), II. 311.

  _Priapism_, II. 136.

  _Priapus_, 43,
    lover of gardens, 47, II. 215,
    made of fig-wood, 195,
    red, II. 57,
    used to rupture the hymen, 24, 26, 51,
    possesses fructifying virtues, 26,
    sufferers from complaints of the genitals pray to him, 50.

  _Priests_ undertake the deflowering of virgins, 47.

  _Prophylactics_ against Bubo, II. 307,
    against Gonorrhœa, II. 307.

  _Propotides_ punished by Venus, 156.

  _Prostitute-keepers_ (Whoremasters) at Athens, 72,
    under supervision of the Ædiles, 107,
    considered infamous, 98.

  _Prostitutes’ fees_ fixed by the Agoranomi at Athens, 73,
    at Rome, 94.

  _Prostitution-tax_ at Athens, 74,
    leased out by the Magistrate at Athens, 75,
    at Rome, 107,
    at Byzantium, 107,
    paid by Pathics, 107, 126, 231,
    by the Priests of Cybelé, 231.

  _Prostitution-tax_, farmers of—at Athens, 75.


  R.

  _Rhagades_ (chapped sores) of the posteriors, 127,
    of the female genitals, II. 298,
    of the prepuce, II. 293.

  _Rhinocolura_, Colony of II. 24.

  _Rome_, Baths at, II. 220,
    Brothels, 88,
    Cult of Priapus, 43,
    Cult of Venus, 33,
    Inns, 98,
    Isis-worship, 103,
    Mania for kissing, II. 88,
    Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin), II. 71,
    Paederastia, 123,
    Prostitution-tax, 107.

  _Roseola_ in gonorrhœal patients, II. 143.


  S.

  _Satyriasis_, II. 255,
    common in Crete, 127.

  _Scabies_ (Itch), II. 69, II. 162.

  _Scythians_, νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) of the, 144,
    men-women, 240.

  _Shamefacedness_ of patients, II. 235.

  _Skin_, reaction of the—in affections of the genital
    organs, II. 141, II. 153, II. 159.

  _Skin-diseases_, infectious in Venereal disease, II. 165.

  _Smell_, foul—from the mouth of Pathics, 142,
    of Fellators, II. 30.

  _Snakes_ used for vicious purposes, II. 113.

  _Sneeze_ betrays the Cinaedus, 171.

  _Sodomy_, II. 110,
    with he-goats, II. 113,
    with asses, II. 114,
    with snakes, II. 113.

  _Suicide_ due to ulcers of genital organs, II. 42,
    to ulcers of the neck, II. 40.

  _Sycosis_ of the Chin, II. 81.

  _Syringe_, Matrix or Injecting, II. 300.


  T.

  _Tarsus_, frequency of paederastia there, 139.

  _Testicles_, inflammation of, II. 282,
    ulcers, II. 285,
    induration, II. 285.

  _Tetter_ of the chin (Mentagra), II. 71,
    subject to epidemic influence, II. 100,
    changes into Lepra and Psora, II. 72.

  _Throat, Ulcers of the_—among fellators, II. 14, II. 34.

  _Thymus_ (warty excrescence) on the genital organs, II. 311.

  _Tiberius_, sickness of, II. 92.

  _Tongue_, Paralysis of the—due to the practices of Cunnilingue, II. 66.

  _Tribads_, artificial, 161.

  _Typhus_, influence on Venereal disease, II. 182.


  U.

  _Ulcers_, Egyptian, II. 35,
    a result of vengeance of the Dea Syra, II. 37,
    on the tibia common at Athens, II. 38,
    origin, II. 242,
    general treatment, II. 239.

  _Ulcers of the Genitals_, II. 139, II. 275,
    offspring of evil humours, II. 242,
    readily change to _caries_, II. 139, II. 177,
    worms in them, II. 141,
    common under putrid epidemic conditions, II. 168,
    treated with knife, II. 176,
      by actual cautery, II. 176,
    of women—are feared by men, II. 162,
    lead to suicide, II. 176.

  _Ulcers of the Throat_ in case of Fellators, II. 14, II. 34,
    lead to suicide, II. 42.

  _Urethra_, ulcers of the, II. 171, II. 177,
    caruncles, II. 279,
    strictures, II. 279.


  V.

  _Vaginal blood_, unclean, II. 320,
    mucus, II. 121.

  _Varices_ (dilated veins) cause impotency, 242.

  _Venereal disease_, names, II. 249,
    changes into Leprosy, II. 140,
      into Elephantiasis, II. 149,
    relation to Leprosy, II. 150,
      to Typhus, II. 182,
    cured without professional aid, II. 148, II. 238,
    of the mucous membranes and bones not common in Southern
     countries, II. 250.

  _Venus_, calva (bald), 33,
    Cult of, 13,
      in Asia, 16,
        Babylon, 17,
        Greece, 27,
        Italy, 33.

  _Virgins_ give themselves up an offering in honour of Venus in
    Armenia, 18,
    at Babylon, 18,
      Carthage, 20,
    in Cyprus, 22,
      Locris, 22,
      Lydia, 20,
      Palestine, 66,
      Phœnicia, 20,
    in honour of Zeus in Egypt, 40,
    reason of custom, 22.


  W.

  _Whoremasters_ at Athens, 72,
    under supervision of the Ædiles, 107,
    considered infamous, 98.

  _Women_, allow paederastia to be practised with them, 139,
    seldom suffer from Mentagra (Tetter of the chin), II. 84,
      or Elephantiasis, II. 153,
      or Venereal disease, II. 153.

  _Worms_ in ulcers, II. 137.


  Z.

  _Zeus_, the Egyptians give up their daughters as an offering in his
    honour, 41.




                        PRIVATELY ISSUED BOOKS.

Editions de Luxe in English and French.


BOOKS IN ENGLISH.

 =Untrodden Fields of Anthropology= by Dr. JACOBUS X.... Observations
 on the Esoteric Manners and Customs of Semi-civilised Peoples. Two
 stout 8vo Volumes of about 480 Pages each, accompanied by a Set of 24
 Illustrations.

  [Price =£2. 10=_s._

 =Genital Laws, their Observance and Violation= by Dr. JACOBUS X....
 One fine Volume of some 470 pages, bound in cloth.

  [Price =£2. 2=_s._

 (Analytical Table of Contents, price =6=_d._ _for postage_.)

 =A Medico Legal Examination of the Abuses, Aberrations and Crimes of
 the Genital Sense.= Complete in one fine Volume, 8vo of 540 pages.

  [Price =£2. 2=_s._

 =The Ethnology of the Sixth Sense.= Its Anomalies, Perversions and
 Follies. One thick volume of about 460 pages, on stout vellum Paper.

  [Price =£1. 1=_s._

 =The Basis of Passional Psychology= by Dr. JACOBUS X. ... consisting
 of two 8vo volumes of over 600 pages, finely printed on English
 antique Paper.

  [Price (complete) =£3. 3=_s._ (_delivery inclusive_).

 =One Hundred Merrie and Delightsome Stories.= Literal and Unexpurgated
 translation of that old, and racy French classic, =Les Cent Nouvelles
 Nouvelles=, with Fifty fine, hand-coloured Illustrations bound up in
 their proper places. Two beautiful dem. 8vo volumes, of (over) 540
 pages, on fine antique English deckle-edged paper, bound in water
 coloured silk.

 Price (complete) =£3. 3=_s._

 =The Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies.= Now for the first time done
 into English from the French of PIERRE BOURDEILLE, SEIGNEUR DE
 BRANTÔME. In two crown 8vo volumes, each volume consisting of some 390
 to 420 pages, with 24 and 26 full pages coloured Illustrations by AD.
 LAMBRECHT. Price of the work complete, _with the Illustrations_,

  =£4. 4=_s._ _net_.

 =The Sword and Womankind= by EDOUARD DE BEAUMONT, translated by
 ALFRED ALLINSON, M.A., Oxon. Complete in one volume, with an etched
 frontispiece by PAUL AVRIL.

  [Price =£1. 1=_s._

 =The Secret Cabinet of History= by Dr. CABANES. Medico-Historical
 Glimpses into the Private Lives of Kings, Queens and other High
 Persons. One fine volume.

  [Price =12=_s._ =6=_d._

 =The Curious Bypaths of History= with a fine frontispiece after DANIEL
 VIERGE. The whole in one volume on hand-made Van Gelder paper.

  [Price =21=_s._

 =Musk, Hashish and Blood.= Nineteen realistic Tales by HECTOR FRANCE
 and Twenty Two engravings by PAUL AVRIL, consisting of one stout vol.
 strongly bound in cloth.

  [Price =£1. 1=_s._

 =The Chastisement of Mansour= by HECTOR FRANCE. One volume with Eight
 Illustrations by BAZEILHAC.

  [Price =10=_s._

 =Thais.= Now done into English for the first time from the French of
 ANATOLE FRANCE. With 21 superb copper-plate etchings by MARTIN VAN
 MAELE. One vol. 8vo of 304 pages, strongly bound in English cloth.

  [Price =21=_s._


 BOOKS IN FRENCH.

 =Etude sur la Flagellation=, à travers le Monde. Aux points de Vue
 Historique, Médical, Domestique et Conjugal. Un volume in-8vo.
 d’environ 680 pages, accompagné de 21 Illustrations hors texts grav.
 sur bois, dessinées par RENÉ LELONG.

  [Prix =50= _francs_.

 =Curiosités et Anecdotes sur la Flagellation.= Bel ouvrage in-8 écu,
 soigneusement imprimé, d’environ 400 pages.

  [Prix =40= _francs_.

 =Les Mysteres de la Maison de la Verveine ou Miss Bellassis fouettée
 pour vol.= Illustrations par AD. LAMBRECHT. Un volume, imprimé sur
 beau papier.

  [Prix =20= _francs_.

 =L’Ethnologie du Sens Génital.= Les Lois et Singularités de la Passion
 sexuelle. Ouvrage Unique et Original en Langue française. Un gros
 Volume d’environ 440 Pages. Etude Physiologique de l’Amour Normal et
 de ses Abus, Perversions, folies & Crimes dans l’espèce Humaine par le
 Dr. JACOBUS X....

  [Prix =15= _francs_.


  PARIS
  CHARLES CARRINGTON
  LIBRARIE DE FOLK-LORE, ANTHROPOLOGIE
  13, FAUBOURG MONTMARTRE, 13




FOOTNOTES:

[1] It would be a great mistake to think that because SPRENGEL wrote
his History here, the opposite must be true. The greater part of the
Works collected by him are no longer to be found. It is only too
evident that the earlier administrators of the library, especially
ERSCH, so famous as a Historian of Literature, left the medical side
almost totally unconsidered; and what gaps the Administration of
to-day has to fill up is sufficiently evidenced by the yearly Lists of
Additions.

[2] The Bibliography of Authorities and Historians has been placed at
the end of the present volume.

[3] “On the Venereal Disease in the Northern Provinces of European
Turkey” in: Russian Compendium for Natural and Medical Science, edited
by _Alex. Crichton_, _Jos. Rehmann_, _C. Fr. Burdach_, vol. I. Riga and
Leipzig 1815. large 8vo. pp. 230.

[4] “Geschichte der Lustseuche” (History of the Venereal Disease), Vol.
I. p. 326.

[5] _Celsus_, De re medica Bk. VI. ch. 18., “Proxima sunt ea,
quae ad partes obscoenas pertinent, quarum apud Graecos vocabula
et tolerabilius se habent et accepta iam usu sunt, cum omni fere
medicorum volumine atque sermone iactentur, apud nos foediora verba, ne
consuetudine quidem aliqua verecundius loquentium commendata sunt.”

(Next are particulars relating to the unmentionable parts; the name
of these among the Greeks are less objectionable and are now accepted
by usage, as they are freely employed by physicians both in books and
speech, whereas with ourselves the words are coarse, not approved by
any customary use on the part of those who speak with any regard to
modesty.) How strictly the words, especially in the case of the poets,
were scrutinised in this respect even in later times still, is shown
by the passage in _Aulus Gellius_, Noct. Attic. Bk. X. ch. 10.; and in
_Petronius_, Satir. 132, Polyaenus says: Ne nominare quidem te (scil.
penem) inter res serias fas est. Poenitentiam agere sermonis mei coepi,
secretoque rubore perfundi, quod oblitus verecundiae meae cum ea parte
corporis verba contulerim, quam ne ad cogitationem quidem admittere
severioris notae homines solent.”

(It is forbidden even to mention thee (viz. the penis) in serious
discourse. I have begun to do penance for my words and to feel the glow
of a secret blush, because forgetful of my modesty I expressed in words
that part of the body, which men of the stricter type refuse to admit
even into their thoughts.) So the collector of Priapeia appeals to the
reader: Conveniens Latio pone supercilium! (Lay aside the disapproving
frown that befits Latium); and later on people used to say of such
talk, they wished to speak plain _Latin_, just as we say, speak _plain
English_; while the Greek would excuse himself by his ἄγροικος καὶ
ἄμουσός εἰμι, (I am but am unpolished rustic).

[6] Satir. II. 8-13.

[7] _Athenaeus_, Deipnosoph. bk. XIII. ch. 21.—Comp. _Aristotle_,
Politics bk. VII. ch. 17.

[8] Bk. XII. Epigr. 43.—Comp. _H. Paldamus_, “Römische Erotik.”
Greisswald 1833. large 8vo.

[9] _Priapeia_, Carm. 1.

  Ludens haec ego teste te, Priape,
  Horto carmina digna, non libello;
  Ergo quidquid est, quod otiosus
  Templi parietibus tui notavi
  In partem accipias bonam rogamus.

Carm. 41.

  Quisquis venerit huc, poeta fiat,
  Et versus mihi dedicet iocosos;
  Qui non fecerit, inter eruditos
  Ficosissimus ambulet poeta.

Carm. 49.

  Tu quicunque vides circa tectoria nostra
  Non nimium casti carmina plena ioci;

(The songs I sing, thou art my witness, Priapus, are worthy but of a
garden, not of a book. Wherefore whate’er it be that in leisure hours I
have writ on thy temple-walls, receive, we pray, in good part.)

(Whosoe’er comes hither must become a poet and dedicate to me some
merry lines; whoe’er refuses, amidst the learned let him walk most
wooden of poets.—N.B. _ficosus_ means at once like a fig-tree and
_afflicted with piles_; perhaps we might render “most costive of
poets”.)

(Thou beholdest, whoe’er thou art, around the plaster of our walls
lines teeming with not too chastened a wit.)

also in _Martial_, bk. XII. Epigr. 62. we read:

  Qui carbone rudi, putrique creta
  Scribit carmina, quae legunt cacantes.

(Who with rough charcoal or crumbly chalk writes verses that men read
as they shit.)

[10] _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag. bk. II. ch. 10. ὅσοι δὲ
τὴν παραβολὴν διώκουσι, πταίουσι περὶ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν, _σφᾶς αὐτοὺς
βλάπτοντες_, κατὰ τὰς παρανόμους συνουσίας.

(“Now they that follow the parable sin aginst nature, _hurting their
own selves_, according to their lawless conversation.”)

[11] _Larcher_, “Mémoire sur Venus,” (Memoir on Venus). Paris 1775.
pp. 312. 8vo.—_De la Chau_, “Dissertation sur les Attributs de Venus,”
(Dissertation on the Attributes of Venus. Paris 1776. pp. 91. 4to. In
German, by C. Richter. Vienna 1783. pp. 179. 8vo.—_J. C. F. Manso_,
“Ueber die Venus,” (On Venus): in “Versuche über einige Gegenstände aus
der Mythologie der Griechen und Römer,” (Essays on certain Subjects
from the Mythology of the Greeks and Romans). Leipzig 1784. large 8vo.
pp. 1-308. The Treatise is the most complete account we possess on
the subject of Venus.—_Lenz, C. G._, “Die Göttin von Paphos auf alten
Bildwerken und Baphomet,” (The Goddess of Paphos in Ancient Sculptures
and Baphomet.) Gotha 1808. pp. 26. 4to., with Copperplates.—_Münter,
Fr._, “Der Tempel der himmlischen Göttin zu Paphos,” (The Temple
of the heavenly Goddess at Paphos). Copenhagen 1824. pp. 40. with
Copperplates.—_Lajard, Felix._ “Recherche sur le culte, les symboles,
les attributs et les monuments figurés de Venus en orient et en
occident,” (Researches on the Cult, Symbols, Attributes and artistic
Monuments of Venus in East and West). Paris 1834. 4to., with 30 Plates,
fol. Known to us only from the notices.

[12] _Orpheus_, Hymn. 55.

  Οὐρανίη Ἀφροδίτη,
  παντογενὴς, γενέτειρα θεὰ, γεννᾷς δὲ τὰ πὰντα,
  ὅσσα τ’ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστι καὶ ἐν γαίῃ πολυκάρπῳ
  ἐν πόντου τε βυθῷ. γαμοστόλε, μῆτερ ἐρώτῶν.

(Heavenly Aphrodité, parent of all, mother Goddess,—for thou
engenderest all things, all things that are in heaven and in fruitful
earth and in depth of ocean,—harbinger of marriage, mother of loves).
 [Transcriber’s Note: παντογενὴς (parent of all) should read ποντογενὴς
 (sea-born).]

_Homer_, Hymn. 9. to Venus:

  Κυπρογενῆ Κυθέρειαν ἀείσομαι, _ἥτε βροτοῖσιν
  μείλιχα δῶρα δίδωσιν_, ἐφ’ ἱμερτῷ δὲ προσώπῳ
  αἰεὶ μειδιάει, καὶ ἐφ’ ἱμερτὸν φέρει ἄνθος.

(Cyprus-born Cytherea will I sing, who _to men gives sweet gifts_, and
on her lovely visage has ever a smile, and brings a lovely blossom of
love).

[13] _Hesiod_, Theogonia, 190-206.

[14] Consult the Poem of _Sappho_ in _Brunck_, Analect. vet. poet.
Graec., Vol. I. p. —_Suidas_ under the word Ψιθυριστής (whisperer),
as epithet of Venus. _Eustathius_ on Homer, Odyssey, XX., p. 1881.
Her attribute was a key to the Heart. _Pindar_, Pyth. IV. 390. Comp.
_Ovid_, Fast. IV. 133 sqq.

[15] The Trojan women used to betake themselves before their marriage
to the river Scamander, to bathe in it and say: Receive, Scamander, our
Virginity. _Aeschines_, Epist. II. p. 738.

[16] _Herodotus_, Bk. II. ch. 64. Καὶ τὸ μὴ μίσγεσθαι γυναιξὶ, ἐν
ἱροῖς, μηδὲ ἀλούτους ἀπὸ γυναικῶν ἐς ἱρὰ ἐσιέναι, οὗτοι εἰσὶ οἱ
πρῶτοι θρησκεύσαντες· _οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι σχεδὸν πάντες ἄνθρωποι_, πλὴν
Αἰγυπτίων καὶ Ἑλλήνων, _μίσγονται ἐν ἱροῖσι_.

(And the practice of not having intercourse with women in temples, and
not going into temples unwashed after such intercourse, these practices
they were the first to observe as a matter of religion; _for almost
all the rest of mankind_, except Egyptians and Greeks, _have sexual
intercourse in temples_.) Comp. _Clement of Alexandria_, Stromat. bk.
I. p. 361.

[17] Already in his time St. Jerome affirmed: omnem concubitum
coniugale esse peccatum, nisi causa procreandi sobolem (that all
conjugal coition is a sin, except for the sake of begetting offspring);
and _Andr. Beverland_ (de peccato originali—On Original Sin, p. 60.);
Ingenitum nefas nil aliud est, quam coeundi ista libido, (Inborn sin is
nothing else than the foul craving for coition). With this should be
compared the view of _Lycurgus_, which _Plutarch_ cites in his life of
him.

Also _Athenaeus_ (Deipnosoph. Bk. XXI. p. 510.) says: προκριθείσης
γοῦν τῆς' Ἀφροδίτης, αὕτη δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ ἡδονὴ, πάντα συνεταράχθη. (thus
Aphrodité being rather chosen,—now this is sensual pleasure,—all was
thrown into confusion.) _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedog. bk. II. ch.
10. Ψιλὴ γὰρ ἡδονὴ, κἂν ἐν γάμῳ παραληφθῇ, παράνομός ἐστι καὶ ἄδικος
καὶ ἄλογος. (For base pleasure—i.e. pleasure for its own sake,—even
though it have been enjoyed in wedlock, is unlawful and unjust and
unreasonable.)—_Philo_, De opificio mundi, pp. 34, 35, 38. De Allegoria,
II. p. 1100. ὄφιν εἶναι σύμβολον ἡδονῆς. (the snake is the symbol of
sensual pleasure.) With some coarseness Rabbi Zahira explains the
Fall. The Tree, he says, that bore the forbidden fruit signifies the
instrument of generation in Man; not the Tree in the midst of the
garden of Eden, he comments, but the Tree in the midst of the body,
which is not in the midmost of the garden, but in the midmost of the
Woman, for it is there that the garden is planted. _Nork_, “Braminen
und Rabinen,” (Brahmins and Rabbis). Meissen 1836. large 8vo. pp. 91.

[18] Descript. Graeciae, bk. I. ch. 14.

[19] _Homer_, Odyss. Bk. VIII. 362.—_Hesiod_, Theog. 193.—_Strabo_,
XIV. 983.—_Tacitus_, Hist. II. 3.—_Pausanias_, VIII. 5. 2.

[20] _Sanchoniathon_, Fragment. edit. Orelli, p. 34., _Eusebius_,
Praeparat. Evang., I. 10., τὴν δὲ Ἀστάρτην Φοίνικες τὴν Ἀφροδίτην εἶναι
λέγουσι. (Now the Phoenicians say that Astarté is Aphrodité.)

[21] _Herodotus_, Bk. I. ch. 105. _Homer_, Hymn. IX. 1. _Ruhnken_,
Epist. crit. I. p. 51. _Heyne_, Antiquarische Aufs. I. p. 135.

[22] Hence the Father _Ephraim Syrus_ (Hymn in Opp. Vol. II. p. 457.
_Gesenius_, “Kommentar. zum Jesaias,” (Commentary on Isaiah), Pt. II.
p. 540. Ephraim lived 379 A. D.):—It is Venus that led astray her
followers, the Ishmaelites. Into our land also she came, how most
abundantly do the sons of Hagar honour her.

  A street-walker (they call) the Moon,
  Like a courtesan they represent Venus.
  Twain they call female among the Stars.
  And not merely names are they,
  Names without meaning, these female names,
  Abounding in Wantonness are they in themselves.
  For since they are the women of all men,
  Who amongst them can be modest,
  Who amongst them chaste,
  Who exercised his wedlock after the fashion of the fowls?

Who (otherwise than the Chaldaeans) introduced the Festival of that
frantic Goddess, at whose Solemnities Women practise harlotry?

[23] Histor. Bk. I. ch. 199. Ἐπεὰν δὲ μιχθῇ, ἀποσιωσαμένη τῇ θεῷ,
ἀπαλλάσσεται ἐς τὰ οἰκία· καὶ τὠπὸ τούτου οὐκ οὕτω μέγα τί οἱ δώσεις
ὥς μιν λάμψεαι. (But after she has gone with a man, and so acquitted
her obligation to the goddess, she returns to her home; and from
that time forth no gift however great will prevail with her.) The
same thing is related also by _Baruch_ VI. 42, 43. Comp. _Voss_ on
_Virgil_, Georgics, II. 523 sqq. To this day we find amongst the bold
sons of the Desert, the Arabians, some trace of this devotion of their
fathers, Niebuhr writes (“Beschreibung von Arabien”—(Description of the
Arabians), Copenhagen 1772, p. 54. note.): “I read that the Europeans
have investigated with great erudition and eloquence the question, Num
inter naturalis debiti et conjugalis officii egerium liceat psallere,
orare, etc.? (Whether in the performance of the debt of nature and
the conjugal office it is lawful to sing, to pray, and so on?) I do
not know what the Mohammedans have written on this matter. I have
been assured that it is their custom to begin all their occupations
with the words; Bismallâh errachmân errachhîm (in the name of the
merciful and gracious God), and that they must say this also “ante
conjugalis officii egerium (before the performance of the conjugal
office), and that no reputable man omits this.” So at the present day
in Italy the courtesan bows before the image of her Madonna, before
she gives herself, and says to her, “Madonna, mi ajuta!” or “Madonna,
mi perdonna!” (Madonna, be my aid!, Madonna, pardon me!) whilst she
draws a veil over her picture, and calls this Christianity! For the
rest Constantine abolished the custom in question at Babylon and
at Heliopolis, and destroyed the Temples of Venus at those places.
_Eusebius_, Life of Constantine, III. p. 58. _Socrates_, Eccles. Hist.
I. 18.

[24] _Heeren_, “Ideen über Politik und Handel,” (Ideas on Political
Science and Trade), Pt. I. 2. p. 257.

[25] So we think we ought to understand the _κατα_πορνεύει τὰ θήλεα
τέκνα (prostitute _down_ their female children) in the text, for the
expression is evidently formed on the same plan as the καθῆσθαι ἐπ’
οἰκήματος (to sit down at a house of ill-fame in _Plato_, Charmides,
163. c.; because the brothels lay near the harbour, and so in the more
low-lying region, away from Athens itself. In the same way the Romans
used the verb _descendere_ (to go down), e. g. _Horace_, Satires I. 2.
34., because the public houses of ill-fame at Rome were in the valley,
in the Subura.

[26] Hist. of Alexander the Great, Bk. V. ch. 1. Comp. Isaiah, XIV.
11., XLVII. 1. Jeremiah, LI. 39. Daniel, V. 1.

[27] Bk. XI. p. 532. Ἀλλὰ καὶ θυγατέρας οἱ ἐπιφανέστατοι τοῦ ἔθνους
ἀνιεροῦσι παρθένους, αἷς νόμος ἐστὶ, καταπορνευθείσαις πολὺν χρόνον
παρὰ τῇ θεῷ μετὰ ταῦτα δίδοσθαι πρὸς γάμον. (Moreover the chief men
of the nation consecrate their daughters when still virgins, and it
is the custom for these, after acting as prostitutes for a long time
in the service of the goddess, then to be given in marriage). Hence
the Scholiast also to _Juvenal_, Satir. I. 104, “Mesopotameni homines
effrenatae libidinis sunt in utroque sexu, ut Salustius meminit,”
(The inhabitants of Mesopotamia are people of unbridled lustfulness
in either sex, as Sallust records); and _Cedrenus_, Chaldaeorum et
Babyloniorum leges plenae sunt impudicitiae atque turpitudinis, (the
laws of the Chaldaeans and Babylonians are full of indecency and
foulness).

[28] Bk. I chs. 93, 94. The ἐνεργαζόμεναι παιδίσκαι (maids working
at their handicraft) mentioned in this passage are maids who, to use
Heine’s expression, practice their _horizontal_ craft. Herodotus’ story
is also found mentioned in _Strabo_ Bk. XI. p. 533., _Aelian_, Var.
Hist., bk, IV. ch. 1., and _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XII. p. 516.

[29] Augustine, De Civit. Dei, bk. IV. ch. 10. Cui (Veneri) etiam
Phoenices donum de prostitutione filiarum, ante quam iungerent
eas viro, (To whom—Venus,—the Phoenicians also made a gift of the
prostitution of their daughters, before they married them to a
husband). _Athenagoras_, Adv. Graecos, p. 27. D., Γυναῖκες γοῦν ἐν
εἰδωλείοις τῆς Φοινικίας πάλαι προκαθέζοντο ἀπαρχόμεναι τοῖς ἐκεῖ
θεοῖς ἑαυτῶν τὴν τοῦ σώματος αυτῶν μισθαρνίαν, νομίζουσαι τῇ πορνείᾳ
τὴν θεὸν ἑαυτῶν ἱλάσκεσθαι. (Thus women used of old to sit in the
idolatrous temples of the Phoenicians, offering as first-fruits to
the gods therein the hire of the prostitution of their own bodies,
deeming that by fornication was their goddess propitiated). Comp.
_Eusebius_, De Praeparat. Evangel. IV. 8.—_Athanasius_, Orat. contra
Gentes.—_Theodoret_, Hist. Eccles. I. 8.

[30] De Dea Syra, ch. 6.

[31] _Valerius Maximus_, bk. II. ch. 6. 15., Sicae enim fanum est
Veneris, in quod matronae (Poenicarum) conferebant; atque inde
prosedentes ad quaestum, dotes corporis iniuria contrahebant, (for
at Sica is a shrine of Venus, to which the matrons—amongst the
Phoenicians—used to repair; and there sitting for hire, earned their
dowers by the prostitution of their persons).

[32] _Justinus_, Histor. Philipp., bk. XVIII, ch. 5., Mos erat Cypriis,
virgines ante nuptias statutis diebus, dotalem pecuniam quaesituras, in
quaestum ad litus maris mittere, pro reliqua pudicitia libamenta Veneri
soluturas. (It was a custom among the Cyprians to send the virgins
before their marriage on fixed days to the sea-shore, there to sit for
hire and so earn money for their dowry, to thus render to Venus the
first-fruits of their maidenhood). Comp. _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XII,
p. 516.

[33] _Justinus_, Histor. Philipp., bk. XXI. ch. 3., Cum Rheginorum
tyranni Leophronis bello Locrenses premerentur, voverant, si victores
forent, ut die festo Veneris virgines suas prostituerent. Quo voto
intermisso cum adversa bella cum Lucanis gererent, in concionem eos
Dionysius vocat: hortatur ut uxores filiasque suas in templum Veneris
quam possint ornatissimas mittant, ex quibus sorte ductae centum
voto publico fungantur, religionisque gratia uno stent in lupanari
mense omnibus ante iuratis viris, ne quis ullam attaminet. Quae res ne
virginibus voto civitatem solventibus fraudi esset, decretum facerent:
ne qua virgo nuberet, priusquam illae maritis traderentur. etc. (The
people of Locri, when they were hard pressed in the war with Leophron
tyrant of the Rhegians, had made a vow, that should they be victorious,
they would abandon their virgins to prostitution on the feast-day of
Venus. But this vow was broken, and when they were waging a disastrous
war with the Lucanians, Dionysius calls them to an assembly, wherein
he urges them to send their wives and daughters to the Temple of Venus
in the gayest array they could, and that of these a hundred should
be chosen by lot to carry out the public vow; that to fulfil the
obligation to the goddess they should stand publicly in a brothel one
month, all men having previously bound themselves by oath that none
should deflower any one of them. Further that this thing should be no
detriment to the maidens who so freed the city of its vow, a decree
should be passed to the effect that no maiden might marry, until these
were given to husbands; etc.). Comp. _Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. XII. p.
516. _Strabo_, bk. VI. p. 259, says: προεγάμει τὰς νυμφοστοληθείσας,
(he used to lie first with maidens that had been made brides).

[34] “De Babyloniorum instituto, ut mulieres ad Veneris templum
prostarent,” (On the Babylonian custom of Women prostituting themselves
at the Temple of Venus), note on Herodotus, I. p. 199 in Commentat.
Soc. Reg. Götting., Vol. XVI. pp. 30-42.

[35] Vermischte Schriften, vol. VI. pp. 23-50, “Ueber eine Stelle bei
Herodot.” (On a passage in Herodotus).

[36] According to _Tacitus_, Histor. II. 2., Under no circumstances
must blood flow on the altars of the Paphian goddess.

[37] “Ideen über Politik und Handel,” (Ideas on Political Science and
Trade), I. 2. p. 180. note 2.

[38] The King of Calicut at the southern extremity of Malabar gives
his principal Priest a honorarium of 500 dollars, that he may loose
his wives’ virgin-zone for him in the name of the Deity. _Sonnerat_,
“Voyage aux Indes orientales” (Travels to the East Indies), Vol. I. p.
69. _Hamilton_, “New Account of the East Indies,” Vol. I. p. 308.

[39] _Herodotus_, bk. IV. ch. 172.—_Pomponius Mela_, bk. I. ch. 8. § 35.

[40] _Diodorus Siculus_, bk. V. ch. 18.

[41] Menstruation was under the protection of the goddess _Mena_
(Augustine, De Civ. Dei, bk. XI. 11. VII. 2.; but Myllita was the Moon!

[42] Therefore in the case of the Lydians the women themselves
selected their Strangers. _Strabo_, bk. XI. p. 533., δέχονται δὲ οὐ
τοὺς τυχόντας τῶν ξένων, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα τοὺς ἀπὸ ἴσου ἀξιώματος. (but
they receive not just the first-comers amongst the strangers, but by
preference those of an equal position).

[43] So even in the Middle Ages, e. g. at Venice, it was quite usual
for the daughters to earn their dowry by selling their bodies, and
there, as in France, it was the mothers who acted as procuresses to
their daughters with this object. _Stephanus_, “Apologie d’Herodote”,
Vol. I. pp. 46-49. _Fr. Jacobs_, loco citato, p. 40.

[44] Memorari quoque solent causae physicae, seu marium seu feminarum
corporis infirmitatis, quibus floris virginei decerpendi molestia
aggravatur. (Certain physical reasons also are mentioned, connected
with bodily defects whether of the man or the woman, which aggravate
the difficulty of deflowering a virgin), _Heyne_, loco citato, p. 39.
When these partly dietetic and prophylactic relations of the practice
disappeared from the memory of the people, the _Priapus_ kept only
its fecundating qualities, and accordingly we read in _Augustine_,
De Civitate Dei, bk. VI. ch. 9., Sed quid hoc dicam, cum ibi sit et
Priapus nimius masculus, super cuius immanissimum et turpissimum
fascinum sedere nova nupta jubeatur more honestissimo et religiossimo
matronarum? (But why tell of this, though Priapus is there, with the
exaggerated penis of a man, on whose huge and foul organ the newly-wed
bride is told to _sit_, following the custom held highly honourable
and religious of matrons?) Comp. _Lactantius_, I. 20.—_Tertullian_,
Adnot. II. 11. The same is related by _Arnobius_, bk. VI. ch. 7., of
the similar god _Mutuus_: Etiamne Mutuus, cuius immanibus pudendis,
horrentique fascino, vestras inequitare matronas, et auspicabile
ducitis et optatis. (Mutuus too, on whose huge pudenda, and horrid
organ you think it auspicious and desirable for your matrons to ride).

[45] _Linschotten_, “Orientalische Schiffahrt,” (Oriental Voyage), Pt.
I. ch. 33.

[46] _Orpheus_, Argonaut. 422.—_Lucian_, De Saltat. ch. 27., Dialog.
Deorum, 2.

[47] _Strabo_, XI. p. 495.

[48] _Herodotus_, bk. I. ch. 105., καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἐν Κύπρῳ ἱρὸν ἐνθεῦτεν
ἐγένετο, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι Κύπριοι· καὶ τὸ ἐν Κυθήροισι Φοίνικές εἰσι
οἱ ἱδρυσάμενοι, ἐκ ταύτης τῆς Συρίης ἐόντες, (for the Temple in Cyprus
was built from it,—i.e. in imitation of the temple of Venus at Ascalon,
as the Cyprians themselves admit; and that in Cythera was erected
by the Phoenicians, who belong to this part of Syria.). _Clemens
Alexandrinus_, Ad Gentes, p. 10., speaks of Cinyras as having been the
man who introduced the temple-service in Cyprus. Comp. _Jul. Firmicus_,
De Error. profan. relig. p. 22. _Arnobius_, Ad Gentes, bk. V., (for the
Temple in Cyprus was built from it,—i.e. in imitation of the temple of
Venus at Ascalon, as the Cyprians themselves admit; and that in Cythera
was erected by the Phoenicians, who belong to this part of Syria.).
_Clemens Alexandrinus_, Ad Gentes, p. 10., speaks of Cinyras as having
been the man who introduced the temple-service in Cyprus. Comp. _Jul.
Firmicus_, De Error. profan. relig. p. 22. _Arnobius_, Ad Gentes, bk. V.

[49] Ποντία, Λιμενιάς (of the Sea, of Harbours), at Hermioné,
_Pausanias_, Attica ch. 34. _Mitscherlich_, on Horace, Odes bk. I. 3.
1. Also the epithet εὔπλοια (of fair Winds), _Pausanias_, Attica I. 3.,
should be mentioned here. _Musaeus_, Hero and Leander 245. _Horace_,
Odes III. 26. 3. “Venus Marina”, (Venus of the Sea).

[50] _Pausanias_, bk. III. 23., VI. 25., VIII. 32., IX. 16.—_Plato_,
Sympos.—_Xenophon_, Sympos. ch. 8.

[51] _Augustine_, De Civit. Dei, bk. IV. ch. 10. “An Veneres duae sunt,
una virgo, una mulier? An potius tres, una virginum, quae etiam Vesta
est, alia conjugatarum, alia meretricum? (Are there two Venuses, one a
virgin, the second a matron? Or rather are there three, one of virgins,
who is also Vesta, another of wives, another of harlots?)

[52] “Quae Cnidon fulgentesque tenet Cycladas et Paphon,” (The goddess
who haunts Cnidos and the gleaming Cyclades and Paphos), _Horace_, Odes
III. 28. 13. Ἐνοικέτις τῶν νήσων (Inhabitress of the isles), _Suidas_.

[53] Remarkably enough some would derive the name _Bordeaux_ (_Bordel_)
from the French _bord_ and _eau_, because the houses of ill-fame were
almost always to be found on the bank of the river or in bagnios!
_Parent-Duchatelet_, “Die Sittenverderbniss in der Stadt Paris,” (The
Corruption of Morals in the City of Paris), Vol. I. p. 125.

[54] _Strabo_, XIV. 683.

[55] _Suidas_, under expression κυλλοῦ πήραν (cripple’s wallet) quotes
that here—at Pera,—was a Fountain which made fruitful and facilitated
delivery.

[56] According to _Athenaeus_, Deipnosoph., XII. p. 647., at the Feast
of the Thesmophoria at Syracuse μυλλοί, representations of the female
genital organs, moulded of sesame and honey, were carried about. This
calls to remembrance the _Juni_ of the Indians and the Phallus images.

[57] Bk. XIV. p. 657.

[58] Bk. II. ch. 27.

[59] “Ideen zur Kunst-Mythologie,” (Ideas towards a Study of the
Mythology of Art). Dresden 1826. large 8vo. p. 207.

[60] _Coveel_, “De Sacerdotio Veterum Virginum.” (On the office of
Priestess as filled by Virgins in Antiquity). Abo 1704. 8vo.—_Hirt,
A._, “Die Hierodulen, mit Beilagen von Böckh und Buttmann,” (The
Hieroduli, with Supplements by Böckh and Buttmann). I Pt. Berlin
1818. large 8vo.—_Kreuser, J._, “Der Hellenen Priesterstaat, mit
vorzüglicher Rücksicht auf die Hierodulen,” (Priestly Institutions of
the Hellenes, with particular reference to the Hieroduli). Mayence
1822. 8vo.—_Adrian_, “Die Priesterinnen der Griechen,” (The Priestesses
of the Greeks). Frankfort-on-the-Main 1822. 8vo.—_Schinke_, in Ersch
and Gruber’s Allgem. Encyclopaedie, II. Sect. 8 Pt. p. 50.

[61] _Strabo_, Bk. XII. p. 557.

[62] _Strabo_, Bk. XII. p. 559.—_Heyne, Ch. G._ “Comment. de Sacerdotio
Comanensi de Religionum cis et trans Taurum consensione,” (Commentaries
on the Priesthood of Comana, and generally on the Similarity of
Religions on the nearer and farther side of the Taurus range), Comment.
Soc. Reg. Götting. Vol. XVI. pp. 101-149.

[63] _Strabo_, bk. VIII p. 378., Τό τε τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἱερὸν οὕτω
πλούσιον ὑπῆρξεν, ὥστε πλείους ἢ χιλίας ἱεροδούλους ἐκέκτητο ἑταίρας,
ἃς ἀνετίθεσαν τῇ θεῷ καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες· Καὶ διὰ ταύτας οὖν
ἐπολυοχλεῖτο ἡ πόγις καὶ ἐπλουτίζετο. οἱ γὰρ ναύκληροι ῥᾳδίως
ἐξανηλίκοντο, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἡ παροιμία φησίν, Οὐ παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐς
Κόρινθον ἔσθ’ ὁ πλοῦς. (And the temple of Aphrodité was so rich that
it possessed more than a thousand Hetaerae attached to its service as
Hieroduli, whom both men and women dedicated to the goddess. And so for
this reason the city was frequented by multitudes and grew wealthy;
for shipmasters used readily to visit the port, and on this account
says the proverb: It does not fall to _every_ man to sail to Corinth.)
Comp. the Commentators on Horace, Epist. I. 17. 36. _Alexander ab
Alexandro_, Genial. dier. lib., VI. ch. 26., Corinthi supra mille
prostitutae in templo Veneris assiduae degere et inflammata libidine
quaestui meretricio operam dare et velut sacrorum ministrae Deae
famulari solebant. (At Corinth more, than a thousand prostitutes were
wont to live always in the temple of Venus and with lust ever a flame
to give their lives to the gains of harlotry and to serve the goddess
as handmaidens of her rites).

[64] _Solinus_, Polyhist. ch. 2. _Festus, F._, under word Frutinal (an
Etruscan name of Venus).—_Micali_, “L’Italia avanti il Dominio dei
Romani,” (Italy before the Dominion of the Romans). II. p. 47.—_Heyne_
on Virgil, Aeneid bk. V. Excursus 2.—_Bamberger_, “Uber die Entstehung
des Mythus von Aeneas Ankunft zu Latinum,” (On the Origin of the Myth
of Aeneas’ Coming to Latium), in Welcker and Näke’s Rhein. Museum für
Phil., VI. 1. 1838. pp. 82-105.

[65] _Servius_, on Virgil, Aeneid bk. I. 720.—_Julius Capitolinus_,
Vita Maximin. ch. 7. Baldness was in Antiquity, and particularly at
Rome, as it is still, frequently one of the sequelae of sexual excesses.

[66] _Richard Payne Knight_, An account of the Remains of the Worship
of Priapus, lately existing at Isernia, in the kingdom of Naples: in
two Letters,—one from _Sir William Hamilton_ to _Sir Joseph Banks_,
and the other from a Person residing at Isernia. To which is added a
discourse on the worship of Priapus and its connexion with the mystic
Theology of the Ancients. London (published by T. Spilsburg) 1786. pp.
195. 4to., with 18 Copperplates. Comp. with regard to this rare work
_C. A. Böttiger_ in Amalthea, vol. 3. pp. 408-418., and _Choulant_ in
Hecker’s Annalen, Vol. XXXIII (1836). pp. 414-418.—_J. A. Dulaure_,
“Les Divinités génératrices, ou sur le Culte du Phallus,” (Divinities
of generation, or on Phallic worship). Paris 1805., a work which to our
regret we have been unable to make use of.

[67] Hence in _Orpheus_, Hym. V. 9., the Protogonos (First-born) i. e.
Eros, is called Πρίηπος ἄναξ (King Priapus).

[68] “Voyage aux Indes et à la Chine,” (Journey to the Indies and
China), Vol. I.—_Schaufus_, “Neueste Entdeckungen über das Vaterland
und die Verbreitung der Pocken und der Lustseuche,” (Latest Discoveries
as to the Original Home and Dissemination of the Pox and Venereal
Disease). Leipzig 1805., pp. 31 sqq., from which we give the quotation
that follows in the text.

[69] The beggars or Fakirs in India wander about the country in
thousands, almost uncovered, (_Augustine_, De Civit. Dei, chs. 14,
17.) and excessively dirty (_Havus_ “Historicae Relatio de Regno et
Statu magni Regis Magor,” (Historical Account of the Reign and State
of the great King Magor). Antwerp 1605. p. 1695); after their visits
unfruitful wives especially become fruitful (δύνασθαι δὲ καὶ πολυγόνους
ποιεῖν καὶ ἀῤῥενογόνους διὰ φαρμακευτικῆς,—and they can make even the
barren have many children by means of their drugs,—_Strabo_ says, Bk.
II.). The people bestir themselves to do them every honour and the men
quit their villages, so as to leave the monks a free hand. _Papi_,
“Briefe über Indien,” (Letters on India), p. 217.—_P. von Bohlen_, “Das
alte Indien,” (Ancient India), Königsberg 1830. Vol. I. p. 282.

[70] _Strabo_ and _Arrian_, Indic. 17., already in their time state,
at any rate of the nobler Indian women, that they could have been
allured to profligacy at no price, except at that of an elephant.
According to _von Bohlen_ (“Das alte Indien,”—Ancient India, Vol. II.
p. 17, Vol. I. p. 275.) it would seem that not the slightest trace (?)
can be found of the immoral life of the Indian priests in Antiquity,
on the contrary that chastity was the first thing needful to gain
them respect and honour, and their whole literature is never ready
to extol a priest or hero more highly than when he has withstood the
enticements to unchastity. Hence what is asserted of the Devâdasis or
Priestesses of the gods as being courtesans for the Priests is also
in the main untrue, since it rests, as in the case of the Hieroduli,
chiefly on a confusion with the Bhayatri (Bayaderes, the Hetaerae
of the Greeks), or holds good only for particular places (_Häfner_,
“Landreise längs der Küste Orixa und Koromandel,”—(Journey along the
Orissa and Coromandel Coast). Weimar 1809. Vol. I. pp. 80 sqq.—_Papi_,
“Briefe über Indien,” (Letters about India), p. 356.—_Wallace_,
“Denkwürdigkeiten,” (Memorabilities), p. 301.)—In this connection
should be mentioned also the narrative of the Jesuit—in other respects
suspicious—in the edifying letters addressed to _Schaufus_, ch. I. p.
40, that during his residence in a Hindoo town he had been informed,
that it would be unsafe at the present moment to allow foreigners to
visit the Devadâsis, on the contrary that there was nothing to fear
from those attached to the Pagoda of the place. Even if we admit the
truth of this narrative for more modern times too, still the conclusion
that _Schaufus_ draws from it, that in Hindostan every Pagoda is a
brothel, is surely somewhat hasty.—Some other legends of the origin of
the Lingam ritual in India are given in _Meiner’s_ “Allgem. kritische
Geschichte der Religionen,” (Universal Critical History of Religions),
Vol. I. P. 254.

[71] _Anquetil_, Voyage, p. 139., “Le Lingam, c’est à-dire, les parties
naturelles de l’homme réunies à celles de la femme,” (The Lingam, that
is to say, the natural parts of the man joined to those of the woman).
Comp. _Roger_, “Neu eröffnetes Indisches Heidenthum,” (Paganism of
India newly Revealed). Nürnberg 1863. 8vo., II. 2.

[72] “De Morbi Venerei Curatione in India usitata,” (On the Mode of
Curing the Venereal Disease practised in the East Indies). Copenhagen
1795. Comp. _Tode_, Med. Journal Vol. II. Pt. 2. Unfortunately we have
been able to obtain a sight neither of _Klein’s_ Treatise nor of _Tode_.

[73] _Strabo_, Geogr. pp. 1027, 1037. μηδὲ γὰρ νόσους εἶναι πολλὰς
διὰ τὴν λιτότητα τῆς διαίτης καὶ τὴν ἀοινίαν. (nor yet are their
diseases many, owing to their plainness of living and abstinence from
wine). Comp. _Ctesias_, Indic. 15. _Lucian_, Macrob. ch. 4. _Diodorus
Siculus_, Bk. II. ch. 40. _Pliny_, Histor. Nat. Bk. XVII. ch. 2.

[74] _Sprengel’s_ “Neue Beiträge zur Völkerkunde,” (New Contributions
to Ethnology), Bk. VII. p. 76.

[75] In this connection may be cited the view which _Clement of
Alexandria_, Ad Gentes p. 10., expresses as to the origin of Aphrodité:
Ἡ μὲν ἀφρογενής τε καὶ κυπρογενὴς, ἡ Κινύρᾳ φίλη, τὴν Ἀφροδίτην λέγω,
_τὴν φιλομηδέα, ὅτι μηδέων ἐξεφαάνθη_, μηδέων ἐκείνων τῶν ἀποκεκομμένων
Οὐρανοῦ, τῶν λάγνων, τῶν μετὰ τὴν τομὴν τὸ κῦμα βεβιασμένων· ὡς ἀσελγῶν
ὑμῖν μορίων ἄξιος Ἀφροδίτη γίνεται καρπὸς ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς. (Now the
foam-sprung, Cyprus-born goddess, the patroness of Cinyras, Aphrodité
I mean, _she that loves the parts of a man, because from them she
sprung_, to wit those parts that were lopped off from Uranus, those
lewd parts which after their severance violated the sea-wave. Of such
foul components is Aphrodité the worthy child in the mysteries).

[76] _Minutoli_, “Reise zum Tempel des Jupiter Ammon,” (Journey to the
Temple of Jupiter Ammon), p. 121.—_Münter_, “Religion der Babylonier,”
(Religion of the Babylonians), p. 130.

[77] Bk. II. ch. 48. “Description de l’Egypte” II. p.
411.—_Wyttenbach_, on Plutarch, Isid. p. 186.

[78] Histories bk. II. ch. 64. Καὶ τὸ μὴ μίσγεσθαι γυναιξὶ ἐν ἱροῖσι,
μηδὲ ἀλούτους ἀπὸ γυναικῶν ἐς ἱρὰ ἐσιέναι, οὗτοί εἰσι οἱ πρῶτοι
θρησκεύσαντες· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι σχεδὸν πάντες ἄνθρωποι, πλὴν Αἰγυπτίων
καὶ Ἑλλήνων, μίσγονται ἐν ἱροῖσι· καὶ ἀπὸ γυναικῶν ἀνιστάμενοι, ἄλουτοι
ἐσέρχονται ἐς ἱρόν. (And the practice of not having intercourse with
women in temples, and not going into temples unwashed after such
intercourse, these practices they were the first to observe as a matter
of religion; for almost all the rest of mankind, except Egyptians and
Greeks, have sexual intercourse in temples). Comp. also _Clement of
Alexandria_, Stromat. Bk. I. p. 361.

[79] Geogr. Bk. XVII, ch. 46. Τῷ δὲ Διΐ, ὃν μάλιστα τιμῶσιν,
εὐειδεστάτη καὶ γένους λαμπροτάτου παρθένος ἱερᾶται, ἃς καλοῦσι οἱ
Ἕλληνες Παλλάδας· αὕτη δὲ καὶ παλλακεύει, καὶ σύνεστιν οἷς βούλεται,
μέχρις ἂν ἡ φυσικὴ γένηται τοῦ σώματος κάθαρσις· μετὰ δὲ τὴν κάθαρσιν
δίδοται πρὸς ἄνδρας. (And to Zeus, whom they reverence most, a maiden,
most beautiful and of highest lineage, is consecrated, and these
priestesses the Greeks call Pallades. And she acts as a courtesan, and
lies with whom she pleases, until the natural purging (menstruation) of
the body begins. And after this she is given in marriage). So here we
find brought into connection with the Zeus of the Egyptians the same
practice we observed amongst Asiatics in the Venus cult.

[80] According to _Herodotus_, bk. II. 51., the Greeks borrowed the
Phallic ritual under the form of the Hermae (pillars of Hermes)
from the Pelasgians, by which name according to _Böttiger_,
“Kunstmythologie,” (Mythology of Art), p. 213, Phoenicians should
be understood. Comp. _Cicero_, De Nat. Deorum bk. III. ch. 22., and
_Creuzer’s_ note on the passage.

[81] “Mythologiae, sive Explicationis Fabularum Libri X,” (Mythology,
or the Explanation of Legendary Tales, in X Books). Frankfort 1588.
8vo. pp. 498. The Author borrowed this legend according to p. 487
from _Perimander_, “De Sacrificiorum Ritibus apud Varias Gentes,” (On
the Rites of Sacrifice amongst Various Nations), bk. II. But it is
also found in the _Scholiast_ to _Aristophanes_, Acharn. l. 242: ὁ
Ξανθίας τὸν φαλλὸν.—περὶ δὲ αὐτοῦ τοῦ φαλλοῦ τοιαῦτα λέγεται. Πήγασος
ἐκ τῶν Ἐλευθήρων λαβὼν τοῦ Διονύσου τὰ ἀγάλματα ἧκεν εἰς τὴν Ἀττικήν·
οἱ δὲ Ἀττικοὶ οὐκ ἐδέξαντο μετὰ τιμῆς τὸν θεόν· ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀμισθί γε
αὐτοῖς ταῦτα βουλευσαμένοις ἀπέβη. μηνίσαντος γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ, _νόσος
κατέσκηψεν εἰς τὰ αἰδοῖα τῶν ἀνδρῶν_, καὶ τὸ δεινὸν ἀνήκεστον ἦν, ὡς δὲ
ἀπεῖπον πρὸς τὴν νόσον κρείττω γενομένην πάσης μαγγανείας καὶ τέχνης,
ἀπεστάλησαν θεωροὶ μετὰ σπουδῆς· οἱ δὲ ἐπανελθόντες ἔφασαν ἴασιν εἶναι
μόνην ταύτην, εἰ διὰ πάσης τιμῆς ἄγοιεν τὸν θεόν· πεισθέντες οὖν τοῖς
ἠγγελμένοις οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, φαλλοὺς ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ δημοσίᾳ κατεσκεύασαν,
καὶ τούτοις ἐγέραιρον τὸν θεόν, ὑπόμνημα ποιούμενοι πάθους. (Xanthias
mentions _the Phallus_.—Now about the Phallus itself the following
story is told. Pegasus removed the statues of Dionysus at Eleutherae
from there, and came to Athens with them. However the Athenians did
not receive the god with due honour. But for this ill counsel they by
no means got off scot-free; for the god was wroth, and a disease fell
upon the private parts of the men. The plague was incurable; and after
they had tried in vain every device of magic art and physician’s skill
against the disease that only grew the more, envoys were despatched
with all speed to the oracle. So these went up, and brought back the
reply that the only remedy was this, that they should bring in the
god in procession with all possible honour. Therefore the Athenians,
submitting themselves to what was reported as the will of heaven,
made phalli—private and public, and presented them to the god as a
complimentary gift, thus commemorating the affliction). A different
explanation from this is given by the _Scholiast_ to _Lucian_, “De Syra
dea,” (Of the Syrian goddess), ch. 16., where the Phallus service is
brought in a measure into connection with Paederastia.

[82] Comp. _Pausanias_, Descriptio Graeciae bk. I. ch. 2.

[83] I. ch. p. 528.; perhaps following _Posidonius_, “De heroibus et
daemonibus,” (Of heroes and demigods)? comp. p. 391. But _Servius_
on Virgil, Georgics IV. 111., also has this legend. _Suidas_, under
the word πρίαπος. _Scioppius_, who likewise relates it in his edition
of the Priapeia, adds: fuit autem morbus ille quem hodie _Gallicum
vocamus_, (but it was the disease which _we nowadays call the French
disease_—Siphylis).

[84] _Diodorus Siculus_, Bk. IV. ch. 4., says of Bacchus: He had a
tender body and was extremely effeminate; his beauty distinguished
him above all others, and his temper was strongly inclined to
voluptuousness. On his progresses he used to take with him a crowd of
women, etc. _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag. Bk. II. ch. 2., Ὀργῶσι
γοῦν ἀναιδέστερον ἀναξέοντες οἴνου, καὶ οἰδοῦσι μαστοί τε καὶ μόρια,
προκηρύσσοντες ἤδη πορνείας εἰκόνα. (So they revel shamelessly being
full of wine, and breasts and members swell, showing forth already an
image of harlotry). Sufficiently noteworthy is the following passage
from _Augustine_, De Civit. Dei bk. VI. ch. 4., Liberum a liberamento
appellatum volunt, quod mares a coeundo per eius beneficium emissis
seminibus liberentur; hoc idem in feminis agere _Liberam_ quam etiam
Venerem putant, quod et ipsas perhibeant semina emittere et ob hoc
Libero eamdem virilis corporis partem in templo poni, femineam Liberae.
(The name of Liber (Bacchus) they derive from _liberamentum_, the act
of freeing, because males in the act of coition are freed by his aid
when the seed is emitted; the same function they consider Libera, who
is identified with Venus, to perform for women, because they say that
women also emit seed, and that for this reason that same part of the
male body is consecrated to Liber in his temple, and the corresponding
female part to Libera).

[85] Juno was not merely the Patron goddess of the birth-hour, but
also of fornication. Comp. _Dousa_, Praecidan. pro Tibullo, ch.
18.—Politian, Miscell. ch. 89. Hence also “filles de joies” used to
swear by Juno, as we see from Tibullus, Bk. III. Eleg. 4.,

  Esto perque suos fallax iuravit ocellos,
    Junonemque suam, perque suam Venerem,

(Be it so, she said, and the deceiver sware it by her own eyes, and by
Juno and by Venus, her patron goddesses). Bk. IV. Eleg. 18.,

  Haec per sancta tuae Junonis nomina iuro,
    Quae sola ante alios est mihi magna Deos.

(This by the holy divinity of Juno, thy goddess, I swear, who alone
before other deities is great in my eyes); and also from _Petronius_,
who (Satir. ch. 25.) makes a “fille de joie” declare: Junonem meam
iratam habeam, si unquam meminerim virginem fuisse (Juno my patron
goddess be wroth with me, if ever I remember to have been a maid).
According to _Lucian_, De Syra Dea ch. 16., Bacchus dedicated to Juno
noverca (stepmother) divers Phalli.

[86] The Greeks used to make little figures of men with big
genitals of wood, which they called Νευρόσπαστα (figures moved by
strings, puppets). _Lucian_, De Syra Dea ch. 16. _Herodotus_, II.
48. _Diodorus_, I. 88.—_Hesychius_ says: νάνος· ἐπὶ τῶν μικρῶν· ὡς
νάνον καὶ αἰδοῖον ἔχοντα μέγα· οἱ γοῦν νάνοι μεγάλα ἔχουσιν αἰδοῖα,
(_dwarf_: applied to the undersized; dwarf, but having large private
parts. Dwarfs _do_ have large private parts). Which reminds us of the
unhappy “cretins” with monstrous generative organs, who are notoriously
passionate Onanists (Masturbators) also.

[87] “_Priapeia_, sive diversorum poetarum in Priapum lusus, illustrati
commentariis Casp. Scioppii, Franci; L. Apuleji Madaurensis Ἀνεχόμενος
ab eodem illustratus. Heraclii imperatoris, Sophoclis Sophistae,
C. Antonii, Q. Sorani et Cleopatrae reginae epistolae de prodigiosa
Cleopatrae reginae libidine. Huic editioni accedunt Jos. Scaligeri
in Priapeia Commentarii ac Friderici Linden-Bruch. Patavii 1664. 8.
pag. 45. carmen XXXVII,” (_Priapeia_, or Verses of Various Poets to
Priapus, illustrated by commentaries of Caspar Scioppius, a Frenchman;
also Lucius Apuleius, of Madaura, his Ἀνεχόμενος, illustrated by the
same Scholar. Letters of the Emperor Heraclius, Sophocles the Sophist,
Caius Ausonius, Quintus Soranus and Queen Cleopatra, concerning the
extravagant and wanton voluptuousness of the said Queen. To this
edition are appended the Commentaries of Joseph Scaliger and of
Fridericus Linden-Bruch to the Priapeia. Padua 1664. 8vo., p. 45. Ode
XXXVII).

[88] Similarly we read in the distich _Antipater_, Antholog. Graec. bk.
II. Tit. 5. No. 3.:

  _Ἑστηκὸς_ τὸ Κίμωνος ἰδὼν _πέος_, εἶφ’ ὁ Πρίηπος,
  Οἴμοι, ὑπὸ θνητοῦ λείπομαι ἀθάνατος.

(When Priapus saw Cimon’s penis standing stiff, he said, “Woe’s me!” I
am thrown in the shade by a mortal, immortal though I be).

[89] In the Codex Coburgensis the Priapeia begin with the following
words: P. Virgilii Maronis Mantuani poetae clarissimi Priapi carmen
incipit feliciter, (the Song of Priapus by Publius Virgilius Maro, of
Mantua, the renowned poet, begins happily). Comp. _Bruckhusius_ Notes
to Tibullus bk. IV. Eleg. 14. At any rate the majority of the poems
belong to the golden age of Roman literature. For readers of the old
poets it may perhaps not be out of place here to remark that _Priapus_
as _Cultor Hortorum_ (Patron of Gardens) is not unfrequently mentioned
with an equivocal meaning, if indeed he has not come into the garden
entirely through misunderstanding. So we read in Priapeia, Ode 4.,

  Quod metis hortus habet, sumas impune licebit;
  Si dederis nobis, quod tuus hortus habet,

(What my garden has thou mayest take at will, if only thou give to us
what thine possesses) and in the “Anechomenos” of _Apuleius_.

  Thyrsumque pangant hortulo in Cupidinis,

(Let them plant the thyrsus (Bacchic staff) in the garden-plat of
Cupid). Similarly _Lucretius_, Bk. IV. 1100., says, ut muliebria
conserat arva, (to sow the woman’s seed-fields), and _Virgil_, Georgics
III. 136., speaks of, genitali arvo, (the seed-field of generation).
Possibly in this direction may be found a better interpretation of
the, irriguo nihil est elutius horto, (There is nought more insipid
than a new-watered garden), of _Horace_, Satires Bk. II. 4. 16. The
Greeks used in the same way their word κῆπος (garden), e. g. _Diogenes
Laertius_, II. 12, and _Hesychius_ explains it by τὸ ἐφήβιον γυναικεῖον
(the female organ of puberty). Similarly in _Aristophanes_ καλὸν
ἔχουσα τὸ πεδίον, (having the plain beautiful). The Koran also says,
Thy Wife is thy field!

[90] “Apologie pour Herodote,” (Defence of Herodotus), II., 253.

[91] _Strabo_, bk. XIII. 588.

[92] _Lucian_, De Dea Syra, § 28., relates that at Hieropolis there was
a Phallus 180 or 1800 feet in size.

[93] _Creuzer_, Symbolik, Bk. II. p. 85.—_de Wette_, Archäologie, § 233
k.—_Wiener_, Biblisches Realwörterbuch. 2nd. ed. Leipzig 1833., Vol. I.
p. 139. Article, _Baal_; and p. 260. Article, _Chamos_.

[94] Numbers, Ch. 23. v. 28. Deuteronomy, Ch. 4, v. 46.

[95] _Jonathan_, on Numbers Ch. 25. v. I. Might one draw attention to
the old Greek πέος (the penis), which is found in _Aristophanes_ and
_Antipater_,—p. 72. Note 2. loco citato? The adjective πεοίδης (πεώδης)
is given in _Eustathius_ according to _Schneider_, in the sense: with
thick, swollen member; and _Rodigin_, Lect. Antiq. Bk. VIII. ch. 6. p.
377, says: Postremo qui ex intemperanti Veneris usu pereunt, dicuntur
_Peolae_, media producta, quia Peos signet pudendum, sive veretrum,
(Lastly those who are undone by excessive indulgence in Love are called
_Peolae_, with the middle vowel long, because _Peos_ means the private,
or privy, member. Possibly the old form was πέορ, just as sometimes
πόϊρ stands for πάϊς in the Laconian dialect. Moreover _Penis_ might
surely more readily be derived from πέος than from what is commonly
given as its derivation, _pendendo_ (because it hangs), in as much as
the parts of the body are named from the condition of their activity,
not of their rest. Thus Baal-_Peor_ would be “Lord of the Penis”! ἄναξ
Πρίηπος (King Priapus).

[96] _Lintschotten_, “Orientalische Reisen,” (Eastern Travels), Pt I.
ch. 33.—_Beyer_ on _Seldens_, Syntagm. de Diis Syris, p. 235. perhaps
the Greeks called the penis also κτείς on this account,—κτεὶς from
κτέω, I cleave!

[97] _Gynaeologie_, Vol. II. p. 337. The worship of the Lingam is
reported among the Druses by _Buckingham_, “Travels among the Arab
Tribes inhabiting the Countries east of Syria and Palestine, etc.”
London 1825. p. 394. On the worship of _Gopalsami_, a god of a similar
character to Priapus worshipped in the neighbourhood of Jagrenat,
and the licentious representations customary at his festival, even
including representations of unnatural lusts, compare _Hamilton_,
“A New Account of the East Indies.” Edinburgh 1727. 8vo. pp. 378
sqq.—_Moore, C._, “Narrative of the Operations of Capt. Little’s
Detachment, and of the Mahratta Army.” London 1794. 4to., p. 45.—There
were similar representations in several temples of Mexico. _Kircher_,
Oedipus Aegypt., I. sect. 5. p. 422.—_J. de Laet_, “Beschryvinge van
West-Indien,” (Descriptions of the West Indies). Leyden 1630. fol., Bk.
VI. ch. 5. p. 284.

[98] “Diss. exhibens novum ad historiam luis venereae additamentum,”
(Dissertation containing New Material towards a History of the Venereal
Disease). Jena 1797. 32mo., p. 8.

[99] The quotations from the Bible are given by Dr. Rosenbaum according
to the German translation of _de Wette_, “Die Heilige Schrift,
übersetzt von Dr. de Wette,” (The Holy Scriptures, translated by Dr. de
Wett, 2nd. edition. Heidelberg 1835. large 8vo.

[100] “Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them
committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.” _St. Paul_,
1st. Epistle to Corinthians, Ch. 10. v. 8. μέμνησθε γὰρ τὰς τέσσαρας
καὶ εἴκοσι χιλιάδας _δὶα πορνείαν_ ἀπωσμένας, (for remember the
four and twenty thousand that were rejected for fornication).

[101] Antiquitat. Judaeor. Bk. V. ch. 1.

[102] Ch. 2. v. 14. Comp. _Areth._ Commentar. in Apocalips. ch. 2.
_Isidor._ Pel. bk. III. ep. 150. _Suidas_ under word προφητεία,
(prophecy).

[103] “Vita Mosis,” (Life of Moses), Works Vol. II. p. 217.

[104] Factis per mulierum obscenam libidinem et protervam petulantiam
quae corpora consuescentium stupro debilitarent, animosque impietate
profligarent. ibid. p. 129. (Practices that originating in the foul
lustfulness and provocative wantonness of the women weakened the bodies
of those consorting with them, and leading them into impiety destroyed
their minds).

[105] Antiquit. Judaic. bk. IV. ch. 6. §§ 6-13.

[106] Ἀπόλλυνται μὲν οὖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς τούτων ἀνδραγαθίας πολλοὶ τῶν
παρανομησάντων, ἐφθάρησαν δὲ πάντες καὶ λοιμῷ, ταύτην ἐνσκήψαντος
αὐτοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν νόσον· ὅσοι τε συγγενεῖς ὄντες, κωλύειν δέον,
ἐξώτρυνον αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ταῦτα, συναδικεῖν τῷ Θεῷ δοκοῦντες, ἀπέθνησκον.

[107] Yet this would appear to have been no serious loss, for the
disease was quite able indeed to weaken the power of the Jews, but
not to actually destroy it. So Balaam says in _Josephus_ (loco
cit. § 6.): Hebraeorum quidem genus nunquam funditus peribit, nec
bello, nec _peste_, nec inopia terrae fructuum, nec alio casu
inopinato delebitur.—In mala autem nonnulla et calamitates ad breve
tempus incident; a quibus licet deprimi humique affligi videantur,
postea tamen reflorescent, cum eos timere coeperint qui damna illis
intulerant. (The nation of the Hebrews in fact will never utterly
perish, and can be destroyed neither by war, nor _plague_, nor famine
of the fruits of the earth, nor any other unlooked for disaster.—They
will fall however for a brief space into sundry ills and calamities;
whereby they may well seem to be broken down and brought to the earth.
But they will flourish again, when once they have learned to fear the
enemies that brought the disasters upon them). It was in order to bring
about this consummation that Balaam gave his advice just cited.

[108] In fact Moses gives direct permission to captives to wed.
_Deuteronomy_ 21. vv. 11-13., “... and seest among the captives a
beautiful woman, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take
her to thee to wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house,
... after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and
she shall be thy wife.” Comp. besides _Ruth_, Ch. 1. v. 4., Ch. 4. v.
13.—1 _Chronicles_, Ch. 2. v. 17.—1 _Kings_, Ch. 3. v. 1., Ch. 14. v.
21. Only after the exile was matrimonial connection with foreigners
forbidden. _Ezra_, Ch. 9. v. 2., Ch. 10. v. 3. _Nehemiah_, Ch. 13. v.
23. _Josephus_, Antiq. Jud., XI. 8. 2., XII. 4. 6., XVIII. 9. 5.

[109] Vita Mosis, (Life of Moses), Bk. I., Works Vol. II. p. 130.

[110] Ch. 5. v. 5., “... but all the people that were born in the
wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, they had not
circumcised.”.

[111] _J. Laurentius_, “De adulteriis et meretricibus
Tractatus,” (Treatise on Adultery and Courtesans), in _Gronovius’_
Thesaurus Antiq. Graecor. Vol. VIII. pp. 1403-16.—_G. Franck de
Franckenau_, “Disp. qua lupanaria sub verbo Hurenhäuser ex principiis
quoque medicis improbantur,” (Disputation wherein Brothels (under
the name “Hurenhäuser”—brothels) are condemned on medical as well
as other grounds), Heidelberg 1674. 4to., in the author’s Satirae
Medicae, (Medical Satires), pp. 528-549.—_J. A. Freudenberg_ (C. G.
Flittner) “Ueber Staats- und Privatbordelle, Kuppelei und Concubinat,
in moralisch-politischer Hinsicht, nebst einem Anhange über die
Organisirung der Bordelle der alten und neuen Zeiten,” (On Public and
Private Brothels, Procuration and Concubinage, in their moral and
political Aspects; together with an Appendix on the Organization of
Brothels in Ancient and Modern Times), Berlin 1796. 8vo. We have not
been in a position to make use of this book.

[112] _Michaelis_, “Mosaisches Recht,” (Mosaic Law), Pt. V. p. 304.
From 1 Kings Ch. 3. v. 16. it might indeed be gathered that such
establishments were in existence; but strictly speaking the passage
proves only that two women of this character dwelt in a particular
house. Comp. _Philo_, De special. legg. (Works ed. Mangey, Vol. II. p.
308.). The _maidens’ chambers_ that according to 2 Kings, Ch. 17. v.
30. were set up in the precincts of the Temple at Jerusalem were cells
with figures of Astarté, in which the Jewish maidens offered themselves
to the goddess, and so in fact though not in name brothels.

[113] _Proverbs_, Ch. 7. vv. 6-27. Compare _Genesis_, Ch. 38. v.
14.—_Ezekiel_, Ch. 25.

[114] _Leviticus_, Ch. 19. v. 19.—_Deuteronomy_, Ch. 23. v. 17.; this
latter passage _Beer_ (loco citato) would fain utilise to free the
Jews from the suspicion of having disseminated the Venereal disease
in the XVth. Century. _Spencer_, “De Legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus,”
(On the ritual laws of the Jews), p. 563., however showed at once that
the prohibition strictly speaking only went so far as to forbid that
harlotry should be practised for the honour of God, as among other
Asiatic peoples; and explains the first passage in this sense, that
the Jews must not, _as had happened_, dedicate their daughters to the
service of Mylitta.

[115] _Richter_, XVI. 1.—1 _Kings_, Ch. 3. 16.—_Proverbs_, Ch. 2.
16., Ch. 5. 3., Ch. 7. 10., Ch. 23. 27.—_Amos_, Ch. 2. 7., Ch. 7.
17.—_Baruch_, Ch. 6. 43. Comp. _Grotius_, “Ad Matthaei Evangelium,”
(Commentary on St. Matthew), V. 3. 4.—_Hartmann_, “Die Hebräerin am
Putztisch und als Braut,” (The Hebrew woman at the Toilette table and
as Bride), Amsterdam 1809. Pt. II. pp. 493 sqq.

[116] Deipnosoph., bk. XIII. p. 598. v. 65.

[117] _Philo_, De special. legg., Works ed. Mangeyn, Vol. II. p. 301.
_Clement of Alexandria_, Stromat. III. quotes from _Xanthus_: μίγνυντο
δὲ, φήσιν, οἱ Μάγοι μητράσι, καὶ θυγατράσι, καὶ ἀδελφαῖς μίγνυσθαι
θεμιτὸν εἶναι, (Now the Magi, he says, used to have intercourse
with mothers, and held it lawful to do so with daughters and with
sisters). Comp. the same author’s Recognit., bk. IX. ch. 20.—_Sextus
Empiricus_, Pyrrh. hypot. bk. III. 24.—_Origen_, Contra Celsum, bk.
V. p. 248.—_Jerome_, Contra Jovian. bk. II.—_Cyril_, Adv. Julian. bk.
IV.—_Sophocles_, Oedipus Tyrannus 1375 and 452.

[118] _Euripides,_ Andromaché, 174.

τοιοῦτονῦτον πᾶν τὸ βάρβαρον γένος, πατήρ τε θυγατρὶ, παῖς τε μητρὶ,
μίγνυται.

(Such is the habit of the whole barbarian race,—father has intercourse
with daughter, and son with mother).

[119] _Osann_, “De caelibum apud veteres populos conditione,” (On the
Status of Bachelors among the Ancient Peoples), Commentat. I. Giessen
1827. 4to.

[120] _Demosthenes_, Orat. in Neaeram, edit. Wolf, p. 534., τὰς μὲν γὰρ
ἑταίρας ἡδονῆς ἕνεκ’ ἔχομεν, τὰς δὲ παλλακὰς τῆς καθ’ ἡμέραν θεραπείας
τοῦ σώματος, τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας τοῦ παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως καὶ τῶν ἔνδον
φύλακα πιστὴν ἔχειν. (for hetaerae—lady-companions—we keep for our
pleasure, but concubines for the daily service of the person, and wives
for the procreation of lawful children and to have a trusty guardian
of household matters). The same sentence is quoted from Demosthenes
by _Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. XIII. ch. 31., but with the difference
that he says παλλακὰς τῆς καθ’ ἡμέραν παλλακείας (concubines for daily
concubinage). Comp. _Plutarch_, Praecept. Coniugal., ch. 16. 29. It is
true this purely moral view, as it was originally, of marriage, came in
times subsequent to just the flourishing period of Greece to contrast
so sharply with the rest of the Greeks, full and imaginative as it was,
that it appears an exceedingly homely bit of prose, and one is led away
to pass a not exactly favourable judgement as to the position of Greek
married women and their level of culture. But is this quite fair?

[121] _Aristotle_, Politics bk. IV. ch. 16., Viri autem cum alia muliere
aut aliorum concubitus omnino indecorus et inhonestus habeatur, cum sit
apelleturque maritus. Quod si quid tale tempore procreandis liberis
praescriptio quispiam facere manifesto deprehendatur, ignominia scelere
digna notetur. (But as to the connexion of a man with a woman who is
not his wife or of a woman with a man who is not her husband, while
such intercourse in whatever form or under whatever circumstances must
be considered absolutely discreditable to one who bears the title of
husband or wife, so especially any one who is detected in such action
during the time reserved for the procreation of children should be
punished with such civil degradation as is suitable to the magnitude of
his crime).—_Seneca_, Controvers. bk. IV. Preface, says: Impudicitia in
ingenuo crimen est, in servo necessitas, (Immodesty in a free-man is a
vice, in a slave a necessity).

[122] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 374.

[123] In the time of _Xenarchus_ immorality with married women was
particularly universal. _Athenaeus_, XIII. p. 569.

[124] _Athenaeus_, Deipnosoph. bk. XIII. p. 569., καὶ Φιλήμων δ’ ἐν
Ἀδελφοῖς προιστορῶν, ὅτι πρῶτος Σόλων, διὰ τὴν τῶν νέων ἀκμὴν, ἔστησεν
ἐπὶ οἰκημάτων γύναια πριάμενος· καθὰ καὶ Νίκανδρος ὁ Κολοφώνιος ἱστορεῖ
ἐν τρίτῳ Κολοφωνιακῶν, φάσκων αὐτὸν καὶ Πανδήμου Ἀφροδίτης ἱερὸν πρῶτον
ἱδρύσασθαι ἀφ’ ὧν ἠργυρίσαντο αἱ προστᾶσαι τῶν οἰκημάτων· ἄλλ’ ὅ γε
Φιλήμων οὕτως φησί·

  Σὺ δ’ εἰς ἅπαντας εὗρες ἀνθρώπους, Σόλων,
  σὲ γὰρ λέγουσιν τοῦτ’ ἰδεῖν πρῶτον [βροτῶν].
  δημοτικὸν, ὦ Ζεῦ, πρᾶγμα καὶ σωτήριον·
  μεστὴν ὁρῶντα τὴν πόλιν νεωτέρων,
  _τούτους τ’ ἔχοντας τὴν αναγκαίαν φύσιν,
  ἁμαρτάνοντας τ’ εἰς ὃ μὴ προσῆκον ἦν,
  στῆσαι πριάμενον τότε γυναῖκας κατὰ τόπους
  κοινὰς ἅπασι καὶ κατεσκευασμένας_.
  Ἐστᾶσι γυμναί· μὴ ’ξαπατηθῇς· πάνθ’ ὅρα·
  — — — — ἡ θύρα ’στ’ ἀνεῳγμένη.
  εἷς ὀβολός· εἰσπήδησον· οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐδὲ εἷς
  ἀκκισμὸς, οὐδὲ λῆρος, οὐδ’ ὑφήρπασεν.
  ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς ὡς βούλει σὺ χὣν βούλει τρόπον.
  Ἐξῆλθες; οἰμώζειν λέγ’, ἀλλοτρία ’στί σοι.

(So too Philemon in his play the “Adelphi” relates that it was Solon
who first on account of the vigorous desires of the young men bought
and established public women in brothels. The same is related by
Nicander of Colophon in the Third book of his Colophoniaca, who says
that he (Solon) was the first to found a temple of the Pandemian
Aphrodité, built from the gains of the women in charge of brothels.
_Philemon_ writes as follows] “Well hast thou deserved of all men,
Solon; for thou they say wert first to invent a thing both popular, by
Zeus, and salutary. Seeing the city crowded full of young men, _and
these possessed of the natural appetites of manhood, and consequently
offending in quarters unmeet, bought women and established them
in certain places to be common to all and put there for that very
purpose_. There they are, standing all but naked; don’t be cheated;
examine everything.... The door is open. One obol; in you go. There’s
not an atom of coyness, no coquetry, no stealing off; but right away as
you please and how you please. You have left the house? tell the girl
go hang! she’s nothing to you.”)

_Alexander ab Alexandro_, Genial. Dier., bk. IV. ch. 1. Solon vero
ut ab adulteriis cohiberetur inventus, _coëmptas_ meretriculas Athenis
prostituit primus, obviasque in venerem esse voluit, ne matronarum
contagio polluerentur. (But Solon, in order that young men might be
kept from adulterous connexions, was the first to _buy_ women and set
them up as harlots at Athens; and wished all to resort to them for the
gratification of love, that they might not be polluted by intrigue with
matrons). Comp. _Meursius_, “Solon, sive de eius vita, legibus, dictis
atque scriptis,” (Solon—his Life, Laws, Words and Works). Copenhagen
1732. 4to., p. 98.

[125] _Onomast._, bk. IX. ch. 5. 34., Τὰ δὲ περὶ τοὺς λιμένας μέρη,
δεῖγμα, χῶμα, ἐμπόριον· — τοῦ δ’ ἐμπορίου μέρη, καπηλεῖα, καὶ πορνεῖα,
ἃ καὶ οἰκήματα ἄν τις εἴποι. (And the parts of the city near the
harbour, market, mole, exchange;—and parts of the exchange, inns
and brothels or “houses” as one might say). _Meursius_, Peiraeeus,
last chapter—From this low-lying situation of the brothels comes the
expression ἐπ’ οἰκήματος καθῆσθαι (to live _down_ in a “house”, e.
g. in _Plato_, Charmides 163 c.—_C. Ernesti_ on _Xenophon_, Memorab.
Socrat., II. 2. 4.

[126] s. v. _Κεραμεικός_· τόπος Ἀθήνῃ ἐστιν, ἔνθα αἱ πόρναι
προεστήκεσαν· εἰσὶ δὲ δύο Κεραμεικοὶ, ὁ μὲν ἔξω τείχους, ὁ δὲ ἐντός.
(Under the word “Ceramicus”: this is a place at Athens, where the
Prostitutes plied their trade. There are two Ceramici, the Ceramicus
without, and the Ceramicus within, the walls). Comp. _Meursius_,
Graecia feriata (Holiday Greece), p. 186.

[127] _Pollux_, Onomast. bk. IV. ch. 5. 48., Καὶ ταῦτα δὲ, εἰ καὶ
αἰσχίω, μέρη _πόλεως_, ἀσωτεῖα, πεττεῖα, κυβεῖα, κυβευτήρια, σκιραφεῖα,
_ματρυλεῖα_, _ἀγωγεῖα_, προαγωγεῖα. (And these also are parts of the
city, though somewhat disreputable ones, the profligates’ quarter, the
gamesters’ quarter, the dicers’ quarter, the quarter of dicing-houses,
of gaming-houses, of bawdy houses and of pimps’ establishments).

[128] _Philostratus_, Epist., 23., πάντα με αἵρει τὰ σὰ, τὸ καπηλεῖον
ὡς Ἀφροδίσιον. (Everything about you draws me, like the tavern, home of
love).

[129] In the better times of Athens this never occurred. The women
were kept far too closely shut up; and their moral behaviour was
subject to the supervision of the γυναικονόμοι (Commissioners for the
oversight of Women). _Meursius_, Lect. Attic. II. 5.—_Reiske_, Index
Graec. in Demosthen. p. 66. A regulation which existed even among the
self-indulgent Sybarites. _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XII. p. 521. Later
it was poverty especially that drove free Greek women to take up the
calling of prostitute. _Demosthenes_, In Neaeram p. 533., παντελῶς
ἤδη ἡ μὲν τῶν πορνῶν ἐργασία ἥξει εἰς τὰς τῶν πολιτίδων θυγατέρας δι’
ἀπορίαν, ὅσαι ἂν μὴ δύνωνται ἐκδοθῆναι. (Completely after a while will
the trade of prostitutes come to be the occupation of the daughters of
our fellow-citizenesses through poverty, that will force all to it who
cannot get a dower).

[130] _Lysias_, Orat. I. in Theomnestum.

[131] _Suidas_, _διάγραμμα_· τὸ μίσθωμα· διέγραφον δὲ οἱ ἀγορανόμοι,
ὅσον ἔδει λαμβάνειν τὴν ἑταίραν ἑκάστην—_μίσθωμα_· ὁ μισθὸς ὁ
ἑταιρικὸς. (“Scale”: the fee; for the Market-Commissioners fixed the
scale, how much each hetaera was to receive.—“fee”: the pay of a
hetaera).

[132] _Hesychius_, s. v. τριαντοπόρνη· λαμβάνουσα τριᾶντα, ὅ ἐστι λεπτὰ
ἓν εἴκοσι. (under the word τριαντοπόρνη: girl who receives a trias,
which is twenty one lepta).

[133] _Suidas_, s. v. χαλκιδῖτις. παρὰ Ἰωσήπῳ ἡ πόρνη, ἀπὸ τῆς
εὐτελείας τοῦ διδομένου νομίσματος. (under the word χαλκιδῖτις:
in Josephus = prostitute, from the smallness of the coin
given.—_Eustathius_, on Homer, II. bk. XXIII., p. 1329., Od. bk. X., p.
777.

[134] _Aristophanes_, Thesmoph. 1207., δώσεις οὖν δραχμήν. (you will
give a drachma then).

[135] _Pollux_, Onomast. IX. 59., οὔ φησιν εἶναι τῶν ἑταιρῶν τὰς μέσας
_Στατηριαίας_. (he denies that of the hetaerae the middling ones were
_the Stater-girls_).

[136] _Athenaeus_, XII. p. 547., states it of the Peripatetic
philosopher _Lycon_: καὶ πόσον ἑκάστη τῶν ἑταιρουσῶν ἐπράττετο μίσθωμα,
(and how much pay each of the hetaerae-girls charged).

[137] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XIII. chs. 44, 45.

[138] _Horace_, Epist. I. 17. 36.—_Aulus Gellius_, Noct. Attic. bk. I.
ch. 8. Comp. above p. 63. note 1.

[139] _Aeschines_, Orat. in Timarch. p. 134. ed. Reisk., Ἀποθαυμάζει
γὰρ, εἰ μὴ πάντες μέμνησθ’, _ὅτι καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν ἡ βουλὴ πωλεῖ
τὸ πορνικὸν τέλος_· καὶ τοὺς πριαμένους τὸ τέλος τοῦτο οὐκ εἰκάζειν,
ἀλλ’ ἀκριβῶς εἰδέναι τοὺς ταύτῃ χρωμένους τῇ ἐργασίᾳ· ὁπότε οὖν δὴ
τετόλμηκα ἀντιγράψασθαι, πεπορνευμένῳ Τιμάρχῳ μὴ ἐξεῖναι δημηγορεῖν,
ἀπαιτεῖν φησὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτὴν οὐκ αἰτίαν κατηγόρου, ἀλλὰ μαρτυρίαν
_τελώνου_ τοῦ παρὰ Τιμάρχου _τοῦτο ἐκλέξαντος τὸ τέλος_· ἀλλὰ τοὺς
τόπους ἐπερωτήσει ὅπου ἐκαθέζετο, καὶ τοὺς τελώνας, εἰ πώποτε παρ’
αὐτοῦ _πορνικὸν τέλος_ εἰλήφασιν. (He expresses extreme surprise,
though possibly you don’t all remember, at the fact that _every
year the senate sells the lease of the prostitution-tax_; and that
the purchasers do not conjecture, but know precisely, those who
practise this calling. So when I have the audacity to counter-plead,
that Timarchus as having exercised the trade of prostitution is not
competent to address the people, he does not deny the fact charged
against his client by the accuser, but says, ‘I demand the evidence of
any _tax-collector who collected this tax_ from Timarchus.’ ... but he
will cross-examine as to the localities where he was established in the
business, and will question the collectors as to whether they have ever
levied prostitution-tax upon him).

This passage shows at the same time in the clearest way that
_Schneider_ is wrong, when in his Lexicon he explains πορνοτελώνης,
occurring in _Pollux_. Onomast. VII. 202., IX. 29., as meaning a
privileged or licenced whore-master, paying a duty to the magistrates
on his trade. Besides, anything like a sanitary police supervision
on the part of the Agoranomi at this period is of course out of the
question. For the word ἀσφαλῶς (safely) in the fragment of _Eubulus_,
(Athenaeus bk. XIII. p. 568), where it is said of the brothel-girls:

  παρ’ ὧν βεβαίως _ἀσφαλῶς_ τ’ ἔξεστί σοι
  μικροῦ πριάσθαι κέρματος τὴν ἡδονήν

(from whom surely and _safely_ you may buy your pleasure for a small
coin), admits of an easy explanation, if we consider that these common
women are contrasted here not with the hetaerae but with the free women
of the city, illicit intercourse with whom was always dangerous for
the voluptuary, being punished as rape or adultery. The most telling
proof is afforded by the passage of _Diogenes Laertius_, bk. VI. ch.
4., where he says: “When _Antisthenes_ saw a man accused of adultery,
he said to him, Unhappy man, what serious risk you might have avoided
for an obol! (ὦ δυστυχὴς, πηλίκον κίνδυνον ὀβολοῦ διαφυγεῖν εδύνασο).
Also the passage of _Xenarchus_, (Athenaeus, bk. XIII. p. 569.), is
pertinent, where it is said, καὶ τῶν δ’ ἑκάστην ἐστὶν ἀδεῶς, εὐτελῶς,
(and of the women each can be enjoyed without fear, cheaply). Hence too
the verses of _Menander_ (Lucian, Amor. 33.) should read,

  καὶ φαρμακεῖαι, καὶ νόσων χαλεπωτάτη
  φθόνος, μεθ’ οὗ ζῇ πάντα τὸν βίον γυνὴ

(and medicines, and hardest of diseases—envy, wherewith a woman dwells
all her life long) and not, as the received text has it,

  καὶ φαρμακεῖα, καὶ νόσοι· χαλεπώτατος
  φθόνος.

(and medicine, and disease; hardest is envy).

[140] Comp. above p. 70. note 2. _Harpocration_, Lexicon X.
rhetor.—_Eustathius_, Comment. on Homer’s Iliad XIX. 282., p. 1185.,
Quod auro gaudeat Venus, de qua est in fabula, ille quoque manifestum
facit, qui tradit: Solonem Veneris vulgaris templum dedicasse e
mulierum quaestu, quas coemtas prostituerat in cellis, in adolescentum
gratiam, (That Venus, of whom is question in the tale, rejoices in
gold, is manifest from the historian who relates, how Solon dedicated a
temple of the Common (Pandemian) Venus from the gains of the women that
he had bought and established in chambers as prostitutes, to gratify
the young men). Comp. _Boeckh_, Corp. Inscript. I. p. 470.

[141] How clean and neat they were can be gathered from the fact that a
certain Phanostrata got the _sobriquet_ of Phtheiropyle (doorlouser),
ἐπειδήπερ ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας ἑστῶσα ἐφθειρίζετο, (because she used to stand
at the door and pick the lice off her).

[142] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XIII. ch. 37. Comp. _Palmerius_,
Exercitat. p. 523.

[143] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XIII. ch. 27.—_Suidas_, s. v.
χαμαιτύπη· ἡ πόρνη, ἀπὸ τοῦ χαμαὶ κειμένη ὀχεύεσθαι, (under the word
χαμαιτύπη: harlot, from her copulating lying on the ground).

[144] Here they reckoned “Money for house-room”, ἐνοίκιον for
στεγανόμιον (Pollux, Onomast. I. 75.), the same in fact as the _pretium
mansionis_ (price of house-room) of the Romans in their inns. Comp.
_Casaubon_, on Athenaeus I. ch. 14.

[145] _Bergler_, on Alciphron VI. p. 25.

[146] _Zell_, “Ferienschriften,” (Holiday Papers), First Series.
Freiburg 1826. No. 1., “Die Wirthshäuser der Alten,” (Inns of the
Ancients), pp. 3-53.

[147] _Athenaeus_, Deipnosoph. bk. XIII. p. 567., Σὺ δὲ ὦ Σοφιστὰ,
ἐν τοῖς καπηλείοις συναναφύρῃ οὐ μετὰ ἑταίρων, ἀλλὰ μετὰ ἑταιρῶν,
_μαστροπευούσας_ περὶ ταυτὸν οὐκ ὀλίγας ἔχων. (But you, Sophist, wallow
in the inns not with companions but with female-companions (hetaerae),
keeping a host of women _pandaring_ for your pleasure).

[148] Lysistrat. 467.

[149] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 567.

[150] Areopagit. p. 350. ed. Wolf.—_Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p.
567., ἐν καπηλείῳ δὲ φαγεῖν ἢ πινεῖν οὐδεὶς οὐδ’ ἂν οἰκέτης ἐτόλμησεν.
(But no one, not even a servant, would have dared to eat or drink in an
inn).

[151] This can best be seen from the Speech of _Demosthenes_, In
Neaeram. ed. H. Wolf. Bâle 1572. fol., p. 519., where we read as
follows in the Latin translation: Iam peregrinam esse Neaeram, id
vobis ab ipso primordio demonstrabo. Septem puellas ab ipsa infantia
emit Nicareta, Charisii Elei liberta, Hippiae coqui eius uxor, gnara
et perita perspiciendae venustae parvulorum naturae et eos sollerter
educandi instituendique scia, ut quae artem eam exerceret, atque ex ea
re victum collegisset, filiarum autem eas nomine compellavit, ut quam
maximas ab iis, qui earum consuetudinem, tanquam ingenuarum appetebant,
mercedes exigeret, posteaquam autem florem aetatis earum magno cum
quaestu prostituit: uno, ut dicam, fasce, corpora etiam earum, cum
septem essent, vendidit: Antiae, Stratolae, Aristoclae, Metanirae,
Philae, Isthmiadis et Neaerae. Quam igitur unusquisque earum emerit,
et ut ab iis qui eos a Nicareta emerant, libertate donatae sint. (That
Neaera was a foreigner by birth, I will make it my first business to
prove. Seven girls were bought in earliest childhood by Nicareta,
freed-woman of Charisius of Elis, wife of his cook Nicias,—a knowing
woman, astute at noting the promise of beauty in children and skilful
in their clever upbringing and instruction, as might be expected of
one who practised that art as a profession and had made her living
thereby. Her daughters however she called them, that she might demand
the greater fees from such as sought to enjoy their favours, as being
free-born maidens. Then when they had reached the flower of their
age, she prostituted them with great profit to herself, selling their
persons, seven as they were, in one bundle, so to express it,—whose
names were Antia, Stratole, Aristoclea, Metanira, Phile, Isthmias, and
Neaera. Thus each of them found a purchaser, and on such conditions
that they were presented with their freedom by the lovers who had
bought them from Nicareta).

[152] Comp. the list, compiled chiefly from Athenaeus, of the most
renowned hetaerae in _Musonius Philosophus_, “De luxu Graecorum” ch.
XII. in _Gronovius’_ Thesaurus Antiq. Graecor. vol. VIII. pp. 2516 sqq.

[153] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 577. μεταβάλλουσαι γὰρ
τοιαῦται εἰς τὸ σῶφρον, τῶν ἐπὶ τούτῳ σεμνυνομένων εἰσὶ βελτίους. (For
women of this class when they change and adopt an honest life, are of
better character than those who pride themselves on this account).

[154] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 569., Καὶ Ἀσπασία δὲ ἡ
Σωκρατικὴ ἐνεπορεύετο πλήθη καλῶν γυναικῶν καὶ ἐπλήθυνεν ἀπὸ τῶν ταύτης
ἑταιρίδων ἡ Ἑλλὰς. (And Aspasia too, the preceptress of Socrates, used
to import multitudes of handsome women, and Greece was filled with her
hetaerae). Even the King of the Sidonians, _Strato_, had his wants
supplied from there. _Athenaeus_, bk. XII. P. 531.

[155] _Hesychius_, s. v. _πέζας μοίχους_· οὕτως ἐκάλουν τὰς
μισθαρνούσας ἑταίρας χωρὶς ὀργάνου. (under the expression πέζας
μοίχους,—common, prose fornicators: this was the name given to hetaerae
who were prostitutes without playing any instrument). Comp. _Photius_,
Lexicon, under same word.—_Procopius_ Anecdot. p. 41.—_Cuperi_ Observat.
I. 16. p. 116.—_Casaubon_, on Sueton. Nero. ch. 27.

[156] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. XIII. p. 582.

[157] Chares took flute-players, singing-girls and πέζαι ἑταίραι with
him, according to _Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. XII. p. 532.

[158] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. XIII. p. 573. When Darius was marching
to take the field against Alexander, he had 350 παλλακὰς (concubines)
in his train (_Athenaeus_, XIII. p. 557.), of whom 329 understood
music. (ibid. p. 608).

[159] “Vermischte Schriften,” (Miscellaneous Writings), Vol. IV. pp.
311 sqq.

[160] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. XII. p. 533. Θεμιστοκλῆς δ’, οὔπω
Ἀθηναίων μεθυσκομένων, _οὐδ’ ἑταίραις χρωμένων_, ἐκφανῶς τέθριππον
ζεύξας ἑταιρίδων κ. τ. λ. (But Themistocles, at a period when Athenians
were not yet in the habit of getting drunk, _nor frequenting harlots_,
openly put in harness a four-horse team of hetaerae, etc.).

[161] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. XII. p. 532.

[162] Comp. Bernhardy, “Grundiss der Griechischen Literatur,” (First
Sketch of Greek Literature), Pt. I. p. 40.

[163] Hetaerae were bound by law to wear gay, party-coloured clothes,
_Suidas_, s. v. ἑταιρῶν ἄνθινον. Νόμος Ἀθήνησι, τὰς ἑταίρας ἄνθινα
φέρειν· (under the expression ἑταιρῶν ἄνθινον—flowered robe of
hetaerae: it was a law at Athens that the hetaerae must wear flowered
robes); at Locri Zaleucus prescribed the same costume, _Suidas_, s.
v. Ζάλευκος (under the word Zaleucus); it was also law among the
Syracusans, _Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. XII. ch. 4. Comp. _Petit_,
“Legg. Attic.,” (Laws of Athens), p. 476. The same is stated of the
Lacedaemonians by _Clemens Alexandrinus_, Paedog., bk. II. ch. 10.
Comp. _Wesseling_, on Diodorus Sic., IV. 4.—_Sidon. Apoll._, Epist.,
XX. 3. _Iamblichus_, De Vita Pythagor., ch. 31.—_A. Borremans_. Var.
Lect., ch. 10. p. 94.—_Artemidorus_, Oneirocrit., bk. II. ch. 3.

[164] _Aulus Gellius_, Noct. Attic., bk. I. ch. 6.

[165] _Aulus Gellius_, Noct. Attic., bk. X. ch. 23.

[166] _Livy_, Hist. I. 4., II. 18.

[167] _Cicero_, Orat. pro Coelio, ch. 20., Si quis est, qui etiam
meretriciis amoribus interdictum iuventuti putet, est ille quidem valde
severus, negare non possum: sed _abhorret non modo ab huius seculi
licentia, verum etiam a maiorum consuetudine atque concessis. Quando
enim factum non est? quando reprehensum, quando non permissum?_ (If any
is found to think that young men should be forbidden to indulge simple
intrigues with harlots, I can only say he is an exceedingly stern
moralist, I cannot deny he is right in the abstract. _But his view is
opposed not merely to the free habits of the present age, but also to
the usage and permitted licence of our fathers? When, I ask, has this
not been done? when rebuked, when not allowed?_

_Horace_, Sat., bk. I. 2. vv. 31-35.,

  Quidam notus homo, cum exiret fornice: Macte
  Virtute esto, inquit sententia dia Catonis.
  Nam simul ac venas inflavit tetra libido,
  Huc iuvenes _aequum_ est descendere; non alienas
  Permolere uxores.

(When a certain well-known citizen came out of a brothel, “Bravo! go
on and prosper!” was the word of Cato, great and wise. For when fierce
desire has swollen the veins, _right_ it is that young men should
resort hither, and not grind their neighbours’ wives),—a passage that
involuntarily reminds us of the fragment of _Philemon_ quoted above.

[168] They had indiscriminate intercourse with the women, who did not
hold it disgraceful to appear half-naked (γυμναὶ) and to practise both
among themselves and in common with the men gymnastic exercises, and
this in the presence of spectators, even in that of young men. These
were actually enjoined to practise copulation, and to have the whole
body polished and freed from hair by professional male artistes).
_Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. XII. pp. 517, 518.

[169] The law was in the first instance made only with a view to the
future, in order to ensure the state a sufficiently large number of
citizens; _Sozomenes_, Histor. Eccles., I. 9., Vetus lex fuit apud
Romanos, quae vetabat coelibes ab anno aetatis quinto et vigesimo
pari iure essent cum maritis.—Tulerant hanc legem veteres Romani, cum
sperarent, futurum hac ratione, ut urbs Roma et reliquae provinciae
imperii Romani hominum multitudine abundarent. (There was an old law
among the Romans, which forbad bachelors after the age of 25 to enjoy
equal political rights with married men.—The old Romans had passed this
law in the hopes that in this way the city of Rome, and the provinces
of the Roman empire as well, might be ensured an abundant population).
For the same reason _Caesar_, after the African War when the city was
much depopulated through the great number of the slain, established
prizes for such citizens as had the most children).—_Dio Cassius_,
Bk. XLIII. 226.—All this availed little. The Censors _Camillus_ and
_Posthumius_ were soon obliged to introduce a tax on celibacy,—the
“old-bachelors’ tax” (Aes uxorium).—_Festus_, p. 161., _L. Valerius
Maximus_, bk. II. ch. 9.—Augustus endeavoured in vain by the Lex
Julia de maritandis ordinibus (Julian Law concerning marriage in the
different classes) to counteract the tendency; till the Lex Papia
Poppaea originating with the Senate (B.C. 9.) was ratified; (_Tacitus_,
Annal. III. 25.—_Dio Cassius_, (LIV. 16., LVI. 10.), though even this
did not long remain in force. Comp. _Lipsius_, Excurs. ad Tacit. Annal.
III. 25.—_Heineccius_, Antiquit. Roman. Jurispr. (Antiquities of Roman
Law), I. 25. 6. p. 209.—_Hugo_, “Geschichte des römischen Rechts,”
(History of Roman Law), I. p. 237., II. p. 861.

[170] Instit Divin., I. 20. 6., Flora cum magnas opes ex arte
meretricia quaesivisset, populum scripsit haeredem, certamque pecuniam
reliquit, cuius ex annuo foenere suus natalis dies celebraretur
editione Ludorum, quos appelant Floralia. (Flora having acquired great
riches by the harlot’s calling made the people her heir, and left
a certain sum of money, the interest of which was to be applied to
celebrating her birth-day by the exhibition of the games which are
called Floralia.—I. 20. 10., Celebrantur cum omni lascivia. Nam praeter
verborum licentiam, quibus obscoenitas omnis effunditur, exuuntur etiam
vestibus populo flagitante meretrices, quae tunc mimarum funguntur
officio et in conspectu populi, usque ad satietatem impudicorum hominum
cum pudendis motibus detinentur. (They are solemnized with every form
of licentiousness. For over and above the looseness of speech that
pours forth every obscenity, harlots strip themselves of their clothing
at the importunities of the mob, and then act as mimes,—pantomimic
actors,—and in full view of the crowd indulge in indecent posturings,
till their shameless audience is satisfied). It may be noted that
scarcely 40 years after the introduction of the Floralia, P. Scipio
Africanus in his Speech in defence of Tib. Asellus could say: Si
nequitiam defendere vis, licet: sed tu in uno scorto maiorem pecuniam
absumsisti, quam quanti omne instrumentum fundi Sabini in censum
dedicavisti. Ni hoc ita est: qui spondet mille nummum? Sed tu plus
tertia parte pecuniae perdidisti atque absumsisti in flagitiis. (If you
choose to defend your profligacy, well and good! but as a matter of
fact you have wasted on one strumpet more money than the total value,
as you declared it to the Census commissioners, of all the plenishing
of your Sabine farm. If you deny my assertion, I ask who dare wager
a thousand sesterces on its untruth? You have squandered more than
a third of the property you inherited from your father, and thrown
it away in debauchery).—Gellius, Noct. Attic., VII. 11.—As not only
did hetaerae build a temple to Aphrodité, but a similar one was also
erected in their honour at Abydos (_Athenaeus_, XIII. p. 573.), and
Phryné wished to rebuild Thebes at her own cost, on the condition that
an inscription should be set up to the effect, “Alexander destroyed it;
Phryné the hetaera restored it”, there is not the slightest reason for
counting the above story as merely one of the ridiculous inventions
common in the Fathers.

[171] _Valerius Maximus_, II. 10. 8.—_Seneca_, Epist 97.—_Martial_,
Epigr. I. 1 and 36.

[172] Read the Speech of Cato in _Livy_, Hist., bk. XXXIV. 4., where
the following passage is found amongst others: Haec ego, quo melior
lactiorque in dies fortuna rei publicae est, imperiumque crescit, et
iam in Graeciam Asiamque transcendimus, omnibus libidinum illecebris
repletas, et regias etiam attrectamus gazas, eo plus horreo, ne illae
magis res nos ceperint, quam nos illas. (All these changes, as day by
day the fortune of the State is higher and more prosperous and her
Empire grows greater, and our conquests extend over Greece and Asia,
lands replete with every allurement of the senses, and we appropriate
treasures that may well be called royal,—all this I dread the more from
my fear that such high fortune may rather master us than we master it).
Scarcely 10 years later the same author says (bk. XXXIX. 6.): Luxuriae
enim peregrinae origo ab exercitu Asiatico invecta in urbem est. (For
the beginnings of foreign luxury were brought into the city by the
Asiatic army). _Juvenal_, Sat. VI. 299.:

  Prima peregrinos obscoena pecunia mores
  Intulit et turpi fregerunt secula luxu
  Divitiae molles.

(Foul money it was that first brought in foreign manners; wealth
weakened and broke down the vigour of the age with base luxury). But
pre-eminently applicable are the following words (III. 60 sqq.) of the
same poet:

      Non possum ferre, Quirites!
  Graecam urbem, quamvis quota portio faecis Achaeae?
  Iam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes,
  Et linguam et mores et cum tibicine chordas
  Obliquas, nec non gentilia tympana secum
  Vexit et ad Circum iustas prostare puellas.

(I cannot bear, Quirites, to see Rome a Greek city,—and yet how mere
a fraction of the whole corruption is found in these dregs of Achaea?
Long since has the Syrian Orontes flowed into the Tiber, and brought
along with it the Syrian tongue and manners and cross-stringed harp—and
harper, and exotic timbrels, and girls bidden stand for hire at the
Circus).

[173] The usual derivation of the word _lupanar_ (brothel) is from
Lupa, the wife of Faustulus (_Livy_, I. 4.); thus _Lactantius_, Divin.
Instit., bk. I. 20 sqq., says, fuit enim Faustuli uxor et, propter
vulgati corporis vilitatem, Lupa inter pastores, id est meretrix,
nuncupata est, unde etiam lupanar dicitur. (For she was the wife of
Faustulus, and because of the easy rate at which her person was held at
the disposal of all, was called among the shepherds Lupa, (she-wolf),
that is harlot, whence also Lupanar—a brothel—is so called). Comp.
_Isidore_, bk. XVIII. etymol. 42. _Jerome_, in Eusebius’ Chronicle.
However it is a fruitless effort to try and connect lupar and lupanar
with lupus, the wolf. If we are not mistaken, the root-word is the
Greek λῦμα, filth, and so, shameless person; from this comes _lupa_,
just as from λῦμαρ was formed _lupar_, the oldest form for lupanar,
which has maintained itself in the adjective _luparius_, and in
_lupariae_ in _Rufus_ and _A. Victor_ as synonyms of lupanar. Indeed
_Lactantius_ speaks of the hetaerae Leaena and Cedrenus as γυναῖκας
λυκαίνας.

[174] The common derivation of _fornix_ (brothel) is from _furnus_ or
fornax (an oven), or else makes it identical with fornix, an archway.
_Isidore_, bk. X. 110., writes: a _fornicatrix_ is one whose person is
public and common. These women used to lie under archways, and such
places are called _fornices_, whence also _fornicariae_ (whores).
Granted that the women used to resort in numbers to the arches in the
town-walls through which sorties were made (_Livy_, XXXVI. 23., XLIV.
11.), yet several passages in ancient authors prove clearly that the
_fornices_ were _houses_ (especially _Petronius_, Satir. 7., _Martial_
XI. 62.). The _ancient Glosses_ have:—“fornicaria”: πορνὴ ἀπὸ καμάρας ᾗ
ἵστανται, (a harlot, from the chamber where they take their stand). But
in all probability the brothels took their name from the circumstance
of their being situated in the neighbourhood of the town-wall and its
arches; for which reason the women were also called _Summoenianae_
(women of the Summoenium,—district under the walls). Martial, XI. 62.,
III. 82., I. 35., XII. 32. Or should we say that _fornix_ was formed
from πορνικὸν?

[175] _Adler_, “Beschreibung der Stadt Rom,” (Description of the City
of Rome), pp. 144 sqq.

[176] _Martial_, bk. VII. Epigr. 30., bk. X. Epigr. 94.

[177] _Martial_, bk. II. Epigr. 17.

[178] Hence Martial’s expression (XII. 18.), clamosa Subura (the
clamorous Subura).

[179] Horace, Satir. I. 2. 30., Contra alius nullam nisi olenti in
fornice stantem. (On the other hand another man cares for no woman but
such as stand in the foul-smelling brothel).—_Priapeia_,

  Quilibet huc, licebit, intret
  Nigra fornicis oblitus favilla.

(All that please, none will say nay, may enter here, smeared with the
black spot of the brothel).—_Prudentius_, Contra Symmachum, bk. II.,
spurcam redolente fornice cellam, (a filthy chamber in the stinking
brothel).—_Seneca_, Controv., I. 2., Redoles adhuc fuliginem fornicis.
(You reek still of the soot of the brothel).—_Juvenal_, Sat VI. 130.,
says of the Empress Messalina:

  Obscurisque genis turpis, fumoque lucernae
  Foeda lupanaris tulit ad pulvinar odorem.

(And disfigured and dim-eyed, fouled with the smoke of the lamp, she
bore back the stink of the brothel to the imperial couch).

[180] _Juvenal_, Sat. VI. 122., 127.—_Petronius_, Sat. 8.—_Lipsius_,
Saturn. I. 14. Hence Cella and Cellae (chambers) are constantly used in
the sense of lupanar (brothel).

[181] _Martial_, bk. XI. 46., Intrasti quoties inscripta limina
cellae, (As oft as you have crossed the thresholds of a “chamber”
with inscription over). _Seneca_, Controv., bk. I. 2., Deducta es
in lupanar, accepisti locum, pretium constitutum est, _titulus_
inscriptus est, (You were taken away to a brothel, you received your
stand, your price was fixed, _your name written up_).—Meretrix vocata
es, in communi loco stetisti, _superpositus est cellae tuae titulus_,
venientes recepisti, (You were called a harlot, you took your stand in
a public brothel, _your name-ticket was put up above your chamber_, you
received such as came).—Nomen tuum pedendit in fronte, pretia stupri
accepisti, et manus, quae diis datura erat sacra, capturas tulit,
(Your name hung on your door, you took the price of fornication, and
your hand, that was meant to offer sacred gifts to the gods, held the
fees). This last passage interpreters have wished to understand as if
the name-ticket were fastened on the woman’s forehead; but, not to
mention that in this case _tibi_ would have to be read for _tuum_,
it is a perfectly well known fact that _frons_ (front, forehead) was
used in Latin for the face of a door (_Ovid_, Fasti, I. 135., Omnis
habet geminas, hinc atque hinc, ianua frontes, (Every door has two
faces, inside and out). _Seneca_ says _pependit_ (it hung there), and
afterwards is promoted onto the list of the Leno (Brothel-keeper)!

[182] This is seen most clearly from the following passage in the “Vita
Apollonii Tyrii”, (Life of Apollonius of Tyre), p. 695., Puella ait,
prosternens se ad pedes eius: miserere, domine, virginitatis meae,
ne prostituas hoc corpus sub tam turpi titulo. Leno vocavit villicum
puellarum et ait, ancilla, quae praesens est et exornetur diligenter et
scribatur et titulus, quicunque Tarsiam deviolaverit, mediam liberam
dabit: postea ad singulos solidos populo patebit. (Says the girl,
throwing herself at his feet: “Sir! have pity on my maidenhood, and do
not prostitute this fair body under so ugly a name.” The Brothel-keeper
(Leno) called the Superintendent (villicus) of the girls and says,
“Let the maid here present be decked out with every care, and a
name-ticket written for her; the man that takes Tarsia’s virginity
shall pay half a “libera” (?), afterwards she shall be at the disposal
of all comers at a “solidus” or “aureus”, gold coin worth 25 denarii,
say 20 shillings—each). So we see even in the name there prevailed a
certain luxury; and a young girl of handsome person would fain have a
handsome-sounding name to match.

[183] _Petronius_ Satir. 20.—_Barth_, on Claudian, note
1173.—_Martial_, XIV. 148., 152.—_Juvenal_, VI. 194. From this the
women themselves were often called _lodices meretrices_ (blanket
harlots) in contradistinction to the Street-walkers.

[184] _Martial_, XIV. 39-42. XI. 105.—_Apuleius_, Metam., V.
p. 162.—_Horace_, Satir. II. 7. v. 48.—_Juvenal_, Sat. VI.
131.—Tertullian, Ad Uxor., II. 6., Dei ancilla in laribus alienis—et
procedet de ianua laureata et lucernata, ut de novo consistorio
libidinum publicarum, (The handmaid of God in strange dwellings,—and
she shall go forth from the door that is laurel-decked and lamp-lit, as
it were from a new assembly-hall of public lusts), where the expression
_consistorium libidinum_ (assembly-hall of lusts) for brothel is
noticeable.

[185] Petronius, Satir. 95., Vos me hercule ne mercedem cellae daretis,
(Ye would not, by heavens, give even the hire of the chamber). The
fee amounted usually to an As. _Petronius_, Satir. 8., Iam pro cella
meretrix assem exegerat, (Already had the harlot demanded the As for
the chamber). _Martial_, I. 104., Constat et asse Venus, (And an As
is the recognised price of Love). II. 53., Si plebeia Venus gemino
tibi vincitur asse, (If you win for yourself a base-born Love for a
couple of Asses). Comp. the inscription in _Gruter_, “Inscript. antiq.
totius orbis Romani”, (Ancient Inscriptions of the whole Roman world).
Amsterdam 1616., No. DCLII. 1.—_Heinsius_ on _Ovid_, Remedium Amoris
407.

[186] _Seneca_, Controv. I. 2., Nuda in litore stetit ad fastidium
emptoris, omnes partes corporis et inspectae et contrectatae sunt.
Vultis auctionis exitum audire? Vendit pirata, emit leno.—Ita
raptae pepercere piratae, ut lenoni venderetur: sic emit leno, ut
prostituerit. (Naked she stood on the shore at the pleasure of the
purchaser; every part of her body was examined and felt. Would you
hear the result of the sale? The pirate sold, the pandar bought.—For
this the pirates spared their captive, that she might be sold to a
pandar; for this the pandar bought her, that he might employ her as a
prostitute).—_Quintilian_, Declam. III., Leno etiam servis excipitur,
fortasse hac lege captivos vendes, (A pandar too is supplied with
slaves; perhaps in this way you will sell your captives).—Lex § 1. de
in ius vocando: Prostituta contra legem venditionis venditorem habet
patronum, si hac lege venierat, ut, si prostituta esset, fieret libera,
(Law § 1. Of the right of appeal: A female slave prostituted contrary
to the condition of sale has the seller for patron, if she was sold
on this condition, that, should she be prostituted, she should become
free). These sales took place in the Subura. _Martial_, VI. 66.

[187] _Seneca_, Controv., I. 2., Stetisti cum meretricibus, stetisti
sic ornata ut populo placere posses, _ea veste quam leno dederat_,
(You stood with the harlots, you stood decked out so as to please the
public, wearing the dress that the leno had given you). The dress of
the public women was always gay-coloured and very bold; they had to
wear the male toga (gown). _Cicero_, Philipp. II., Sompsisti virilem
togam, quam statim muliebrem reddidisti. Primo vulgare scortum:
certa flagitii merces, nec ea parva. (You assumed the man’s toga,
which straightway you made a woman’s. First a common strumpet; sure
was the profit of your shame, and not small either.)—_Tibullus_, IV.
10. _Martial_, II. 30. Hence public women were also called _togatae_
(wearing the toga or man’s gown). _Martial_, VI. 64. _Horace_, Sat I.
2. 63., Quid interest in matrona, ancilla, peccesque togata? (What
difference does it make whether it is with a married woman, or a
serving-maid, or a toga’d harlot (togata), that you offend?) Ibidem
80-83.,

  Nec magis huic inter niveos viridesque lapillos
  (_Sit licet hoc, Cerinthe, tuum_,) tenerum est femur aut crus
  Rectius; atque etiam melius persaepe _togatae est_.

(Nor amidst all her showy gems and green jewels is her thigh more
soft (though it is your belief, Cerinthus, that it is) or her leg
straighter; nay! very often that of the toga’d harlot is the better
limb).

It is well-known what trouble _Bentley_ gave himself to explain this
_locus implicatissimus_ (most intricate passage), as he calls it,
because he supposed the common reading to be corrupt and accordingly
altered the text, all to bring out a comparison of Cerinthus’ thigh—a
comparison that never was in Horace’s mind at all. Several years ago in
our Work, “De Sexuali Organismorum Fabrica,” (On the Sexual Fabric of
Organisms), Spec. I., Halle 1832. large 8vo., p. 61., we disentangled
the matter and showed exactly how it stood, proving that the “Sit licet
hoc, Cerinthe, tuum” (Though this be your (opinion), Cerinthus) must
be taken as a parenthesis, consequently that the usual reading is the
right one. But as the book would seem to have come into few hands, and
least of all into those of Philologists, we may be allowed to take this
opportunity of once more developing our view. The comparison is between
the matron and the “togata”, and it is maintained that the matron,
i. e. the noble Roman lady, possesses for all her jewelry neither a
softer thigh nor a straighter leg than the “togata”, the girl of common
stamp; that the latter in fact can often make a better show of both,
even though her leg is as crooked as the matron’s is,—a peculiarity
that _every_ female leg has, because in a woman the knee projects more
forwards. _Aristotle_, Hist. Anim., IV. 11. 6., even in his time notes
this fact: τὸ θῆλυ τῶν ἀῤῥένων καὶ γονυκροτώτερον. (the female is more
knock-kneed also than the male). Comp. same author’s Physiognom., 3. 5.
6. _Adamant._, Physiognom., II. 107. ed. Sylb. _Polemo_, Physiognom.,
p. 179. Anatomical investigation moreover proves this most clearly.
But as Cerinthus seems to be ignorant of it, in spite of its being a
well known Act, he lets himself be deluded by the outward magnificence
of attire and distinguished birth, and believes the matron to be the
better built, and it is for this mistake the poet taunts him. Horace in
this passage is merely giving a commentary on v. 63 above. Now compare
what _Plautus_, Mostell., I. 3. 13, makes Scopha say to Philemation,
Non vestem amatores mulieris amant, sed vestis fartum (’Tis not the
dress of a woman that lovers love, but the _lining_ of the dress);
also _Martial_, III. Epigr. 33.; and the folly of _Cerinthus_ is made
quite obvious. The phrase—Sit licet hoc tuum (Though this be yours)
in the sense, “though you look at it this way, take the dazzle of
jewels as the criterion of a woman’s beauty”, surely needs no further
confirmation.

[188] _Seneca_, Controv., I. 2., Da mihi lenonis rationes; captura
conveniet. (Give me the brothel-keeper’s accounts; the fee will suit).

[189] _Seneca_, Controv., I. 2., Deducta es in lupanar, accepisti
locum, _pretium constitutum est_. (You were taken to a brothel, you
took your place, your price was fixed). _Ovid_, Amores, I. 10., Stat
meretrix cuivis _certo_ mercabilis aere. (There stands the harlot
that any man can buy for a _fixed_ sum). The fee was called _captura_
(fee) (compare _Schulting_, on Seneca, loco citato, and _Casaubon_
on Suetonius, Caligula 40.), _quaestus meretricius_ (harlot’s hire)
(_Cicero_, Philipp. II. 18.) or simply _quaestus_ (hire); _merces_
(cost) and _pretium stupri_ (price of fornication); _aurum lustrale_
(brothel, literally _den_, money). The women used to demand its
payment. _Juvenal_, Sat. VI. 125. Excepit blanda intrantes atque aera
poposcit. (Blandly she welcomed her visitors as they entered and asked
for the fee). Hence the expression “basia meretricum poscinummia”
(harlots kisses that ask for money) in _Apuleius_, Met., X. p. 248.
For the rest prices were very various among the brothel-harlots as
they were with the others. Comp. _Martial_, X. 75., IX. 33., III. 54.
The lowest fee was one As or 2 obols (three pence); hence girls of the
sort were called by the Romans also _diobolares meretrices_ (two-obol
harlots) (Festus) or _diobolaria scorta_ (two-obol whores) (_Plautus_,
Poen., I. 2. 58.). Comp. p. 90 above.

[190] _Plautus_, Trinum., IV. 2. 47., Quae adversum legem accepisti a
plurimis pecuniam. (You who contrary to the regulation accepted money
from a great many men).

[191] Hence the women were also called _Nonariae_ (Ninth-hour women).
_Persius_, Sat. I. 133. The Scholiast observes on the passage: Nonaria
dicta meretrix, quia apud veteres a nona hora prostabant, ne mane
omissa exercitatione illo irent adolescentes. (A harlot was called
“Nonaria”, because in former times they used to act as prostitutes from
the ninth hour only, for fear the young men should resort thither in
the morning to the neglect of their athletic exercises).

[192] _Nonius Marcellus_, V. § 8., Inter _meretricem_ et _prostibulum_
hoc interest: quod meretrix honestioris loci est et quaestus: nam
_meretrices_ a merendo dictae sunt, quod copiam sui tantummodo noctu
facerent: _prostibula_, quod ante stabulum stent quaestus diurni
et nocturni causa. (This is the difference between a _meretrix_
(harlot) and a _prostibulum_ (common strumpet): a meretrix is of a
more honorable station and calling; for _meretrices_ were so named
a _merendo_ (from earning wages), because they plied their calling
only by night; _prostibula_, because they stand before the _stabulum_
(stall, “chamber”) for gain both by day and night).—_Plautus_, Cistell.
fragm., Adstat ea in via sola: prostibula sane est. (She stands there
in the way alone: surely she is a _prostibula_—common whore).

[193] _Plautus_, Poenul., I. 2. 54.,

  An te ibi vis inter istas vorsarier
  _Prosedas_, pistorum amicas, reliquias alicarias,
  Miseras coeno delibutas, servilicolas, sordidas,
  Quae tibi olent stabulum, statumque, sellam et sessibulum merum,
  Quas adeo haud quisquam tetigit, neque duxit domum?

(It is your wish to pass your time there amongst those _common
strumpets_, bakers’ mistresses, refuse of the spelt-mill girls, drabs
besmeared with filth, slaves’ darlings, squalid creatures that reek of
their stand and trade, of the chair and bare stool, women that no free
man ever touched or took home?) This serves also to explain the passage
in _Juvenal_, III. 136., Et dubitas alta Chionem deducere sella. (And
you hesitate to hand down Chione from her high seat).

[194] _Martial_, XI. 45., I. 35. Usually however this appears only to
have been done, when the customer was gratifying unnatural lusts.

[195] _Plautus_, Asin., IV. 1. 19., In foribus scribat, occupatam esse
se. (Let her write on the door that she is engaged).

[196] _Martial_, XI. 62.,

  Quem cum fenestra vidit a Suburana
  Obscoena _nudum_ lena _fornicem_ clausit.

(When she saw him from a window in the Subura, the foul
brothel-mistress shut the _unoccupied “chamber”_).

_Juvenal_, VI. 121.,

  Intravit calidum veteri centone lupanar,
  Et cellam _vacuam_ atque suam.

(She entered the brothel cosy with its old patch-work quilt, and the
chamber that was _vacant_ and her own.). Messalina had hired, we see, a
special “chamber” of her own, where she acted as a prostitute under the
name of Lycisca.

[197] Juvenal, VI. 127.,

  Mox, lenone suas iam dimittente puellas,
  Tristis abit—tamen ultima cellam clausit.

(Presently when time is up and the brothel-keeper dismisses his girls,
sadly she takes her departure,—but she was the last to shut her
chamber).

[198] III. 65., et _ad circum_ iussas prostare puellas (and girls
bidden stand for hire _at the Circus_).

[199] Of Heliogabalus _Lampridius_, (Vita Heliog. ch. 26.)
relates: Omnes de _circo_, de theatro, de stadio—meretrices
collegit. (He collected all the harlots,—from _circus_, theatre and
stadium—race-course). An old poem (_Priapeia_, carm. 26,) says:

  Deliciae populi, _magno_ notissima _circo_
  Quintia.

(The darling of the people, Quintia, so well known _in the Great
Circus_). Comp. _Buleng._ De Circo ch. 56. Supposing this view to be
correct, we might read in the passage of _Juvenal_, III. 136., as
several Critics do, “alta Chionem deducere _cella_” (to lead Chione
down from her lofty “chamber”).

[200] Already in _Livy_, II. 18., we read the account: Eo anno Romae,
cum per ludos ab Sabinorum iuventute per lasciviam scorta raperentur,
etc. (That year at Rome, when during the games harlots were carried
off in their wantonness by the youth of the Sabines, etc.) _Plautus_,
Casin. Prolog., 82-86.; this passage is repeatedly cited in this
connection, but really has only a remote bearing on the matter. But
in confirmation _Isidore_, XVIII. 42., says: Idem vero theatrum
idem et prostibulum, eo quod _post ludos exactos meretrices ibi
prosternerentur_. (But theatre and brothel were identical, for _after
the games were over, harlots used to prostitute themselves there_).
Comp. _Buleng._ De Theatro I. 16. and 49. _Lipsius_, Elect., I. 11.
Of course these statements may refer equally well to the Floralia or,
as _Isidore_ lived so much later, to the lascivious representations
of brothel-life of which _Tertullian_ tells us. The latter writes,
De Spectaculis ch. 17., Ipsa etiam prostibula, publicae libidinis
hostiae, in scena proferantur, plus miserae in praesentia feminarum,
quibus solis latebant: perque omnis aetatis, omnis dignitatis ora
transducuntur, locus, stipes, elogium, etiam quibus opus est,
praedicatur. (Nay, the very harlots, victims of the public lust, are
brought forward on the stage, more wretched still in the presence of
women, who alone used to be ignorant of such things; and they are
discussed by the lips of every age and every condition, and place,
origin, merits, even what should never be mentioned, are freely spoken
of). In 1791 in a public theatre in Paris just such things were
represented as _Juvenal_ in his Sixth Satire speaks of as being acted
at Rome. Gynaeology Pt. III. p. 423. That whores were to be found in
the Theatre as well as in the Circus is shown by _Lampridius_, Vita
Heliogab., ch. 32., fertur et una die ad omnes _circi_ et _theatri_ et
_amphitheatri_ et omnium urbis locorum _meretrices_ ingressus. (And
access is given on one day to all the _harlots of circus, theatre
and amphitheatre_ and all the places of the city). Comp. ch. 26.,
and _Abram._ on Cicero’s Speech for Milo ch. 24. p. 177. Perhaps at
all these spots “chambers” (cellae) were put up, to which the word
_locorum_ (places) above may very well refer.

[201] _Horace_, Epist. I. 14. 21.,

        Fornix tibi et uncta popina
  Incutiunt urbis desiderium, video; et quod
  Angulus iste feret piper et thus ocius uva;
  Nec vicina subest vinum praebere taberna
  Quae possit tibi; nec meretrix tibicina, cuius
  Ad strepitum salias terrae gravis.

(The brothel and greasy cookshop make you long for the city, I can
see; and the fact that this little nook (i.e. Horace’s Sabine farm)
will yield the pepper-plant and thyme sooner than the grape, and
no neighbourly tavern is at hand to give you wine, and no harlot
flute-player to whose din you may thump the floor with your heavy
feet). _Martial_, VII. 60., complains of the great number of such
places. Here and at the money changer’s shops, but especially the
latter, the Procurers were to be found. _Plautus_, Trucul. I. 1. 47.,

  Nam nusquam alibi si sunt, circum argentarias
  Scorti lenones quasi sedent quotidie.

(For if they are nowhere else, at any rate round the banks harlots
and pandars sit as it were daily). Comp. _Stockmann_ “De Popinis” (Of
Cookshops). Leipzig 1805. 8vo.

[202] Codex Theodos. bk. IX. tit. VII. 1. p. 60. edit. Ritter.

[203] _Horace_, Epodes, XVII. 20., Amata nautis multum et institoribus
(A woman much loved by sailors and traders).—_Petronius_, Satir.
99.—_Juvenal_, Sat. VIII. 173-175. _Seneca_, Controv., I. 3.

[204] _Columella_, Res Rustica, I. ch. 8., Socors et somniculosum
genus id mancipiorum, otiis, campo, circo, theatris, aleae, popinae,
lupanaribus consuetum, nunquam non easdem ineptias somniat. (That
slothful and sleepy tribe of domestic slaves, habituated to ease,
games, circus, theatres, dice, cookshop, brothels, would ever be
dreaming the same sort of follies).

[205] _Suetonius_, Claudius, ch. 40., Nero, ch. 27—_Tacitus_, Annal.,
XIII. 25.

[206] _Paulus Diaconus_, XIII. 2., Horum mancipes tempore procedente
pistrina publica latrocinia esse fecerunt: cum enim essent molae
in locis subterraneis constitutae, per singula latera earum domuum
tabernas instituentes, meretrices in eis prostare faciebant, quatenus
per eas plurimos deciperent, alios qui pro pane veniebant, alios qui
pro luxuriae turpitudine ibi festinabant. (The owners of these as time
went on turned the public corn-mills into mischievous frauds. For the
mill-stones being fixed in places underground, they set up stalls on
either side of these chambers and caused harlots to stand for hire in
them, so that by their means they deceived very many,—some that came
for bread, others that hastened thither for the base gratification of
their wantonness).

[207] _Festus_, p. 7., Alicariae meretrices appellabantur in Campania
solitae ante pistrina alicariorum versari quaestus gratia. (Harlots
were called alicariae (spelt-mill girls) in Campania, being accustomed
to ply for gain in front of the mills of the spelt-millers).—_Plautus_,
Poenul., I. 2. 54., Prosedas, pistorum amicas, reliquias alicarias.
(Common strumpets, bakers’ mistresses, refuse of the spelt-mill girls).

[208] _Catullus_, LVIII. 1.,

  Illa Lesbia, quam Catullus unam
  Plusquam se atque suos amavit omnes,
  Nunc in quadriviis et angiportis
  Glubit magnanimos Remi nepotes.

(The fair Lesbia, that Catullus loved above all women, more than
himself and all his friends, now at cross-ways and in alleys skins the
high-souled sons of Remus). We see from this that it was partly such
freed-women girls that, past their prime and come down in the world,
no longer visited by rich admirers, had to seek their living on the
streets.—_Plautus_, Cistell.,

  Intro ad bonam meretricem; adstat ea in via
        Sola; prostibula sane est.

(I am going in to a “good” harlot; _she_ stands in the road alone,—she
is surely a common whore).—_Plautus_, Sticho: Prostibuli est stantem
stanti suavium dare, (It’s a strumpet’s way to give a kiss standing to
a standing lover); whence it might be concluded that only street-whores
were called “Prostibula”.—_Prudentius_, Peristeph., XIV. 38.,

  Sic elocutam publicitus iubet
  Flexu in plutea sistere virginem.

(When she had uttered this public address, he bids the maiden stand at
the turn of the street).

[209] _Martial_, I. 35., Abscondunt spurcas et monumenta lupas.
(The monuments too hide filthy strumpets). Hence they were called
_bustuariae_ (women that haunt tombs). _Martial_, III. 93., Admittat
inter bustuarias moechas. (Let him admit her among the fornicators of
the tombs). Comp. _Turnebus_, Advers., XIII. 19.

[210] _Prudentius_, Symmach., I. 107.,

  Scortator nimius, multaque libidine suetus
  Ruricolas vexare lupas, interque salicta,
  Et densas sepes obscoena cubilia inire,

(An inordinate fornicator, wont to vex the rustic harlots with
multiplied lusts, and amidst the willow-plantations and thickset
hedges to creep into foul lairs); where _Barth_, Advers., X. 2., for
_ruricolas_ (haunting the country, rustic) would read _lustricolas_
(haunting wild dens),—those who prostituted themselves in wild-beasts’
dens, desert places. Hence also a brothel is called _lustrum_ (den)
and _cellae lustrales_ (den-like chambers), and harlots’ hire _aurum
lustrale_ (den-money).—_Credenus_, De Romulo et Remo: ὁ τοίνυν πάππος
Ἀμούλιος διὰ τὴν πορνείαν παροξυνθεὶς εἰς τὰς ὕλας αὐτοὺς ἐξέθετο, οὓς
εὑροῦσα γυνὴ πρόβατα νέμουσα ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἀνεθρέψατο. Εἴθιστο δὲ τοῖς
ἐγχωρίοις λυκαίνας τὰς τοιαύτας καλεῖν γυναῖκας διὰ τὸ ἐπίπαν ἐν τοῖς
ὄρεσι μετὰ λύκων διατρίβειν, διὸ καὶ τούτους ὑπὸ λυκαίνης ἀνατραφῆναι
μυθολογεῖται. (So their grandfather Amulius exasperated by his wife’s
adultery took the children into the woods and exposed them there; but
his wife, as she was pasturing sheep, found them, and reared them on
the mountain. Now it was the custom of the inhabitants of those parts
to call women of this kind “she-wolves” (λυκαίνας) on account of their
living entirely on the mountains with the wolves, whence also the tale
is told that these babes were fostered by a she-wolf).

[211] _Horace_, Sat. I. 2. 1., Ambubaiaram collegium (Society
of—Syrian—Singing-girls).—_Suetonius_, Nero, ch. 27.

[212] _Plautus_, Cist., I. 1. 39.,

  Eunt depressum, quia nos sumus libertinae,
  Et ego et mater tua, ambae meretrices sumus.

(They go about to depreciate us, because we are freed-women, both I and
your mother, we are both courtesans).—_Livy_, XXXIX. 9.

[213] They were called for this reason _vestita scorta_ (dressed out
whores). _Juvenal_, Satir. III. 135.—_Horace_, Sat. I. 2. 28.,

  Sunt qui nolint tetigisse, nisi illas
  Quarum subsuta talos tegat _instita_ veste.

(There are men who will refuse to touch any woman but those whose
frilled tunic has a _flounce_ touching their heels).—Comp. _Burmann_ on
Petronius, pp. 64 and 95.—_Ferrarius_, De re vestiar. (On costume), bk.
III. ch. 23.

[214] _Horace_, Odes II. 11. 21., Quis _devium scortum_ domo eliciet
Lyden? (Who will entice from her home the _sequestered harlot_ Lydé?).

[215] Annal., II. 85. In fact mention had been made of Vestilia, member
of a Praetorian family, as being a public prostitute.

[216] Bk. IV. Epigr. 71. Already in his time _Ovid_ dared to say: casta
est, quam nemo rogavit. (she is chaste—whom no man has solicited).

[217] Although the goddess Isis was worshipped at Rome as early as
Sulla’s time (_Apuleius_, Metam., XI. p. 817. edit. Oudendorp), she did
not possess a public temple there till the Triumvirate (711 A. A. C.)
_Dio Cassius_, bk. XLVII. 15. p. 501., XLIII. 2. p. 692., LIV. 6. p.
734., XL. 47. p. 252. edit. Fabricius.—_Tertullian_, Apologet., ch. 6.
_Spartian_, Caracalla, 9. _Suetonius_, Domitian, 12.

[218] _Ovid_, Ars Amandi, I. 27.—_Burmann_ on Propertius, p. 348.
_Josephus_, Antiq. Jud. XVIII. 4. Hence in _Juvenal_, Sat. VI., 488.,
Isiacae sacraria lenae (sanctuaries of Isis—the brothel-mistress).

[219] _Tibullus_, bk. I. carm. 3. 27.

  Nunc dea, nunc succurre mihi; nam _posse mederi,
  Picta_ docet _templis multa tabella tuis_.

(Now goddess, even now help me; for that thou _canst_ heal, many
a painted tablet in thy temples shows). _Gerning_, “Reise durch
Oestreich und Italien” (Journey through Austria and Italy). Vol. II.
pp. 188-199.—_St. Non_, “Voyage pittoresque” (Picturesque Tour), Vol.
II. pp. 170 sqq. Hardly anything is yet known as to the connection of
the worship of Isis with the healing of disease, least of all with
regard to establishments for the sick; for the particulars collected by
_Hundertmarck_ (“De principibus Diis Artis medicae tutelaribus” (Of the
principal Gods that presided over the Medical Art). Leipzig 1735. 4to.
and “Diss. de Artis Medicae incrementis per aegrotorum apud Veteres in
Vias Publica et Templa expositionem” (Treatise on advances in medical
Art due to the practice of the Ancients of exposing the sick in Public
Ways and Temples). Leipzig 1739. 4to.) are quite insufficient.

[220] _Juvenal_, Sat VI. 121, 131. _Tacitus_, Annal., XI. ch. 37.—_Dio
Cassius_, IX. p. 686. Messalina adulteriis et stupris non contenta
(iam enim etiam in cella quadam in palatio et ipsa sessitabat et alias
prostituebat) maritus simul multos ritu legitimo habere cupivit.
(Messalina not satisfied with adultery and fornication (for already
in a certain chamber within the very palace she was in the habit of
sitting as a prostitute herself and also of making other women do the
same), was eager to have many husbands at once under sanction of the
laws).—_Xiphilinus_, LXXIX. p. 912., Denique in palatio habuit cellam
quandam, in qua libidinem explebat, stabatque nuda semper ante fores
eius, ut scorta solent. (At last she had in the palace a certain
chamber, in which she was wont to satiate her lustfulness, and used to
stand always stripped before its doors, as whores do). _Suetonius_,
Caligula, ch. 41., Ac ne quod non manubiarum genus experiretur, lupanar
in palatio constituit: distinctisque et instructis pro loci dignitate
compluribus cellis, in quibus matronae ingenuique starent. (And that
there might be no species of gain left that she had not tried, she
established a brothel in the palace; and a number of chambers were set
apart and furnished in conformity with the dignity of the locality, and
there matrons and men of birth stood for hire).

[221] _Ulpian_, Lex ancillarum ff. de haered. petit. (Law as to
female-slaves making claim of heirship). Pensiones, licet a lupanario
praeceptae sint: nam et multorum honestorum virorum praediis lupanaria
exercentur. (Rents, even though they be received from a brothel; for
many honourable men have brothels kept on their estates).

[222] _Paulus Diaconus_, Hist. miscell., bk. XII. ch. 2., Aliam
rursus abrogavit huiusmodi causam. Si qua mulier in adulterio capta
fuisset, hoc non emendabatur, sed potius ad augmentum peccandi
contradebatur. Includebant eam in angusto prostibulo et admittentes qui
cum ea fornicarentur, hora qua turpitudinem agebant, _tintinnabula_
percutiebant, ut eo sono illius iniuria fieret manifesta. Haec audiens
Imperator, permanere non est passus, sed ipsa prostibula destrui
iussit. (Again he repealed another regulation of the following nature.
If any should have been detected in adultery, by this plan she was not
in any way, reformed, but rather utterly given over to an increase of
her ill behaviour. They used to shut up the woman in a narrow room, and
admitting any that would commit fornication with her, and at the moment
when they were accomplishing their foul act, to strike _bells_, that
the sound might make known to all the injury she was suffering. The
Emperor hearing this, would suffer it no longer, but ordered the very
rooms to be pulled down).

[223] De adult. lex X. (On adultery, law X.), Mulier quae evitandae
poenae adulterii gratia lenocinium fecit, aut operas suas scenae
locavit, adulterii accusari damnarique senatus consulto potest. (A
woman who in order to avoid the penalty attached to adultery has
practised procuration, or has sold her services to the stage, can be
accused on the charge of adultery and condemned in virtue of a decree
of the Senate).—_Suetonius_, Tiberius, 35., Feminae famosae, ut ad
evitandas legum poenas iure ac dignitate matronali exsolverentur,
lenocinium profiteri coeperant: quas ne quod refugium in tali fraude
cuiquam esset, exsilio affecit. (Infamous women, in order to be
relieved of the legal status and dignity of matrons and thus escape
the penalties assigned by the laws, began to follow procuration as a
calling. These he exiled, that none might find a way of escape in such
a subterfuge).

[224] _Tacitus_, Annal., II. 85., Nam Vistilia, praetoria familia
genita, _licentiam stupri apud aediles_ vulgaverat, more inter
veteres recepto, qui satis poenarum adversum impudicas in ipsa
professione flagitii, credebant. (For Vistilia, born of a family of
Praetorian rank, had publicly notified before the aediles a permit for
fornication, according to the usage that prevailed among our fathers,
who supposed that sufficient punishment for unchaste women resided
in the very nature of the calling.) Comp. _Lipsius_, Excurs. O. p.
509.—_Schubert_, De Romanorum aedilibus (On the Roman Aediles), bk. IV.
Königsberg 1828., p. 512.

[225] _Livy_, bk. X. 31., bk. XXV. 2.

[226] _Seneca_, De vita beata ch. 7.—The aediles in fact exercised
police supervision over the public welfare, and in particular over
weights and measures and the sale of goods (_Suetonius_, Tiberius,
ch. 34.), games of chance, etc. _Martial_, V. 85. bk. XIV. 1. Comp.
_Schubert_, loco citato, bk. III. ch. 45.

[227] _Aulus Gellius_, Noct. Attic., bk. IV. 14.;—where an action at
law is cited, in which the aedile Mancinus had wished to force his
way at night into the lodging of Mamilia, a courtesan, who had thrown
stones and chased him away. In the result we read: Tribuni decreverunt
aedilem ex eo loco iure dejectum, quo eum venire cum coronario non
decuisset. (The tribunes gave as their decision that the aedile had
been lawfully driven from that place, as being one that he ought not to
have visited with his officer). This happened, as is seen by comparison
with _Livy_, bk. XL. ch. 35., in the year B. C. 180.

[228] _Suetonius_, Caligula, ch. 40., Vectigalia nova atque inaudita
... exercuit; ... ex capturis prostitutarum quantum quaeque uno
concubitu mereret. Additumque ad caput legis, ut tenerentur publico et
quae meretricium et qui lenocinium fecissent, nec non et matrimonia
obnoxia essent. (He levied new and hitherto unheard of imposts; ... a
proportion of the fees of prostitutes,—so much as each earned with one
man. A clause was also added to the law, directing that both women who
had practised harlotry and men who had practised procuration should
be rated publicly; furthermore that marriages should be liable to the
rate).

[229] _Lampridius._ Alexander Severus, ch. 24., Lenonum vectigal
et meretricum et exoletorum in sacrum aerarium inferri vetuit, sed
sumptibus publicis ad instaurationem theatri, circi, amphitheatri et
aerarii deputavit. (He forbad that the tax on harlots and on male
debauchees should be paid into the sacred Treasury of the State, but
allotted it as a public contribution towards the repair of the theatre,
circus, amphitheatre and treasury). Also at Byzantium a similar duty
was paid under the name of χρυσάργυρον (tribute of gold and silver),
which however the Emperor Anastasius abolished, and at the same time
ordered the tax-rolls to be burned. (_Zonaras_, Annal.—_Nicephorus_,
Hist. eccles., bk. XVI. ch. 40.).

[230] Compare _Ch. G. Gruner_, “Dissertatio de Coitu eiusque variis
formis quatenus medicorum sunt.” (Treatise on Coition and its Different
Forms in their Medical Aspect). Jena 1792. 4 vols. German edition:
“Üeber den Beischlaf” (On Coition). Leipzig 1796. 8 vols. Comp.
Salzburg med. chir. Zeitung. Jahrg. 1796. III. 5.—_Forberg_, p. 118,
loco citato.

[231] Epistle to Titus, ch. I. v. 5. Πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς·
τοῖς δὲ μιασμένοις ... οὐδὲν καθαρὸν, ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ
νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις. (To the pure all things are pure; but to them
that are defiled ... nothing is pure; but both their mind and their
conscience are defiled.)

Also _Clement of Alexandria_, one of the Fathers of the Church, who
speaks largely on this special point of Paederastia, says (Paedagog.,
Bk. III. ch. 3.) εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν ἄπρακτον ὑπολείπεται, οὐδὲ ἐμοὶ ἄῤῥητον.
(For if nought is left undone by them, neither shall aught be left
untold by me).

[232] _Antonius Panormites_, “Hermaphroditus”. First German edition,
with explanatory appendices, by Frider. Carol. Forberg. Coburg 1824.
8 parts. The Editor’s Appendices treat (pp. 205-393): De figuris
Veneris (Concerning the modes of Love), and in particular, ch. I. De
fututione (Of Copulation)—pp. 213-234; ch. II. De paedicatione (Of
Sodomy)—pp. 234-277; ch. III. De irrumando (Of vicious practices with
the mouth)—pp. 277-304; ch. IV. De masturbando (Of masturbation)—pp.
304-321; ch. V. De cunnilingis (de eis qui cunnos mulierum lingunt, Of
men who lick women’s private parts)—pp. 322-345; ch. VI. De tribadibus
(Of women who practise vice with one another)—pp. 345-369; ch. VII. De
coitu cum brutis (Of unnatural copulation with animals)—pp. 369-372;
ch. VIII. De spintris (Of pathic Sodomites)—p. 373. All the important
passages in ancient authors are here noted in every case, and given in
the original.

The following work was unfortunately not procurable by us: _C.
Rambach_, Glossarium Eroticum,—a Commentary to the Poets and
Prose-writers of Classical Antiquity and Supplement to all Lexicons of
the Latin Language. 2nd. edition. Stuttgart 1836.

[233] Patentiora sunt nobis Italis Hispanisve, quis neget? Veneris
ostia. (With us, Italians or Spaniards, the orifices of Love are more
open,—who can deny the fact?). _Aloysia Sigaea_ Satira sotadica,
p. 305. Compare _Martial_, I, Bk. XI. epigram 22. Less frequently,
and only for later times, may the reason have existed which Martial
specifies in the case of the young wife, _Martial_ Bk. XI. epigr. 78:

  Paedicare semel cupido dabit illa marito,
  Dum metuit teli vulnera prima novi.

(She—the newly-wed wife—will allow her longing husband just _once_ to
lie with her as with a man, while she still dreads the first wounds of
the unfamiliar weapon). Comp. Priapeia, carmen II.

[234] For this reason the Greeks called the pathic sodomite also
σφιγκτὴρ or σφίγκτης. _Hesychius_: _σφίγκται_ οἱ κίναιδοι καὶ ἁπαλοὶ.
(σφίγκται = sodomites and effeminate men). _Photius_: _σφίγκται_
Κρατῖνος τοὺς κιναιδώδεις καὶ μαλθάκους. (σφίγκται used by Cratinus =
sodomitish and womanish men). _Strato_ in Antholog. MS.:

  Σφιγκτὴρ οὐκ ἔστιν παρὰ παρθένῳ, οὐδὲ φίλημα
  Ἁπλοῦν, οὐ φυσικὴ χρωτὸς εὐπνοΐη.

(With a virgin there is no sphincter, no frank kiss, no natural
fragrance of the skin).

_Hesychius_ sub verbo:

  μεγαρικαὶ σφίγγες·
  Καλλίας πόρνας τινὰς οὕτως εἴρηκειν.

(Hesychius (Lexicon) on the phrase μεγαρικαὶ σφίγγες says: Callias
speaks of certain harlots by this title).

_Suidas_ sub verbo:

  μεγαρικαὶ σφίγγες.

  αἱ πόρναι οὕτως εἴρηνται,
  ἴσως δὲ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ σφίγκται οἱ μαλακοὶ
  ὠνομάσθησαν· ἢ καὶ ἀπὸ
  Μαίας οὕτω λεγομένης ἐν Μεγάροις·

    Ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἡμῖν Μεγαρική τις μηχανή.

  ἀντὶ τοῦ, πονηρά· διεβάλλοντο
  γὰρ ἐπὶ πονηρία οἱ Μεγαρεῖς.

(Suidas (Lexicon) on the phrase μεγαρικαὶ σφίγγες says: harlots are
so called, and perhaps for the same reason debauched men are entitled
σφίγκται; or else from a saying current in Megara to this effect:—But
we have a certain _Megarian_ trick,—that is a _knavish_ one. For the
Megarians were ill spoken of for their knavishness).

[235] Epistle to the Romans, ch. I. vv. 24-26, 27.

[236] _Athanasius_, Oratio contra Gentes, ch. 26. in “Opera Omnia
studio Monachorum Ord. St. Benedicti.” (Complete Works of St.
Athanasius, edit. by the Monks of the Order of St. Benedict). Padua
1777. folio.—Vol. I. p. 1.

[237] Amores, chs. 20, 21. The hetaera Glycera would seem, according
to _Clearchus’_ report, to have said, καὶ οἱ παῖδες εἰσι καλοὶ, ὅσον
ἐοίκασι γυναικὶ χρόνον. (And boys are beautiful for so long as they
resemble a woman). _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 605 D. According
to _Hellanicus_, as _Donatus_, on _Terence’s_ Eunuch., I. 2. 87.
notifies, the custom of emasculating boys would seem to have come from
the Babylonians. _Herodotus_, III. 92., says that the Babylonians
were bound to deliver every year as tribute to the Persian king 500
castrated boys.

[238] As a matter of curiosity a tale of _Phlegon_, De Rebus
mirabilibus, ch. 26., may find a place here. According to the report of
the physician _Dorotheus_ a Cinaedus (pathic sodomite) at Alexandria
in Egypt bore a child, which was preserved at that place. The text
reads, Δωρόθεος δέ φησιν ὁ ἰατρὸς ἐν Ὑπομνήμασιν, ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ,
τῇ κατ’ Αἴγυπτον, κίναιδον τεκεῖν· τὸ δὲ βρέφος ταριχευθὲν, χάριν
τοῦ παραδόξου, φυλάττεσθαι. (Now Dorotheus the Physician says in his
Memoirs, that at Alexandria in Egypt a _cinaedus_ brought forth; and
that the babe was mummified and kept as a curiosity). The same thing
is reported in the following chapter of a slave with the Roman army in
Germany under the command of T. Curtilius Mancias. These stories may
possibly borrow some probability from modern investigations as to the
“foetus” within the “foetus”. The expression “to sow seed on barren
rocks” occurs, it may be mentioned, very frequently in connection with
paederastia in the Fathers.

[239] _Juvenal_, Sat. VI. 366 sqq.,

  Sunt quas eunuchi imbelles ac mollia semper
  Oscula delectent et desperatio barbae.
  _Et quod abortivo non est opus_, illa voluptas
  Summa tamen, quod iam calida matura iuventa
  Inguina traduntur medicis, iam pectine nigro.
  Ergo exspectatos ac iussos crescere primum,
  Testiculos, postquam coeperunt esse bilibres,
  Tonsoris damno tantum rapit Heliodorus.

(Women there are to find delight in unwarlike eunuchs and kisses ever
soft and the lack of a beard that can never grow, and this especially
because then there is no need for any abortive. But the pleasure is
greatest when the organs are delivered full-grown to the surgeons,
just in the heat of youth, just when the down of puberty is darkening.
Then when the testicles, long looked for and at first encouraged to
grow, begin to be of double balanced weight, lo! Heliodorus whips them
off,—to the barber’s loss).

_Martial_, VI. 67.,

  Cur tantum Eunuchos habeat tua Gellia, quaeris
  Pannice? vult futui Gellia, non parere.

(Why your Gellia is fain to have eunuchs only, do you ask, Pannicus?
Because she wishes to be f-ck-d, not to be a mother). In longam
securamque libidinem exsectus spado, (A eunuch castrated with a view to
long-continued and _harmless_ lust), says St. Jerome. The information
given by _Galen_ (De usu Partium bk. XIV. 15. edit. Kühn, vol. IV.
p. 571) is notable, to the effect that the athletes at Olympia were
castrated, that their strength might not be wasted by coition. Have
the words “Olimpia agona” (Olimpic—Olympic—games) been in some way
misunderstood in the passage?

[240] Genesis XIX. 4., Levit., XVIII. 2., XXIX. 13.

[241] _Welcker_, Aeschylus—Trilogy, p. 356.

[242] _Athenaeus_, Deipnosoph., p. 602., τοῦ παιδεραστεῖν παρὰ πρώτων
Κρητῶν εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας παρελθόντος, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Τίμαιος. (The practice
of paederastia having been introduced among the Greeks first by the
Cretans, as Timaeus relates).—_Heraclitus Ponticus_, fragment, περὶ
πολιτείας III. p. 7.—_Servius_ on Virgil—Aeneid bk. X. 325., de
Cretensibus accepimus, quod in amore puerorum intemperantes fuerunt,
quod postea in Laconas et totam Graeciam translatum est. (Of the
Cretans we have been told that they were excessive in their love of
boys, a practice afterwards imported into Laconia and all parts of
Greece.) Comp. _K. O. Müller_, “Die Dorier”, (The Dorians), Vol. II.
pp. 240 sqq. K. Höck, “Kreta”, (Crete), Vol. III. p. 106. Though in
Crete as in all Dorian States Paedophilia was a universal and official
institution, yet paederastia too was common enough, as is shown by
the censure expressed by _Plato_ (De Legibus bk. I. 636., bk. VII.
836.) and _Plutarch_, (De puerorum educatione ch. 14.).—as also by the
expression Κρῆτα τρόπον (Cretan fashion) given in _Hesychius_; and
probably the word κρητίζειν (to play the Cretan) is to be understood
from this point of view also. _Pfeffinger_, “De Cretum vitiis,” (Of the
Vices of the Cretans). Strasbourg 1701. 4to. From this _Aristotle_
(Politics II. 7. 5.) may have got the idea that the lawgiver in Crete
introduced paederastia in order to check the increase of population.
_Hesychius_ says at any rate κρῆτα τρόπον, παιδικοῖς χρῆσθαι. (Cretan
fashion, i.e. to indulge in boy-loves). Of the Scythians later on.

[243] Thus _Plutarch_, Eroticus, ch. 5., Ἡ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀῤῥένων ἀκόντων,
μετὰ βίας γενομένη καὶ λεηλασίας, ἂν δὲ ἑκουσίως, σὺν μαλακίᾳ καὶ
θηλύτητι _βαίνεσθαι_ κατὰ Πλάτωνα _νόμῳ τετράποδος καὶ παιδοσπορεῖσθαι
παρὰ φύσιν_ ἐνδιδόντων, χάρις ἄχαρις παντάπασι καὶ ἀσχήμων καὶ
_ἀναφρόδιτος_. (But the pleasure that is won from males against their
will by dint of force or robbery, or if voluntarily, then only because
in their wantonness and effeminacy they consent to men _treading
them_, as Plato puts it, _like a four-footed beast_, and emitting seed
with them unnaturally—this pleasure is a _graceless_ one altogether,
and unseemly and _loveless_). The passage of Plato referred to here
is in the Phaedrus, p. 250 E., ὥστε οὐ σέβεται προσορῶν, ἀλλ’ ἡδονῇ
παραδοὺς _τετράποδος νόμον βαίνειν_ ἐπιχειρεῖ καὶ παιδοσπορεῖν, καὶ
ὕβρει προσομιλῶν οὐ δέδοικεν οὐδ’ αἰσχύνεται παρὰ φύσιν ἡδονὴν διώκων.
(And so he feels no reverence when he looks on him, but giving way to
pleasure endeavours to _tread like a four-footed beast_ and to emit his
seed, and using insolent violence in his intercourse, has no fear and
no shame in pursuing pleasure in an unnatural way). As something παρὰ
φύσιν (contrary to nature) we find paederastia further characterized
in _Athenaeus_, Deipnosoph., bk. XIII. p. 605. _Lucian_, Amores, 19.
_Philo_, De legg. spec., II. p. 306. 17. _Libanius_, Orat., XIX. p.
500. ἡ παράνομος Ἀφροδίτη. (Unlawful Love). _Galen_, De diagnos. et
curat. anim. effect. (On the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diseases of
Animals). edit. Kühn. Vol. V. p. 30. τῆς παρὰ φύσιν αἰσχρουργίας (of
unnatural viciousness). In the _Anthologia Graeca_, bk. II. tit. 5. No.
10. is the distich following by an unknown author:

  Υἱὸς Πατρικίου μάλα κόσμιος, _ὃς διὰ Κύπριν
  Οὐχ ὁσίην_ ἑτάρους πάντας _ἀποστρέφεται_.

(Son of Patricius, a very discreet man, who by _unholy love seduces_
all his comrades). But above all the passage in _Aeschines_,
Orat. in Timarch. edit. Reiske, p. 146., is to the point in this
connection: ὁρίζομαι δ’ εἶναι, τὸ μὲν ἐρᾶν τῶν καλῶν καὶ σωφρόνων,
φιλανθρώπου, πάθος καὶ εὐγνώμονος ψυχῆς· τὸ δὲ ἀσελγαίνειν ἀργυρίου
τινὰ μισθούμενον, ὑβριστοῦ καὶ ἀπαιδεύτου ἀνδρὸς ἔργον εἶναι ἡγοῦμαι·
καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀδιαφθόρως ἐρᾶσθαι, φημὶ καλὸν εἶναι· τὸ δὲ ἐπαρθέντα
μισθῷ πεπορνεῦσθαι, αἰσχρόν. (Now I make this distinction, that to
love honourable and prudent friends is the passion of an amiable and
reasonable soul; whereas to behave licentiously, hiring anyone for
the purpose, I consider the act of a ruffianly and uncultivated man.
Similarly, to be loved purely, I declare to be a noble thing; but,
induced by pay, to allow oneself to be debauched, a foul thing). Anyone
who has read this passage attentively, together with what follows
in the Speech, cannot possibly any longer confound Paedophilia with
Paederastia, or maintain that the latter was approved by the Greeks.

[244] _Aelian_, Var. Hist., III. 12.—_Xenophon_, De republ. Lacedaem,
II. 13., Sympos., VIII. 35. _Plato_, De leg., VIII. p. 912.

[245] _Lucian_, Amores, 41., Μηδὲν ἀχθεσθῇς, εἰ ταῖς Ἀθήναις ἡ Κόρινθος
εἴζει, (Do not be annoyed, if Corinth yields to Athens), on which the
scholiasts add the explanation: ἢ ὡς τῆς Κορίνθου μὲν ἀνακειμένης
Ἀφροδίτῃ (διὸ καὶ πολλὴ ἐν Κορίνθῳ ἡ γυναικεία μίξις) Ἀθηνῶν δὲ
παιδεραστίᾳ κομώντων ἤτοι τῇ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν καὶ σώφρονι ἢ τῇ τῷ
ὄντι μιαρᾷ καὶ διαβεβλημένῃ. (while Corinth is devoted to Aphrodité
(wherefore in Corinth there is much varied intercourse with women),
Athens prides herself on paederastia, whether a love of boys that is
philosophic and wise, or a love that is veritably vile and despicable).
_Aristophanes_, Plutus, vv. 149-152.,

  Καὶ τὰς χ’ ἑταίρας φασὶ τὰς Κορινθίας,
  Ὅταν μὲν αὐτάς τις πένης πειρῶν τύχῃ
  Οὐδὲ προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν· ἐὰν δὲ πλούσιος,
  _Τὸν πρωκτὸν αὐτὰς εὐθὺς ὡς τοῦτον τρέπειν_.

(And they say that the Corinthian hetaerae, should any poor man chance
to solicit them, pay no attention whatever; but if it be a rich man, at
once they turn their posterior to him).

[246] Clouds, vv. 973 sqq.—see also F. A. Wolf’s German translation.

[247] _Lysias_, Contra Pancl., 731., from which passage it would seem
that each “Deme” had its own κουρεῖον (barber’s shop) in the city.
_Demosthenes_, Contra Aristogit., 786, 7. _Theophrastus_, Charact.,
VIII. 5. XI. _Plutarch_, Sympos., V. 5. _Aristophanes_, Plut., 339.

[248] _Aristophanes_, Knights, 1380., where the expression τὰ
μειράκια τἀν τῷ μύρῳ (the striplings, those in the myrrh-market) is
intentionally ambiguous.

[249] _Aelian_, Var. Hist., VIII. 8. _Aeschines_, In Timarch., § 40.
says that Timarchus resided at the Surgery of Euthydicus, not to learn
medicine, but to sell his person.

[250] _Theophrastus_, Charact., V. edit. Ast, p. 183.

[251] _Theophrastus_, Charact., VIII. 4.

[252] _Xenophon_, Memorab., IV. 2. 1. _Diogenes Laertius_, III. 21.

[253] _Aeschines_, In Timarch., p. 35., τὰς ἐρημίας καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐν
πλείστῃ ὑποψίᾳ ποιούμενος. (regarding the lonely localities and the
darkness as in the highest degree suspicious). p. 112. p. 90., ἡ πρᾶξις
αὕτη εἴωθε γίγνεσθαι λάθρα καὶ ἐν ἐρημίαις. (this practice is usually
carried on secretly and in lonely places). p. 104, it is said that
Timarchus had more experience περὶ τῆς ἐρημίας ταύτης καὶ τοῦ τόπου ἐν
τῇ Πνυκὶ. (about this lonely spot and the locality of the Pnyx) than of
the Areopagus. Comp. _Plato_, Sympos., p. 217 b.

[254] _Plato_, Sympos. p. 182. 6. _Xenophon_, Sympos. VIII.
34.—_Cicero_, De Republ., IV. 4., Apud Eleos et Thebanos in amore
ingenuorum libido etiam permissam habet et solutam licentiam. (Among
the Eleans and Thebans, in the love of free men, lust has actually a
permitted and unchecked licence). _Maximus Tyrius_, Diss. XXXIX. p.
467. _Plutarch_, De pueror. educat., ch. 14. The Elean “boy-loving”
was even more notorious than the Boeotian. _Xenophon_, De Republ.
Lacedaem., II. 13. _Maximus Tyrius_, Diss., XXVI. p. 317.

[255] _Theognis_, Sentent., 39.

[256] Descript. Graeciae, Bk. I. ch. 43., Μετὰ δὲ τοῦ Διονύσου τὸ ἱερόν
ἐστιν Ἀφροδίτης ναός· ἄγαλμα δὲ ἐλέφαντος Ἀφροδίτῃ πεποιημένον, Πρᾶξις
ἐπίκλησιν· τοῦτ’, ἐστιν ἀρχαιότατον ἐν τῷ ναῷ·

[257] _Pollux_, Onomast., bk. VII. ch. 33. says: εἰ δὲ χρὴ καὶ τὰς
αἰσχίους _πράξεις_ τέχνας ὀνομάζειν, (if that is we must call the more
disgraceful πράξεις—doings, modes of intercourse—arts); and then cites
the different designations of whores, brothels, etc.

[258] _Hesychius_ under the word χαλκιδίζειν. _Athenaeus_ Deipnos., bk.
XIII. p. 601 e. _Plutarch_, Amat., 38. 2.

[259] _Σιφνιάζειν_· ἐπὶ τῶν τὰς χεῖρας προσαγόντων τοῖς ἰσχίοις, ὥσπερ
_λεσβιάζειν_ ἐπὶ τῶν παρανομούντων ἐν τοῖς ἀφροδισίοις· σιφνιάζειν
δὲ καὶ λεσβιάζειν, ἀπὸ τῆς νήσου Σίφνου καὶ τῆς Λέσβου· ὡς καὶ
τὸ _κρητίζειν_ ἀπὸ τῆς Κρήτης· καὶ τὸ Σίφνιος δὲ ἀῤῥαβὼν, ὁμοίως
_σιφνιάζειν γὰρ τὸ ἅπτεσθαι τῆς πυγῆς δακτύλῳ_. Λεσβιάζειν δὲ τὸ τῷ
στόματι παρανομεῖν. _Hesychius_ s. v. Σίφνιοι· ἀκάθαρτοι· ἀπὸ Σίφνου
τῆς νήσου. _Σίφνιος ἀῤῥαβών_· περὶ τῶν Σιφνίων ἄτοπα διεδίδοτο, ὡς τῷ
δακτύλῳ σκιμαλιζόντων· δηλοῖ οὖν τὸν διὰ δακτυλίου αἰδούμενον ἐπὶ τοῦ
κακοσχόλου. (To play the Siphnian: said of those who apply the hands
to the loins; as “to play the Lesbian” of those who act viciously in
carnal pleasures.) Σιφνιάζειν and λεσβιάζειν from the islands Siphnos
and Lesbos; just as the expression κρητίζειν (to play the Cretan) from
Crete. Also the phrase “_Siphnian_ surety”; for in the same way “to
play the Siphnian” means to finger the posterior. But “to play the
Lesbian”; to act viciously with the mouth.—_Hesychius_ under the word
Σίφνιοι: Siphnians, i.e. unclean persons; from the island of Siphnos.
“_Siphnian_ surety”: of the Siphnians abominable tales were told, to
the effect that they poked the posterior with the finger. Signifies
therefore one who acts disgracefully in connection with the anus,
said of the idle voluptuary. Comp. σκιμαλίσαι, σκινδαρεύεσθαι in the
same—Hesychius.

[260] Comp. _Libanius_, In Florent., p. 430. _Toup_, Opusc. critic.,
Leipzig 1780. p. 420.

[261] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. XIII. p. 517 f.

[262] _Dionysius of Halicarnassus_, Exc. p. 2336. _Valerius Maximus_,
Bk. VI. 1. 9. _Suidas_, under Γαΐος Λαιτώριος (Caius Laetorius).

[263] Bk IX. Epigr. 9. Comp. _Suetonius_, Nero 28, 29. _Dio Cassius_,
LXII. 28., LXIII. 13. _Juvenal_, Satir. I. 62., and especially
_Tacitus_, Annal., Bk. XV. 37.—_Tatian_, Orat. ad Graec., p. 100.,
Παιδεραστία μὲν ὑπὸ βαρβάρων διώκεται, προνομίας δὲ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων
ἠξίωται, παίδων ἀγέλας, ὥσπερ ἵππων φορβάδων, συναγείρειν αὐτῶν
πειρωμένων. (Paederastia is followed by barbarians generally, but is
held in pre-eminent esteem by Romans, who endeavour to get together
herds of boys, as it were of brood mares). _Justin Martyr_, Apolog.,
I. p. 14., Πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τοὺς πάντας σχεδὸν ὁρῶμεν ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ
προάγοντας, οὐ μόνον τὰς κόρας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἄρσενας· καὶ ὃν τρόπον
λέγονται οἱ παλαιοὶ ἀγέλας βοῶν, ἢ αἰγῶν, ἢ προβάτων τρέφειν, ἢ ἵππων
φορβάδων, οὕτω νῦν δὲ παῖδας, εἰς τὸ αἰσχρῶς χρῆσθαι μόνον, καὶ ὁμοίων
θηλειῶν, καὶ ἀνδρογύνων, καὶ ἀῤῥητοποιῶν πλῆθος κατὰ τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος ἐπὶ
τούτου τοῦ ἅγους ἔστηκεν. (First because we behold nearly all men
seducing to fornication not merely girls, but also males. And just
as our fathers are spoken of as keeping herds of oxen, or goats, or
sheep, or of brood mares, so now they keep boys, solely for the purpose
of shameful usage, treating them as females, or men-women, and doing
unspeakable acts. To such a pitch of pollution has the multitude
throughout the whole people come).

[264] That boys were kept in the brothels at Rome as paramours is seen
from a host of passages in Ancient authors, e. g. _Martial_, bk. XI.
Epigr. 45.,

  Intrasti quoties inscriptae limina cellae
  _Seu puer_ arrisit, sive puella tibi.

(As oft as you have crossed the threshold of a “chamber” inscribed with
name on door, whether it were _boy_ that threw you a smile, or girl).
They, as well as women, had to pay the Whore-tax. Comp. above p. 118.
Note 6.

[265] Bk. III. Epigr. 71.

[266] _Caelius Aurelianus_, Acut. morb. (Acute Diseases), bk. III.
ch. 18., Aliorum autem medicorum, excepto Themisone, nullus hanc
passionem conscribit, cum non solum raro, verum etiam coacervatim,
saepissime invasisse videatur. Memorat denique Themison, apud Cretam
multos satyriasi interfectos. (But of other physicians none, with the
exception of Themison, describes this complaint, though it appears to
have attacked the population very frequently not only sporadically, but
actually as an epidemic. In fact Themison records that in Crete men
died of Satyriasis).

[267] “Handbuch der medicin. Klinik” (Manual of Clinical Medicine),
Vol. VII. pp. 88 and 670.

[268] Bk. VI. Epigr. 37.

[269] _Martial_, Bk. XI. Epigr. 99.

[270] _Martial_, XI. 88.

[271] _Martial_, VI. 49.

[272] _Martial_, Bk. XII. Epigr. 33.

[273] _Martial_, Bk. I. Epigr. 66. The old Grammars had the following
lines:

  _Haec ficus_, fici vel ficus, fructus et arbor,
  _Hic ficus_, fici, _malus est in podice morbus_.

(Feminine:—_ficus_, gen. -i and -us, fig and fig-tree;
masculine:—_ficus_, gen. -i, _is an evil disease of the fundament_.)

[274] Satir. Bk. I. Sat. VIII. 46.

[275] _Martial_, Bk. VII. Epigram 71.

[276] There still remains some doubt in our mind as to the meaning of
another Epigram of _Martial’s_, Bk. IV. Epigr. 52.

  Gestari _iunctis_ nisi desinis, Hedyle, _capris_
  Qui modo ficus eras, iam caprificus eris,

(Unless you cease, Hedylus, to _go with “she-goats” in copulation_,
you who were but now a fig-tree, will presently be a wild fig-tree
(goat-fig)). If _capra_ (she-goat) here has the meaning of _scortum_
(common strumpet),—and it cannot very well signify anything else,—the
passage is an undoubted proof that such swellings were a consequence of
coition with _common_ prostitutes, and that the latter were ordinarily
affected with them.—In _Petronius_, Sat. ch. 46., it is said of some
one: Ingeniosus est et bono filo etiamsi in nave morbosus est. (He is
of good abilities and good fibre, but he is diseased with swellings on
the fundament.) _Burmann_ notes on this: In nave—id est mariscas habet.
Navis est podex ficosus. Hinc dictum illud Casellii apud Quintilianum,
(De Instit. Orat. VI. 3. 87.) Consultori dicenti, _navem dividere
volo_, respondentis, _perdes_. (_In nave_—that is, he has swellings.
Navis (literally a ship) means a fundament afflicted with swellings.
Hence the _bon mot_ of Casellius, quoted in _Quintilian_. In reply
to a client who said “I wish to cut (divide into shares) my ship”
(navis,—means also diseased fundament), he retorted, “It’ll be fatal!”)

[277] Bk. VII. Epigr. 34. _Persius_, Satir. I. 33., Hic
aliquis—Rancidulum quiddam balba de nare locutus. (Hereupon some one
spoke something offensive through stuttering nose—in a stuttering nasal
voice). _Sidonius Apollinaris_, Epist. bk. IX., Orationem salebrosas
passam iuncturas per cameram volutatam balbutire. (To stammer out
through the palate’s vault all a-tremble a speech where the periods are
joltingly united).

[278] _Joannes Jac. Reiske_, and _Joannes Ern. Faber_, “Opuscula
medica ex monumentis Arabum et Ebraeorum,” (Medical Tracts—from Arabic
and Hebrew Writings), edit. _Ch. G. Gruner_. Halle 1776. 8vo., p.
61 Note: Ita tamen miror, ab antiquitatis patronis argumentum inde
allatum non fuisse, quod veterum cinaedi passi fuerint in naribus
et in palato vitium, a quo clare non potuerint eloqui, sed ῥέγχειν,
stertere et rhonchissare debuerint. Cf. diserta sed acris oratio
Dionis Chrysostomi Tarsica prior etc. (Yet I wonder at this, that the
advocates of its antiquity have not drawn an argument from the fact
that among the Ancients the _cinaedi_ suffered from an affection of the
nose and palate, that prevented their speaking distinctly, and made
them ῥέγχειν, snore and snort, Comp. the eloquent, but censorious,
Speech of the Rhetor Dio Chrysostom, First Tarsica, etc.) _Gruner_ in
his Antiq. Morborum (Antiquity of Diseases), p. 77., likewise cited
this reference, but it appears without having personally compared the
passages with precision.

[279] Speeches, edit. by Joannes Jac. Reiske. 2 Vols. Leipzig 1784
large 8vo., Vol. II. Speech XXXIII (not XXXII, as given in Reiske and
Gruner), pp. 14 sqq.

[280] Ἀκολάστοις (intemperate). This word often occurs in the sense
of paederast, especially when the latter is spoken of as pursuing the
vice passionately. Thus _Aeschines_, in Timarch., pp. 63, 183. _Plato_,
Sympos., 186 c.

[281] Τὸν δέ γε ἄγριον τοῦτον καὶ χαλεπὸν ἦχον. (This rough and harsh
tone of voice). The word ἄγριος (rough, savage) is specially used of
the paederast, _Aristophanes_, Clouds 347., and the Scholiast on the
passage; the same is true of χαλεπὸς (hard, harsh). The Scholiast on
_Aeschines_, In Timarch., p. 731 R., ἀγρίους τοὺς σφόδρα ἐπτοημένους
περὶ τὰ παιδικὰ καὶ χαλεποὺς παιδεραστάς. (rough men that are above
measure agog for boy-loves,—hard paederasts.) All through the Speech
are found a host of allusions to the expressions in common use to
signify paederastia, which may well make the right understanding of it
difficult.

[282] Τὸ πρᾶγμα (the thing) has the same meaning here as πρᾶξις (doing,
intercourse) in _Aeschines_, In Timarch., pp. 159, 160. _Plato_,
Sympos., 181 b.

[283] Κινεῖται (is raised, is stirred), from which the word Κίναιδος,
_cinaedus_, is derived.

[284] On the _digitus medius_ (middle finger) or _infamis_ compare
_Upton_ on Arrian’s Diss. Epictet, II. 2. p. 176.—“_Abhandlung von den
Fingern_, deren Verrichtungen und symbolischen Bedeutung.” (Treatise
on the Fingers, their Gestures and Symbolic Meaning). Leipzig 1756.
pp. 172-221. But in particular _Forberg_, loco citato p. 338. note h.:
Cum digitus medius porrectus, reliquis incurvatis, tentam repraesentet
mentulam cum coleis suis, factum est, ut medium digitum hoc modo
ostenderent (Graeci uno verbo dixerunt σκιμαλίζειν) cinaedis, sive
pelliciendis, sive irridendis. (In as much as the middle finger
stretched out, the other fingers being bent under, represents the
extended penis with its bags (testicles), it came about that the Greeks
used to show the middle finger in this way (the Greeks expressed it by
one word σκιμαλίζειν) to cinaedi, whether to beckon them or by way of
derision.). _Martial_, I. 93., Saepe mihi queritur Celsus.... Tangi
se digito, Mamuriane, tuo. (Often Celsus complains to me that he is
touched by your finger, Mamurianus.) VI. 70., Ostendit digitum, sed
impudicum. (He shows a finger, but an indecent one). Οἱ δὲ Ἀττικοὶ καὶ
τὸν μέσον τῆς χειρὸς δάκτυλον καταπύγωνα ὠνόμαζον. (Now the Attics used
to call the middle finger of the hand the _lewd_ finger.) _Pollux_,
Onomast., II. 4. 184. _Suetonius_, Caligula, ch. 56., Osculandam manum
offerre, formatam commotamque in obscoenum modum. (To offer his hand to
be kissed, put into an obscene shape and moved in an obscene way.) _Th.
Echtermeyer_, “Progr. über Namen und symbol. Bedeut. der Finger bei
den Griechen und Römern.” (Names and Symbolic Meaning of the Fingers
amongst the Greeks and Romans.) Halle 1835. 4to., pp. 41-49., treats
very exhaustively of this subject.

[285] On account of the resemblance of its harsh, screeching note?
_Reiske_ remarks on this passage: Est autem κερχνίς avis quaedam a
stertendo sic dicta, vel stridore, quem edit similem iis qui stertunt.
(But the κερχνίς,—hawk, is a bird so called from the snoring, or harsh
note it utters, like men who snore). Comp. _Schneider_, Lexicon, under
words κέρχνος and κέρχω (hoarseness, to make hoarse).

[286] _Horace_, Odes II. 8.,

  Ulla si iuris tibi peierati
  Poena, Barine, nocuisset unquam,
  Dente si nigro fieres, vel uno
  Turpior ungui, Crederem.

(If _any_ punishment for perjured faith had ever hurt you, Barinus, if
you had had but a blackened tooth, or had been disfigured in one single
nail, I would believe).

[287] Epistle to the Romans, Ch. I. vv. 24, 26, 27.

[288] Names of noted women are given by _Martial_, bk. XI. Epigr. 95.
Comp. below. p. 118. note 3.

[289] Rerum Gestarum bk. XIV. ch. 19.—_Petronius_, Satir., ch. 68.,
says of a slave: duo tamen vitia habet, quae si non haberet, esset
omnium nummorum: recutitus est et _stertit_. (Yet has he two faults,
lacking which he would be a man above price: he is circumcised and he
snorts.)—Terence, Eunuch., Act V. sc 1. v. 53, Fatuus et insulsus,
bardus, _stertit noctes et dies_. Neque istum metuas ne amet mulier.
(Foolish and silly, a stupid fellow, _he snores all night and all day_.
Have no fear that a woman could love him.)

[290] Bk. XII. Epigr. 87.,

  _Paediconibus os olere_ dicis.
  Hoc si sic, ut ais, Fabulle, verum est,
  Quid tu credis olere cunnilingis?

(You say paederasts’ breath smells foul. If what you allege
is true, Fabullus, what sort of a breath think you have
_cunnilingi_?—_cunnilingi_, i. e. illi qui pudenda mulierum lingunt,
men who lick women’s private parts).

[291] _Lucian_, Philopatr., ch. 20. relates: Ἀνθρωπίσκος δέ τις,
τοὔνομα Χαρίκενος, σεσημμένον γερόντιον, _ῥέγχον τῇ ῥινὶ_, ὑπέβηττε
μύχιον, ἐχρέμπτετο ἐπισεσυρμένον· ὁ δὲ πτύελος κυανώτερος θανάτου· εἶτα
ἤρξατο ἐπιφθέγγεσθαι κατισχνημένον. (But a little man, whose name was
Charicenus, a tiny mouldy old man, _snorting through his nose_, gave
a deep cough and cleared his throat with a long-drawn hawking,—and
his spittle was blacker than death. Then he began to speak in a thin
voice). The same is said of an Egyptian boy in Lucian’s Navigium, ch.
2. _Aulus Gellius_, Noct. Attic., Bk. III. ch. 5., gives the following
story: Plutarchus refert, Arcesilaum philosophum vehementi verbo usum
esse de quodam nimis delicato divite, qui incorruptus tamen et castus
et perinteger dicebatur. Num cum _vocem eius infractam_, capillumque
arte compositum et oculos ludibundos atque illecebrae voluptatisque
plenos videret: _Nihil interest_, inquit _quibus membris cinaedi sitis,
posterioribus an prioribus_. (Plutarch reports a biting phrase made
use of by the philosopher Arcesilaus of a certain rich and over-dainty
man, who yet had the name of being unspoiled and temperate and highly
virtuous. Noting his _broken voice_, and hair artfully arranged, and
rolling eyes full of allurement and wantonness, “It makes no odds,” he
said, “which members ye play the _cinaedus_ with, whether those behind
or those in front.”) Comp. § 16. below.

[292] Paedagog., bk. III. ch. 4. p. 230.

[293] _E. G. Bose_, νόσῳ θηλείᾳ· (Discussion of the νόσος θήλεια of
the Scythians). Leipzig 1774. 4to.—_Chr. Heyne_, “De maribus inter
Scythas morbo effeminatis et de Hermaphroditis Floridae.” (On the
transformation of males into females among the Scythians as the result
of disease, and on the Hermaphrodites of Florida). Göttingen 1779.,
Vol. I. pp. 28-44.—_E. L. W. Nebel_, “De Morbis Veterum obscuris.” (On
some Obscure Diseases of the Ancients) Sect. I. Giessen 1794. No. I.
pp. 17, 18.—_Graaf_, “Morbus femineus Scytharum.” (Feminine Disease
of the Scythians). Würzburg N. D. 8vo., is cited by _Friedreich_.
p. 33.—_C. W. Stark_, “De νούσῳ θηλείᾳ apud Herodotum Prolusio.”
(Disquisition on the νούσος θήλεια in Herodotus). Jena 1827. 64 pp.
4to.—_J. B. Friedreich_, “Νοῦσος θήλεια”, a Historical fragment in his
“Magazin für Seelenheilkunde” (Magazine of Medical Psychology). Pt.
I. Würzburg 1829., pp. 71-78., and in his “Analekten zur Natur- und
Heilkunde” (Selections in Natural and Medical Science) Würzburg 1831.
4to., pp. 28-33.

[294] _Herodotus_, Hist. Bk. I. ch. 105. Τοῖσι δὲ τῶν Σκυθέων συλήσασι
τὸ ἱρὸν τὸ ἐν Ἀσκάλωνι, καὶ τοῖσι τούτων αἰεὶ ἐκγὁνοισι, ἐνέσκηψε ἡ
θεὸς _θήλειαν νοῦσον_· ὥστε ἅμα λέγουσί τε οἱ Σκύθαι διὰ τοῦτό σφεας
νοσέειν, καὶ ὁρᾷν παρ’ ἑωυτοῖσι τοὺς ἀπικνεομένους ἐς τὴν Σκυθικὴν
χώρην ὡς διακέαται, τοὺς καλέουσι _Ἐναρέας_ οἱ Σκύθαι.—for translation
see text.

[295] “Recherches et Dissertations sur Herodote.” (Researches and
Dissertations on Herodotus). Dijon 1746. 4to., pp. 207-212. Ch. XX.,
Ce que c’étoit que la maladie des femmes, que la Déesse Venus envoya
aus Scythes. (What was the nature of the “Women’s Disease” which the
goddess Venus sent on the Scythians).

[296] _Costar_, “Defence des Œuvres de Voiture.” (Defence of the Works
of Voiture), and “Apologie” p. 194.

[297] _Sprengel_, “Apologie des Hippocrates.” (Defence of Hippocrates).
Leipzig 1792. Pt. II. p. 616.

[298] _De Girac_, “Réponse à l’Apologie de Voiture par Costar.” (Reply
to Costar’s Apology of Voiture). p. 54.

[299] _Bayer_, “Memoria Scythica in Commentat. Petropolitan,” (Memoir
on the Scythians,—in St. Petersburg Commentaries). 1732., Vol. III. pp.
377, 8.

[300] Part. VI. p. 35.

[301] _Patin_, “Comment. in vetus monument. Ulpiae Marcellin.”
(Commentary on the ancient Monument of Ulpia Marcellina) p. 413.

[302] _Hensler_, “Geschichte der Lustseuche.” (History of Venereal
Disease). Altona 1783., Vol. I. p. 211.

[303] _Degen_, Translation of Herodotus (German), Vol. I. p. 81. note.

[304] _Mercurialis_, Various Readings. Bk. III. d. 64.

[305] _Sauvages_, “Nosologia methodic.” (Systematic Nosology). Lyons
1772., Vol. VII. p. 365.

[306] _Koray_ on Hippocrates, “De aere aq. et loc.” (On influence of
Air, Water and Locality)., Vol. II. p. 326.

[307] In _Euripides’_ Hippolytus, v. 5., Venus says of herself:

  τοὺς μὲν σέβοντας τἀμὰ πρεσβεύω κράτη,
  σφάλλω δ’ ὅσοι φρονοῦσιν εἰς ἡμᾶς μέγα.

(I love and protect him who recognises my right, and undo him whose
pride rebels against me).

[308] _Plato_, Sympos. 192 b., πρὸς γάμους καὶ παιδοποιΐας οὐ
προσέχουσι τὸν νοῦν φύσει, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἀναγκάζονται, ἀλλ’
ἐξαρκεῖ αὐτοῖς μετ’ ἀλλήλων καταζῆν ἀγάμοις. (To marriage and the
procreation of children they pay no attention whatever naturally, but
are only forced by the law to do so. It is enough for them to live out
their lives with one another unwed).

[309] “Histoire d’Herodote, par M. Larcher.” (Herodotus’ History,
translated (French) by Mons. Larcher). Vol. I. Paris 1786., p. 368.
Un homme d’esprit, mais peu instruit, croyoit que le sentiment de M.
le President Bouhier se detruisoit de lui-même. Peut on supposer,
disoit il, que Vénus aveugle en sa vengeance, se soit fait à elle
même l’affront le plus sanglant, et qu’aux dépens de son culte, elle
ait procuré des adorateurs au Dieu de Lampsaque, qu’elle ne doit
chérir que lorsqu’il vient sacrifier sur ses autels. (A witty but
superficial critic considered the opinion of the president Bouhier to
be self-contradictory. Can Venus be supposed, he argued, so blind in
her vengeance as to have put on herself the deadliest of affronts, and
at the expense of her own worship to have given adorers to the god of
Lampsacus, whom she must only patronize when he comes to sacrifice at
her altars?)

[310] _Natalis Comes_, Mythologia p. 392., according to the report
of several Scholiasts. The Scholiast on _Lucian_, Amores ch. 2.,
writes Ἐπεὶ καὶ ταῖς Λημνίαις γυναιξὶν ἔγκοτος Ἀφροδίτη γενομένη,
εἶτα _δυσώδεις αὐτὰς ποιήσασα, ἀποκοίτους αὐτὰς ποιῆσαι τοὺς ἄνδρας
αὐτῶν ἠνάγκασεν_. (When Aphrodité, angered with the women of Lemnos,
had then _made them malodorous, and so compelled their husbands to
expel them from their beds_). Similarly the Scholiast on _Apollonius
Rhodius_, Argonaut., I. 609., αἱ Λήμνιαι γυναῖκες ... τῶν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης
τιμῶν κατολιγωρήσασαι, καθ’ ἑαυτῶν τὴν θεὸν ἐκίνησαν· _πάσαις γάρ
δυσοσμίαν ἐνέβαλεν, ὡς μηκέτι αὐτὰς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἀρέσκειν_. (The
Lemnian women, by neglecting the honours due to Aphrodité, stirred
the goddess’ anger against them. For _she inflicted on them all an
ill-odour, so that they were no longer pleasing to their husbands_).
To the same purport the Scholiast on _Euripides_, Hecuba v. 887., who
cites Didymus as authority: Ἐν Λήμνῳ γυναῖκες ἐτέλουν ἐτήσιον ἑορτὴν
Ἀφροδίτῃ· ἐπεὶ οὖν ποτε καταφρονήσασαι τῆς θεοῦ, ἀπέλιπον τὸ ἔθος, _ἡ
Ἀφροδίτη ἐνέβαλεν αὐταῖς δυσωδίαν, ὡς μὴ δύνασθαι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν ἄνδρας
αὐταῖς πλησιάσαι_· αἱ δὲ νομίσασαι, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν καταφρονεῖσθαι,
τούτους πάντας ἀπέκτειναν. ὁ δέ Δίδυμος οὕτω. (At Lemnos the women used
to celebrate a yearly festival in honour of Aphrodité. And so when
on one occasion they scorned the goddess and neglected the custom,
Aphrodité afflicted them with an ill odour, so that their own husbands
could not come near them. And they concluding they were scorned by
their husbands, killed them all. Didymus confirms this). The Lesbian
_Myrtilus_ or _Myrsilus_ gives a different account of the origin of
the evil smell of the Lesbian women, representing it in the First Book
of his “Lesbica” as a consequence of the magic arts of Medea, who had
landed with Jason at Lemnos. The story was taken from the lost Work of
Myrtilus by _Antigonus Carystius_, Histor. mirab. collect., edit. J.
Meursius. Leyden 1629. 4to., ch. 130. p. 97., Τὰς δέ Λημνίας δυσόσμους
γενέσθαι, Μηδείας ἀφικομένης μετ’ Ἰάσονος καὶ φάρμακα ἐμβαλλούσης εἰς
τὴν νῆσον· κατὰ δέ τινα χρόνον καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις, ἐν
αἷς ἱστοροῦσι τὴν Μήδειαν παραγενέσθαι, δυσώδεις αὐτὰς οὕτως γίνεσθαι
ὥστε μηδένα προσϊέναι. (And that the Lemnian women became malodorous,
when Medea came thither with Jason and cast poisonous drugs on the
island; and that for some length of time and particularly in those days
when Medea is related to have been there, they were so ill-smelling
that no man could approach them.) Also the Scholiast on _Apollonius
Rhodius_, I. 165., says: τῶν ἄλλων ἱστορούντων, ὅτι κατὰ χόλον τῆς
Ἀφροδίτης αἱ Λημνιάδες δύσοσμοι ἐγένοντο, Μυρτίλος ἐν πρώτῳ Λεσβικῶν
διαφέρεται· καὶ φησὶ τὴν Μήδειαν παραπλέουσαν, διὰ ζηλοτυπίαν ῥίψαι
εἰς τὴν Λήμνον φάρμακον, καὶ δυσοσμίαν γενέσθαι ταῖς γυναιξίν, εἶναί
τε μέχρι τοῦ νῦν κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἡμέραν τινὰ, ἐν ᾗ διὰ τὴν δυσωδίαν
ἀποστρέφονται τὰς γυναῖκας ἄνδρές τε καὶ υἱεῖς. (Whereas others relate
that in consequence of the anger of Aphrodité the women of Lemnos
became evil-smelling, Myrtilus in the first Book of the “Lesbica”
tells a different tale. He says that Medea, sailing past the land,
moved by envy cast a poison on the island, and so an ill odour fell on
the women; further that there is down to the present time a day once
a year, on which owing to this foul odour husbands and sons turn and
flee from the women.) Finally there is an Epigram of _Lucillius_ in the
_Greek Anthology_ (edit. H. de Bosch, Vol. I. p. 416.) Bk. II. Tit. 14.
no. 4., mentioning the evil smell of the Lemnian women:

  Οὔτε Χίμαιρα τοιοῦτον _ἔπνει_ κακὸν, ἡ καθ’ Ὅμηρον,
  Οὐκ ἀγέλη ταύρων (ὡς ὁ λόγος) πυρίπνους,
  _Οὐ Λῆμνος σύμπασ’_, οὐχ Ἁρπυιῶν τὰ περισσὰ,
  Οὐδ’ ὁ Φιλοκτήτου ποὺς ἀποσηπόμενος,
  Ὥστε σε παμψηφεὶ νικᾶν, Τελέσιλλα, Χιμαίρας,
  Σηπεδόνας, ταύρους, ὄρνεα, _Λημνιάδας_.

(Neither the Chimaera of Homer had so ill a smell, nor yet the herd
(as the story goes) of fire-breathing bulls, not _all Lemnos_, not
the foulest of the Harpies, nor even Philoctetes’ putrefying foot.
So you see, Telesilla, you outdo—the vote is unanimous,—Chimaeras,
putrefactions, bulls, birds, _Lemnian women_!) The stench of Telesilla
outdid, we see, all known evil smells, even that of the Lemnian women,
etc. Also in _Valerius Flaccus_, bk. II. 99-241., is found this myth
of the Lemnian women.

[311] Hence Iphis, in _Ovid_, Metam., IX. 723 sqq., says:

  Iphis amat, qua posse frui desperat, et auget
  Hoc ipsum flammas: ardetque in virgine virgo.
  Vix tenens lacrimas: Quis me manet exitus, inquit,
  Cognita quam nulli, quam prodigiosa novaeque
  Cura tenet Veneris? si dii mihi parcere vellent.
  _Naturale malum_ saltem et de _more_ dedissent.
  Nec vaccam vaccae, nec equas amor urit equarum.
  Femina femineo correpta cupidine nulla est.
  Vellem nulla forem.

(Iphis loves one that she knows, alas! she can never enjoy, and this
fact itself increases her passion. A maiden burns for a maiden. Hardly
keeping back her tears she cries: What fate awaits me,—me who suffer
sorrow of Venus known to none, a sorrow monstrous and of strange new
sort? If the gods were willing to spare me, they would have given me a
_natural_ curse surely, one _of ordinary kind_. No cow burns for a cow,
no mare for the love of mares, nor any woman is taken with love for a
woman. Would I were no woman!)

Similarly _Lucillius_ says of the paederast Cratippus in the Greek
Anthology, bk. II. Tit. V. no. 1.;

  Τὸν φιλόοπαιδα Κράτιππον ἀκούσατε· θαῦμα γὰρ ὑμῖν
    Καινὸν ἀπαγγέλλω· _πλὴν μεγάλαι νεμέσεις_·
  Τὸν φιλόπαιδα Κράτιππον ἀνεύρομεν ἄλλο γένος· τί;
    Τῶν ἑτεροζήλων ἤλπισα τοῦτ’ ἂν ἐγὼ;
  Ἤλπισα τοῦτο, Κράτιππε; μανήσομαι, εἰ λύκος εἶναι
    Πᾶσι λέγων ἐφάνης ἐξαπίνης ἔριφος.

(Of the boy-loving Cratippus will I tell you; for a strange new wonder
I report. _Yea! great are the penalties he pays._ The boy-loving
Cratippus we have found has another character. What character? I should
have thought him to be of those whose love is eager on one side only.
Did I think so, Cratippus? Well, I shall seem a madman, if—professing
the while to all to be a wolf,—you of a sudden appear in the character
of a kid).

But most important in this connection is the passage of _Aeschines_,
Orat. in Timarch., p. 178., μὴ γὰρ οἴεσθαι, ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰς τῶν
ἀτυχημάτων ἀρχὰς ἀπὸ θεῶν, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀσελγείας γίνεσθαι,
μηδὲ τοὺς ἠσεβηκότας, καθάπερ ἐπὶ ταῖς τραγῳδίαισι, Ποινὰς ἐλαύνειν
καὶ κολάζειν δᾳσὶν ἡμμέναις· ἀλλ’ αἱ προπετεῖς τοῦ σώματος ἡδοναὶ, καὶ
τὸ μηδὲν ἱκανὸν ἡγεῖσθαι. (For you must not dream, Athenians, that the
causes of calamities are from the gods, and that such are not rather
due to the wickedness of mankind. Do not imagine the impious are
driven by Furies, as is represented in the Tragedies, and chastised
with blazing torches; nay! it is reckless indulgence in bodily
pleasures that is the scourge, and immoderate desires). Comp. _Theon_,
Progymn., ch. 7.—_Cicero_, Orat. in Pison., 20., Nolite putare, Patres
Conscripti, ut in scena videtis homines consceleratos impulso deorum
terreri Furiarum taedis ardentibus. Sua quemque fraus, suum facinus,
suum scelus, sua audacia de sanitate ac mente deturbat. Hae sunt
impiorum Furiae, hae flammae, hae faces. (Dream not, Conscript Fathers,
that wicked men, as you see represented on the stage, are driven in
terror, at the instigation of the gods, by the blazing torches of the
Furies. ’Tis his own dishonesty, his own wickedness, his own baseness,
his own recklessness, that destroys each man’s health and sanity. These
are the furies that torment the impious, these the flames and torches).

[312] De Bello Peloponnesiaco, Bk. I. ch. 12. (edit. Bauer. Leipzig
1790. 4to., p. 33.), καὶ Φιλοκτήτης διὰ τὸν Πάριδος θάνατον _θήλειαν
νόσον_ νοσήσας, καὶ μὴ φέρων τὴν αἰσχύνην, ἀπελθὼν ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος,
ἔκτισε πόλιν, ἣν διὰ _τὸ πάθος Μαλακίαν_ ἐκάλεσε.—for translation see
text above. Our view on this passage is shared by _Manso_, pp. 46 and
70.

[313] Bk. II. Epigr. 84. How _Meier_, loco citato p. 160., could derive
a proof from this passage that Philoctetes had been the _pathic_ of
Hercules is beyond our comprehension, seeing that Hercules had long
been dead when Philoctetes was punished with this vice by Venus.

[314] Bk. II. Epigr. 89.

[315] Works of Ausonius; Delphin edition, revised by _J. B. Souchay_.
Paris 1730. 4to., p. 4. Carm. 71. Following a ridiculous custom the
“Obscoena e textu Ausoniano resecta” (Objectionable passages removed
from the text of Ausonius) are printed together at the end of the Book,
and separately paged.

[316] Instit. orat, Bk. X. ch. 1.

[317] Fab. 148.—_Barth_ on Statius’ Thebaid. V. 59.

[318] Tragoed. Hippolyt., 124.; and _Servius_ on _Virgil_, Aeneid,
Bk. VI. v. 14., Venus vehementer dolens stirpem omnem Solis persequi
_infandis amoribus_ coepit. (Venus, exceedingly indignant, proceeds to
afflict all the descendants of the Sun _with abominable loves_.)

[319] Amores, ch. 2., οὕτω τις ὑγρὸς τοῖς ὄμμασιν ἐνοικεῖ μύωψ, ὃς
ἅπαν πάλλος εἰς αὑτὸν ἁρπάζων ἐπ’ οὐδενὶ κόρῳ παύεται· καὶ συνεχὲς
ἀπορεῖν ἐπέρχεταί μοι, τίς οὗτος Ἀφροδίτης ὁ χόλος· οὐ γὰρ Ἡλιάδης ἐγώ
τις, οὐδὲ Λημνιάδων _ἔρις_, οὐδὲ Ἱππολύτειον ἀγροικίαν ὠφρυωμένος, ὡς
ἐρεθίσαι τῆς θεοῦ τὴν ἄπαυστον ταύτην ὀργήν. (for translation see text
above.) The word ἔρις—strife, in this passage is obviously corrupt,
having got into the text probably by confusion with ἐρεθίσαι—to
provoke, standing just below in the MS. _Jacobs_ proposed ἔρνος—scion,
but according to _Lehmann_ this is too poetical a word for _Lucian_;
ἐρεὺς—in the sense of _heir_, might very well be read, giving the
same meaning. Could ὕβριν—insolence, have been the original word in
the text? Lucian must have written the passage with a reference to
the above mentioned punishment of the Lemnian women by Venus, and
by Λημνιάδων—Lemnian women, we must understand not the descendants
of the women of Lemnos, but these women themselves, _Apollonius
Rhodius_ (Argon., I. 653.) also using Λημνιάδες δὲ γυναῖκες—Lemnian
women, of these same inhabitants of the island. Now the Greeks
characterized every form of behaviour of a kind to incur the anger
of the goddess by the word ὕβρις—overbearing insolence; and this
would exactly fit in the passage, for the οὐδὲ ... οὐδὲ—neither ...
nor, calls for a correspondence of phrase in each clause, and ὕβρις
and ἀγροικία—brutal insensibility, tally excellently. For ὕβρις in
the sense indicated comp. _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag., Bk. II.
ch. 10., ἐπιθυμία γὰρ κακὴ ὄνομα ὕβρις, καὶ τὸν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ἵππον,
ὑβριστὴν ὁ Πλάτων (Phaedr. pp. 1226, 27.) προσεῖπεν, Ἵπποι θηλυμανεῖς
ἐγενήθητέ μοι, ἀναγνούς. (for evil concupiscence is called ὕβρις,
and the horse of concupiscence Plato named Ὑβριστὴς—Overbearing,
having read “Wild horses ye became to me.”) We should then have to
translate, supposing we read ὕβριν in the text, “I am neither puffed
up with the insolence of the women of Lemnos, nor yet with the brutal
insensibility of Hippolytus.” Very possibly an Attic writer would not
have expressed himself so; but we must remember that _Fr. Jacobs_, a
man of fine discrimination of Classical diction, denied from the first
Lucian’s authorship of the passage _ob orationem difficilem valdeque
impeditam_—because of its difficult and exceedingly awkward style. The
unfavourable judgement which _Lehmann_ in his edition passes on this
Work (Lucian’s Amores) so far as its general tenor is concerned, is
based we may observe almost entirely on the confusion of paedophilia
with paederastia. However under no circumstances has any actual
allusion been made to the lewdness of the Lemnian women, if _Belin_,
_de Ballu_, and others agree in this rendering.

[320] De special legib., Opera Vol. II. p. 304.

[321] _Ovid_, Metamorphos., bk. X. 238.

[322] _Ovid_, Metamorphos., bk. X. 298.—_Servius_ on Virgil, Eclog. X.
18. _Fulgentius_, Mytholog. III. 8.

[323] _Ausonius_, Epigr. C.,

        De Hermaphrodito
  Mercurio genitore satus, genetrice Cythere,
  Nominis ut mixti, sic corporis Hermaphroditus,
  Concretus sexu, sed non perfectus, utroque:
  Ambiguae Veneris, neutro potiundus amori.

(Of Hermaphroditus.—Born of Mercury as sire, of Cythera as mother,
Hermaphroditus, at once of compound name and compound body, combined of
either sex, but complete in neither; a being of ambiguous love, that
can enjoy the joys of neither passion.)

[324] Orat contra Alcibiad., I. p. 550., οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ αὐτῶν
ἡταιρήκασιν. (the majority of them have become prostitutes.) Comp.
_Meier_, loco citato p. 173., who in another place, p. 154 note 79.,
has authenticated the meaning of ἑταιρεῖν (to be a hetaera, prostitute,
used of men, viz. to submit the body for pay to another to violate.)

[325] “De morbis acutis et chronicis, lib. VIII.” (On acute and chronic
Diseases—8 Books.) edit. Amman. Amsterdam 1722. 4to. Chronic Diseases,
Bk. IV. ch. 9. In this book diseases of the intestinal canal are
treated, and immediately preceding the subject of Worms. So the vice
must have been regarded as if it were a disease of the rectum, though
the author says it had its origin in a mental derangement. Comp. _C.
Barth_, Adversar., bk. IV. ch. 3., bk. XLIII. ch. 21, bk. XLVIII. ch.
3., bk. XXIII. ch. 2. bk. XIII. ch. 13., where several emendations are
to be found of the corruptions of the text.

[326] Tribades dictae a τρίβω, frico, _frictrices_, sunt quibus ea
pars naturae muliebris, quam clitoridem vocant, in tantam magnitudinem
excrescit, ut possint illa pro mentula vel ad futuendum vel ad
paedicandum uti. “Tribades”, so called from τρίβω,—I rub, _women that
rub_, are such as have that portion of the woman’s parts which is
called the clitoris grown to a size so excessive that they can use it
as a penis whether for fornicating or for paederastia. So says Forberg,
loco citato p. 345. Comp. _Hesychius_ ἑταιρίστριαι τριβάδες (lewd
women, _tribades_.) The Lesbian women were especially notorious for it.
_Lucian_, Dialog. meretr. 5., τοιαύτας (ἑταιριστρίας) ἐν Λέσβῳ λέγουσι
γυναῖκας, ὑπὸ ἀνδρῶν μὲν οὐκ ἐθελούσας αὐτὸ πάσχειν, γυναιξὶ δὲ αὐτὰς
πλησιαζούσας, ὥσπερ ἄνδρας. (such women—_tribades_, they say there are
in Lesbos, who will not suffer it from men, but themselves go with
women, as if they were men). But we must beware of connecting the word
λεσβιάζειν (the act the Lesbian) with this; it means something quite
different, as we shall see later on. The Milesian women were skilled
_Tribades_, employing an artificial penis made of leather, which was
called by the Greeks ὄλισβος. Aristophanes, Lysistrat. 108-110.,

  οὐκ εἶδον οὐδ’ ὄλισβον ὀκταδάκτυλον,
  ὃς ἦν ἂν ἠμῖιν σκυτίνη ’πικουρία.

(Since when the Milesians betrayed us, I have never seen even an
eight-inch _olisbos_, that would have been a leathern succour for us.)
_Suidas_, s. v. ὄλισβος· αἰδοῖον δερμάτινον, ᾧ ἐχρῶντο αἱ μιλήσιαι
γυναῖκες, ὡς _τριβάδες_, καὶ αἰσχρουργοί. ἐχρῶντο καὶ αὐτοῖς καὶ αἱ
χῆραι γυναῖκες.—s. v. μισήτης· μισῆται δὲ γυναῖκες ὀλίσβῳ χρήσονται.
(under the word ὄλισβος: a member of leather; which the Milesian women
used, such as _tribades_ and bad women. They were used by widows
also.—under the word μισήτης (lewd person): and lewd women will use the
_olisbos_.) Comp. the Scholiast to the passage of Aristophanes quoted.
There were also cakes shaped like an _olisbos_ and called ὀλισβόκολλοξ
(_olisbos_-loaves)—_Hesychius_, which remind us of the cakes in the
shape of a penis that were sold in Italy at the feast of SS. Cosmus and
Damian. (see _Knight_, loco citato p. 62.)

[327] _Longao_ or _Longano_ signifies the rectum—straight gut, the
large intestine, the _longus anus_, prolonged anus, as it were. The
word is found frequently in _Caelius Aurelianus_ and in _Vegetius_, De
re veterin. (On Veterinary medicine). II. 14., 21., 28. IV. 8. Since
the large intestine was used for sausages (_Apicius_. De re coq.) (On
Cookery, Bk. IV. ch. 2.), the sausage was also called _longano_ or
_longavo_. _Varro_, De ling. lat. V. 111.

[328] We have not been able to ascertain whether the Fragment here
quoted is extant in Greek as well, for the Fragments of Parmenides, by
G. G. _Fülleborn_. Züllichau 1795. 8vo. were as inaccessible by us as
were _Brandis’_ Commentationes Eleaticae.

[329] Physiognomicon ch. 3., in Scriptores Physiognomiae veteres
(Ancient Writers on Physiognomy), edit. _J. G. Fr. Franzius_. Altenburg
1780 large 8vo., p, 51., _Κιναίδου σημεῖα_, ὄμμα κατακεκλασμένον,
γονύκροτος, ἐγκίσεις τῆς κεφαλῆς εἰς τὰ δεξιά· αἱ φοραὶ τῶν χειρῶν
ὑπτίαι καὶ ἔκλυτοι, καὶ βαδέσεις διτταὶ, ἡ μὲν περινεύοντος, ἡ δὲ
κρατοῦντος, τὴν ὀσφύν, καὶ τῶν ὀμμάτων περιβλέψεις· οἷος ἂν εἴη
Διονύσιος ὁ σοφιστής. (for translation see text above). On p. 77.
γονύκροτος (knock-kneed) is laid down as a characteristic of a woman.
On p. 155 we read, οἱ ἐγκλινόμενοι εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι,
κίναιδοι. (those who bend to the right in walking are cinaedi.);
on p. 50. καὶ ἰσχνὰ ὄμματα κατακεκλασμένα—ἅμα δὲ καὶ τὰ κεκλασμένα
τῶν ὀμμάτων, δύο σημαίνει, τὸ μὲν μαλακὸν καὶ θῆλυ. (and withered,
broken-down looking eyes,—and this broken-down appearance of the eyes
denotes two things, the one being softness and effeminacy). _Clement
of Alexandria_, Paedagog. bk. III. ch. 11., οὐδὲ κατακεκλασμένος,
πλάγιον ποιήσας τὸν τράχηλον, περιπατεῖν ὥσπερ ἑτέρους ὁρῶ κιναίδους
ἐνθάδε πολλοὺς ἄστει. (nor yet with broken-down look, bending the neck
askance, to walk about as I see others do here, cinaedi,—yea, many of
them in the city).

[330] Physiognom. bk. II. 9. l. c. p. 290., _Ἀνδρογύνου σημεῖα._
Ὑγρὸν βλέπει καὶ ἰταμὸν ὁ ἀνδρόγυνος, καὶ δονεῖται τὰ ὄμματα, καὶ
περιτρέχει· μέτωπον σπᾶ, καὶ παρειάς, αἱ ὀφρύες οἰδαίνουσι κατὰ χώραν,
τράχηλος κέκλιται, ὀσφὺς οὐκ ἀτρεμεῖ· κινεῖται πάντα τὰ μέλη ἅλματι·
γονάτων κρότος καὶ χειρῶν φαίνεται· ὡς ταῦρος περιβλέπει εἰς ἑαυτὸν
καὶ καταβλέπει· φωνεῖ λεπτὸν, κράζει δὲ λιγυρὰ, σκολιὰ πάνυ καὶ πάνυ
ἔντρομα. (for translation see text above.) p. 275., οἱ τὰ γόνατα ἔσω
νεύοντες, γυναικεῖοί τε καὶ θηλυδρίαι. (men that bow the knees inwards
are womanish and effeminate).

[331] Physiognom. bk. II. 38. l. c. p. 440., _Εἶδος ἀνδρογύνου_.
Ὁ ἀνδρόγυνος ὑγρὸν βλέπει, καὶ ἰταμὸν καὶ δονεῖται τὰ ὄμματα καὶ
περιτρέχει· μέτωπον σπᾶ καὶ παρειάς. αἱ ὀφρύες μένουσι κατὰ χώραν,
τράχηλος κέκλιται, ὀσφὺς οὐκ ἀτρεμεῖ· κινεῖται πάντα τὰ μέλη καὶ
ἐπιθρώσκει· ἁλματίας ἐστὶ, γονύκροτος, χειρῶν φοραὶ ὕπτιαι· περιβλέπει
ἑαυτὸν· φωνὴ λεπτὴ, ἐπικλάζουσα, λιγυρὰ, σχολαία πάνυ. (Appearance of
the _Man-woman_. The _man-woman_ has a lecherous and wanton look, he
rolls his eyes and lets his gaze wander; forehead and cheeks twitch,
eyebrows remain drawn to a point, neck bowed, hips in continual
movement. All the limbs move and jump; he is spasmodic, knock-kneed,
the movements of the hands with backs downwards; he gazes round him;
his voice is thin, plangent, shrill, very uncertain.) p. 382., οἱ τὰ
γόνατα ἔσω νεύοντες ὥσπερ συγκρούειν, γυναικεῖοι καὶ θηλυδρίαι. (men
that bow the knees inwards as if to strike them together are womanish
and effeminate.)

[332] Tarsica I. p. 410., These distinguishing marks were adequate for
the Romans too, as we see from the passage of _Aulus Gellius_ quoted on
p. 143 above; side by side with which may be put another passage of the
same author, Bk. VIII. ch. 12.

[333] Still another explanation would seem possible, according to
_Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag. bk. II. ch. 7. p. 179., ναὶ μὴν καὶ
τῶν ὤτων οἱ γαργαλισμοὶ _καὶ τῶν πταρμῶν οἱ ερεθισμοὶ_, ὑώδεις εἰσὶ
κνησμοὶ, πορνείας ἀκολάστου (Yea! and moreover ticklings of the ears,
and irritations causing sneezing, these are swinish itches, signs of
excessive licentiousness). For the rest _Seneca_, Epist. 114., also
says, Non vides—si ille effeminatus est, in ipso _incessu_ apparere
mollitiam? (See you not—if he is effeminate, that his lasciviousness is
apparent in his very walk?)

[334] _Lucian_, Adversus indoctum ch. 23., ...... μυρία γάρ ἐστι
τὰ ἀντιμαρτυροῦντα τῷ σχήματι, βάδισμα καὶ φωνὴ, καὶ τράχηλος
ἐπικεκλασμένος, καὶ ψιμύθιον, καὶ μαστίχη καὶ φῦκος οἷς ὑμεῖς
κοσμεῖσθε, καὶ ὅλως, κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν, θᾶττον ἂν πέντε ἐλέφαντας ὑπὸ
μάλης κρύψειας, ἢ ἕνα κίναιδον. (for translation see text above).

[335] _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedog. Bk. II. ch. 7. p. 173., also
says ἀλλὰ τὸ τεθρυμμένον τῆς φωνῆς, θηλυδρίου. (but the broken
character of the voice is a mark of the womanish man).

[336] _Martial_, Bk. VII. Epigr. 57.,

    —sed habet _tristis_ quoque _turba_ cinaedos,
  Difficile est, vero nubere, Galla, viro.

(... but the dismal throng contains cinaedi as well; ’tis a difficult
matter, Galla, to marry a real man). Comp. Bk. IX. Epigr. 48.; and
_Juvenal_, Satir. II. 8-13.,

      Quis enim non vicus abundat
  _Tristibus_ obscoenis? castigas turpia, cum sis
  Inter Socraticos notissima fossa cinaedos:
  Hispida membra quidem et durae per brachia setae
  Promittunt atrocem animum? sed podice laevi
  Caeduntur tumidae, medico ridente, mariscae.

(For what street has not its crowd of _dismal_ debauchees? you inveigh
against vice, when you are the most notorious pit of abomination of all
the host of Socratic cinaedi. Shaggy limbs indeed and sturdy bristles
on your arms promise a rugged virtue; but your fundament is smooth, and
the great bursting swellings on it are cut, the doctor grinning the
while.) _Seneca_, Epist. 114., Ille et crura, hic nec alas vellit. (One
man plucks bare his very legs, another not even the armpits.)

[337] _Aeschines_, Orat. in Timarch. p. 179., expresses it excellently,
οὕτω τοὺς _πεπορνευμένους_, κᾂν μὴ παρῶμεν τοῖς αὐτῶν ἔργοις, ἐκ τῆς
ἀναιδείας καὶ τοῦ θράσους καὶ τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων γινώσκομεν. (So with
regard to debauchees, even though we are not present at their actual
doings, we recognize them by their bold, shameless bearing and their
general habits.)

[338] This was the special adornment of the woman, and was sacred to
Venus; we read in _Ausonius_,

  Barba Iovi, crines Veneri decor; ergo necesse est,
  Ut nolint demi, quo sibi uterque placet.

(The beard is Jove’s pride, her locks Venus’s: they must needs then
object to the removal of that wherein each takes special delight).
Hence _Ambrosius_ too, Hexamer. bk. VI., writes, Haud inscitum extat
adagium: nullus comatus qui non idem cinaedus. (There is a familiar
proverb that says: never a long-haired man but is a cinaedus.) In
_Martial_, III. 58., they are called _capillati_ (long-haired.)

[339] _Diogenes Laertius_, Vita Diogenis Bk. VI. 54.

[340] Clouds, 340 sqq. See also (German) Translation of Aristophanes by
_Fr. A. Wolf_.

[341] Satir. II. 16. _W. E. Weber_ (“Die Satiren des _D. J.
Juvenalis_.”—The Satires of Decimus Junius Juvenalis. Halle 1838.)
is mistaken in his way of taking this passage. Not only does he in
his translation assign Peribomius’ words to Juvenal himself, but
also in the notes, pp. 286 sqq., gives quite wrong explanations of
several words. For instance he says, “_inter Socraticos ... cinaedos_,
(amongst the Socratic cinaedi), the Socratic breed of wantons, the kind
that give themselves an air of sober and highly moral habits, like
Socrates;” but really the poet merely meant to express the idea of
later times that Socrates had been a paederast. Discussing the passage
Weber remarks of Peribomius, “One who in looks and gait, as being
effeminate and of a womanish dandified bearing, confesses his evil
state,—one of enervation and womanish amorousness,” whereas as a matter
of fact Peribomius makes no other confession than simply that he is a
pathic. We are not to suppose any sort of intentional suppression of
the facts, as indeed is shown both by the rest of the translation and
also expressly on p. VI of the Preface; so we are bound to characterize
what is said in these places as the result of downright mistake.

[342] When _Juvenal_, V. 50., says: Hippo subit iuvenes et _morbo_
pallet _utroque_, (Hippo submits to young men, and is pale with a
double disease), this must be understood to mean that Hippo is not only
a pathic, but also a Fellator (see subsequently). Further Epigr. 131.
of _Ausonius_ is to the point in this connection:

  Inguina quod calido levas tibi dropace, causa est:
    Irritant volsas levia membra lupas;
  Sed quod et elixo plantaria podice vellis,
    Et teris incusas pumice Clazomenas,
  Causa latet: _bimarem nisi quod patientia morbum
    Appetit et tergo femina, pube vires_.

(The reason why you make the private parts smooth with hot
pitch-ointment (as a depilatory) is this: Smooth limbs excite the
passions of the harlots, plucked smooth themselves. But why you pluck
the hair from your fundament, soaked in hot water first, and polish
with pumice your well-pounded Clazomenae (i. e. buttocks) the reason is
obscure: _unless indeed your long-suffering lust hankers for a double
disease (vice),—a woman behind, in your member a strong man_).

_Manilius_, Astronomica bk. V. vv. 140-156., says:

  Taurus, in aversos praeceps cum tollitur artus,
  Sexta parte sui certantes luce sorores
  Pleiades ducit: quibus aspirantibus, almam
  In lucem eduntur Bacchi Venerisque sequaces:
  Perque dapes, mensamque super petulantia corda,
  Et sale mordaci dulces quaerentia risus.
  Illis cura sui cultus, frontisque decorae
  Semper erit: tortos in fluctum ponere crines,
  Aut vinclis revocare comas et vertice denso
  Fingere et appositis caput emutare capillis,
  Pomicibusque cavis horrentia membra polire,
  Atque odisse virum, sterilesque optare lacertos.
  Femineae vestes; nec in usum tegmina plantis,
  Sed speciem; fractique placent ad mollia gressus.
  Naturae pudet atque habitat sub pectore caeca
  Ambitio et _morbum_ virtutis nomine iactant.
  Semper amare parum est: cupient et amare videri

(When the Bull tending downwards lifts his head with limbs bent back,
he brings with him in his sixth house the sister Pleiades, his equals
in brilliancy. When these are in the ascendent, there are brought forth
to the light of day such as follow after Bacchus and Venus; and hearts
that wanton at feast and board, and that seek to raise the merry laugh
by biting wit. These will ever be giving thought to their bedizenment
and becoming appearance; to curl the hair and lay it in waving ripples
or else to gather in the locks with circlets and arrange them in a
heavy top-knot, and to alter the head by adding false ringlets; to
polish the shaggy limbs with hollow pumice-stone; yea! and to hate the
very sight of a man, and long for arms without growth of hair. Women’s
robes they wear; the coverings of their feet are less for use than
show; and steps broken in to an effeminate gait are their delight.
Nature they scorn; indeed in their breast there lies a pride they
cannot avow, and they vaunt their disease (vice) under the name of
virtue. Ever to love is a little thing in their eyes; their wish will
be to be seen to love).

_Seneca_, Quaest. nat. bk. VII. ch. 31., Egenus etiam in quo _morbum
suum_ exerceat, legit. (The poor man too chooses one on whom he may
practise his disease (vice).—_Seneca_, Epist. 114. Cum vero magis
vires _morbus_ exedit et in medullas nervosque descendere deliciae.
(But when the disease (vice) has eaten deeper into a man’s vigour, and
its delights penetrated to the very marrow and nerves).—Comp. Epist.
75.—_Cicero_, De finibus I. 18., in Verrem II. 1. 36., Tusc. quaest.
IV. 11.—_Wyttenbach_, in Bibliothec. critic. Pt VIII. p. 73.—_Horace_,
Sat. I. 6. 40., Ut si qui aegrotat quo _morbo_ Barrus, haberi ut cupiat
formosus. (As if one who is sick of the same _disease_ as Barrus, as if
he should long to be considered handsome.) Another passage of the same
author (Odes I. 37. 9.) must be mentioned:

  Contaminato cum grege turpium
  _Morbo_ virorum.

(With her (Cleopatra’s) herd of foul men stained with disease—vice). It
is taken by _Stark_ as by most of the commentators to mean _castrated_
persons, though strictly speaking it implies nothing more than a
contemptuous circumlocution for Egyptians. The boys that were kept in
the brothels at Rome for purposes of paederastia were for the most
part from Egypt, whence they were imported in flocks. Accordingly
the poet calls the whole _entourage_ of Cleopatra pathics. There can
be no mistake, if only we translate thus: _cum contaminato grege
virorum, morbo turpium_, (with a polluted herd of men, defiled with
disease—vice). In this Horace was all the more justified, because as a
matter of fact Cleopatra did keep cinaedi, as we learn from _Suidas_:
s. v. κίναιδα καὶ κιναιδία· ἠ ἀναισχυντία· ἀπὸ τοῦ κινεῖν τὰ αἰδοῖα. _Ὁ
τῆς Κλεοπάτρας κίναιδος_ Χελιδὼν ἐκαλεῖτο. (under the words κίναιδα
and κίναιδία: shameless practice; from the moving (τὸ κινεῖν of the
genitals. _Cleopatra’s cinaedus_ was called Chelidon. True _Terence_,
Eunuch. I. 2. 87., makes Phaedria say:

  Porro _eunuchum_ dixisti velle te,
  _Quia solae utuntur his reginae_, repperi,

(I have discovered wherefore you said you wanted a _eunuch_, because
only queens use them) and Donatus observes on the passage that
_reginae_ (queens) stands for _feminae divites_ (rich ladies).
Accordingly just as Eunuchus is used for cinaedus or pathicus, in the
same way cinaedus might very well stand in _Suidas_ for eunuch, and
as a matter of fact the _entourage_ of Cleopatra may have consisted
of actual eunuchs. Still it is Horace’s main point that they were
_pathics_. As to the reason why _reginae_ (queens, rich ladies) kept
_castrati_ (eunuchs) at all, comp. p. 125 above.—The Latin _grex_
(herd) is sufficiently explained by the παίδων ἀγέλας (herds of boys)
in the passages already quoted (p. 131.) from _Tatian_ and _Justin
Martyr_, along side which we may put the μειρακίων ὡραίων ἀγέλαι (herds
of lads in the bloom of youth) of _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag. bk.
III. ch. 4. The word is used in the same sense by _Seneca_, Epist 95.,
Transeo _puerorum infelicium greges_, quos post transacta convivia
aliae cubiculi contumeliae expectant. Transeo _agmina exoletorum_ per
nationes coloresque descripta. (I pass over the _herds of unhappy
boys_, whom after the feast is done, other affronts of the bed-chamber
await. I pass over the _serried ranks of debauchees_ (cinaedi)
marshalled by nation and complexion.) _Cicero_, Ad Atticum I. 13.,
Concursabant barbatuli iuvenes, totus ille _grex_ Catilinae, (Thither
flocked the youths of the baby beards, all the _herd_ of Catiline’s
friends.) _Petronius_, Sat. ch. 40., Grex agit in scena mimum. (The
common herd plays the mime on the stage.) _Grex_ was used generally
for any crowd of _common_ men.—The use of the word _contaminatus_
(polluted) brings to mind _catamitus_, which bears the sense of
pathic, e. g. in _Cicero_, Philipp. II. 31., _Appuleius_, Metam. I.
p. 107 and especially is used as a nickname for Ganymede. _Plautus_,
Menaechm. I. 2. 34.—_Festus_: Catamitum pro Ganymede dixerunt, qui
fuit Jovis concubinus, (Men said _catamitus_ for Ganymedes, who was
Jupiter’s bed-fellow),—which probably led to the ridiculous idea
being entertained, e.g. by _Scheller_, that the word was derived from
_Ganymedes_ by corruption in the pronunciation! The fact that the
word is metrically a “Paeon tertius”, that is to say the _i_ in the
third syllable is long, might have led us at once to the conclusion
that originally the word was _catamytus_, and derived from the
Greek καταμύσσω (to tear), and so has the same meaning as the Latin
_percisus_ (cut), or else that it stands for καταμίκτος (mixed), and
is connected with καταμίγνυμι (to mix), and so in fact _concubinus_
(sharing the bed), as Festus says! At any rate the passages quoted
above from Cicero and Seneca, which might easily be multiplied, prove
that Stark’s supposition expressed on p. 22., to the effect that
_morbus_ (disease) is used in this sense _only_ in the poets, is
unfounded.

[343] _Menander_, in _Lucian_, Amores ch. 43., says: νόσων χαλεπωτάτη
φθόνος (of _diseases_ the cruellest is envy.) It is used of envy by
Aristophanes, Birds 31. νόσον νοσοῦμεν τὴν ἐναντίαν Σάκᾳ. (we are sick
of the _disease_ that was Saces’ enemy.) _Euripides_, Medea 525.,
γλωσσαλγία αἴσχιστος νόσος (garrulousness, a most shocking _disease_.)
But in a special way νόσος (disease) was used of Love (_Pollux_)
Onomast. Bk. VI. 42., εἰς Ἀφροδίτην νοσῶν. (being sick of Love).
_Eubulus_, in Nannio, quoted by _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. Bk. XIII. ch.
24., says:

  μικροῦ πρίασθαι κέρματος τὴν ἡδονήν
  καὶ μὴ λαθραίαν Κύπριν (αἰσχίστην _νόσων_
  πασῶν) διώκειν, ὕβρεος, οὐ πόθου χάριν.

(To buy pleasure for a small coin, and not pursue secret amours,—most
base of all diseases,—for overmastering lust’s sake and not for love.)
Νόσημα (disease) is used in the same sense in _Lucian_, Amores 3.,
and πάθος (suffering, passion) in many passages in the same Work.
_Plutarch_, Amator. p. 763., καὶ λελάληκε (Μένανδρος) περὶ τοῦ πάθους
φιλοσοφώτερον. (And he—Menander—has talked about the passion more
like a philosopher). The following passage in _Philo_, De specialibus
legibus,—Opera. edit. Mangey, Vol. II. p. 301., is of interest: Ἔχει
μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ἡδονὴ πολλάκις μέμψιν, ὅταν ἀμέτρως καὶ
ἀκορέστως χρῆταί τις αὐτῇ, καθάπερ οἱ ἄπληστοι περὶ ἐδωδὴν, κἂν εἰ
μηδὲν τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων προσφέροιντο· καὶ οἱ φιλογυναίοις συνουσίαις
ἐπιμιμηνότες, καὶ λαγνίστερον προσομιλοῦντες γυναιξὶν οὐκ ἀλλοτρίαις,
ἀλλὰ ταῖς ἐαυτῶν. _Ἡ δὲ μέμψις σώματός ἐστι μᾶλλον ἢ ψυχῆς κατὰ τοὺς
πολλοὺς, πολλὴν μὲν ἔχοντος εἴσω φλόγα, ἣ τὴν παραβληθεῖσαν τροφὴν
ἐξαναλίσκουσα ἑτέραν οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν ἐπιζητεῖ πολλὴν ἰκμάδα, ἧς τὸ
ῥοῶδες διὰ τῶν γενητικῶν ἀποχετεύετο, κνησμοὺς καὶ ὀδαξισμοὺς ἐμποιοῦν
καὶ γαργαλισμοὺς ἀπαύσους_.

(So the gratification even of natural pleasure is often blameworthy,
when it is indulged immoderately and insatiably, just as men who are
insatiably greedy about eating are blameworthy, even though they should
not partake of any forbidden meats. So too men who are madly devoted
to intercourse with women, and go with women lewdly,—not strange women
but their own wives. _And the blame lies rather with the body than with
the mind in most cases, for the body has within it a great flame, which
using up the fuel cast to it, does not for long lack much moisture,
the watery humour of which is drawn off by intercourse with women,
producing ticklings and gnashings with the teeth and unappeasable
itchings._) Immoderate copulation then with a man’s own wife is only
a reproach that concerns the body more than the mind; on the other
hand _Philo_ in the succeeding sentences speaks of those who practise
fornication with _strange_ women as, ἀνίατον νόσον ψυχῆς νοσοῦντας
(sick of an incurable sickness of the soul., _Clement of Alexandria_)
Paedag. bk. II. ch. 10., μικρὰν ἐπιληψίαν τὴν συνουσίαν ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης
ἔλεγε σοφιστής, νόσον ἀνίατον ἡγούμενος. (the sophist of Abdera used
to speak of coition as a miniature epilepsy, deeming it an incurable
disease). _Gellius_, bk. XIX. ch. 2., indeed attributes this expression
to Hippocrates, _Stobaeus_, Florileg. I. 6. De intemperantia, to
Eryximachus.

[344] Eroticus ch. 19. in Plutarch, Opera Moralia, edit. A. G.
Winckelmann, Vol. I. Zürich 1836. large 8vo.

[345] Manetho, Astronom. bk. IV. 486.,

  ἐν αἷς _ὕβρις_, οὐ Κύπρις ἄρχει.

(women in whom overmastering insolence, not Love, rules).

[346] _Plutarch_, De capt. util. ex host. p. 88. f., οὐκοῦν μηδὲ μοιχὸν
λοιδορήσῃς, αὐτὸς ὢν παιδομανής. (Therefore you must not reproach even
an adulterer, being yourself a paedomaniac). Comp. _Jacobs_, Animadv.
in Antholog. (Notes on the Anthology), I. II. p. 244. _Athenaeus_, XI.
p. 464.

[347] _Isocrates_, Paneg. 32., ὕβρις παίδων (violence towards—violation
of—boys). _Aeschines_, Timarch. pp. 5. and 26., πιπράσκειν τὸ σῶμα ἐφ’
ὕβρει and ὕβριν τοῦ σώματος (to buy the body for violation, violation
of the body).

[348] _Aristotle_, Nicomach. Ethics bk. VII. ch. 5., ἀλλὰ μὴν οὕτω
διατίθενται οἱ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν ὄντες· θυμοὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐπιθυμίαι
ἀφροδισίων καὶ ἔνια τῶν τοιούτων ἐπιδήλως καὶ τὸ σῶμα μεθιστᾶσιν,
ἐνίοις δὲ καὶ _μανίας_ ποιοῦσιν· δῆλον οὖν ὅτι ὁμοίως ἔχειν λεκτέον
τοὺς _ἀκρατεῖς_ τούτοις. cap. 6. αἱ δὲ νοσηματώδεις ἢ ἐξ ἔθους, οἱον
τριχῶν τίλσεις καὶ ὀνύχων τρώξεις, ἔτι δ’ ἀνθράκων καὶ γῆς, πρὸς δὲ
τούτοις ἡ τῶν _ἀφροδισίων τοῖς ἄρρεσιν_· τοῖς μὲν γὰρ φύσει τοῖς δ’ ἐξ
ἔθους συμβαίνουσιν, οἱον τοῖς ὑβριζομένοις ἐκ παίδων· ὅσοις μὲν οὖν
φύσις αἰτία, τούτους μὲν οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴπειεν ἀκρατεῖς, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὰς
γυναῖκας, ὅτι οὐκ ὀπυίουσιν ἀλλ’ ὀπυίονται.—πᾶσα γὰρ ὑπερβάλλουσα καὶ
ἀφροσύνη καὶ δειλία καὶ ἀκολασία καὶ χαλεπότης αἱ μὲν θηριώδεις αἱ δὲ
νοσηματώδεις εἰσίν. ch. 8. ἀνάγκη γὰρ τοῦτον μὴ εἰναι μεταμελητικόν,
ὥστ’ ἀνίατος· _ὁ γὰρ ἀμεταμέλητος ἀνίατος_·—ὁ δ’ ἐλλείπων πρὸς ἃ οἱ
πολλοὶ καὶ ἀντιτείνουσι καὶ δύνανται, οὗτος μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν· καὶ
γὰρ ἡ τρυφὴ μαλακία τίς ἐστιν· ὅς ἕλκει τὸ ἱμάτιον, ἵνα μὴ πονήσῃ
τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴρειν λύπην κ. τ. λ. ... ἀλλ’ εἴ τις πρὸς ἃ οἱ πολλοὶ
δύνανται ἀντέχειν, τούτων ἡττᾶται καὶ μὴ δύναται ἀντιτείνειν, μὴ διὰ
φύσιν τοῦ γένους ἢ διὰ νόσον, οἷον _ἐν τοῖς Σκυθῶν βασιλεῦσιν ἡ μαλακία
διὰ τὸ γένος_, καὶ ὡς τὸ θῆλυ πρὸς τὸ ἄρρεν διέστηκεν· δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ
ὁ παιδιώδης ἀκόλαστος εἶναι, ἔστι δὲ μαλακός.—_ἀκρασίας_ δὲ τὸ μὲν
προπέτεια τὸ δ’ _ἀσθένεια_· οἱ μὲν γὰρ βουλευσάμενοι οὐκ ἐμμένουσιν οἷς
ἐβουλεύσαντο διὰ τὸ _πάθος_, οἱ δὲ διὰ τὸ μὴ βουλεύσασθαι ἄγονται _ὑπὸ
τοῦ πάθους_. (ch. 5., But this is the very condition of people who are
under the influence of passion; for fits of anger and the desires of
sensual pleasures and some such things do unmistakably produce a change
in the condition of the body, and in some cases actually cause madness.
It is clear then that we must regard incontinent people as being in
much the same condition as people so affected, i.e. people asleep or
mad or intoxicated.—ch. 6., Other such states again are the results
of a morbid disposition or of habit, as e.g. the practice of plucking
out one’s hair, or biting one’s nails, or eating cinders and earth,
_or of committing unnatural vice_; for these habits are sometimes
natural,—when a person’s nature is vicious,—and sometimes acquired,
as e.g. by those who are the victims of outrage from childhood. Now
whenever nature is the cause of these habits, nobody would call people
who give way to them incontinent, any more than we should call women
incontinent for being not males, but females.—For all excess whether
of folly, cowardice, incontinence, or savagery is either brutal or
morbid.—ch. 8., for he is necessarily incapable of repentance and
is therefore incurable, as to be incapable of _repentance is to be
incurable_:—If a person gives in where people generally resist and
are capable of resisting, he deserves to be called effeminate and
luxurious; for luxury is a form of effeminacy. Such a person will
let his cloak trail in the mud to avoid the trouble of lifting it
up, etc.—if a person is mastered by things against which most people
succeed in holding out, and is impotent to struggle against them,
unless his impotence is due to hereditary constitution or to disease,
as effeminacy is hereditary in the kings of Scythia, or as a woman is
naturally weaker than a man. But the man addicted to boys would seem
to be incontinent, and is effeminate.—_Incontinence_ assumes sometimes
the form of impetuosity, and at other times that of _weakness_. Some
men deliberate, but _their emotion_ prevents them from abiding by the
result of their deliberation; others again do not deliberate, and are
therefore carried away _by their emotion_).

This passage has been quite misunderstood by _Stark_, loco citato
p. 27, for he has made it too refer to the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine
disease); in this error indeed _Camerarius_, (Explic. Ethic. Aristot.
Nicomach.—Explanations of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics—Frankfort
1578, 4to., p. 344) whom he cites, had preceded him. _Stark_ says:
Excusat autor eos, qui propter naturae quandam mollitiem et levitatem
vitiorum illecebris resistere nequeant. Haec infirmitas vel ex morbo
procreata vel a sexus differente natura profecta esse potest. Quarum
rationum exempla et _quidem alterius_ _διὰ νόσον_, _Scytharum morbum_,
alterius διὰ φύσιν τοῦ γένους mulierum debilitatem affert. (The author
is excusing such as on account of a certain softness and lightness of
nature cannot resist the allurements of vice. This weakness may have
been either induced by disease, or have sprung from the different
nature of the sexes. Of which cases he gives two examples—_of the one_
διὰ νόσον (_on account of disease_), _the disease of the Scythians_,
of the other διὰ φύσιν τοῦ γένους (on account of congenital nature),
the relative weakness of women). But Aristotle says expressly in the
passage that the μαλακία (softness, effeminacy) of the Scythians,
as well as of a woman, was διὰ γένους (congenital),—that Scythians
equally with women are weakly by birth; while his examples of the
διὰ νόσον (on account of disease) do not come till further on. The
Scythians, he says, like women, are μαλακοί (soft), and the same is
true of the man who practises vices with boys (παιδιώδης); it is a
part of their nature, and so they are not ἀκόλαστοι (“intemperate”),
for the ἀκόλαστος is such a man as cannot owing to disease govern
himself (ἀκρασία, ἀσθενεία, διὰ τὸ πάθος—incontinence, weakness,
owing to passion). Thus the question cannot possibly be here of the
νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease), but merely of a weakly, effeminate
mode of life; and this is properly speaking μαλακία, while the vice
of the pathic is called μαλθακία,—but the two words were constantly
interchanged, and thus a part of the blame for the mistake may very
well lie with the transcribers. A Pathic is habitually μαλακός, but
the μαλακὸς is not necessarily also a Pathic. Hence it might very
probably be right to read, as Aspasius and other editors have actually
done, Περσῶν for Σκυθῶν (kings _of the Persians_ for kings _of the
Scythians_), even though the MSS. show no variants; and indeed to
confirm this one might bring forward the trailing of the cloak (ὃς
ἕλκει τὸ ἱμάτιον—the man who trails his cloak) which is mentioned
as an example, and which was, as is well known, a fashion among the
Persians.—ch. 10., οὐ γὰρ πᾶς ὁ δι’ ἡδονήν τι πράττων οὔτ’ ἀκόλαστος
οὔτε φαῦλος οὔτ’ ἀκρατής, ἀλλ’ ὁ δι’ αἰσχράν. (For not every man that
does a thing for pleasure is “intemperate” or base or incontinent, but
he that does it for _disgraceful_ pleasure).

[349] _Cicero_, De Divinat. I. 38., Aristoteles quidem eos etiam,
qui valetudinis vitio furerent et melancholici dicerentur, censebat
habere aliquid in animis praesagiens atque divinum. (Aristotle indeed
considered that such men as were mad in consequence of ill-health and
were called “melancholics”, also possessed in their minds somewhat of
the prophetic and divine).

[350] _Aristotle_, Nicomach. Ethics VII. ch. 11., ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀκρατὴς
οὐκ ἐμμένει τῷ λόγῳ διὰ τὸ μᾶλλον. ch. 12. ἔτι ἐμπόδιον τῷ φρονεῖν
αἱ ἡδοναὶ, καὶ ὅσῳ μᾶλλον χαίρει, μᾶλλον, οἷον τὴν τῶν ἀφροδισίων
οὐδένα γὰρ ἂν δύνασθαι νοῆσαί τι ἐν αὐτῇ.... ἔτι παιδία καὶ θηρία
διώκει τὰς ἡδονάς. (For the reason why the incontinent person does
not abide by reason lies in an excess.—ch. 12., Pleasures too are an
impediment to thoughtfulness, and the greater the pleasure, the greater
the impediment, as e.g. the pleasure of love, for thought is out of
the question, while it lasts.... And lastly children and brute beasts
pursue pleasure).

[351] So _Quintilian_, Declam. III., says: Siculi in tantum vitio
regnant, ut obscoenis cupiditatibus natura cesserit, ut pollutis _in
femineam_ usque _patientiam_ maribus incurrat iam libido in sexum suum.
(The Sicilians are so predominant in vice, that Nature has ceased to
satisfy their fool lusts,—that males are debauched to _a feminine
passivity_ (to suffer treatment proper to women), and men fall back for
the gratification of their concupiscence on their own sex).

_Seneca_, Epist. 95., Libidine vero ne maribus quidem cedunt, _pati
natae_. (In concupiscence they yield not even to males, _though born to
the_ passive part).

[352] Nonne vehementissime admiraretur, si quisquam non gratissimum
munus arbitraretur, virum se natum, sed depravato naturae beneficio
in _mulierem convertere se_ properasset. (Should one not marvel
exceedingly, if any man should fail to hold it a most excellent
privilege to have been born a man, but should rather, degrading the
gift of nature, have hasted _to turn himself into a woman_) says
_Rutilius Lupus_, De figur. sentent. bk. II. Speaking of men who use
unguents, _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag. bk. II. ch. 8. p. 177.,
says, ἀνδρωνῖτιν ἐκθηλύνουσιν and τὰ γενικὰ ἐκθηλύνειν (they womanize
their manhood, to womanize their sex). Similarly, though with a
different reference, _Clearchus_ says of the Lydians, τέλος, τὰς ψυχὰς
ἄποθηλυνθεντες ἦλλαξάντο τὸν τῶν γυναικῶν βίον. (in fine, having become
womanized in their souls, they adopted the mode of life of women).
_Athenaeus_, Deipnos. XII. p. 516.

[353] Hence paederastia is called also πασχητιασμός (practice of
_passive_ lust) in _Lucian_, Gallus 32. _Clement of Alexandria_,
Paedag. bk. II. ch. 10. _Eustathius_, Comment. in Hexameron. p. 38.
Also the verb πασχητιάω (to indulge in passive lust) is found in
_Lucian_, Amor. 26., in this sense. The same is excellently expressed
by an anonymous poet in the Greek Anthology. bk. II. tit. 5. No. 2.,

  Ἀνέρας ἠρνήσαντο, καὶ οὐκ ἐγένοντο γυναῖκες·
  Οὔτ’ ἄνδρες γεγάασιν, ἐπεὶ πάθων ἔργα γυναικῶν,
  Οὐδὲ γυναῖκες ἔασιν, ἐπεὶ φύσιν ἔλλαχον ἀνδρῶν.
  Ἀνέρες εἰσὶ γυναιξὶ καὶ ἀνδράσιν εἰσὶ γυναῖκες.

(They refused to be men, and failed to become women. They are no men,
for they endure the tasks of women, nor yet are they women, for they
inherited at birth the nature of men. Men are they to women, and women
to men).

In _Aeschines_, Orat. in Timarch., edit. Reiske p. 128., the pathic
Timarchus is called the γυνὴ (woman, wife) of Hegesander, his violator:
θαυμασάντων δὲ ὑμῶν, πῶς ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνὴ, καὶ τίς ὁ λόγος, εἶπε μικρὸν
διαλιπών· ἀγνοεῖτε, ἔφη, ὅ, τι λέγω· ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ ἐστὶν Ἡγήσανδρος
ἐκεῖνος νυνὶ, ἔφη, πρότερον δ’ ἦν καὶ αὐτὸς Λεωδάμαντος _γυνὴ· ἡ δὲ
γυνὴ_ Τίμαρχος οὑτοσίν. (And when you wondered how he could be man
and woman, and what the phrase meant, he replied after a moment’s
pause. You don’t understand, he cried, what I mean. The husband is
Hegesander yonder, he went on, now; but once Hegesander himself was
_wife_ of Leodamas; and the _wife_ of Hegesander is Timarchus here).
_St. Amphilochius_, who lived under Theodosius, says in his “Epistola
iambica ad Seleucum” (Letter in iambic verse to Seleucus) vv. 90-99.,

  ἄλλοι δ’ ἐκείνων ἔθνος ἀθλιώτατον,
  τῶν ἀῤῥένων τὴν δόξαν ἐξορχούμενον,
  μελῶν λιγυσμοῖς συγκατακλῶντες φύσιν.
  ἄνδρες, γυναῖκες ἄῤῥενες, θηλυδρίαι.
  Οὐκ ἄνδρες, οὐ γυναῖκες, ἀψευδεῖ λόγῳ.
  Τὸ μὲν γὰρ οὐ μένουσι, τὸ δ’ οὐκ ἔφθασαν,
  Ὃ μὲν γὰρ εἰσὶν οὐ μένουσι τῷ τρόπῳ,
  ὃ δ’ αὖ κακῶς θέλουσιν, οὐκ εἰσὶν φύσει.
  Ἀσωτίας αἴνιγμα καὶ γρίφος παθῶν.
  ἄνδρες γυναιξὶ καὶ γυναῖκες ἀνδράσιν.

(Others of them belong to that most miserable tribe that dances away
their repute as man, breaking down their nature to the shrill tones of
songs,—men that are male women, womanish men. Not men and not women
are they in very truth. For the one sex they will not keep, the other
they have not gained; for what they really are they remain not, such is
their fashion, and what they foully long to be, that they are not, such
is their nature. An enigma of uncleanness, and a riddle of lust. Men
they are to women, and women to men).

Comp. _Barth_, Adversar. bk. XLIII. ch. 21. p. 1968., and the
expression θήλεια Φιλόξενος (a feminine Philoxenus) quoted p. 169
above. The Romans also used their word _femina_ (woman, wife) in the
same way; as may be gathered from _Ausonius_, Epigr. LXIX.—In eum qui
muliebria patiebatur (On one who suffered himself to be treated as a
woman), where we read at the end:

  Nolo tamen veteris documenta arcessere famae.
    Ecce ego sum factus _femina_ de puero.

(Yet I need not call up instances from ancient legend. Lo! I myself
have become _a woman_, who was erst a boy).

_Petronius_, Satir. 75, femina ipse mei domini fui.—I myself (masc.)
was my master’s _wife_. Justin, Hist. Philipp. I. 3. _Curtius_, III. 10.

[354] Comp. _Epictetus_, Dissertat. I. 16. 10., and Upton on the
passage.

[355] _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag. bk. III. ch. 3., Εἰς τοσοῦτον δὲ
ἄρα ἐλήλακεν ἡ χλιδὴ ὡς μὴ τὸ θῆλυ μόνον _νοσεῖν_ περὶ τὴν κενοσπουδίαν
ταύτην, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ζηλοῦν τὴν _νόσον_· μὴ γὰρ καθαρεύοντες
καλλωπισμοῦ, _οὐχ ὑγιαίνουσιν_. πρὸς δὲ _τὸ μαλθακώτερον_ ἀποκλίνοντες,
γυναικίζονται, κουρὰς μὲν ἀγεννεῖς, καὶ πορνικὰς ἀποκειρόμενοι· χλανίσι
δὲ διαφανέσι περιπεπεμμένοι, καὶ μαστίχην τρώγοντες, ὄζοντες μύρου.
Τί ἄν τις φαίη, τούτους ἰδών; ἀτεχνῶς καθάπερ μετωποσκόπος, ἐκ τοῦ
σχήματος αὐτοὺς καταμαντεύεται, μοιχούς τε καὶ _ἀνδρογύνους, ἀμφοτέραν
Ἀφροδίτην θηρωμένους_· μισότριχας, ἄτριχας· τὸ ἄνθος τὸ ἀνδρικὸν
μυσαττομένους· τὰς κόμας δὲ ὥσπερ αἱ γυναῖκες κοσμουμένους.... Διὰ
τούτους γοῦν πληρεῖς αἱ πόλεις πιττούντων, ξηρούντων, παρατιλλόντων
τοὺς _θηλυδρίας_ τούτους· ἐργαστήρια δὲ κατεσκεύασται καὶ ἀνέῳκται
πάντῃ· καὶ τεχνῖται τῆς ἑταιρικῆς ταύτης πορνείας, συχνὸν ἐμπολῶσιν
ἀργύριον ἐμφανῶς, οἱ σφὰς καταπιττοῦσιν· καὶ τὰς τρίχας τοῖς ἀνασπῶσι
πάντα τρόπον περιέχουσιν· οὐδὲν αἰσχυνόμενοι τοὺς ὁρῶντας, οὐδὲ τοὺς
παριόντας, ἀλλ’ _οὐδὲ ἑαυτοὺς ἄνδρας ὄντας_. (To such a height then
has wanton luxury advanced, that not merely the female sex is _sick_
with this eagerness after frivolities, but even men are eager after
the _disease_; for indeed none being free from love of self-adornment,
they are not _free from disease_. But giving way to effeminacy, they
play at being women, cutting the hair in ignoble and meretricious
fashion; decked out too in transparent robes, chewing mastich-gum and
scented with myrrh. What should a man say, on seeing them? Why! exactly
like a phrenologist, he divines them from their look as adulterers
and _men-women, such as hunt after both kinds of Love_,—abhorrers
of hair, hairless men, that loathe the bloom of manhood,—men that
dress their locks like women.—For these men’s needs cities are full
of such as apply pitch-ointments, sear and pluck out the hairs of
these _effeminates_. For this purpose shops are established and open
everywhere; and artistes of this meretricious harlotry earn many a fee
openly, the artistes that lay on the pitch-ointments for them. And to
those that pluck out their hairs they offer every facility, feeling no
shame of spectators nor of passers-by, nay! _nor even of themselves
that are no men_).

[356] Clement of Alexandria, Paedagog., bk. III. ch. 5., δι’ ἀλαζονείαν
περιττὴν, μάλιστα δὲ τὴν αὐτεξούσιον ἀπαιδευσίαν, καθ’ ἣν κατηγοροῦσιν
ἀνάνδρων ἀνδρῶν, πρὸς γυναικῶν κεκρατημένων, ἀποδεικνύμεναι. (Known
by their excessive chicanerie, and particularly that voluntary
indiscipline of character, whereof they accuse womanish men that are
mastered by women).

[357] “Besides haemorrhoidal swellings are a very usual symptom with
these unhappy sufferers; and _when the evil has reached its highest
development, the power of erection in the male member is completely
lost, the scrotum entirely relaxed and the testicles flaccid_,” _C. L.
Klose_ in Ersch und Gruber, Encyclopädie: Article, Paederastia, Sect.
III Vol. 9. p. 148. In fact it is the usual practice of the paederast
to elicit the pathic’s semen at the same time by using the hand!

[358] περὶ ὕψους, ch. 28., Καὶ τὸ ἀμίμητον ἐκεῖνο τοῦ Ἡροδότου, τῶν δὲ
Σκυθέων τοῖς συλήσασι τὸ ἱερὸν ἐνέβαλεν ἡ θεὸς _θήλειαν νοῦσον_. (And
that inimitable phrase of Herodotus’, “and on such of the Scythians as
plundered her temple the goddess inflicted _feminine disease_.”)

[359] De figuris, edit. J. Fr. Boissonade. London 1818. 8vo., ch. 35
pp. 56 sqq., Περίφρασις δ’ ἔστιν ὅταν τῆς ἁπλῆς καὶ εὐθεῖας γινομένης
ἑρμενείας εὐτελοῦς οὔσης, μεταβαλλόντες, κόσμου ἕνεκα ἢ πάθους, ἢ
μεγαλοπρεπείας, ἄλλοις ὀνόμασι, καὶ πλείοσι τῶν κυρίων καὶ ἀναγκαίων,
τὸ πρᾶγμα ἑρμηνεύσωμεν· οἷον ἐστὶ—παρὰ δὲ Ἡροδότῳ, ἐνέσκηψεν _ἡ θεὸς
θήλειαν νόσον, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησεν ἀνδρογύνους ἢ κατεαγότας_. (for
translation see text above). The Greek word κατεαγότας (broken,
enervated) corresponds to the Latin _percisus_. The Romans undoubtedly
used _effeminatus_ (effeminate) as synonymous with _cinaedus_,
as is shown by a passage in _Seneca_, De benefic., bk. VII. ch.
25., Aristippus aliquando delectatus unguento, male, inquit, istis
_effeminatis_ eveniat, qui rem tam bellam infamaverunt. (On one
occasion Aristippus being much pleased with a certain perfume, said:
Confound those vile _effeminates_, who have made so fine a delicacy
infamous). This is obviously a free translation of the Greek words as
they stand in _Diogenes Laertius_, Vita Aristippi, bk. II. ch. 8. note
4.,—and in _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag., bk. II. ch. 8. p. 279.,
Ἀρίστιππος γοῦν ὁ φιλόσοφος, χρισάμενος μύρῳ, κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολωλέναι
χρῆναι τοὺς κιναίδους ἔφασκεν, τοῦ μύρου τὴν ὠφέλειαν εἰς λοιδορίαν
διαβεβληκότας. (Now Aristippus the philosopher, after he had anointed
himself with myrrh, said, foully should the foul cinaedi perish,
because they have brought into disrepute that excellent creature
myrrh.).

[360] Bk. IV. ch. 67.

[361] Perhaps it is from this that Bacchus gets his secondary title of
_Attis_. _Clement of Alexandria_, Ad Gentes, p. 12, says, δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν
οὐκ ἀπεικότως τὸν Διόνυσόν τινες Ἄττιν προσαγορεύεσθαι θέλουσιν,
αἰδοίων ἐστερημένον. (For which reason some maintain, and not without
probability, that Dionysus is called Attis, as being deprived of the
genital organs). According to the Scholiast to _Lucian_, De Dea Syra,
ch. 16, Dionysus was roaming about in the search for his mother Semelé,
when he came upon Polyymnus, and the latter promised to reveal his
mother’s place of abode, if he would practise paederastia with him.
This he did, and Polyymnus accompanied him to Lerna, where Semelé
would seem to have been, and died there. Mourning the death of his
paederast, Dionysus hewed out of fig-tree wood private parts of wood,
and carried them about with him constantly in memory of Polyymnus. For
this reason Dionysus is worshipped with Phallic emblems. (λυπηθεὶς δὲ
 ὁ Διόνυσος, ὅτε ὁ ἑραστὴς αὐτοῦ ἔθνησκε, αἰδοῖον ξύλινον ἐκ συκίνου
ξύλου πελεκήσας, κατεῖχεν ἀεὶ πρὸς μνήμην τοῦ Πολυύμνου· διὰ ταύτην
τὴν αἰτίαν τοῖς φαλλοῖς τιμῶσιν τὸν Διόνυσον.) The story is related
at greater length by _Clement of Alexandria_, Cohortat. ad Gentes,
p. 22; but he calls the lover Prosymnus (as does _Arnobius_, bk. V.
27. Comp. Tzetzes, in Lycophron., 213), and actually makes Bacchus
practise _Onania postica_ (Masturbation by the posterior), for he
says: ἀφοσιούμενος τῷ ἐραστῇ ὁ Διόνυσος, ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον ὁρμᾷ, καὶ
_πασχητιᾷ_· κλάδον οὖν συκῆς, ὡς ἔτυχεν, ἐκτεμνὼν ἀνδρείου μορίου
σκευάζεται τρόπον· _ἐφέζεταί τε τῷ κλάδῳ_, τὴν ὑπόχεσιν ἐκτελῶν
τῷ νεκρῷ ὑπόμνημα τοῦ πάθους τούτου μυστικὸν· φαλλοὶ κατὰ πόλεις
ἀνίστανται Διονύσῳ. (Dionysus by way of performing due service to his
lover’s memory, hastens to his tomb, and proceeds to _practise passive
lust_. So cutting down the branch of a fig-tree, he fashions it to
a semblance of a man’s member; and then he _mounts the branch in a
sitting posture_, fulfilling his promise to the dead man,—a mystic
memorial of his pathic loves. Phalli are set up in Cities in honour of
Dionysus). In Arnobius, loco citato, we read that Dionysus: Ficorum ex
arbore ramum validissimum praeferens dolat, runcinat, levigat et humani
penis fabricatur in speciem: figit super aggerem tumuli, et postica ex
parte nudatus, accedit, subdit, insidit. Lascivia deinde luxuriantis
assumpta, huc atque illuc clunes torquet et meditatur ab ligno pati,
quod iam dudum in veritate promiserat.—(Bringing with him a sturdy
branch of a fig-tree, hews, planes and smoothes it, and fashions it
into the shape of a man’s penis; then he fixes it upright on the mound
of the tomb, and stripping his posteriors, advances, mounts, and sits
down on it. Then imitating the lascivious motions of a wanton in the
act, writhes his buttocks this way and that, and imagines himself to be
receiving from the wooden member the treatment which he had long ago
promised in reality). Similarly we read in _Petronius_, Sat., Profert
Enothea _scorteum fascinum_ quod ut oleo et minuto pipere atque urticae
trito circumdedit semine, paulatim coepit inserere ano meo. (Enothea
produces a _man’s member made of leather_, which first of all she
covered with oil and ground pepper and pounded nettle-seed, and then
began by degrees to push it up my anus). Now too we shall be able to
explain to our satisfaction what is the meaning of the phrase συκίνη
ἐπικουρία ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενῶν (_fig-wood_ succour,—said of weak allies),
which is mentioned by _Suidas_ under the word ὄλισβος (artificial
member), and for which in the passage quoted above _Aristophanes_
substitutes σκυτίνη ’πικουρία (_leathern_ succour). On this the
Scholiast observes: σκυτίνην ἐπικουρίαν καλεῖ τὴν σκυτίνην βοήθειον,
εἴτε τὴν δερματίνην βοήθειαν, τὴν πληροῦσαν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀντὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν·
τοῦτο δὲ ποιοῦσιν αἱ ἀκόλαστοι γυναῖκες· σκυτίνην δὲ ἐπικουρίαν λέγει,
παρὰ τὴν παροιμίαν· Συκίνη ἐπικουρία· ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενῶν βοηθημάτων καὶ
ἴσως ἐνταῦθα γραπτέον, συκίνη ἀντὶ τοῦ σκυτίνη. (_leathern succour_: so
Aristophanes calls the leathern help, or help of hide, the instrument
that satisfies (women’s) longings in default of men. This is a practice
that incontinent women follow. He says leathern (σκυτίνη), succour
playing on the proverb, “Fig-wood (συκίνη) succour”, said of weak
efforts at assistance. Possibly we should read συκίνη (of fig-wood)
for σκυτίνη (of leather) here. Again: _σκυτάλαι_· στρογγύλα καὶ λεῖα
ξύλα.—_σκυτάλη_· βακτηρία ἀκροπαχής (batons: rounded and polished
staves)—(baton: a blunt-pointed staff) in _Suidas_, and the passage in
Aristophanes, τοῦτ’ ἔστ’ ἐκεῖνο τῶν σκυτάλων, ὧν πέρδετο (this is the
particular baton that made him break wind), which _Suidas_, under the
word σκυτάλον (baton) has obviously misunderstood, just as much as the
Scholiast has. For in all these passages it is the _Priapus ficulnus_
(Priapus of fig-wood), also well-known to the Romans, that we must
understand to be intended. Apposite in this connection is Horace’s
(Sat I. 8. 1.), Olim truncus eram, inutile lignum (Once the trunk of a
fig-tree was I, a useless log,)—on which the commentators have wasted a
host of extraordinary interpretations.

[362] Symposion, p. 189., _ἀνδρόγυνον_ γὰρ ἓν τότε μὲν ἦν καὶ εἶδος,
_καὶ ὄνομα, ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων κοινὸν τοῦ τε ἄῤῥενος καὶ θήλεος_. (For then
there was a third, a man-woman, sex, in form as well as in name,
commingled of both sexes, the male and the female.) Plainer still is
this passage from _Lucian_, Amores 28., πᾶσα δὲ ἡμῶν ἡ γυναικωνῖτις
ἔστω Φιλαινὶς, _ἀνδρογύνους ἔρωτας_ ἀσχημονοῦσα. καὶ πόσῳ κρεῖττον
εἰς ἄῤῥενα τρυφὴν βιάζεσθαι γυναῖκα ἢ τὸ γενναῖον ἀνδρῶν εἰς γυναῖκα
θηλύνεσθαι· (And let all our women’s apartments be Philaenis, foully
indulging in male-female loves. And how much better it were that
a woman should trespass on male wantonness than that the noble
manliness of men should be effeminated and made womanish.) _Clement
of Alexandria_, Paedag., bk. II. ch. 10., ἐντεῦθεν συμφανὲς ἡμῖν
ὁμολογουμένως παραιτεῖσθαι δεῖν τὰς ἀῤῥενομιξίας, καὶ τὰς ἀκράτους
σπορὰς καὶ κατόπιν εὐνὰς καὶ τὰς ἀσυμφύεις _ἀνδρογύνους κοινωνίας_.
(Hence it is manifest we ought avowedly to deprecate intercourse with
males and inordinate embraces and copulation behind and unnatural
_unions of men-women_.) A little further on the same author says, αἱ
δολεραὶ γυναῖκες καὶ _τῶν ἀνδρῶν οἱ γυναικώδεις_. (deceitful women
and the _womanish kind_ of men,) and speaks of θηλυδριώδης ἐπιθυμία
(effeminate lustfulness). A résumé of pretty nearly all words of
this class is given by _Suidas_, s. v. Ἄῤῥεν καὶ Ἀῤῥενικῶς. Καὶ
ἡμίανδρος καὶ ἡμιγύναιξ καὶ διγενὴς καὶ θηλυδρίας, καὶ ἑρμαφρόδιτος,
καὶ ἴθρις, οὗ ἰσχὺς τεθέρισται· καὶ ἀῤῥενωπὸς, ὁ ἀνδρόγυνος· καὶ ὁ
ἀνδρεῖος· ὁ στεῤῥὸς· λέγουσι δ’ οὕτω τὰ μὲν ἄλλα γύνιδας, ἔχοντας δέ
τι ἀνδρόμορφον. Ἱππῶναξ δὲ, ἡμίανδρον, τὸν οἷον ἡμιγύναικα· λέγεται
δὲ καὶ ἀπόκοπος, καὶ βάκηλος [βάτταλος] καὶ ἀνδρόγυνος, καὶ Γάλλος,
καὶ γύννις, καὶ Ἄττις καὶ εύνουχώδης. (under the words Ἄῤῥεν and
ἀῤῥενικῶς (masculine, masculinely): Semi-man, semi-woman, double-sexed,
womanish man, hermaphrodite, eunuch—one whose virility has been cut;
masculine-looking, the man-woman,—also the manly, the strong, man. By
such names are signified effeminate men that yet have some look of men.
Hipponax also uses in this sense semi-man, and its synonym semi-woman.
Such a one is called also castrated, eunuch (pathic), man-woman,
Gallus—eunuch-priest of Cybelé, Attis, eunuch-like.) The same holds
good of the word εὐνοῦχος (eunuch), which by no means signifies only
actual castrated eunuchs. Thus _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedagog.,
bk. III. ch. 4., says, εὐνοῦχος δὲ ἀληθὴς, οὐχ ὁ μὴ δυνάμενος, ἀλλ’ ὁ
μὴ βουλόμενος φιληδεῖν· ... εὐνοῦχοι πολλοὶ, καὶ οὗτοι μαστροποὶ τῷ
ἀξιοπίστῳ τοῦ μὴ δύνασθαι φιληδεῖν, τοῖς εἰς ἡδονὰς ἐθέλουσι ῥαθυμεῖν
ἀνυπόπτως διακονούμενοι. (But the true eunuch is not he that cannot,
but he that will not, love.... Many eunuchs, and these serving as
pandars, by reason of the certainty that they cannot love, to such as
are fain to indulge in secure pleasures without suspicion.)

[363] Oneirocritica., bk. V. ch. 65., Ἔδοξέ τις τὸ αἰδοῖον αὐτοῦ ἄχρις
ἄκρας τῆς κορώνης τετριχῶσθαι, καὶ λάσιον εἶναι πυκνῶν πάνυ τριχῶν
αἰφνίδιον φυεισῶν· ἀποπεφασμένος κίναιδος ἐγένετο πάσῃ μὲν ἀκολάστῳ
χρησάμενος ἡδονῇ, _θηλυδρίας ὢν καὶ ἀνδρόγυνος_, μόνῳ δὲ τῷ αἰδοίῳ κατὰ
νόμον ἀνδρῶν μὴ χρώμενος. Τοιγαροῦν οὕτως ἤδη ἀργὸν ἦν αὐτῷ τὸ μέρος
ἐκεῖνο, ὡς διὰ τὸ μὴ τρίβεσθαι πρὸς ἕτερον σῶμα καὶ τρίχας ἐκφύσαι.
(for translation see text above).

[364] _Ἀνδρόγυνον_ κωμῳδεῖν ἔδοξέ τις δρᾶμα· ἐνόσησεν αὐτῷ τὸ αἰδοῖον.
Γάλλους ὁρᾶν ἔδοξέ τις· ἐνόσησεν αὐτῷ τὸ αἰδοῖον. Τὸ μὲν πρῶτον διὰ
τὸ ὄνομα οὕτως ἀπέβη, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον διὰ τὸ συμβεβηκὸς τοῖς ὁρωμένοις.
Καί τοι καὶ τὸ κωμῳδεῖν οἰσθα ὃ σημαίνει, καὶ τὸ Γάλλους ὁρᾶν. Μέμνησο
δὲ, ὅτι, εἴτε κωμῳδεῖν, εἴτε τραγῳδεῖν ὑπολάβοι τις, καὶ μνημονεύει,
κατά τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τοῦ δράματος κρίνεται καὶ τὰ ἀποτελέσματα. (for
translation see text above). The signification of κωμῳδεῖν and
τραγῳδεῖν (to represent Comedy, Tragedy) is given by _Artemidorus_,
bk. I. ch. 56. As to the _Galli_ comp. bk. II. 69. In bk. II. ch. 12.
we read: Ὕαινα δὲ γυναῖκα σημαίνει _ἀνδρόγυνον_ ἢ φαρμακίδα, καὶ ἄνδρα
κίναιδον οὐκ εὐγνώμονα. (Hyaena signifies a woman that is _male-female_
or a sorceress, and a man that is a cinaedus without moderation). It
was a widespread belief amongst the Ancients that the hyaena was at
one time a male and at another a female (comp. _Aelian_, Hist. anim.,
I. 25. _Horapollo_, Hieroglyph., II. 65. _Ovid_, Metamorph., Bk. XV.
Fab. 38. _Tertullian_, De Pallio, ch. 3.). As early however as the time
of _Aristotle_ it had been declared a fable by him, Hist. anim., Bk.
VI. ch. 32., and _Clement of Alexandria_ says the same, Paedagog., II.
9. Yet the idea was still cherished at the beginning of the present
Century at the Cape of Good Hope, see _Corn. de Jong_, “Reise nach dem
Vorgebirge der Guten Hoffnung,” (Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope).
Hamburg 1803. Pt I. Letter 6. _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedagog., bk.
II. ch. 9., tells a still more remarkable tale of the hare, καὶ τὸν
μὲν λαγῶν κατ’ ἔτεος πλεονεκτεῖν φασὶ τὴν ἀφόδευσιν, εἰς ἀριθμοὺς οἱς
βεβίωκεν ἔτεσιν ἴσχοντα τρυπάς· ταύτῃ ἄρα τὴν κώλυσιν τῆς ἐδωδῆς τοῦ
λαγὼ, παιδεραστίας ἐμφαίνειν ἀποτροπὴν. (Moreover it is said that the
hare gets every year fresh means of voiding its excrement, having holes
corresponding to the number of years it has lived; and that for this
reason the prohibition against eating hare appears to be a dissuasion
from paederastia). This is confirmed by St. Barnabas, Epist., ch. 10.
and by _Pliny_, Hist. Nat., VIII. 55. To this fable also we must look
for an explanation of the proverbial saying δασύπους κρεῶν ἐπιθυμεῖ
(puss longs for flesh-meats), and Lepus tute es, et pulmentum quaeris?
(Are _you_ a hare, and look for condiments?) in _Terence_, Eunuch.,
III. 36. Possibly too the κύων τεῦτλα οὐ τρώγει (dog does not gnaw
pot-herbs) of Diogenes has a connection with the same notion,—Diogenes
Laertius, VI. 2. 6. So _Strato_ in the distich (_Greek Anthology_ bk.
I. tit. 72. No. 6.):

     Ἔστι Δράκων τὶς ἔφηβος, ἄγαν καλὸς· ἀλλὰ δράκων ὢν
       Πῶς εἰς τὴν τρώγλην ἄλλον _ὄφιν δέχεται_;

(A certain youth there is, Draco (serpent) by name, very fair to see;
but being a serpent, how comes it he _takes another snake_ into his
hole?) _Aristophanes_, Eccles., 904., κἀπὶ τῆς κλίνης _ὄφιν_ εὕροις,
(and on your bed may you find a _snake_), on which the Scholiast
comments ὄφις—λαμβάνεται ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰδοίου οὐ τεταμένου δηλαδὴ, ἀλλ’
ἀνειμένου. (ὄφις—snake: to be taken as meaning the privy member,—not
erect that is, but relaxed). So in the _Priapeia_, LXXXIII. 33., we
find: licebit aeger, _angue_ lentior (will be reckoned as sick, slacker
than a snake).

[365] _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedagog., Bk. II. ch. 10., οὐδὲ τῶν
κατεαγότων, τούτων δὴ τῶν τὴν κιναιδίαν τὴν ἄφωνον ἐπὶ τὰς σκηνὰς
μετιόντων ὀρχηστῶν ἀποῤῥέουσαν εἰς τοσοῦτον ὕβρεως τὴν ἐσθῆτα
περιορώντων. (nor yet of the debauchees, those dancers I mean that
bring onto the stage cinaedia in pantomime, and suffer their costume to
flow loosely to such a degree of indecency).

[366] _Naumann_ (Schmidt’s Jahrbuch 1837. Vol. 13. p. 100.) says:
Ἐναρέες, probably a Scythian word, calls to mind the dwarf _Anar_ or
_Onar_ in the old Northern Mythology,—a eunuch in a sort, but who
was nevertheless reverenced as father-in-law of Odin. (_J. Grimm_,
“Deutsche Mythologie” (German Mythology). Göttingen 1835. p. 424).
With this Hippocrates’ statement would agree, according to which these
eunuchs were regarded by their countrymen with a reverence almost as
if they had been gods.—As to this, first observe that it yet remains
to be proved that the Scythian language belongs to the Indo-Germanic
family, secondly that with Onar or Anar there is no question at all
of a _non-man_ or actual _eunuch_, for Anar _begat a daughter on
Notta_. This daughter, Jördh, was wife of Odin, making Anar Odin’s
father-in-law.

[367] Such a corruption of the word on the part of Herodotus is all the
more likely, as it is clearly established by modern investigations (as
indeed _Heyne_, loco citato, maintained long ago) that he never was in
Scythia proper. Comp. _Herodoti Musae_, edit. _J. Ch. F. Baehr_, Vol.
IV. Leipzig 1835., p. 395., and Vol. I. p. 455. _C. G. L. Heyse_,
De Herodoti vita et intineribus Diss. (Dissertation on the Life and
Journeys of Herodotus). Berlin 1826. 8vo. p. 104.

[368] Deipnos., bk. XII. p. 530 D.

[369] _Hesychius does_ give the word ἀνάρσιοι, and explains it
by ἀνάρμοστοι πολέμιοι· ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ συνηρμοσθῆναι τοῖς ἤθεσιν.
(incompatible foes: from their not being _compatible in character
and disposition_). Plutarch, περὶ τῆς ἐν Τιμαίῳ ψυχογονίας (On the
Generation of the Soul in Plato’s “Timaeus”) near the end says: οἱ
ποιηταὶ καλοῦσιν _ἀναρσίους_ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους, ὡς
ἀναρμοστίαν τὴν διαφορὰν οὖσαν. (the poets call _incompatible_ such
as are hostile and at enmity, the difference being irreconcileable).
_Zonaras_, Lexicon, writes: s. v. _ἀνάρσιοι_· ἐχθροί· _ἀδικοί_·
ἀνάρμοστοι. (under the word ἀνάρσιοι—incompatible: hostile;
_unjust_; irreconcileable). Similarly the Etymologicum Magnum; s.
v. _ἀνάρσιοι_· ἀδικοὶ, ἐχθροί.—ὁ ἀνάρμοστος καὶ ἀσύμφωνος· Ὦρος·
πολέμιος, _ὑβριστής_· καὶ _ἄναρσις_· νεῖκος, πόλεμος. (under the word
ἀνάρσιοι—incompatible: _unjust_, hostile,—one that is irreconcileable,
discordant. Orus (the Grammarian) gives: enemy, _overbearing_ man;
also _ἄναρσις_,—incompatibility: strife, war). According to this we
might very well read for ἐναρέες ἀνάρσιοι; for the Temple-robbers had
been ἄδικοι and ὑβρισταὶ (unjust, overbearing), and were further known
as pathics—whose vice was ἀδικία and ὕβρις (injustice, overbearing
violence), as we have seen again and again. Another point is that
_Homer_, Iliad XXIV. 365., Odyssey X. 459., uses the expression
ἀνάρσιοι in the sense of ὑβρισταὶ, ἄδικοι (overbearing, unjust men),
and this fact was always likely to be of weight with Herodotus, even
when he was translating a foreign word. Inasmuch as the word ἀνάρσιοι
had several meanings, he may very well have added the ἀνδρόγυνοι in the
second passage, instead of the καλοῦσι Σκύθαι (the Scythians call it),
in explanation of it.

[370] Liber quisquis virtuti studet. Opera. edit. Mangey, Vol. II.
p. 465., Λέγετο γοῦν, ὅτι θεασάμενός τινα τῶν ὠνουμένων, _ὃν θήλεια
νόσος εἶχεν_ ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως _οὐκ ἄῤῥενα_, προελθὼν ἔφη, σύ με πρίω· σὺ
γὰρ ἀνδρὸς χρείαν ἔχειν μοι δοκεῖς· ὡς τὸν μὲν δυσωπηθέντα ἐφ’ οἷς
ἑαυτῷ σύνοιδε, καταδῦναι, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους τὸ σὺν εὐτολμίᾳ εὐθυβόλον
ἐκπλήττεσθαι. (for translation see text above).

_Diogenes Laertius_, bk. VI. ch. 2. note 4, relates the story only
in outline: Φησὶ δὲ Μένιππος ἐν τῇ Διογένους πράσει, ὡς ἁλοὺς καὶ
πωλούμενος ἠρωτήθη τί οἶδε ποιεῖν; ἀπεκρίνατο, Ἀνδρῶν ἄρχειν· καὶ
πρὸς τὸν κήρυκα, Κήρυσσε, ἔφη, εἴ τις ἐθέλει δεσπότην αὑτῷ πρίασδαι.
(Menippus says in the sale of Diogenes that the philosopher, a captive
and for sale as a slave, was asked what he could do. He answered,
“Govern men”; turning to the crier and adding, “Cry!—does anyone wish
to buy a master to govern him?”). Comp. ibid. note 9.

[371] De Specialibus Legibus, pp. 305 sqq., Ἐπεισκεκώμακε δὲ ταῖς
πόλεσιν ἕτερον πολὺ τοῦ λεχθέντος μεῖζον κακὸν _τὸ παιδεραστεῖν_, ὃ
πρότερον μὲν καὶ λεχθῆναι μέγα ὄνειδος ἦν, νυνὶ δ’ ἐστὶν αὔχημα _οὐ
τοῖς δρῶσι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς πάσχουσιν, οἱ νόσον θήλειαν νοσεῖν
ἐθιζόμενοι_. τάς τε ψυχὰς καὶ τὰ σώματα διαῤῥέουσι, μηδὲν ἐμπύρευμα
τῆς ἄῤῥενος γενεᾶς ἐῶντες ὑποτύφεσθαι, περιφανῶς οὕτως τὰς τῆς κεφαλῆς
τρίχας ἀναπλεκόμενοι καὶ διακοσμούμενοι, καὶ ψιμμυθίῳ καὶ ψύκεσι καὶ
τοῖς ὁμοιοτρόποις τὰς ὄψεις τριβόμενοι, καὶ ὑπογραφόμενοι, καὶ εὐώδεσι
μύροις λίπα χριόμενοι (προσαγωγὸν γὰρ μάλιστα ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις τὸ
εὐῶδες) ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς εἰς εὐκοσμίαν ἠσκημένοις καὶ τὴν ἄῤῥενα φύσιν
ἐπιτηδεύσει· τεχνάζοντας _εἰς θήλειαν_ μεταβάλλειν, οὐκ ἐρυθριῶσι.
Καθ’ ὧν φονᾷν ἄξιον νόμῳ πειθαρχοῦντας, ὃς κελεύει _τὸν  ἀνδρόγυνον_ τὰ
φύσεως νόμιμα παρακόπτοντα, νηποινεὶ τεθνάναι, μηδεμίαν ἡμέραν ἀλλὰ
μηδ’ ὥραν ἐώμενοι ζῇν, ὄνειδος αὑτοῦ καὶ οἰκίας καὶ πατρίδος ὄντα καὶ
τοῦ σύμπαντος ἀνθρώπων γένους. Ὁ δὲ παιδεραστὴς ἔστω τὴν αὐτὴν δίκην
ὑπομένων, ἐπειδὴ τὴν παρὰ φύσιν ἡδονὴν διώκει, καὶ τὰς πόλεις, τό
γ’ ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἧκον μέρος, ἐρήμους καὶ κενὰς ἀποδείκνυσιν οἰκητόρων,
διαφθείρων τὰς γονὰς, καὶ προσέτι, τῶν μεγίστων κακῶν, _ἀνανδρίας_
καὶ _μαλακίας_ ὑφηγητὴς καὶ διδάσκαλος ἀξιοῖ γίνεσθαι· τοὺς νέους
ὡραΐζων καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀκμῆς ἄνθος ἐκθηλεύων. ὃ πρὸς ἀλκὴν καὶ ῥώμην
ἀλείφειν ἁρμόττον ἦν. Καὶ τελευταῖον, ὅτι κακοῦ τρόπον γεωργοῦ, τὰς μὲν
βαθυγείους καὶὧνὡν δ’ οὐδὲν βλάστημα προσδοκᾶται τὸ παράπαν, εἰς ταῦτα
πονεῖται καθ’ ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτωρ. Αἴτιον δ’ οἶμαι, τὸ παρὰ πολλοῖς τῶν
δήμων, _ἀκρασίας_ καὶ _μαλακίας_ ἆθλα κεῖσθαι. Τοὺς γοῦν _ἀνδρογύνους_
ἰδεῖν ἐστὶ διὰ πληθούσης ἀγορᾶς ἀεὶ σοβοῦντας, κἂν ταῖς ἑορταῖς
προπομπεύοντας καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τοὺς ἀνιέρους διειληχότας, καὶ μυστηρίων καὶ
τελετῶν κατάρχοντας, καὶ τὰ Δήμητρος ὀργιάζοντας. Ὅσοι δ’ αὐτῶν τὴν
καλὴν νεανιείαν προσεπιτείνοντες, εἰς ἅπαν ὠρέχθησαν μεταβολῆς τᾶς εἰς
γυναῖκας, τὰ γεννητικὰ προσαπέκοψαν, ἁλουργίδας ἀμπεχόμενοι, καθάπερ
οἱ μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιοι ταῖς πατρίσι, προέρχοντο δορυφορούμενοι, τοὺς
ὑπαντῶντας ἐπιστρέφοντες. Εἰ δ’ ἦν ἀγανάκτησις οἵα παρὰ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ
 νομοθέτῃ, κατὰ τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμώντων· καὶ ὡς κοινὰ τῶν πατρίδων ἄγη
καὶ μιάσματα δίχα συγγνώμης ἀνῃροῦντο, πολλοὺς ἂν ἑτέρους νουθετεῖσθαι
συνέβαινεν. Αἱ γὰρ τῶν προκαταγνωσθέντων τιμωρίαι ἀπαραίτητοι, ἀνακοπην
οὐ βραχεῖαν ἐργάζοντο τοῖς ζηλωταῖς τῶν ὁμοίων ἐπιτηδευμάτων. (for
translation see text above)

[372] De vita contemplativa, p. 480., Τὸ δὲ Πλατωνικὸν ὅλον σχεδόν
ἐστι περὶ ἔρωτος, οὐκ ἀνδρῶν ἐπὶ γυναιξὶν ἐπιμανέντων, ἢ γυναικῶν
ἀνδράσιν αὐτὸ μόνον (ἐπιτελοῦντο γὰρ αἱ ἐπιθυμίαι αὗται νόμῳ φύσεως)·
ἀλλὰ ἀνδρῶν ἄρσεσιν ἡλικίᾳ μόνον διαφέρουσι. Καὶ γὰρ εἴτι περὶ
ἔρωτος καὶ οὐρανίου Ἀφροδίτης κεκομψεῦσθαι δοκεῖ, χάριν ἀστεϊσμοῦ
παρείληπται· τὸ γὰρ πλεῖστον αὐτοῦ μέρος ὁ κοινὸς καὶ πάνδημος Ἔρως
διείληφεν· ἀνδρείαν μὲν τὴν βιωφελεστάτην ἀρετὴν κατὰ πόλεμον καὶ κατ’
εἰρήνην ἀφαιρούμενος, _θήλειαν δὲ νόσον ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἀπεργαζόμενος,
καὶ ἀνδρογύνους κατασκευάζων_, οὓς ἐχρῆν πᾶσι τοῖς πρὸς ἀλκὴν
ἐπιτηδεύμασι συγκροτεῖσθαι. Λυμῃνάμενος δὲ τὴν παιδικὴν ἡλικίαν καὶ
εἰς ἐρωμένης τάξιν καὶ διάθεσιν ἀγαγὼν, ἐζημίωσε καὶ τοὺς ἐραστὰς
περὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότατα, σῶμά τε καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ οὐσίαν. Ἀνάγκη γὰρ τοῦ
παιδεραστοῦ τὸν μὲν νοῦν τετάσθαι πρὸς τὰ παιδικὰ, καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα μόνον
ὀξυδερκοῦντα, πρὸς δὲ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ἴδιά τε καὶ κοινὰ τυφλούμενον
ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας καὶ μάλιστα εἰ ἀποτυγχάνοιτο, συντήκεσθαι· τὴν δὲ
οὐσίαν ἐλαττοῦσθαι διχόθεν, ἔκ τε ἀμελείας, καὶ τῶν εἰς τὸν ἐρώμενον
ἀναλωμάτων. Παραφύετο δὲ καὶ μεῖζον ἄλλο πάνδημον κακόν· ἐρημίαν γὰρ
πόλεων, καὶ σπάνιν τοῦ ἀρίστου γένους ἀνθρώπων, καὶ στείρωσιν καὶ
ἀγονίαν τεχνάζονται, οἳ μιμοῦνται τοὺς ἀνεπιστήμονας τήν γεωργίας, κ.
τ. λ. (for translation see text above). This passage at any rate shows
beyond a doubt that _Philo_ quite failed to understand _Plato_, who not
only clearly and distinctly distinguishes paedophilia from paederastia,
but also analyzes at length the injuries to body and soul the latter
involves on the pathic,—particularly in the _Phaedrus_, pp. 239-241,
which we beg the reader to consult. To quote textually would occupy too
much space.

[373] De Abrahamo, pp. 20. sqq., Οὐ γὰρ μόνον θηλυμανοῦντες ἀλλοτρίους
γάμους διέφθειρον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄνδρες ὄντες ἄῤῥεσιν ἐπιβαίνοντες,
τὴν κοινὴν πρὸς τοὺς πάσχοντας οἱ δρῶντες φύσιν οὐκ αἰδούμενοι,
παιδοσποροῦντες ἠλέγχοντο μὲν ἀτελῆ γονὴν σπείροντες. Ὁ δ’ ἔλεγχος πρὸς
οὐδὲν ἦν ὄφελος, ὑπὸ βιαιοτέρας νικωμένων ἐπιθυμίας· εἶτ’ ἐκ τοῦ κατ’
ὀλίγον ἐθίζοντες τὰ γυναικῶν ὑπομένειν τοὺς ἄνδρας γεννηθέντας, _θήλειαν
κατεσκεύαζον αὑτοῖς νόσον, κακὸν δύσμαχον. Οὐ μόνον γὰρ τὰ σώματα
μαλακότητι καὶ θρύψει γυναικοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀγεννεστάτας
ἀπεργαζόμενοι_, τό γ’ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἧκον μέρος, τὸ σύμπαν ἀνθρώπων γένος
διέφθειρον. Εἰ γοῦν Ἕλληνες ὁμοῦ καὶ βάρβαροι συμφωνήσαντες ἐζήλωσαν
τὰς τοιαύτας ὁμιλίας, ἠρήμωντο  ἂν ἑξῆς αἱ πόλεις, ὥσπερ λοιμώδει νόσῳ
κενωθεῖσαι. (for translation see text above).

[374] De Sacrificantibus, p. 261., προανείργει πάντας τοὺς ἀναξίους
ἱεροῦ συλλόγου, τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιούμενος ἀπὸ τῶν _νοσούντων_ τὴν _ἀληθῆ_
[_θήλειαν_] _νόσον_ ἀνδρογύνων, οἳ τὸ φύσεως νόμισμα παρακόπτοντες,
εἰς ἀκολάστων γυναικῶν πάθος καὶ μορφὰς εἰσβιάζοντο· Θλαδίας γὰρ καὶ
ἀποκεκομένους τὰ γεννητικὰ ἐλαύνει, τό τε τῆς ὥρας ταμιεύοντας ἄνθος,
ἵνα μὴ ῥᾳδίως μαραίνοιτο, καὶ τὸν ἄῤῥενα τύπον μεταχαράττοντας εἰς
θηλύμορφον ἰδέαν. Ἐλαύνει δὲ οὐ μόνον πόρνας ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῆς
πόρνης κ. τ. λ.

[375] Paedagog., bk. III. ch. 3., “πρὸς τοὺς καλλωπιζομένους τῶν
ἀνδρῶν”: ἕνα τινὰ τούτων τῶν ἀγεννῶν παιδαγωγικῶς ἐπιπλήττων ὁ
Διογένης, ὁπηνίκα ἐπιπράσκετο, ἀνδρείως σφόδρα, Ἧκε, εἶπεν, μειρακίον,
ἄνδρα ὠνῆσαι σαυτῷ· _ἀμφιβόλω λόγῳ τὸ πορνικὸν ἐκείνου σωφρονίζων_·
τὸ γὰρ ἄνδρας ὄντας, ξύρεσθαι καὶ λεαίνεσθαι, _πῶς οὐκ ἀγεννές_; (“To
men who bedizen their persons”: One of these base fellows Diogenes
rebuked like a schoolmaster. At the very time he was on sale as a
slave, he cried with wonderful boldness: ‘Come, young man, buy a man
for yourself’: _by this double entendre chastising his meretricious
habits_. For _is it not a base thing_, that _men_ should have their
bodies shaved and polished smooth?)

[376] _Herodian_, Historiarum Libri Octo, edit. _Th. Guil. Irmisch_.
Leipzig 1780. 8vo., Vol. II. Bk. IV. ch. 12.: εἰς τοῦτον οὖν, ὡς μηδὲ
στρατιωτικὸν, μηδὲ γενναῖον, δημοσίᾳ πολλάκις ἀπέσκωπτε, καὶ μέχρις
_αἰσχρᾶς βλασφημίας_· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἤκουεν αὐτὸν καὶ διαίτη ἐλευθερίῳ
χρώμενον, καὶ τὰ φαῦλα καὶ ἀπεῤῥιμμένα τῶν ἐδεσμάτων καὶ ποτῶν
μυσαττόμενον, οἷς, ὡς στρατιωτικὸς δὴ, ὁ Ἀντωνῖνος ἔχαιρε, χλαμύδιον
ἤ τινα ἄλλην ἐσθῆτα ἀμφιεσάμενον ἀστειοτέραν, εἰς _ἀνανδρίαν καὶ
θήλειαν νόσον_ διέβαλλεν, ἀεί τε ἀποκτενεῖν ἠπειλει· ἅπερ οὐ φέρων
ὁ Μακρῖνος, πάνυ ἤσχαλλε· συνέβη δέ τι καὶ τοιοῦτον κ. τ. λ. for
translation see text. A somewhat similar circumstance is given in
_Livy_, Hist. XXXIX. ch. 42.

[377] Aeschines, Orat. in Timarch. edit. Reiske, p. 139. μὴ Δημοσθένην
καλουμενον, ἀλλὰ Βάταλον,—p. 142. ἐπεὶ καὶ περὶ τῆς Δημοσθένους
ἐπωνυμίας, οὐ κακῶς ὑπὸ τῆς φήμης, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὑπὸ τῆς τίτθης, Βάταλος
προσαγορεύεται, _ἐξ ἀνανδρίας τινὸς καὶ κιναιδεῖας_ ἐνεγκάμενος
τοῦνομα· εἰ γάρ τις σου τὰ κομψὰ ταῦτα χλανίσκια περιελόμενος, καὶ
τοὺς μαλακοὺς χιτωνίσκους, ἐν οἷς τοὺς κατὰ τῶν φίλων λόγους γράφεις,
περιενέγκας δοίη εἰς τὰς χεῖρας τῶν δικαστῶν, οἴομαι ἂν αὐτοὺς, εἴ
τις μὴ προειπὼν τοῦτο ποιήσειεν, ἀπορῆσαι, _εἴ τε ἀνδρὸς, εἴ τε
γυναικὸς εἰλήφασιν ἐσθῆτα_. (called not Demosthenes, but Batalus,
i.e. Pathic.—Now with regard to Demosthenes’ surname, he is excellently
called by common report, though not by his nurse, Batalus—Pathic,
having got the name _from a certain unmanliness and cinaedism_. For
if a man should strip you of these elegant robes you wear and your
womanish tunics, clad in which you indite your speeches against your
friends, and bring them up and put them in the hands of the jurymen,
I suppose, if he should do so without any previous explanation, the
latter would be quite unable to tell _whether it were a man’s or a
woman’s clothes they had got hold of_.)—a passage which affords the
best commentary to what is stated in the text both here and on previous
pages.

[378] Bk. III. ch. 55: Σχολή τις ἦν αὕτη κακοεργίας πᾶσιν ἀκολάστοις,
πολλῇ τε ῥαστώνῃ διεφθορόσι τὸ σῶμα· _γύννιδες_ γοῦν τινες
ἄνδρες οὐκ ἄνδρες, τὸ σεμνὸν τῆς φύσεως ἀπαρνησάμενοι, _θηλείᾳ
νόσῳ_ τὴν δαίμονα ἱλεοῦντο· γυναικῶν τ’ αὖ παράνομοι ὁμιλίαι,
κλεψιγαμοί θ’ ὁμιλίαι, ἄῤῥητοί τε καὶ ἐπίῤῥητοι πράξεις, ὡς ἐν ἀνόμῳ
καὶ ἀποστάτῃ χώρῳ κατὰ τόνδε τὸν νεὼν ἐπεχειροῦντο· ἔφορός τε οὐδεὶς ἦν
τῶν πραττομένων, τῷ μηδένα σεμνῶν ἀνδρῶν αὐτόθι τολμᾶν παρίεναι. for
translation see text. As to this Temple of Venus compare _Zosimus_,
Histor., bk. I., _Etymolog. Magnum_, under word ’Aphaka; _Suidas_,
under word Χριστόδωρος; Selden, Syntagm. de Diis Syris, II.

[379] _Zonaras_, Lexicon. edit. Tittmann. Leipzig 1808. 4to. p. 457.

[380] _Eustathius_, Commentar. in Homer., Iliad 1680. 44., _Stark_
cites merely the figures. We can clearly see the meaning of γύννιδες
in the following passage of _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag., bk.
III. ch. 3. p. 227, τί τοίνυν οὐκ ἂν ἐπιτηδεύσειαν αἱ γυναῖκες, αἱ
εἰς μαχλοσύνην σπεύδουσαι, τοιαῦτα τολμῶσιν ἐνοποριζόμεναι τοῖς
ἀνδράσιν; _μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ ἄνδρας βατάλους δὲ καὶ γύννιδας καλεῖν
τούτους χρή_· ὧν καὶ αἱ φωναὶ τεθρυμμέναι καὶ ἡ ἐσθὴς τεθηλυμμένη
ἁφῇ καὶ βαφῇ· _δῆλοι δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἐλεγχόμενοι τὸν τρόπον ἔξωθεν
ἀμπεχόνῃ, ὑποδέσει, σχήματι, βαδίσματι, κουρᾷ, βλέμματι. Ἀπὸ ὁράσεως
γὰρ ἐπιγνωσθήσετο ἀνὴρ, ἡ Γραφὴ λέγει_ κ. τ. λ. (What then would
not women practise, such women as run into wantonness, rivalling the
men that dare such abominations? but these men ought we not rather to
call _batali_ (cinaedi) and _womanish fellows_? whose voices are broken
languishingly and their dress fashioned like women’s in texture and
colour. _Now such-like men are clearly manifest in outward appearance
for what they are by their show, and their foot-gear, by their bearing,
and walk, and hair, and glance. For by the eyes shall a man be known_,
says the Scripture, etc.). The word batalos meaning _cinaedus_ is found
also in _Aeschines_, In Timarch., p. 139, 163, 142. De legatione falsa,
p. 273. _Harpocration_ under the word, conjectured that the Cinaedi
were called for the same reason that e. g. Eupolis ὁ πρωκτός (the
wide-bottomed) was called βάταλος; and _Plutarch_ also, Vita Demosth. 4
_Schol._ Aeschin. p. 742., _Etymolog. Magnum_, 190. 20., agrees in same
idea. Comp. Schäfer, Apparat. Crit. ad Demosthen., I. 875. Moreover
this was the nickname of _Demosthenes_ (De Corona 288. 18.). At any
rate this passage of _Clement of Alexandria_ tells in favour of the
possibility of recognizing Pathics by their exterior!

[381] _Eusebii Pamphili_ Ecclesiasticae historiae libri decem; eiusdem
de vita imp. Constantini libri IV. Quibus subiicitur Oratio Constantini
ad Sanctos et Panegyricus Eusebii. _Henricus Valesius_ graecum textum
collatis IV. MSS. Codicibus emendavit, Latine vertit et Adnotationibus
illustravit. _Iuxta exemplar quod antea Parisiis excudebat Antonius
Vitré_, nunc vero _verbo tenus_ et correctius edebant Moguntiae
Christian Gerlach et Simon Beckenstein. MDCLXXII. fol. (_Eusebius
Pamphili_, Ecclesiastical Histories, X books; also the same author’s
Life of the Emperor Constantine, IV books. Together with Constantine,
“Ad Sanctos”, and the Panegyric of Eusebius. Greek text emended by the
collation of four MSS, a Latin translation provided and illustrative
notes added, by _Henricus Valesius_. Based on the edition first printed
at Paris by Antonius Vitré, now re-edited unexpurgated and corrected by
Christian Gerlach and Simon Beckenstein at Maintz. 1672. fol.)

[382] _Synesii_ Episcopi Cyrenes Opera quae extant omnia, interprete
Dionysio Petavio—codicum fide recensita ac notis illustrata et eodem
modo omnia _secunda_ hac _editione_ multo accuratiora et uberiora
prodeunt. Lutetiae Parisiorum 1633. fol. p. 25. A. Ὡς Ὅμηρός φησι
τοὺς θεοὺς Ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίαν ἐφέποντες Σκύθας δὲ
τούτους, Ἡρόδοτός τέ φησι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρῶμεν, κατεχομένους ἅπαντας
ὑπὸ _νόσον θηλείας_· οὗτοι γάρ εἰσιν, ἀφ’ ὧν οἱ πανταχοῦ δοῦλοι κ.
τ. λ. _Synesius_ Bishop of Cyrené, Complete Works so far as Extant.
edit. Dionysius Petavius; text revised and compared with MSS., and
illustrated with explanatory notes; the whole re-issued in a more
accurate and fuller form in this Second Edition. Paris 1633. fol., p.
25. A., “As Homer—Odyssey XVII. 487—says of the gods, visiting the
insolence and good government of men; but these Scythians Herodotus
declares, and we see the fact for ourselves, to be all fallen under the
feminine disease; and it is they from whom come as a rule the slaves,
etc.” The word θηλείας in the edition mentioned stands in text; and in
the margin as γρ. δειλίας.

[383] Pyrrh. Hypotyp., bk. III. ch. 199., Νενόμισται τὸ τῆς
_ἀῤῥενομιξίας παρὰ Γερμανοῖς_ ὥς φασιν οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἀλλ’ ὡς ἕν τι
τῶν συνηθῶν (But the practice of intercourse with males is not among
the Germans, so they say, reckoned a shameful thing, but as one of
the customary acts)—_Aristotle_, Polit. II. 6. 6., _Strabo_, Geogr.,
IV. 199. _Diodorus_, Bibl. V. 32. _Athenaeus_, Deipn., p. 603 a.,
relate the same thing of the Celts. _Quintilian_ who lived about 42
after Christ, directly denies the fact, it is true: Declam. 3, Nihil
tale _novere_ Germani et sanctius vivitur ad Oceanum. Non sit mihi
forsitan quaerendum aversis auribus saeculi huius in tantum vitia
regnare, ut obscoenis cupiditatibus natura cesserit, ut pollutis in
_femineam_ usque _patientiam_ maribus incurrat iam libido in sexum
suum, finem tamen aliquem sibi vitia ipsa exceperunt, ultimumque adhuc
huius flagitii crimen fuit corrupisse futurum virum. Hoc vero cuius
est dementiae? In concubinatum iuniores leguntur, et in _muliebrem
patientiam vocatur_ fortasse iam maritus. (The _Germans_ know no such
practice; for life is purer near the Ocean. Would it were possible
to shut my ears to the fact that Vice in this age prevails to such a
degree that Nature has had to yield to foul lusts, that men corrupted
even to the length of _suffering themselves to be treated as women_
are filled with lust towards their own sex; yet vice itself set some
limit to its own excesses, and the last extremity of this lewdness was
to have ruined one that might have grown into a man. But what a height
of insanity is here! Young men are chosen as mistresses, and a man _is
called upon to endure the treatment proper to a woman_.) Who can fail
to see that in this passage the words _feminea patientia_, _muliebris
patientia_, are given as a translation of νοῦσος θήλεια?

[384] Cohortatio ad Gentes, edit. Potter. Oxford 1715., Vol. I. p.
20., Πολλὰ κἀγαθὰ γένοιτο τῷ τῶν Σκυθῶν βασιλεῖ, ὅστις ποτὲ ἦν·
οὗτος τὸν πολίτην τὸν ἑαυτοῦ, τὸν παρὰ Κυζικηνοῖς μητρὸς τῶν θεῶν
τελετὴν ἀπομιμούμενον παρὰ Σκύθαις, τύμπανόν τε ἐπικτυποῦντα, καὶ
κύμβαλον ἐπηχοῦντα τοῦ τραχήλου, οἷα τινὰ Μηναγύρτην ἐξηρημένον,
κατετόξευσεν, ὡς _ἄνανδρον_ αὐτόν τε παρὰ Ἕλλησι γεγενημένον, καὶ
τῆς _θηλείας_ τοῖς ἄλλοις Σκυθῶν διδάσκαλον _νόσου_. for
translation see text.

[385] _Herodotus_, Histories, Bk. IV. ch. 76.

[386] In Anacharsid. I. ch. 8. note 4. The question here is solely of
Greek customs (ἑλληνίζειν, βιοῦν ἤθεσιν Ἑλληνικοῖς—to Greecize, to
live after Greek fashions), without any evil implication, or of Greek
mysteries (τελετὰς Ἑλληνικὰς διατελοῦντα carrying out Greek rites).
How else could the words, γλώσσης, γαστρὸς, αἰδοίων κρατεῖν (to be
master of tongue, of belly, of _members_) have been used as a motto on
the pedestals of statues of Anacharsis, and how could he himself have
written to Croesus, that after he had learnt the customs of the Greeks,
ἀπόχρη με ἐπανήκειν ἐς Σκύθας _ἄνδρα ἀμείνονα_ (I was bound to
return to the Scythians _a better man_). For the rest Anacharsis is
called the son of Gnurus and brother of the Scythian king Caduidas, who
stabbed him on a hunting party.

[387] Archaelog. Jud., bk. II.

[388] _Hephaestionis_ Enchiridion (de metris) ad MS. fidem recensitum
cum notis variorum, praecipue Leonardi Hotchkis, A. M. curante Th.
Gaisford, Edit. nova et auct. Lips. 1832. c. 12. p. 75. (Hephaestion’s
Enchiridion (on metres); the text revised and compared with the MSS.,
together with notes of various Commentators, notably Leonard Hotchkiss,
M. A. edit. Th. Gaisford. New and enlarged edition). Leipzig 1832., ch.
12. p. 75.

[389] _Dio Chrysostom_, De Regno, Orat. IV. p. 76., Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀσθένης
τε καὶ ἄτολμος ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γένους δαίμων ἐπί τε τὰς _γυναικείας
νόσους_ καὶ _ἄλλας αἰσχύνας_, ὁπόσαις πρόσεστι ζημία καὶ
ὀνείδη, προσάγει ῥαδίως. for translation see text.—Ὁ δ’ ἐκ μέσων
ἀναβοάτων τῶν γυναικῶν, ὀξύτερον καὶ ἀκρατέστερον· λευκὸς ἰδεῖν,
ἐντρυφερὸς αἰθρίας καὶ πόνων ἄπερος, ἀποκλίνων τὸν τράχηλον, ὑγροῖς
τοῖς ὄμμασι, μάχλον ὑποβλέπων, ἀεὶ τὸ σῶμα καταθεώμενος, τῇ ψυχῇ δὲ
οὐδὲν προσέχων, οὐδὲ τοῖς ὑπ’ αὐτῆς προστασσομένοις. (But that Spirit
which cries out from the midst of women is something shriller and more
intemperate; he is pale to look upon, wanton and luxurious, incapable
of enduring open air or toil, drooping the neck, with liquorish
eyes, casting stolen glances of lewdness, ever looking down upon the
body, but giving no thought to the soul, nor the things beneath its
ordinance).

[390] Comp. author’s Work, De Sexuali Organismorum Fabrica (Of the
Sexual Conformation of Organisms), Pt. I. Halle 1832. pp. 1-12.,
where these relations are brought out in detail, and referred back to
anatomical reasons.

[391] We expressed an opinion above (p. 175.) that no grounds of excuse
could be found for the Pathic; but we must here modify this so far
as to admit that Aristotle imagines himself to have discovered such.
In the _Problemata_, IV. 26., he examines the question: διὰ τί ἔνιοι
ἀφροδισιαζόμενοι χαίρουσι, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἅμα δρῶντες, οἱ δ’ οὔ; (Why some
men take pleasure in being loved, and of these some in performing the
act also, but others not?), i.e. why some find a pleasure in suffering
paederastia to be practised with them (the word ἀφροδισιάζεσθαι
is found in this meaning possibly also in _Hippocrates_, edit.
Kühn, Vol. III. pp. 680 and 574., where exactly such symptoms of a
complaint are described as might serve for an explanation of the
ῥέγχειν—snorting (mentioned above), while either they exercise coition
as men concurrently, or do not. As answer we read, to follow the
translation given by _Th. Gaza_: An quod excrementis singulis locus
determinatus a natura est, in quem instituto secerni naturali debeat,
sollicitaque natura spiritus excurrens tumorem admovet, excrementumque
una extrudere solet.... His autem proxime genituram quoque in testes
et penem deferri constitutum est. _Quibus itaque meatus habitu suo
naturali privantur, vel quia occoecati sunt qui ad penem tendant,
quod spadonibus hisque similibus evenit_ (οἷς δὲ οἱ πόροι μὴ κατὰ
φύσιν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλ’ ἢ διὰ τὸ ἀποτυφλωθῆναι τοὺς εἰς τὸ αἰδοῖον, οἷον
συμβαίνει τοῖς _εὐνουχίαις_), vel etiam aliis de causis, his
_talis humor in sedem confluit_ ( εἰς τὴν ἕδραν συῤῥεῖ ἡ τοιαύτη ἰκμας),
quippe qui hac transmeare soleat, quod eius loci contractio in coeundo
et partium sedi oppositarum consumptio incidant. Qui si admodum semine
genitali abundant, _excrementum illud large in eum locum se colligit;
itaque_ cum excitata cupiditas est, _attritum pars ea desiderat_, in
quam confluit excrementum. Cupiditas autem excitari tum a cibo tum
imaginatione potest. Cum enim alterutra de causa libido commota est,
spiritus eodem concurrit, et genus id excrementi confluit, quo secedere
natum est.... Quorum vera natura mollis et feminea est (οἱ δὲ φύσει
θηλυδρίαι) ita ii constant ut genitura vel nulla vel minima conveniat,
quo illorum secernitur qui praediti natura integra sunt, sed se in
partem sedis divertat; quod propterea evenit quia praeter naturae
normam constiterunt. Cum enim mares crearentur, ita degenerarunt ut
partem virilem mancam atque oblaesam habere cogerentur, ... ita enim
mulieres non viri crearentur. Ergo perverti citarique aliorsum, quam
secernendum natura voluit, necesse est. Unde fit ut insatiabiles
etiam sint modo mulierum (διὸ καὶ ἄπληστοι, ὥσπερ αἱ γυναῖκες). Humor
enim sollicitans ille exiguus est, nec quicquam se promere conatur,
refrigeraturque celeriter. _Quibus itaque sedem humor ex toto adiit,
ii pati tantummodo avent, quibus autem in utramque partem sese
dispertit, ii et agere et pati concupiunt_ (καὶ ὅσοις μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν
ἕδραν, οὗτοι πάσχειν ἐπιθυμοῦσιν· ὅσοις δὲ ἐπ’ ἀμφότερα, οὗτοι καὶ δρᾶν
καὶ πάσχειν), idque eo amplius quo tandem plenius fluxerit. Sed sunt
quibus vel ex consuetudine affectus hic accidet (ἐνίοις δὲ γίνεται καὶ
ἐξ ἔθους  _τὸ πάθος_ τοῦτο). Fit enim ut tam gestiant quam cum agunt,
usque genituram nihilo minus ita emittere valeant. Ergo agere cupiunt,
quibus haec ipsa usu evenerunt et consuetudo magis veluti in naturam
iccirco illis evadit, quibus non ante pubem sed in ea vitium patiendi
invaluit (ἐθισθῶσιν ἀφροδισιάζεσθαι), quoniam his recordatio rei,
cum desiderant, oritur; una autem cum recordatione gestiens exsultat
voluptas. Desiderant autem perinde ac _nati ad patiendum_ (ὥσπερ
πεφυκότες, ἐπιθυμοῦσι πάσχειν) magna igitur parte vel ob consuetudinem
rex exsistit sed si accidat ut idem et salax et mollis sit (λάγνος ὢν
καὶ μαλακὸς) longe expeditius haec omnia evenire posse putandum est.
(Is it because for each evacuation a particular locality has been
fixed by nature, to which it must be secreted by the law of its being,
and when effort occurs the spirit issuing out causes a swelling, and
then pours out the evacuation along with it.—And similarly to these
other secretions, the semen is naturally secreted to the testicles
and private parts. _And accordingly in the case of those in whom the
passages are not in a natural state, either through those that lead to
the private part being blocked as is the case with eunuchs and those
similarly affected to eunuchs_, or through some other circumstance,
_this sort of humour flows to the seat_; for it passes that way, as is
proved by the contraction of this part in the act of coition, and the
wasting of the regions about the seat. Therefore whenever men have an
excess of lewdness, in their case _it collects in this quarter_, and
so when desire is excited, _that part where it accumulates desires
friction_. And desire may be excited either by food or mentally; for
whenever it is stirred by any circumstance, the spirit runs to that
spot, and the particular secretion flows to the particular quarter
natural to it.—But such as are womanish by nature are so constituted
that no secretion or only a little occurs in the quarter where the
secretion takes place with such as are naturally constituted, but to
this spot (the seat) instead. And the reason is they are not naturally
constituted, for being males they are yet so framed that of necessity
the manly part in them is maimed. Now maiming either destroys an organ
completely, or produces perversion and deterioration; but here it
cannot be the former; otherwise the patient would be a woman outright.
Wherefore it follows that it is perverted and deteriorated, and the
secretion of semen elsewhere directed. And for this cause they are
insatiable, like women; for the humour is small in quantity, is not
constrained to find an issue, and quickly cools. _And those in whom
the secretion is to the seat, these desire passive pleasure only,
but those in whom it is both to the seat and to the private parts,
these desire both active and passive love_; and to whichever part the
secretion is greater, the more do they desire the corresponding kind
of pleasure. Besides in some cases this occurs through habituation.
Whichever act they do, a pleasurable feeling results, and so they emit
semen correspondingly. Then they desire to do the act in which this
most occurs, and thus this becomes in preference their custom, and
a sort of second nature. Wherefore such as have been habituated to
passive love not before puberty but about the time of puberty, because
when they desire pleasure memory suggests what they must do, and on
memory follows pleasure, acquire through habituation the desire for
passive gratification _just as if they were born to it_. And if a man
happen to be lewd and effeminate to begin with, all this results all
the sooner).—In the Pathic then, according to _Aristotle’s_ view, the
semen-vessels carry the semen not to the penis, but to the fundament,
and set up there the feeling of desire and sensual craving. These
are the _born Pathics_ (πεφυκότες), from whom he distinguishes the
_seduced_ Pathics, who indulge in the vice as the result of habituation
(ἐξ ἔθους). This is the very same view that we have already (p. 172.
Note 3.) gathered from his Ethics, and which supports in the strongest
way what we there made good as against _Stark_.

[392] Hippocratis Coi XXII. Commentarii tabulis illustrati,
(Hippocrates of Cos, The XXII Commentaries; illustrated with Plates).
Bâle 1579. fol., p. 273.

[393] Hippocratis Opera (Hippocrates, Works), edit. Kahn, Vol. I. pp.
561-564.

[394] For the use of this word, compare _Létronne_, Recherches pour
servir à l’Histoire d’Egypte, (Researches with a view towards a History
of Egypt), pp. 134, 148, 458; and what we have called attention to on
an earlier page in _Hecker’s_ Annalen (Annals), Vol. XXVI. p. 143.

[395] The word κέδματα, which probably is used in several senses,
can scarcely in this case betoken anything else than varicose veins,
and is according synonymous with ἰξίαι, with which it also occurs
in connection. It is interesting to find Aristotle also pronouncing
those suffering from varicose veins incapable of generation; he writes
in Problemata, Bk. IV. 20., Διὰ τί αἱ ἰξίαι τοὺς ἔχοντας κωλύουσι
γεννᾶν, καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζώων ὅ, τι ἂν ἔχη; ἢ ὅτι ἡ ἰξία
γίνεται, μεταστάντος; διὸ καὶ ὠφελεῖ πρὸς τὰ μελαγχολικά. Ἔστι δὲ
καὶ ὁ ἀφροδισιασμὸς μετὰ πνεύματος ἐξόδου. Εἰ οὖν ὁδοποιεῖται ἡ ὁρμὴ
γινομένου αὐτοῦ, οὐ ποιεῖ ὁρμᾶν τὸ σπέρμα, ἀλλὰ καταψύχεται· μαραίνει
οὖν τὴν συντονίαν τοῦ αἰδοίου. (Why varicosities hinder those that have
them from begetting, both men and of other animals all that are subject
to them? is it because the varicosity arises, through a transference of
spirit; for which reason also it is of use in case of melancholia. But
the act of love also occurs in conjunction with an outburst of spirit.
If therefore the impulse is made at the time the varicosity is forming,
it suffers not the seed to make a vigorous impulse, but it is quickly
cooled; and so it wastes and destroys the tension of the private part).
On the contrary according to Problemata, 31., the lame are lecherous:
διὰ τ’ αὐτὸ δὲ καὶ οἱ ὄρνιθες _λάγνοι_ και οἱ _χωλοί_· ἡ γὰρ τροφὴ
ἀμφοτέροις. κάτω μὲν ὀλίγη, διὰ τὴν ἀναπηρίαν τῶν σκελῶν. (And for the
same reason birds are lecherous and lame men; because in both cases the
nourishment downwards is slight, on account of the deficiency in the
legs). In connection with κέδματα we must refer to _Foesius_, Œconomia
Hippocratis, _Coray_, loco citato p. 339 sqq., and _Stark_, loco citato
Note 20., and observe that like the Latin _ruptura_ and the English
_rupture_ it appears to specially signify swellings due to distension
and subsequent bursting. That swellings of the groin are a result of
long-continued riding, we see also from _Livy_, Hist. bk. XLV. ch. 39.,
where _M. Servilius_ says: tumorem hunc inguinum in equo dies noctesque
persedendo habeo (this swelling of the groin I have owing to sitting my
horse nights and days on end). Comp. _Plutarch_, In Aemil., Vol. II. p.
308.

[396] ἕλκοντα τὰ ἴσχια (they are ulcerated on the hip-joints) is found
in the text. But the meaning of both words is disputed, and by no
means fixed so far. With regard to ἰσχία—we must primarily understand
the mass of muscle at the lower exterior portion of the “os ilium”,
secondly the whole seat, and the joint-socket (cotyla) of the upper
thigh. This is the interpretation of the _Etymologicon Magnum_;
ἰσχία, ὅτι ἴσχει τοὺς καθημένους· σημαίνει δὲ ἰσχίον τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ὀσφῦν
ὀστέον, εἰς ὃ ἔγκειται τὸ ἱερὸν ὀστοῦν, ὅπερ καὶ γλουτὸς καλεῖται, καὶ
κοτύλη, παρὰ τὴν κοιλότητα· ἢ τὸ κοῖλον τοῦ γλουτοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἡ κοτύλη
στρέφεται.(ἰσχία,—so called because supporting (ἴσχειν) those who
sit; also ἰσχίον signifies the bone below, the loin, on which rests
the _os sacrum_, which is also called γλουτός (rump), and also κοτύλη
(joint-socket) in reference to its hollowness; or else the hollow of
the rump, in which the joint-socket turns). Similar is the explanation
of _Suidas_, _Hesychius_, _Zonaras_, the Scholiast on Homer, Iliad,
V. 305, and on Theocritus, VI. 30. The general context shows that the
meaning of “Joint-socket” is evidently to be preferred here.

[397] The word διαφθείρεσθαι (ruin themselves) in the text is
undoubtedly written by the author with reference to the ἀνανδρία
(unmanliness). Still it is surprising that what is here pointed out
as injurious is in the Epidem. bk. VI. edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 609.
recommended as salutary. The expression there is: κεδμάτων τὰς ἐν
τοῖσιν ὠσὶν ὄπισθεν φλέβας σχάζειν (in cases of varicose dilatations
to open the veins that are behind in the ears). _Palladius_ in his
Commentary on this passage (edit. Dietz. Vol. II. p. 143.) declares the
whole sentence wrong, writing: _Πᾶς οὕτος ὁ λόγος ψευδής_· κέδμα γάρ
ἐστι διάθεσίς τις περὶ τὴν λαγόνα, ἢ φλεγμονὴ ἢ ῥευματικὴ διάθεσις·
φησὶν οὖν ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ διαθέσει τέμνων τὰς ὄπισθεν φλέβας
ὠφελήσεις· καὶ ποία συγγένεια τῆς λαγόνος καὶ τῶν ὤτων, καὶ ταῦτα
τῶν ἐκεῖ ἀγγείων λεπτῶν ὄντων, καὶ τριχοειδῶν καὶ μηδὲν ἀξιόλογον
κενῶσαι δυναμένων; (_All this sentence is wrong_; for κέδμα is really
a certain condition of the parts about the flank, either inflammation
or rheumatic condition.) Now they say that in this condition, by cutting
the veins behind, you will do good; but what connexion is there between
the flank and the ears, and especially as the vessels there are small,
and like hairs, and not able to void any considerable quantity?).—Not
a word is said here about the practice among the Scythians; are we to
suppose _Palladius_ was ignorant of the fact? Also in the “De Natura
Ossium” (Of the Nature of Bones), (edit. Kühn, I. p. 508.) we find
the operation recommended in pains of the hips, testicles, knees and
knuckles; and according to a passage in the “De Morbis” (Of Diseases),
bk. II. (edit. Kühn, bk. II. p. 223.) these veins should be seared,
until they cease to pulsate. On the other hand in the “De Genitura” (Of
Generation), (edit. Kühn, I. p. 373.) and the “De Locis in Homine” (Of
certain Localities in the Body), edit. Kühn, II. p. 106.) incapacity
for generation is represented as a consequence of blood-letting from
these vessels. We leave to others the task of drawing the necessary
conclusions in view of the unanimity of the Authors of the books named,
and merely observe further that _Dr. Paris_ (Roux Journ. de Med., Vol.
XLIV. p. 355., _Murray_, Med. Pract. Bibliothek., Vol. III. p. 293.)
while giving some observations on the diseases of the Turks, relates as
following: Almost every Armenian, Greek, Jew, Turk, has a seton, and
they abuse cupping to an equal extent. For a simple head-ache, they
allow the first barber they come across to put a bandage round their
throat, in order to retain the blood, and then with a razor make sundry
cuts round about the ears, for then as much blood flows away, and
without risk, as would fill a phial.

[398] In the text of Froesius it stands: καὶ μᾶλλον τοῖσιν ὀλίγα
κεκτημένοισιν, _οὐ τιμωμένοισιν ἤδη_, εἰ χαίρουσιν οἱ θεοὶ καὶ
θαυμαζόμενοι ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων, κ. τ. λ. (to a greater extent those who
possess little and therefore fail to make offerings; if that is to say
the gods take pleasure in being venerated by men, etc). _Coray_ has
emended this into εἰ δὴ τιμώμενοι χαίρουσι (if that is to say the gods
take pleasure in being honoured and venerated), on the grounds that
τιμᾶν and θαυμάζειν (to honour, to venerate) are frequently used in
conjunction with one another to express the veneration of the gods,
which fact he confirms by passages from _Euripides_ and _Aristophanes_.
Yet this emendation can scarcely be right, even though _de Mercy_
has also adopted it. The latest editor, Prof. Petersen of Hamburg, a
professed Philologist, has undoubtedly maintained not without weighty
reasons the old reading, noting Coray’s conjecture in the notes. Indeed
neither is the old reading altogether correct, but can be easily
restored, we think, if the words, as has already been done in our
translation above, are read in the following way: οὐ τιμωμένοισιν· εἰ
δὴ χαίρουσιν οἱ θεοὶ θαυμαζόμενοι,—a way of taking it that _Coray_ had
already seen to be possible, only that he preferred to read instead of
οὐ τιμωμένοισιν,—ἢ τοῖσι τιμωμένοισιν, because he does not think that
the words can refer at all to the poorer Scythians, as did _Cornarius_
before him, though he translates quite correctly: “It affected to a
greater extent poorer men, as being more negligent concerning the
worship of the gods.” _Foesius_ translates: “and they do not pay
honour.” In fact Coray’s chief difficulty was as to the active meaning
of τιμωμένοισι (i.e. “paying honour”, not “being honoured”); but this
use is by no means so rare, and exactly in this sense of veneration
paid to the gods by men is found in _Homer_, Od. XIX. 280, where we
read of the Phaeacians on the occasion of Odysseus’ landing:

  οἳ δή μιν περὶ κῆρι θεὸν ὣς τιμήσαντο.

(Now they _honoured_ him from their heart as if he had been a god).
The whole sense of the passage requires us to refer the words οὐ
τιμωμένοισιν to the poorer Scythians, who possess little, and therefore
can offer nothing to the gods, and also do not wish to do so, as is
clearly shown in what follows; and it is exactly for this reason that
Hippocrates says, then they ought to suffer more from the disease than
the rich, if the gods practised any system of equivalent returns.

[399] Ταῦτα δὲ τοῖσί τε Σκύθῃσι πρόσεστι, καὶ _εὐνουχοειδέστατοί_
εἰσι ἀνθρώπων διὰ τὰς προφάσιας, καὶ ὅτι ἀναξυρίδας ἔχουσι ἀεὶ καὶ
εἰσι ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων τὸ πλεῖστον τοῦ χρόνου, ὥστε μήτε χειρὶ ἅπτεσθαι
τοῦ αἰδοίου, _ὑπό τε τοῦ ψύχεος καὶ τοὺ κόπου ἐπιλήθεσθαι τοῦ ἱμέρου
καὶ τῆς μίξιος, καὶ μηδὲν παρακινέειν πρότερον ἢ ἀνανδρωθῆναι_.
for translation see text above: “And this is the case ..., to resign
their manly privilege.” We have it is true translated according to
the text, yet we cannot possibly take this as being uncorrupted,
but without for the moment being in a position to offer a complete
emendation of it. The sequence of thought, if we are not altogether in
error, is this: The Scythians ride _continually_, which of its self
weakens their power of generation and desire for coition, then besides
this they wear trousers, a thing that particularly struck the Greek
because he did not use them himself. These trousers were so tight,
that the wearer could not get at the genitals with his hand; again
the genitals lay close to the body, did not hang down, could not be
set in motion; at the same time they were also protected against the
wind, so that no cooling process could take place; the idle repose
and the constantly heightened temperature in combination weakened the
genitals to such a degree that the impulse to coition was at last
totally lost. Views which entirely agree with our experience of the
present day, and indeed were by _Faust_, as is notorious, exaggerated
almost to caricature. Now if Hippocrates has expressed, as is likely
enough, these views in the words ὑπό τε τοῦ ψύχεος καὶ τοῦ κόπου (under
the influence of cold and lassitude), the text must be corrupt, and
this is what we wish to insist on. For if by the words we understand
frost and lassitude, then the first at any rate is impossible; how
could the Scythians suffer from frost, when they wore trousers! Then
the cooling process spoken of just now must be intended by ψύχος
(cold)! But if κόπος (striking, beating, so weariness, lassitude) is
understood literally, in accordance with its derivation from κόπτω (to
strike), in the sense of blows, shocks, and taken as referring to the
genitals, especially the testicles, a negative and a verb must have
been lost from the text, and this appears to us too the most probable
explanation, though at the time we cannot say what verb. The matter
would be at once decided, if we could translate: so that they could
not put the hand to the genitals, and since these were encountered
neither by the cooling wind, nor yet by the shock (against the horse’s
back or the saddle), they forgot the desire for coition and coition
itself, i.e. the genitals being neither fortified by the cold nor
yet set in motion, do not remind the Scythians of the fact that they
have such organs and must use them. The movement (κίνησις) in riding
is at any rate regarded as early as Aristotle (Probl. bk. IV. 12.)
as cause of the greater lasciviousness of those who ride. He asks:
Quare qui equitant libidinosiores evadunt? An caloris agitationisque
causa eodem afficiuntur modo, quo per coitum. Quocirca aetatis quoque
accessione membra genitalia contrectata agitataque plenius augentur,
quod igitur semper eo utuntur motu qui equitant, hinc fluentiore
corpore praeparatoque ad concumbendum evadunt. (Why those who ride come
to be more lascivious? Is it that on account of the heat and movement
they are affected in the same way as by coition? Wherefore as age also
advances, the genital organs being handled and moved more, are the
more increased in size, so therefore because those who ride use the
same movement hence they come to be of a more fluid body and one ready
prepared for sexual intercourse). In Probl. 24. he is investigating
the causes of the erection of the penis, and says διά τε τὸ βάρος
ἐπιγίνεσθαι ἐν τῷ ὄπισθεν τῶν ὄρχεων αἴρεσθαι (now it is on account
of the increase of weight in the hinder part of the testicles that it
is raised). Comp. Probl. 25. _Continual_ riding naturally stimulates
the impulse, wherefore the Scythians are the first in later times to
become ἀνάνδριες (unmanly), and this sooner than other riding nations
because they wore trousers. However those who are better informed must
decide the point!—Finally that in any case ἀνανδρωθῆναι (to be made
unmanly) and not ἀνδρωθῆναι (to be made manly) must be read, any one
who considers the passage at all carefully must easily see. _Coray’s_
lucubration cannot for a moment convince us.

[400] Edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 218., _μυθολογοῦσι_ δέ τινες ὅτι οἱ
Ἀμαζονίδες τὸ ἄρσεν γένος το ἑωυτῶν αὐτίκα νήπιον ἐὸν ἐξαρθρέουσιν, αἱ
μὲν κατὰ γούνατα, αἱ δὲ κατὰ τὰ ἰσχία, ὡς δῆθεν χωλὰ γίνοιτο καὶ μὴ
ἐπιβουλεύει τὸ ἄῤῥεν γένος τῷ θήλει· χειρώναξιν ἄρα τούτοισι χρέονται,
ὁκόσα ἢ σκυτίης ἔργα ἤ χαλκείης ἢ ἄλλο τι ἑδραῖον ἔργον· εἰ μὲν οὖν
ἀληθέα ταῦτα ἐστί, ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ οἶδα. (Now some relate _the myth_ that
the Amazons dislocate the male sex of their offspring while still quite
young, some doing it at the knees, some at the hips, with the avowed
object of laming them, and so the male sex does not rise in revolt
against the female; then they employ them as handicraftsmen, for such
tasks as shoe-making or brassworking or other sedentary occupations.
_But whether this tale is true, I do not know_). _Gardeil_ also in a
work that is not often met with in Germany, his “Traduction des œuvres
médicales d’Hippocrate, sur le texte grec, d’après l’édition de Foes”.
(Translation of the Medical Works of Hippocrates,—from the Greek text
of Foesius’ edition.), Vol. I. Toulouse 1801. large 8vo., p. 162.,
says: “On pourroit induire d’un endroit du traité des articles, à la
fin du numéro 38 (27), que ce qu’Hippocrate rapporte ici concernant
les Scythes, et ce qu’il a dit ci-dessus, numéro 23, au sujet des
Sarmates _ne lui étoit connu que par_ une tradition dont il n’étoit pas
bien assuré,” (It might be inferred from a passage in the _Treatise on
Joints_, at the end of no. 38 (27), that what Hippocrates relates here
concerning the Scythians, and what he had said in a previous passage,
no. 23, of the Sarmatians, _was known to him only by a tradition, the
authenticity of which he was not well assured of_).

[401] “Censura Librorum Hippocraticorum”, (Criticism of the Works of
Hippocrates), p. 181.

[402] Epidem., bk. VII. end, edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 705. Comp.
_Papst_, Allg. med. Zeitung. Altenburg Jahrg. 1838. No. 60. pp.
950-952., where we have already at an earlier date developed our views
on this passage.

[403] Bk. III. ch. 8., τὰς διαῤῥοίας χρονίους ἔστιν ὅτε ξηραίνει τὰ
ἀφροδίσια, (On occasion indulgence in love dries up chronic diarrhœas).

[404] Bk. I. ch. 35., τῶν κεχρονισμένων διάῤῥοιαν τὰ ἀφροδίσια
ἐπιξηραίνουσι, (Indulgences in love dry up diarrhoea in the case of
chronic sufferers).

[405] In Epidem. bk. V. edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 574. it is related
that the nasal catarrh of Timochares disappeared (ἀφροδισιάσαντι
ἐξηράνθη—was dried up after he had indulged in love) after coition
(Paederastia? p. 209. Note 1.); and this is repeated again in bk. VII.
p. 680. Comp. _Palladius_, Schol. in Epidem. bk. VI. edit _Diez._,
Vol. II. pp. 143, 145. _Marsilius Cagnatus_ in _Gruter’s_ Lampas, Vol.
III. Pt. 2. p. 470.

[406] Progr. de sordidis et lascivis remediis antidysentericis
vitandis, (Graduation Essay on Avoiding filthy and licentious Remedies
as against Dysentery), pp. 10 sqq.

[407] _Suidas_ writes: _ὕπουλος_—ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ἑλκῶν, τῶν ἐχόντων οὐλὰς
ὑγιεῖς ἐπιπολαίως, ἔνδοθεν δὲ σηπεδόνας πυώδεις.—_ὕπουλα γόνατα_ καὶ
_ὕπουλον πόδα_ καὶ _ὕπουλον χεῖρα_ καὶ _σῶμα_· τὸ φλεγμαῖνον διά
τινας πληγὰς καὶ ἑγγὺς τοῦ ἀφίστασθαι ὄν· Κρατῖνος· _ὕπουλα ἕλκη_·
τὰ κρυπτά.—_Hesychius_: ὕπουλα δὲ λέγεται τὰ μὴ φανερὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν
ἕλκη. _ὕπουλος_—applied to wounds, those that have healthy scars
on the surface, but underneath offensive putrefactions,—said of the
knees, or foot, or hand, or body; the part that is highly inflamed in
consequence of blows and is near breaking. Cratinus gives: _ὕπουλα_
wounds, i.e. hidden ones.—_Hesychius_: _ὕπουλα_ is said of wounds that
are not manifest to the eye.—The word ὕπαφρον (frothy beneath), which
is found in Hippocrates, De Arte, Vol. I. p. 17. K., instead of which
the MSS. also have ὑπόῤῥοον (liquid underneath), and _Schneider_ in
his Lexicon wished to read ὑπόφερον (bearing underneath), _Hesychius_
explains as τὸ μὴ φανερὸν κρύφιον καὶ _ὕπουλον_ (that which is not
visible, concealed and festering underneath).—Ought we to read for καὶ
ἴξιν perhaps κατ’ ἴξιν? Comp. _Erotion_, Glossary to Hippocrates, edit.
_Franz_, p. 322.

[408] A remarkable proof of the acquaintance of Italian scholars with
German Literary History. The Author dedicated this letter in the year
1823 to _Gruner_ who died in 1815, and forwarded him a copy with an
autograph inscription. Both are preserved in the University Library at
Jena.