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, accents, spelling and punctuation remain unchanged.

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

Anchors for footnotes 373, 379, 383, 391, 392, 394, 404, and 406 were
missing and have been added in appropriate places. The footnotes are
located at the end of the book.

The images in Arabic are of poor quality so the transcriptions should
be treated with caution.

The use of parentheses, especially in the footnotes, is rather wayward
and they have been paired wherever possible.

Italics are represented thus _italic_, however this marking indicates
letter-spacing in Latin and Greek passages. Bold is represented thus
=bold=.




                                  THE

                            PLAGUE OF LUST


                               VOLUME II




                                  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 SECOND OF TWO VOLUMES


                                 Paris
                          CHARLES CARRINGTON
         PUBLISHER OF MEDICAL, FOLK-LORE AND HISTORICAL WORKS
                      13, FAUBOURG MONTMARTRE, 13

                                MDCCCCI




                    CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.


                            FIRST SECTION.

                                                                    Page

  Irrumare and Fellare, (see below)                                    3
      ”    Diseases of the “Fellator”                                 28
  Cunnilingus, (see below)                                            46
      —       Morbus Phoeniceus (Phoenician Disease)                  52
      —       Diseases of the Cunnilingus                             64
      —       Mentagra and Lichenes (Tetter of the Chin
                 and other Eruptions)                                 71
      —       Morbus Campanus (Campanian tumour)                      98
  Sodomy                                                             110
  Climate                                                            115
    —   Influence of Climate on Sexual Activity                      117
    —      ”      ”     ”    ”  Genital Organs                       120
    —      ”      ”     ”    ”  Maladies of the Genital
                                   Organs                            135
    —      ”      ”     ”    ”  Activity of the Skin                 142
    —   Leprosy                                                      150
  Genius Epidemicus                                                  167
    —   Effect of Weather according to Hippocrates                   173
    —   Plague of Athens                                             178


                            SECOND SECTION.

            INFLUENCES WHICH HINDERED TO A GREATER OR LESS
              DEGREE THE INCEPTION OF DISEASES CONSEQUENT
               UPON USE OR MISUSE OF THE GENITAL ORGANS.


  Cleanliness                                                        187
  Depilation                                                         191
  Circumcision                                                       198
  Baths and Bathing                                                  207


                            THIRD SECTION.

          RELATION OF PHYSICIANS TOWARDS DISEASES CONSEQUENT
             UPON THE USE OR MISUSE OF THE GENITAL ORGANS.


  Scarcity of opportunities for Observation                          224
  Shame on the part of Patients                                      227
  Delusions                                                          235
  Mildness of the Disease                                            237
  Pathology and Therapeutics of Disease                              239
  Nomenclature                                                       249

  Gonnorrhoea                                                        254
  Ulcers of the Urethra                                              276
  Caruncles in the Urethra                                           280
  Inflammation of the Testicles (Orchitis)                           283
  Ulcers of the Genitals                                             286
  Ulcers of the Anus                                                 301
  Buboes                                                             303
  Exanthema (Eruptions) on the Genitals                              307
  Morbid Growths on the Genitals                                     311

  Recapitulation                                                     314
  Conclusion                                                         321
  Index                                                              327




DEFINITIONS.


 =Irrumare=: Penem in os alienum inserere, ut sugatur, itaque
 voluptas quaedam libidinosa paretur; to put the penis into another’s
 mouth to be sucked—a form of vicious indulgence.

 =Fellare=: Penem alienum in os admittere, ibique eo sugere ut
 voluptas quaedam libidinosa paretur; to allow another’s penis to be
 put in the mouth and to suck it—the active form of the above vicious
 practice.

 =Fellator=: Is qui pro habitudine fellat; one who practices this
 vice.

 =Cunnilingus=: Qui mulierum pudenda lingit; a man who licks
 women’s private parts.




                          THE PLAGUE OF LUST

                                  IN

                         CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY.

                             SECOND PART.




§ 21.

Irrumation and Fellation.

(_Irrumare_, _Fellare_).


Very much more abominable and repulsive still is the habit of
Irrumation[1] (_penem in os arrigere est irrumare_—to erect the _penis_
and insert it into the mouth of another person) and the practice of
the _Fellator_[2] (_si quis vel labris vel lingua perfricandi atque
exsugendi officium peni praestat_—one who with the lips or the tongue
performs the office of rubbing and sucking another’s _penis_). This the
Greeks called λεσβιάζειν (to follow the Lesbian mode), because the vice
was especially practised by the Lesbian women, though in common with
all others of the sort it came originally from Asia. _Lucian_ in his
_Pseudologista_[3], in which he severely criticizes the the dissolute
Timarchus, who had taken the expression ἀποφρὰς (unmentionable) in ill
part, says: “By the gods, what should make you fly into a passion,
since it is a matter of common report that you are a _Fellator_ and
a _Cunnilingus_[4]. Are you as much in the dark as to the meaning
of these words as you are about that of ἀποφρὰς (unmentionable)? and
do you take them for titles of honour? Or is it that you are now
accustomed to them, but not to ἀποφρὰς, and so wish to erase it as
something unknown to you from the list of your Titles? (ch. 28).—I
am well aware what were your practices in Palestine, in Egypt, in
Phoenicia and Syria, as well as in Hellas and Italy, and above all
just now in Ephesus, where you set the crown on your extravagances,
(ch. 11).—However you will never persuade your fellow-citizens that
they ought not to regard you as the filthiest of all men, the very
refuse of the whole city. Now it may be you rely on the belief of the
generality in Syria, that you have never been accused (there) of any
guilt or vice. But by Hercules! the city of Antioch looked on at the
whole history, when you carried off the young man who came from Tarsus,
and—but there, it would not become me to go over such ground again.
All who were there know the facts and remember it all, that time when
they saw you sitting at his knees (καὶ σὲ μὲν ἐς γόνυ συγκαθήμενον
ἰδόντες), and doing you know very well what to him, that is if you have
not utterly and entirely forgotten the whole matter, (ch. 20).—But
when they caught you lying at the knees of the son of Oinopion the
Cooper (τοῦ μειρακίου ... ἐν γόνασι κείμενον—lying at the knees of the
stripling), what make you of that? Did they not surely take you for a
man of the sort to be expected, when they saw you doing such a thing?
(ch. 28).—How, by Zeus! after such a deed, have you the effrontery to
give us the kiss of salutation?—Sooner kiss an adder or a viper? The
danger and pain of the bite a Physician may yet remove, if called in.
But after your kiss and with such poison on his lips who dare draw
near to Temple or altar? What god would listen to the suppliant? how
many vessels of holy water, how many lustrations, would be needful?
(ch. 24).—In Syria you are known as ῥοδοδάφνη (rose-laurel)[5]; why, a
man cannot explain for very shame, great Athené!—But in Palestine as
φραγμὸς (the hedge)[6], on account of the prickles of your beard, I
suppose. In Egypt again as συνάγχη (sore throat),—and this is a well
known business. It must have been a close thing with you not to be
choked, that time you came across the sailor of a three-master, who
fell upon you and stopped your mouth for you (ὃς ἐμπεσὼν ἀπέφραξέ σοι
τὸ στόμα).”

This passage brings us next to a gloss of the _Pseudo-Galen_[7], on
which _Naumann_[8], after laying down his view as to the _Morbus
phoeniceus_ (Purple Plague),—a subject to be discussed presently,—goes
on to express himself thus: “However we must go yet farther. In the
above cited work of the Pseudo-Galen is included an Index of words,
_which with a high degree of probability we may conclude to refer to
Venereal diseases, so far as known to the Ancients_ (loco citato,
under word στρυμάργου, p. 142). We read there that _Dioscorides_
called στρυμάργους or στομάργους (evil-mouthed) men in whom the
longing for sensual indulgence had risen to frenzy. Of similar meaning
to this would seem to be the expressions μυοχάνη (_maxillarum hiatu
insignis_—conspicuous for the wide opening of the arm-pits) or μυσάχνη
(_meretrix_—prostitute), μῦσος (_facinus abominandum_—an abominable
act), σαράπους (crura ambulando divaricans—straddling the legs in
walking), and γρυπαλώπηξ (from γρύπος _curvus_—curved, hooked,)
probably denoting the erection of the _penis_; at any rate a dissolute
man is called in Aristophanes κυναλώπηξ (fox-dog). But most notable
is the added observation, to the effect that Erasistratus called such
persons ῥινοκολοῦροι (_i. e._ _qui mutilati naribus sunt_—men who
have been mutilated in their noses). Just at the time of the Greek
occupation of Egypt, _Rhinocorura_ or _Rhinocolura_ was the name of a
wretched sort of “Botany Bay” situated at the North-Eastern extremity
of the country, lying in the desert on the shores of the Mediterranean
between Gaza and Pelusium, and serving as a place of residence for
lepers (_Pliny_, Hist. Nat., Bk. V. ch. 4. _Livy_, Hists. Bk. XXXV.
ch. 11). Now if we bring together all the information given here, and
especially if we consider the various shameful forms of indulgence of
the sexual impulse and the mutilation of the nose that is connected
with them, _there cannot be much doubt left that these ancient and
fragmentary notices refer to Venereal evil_, whether in conjunction
with leprous affections or not.”

But to test the correctness of these explanations and conclusions,
it will be necessary first of all to quote the gloss itself in full:
_στρυμάργου._ οἶδε καὶ ταύτην τὴν γραφὴν ὁ Διοσκουρίδης, οὐ μόνον τὴν
_στομάργου_, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο οὐχ ὡς κύριον ὄνομα ἐξηγεῖται, ἀλλὰ τὸν
μανικῶς ἐπτοημένον περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια δηλοῦσθαί φησιν· εἰρῆσθαι γὰρ παρὰ
τῷ Ἱπποκράτει καὶ ἀλλὰ πολλὰ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπίθετα, καθάπερ
_μυοχάνη, σαράπους, γρυπαλώπηξ_· ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ’ Ἐρασιστράτῳ φησὶν ὁ
_ῥινοκολοῦρος_, that is to say:—στρυμάργου: Dioscorides knows this
form also, not merely that of στομάργου, but this too he regards not
as a proper name, but says that it signifies one who is madly set upon
love-indulgences; for that in Hippocrates as well many other epithets
of the same sort (which refer to the same sort of vice) are mentioned,
e. g. μυοχάνη, σαράπους, γρυπαλώπηξ; also he says that in Erasistratus
(the expression) ῥινοκολοῦρος is found.

The reader sees in the first place that it is not merely expressions
peculiar to Dioscorides that are here cited, as we might be led to
suppose by Naumann’s statement, but that they are every one of them
found, as we shall presently prove more particularly, in _Hippocrates_,
the ῥινοκολοῦρος of Erasistratus of course excepted. _Dioscorides_
mentions them only in his commentary on the Second Book of the
“Epidemia”, when laying down the passages to be cited immediately, and
declares them not to be proper names, but adjectives which all refer
to insane indulgence in the pleasures of love; accordingly there can
be no question here of _bodily disorders_, let the words in themselves
signify what they will. Now if we examine into this more closely, we
shall find first of all that we must obviously read στυμάργου in place
of στρυμάργου, for not only is this form given by the author of the
gloss (under στομάργου[9]), quoted on the preceding page, but the text
also of Hippocrates[10] offers it in both passages; whereas στρυμάργου
gives no sort of sense.

The word στυμάργος in fact is derived either from στῦμα[11], the act
of erecting the penis, and and ἔργον (work), so signifying anyone
who performs the work of causing an erection of the penis,—or else
from στύω[12], I erect the penis, and μάργος[13], (mad), i. e.
one who erects, uses, the penis in a madly lascivious fashion, so
an _Irrumator_, and with this _Hesychius’_ interpretation agrees:
λεσβιάζειν,—πρὸς ἀνδρὸς στόμα στύειν, (to lesbianize,—to erect the
penis in a man’s mouth). Στομάργος on the other hand is formed by a
combination of στόμα, the mouth, and ἔργω or ἔργον (I work, work),
a word constantly used to express the employment of the genital
organs[14], in fact indulgence in love generally, and signifies a man
who performs the work (of love) with the mouth, so a _Fellator_[15].
Now since only the most abandoned lust, lust that has really grown
into a form of insanity, is capable of undertaking such obscenities,
the interpretation of _Dioscorides_ μανικῶς ἐπτοημένον περὶ τὰ
ἀφροδίσια (one that is insanely, madly, set on the pleasures of love)
is quite satisfactory, assuming a hesitation on the part of the author
to set forth the actual fact more explicitly, especially as we have
already proved under the head of Paederastia[16] how unnatural sexual
desires were commonly regarded as a _Mania_ or form of insanity. Even
if we were not in a position adequately to explain the rest of the
words, yet the phrase that comes next to them καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ κατὰ τὸν
αὐτὸν τρόπον (and many others of the same fashion) at once shows that
they bear the same signification as στύμαργος and στομάργος, or at any
rate that they must all alike refer to unnatural satisfaction of the
sexual impulse, for τρόπος (fashion) is the very word particularly
appropriated to imply such-like practices, as we see from the
expressions Κρῆτα τρόπον, Ἑλληνικὸν τρόπον[17], (Cretan fashion, Greek
fashion) used to indicate paederastia.

In relation to the word μυοχάνη the readings differ greatly in the
different MSS. of Galen. Franz in his edition of the Glossaries to
Hippocrates gives μιοχάνης and μυοχάνης, while the Pseudo-Galen
explains it under the word μυοχάνη as ἐπίθετον χασκούσης· εἰ δὲ
_μυριοχαύνη_ γράφοιτο, ἡ ἐπὶ μυρίοις ἂν εἴη χαυνουμένη (epithet applied
to a woman who gapes; now if _μυριοχαύνη_ were read, it would mean “the
woman who gapes wide for ten thousand men”); besides, various readings
are found here,—μηοχάνη for μυοχάνη, also μιριοχάνη, and μυιοχάνη
for μυριοχαύνη. Erotian says μηριοχάνη ὄνομα γυναικὸς (Meriochané—a
woman’s name). In the text of Hippocrates[18] is found Μυριοχαύνη,
and the same form is given by the editions of Galen[19]. Inasmuch as
χάνω and χαύνω both have the same meaning of gaping wide, that is with
the mouth, it will practically make no difference which we choose as
the end of the word; hence we have merely to consider the first part
μου- or μυριο-, all the rest of the forms being obviously erroneous.
If we read μουχάνη, we must suppose it compounded of μύος and χάνη;
but inasmuch as μύος is merely a mistaken variant for μῦσος, the word
must be read μυσοχάνη. Μῦσος in its turn we must derive either from
μύζω, I suck,—so a woman who sucks with open mouth[20], or from μυσιάω,
I snort through the nose, particularly in the act of coition, and
consequently read μυσιοχάνη, i. e. a woman who with mouth open snorts
through the nose, precisely what the fellatrix undoubtedly does when at
her work. This emendation certainly makes better sense, and is all the
more likely from the fact that μυιοχάνη and μυριοχάνη are also found
as _variae lectiones_. Naumann would seem desirous of reading μυσάχνη
(μυζάχνη), in which case it must be formed from μύζω, I suck, and ἄχνη
(froth), in fact the secretion that adheres to the surface (of the
_glans penis_)[21]. This last reading is all the more admissible, as
according to Suidas[22] the word also occurs in Archilochus. Possibly
however we must regard as equally correct the form μυριοχαύνη, and
take it in the meaning given by the Gloss, viz. _in millibus hians_!
(gaping in a thousand openings!), bearing in mind _Lampridius’_[23]
expression about Heliogabalus: _Quis enim ferre posset principem per
cuncta cava corporis libidinem recipientem!_ (For who could endure a
Prince _that welcomed lustful pleasure by every opening of the body_!)

The readings also vary as to σαράπους (turning out the feet); _Franz_
gives ἀγράπους and ἀράπους; in the text of Hippocrates[24] on the other
hand, as well in the Commentary of Galen it appears as ἡ Σεραπὶς, the
latter also giving it in the genitive—τῆς Σεράπιδος. But inasmuch as
the name of the goddess occurs sometimes as Σέραπις, sometimes as
Σάραπις;, and as the genitive ending—πιδος easily admits of change
into—πόδος, it may very likely be that after all Σαράπους stood
originally in Hippocrates’ text. The author of the Gloss (loco citato
p. 136.) explains the word by ἡ διασεσηρότας καὶ διεστῶτας ἔχουσα τοὺς
δακτύλους τῶν ποδῶν that is, a woman who has the toes drawn apart and
separated. But how are we to bring this explanation into agreement with
the κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, (after the same fashion), that is to say,
with one of the modes of Love that are under discussion? Think of the
_fellator_ or _fellatrix_, we are told, cowering down (ἐν γόνασι,—on
the knees) according to _Lucian’s_ picture (p. 229 above), and you will
see the stress of the body’s weight must always fall on the front part
of the foot, and to widen the point of support he is instinctively
compelled to spread the toes. Well! but who can fail to see how very
forced such an explanation is? still we do not in the least know how
we are to deal with it further. Of course we might leave the author
of the Gloss his interpretation and proceed to look about for another
of our own, though we have in many cases to confess the fact that our
investigations undertaken with this end in view have not exactly led to
any definite results. With the reading Σεραπίς we really do not know
how to deal. Perhaps the common representation, or else some particular
quality, of the goddess so named gave occasion for a comparison
which we now fail to understand, one that might possibly suggest an
explanation of the _Harpocratem reddere_ (to recall Harpocrates)
of Catullus (69.) implying _irrumare_[25]. Whether the reader will
take within his purview the Σεραφίμ, ἐμπρηστάς· ἔμπυρα στόματα· ἢ
θερμαίνοντας (Seraphim: kindlers; fiery mouths: or, making hot) of
_Suidas’_ Lexicon, we must leave to him; in that case _Martial’s_ (II.
28.) _calda Vetustinae nec tibi bucca placet_ (nor does Vetustina’s
hot mouth please you) might afford an analogy. Proceeding to consider
σαράπους, we find _Hesychius_ has σαραπίους, which he explains by
μαινίδας (mad-women), and _Dioscorides_ is at one with him in regarding
the vice as something done μανικῶς (madly). In _Diogenes Laertius_
(I. 4.) we read Pittacus was called: σαράποδα καὶ σάραπον διὰ τὸ
πλατύπουν εἶναι καὶ ἐπισύρειν τὼ πόδε. (_turning out the feet_, because
of his being flat-footed and trailing his two feet). It would be
hardly credible to suppose that the author of the Gloss borrowed his
explanation cited just above from Diogenes Laertius or Suidas, in whom
the passage occurs as well. Further, the MSS. of Diogenes give also
συράπους, a word found several times in the sense of “to stand with
legs apart,” and Naumann too must have understood this in our passage,
for he gives as his rendering _crura ambulando divaricans_ (straddling
the legs in walking). Now leaving altogether out of the question the
fact that the feminine form is found in Hippocrates, and assuming
the word to be used of men, it might perfectly well signify the
_irrumator_, who takes the _fellator_ between his opened thighs[26], a
posture that was generally regarded as obscene[27]. Indeed if we think
of the _fellator_ as sitting on the ground at his work, the word of
course can be equally well used of a woman, or _fellatrix_.

As to γρυπαλώπηξ we read in _Hippocrates_ (loco citato p. 629.) as
follows: “Satyrus in Thasos bore the nick-name of γρυπαλώπηξ; when
about twenty five he suffered from frequent nightly pollutions, and
yet by day the same happened him even more constantly. When he was
thirty years of age, he got consumption and died.” From this we see
at once the question is of a dissolute man, who in consequence of his
vicious practises had brought on such a weakness of the genitals, that
he suffered from continual evacuation of seed, the result being that
eventually Phthisis was set up, to which he succumbed. As variations
of reading we find noted in _Franz’s_ Gloss ῥυπαλώπηξ and τρυπαλάπηξ;
Schneider in his Lexicon renders γρυπαλώπηξ by “griffin-fox”, so he
must evidently have derived it from γρύψ (a griffin) and ἀλώπηξ (a
fox). The Ancients depict the fox as a cunning, crafty animal and
assign several characteristics as marking his behaviour that must
probably be taken into consideration in the present connection,—and
particularly the way he seizes and kills the hedge-hog. According to
_Aelian_[28] he endeavours to throw the creature on its back, so that
its mouth comes uppermost, and then discharges its urine into it.
Now in order to signify the _irrumator_, the Ancients really could
hardly have invented a better expression, when they, firmly convinced
of course of the fact as stated, compared him to a fox. But what is
a γρυπαλώπηξ? _Hesychius_ under the word γρυπός (hooked, curved)
explains it as τὰ ἔξω τοῦ στόματος καμπυλόῤῥις· ὁ ἐπικαμπῆ τὴν ῥῖνα
ἔχων. (hook-nosed outside the mouth; a man having his nose bent down).
_Suidas_ again says γρυπός, ὁ καμπυλόῤῥιν (γρυπός,—a hook-nosed man);
so a man with a nose bent down crooked over the mouth. Now this we
might very well understand as applying to the _fellator_, inasmuch as
his nose, when the _irrumator_ presses down hard on him, as the sailor
does to _Timarchus_ (p. 230 above), is of necessity compressed and
bent down towards the mouth; γρυπαλώπηξ would according to this be a
man who, like Timarchus in _Lucian_, is at once an _irrumator_ and a
_fellator_. Of yet another word, κυναλώπηξ (fox-dog) cited by Naumann,
we propose to speak under the head of the _Cunnilingue_, who as we
shall see might likewise be signified by the expression.

Finally, as to ῥινοκολοῦρος (nose-docked), for which the MSS. also have
ῥινοκλοῦρος, it is certainly the case that in Antiquity the man who
practised vice with strange women (_Moechus_,—adulterer) had his nose
cut off[29], and as _Moechus_ equally signifies the _fellator_[30],
the latter also may very well have been obliged to forfeit his nose.
Following this hint, it would be quite legitimate to suppose the
punishment to have been put for the vice, and a _fellator_ called
ῥινοκολοῦρος (nose-docked) on this ground; in the same way as the loss
of the nose might be looked upon as a consequence of vice, and anyone
seeing a man in this case would at once think of his dissolute past
life, as indeed frequently happens at the present day amongst ourselves.

The town of Rhinocolurus,—and its history is more than
problematical,—would seem to have nothing whatever to do with the
question. The passages from _Pliny_ and _Livy_ which Naumann quotes
give absolutely nothing beyond the name; and the mere existence of
the name _Diodorus_[31] certifies, in his story of how Actisanes
proceeded against the Robbers in a way of his own: “He did not wish
to put the guilty to death, nor yet to leave them unpunished. So he
had the accused brought up out of the whole country and inquired into
each case most scrupulously; such as were found to be guilty all had
their noses cut off by his orders, and were banished to the most remote
spot in the Desert. The town he founded for them there received in
remembrance of the punishment inflicted on its inhabitants the name of
Rhinocolura. It lies on the borders of Egypt and Syria, not far from
the sea-shore that borders the desert in that region, and displays an
almost complete absence of all requisites for comfortable habitation.
For the surrounding district possesses a soil thoroughly saturated
with salt, while inside the town very little water is to be found and
that positively tainted and of quite a bitter taste.” Diodorus relates
further that these Colonists lived by catching quails; but of _Leprosy_
there is no mention either here or in Strabo or Seneca, so that
Naumann’s statement to the effect that it served as a dwelling-place
for Lepers lacks entirely, up to the present and at any rate so far as
we know, any historical foundation, though the character of the place
is not against such a hypothesis. Nor is any question raised in any
author as to the vicious life of the inhabitants of Rhinocolura,—in
fact in later times it was actually famous for the number of its _men
of piety_[32].

Though the explanation of ῥινοκολοῦρος given just now might very well
at a pinch be regarded as satisfactory, still we think it hardly
answers sufficiently well to the κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον (after the same
fashion), while the variant ῥινοκλοῦρος seems to point to ῥιναύλουρος
or ῥιναύλουρις as the true reading. In _Tatian_ (Orat. ad Graecos p.
83.) in fact we read: _ῥιναυλοῦσι_ τὰ αἰσχρά, κινοῦνται δὲ κινήσεις ἃς
οὐκ ἐχρῆν, καὶ τοὺς ὄπως δεῖ μοιχεύειν ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς σοφιστεύοντας αἱ
θυγατέρες ὑμῶν καὶ οἱ παῖδες θεωροῦσι. (They flute their obscenities
through the nose, and make movements that in decency they should not
make, while actors who teach on the stage the whole art of how to
debauch a woman are the spectacle your daughters and your boys gaze
at.) The Scholiast observes on this ῥινοκτυποῦσιν, οἱονεὶ τὸ πνεῦμα
τοῖς ῥώδωσι, συνέλκοντες ποιὸν ἦχον ἐπὶ καταγέλωτι ἀποτελοῦσι, (they
make a noise with the nose, a sort of breathing with the nostrils; by
drawing in these they produce a certain sound by way of mockery), and
in _Lucian_, Lexiphanes ch. 19., we find ἔοικα δὲ καὶ ῥιναυστῆσειν,
(and I am like to go nose-playing), of which the Scholiast gives the
following explanation: ἀντὶ τοῦ ταῖς ῥισὶ καταυλῆσαι, ἐποίουν γὰρ τοῦτο
_ῥιναυλοῦντες_, ἤτοι διὰ τῶν ῥινῶν ψοφοῦντες ἐπὶ διασυρμῷ τινῶν καὶ
χλεύῃ. (put instead of _fluting with the nostrils_; for they used to do
this when they nose-fluted, or in other words, made a noise with the
nostrils by way of mocking people and joking). Now if we take ῥιναυλεῖν
(to nose-flute) in these passages,—and all this confirms what has been
previously said (above p. 144.) on the word ῥέγχειν (to snort) in the
Speech of Dio Chrysostom,—for _fistulam canere per nares_, _to play the
flute with the nose_, and at the same time remember that _Eustathius_
(as was noted above, p. 236. Note 2.) derived ἀπομύζουρις and μύζουρις
from μυζᾶν-οὐράν (οὐρά,—the tail, the penis), the Greeks would seem
to have said ῥιναυλεῖν-οὐράν, _penem pro fistula canere_, (to play on
the penis instead of a flute), and we should have the adjective or
substantive ῥιναύλουρις, _qui penem pro fistula canit per nares_, (one
who plays on the penis instead of a flute with the nostrils), which
admirably expresses not only the action of the _fellator_, but also the
music he makes to accompany it, as he is compelled to snort, drawing
his breath heavily through the nose.

Which explanation the reader will choose, we must really leave to him,
for interpretations of words of this sort can never be brought to the
absolute test of evidence, inasmuch as nick-names as a rule take their
origin only too often in external circumstances. Still this much we
think we may pronounce with certainty, that the words of the Gloss
have to do simply _de rebus venereis_, with matters of love, and not
with Venereal complaints, and thus Naumann’s propositions[33] at least
are devoid of foundation. Perhaps it may be possible by means of a
comparison of the licentious representations on old Vases, of which
the late _Hofrath_ Böttiger would seem to have possessed a choice
collection, and some examples of which are preserved also at Berlin,
in connection with one or other of the words given in the Gloss, as
generally with the embodiments in Art of the _Venus ebria_ (drunken
Venus), to afford a better explanation, one that may indeed be of
no particular value to the student of Antiquity pure and simple,
but nevertheless is indispensable to the Physician for the correct
understanding of sundry diseases of the Ancients, or at any rate one
sufficient to avoid incorrect assertions and false conclusions, and to
refute such.

We are not in a position to give a systematic history of the spread of
the vice of the _fellator_ and _irrumator_; but at any rate this much
is certain that in Imperial times the Vice was most widely indulged in,
as the Epigrams of _Martial_, and what _Suetonius_ relates in his Life
of Tiberius (chs. 44, 45.) sufficiently bear witness.


Diseases of the Fellator.

§ 22.

Now to pass on to the medical point of view, no one presumably will
deny that the mouth of the _fellator_ must necessarily be exposed
to various complaints as a consequence of his Vice. Nevertheless
there prevails universally, so far as our studies up to the present
have enabled us to judge, complete silence among the Physicians of
Antiquity as to the practice of λεσβιάζειν (to Lesbianize, to practise
_fellation_) as a cause occasioning morbid affections of the mouth
and the contiguous parts. This is the more surprising, as we find
that non-professional Writers are not entirely unacquainted with such
effects, as we shall show directly. For our purpose this silence is
doubly unfortunate, depriving us as it does of all means of submitting
such affections of the mouth as are described by Physicians to any
proper appreciation in regard to their ætiological relationships,—an
appreciation that in any case must naturally have been in view of our
knowledge of the vice of the _fellator_ one of extreme difficulty.
The difficulty is this: _fellator_ and _fellatrix_, equally with the
_Cunnilingue_, the fornicater and fornicatrix, were liable to suffer
from ulcers of the throat, for example, as a result of their peculiar
vice, but in the former case these ulcers were primary, in the latter
secondary,—now how is an inquirer to discover any diagnostic sign here,
whereby to distinguish the one class from the other? Yet all the while,
certainty on this point is of the very highest importance in view of
the question as to the existence of Venereal disease in Antiquity,
the chief argument always alleged against accepting the fact of such
existence being the absence of secondary symptoms such as are nowadays
commonly met with, especially about the throat[34].

It is remarkable that not one, so far as we know, of the authors who
have studied the history of Venereal Disease makes any mention of
this circumstance; neither do the Pathologists ever bring forward the
vice of the _fellator_ as an ætiological factor. _Clossius_[35] it is
true speaks of _Irrumatio_, relying on _Perenotti di Cigliano_ and
_Fabre_; but these last are really speaking of the _Cunnilingue_, not
of the _fellator_. Probably they are of Erasmus’ opinion: λείχαζειν
_ni fallor tale quiddam est Graecis, quale fellare Latinis. Nam vox
etiamnum manet, tametsi rem iam olim e medio sublatam arbritor._
(λειχάζειν—to practise licking,—if I am not mistaken, is a similar
practice with the Greeks to that of _fellation_ with the Romans. The
word indeed still remains, but the thing I believe to have long since
entirely disappeared). On this however _Forberg_ (loco citato p. 304.)
very justly adds: _Vereor ut vere: certe audio, ne ab nunc hominum
quidem moribus plane abhorrere id schematis, quid viderint ii, quibus
magnas urbes adire licet._ (I fear this is not true: at any rate I am
told this sort of practice is not entirely repugnant to the habits
of some men even of our own day, to judge by what those see who have
the opportunity of visiting large cities). How many primary ulcers of
the throat, especially in the case of common Prostitutes, may have
been mistaken for secondary ones, and have been treated accordingly,
in fact are treated so still, without the Physician having a suspicion
of how they were actually incurred! But what the Physicians of our own
times are ignorant of, though familiar enough to many of the Laity,
this knowledge we cannot reasonably demand from the Physicians of
Antiquity. Yet supposing they did actually possess this knowledge, it
was very excusable if they looked at what lay nearest before their eyes
and regarded all throat ulcers as being primary,—in just the same way
as any Practitioner of to-day finds it excusable in a Colleague that
he thinks only of secondary ulcers, inasmuch as what in Ancient times
happened very commonly is practised at the present day at any rate much
less frequently. Consequently the absence of mention on the part of the
old Physicians of secondary ulcers of the throat in connection with
complaints of the genital organs cannot be considered as any sort of
proof of their non-existence.

Among the maladies to which the _fellator_ was exposed, we have in the
first place to reckon the _foul smell from the mouth_[36], which is
mentioned as especially prevalent among the Romans. The Physicians
as a rule derived it, if no local symptoms, of ulcers, etc., were
apparent, from some fault of the stomach[37],—an instance surely where
the Laity were cleverer than the Profession! The sympathy between the
mouth and the genitals and anus makes it evident why at the present day
we notice, particularly in immoral women, an evil smell from the mouth,
which they endeavour to conceal by chewing burned coffee and the like.
No doubt this was the case in Antiquity[38] as well, so we are by no
means justified in attributing every instance of foul breath in harlots
and cinaedi to the practice of _fellation_.

Yet another consequence of _fellation_ was _pain in the mouth_
(στομαλγία, mouth-ache; only we must remember as to this that _Pollux_,
Onomast. III. 7. 69., cites ἀλγεῖν,—to suffer pain, as a synonym of
_to love_), _tongue-ache_ (γλωσσαλγία[39]) and _toothache_[40], and
generally pains of the palate and throat, rendering voice and speech
indistinct. Hence _Martial_ says[41]:

    Qui recitat lana fauces et colla revinctus,
    Hic se posse loqui, posse _tacere_ negat.

(The man who reads aloud his works, his throat and neck bound about
with wool, declares he cannot speak, yet cannot hold his tongue).

But the evil by no means stopped here; there more often occurred as
the result of the habit of _fellation_ acute no less than chronic
inflammations of the palate (sore throats, quinseys). In the passage
quoted a little above from _Lucian’s_ Pseudologistae, it is said of
Timarchus: “In Egypt on the other hand they called you συνάγχη (sore
throat),—as everybody knows.” In explanation _Lucian_ adds: “It must
have been a close thing with you not to be choked, that time you came
across the sailor of a three-master, who fell upon you and stopped your
mouth for you.” Without in any way detracting from the importance of
what we are told here, it still appears to us, on full consideration,
that Timarchus was not merely a _fellator_, but an _irrumator_ as
well, and this is the more probable as he no doubt acquired this
nickname, because he, _bene vasatus_ (well provided with a big
_member_), frequently brought on sore throat, that is to say in those
who served him as _fellators_!

Moreover this reveals to us the real meaning of a passage of
_Aretaeus_, one that has often been quoted before as connected with
Venereal disease. This occurs in the 9th Chapter of the Book[42],
which would certainly seem to admit only of a direct application;
still we are convinced that much of the pathological description of
sore throat (Ch. 7.) and many symptoms of the complaints of the uvula
(Ch. 8.) owe their origin to _fellation_. Undoubtedly we have nowadays
much fewer occasions to note affections of the uvula, which were of
very common occurrence among the Ancients[43], as is shown by their
own accounts,—a circumstance hardly to be wondered at if we consider
the particulars told us about Timarchus. _Aretaeus_ in Ch. 9. makes a
distinction between κίων (pillar, uvula) or columella (little pillar,
uvula), when the whole uvula is inflamed and swollen, σταφυλὴ or uva
(bunch of grapes), when only the lower part is affected, and ἰμάντιον
(little strap), when the palatal membrane is attacked. “Κίων”, he goes
on, “occurs most frequently with old men, σταφυλὴ with young men and
such as are in the prime of life, affection of the palatal membranes
(τὰ ὑμενώδεα) in those who are at the age of puberty and in boys.” The
ninth Chapter runs as follows:


Of Ulcers of the Throat.

Ulcers arising in the throat of a benignant and harmless nature are
common, the malignant and dangerous rare. Benignant ulcers of the sort
are clean, of slight extent and superficial, neither inflamed nor
painful. The malignant on the contrary are broad, hollow, lardaceous,
with a white, livid, or black covering. These ulcers are known as
_aphthae_. But if the covering is very tough, then the malady is an
eschar, and is so called. At the edge of the eschar are set up an
intense redness, inflammation and a congested state of the veins, as
in _anthrax_ (carbuncle, malignant pustule), while small, distinct
and unconnected, elevations of the mucous membrane appear, which
are continually uniting with fresh ones that successively follow,
and so an extensive ulcer is established. If this extends from the
outer mouth too far inwards, in fact once it has attacked the uvula
and relaxed it, the disease spreads over the tongue, gums and lips,
while the teeth become loose and blackened. Further the inflammation
attacks the throat. Patients so affected die in a few days after the
inflammation and fever are set up, of the evil odour and of hunger;
the ulcer propagates itself by way of the wind-pipe to the chest, so
that very likely suffocation supervenes the same day. For lungs and
heart can tolerate neither so foul an odour nor the ulcers themselves
nor the ichor (puriform, septic matter) coming from them, but cough
and difficulty of breathing supervene. Origin of this affection of
the throat is the swallowing of cold, pungent, hot, sour, or strongly
astringent, substances. Now these parts serve the chest on behalf
of the voice and the breathing, as also the abdomen for sifting the
nutriment, and the stomach for swallowing food. But when these inward
parts, viz. abdomen, stomach and chest, are attacked by a disease, the
disease is in turn conveyed and carried to the œsophagus, the tonsils
and neighbouring regions.

Children up to the age of puberty suffer most in this way, for children
have the very greatest and most marked desire for coolness, because
with them the natural heat is at its greatest; the longing for foods of
various sorts and cold beverages is boundless; while they shout loudly
both in quarrel and at play. This is equally true of girls up to the
commencement of menstruation.

With regard to locality, _Egypt_ gives most numerous examples of the
disease, for this country has at once a dry air to breathe, and many
sorts of comestibles,—roots, herbs, garden vegetables, pungent seeds;
while the drink is either thick, being Nile water, or artificially made
pungent with barley or with grape-skins. In _Syria_ the disease is also
found, especially in Coelesyria. For this reason the ulcers in question
are known as _Egyptian_ or _Syrian_ ulcers.

The mode and fashion in which death occurs in these cases is
deplorable. The pain is a cutting and burning pain, as in anthrax
(carbuncle, malignant pustule), the breath foul-smelling, the patient
exhaling an intensely offensive breath, and re-inhaling into the chest
another no less so. Patients are so loathsome to themselves they cannot
tolerate their own smell; the face is pale or livid, the temperature
excessively high, the thirst as distressing as in fever. Yet they
reject drink when offered from dread of the pain of swallowing; for
they undergo great agony both by the compression of the palate and
by the return of the liquid through the nose. No sooner have they
lain down than they spring up again; then finding they cannot bear an
upright posture, no sooner have they sat down than they are forced by
their agony to lie back once more. Most commonly they move about in
an upright attitude. For as they are unable to sleep, they avoid all
rest, as though they were fain to drive away one torture with another.
Inhalation is deep, for they long for fresh air to cool themselves;
exhalation on the contrary short and hurried, for the ulcers already
burning like fire are heated yet further by contact of the feverish
breath as it streams out. Hoarseness comes on, and loss of voice, and
this goes on continuously increasing, until suddenly coming to the end
of their resistance they give up the ghost.”

       *       *       *       *       *

In the portion of the work devoted to Therapeutics (Bk. I. ch. 9.),
which bears the title: Θεραπεία τῶν κατὰ τὴν φαρύγγα λοιμικῶν παθῶν,
(Pestilential Affections of the Throat Regions, their Curative
Treatment), caustics are especially recommended, as the actual cautery
cannot be employed, and finally we read: “In some cases the uvula
is destroyed right back to the bones of the palate, and the throat
to the root of the tongue and the epiglottis, and in consequence of
this destruction they can get down neither solid food nor liquid, for
liquids return through the nose, and so the patient dies of hunger.”

       *       *       *       *       *

Now if we examine these statements more closely, we cannot first of
all help wondering how the ætiological factors named by _Aretaeus_
could possibly be regarded by him as sufficient to account for such
dangerous ulcerations,—ulcerations which he himself even calls λοιμώδεα
(of pestilential character), though of course they are perfectly
adequate to explain simple ulcers of the throat. Indulgence in pungent
comestibles and beverages is as little adequate to cause such symptoms
as are the shouting and greediness of children, not to mention the fact
that these are in no way peculiar to Egypt or Syria. The whole account
shows us clearly that while _Aretaeus_ was well acquainted with the
forms the disease took, the ætiological factors were obscure to him and
it was merely in a spirit of ill-timed speculation he subjoined them,
proving once more how right _Appuleius_ was when he exclaims: _Dii
boni! Quam facilis, _licet non artifici medico_, cuivis tamen docto
Venereae cupidinis comprehensio._ (Great gods! how easy it is for any
educated man, _always excepting a medical practitioner_, to understand
the passion of love).

We have already more than once in the course of these investigations
proved how Egypt and Syria must be regarded as the nursery of
licentiousness in Antiquity, and the passage quoted from _Lucian_
(above p. 229.) directly establishes the fact for us; again, a little
further on (p. 240. Note I.) it was mentioned how boys particularly,
(but also young girls), were used and specially trained as _fellators_.
Hence _Martial_[44] wishes he had a boy,

    Niliacis primum puer is nascatur in oris:
      Nequitias tellus scit dare nulla magis.

(In the first place my boy must be born on the banks of Nile: no
other land can produce more finished wickedness). From all this, as
well as from a comparison of the passage in Lucian, we believe we are
amply justified in concluding that Aretaeus’ ulcers of the throat,
these Αἰγύπτια καὶ Συριακὰ ἕλκεα (Egyptian and Syrian sores) were
not unfrequently a consequence of _fellation_[45]. That this should
be so is readily intelligible, when we consider the liability to
corruption and the acrid quality of secretions from the _glans penis_
in hot countries. Again the βουβαστικὰ ἕλκεα (Bubastic sores), which
_Salmasius_ cites from _Aëtius_[46] as being identical with the
Egyptian and Syrian ulcers, find a satisfactory explanation on this
hypothesis, for _Herodotus_[47] tells us in his time of the licentious
worship of Bubastis, daughter of Isis, at Bubastos. In this expression
(βουβαστικὰ ἕλκεα) the malady is named from one particular place, where
it was probably specially prevalent, whereas in Aretaeus it is spoken
of as general throughout the country.

In this connection we must not pass over the fact that Casaubon
commenting on the passage of Persius (V. 187.) to be quoted directly
is inclined to regard the ἕλκεα Συριακὰ (Syrian sores) as a punishment
of the Dea Syra (Syrian goddess). In this he relies on a passage of
_Plutarch_[48] that runs to this effect: “But of the Syrian goddess
the superstitious believe that, if a man eat a sprat or anchovy, the
goddess consumes his shin-bones, fills his body full of sores, melts
down his liver.” The legend must at any rate be of great antiquity, for
we meet with it in _Menander_, in a fragment which _Porphyrius_[49]
has preserved,—in which however swelling of the belly and the feet
is in question. To this also would seem to refer what _Persius_ (loco
citato) says:

    Hinc grandes Galli et cum sistro lusca sacerdos,
    Incussere _Deos inflantes corpora_, si non
    Praedictum ter mane caput gustaveris alli.

(Then the tall Galli, and the one-eyed priestess with her sacred
rattle, instil terror of _the gods that make men’s bodies swell_,
unless three times at dawn you have eaten the prescribed head of
garlic). True we cannot from the passage of Plutarch directly conclude
that ulcers of the throat also were ascribed to the anger of the Syrian
goddess in consequence of indulgence in a fish diet; rather should
we expect what is said to apply primarily to external skin-ulcers,
occurring on other parts, as just on the shin-bone. Still we shall be
quite justified in making the reference general, more particularly as
liver-complaint is also ascribed to the goddess’s interference, and
we shall see that in Antiquity the cause of all ulcers was supposed
to lie in some fault of the liver. Now as the fish had necessarily to
be put into the mouth to be swallowed, and as it was always supposed
the punishment of the goddess followed immediately on the offence,
and affected the immediately active part, throat-ulcers might very
naturally be taken to be a result of such punishment. This again only
further confirms our explanation just above to the effect that ulcers
of the throat were a consequence resulting from vicious indulgence. For
the Temple-service of the Dea Syra was of course connected with every
sort of licentious practice.

Taking into consideration this marked prevalence of _Corrosion of
the Shin-bones_, we might argue with considerable probability that
it pointed to the existence of a disease of the bones following as a
result of vicious indulgence. On the other hand the observation that
the precise time the body became covered with ulceration was after
indulgence in fish-eating cannot help being of weight in connection
with the doctrine of Leprosy; for to the present day we note as very
frequent among peoples whose chief nutriment is fish various forms
of Leprosy. And again, we may very likely see in this prohibition of
a fish diet, which is also mentioned by _Athenaeus_[50], a sanitary
regulation justified by experience as necessary in Syria, where
skin-diseases and ulcerations were so common.

But not alone in Egypt and Syria did _fellation_ lead to suchlike
unhappy results; we find the same to have been the case at Rome, as is
proved by the following passage of _Martial_[51], a passage that has
hitherto been completely overlooked in this connection, but which is
none the less of great importance:

    _Indignas premeret pestis cum tabida fauces
      Inque ipsos vultus serperet atra lues_:
    Siccis ipse genis flentes hortatus amicos
      Decrevit Stygios Festus adire lacus.
    Nec tamen obscuro pia polluit ora veneno,
      Aut torsit lenta tristia fata fame:
    Sanctam Romana vitam sed morte peregit,
      Dimisitque animam nobiliore via.
    Hanc mortem fatis magni praeferre Catonis
      Fama potest: huius Caesar amicus erat.

(_When corrupting disease began to sorely afflict his unworthy throat
and black contagion was creeping to his very face_, Festus, himself
with dry cheeks, comforted his weeping friends, and determined to
seek the pools of Styx. But still he never disgraced his dutiful lips
with darkling poison, nor brought on a painful, miserable end by slow
hunger; nay! rather by a Roman death he completed his holy life, and
dismissed his soul the nobler way. Such a death fame may well exalt
above great Cato’s end; Caesar was his friend).

The words _indignae fauces_ (unworthy throat) obviously point to the
practice of _fellation_, whereby he had brought on himself the _pestis
tabida_ and _atra lues_, (corrupting disease, black contagion), and so
we have here a clear statement of the cause by one _doctus venereae
cupidinis_ (learned in the passion of love), which cause was quite
unknown to the _artifex medicus_ (medical practitioner). The _pia ora_
(dutiful lips) are therefore to be taken merely ironically, as also the
_sancta vita_ (holy life). Even the Cinaedus, as well as the maidens
who prostitute themselves in honour of Astarté, are invariably, as we
have seen, described in the Old Testament as _sanctus_ (holy), and we
read e. g. in Job. Ch. XXXV. 14., of a good-for-nothing, how he will
die like such a _sanctus_. It was precisely this signification of
_sanctus_ that led us to the idea of taking the throat affection for
a secondary consequence of paederastia, especially if we understand
a _double entendre_ to underlie the last words _huius Caesar amicus
erat_ (Caesar was his friend). The Commentators it is true take them
merely as said by way of contrast with the death of Cato of Utica, who
was forced by Caesar’s enmity to take his own life, and as implying
this was not the case with Festus, consequently that his suicide is
so much the more remarkable[52]. However it is doubtful which Caesar
is meant, whether the word is merely a Title or a proper name. In
the second—and certainly this at first appeared to us to be the more
likely,—view we were of course bound then to turn our attention to
his character for dissoluteness. However as both _Catullus_[53] and
_Suetonius_[54] represent him merely as a _Cinaedus_ in regard to the
male sex, if that is to say we subscribe to the accepted opinion, we
afterwards came to the conclusion it was rather the _Emperor_ generally
that is spoken of here, and consequently that any other Emperor, e. g.
Tiberius, or Nero, or another, might be intended. It is true that if
_pathicus_ (pathic) and _omnium virorum mulier_ (wife of all men) are
taken in a wider sense, there would be nothing to make the supposition
impossible that Julius Caesar is pointed at. Only that perhaps another
passage of _Martial_ would seem to go against this, a passage where he
seeks to excuse the several excesses and vices of a certain Gaurus by
instancing an exalted personage as patronizing each of them, and says
finally (Bk. II. 89.):

    Quod fellas; vitium dic mihi cuius habes?

(But for your _fellation_: tell me whose vice you follow in this?)
Still against the _cinaedus_ view the words _indignae fauces_ (unworthy
throat) speak clearly. Probably in this connection the following
passage of _Martial_ should also come in,—where the Poet says of his
servant (Bk. I. Epigr. 102.):

    Destituit primos virides Demetrius annos:
      Quarta tribus lustris addita messis erat.
    Ne tamen ad Stygias famulus descenderet umbras,
      _Ureret implicitum cum scelerata lues_,
    Cavimus et domini ius omne remisimus aegro:
      Munere dignus erat convaluisse meo.
    Sensit deficiens sua praemia, meque patronum
      Dixit, ad infernas liber iturus aquas.

(Demetrius left us in the first years of his bloom; the fourth summer
was but just added to his three lustres. We took all means to save our
faithful house-slave from descending to the shades of Styx, when he
was consuming under a malignant contagion that had fastened upon him,
and remitted all my master’s rights for the sick lad,—who indeed well
deserved to win recovery at my hands. On his death-bed he recognized
what I had done for him, and called me his _master_, though so soon to
go forth a free man to the streams of the nether world.)

Was this _famulus_ (house-slave) the same person as the _puer_ (boy,
slave), who is mentioned by _Martial_, bk. XI. 95.?

That not boys only, but girls too, had to suffer in this way among the
Romans, and lost their lives from the complaint in question, is shown,
we think, by the following Epigram of _Martial_, Bk. XI. Epigr. 91.:

    Aeolidon Canace iacet hoc tumulata sepulchro,
      Ultima cui parvae septima venit hiems.
    Ah scelus, ah facinus! properas quid flere viator?
      Non licet hic vitae de brevitate queri.
    _Tristius est leto leti genus: horrida vultus
     Abstulit et tenero sedit in ore lues:
    Ipsaque crudeles ederunt oscula morbi;
      Nec data sunt nigris tota labella rogis._
    Si tam praecipiti fuerant ventura volatu,
      Debuerant alia fata venire via.

(Canacé of the Aeolians lies buried in this tomb, who died a child,—her
seventh winter was her last. Oh! the shame and horror of it! haste, a
tear, thou that passest by. Here is no occasion to lament the short
span of human life. Sadder than death is the way of her death; a dread
contagion ate away her face, and settled in the tender little mouth.
Cruel disease infected her very kisses; and her lips were half gone
when they were consigned to the grim pyre. If death must needs have
come to her with a flight so swift, at least he should have taken
another way. Death so hasted to close the issue of her persuasive
voice, that her tongue might not have time to bend the cruel goddesses
to mercy).

Besides the passages quoted, there are several others to be found in
_Martial_, that must be taken as referring to the _fellator_; but
since the maladies that occur are equally prevalent in the case of the
_Cunnilingue_, it will be more convenient to adduce them under that
head. Further, we only require to mention the fact that _pale lips_
seem to have been regarded as a mark of the _fellator_[55].




The Cunnilingue.

§ 23.


But the vice of the _fellator_ is far surpassed in baseness by that
of the _Cunnilingue_ (_qui opus peragit linguam arrigendo in cunnum,
eumque lambit_,—one who works by putting his tongue up into the female
organ, and licking it). The Greeks called this practice σκύλαξ (a
puppy), because it is a habit of dogs[56], and Hesychius explains it
by σχῆμα ἀφροδισιακὸν, ὡς τὸ τῶν φοινικιζόντων (a method of love,
resembling that of those who phoenicize). We have already, in the
passage of _Lucian_ quoted a little above, found φοινικίζειν and
λεσβιάζειν put side by side; _Galen_ moreover[57] does the same in
the following passage, a noteworthy one for our purpose on several
accounts: “The drinking of sweat, urine and the menstrual blood of
women is vicious and shameful, and not less so when a person, as
Xenocrates proposes to do, smears the regions of the mouth and throat
with excrement, and swallows it down. He speaks also of taking the
wax of the ears. For my part I could never bring myself to take this,
even though by that means I were never to be ill again. But excrement
I consider yet more disgusting, and it is for a man of any decency far
more shameful to be called an Excrement-Eater[58] than an αἰσχρουργὸς
(worker of obscenities) or a _cinaedus_. But of αἰσχρουργοὶ[59]
(workers of obscenities), we abominate Phoenicians more than the
Lesbians, and it seems to me the man does something of the same sort
as the former who drinks menstrual blood (μᾶλλον βδελλυττόμεθα τοὺς
_φοινικίζοντας_ τῶν λεσβιαζόντων ᾧ[60] φαίνεταί μοι παραπλήσιόν τι
πάσχειν ὁ καὶ καταμηνίου πίνων.) _A sensible man will neither seek
to collect experiences on the point, nor yet on a practice, which it
is true involves less_, but still is sufficiently shameful, that of
smearing a part of the body with excrement, because he has some hurt at
that spot,—or with human seed. Xenocrates calls this latter commonly
γόνος (seed, semen), and distinguishes with minute care between cases
where simple seed rubbed in by itself is of benefit, and cases where
the female has the same effect after combination with the male, as it
is discharged from the woman’s womb.”

This explanation of Galen’s to the effect that the φοινικίζων (one
who phoenicizes) resembles the man who drinks menstrual blood, shows
clearly that φοινικίζειν is _not_, as all the Lexicons give it, and
_Forbiger_ (loco citato) also assumes, identical with λεσβιάζειν. It
is true _Forbiger_ (p. 329. Note v.) gives the meaning _cunnilingere_
as well, although the explanation is undoubtedly unsatisfactory which
he offers _à propos_ of an Epigram,[61]—one certainly apposite in this
connection, to the effect that the reason for this signification is,
_quod cunnilingos a natando in mari quodam Phoenicei coloris (mari
rubro) dixissent_, (that they had called them _cunnilingues_ from their
swimming as it were in a sea of Phoenician purple colour—a red sea);
for the words in the Epigram, ἐν φοινίκῃ δὲ καθεύδεις (but you sleep
in Phoenicia) cannot stand for anything else but simply φοινικίζειν, as
indeed the passage from _Aloisia Sigaea_, which is quoted by Forbiger
himself, proves conclusively[62]: _Cum vellet mediam lambere, se velle
dicebat in Liguriam_, (When he wanted to lick my middle, he used to say
he would fain _be into Liguria_—that is, would fain lick, _ligurire_).
Accordingly just as λεσβιάζειν came into use as the distinctive
name for the vice of the _fellator_, because it was practised
to a distinctive degree in Lesbos, so too to be a _cunnilingue_
was called φοινικίζειν, because the habit was at home among the
Phoenicians. Undoubtedly men’s shamelessness was carried so far that
they actually used women and girls at their period of menstruation
for this purpose,—a fact of the highest interest for us, as we shall
show directly. _Seneca_[63] expresses himself plainly enough on the
subject: “Quid tu, cum Mamercum Scaurum consulem faceres, ingnorabas,
_ancillarum suarum menstruum ore illum hiante exceptare_? num quid enim
ipse dissimulabat? num quid purus videri volebat?” (How came it you
were ignorant, when making Mamercus Scaurus consul, _that he was in
the habit of catching in his open mouth the menstrual discharge of his
maidservants_? Did he make any concealment of it himself? did he pose
as a pure-minded man? nay! not he). Again in another place[64]:

“Nuper Natalis tam improbae linguae quam impurae, _in cuius ore feminae
purgabantur_.” (Quite lately Natalis showed himself as malignant of
tongue as he is unchaste, _into whose mouth women were used to purge
themselves_).

Now if first of all we bear steadfastly in mind that this φοινικίζειν
was a vice, which prevailed primarily and especially among the
Phoenicians and was later on disseminated abroad by them, and then
consider how the Greeks designated every vice, and particularly
excesses in love, as νόσος (disease), in the same way precisely as
the Romans used _morbus_ (disease),—comp. § 17—we _must_ see that
φοινικίζειν is the same thing as νόσος φοινικίη (Phoenician disease),
and shall be in a position to form an opinion on the Gloss[65] falsely
ascribed to _Galen_, which reads: _φοινικίη νόσος_· ἡ κατὰ Φοινίκην
καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ἀνατολικὰ μέρη πλεονάζουσα. δηλοῦσθαι δὲ κἀνταῦθα
_δοκεῖ_ ἡ ἐλεφαντιάσις. (_Phoenician disease_: a disease prevalent in
Phoenicia and about the Eastern parts. Elephantiasis _appears_ to be
signified by this).

Even granting the first part of this Gloss to have been really written
by _Galen_, the last sentence at any rate is obviously an extraneous
and later addition. This is at once indicated by the use of the word
δοκεῖ (it appears), which comes in curiously, standing as it does
next-door to the _definite_ statement that this νόσος (disease) was
common in Phoenicia; for surely anyone who knew this, must also have
known what the disease was. Again if he had wished to describe it by
some such phrase as the English “a sort of Elephantiasis”, he could
hardly have failed to express himself in a different way to what he
has. But as a matter of fact, _Galen_ knew perfectly well, as we have
already seen, what φοινικίζειν was, and consequently what the φοινικίη
νόσος (Phoenician disease) was, and it could not by any possibility
have occurred to him to suppose it any form of Elephantiasis.
Unfortunately _Prof. Naumann_[66] has allowed himself to be misled by
this extraneous addition; he writes: “In the Work of a Pseudo-Galen is
given a short explanation of the φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease),
or rather to speak strictly, the _conjecture_ is made,[67] that
this malady, a common one in Phoenicia and the East, may have been
Elephantiasis.” True indeed the word might _with equal likelihood_
express a disease characterized by redness of the skin φοινίκιος s.
φοινίκεος i. q. puniceus, purpureus, cruentus; φοινιγμὸς irritatio
cutis per vesicantia—φοινίκιος or φοινίκεος = Phoenician purple,
purple, blood-red; φοινιγμὸς = irritation of the skin by rubefacients).
Or should we suppose _some leprous-venereal malady_ endemic and
aboriginal among the trading Phoenicians to be signified, which was
called the _Morbus Phoeniceus_ (Phoenician disease) in the same way
as in more modern times people spoke of the _Morbus Gallicus_ (French
disease,—Syphilis)? In any case it is remarkable that _Themison_ (who
also noted incidentally that Satyriasis at times attacks a population
epidemically,—speaks of the special frequency of Satyriasis in Crete
(_Caelius Aurelianus_, Acut. Morb. bk. III. ch. 18). As is well known,
Phoenician and Hellenic Colonies had converged here; and the island
remained in uninterrupted and active commercial intercourse with the
maritime cities of Phoenicia.

According to the general supposition the Gloss of the Pseudo-Galen has
reference to a passage of _Hippocrates_ occurring in the Second book of
the Prorrhetica,[68] where we read as follows: “But λειχῆνες—tetters,
as also λέπραι and λεῦκαι,—scaly leprosies and white leprosies, where
any of these occur in the young or mere children, or after appearing
on a small scale shall then increase but slowly, in these cases it
is not right to call the exanthema or eruption an apostasis,
(transitional state), but a νόσημα,—condition of disease. On the
other hand where any of these affections occurs on a large scale and
suddenly, it would then be an apostasis. But whereas λεῦκαι arise out
of _the most deadly diseases_, as e. g. the νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ,—wasting
disease, as it is called, λέπραι and λειχῆνες do so from the
melancholic, or diseases proceeding from black bile. And of such the
easier to cure are those that occur in the youngest patients and are of
the latest origin, and arise in the softest and most fleshy parts of
the body.” _Foesius_ observes on the passage: “Nemini autem dubium est,
quin hac parte _mendosi sint codices omnes_, cum ἡ νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ
καλουμένη scribitur. Nam φοινικίη νόσος ex Galeni exegesi procul
omni dubio reponendum.” (Now no one can doubt that _all the MSS. are
deceptive_ here, reading as they do ἡ νοῦσος ἡ φθινική. For φοινικίη
vόσος must undoubtedly be restored from the Exegesis of Galen). _J. W.
Wedel_[69] on the contrary writes: “Legunt quidam pro φοινικίη—φθινικὴ,
et vertunt tabem seu morbum tabidum, _sed contra fidem codicum
correctiorum_, quibus Galenus ipse assentitur, et rei ipsius, de qua
textus agit, evidentiam.” (Some read φθινικὴ for φοινικίη, and render
it _wasting_ or _wasting disease_,—_but against the authority of the
better class of MSS._, with which Galen himself agrees, and against
the evidence of the context of the matter treated of). In the latter
of these two statements Wedel, in spite of his mistaken view of the
matter generally, is perfectly right; whether he is so in the former as
well, we are not in a position to say, for alas! we lack the critical
apparatus absolutely indispensable for such a decision, not so much as
the Edition of _Mackius_ being on the shelves of our University Library.

In the first place we ought to make quite sure what Hippocrates
understood under the name λεῦκαι. A disease of the Skin no doubt;
but of what particular nature it was, would seem not to be so easy
to determine. According to _Coac. praenotion._ (Vol. I. p. 321.)
Hippocrates distinguished a λεύκη συγγενής and a λεύκη μὴ συγγενής
(λεύκη inborn, and not inborn), the latter attacking individuals
only after puberty. _Hesychius_ says λεύκη, ἄνθος τι τῶν περὶ τὸ
σῶμα γινόμενον, ἄλφος δὲ λευκή τις ἐν τῷ σώματι. (λεύκη—white
leprosy, an eruption coming out on the exterior parts of the body,
but ἄλφος—dull-white leprosy, a form of λεύκη in the body). _Galen_,
_Definit. med._ (Vol. XIX. p. 140) λευκή ἐστιν ἡ ἐπὶ λευκὸν χρῶμα τοῦ
σώματος παρὰ φύσιν μεταβολή. (λεύκη is the change to an unnatural
white colour of the body). According to this it would appear to be
merely superficial discolorations of the skin that writers understood
by λεῦκαι,—a view that _Rayer_[70] seems to coincide with. _Pollux_ on
the other hand offers an explanation as follows: ἀλφὸς μέλας, ἐπιδρομὴ
σκιώδης, ἐπιπόλαιος, εὐίατος, ἀλφὸς λευκὸς, λευκότης ἐπιτρέχουσα τῇ
ἐπιδερματίδι, αὐχμηρὰ, δυσίατος· _λεύκη_, ὅταν ἐπιτείνῃ ἡ λευκότης,
καὶ φύσῃ τρίχωσιν λευκήν, εἰ δὲ κεντήσειας, ὕφαιμος, δυσίατος, ἐστιν
ὅτε ὑπέρυθρος· _ἐπανθεῖ δὲ_ αὐτὸ (?) τοῖς _χείλεσιν, οἷον ἁλὸς ἄχνη_.
(Black ἀλφός, a dark-coloured spreading eruption, superficial and
easily curable; white alphos, a whiteness running over the epidermis
(of the prepuce), dry harsh and difficult to cure; λεύκη, when the
whiteness extends, and produces a growth of white hairs, and if
you prick it, it is suffused with blood, difficult to cure, also
sometimes reddish in hue. And the eruption comes out on the lips _like
sea-foam_). Here λεύκη is evidently a much more deeply penetrating
malady, as indeed it is described by _Celsus_[71] and _Galen_.[72] It
corresponds with the white Leprosy of Moses. But the most curious thing
is the statement appended to the effect that the affection broke out
on the lips like sea-foam. This is certainly to be referred to some
other form of λεύκη, unless indeed we are to take it in connection
with the succeeding words in the text, λειχὴν ἄγριος (malignant
tetter), in which case, as we have seen with regard to Mentagra (Tetter
of the chin), the remark is based on a perfectly sound observation;
and besides, the αὐτὸ gives absolutely no sense. On the other hand
if Pollux’ datum in reference to the seat of λεύκη is correct, it
must obviously afford much light for clearing up the meaning of the
passage in Hippocrates, and in deference to it we shall be bound to
read φοινικίη instead of φθινικὴ,[73]—an emendation that presents no
difficulty, since φθινικὴ might very easily be read for φοινικίη, and
indeed (as pointed out in the Note) was actually so read.

But one emendation leads on to another, and we shall find ourselves
bound, on the analogy of the θαυμαστὸν πάθος (wonderful complaint) in
Dio Chrysostom, to read here also θαυμαστωτάτων νοσημάτων (of the most
wonderful diseases) for θανατωδεστάτων ν., and translate accordingly:
“but λεῦκαι arise out of the most terrible aberrations of the mind,”
such for instance as the vice of the _cunnilingue_ is. If we examine
further, we shall see it is not λευκαὶ but λεῦκαι that stands in the
text, so it cannot be a question of a skin-affection of the leprosy
type at all, for λευκὸς (white) rather implies transparent and shiny,
and _Martial_ (XI. 99.) in a passage to be discussed more fully later
on, says:

    Non ulcus acre, _pustulaeve lucentes_,
    Nec triste mentum, sordidique lichenes,

(No biting ulcer, or _shiny pustules_, nor yet disfigured chin, and
foul scabs). Accordingly we have here nothing whatever to do with the
leprous-like λευκὴ, but only with _pustulae lucentes_ (shiny pustules),
which as we shall show presently were a consequence of the practices
of the _cunnilinigue_. We have the more right to assume this, as the
old Physicians ascribe λευκὴ to the φλέγμα (phlegmatic humour),—an
explanation all the more likely to have been given, as directly
afterwards follow the words, αἱ δὲ λέπραι καὶ οἱ λειχῆνες ἐκ τῶν
μελαγχολικῶν (but leprosies and tetters arise out of the melancholic
diseases). True this is in contradiction with another passage of
Hippocrates,[74] for in this we read: _λέπρη_ καὶ κνησμὸς καὶ ψώρη καὶ
_λειχῆνες_ καὶ ἀλφὸς καὶ ἀλώπεκες ὑπὸ _φλέγματος_ γίνονται. (_leprosy_,
and itch, and scab, and _tetters_, and dull-white leprosy, and manges,
arise from _phlegm_). This much at any rate appears to us to result,
viz. that the whole passage under discussion cannot possibly be by
Hippocrates, but much more probably is due to some author of the
Alexandrine age, who enjoyed ample opportunities for studying the
consequences of the unnatural excesses as so often observed since
Pompey the Great’s time.

To assume that Hippocrates was actually acquainted with these in any
completeness would up to the present be premature; at any rate we are
bound, so far as our study of his writings enables us to judge, to deny
him any knowledge of the fact that sexual excesses were the cause of
the different affections of the genital organs chronicled by him. Of
course he may have supposed all this to be notorious and the knowledge
of it common property, but a host of statements would be found to tell
against any such supposition. Opportunities of making acquaintance with
the vice of the _cunnilingue_ could certainly not have been lacking,
it being so familiar a thing in his time that _Aristophanes_[75] again
and again derided it in his Comedies. Whatever conclusion we come to on
this head, at least the passage of Hippocrates cannot justify anyone
in maintaining that the φοινικίη νοῦσος,—(Phœnician disease) was true
Elephantiasis, even if, as may be, the preliminary proposition that
elephantiasis was a _consequence_ of debauchery be made good,—a point
to which we propose later on to return. On the subject of Satyriasis in
Crete, we have already expressed our views.

Just as the Phoenicians carried the seed of the vice to Greece and
other lands, so at a later period was it disseminated from Syria to
Italy; and so _Ausonius_ says (Epigr. 128.):

    Eunus Syriscus inguinum liguritor,
    Opicus[76] magister (sic eum ducet Phyllis)
    Muliebre membrum quadriangulum cernit:
    Triquetro coactu Δ literam ducit.
    De valle femorum altrinsecus pares rugas,
    Mediumque, fissi rima qua patet, callem
    Ψ dicit esse: nam trifissilis forma est.
    Cui ipse linguam quum dedit suam, Λ est:
    Veramque in illis esse Φ notam sentit.
    Quid imperite, Ρ putas ibi scriptum
    Ubi locari Ι convenit longum?
    Miselle doctor, Ȣ tibi sit obscoeno,
    Tuumque nomen Θ sectilis signet.

(Eunus from Syria, glutton of the privy parts, Opican (clownish) master
(Phyllis teaches him his letters) sees the woman’s organ four-cornered:
when compressed to a triangle he makes it out the letter Δ. From the
valley between the thighs start two furrows, a pair one on either side,
while between them is a line, where lies the opening, the crack of the
fissure; this he declares is Ψ; for ’tis three-pronged in outline.
Then when he puts in his own tongue to it, lo! it is Λ; and he can
feel there is a true Φ marked therein. What, dunce, think you a Ρ is
inscribed there, where a long Ι should by rights be placed? Miserable,
contemptible scholar, may the Ȣ (a noose) reward your foulness, and
the cleft Θ (letter of condemnation, being initial of θάνατος,—death)
be set against your name!) The more detailed interpretation of these
obscene hieroglyphics the reader may find in the commentators on the
passage, as well as in _Forberg_, loco citato p. 335.


Diseases of the Cunnilingue.


§ 24.

Can anyone believe such a vice as this was practised without incurring
punishment? Yet there prevails amongst the Physicians of Antiquity,
even including Galen, who knew the facts, an unbroken silence. It is
impossible to suppose that girls and women could have their genital
organs purged in this mode altogether without evil results, more
particularly as actual experience in more modern times has proved that
as a consequence of the habit of _cunnilingere_ inflammations of the
external genitals have been set up in girls, as well as ulcerations in
older women through the licking of these parts by dogs. Among Ancient
writers we have found no vouchers for this; but on the other hand
several such exist to show the mischief that results from the habit
to the _cunnilingue_ himself. Excluding from consideration the _pale
complexion_[77] and evil _smell from the mouth_, which were equally
consequences of the other forms of vice already mentioned, we have
_paralysis of the tongue_ mentioned, at any rate in one passage[78]:

    Sidere percussa est subito tibi, Zoile, lingua,
        Dum lingis. Certe, Zoile, nunc futuis.

(Your tongue, Zoilus, has been stricken with a sudden doom, while in
the act of licking. Why! surely, Zoilus, you copulate now). True this
malady must be counted as one of very rare occurrence; but this is by
no means the case with the ulcerations, which would seem not always
to have confined their attacks to the tongue, but to have extended
also, just as with the _fellator_, to the other parts of the mouth as
well. This cannot but have had the effect of making it very difficult
in diagnosis to distinguish between an affection of the sort due to
_fellation_ and one due to the vice of the _cunnilingue_.

Here again it is _Martial_ to whom we are indebted for the proofs of
our assertions. He leaves no room for doubt as to the way Manneius was
punished for his debauchery in the following passage[79]:

    _Lingua maritus, moechus ore Manneius,_
    _Summoenianis inquinatior buccis:_
    Quem cum fenestra vidit a Suburrana
    Obscoena nudum lena, fornicem claudit,
    Mediumque mavult basiare, quam summum:
    Modo qui _per omnes viscerum tubos_ ibat,
    Et voce certa consciaque dicebat:
    Puer, an puella matris esset in ventre;
    (Gaudete cunni, vestra namque res acta est!)
    _Arrigere linguam non potest fututricem
    Nam, dum tumenti mersus haeret in vulva_[80]
    Et vagientes intus audit infantes,
    _Partem gulosam solvit indecens morbus;
    Nec purus esse nunc potest, nec impurus._

(_Manneius was a husband with his tongue, a fornicator with his mouth,
a more polluted wretch than the big-cheeked wenches of the suburbs._
When a vile bawd saw him naked from a window in the Suburra, she shuts
her brothel up, and had rather kiss his middle than his head. The man
who but now could _penetrate every vessel of the inwards_, and say with
assured voice and certain knowledge whether it were a boy or a girl
in the mother’s belly,—rejoice, rejoice, organs of women, for your
business is done for you,—the same _cannot erect a fornicating tongue_.
For at the very moment _he is plunged tight in the swollen vulva_, and
hears the babes whimpering within, lo! _a shocking disease paralyses
his greedy tongue. Now can he be neither clean, nor yet unclean_).

The Commentators, in particular _Farnabius_, refer the complaint spoken
of in the passage just quoted to paralysis of the tongue. Farnabius
says in fact: “Paralysisne ἀπὸ τῆς ἀφέδρου καὶ τῶν ἐμμηνιῶν, quorum
malefico humore marcescunt segetes, apes moriuntur etc., Plin. c.
15 Lib. V., an sideratio?” (Is paralysis intended, _resulting from
the menstruation and menstrual_ discharges, the poisonous humour of
which will wither up crops, kill bees, etc.—Pliny ch. 15. Bk. V., or
a sudden stroke?) Even supposing us willing to admit the possibility
of menstrual blood bringing on paralysis of the tongue, there can
at any rate be no question of such a thing here, inasmuch as it was
with a pregnant woman Manneius carried out his vicious practises, and
women in pregnancy do not _usually_ menstruate,—a fact about which the
Philologist naturally enough was only imperfectly posted. Of course
the possibility is always there, although the Poet says nothing about
it; and the expression _vulva tumens_ (swollen organ) evidently stands
here, as is clearly shown by what follows, for _uterus gravidus_
(pregnant womb)[81]. The _solvere_ (to loose, destroy) points in any
case to a destruction, a dwindling, of the part, brought about by the
_indecens morbus_ (shocking disease),—which disease might very likely
find its explanation in the _scelerata lues_ (noxious contagion)
mentioned on page 258 above. As a result of this, naturally enough
not only did _arrigere_ (to erect—the tongue) become impossible, but
the _impurus_ (_Cunnilingus_) (unclean cunnilingue) grew generally
incapable of practising his vice. Nor yet was he _purus_ (clean)[82]
altogether, for was he not a _cunnilingue_?—and now he was even less
_purus_, because he suffered from the _indecens morbus_ (shocking
disease), which even Farnabius has so far rightly understood, that
he explains _nec purus_ (nor yet clean) by _morbo illo contaminatus_
(because contaminated by the said disease).

Rather more doubtful and difficult is the interpretation of the
following passage of _Martial_[83], which would yet appear to be
pertinent here:

    Non dixi, Coracine, te cinaedum;
    Non sum tam temerarius, nec audax,
    Nec mendacia qui loquar libenter.
    Si dixi, Coracine, te cinaedum,
    Iratam mihi Pontiae lagenam,
    Iratum calicem mihi Metili.
    _Iuro per Syrios tibi tumores,
    Iuro per Berecynthios furores._
    Quod dixi tamen, hoc leve et pusillum est.
    Quod notum est, quod et ipse non negabis:
    _Dixi te_, Coracine, _cunnilingum_.

(I never called you a _cinaedus_, Coracinus; I am not so rash or
so reckless, not being one to speak lies willingly. If I called
you a _cinaedus_, Coracinus, may Pontia’s jar be my enemy, and
Metilius’ poisoned cup. _I take oath by your Syrian tumours, by your
Berecynthian frenzies._ What I _did_ say is a trivial, an insignificant
thing, a thing well known, that you will not yourself deny,—_I said_,
Coracinus, _you were a cunnilingue_).

What were these _Syrii tumores_ (Syrian tumours) that afflicted the
_cunnilingue_ Coracinus? _Beroaldus_, Annotat. ch. 25., understands
them as “tumores et vibices a cultris et flagris quibus sacerdotes
Cybeles (quam deam Syriam esse volunt) se sauciabant.” (the swellings
and weals from the knives and scourges with which the priests of
Cybelé,—whom they claim to be the Syrian goddess—used to wound
themselves). _Farnabius_ on the contrary thinks only _Berecynthios
furores_ (Berecynthian frenzies) to be intended in this explanation,
and makes the _tumores Syrii_ mean “_ulcera et morbos quibus credebatur
irata Isis inflare peierantes_,” (ulcers and maladies with which the
angry Isis was supposed to afflict false swearers), appealing to the
passage of Persius[84], already brought forward a few pages back (p.
254.), which reads:

    Hinc grandes Galli et cum sistro lusca sacerdos,
    _Incussere Deos inflantes corpora_, si non
    Praedictum ter mane caput gustaveris alli.

(Then the tall Galli, and the one-eyed priestess with her sacred
rattle, instil terror of _the gods that make men’s bodies swell_,
unless three times at dawn you have eaten the prescribed head of
garlic).

Whether this passage affords any direct proof would seem doubtful,
inasmuch as the _inflare corpus_ (to make the body swell) properly
speaking only refers to the abdomen. To this also the eating of the
allium (garlic), which no doubt first won its magic significance on
account of its carminative properties, appears to point.

However another explanation is possible. Referring back to the passage
of _Porphyrius_ quoted above on p. 254., the _tumores_ Coracinus had
contracted in consequence of his general incontinence with women,
which incontinence had at last brought him as a _senex_? (old man) to
such a condition of weakness that nothing was left him but the vice of
_cunnilingere_ to satisfy his still unexhausted lubricity. A side light
in this case may be thrown on the matter by Horace’s description of the
_Anus libidinosa_ (The lecherous old woman) in Epodes VIII. 9. 19.:

    Venter mollis et femur _tumentibus_
      Exile _suris_ additum.—Fascinum
    Quod ut superbo provoces ab inguine
      Ore allaborandum est tibi.

(Flabby belly and skinny thigh joined with swollen calves,—A tool, that
requires you, in order to call it up from the supercilious groin, to
work it with the mouth). _Casaubon_ in his commentary on the passage of
_Persius_ is for connecting this, as well as the _Tumores Syrii_, with
ἕλκεα Συριακὰ (Syrian sores), and—as quoted on p. 253 above—to regard
them as a consequence of the wrath of the _Dea Syria_ (Syrian goddess).
No doubt as a matter of fact the _tumores_ were a result of debauchery,
one that was prevalent in Syria and was disseminated thence to Rome,
for they attacked a _cunnilingue_ no less than other debauchees; but
this brings us no nearer to a knowledge of their nature. We should
perhaps be inclined to regard them as swellings of the tonsils or of
the lympathic glands of the throat, having the same significance as the
inguinal buboes in affections of the genitals.

But what are the _Berecynthii furores_ (Berecynthian frenzies)?
Possibly nocturnal pains in the bones, that torment a patient to the
pitch of frenzy? The metaphor, drawn from the nocturnal rites of
Cybelé, must be admitted to be a happy one. Still, however acceptable
conjectures of the sort may be to many, we cannot take them seriously.
It appears to us most judicious to regard the _Syrii tumores_ as being
ulcerations that covered the body of Coracinus, and by their violent
itching reduced him to a state of frenzy. Our view as stated is
confirmed by Epigram 108. of _Ausonius_:


IN SCABIOSUM POLYGITONEM.

    Thermarum in solio si quis Polygitona vidit
    Ulcera membrorum scabie putrefacta foventem,
    Praeposuit cunctis spectacula talia ludis.
    Principio tremulis gannitibus aëra pulsat,
    Verbaque lascivos meretricum imitantia coetus
    Vibrat et obscoenae numeros pruriginis implet.
    _Brachia deinde rotat velut enthea daemone Maenas,_
    Pectus, crura, latus, ventrem, femora, _inguina_, _suras_,
    Tergum, colla, humeros luteae Symplegadis antrum.
    Tam diversa locis vaga carnificina pererrat,
    Donec marcentem calidi fervore lavacri
    Blandus letali solvat dulcedine morbus.
    Desectos sic fama viros, ubi cassa libido
    Femineos coetus et non sua bella lacessit,
    Irrita vexato consumere gaudia lecto:
    Titillata brevi quum iam sub fine voluptas
    Fervet et ingesto peragit ludibria morsu.
    Turpia non aliter Polygiton membra resolvit,
    Et quia debentur suprema piacula vitae,
    Ad Phlegethonteas sese iam praeparat undas.

(_To the scabby Polygiton._—If any man caught sight of Polygiton on the
seat of the Thermae bathing the sores on his limbs all rotten with
scab, he preferred so entertaining a spectacle to all the games. First
he beats the air with twittering, whining noises, and utters broken
sounds in imitation of the wanton embraces of harlots, and completes
the symphony of his foul-minded lechery. _Then he twirls his arms about
like a Maenad under the god’s afflatus_; breast, legs, flank, belly,
thighs, _groin_, _calves_, back, neck, shoulders, cave of the bemired
Symplegades,—i. e. hollow between buttocks,—in so many different places
does the shooting torture fly, until he droops and faints in the warmth
of the hot bath and the disease is soothed and gives a fatal respite.
So it is said castrated eunuchs, when barren desire tries hard for
embraces with women and for contests they cannot properly engage in,
are consumed with empty transports on the tossed and tumbled bed,—till
eventually their lust, tickled and tickled, flames high for a last
moment, and completes the wanton act by applying the mouth and biting.
So with Polygiton a final spasm relaxes his disfigured limbs, and the
last sin-offerings of his life being due, thus makes himself ready for
the waves of Phlegethon).

True the connexion with the vice of _cunnilingere_ is apparently lost
here, but this also may be preserved without any great straining of
the words, as we shall see presently; and accordingly the _Tumores
Syrii_ can be quite well regarded as a consequence of the vice of the
_cunnilingus_.


Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin).


§ 25.

Ever since the so-called first appearance of Venereal Disease, most of
the advocates of the antiquity of the complaint have made a point of
bringing in _Mentagra_[85] within the purview of the quotations they
adduce to prove their contention, although strictly speaking they were
never likely to succeed in a direct demonstration that the disease was
really and truly connected with sexual excesses. Accordingly, to the
present day the majority of them see in it nothing more than a form
of Leprosy, particularly as _Hensler_[86] and _Sprengel_ were among
those who decided in favour of its leprous character. Instead of giving
a useless list of names of the different authors, who in former days
declared for the one view or the other, we think it more expedient
to quote first of all the capital authority, a passage in Pliny[87],
setting this down as it stands so as to be able afterwards to form a
correct appreciation of its bearing:

Cap. I. “Sensit et _facies_ hominum novos omnique aevo priore
incognitos, non Italiae modo, verum etiam universae prope Europae
morbos: tunc quoque non tota Italia, nec per Illyricum Galliasve aut
Hispanias magnopere vagatos, aut alibi, quam Romae circaque: sine
dolore quidem illos ac sine pernicie vitae: sed tanta foeditate, ut
quaecunque mors praeferenda esset.

Cap. II. “Gravissimum ex his _lichenas_ appellavere _Graeco nomine_:
_Latine_, quoniam a mento fere oriebatur, _ioculari primum lascivia_
(ut est procax natura multorum in alienis miseriis) mox et usurpato
vocabulo, _mentagram_: occupantem in multis totos utique vultus, oculis
tantum immunibus, descendentem[88] vero et in colla pectusque ac manus,
foedo cutis furfure[89].

Cap. III. “Non fuerat _haec lues_ apud maiores patresque nostros.
Et primum _Tiberii Claudii Caesaris_ principatu medio irrepsit in
Italiam, quodam Perusino equite Romano Quaestorio scriba, quum in
Asia apparuisset inde contagionem eius importante. Nec sensere id
malum feminae aut servitia, plebesque humilis, aut media: sed proceres
veloci transitu osculi maxime: foediore multorum qui perpeti medicinam
toleraverant, citatrice, quam morbo. Causticis[90] namque curabatur,
ni usque in ossa corpus exustum esset, rebellante taedio. Advenerunt
ex Aegypto, _genitrice talium vitiorum_, medici, hanc solam operam
afferentes, magna sua praeda. Siquidem certum est, Manilium Cornutum,
e Praetoriis legatum Aquitanicae provinciae, H.S. CC. elocasse in eo
morbo curandum sese.”

(Ch. I. Moreover the human _face_ experienced new diseases, and such
as had been unknown in any former age not merely to Italy but to the
whole of Europe very nearly, and these not widely diffused over Italy
generally, or through Illyricum or the provinces of Gaul or of Spain,
or indeed anywhere else but just in Rome and its neighbourhood. They
were painless, it is true, and did not involve loss of life, but were
of such a horrible nature that death in any form would have been
preferable.

Ch. II. The most serious of these diseases they called
_lichenes_,—scabs, a Greek name; in Latin, as the malady generally
showed itself first on the chin, it was known as _mentagra_,—chin-bane,
scab or tetter of the chin, at the first by way of jest and
mockery—for it is the nature of the multitude to make merry at
others’ misfortunes,—but soon this became the recognized word. In many
persons it covered absolutely the whole countenance, the eyes alone
being left unaffected, with a horrible scurf of the skin, going down
sometimes to the neck as well, and breast, and hands.

Ch. III. _This plague_ had not existed among our ancestors or fathers.
For the first time it crept into Italy in the middle of the reign of
_Tiberius Claudius Caesar_, a certain Perusinius, a Roman knight and
Quaestorian secretary, after a period of service in Asia, importing
the contagion from there. But women did not suffer from the malady,
or slaves, nor yet common folk of humble or middle-class station; but
nobles, and this particularly by the rapid infection of an embrace. In
many cases the scar, where patients had submitted to medical treatment,
was more horrible than the disease itself. For indeed it was curable
by caustics, except when the body had been consumed to the very bones,
the slowness of the treatment defeating its own end. Physicians
arrived from Egypt, _mother-land of such taints_, practising this cure
exclusively, to their own great profit. If, that is, it is true that
Manilius Cornutus, of the Praetorians and governor of the Province of
Aquitania, offered 200,000 sesterces for his cure when attacked by this
disease).

Here if ever, it particularly behoves us to begin with an elucidation
of the meaning of the name given to the malady under discussion.
_Gruner_[91] long ago called attention to the divergence of opinion
as to the signification of λειχῆνες (scabs) among the writers of
Antiquity, but without success in putting the actual facts in a clear
light. We must try if we can be more fortunate. An old etymologist
says: λειχὴν παρὰ τὸ λείχω, καὶ γὰρ φάσιν ἐκ τοῦ λείχειν τὸ πάθος
ἐπαίρεται[92], (λειχὴν comes from λείχω,—I lick, because they say
the complaint is set up by licking). On this we may say.—there is no
doubt λειχῆνες and λιχῆνες are derived from λείχειν or λίχειν, but
the explanation _Kraus_ gives of the reason in his Lexicon we cannot
think conceivable, viz. “because Lichen, the same as a parasitic plant
does, or a skin-disease in animals, always creeps round further and
further (see _Herpes_,—creeping eruption), or _as it were licks its
way_,” for λείχειν is not so much _lambere_, λάπτειν,—to lick over,
lick along, as _lingere_, _ligurire_[93],—to lick up, lick up greedily.
At the same time it is true the word (_lambere_) was used by the
Romans in a somewhat similar sense, so perhaps we ought not to refer
to _lambit flamma_ (a flame licks), but rather to Plautus’ expression
(_Pers. prolog. 5._), “_quorum imagines lambunt hederae sequaces_”
(whose images creeping ivy-tendrils lick, i. e. entwine). Most probably
there are two different stems underlying the word. Of these one is
λέγειν,—to lay, etc., hence λέγνη, the edging, the border, λίγνυς, soot
(depositing itself on the edge), together with the bye-forms λέχω, λίχω
with which in fact λιχὴν, _moss_[94], so far as it forms on the edge,
the surface, fringes it, would be connected. The other stem will be
λίγω, or λείγω (comp. λίβω and λείβω), λείχω and λείχην, λίγγω, λίζω,
to which would have to be referred also λίγυς and λιγυρὸς,—clear,
shrill (ligurire, lingere,—to lick greedily, to lick), in all of which
the underlying sense is of licking, and the noise connected with it.

It is plain that later on the derivatives of these stems suffered
manifold variations and corruptions; but how much of all this is to
be attributed to speakers and writers among the Greeks themselves,
and how much to subsequent transcribers and editors of their work, it
might be difficult to decide. But every day we have occasion to note a
number of words, to which accident or other circumstances have given an
ambiguous character. These, used quite unsuspectingly by the ignorant,
make the better informed person blush, or else extort a smile from him
that often enough causes the speaker no little embarrassment to know
the reason. Undoubtedly it was the same with the Greeks and Romans,
and so confusions between λίχω and λείχω, λιχὴν and λειχὴν, might have
easily arisen, from which people were subsequently unable to extricate
themselves. Originally perhaps λείχω, equally with _lingo_ and
_ligurio_ (to lick), may have had the simple sense of licking, and only
through later accretions to the meaning, have acquired an ambiguous
character; soon however this got transferred to it to the exclusion of
all others, and we find it used preferentially as the regular word for
_cunnilingere_. The correctness of our conclusion would seem to follow
above all from the passage of _Aristophanes_[95] given below, where it
is the additional words that narrow down the meaning of λείχω (I lick),
and definitely bring out the special signification. The words are said
of Ariphrades, who reminds us of the ἀποφρὰς (unmentionable), the name
Lucian appropriates to Timarchus:

    Οὐδὲ παμπόνηρος, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσεξεύρηκέ τι·
    τὴν γὰρ αὑτοῦ _γλῶτταν αἰσχραῖς ἡδοναῖς μαίνεται,
    ἐν κασαυρίοισι λείχων τὴν ἀπόπτυστον δρόσον_,
    καὶ μολύνων τὴν ὑπήνην, καὶ κυκῶν τὰς ἐσχάρας.

(Nor yet utterly villainous is he, but he has discovered yet another
device; for he polluted his own tongue with foul delights, _in the
stews licking up the abominable dew_, defiling the hair on the upper
lip, and tumbling the girls’ _nymphae_).

In the following Epigram[96] of an unknown author λείχω is found used
absolutely, without any supplementary words:

    _Χείλων_ καὶ _λείχων_ ἴσα γράμματα· ἐς τί δὲ τοῦτο;
    _Λείχει_ καὶ _Χείλων_, κἂν ἴσα, κἂν ἄνισα.

(Χείλων,—a proper name, also means _of the lips_,—and
λείχων,—licking,—have the like letters; now what does this point to?
Chilon licks lips, whether lips like his own, or whether unlike). In
explanation of this Epigram _Forbiger_ says (loco citato p. 326.):
“Lusus in Chilonem cunnilingum. Hunc ait iure quodam suo lingere, qui
vel nomine iisdem literis constante prae se fert lingentem et lingentem
quidem tum labra oris, ut labris ligentis similia, tum cunni, ut
dissimilia.” (Pun on the name of Chilon, a _cunnilingue_. The poet says
he (Chilon) licks by a sort of inherent right of his own, who even in
his name, made up of the same letters, proclaims himself as licking,
and licking now the lips of the mouth, which are like the lips of
the licker, now those of the female organ, which are unlike). Χεῖλος
was in fact used also of the lips of a woman’s organ, the _nymphae_;
the Scholiast on τὰς ἐσχάρας (the _nymphae_) in the passage from
Aristophanes given a little above, interprets this word by τὰ χείλη
τῶν γυναικείων αἰδοίων (the lips of the female privates). According
to _Schneider_ in his Lexicon χείλων (adj.) signifies _thick-lipped_.
Perhaps it was this very Epigram that led _Lambert Bosius_ to make the
statement that χείλων arose by a mere transposition of the letters from
λείχον.

Now if λείχην,—for we consider it should be thus accented,—is derived
from λείχω (I lick), we cannot but regard it as meaning: something
_produced by licking, a complaint brought on by licking_, and
particularly _by the licking of the cunnilingue_! Surely the Greeks
could hardly have expressed themselves more clearly. Then the fact that
the name came from the mouth of the common people is the very best
reason for its not having been understood by the educated. Yet all
the while an entirely similar form of expression has grown up in the
mouth of the German common people, the real meaning of which very few
have fathomed, but which most certainly arose in the same way as the
Greek λείχην. No doubt many of my readers have again and again heard
it said of some one with an eruption round the mouth, that is, someone
suffering from _Herpes labialis_ (Creeping eruption of the lips):
“Well! you _have_ been licking!”—for which educated people substitute
the obviously insufficient, “You _have_ been picking!” Very commonly
again one may hear: “You _have_ been licking _greben_, or picking
_greben_; and this word _greben_ is understood as being identical with
_grieben_,—_greaves_ in English, i. e. the remnants of lard that has
been cut up into pieces and fried, because the separate pustules of
the _herpes labialis_ resemble in appearance the _greaves_. So people
sometimes also say still more explicitly, “You _have_ been licking,
or picking, _greaves_; and one of them has been left sticking to your
mouth, to prove your greediness!”

This explanation may seem a very likely one to many; nevertheless we
incline to believe the word to be of later origin, and to have arisen
from ignorance of the actual facts. We consider it more probable
that _greben_ owes its origin to some corruption of language growing
out of _gremium_, the bosom. We have been led to this conjecture by
a statement of _Adelung’s_ in his Dictionary, Article “Grieben”,
where he says: “In middle-Latin _grieben_, (greaves), were called,
in accordance with a common interchange change of the letters b. and
m. _gremium_”,—though indeed we cannot regard the word as solely and
entirely mediæval Latin, for it is found occurring as early as _Pliny_
(Hist. Nat. XII. 19.) and _Columella_ (Res Rust. XII. 19. 3.), and is
evidently connected with _cremare_ (to burn). So just as in this case
_cremium_ and _gremium_ may have been used interchangeably, has _grebe_
grown out of _greme_ in German, and the latter come to be used as a
synonym of _griebe_,—the latter words according to this having as
little in common with one another as the former. However those better
practised in the science of word formation must here decide!

Now as to the word _Mentagra_ (Tetter, Scab). This was evidently a
word first framed by the Romans, as is distinctly stated not alone by
_Pliny_, but by _Galen_ as well (De compos. medic. secundum locos Bk.
V., edit. Kühn Vol. XII. p. 839.). The latter says: Ἐκδόριον λειχήνων·
ταύτῃ Πάμφιλος χρησάμενος ἐπὶ Ῥώμης πλεῖστον ἐπορίσατο _ἐπικρατούσης ἐν
τῇ πόλει τῆς μεντάγρας λεγομένης_. (Blister for Lichenes (Scabs); in
this way Pamphilus in his practise at Rome made most headway against
_the Mentagra as it was called, then prevalent in the city_). It is
usually considered to be formed on the analogy of _Podagra_, _Chiragra_
(gout of the feet, gout of the hands) etc. from _mentum_, the chin,
and ἄγρα, the act of catching, seizing hold of,—so a disease that
attacks the chin. But more probably all these words are compounded not
with ἄγρα at all, but with ἄλγος (suffering). That is to say just as
ἀλγαλέος, by Attic interchange of letters, becomes ἀργαλέος (grievous),
κεφαλαλγία becomes κεφαλαργία (head-ache), and ληθαλγία, ληθαργία
(drowsiness, lethargy), so from ποδαλγία we get ποδαργία, and then by
metathesis ποδάγρα (gout). (Comp. _Doederlein_ “Lateinische Synonyme
und Etymologien”,—Latin Synonyms and Etymologies Pt. 4. p. 424.). The
remark _Pliny_ adds however “_ioculari primum lascivia_” (at first by
way of jesting mockery) evidently points to some ambiguity underlying
the word. But whether this consists in the recognition of the likeness
in sound between _mentum_, the chin, and _menta_, or _mentula_,
the virile member, or is to be looked for in the ἄγρα, it might be
difficult to determine. Still it seems probable, but without wishing to
entirely exclude the former hypothesis, that the latter is the case, as
will appear directly.

_Galen_[97] distinguishes between λειχὴν ἁπλοῦς and λειχὴν ἄγριος
(simple _lichen_, and malignant _lichen_) in his enumeration of
Skin-diseases, and still more plainly in another place[98] he says:
“λειχὴν is likewise a Skin-disease; there are two forms of it, ὁ μὲν
ἥμερος καὶ πρᾳότερος, ὁ δὲ ἄγριος καὶ χαλεπώτερος (the one benignant
and milder, the other malignant and more serious). But in both of them
minute scales are detached from the skin, and the part of the skin
underneath the scales is reddened and almost ulcerated. The affection
arises from a salt phlegmatic humour (φλέγματος ἁλμυροῦ) and yellow
gall, hence the scales fall from the skin as in glazed pottery-ware
(? ἐπὶ τῶν ἁλμῶν τῶν κεραμίων). The affection is cured by internal
phlegmagogues and external embrocations.” We have already on p. 139.
above, in the footnote on ἄγριος (wild, savage) and χαλεπός (hard,
harsh), noted how these words are used with special reference to the
vice of paederastia, but they are also applied generally to the vice,
the different forms of which we have been examining here. This follows
from _Plato_[99] and _Plutarch_[100], at any rate so far as ἄγριος is
concerned, which indeed we may conveniently render by _vicious_. The
original meaning being overlooked, λείχην and λιχὴν had been taken as
synonymous,—possibly the Latin _lichenos_ first led to the mistake;
then naturally enough an appropriate epithet was sought, to signify
the _lichen_ which was the result of licking in a vicious fashion. But
this according to the already existing mode of speech could be nothing
else than ἄγριος[101] again,—λειχὴν ἄγριος, with which λειχὴν ἁπλοῦς,
_lichen insons_, (simple, innocent _lichen_) was naturally contrasted.

Yet while _Criton_, as cited in _Aëtius_, simply and quite
correctly interpreted Mentagra by ἄγριος λειχὴν (fierce, malignant
lichen), _Galen_ appears to have been still ignorant of the special
meaning. This is shown by the words ἥμερος and πρᾳότερος (gentle,
benignant,—milder), which obviously are correct opposites of ἄγριος
only _if_ the latter is understood, as it is in _Celsus_, as equivalent
to _ferus_ (fierce, malignant), but in no way account for the ἁπλοῦς
(simple, innocent), which Galen no doubt found already established as
distinguishing epithet of λιχὴν. How little he fathomed the nature of
the evil, is proved by his ætiology of it, which makes the complaint
result from the φλέγμα ἁλμυρὸν (salt phlegmatic humour) and the χολὴ
ξανθὴ (yellow gall). The unprofessional _Martial_ had a better word to
say on the subject when he wrote his _sordidique lichenes_ (filthy,
squalid-looking lichens). Similarly it would seem the _agra_ in
Mentagra should be taken as pointing to ἄγριος (fierce, malignant).
Can it be perhaps that in this way the μολύνων τὴν ὑπήνην (polluting
the hair on the upper lip) of _Aristophanes_, the Latin _barbam
inquinare_ (to pollute the beard), have come to be used as synonyms for
_cunnilingere_? _Martial_ seems to imply it by his _triste mentum_,
_mentum periculosum_ (disfigured chin, perilous chin). Perhaps too the
_Sycosis menti_ (Sycosis,—fig-like eruption, of the chin) of _Celsus_
and the later Greek medical writers should likewise be regarded as
coming under this head. At a matter of fact, _Archigenes_ says so in
so many words, as cited in _Galen_ (De comp. med. secundum locos.
Bk. V. edit. Kühn Vol. XII. p. 847.), ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν _συκωδῶν τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ
γενείου, λεγομένων δὲ μενταγρῶν, ὑπὸ δέ τινων λειχήνων ἀγρίων_, ποιεῖ
κ. τ. λ. (but in the case of the sycotic, or fig-like, eruptions
on the chin, which are called mentagrae, and by others malignant
lichens, he proceeds as follows, etc.), and calls the affection of the
chin, as do other Physicians, generally ἐξανθήματα ἐν τοῖς γενείοις
(efflorescences, eruptions on the chin),—p. 824.

If we have thus succeeded in establishing the meanings of _lichens_
and _mentagra_, the rest of the passage of _Pliny_ will admit of easy
explanation. The disease in many cases it seems invaded the whole
face, in the same way as the _atra lues_ (black contagion) in the
passages quoted above from _Martial_ under _fellation_. Perhaps all of
these,—indeed, _Pliny_ also says _lues_,—are the be referred, as is
actually done by _Farnabius_ in his notes, to _mentagra_, seeing that
the disease could perfectly well, though certainly much seldomer, arise
equally from the practise of _fellation_. The _double entendre_ between
_mentum_ (the chin) and _menta_ or _mentula_ (the virile member) would
so acquire all the more point.

The expression _foedo cutis furfure_ (with a horrible scurf of the
skin) appears to have led a number of authors to believe that this was
the capital characteristic of the complaint, and that the distinction
between λιχὴν and λείχην was merely one of degree. This view was
advocated in particular by _Willian_[102], who ascribes it also to
_Paulus Aegineta_[103] as well as to _Oribasius_[104] though both of
these authors limit themselves to saying that the moderately siccative
remedies are of no benefit in λείχην ἄγριος (malignant lichen), whereas
the more violent ones aggravate it, and that for this reason it was
called ἄγριος. Hence Willian’s _Lichen agrius_ (malignant lichen) has
nothing in common with the _lichen_ of the Greeks and Romans but the
mere name, for it follows clearly from the words _foediore cicatrice_
(with a more horrible scar) that occur a little further down in
_Pliny_, that a process of skinning over by ulceration was part of the
disease, and did not owe its existence solely to the caustic remedies
employed.

The _immunity of women_[105] equally admits of easy explanation, for
in the first place women were not likely to have readily conceived
the idea of acting after the manner of a _cunnilingue_[106], and even
if _fellation_ is admitted to be an occasionally concurrent cause of
_mentagra_, still it would seem, as already stated, to supervene much
less often as a consequence of the latter vice; while in cases where it
does, it is of a milder form and it is rather the internal parts of the
mouth that are imperilled. Besides, it is to be remembered that women
generally speaking suffer less frequently from pustulous disorders of
the cutaneous glands affecting the face than men do, as is well seen at
the present day with Acne. In the parts neighbouring on the genitals
this is exactly reversed. Still this immunity of women must not be
insisted on too far, as those persons of the female sex who used to
practise _fellation_, the Summoenianae (women of the suburbs) lay too
completely outside the range of _Pliny’s_ observation.

As to the _servi_ (slaves) and _Plebs humilis_ (Commons of humble
station), these were surely unlikely, however little restraint they
may have put on their sensual appetites, to have readily fallen into
suchlike forms of vice,—forms which spring as a rule from the brain of
unoccupied, rich idlers. We have only to appeal to modern experience
to substantiate this. How many individuals of the lowest and middle
classes have the records of forensic medicine to show as having been
paederasts and so on? Wild aberrations in morals have at no period
begun with the common man! So we see it was the Proceres (Nobles) who
were in an especial degree attacked by the _mentagra_.

At the same time the most conspicuous cause of _mentagra_, the practice
of _cunnilingere_ was by no means the _only_ way of getting it, for
the malady, like _condylomata_ on the genital organs, was evidently
connected with a contagion,—a fact which is clearly enough brought
out by the layman _Pliny_, whereas the Physicians say nothing about
this. Accordingly the disorder was capable of being disseminated by
_kissing_ from one individual to another. But it was not the _velox
transitus osculi_ (swift transmission of a kiss) that was instrumental
in spreading the disease, but rather the _basium_ (wanton kiss),—which
depended on some yet unidentified lascivious device[107], sucking,
playing with the tongue or the like. Still we must remember that at
the very time the _mentagra_ was spreading with such terrible rapidity,
a perfect _mania for kissing_ had broken out at Rome. _Martial_
describes this admirably in the two following Epigrams, which are of
the very highest importance in connection with our subject:


_Book XII. Epigram 59:_

DE IMPORTUNIS BASIATORIBUS.

    Tantum dat tibi Roma basiorum
    Post annos modo quindecim reverso,
    Quantum Lesbia non dedit Catullo.
    Te vicinia tota, te pilosus
    Hircoso premit osculo colonus.
    Hinc instat tibi textor, inde fullo,
    Hinc sutor modo pelle basiata,
    Hinc _menti dominus periculosi_,
    Hinc defioculusque et inde lippus,
    Fellatorque recensque cunnilingus.
    Iam tanti tibi non fuit redire.

(_Of pestilent Kissers_: Rome bestows more kisses on you, on your
return to her after fifteen years’ absence, than ever Lesbia gave
Catullus. The whole neighbourhood kisses you, and the hirsute
countryman presses you in his goaty embrace. One side the weaver is
upon you, the other the fuller, here the cobbler who but now kissed his
leather; here comes _the owner of a perilous chin_, here the one-eyed
man and here the blear, and the _fellator_, and the _cunnilingue_
fresh from work. Now surely to return was not of such importance to you
as all this.)


_Book XI. Epigram 98:_

AD BASSUM.

    Effugere non est, Basse, basiatores.
    Instant, morantur, persequuntur, occurrunt
    Et hinc et illinc, usquequaque, quacunque.
    _Non ulcus acre pustulaeve lucentes_,
    _Nec triste mentum sordidique lichenes_,
    Nec labra pingui delibuta ceroto,
    Nec congelati gutta proderit nasi.
    Et aestuantem basiant et algentem,
    Et nuptiale basium reservantem.
    Non te cucullis asseret caput tectum,
    Lectica nec te tuta pelle veloque,
    Nec vindicabit sella saepius clausa.
    Rimas per omnes basiator intrabit.
    Non consulatus ipse, non tribunatus,
    Saevique fasces, nec superba clamosi
    Lictoris abiget virga basiatorem.
    Sedeas in alto tu licet tribunali,
    Et e curuli iura gentibus reddas:
    Ascendet illa basiator atque illa:
    Febricitantem basiabit et flentem:
    Dabit oscitanti basium natantique,
    Dabit et cacanti. Remedium mali solum est
    Facias amicum, basiare quem nolis.

(_To Bassus_: Escape the kissers, no! it is not to be done, Bassus.
They set upon you, wait for you, pursue you, meet you, here, there,
and everywhere, in every street, at every corner. _Neither acrid ulcer
nor shiny pustules, neither disfigured chin_ nor foul scabs, nor lips
anointed with pink salve, nor the drop at the tip of a frozen nose will
save you. They kiss a man sweating with heat and starving with cold,
nay! even a man keeping his lips pure for the nuptial kiss. A head
muffled in hoods will not exempt you, nor a litter guarded with rug
and curtain, nor the sedan kept closed most of the time get you off.
The kisser will in by every chink. Not the very consulship, not the
tribuneship, not the stern fasces and threatening rod of the shouting
lictor will keep away the kisser. Though you sit exalted on the high
tribunal, or give laws to the people from the curule seat, both to one
and the other the kisser will climb up. He will kiss a man shaking with
fever, and drivelling with cold. He will give a kiss to a man gaping,
to a man swimming, even to a man shitting! The one and only cure for
the plague is to make a real friend, whom you will not need to kiss).

Now we shall be in a position to explain to our satisfaction what
_Martial_ meant by _basia lasciva_ (wanton kisses),—XI. 24.—_basia
maligna_ (pestilent kisses),—XII. 55.—and _Petronius_ (ch. 23.) by his
_conspuere aliquem basio immundissimo_ (to beslobber anyone with a most
filthy kiss); and we shall be in no way surprised at the fact that
_mentagra_ not only attacked the Roman nobles as a virtual epidemic,
but that the _velox transitus osculi_ (the swift transmission of a
kiss) was alleged by Pliny as a reason of its communication.

Finally as to the historical factor in connection with _mentagra_,—it
is implied in the account Pliny gives that it was _only at Rome_ it
was regarded as a new disease. It must have been already known to
the Greeks, for they possessed the name _Lichen_ for it. The Greek
physicians, of whom several of the ones quoted by _Galen_ lived some
considerable time before Claudius, know nothing about the disease being
a new one, while _Galen_ himself says simply, _ἐπικρατούσης_ ἐν τῇ
πόλει τῆς μεντάγρας λεγομέμης, (when the _mentagra_ as it was called
_was prevalent_ in the city). _Plutarch_ again, though he (Symposiaca
bk. VIII. Quaest. 9.) wrote a special Chapter on new diseases, with
particular reference to Elephantiasis, never mentions _mentagra_ at
all. He represents it as having been introduced into Rome from Asia,
and it was from Egypt, the _Genetrix talium vitiorum_ (Mother-land
of suchlike abominations), the Physicians[108] were imported who
understood how to cure the disorder. We have more than once noted that
Asia was the breeding place of sexual excesses, and described how vice
spread from thence over different countries and how as a result of
these practices the affections of the parts naturally concerned that
arose first in Asia subsequently passed on to these same countries.
For Rome this was in an especial degree the case with Egypt, where the
undermining of morality had gone farthest; _Martial_[109] spoke justly
when he said “_Nequitias tellus scit dare nulla magis_,” (No other land
knows better how to produce finished rascality). But the intercourse
with Asia and Egypt arose mainly in the time of Pompey, and became from
that period ever more active, while concurrently luxury was on the
increase and the old Virtus (manly virtue) of the Romans disappearing
more and more every day,—above all when Tiberius by his own example
elevated every form of vice into a sort of fancy article demanded by
fashion.

Not that the Emperor went unpunished, for he himself probably suffered
from _mentagra_. _Julian_[110] says of him, that when Romulus had
invited to the feast of the Saturnalia all gods and Caesars, Tiberius
appeared with the rest, “but when he turned round to take his seat,
on his back could be seen in thousands scars, marks of burnings and
scrapings, indurated weals and callosities, results of his excesses
and wild lusts, cankers and scabs as it were burnt in”. Nay! according
to _Suetonius_[111] his face itself bore _crebri et subtiles tumores_
(a multitude of minute swellings); and _Tacitus_[112] says of him:
_Praegracilis et incurva proceritas, nudus capillo vertex, ulcerosa
facies, ac plerumque medicaminibus interstincta_, (Tall and of a
most graceful, albeit bowed, figure; the head bald, the face covered
_with ulcers_, and generally patched with medical plasters). When
_Galen_[113] mentions a τροχίσκος πρὸς ἕρπητας ὁ Τιβηρίου Καίσαρος (a
lozenge for creeping eruptions, Tiberius Caesar’s), this does not in
any way necessarily imply that this was prescribed as a remedy against
eruptive symptoms on the _face_, for Tiberius, as we see from the
passage quoted from _Julian_, suffered from eruptions on all the other
parts of his body. Even if an affection of the face was intended, the
expression ἕρπης (creeping eruption), in view of the marked tendency
of the disease to spread to neighbouring parts, was not at all an
unnatural one to be used; and we may say, speaking generally, that
the view which holds the Greeks to have indicated by the word ἕρπης
any one definite and distinct form of eruption is entirely mistaken.
_Bertrandi_[114] indeed endeavours to show that _mentagra_ was a form
of malignant tetter. That the application of plasters as a remedy in
_mentagra_ was frequently recommended and employed is shown both by
_Galen_ and _Aëtius_[115].

But in proportion as the exciting cause grew ever more and more common,
the _cunnilingue_ being now no longer contented with girls, but
employing for the satisfaction of his shameful mania women and even
pregnant women as well, and at last actually women during menstruation,
the resulting consequences were bound to occur not only more frequently
but also in a more dangerous form. At first it was merely single
pustules, which appeared round the mouth and took possession of the
chin, and which were confounded with _Sycosis menti_ (Sycosis,—fig-like
eruption of the chin), a complaint liable to arise from other causes
as well and one long since familiar, without attracting particular
attention as anything uncommon. Later on when neither morbid vaginal
phlegm nor yet menstrual blood repelled the _cunnilingue_ any longer,
there was set up a diseased process in the cutaneous glands, the
resulting secretion rapidly drying formed a white crust or scurf, and
this was detached in flakes resembling bran. All this could not fail to
arouse remark, and accordingly the Romans, little practised in medical
diagnosis, saw in it a new disease, which in turn received a new name.
Just as in more modern times the introduction of Venereal disease was
attributed to a leprous Knight from the Holy Land, so now at Rome
_Perusinus, eques Romanus, Quaestorius scriba_ (Perusinus, a Roman
knight, a secretary in the Quaestorian office) was held responsible
for bringing _mentagra_ from Asia. As a matter of fact he probably
got his _mentagra_ in Asia in exactly the same manner in which it was
acquired in Rome,—if indeed we are on general grounds to give any
weight to this part of the story. At any rate modern times have given
us many examples of how much credence mankind is ready to give to an
account of the introduction of a disease by one definite individual.
But the disease did not stop at the cutaneous glands, the hair-glands
were also involved, the hair fell away, and ulcers formed, which spread
around with destructive virulence, as was particularly the case in
Martial’s day. On the other hand it is true deep-seated ulceration
never supervened, but the disease rather extended on the surface from
the face onwards, spreading more or less over the whole of the rest
of the body[116], and thus assumed the form of Psora (Itch) or Lepra
(Leprosy),—a phænomenon we shall have to return to once more later, its
right appreciation being of the utmost importance for the History of
Venereal Disease.

Now, since on the one hand every _cunnilingue_ is not attacked by
_mentagra_, while on the other sometimes ulcers of the inner portion
of the mouth, sometimes _mentagra_, and the latter sometimes local,
sometimes of wide extent, are noted, the following question calls
for an answer. What circumstances conditioned these phænomena and,
generally, the special frequency of _mentagra_ in Italy? Leaving out of
account a variety of other considerations, we are bound in this place
to call in along with other factors of our explanation some special
and particular influence of the _Genius epidemicus_ (the aggregate of
epidemical conditions at large), which just at that time favoured the
rise of skin complaints. However slight the material Antiquity affords
us on this point, and especially so far as concerns the time a little
before and after Our Lord’s birth, still we _do_ find a datum for Italy
at any rate which we certainly ought not to leave unutilized. This is
the statement of _Pliny_ (ch. 5. and Bk. XX. ch. 52.) to the effect
that it was in the time of Pompey the Great, or according to _Plutarch_
(loco citato) in that of Asclepiades, that _elephantiasis_ first showed
itself in Italy. It follows that at that period favourable external
circumstances also were in existence in connection with the conditions
of disease at large,—as indeed the ready extension of _mentagra_ from
the chin onwards to the rest of the body proves even more clearly.

But it must not for a moment be supposed that therefore _mentagra_
was of _epidemic origin_. Without at all wishing to embark on the
consideration of the ætiological factors of _elephantiasis_, we may
just mention the fact that according to Pliny’s account this disease
too, equally with _mentagra_, would seem to have always begun with the
_face_[117]. The conjecture is all but unavoidable, that very possibly
in either case it was the practices of the _cunnilingue_ that supplied
the exciting cause for the misfortune; and this would also probably
explain how it was _elephantiasis_ came to be connected in men’s minds
with the _Morbus phoeniceus_ (Phoenician disease). Still, as already
explained, this would only be equivalent to making it responsible in
_individual_ cases,—cases that tend inevitably to render the proper
understanding of the action of _elephantiasis_, as well as of its
history, considerably more difficult. May it not also be to some extent
the case that under the general name of _elephantiasis_ forms of
disease of very different sorts have been confounded? The views held
by the Ancients on this and on the other skin diseases still remain in
too much obscurity for anyone to be able to give a decisive judgement
on the point. For the rest most probably the _atra lues_ and _scelerata
lues_ (black contagion, abominable contagion), spoken of above,
likewise come under the category of _mentagra_. This we have felt
ourselves constrained to ascribe not solely to the practise of the vice
of the _cunnilingue_ as a cause, but to _fellation_ also,—only that in
the latter case, as we have pointed out, it is rather the inner, in the
former rather the external parts, that became affected.


Morbus Campanus.

(Campanian Disease).


§ 26.

Several of the commentators on _Horace_, and particularly _Laevinus
Torrentius_[118] have referred the much-discussed _Morbus
Campanus_[119] to the head of _mentagra_; accordingly this will be no
inappropriate place at any rate to mention it, though without aiming at
a complete explanation. _Horace_ represents two buffoons, _Messius_ and
_Sarmentus_, as rallying each other for the amusement of the company:

        — — Messi clarum genus Osci,
    Sarmenti domina extat, ab his maioribus orti
    Ad pugnam venere. Prior Sarmentus: _Equi te
    Esse feri similem dico._ Ridemus: et ipse
    Messius: _Accipio_; caput et movet. _O, tua cornu
    Ni foret exsecto frons_, inquit, _quid faceres, cum
    Sic mutilus miniteris?_ At illi foeda cicatrix
    Setosam laevi frontem turpaverat oris.
    _Campanum in morbum_, in faciem permulta iocatus
    Pastorem saltaret uti Cyclopa, rogabat;
    Nil illi larva aut tragicis opus esse cothurnis.
    Multa Cicirrus ad haec.

(Messius was sprung of the renowned race of the Oscans,
Sarmentus’ mistress is yet living; from these ancestors derived, they
came to the fray. First begins Sarmentus: “I declare you are just like
an unbroken horse.” At this sally we laugh, and Messius himself says:
“I accept the likeness,” and tosses his head. “Oh! if your horn had
not been amputated from your brow,” says he then, “what _would_ you
do, since you threaten us so fiercely, mutilated as you are?” Now an
ugly scar disfigured the left side of his shaggy brow. After making a
number of jibes at his _Campanian disease_, and his face, he asked him
to dance the shepherd Cyclops; saying there needed no mask and tragic
buskins. Many jests Cicirrus added as well).

Messius who is chiefly spoken of in the above passage, is in the
first place represented as an Oscan by birth. Now the whole race of
the Oscans was, as _Festus_ informs us, notorious for its unnatural
excesses in matters of Love; we read in him, p. 191: “_Obscum_ duas
diversas et contrarias significationes habet. Nam Cloatius putat eo
vocabulo significari sacrum, quo etiam leges sacrae Oscae dicuntur, et
in omnibus fere antiquis commentariis scribitur _Opicum_ pro Obsco, ut
in Titini fabula quinta: Qui Obsce et Volsce fabulantur, nam Latine
nesciunt. A quo etiam verba impudentia, et elata appellantur obscena,
_quia frequentissimus fuit usus Oscis libidinum spurcarum_.” (_Obscum_
has two different and contrary meanings. For Cloatius considers
_sacred_ to be signified by the word, in which sense sacred laws are
spoken of as leges Oscae (_Oscan_ laws), and in almost all the old
commentaries _Opicum_ is written for _Obscum_, as in the fifth Fable
of Titinius: “Who converse in _Obscan_ and Volscian, because they know
not how in Latin.” Whence also indecent words, and swelling ones,
are called _obscene_, _because the practice of unclean lusts was most
frequent among the Oscans_[120].)

Again on p. 194., “Oscos, quos dicimus, ait Verrius Opscos ante dictos,
teste Ennio, cum dicat: De muris res gerit Opscus. Adiicit etiam,
quod _stupra inconcessae libidinis obscena dicantur, ab eius gentis
consuetudine inducta_. Quod verum esse non satis adducor, cum apud
antiquos omnes fere obscena dicta sint, quae mali ominis habebantur.”
(The _Oscans_, as we call them, Verrius says were formerly called
_Opscans_, on the evidence of Ennius, for he says: “The Opscan directs
his attack upon the walls.” He adds further that _debaucheries of
lawless love are called “obscene”, as taking this name from the habits
of the nation in question_. But I am not sufficiently convinced of the
truth of this, inasmuch as in nearly all the ancient writers things
are called _obscene_ that were held to be of evil omen). However
what the _spurca libido_ (unclean lust) consisted in may be readily
conjectured from the following explanations of _Festus_: _Oscines aves_
Appius Claudius esse ait, quae _ore canentes_ faciant auspicium, ut
_corvus_[121], cornix, noctua, (Divinatory birds—_Oscines_ aves—are,
says Appius Claudius, such as give an augury by _singing with the
mouth_, as _the raven_, the crow, the owl); if only we remember
how the _fellator_, as was shown on a previous page, was nicknamed
_corvus_ (raven). Again in an Epigram of _Ausonius_ already quoted a
_cunnilingue_ is called _Opicus magister_; so that we cannot doubt the
question is here of that vice which is practised with the mouth.

In another Epigram of _Ausonius_ quoted and explained above, where the
different forms of the _obscoena Venus_ (obscene Love) are specified,
Crispa there mentioned practises,

    _Et quam Nolanis capitalis luxus inussit_,

(That vice too which headlong wantonness branded on the men of
Nola), and this _capitalis luxus_[122] of the men of Nola, as the
general sense of the whole passage clearly shows, is nothing else but
_fellation_. But the town of Nola was in Campania, and the inhabitants
of Campania again consisted for the most part of Oscans; so whatever
is true of the latter, must needs also apply to the Campanians. The
Nolans and Oscans or Opicans being _fellators_ and _cunnilingues_, the
Campanians must be so too; and as a matter of fact _Plautus_ (Trinum.
II. 4. 144.) tells us: _Campas genus multo Syrorum antidit patientia_,
(The Campanian race far outdoes that of the Syrians in _passivity_).

Now Messius being represented as an Oscan, and this by way of mockery,
as all expounders admit, the point of the jest must evidently refer
to this _luxus capitalis_, and Messius accordingly be regarded as a
_fellator_. Now let us look if this view finds any confirmation in
what follows[123]. First of all Sarmentus says Messius is _equi feri
similis_ (like an unbroken horse). Wherein precisely the satire of this
consists is indeed somewhat doubtful, the commentators maintaining
an obstinate silence on the point; but there _must_ be some allusion
of some sort intended. We can scarcely suppose this to be to the
_Hectoreus equus_ (the Hectorean stallion) of Ovid[124] or the _equus
supinus_ (the stallion lying supine) of Horace,—Sat. II. 7. 50.[125].
The unbroken horse is noticeable as galloping with head down between
the fore-feet, a position taken, as we have already pointed out, by
the _cunnilingue_, but which in accordance with the passage of Lucian
quoted above can equally well be that of the _fellator_[126]. Messius
must have understood the allusion, for he says, “_Accipio_”,—_caput et
movet_, (“I accept”,—and moves his head). Sarmentus takes the movement
as a threat, for he in his turn understands the _equus ferus_ (wild
horse) in yet another sense as _aries_ (a ram)[127], and adds: If only
your horn had not been amputated! What should make you threaten to
butt, _mutilus_ (mutilated)[128] as you are?

Now in explanation of what it was led Sarmentus to indulge in this
jest, Horace goes on to say that Messius carried on the left side
of his brow a hideous scar. At this Sarmentus directs his wit,
making allusion to the _Campanus morbus_ (Campanian disease) and
Messius’ disfigured face, finishing up by asking the latter _pastorem
saltaret uti Cyclopa_ (to dance the shepherd Cyclops), adding that
for this he would need neither mask nor tragic buskins. But the
_Campanus morbus_[129] is indeed nothing else but the _capitalis
luxus_ (headlong wantonness) of the Nolans, the peculiar vice of the
Oscans, _fellation_ in fact, which Messius practised, and to which
he owed his _foeda cicatrix_ (hideous scar), his disfigured face;
and on both these points Sarmentus proceeds to rally him at great
length (_permulta iocatus_,—indulging in very many jests), without
Horace however recording his wit any further. In the _pastorem Cyclopa
saltare_ (to dance the shepherd Cyclops) again is contained an allusion
that has hitherto been quite misunderstood, one which _Lucian_ in
his Pseudologistae (ch. 27.) will best explain for us. He says to
Timarchus: “But in Italy, great gods! you acquired the heroic nickname
of ὁ Κύκλωψ (the Cyclops), because at one time you wanted to practise
your vice in imitation of the old legend, as it is found in _Homer_,
and actually, as you lay there drunk, held the κισσύβιον (wassail-bowl)
in your hand like a wanton Polyphemus; and the young man hired for the
purpose with outstretched _hasta_ (spear), that was well sharpened,
threw himself upon you like another Odysseus, to thrust out your
eye[130].

    Yet did he miss his aim, and the spear turned slantwise beside you;
    So that its point sped past, the edge of your chin merely grazing.

Thus it is by no means unreasonable to speak of you as using
“cold-mouthed phrases” (Ψυχρολογεῖν). But you, Cyclops, opening your
mouth, and gaping as wide as mortal man can, had your cheeks plugged
by him, or better you longed, as Charybdis with the ships was fain to
swallow down helm and sail and all, you longed to absorb the whole
Οὖτις (No-man).”

Finally the nickname Messius bears, _Cicirrus_ or _Cicerrus_, would
seem to embody a jesting allusion, as it was no doubt given him on
account of his throaty, croaking voice. It signifies the same thing as
κερκίδες (hawks) in Dio Chrysostom, and like that word is to be derived
from κέρχω (to croak)[131].

The _Morbus Phoeniceus_ (Phoenician disease) was not, as we have seen,
elephantiasis at all, and neither was the _Morbus Campanus_ (Campanian
disease) mentagra. But just as elephantiasis might supervene as a
consequence of _Morbus Phoeniceus_, so the _foeda cicatrix_ (hideous
scar), a mark left behind it by a previous malady, was a consequence
of the _Morbus Campanus_. Now what was the nature of this malady that
the mark it left behind showed as a _foeda cicatrix_, is precisely
what we would wish to determine. The Commentators all take the _cornu
exsectum_ (a horn amputated) as giving the explanation, though this is
by no means absolutely necessary according to the general drift of the
passage as explained; and Sarmentus might perfectly well under these
circumstances, arguing from the presence of a scar, assume or at any
rate profess to assume as the cause from which this had originated,
the previous existence of a horny excrescence, without the latter as
an actual matter of fact having ever had any previous existence. To
us at any rate the _cornu exsectum_ appears to stand in only a remote
connection with the _foeda cicatrix_, which was no doubt later on made
the subject of manifold further witticisms; only Horace has given us no
more details about the matter, either because they had entirely escaped
his memory, or possibly because he had not perfectly grasped the point
of these jokes. Certainly the conspicuously placed _at_ (but) seems to
point to a distinction of what follows from what precedes—unless indeed
it is so placed merely to mark the transition from the _oratio directa_
to the _oratio indirecta_.

However, granted there actually was an excrescence previously existing,
which had been removed by the knife, of what nature was the said
excrescence? It is scarcely possible, with Heindorf, to suppose the
Satyriasis of Aristotle[132] to be intended here; with much greater
probability _Schneider_ in his Greek Dictionary, under the word
διονυσιακὸς (Dionysiac, connected with Dionysus) drew attention to the
definition of _Galen_ (edit. Kühn XIX. p. 443.): διονυσίσκοι εἰσὶν
ὀστώδεις ὑπεροχαὶ ἐγγὺς κροτάφων γιγνόμεναι. λέγονται δὲ κέρατα ἀπὸ
τῶν κερασφορούντων ζάων κεκλημένα. (διονυσίσκοι are bony excrescences
growing near the temples, and they are called horns, so named from
the animals that carry horns). A passage of _Heliodorus_ (_Cocchi
Ant., Graecorum chirurgici libri, e collect. Nicetae Florent._ 1754.
fol., p. 125.) which _Oribasius, De fracturis_, has preserved, gives
a slightly different account; it reads: Ὀστώδης ἐπίφυσις ἐν παντὶ μὲν
γίγνεται μέρει τοῦ σώματος, πλεοναζόντως δὲ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ, μάλιστα
δὲ πλησίον τῶν κροτάφων·Ὅταν δὲ δύο ἐπιφύσεις γένωνται πλησιάζουσαι
τοῖς κροτάφοις, κέρατα ταῦτα τινες εἴωθασιν ὀνομάζειν, ἔνιοι δὲ
_διονυσιακοὺς_ τοὺς οὕτω πεπονθότας ἀνθρώπους προσηγόρευσαν. (Bony
outgrowth may occur in every part of the body, but pre-eminently on
the head, and particularly near the temples. But when there are two
such growths in the neighbourhood of the temples, some are wont to call
them _horns_, but others name the patients so afflicted διονυσιακοὶ).
Then follows the description of the outgrowth, and the method of its
removal by excision. On this passage _Cocchi_ found an old marginal
gloss from the hand of Nicotas (?), κέρατα μὲν λέγεται ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν
κεράτων ἐκφύσεως, τῶν γιγνομένων τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζώοις. _Διονυσιακοὺς_ δὲ
αὐτοὺς προσαγορεύουσιν, ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐμφερείας _ὡς αὐτός_
φησιν ἐν τοῖς χειρουργουμένοις,—(they are called horns from the growth
of the horns that appear on the lower animals. And they name them
διονυσιακοὶ from the likeness to the god Dionysus, as he says himself,
in the carved figures),—which on the whole confirms the statement of
Heliodorus, though he (Cocchi) prefers, following this indication,
to emend the passage of Galen also so as to read, διονυσιακοί, _οἷς_
ὀστώδεις ὑπεροχαὶ ἐγγὺς κροτάφων _γίγνονται_, (Dionysiaci, so they are
called, i. e. those in whom bony excrescences grow near the temples).
This much, that we should read διονυσιακοὶ for διονυσίσκοι, is evident,
but whether the rest of the emendations are to be accepted may well
be open to doubt, as the second clause of the sentence, “and they are
called κέρατα (horns), so named from the animals that carry horns”,
obviously implies that the term διονυσιακοὶ is used in reference not to
the individual, but to the outgrowth. Schneider indeed agrees with the
emendation of Cocchi, but has in error put Sarmentus in the place of
Messius.

Now supposing the latter has actually had an earlier bony outgrowth,
it is not exactly evident why after its skilful removal a _foeda
cicatrix_ (hideous scar) should have remained,—if indeed we do not
prefer to regard the _foedus_ (hideous, foul) as perhaps pointing to
the _cause_ that had occasioned the outgrowth in question. In that case
it would certainly be interesting to see thus referred to the vice of
the _fellator_ affections of the bones carrying the same meaning as our
own tophi (concretions on the bone in gouty affections). But in all
probability it was merely cutaneous tubercles that had been removed
by surgical means, the actual cautery or the knife, and these, as is
invariably their nature to do, had left behind an ugly scar. Thus
Messius would seem to have resembled Calvus _tuberossimae frontis_
(with brow most thickly covered with tubercles) in Petronius (ch. 15.)
and the face represented on a gem, of which a delineation is said to be
found in _Corius’_ Museum Etruriae Plate II. fig. 3.,—a work we have
been unable to procure. But enough of the Morbus Campanus[133]!




Sodomy, or Bestiality.

§ 27.


In the various forms of vice hitherto considered we have seen mankind
approximating more and more closely to the animal and putting himself
to a greater or less degree on the same footing; now we behold him in
_Sodomy_[134] sinking finally far _below_ the level of the animal,
renouncing not merely the human but even the animal nature, in virtue
of which he has been able so far to call himself at lowest a member of
the species. So it is with complete justice that _Plutarch_[135] says:
“At gallus si gallum conscendat absente gallina, vivus comburitur,
aruspice aliquo pronuntiante grave atroxque id esse ostentum. Ita
ipsi homines hoc confessi sunt, castitate a brutis se superari, eaque
naturae vim non facere voluptatum percipiendarum causa. Vestras
libidines natura, quamquam legis auxilio fulta, tamen intra suos non
potest coercere fines: quin eae instar fluvii exundantes atrocem
foeditatem, tumultum confusionemque naturae gignant in re venerea. Nam
et capras, porcas, equas iniverunt viri, et feminae insano mascularum
bestiarum amore exarserunt. Ex huiusmodi enim coitibus vobis sunt
Minotauri, Silvani seu Aegipanes atque (ut mea fert sententia) etiam
Sphinges et Centauri nati[136]. Enimvero fame coactus canis aut avis
aliquando cadavere humano vescitur; ad coitum nullus unquam est homo a
bestia sollicitatus, bestias vero cum ad hanc, tum ad alias voluptates
vos vi trahitis ac contra jus usurpatis.” (But if the cock tread
the cock in the absence of the hen, he is burned alive, any augur
pronouncing this to be a serious and sinister prodigy. Thus men have
themselves admitted that they are surpassed by brutes in chastity,
and that the latter do not do violence to nature with a view to the
gratification of their desires. Whereas your lusts nature cannot,
though seconded by the aid of law, restrain within their due bounds, or
stay them from overflowing like a river in flood and producing horrid
abominations, a wild cataclysm and confusion of nature in matters of
love. For men have had intercourse with she-goats and sows and mares,
while women have been inflamed with mad love of male beasts. Indeed
it is from such unions that your Minotaurs have been engendered,
and Silvani or Aegipans, and—as I suppose,—the Sphinxes too and
Centaurs[136]. True under compulsion of hunger, dog and bird sometimes
feed on a human corpse; but no man has ever been invited to coition by
any beast, though you constrain beasts by force to this as well as to
other shameful pleasures, and use them contrary to all right).

Like all other forms of vicious lust, Sodomy too was an outcome of
Asiatic[137] and Egyptian luxury, and already in quite early times
familiar in those regions,—in fact, as is the case with sexual excesses
generally, this vice appears to have developed from the religious cult
of the countries named. Among the Egyptians[138] at any rate we meet
with Mendes, the sacred Goat or Pan, worshipped by means of Sodomy on
the part of his female devotees, who were shut up along with him.

_Boettiger_[139] goes so far as to conjecture that the tame snakes
in the temple of Aesculapius, which were also kept in private
houses[140] as a plaything of the women, were trained and employed
by them for purposes of Sodomy. In confirmation a passage is brought
forward in this connection by _Forberg_, loco citato, p. 368, from
_Suetonius_[141], in which the mother of Augustus, Atia, is spoken
of: “In Asclepiadis Mendetis Θεολογουμένων libris lego, Atiam cum
ad sollemne Apollinis sacrum media nocte venisset, posita in templo
lectica, dum ceterae matronae dormirent, obdormisse; draconem repente
irrepsisse ad eam paulloque post egressum: illamque expergefactam
_quasi a concubitu mariti purificasse se_ et statim in corpore eius
exstitisse maculam, velut depicti draconis, nec potuisse unquam
eximi, adeo ut mox publicis balneis perpetuo abstinuerit”[142]. (In
the books of the _Theologoumena_ (sacred writings) of the Asclepiad
Mendes I read how Atia, who had come to the wonted festival of Apollo
at midnight, when her litter had been set down in the Temple, and
the other matrons were sleeping, herself fell asleep; how a snake
suddenly crept in to her, and presently emerged again; and how on
waking she _purified herself as after intercourse with her husband_,
and immediately there appeared a mark on her body, representing the
likeness of a snake, which could never be got rid of, so much so that
soon she left off ever after frequenting the public baths).

However the Roman women seem to have especially made use of the
ass[143] for the satisfaction of their _nymphomania_, an animal that
was famed in Antiquity for its salaciousness.

That under such circumstances the women’s genitals, and the men’s no
less, were exposed to many sorts of injury, may be readily supposed;
though we have sought in vain so far for any direct evidence of
the fact. So we may perhaps be allowed to quote here an observation
originating with _Abu Oseibah_, De vitis medicorum illustrium, (On
the Lives of Famous Physicians), according to _Reiske_[144]. This
properly speaking belongs to a later period chronologically, but it is
pertinent in the present connection. Reiske says: “Caput XIII. habet
observationem—2. de ingenti _penis inflammatione, quae nata fuerat ex
impuro cum bestia concubitu_, cum coruncula urethram obstruente, sanata
modo prorsum empirico atque crudeli. Impositum glabro lapidi penem
medicus subito praeter aegri expectationem, qua poterat vi percutiebat
manu in pugnum coacta, ut obturaculum et ulcus dissiliret. Sapit hic
casus _luem veneream_; et posset inservire illis pro argumento, qui
morbum hunc etiam veteribus cognitum fuisse contendunt. Cadit autem is
casus circa annum Christi 940.” (Chapter XIII contains the following
observation,—2. Of a violent _inflammation of the penis, which had
originated in unclean intercourse with a beast_, with a coruncle, or
knot, constricting the urethra, cured in a manner to the last degree
empirical and cruel. The penis being laid on a rough stone, the
Physician suddenly when the patient was not expecting it, struck it as
heavily as ever he could with his doubled fist, so that the stoppage
and ulcer might burst. This case has a smack of the _Venereal disease_
about it; and might serve as an argument for those who hold that this
disease was known to the Ancients as well. But the case falls about the
year of Our Lord 940.)




Climate.

§ 28.


Now that we have made ourselves acquainted with the various use
to which the Ancients put the genital organs, we are confronted
inevitably with the question,—how were the genitals themselves
affected by it all? Impossible to suppose they can have preserved
their integrity absolutely intact, while at the same time such parts
as were substituted in use for the one or the other form of them,
were exposed,—as is abundantly proved by the different diseases
described, diseases affecting the _pathic_, the _fellator_ and the
_cunnilingue_ respectively,—to manifold complaints, and very often
had to pay severely for the misuse to which they were put. Granting
that the unnatural use of the mouth and the rectum must necessarily
have endangered those parts specifically more than the penis, an organ
particularly adapted and intended for friction, still this will by no
means imply the entire immunity of the latter from ill effects. Indeed
the fact of such immunity is sufficiently disproved by the passages
quoted specifically under paederastia, without taking into account
at all the large number of actual maladies of the genitals that are
mentioned by professional and non-professional writers of Antiquity.
With some of these we have already made acquaintance,—maladies which no
one would for a moment think of ascribing _exclusively_ to the practice
of the vice of paederastia.

Accordingly we must look for other factors, which being in part
unconnected with the use of the genitals, are not like this to be
regarded as an immediately efficient cause, but rather as predisposing
circumstances, exercising from the first an independent influence on
the normal condition of those organs. For mere use or misuse cannot
possibly be taken as in itself a sufficient reason to account for
disease, even though the Ancients may have looked upon complaints
of the genitals partly as a direct consequence of _illicita Venus_
(unlawful Love), or in other words as it were a result of the vengeance
of outraged Nature. The genitals, like all organs of the human body,
exhibit over and above their functional activity on behalf of the
general organism and its reproduction, evidences also of an independent
activity directed towards the maintenance of their own integrity
and individual existence,—and these are bound to differ more or
less according to difference of locality and difference of time, as
indeed may be predicated of the organism as a whole, if we trust the
indications it gives.

Now this differentiation according to locality is conditioned above
all else by climate; hence the question we have now first of all to
answer is this: _what influence did climate manifest in Ancient times
on the activity of the genital organs in general and in particular?_
and, _to what extent may a factor favourable to the rise of affections
of the genitals be deduced from it?_ True, direct information on the
point has so far reached us only sparingly, still such as we have is
enough to justify a general view on the whole question, especially if
we reinforce it with the results of more recent observation,—always
provided this be done with proper precaution, for we sometimes find
the Ancients commending the climate of a particular country as being
exceedingly healthy, whereas in more modern times exactly the opposite
is noted. As the evidence extant and available extends only to Asia,
and in particular Syria, Palestine and Asia Minor, to Egypt, Greece
and Italy, there can for the present be no question except as to the
climate of these countries.

Next as to _the influence of sexual activity in general_,
_Hippocrates_[145] himself tells us, after discussing the climate
of Asia: “But ἡδονή (pleasure) must necessarily predominate (among
them), and this is why among animals so many varieties are found; and
I suppose this to be equally true in the case of the Egyptians and
Lydians also.” Of course ἡδονή in this passage signifies concupiscence
in particular;—no special proof is needed of this. As a matter of fact
we observe at the present day how in hot climates, where the whole
vegetative life presents a luxuriant character, and all Nature appears
to feel the procreative impulse unceasingly, man too falls in with the
universal stress and strain of each species to maintain its foothold.
Yet as this must inevitably be done at the expense of the individual
life, we see the effort very frequently resulting in the production of
barren or sexless blossoms, and not fruit at all. The son of the South
is like a tree growing in rich, rank soil; he ripens betimes to the
sexual life, but equally early is constrained to abandon it again. The
youthful imagination springs up in its fresh quick activity, while the
body withers concurrently, and stung by lust,—lust that is yet further
exaggerated by the misuse of _aphrodisiacs_, at last has nothing left
but to drag out an invalid existence, finding a morbid gratification
in the artificial ways and means whereby imagination, sickened and
debauched by its own extravagances, seeks to supply from extraneous
sources the failing titillation of desire the organ craves. No better
confirmation of all this can be found than what is supplied already in
our investigations as so far conducted.

We saw how in Asia lust and its abominable brood arose and extended
thence over neighbouring lands, and how the rhythmic rites of the
_Venus ebria_ (drunken Venus) could indeed refine, but hardly
increase their excesses. Babylon, Syria and Egypt were the nurseries
of licentiousness, finding only at Rome a really self-taught and
competent rival. The clear sky of Greece could cover only inhabitants
of corresponding character in body and mind, and none but a Greek
was capable of setting up the ideal, and verifying it in practice,
of a fair soul in a fair body. Deep as the Greek may have sunk in
degradation after the fall of national liberty and under foreign
influence, and though unbridled lust may have often mastered
individuals, it never dominated the nation as a whole, it was
artificially brought into existence and was never dependent on climate.
Even at Rome, colossal as was the scale on which vice manifested
itself, it ever remained but a foreign importation, for which foreign
wantons had first paved the way at a period when the climate of Asia
exerted a more immediate influence there than that of Greece.

Like licentiousness in general, Polygamy also, in part owing its
existence to it as it does, was a consequence of the Asiatic climate;
but how far it may be fairly held to have influenced the rise of
Venereal disease, we do not as yet venture to decide; we feel
constrained to keep this point over for later investigations. The same
applies to Polyandry,—in its strict sense, when we regard it as a
form of marriage; though of course over and above this it comes into
connection with vice, inasmuch as every prostitute lives in a state of
Polyandry, as does every amateur of the sex in one of Polygamy. Under
these circumstances affections of the genitals cannot but arise among
persons otherwise healthy, as every Physician of large practice can
verify by examples, and as experiments on animals have sufficiently
demonstrated to be the case[146]. Nevertheless these hints, for we
cannot and ought not to look upon them as anything more than hints,
as any more complete discussion would carry us too far a-field for
our present purpose,—may very well suffice to recall to the reader’s
memory the influence exerted by climate on the genital functions,
especially as adequate proofs in confirmation of all this are comprised
in our preceding Sections.


§ 29.

Far more important in view of our immediate object is the _influence
exerted by Climate on the individual activity of the genital organs_,
and here again we have in the first place to fix our eyes on Asia and
Egypt. The burning rays of the sun to which these regions and their
inhabitants are exposed, increase in a marked way the activity of the
skin, and of course in the same proportion do the secretions from the
mucous surfaces become less in quantity, but their product more highly
charged in quality. Then, this being the case, a certain acridity or
corroding quality of the secretion is readily set up, often making
itself noticeable by a characteristic smell. This same influence
must equally manifest itself in the mucous membrane of the inner
parts of the genitals, and vaginal mucus accordingly acquire an acrid
quality[147], if it is not removed pretty frequently from the surface
of the membrane, and becoming as it were rancid, exert a corrosive
effect on everything it comes in contact with[148].

Now shortly before as well as shortly after the commencement of
menstruation the secretion of mucus in the genitals is increased,
and thus the menstrual blood, having in any case a tendency to
decomposition, will mingle with this acrid, strong-smelling mucous
discharge, and in this way assume a foul, acrid character itself[149].
This is the origin of the ill repute into which menstrual blood, and
this especially in hot climates, has fallen from the earliest times
onwards, for no doubt the virulent qualities alleged against it really
belong to it solely and entirely as a result of the admixture with it
of this vaginal mucus. Sea-water and fresh river-water are each of them
separately innocuous for health, but mix them together so as to make
brackish water, and the exhalations given off become highly detrimental!

A similar state of things exists also in connection with the male
genital organs. The surface of the _glans penis_, where it lies
contiguous to the external skin, exhibits along with the latter an
increased secretion from the sebaceous follicles[150], the discharge
from which, if it is allowed to remain any length of time between
the prepuce and the _glans_[151], likewise acquires an acrid quality;
then re-acting on these parts, sets up an inflammatory condition of
the aforesaid sebaceous follicles. “In fact”, says _Niebuhr_[152] “the
Medical Officer of the English at Haleb (Russel) ascertained that in
hot countries more copious humours collect about the _glans penis_ than
in cold; and a friend of mine in India, who in that hot climate had
employed only the ordinary European precautions to ensure cleanliness,
got a sort of ulcers on the _glans_, an inconvenience he would have
been much more likely to escape, had he been circumcised. Subsequently
he always washed this part of his person very carefully, and from
that time forth experienced no trace of a recurrence of the trouble.
Washing the whole body and particularly the privates is an absolute
necessity in hot countries; and it is perhaps for this reason that the
religious founders of the Jews, the Mohammedans, the Fire-Worshippers,
the Heathen in India, etc., have commanded the observation of this
practice.”

In close accord with this is the story _Flavius Josephus_[153] relates
of _Apion_ the Egyptian: “Wherefore it appears to me Apion deservedly
paid a fitting penalty for his scorn of ancestral customs; for only
when forced by necessity was he circumcised, ulceration having been
set up about his privates (his _glans penis_); and as a matter of fact
the circumcision proved vain, for gangrene supervened, and he died in
terrible pain.” Again the passage just quoted will also afford a clear
understanding of the following from _Philo_[154]:

“Therefore were it more becoming, quitting childish and frivolous
mockery altogether, intelligently and earnestly to investigate the
causes in which this custom (Circumcision) originated, rather than
to accuse whole nations of folly in a spirit of mere prejudice.
It certainly does not seem probable to an intelligent enquirer,
approaching the question in this mood, that so many thousands of
folk in every age should have been circumcised without a sufficient
cause, submitting to great pain merely to mutilate their own and
their children’s bodies. On the other hand there are many inducements
to adopt outright and follow up the custom of our forefathers; and
in an especial degree the four following. First, _the prevention of
a virulent disease and one very difficult to cure_. This is known
as _Anthrax_,—a denomination derived, as I suppose, from the ardent
(fierce) burning (ἀπὸ τοῦ καίειν ἐντυφόμενον) that accompanies it,
and _readily arises in such as have the foreskin intact_. Secondly, to
secure that purity of the whole person obligatory upon the Priestly
caste. Whence it comes that the Priests in Egypt also scrupulously
shave the whole body; for there is something collects and is deposited
underneath the hair as well as under the foreskin, that must be
removed.”

From a comparison of these two passages from Niebuhr and from Philo
respectively it may be gathered that the _anthrax_ disease above
mentioned did not in any way owe its rise to a _specifically_
syphilitic origin, as has been now and again assumed by different
enquirers. What we really learn from them is to recognize the liability
of the sebaceous follicles of the _glans penis_ to lapse into a
condition of ulceration. True this tendency can be minimised to some
extent by circumcision, as well as by unremitting care to secure
cleanliness; yet it can never be completely removed, conditioned as
it really is by climatic influences that do not admit of elimination.
When once the corroding vaginal mucus of the woman, particularly in
combination with the menstrual blood with its readiness to undergo
putrefaction[155] re-acting on the mucous membrane, has set up sores
and ulcers, then follows as a necessary consequence a still more
dangerous mixture of matter and mucus. Next when under these conditions
the man’s _glans_, possessing as it does an equally great liability in
its cutaneous glands to be attacked by ulceration, enters in coition a
vagina in this state, it cannot occasion much surprise if blennorhoea
of the urethra or ulceration of the _glans penis_ supervene[156],
especially if we consider the fact that the act of coition sets the
organs concerned in enhanced activity, making them more susceptible
than ever to external injurious irritations. This is yet more likely to
be the case, as concurrently a large amount of secretion is yielded by
the morbidly affected mucous surface of the vagina, and very possibly
this secretion undergoes under the influence of nervous excitation (as
the saliva does under the influence of anger) some vital-chemical,
contagious alteration of composition. Again supposing the woman to be
at the time of coition actually in menstruation, a period when her
genital organs are _ipso facto_ roused to a condition of exaggerated
activity, the disturbance must be yet greater, and the mischief
resulting even more manifest.

This will in part account for the fact that ulcers on the genitals,
brought about by coition, are so ready in Asia to assume a putrid
character, and show that the Ancients had good reason to designate them
by the name ἄνθραξ (anthrax, malignant pustule). For that ἄνθραξ was
actually a consequence of coition we may see from a passage, already
cited by Hensler and Simon, from Bishop _Palladius_[157], who relates
of a certain Hero, how the Demon led him to Alexandria, how he there
visited theatres and horse-races, and roamed round the taverns. “And
thus, being by this time a glutton and a drunkard, he _fell moreover
into the mire of lust after women_; and being now set upon sinning,
_he lived with a certain actress_, (and had carnal intercourse with
her?). _Then when he had done all this, by a (Divine) providence he
got an “anthrax” on the glans penis; and was so sick for six months
that his (private) parts rotted away and dropped off of themselves._
But subsequently recovering and getting off with the loss of these
members, coming to a knowledge of God and a remembrance of the heavenly
kingdom, and after confessing all that had befallen him, he fell asleep
a few days afterwards, without having had the time to manifest works
(of repentance).” In spite of the difficulties some of the expressions
in the text exhibit, the main fact is perfectly plain, and admits of
no doubt whatever, viz. that Hero had brought the ἄνθραξ on himself by
carnal intercourse with an actress, and the moral reflections Palladius
tags on to it cannot invalidate the fact. The objections _Astruc_
raises against the conclusiveness of the passage have already been
refuted by _Hensler_ (Geschichte der Lustseuche,—History of Venereal
Disease, I. pp. 317 sqq.), who while citing as parallel instances the
passages adduced by _Becket_ from the early XVth Century, very justly
remarks: “What proof _would_ they have, if this is not conclusive?”

Did the female genitals perhaps receive the names ἐσχάρα (scab) and
ἄνθραξ (malignant pustule), _because_ they very often made men a
present of these things?!

In any case it is an interesting fact that to this day in India
_anthrax_ and chancrous ulcers are looked upon as akin, and both
according to _Sir William Jones_ (Asiatic Researches Vol. II.) are
known by the name Nar Farsi or Ateshi Farsi (_Ignis Persicus_—Persian
Fire) to the Cabirajas or Indian physicians. Now if we think of the
great care taken by the Jews to ensure the multiplication of their
race, the readiness with which various forms of ulceration pass over
into mortification in hot localities,—as is shown by the examples of
Apion and Hero,—and consequently the serious liability of the organs
of generation to be destroyed, it will occasion less surprise when we
read among the laws of _Moses_[158] the following injunction: “And if a
man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her
nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the
fountain of her blood; and both of them shall be cut off from among
their people.” Surely great and serious resulting injuries must in no
inconsiderable number of instances have been before his eyes for a
Lawgiver to feel himself constrained to assign the death penalty to
the act of coition with women during menstruation,—and this in spite
of the fact that he had already in a general way declared the woman
at this time, as well as everything she touched, to be unclean. Again
on the other hand coition with women in this condition must with the
Jews have been amongst things practised with more than ordinary
frequency, if only such an extreme punishment availed to check it;
and so we cannot really be surprised to find that the Holy Books of
that Nation perhaps earlier than the writings of any other People were
acquainted only too well with diseases of the genital organs acquired
by coition. The particular disease that broke out in consequence of the
worship of Baal-Peor has been discussed above in §§ 8 and 9; while the
fact that the Mosaic books contain the first traces of a knowledge of
_Gonorrhoea_ has long been regarded as proved beyond a doubt[159].

If the Climate already exerted such an influence on the aboriginal
inhabitants, how much greater must this have been where foreigners
were concerned, on whom all endemic excitants of disease in a country
notoriously work with augmented virulence. In Antiquity this fact must
have been even more conspicuously true, inasmuch as at that period the
Nations still remained much more unmixed than they subsequently became.
It is a thing which always hitherto, speaking generally, has been far
too little taken account of by Pathologists, but which is surely of
vast importance in connection with the rise and spread of Venereal
disease,—without its being in any way implied that we must necessarily
therefore adopt the theory of its American origin[160]. If we are not
much mistaken, this factor was operative also in the case of the Plague
of Baal-Peor. Now what holds good for the Jews, must equally hold good
for the other peoples of Asia and of Egypt, and even in an enhanced
degree, since these, as we have seen above, gave way to vicious
indulgence to a yet more excessive degree.

Nevertheless, then as now distinctions no doubt existed, and probably
in Antiquity as at the present day there were districts, whose
physical conditions of climate might be regarded as actually forming
a counteracting factor, and where in spite of excesses the genital
organs seldom became diseased. The evidence for this must be given
by later investigations, for we must of necessity first possess a
geographical Nosology of Venereal disease at the present day, if we
are ever to succeed in finding and utilizing the materials for the
same in Antiquity. What has been so far collected by the meritorious
_Schnurrer_ in his Geographical Nosology is too incomplete to justify
us at present in drawing any certain conclusions, more particularly as
the greatest part of the material contributed by him is drawn from the
communications of non-medical enquirers.

The climate of _Greece_ neither exercised any pre-eminently
stimulating effect on the sexual activity of the genitals, nor yet did
it afford a ground for the enhancement of their individual activity.
Thus enjoying as it did in consequence of that happy combination of
its seasons justly celebrated by ancient Writers[161] the advantages,
without the disadvantages, of the Tropics, and its inhabitants
possessing all functions in a more vigorous proportion, the climate
could not possibly have been directly favourable to the rise of
affections of the genitals; and for this reason made unnecessary all
precautionary measures aimed at them, such as were required in Asia.
_Italy_ exhibits but little analogy with the Greek climate; still it
cannot certainly without considerable qualification be reckoned among
factors favourable to maladies of the genital organs. From this we
may at any rate partly explain why the physicians of Greece and Rome
give so little satisfactory information on the diseases in question,
though indeed, as we shall see presently, in this case other and quite
distinct factors were at work.


§ 30.

We have now seen that Climate is _ipso facto_ an important factor
favourable to the rise of affections of the genital organs. How much
_more_ powerful an influence must it exert on such affections when
already in existence. Thus the question, _what influence did Climate
manifest in Antiquity on the character and course of affections of the
genitals_, is one of the utmost moment in connection with a History of
Venereal disease,—the more so as on a correct answer being given to
it depends the correctness of our views as to the form taken in such
cases by the morbid process in Ancient times. True such a question
presupposes the existence of these affections, and ought therefore,
strictly speaking, only to be raised after the conclusion of our
present investigations. However we think enough evidence has already
been adduced in the preceding pages to remove all possible doubt from
the mind of an attentive reader as to such being the case. Besides,
this appears to us the more convenient course,—to survey in its
entirety the influence exerted by Climate, rather than to take up our
investigation of the subject afresh in different places, and thus to a
greater or less extent mangle the discussion of it.

Preponderance of the vegetative principle combined with a certain
slackness of tissue is the character of all organisms coming under
the influence of the climate of Southern lands. In these countries an
extra-ordinary stimulus acts on the mucous membrane of the genitals,
and the character described will find its expression here also.
Reaction will proceed not so much from the arterial side, or show
itself under the guise of sthenic inflammation, but rather take the
form merely of intensified secretion. What this increased secretion
aims at is the removal of the abnormal stimulus, and the flow of
mucus so originating manifests itself as simple, so to speak merely
catarrhal, blennorrhoea. This, where the atmosphere is not impregnated
with moist vapours, readily disappears, if only somewhat greater care
is bestowed on the maintenance of cleanliness,—and all the more so, as
re-absorption, which in hot climates acts vigorously on all the mucous
membranes generally, very soon gets the upper hand again in the case
of that of the genital organs, seconded as it is by the activity of
the external skin. The latter is always in a condition of enhanced
action at the same time, while the extent of its surface of course
markedly exceeds that of the mucous membrane of the genitals. On the
other hand where the atmosphere is especially moist, the activity of
the skin, as well as the process of re-absorption internally, appears
to be less; and so under these circumstances the mucous flow will
assume more of a chronic character, but at the same time to an even
greater degree be free from inflammatory reaction.

All the more recent observations agree in one thing, viz. that in
Southern countries the gonorrhoeal forms predominate, and speaking
generally, almost always run a mild course that hardly calls for
medical interference. There is no doubt Climatic conditions in
Antiquity differed but little from those of to-day; so that we may
safely assume that equally in Ancient times blennorrhoea showed the
same general characteristics, a fact which existing traditions moreover
prove beyond question. The frequency of blennorrhoea of the genital
organs in Antiquity is shown at once by the just quoted passage from
the Mosaic Books, while its mildness of character may be gathered
amongst other things from the remedies employed by the old Physicians,
who almost without exception followed the principle laid down by
_Celsus_ (VI. 18.), to treat gonorrhoea _levibus medicamentis_ (with
gentle remedial measures), if they were called upon to apply treatment
at all. At least this is true of acute blennorrhoea; the chronic form
of the complaint, with which alone as a general rule they had to do, of
course required astringents. No doubt each failure of arterial reaction
afforded yet another reason for the belief on the part of the Ancients
that gonorrhoea was a result of weakness of the seed-secreting vessels,
and their idea that the discharge was merely badly prepared semen.
Supposing, as must have happened, that marks of increased activity
appeared, these proceeded not so much from the circulatory system
at all as from the nerves, and _Galen_[162] was correct in referring
Priapism under these conditions to spasmodic convulsion.

So much for mucous discharge. It was the same also with the various
forms of ulceration of the genitals. The conditions to be enumerated
presently in the next Section were already present to counteract their
rise in any considerable proportion. Further, if they did appear in
the high lands of Asia and in Upper Egypt more frequently than did
blennorhoea,—this much is shown plainly at any rate by present-day
experience,—still they lasted but a short time, as the preponderant
activity of vegetative growth, seconded by extraneous assistance, soon
mastered the disease, and quickly restored again the loss of tissue.
The course of events was otherwise indeed on lower levels, as in Syria
and Lower Egypt, districts which besides their high temperature also
showed a considerable degree of moisture in the atmosphere and soil.
Here accordingly the different forms of ulceration, unless careful
precautions were taken, assumed a malignant character, and readily
passed over into gangrene (ἄνθραξ), as we saw a little above happened
in the cases of Apion and Hero. By this means it is true every specific
characteristic of the morbid alteration was annihilated; _but_ this
only made the risk to the individual so much the greater, the patient
being at best only too apt to lose the organ attacked

Again, though sometimes the part escaped destruction by gangrene,
even then its cure was often difficult owing to the fact that, where
the malady had been neglected, worms made their appearance in the
ulcers[163], and set up so profuse and so far spreading a suppuration
that the patient eventually succumbed to it. Of this we have an example
in the Emperor Galerius Maximianus, mentioned by _Eusebius_[164], and
to which allusion is made as early as in the Book of Ecclesiasticus
(XIX. 2, 3.), when the Author, Jesus the son of Sirach, says: “Wine and
women will make men of understanding to fall away: and he that cleaveth
to harlots will become impudent. _Moths_ (_otherwise[165]—Rottenness
and worms_) shall have him to heritage, and a bold man shall be taken
away.” The use of knife and actual cautery must naturally have played
an important part under these circumstances in the treatment adopted;
but these the patient often dreaded more than the malady itself,
and chose suicide rather than submit to them, like the “Municeps”
whose story Pliny tells in the passage quoted in a previous chapter.
But now supposing suchlike ulcers to be situated in the mouth of a
_fellator_ or _cunnilingue_, then their course must have been all the
more rapid, and the danger involved all the greater, if the patient
lived in such a climate as described; and it was in this way the
Αἰγύπτια καὶ Συριακὰ and Βουβαστικὰ ἕλκεα (Egyptian and Syrian sores,
Bubastic sores) mentioned above acquired their evil repute. Still in
the majority of cases these climatic influences could be counteracted
by appropriate medical aid and dietetic measures, or at any rate their
effect considerably reduced. Hence it was that cases of the sort only
very rarely appeared in Antiquity, and for this very reason were noted
by the Historians, when they did occur.

The human organism possessed in Southern lands yet another way of
combating the enemy’s attacks, one which would seem to have escaped the
notice of the Physicians of Antiquity, and which, though recognized
in modern times, has yet never been at all adequately appreciated
and utilized in the history of Venereal disease, viz. _the reaction
exhibited by the skin in diseases of the genital organs in hot
climates_. So long as authorities thought of the external skin as
merely compacted of separate and distinct layers of tissue, there could
not really be any question of an accurate knowledge of its functions
whether under healthy or under morbid conditions. The investigations of
_Breschet_ and _Roussel de Vauzène_[166] as confirmed and reinforced by
_Gurlt_[167], have now taught us to understand that the skin, over and
above these layers, possesses as a matter of fact,—a fact formerly only
conjectured,—special organs belonging to the same class as the glands,
to wit the skin, hair and sweat glands. These share amongst them the
function hitherto ascribed to the skin generally, and especially
bring into correlation the sympathies of the different parts, so much
so that they may be said to be almost the sole and only seat of the
manifold forms of skin-diseases. All this we endeavoured first to
demonstrate in the series of Articles on Skin-diseases in “_Blasius’_
Handwörterbuch der Chirurgie und Augenheilkunde” (Manual of Surgery and
Ophthalmology), and so pave the way for a compendious Survey of our
knowledge of the Skin-diseases up to the present time.

Now while the sweat-glands stand in a special connection of sympathy
and antagonism with the lungs, the same correlation exists in a
peculiar degree between the glands of the mucous membrane of the
intestinal canal and of the genital organs on the one hand and the
cutaneous glands on the other which secrete the _sebum_ or sebaceous
humour. It would take us too far a-field, if we undertook in this
place to enter upon a detailed explanation of this circumstance, which
however is still in sore need of further clearing up. We shall content
ourselves with recalling the fact that Onanists (Masturbators) not only
often betray themselves by having a nose with a shiny, tallowy looking
surface that comes from excessive secretion of _sebum_, but also not
less frequently by their face being covered with _acne_ pustulus.
One more fact we must mention is that the outbreak of _acne_ very
often with girls heralds the approach of each period of menstruation,
and accompanies it[168]. These are signs clearly pointing to the
conclusion that stimulations of the genitals are reflected back on the
glands of the skin, for _acne_ is nothing else but an affection of
these glands, as we have demonstrated in the Work just mentioned.

But indeed there are proofs of this antagonism still nearer to
hand. How frequently have our physicians observed an eruption[169]
resembling _roseola_ or _urticaria_ in character, at the—very often
sudden—appearance of which the gonorrhoeal symptoms have much decreased
in severity or disappeared altogether! These skin affections have been
ascribed to the balsam of Copaiva or the Cubebs pepper administered
in these cases, which are supposed to have stimulated the intestinal
mucous membrane and so sympathetically excited the skin. This may
very possibly sometimes be the case; but it could not but occur
much more frequently, if the remedial agents mentioned are to bear
the sole and entire blame. No doubt in some patients a particular
idiosyncrasy may have given rise to sympathetic action stimulative of
the intestinal canal, but in the majority the reaction of the mucous
membrane of the genitals on the cutaneous glands has undoubtedly been
a chief contributory factor under epidemic influences, while the drugs
exhibited have played only a subordinate part in producing the result.
There are cases where the gonorrhœa has been treated simply and solely
by mere antiphlogistic methods, and yet such an eruption has been
observed.

But it is not in gonorrhœa only that these phænomena appear; they have
been noted as well in chancre, being then ascribed to the sublimate
of mercury and looked upon as affording a criterion that the drug had
exercised its full effect on the original complaint. In most cases this
was without doubt a mistake, for Biett, Rayer and other authorities
have noted the most widely divergent forms of skin-disease to appear
concurrently with the existence of chancre, and in consequence have
come to regard them as primitive symptoms. In fact cases have actually
been observed, where these were the sole primary symptoms of contagion
after indulgence in unclean coition. At the same time it is only fair
to say that this has been doubted in many quarters, observers trying to
explain the fact of the absence of other symptoms by saying the ulcers,
which are frequently very minute, may have been overlooked. At least
experience has sufficiently taught us this much, that the so-called
secondary symptoms, and therefore the skin-affections as well, appear
the more readily in proportion as the ulcers of the genitals are
smaller and more superficial; and we ourselves believe that never
without local reaction on the genital organs from coition do so-called
secondary appearances arise,—only it is not invariably ulcers that are
to looked for.

Now when even in our temperate climate the cutaneous glands play a not
unimportant part in the morbid processes of Venereal disease, how much
more must this be the case in Asia and Egypt, where the activity of
the skin generally and that of the cutaneous glands in particular is
even under normal conditions far more conspicuously energetic, as may
be seen from the constant oily state of the skin, more particularly in
Negroes. This oily grease on the skin is in fact nothing more nor less
than the product of the action of the cutaneous glands. These glands
are peculiarly apt to become morbidly affected in travellers visiting
the South during their acclimatisation; though natives too are yearly
attacked in the Summer months by complaints of the skin-glands.[170]
The fact has long been recognized[171] that in Southern countries not
only the greater number of skin-diseases, but even Venereal disease
itself in an especial degree, appear as an exanthema of the skin,
and for this reason it there displays far less destructive effects;
but as a rule enquirers have contented themselves with the general
habit, without (as pointed out before) adequately turning the fact to
advantage in connection with the History and Theory of Venereal disease.

This preponderating bias towards the external skin must obviously
manifest itself equally in other diseases of the mucous membranes, and
so too in those of the genital organs. Reabsorption in particular,
acting with increased vigour on the mucous surfaces, will prove its
beneficial presence also in the diseases affecting them. The foreign
matter that comes in contact with these surfaces is assimilated to a
less degree by the mucous glands and by those of the _glans penis_, and
no time is allowed it to exert a destructive influence on the small
surface receiving it; on the other hand it is quickly thrown back
on the much more extensive surface of the external skin, and there
dealt with by the cutaneous glands with their powerful secretive and
assimilatory action, being either assimilated or expelled externally.

In particular localities this quickly happens without any striking
symptoms being locally perceptible in the skin, as e. g. in Numidia,
Libya[172] and the Northern part of Peru[173], where the disease is
said to cure itself without extraneous medical aid, and among the
inhabitants generally to be practically non-existent (?). Though
this is not the case in other countries, still the cutaneous glands
become involved in the morbid process of the disease, and secrete
with augmented copiousness, and the secretion being simultaneously
altered in character, it fails to be driven out externally, inasmuch
as external elimination is at once stopped owing to the fact that the
cutaneous glands, like the uterus in pregnancy, close their orifice,
so as to be enabled to carry out their function in their recesses.
For this reason the glands swell, and manifest themselves in the
form of _papillae_ or tubercles (very often as little bladders, or
blebs), changing later either into pustules, if the morbid products
are eventually expelled[174], or else gradually disappear, if the
process of assimilation and re-absorption has been sufficiently
vigorous. Supposing damp, cold or other unfavourable influences to be
at work, suppuration may very well supervene, or degenerative processes
commence, and so on, and _the disease pass over into leprosy and
elephantiasis_. This is above all the case in Egypt, where from the
first, chancres on the genitals would seem to possess a marked tendency
towards scurfy and scabby formations[175].

If these are the facts at the present day,—and no one doubts they
are,—there only remains the question: were they so in Ancient times
as well? Here we come face to face with the difficult problem as to
the relation of leprosy with Venereal disease,—a problem which for
Centuries has been the subject of dispute, and in spite of the very
careful enquiries of a Hensler and of other investigators, cannot
by any means be regarded as solved. Our own investigations on the
Leprosy of the Ancients are as yet too incomplete, and the nature of
the subject demands such far-reaching inquisition into the most widely
different individual phænomena, that we are compelled, in order to
economise our space, to renounce all idea of submitting the subject
to any more detailed examination in the present Work. Besides, in our
Second Part we shall be coming back to it again, when we have under
investigation the question as to whether or no the Venereal disease of
the XVth Century was developed from leprosy.

For our present purpose the following statement must suffice:
The Climate of Asia and Egypt was in Antiquity, as mentioned
already, undoubtedly but little different from what it is to-day,
and the influence it exerted therefore must have shared in this
resemblance[176].

As to _mentagra_, we have already proved a little above that it was
a consequence of the vice of the _cunnilingue_, and as according to
Pliny’s report the latter claimed Egypt for its fatherland, obviously
the climate of that country must have been in part responsible for
its origination. Now affections of the genital organs being found in
Antiquity as the result of sexual intercourse, it follows that in this
direction also Climate must have exerted its influence, and that in
the very same way as we have just above seen it do,—in other words
manifold affections of the skin must have originated in consequence of
irritation and other morbid effects on the genital organs. True the
Ancient physicians say not a word of this; but then they derive the
greater proportion of the skin-diseases, which they mass all together
in the most admired confusion, from internal mischief of various sorts,
and regard them all as _apostases_ (suppurative inflammations carrying
off the effect of fevers, etc.),—at any rate a proof they were not
entirely unacquainted with the antagonistic relations existing between
the skin and other organs.

So far as the genitals are concerned, they seem to have adequately
realized only the _consensus_ between the uterus and the skin[177],
whereas in male subjects they appear to have put down most of the
effects observed to the liver. But on these points we shall have
something further to say later on. Still the assertion to the effect
that Eunuchs are not attacked by _calvities_ (baldness) (_Hippocrates_,
I. 400; _Galen_, XVIII. A. 40., also p. 42., where mention is made
of the excesses _in Baccho et Venere_—in Wine and Love—peculiarly
prevalent at his epoch), which was a frequent consequence of vice in
Antiquity[178], points to the _consensus_ between genitals and skin
having been already noted. Even more is the fact, vouched for by
_Archigenes_[179], that castration was recommended by some Physicians
as a cure for elephantiasis, such as to arouse the suspicion that the
physicians of Antiquity knew perfectly well what influence affections
of the genital organs exerted on diseases of the skin. This is made
all the more likely by Archigenes (ch. 120.) not only speaking of the
disease as being contagious, but also describing the skin-affection as
secondary in character. He further declares its cause to be unknown,
puts on record the extreme lubricity of the patients (Satyriasis pp.
74, 133, 269.), and even says in so many words that such as were
castrated did not contract elephantiasis!

We have seen how _mentagra_ attacked the _cunnilingue_, and afterwards
passed over into _psora_; in just the same way might elephantiasis,—a
complaint indeed which the Gloss of the Pseudo-Galen actually puts in
connection with the Morbus Phoeniceus (Phoenician Disease),—be brought
on by indulgence in coition. This is in no way contradicted by the
preference the disease exhibits for first making its appearance in the
face, inasmuch as the cutaneous glands of the face are in a relation
of special sympathy with the genital organs. That leprosy too no less
than elephantiasis was communicated and contracted by coition is shown
by a host of examples given in the Mediæval Historians[180]; in fact,
a large number of Physicians held Venereal disease to be a species of
leprosy or elephantiasis, while some made it actually originate in
the act of coition with leprous persons; yet for all that we do not,
according to _Hensler_, (“Vom Aussatz”,—On Leprosy, p. 396.), find it
anywhere recorded that the genital organs were first affected,—apart
that is from what _Astruc_ has brought forward on purpose to support
his own view. As everybody knows, _he_ refers all local evils existing
prior to the end of the XVth Century to Leprosy.

But what would follow supposing traces _were_ actually to be found
proving that what was known in Asia as leprosy did as a matter of fact
first show itself in the genitals? Before we enter upon the closer
examination of reasons for this supposition, we must quote a passage
from the Work of _Von Roeser_ already several times mentioned, a
passage equally important for the pathology of Venereal disease as for
its History. _Von Roeser_, (p. 68.) writes thus: “Primary syphilis
manifests itself _in Egypt in the very rarest cases on the prepuce
or glans of the verge_; the chancres are more commonly found on the
outer skin of the penis nearer the _mons Veneris_, or actually on
this in the hairy parts which among Egyptians and Arabs are generally
kept shaved, _or else on the scrotum_. _Pruner_[181] told me that the
occurrence of a chancre on the prepuce, which indeed is absent in
Mohammedans owing to circumcision, or on the _glans penis_ is in the
ratio of 1: 3 to chancres on the last mentioned parts, hence in that
country Astruc’s opinion that syphilitic ulcers hardly ever formed on
the exterior of the verge, is strongly contradicted,—as is no less true
amongst ourselves. That circumcision is not the sole cause of this
phænomenon is manifest from the fact that in Smyrna and Constantinople
I saw plenty of chancres on the _glans_, as well as amongst Jews at
home, though I am not going to deny that circumcision may have some
share in causing the rarity of the appearance of a chancre on the
_glans_,—but this does not in any way explain the frequency of their
appearance on the scrotum and the _mons Veneris_. A tendency to take
the exanthematic type, a tendency which makes itself known also by the
fact of _many chancres_ commonly appearing at once and _showing in a
marked degree a preference for scurfy and scabby forms_, might very
possibly afford a better explanation of the phænomenon in question.”

Now as to the supposition just expressed, this is based on a repeated
examination of a passage of the very utmost importance in the history
of leprosy, viz. Ch. XIII. of Leviticus—a chapter which has exercised
Theologians no less than Physicians for Centuries, but without our
being enabled to regard the investigations it has given rise to as in
any way concluded. However it is no intention of ours to provide in
this place a commentary on this Chapter, more particularly as we do
not possess the philological acquirements necessary for a critical
appreciation of the results so far obtained. Neither, speaking in
general terms, has anything like sufficient progress in the study of
original sources for the history of leprosy as yet been made to enable
an adequate judgement to be formed; we much prefer to limit our efforts
at present to contributing sundry observations, which stand in close
connection with our immediate object, and at the same time may afford
readers, whether scientific or philological authorities, an opportunity
of favouring us with their judgement as specialists.

The correct understanding of the whole passage appears to us to
depend in the first place on the success of the endeavour to find a
certain and definite explanation of the expression בְּעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ
(b’ôr b’sarô,—“skin of the flesh” in English Authorized Version).
Luther rendered this by: _on the skin of his flesh_; the Septuagint
translators give it as ἐν δέρματι χρωτὸς αὐτοῦ (in the skin of the
surface); while _de Wette_ (whose Translation of the passage generally
we hereby ask the reader to consult, space not allowing us to quote the
whole Chapter) translates it _on the skin of his body_, and understands
by the expression every part of the external skin.

Supposing this translation the correct one, it will be a hard matter to
explain how it was the hair should simultaneously have turned _white_,
a circumstance which strangely enough caused even Hensler no surprise.
Rosenmüller in his Scholia on the passage says: _Schilling_ (_De lepra
p. 7._) observat, in lepra alba pilos albescere_, (_Schilling_, On
Leprosy p. 7. notes that in white leprosy the hair grows white); but
it is only the _partes pilosae aut capillatae_ (hairy parts, parts
covered with long hair) that are here intended, and these are to be
understood as including merely the head, eye-brows, chin, armpits and
pubic region. Obviously the hair on other parts of the body cannot be
taken here into consideration, as it is specifically almost colourless,
and though it is true it may have had a stronger coloration in many
Jews, surely they did not _all_ belong to the race of Esau. Again
all writers on leprosy, when this mischief affecting the hair is in
question, speak solely of the hair of the parts named[182]. So when
_Haly Abbas_ in a passage quoted by Hensler (_Excerpta_ p. 9.), in
which he is treating of _Allopitia_ and _Tyria_ (forms of leprosy),
says, _Nonnunquam totius accidit pilis corporis_ (Sometimes this
happens to all the hair of the body), this also is to be understood
merely of the parts above named. Indeed _Hensler_ himself (Vom
Aussatz,—On Leprosy, p. 304.) assumes this when, after speaking of the
hair of the head and beard, he goes on: “But this mischief may also
attack other hairy parts of the body. _Haly Abbas_ says, (_Excerpta_
p. 9.) At times this affects also the hair of the whole body. True the
passage of _Hippocrates_, in view of the erroneous punctuation, seems
to belong more properly to what follows, still even by itself it would
be probable enough, as _the preliminary symptoms are found particularly
in the arm-pit and the groin_, and might of course extend their ravages
there, just as much as on the head.” However should anyone wish to
understand here _all_ the hairy parts of the body mentioned, and
suppose the Author to be speaking in the first instance in a general
sense, then what follows will not agree, for the hair of the head and
beard was _not_ changed into _white_, but into _yellow_ (צָהֹב), as V.
30 states. There are left therefore only the eye-brows, arm-pits and
the pubic region, to which the transformation to white can apply.

Granting these considerations to be correct, it is impossible to
understand the _b’ôr b’sarô_ as signifying the whole exterior surface
of the skin; it must imply a local limitation. But the limited area
intended can be nothing but _the genitals_, and this agrees best at
once with the facts and with the usages of Biblical phraseology. In
more than one passage, in fact, of the Old Testament _basar_, like σάρξ
(flesh) in the New, has the meaning of “sexual parts”; and even in
English the word _flesh_, particularly in ecclesiastical language, is
consecrated by custom in this sense. So Luther was perfectly justified
in the passage under discussion in translating as he did: _on the
skin of his flesh_, that is to say, of his genitals. The particular
combination of _b’ôr b’sarô_ we have not it is true been able to find
used generally in the books of the Old Testament, but we must not
therefore conclude absolutely that it is unique and peculiar to this
XIIIth. Chapter; though indeed, if such _were_ the case, it would
merely be an additional confirmation of the explanation we have given.

So far as the matter of fact goes, such an assumption offers no
difficulties,—indeed it actually removes several, as e. g. that
connected with the coloration of the skin, and not only proves that
already at that date pustules on the genitals had been observed that
were free from any suspicion of malignant character, but further that
along with a suspicious pustule or similar symptom (scurf, ulcer) there
went a simultaneous general affection of the skin as a whole, which was
held to be diagnostic for the local malady, and accordingly proclaimed
even the suspected leper free from taint after his recovery from it.
For evidently we must take verses 12 and 13 as indicating this, where
it is stated in so many words: “And if the leprosy break out (פָּרַח,
—blossom) abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of
him that hath the plague from his head even to his feet, as far as
appeareth to the priest; then the priest shall look: and behold, if
the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean
that hath the plague; it is all turned white: he is clean.” (English
Revised Version). The last words have been wrongly referred by some
Interpreters to the “Bohak” (bright spot), which is mentioned in verse
39., but really nothing more than this is intended:—after the eruption
is dried up, and the skin has returned to its natural white colour,
then the hitherto sick man is to be declared clean[183].

This diagnostic eruption again points to another fact, viz. that the
leprosy must have had its seat in a part of the body, the cutaneous
glands of which stand in a relation of lively sympathy with those of
the skin generally, and this according to modern experience can only
be the cutaneous glands of the genital organs. Sometimes inoculation
with cow-pox lymph brings out a general eruption of the whole skin,
but this circumstance cannot well be made pertinent here, as really
and truly the lymph is a resultant product of a feverish affection,
and therefore its innate tendency is towards a reproduction of itself
under circumstances of feverish stimulation, and to set the whole
organism, and consequently the whole cutaneous glandular system, in a
state of enhanced activity. How the diagnostic eruption comes about
may be gathered from the statement of the case given just above; while
the passage quoted from _von Roeser’s_ Work will explain the rest.
Still for the present this much may suffice to put the expert reader
in a position to test our conjecture,—for indeed so far it makes no
profession to be more than a conjecture. Supposing it found tenable,
then the further consequences that cannot but grow from it for the
elucidation of the Chapter in discussion may be readily developed. On
the other hand, if it is devoid of justification, it would be quite
useless further to elaborate a hypothesis, plunging a subject obscure
enough without this in even deeper darkness. Further than this we
only need to mention that _Hensler_ and others hold _mentagra_ to be
indicated in the bald chin and scurfy (scall) chin of Leviticus (XIII.
29 sqq.), which if they are right would merely be another point in
favour of our view.

Finally there can hardly be any need for us to observe that we have no
idea of holding leprosy in general to be a consequence of excesses;
on the contrary we believe, to return to the problem we started with
at the beginning of this Section, that we are bound to agree to the
opinion first explicitly laid down by _Becket_[184], viz. _that under
the widely comprehensive notion of Leprosy were included other forms
of skin-diseases owing their existence to some previous affection of
the genital organs_,—in precisely the same way as this happened in the
Middle Ages, and as may be the case occasionally even at the present
day.


§ 31.

What precise influence Climate exerted on the form taken and course run
by affections of the genital organs _in Greece and Italy_, can be only
approximately laid down, as the information supplied by Physicians,
though ample in quantity, mostly leaves the point indefinite as to
where the observations were made, whether in Asia Minor and Egypt
(Alexandria), or in Greece and Italy. The last named country indeed
was, as is well known, almost entirely devoid of independent native
medical Writers.

The mild, genial sky of Greece and Italy impressed on all forms of
disease, including diseases of the genitals, a mild character. There,
on the confines of East and West, we find, it is true, the same natural
tendencies prevailing as in Asia, but always on a less exaggerated
scale. _Von Roeser_ (loco citato p. 70.) says: “In conclusion we
should note further that in Egypt gonorrhœa is a complaint of very
rare occurrence, in Greece and Turkey a very common one. That the
exanthematic character taken by syphilis is not(?) responsible for the
fact of its not manifesting itself as gonorrhœa is confirmed by the
circumstance that it occurs much more frequently in Greece than amongst
ourselves, whereas syphilis in that country has (though not in an
identical form) the exanthematic type to an even greater degree than in
our own.” _D. Hennen_[185] found Venereal disease rare in Cephalonia,
but on the contrary gonorrhœa quite common.

No doubt the tendency to determine towards the skin is clearly
noticeable in Greece as well, but not to such an extent as to outweigh
the local affection. The latter accordingly takes a more independent
form than is the case in Asia, and for this reason, though making its
appearance more frequently, neither follows so rapid a course nor
shows so destructive a character,—if only the organism is seconded to
some extent in the efforts to combat the malady. This is shown by the
statements _Galen_ has left as to gonorrhœa and ulcers occurring in
connection with bubonic swellings,—a matter we shall have occasion to
speak of later. While in Asia the skin affection is manifested by the
formation of pustules and scurf, in Greece and neighbouring countries
of the South it rather takes the shape of _papillae_ and small blisters
or blebs, and only in obstinate cases breaks out in tubercles. Hence
_lepra_, _psora_, _lichen_, and _elephantiasis_ are the forms under
which we must look for it in the medical Writers of Antiquity, who
however say nothing as to the origin of these diseases, or else,
as we have seen before, refer them all to deficiency of the moist
humours[186].

We have never yet succeeded, though we have before now expended much
time on the effort, in getting a clear grasp of the ideas the Ancient
physicians intended to express by the different designations they gave
to the various skin-diseases. So we are constrained to postpone deeper
investigation of the question to a subsequent occasion, or wait to see
whether meantime some other enquirer, better equipped for the work,
may not throw light on the chaos. Only so far as _Scabies_ (Scab) is
concerned, it would seem allowable to assume allusions to be intended
to vicious living as a cause of the malady. It cannot be without a
reason that for centuries this one above all other skin diseases seems
to have fallen under special disrepute; and the term to have been used
by poets, by _Martial_[187] for example, to indicate that sensual
indulgence had been at work. In fact, several of the earliest Writers
on Venereal disease hold it to be a sort of _scabies_, and even at a
later period there is for long frequent mention made of _Venereal scars
or scabs_. Possibly also in Greece lepra (leprosy) was looked upon as a
form of skin-disease that was come by in no reputable way, and commonly
regarded as an inheritance of the debauchees[188], just as we saw to be
the case with _mentagra_ at Rome.

Affections of the external skin consequent upon complaints of the
genital organs being thus no less common in Ancient times than they are
to-day, it follows that in inverse proportion forms of ulceration of
the palate and nose, as well as complaints affecting the bones, must
have fallen into the background and have been of more rare occurrence,
just as is observed to be the case in the present day[189]. So, to
combine all the varying forms under one generalisation, we may say that
this represents a type of disease of an exceedingly mild and favourable
character, particularly if attention is directed only to the external
symptoms, as indeed was habitually done by the old pathologists.
For even the skin-affection itself presents so little that is
characteristic, or at any rate shows itself under such varying shapes,
that even at the present day its diagnosis is extremely difficult,
being very often based solely and entirely on the admission of the
patient, whether voluntary or forced from him, of having suffered from
gonorrhœa or chancre. But if the so-called secondary symptoms are
more or less completely absent, or lack distinctness, what is there
then left beyond the primary affections of the genitals and their
succedanea? Full and sufficient descriptions of these are not lacking;
we have already quoted numerous examples, and we shall find others yet
clearer and more precise later on.

Before quitting the subject of the influence exerted by Climate, we
are bound to return once more to the question, _in what relation
did contagion_, if contagion there was, _stand to this climatic
influence?_ The existence of contagion in the case of gonorrhœa is
certified by the passage of _Galen_ already quoted by Naumann, which
we propose later on to give in full, besides being implied long before
by the law of purification of the Mosaic Books. So far as ulcerous
formations, condylomata and skin-affections such as _mentagra_ etc.,
are concerned, proof is supplied by the facts we have previously given.
According to more modern experience all forms of contagion exhibit in
Southern countries a more fugitive type than elsewhere and spread with
proportionately greater readiness. Whereas in such as are naturally
fugitive, the intensity may for that very reason be less injurious,
fixed and stable forms of contagion on the contrary must obviously
lose in strength, at any rate so far as their local effects go. They
will be the less able to make good a lodgement in the organism,
from the fact that, stimulating the latter as they do to a general
activity, they are the more readily resisted and prevented by this very
state of enhanced activity. For just as, speaking generally, chronic
complaints, uncomplicated by fever, can only be removed by artificially
setting up a feverish condition, that is to say by calling on the
organism as a whole to share in the local manifestations of disease.
Precisely the same is true of local affections set up by any fixed
and stable contagion, and so the removal of the actual contagion can
only be successfully brought about either by direct decomposition and
destruction of the affected tissue or by metamorphosis into a fugitive
form.

Now inasmuch as the contagion was rapidly thrown off from the point of
first infection upon the cutaneous glands,—and this happened the more
readily, the more fugitive its character was,—the affections there set
up by it standing in such clear relation as they did with the primary
symptoms, were necessarily bound also to exhibit a greater or less
degree of the contagious character, as indeed is observed according
to _Jos. Frank_, _Biett_ and other authorities even in Europe to the
present day. In Greece, where the transformation was less often to
pustular and scurfy forms, more frequently merely to papillae or at
worst little bladder-like risings, or blebs (Phlyctaenae), while at the
same time the energy of the skin was not so pronounced, the interval
between the appearance of the primary and secondary symptoms was
greater, and the contagiousness of the skin-affections undoubtedly less
prominent, it cost the organism in that climate much more strenuous
effort to set in action the elimination of the disease by the skin.
Consequently the nervous system as well was injuriously affected by
sympathy to a greater extent, while the exanthematic forms showed
themselves in more obvious conjunction with itch (_psora!_). This was
partially the case in Italy too, though here the climate approximated
more nearly to that of Lower Egypt, leading to a more frequent
appearance of pustulous forms, as shown by the prevalence in that
country of _mentagra_.

But just as climatic influence relaxed the intensity of contagion, and
diminished concurrently the malignancy of disease-types, local as well
as general, so on the contrary, in those cases where other influences
tended to counteract its effect, while the organism was not strong
enough to overmaster the assaults of the enemy by general or local
activity, it sought to guard against the contagion rising to a higher
degree of independence; it set up mortification of the ulcers, by which
means the contagion itself was directly destroyed. From all this it
may be concluded, that although climate must evidently be acknowledged
to be an important factor favourable to the rise of affections of the
genital organs in Antiquity as much as at the present day, yet on the
other hand it tended by its own action to combat the mischief it had
originated; and so, at any rate so far as the development of the morbid
process is concerned, is to be regarded to an almost equal degree as a
counteracting influence at the same time.


§ 32.

The experience of all ages has conclusively proved that a large
proportion of such morbid phæenomena as occur in consequence of local
climatic conditions are capable equally of being produced sooner or
later in countries and neighbourhoods the climate of which is entirely
different by help of the _genius epidemicus_; and that the readiness
with which they are so produced varies in direct ratio with the degree
in which the climate is associated with and seconds the favourable
factors. It is indeed extremely difficult, in view of the low level
of development to which the science of Epidemics, in general no less
than in particular, has as yet attained, to show this as applicable in
any given case, more especially if it is a question of the epidemic
condition of some disease of which the pathological relations
themselves are far from being as yet adequately known. Still this must
not prevent us from making at any rate an attempt at investigation of
the question, how much or how little effort has been manifested by such
influence in the course of years.

But the influence of the genius epidemicus on diseases in general
is a twofold one. _Either_ it supplies the capital, most essential
external circumstances conditioning the production of a disease,
in fact is related to it as cause to effect. In virtue of it the
disease is an _epidemic_ disease, coming into existence for the first
time concurrently with the development of the genius epidemicus,
disappearing again with the cessation of its prevalence, and once
again springing up if and when the genius epidemicus makes a second
re-appearance. _Or else_ the most essential external conditioning
circumstances are specifically independent of the genius epidemicus;
while the latter takes merely a remote share in the way of favouring or
counteracting the production of the disease, manifesting its influence
rather in modifying the form and direction of such morbid reactions as
have arisen in the organism without its intervention at all,—in other
words _the disease is subject to epidemic influence_.

Unfortunately hitherto these two kinds of influence exerted by the
genius epidemicus have been only too often confounded, and no adequate
distinction drawn between epidemic diseases on the one hand and
diseases subject to epidemic influence on the other. This has been
especially so with regard to Venereal disease, the epidemic character
of which curiously enough enquirers have felt bound to vindicate, as
well at the beginning of the XVth. Century as here and there even at
the present day. The baselessness of such an opinion is so perfectly
obvious to anyone who weighs the matter with any care, that we really
do not think it necessary to devote more pains now to proving the
point, particularly as we propose to treat it more fully in another
place. On the other hand Venereal disease _is_ subject to epidemic
influence, in fact it is so perhaps to a greater extent than many
other forms of sickness, as will be clearly shown in the course of
our historical investigations. Accordingly the only question still
wanting an answer is, how far such influence may have been effectual
in Antiquity. This question of course presupposes the existence
already of a number of diseases appearing in consequence of Venereal
excesses; still we possess sufficient proof, as previously stated
in the course of our enquiries into the influence of climate, to
justify a provisional assumption of their existence for our immediate
purpose. For openly admitting as we do our ignorance in relation to the
influence of the genius epidemicus on sexual activity generally and on
the individual activity of the genital organs in particular, and noting
the problem to be one that can only be solved in the future, there is
nothing else left us to investigate here but this, viz. _the influence
of the genius epidemicus in reference to the forms taken and course
followed by diseases occurring in consequence of Venereal excesses_.

It may be collected from later experience and observation that there
are three clearly marked forms of the genius epidemicus or _epidemic
condition_, that exercise a preponderating influence on affections
of the genitals and Venereal disease, and condition the frequency of
the occurrence of one or the other type of these, viz. _catarrhal_,
conditioning blennorrhœal affections, the _exanthematic_, conditioning
complaints of the cutaneous glands, and the _typhoïdal_, conditioning
various forms of chancre and their malignancy.

With regard to the influence of the _genius epidemicus catarrhalis_
and _exanthematicus_, it would seem to be difficult to arrive at
any definite conclusion as to what precisely this was in Asia and
the South of Europe, since the Climate was _ipso facto_, as already
shown, pre-eminently favourable to blennorrhœal and cutaneous
affections; nevertheless the rise and spread of mentagra as well as
of elephantiasis in the time of Pompey the Great does afford some
indication at any rate so far as Italy is concerned. No doubt the
Hippocratic writers several times mention the prevalence of skin
affections at particular periods; but the expressions they employ are
too general to make it possible for us to take these into special
consideration in this place. However there is one passage we must
make an exception of,—a passage of the greatest importance for our
purpose, even though in all probability it refers to the commencement
of a combined erysipelas-typhoïdal condition, to which we shall have
occasion to return again later. In it Hippocrates relates how after
a dry Summer with Southerly winds and frequent rain there followed
a mild, wet Winter, next cold and even snow-storms succeeded in the
Spring with much rain, and finally a very hot Summer again. In the
Spring began inflammatory fevers and erysipelas, and[190] “in many
cases aphthae and ulcerations formed in the mouth, many rheums occurred
in the genitals taking the form of ulcers and abscesses on the external
and internal surface of the sexual parts; also eye troubles, with
discharge, obstinate, persistent and painful; also growths, which are
called σῦκα (figs) on the inner and outer surface of the eye-lids,
causing many to lose their sight; besides they frequently occurred
on other parts liable to ulceration and particularly on the genital
organs.” In this passage the expressions ἑλκώματα, φύματα, ἔξωθεν
ἔσωθεν τὰ περὶ βουβῶνας (ulcers and abscesses on the external and
internal surface of the sexual parts) is as a rule misunderstood by
the annotators. But really ἔξωθεν (on the outside) evidently refers
to ἑλκώματα (ulcers), while ἔσωθεν (on the inside) goes with φύματα
(abscesses), and signifies a swelling and inflammation of a mucous
gland resulting in suppuration, as may be seen from the next quoted
Aphorism[191]. “Such patients as have φύματα (abscesses) in the urethra
find relief, so soon as these have suppurated and broken.” That this
relief (λύσις) consisted in the cessation of pain and of the retention
of urine may be gathered not only from Galen’s commentary on the first
passage, and from the λύεται ὁ πόνος (the suffering is relieved) in
the repetition of the same Aphorism, but Hippocrates actually says so
distinctly in a third passage[192].

Supposing the view, still generally held even in the last Century,
that regards gonorrhœa as a result of an ulcer in the urethra, to
have been already adopted in Hippocrates’ time,—and inasmuch as the
expression γονοῤῥοία, so far as we know, never occurs in his writings,
the assumption would not only not be absurd, but such a view would
really be preferable to that which makes out the discharge to be badly
made semen,—we shall find in this passage an expression of the fact of
the more common occurrence of gonorrhœa, the most troublesome symptom
of which, viz. the pain suffered during micturition (πόνος, δυσουρία,
ἰσχουρία, suffering, difficulty in micturition, retention of urine),
disappears, as is well known, concurrently with the commencement of
the discharge (πύου ῥαγέντος, φυμάτων ῥαγέντων,—when the pus has
broken out, when the abscess has broken), or if it does not entirely
disappear, is at any rate sensibly diminished. But it is not really
needful to accept this as having been the ruling opinion; the facts may
very well be accounted for by supposing that in virtue of the _epidemic
condition_ a strongly marked tendency was set up on the part of the
glandular organs to inflammatory and suppurative action, by which not
merely the glands of the external skin (ἑλκώματα ἔξωθεν),—ulcerations
on the outside, Moses’‏‎ יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת), but also those of the mucous
membrane of the urethra (φύματα ἔσωθεν,—abscesses on the inside) were
affected, exactly as is observed at the present day, especially in the
chronic forms of gonorrhœa.

The gonorrhœa then in this case would seem to have been of a more
malignant type and to have been combined with ulceration. This best
agrees with the general delineation of the _epidemic condition_ as
a whole, the exanthematic character of which declared itself in
the fig-like growths or tumours,—the σῦκα αἰδοίοισιν (figs on the
genitals). _Grimm_ (Vol. I. p. 490.) already remarks on this passage
of Hippocrates: “One might be tempted in this case to regard the
ulcerations of the genital parts and their consequences, the fig-like
tumours, as being the first signs of disease due to incontinence.
Indeed what was there to hinder an evil of the sort in those times
and under a warm climate from signalizing itself,—then subsequently
so far losing its malignant character that its nature was completely
misunderstood? Something of the same kind actually happens under our
own eyes in connection with this very disease.”


§ 33.

Still more important were the effects of these meteorological
conditions on ulcers of the genitals _already in existence_. We
read (loco citato p. 482.): “Even before the beginning of Spring,
concurrently with the commencement of the cold time, erysipelas made
frequent appearances sometimes with, sometimes without, visible cause;
it showed itself highly malignant in type, and carried off many. Many
again suffered from painful affections of the pharynx (anginae,—sore
throats), loss of voice (affections of the wind-pipe), inflammatory
fevers with delirium, aphthae in the mouth, φύματα (abscesses) in the
genital organs, ophthalmias, ἄνθρακες (malignant pustules), etc.—Also
many got erysipelas from external causes, at such spots as these had
happened to affect them, even after the smallest injuries[193], and
in all parts of the body. Above all sexagenarians suffered in this way
in the head, if they were treated in the smallest degree carelessly.
Even under careful and scientific treatment wide-spread phlegmonous
affections frequently occurred, while the erysipelas spread to a
serious extent and with great rapidity in all directions. In most
of the patients so affected the metamorphosis that succeeded was to
ulcerations, whilst _muscles, sinews and bones fell away to a serious
degree_. But the morbid product that collected did not resemble
ordinary matter (pus), but was a sort of putrid _sanies_, occurring
equally in combination and by itself[194]. Such as were attacked in the
head, became bald over the whole head and chin, the bones were laid
bare and fell away, and such ῥεύματα (morbid discharges) as described
occurred frequently, whether with or without fever. Symptoms of the
kind however were more terrifying than really destructive[195], for
among patients in whom these (ῥεύματα) came to maturity and resulted
in suppuration, the majority were saved; on the contrary many died
among those in whom the phlegmonous affections and the erysipelas
disappeared, without undergoing any such metamorphosis into other forms
of disease. Moreover the same thing happened to those in whose case
(the morbid product) attacked some other part of the body. For with
many of them the whole upper and fore arm fell away; while in some
patients the disease attacked the ribs, the sole difference being
whether some destruction was wrought on their anterior or posterior
aspect; in others again the whole thigh or the lower leg or the whole
foot was laid bare. _But the most dangerous of all was, when this or
the like happened in the neighbourhood of the private parts or to the
private parts themselves_, and the mischief manifested itself in the
form of ulcers, and as the result of external causes. In many patients
suchlike symptoms occurred during, before, as well as after the
fever”[196].

_Galen_, who has left us a Commentary on this passage (Vol. XVII.
A.) mentions in the first place that aphthae, φύματα (abscesses)
of the genitals, etc. specifically possessed (p. 661.) nothing of
κακοηθεία (malignity), but only when as in this case they occurred in
conjunction with a putrid general condition. “The putrid character
easily arises even without a pestilential general condition, if the
parts are attacked by phlegmonous affections or erysipelas, and spreads
likewise over the neighbouring parts lying uppermost; hence it is we
are compelled after cutting away the decayed tissues to cauterize the
place. It is no wonder then, when such a condition has arisen that
upper and fore-arm, thigh and lower leg, ribs and head are attacked,
if the private parts suffer above all others.—So far the author has
discussed those affections of a kind akin to erysipelas which associate
themselves with ulcerations or other comparatively insignificant
external cause; in what follows he speaks of such attacks as occurred
without any such occasioning cause”[197].

Now if we examine these statements, so far as they are of immediate
interest in view of our object, we may unhesitatingly conclude from
them, that in Hippocrates’ time a large number of patients suffered
from ulcers of the genitals. These it seems under the influence of the
prevailing typhoïdal conditions were assailed by inflammation of an
erysipelas-like type, rapidly passing over into humid gangrene, which
latter destroyed the parts attacked, readily extended its ravages, and
eventually killed the patient. This is an observation which _Galen_
likewise had frequent occasion to make (so probably under the head of
Influence of the Climate of Asia, pp. 318, 326, 329.), without any
exactly definite typhoïdal conditions having been prevalent[198], and
even saw himself under these circumstances very generally constrained,
in order to put a stop to the spread of the mortification, _to amputate
the gangrenous tissue, and afterwards cauterize the wound_. What was
the origin of these ulcers of the genitals is indeed not stated; but
it is certain they were not invariably conditioned by the prevailing
_genius epidemicus_. Besides, since Hippocrates several times mentions
them without giving the cause that produced them, it is a more likely
conjecture to suppose that this cause was one universally familiar (it
consisted in an act of unclean intercourse with women), than to assume
it to have been _absolutely unknown_ to physicians generally[199].

Again the result of this investigation is of still more especial
interest in so far as it enables us to properly appreciate
Thucydides’ notice of the so-called _Plague of Athens_.[200] This has
been discussed by very many writers, and has given occasion to the
most widely different explanations. He relates as follows: “For the
disease which at first had its stronghold in the head, beginning from
above downwards traversed by degrees the whole body; and even supposing
a patient to have escaped the worst, yet a seizure of the extremities
put its mark upon him. For it attacked the genitals and the extremities
of the hands and feet; and many escaped death, but with the loss of
these parts.” Even more clearly does the poet _Lucretius_[201] paint
the disease, when he says:

    Profluvium porro qui tetri sanguinis acre
    Exierat; tamen in nervos huic morbus et artus
    Ibat et _in partes genitales corporis ipsas_,
    Et graviter partim metuentes limina leti
    _Vivebant ferro privati virili_.

(Then too if any one had escaped the acrid discharge of noisome blood,
the disease would yet pass into his sinews and joints and onward even
_into the sexual organs of the body_; and some from excessive dread of
the gates of death _would live bereaved of these parts by the knife_.
Munro’s translation).

Though we really are concerned only with the last words of Thucydides,
so far as they relate to the genitals, yet what precedes has given
occasion to such extraordinary interpretations that we feel bound to
devote some attention to this as well. The whole passage proved itself
an especial _stone of stumbling_ to those writers who endeavoured to
identify the Athenian plague with _scarlet-fever_, as _Malfatti_ did,
or with _small-pox_, like _Scuderi_ and _Kraus_. In fact this is why
the last named says as he does[202]: “The loss of the private parts
and the extremities (στερισκόμενοι τούτων,—being deprived of these,
with the loss of these) would certainly seem to point merely to the
loss of the _free use_ of these parts, in consequence of ulcerations,
swellings of the joints, lesions and contractions, for the entire
members are not likely to have been destroyed by mortification or
amputated by the surgeon? Indeed it is only in deference to the verses
of Lucretius that the latter opinion has become the one generally held;
but even Ancient commentators[203] have felt that the Roman poet may
very possibly have mistaken Thucydides’ meaning. Moreover I feel myself
disposed to agree with them particularly on this ground, that the
mortification of the whole of any of the greater limbs, though it _has_
been observed in pestilential fevers, in _Typhus contagiosus putridus_
(putrid infectious Typhus) amongst others, yet makes a comparatively
rare symptom of the disease, and at the same time so dangerous a one
that it can hardly be, as Thucydides alleges it was, that many (πολλοὶ)
after such a serious affection escaped death, while on the contrary
some (εἰσὶ δ’ οἵ) only did so with the loss of the eyes.” Any one who
will compare the just quoted passages of Hippocrates and Galen with the
account of Thucydides, will want no further proof that as a matter of
fact mortification of the extremities did supervene, an occurrence that
even in later times[204] is not of the extreme rarity that _Kraus_
and others believe. Again the fact that _many_ of those attacked
escaped with their lives is the less surprising when one remembers that
Thucydides is not speaking of entire arms and feet as having fallen
off, but only of ἄκρας χεῖρας καὶ πόδας, that is to say, fingers and
toes. However supposing any one to prefer not to supply ἄκρων with
τούτων, but take it as used in its full extent, maintaining that
hands and feet as well as genitals were entirely destroyed, even this
would not belong to the category of _extremely rare_ phenomena, for
Hippocrates actually saw the extremities entirely fall off in similar
circumstances, while if only the ῥεύματα (morbid discharges) came duly
to maturity and maturation supervened, the major part (οἱ πλεῖστοι
τούτων ἐσώζοντο,—the majority of these were saved) escaped with their
life.

Finally the passage of Thucydides gives no sort of evidence to prove
that the ἀκρωτηρίων ἀντίληψις (seizure of extremities) occurred solely
in those attacked by the fever as metastasis and so on. For the first
sentence quoted, to the effect that the disease traversed the whole
body, evidently refers back to the preceding clause ἐπικατιόντος τοῦ
νοσήματος ἐς τὴν κοιλίαν (when the disease descends into the abdomen),
and for this reason is connected with it by the conjunction γὰρ—“for”.
The succeeding words καὶ εἴ τις ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων περιγένοιτο (and even
supposing a patient to have escaped the worst) may very well be taken
in this way; μεγίστων (the greatest, worst things) is made not a Neuter
absolute, like τὰ ἔσχατα (last extremities) and such like phrases
in other places, but κακῶν (evils) is supplied to go with it, and
the whole translated: “even supposing a patient escaped the greatest
evils”, that is to say if he were not attacked by the λοῖμος (Plague)
in the forms of head and abdominal affections, “yet it marked him”,
that is it made its existence manifest by gangrene of the extremities
supervening[205]. This Thucydides, a layman writing on a medical
subject, supposes to be a mere manifestation of the λοῖμος (Plague),
while Hippocrates regarded it as the proof of the erysipelas-putrid
condition, which caused the already previously existing ulcers etc. to
assume this character.

We have already mentioned the fact that at Athens ulcers of the feet
were of frequent occurrence; and these must, no less than the ulcers
of the genitals previously existing in any case, have necessarily
been likewise assailed by the general unhealthy condition of things,
and when this happened, have passed over into gangrene. Thucydides in
fact says expressly at the beginning of his delineation of the disease
(ch. 49.): τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἔτος, ὡς ὡμολογεῖτο, ἐκ πάντων μάλιστα δὴ ἐκεῖνο
ἄνοσον ἐς τὰς ἄλλας ἀσθενείας ἐτύγχανεν ὄν. εἰ δέ τις καὶ προέκαμνέ τι,
_ἐς τοῦτο πάντα ἀπεκρίθη_. (For indeed that year, as was universally
admitted, chanced to be of all years one especially free from other
diseases in general; and indeed if any one suffered previously from
any complaint, _all ended in this_, the plague.)” We have seen how
Hippocrates observed the prevalence of ulcers of the genitals at the
period of the special meteorological conditions he drew attention to,
and without doubt in the same way such existed at Athens as well, and
were subsequently dominated by the prevailing erysipelas-typhoïdal
conditions. This was manifested in one of two ways; either the ulcers
became gangrenous, or the patient was attacked by typhus, precisely
as is noted to be the case at the present day[206]. But under either
eventuality the existing contagion was annihilated, in the one case
by the general feverish reaction of the organism[207]. But in those
cases where neither fever nor mortification supervened, the contagion
undoubtedly assumed a more strongly effective character, was more
readily infectious, set up more deeply penetrating ulcerations, and
the tendency towards the skin being the predominating one, exanthematic
eruptions with an inclination to ulcerative forms (ἐκθύματα μεγάλα,
ἕρπητες πολλοῖσιν μεγάλοι,—great pustules, extensive creeping eruptions
in many cases) were observed by Hippocrates to be set up in Summer,
(loco citato p. 487.). All these are factors of the highest importance
for the history of Venereal disease, as it is only by them that we
shall be enabled to solve the great riddle of the origin of Venereal
disease in the XVth. Century,—a riddle to which the answer would long
ago have been found, if only enquirers had not been in the habit almost
down to our own days of persistently looking upon Venereal disease as
an isolated phænomenon.

True it is impossible from the passage of Thucydides to decide with
any certainty whether the extremities, hands, feet and genitals, fell
off of their own accord or were removed by the knife; but our own
opinion is that both was the case, for of course there were Physicians
at Athens, and until they had learned their powerlessness against the
prevailing sickness, they no doubt employed the remedial means at
their disposal, and these consisted according to Hippocrates solely
and simply in the use of scalpel and cauterizing iron, all other
measures having proved unavailing. That these were equally resorted to
in ulcerations of the genitals we see from the passage of Galen quoted
above, and the Poem of the Priapeia, p. 74, confirms the same in the
most convincing way.

Enough has been alleged to prove how far the view expressed in many
different forms, to the effect that, in the Athenian Plague as well
as in the meteorological conditions and their results as laid down by
Hippocrates, it is a question of Venereal disease, is justified by
facts, and to show that even in Antiquity materials are to be found to
demonstrate conclusively that the _genius epidemicus_ exercised a not
unimportant influence on the rise, form and course of the ulcerations
of the genital organs. In what way this influence acted on the
complaints consequent on paederastia and the vices of the _cunnilingue_
and the _fellator_ and affecting the posterior and mouth, we cannot
at any rate at the moment demonstrate historically, but it seems only
probable that previously existing ulcerations in the mouth and throat
must under an erysipelas-typhoïdal general condition have proved
themselves in the highest degree dangerous to the sufferers.




SECOND SECTION.

Influences which served to hinder to a greater or less degree the
inception of Diseases consequent upon the Use or Misuse of the Genital
Organs.




§ 34.


It has been fully proved in the course of our previous investigations
that Asia and Egypt must be regarded as the two focus-points of
exaggerated sensual licence, the conditions of climate being most
favourable in those regions for the generation of affections consequent
upon sexual excesses. So it may be fairly concluded without further
proof that in the same parts of the world attention was early devoted
to the problem how to render such influences,—no mere passing ones, be
it observed, but continuously operative,—as little harmful as possible.
Now in what way could this end be more adequately attained than by
_cleanliness_ carried out to the highest possible degree? As a matter
of history, the merest superficial acquaintance with the customs and
usages of Antiquity clearly shows that equally in Asia and in Egypt
concern for bodily cleanliness had occupied the particular attention
of both political and sacerdotal Legislators from the most remote
period. More than this, it had come to be looked upon by the people
as so entirely necessary, as to be all but inextricably blended with
their very life and being. Any idea of vexatious compulsion entirely
disappeared, and the laws and ordinances directed to this object are in
force to this day as fully as they were thousands of years ago.

Inhabitants of the temperate zone who visited these lands were bound to
think,—unless they gave more careful consideration to the subject than
most were likely to do,—such almost universal and such scrupulous care
for cleanliness exaggerated; and so we find, e. g. the Greek writers,
who cite many of the usages of this description, invariably referring
to them merely as a sort of curiosity. In later times, e. g. in _St.
Athanasius_,[208] they are even condemned as being prompted by the
Devil, in order to diminish the amount of time to be devoted to pious
exercises. It may well be that in course of time a too scrupulously
precise dependence on ancestral custom had brought many of these usages
into ridicule, especially when they were practised in countries where
in some cases the reasons for their observance altogether cease to be
operative. Yet anyone who considers with due care the conditions under
which they were originally introduced, will find himself constrained to
admit that the Lawgiver was only obeying a behest of necessity.

If the different customs and usages of the Ancients in connection with
their careful attention to cleanliness are examined more minutely, they
are found to be divisible into two classes, according as (1.) their
object was to prevent uncleanliness, or (2.) to banish it, when once
admitted. All measures connected with sanitary police supervision, the
enforcement of which in modern civilized States leads to such endless
difficulties, were almost entirely in the hands of the Priests, to whom
the People were accustomed to accord an unquestioning obedience. It
was an easy matter therefore to prevent any injurious contamination
from extending over a wide area; it sufficed simply to declare unclean
whatever might prove injurious to health to ensure its being avoided
in practice,—and in the majority of instances with the most scrupulous
care. This is a factor in the problem that appears never to have been
properly appreciated by our Historical Pathologists; otherwise they
must long ago have abandoned many prejudices regarding the knowledge
possessed by the Ancients as to contagious matter. For how _could_
practical observations be collected on infection and the liability to
infection, when every possible chance of infection was carefully and
generally avoided? Most of the Peoples of Antiquity considered contact
with a dead body a pollution, more than this, they thought even the
neighbourhood of a corpse to have the same effect. They hung up notices
to warn the passers-by, and placed vessels of water (ἀδάνιον, ὄστρακον,
γάστρα—water-stoup, earthen vessel, water-pot) before the house where
a dead man lay, that those who came in and out might be able to purify
themselves again on the spot[209]. Of course all did not go so far as
the Persians, who declared every sick person unclean. Still it is a
fact, and this most certainly not merely among the Jews, that all the
various infectious skin-diseases that were massed together under the
name of Leprosy[210], and also Gonorrhœa (Clap), made the sufferer,
and also everything he touched, unclean, and caused them to be set
apart where no one should come in contact with them; and this continued
so long as the sickness lasted.

Now does it really need any further proof that these diseases developed
a perfectly well-known form of contagious matter: or is an arbitrary
and imaginary theory to be adopted by preference, to the effect that
injunctions of the sort owed their existence merely to the caprice of
the Legislator, and were not based on any actual experience of real
detriment resulting from their neglect in favour of others? At any
rate it is certain that, where these laws were in force and where each
individual followed them out exactly, a disease that is communicable
only by close contact could not possibly be disseminated over any wide
area. This could not take place under such circumstances, even though
it had been engendered in its original form and continued prevalent for
a long period of time.

However it was not only the sick that were avoided, but all possible
causes as well that might lead to the disease. It was not only the
effort required and the pain, but most likely the possibility also
of injury resulting, that made the weakly Asiatic forgo the _Jus
primae noctis_ (Right of the first night), and declare unclean the
supposed[211] injurious effects of the vaginal blood that flowed on
the rupture of the hymen, as well as the act of defloration itself.
Pollution was guarded against in this case, as it was by the regulation
banishing women during the time of menstruation from the neighbourhood
of men, a regulation that had the binding force of law amongst almost
all the Nations of Antiquity. The same held good for the time of
purification of women who had been lying-in,[212] a condition which
was supposed in some unexplained way to be able to exert a possibly
injurious influence on the genital organs of the husband.




Depilation.

§ 35.


In spite of all this it might yet happen that contact with a sick
person could not be avoided, and all possible causes of the diseases
in question escaped. Attention therefore was naturally directed to the
effort to make the admission of the contagion and of matters having
deleterious effects as difficult as might be. There were two means for
attaining this end held to be especially effective,—depilation and
circumcision.

The hair as is well known is particularly apt to attract and retain all
kinds of moisture; and it will of course do this in the case of the
genital secretions, whether healthy or morbid, if they come in contact
with it. These secretions will the more readily exert an injurious
effect, as each hair is accompanied by at least two cutaneous glands,
possessing an excretory duct or pore, and in those parts of the
body where a thicker and stronger growth of hair is found, develop a
considerably increased degree of activity,—an increased activity which
they exhibit in any case in hot countries. “Hence too the Priests in
Egypt shave the body carefully; for there is something collects under
the hair, that must be removed,” _Philo_ says in a passage cited above,
and a fragment of _Theopompus_ preserved by _Athenaeus_[213] also tells
us, that this habit existed also among the Greeks, as well as among
different peoples of Italy.

In later times however the habit gradually disappeared in these
countries; and is only found again at the period of greatest luxury,
when the Pathics endeavoured by the removal of hair from all parts
of the body, except the head, to assimilate their outward appearance
to the feminine type[214]. Especially were they bound to rid the
posteriors[215] of hair, as one penetrating into the anus during
unnatural connexion might easily cause small cuts at the orifice, and
produce chafings of the penis. For the same reason paederasts, as
indeed was the case with all amateurs of Love, invariably took care
to remove all hair from the genitals[216], to avoid endangering the
posterior and the private parts of their mistresses. Even more than
men, did _women_ seek to remove the hair from their private parts,
as they do to this day in the East. This appears never to have been
the case among the Jews; but in Asia and in Egypt the custom was
observed by all classes of the people, and probably from those lands
first spread into Greece and Italy. It seems to have been adopted
very generally by Greek women;[217] but it was _especially_ hetaerae
and “filles de joie”[218] who practised local as well as general
depilation. A similar state of things must have existed at Rome[219],
where older women resorted to the removal of hair from the genitals as
a means of concealing their age[220]. In any case whether in Greece
or in Italy the purpose and special object of depilation seems to have
been soon lost sight of, and the practice to have been still to some
extent kept up merely as a matter of fashion. Nevertheless it is a
fact that the habit has continued even down to modern times in these
countries, and is actually followed there to some extent on the ground
of cleanliness[221].

Depilation is completed by the _polishing_ of the skin with pumice,
etc., a treatment that made it very much less liable to take up dirt of
all kinds. This and the _anointing_ of the body, that commonly followed
it, as it did the bath (see later), guarded against the introduction
of foreign matter into the tissues to an important extent, yet without
interfering with transpiration, which in southern countries takes
place more by the cutaneous glands than by the sweat-pores. This fact
goes some way to explain how it was that the contagious plagues of
Antiquity, generally of a transient character, never properly speaking
acquired any wide extension, unless they were carried along with
the _Genius epidemicus_ at the same time; and that even the latter,
as is the case at the present day, could seldom master and reverse
endemic predispositions. This last consideration merits the particular
attention of the Historical Pathologist, as giving him a partial
indication why Antiquity comes so far behind later times in regard
to startling epidemics, at the same time teaching him to regard Asia
as the home of Endemic, Europe of Epidemic Diseases. This ought to
safeguard him against many over-hasty conclusions in his views of the
progressive developement and evolution of disease in general. At the
same time it will undoubtedly destroy not a few agreeable dreams, where
he has allowed imagination to outrun reality.




Circumcision[222].

§ 36.


_Herodotus_ himself represents circumcision as a very ancient usage
even in his time, as to which it is a moot point whether the Egyptians
or Ethiopians first practised it. From the Egyptians it would seem to
have passed on to the Phoenicians and Syrians in Palestine, from the
Colchians to the Syrians living on the banks of the river Thermodon
and Parthenius and to the Macronians[223]. To the present day we find
Circumcision practised, as all the world knows, among the Mohammedans,
Persians and Jews, among the Kaffirs on the South-East Coast of
Africa, the Abyssinian Christians[224], the inhabitants of the Pacific
Islands[225], as well on the mainland of America,—and this not merely
among the coast dwellers, but also in several inland districts of South
America[226].

Without in this place going into the different reasons that have been
alleged to account for the original introduction of Circumcision,
especially among the Jews, we may yet say, looking back to our
previous exposition in § 29., that we hold ourselves bound to see in
Circumcision originally a religious-hygienic measure, intended to guard
a part of the body already in the earliest times held in such high
honour among the Egyptians, Indians etc. as was the penis, against any
probable chance of defilement by uncleanliness (sebaceous smegma on the
_glans penis_); for it was found that the uncurtailed prepuce made the
maintenance of a clean _glans penis_ much more difficult, favouring
as it did the collection of the smegma resulting from the sebaceous
secretions, and thus gave occasion for the formation of pustules and
ulcers and the like inconveniences. These were referred not to the
natural cause, but rather looked upon as a deserved punishment due to
the anger of the offended deity to whom the penis was sacred, the deity
being himself defiled and made unclean by the uncleanliness of the
organ. To escape such anger men were ready enough to remove a part, the
direct utility of which was as little obvious at the first glance as
that of the hair that grew in its neighbourhood,—a proceeding they were
the more willing to agree to, as the mischief the uncurtailed prepuce
occasioned was often enough manifested.

At first only the Priests, who of course were at the same time the
Physicians of primitive Peoples, were allowed to undertake the
performance of this operation; subsequently it devolved upon the people
generally as well, either by direct command or because they were now
convinced of the utility of circumcision. This utility however must
have grown less and less frequently visible in proportion as fewer
uncircumcised individuals were left in evidence; and so in the same
degree the hygienic motive fell more and more into the background.
Thus only the religious was left, and this was now taken as the sole
reason and sufficient explanation of the universal custom. Circumcision
accordingly came to be a symbol signifying adoption among such as were
initiated into the Egyptian Mysteries, and similarly adoption among
the initiated of the Lord, adoption into the peculiar People of God.
It is in this fashion the various discordant views as to the origin
of circumcision, all of which proceeded in the first instance from
a more or less one-sided point of view, may most satisfactorily be
brought into agreement. True the motive for the operation was supplied
by a pathological factor, but one which owed its force to a religious
idea, and thus at first the knife was regarded not so much from the
_physician’s_ point of view as from the _religious_ side.

But again later, when religious ideas of the sort were more and more
disappearing before a cool examination of actual nature, when the
tale of diseases originating in the anger of a deity was growing
every day fewer, belief became impossible in the religious meaning of
circumcision, or indeed such belief was deliberately rejected, now
that a clear and natural explanation of the rite was to be found. The
religious motive in turn made way for the medical-hygienic, as in
_Philo_ in the passage quoted above, and even Our Lord seems to have
held no other view of the rite, when he says[227]: “If a man received
circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken;
are ye wroth with me, because I _made a man every whit whole_ on the
sabbath?” _De Wette_ in his Translation adds: “that is to say, not
simply, as in circumcision, in one member, but in the whole body.” In
fact the question is here of the healing of the man “which had been
thirty and eight years in his infirmity” (Ch. V.), whom Christ had
made whole at the Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath, for which reason
the Jews wished to put him to death. The sick man was afflicted in his
whole body, i. e. in every limb, for without help he could not leave
his bed and go down into the Pool. Thus Christ we see contrasts the
healing of all the members with circumcision, making it plain that in
his view the latter makes whole merely a single member, the penis, or
at least puts it in such a condition that it cannot become sick (ὑγιῆ
ἐποίησα,—I made whole); accordingly the rite possessed for him only a
purely medico-hygienic aim.

As to the introduction of Circumcision among the Jews, this may very
likely, as we have already pointed, have taken place in the following
mode: Evidently the Jews when in Egypt were not yet circumcised, as
the speech of the lord Joshua clearly implies, “This day have I taken
the reproach of Egypt from off you;” for in the eyes of the Egyptians
the uncircumcised condition of the Jews was a reproach, just as in
later times “Uncircumcised” was the strongest word of abuse with
the Jews themselves.[228] Moses brought up by the Egyptian Priests,
initiated into their secret wisdom, must necessarily have been
circumcised, and so have known the hygienic as well as religious point
of view. Convinced of its expediency, he determined to introduce it
among the Jews, in order to make them by outward sign in some sort
a holy and pure priestly Nation.[229] For this reason we find the
command to circumcise on the eighth day after birth specified among
the _Laws of Purification_,[230] yet without any further supplemental
addition,—which would certainly not have been omitted, if it had at
that time been regarded as a symbolic sign of covenant. Circumcision
did not yet possess its purely symbolic meaning; and so it is not yet
included among the laws given at Sinai, where the blood of the Burnt
Offerings seals the covenant with God.

But subsequently when the Jews at Shittim gave themselves to the
licentious worship of Baal Peor, not merely the expediency stood out
in glaring conspicuousness, but the positive necessity of observing
the laws of purity in general, including that of circumcision in
particular. Thus the long conceived idea of Moses came to maturity,
to enjoin upon the People the rite of circumcision as special symbol
of unity with Jehovah; though he could not hope to bring about its
universal adoption by adults, until these were on the point of actually
setting foot on the Promised Land. This could only be after the death
of Moses; consequently it was Joshua at Arolath who first circumcised
all those who had been born in the Wilderness. Now all the sufferings
of the march were forgotten, the land flowing with milk and honey,
that was to content all their highest wishes, lay before their eyes,
and so they were willing enough to consent to purchase its everlasting
possession at the cost of what is certainly a painful, but at the same
time on the whole only a trifling, operation. But then when every male
was circumcised, there was no longer any evidence, as explained above,
to convince people of the necessity of the observance, and thus for
the future Circumcision appeared in the guise of a _purely_ religious
symbol, as the sacramental outward and visible sign of adoption into
sonship with Jehovah,—a point of view subsequently consistently kept to
throughout the Old Testament.

Finally with regard to the notion, expressed in many different forms,
that Circumcision was originally introduced on behalf of increased
fruitfulness on the part of the Sons of Abraham,[231]—an idea found as
early as in the pages of _Philo Judaeus_, it would appear not to be
so much the greater length of the foreskin that came into question,
but rather the same general reasons that ensured a condition of
cleanliness in the procreative organs; for the alleged interruption
of the ejaculation of the semen owing to the excessive length of the
foreskin can after all only occur, if the latter is at the same time
unduly contracted at its orifice in such a way that during the act of
coition it cannot be drawn back over the _glans_. Supposing, as we
have seen to be the case, complaints affecting the _glans penis_ when
covered with the normal prepuce to be readily set up through climatic
influences, the free use of the organ of procreation must of course
in this way have been interfered with, or even in extreme cases,
completely prevented. But inasmuch as the Jew, in this resembling most
of the Nations of Antiquity, made a numerous posterity his highest
glory,[232] and as this could only be obtained on the condition of
a healthy procreative member, every endeavour must obviously have
been made to remove anything likely to be prejudicial to the part
so profoundly reverenced, anything capable of disturbing, or even
altogether frustrating, the due performance of its functions.

But just as this removal of a part of the prepuce, and the consequent
increased possibilities of cleanliness of the _glans_, more or
less counteracted the injurious effects of Climate tending to set
up diseases of the _glans penis_ in general, it must have equally
exercised as against possible affections of this part resulting from
coition a certain prophylactic influence,—though undoubtedly this was
not _so_ great as it has been in some quarters represented to be, as we
intend to explain more fully elsewhere. Hence to some extent, but only
to a limited extent, can the practice of circumcision be regarded as
a proof of the existence of Venereal disease in Antiquity; but at the
same time to refer it to this as _sole_ motive, as _Stoll_[233] does,
is quite inadmissible.

What has here been said of _the Circumcision of men_, holds good also
in the main of _that of maids and women_. This consists in the removal
of the _praeputium clitoridis_; but neither the amputation of the
Clitoris itself in so-called _Tribads_ must be confounded with it,
nor yet the operation on the exaggerated nymphae or inner _labia_, of
women. The Arabs, among whom this practice,—female circumcision,—is
especially rife at the present day as it was of old,[234] call the
part that is subjected to circumcision نوي (_nava_), the circumcision
itself خفض (_battar_) or خفض (_chaphad_), and what is cut away in
circumcision بظر (_bätr_). Usually the circumcision of maids is first
performed on the completion of the tenth year by women who make it
their special business and who are known as مبظّرة (_mobatterat_).
These women perambulate the streets and openly call out, “Any maids to
circumcise?”[235] Besides the Arabs, Circumcision of maids is to be
found among the Copts or modern Egyptians,[236] the Ethiopians,[237] in
some districts of Persia,[238] among the Negroes in Bambuk[239] and the
Panos in the province of Maynas in South America, the latter actually
restricting the practice to the women.[240]




Baths and Bathing.

§ 37.


In spite of all precautions adopted it was impossible to keep away
everything unclean from the body, while this latter by its own
excrements was constantly making itself more or less unclean;[241]
hence it was only natural that from the most primitive times men’s
attention was directed towards means of removing the uncleanliness so
contracted. But the defilement was never more than an external one;
it concerned merely the skin and the orifices of the mucous membrane,
while the matter requiring removal was of a sort soluble in water, and
thus water was always the chief and foremost means employed to secure
cleanliness. Doctrines of Cosmogony further confirmed the practice;
these made water the origin of all things, a direct effluence of the
deity and therefore itself divine,—a means not only of purification,
but of sanctification as well.

    Θάλασσα κλύζει πάντα τἀνθρώπων κακά,

(The sea washes away all evils of mankind) was the refrain, one that
resounds to this day in our ears from the East; so that we cannot
wonder that baths and bathing formed a capital factor both in the
public and private life of the Ancients. Whatever view might be taken
of sexual intercourse, all agreed in this, that a certain defilement
was connected with it, which (as follows indeed from our exposition on
earlier pages) might easily become injurious to the organs brought into
activity, and could only be obviated by dint of _baths_ and a system of
_bathing_.[242]

Thus we read in _Herodotus_:[243] “But as often as a _Babylonian_ has
had intercourse with his wife, he sits down beside a lighted censer,
and his wife does the same on the opposite side; then when morning has
come, both _bathe_ themselves, for they will touch no vessel until they
have washed. The same practice is followed by the _Arabians_ too.”
Whether bathing after _each_ act of coition was a national custom
of the _Egyptians_, we have been unable to discover, but _Clement
of Alexandria_[244] states that they were forbidden, as was almost
everywhere the case in Antiquity, to enter the temple without having
washed or bathed themselves after sexual intercourse; while the Priests
were bound to bathe after every nocturnal pollution.[245] This was
equally an ordinance of the _Jews_, who at the same time were rendered
by such pollution unclean till the evening. The last named People
were also obliged to wash after every act of coition; at any rate
_Josephus_[246] and _Philo_[247] declare it to have been so, for in
the Old Testament it is nowhere enjoined. As is generally known, this
custom has been kept up in the East down to the present day, even among
the Christian populations,—affording a concurrent testimony to the
necessity for its observance in these countries.

Whether the _Greeks_ deliberately and with intention made use of baths
and bathing immediately after sexual intercourse, it is difficult to
ascertain quite for certain; but it seems probable, as not only does
Mythology more than once[248] make express mention of the bath after
coition, but the phrase ὅσιος ἀπ’ εὐνᾶς ὤν (being holy, purified,
after the couch) points to the same conclusion. Moreover there is a
passage in _Lucian_,[249]—though it is quite true he often describes
Roman customs,—that might be thought to prove the same.

Clearer indications are forthcoming in the case of the _Romans_, who
not only must not undertake any sacred function or enter a Temple, if
they had failed to bathe after carrying out coition,[250] but were
also bound generally after every act of cohabitation to wash the
parts brought into use. At any rate this holds good of the women,
and so applies to the Roman matron (comp. the passage of _Suetonius_
quoted in § 27) as to Atia, the mother of Augustus, as well as in an
even greater degree to the amica (mistress) or courtesan. The regular
name for this was _aquam sumere_ (to take water).[251] Indeed there
were actually special attendants _aquarioli_ (water-boys),[252] whose
business it was not merely to fetch water for this purpose, but
also in particular to bathe and cleanse the “filles de joie” after
sexual intercourse. For this reason _Lampridius_ says of the Emperor
Commodus (ch. 2), _aquam gessit, ut lenonum ministeriis probrosis natum
magis, quam in loco crederes, ad quem fortuna pervexit_ (he fetched
water, so that you would more readily suppose him born to perform the
shameful offices of pandars than in the station whereto fortune raised
him). Such cleanliness was especially obligatory on those who had to
do with the preparation of food and drink, such as bakers, cooks and
butlers;[253] and if we do not find it directly enjoined among many
ancient Peoples, the only reason of this is that they were already
accustomed to wash and bathe every morning[254] immediately on leaving
their bed.

In the same way as after natural coition the parts brought into use
were bathed and washed, this was also done after _unnatural_, and so we
read in the Collection of Priapeia (Carm. 40.):

    Falce minax et parte tui maiore, Priape,
      Ad fontem, quaeso, dic mihi qua sit iter?
    Vade per has vites, quarum si carpseris uvas
      Quas aliter sumas, hospes, habebis aquas—

(Standing in threatening attitude with my bristling pruning-knife
and your better part, Priapus, I enquire: “Pri’thee tell me, which
is my way to the fountain?” “Go through yonder vines, but if you
dare to pluck the grapes, you will find, stranger, _water you must
take_ elsewhere”). Clearly this is to be taken as meaning paederastia
or irrumation looked upon as punishments inflicted for the theft
contemplated; and shows us at the same time it was not without a
“double entendre” that Priapus was set up as a direction-post to
fountains, a point that _Lomeier_[255] has already brought out with
perfect correctness. Again the _fellator_ after his work used to
cleanse the mouth with water, as we learn from several passages in
_Martial_; thus amongst other places we read in one, of Lesbia,[256]

    Quod fellas et aquam potes, nil Lesbia peccas,
    Qua tibi parte opus est, Lesbia, sumis aquam.

(You _fellate_ and then drink water; you do no wrong in this, Lesbia;
where lies your work, there Lesbia you _take water_).

If we further add to this scrupulous cleanliness the quiet life led by
the women of Antiquity, who spent most of their time, as women still do
in the East, reclining, it is evident that in spite of the predisposing
influence of Climate, injurious secretions from the vagina and uterus,
or indeed ulcerations of these parts, must—speaking generally, and in
proportion—have occurred but rarely. Moreover such maladies of the
sort as were contracted were quickly got rid of again spontaneously,
for very often even at the present day rest and cleanliness suffice by
themselves for the removal of primary affections of the genitals. On
the other hand it cannot be denied that a careless non-observance of
these primeval laws of cleanliness must have then avenged itself all
the more severely on the offending individual, and given occasion for
the setting up of incurable diseases.

But great as the counteracting effect of the frequent use of baths
in Antiquity was on the rise of diseases in general, and of those
resulting from sexual excesses in particular, none the less in other
ways did these same baths, directly or indirectly, _give occasion
for their rise and spread_. As to their _direct_ effect in this
direction,—we certainly find but scanty evidence of any in the
authorities, and even such as _are_ forthcoming may very possibly be
referred to the head of general want of cleanliness[257]. Still in
view of the fact that at the present day the cellar baths of the Jews
contribute to some degree to the spread of disease, and especially of
skin-disease of different types, as did baths generally in the Middle
Ages, the conjecture is surely justified that similar results followed
in Antiquity, especially at Rome under the Emperors.

_Indirectly_ maladies consequent upon sexual excesses were helped on by
the mere fact that the ancient Baths afforded manifold opportunities
for such excesses. The bath-attendants, or _aquarioli_ (water-boys),
who fetched the water for bathing, not only carried on vicious
practices with the women frequenting the place themselves, but also
made a business of procuration, as already pointed out just above, p.
214. The lascivious Roman Ladies took their own slaves with them to
the Baths, that they might attend upon their mistresses.[258] At first
the same bathing Establishments were used equally by both sexes, but
not at the same time; and according to _Dio Cassius_,[259] _Agrippa_
would appear to have first, 721 A. U. C., established the public Baths
at Rome for men and women, from which place later on Baths open to
both sexes were introduced into Greece, as _Plutarch_[260] states.
The Greeks called these Establishments ἀνδρόγυνα λούτρα (men-women,
male-female, baths), and used to set up an image of Hermaphroditus
in front of them.[261] In the Imperial period, when all shame was
laid aside and Heliogabalus himself _in balneis semper cum mulieribus
fuit_ (always visited the Baths in company of the women) (_Lampridius_
ch. 2), the use of the Baths both by men and women, and this at the
same time, had become an established custom, as may be seen from
several passages of _Martial_;[262] and it was in vain the Emperors
_Hadrian_,[263] _Marcus Antoninus_[264] and _Alexander Severus_[265]
endeavoured to restrain the abuse by enactments. These were just as
unavailing as were the invectives of the Fathers of the Church.[266]

The Bathing Apartments, from which antique Roman modesty had excluded
almost every glimmer of external light, were now patent to the eyes
of the passer-by. Fitted up with every device of the most refined
luxury,[267] they were transformed into regular brothels;[268] and
accordingly were not allowed to open their doors earlier than one hour
before the ordinary establishments of this nature.

The same opportunities which the Baths gave for vice with women, they
afforded no less for vice between men,—for paederastia. There it was
that amateurs looked about for _bene vasatos_ and καλλιπύγους, (men
with fine instruments, men with handsome buttocks), and this among the
Greeks as well as among the Romans,[269] though the latter in this as
in other things beat the record of all other nations.




THIRD SECTION.

Relation of the Physician to Diseases consequent upon the Use or Misuse
of the Genital Organs.




§ 38.


In the preceding Sections we have become acquainted with the various
influences capable of favouring or counteracting the rise of diseases
consequent upon the use or misuse of the genitals in Antiquity. At
the same time we have shown how a multitude of affections of the most
different kinds attacked, as a result of the unnatural gratification
of sexual desire, those parts which under these circumstances had
to undertake the rôle of the genital organs of the one or the other
sex. Thirdly we have brought forward in the course of the enquiry at
any rate some examples, proving beyond a doubt that the sexual parts
themselves too under favourable external conditions sometimes became
diseased as the consequence of indulgence in sexual intercourse.
Still these results were for the most part based on the evidence
of non-medical Writers, for of set purpose we abstained as much as
possible from calling the professional Writers into Court on these
points, so as to be able to treat in their proper mutual connexion
whatever statements these latter have left us as to the maladies in
question. This course appeared to us all the more necessary, as it is
precisely the medical evidence which the opponents of the existence of
Venereal disease in Antiquity believe themselves able to utilize in
justification of their opinions.

But before we proceed to the detailed examination of the actual
statements, it would seem expedient to get an answer to the following
question: _whether indeed the Physicians of Antiquity generally were in
a position to acquire an adequate knowledge of the bodily consequences
of vicious living?_ In fact on the correct answer to this question
obviously depends the correct appreciation of the medical Writings as
sources for the History of Venereal disease. Only under the condition
that this question may be answered in the affirmative, can the evidence
supplied by the Physicians be regarded as satisfactory for their own
period. That it cannot of course be so for all periods, has been
pointed out already in our examination of the authorities for Antiquity
generally. Indeed for long periods of time Physicians had no special
_locus standi_, inasmuch as each individual in the case of the most
usual maladies endeavoured to help himself, and if the family recipes
left him stranded, then betook himself with prayers for assistance to
the Gods and their intermediaries on earth, the Priests. This still
continued, even after the Physicians had won their recognition as
a special profession, and we find accordingly throughout Antiquity
popular, sacerdotal, and professional or _medical_ medicine, if we may
be allowed the expression, continuing to exist simultaneously side by
side, and not a trace anywhere of the ridiculous limitation according
to which no man has a right to be well without the help of a doctor.

Now having made it clear by what we have said, that in order to gain
knowledge of a disease in Antiquity it is by no means enough to go to
the Physicians only, even when such existed, that the latter should
never be regarded as sole possessors of whatever was known from the
point of view of pathology and therapeutics, we are bound to apply
the same rule in the case of diseases consequent upon vicious habits.
Of this the foregoing Sections contain amply sufficient proofs. It has
there been shown how the genital organs were under the protection of
special deities. Diseases affecting them were ascribed to the vengeance
of the said deities, as at Athens to Dionysus, at Lampsacus to Priapus.
To them sufferers had recourse to win by their prayers the removal of
the divine anger, as well as its consequences; and all this happened
not only in times when Physicians did not as yet exist, but no less
when they did and in defiance of them, as the poems of the Priapeia
sufficiently prove.[270] How long these ideas lived on is shown by the
pictures _Philo_ (p. 315) and _Palladius_ (p. 318) draw of their times,
while the XVth. and XVIth. Centuries reproduced the same scenes.

The most obvious reason for this no doubt was the _enigma presented
by the origin_ of diseases of the genitals, particularly for any one
unacquainted with the existence of contagions and their modes of
activity. The man who with a healthy penis had accomplished coition,
observed some days afterwards, though without resenting the fact, a
mucous discharge to have been set up, or an ulcer, pustule, or what
not, to have appeared. The cause of these affections he sought for in
vain, for of course the mere act of coition was the very last thing he
was likely to regard as such. Rather accustomed, wherever the cause of
any phænomenon was unknown to him, to ascribe it to the intervention
of the deity, he saw in his complaint likewise the Θεῖον (divine) as
eventual cause. Naturally therefore it was divine assistance, and
not human, that would avail to relieve him of his pain. Long after
this time moreover, when men had ceased to refer all diseases to the
vengeance of the gods, and now discovered natural causes for maladies
of the genitals, as for other diseases, anything rather than just
the act of coition was looked upon as cause of the observed effects,
as indeed is the case to this day among the Turks,[271] and as the
earliest Writers on Venereal disease abundantly show to have been so
in their time. That the Physicians were no exceptions to this rule, we
shall show on a later page.

A much more weighty reason however why the patient attacked by some
affection of the genitals turned not to men (Physicians) for help, but
to the Gods, and the Priests who represented them, was the feeling of
_shame_. Since first Adam and Eve had recourse to the fig-leaf, it has
ever been a habit among all peoples of the ancient as of the modern
world to withdraw the procreative parts from the view of others by
covering them. But above all did the Ancients regard the exposure of
these parts[272] one of the severest trials to which modesty could be
exposed; and rightly enough therefore designate them by the name of
_pudenda_, αἰδοῖα, _the parts of shame_. Neither the wide extension of
Phallic worship, nor yet the compulsory exposure of the Ephebi[273] and
the naked exercises of maidens and youths at Sparta[274], can fairly
be cited in this connexion as proofs to the contrary.

In our own day the most accomplished voluptuaries are in no wise
shocked at undertaking in secret the most shameful doings, but yet
when it comes to showing the Physician the diseased instruments of
their bestial lusts, often put this off so long as to run great risks
of entirely losing the signs of their manhood; and without a doubt it
was the same at the period when habitual depravity had reached its
culminating point of enormity. Even Priapus himself asks (Carm. 3):

    Nec mihi sit crimen, quod mentula semper operta est.

(Nor let it be laid as a crime against me, that my member is ever
covered up.) If with this is compared the poem from the Priapeia
quoted on p. 74 of Vol. I., no one can fail to agree with us when we
say that the field of observation open to Physicians in Antiquity
with regard to diseases of the genitals can never have been at all
extended. Even the Priests, at any rate in later times, were only
resorted to in the more serious instances; but even so their journals
of cases, supposing them ever to have kept such, would have been a far
better source of information than those of the Physicians. We find a
confirmation of this in the Mosaic Books of the Law, which contain the
earliest and clearest delineations we possess of affections of the
genital organs both in men and women.

But if men were so reluctant, how much more so must women have
been, who were universally held to have committed a crime if they
had given any part of their body to the eyes of a stranger. Just as
the assistance of the Physician was disdained in childbirth, and to
account for the fact the fable of Agnodicé invented, in the same way
in complaints of the genitals women hesitated to submit themselves to
the inquisition of the Physician. But seeing the female sexual organs
are pre-eminently the home and breeding place of Venereal disease,
this closed what was precisely the most direct way to a correct
understanding of maladies of the genitals. The ancient Physicians,
like our own forefathers, could at best make leucorrhœa the universal
scape-goat; and accordingly even _Galen_, as we shall find presently,
laid no stress on the circumstance, and drew no inference from it, that
wherever men were attacked by gonorrhœa, the women with whom they had
had coition likewise suffered from the complaint.

Further, to this general sense of shame was added a certain timidity
before the professional status of real Physicians as a class, as well
as the pretty universally prevalent idea of the _ignominiousness of a
sickness brought on by a person’s own fault_, at any rate among the
educated part of the population. This comes out in the following
passage of _Plato_,[275] where he says: “Does it appear to you
disgraceful to stand in need of medical help, when it is not wounds at
all or such sicknesses as depend on the seasons that have befallen, but
when a man through indolence and a way of life such as we have noted
(i. e. a very luxurious one), is filled full of fluxes and accumulations
of wind like a sea, giving occasion to the noble sons of Asclepius
to designate these complaints by the names of superfetations and
catarrhs?” This was more than a mere expression of individual opinion;
there is no doubt affections of the genital organs, more especially if
their relation to sexual intercourse was known, belonged to the class
of diseases held to be most disgraceful,[276] and the Poet is justified
in saying:

    _Diis me legitimis nimisque magnis_
    Ut Phoebo puta, filioque Phoebi
    _Curatum dare mentulam verebar_.

(To the lawful gods, deities too exalted for me, such for instance as
Phoebus, and Phoebus’ son, I feared to entrust my member for cure.)
Thus it was not to the “noble sons of Asclepius”, in other words the
Physicians, who treated freemen only, that patients resorted for help,
but to the gods, or else to the medical underlings (ὑπηρέται τῶν
ἰατρῶν,—subordinate assistants of the physicians), to the slave-doctors
and quacks, who plied their trade in the doctor’s shops,—establishments
where, as we have seen above, paederasts and pathics foregathered.
Exactly the same state of things prevailed down to the middle of the
last Century; and to this day a majority of such sufferers rarely as a
matter of fact come under any other hands.

The knowledge and observations of these Cullers of simples and
Compounders of balsams, if indeed as a rule they really possessed the
former, or knew how to make the latter, necessarily perished on their
decease, or at best were passed on by tradition to their successors in
the doctor’s shops, without professional Physicians or medical Science
being one whit advantaged. To such men it was a matter of perfect
indifference what was the origin of the disease for which they sold
their powders and decoctions, for as _Plato_ (De legg. IV. 720) says,
they paid no attention to the existing conditions of disease, and did
not care to give a thought to any such thing. But at any rate,—and this
was the chief point,—the patient was spared a humiliating confession,
and was glad enough to buy the privilege even at the cost of possible
ruin to his health. We must further remember that the “filles de joie”
in Greece and at Rome were mostly slave-women, who from the very
fact of their status could make no claim to treatment by free-born
physicians, and that during the flourishing period of Greek medicine
under the Hippocratic school it was chiefly persons of the lowest
station or else sailors and foreign traders and the like who sought
enjoyment in the arms of prostitutes. Such men by their constant
change of abode made all continued observation a simple impossibility,
so that the very imperfect knowledge possessed by the scientifically
trained Physicians with regard to diseases of the genitals and their
consequences need occasion little surprise.

It is true of course that at the period of universal degradation
of morals Physicians must have found no lack of opportunities for
observation; but the great majority of them were incapable of utilizing
these, actually blocked the way of set purpose, as we shall see
presently, that led in the direction of more accurate investigation,
or else troubled their heads little about the cultivation of Science
or the systematic record of observations. The latter, if they had
published them, whether in writing or orally, could only have been
detrimental, particularly in the case of physicians of the character
of Charidemus’ medical attendant,[277] to their own interests. In
fact they were bound to call all their subtlety into play for the
express purpose of concealing the true cause of diseases of this type,
a circumstance which no doubt we have to thank for a large number of
the extravagant and often more than ludicrous statements regarding the
origin of Venereal disease in the XVth. and XVIth. Centuries.

But as a matter of fact the public itself was no less careful to
guard the secret, as we gather from _Martial_,[278] as well as from
the fact that _Galen_ felt himself constrained even in his day to
compose a special Treatise on dissimulated diseases. This sort of
intentional deception on the part of patients was so much the easier,
as Physicians in those times, as said above, in virtue of their
pathological views,—some of which indeed may very well have originated
in this way,—were little accessible to the truth. For these reasons
they deserved, at any rate to some degree, the satiric lash of Martial;
and were very generally ridiculed by the more discerning of the laity.
This comes out in the important words of _Appuleius_ (Metamorph.
X. 211.) as follows: “Crederes et illam fluctuare tantum vaporibus
febrium: nisi quod et flebat: _Heu medicorum ignavae mentes!_ Quid
venae pulsus, quid caloris intemperantia, quid fatigatus anhelitus
et utrimque secus iactatae crebriter laterum mutuae vicissitudines?
_Dii boni! Quam facilis, licet non artifici medico, cuivis tamen docto
venereae cupidinis comprehensio_, cum videas aliquem sine corporis
calore flagrantem.” (Could you imagine her so tempest-tossed by the
vapours of mere fever,—not to mention that she kept forever crying:
“_Oh! the sorry wits of doctors!_” What means the throbbing vein,
the excessive temperature, the labouring breath, and the hurried
interchange of heaving flank, panting now on one side now on the other?
_Great heavens! how easy the diagnosis, not of course for a medical
expert, but for any one learned in the symptoms of love_, when you see
a person burning, yet without bodily fever-heat).

But does all this justify us in casting a stone at our medical
colleagues of Ancient times? For the last three hundred years we
imagine ourselves clearly acquainted with Venereal disease and all its
forms; yet how many a bubo has been mistaken for a strangulated hernia,
anal callosity, or the like, how many a case of vaginal gonorrhœa
for simple _fluor albus_ (white discharge, leucorrhœa), how many a
condyloma on the posteriors for hæmorrhoidal swellings, and accordingly
not treated as the physician in _Juvenal_, _medico ridente_ (the
physician grinning the while), treated them,—that is duly cut away or
ligatured?

Lastly to all these reasons was added further the _mildness and
absence of danger characterizing the disease_ itself, at any rate in
the majority of instances,—as proved in our earlier investigations.
To our own day genuine amateurs of Love, thanks to those who supply
“advice, direction and information” on these subjects, endeavour as a
rule, at any rate in the earlier stages, to cure without assistance the
wounds received in the fight. This was equally so in Antiquity, as the
following significant passage of _Galen_[279] shows: “This is pretty
well all I have to say at present as to ephemeral fevers. For _patients
who have contracted fever consequent upon a bubo, do not consult
physicians as to what they must do; but after first treating the ulcer
which occasioned the bubo and then the bubo itself_, bathe after the
abatement of the severity of the attack. After that if any one says a
word as to the “diatriton” (fast till the third day), all laugh and
declare him a precisian: I suppose because they are of the opinion that
nothing must be resigned to nature that is not invariably there.”

We know quite well that the Ancients called all glandular swellings
buboes, and that they were perfectly well acquainted[280] with those
glandular swellings in the arm-pits and the groin which follow upon
ulcers of the fingers and toes; but this in no way justifies us in
referring the above passage, which is certainly written in a general
sense, _solely_ to suchlike buboes and not equally to those in the
soft tissues; more particularly as _Galen_, in the place where he is
dealing expressly with the treatment of buboes and the phlegmonous
affections preceding them and occasioning ulcers (loco citato p. 881),
explicitly mentions phlegmonous symptoms as κατὰ αἰδοῖον (affecting the
privates) and γυναικὶ κατὰ μήτραν ἢ αἰδοῖον (in women affecting womb
and privates),—loco citato p. 893. Hence we think ourselves justified
in drawing attention to the passage as containing an indication of
the reason why ulcers of the genital organs pursued a milder course
and admitted of an easier cure in Antiquity, because the _ephemera_
evidently facilitated the assimilation and elimination of the
contagion, this taking place either at the point primarily attacked,
or else occurring because it (the ephemeral fever) led to an enhanced
activity of the cutaneous glands by provoking an exanthematous eruption.


§ 39.

But for no small part of this reluctance on the part of patients the
Physicians were themselves to blame. We have no wish in this place
to enlarge upon the possibility of professional indiscretion in
their case, though long ago the Hippocratic masters saw themselves
constrained to guard their scholars against it.[281] Of far greater
weight was the nature of the _treatment_, especially that applied to
ulcers of all kinds, which was excellently adapted to fill sufferers
with fear and trembling. Already _Hippocrates_[282] taught that
ulcers with callous margins must be cauterized or else cut away with
the knife. _Galen_[283] declares himself even more plainly in the
same sense: “But if the margins of the ulcer merely are discoloured
and callous, they must be removed right to where the healthy flesh
begins. Supposing this condition to have extended more widely, then the
question arises,—whether we ought to cut away all the diseased tissue,
or prefer a more tedious method of cure. It is natural and necessary
in this case to consult the inclination of the patient; for whereas
some prefer to avoid the knife and submit to a more tedious treatment,
others on the contrary are ready for anything, so long as they get
cured.” The same procedure was adopted with ulcers of the genitals,
especially gangrenous ulcers, as is proved at once by the passage
already quoted on p. 176 of Vol. II above.

The Asiatic, for whom the genital organs were an object of veneration,
was no doubt horrified, as the Turk is to this day,[284] at the idea
of any such operation on himself; while the licentious Roman, who
must have dreaded its very probable result in the entire loss of the
further use and enjoyment of the parts in question,[285] sought any
other means for choice, preferred to have recourse to Priapus or even
resorted to suicide, like the _Municeps_ of Pliny mentioned on p. 257,
before he trusted himself to the physicians who ever since the Carnifex
(Butcher) Archagathus had appeared at Rome, strove to rival one another
in infatuation for cautery and amputation. In any case it was only the
direst necessity[286] that drove the sufferer under such circumstances
to the physician; while the latter had really and truly no reason for
enquiring into the origin of the evil, as very often absolutely no
alternative was left him but to grasp the knife or cauterizing iron. In
this way medical procedure could not but have fallen into disrepute,
while physicians were in most instances necessarily deprived of all
opportunity of systematic observation.

Whether there were other factors as well to induce the old Physicians
to apply the ordinary treatment of ulcers in general to those of the
genital organs, we cannot indeed as yet for the time being determine.
Certainly the conjecture is an obvious one that they may well have
had an inkling of the specific nature of such ulcers, and that it
was not merely the local mischief they sought to put a stop to by
early application of cautery and knife. However it is only further
and more careful investigations that must be allowed to decide the
point,—the more so, as the general _views as to the formation of
ulcers_ held by the Ancients seem in many respects to tell against it.
Thus _Galen_[287] says: “The mode in which these (ulcers involving
destruction of substance) are set up however is twofold; they arise
either by removal of surrounding tissue (ἐκ περιαιρέσεως) or by eating
away (ἐξ ἀναβρώσεως). How the former acts is well known. As to the
eating away, if it proceed from the inward parts of the organism, it
is an outcome of the evil humours; but if it arise from outside, then
it is a result of the physician’s remedial measures or of fire.” From
this we gather that all ulcers of the genitals, as well as others,
which did not result from the action either of remedial measures or of
fire, were held as being necessarily an outcome of the evil humours
of the body. Further, that this view was not in any way peculiar
to the time of Galen, but was a direct and necessary consequence
of the further development of the pathology of “humours,” follows
from the circumstance that we find the same opinion expressed by
_Hippocrates_.[288] Again _Plato_ shared the latter author’s general
doctrine of _apostasis_ (suppurative inflammation taking off evil
humours) in his “Timaeus”, where he derives from the white phlegm,
striking outwards to the skin, cutaneous eruptions, rashes and the like
maladies, from the acrid, salty phlegm on the other hand the fluxes of
all types, bearing different names according to the different parts of
the body affected.

If we do not choose to infer from this the proof of a then occurring,
genuine and consistent genesis of the affections peculiar to the
genitals, we are bound at any rate to admit that such a view must
necessarily have debarred all thought of any _specific_ character as
belonging to ulcers of these organs,—the more so as to this very day
we look in vain for any clear conception of really characteristic
symptoms marking out Venereal ulcers in particular. Further, the
knowledge that ulcers of the genitals were contracted through sexual
intercourse, lacked entirely, so far as the ancient Physicians were
concerned, the necessary confirmation and authority to induce them to
make a special and distinctive class of morbid process to include them,
because as a rule they paid no sort of attention to the occasioning
cause, unless in virtue of its being still present and active, or else
by the necessity for its elimination, it could afford some indication
for therapeutic purposes. _Galen_ brings this out best and most
clearly in the following passage:[289] “Moreover it will be a fitting
occasion now to make it clear that not one of the causes directly
occasioning the diathesis, or particular condition of body, will give
any indication as to treatment; guiding signs for the purpose must
rather be gathered from the complaint itself. What is to be done in
any individual case depends on the immediate purpose and the nature of
the part attacked, on the predominant temperament and the like facts.
For to put it shortly, _in no case can an indication as to what is
beneficial be taken from any one of the factors that are no longer
existent_,—i. e. in actual operation. But as it often happens that in
order to diagnose some affection that cannot be recognized either by
help of ratiocination or by the senses, we are obliged to inquire into
the cause that occasioned it, laymen conclude the guiding signs for
remedial treatment to be taken from the same source. But this is by
no means so. This may be plainly seen in those instances where the
diathesis is quite well known in all its details; for whether it be
_ecchymosis or ulceration or erysipelas or putrescent ulcer_ (σηπεδὼν)
_or phlegmonous affection in any organ, it is perfectly useless to
trace out the cause that occasioned it_ (αἴτιον ποίησαν), _if this
latter is now no longer active_. On the other hand for any affection,
a clear insight into which is lacking, a knowledge of the occasioning
cause is useful.”

This principle was equally applied to affections of the genitals, the
antecedent act of coition being regarded as affording absolutely no
help in diagnosis, as we see from the passage of _Galen_ to be next
discussed. In this passage the declaration of a gonorrhœal patient to
the effect that the women with whom he had connection suffered no less
than himself from the malady, was entirely without influence on our
author in the way of inducing him to assume and lay down a _specific_
type of gonorrhœa. Under these circumstances it is really a matter
for no surprise[290] that the old Physicians in discussing affections
of the genitals never allege sexual intercourse as an occasioning
factor amongst others; and the conclusion drawn that such affections
in Antiquity were not contracted by coition, _because_ the ancient
Writers do not definitely and in every single instance assign this as
a cause, evidences really and truly merely the absence of any accurate
study of their works and the knowledge of their views that is acquired
as a result of such study. It is abundantly clear however that the
neglect of the etiological factors referred to led eventually to their
being completely overlooked; and it is no less obvious that this must
needs have been a source of manifold mistakes, which degraded the
physician in the eyes of the non-professional laity, very often made
him ridiculous by reason of this ignorance, and brought down, as we
have seen, many a cut of the satirist’s whip on his devoted shoulders.
But how many of our colleagues are there not at the present day whom
Venereal disease involves in the same doubts and difficulties?

However it may perhaps be suggested that, although the ancient
Physicians did not feel themselves obliged to make any mention of
sexual intercourse as cause of affections of the genitals, they cannot
for all that have failed to notice the phænomena of infection. To say
nothing of the fact that in no small proportion of instances affections
of the genitals under the favouring conditions previously described
did not as a matter of fact arise through infection, but actually in
a sense spontaneously,[291] and further that to this day we possess
absolutely no criterion to distinguish such diseases arising in this
way,—for it is only superficial and indolent observers that deny the
possibility of such origination altogether,—apart from all this,
the view which the Ancients took as a whole of the general question
of infection was one in the highest degree inadequate. For this
state of things, as _Heyne_[292] long ago pointed out, the τὸ θεῖον
(the divine element), or in other words the prevalent opinion that
infectious diseases were an infliction of the offended deity, is mainly
responsible. In these very diseases of the genitals, we have in fact
seen how they were ascribed to the wrath of Dionysus and Priapus; and
how long such ideas lasted, and how intimately they were interwoven
with the life of the people, may be gauged by the circumstance that
even the Christian Fathers themselves took every pains and used every
effort to maintain them.

Now is it really in any way reasonable to expect the physicians of
those times to have so completely extricated themselves from the
predominant range of ideas? and have we any right to abuse them for
their beliefs at the present moment, when in our own day there are to
be found not a few physicians who deny absolutely the contagiousness of
Venereal disease under its different forms? All the old practitioners
could do was to draw attention to the fact that underlying the τὸ θεῖον
there lurked some natural cause, and this view Hippocrates did actually
maintain in his writings. As to the indicative signs of this cause
perceptible by the senses, as to the material substance, whatever it
may be, that communicates infection, into all this they could hardly
be expected to initiate investigations,[293] deficient as they were in
every sort of aid and assistance for the task. For I ask, have we, in
spite of all our researches, thus far attained to any satisfactory and
certain results? Could the Anti-Contagionists ever have come forward
at all, if we had been successful in demonstrating the contagion to be
perceptible to the senses?

Besides all this, we actually find to the present day that in the
countries in question the contagion exhibits but a low degree of
virulence, and only under epidemic influence, as at the epoch of the
Athenian Plague, did it assume a virulent character at all,—a fact
that will be made yet clearer in our Continuation of the History of
Venereal Disease. But wherever the contagion did exhibit this virulence
of character, the ulcers that were set up passed over as a rule into
gangrenous mortification, or else the physicians either exterminated
it altogether by the actual cautery or removed it along with the part
in which it had established itself. Thus any further spread of the
contagion in its original form was not to be expected, as in patients
of the sort there can be no doubt all desire for coition must have been
destroyed.

If we now bring together the results of our discussion so far, we
shall find reason to believe that, speaking generally, the ancient
physicians,—that is physicians properly so called,—possessed but scanty
opportunities, especially in the case of women,[294] of observing
with any precision the origin and course of affections of the genital
organs, for it was mostly only the malignant forms of these that came
under their notice, and these were of their very nature, except when
epidemic conditions were at work, necessarily of infrequent occurrence.
Their pathological views stood in the way of unprejudiced observation,
_conspicuous_ characteristic symptoms were as little to be found
then as they are nowadays, any adequate knowledge of the material
_substrata_ of contagions was lacking to them in these as in other
forms of disease, and thus they felt no direct inducement to class the
_primary_ affections of the genitals as forming a special category of
disease.

Then again with regard to the _secondary_ symptoms, the ancient
practitioners in the cases treated by them made the occurrence of such
all but impossible, for scalpel and cauterizing iron either entirely
eradicated the contagion along with its material _substratum_, or
else removed it with all speed before it could be reabsorbed into the
system. Even when these did nevertheless appear, in some instances too
great an interval of time intervened, in others the parts attacked
were too remote from the spot primarily affected for it to have been
possible for them to be referred to any direct inter-communication.
Indeed this was made an actual impossibility in most cases, as it
was just those very spots that are the usual seat of the secondary
affections which were attacked primarily in consequence of the
different modes of _Venus illegitima_ (abnormal love) with such extreme
frequency as to make it barely practicable for the keenest eye at a
diagnosis to discover any actual distinction between the two,—and
this without taking into account the circumstance that in view of the
pronounced tendency conditioned by climatic causes for the morbid
process to strike outwards to the external skin, mischief in the mucous
membranes and bones must necessarily have fallen to a considerable
extent into the background.

If circumstances put it out of the power of the ancient Physicians to
unite under one whole the separate forms of Venereal disease, to look
at the morbid process in its entirety, it is no less self-evident that
for the same reasons they could have found no occasion to invent a
_special name_ for a thing that was simply invisible to them. Hence
the conclusion drawn that, because no such special name is found,
_therefore_ Venereal disease cannot have existed, strictly speaking
requires no further consideration. Still, granting for the sake of
argument that they had recognized at any rate the generic difference
of the primary affections, were they therefore bound to introduce
a special name for them? _Galen_ shall supply the answer. He says,
mentioning[295] that the old Physicians possessed no special name for
depression of the skull in conjunction with fissure of the bone: “It
is better to give a clear description than to fall back miserably on
barbarous names, which the younger physicians have invented in great
plenty.” In another place[296] he finds fault with the different
designations given to ulcers, and then proceeds: “If I consented to
enumerate all the names, I should be running the risk of deliberately
teaching what I recommend others to avoid, when I say that the true
searcher after truth must needs withdraw his attention from the
nomenclature that has grown up, and fix his eyes on the actual fact.”

While these expressions of opinion demonstrate the uselessness of the
names, they show at the same time that no inconsiderable number of
such names must no doubt have been in existence. So far as affections
of the genitals are concerned, not only is this indicated by the Greek
φθινὰς,—wasting disease and the Latin _robigo_,—ulcerous sore, not
to mention the ambiguous ἄνθραξ,—carbuncle, malignant pustule, but
_Celsus_ expressly declares the fact, saying (Bk. VI ch. 18) at the
beginning of his description of Diseases of the sexual parts: “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 come such words as apply to the parts of shame, the Greek
names for which are at once less offensive and are now sanctioned by
usage, as they are constantly occurring in every medical book and
medical discussion, whereas our native (Latin) names are coarser and
are not even recommended by any custom on the part of those who speak
with some regard to modesty). Celsus himself communicates but few
of these words, for he wrote _simul et pudorem et artis praecepta
servans_, (observing at once the laws of modesty and the rules of his
art); while between him and the writers of the Hippocratic school
medical Literature is all but a blank to us. The same is the case
between _Celsus_ and _Galen_; and of a period so important for our
purpose as that of the licentious Emperors, likewise not a single
independent medical Writer has come down to us. In fact even the
Fragments of the Compiler Oribasius, lately made known to the world by
Mai, contain, alas! nothing more than the headings of the Chapters most
interesting to us.

In such a condition of things it is really verging on the borders
of folly to hope to give a dogmatic and decisive judgement as to
the knowledge of Venereal disease possessed by the Physicians of
Antiquity,—the more so as the extant medical Works have never once
been adequately ransacked, as _Naumann_ only the other day proved in
the case of _Galen_. But of a surety it is easier to maintain the
Ancients knew nothing of Venereal disease, than to devote the best part
of a man’s life-time to the investigation, how much the Ancients did
actually know about it!


§ 40.

If we turn now from these discussions to the statements of the ancient
Physicians themselves, there are two different ways in which we may
regard them ourselves and present them to the reader’s eyes. _Either_
we put down consecutively everything that has been said by one and the
same Author and examine each single datum we owe to him by itself, _or_
we bring together the data given by different writers on one and the
same subject, and then compare these one with another. The first way,
the one generally followed by historians of Venereal disease hitherto,
gives us it is true the general results of the knowledge possessed by
the several writers on the different forms of Venereal disease; but,
seeing on the one hand we do not in most instances actually possess
all the works of our Author, while on the other even when we do, we
are not justified in looking upon his report as embodying a _résumé_
of all the knowledge of his time, the advantages of such a way of
dealing with the subject are on the whole but slight, while it has the
_dis_advantage of rendering considerably more difficult the general
survey of the information possessed by Antiquity as to Venereal
disease, which nevertheless is really our immediate and capital
concern, and cannot fail moreover to occasion a host of contradictions.

The second way not only relieves us from this disadvantage, but also
ensures us that general Survey which is peculiarly necessary, and to
the absence of which the circumstance is chiefly to be ascribed that it
has been possible hitherto to convince the opponents of the antiquity
of Venereal disease only in the most incomplete manner of its actual
existence in those times at all, as the exposition of the contrary
view, in itself incomplete, was bound in its fragmentary presentment
to seem even more incomplete still. Of course, in following the second
way of exposition, there is an unavoidable dislocation of the data
communicated by each individual writer, but this is a thing of but
little moment, more particularly as its inconvenience is minimised by
our giving the passages, when quoted for the first time, _in extenso_,
so as to have on subsequent occasions merely to refer back to them.
Again the want of a clear marking of dates, a point undoubtedly of
great importance in historical researches, is readily obviated by our
laying down the available fixed points of our chronology in the general
Survey that forms a necessary conclusion to our exposition.

No doubt _Hensler_ and _Alex. Simon_ had already struck out this second
way of exposition; but the latter writer merely examined the data of
the several Writers by themselves without making any effort to build
them up into one whole. To do this was, it is true, a proceeding
quite foreign to the method adopted by the Ancients, but for our own
time, accustomed as we now are to demand a systematic exposition of a
subject, it seems absolutely indispensible. _Hensler_ on the other hand
in his treatment of the question fixed his particular attention solely
on the Middle Ages, and made it his immediate aim merely to prove that
previously to the ninetieth year of the XVth Century local affections
of the genital organs were already well known, and had been subjected
to treatment.[297]

Now with regard to the actual exposition that follows, we shall refrain
in it as much as possible from going into particulars, such as the text
itself or the views of the Authors might seem to make obligatory, as
the needful space fails us, at any rate for the present. Moreover the
matter coming under review has been discussed already by many others,
while as for critical elucidations, let them be as pressingly required
as they may, we lack all the necessary _apparatus criticus_. In fact in
the case of several Writers, the translation, let alone the original
text, was with difficulty accessible, for which reason many a passage
of those already known may perhaps have been passed by unregarded.
A complete collection of all passages, including those still
unknown,—for the harvest as was mentioned above has by no means been
all reaped,—will certainly not be demanded by any reasonable reader
from a Student of thirty, for hardly even a greybeard Enquirer surely
could boast of having read all printed works of the ancient Physicians.
For the rest, our present object is not at all to give an exhaustive
exposition of all the ideas and observations of ancient Physicians as
to affections of the genital organs; it only concerns us here to bring
together what is true and directly available for our task. Under this
head would certainly seem to come the following seven points:


1. =Gonorrhœa= (_Clap_).

 Nimia profusio seminis,—excessive flow of seed (Celsus), γονόῤῥοια.

Gonorrhœa, the name of which is compounded of γονή (badly made semen)
and ῥεῖν (to flow),[298] consists in an affection of the seminal
vessels, not of the private parts themselves, which merely serve as the
road for the excretion of the seed.[299] _Two kinds_ of gonorrhœa must
be distinguished, according as the malady is, or is not, combined with
erection of the penis.[300]

_Gonorrhœa with erection of the penis_ is called sometimes _Satyriasis_
or _Satyriasmus_ sometimes _Priapism_,[301] and is a species of
cramp,[302] which however only attacks the penis, belongs to the
category of the emphysemata, or inflations,[303] and is conditioned
by an afflux of the humours, particularly of conspissated or badly
compounded humours.[304] However this last phænomenon is only a
symptom of that morbid lasciviousness which _Paulus Aegineta_ entitles
Priapism, while he designates the condition connected with it by
the name of Satyriasis, this having its origin in an inflammatory
affection of the seminal vessels.[305] No proof is needed that both
these views are right so far as this, that gonorrhœa is both spasmodic
and inflammatory, and in either case may be accompanied by priapism.
Nothing, or only very little, is evacuated of a nature to make the
patients experience relief; and if there is, they are again attacked
by the evil, until the original cause of the erection is eliminated,
on which the penis relaxes of itself and subsides.[306] According to
_Paulus Aegineta_ paresis of the spermatic vessels,—the second form
of gonorrhœa,[307]—supervenes, if the disease is not relieved, or
else general spasms. Patients attacked by such spasms succumb rapidly,
suffering from cold sweats and tympanitic distension of the abdomen.
_Alexander of Tralles_ (IX. 10) saw the erection even continue after
the death of the patient. This form is not a common one; it occurs
pre-eminently among young people,[308] and according to _Themison’s_
observations, who frequently saw the complaint in Crete, where however
it was probably very often a result of pederastia, is subject to
epidemic influence.

The _treatment_ of this form of gonorrhœa demands according to
_Paulus Aegineta_ (loco citato) immediate general blood-letting,—this
_Galen_[309] also recommends, and practised with advantage,—local
cupping or leeching, simple clysters, cooling and composing
embrocations and poultices of solanum (nightshade) or cicuta (hemlock)
in the lumbar region, of litharge, Cimolian earth, psymithium
(white-lead) with vinegar, water or sweet wine, on the perineum.
Internal remedies are a decoction of mallows, mercury and birch-bark,
sap of rue, decoction from the root of the iris, nymphaea (water-lily)
and adianthum (maidenhair). Diuretics are injurious. Patients should
at the same time be put upon a low, vegetable diet, and the supine
posture avoided. _Galen_ (loco citato) recommended in addition emetics,
but not purgatives, also embrocations of _ceratum rosaceum_, friction
and subsequently gymnastic exercises. _Alexander of Tralles_ insists
particularly on the patient avoiding[310] all wanton scenes and
thoughts, and forbids the use of any cold, specially astringent things,
whereby the resolution of the contraction is made more difficult (πάθος
δυσδιαφόρητον γενέσθαι,—the affection is rendered hard to be resolved).

Gonorrhœa without erection of the penis, that is to say gonorrhœa
proper, exhibits a persistent, involuntary discharge of the seed,[311]
has some analogy with _incontinentia urinae_, and usually depends
like the latter on weakness or failure in the retentive power of the
spermatic vessels.[312] Very often an inflammatory stage supervenes,
making the complaint approximate to the first form; patients secrete
copious and hot semen, which provokes them to ejaculation,—an
ejaculation however that is followed by great exhaustion. If they
avoid copulation, headache is established, pains in the stomach and
nausea, while nocturnal pollutions cause them similar inconveniences
to those they incur from coition. The ejaculation is accompanied by
heat and smarting pain,—and this not solely among men but with women
as well; for one of these patients, _Galen_ writes,[313] told me that
not only himself, but also _the women with whom he had accomplished
coition_, experienced during the discharge a biting, burning pain.
On the contrary, according to _Aretaeus_,[314] it would seem the
only symptoms found in conjunction with the complaint are itching
of the privates, a voluptuous feeling and a violent inclination
to sexual intercourse. This datum admits of ready explanation if
we consider the fact that in southern countries the inflammatory
stage that makes its appearance is very brief and as a rule hardly
noticeable, provided,—though no doubt this condition was pretty often
broken,—coition was not indulged in during its course.

As a matter of fact in the great majority of instances the Physician
had only the chronic form to treat. Generally speaking a patient
first notices the complaint, when the discharge begins; and then the
latter, when once the inflammatory stage is over, proceeds day and
night undisturbed and without special voluptuous feeling, without
wanton dreams,[315] often without any particular sensation at all.
The actual discharge is a thin, cold, pale, sterile flux. Towards the
end of the illness it becomes thicker, assumes an acrid quality, and
eventually ceases altogether to flow.[316] But if the malady persists,
especially in young people, then according to _Aretaeus_, the whole
visage of the sufferers assumes a greyish look; they grow sluggish,
atonic, spiritless, faint-hearted, indolent, dull, weak, emaciated,
incapable of effort, unhealthy-looking,[317] pale, womanish, have
no appetite, feel chilly, complain of heaviness in the limbs, are
weak-loined, feeble and unfit for anything. According to _Galen_, the
abdomen falls in, besides all the rest of the body collapsing more or
less and withering; while patients become lean, of a yellowish pale
complexion and hollow-eyed. In this way the complaint not unfrequently
paves the road to paralysis, or else sufferers die of _tabes_ or
wasting.[318] Specifically and in itself the disease is not dangerous,
but it provokes various other complaints, and represents a highly
disagreeable, ill-reputed affection (Aretaeus),[319] that almost
always follows a chronic course,[320]—for which reason Aretaeus and
Caelius Aurelianus actually treat of it under the head of chronic
diseases.

Gonorrhœal pus is infectious, as is implied by the Mosaic Laws of
Purification (Leviticus Ch. XV.), and the malady is communicated by
coition, as is seen from the words of _Galen_,—p. 428. But as early
as the Fourth Century the idea was prevalent that the _conjunction of
the stars_ was not devoid of influence, as such or such a conjunction
might from a man’s very birth determine that _the individual was to
die of gonorrhœa_. This at any rate is maintained by _Julius Firmicus
Maternus_,[321] who lived in the time of Constantine the Great.
The disease has to be carefully distinguished from the nocturnal
pollutions,[322] that are at times one of the sequelae of gonorrhœa.

The treatment is, according to _Aretaeus_, at the commencement that
for an ordinary rheum or flux, by keeping the parts affected cool,
in order to counteract the flow of the humours to them; by degrees
going on to a heating and at the same time desiccating procedure,
then the application of fresh wool to the part, the employment of
friction, embrocations of _ceratum rosaceum_ or _oinanthinum_ with
white wine, olive oil with melilot, marjoram, rosemary, poultices of
barley-meal, saltpetre and dyll, but above all rue, with the addition
of honey or, according to _Celsus_, vinegar; as further treatment,
stimulating cataplasms, of a strength to redden the skin or even to
bring out pustules on it, so as to draw off the afflux of the humours,
or else as an alternative, plasters of the nature of the _emplastrum
viride_ (green plaster), of _baccae lauri_ (laurel berries). As for
internal treatment, the patient should drink decoctions of: _semen
lactucae_ (lettuce juice), _cannabis_ (hemp), _rad. orcheos_ (orchis
root), _nymphaeae_ (waterlily), _halicacabi_ (bladder-wort), etc.;
and take _castoreum_ (beaver oil), or the antidotes of _Symphon_,
_Philo_, or _Bestinus_, which are prepared from _viper’s flesh_.
In case of very profuse discharge, the patient should be directed
to drink hard red wine; if he is acrid with bile (χολωδέστερον καὶ
δριμύτερον,—over-bilious and acrid), lukewarm baths are brought into
requisition (Alexander of Tralles). On one point all authorities are
agreed, that the main thing to depend on is diet. Both food and drink,
says Celsus, must be cold, a precaution Themison also recommended in
satyriasis, whereas Caelius Aurelianus denounces it. The patient must
not indulge in semen-forming matters, such as cause flatulency, but
take nourishing food, flesh of animals but not fish, a little light
wine with it, for the constant ejaculation is weakening; he should be
careful as to resting,[323] lie on a cool bed, either on the right side
or the left (Paulus Aegineta), not on the back (Celsus).

Where the complaint is of longer continuance, exercise in the open
air and the use of cold baths is to be recommended, which latter
_Celsus_[324] it appears prefers to see resorted to, as well as cold
aspersions, almost at the very commencement; a mode of treatment
that is even now coming into fashion again among ourselves, as the
water-cure mania makes further and further progress. _Galen_[325]
recommended, besides diet and medicine, that with a view to
retarding the preparation of semen, gymnastic exercises, particularly
such as bring the upper part of the body into activity, e. g.
ball-playing both with great and little balls and the casting of leaden
disks, be resorted to. After bathing, patients must rub and wash over
the hips with desiccative ointments, oil expressed from red, coarse
olives, roses or quinces, wax-salves with the juices of _sempervivum_
(evergreen house-leek), _solanum_ (nightshade), _umbilicus Veneris_
(navelwort), _portulaca_ (purslain), linseed boiled in water, etc.
I once saw, he says, the Intendant of a Gymnasium Athletes lay a
leaden disk on the lumbar region of an athlete as a measure against
nocturnal pollution,—a means _Caelius Aurelianus_ prescribed _also_ for
gonorrhœal patients,—and afterwards recommended the same treatment to
another sufferer from these, who was thankful for the advice. Others
again found lying on the _agnus castus_ beneficial to them, as well as
the taking of its juice along with rue. Violently active refrigerants
in the form of ointments, prepared from poppy and _atropa mandragora_
should not be employed, and this equally applies to sleeping on
these plants when they are in bloom, for they act injuriously on the
kidneys. On the other hand sleeping on roses was advantageous,—Caelius
Aurelianus added to the list the leaves and flowers of _vitex_ (agnus
castus, Abraham’s balm). “Besides these I have excogitated many other
specifics for patients of the sort, and found their utility confirmed
in practice. For instance those afflicted with such a condition of
body should pay particular attention to this. When the accumulation of
semen that has to be ejaculated is at its greatest, they should during
the day take a nourishing yet moderate meal, and then when they lie
down to sleep accomplish sexual intercourse.[326] But on the following
day, after taking their fill of sleep, they should on rising chafe
themselves till the skin is reddened. Next they should rub the body all
over with oil; then soon after take some well-leavened, pure bread,
baked in the baking-pan, and mixed with wine, after which they may then
go about their customary business. Between the rubbing with oil and the
meal of bread patients may go for a walk, if there is a spot convenient
for the purpose in the neighbourhood, _except in the colder time of the
year, for at that season it is better for them to stay indoors_.”

With regard to _gonorrhœa in women_, it is all but impossible to
arrive at any accurate knowledge of what the Ancient Physicians knew
concerning it. The reason of this is that the views held as to the
effect of deteriorated menstrual blood and of the ῥοῦς γυναικεῖος
(female discharge), by means of which the whole body was supposed
to purge itself of evil humours,[327] absolutely precluded the
possibility of any unprejudiced observation, in precisely the same
way as down to quite modern times the _fluor albus_ (white flux,
blennorrhœa) conditioned the extremely imperfect knowledge possessed by
the faculty of female gonorrhœa. We purpose to leave over the inquiry
into the points which differentiate the two (male and female gonorrhœa)
to another opportunity; and will only note here that gonorrhœa in
women, strictly so called, was by no means utterly unknown,—in fact
there is no doubt whatever as to its being distinguished from the ῥοῦς
γυναικεῖος (female discharge), as is shown by the passage of _Galen_
quoted above, and still more clearly by _Aretaeus_,[328] who speaks
of γονόῤῥοια γυναικεῖα (female gonorrhœa) distinctly as ἄλλος ῥόος
λευκὸς, another species of white flux. Whether perhaps this knowledge
was first accumulated at the epoch of Tiberius and his fellows cannot
indeed be positively determined; but certainly the word ἐλέξαμεν (we
have named it) of the text of Aretaeus may very well leave room for
such a conjecture, and as a matter of fact Aretaeus would appear
to have lived under Domitian, and was therefore a contemporary of
Martial’s!


2. Ulcers and Caruncles in the Urethra.

We have already seen from Hippocrates, Celsus and Galen that the
ancient Physicians had observed the inflammation and subsequent
matteration of the small mucous glands of the urethra evidenced by the
symptoms of painful micturition, and seeing that mere tenesmus, as
well as dysentery, are denominated ἑλκώσις (ulceration) by them, it is
by no means improbable that many a urethral ulcer and many a case of
gonorrhœa may have been treated under the name of ischuria (retention
of urine). This is the more likely, as we learn from a passage of
_Celsus_[329], one usually misinterpreted in several respects, that
the urethral discharge was explained as due to an extension of
the ulcer to the spermatic cords (_vasa deferentia_,—seed-bringing
vessels). Yet further confirmation is afforded by a passage of
_Actuarius_,[330] already cited by Simon, and our own conjecture
expressed on a previous page thus justified.

Ulcers however also occurred in the urethra[331] unconnected with
tubercular swellings (ἀφανὲς ἕλκος,—invisible ulcer); these not
unfrequently occasioned bleeding,[332] and made their presence known
by the accompanying pain, while synchronously small irregularly-shaped
particles (ἐφελκύδες) were ejected.[333] The appropriate treatment of
these ulcers has been described by _Paulus Aegineta_ (loco citato);
it consisted in injections of honey and milk (_Aëtius_, IV. 2. 19.,
and _Actuarius_ also recommended _enemata morsus expertia_,—clysters
free from biting acridity), introduction of lotus pounded in a leaden
mortar by means of a feather or a twisted piece of lint (λεπτὸν
στρεπτὸν,—light material twisted,—an anticipation of the bougie?)
along with a mixture of gall-apple, flowers of zinc (oxide of zinc),
starch-flour and aloes smeared in equal parts with rose-sap and
plantain-sap.

Not unfrequently such ulcers give rise to the establishment of
_caruncles in the urethra_, particularly _in the neighbourhood of
the neck of the bladder_, though they occur[334] also in the ear,
nose, as well as in connection with the privates and anus, in the
latter case presenting the symptoms of ischuria (retention of urine),
interfering as they do with the outflow of the urine. The presence of
these caruncles may be diagnosed by the preceding symptoms, as also
by the circumstance that the urine is evacuated by the introduction
of a _catheter_, that this occasions pain at the seat of ulceration
and breaks through the caruncle, causing the urine to pass mixed
with blood and the remains of the caruncle. It is necessary to know
if a thrombus (blood-clot) or calculus blocks the urethra; but as
to whether we pronounce the mischief to be situated in the urethra
itself and the cause of the ischuria to be there as well, this is a
distinction of no practical or scientific value.[335] For as a rule
it was solely as being the excretory duct of the bladder that the
urethra had some little attention directed to it; while any signs
it exhibited were generally regarded simply as symptoms connected
with the urinary bladder and the kidneys. Partial _growing up, or
morbid extuberance, in the urethra_ (συσσάρκωσις,—a growing together)
following on a previous ulceration is described by _Heliodorus_, as
given in Oribasius,[336] occasioning either a narrowing of the urethral
passage in one spot or its being filled up over its entire superficies
with morbid outgrowths of tissue. Partial narrowing causes dysuria or
strangury (difficulty of micturition), the narrowing of the whole canal
by morbid outgrowths, ischuria (impossibility of micturition, retention
of urine). The outgrowth must be removed by means of a small lancet.
The mode of procedure is then as follows. The patient is placed on his
back, the penis straight out; then with the fingers of the left hand
the operator compresses it behind the spot where the growth is found,
in order to prevent the blood from flowing inwards when the incision
is made; next he takes the knife in the right hand, pushes the point
into the urethra, divides it as far along as the base of the morbid
growth, but not so as to go beyond it. This done, he proceeds to cut
out the growth by means of a circular incision, and compresses the
urethra between the fingers, causing the growth to spring forwards.
Supposing it now projects but does not actually spring out, it is
extracted by means of a _mydion_ (boat-shaped instrument). After the
removal of the growth the urethra must be protected from contact with
the urine, which during the first few days is best done by applying an
_ipoterion_, or compress,[337] made of papyrus. The mode of preparing
this is described in detail later on, and a sort of elastic catheter
indicated. Catheters of copper and tin might also be used, or a
quill taken for the purpose. The tin or lead catheters are not to be
inserted till after the third day, and carry in front a projecting
shield. The application of a bandage described is declared to be of
great advantage. Scirrhosities of _the neck of the bladder_, abscesses
and the like, are mentioned by _Galen_ (loco citato) as occurring
occasionally. With regard to _diseases of the prostates_ subsequent
investigations must authenticate the amount of knowledge possessed of
these by the physicians of Antiquity.

_Inflammation of the testicles_[338] is usually characterized according
to _Paulus Aegineta_[339] by pain under strong pressure by the fingers,
while only a slight pressure causes no uneasiness. Redness and heat
are slight externally, but the latter is perceptible deep in by an
investigating finger. Sometimes fever is associated with it, and if
the inflammation is not quickly combated, the pain, _Celsus_ tells
us,[340] extends to the inguinal and lumbar regions, the parts swell,
the spermatic cord grows thicker and at the same time indurated. Both
authorities make the treatment consist at first in blood-letting at the
ankle,[341] and the use of soft poultices of bean-meal,[342] pounded
cumin, linseed, etc. to which in cases of induration is added later on
a mixture of crocus and wine. In obstinate instances poultices are used
of _rad. cucumeris agrestis_ (root of the wild cucumber);[343] _Paulus
Aegineta_ under these circumstances prescribes grapes, peas, cumin,
brimstone, nitre and resin, made into a cataplasm with honey, besides
sundry wax-salves. A considerable list of remedial agents is found
enumerated in _Marcellus_ (ch. 33.) intended to combat the _tumores et
dolores testiculorum_ (swellings and pains in the testicles); of these
we will only mention the salves of mutton-suet and nitre, the sea-water
compresses, the poultices of _rad. cicutae_ (hemlock root), white of
egg, frankincense and ceruse (white lead). _Aretaeus_[344] gives us
an interesting piece of information to the effect that in order to
counteract neuralgia of the testicles and spermatic cord, accompanied
at the same time by intestinal colic, the spermatic cord was _cut
out_, being looked upon as the cause of the suffering. Important too
is the case related by _Hippocrates_,[345] where a patient at Athens
suffered from _prurigo_ (itch) of the whole body, but above all of the
_testicles_ and the forehead, his skin having grown thick and hard as
it does in leprosy, so that nowhere could it be pulled up above the
general surface.

_Induration_ of the testicles is mentioned by _Galen_,[346] who assigns
it as one cause of sterility. The same author[347] likewise speaks of
the testicles being affected with _aphthae_ (διδύμους ἀφθῶντας), which
he says should be treated with _terra cimolia_ (Cimolian chalk) and
myrtle-berries.


§ 41.


3. Ulcers of the Genitals.

 φθινάς, ἄνθραξ, ἔσχαρα,—robigo, cancer. (Wasting ulcer, malignant
 pustule, scab,—ulcerous sore, eating, suppurating ulcer).

Though we cannot exactly subscribe to Alexander Simon’s declaration
to the effect that it would fill whole volumes, if we wished to cite
systematically and in full all that has been said by the oldest
and earlier medical Writers on ulcerous affections that attack the
sexual parts from the points of view of pathology and therapeutics,
still the number of such passages is no doubt sufficiently imposing.
Unfortunately their contents cannot be described as equally important;
for the pathological side is sacrificed to the therapeutic,—in fact the
great majority give nothing more than the general names ἕλκος (ulcer)
or φλεγμονὴ αἰδοίου (inflamed tumour of the privates), and then at
once pass on to discuss the remedial measures expedient. This mode
of procedure is indeed quite consistent with the general character
of medical science in those days, for it is always the case that the
more medicine declines, the more practitioners think themselves bound
to look for remedial means nowhere but in the prescription-books.
Curiously enough we find that almost every thing given by the later
physicians already has a place in the pages of _Celsus_; the latter
probably utilized the Alexandrian physicians, on whose knowledge the
later Writers appear to have made little advance.

Now with regard to ulcers of the genitals in general,—these are of
frequent occurrence, as to begin with the parts are from their very
constitution prone to putrefactive changes, as well owing to their
moist nature, possessing as they do so many glands that draw moisture
together, and being covered with hair, as because they are at the
same time excretory organs[348]. The time of year exerts an influence
on the appearance of such ulcers, for they show themselves chiefly
in the summer,[349] particularly when a South wind is blowing,[350]
a wind that is moist and warm and fosters a tendency towards the
resolution of fluid and solid parts alike. Thus ulcers of the genitals
are likewise subject to epidemic influence, as has been clearly
demonstrated on previous pages. They are acquired by coition, and
that equally by natural coition, as the instance of Hero mentioned on
a previous page shows without a shadow of doubt, as by the unnatural
forms, and particularly by paederastia, which last caused the malady
of Naevolus’ slave also referred to in an earlier passage. Moreover in
the hot regions of Asia and Africa want of cleanliness also, especially
when men were uncircumcised, gave occasion, as in Apion’s case, to
the establishment of ulcers of the genitals. These were looked upon
by the Ancient physicians in most instances as an outcome of the evil
humours of the body,—an opinion which need cause us less surprise as
even in much more modern times a large number of physicians have
endeavoured to explain the origin of chancres by an antecedent general
infection, that manifested itself in this way, viz. by the appearance
of these sores. Ulcers not unfrequently took the form of aphthae,
particularly in women,[351] being in that case more superficial,
but for that very reason readily eating their way over adjacent
parts,—(_cancer_, eating ulcer). In many instances inflammation
(φλεγμονὴ, ἐρυσίπελας—phlegmonous inflammation, erysipelas) and
swelling of the parts affected were accompanying circumstances. They
were often painful,—sometimes moist, sometimes dry. In the majority of
cases they assumed under favouring conditions a putrefactive character
(φαγέδαινα,—phagedenic or eating ulcer), under which circumstances
worms actually bred in the sores, or else they manifested from the
very first a marked tendency to pass over into gangrene (ἄνθραξ,
_carbunculus_,—malignant pustule, carbuncle), where as a rule merely an
ulcer developing from a minute bladder (bleb) or φύμα existed in the
first instance. On the other hand its course was often very chronic,
without phlegmonous ulcers at all, or if these were present, either
they were callous, or else condylomatous outgrowths sprung from them.

In accordance with these varying factors did the _treatment of ulcers
of the genitals_ vary, though without any universally recognized
special distinction from that adopted for ulcers in general.
Speaking generally, purgings by the rectum are not indicated; but
preferably in affections of the genitals revulsory treatment by
emetics is employed.[352] If blood-letting is resorted to, it must
be either in the hollow of the knee or at the ankle.[353] As to local
measures, fatty matters according to _Antyllus_ are not good for the
genitals,[354] whereas astringents and desiccatives are beneficial,
if that is to say the phlegmonous condition is absent.[355] On the
contrary if the latter is found, this must in the first place be
combated, then a mixture applied consisting of sifted resin and
pounded cumin, or alternatively a poultice of barley-meal, hydromel
and vine-leaves reduced to a pulp, or else cumin with butter and
tree-resin.[356] Above all Galen[357] recommended in the early stages
before the appearance of an eating or phagedenic ulcer (κατὰ τῶν ἐν
αἰδοίοις φλεγμονῶν ἐν ἀρχῇ, πρὶν ὑποφαίνεσθαι τινα νομώδη σηπέδονα,—in
phlegmonous affections of the privates at the commencement, before any
eating ulceration appear) a _ceratum rosaceum_ (wax-salve of roses),
the preparation of which he gives _in extenso_, and Aëtius copying
from him; its activity is enhanced by the addition of a little _oleum
sabinum_ (Sabine oil). If the ulcers are complicated with _swelling_,
a compound of white-lead (ψιμύθιον) and triturated vine-leaves is
applied,[358] sea-water compresses,[359] or poultices of boiled lentils
and pomegranate rind.[360] For _painful_ ulcers pompholyx (flowers of
zinc)[361] was particularly recommended, or a decoction of linseed
with the addition of myrrh; also woman’s milk may be advantageously
used as well,[362] especially with the addition of _anodynes_, and
above all pompholyx or flowers of zinc. _Paulus Aegineta_ (loco citato)
prescribed the application of butter and resin melted together in
equal parts, or linseed ground up with myrrh and resin. In _raw_ and
_dry_ ulcers of the genitals the aloe was very generally prescribed;
it was powdered and sprinkled over the sore,[363] or if a phlegmonous
condition was already established, dissolved in water.[364] In the
second case _Oribasius_[365] prescribed likewise the use of lead,—and
indeed it was a usual recommendation with regard to most of the
recognized remedies that they should be pounded and triturated in
leaden mortars with leaden pestles.

Superficial ulcers _of an aphthae-like character_ were treated as early
as in _Hippocrates’_ time and indeed by him[366] with a decoction of
myrtle-berries boiled in wine. As a remedy against _moist_ ulcers a
certain mixture of Crito’s, compounded of frankincense and myrrh boiled
in sweet wine, had a great reputation;[367] but above all the powder
of _charta usta_ (papyrus ash), anise and _cucurbita_ (gourd)[368]
was employed, after the ulcer had been washed with urine; further the
_cortex pinus_ (cork-tree), _lapis haematites_ (bloodstone, haematite
iron-ore),[369] to which frankincense was added in the case of more
deep-seated ulcers,[370] also _cadmium ustum_ (burnt calamine) (Paulus
Aegineta); likewise washing with urine proved beneficial.[371] In
_spreading or eating_ ulcers (νομῶδες ἕλκος) a poultice was applied
of lentils, pomegranates and oxymel[372] reduced to a pulp; but a
still more usual remedy was to sprinkle verdigris over the sore,[373]
and especially verdigris in conjunction with a salve made of
_charta usta_ (papyrus ash), sulphur, lead-slag, honey and _ceratum
rosaceum_ (wax-salve of roses); another remedy highly thought of was
the _pastillus corax_ (corax cake), the ingredients of which were
verdigris, chalk, gallnut, frankincense, turpentine, wax, oil of
myrtles and beef-tallow; this was particularly beneficial in combating
the carbunculous form of the disease. Very often however recourse to
the cauterizing iron and the knife was unavoidable, especially if
gangrene supervened, or if the callosity of the edges of the ulcer made
cicatrisation impossible.

Such were the general methods of treatment employed for ulcers of the
genital organs, but these naturally varied according to the various
distinctions between the several sorts conditional on the situation of
the sore. Thus it becomes our next business to indicate on what parts
of the body ulcers were observed:—


A. ULCERS ON THE MALE GENITAL ORGANS.

It is invariably the case that forms of ulceration affecting the male
genitals are the most familiar and best known, and this was equally
true in Antiquity. Whatever information the Ancient physicians deemed
it necessary to record on the subject is found as early as _Celsus_
laid down with something approaching to completeness in his writings
(VI. 18.).


a. _Ulcers of the Prepuce._

According to Leonidas[374] fissures and cracks in the prepuce
frequently occurred, in all cases of the latter being too tight and
being forcibly drawn back. On these supervened pain and phlegmonous
inflammation; and then if a cure were not speedily effected, the
edges assumed a condition of callosity, necessitating the use of the
knife for its removal. However, more often than not the wound broke
out again, because as was noted as early as by _Hippocrates_,[375]
wounds of the prepuce are as a rule obstinate in healing. To meet this
eventuality _Galen_[376] provides an entirely suitable procedure. While
ulcers of the glans penis demand desiccative remedies, those of the
prepuce rather call for _epilotics_,[377] especially anise. Supposing
the prepuce to become gangrenous, it must be cut away circularly,
and the bleeding stopped by cauterization; if this treatment is not
needful, a mixture of verdigris with honey, or pomegranate and vetch is
applied.[378] Ulcers on the inner fold of the prepuce, as also on the
skin of the penis generally, are mentioned by _Celsus_ (VI. 18.), the
latter likewise by _Galen_.[379] Such ulcers on the inner fold of the
prepuce, Celsus states, not unfrequently give occasion to the setting
up of phimosis and paraphimosis; and yet another consequence, a morbid
growing together of glans and prepuce was observed by _Oribasius_ (loco
citato, 5.) and _Paulus Aegineta_ (VI. 56.), for which these authors
prescribe appropriate medical and surgical treatment. Under the name of
_cancer_ (eating ulcer) of the prepuce Celsus, it would seem, describes
the νομὴ (spreading ulcer) of the Greek physicians, which commences by
the ulcer turning black. Occasionally too the ulcers developed out of
themselves morbid growths, excrescences or condylomata, particularly
the form known as _thymion_ (warty excrescence).


b. _Ulcers of the Glans Penis._

These are, as pointed out by _Celsus_ (VI. 18.), best described by
taking their pathological and therapeutic aspects together; but it
would serve no useful purpose to quote once more in this place the
passages dealing with this part of the subject, which have been so
often printed already. He makes a distinction, as does _Galen_,[380]
between dry and clean, moist and suppurative, ulcers, the latter of
which readily lead to phimosis and paraphimosis. The discharge is
sometimes thin and watery, sometimes purulent, and on occasion becomes
evil-smelling; the ulcerations both spread superficially and penetrate
inwards, and may actually destroy the glans underneath the prepuce,
so that it perishes altogether. When this happens, _Paulus Aegineta_
(VI. 57.) has a leaden pipette inserted in the orifice of the urethra,
to enable the patient to pass water. In other cases the prepuce grows
into one with the ulcerated glans penis (_Celsus_, _Paulus Aegineta_,
_Oribasius_). Ulcers _circa coronam glandis_ (round the crown of the
glans penis) are mentioned by _Aëtius_.[381]

A special kind is the _cancer colis_ (eating ulcer of the member),
probably the same as the νομὴ (spreading ulcer) of the Greeks, which
Aëtius[382] delineates as a spreading, flaccid ulcer, which on pressure
emits a thin bloody discharge, that subsequently becomes feculent.
Hemorrhage is apt to supervene according to Celsus on the shedding of
a cicatrix artificially produced by operation or the cauterizing iron.
Another species of _cancer_ is the φαγέδαινα (phagedenic, eating
ulcer) of the Greeks, which extends rapidly and penetrates to the
bladder. It appears to be identical with ἄνθραξ (malignant pustule),
though Celsus mentions the _carbunculus colis_ (carbuncle of the
member) in a special category; for the description he gives, bk. V.
ch. 28., of carbuncle is equally applicable to the phagedaena.[383]
Ἄνθραξ (malignant pustule) begins with itching, later on a pustule,
or else a number of little bladders or blebs resembling millet-seeds
appear, which burst in much the same way as a blister due to burning
does, leaving behind an _ulcus crustaceum_ (scab-encrusted ulcer),
resembling the cicatrix of a burn; this is firmly adherent and black
in colour. The surrounding tissue is likewise black and violently
inflamed, the inflammation not unfrequently having an erysipelas-like
character. _Galen_[384] designates the process ἀνθράκωσις, and declares
that buboes are an accompanying feature. He holds the ulcers of the
genitals occurring under the special climatic conditions laid down by
Hippocrates above to have been partly ἄνθραξ,[385] the disease to which
Hero succumbed.

Another kind of ulcer affecting the male genitals is mentioned by
_Pollux_[386] under the name of θηρίωμα (malignant sore), which
_Celsus_ (V. 28.) likewise speaks of, but without particularizing its
situation. The same fact applies to ulcers of the glans penis as to
those of the prepuce, viz. that many forms of morbid outgrowths arise
from them; in other instances callosities on the edges of the ulcers
are built up, leaving behind a callous protuberance, which the Greeks
appear to have called ἥλος (a nail), the Romans _clavus_ (a nail).[387]
The proper treatment to be followed in each of these special cases is
given by Celsus and the Writers he cites.


B. ULCERS OF THE FEMALE GENITAL ORGANS.

In this connection, as indeed in the discussion of the female genital
organs generally, we once again meet with the difficulty due to the
indefiniteness of the names given to the several parts. Not only do
the Greeks constantly make use of the general expression αἰδοία, μόρια
(privates, parts), but they likewise employ ὑστέρον and μήτρα (the
womb) sometimes as meaning the vagina, sometimes the uterus, though
it is true the later Writers like _Galen_[388] designate the vagina ἡ
ὑστέρα, the uterus ὁ ὑστέρος, yet without keeping consistently to the
distinction. The same applies to the use in Latin of _locus_ (place),
_pars_ (part), and _vulva_ (womb), which last word stands for the
uterus in _Celsus_, _Pliny_ and most of the later Writers.

Passing over the indefinite expressions _dolores_ (pains),
_inflammatio_ or _phlegmoné_ (inflammation) of the genitals, although
the treatment prescribed for them clearly implies that very often
ulceration was concurrently present, we find the various kinds of
ulcers of the female genitals most fully and systematically described
by _Aretaeus_,[389] _Paulus Aegineta_ (III. 65-68.) and _Aëtius_[390]
following Archigenes, Soranus and Aspasia.[391][392]

_Abscesses_ _Aëtius_ says (loco citato, ch. 110.) occur on the female
_labia_; if these extend in the direction of the anus, they must not
be opened with the knife, as fistulas are liable to be set up, but
there is no fear of this when they extend towards the urethra. The
same author (p. 109.) speaks of _pustulae scabrae_ (scabrous, scurfy
pustules) in the vagina and orifice of the womb, which throw off
bran-like scales, as also (ch. 108.) of _tubercula miliaria_ (miliary
tubercles) in the same localities. These may no doubt be recognized
by touch, but are better diagnosed by means of the uterine speculum,
or _Dioptra_, and _ex coitus affrictu_ (in consequence of friction
in coition) interfere with menstruation and conception. Obviously
what is here pointed to is the swollen mucous glands, which in our
modern practice likewise are frequently observed in gonorrhœal cases.
Often the ulcers take a form characterized by _fissures_ (ῥαγάδες,
_fissurae_,—fissures, _rimae_,—cracks), particularly at the orifice of
the uterus.[393] Sometimes they become callous, at others give rise to
morbid outgrowths; as a rule the discharge is a thin watery juice, and
pain is felt during coition.[394]

Ulcers strictly so called, says Aretaeus, are either superficial, in
fact rather excoriations than ulcers, and far-spreading; they itch
as though salt had been sprinkled on the surface, give off a small
quantity of thick pus, free from smell, and are not malignant. To this
class probably belong the aphthae-like ulcers of Hippocrates.[395] In
other cases they are more deep-seated; being then painful, discharging
an evil-smelling pus, and having a less mild character than the
former, but still not such as to be described as malignant. If they
penetrate yet deeper, the edges then become rough, the discharge
takes the form of a malodorous juice, while the pain is more severe
than in the other kinds. The actual tissue of the womb is partially
destroyed in the latter case, while morbid outgrowths form, which make
cicatrization extremely difficult. This last kind was known also as
_phagedaena_, (eating ulcer); it is dangerous, especially if the pain
increases and the patient falls into low spirits. An offensive juice is
discharged, so foul that the patient herself is hard put to bear it;
the ulcer is highly intolerant of being touched for the application
of remedial means; it may end fatally, and is known under the name
of “Crab-ulcer”. Νομὴ (spreading ulcer),[396] carbuncle and _sordida
ulcera_ (foul ulcers) of the uterus are mentioned by _Aëtius_ (loco
citato), who shows the mode of investigating them by means of the
uterine speculum and a treatment consisting mainly of injections[397]
and pessaries prepared of a number of different remedies. Not
unfrequently unskilful treatment of ulcers of the vagina occasioned
morbid outgrowths, which according to _Celsus’_ teaching,[398] must be
removed by surgical means. Lastly the fact that ulcers of the genital
organs of women were prejudicial to men who consummated coition with
them and were for that reason dreaded by them, is clearly implied in
the narrative of _Cedrenus_.[399]


4. Ulcers of the Fundament.

We have already seen how fissures and ulcers of the fundament were a
not unusual consequence of the vice of the pathic, yet not the faintest
indication of the fact is to be found in the medical Writers. The
knowledge possessed by the Ancients as to affections of the fundament
have been collected with a very considerable degree of completeness by
_Aëtius_,[400] especially as copying Galen; the remaining authorities
treat them as a rule in conjunction with the corresponding affections
of the genitals, and mostly recommend the same remedies for them. So
far therefore as they are concerned we refer back to the information
given in connection with the latter. At the same time the remark may
be permitted that this juxtaposition of the two seems to point to the
Ancients having held, as we maintain they did, the view that affections
of the genitals and affections of the anus arose from like causes and
were of like character, as is shown by their dealing with the one and
the other class of diseases on the same general lines.

_Ardentes dolores_ (burning pains)[401] and _pruritus_ (itching)[402]
of the anus are not uncommon. _Inflammations_[403] often supervene as a
consequence of fissures, morbid growths and ulcers. _Rhagades_ (cracks)
and _fissures_[404] are found either in the sphincter muscle or in the
rectum, and are an accompaniment of condylomata, whenever the latter
become inflamed and spread, causing the surrounding tissue to rupture;
the edges frequently assume a callous condition, and then require to be
broken down and thus transformed into a simple ulcer. Often abscesses
are set up[405] as a result of the inflammation, and these are liable
to lead to fistulas. The ulcers[406] on occasion assume the character
of the νομὴ φαγέδαινα (eating and spreading ulcer). Supposing them
situated on the sphincter ani, they must neither be cut nor cauterized,
as severance of the muscle makes it impossible for the patient to
retain the faeces. This loss of retentive power may also occur apart
from any operation, if the νομη (spreading ulcer) destroy the muscle.
Supposing on the contrary the νομὴ to be below the sphincter, knife or
cauterizing iron may either of them be employed. In some instances
ulcers lead to a morbid growth at the orificium ani, that must be
obviated by means of pipettes of lead.[407] In other cases _rhagades_
(cracks) and ulcers lead eventually to morbid outgrowths.


5. Buboes.

 Bubo, panus (swelling resembling the thread wound on bobbin of a
 shuttle), paniculus (diminutive of same), inguen (swelling in the
 groin).

Under the name of _bubo_ the ancient Physicians understood any form
of inflammation of the lymphatic glands. Now such inflammation occurs
above all other places in the inguinal region, and thus inflammation
of the inguinal glands came to be especially indicated by the word, as
well as the inguinal region itself. Similarly the Romans used _inguen_
(the groin) both for the region and for the disease. Subsequently
many distinctions were drawn; a phlegmonous affection combined with
swelling was called a βουβὼν (bubo), while the name φῦμα (swelling)
was appropriated to a swelling of the glands characterized by its
rapid establishment and its tendency to suppuration (bubo with
suppurative pustule in the centre), and φύγεθλον (burning swelling)
to one conjoined with (cutaneous) inflammation of an erysipelas
character,[408] which last form, if it passes on into induration, is
known as χοιρὰς or _struma_ (scrofulous or strumous swelling). The
best exposition from the points of view equally of pathology and
therapeutics is found in _Galen_.[409] The glands in virtue of their
spongy structure are peculiarly liable to take up rheums or fluxes of
all descriptions; accordingly the glands of the groin, armpits and
neck swell, directly ulcers are set up in the toes, fingers or head.
The body being overloaded with evil humours is another reason for the
establishment of buboes, and in this case they are more difficult
to cure. Further, _Hippocrates_[410] derived buboes in women from
interrupted menstruation, and maintains[411] that the most part owe
their origin to some affection of the liver.

The majority of Writers however are agreed that among other occasioning
causes ulcers hold the first place,[412] though none of them speak
expressly of ulcers of the genitals, unless indeed we see good to make
the passage of Hippocrates discussed a little above refer to these. No
doubt in this passage the words ἑλκώματα, φύματα ἔξωθεν ἔσωθεν τὰ περὶ
βουβῶνας (ulcerations, tumours external and internal in the inguinal
region) might admit of such an explanation, in which case the words
must be taken not as referring to each single patient, but rather
held to mean that ulcers and glandular swellings with a tendency to
suppuration were set up, the latter occurring in some patients in the
urethra, in others in the groin. Such an interpretation is favoured
by the case of the Eunuch discussed in § 20, for there can be no doubt
the metathesis of buboes into fistulous ulcers was noted by Celsus and
other observers. Still it is highly improbable that ulcers on the feet
should have afforded the sole and only cause of buboes; it is much
more natural to suppose that this, as being the more rare case, was
for that very reason brought into special prominence by the ancient
Physicians. Besides we have seen above that the old Physicians seldom
or never really had an opportunity of seeing the sympathetic buboes, as
patients treated the ulcers themselves, and the buboes then disappeared
spontaneously. Oribasius no less than other Writers holds buboes
following on an ulcer to be without danger.

Lastly the cases are very rare in which secondary buboes under the
prevailing tendency and course of the disease are thrown out on the
skin, and if they do arise, the ulcer as a rule heals up. This being
so, the Physician is consulted, only supposing the buboes refused to
disappear. On the contrary if the ulcer was still there, the Physician
sought actually to stimulate it to enhanced activity, as is distinctly
implied by what _Galen_ says (loco citato). Lint smeared with
_tetrapharmacum_ (compound of wax, tallow, pitch and resin), liquified
by the addition of _oleum rosaceum_ (oil of roses) was applied and warm
poultices over that; while on the actual bubo was laid in the first
instance wool moistened with oil, to which when the pain and swelling
of the part were relieved, was added an admixture of salt. Plethoric
or cacochymic (generating evil humours) subjects are to be bled or
cupped. If the bubo is inflamed and inclined to suppurate, it must be
scarified, the patient having first been purged. Dispersion is then
attempted, in this case by means of pulp and honey poultices, but not
by plasters, as these are apt to provoke inflammation. If pus appears,
recourse must not be had at once, as some advise, to opening with
the knife; rather the poultices should be persevered with till the
inflammation is relieved. Acrid poultices are suitable only when the
metathesis to induration has already begun.

If dispersion does not follow and the matter has collected in greater
quantities, then the most elevated spot, the same where the skin is the
thinnest, should be opened. Should a part of the skin be discoloured,
it must be cut away. Some advise always cutting out a piece in the
shape of a myrtle-leaf, others make very long incisions; but this
not only causes a disfiguring scar, but often also interferes with
the movement of the part. As a general rule a single incision is
sufficient, which should be made diagonally across the inguinal region,
not parallel with the direct diameter of the thigh, as then the edges
are brought actually into contact when the limb bends.[413] After the
opening of the abscess, it should be treated by preference with finely
sifted frankincense, as should all forms of ulcer. We may mention
further that according to Sextus Placitus Papyriensis[414] the wearing
of a stag’s genitals was considered a _prophylactic_ against buboes.


6. Exanthemata on the Genitals.

Long ago _Hensler_ endeavoured in the Graduation Theme of his
mentioned in the list of Historical Authorities to prove that
certain eruptions occurring on the genitals were communicated and
acquired as the result of coition. In particular did this apply
above all to _herpes_ (creeping eruption), under which name must be
understood, as is distinctly implied in a passage of _Galen_,[415] a
form of eruption accompanied by ulceration. It is true the passages
of _Hippocrates_[416] cited by Hensler in regard to the _herpes
esthiomenos_ (eating herpes) would appear to be open to some doubt
and obscurity, while the interpretations given by _Pollux_ (Onomast.
IV. 25. 191.) _φλυκτίς_, φλύκταινα ἐπιμήκες, μάλιστα περὶ βουβῶνας
καὶ μασχάλας. _φύγεθλον_, φῦμα περὶ βουβῶνα μετὰ πυρετοῦ, (φλυκτίς, a
long-shaped blister, particularly in the groin and armpits. φύγεθλον,
a tumour in the groin accompanied by fever) refer probably only to
bubonic swellings; still these objections hardly apply to the φύματα
(swellings) described in § 32,—the less so as _Celsus_ himself (VI.
18.) explains: “Tubercula etiam, quae φύματα Graeci vocant, _circa
glandem_ oriuntur, quae vel medicamentis vel ferro aduruntur; et cum
crustae exciderunt, squama aeris inspergitur, ne quid ibi rursus
increscat;” (Tuberculous swellings also, which the Greeks call φύματα,
arise _about the glans penis_, and are burned away either by caustic
drugs or by the actual cautery. Afterwards when the scabs have fallen
off, the sore is dusted with slag of bronze, to prevent any second
growth later on). Moreover it is possible the passage of _Galen_,[417]
πρὸς δὲ τὰ ἐν αἰδοίοις φυόμενα ἀπίου σπέρμα ἐπίπασσε καὶ τραγείᾳ χολῇ
περιχρῖε. (But for growths on the privates sprinkle pear-juice and rub
in goat’s gall) may refer to these cases, though no doubt it may also
be held to apply to the tubercles occurring in the female vagina (§
41,—3. B.).

Again _epinyctis_ (night-pustule),[418] which Hensler also mentions
but declares to be equally open to suspicion as to interpretation,
would seem hardly pertinent in this connection, for the violent pain
experienced at once tells against the likelihood of its being an
affection of this class. Its appearance _in eminentibus partibus_ (on
prominent parts, on the extremities) finds a clear explanation in the
words added by _Pollux_ (loco citato, 197.) περὶ κνήμας καὶ πόδας ἐν
νυκτὶ γενομένη (appearing on legs and feet during the night); while it
is proved that Celsus meant to indicate nothing else by it from his
words in describing φλυζάκιον (little blister), which he says occurs
_raro in medio corpore, saepe in eminentibus partibus_,—rarely on the
trunk, frequently on prominent parts, extremities. Still we do not for
a moment wish to dispute the fact that the male genitals were at any
rate among the Ancients counted as belonging to the _partes eminentes_,
and as chancrous blebs do usually appear suddenly and often during the
night, it is quite possible these may have been all along intended by
_epinyctis_,—especially as on Hippocrates’ authority[419] creeping
eruptions (ἕρπητες) arise from night-pustules (ἐκ τῶν ἐπινυκτίδων.)
However _Pollux_ (loco citato, 206.) likewise again mentions the legs
and feet (κνήμαις καὶ ποσίν), declaring these eruptions attack those
of elderly people. From this we may conclude the epinyctis of the
Ancient writers to have been very likely nothing else but that form of
_impetigo_ (scabby eruption) which is vulgarly known as the _salt-flux_.

_Aetius_[420] mentions _pustulae spontaneae in pudendis_ (pustules
spontaneously set up on the privates), provoking _phimosis_, and
describes[421] _scabies scroti_ (scab of the scrotum) with metathesis
into ulceration and scaliness, after the disappearance of which very
often acute _pruritus scroti_ (itch of the scrotum) is left behind.
_Galen_ (XIX. p. 449.) defines _psoriasis scroti_ (itching of the
scrotum) as a form of induration of the scrotum accompanied by itching,
as well as in some instances by ulcers.

Under exanthematic types come also the various _condylomata_. These
when they appeared on the genitals and in other localities of the body,
were called by the Greeks σῦκος, συκώσις, σύκωμα, συκώδης ὄγκος, (fig,
figlike excrescence, figlike swelling, figlike lump), by the Romans
_ficus_ (fig), whereas the same disease when it showed itself on the
fundament, received the name of condyloma[422] _par excellence_. At
the same time this distinction was by no means strictly observed;
in particular the larger forms of _thymus_ (warty excrescence) were
designated by the name σῦκος (fig), albeit it would seem that _thymus_
was used as specific name for all protuberances on the fundament and
genitals. Σῦκος or _ficus_ is according to _Galen_[423] an ulcerative
tubercle secreting moisture,—the _varus_ (blotchy eruption) on
the contrary being dry, according to _Oribasius_[424] of circular
shape and reddish colour, hardish and rather painful. It is found
above all on the hairy parts of the body, the head, chin, fundament
and genitals,[425] as the passages quoted above in § 13 from Martial
show. They occurred, as it would seem, most frequently on the female
genitals, in which situation they are described so long ago as by
_Hippocrates_[426] under the name of κιων (pillar, pillar-like
excrescence) and said to be evil-smelling. _Aspasia_[427]
says, “condyloma est rugosa eminentia. Rugae enim circa os uteri
existentes dum inflammantur, attolluntur et indurantur, tumoremque ac
crassitudinem quandam in locis efficiunt.” (a condyloma is a wrinkled
protuberance. For when the wrinkles surrounding the orifice of the
uterus grow inflamed, they become prominent and indurated, occasioning
a swelling and thickening in the parts). _Paulus Aegineta_ (III. 75.,
VI. 71.) describes them under the name of _hemorrhoids_ as painful,
reddish, excrescences suffused with blood, which break (διαλείμμασι),
and give off a pale discharge in drops. Much more common was the
appearance of _condylomata on the fundament_,[428][429] particularly
in male subjects; in which case they were specially ascribed to
pederastia, as we have already seen. This makes it impossible to decide
definitely which condylomata were of primary and which of secondary
character; but the fact in no way authorizes us to deny altogether the
occurrence of the latter in Ancient times.


7. Morbid Outgrowths on the Genital Organs.

 σαρκώδη βλαστήματα, verrucae. (fleshy outgrowths, warty excrescences).

The general name θύμος (_thymus_,—warty excrescence), or according to
Celsus perhaps more correctly θύμιον (small warty excrescence), appears
to have been used by the Greeks to designate all morbid outgrowths,
and particularly those of the genitals and fundament, while they
appropriated the expressions σῦκος, ἀκροχορδὸν, and μυρμήκια (fig or
figlike excrescence, wart with a neck, wart growing directly on the
skin) to signify the different subordinate species. The θύμιον, which
_Celsus_[430] is the first Writer to delineate in detail, is a warty,
reddish,—according to Paulus Aegineta white too in some cases, and as
a rule painless,—fleshy outgrowth, slender at the base, broader above,
rather hard and rough at the top. Thus it bears a certain resemblance
to the flower of the thyme, from which circumstance comes the name.
The upper part is easily split, and then bleeds,—more than might be
expected Aëtius says from its size; the same also sometimes happens
spontaneously. Usually it has the size of an Egyptian bean, though
occasionally it is quite small. Sometimes one such growth appears, at
others several are found together, now on the palms of the hands, now
on the soles of the feet; but the worst are always those on the genital
organs.

According to _Aëtius_, who calls the larger sorts σῦκος (fig),
_thymus_ is also found on the fundament and on the face, in women on
the _labia_, in the entrance to the vagina and in the vagina itself,
spreading thence to the fundament and even over the thighs. This is
confirmed by _Oribasius_, who as well as Paulus Aegineta and perhaps
Celsus, distinguishes a _malignant_ and a _non-malignant_ form. The
non-malignant growths generally disappear of themselves; but if they
are amputated, there remains behind, so says Celsus, a circular root
which penetrates deep into the flesh; and not only do they grow again,
but further take the character of the malignant form, become painful
and filled with a bloody ichor. The malignant show themselves both
with and without ulceration, as well as after the disappearance of the
non-malignant growth; they are harder, rougher and larger, have a dirty
livid hue, and are painful, particularly on being touched. Thymus on
the glans penis is more dangerous than when affecting the prepuce,[431]
more especially if it assume a carcinomatous character. If of the
non-malignant type it should be lightly scarified with the point of
a scalpel, then some mild escharotic employed, for which the Writer
just named gives several prescriptions. If of the malignant type, it
is according to Paulus Aegineta either tied with a horse-hair and then
removed by knife or cautery, or according to what Oribasius says the
latter is at once resorted to. But seeing thymus on the prepuce is
often found affecting the inner and outer surfaces simultaneously,
cautery must not be employed on both at once, for in that way the
foreskin would be destroyed altogether. The better plan is to begin
with those situated on the inner surface, first cutting them away, then
cauterizing, and finally when they are cicatrized proceeding to the
treatment of the others. But not a few are incurable.

Ἀκροχορδὸν[432] is a smooth, circular, fleshy protuberance, having a
slender circular base, so that it looks as though it hung on a string,
whence the name. It is painless and callous, usually has the same
colour as the skin, while its dimensions seldom exceed those of a
bean. As a rule several occur together, but disappear again of their
own accord, especially if they are only small, though on occasion
they get inflamed and suppuration follows; they leave no root behind
on amputation. According to _Galen_ and _Aëtius_ they occur on the
fundament, according to Philumenes, as given in the latter author,
likewise on the female genitals. They are removed either by means of a
thread or with the lancet, though escharotics and other acrid remedies
are also employed.

A highly inveterate form is the μυρμήκια, or _formica_ (ant) of
later Writers, which is almost always discussed by medical Authors
concurrently with ἀκροχορδόν. It is, Celsus tells us, less prominent
and harder than the θύμιον, has deeper roots, is more painful, broad at
the bass and slender at the top, less suffused with blood and seldom
larger than a lupin-bean. The colour according to Aëtius is blackish.
On its being touched, the patient has the sensation of having been
bitten by an ant. As an exactly similar growth appears on the hands,
most Writers, e. g. Celsus and Oribasius, speak only of this latter;
but Aëtius describes it expressly as occurring on the fundament and
on the female genitals; and it was observed in the latter situation
by Philumenes, or Aëtius (loco citato, ch. 105.) in the case of _his
own wife_, whom he cured by three days’ fumigation with _origanum_,
(wild-marjoram). Not to mention the usual escharotic remedies, for
which Aëtius in especial gives several formulæ, the following modes
of treatment recommended by the medical Writers evidently apply to
warts on the hands only,—by extirpation with a myrtle-leaf shaped
scalpel called a _scolopomachaerion_ (small pointed surgical knife),
squeezing off by means of a quill or metal pipette, and above all
sucking with the lips and gnawing off. This last was in _Galen’s_ time
especially[433] a very fashionable treatment and is described by him as
a new discovery made at Rome.




§ 42.

Retrospect.


If we now turn back again and make a brief survey of the various forms
of affections of the genitals described on preceding pages, comparing
them with those of the present day, such as we have opportunity to
observe in modern times, we think every unprejudiced reader will be
found ready to admit that they agree with these latter in _very
nearly every_ respect whatever, and that _every_ doubt would be
removed, if only the medical Writers had appended to the records
of their observations in each case the words, “got by infection in
coition.” But to what cause do we refer such cases as a matter of
fact, notwithstanding the denial on the part of the patient that he
has exposed himself to any infection? Do we not take it for granted as
a certainty that such infection did actually precede? Are we in the
habit of noting down in every instance in our day-book of cases the
antecedent act of coition that occasioned the chancre or what not; and
does this omission in any way imply that this did not first occur? To
our mind at any rate the fact suffices that non-professional observers
and even a professional one like Galen have supplied irrefutable
evidence that some of these affections were acquired by coition.
Amongst others, morbid outgrowths for example are manifestly shown
to have been so set up by the statement that they occurred on the
fundament of pathics; and it needs no great perspicacity to draw the
conclusion that if (unnatural) coition produced them in the pederast,
the same maladies occurring on the genital organs owed their origin to
the same cause.

But granting these maladies originated in coition, there must
necessarily have been some other factors active as well, besides the
mere act. Thus when patients are found explaining to the physician
(Galen) that the women with whom they had accomplished coition suffered
from the same evil as themselves (gonorrhœa), no one surely can suppose
anything but that a transmission of the disease took place in virtue
of a contagion. Such affections of the genitals as are transmitted
in coition by contagion we are wont to regard as primary forms of
Venereal disease; and those acquired and disseminated in the same way
in Antiquity must accordingly be designated by the same name. But these
primary forms extended not only to the genitals; they were equally
and in the same way acquired through the various modes of _Venus
illegitima_ (abnormal Love) in the anus and the mouth, localities
where we are accustomed nowadays to see the secondary symptoms chiefly
appear. Consequently it was impossible for the Ancients,—and is really
and truly no less so down to the present moment for the Moderns,—to
make a definite distinction between primary and secondary forms. It is
equally impossible to deny outright the former existence of the latter
in these localities, the more so as, however wide the dissemination
of vicious practices of various sorts, no very large number of men
suffering from a diseased member are likely to have misused mouth or
anus.

But if we are forced in considering the secondary forms to leave mouth
and anus almost entirely out of the question,[434] then only cutaneous
diseases and those affecting the bones are left us, for _ozaena_
(fetid polypus), which was regarded as incurable by the Ancient
physicians,[435] cannot any more than the others be taken into account
in connection with primary affections of the mouth, unless indeed we
are prepared to look upon the ῥέγχειν (snorting) of the men of Tarsus
as a secondary complaint of pathics.

With regard to _cutaneous affections_, we have seen how the forms
of _lichen_ and _mentagra_ passed over into _psora_ and _lepra_ (§§
23, 25), and how the conclusion to be drawn from this is plain, viz.
that the secondary cutaneous forms of Venereal disease were formerly
assigned as belonging to leprosy. This seems to be confirmed by a
passage of _Johannes Moschus_[436] that has only just been brought
under our notice, in which it is related how a monk of the Monastery
of Penthula could no longer master the appeals of the flesh, travelled
to Jericho to get relief from the “superfluity of his naughtiness” in
a brothel in that place; how when he had entered the house, he was
suddenly attacked by leprosy, whereupon he speedily returned to his
Monastery. How much Venereal disease has in common with elephantiasis
must be determined by later investigations. At any rate it is worth
while to note its frequent occurrence in Egypt, its establishment in
Italy along with the various forms of _lichen_, its infectiousness, as
well as the statement of Celsus (III. 25.), who calls it an _ignotus
paene in Italia morbus_ (a disease almost unknown in Italy), and that
even the bones would appear to be affected by it.

Lastly, inasmuch as the tendency of the morbid process to strike
outwards to the skin was conditioned by the influence of climate, while
cutaneous forms of Venereal disease were amongst the most common of
occurrences, it follows that not only were affections of the mucous
membranes bound to fall proportionally into the background and appear
with less frequency, but those of the bones as well. Still the mucous
membranes _were_ sometimes attacked, and _affections of the bones_ did
also undoubtedly occur, though with incomparably greater rarity,—such
affections being, as is well known, at the present day of rare
occurrence, and especially so in hot climates. Corrosion of the tibia
is mentioned by Plutarch, and peculiar pains of the periosteum, which
are so deep-seated and stable as to make the patient believe the bones
themselves to be the seat of the mischief, are spoken of as early as
by _Archigenes_ cited by _Galen_,[437] the latter adding that these
pains were commonly known as οστοκοποι (racking the bones). If further
we ought to count in this connection those forms of _exostosis_ (morbid
excrescence) _of the bones of the skull_ described above in § 26,
which it seems were so prevalent among the inhabitants of Cyprus as to
have gained for the island according to some authorities its name of
Κεραστία (horned),[438] we should actually have to hand proofs of the
existence in Antiquity of _all_ the symptoms that at the present day
constitute Venereal disease. All we need to do is to unite these into
one general picture and give the name that is now sanctioned by custom,
in order to arrive at the final result,—that _Venereal Disease_, though
not recognized and described as such by the Ancient Physicians, _was as
a matter of fact existent in Antiquity_.




CONCLUSION.


Having reached this general result at the conclusion of the first Part
of our Investigations, we would now seem only to have to co-ordinate
the various pieces of evidence thus far brought together without
reference to time and place, but merely on the principle of similarity
of contents, under local and temporal conditions, in order to obtain
a general exposition of _the development of Venereal Disease in
Antiquity_. Willing as we may be to undertake the task, and necessary
as its performance is,—for it is precisely this that constitutes the
History properly so called of the Disease,—still we must freely admit
that for the present the fixed data indispensable for the work are too
few to enable us to do more than offer suggestive hints. At the same
time to supply these missing data by hypotheses that must necessarily
lack all positive grounds, is not, at any rate in our opinion,
consistent with the dignity and duty of a Historian.

As to the _local_ determinations, those defining the places, to which
such or such information given us belongs, are extremely scanty, and
such as they are, we owe them mainly to the non-professional Authors.
Among the Physicians, who from the nature of the case must be chiefly
considered here, they are all but entirely wanting; true they are
almost all Greek instances, still in the majority of cases it is left
absolutely undetermined whether the observations, the mere results of
which moreover are given us, were made in Greece, at Rome or in Asia
Minor. But even supposing knowledge amounting to certainty _were_
available on this point, yet the local range as compared with the whole
Ancient world is too limited to entitle us to use it successfully as
evidence in drawing up a general History of the Disease.

The _temporal_ determinations are in no better case. This is especially
so where the Physicians are concerned; not to mention the general
uncertainty as to the epoch at which most of them lived and made their
observations, they are for the most part bad witnesses for this reason
if for no other, that they have obviously copied one from another,
or at any rate so far as their works are extant for our examination,
utilized,—with the possible exception of Galen,—certain common sources
of information, which unfortunately have been completely lost. The loss
is the more to be deplored as the authorities in question belonged just
to the most flourishing period of scientific Medicine, that of the
Alexandrian physicians.

Yet another drawback is that up to the present we are entirely without
information as to the consecutive order of the series of epidemics
in Antiquity, by the indirect help of which alone do the historical
factors conditioning Venereal disease become discernible; while so
far as appears, there is no reasonable hope of our ever attaining
any clearer light on the point. Nay! even if we did possess the
information, it could only apply to Greece, Rome and Asia Minor, for
as previously pointed out, in countries situated in the hot Zone the
_genius epidemicus_ (general consensus of epidemic conditions) is but
rarely as a rule strong enough to override the _genius endemicus_
(general consensus of endemic conditions). As much therefore as can in
such a state of things be predicated with some basis of reason as not
entirely hypothetical may be pretty well summed up as follows:—

Diseases of the genital organs developed little by little among nearly
all the Peoples of Antiquity known to us at all intimately under the
favouring conditions detailed in preceding pages. At the same time in
virtue of the large number of counteracting influences they seldom
attained to any high degree of intensity, and remained mostly local,
taking the form of mucous discharges and superficial ulcers, without
provoking any general reaction of the organism. Even when such reaction
did occur, it was the skin that felt it, in such a way as to throw off
the effects of morbid activity in the form of cutaneous maladies. These
conditions lasted usually as long as the different Peoples continued
to cultivate mutual exclusiveness; directly they abandoned this, and
individual members of different foreign stocks began to combine to
gratify an unbridled licentiousness, affections of the genitals not
only increased in frequency, but over and above this a malignant
character was stamped upon them, with which both the development and
the intensity of any particular contagion stood in direct ratio.

Examples are to be found in the Plague of Baal Peor among the Jews
at Shittim (§§ 8. and 9. above), in the introduction of the cult of
Dionysus at Athens (§ 98.) and of Priapus at Lampsacus (§ 7.), both
of which latter are connected with the March of Bacchus to and from
India, as well as lastly in the introduction of the Lingam-worship in
India itself (§ 6.). All these phænomena point to the conclusion that
a remarkable frequency and malignity of affections of the genitals was
connected with influences conditioned from without, amongst which we
have to reckon the general epidemic conditions. This becomes the more
interesting and important from the fact that we meet with the same
thing again in the XVth. Century, a period when the incorrect view
taken of the circumstances led to the most contradictory opinions being
held. However both influences and effects were merely transitory, as
is proved by the unanimous consensus of authorities that the phænomena
provoked by the conditions disappeared again after a certain interval
of time, an interval that seems among the Jews only to have lasted
somewhat longer under endemic influence.

Still under no circumstances does this justify us in arguing to a total
absence of all affections of the genital organs,—as is proved, no
doubt after an interval of more than a thousand years, (if indeed we
are to admit the occurrences just mentioned to count at all as actual
historical facts), by (1) the general weather conditions laid down by
Hippocrates and their consequences, and (2) an event that probably was
connected with the same conditions, the Plague of Athens described by
Thucydides. Here we find indisputable proof given us that affections
of the genitals, as also most likely the contagion conditioning them,
increased under favourable epidemic influence in frequency, malignity
and intensity, while concurrently the secondary forms manifested
themselves pre-eminently by symptoms of an exanthematic type.

For close on five hundred years onwards we are again left without
information; but the statements contributed by Celsus show that
meantime there had been ample opportunities of observing and treating
affections of the genitals. In the time of Pompey the Great, when
Themison made his observations on the wide prevalence of satyriasis
in Crete, there was developed, it would appear, though from what
causes is not known, a general consensus of predominantly exanthematic
conditions, that seems to have continued for a long period of time,
no doubt as was to be expected with sundry interruptions intervening.
Under favour of these conditions was developed in the first instance
elephantiasis, and later on under the Emperor Claudius _mentagra_,
which above all in Martial’s time afflicted the Romans, while caricous
tumours (_ficus_) became an every-day complaint. From that epoch
onwards, direct historical evidences more and more tend to disappear,
till eventually it is only in the prescription-books of Physicians that
we gather any inkling of the continued necessity for medical aid and
concurrently of the existence of Venereal Disease.




                                 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.

  βἀλλάδες, 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 Κεραστια (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.




                               Finished
                             Printing Five
                           Hundred Copies of
                     this Book in two Vols. August
               MDCCCXCVIII at Nymeguen, Holland, at the
                    Printing-House of G. J. Thieme,
                         Oriental Printer, for
                          Charles Carrington
                               of Paris.




FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Festus_, p. 135., says: _Rumen_ est pars colli, qua esca devoratur
(The _rumen_, or gullet, is that part of the neck, where food is
swallowed). _Nonius_, p. 18.: rumen dicitum locus in ventre, quo
cibus sumitur et unde redditur (rumen was applied to the locality
in the belly to which food is taken in and from which it is given
back).—_Isidore_, Etymolog. bk. XII. 37., Ruminatio autem dicta est
a _ruma_, eminente gutturis parte, per quam dimissus cibus a certis
animalibus revocatur (Now rumination is so called from the _ruma_, or
gullet, the upper portion of the throat, by which food after being
swallowed is brought up again by certain animals). It is true _Varro_
gives another explanation: ruminare propter _rumam_, id est prisco
vocabulo mammam (to ruminate so called on account of the _ruma_, that
is in old Latin the breast); and so one might equally well understand
by _irrumare_ the custom of voluptuaries, one that is still practised,
of employing the space between the bosoms as _vagina_. At any rate
_Dr. Hacker_ of Leipzig assured the author he had on several occasions
observed cases where prostitutes had chancrous swellings between the
bosoms, as well as under the arm-pits,—for these also are employed with
the same object.—Does _ruma_ possibly stand for _rima_ (a chink)? In
any case we should compare what _Suidas_ gives under the words ῥῦμα,
ῥῦμη and ῥύμματα. Synonyms are _comprimere linguam_, _buccam offendere_,
etc. (to compress the tongue, to hit against the cheek).

[2] The etymology of _fellare_ is still obscure. _Vossius_, Etymolog.,
derives it from the Æolic φηλᾶν for θηλᾶν and θηλάζειν, to suck the
breasts. _Pliny_, Hist. Nat. bk. XI. 65., says of the tongue of cats:
imbricatae asperitatis ac limae similis, attenuansque lambendo cutem
hominis (of a ridged roughness of surface, like a file, capable of
wearing through the human skin by licking). The meanings which _Suidas_
gives under φελλά, etc. would seem to point to an old stem φέλλω,—to
roughen, to file.

[3] _Lucian_, Works, edit. Lehmann, Vol. VIII. pp. 56-84.

[4] πρὸς θεῶν, εἶπέ μοι, τὶ πάσχεις, ἐπειδὰν κἀκεῖνα λέγωσιν οἱ πολλοὶ,
_λεσβιάζειν_ σε καὶ _φοινικίζειν_; (for translation see text above); as
to φοινικίζειν, this will be discussed later on. The word λεσβιάζειν
occurs in Aristophanes, Frogs 1335; and he also uses λεσβιεῖν in
the same sense, Wasps, 1386., μέλλουσαν ἤδη λεσβιεῖν τοὺς ξυμπότας;
(a girl standing ready to λεσβιεῖν—love in the Lesbian mode,—the
revellers). On this passage the Scholiast remarks: ἵνα μὴ τὸ παλαιὸν
τοῦτο καὶ θρυλλούμενον δι’ ἡμετέρων στομάτων εἴπω σόφισμα, ὅ φασι
παῖδας Λεσβίων εὑρεῖν. (this ancient trick, a matter of common gossip
to any in our mouths, which they say the children of the Lesbians
invented).—_Suidas_ s. v. _Λεσβίαι_· μολύναι τὸ στόμα. Λέσβιοι γὰρ
διεβάλλοντο ἐπὶ αἰσχρότητι. (under the word Λεσβίαι—Lesbian women, to
defile the mouth. For the Lesbians were reproached for foulness).
_Hesychius_: λεσβιάζειν· πρὸς ἄνδρα στόμα στύειν. Λεσβιάδας γὰρ τὰς
λαικαστρίας ἔλεγον. (to play the Lesbian; to use the mouth to a man for
an obscene purpose. For they used to call wanton courtesans Lesbians).
_Eustathius_, Comment. ad Homeri Iliad, p. 741., εἰσὶ βλασφημίαι
καὶ ἀπὸ ἐθνῶν καὶ πόλεων καὶ δήμων πολλαί, ῥηματικῶς πεποιημέναι·
_ἐθνῶν_ μὲν, οἵον _κιλικίζειν_ καὶ _αἰγυπτιάζειν_, τὸ πονηρεύεσθαι, καὶ
_κρητίζειν_, τὸ ψεύδεσθαι· ἐκ _πόλεων_ δὲ, οἷον _λεσβιάζειν_, τὸ
αἰσχροποιεῖν· εἶτα παραγαγόντες Φερεκράτους χρῆσιν ἐν Ἰάμβῳ τὸ δώσει
δέ σοι _γυναῖκας ἑπτὰ Λεσβίας_· ἐπάγουσιν ἀμοιβαῖον τί· _καλον_ γε
δῶρον ἕπτ’ ἔχειν λαικαστρίας· ὡς τοιούτων οὐσῶν τῶν Λεσβίων γυναικῶν·
ἐκ _δήμων_ δὲ βλασφημία, τὸ _αἰξωνεύεσθαι_, ἤγουν κακολεγεῖν. Αἰξωνεῖς
γὰρ δημόταται Ἀττικοί, σκωπτόμενοι ὡς κακολόγοι, καθὰ καὶ οἱ Σφήττιοι
ἐπὶ ἀγριότητι. (And there are many reproaches applying to nations, and
cities, and demes, implied in the use of certain words; for instance in
the case of nations, to play the Cilician, and to play the Egyptian,
i. e. to be a rogue, and to play the Cretan, i. e. to be a liar; again,
in the case of cities, to act the Lesbian, i. e. to act filthily;
further we may bring forward a passage of Pherecrates in Iambic verse,
viz. the line, “And he shall give thee seven Lesbian women,” to which
the answering verse is, “Verily! a noble gift, to get seven harlots,”
implying that such was the character of the Lesbian women. Lastly an
example of such a reproach applying to demes, to play the Æxonian, in
other words to be foul-mouthed. For the Æxonians were Attic demes-men,
ridiculed as being evil-speakers in the same way as the Sphettians were
on the ground of rusticity). The word σόφισμα (trick) in the passage
of the Scholiast to Aristophanes explains the word “dogma” in Martial,
bk. IX. 48., Dic mihi, percidi, Pannice, _dogma_ quod est? (Tell
me, Pannicus, what is the trick of the paederast?). _Theopompus_ in
“Ulysses” says: δι’ ἡμετέρων στομάτων εἴπω σόφισμ’ ὅ φασι παῖδας Λεσβίων
εὑρεῖν. (a certain trick common in our mouths which they say children
of the Lesbians invented). _Strattis_ in “Pytisus”: τῷ στόματι δράσω
ταῦθ’ ἅπερ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ τάττεται [ταῦθ’ ἅπερ οἱ Λέσβιοι]. (with my mouth
I will do those things that are reckoned as obscene,—those things that
the Lesbians do).]

[5] Haud scio an Rhododaphnes cognomine a Syris isti tradito
tecte sugilletur cunnilingus, ita ut rosa lateat cunnus, in lauri
folio lingua lingens, (I cannot say for certain whether by the
surname of “Rhododaphne”—rose-laurel—given the man by the Syrians
it is covertly suggested he was a _cunnilingus_, as much as to say
that while a _cunnus_—female organ—is suggested by the rose, a
licking tongue is the same in the laurel-leaf), says _Forberg_, loco
citato p. 281. _Suidas_, s. v. ῥοδωνία· ἔστι μὲν ὁ τῶν ῥόδων λείμων·
ἄλλοι δὲ καὶ τὴν _ῥοδοδάφνην_ οὕτω φασὶ καλεῖσθαι (under the word
ῥοδωνία—rose-garden: it is the meadow of roses; but others again say
this is called ῥοδοδάφνη). _Pliny_, Hist. Nat. XVI. 33. _Hesychius_, s.
v. ῥοδωνία says: δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ _τὸ ἀνδρὸς αἰδοῖον_ αὕτη. (under the word
ῥοδωνία—rose-garden: this signifies also _the human genitals_).

[6] The explanation of this is to be found in the Priapeia
Carmina, 75.

  _Barbatis_ non nisi _summa_ petet.

(With bearded men will touch but the extremities).

[7]_Pseudo-Galen_, Works, edit. Kühn, Vol. XIX. p. 142.

[8] Handbuch der Klinik (Hand-book of Clinical Medicine), vol.
VII. p. 88. Also at a yet earlier date in Schmidt’s Jahrbuch 1837.,
Vol. XIII. p. 101.

[9] _Στομάργου_, ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν ἐπιδημιῶν ὁ Διοσκουρίδης
οὕτως γράφει, καὶ δηλοῦσθαι φησὶ τοῦ λαλοῦντος μανικῶς· οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι
_στυμάργου_ γράφουσι καὶ ὄνομα κύριον ἀκούουσι. (_Στομάργου_: in the
second Book of the Epidemia Dioscorides writes the word thus, and says
it signifies such as talk insanely; others however write στυμάργου, and
understand it as a proper name).

[10] _Hippocrates_, Bk. II. sect. 2. edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p.
436., Καὶ ἡ Στυμαργέω ἐκ ταραχῆς ὀλιγημέρου πολλὰ στήσασα, κ. τ. λ.
(And the female slave of Stymargeos having after a few days’ disturbance
re-established much, etc.)—The same passage occurs in _Galen_, Comments
on the Epid. bk. II. edit. Kühn, Vol. XVII. A. p. 324., with an
explanation of the subject-matter, and also has Στυμαργέω.—_Ibidem_,
p. 458., ἡ _Στυμάργεω_ οἰκέτις ἡ _Ἰδουμαῖα_ ἐγένετο, κ. τ. λ. (the
female slave of Stymargeos, the Idumaean, was, etc.).—_Galen_ cites
the passage, _loco citato_ p. 467., without comment, but he likewise
reads Στυμάργεω. In two other passages, in which he comments on the
statements last quoted from Hippocrates, the text is obviously corrupt.
In “De tremore, palpitatione, convulsione et rigore” (Of Trembling,
Palpitation, Convulsion and Rigor), edit. Kühn, vol. III. p. 602, it
reads: Ἐστυμάργεω οἰκέτις, ᾗ οὐδὲ αἵμα ἐγένετο, ὡς ἔτεκε θυγατέρα, κ.
τ. λ. (a female slave of Estymargeos, in whose case flowed no blood at
all, when she gave birth to a daughter, etc.). Also _Assmann_ in his
Index to Kühn’s Edition of Galen, pp. 232 and 307., represents it by
_Estymergi ancilla_ (a female slave of Estymergus). However there can
be no doubt Ἡ Στυμάργεω οἰκέτις (The female slave of Stymargeos) ought
to be read in Galen; on the other hand we see clearly from this passage
that the text of Hippocrates is quite wrong in giving the Proper name
ἡ Ἰδουμαῖα (the Idumaean), and this, as indeed the sense too requires,
must be changed into ᾗ αἵμα οὐδὲ (in whose case not even blood); and
one is more especially convinced of this on reading the explanation
given by _Galen_, _loco citato_. Besides this, following Galen’s lead,
we should read δεῖ ἐλθεῖν for διελθεῖν and προφάσεως for προφάσιος.
Also he has ἀφορμὴν instead of ἀχὴν.—The _second_ passage of _Galen_
occurs in the “De venae sectione” (On the opening of a Vein) adv.
Erasistrat., ch. 5.: ἐκεῖνο δέ πως εἴρηται; _ἐκ τοῦ μαργέω_ οἰκέτιδος
_οὐδὲ αἵμα ἐγένετο_, ὡς ἔτεκε θυγατέρα, ἀπέστραπτο τὸ στόμα _πρός_ [τῆς
μήτρας καὶ ἐς] ἰσχίον καὶ σκέλος ὀδύνη, παρὰ σφυρὸν τμηθεῖσα _ἐράϊσε_
[ἐῤῥῄισε], καίτοι τρόμοι τὸ σῶμα _περικατεῖχον_ [πᾶν κατεῖχον]· ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ
τὴν πρόφασιν _χρὴ ἐλθεῖν_ καὶ τῆς προφάσεως _τὴν τροφήν_. (Now how is
this account given? from a female slave of Stymargeos not even blood
flowed, when she gave birth to a daughter; the mouth was distorted from
(the womb, and in) loin and leg there was pain; on being cut (bled) on
the ankle, she found relief, though shudderings ran down the (whole)
body; but we must go to the cause, and the origin of the cause). Here
too it is evident, besides the emendations already pointed out as
necessary, we must read ἐκ Στυμάργεω, as the edition of Kühn, vol. XI.
p. 161., does actually and rightly read. _Dioscorides_ may be right
so far, that the word, _strictly speaking_, is not a “Nomen proprium”
(Proper name), but in the passage named it stands for one, if only, as
is likely enough, for a nickname, as it is called.

[11] _Athenaeus_, Deipnos., bk. I. ch. 8., quotes from the “Phaon” of
the Comic Poet Plato: τρίγλη—καὶ _στύματα μισεῖ_. (a mullet,—and hates
erections). Comp. bk. VII. ch. 126.

[12] The verb στύω (I erect the penis) occurs often in
_Aristophanes_, e. g. “Acharnians” 1218., στύομαι (I have an erection),
“Peace”, 727., ἐστυκότες (men with penes standing), “Lysistr.” 214.,
ἐστυκὼς (a man with penis standing), 598., στῦσαι (to make the penis
stand), 869., ἔστυκα γὰρ (for my penis was standing); always in the
sense of to make, or have, an erection.

[13] _Suidas_ explains μάργος by μαινόμενος (being mad) and
_Hesychius_ also by ὑβριστὴς (recklessly insolent), a word we have
already learned from repeated examples to recognize as signifying
unnatural lust. _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag., bk. II. ch. 1. p.
146., says: καὶ ἡ λαιμαργία, μανία περὶ τὸ λαιμόν, καὶ ἡ γαστριμαργία,
ἀκρασία, περὶ τὴν τροφήν· ὡς δὲ καὶ τοὔνομα περιέχει, μανία ἐπὶ
γαστέρα· ἐπεὶ μάργος, ὁ μεμῃνώς. (And gluttony, i. e. madness in
connection with the gullet, and greediness, i. e. intemperance in
connection with food, in other words as the name implies, madness as to
the belly; for μάργος means a madman).

[14] _Lucian_, Pseudologist. ch. 21., uses ἔργον (work) of the
_Irrumator_ and _Fellator_. Similarly _Horace_, Epod. VIII. 19, says:

                      fascinum
      Quod ut superbo provoces ab inguine,
     _Ore allaborandum_ est tibi.

(a member ... that needs, for you to provoke it to rise from the
unsympathetic groin, to be worked with your mouth). _Ovid’s_ phrase
“dulce opus” (sweet task) and _Horace’s_ “molle opus” (gentle task)
are familiar. Comp. _Hesychius_, s.v. ἀῤῥητουργία,—αἰσχρουργία,
κακουργία, τὰ ἀῤῥητα ἐργάζεσθαι, (under the word ἀῤῥητουργία, infamous
action,—base action, evil action, the performance of infamous tasks).

[15] The word στόμαργος is found in _Sophocles_, in a passage
where Electra says to Clytaemnestra (581):

    Κήρυσσέ μ’ εἰς ἅπαντας, εἴτε χρὴ, κακὴν,
    εἴτε _στόμαργον_, εἴτ’ ἀναιδείας πλέαν.
    Εἰ γὰρ πέφυκα _τῶνδε τῶν ἔργων_ ἴδρις
    σχεδόν τι τὴν σὴν οὐ καταισχύνω φύσιν.

(Proclaim me to all, if need be, an evil woman, _foul-mouthed_ and full
of shamelessness. For if I am cunning _in these tasks_, it is but that
I am not far from sharing your own character). _Suidas_ under the word
interprets στόμαργος here by φλύαρος (prating). _Philo_, De Monarchia
bk. I. edit. Mangey, vol. II. p. 219., says: _στομαργίᾳ_ χρήσασθαι καὶ
ἀχαλίνῳ γλώσσῃ, βλασφημοῦντας οὓς ἕτεροι νομίζουσι θεούς. (to indulge
in _loose talking_ and an unbridled tongue, blaspheming such as other
men hold to be gods). The _Etymologicum Magnum_ s. v. γλώσσαργον,
_στόμαργον_ ἠ ταχύγλωσσον, (under the word idle-tongued,—_foul-mouthed_
or loose-tongued). Whereas _Aristophanes_ has the word στοματουργός,
“Frogs” 848.,

    ἔνθεν δὴ _στοματουργὸς_ ἐπῶν
    βασινίστρια λίσπη
    γλῶσσ’....

(So thence a _phrase-making_ word-sifting, smooth tongue ...)

[16] Comp. p. 172 above. _Lucian_, Pseudolog. ch. 31., calls it
παροινῶν (acting drunkenly). _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XIII. ch. 80.,
φιλόπαις δ’ ἦν _ἐκμανῶς_ καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος, ὁ βασιλεύς. (And he was a
lover of boys, _to an insane degree_, was Alexander the King). _Dio
Chrysostom_, Tarsica I. p. 409., says of the ῤέγχειν (snorting of the
Cinaedi): ἀλλ’ ἐστὶ σημεῖον τῆς αἰσχάτης ὕβρεως καὶ _ἀπονοίας_ (but
it is a sign of the most abandoned insolence and _infatuation_), and
again p. 412.: ὡς ἤδη μανία τὸ γιγνόμενον ἔοικεν αἰσχρᾷ καὶ ἀπρέπει
(so now the resulting condition resembles madness, disgraceful and
unseemly madness). _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedag. bk. III. ch. 8.,
περὶ τὰ παιδικὰ _ἐκμανῶς_ ἐπτοημένοι (men set upon enjoyments with boys
_insanely_). But above all is the following passage from Juvenal (Sat.
VI. 299) apposite in this connection:

    ... Quid enim Venus ebria curat?
    Inguinis et capitis quae sint discrimina nescit.

(For of what does drunken love take heed? What are the differences
betwixt groin and head, she ignores). _Seneca_, De ira II.: _Raptus_
ad stupra et _ne os quidem libidini exceptum_. (Carried away
into obscenities and not even the mouth held secure from lust).
_Lactantius_, VI. 23., Quorum teterrima libido et execrabilis _furor_
ne _capiti_ quidem parcit. (Whose most foul lust and abominable
_frenzy_ spares not even _the head_).

[17] _Xenophon_, Cyropaed. II. 2. 28. Hence too _Cicero_, Tuscul.
V. 20., Haberet etiam _more Graeciae_ quosdam adolescentes amore
coniunctos (he would keep also, _after the fashion of Greece_, sundry
young men bound to him in ties of affection); of course it is a
question here of Paedophilia merely, but we have seen how readily this
was confounded with Paederastia. _Aristophanes_, Eccles. 918.,

    ἤδη τὸν ἀπ’ Ἰωνίας
    τρόπον τάλαινα κνησιᾷς·
    δοκεῖς δέ μοι καὶ λάβδα κατὰ τοὺς Λεσβίους.

(Now, wretched woman, you itch after the fashion of Ionia; and you
appear to me to long even for the _Lambda_ (licking) of the Lesbian
mode). Hence _motus Ionicos_ (Ionic movements) in _Horace_, Odes III.
5. 24. and _Plautus_, Stich. V. 7. 1., Quis _Ionicus_ aut cinaedus qui
hoc tale facere posset. (What _Ionian_ or cinaedus is there could show
himself capable of such an act as this).

[18] _Hippocrates_, Epidem. bk. II. sect. 1. edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p.
435.

[19] Comment. in Hippocrat. Epidem., bk. II. edit. Kühn, Vol. XVII. A.
p. 312.

[20] _Martial_, bk. XII. 55., Nec clusis aditum neget labellis. (and
refuse not access by shutting the lips).

[21] Μύζουσις is cited by _Eustathius_ on Homer, Odyssey XVII. p. 1821.
52. and XIV. p. 1921. end, as also ἀπομύζουρις on Iliad XI. p. 867.
44., in the sense of _fellatrix_, παρὰ τὸ μυζᾶν, ἤγουν θηλάζειν οὐράν.
(connected with μυζᾶν, to suck, that is to say to suck like an infant
a man’s member). _Suidas_ says: μυζεῖ καὶ μύζει, θηλάζει λείχει μῦ,
μύζει· ἀπὸ τοῦ μῦ παρῆκται τὸ μύζειν, πολλοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμοίως· μύζειν δέ
ἐστι τὸ τοῖς μυκτῆρσιν ἦχον ἀποτελεῖν. _Ἀριστοφάνης_ τί μύζεις,—(μυζεῖ
and μύζει,—sucks like an infant, licks with a _mooing_ noise, _moos_);
from this _mooing_ noise is derived μύζειν as is the case with other
similar words; now μύζειν is to produce the noise made in the nostrils
in the act of sucking. Aristophanes has τί μύζεις; (what is the
mooing noise you make?) On this passage of Aristophanes (Thesmoph.
238.) the Scholiast observes: τοῦτο δὲ φώνημα σημαίνει ἔκλυσίν τινα
ἀφροδισιαστικήν· ὅθεν καὶ μύται ἐλέγοντο τὸ παλαιὸν ἀφροδισιασταὶ καὶ
γυναικομανεῖς. (Now this sound proclaims a certain dissoluteness in
lovemaking; whence of old voluptuaries and men mad after women were
called also μύται). Μῦς, the mouse, also comes from the same stem,
from its picking and gnawing; so does μυῖα, the fly, and as _Aelian_,
Hist. Anim. bk. XV. ch. 1., says of a fish, ὑποχανὼν κατέπιε τῆν μυῖαν
(it gaped its mouth and swallowed down the fly), we might perhaps read
μυιοχάνη after flies, as if she wanted to catch flies, a fly-catcher,
fly-trap, unless indeed we prefer to take μυιοχάνη as being a
compound-word expressing a high degree of lecherousness. The lecherous
nature of the fly is well-known, as well as their habit of licking,
which makes _Varro_, de Re Rust. III. ch. 15., say: Non ut muscae
_liguriunt_. (They do not _lick_, like flies). Ligurire (to lick) is
used in the sense of _fellare_ and _cunnilingere_. _Aelian_, Hist.
Anim. bk. IV. ch. 5., mentions a fish, χάνη, which is particularly
lustful: χάνη δὲ ἰχθὺς λαγνίστατος (Now the χάνη is a most lustful
fish). Again μυσαροχάνη (μυσαρὸς, filthy) would be a significant word
for a _fellatrix_.

[22] _Suidas_, s. v. _μυσάχνη_, ἡ πόρνη παρὰ Ἀρχιλόχῳ· καὶ _ἐργάτις_
καὶ _δῆμος_ καὶ _παχεῖα_. Ἱππῶναξ δὲ _βορβορόπιν_ καὶ ἀκάθαρτον ταύτην
φησίν. ἀπὸ τοῦ βορβόρου καὶ _ἀνασυρτόπολιν_, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνασύρεσθαι.
Ἀνακρέων δὲ _πανδοσίαν_ καὶ _λεωφόρον_, καὶ _μανιόκηπον_· κῆπος γὰρ
τὸ _μόριον_. Εὔπολις _εἰλίποδα_, ἐκ τῆς εἰλήσεως τῶν ποδῶν τῆς κατὰ
τὴν μίξιν. (under the word μυσάχνη; this means “the prostitute” in
Archilochus; also in same sense _working-woman_, and _commonalty_,
and _brawny wench_. Also Hipponax calls an unclean woman of the sort
_filthy-eyed_ (βορβορόπις) from βόρβορος, mire, and _town-exposer_
ἀνασυρτόπολις from ἀνασύρεσθαι, to pull up the clothes. Also Anacreon
uses _all-giving_ and _public thoroughfare_ and _mad in the privates_
(μανιόκηπος); for κῆπος (a garden) means a woman’s private parts.
Eupolis uses _walking with a rolling gait_, from the rolling of the
legs, the result of sexual intercourse).

[23] _Lampridius_, Life of Heliogabalus ch. 5. _Clement of Alexandria_,
Paedag. bk. III. p. 254. edit. Potter, ἁβροδίαιτος περιεργία πάντα
ζητεῖ, πάντα ἐπιχειρεῖ, βιάζεται πάντα· συνέχει τὴν φύσιν· τὰ γυναικῶν
οἱ ἄνδρες πεπόνθασιν καὶ γυναῖκες ἀνδρίζονται παρὰ φύσιν· γαμούμεναί
τε καὶ γαμοῦσαι γυναῖκες· _πόρος δὲ οὐδεὶς ἄβατος ἀκολασίας_.
(delicately-living idleness searches out all things, attempts all
things, forces all things. It constrains Nature. Men have come to
endure the treatment proper to women, while women act as men contrary
to nature; women are both given in marriage and themselves take men in
marriage, and _no way of impurity is left untrod_. Again of a similar
significance are perhaps the words μυριοστόμος (ten-thousand-mouthed)
and ἀθυροστόμος, ἀθυροστομία, ἀθυροστομέω (unrestrained of mouth,
unrestrainedness of mouth, to be unrestrained of mouth), and εὐρόστομος
(wide-mouthed). _Epicrates_ said of a lecherous girl, ἡδ’ ἀρ’ ἦν μυωνία
(she was a regular mouse-hole), and _Philemon_ called another μῦς
λεύκος) (white mouse), while _Aelian_, Hist. Anim. Bk. XII. ch. 10,
gives yet another similar expression, μυωνίαν ὅλην ὀνομάσας (having
named her a complete mouse-hole); she is a perfect mouse-hole, in other
words she has as many entrances as a mouse-hole. Instead of μυριοχαύνη
we might also read μυριομήχανος (of ten-thousand devices), referring to
the _fessus mille modis_ (fatigued by a thousand modes of pleasure) in
_Martial_, bk. IX. 58. and on the analogy of Δωδεκαμήχανος (of a dozen
devices), a name borne by the “fille de joie” Cyrené, because she had
contrived twelve different _postures of Love_. Comp. _Suidas_, under
word δωδεκαμήχανος, and the Scholiast on Aristophanes, “Frogs” 1356.
Also μιαροχάνη (μιαρὸς, polluted) might be defended, on reference to
_Aristophanes_, Acharnians 271-285.

[24] _Hippocrates_, Epidem. bk. II. Vol. III. p. 436. Galen, vol. XVII.
A. p. 322.

[25] Perhaps the word was σαπερδίς, which in _Aristotle_, Hist. Anim.
VIII. 30., signifies a certain fish, for in _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. p.
591., σαπέρδιον (the diminutive) is the nick-name of a _hetaera_, and
when _Diogenes_ (Diogenes Laertius, VI. 2. 6.) made a scholar wear a
σαπέρδης, the latter threw it away (ὑπ’ αἰδοῦς ῥίψας), (having cast it
from him in disgust). Note at the same time that the word _Sarapis_
also occurs in _Plautus_ (Paenulus V. 5. 30 sqq.), where Anthemonides
says:

      Ligula, i in malam crucem
    Tune hic amator audes esse, hallex viri?
    Aut contrectare, quod mares homines amant?
    Deglupta maena, _Sarapis_ sementium,
    Mastruga, ἃλς ἀγορᾶς ἅμα; tum autem plenior.
    Allii ulpicique, quam Romani remiges.

(Thou mannikin, go to and be crucified! Dost dare to play the lover
here, thou Tom Thumb of a man? or to meddle with what male men love?
Skinned sprat, _Sarapis_ of the corn-crops, sheepskin, common salt
of the market; and yet reeking worse of garlic and leek than Roman
bargees!). To restore this undoubtedly corrupt text is beyond our
powers, but this much at any rate results from the passage as a
whole that _Sarapis_ or _Sarrapis_ here too signifies a vicious man.
Anthemonides certainly takes Hanno, to whom this speech is addressed,
for a _cinaedus_, for he says later on: “nam te cinaedum esse arbitror
magis quam virum” (but I reckon you to be a cinaedus rather than a
man), and he had previously said: “Quis hic homo est _cum tunicis
longis_, quasi puer cauponius?” (Who is this fellow _with the long
tunics_, like a waiter at a cookshop?) and “Sane genus hoc muliebrosum
est tunicis demissitiis.” (Surely this is a womanish sort, _with his
trailing tunics_). Similarly _Turnebus_, Adversar. bk. X. ch. 24.,
mentions the fact that _Hesychius_ explains σάραπις by περσικὸς χιτὼν
(a Persian tunic). However he prefers to read, instead of _Sarrapis_,
_arra pisa ementium_, (pledge of such as buy at the price of one pea) in
reference to the vice of Bacchus, “obscoenum et mollem virum, qui pro
arra dari possit vilis mercimonii.” (a foul and deboshed man, fit only
to be given as pledge at the value of any cheap commodity).

[26] Comp. the passage of Lucian quoted on p. 229 above. _Suetonius_,
Tiberius ch. 44., “Majore adhuc et turpiore infamia flagravit,
vox ut referri audirive, nedum credi, fas sit. Quasi pueros primae
teneritudinis, quos pisciculos vocabat, institueret, ut natanti
sibi _inter femina versarentur_ ac luderent, lingua et morsu sensim
appetentes, atque etiam quasi infantes firmiores, necdum tamen lacte
depulsos, inguini seu papillae admoveret; pronior sane ad id genus
libidinis et natura et aetate. Quare Parrhasii quoque tabulam, in qua
Meleagro Atalanta ore morigeratur, legatam sibi sub conditione, ut si
argumento offenderetur, decies pro ea sestertium acciperet, non modo
praetulit, sed et in cubiculo dedicavit.” (He was guilty of a yet
more flagrant and abominable villainy, so much so it hardly admits
of being related or listened to, let alone believed, to this effect.
He arranged that boys of tender years, whom he called his little
fishes, should move about between his thighs, as he swam, and play
there making darts at him with tongue and mouth and biting him softly;
also infants of somewhat stronger growth, but still not yet weaned,
he would put to his member as if to their mothers’ teat, being indeed
both by natural disposition and time of life more apt to this form
of indulgence. So when a picture of Parrhasius, in which Atalanta is
represented _gratifying_ Meleager with her mouth, was willed to him
with the stipulation that, if he objected to the subject, he should
have a million serterces instead, not only did he choose the painting,
but actually enshrined it in his bed-chamber). _Theophrastus_, Charact.
ch. 11., ὁ δὲ βδελυρὸς τοιοῦτος, οἵος ὑπαντήσας γυναιξὶν ἐλευθέραις
_ἀνασυράμενος_ δεῖξαι τὸ αἰδοῖον. (But he was such a filthy wretch,
that on meeting free women he would _pull up his clothes_ and show
his private parts.—_Dionysius of Halicarnassus_, Excerpt. de Legat.
ch. 9. says of the Tarentine Philonis, _ἀνασυράμενος_ τὴν ἀναβολὴν
καὶ σχηματίσας ἑαυτὸν ὡς αἴσχιστον ὀφθῆναι, τὴν οὐ λέγεσθαι πρέπουσαν
ἀκαθαρσίαν κατὰ τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐσθῆτος τοῦ πρεσβευτοῦ κατεσκέδασε.
(_raising his mantle_ and throwing himself into the most disgusting
posture to be exposed in, he bespattered the Ambassador’s sacred robe
with the unspeakable filth).—_Galen_, Exhortat. ad artes ch. 6.,
ἀνασυράμενοι προσουροῦσι. (lifting up their clothes, they make water
over it).—_Lucian_, Cataplus 13., καὶ σὺ δὲ ὦ Ἑρμῆ; σύρετ’ αὐτὸν εἴσω
τοῦ ποδός. (You too, Hermes? drag ye him within your leg). _Clement
of Alexandria_, Protrept. p. 13, mentions an Ἀφροδίτη περιβασίη
Aphrodité protectress,—or otherwise, Aphrodité that stretches the legs
apart), known also to _Hesychius_, and explained by some Commentators
as “stretching the legs apart”. In _Suidas_ σαίρειν is explained by
_hiare_ (to gape open); and the Lexicographers give σάραβος as meaning
γυναικεῖον αἰδοῖον (a woman’s privates) and the word is found in _Dio
Chrysostom_, De regno IV. 75., as the name of a Tavern-keeper,—also
if we are not mistaken, in Plato. σάρων too _Hesychius_ explains by
γυναικεῖον (woman’s parts). He also has ἀρρενώπες (masculine-looking),
which some interpret by Androgyne (man-woman) or _fellator_. The
reading ἀγράπους occurring, we might also read γυρόπους (crook-footed);
_Suidas_ under word γραῦς (old woman) cites: ἡ γρῆϋς, ἡ χερνῆτις, ἡ
γυρὴ πόδας. (the old woman, the spinster, the _crooked of feet_).

[27] _Catullus_, Carm. 35. 64.,

    An continentes quod sedetis insulsi
    Centum, aut ducenti, non putatis ausurum
    Me una ducentos _irrumare sessores_?

(Think you, because you sit there side by side, a hundred fools, or two
hundred, think you I shan’t dare to _irrumate_ two hundred _sitters_ at
once?).

[28] _Aelian_, Hist. Anim. bk. VI. ch. 24., ἡ δὲ ἡσύχως καὶ πεφεισμένως
τοῦ ἑαυτῆς στόματος ἀνατρέπει αὐτούς. (but the fox, quietly and so
as to forbear biting with its mouth, turns them over). ch. 64., ἥδε
χανεῖν τε καὶ ἐνδακεῖν οὐ δυναμένη, κᾆτα οὔρησεν αὐτοῦ ἐς τὸ στόμα.
(but she—the fox—being unable to open her mouth and fix her teeth in,
finally made water into its mouth).

[29] Virgil, Aen. VI. 494., says of Deiphobus, Helen’s paramour:

    Atque hic Priamiden laniatum corpora toto
    Deiphobum vidit, lacerum crudeliter ora,
    Ora manusque ambas, populataque tempora raptis
    Auribus, _et truncas inhonesto vulnere naris_.

(And now Deiphobus he sees, the glorious Priam’s son;

    But all his body mangled sore, his face all evilly hacked,
    His face and hands; yea, and his head laid waste, the ear lobes lacked,
    And _nostrils cropped unto the root by wicked wound and grim_.

      WILLIAM MORRIS’S translation).

_Martial_, bk. III. Epigr. 85.,

    Quis tibi persuasit _nares abscindere moecho_?
      Non hac peccatum est parte, marite, tibi
    Stulte, quid egisti? nihil hic tua perdidit uxor,
      Cum sit salva sui mentula Deiphobi.

(Who persuaded you to crop the adulterer’s nostrils? ’Twas not with
this part the offence was done you, sir husband! Foolish man, what
have you done? in this your wife has lost naught, so long as her
Deiphobus’ member is safe and sound). _Martial_, bk. II. Epigr. 83.,

    Foedasti miserum, marite, moechum:
    Et se, qui fuerant prius, requirunt
    _Trunci naribus_ auribusque vultus.
    Credis te satis esse vindicatum?
    Erras! Iste potest et _irrumare_!

(You have mutilated, husband, the unhappy adulterer: and his face
cropped of nose and ears asks itself what it was like before. Think you
your revenge is complete? Nay! you are mistaken; the fellow can still
_irrumate_!)—a passage that might very well be made to prove our point.

[30] _Martial_, bk. XI. Epigr. 61.,

    Lingua maritus, _moechus ore_ Maneius.

(Maneius is a husband with his tongue, a debaucher with his mouth). Bk.
III. Epigr. 84.,

    Quid narrat tua _moecha_? non puellam
    Dixi, Tongilion. Quid ergo? _Linguam!_

(What tale is it your harlot tells? Nay! I did not say _girl_,
Tongilion. What then? Why, _tongue!_).

[31] _Diodorus_, Bk. I. ch. 60. Same is related in _Strabo_, Geogr. bk.
XVI. p. 759.—_Seneca_, De Ira bk. III. ch. 20.

[32] _Sozomen_, Hist. Eccles. bk. VI. ch. 30., Rhinocolura vero
illo tempore _viris piis_ non aliunde advocatis, sed _indigenis_
floruit, quorum optimos sapientiae sese studio hic dedisse intellexi.
Novi Melanam, tunc ecclesiae episcopum et Dionysium, monasterium
ad septentrionem urbis moderantem, ac Solonem, Melanis fratrem ac
successorem in episcopatu. (But Rhinocolura at that time abounded in
_men of piety_, not invited thither, but _natives_, the most eminent
of whom I have been informed devoted themselves in that place to
the study of Wisdom. I knew personally Melanas, then Bishop of the
church there, and Dionysius, governing a monastery lying to the South
of the City, and Solon, brother of Melanas and his successor in the
Bishopric.). The same is affirmed by _Nicephorus_ as well, (Hist.
Eccles. bk. XI. ch. 38.). Within the last two years there has appeared
a Tract or Occasional Paper, dealing with the Colony at Rhinocolura,
but unfortunately we cannot put our hand on the more precise memorandum
of its contents.

[33] As to his views on the _Morbus Phoeniceus_ (Phoenician Disease),
this will be discussed under the head of the vice of the _Cunnilingue_.

[34] _Bonorden_, “Die Syphilis” (Syphilis). Berlin 1834., p. 19.

[35] _Clossius_, “Ueber die Lustseuche” (On Venereal Disease). Tübingen
1797., p. 49.—_Perenotti di Cigliano_, Of Venereal Disease, p. 92.
_Fabre_, Treatise on Venereal Disease, p. 5.

[36] Martial, XI. Epigr. 30.,

    Os male causidicis et dicis olere poetis:
    Sed fellatori, Zoile, peius olet.

(The mouth you say smells ill with pleaders and poets; but Zoilus, it
smells worse with the _fellator_). Hence the expressions, _os male
olens_, _anima foetida_, _gravis_, _graveolens_, _graveolentia oris
spiritus ieiunio macer_, _ieiuna anima_, _hircosum osculum_, _basia
olidissima_. (evil-smelling mouth, fetid breath, foul, ill-smelling,
fetid smell of the breath from the mouth—hungry and lean, fasting
breath, goaty kiss, most smelly embraces). Possibly too this was the
origin of the Lemnian women’s punishment. Comp. above p. 148.

[37] _Galen_, Comment. on Hippocrates’ De Humor. bk. II., edit. Kühn,
Vol. XVI. p. 215. Different means of counteracting this evil are given
by _Galen_, De parabilib. bk. II. ch. 7., Vol. XIV. p. 424. of Kühn’s
ed., where amongst other matter we read: διαμασῶνται δέ τινες καὶ τῆς
πίτυος φύλλα, ὅταν ἐκπορεύωνται, _καὶ ὕδατι διακλύζονται_, (but others
chew up even leaves of the pine, when they go abroad, and _wash out the
mouth with water_), the Latin _lavare_, _aquam sumere_ (to wash, to
take water)?—as to which later.

[38] _Martial_, VI. 55.,

    Quod semper cassiaque cinnamoque
    Et nido niger alitis superbae
    Fragras plumbea Nicerotiana,
    Rides nos, Coracine, nil olentes,
    Malo, quam bene olere, nil olere.

(Because forever scented with cassia and cinnamon and smeared with
spices from the nest of the proud phoenix, you are fragrant of the
leaden caskets of Niceros, you laugh at us that are unscented; I had
rather even than smell sweet, not smell at all).

[39] So _Euripides_, Medea 525., joins together στόμαργον γλωσσαλγίαν
(busy-mouthed tongue-tiresomeness, i. e. wearisome talkativeness).

[40] Perhaps there is an allusion to this in _Martial_, bk. XI.

[41] _Martial_, Bk. VI. Epigr. 41. Also bk. IV. Epigr. 41.,

    Quid recitaturus circumdas vellera collo?
    Conveniunt nostris auribus illa magis.

(Why do you when going to read your verses aloud wind woollen wraps
round your throat? The wool were better in our ears). The _tacere_
(to hold his tongue) in the first Epigram stands for _fellare_, as
in _Martial_, VII. IX. 5. 96. Perhaps too the verse of Epicharmus
given in _Aulus Gellius_, Noct. Attic. I. ch. 15. is applicable in
this connection, οὐ λέγειν δύνατος, ἀλλὰ σιγᾷν ἀδύνατος. (Not able to
speak, yet unable to be silent). Comp. _Martial_, VI. 54. VII. 48. XII.
35.—“_Harpocratem_ reddere (to recall _Harpocrates_” in _Catullus_
74. 4.) Again _Minutius Felix_, In Octav., says: “Esse malae linguae,
etiamsi _tacerent_” (To be of a _foul_ tongue, _even if they kept
silence_). _Priapeia_, 27. 4., “altiora tangam” (I will touch higher
things). In part we may have to look for the same allusion also in
_Ausonius’_ Epigrams 46, 47 and 51, and several other very similar ones
in the Anthology.

[42] _Aretaeus_, De causis et signis acutorum morborum, (Of the causes
and symptoms of Acute Diseases). Comp. De Curatione acut. morb., (Of
the treatment of Acute Diseases), Bk. I. ch. 9.

[43] _Martial_, bk. X. Epigr. 56.,

    Non secat et tollit stillantem Fannius uvam.

(Fannius does not use the knife, yet removes the dripping uvula).

[44] _Martial_, Bk. IV. Epigr. 42. Bk. XI. Epigr. 14.: Urbis deliciae
salesque Nili. (Darling of the City, savour of the Nile).

[45] The fact that, according to _Prosper Alpin_ De Medicina
Aegypt.—(Of Egyptian Medicine, Bk. I. ch. 14.), gangrenous sore-throat
prevails all the year round among children in Egypt, need not prejudice
our conclusion; in fact it rather helps to explain how the sore-throat
brought on by _fellation_ was able so readily and quickly to assume the
malignant type described.

[46] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. I. Serm. IV. ch. 21. Perhaps the “Cancer oris”
(cancer of the mouth) in boys, of which _Celsus_, VI. 15., makes
mention, belongs to the same category.

[47] _Herodotus_, Bk. II. ch. 60.

[48] _Plutarch_, De superstitione II. 170 D., Τὴν δὲ Συρίαν θεὸν οἱ
δεισιδαίμονες νομίζουσιν ἂν μαινίδας τὶς ἢ ἀφύας φάγῃ τὰ ἀντικνήμια
διεσθίειν, ἕλκεσι τὸ σῶμα πιμπλάναι, συντήκειν τὸ ἧπαρ. (for
translation see text above). We may add that μαινίδας is the _maena_
(sprat) of the Romans, for which _Hesychius_ has σαραπίους, while
_Plautus_ uses _deglupta maena_ (skinned sprat) as a contemptuous name
for a vicious debauchee (above p. 238. Note 1.). By the Dea Syra some
have understood the goddess Derceto, who was worshipped at Ascalon
under the image of a maiden, whose lower half ended in a fish. To her
the fishes were sacred, and for this reason the Syrians were forbidden
to eat fish. Comp. _Lucian_, De Dea Syra p. 672. _Diodorus Siculus_,
II. 4.

[49] _Porphyrius_, De Abstinentia bk. IV. ch. 15.,

    παράδειγμα τοὺς Σύρους λαβέ·
    Ὅταν φάγωσιν ἰχθὺν ἐκεῖνοι διά τινα
    Αὑτῶν ἀκρασίαν, τοὺς πόδας καὶ γαστέρα
    Οιδοῦσιν· εἶτα σακκίον ἔλαβον· εἰς δ’ ὁδὸν
    Ἐκάθισαν αὐτοὶ ἐπὶ κόπρου καὶ τὴν θεὸν
    Ἐξιλάσαντο τῷ ταπεινῶσαι σφόδρα.

(As an example take the Syrians: These people, when they have eaten
fish, in consequence of some unwholesome quality in themselves, swell
in feet and belly. Then they take quickly a wallet; and down they sit
by the road-side on dung, and so appease the goddess by their exceeding
humbleness). At Athens ἕλκη ἔχειν ἐν τοῖς ἀντικνημίοις (to have sores
on the shin-bones) would seem to have been a usual thing, according to
_Theophrastus_, Charact. XIX.

[50] _Athenaeus_, Deipnosoph. bk. VIII. p. 346. d. Indeed it would seem
that the Stoic _Antipater_ of Tarsus related how a Syrian Queen Gatis
was excessively fond of eating fish, and accordingly forbad anyone ἄτερ
Γάτιδος (except Gatis) in the whole country to indulge in it, and from
this circumstance came the name of Atergatis—the Syrian Venus!

[51] _Martial_, Bk. I. Epigr. 79. Possibly also the passage in
_Hippocrates_, Epidem. bk. VII., Vol. III. 691 of Kühn’s ed., ὁ τὸ
καρκίνωμα τὸ ἐν τῇ φάρυγγι καυθεὶς ὑγιὴς ἐγένετο ὑφ’ ἡμέων, (The
patient who was cauterized for cancer of the throat recovered under
our treatment), which Jöhrens in a quotation to be given presently
(below § 25.) refers to Venereal disease, as is also done by him in the
case of the throat-ulcers mentioned in the Tract of _Hippocrates_, De
Dentitione (On Teething), Vol. I. p. 484. of Kühn’s ed.

[52] A striking analogy to this suicide is to be found in the
well-known passage of _Pliny_ (Epist. bk. VI. epist. 24.), one of much
importance in connection with affections of the genitals, which may
therefore very well be quoted here by anticipation:

_C. Plinius Macro Suo S._ Quam multum interest, quid a quo fiat!
Eadem enim facta claritate vel obscuritate facientium aut tolluntur
altissime, aut humillime deprimuntur. Navigabam per Larium nostrum,
quum senior amicus ostendit mihi villam, atque etiam cubiculum, quod
in lacum prominet. Ex hoc, inquit, aliquando municeps nostra cum
marito se praecipitavit. Causam requisivi. _Maritus ex diutino morbo
circa velanda corporis ulceribus putrescebat: uxor, ut inspiceret,
exegit: neque enim quemquam fidelius indicaturam, possetne sanari.
Vidit, desperavit: hortata est, ut moreretur, comesque ipsa mortis,
dux immo et exemplum et necessitas fuit._ Quod factum ne mihi quidem,
qui municeps, nisi proxime auditum est; non quia minus illa clarissimo
Arriae facto, sed quia minor est ipsa. Vale. (Caius Pliny to his friend
Macer, Greeting.—What a vast difference it makes, by whom a particular
thing is done! For the very same actions in virtue of the fame or
obscurity of the doers are raised to the topmost pinnacle or brought
down to the lowest depth. I was sailing along our Lake of Larius, when
my companion and elder pointed out a certain country house to me, nay,
a particular bed-room, which projects into the Lake. From this chamber,
he said, some time ago a fellow-countrywoman of ours threw herself,
along with her husband. I asked the reason. _The husband, it seemed,
in consequence of a disease of long standing was rotting with ulcers
on the private parts of the body. The wife demanded a right to look;
for she thought no one else likely to give a more conscientious opinion
than herself as to whether he could be cured. She saw, and despaired
of recovery; so she urged him to die, and herself was companion of his
death, giving in fact at once incitement, example and compulsion to
the deed._ This achievement I had never, though a man of the country,
heard of till that moment; not because it was a whit less glorious than
Arria’s renowned exploit, but solely because the doer was less famous.
Farewell).

[53] _Catullus_, Carm. 57:

    Pulchre convenit improbis cinaedis
    Mamurrae pathicoque, Caesarique.

(An excellent understanding exists between the vile _cinaedi_, the
pathic Mamurra and Caesar).

[54] _Suetonius_, Vita Jul. Caesaris chs. 49, 51, 52., where Curio, the
Elder, calls him (Caesar) “omnium mulierum virum, et omnium virorum
mulierem” (husband of all women, and wife of all men). The same indeed
was said also of _Alcibiades_. In _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XII. p.
535., we read in a fragment of the Comic Poet _Pherecrates_:

    Οὐκ ὢν ἀνὴρ γὰρ Ἀλκιβιάδης, ὡς δοκεῖ,
    ἀνὴρ ἁπασῶν τῶν γυναικῶν ἐστι νῦν.

(For not being a man at all, Alcibiades, it seems, is now husband of
all our women).

[55] _Catullus_, Carm. 80.:

    Quid dicam, Gelli, _quare rosea ista labella_
      _Hiberna fiant candidiora nive,_
    Mane domo cum exis, et cum te octava quiete
      E molli longo suscitat hora die.
    Nescio quid certe est. An vere fama susurrat,
      _Grandia te medii tenta vorare viri_?
    Sic certe clamant Virronis rupta miselli
      Ilia, et _emulso labra notata sero_.

(Would you have me tell, Gellius, why those rosy lips grow whiter
than the winter’s snow, when you sally out from home in the morning,
and when the eighth hour of the long summer day wakes you from gentle
sleep? Nay! I know not what it is for sure. Does report say true, that
whispers _you mouth the swollen member of a man’s middle_? So at any
rate declare the deboshed vigour of poor feeble Virro, and _your own
lips marked by the humour you draw out_). _Martial_, Bk. VII. Epigr.
94.:

    Bruma est, et riget horridus December,
    Audes tu tamen osculo nivali
    Omnis obvios hinc et hinc tenere,
    Et totam, Line, basiare Romam.
    Quid possis graviusque saeviusque
    Percussus facere atque verberatus?
    Hoc me frigore basiet nec uxor.
    Blandis filia nec rudis labellis.
    Sed tu dulcior, elegantiorque,
    Cuius livida naribus caninis,
    Dependet glacies, rigetque barba,
    Qualem forficibus metit supinis
    Tonsor Cinyphio Cilix marito.
    Centum occurrere malo _cunnilingis_,
    Et Gallum timeo minus recentem.
    Quare si tibi sensus est pudorque,
    Hibernas, Line, basiationes,
    In mensem, rogo, differas Aprilem.

(’Tis winter time, and the shuddering chill of December is upon us.
None the less, Linus, you dare to greet with your frosty salute all men
you meet here and there, and to kiss all Rome. What more disagreeable
or more cruel could you do, if you had been struck or thrashed? With
an embrace so chilling may no wife kiss me, or unripe maid with
wheedling lips. But you,—you think yourself more attractive and more
pleasing, you from whose dog-like nose a blue icicle hangs, whose beard
is frozen stiff, such a beard as the Cilician shearer crops with his
upward-pointing clippers from the chin of a Cinyphian he-goat. I had
rather meet a hundred _cunnilingues_; I am less afraid of a Gaul new
come to town. Wherefore, if you possess any sense or any shame, I do
beseech you, Linus, defer your wintry salutes till April is come). Now
_Linus_ is designated by _Martial_, bk. VII. Epigr. 9, as a _fellator_,
and bk. XI. Epigr. 26., as a _cunnilingue_.

[56] Whence also the proverbial saying in _Suidas_: κύνα δέρειν
δεδαρμένην· τὸ τοῦ Φερεκράτους· σχῆμα δέ ἐστι ἀκόλαστον εἰς τὸ
αἰδοῖον· εἴρηται δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ, ἄλλο πασχόντων αὖθις ἐφ’ οἷς πεπόνθασιν ἡ
παροιμία. (to skin the skinned bitch; expression of Pherecrates; is an
abominable practice in connection with the private parts; the proverb
is spoken of such as suffer something a second time over, after having
suffered it once already). Similarly _Plautus_, Trinum. II. 4. 27.,
Edepol _mutuum_ mecum facit (By my faith, he plays give and take with
me). Again κυνάμυια (shameless fly) is found in _Suidas_, which he
explains by ἀναιδεστάτη· παρεσχημάτικε τὸ ὄνομα ἀπὸ τοῦ κυνὸς καὶ τῆς
μυίας· ὁ μὲν γὰρ κύων ἀναιδής, ἡ δὲ μυῖα θρασεῖα, (a most shameless
woman: name borrowed figuratively from the dog and the fly; for the
dog is shameless, and the fly audacious)—probably with a reference to
_Homer_, II. XXI. 394., where κυνόμυια is found, and the Scholiast
observes: ἀναιδής ὡς μυῖα, ἐκ δύο ἀναιδῶν τελείων, τοῦ τε κυνός καὶ
τὴς μυίας, διὰ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον τῆς ἀναιδείας. (shameless as a fly; from
two completely shameless creatures, the dog and the fly; on account
of the excessive degree of their shamelessness). Further there is in
this connection the word κυναλώπηξ (fox-dog), which was a nick-name
of _Philostratus_, as we see from _Aristophanes_, Knights 1078., on
which passage the Scholiast observes: λέγει δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ πορνοβοσκὸν
καὶ καλλωπιστὴν (now he calls him both brothel-keeper and dandy). If
we derive the word from τὸν κύνα (frenulum praeputii,—ligament of the
prepuce,—Paulus Aegineta, VI. 54.) ἀλωπίζειν, it would designate the
_fellator_, as ἀλωπὸς, ἀλωπίζειν, ἀλωπηκίζω is formed from α privative
(negative) and λῶπος, λώπη (the covering, skin, wool); and ἀλωπηκία
is to be explained in the same way,—but not from the scab or mange of
the fox, nor yet as the Etymologicum Magnum would have it, because the
places where the fox discharges his urine die, the grass e. g. dries
up and withers. Hence ἀλώπηξ might be taken as _bald-headed_, and
then the further meaning of licentious dissoluteness given to it, for
in Antiquity baldness was very usually looked upon as a consequence
of sexual excesses, and as every one knows, Caesar was called by his
soldiers _moechus calvus_ (the bald-headed adulterer). But old men, who
in particular are bald-headed, especially practised, owing to their
lack of the power of erecting the penis, the vice of _irrumation_
and of the _cunnilingue_, which makes _Martial_ say (IV. 50.) _Nemo
est, Thai, senex ad irrumandum_ (No one, Thais, is too old a man for
irrumation). κυναλώπηξ would then be a _bald-headed cunnilingue_.
Possibly however this idea was also partly due to a reminiscence of
the fox’s habit, when desirous of following up a scent, of sticking
his head to the ground (_Aelian_, Hist. Anim. VI. ch. 24.),—a manœuvre
he also adopts, as is generally known, when dying. In evidence of this
view may be quoted what _Cicero_, Orat. pro Domo ch. 18., says to
Sextus Clodius: _ligurris_ (you are a licker), and ch. 31. Quaere hoc
ex Sexto Clodio, iube adesse, latitat omnino; sed si requiri iusseris,
invenient hominem apud sororem tuam (Publii Clodii) _occultantem se
capite demisso_ (Require this of Sextus Clodius, bid him appear; he
lurks entirely out of sight. But if once you order him to be sought
out, they will find the man at your sister’s house (Publius Clodius’s)
_hiding himself with head held down_.) Comp. _Catullus_, 87. In
_Martial_, Bk. IV. Epigr. 53., _canis_ is used in same sense as κύων
in Greek,—apparently? Perhaps the women of Antiquity made use of dogs
as well to serve as _cunnilingues_. According to _Brockhusius_ on
Tibullus I. 7. 32., II. 4. 32. they were usual companions of “ladies of
pleasure” at Rome, whence too _suburanae canes_ (bitches of the Subura)
in _Horace_, Epod. V. 58. and _Subura vigilax_ (the watchful Subura)
in _Propertius_, IV. 7. 15. During the Middle Ages at any rate such an
employment of dogs was nothing unusual. This is stated by _Panormita_,
Hermaph. Epigr. XXX., Epitaphium Nichinae Flandrensis, Scorti egregii:—

    Pelvis erat cellae in medio, qua saepe lavabar,
    Lambebat madidum blanda catella femur.

(Epitaph on Nichette the Fleming, a famous Harlot:—There stood a basin
in middle of the chamber, in which I would many a time wash myself, the
while my fawning bitch-pup licked her mistress’s dripping thigh).

and Epigr. XXXVII.,

    Te viset Jannecta, sua comitante catella,
    Blanda canis dominae est, est hera blanda viris.

(Jeannette shall visit you, her bitch-pup accompanying her; complacent
is the hound to its mistress, the lady complacent to men).

[57] _Galen_, De simplic. medicament. temperamentis ac facultat. Bk. X.
ch. 1., edit. Kühn Vol. XII. p. 249.

[58] κοπροφάγος (Excrement-Eater). To this _Martial_, bk. III. Epigr.
77., seems to allude, when he says:

    Nescio quod stomachi vitium secretius esse
      Suspicor, ut quid enim, Baetice, _saprofagis_?

(I suspect there exists some secret vitiation of the stomach; else why,
Baeticus, do you _eat putrid meat_?)

[59] It is evident from this that Meier in his above mentioned Article
on Paederastia is wrong in citing the expression αἰσχρουργὸς (worker
of obscenities) as being used for the direct equivalent of _cinaedus_.
Incidentally we would take this opportunity of further observing
that the word παιδοκόραξ (boy-raven, i. e. a person ravenous after
boys), which is also mentioned in the same Article as synonymous with
_cinaedus_, is wrongly referred to paederastia, for it really, like the
Latin _corvus_ (raven), signifies a _fellator_. Its true explanation
is given in _Pliny_, Hist. Nat. bk. X. ch. 15., Corvi pariunt cum
plurimum quinos. _Ore eos parere aut coire vulgus arbitratur._ (Ravens
produce at most a brood of five each pair. _The vulgar believe these
birds produce or copulate with the mouth)._—Aristoteles (De gen anim.
Bk. III. ch. 6.) negat,—sed illam exosculationem, quae saepe cernitur,
qualem in columbis, esse. (Aristotle denies this,—but adds that there
is the same billing, which is often noticed, as with doves). Hence also
_Martial_, bk. XIV. Epigr. 74.,

    Corve salutator, quare fellator haberis?
      In caput intravit mentula nulla tuum.

(You raven that salute your mate, why are you thought to be a
_fellator_? No member ever penetrated into your head). Greek Anthology,
bk. II. Tit. 9. 13., λευκὸν ἰδεῖν κόρακα (a white crow to all
appearance).

[60] Instead of ᾧ φαίνεται _Rost_ has proposed to read ὧν φαίνεται.
(_Forbiger_, on the Hermaphrod. of Panormita, p. 281. Note b.)

[61] _Brunck_, Analecta Vol. III. p. 334.,

    Δημώναξ, μὴ πάντα κάτω βλέπε, μηδὲ χαρίζου
      τῇ γλώσση· δεινὴν χοῖρος ἄκανθαν ἔχει.
    Καὶ συζῇς ἡμῖν. _ἐν Φοινίκῃ δὲ καθευδεις_,
      κοὐκ ὢν ἐκ Σεμέλης μηροτραφὴς γεγόνας.

(Demonax, be not for ever looking downwards, and be not complacent with
your tongue; that organ—the _pudenda muliebria_—has a sharp thorn. And
indeed you live with us, _but you sleep in Phoenicia_, and though no
child of Semelé, are thigh-bred).

[62] In particular it is the following Epigram in _Brunck’s_ Analecta
that has given occasion to this explanation:

    Ἀλφειοῦ στόμα φεῦγε· φιλεῖ κόλπους Ἀρεθούσης.
      _πρηνὴς ἐμπίπτων ἁλμυρὸν ἐς πέλαγος._

(Fly the Alpheus’ mouth; he loves the bosom of Arethusa, _falling
headlong into the salt sea_). Forbiger might have further cited the
following passage from _Aristophanes_, Knights 1086, 87.,

    ΑΛ. Καὶ γὰρ ἐμοὶ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῆς ἐρυθρᾶς γε θαλάσσης
    χὤτι γ’ἐν Ἐκβατάνοις δικάσεις, _λείχων_ ἐπίπαστα.

(Verily for me you shall be judge over earth and the Red Sea to boot
and all the realm of Ecbatana, _licking up_ comfit-cakes,—? pickles).
Here ἐπίπαστα is, as probably also in v. 103., the Salgama (pickles
in brine) of _Ausonius_, Epigr. 125.; which moreover affords at any
rate a partial explanation of the passage in _Pollux_, Onomast. bk.
VI. ch. 9. p. 61., bk. X. ch. 24. p. 96. Still, even if according to
this _Phoenicia_ were used in the sense of the genital organs of women
at time of menstruation, it by no means follows that φοινικίζειν meant
_only_ to have dealings with women in menstruation, any more than it
does that it is identical with καταμηνίου πίνων (drinking of menstrual
blood), as it has been shown just above not to be. In fact _Galen_ says
explicitly: φαίνεταί μοι παραπλήσιον, (it appears to me to be something
_similar!_)

[63] _Seneca_, De beneficiis bk. IV. ch. 31.

[64] _Seneca_, Epist. 87.

[65] _Galen_, Works, edit. Kühn, Vol. XIX. p. 153.

[66] _Naumann_, Handb. der Klinik (Text-book of Clinical Medicine),
Vol. 7. p. 88.

[67] The author at any rate is more cautious than _Sprengel_, who
(_Th. Batemann_), Prakt. Darstellung der Hautkrankheiten (Practical
Exposition of Diseases of the Skin), Halle 1815., p. 427. Note, writes:
“Hippocrates appears to mention it (Elephantiasis) under the name
φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease), which _Galen_ (Explan. voc. Hipp.)
_distinctly and definitely_ explains as Elephantiasis.”

[68] _Hippocrates_, edit. Kühn Vol. I. pp. 223, 233., Λειχῆνες δὲ
καὶ λέπραι καὶ λεῦκαι, οἷσι μὲν νέοισιν ἢ παισὶν ἐοῦσιν ἐγένετό τι
τούτων, ἢ κατὰ μικρὸν φανὲν αὔξεται ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ, τούτοισι μὲν οὐ χρὴ
ἀπόστασιν νομίζειν τὸ ἐξάνθημα, ἀλλὰ νόσημα· οἷσι δὲ ἐγένετο τούτων
τι πολύ τε καὶ ἐξαπίνης, τοῦτο ἂν εἴη ἀπόστησις· γίνονται δὲ λεῦκαι
μὲν ἐκ τῶν _θανατωδεστάτων_ νοσημάτων, οἷον καὶ ἡ _νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ_
καλεομένη. αἱ δὲ λέπραι καὶ οἱ λειχῆνες ἐκ τῶν μελαγχολικῶν. ἰῆσθαι δὲ
τουτέων εὐπετέστερά ἐστιν ὅσα νεωτάτοισί τε γίνεται καὶ νεώτατά ἐστι,
καὶ τοῦ σώματος ἐν τοῖσι μαλθακωτάτοισι καὶ σαρκωδεστάτοισι φύεται.
(for translation see text above).

[69] _J. W. Wedel_, Progr. de Morbo phoeniceo Hippocratis, (Graduation
Exercise on the Phœnician disease of Hippocrates), Jena 1702. 4to.,
reprinted in _E. G. Baldinger_, Selecta doctorum virorum opuscula in
quibus Hippocrates explicatur, denuo edita, (Select Tracts of Learned
Men dealing with the Interpretation of Hippocrates,—Second ed.),
Göttingen 1782., pp. 215-222. The Author does not seem to be really
self-consistent; he wavers between Elephantiasis and Purpura.

[70] _Rayer, Maladies de la peau._ Bruxelles 1836. p. 385. Et quoique
les termes de la description du λεύκη se rapportent assez bien à la
leucopathie partielle, la plupart des interprètes et des critiques,
se fondant sur une passage d’Hippocrate (Prorrhet. lib. II.) ont
pensé, que sous ce nom les anciens avoient indiqué une maladie grave,
l’éléphantiasis anesthétique ou la lèpre des juifs. (_Rayer_, Diseases
of the Skin. Brussels 1836., p. 385., And although the terms in which
this λεύκη is described are pretty well consistent with the symptoms
of partial leucopathy, still the majority of interpreters and critics,
taking their stand on a passage of Hippocrates (Prorrhet. bk. II.) have
held that under this name the Ancients indicated a serious disease,
viz. anaesthetic elephantiasis or the leprosy of Jews).

[71] _Celsus_, Bk. V. ch. 27. 19., λεύκη habet quiddam simile alpho,
sed magis albida est et altius descendit: in eaque albi pili sunt, et
lanugini similes. (λεύκη has some resemblance to alphus, but is more
white in colour, and penetrates deeper; also in it there are white
hairs of a woolly appearance). In these last words the interpreters
have supposed themselves to find the ἁλὸς ἄχνη (sea-foam) of _Pollux_,
Onom. IV. 193., expressed!

[72] _Galen_, Isag., edit. Kühn Vol. XIV. p. 758.,—De symptomat.
differ. Vol. VII. p. 63.—De symptomat. caus. bk. II. ibid. pp.
225 sqq., where the λεύκη is described as a consequence of
_nutritio depravata_ (morbid nutrition), whereby τὴν σάρκα γίνεσθαι
φλεγματικωτέραν (the flesh becomes over phlegmatic). Comp. _Aetius_,
Tetrab. IV. I. ch. 133. _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. IV. ch. 5. _Actuarius_,
Meth. med. II. 11. VI. 8. _Oribasius_, De morb. curat. III. 58. _Scip.
Gentilis_, Comment. in Apuleii apologiam, note 524.—_Suidas_ s. v.
_λεύκη_· παρὰ Ἡροδότῳ πάθος τι περὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, (under word λεύκη:
in Herodotus, a complaint affecting the whole surface of the body). In
_Alexander_, Aphrodis. Problem. I. 146, λεῦκαι signify the white flecks
on the finger-nails.

[73] _Pollux_, Onomast IV. ch. 25. p. 187., mentions among forms of
wasting-diseases φθίνης νόσος, for which some editors, and quite
rightly, prefer to read φθίνας νόσος (wasting disease). _Suidas_ also
says φθίνας ἡ νόσος, but without giving any further explanation; on the
contrary in _Hesychius_ we find: s. v. φθινὰ[ς] ἡ ἐρυσίβη, καὶ εἶδος
ἐλαίας (under word φθινὰ; the red blight, also a species of olive). But
by ἐρυσίβη is signified _mildew_, _blight_, _smut on grain_, the same
thing therefore as the Romans called _rubigo_ or _robigo_, on which
_Servius_, on Virg. Georg. I. 151., has the following observation:
Robigo genus est vitii, quo culmi pereunt, quod a rusticanis calamitas
dicitur. Hoc autem genus vitii ex nebula nasci solet, cum _nigrescunt
et consumuntur_ frumenta. Inde Robigus deus et sacra eius septimo
Kalendas Maias Robigalia appellantur. Sed _haec abusive_ robigo
dicitur; nam _proprie robigo est_, ut Varro dicit, _vitium obscoenae
libidinis quod ulcus vocatur: id autem abundantia et superfluitate
humoris_ solet nasci, quae Graece σατυρίασις dicitur. (_Robigo_ is a
sort of blight, that kills the corn-stalks, which is spoken of as a
_disaster_ by the peasants. Now this kind of blight commonly springs
from a mist or exhalation, the crops blackening and being burnt up.
Hence the god Robigus, and his feast-day on the seventh day before
the Kalends of May (April 24.), known as the Robigalia. But this is
called _robigo_ only by a misnomer; for properly speaking _robigo_
is, as Varro says, a vitiation due to abominable licentiousness and
is called an ulcer, and it commonly springs from that abundance and
over-copiousness of the humour, which in Greek is called Satyriasis).
These words are for our purpose pose of the highest importance,
teaching us as they do, that _a distinctive form of ulceration, that
the patient had brought on himself by sexual excesses, was not only
familiar among the Romans_ but actually bore the _special_ name of
_robigo_. It must have displayed a distinctive redness, and have
consumed the parts affected similarly to the smut or rust of grain,
or the rust of iron. It is surely a sufficient indication to call the
chancre-ulcer a blight, a burning: Comp. anthrax, carbo (malignant
pustule, carbuncle). To this day in Germany it is vulgarly said of any
one attacked by the primary forms of Venereal disease, “the man has
burned himself”. _Festus_, (edit. Dacier p. 451.) says: _Robum_ rubro
colore et quae rufo significare, at bovem quoque rustici appellant,
manifestum est, unde et _materia quae plurimas venas eius coloris
habet_ dicta est rubor, (_Robus_ clearly indicates things of a red
or reddish colour,—now countrymen even speak of an ox as _robus_;
hence _any substance having manifold veins of this colour_ is called
_rubor_). Now such is habitually the case with the penis attacked by
phimosis or paraphimosis and under the morbid condition of constant
erection (Satyriasis) superinduced by these. Again this shows us the
reason why Priapus is so frequently called “_ruber_ hortorum custos”
(the _red_ keeper of gardens),—_Priapeia_ Praef. 5.; and why he is
said, “_Ruber_ sedere cum _rubente_ fascino,” (to sit, _red_ with his
_ruddy_ verge),—_Horace_, Odes 84. Sat. I. 8. 5. Now as the blight in
grain was regarded specially as a consequence of the dew (mil_dew_),
and _ros_ (dew) again is used in the sense of the male semen, as well
as for the moisture secreted in the female vagina during coition, we
might draw yet another analogy from this, and at the same time a proof
of the _verecundia loquentium_ (shamefacedness in speech),—p. 43.,
of the _old_ Romans. Thus it would seem the Greeks too indicated by
their φθινὰς the same thing as the Romans by _robigo_. That it was a
human disease, is clearly enough shown by the passage from Pollux,
and besides we can see it was so from another in _Plutarch_ in his
Life of Galba (ch. 21.), where he says: Τιγελλῖνον μὲν οὐ πολὺν ἔτι
βιώσεσθαι φάσκοντος· χρόνον, ὑπὸ _φθινάδος νόσου_ δαπανώμενον, (For he
said that Tigellinus would not live much longer, being exhausted by a
wasting disease),—a quotation proving at the same time the deadliness
of the malady. Once more, _Hesychius_ has for φθινὰ also φοινία,
saying, _φοινία_. ἐρυσίβη (φοινία: red blight, and as the adjective
corresponding would necessarily be φοινικίος or φοινίκινος, it follows
that φοινικίη νόσος and φθινικὴ νόσος,—φθινικὴ being the adjective
from φθινὴ or φθινὰς, (which however would more strictly speaking be
φθινακή), would mean exactly the same thing, viz. an “Ulcus rubrum et
rodens ex coitu cum foeda muliere natum” (red eating ulcer, coming from
coition with an unclean woman), the fatal event of which affection
was a matter of common observation among the Ancients. Now if this
interpretation is the right one in the passage of Hippocrates, it is
clear that λεῦκαι were the consequences of this malady, and accordingly
we should have a proof that in Antiquity, no less than in modern
times, primary ulcers not only preceded secondary affections of the
skin, but were actually _recognized as such_. However as the proofs
for this _aperçu_ are still too fragmentary on the side of the ancient
Physicians, we must suspend our immediate judgement on the point, and
content ourselves for the present with saying, that φοινικίη νοῦσος
stood originally in the text in the sense of _cunnilingere_ (to be a
_cunnilingue_), whereas a later inquirer put φθινικὴ into its place,
inasmuch as in his time their meanings had become identical as that
of a bodily ailment, and so _the consequence_ of the vice instead of
the vice itself found its way even into the text. For granted φθινὰς
has the meaning of _robigo_ (blight), there is no doubt this only came
to be the case as late as in the time of the Alexandrine critics.
Besides this, φοινικιστὴς is also found in the _Etymologicum Magnum_
for _Cunnilingus_; we read: γλωττοκομεῖον, ἐν ᾧ οἱ αὐληταὶ ἀπετίθεσαν
τὰς γλώττας· εἴρηται δὲ καὶ τὸ _γυναικεῖον αἰδοῖον_ ὑπὸ Εὐβούλου
_φοινικιστὴν_ σκώπτοντος· (γλωττοκομεῖον, tongue-hole, place in which
fluteplayers insert their tongues); _the female privates_ also called
so by Eubulus, making a scoff at the φοινικιστὴς,—_cunnilingue_). The
_Etymologicum Magnum_ further has as synonyms for _cunnilingere_:
_γλωττοστροφεῖν_, περιλαλεῖν καὶ στωμύλλεσθαι· _γλωττοδεψεῖν_,
αἰσχρουργεῖν (_to ply the tongue_: to talk excessively, to babble;
_to work or soften with the tongue_: to do obscenely), and for
_cunnilingus_, _γλώσσαργον_, στόμαργον (_tongue-busy_: mouth-busy).

[74] _Hippocrates_, περὶ παθῶν, edit. Kühn Vol. II. p. 409.
It is true this Work is reckoned among the spurious ones, and _Galen_
(Vol. XI. p. 63.) ascribes it to _Polybius_.

[75] _Aristophanes_, Acharnians 271.

    Πολλῷ γὰρ ἐσθ’ ἥδιον, ὦ Φαλῆς Φαλῆς
    κλέπτουσαν εὑρόνθ’ ὡρικὴν ὑληφόρον,
    τὴν Στρυμοδώρου Θρᾷτταν ἐκ τοῦ Φελλέως,
    μέσην λαβόντ’ ἄραντα, καταβαλόντα καταγιγαρτίσαι·

(For ’tis much pleasanter, Phales, Phales! when you have found a
blooming woodcutter girl filching wood, say Strymodorus’ Thracian maid
from Phelleus, to take her round the middle and lift her up and throw
her down and take the kernel right away),—where perhaps we should read
Στυμοδώρου for Στρυμοδώρου. Knights 1284.,

    Τὴν γὰρ αὐτοῦ γλῶτταν αἰρχραῖς ἡδοναῖς λυμαίνεται,
    ἐν κασαυρίοισι _λείχων_ τὸν ἀπόπτυστον δρόσον,
    καὶ μολύνων τὴν ὑπήνην, καὶ κυκῶν τὰς ἐσχάρας.

(For he pollutes his own tongue with foul delights, in the stews
licking up the abominable dew, defiling the hair on the upper lip, and
tumbling the girls’ _nymphae_). Peace 885.,

    Τὸν _ζῶμον_ αὐτῆς προσπεσὼν ἐκλάψεται.

(Falling upon her he will suck up _her broth_).

[76] _Juvenal_, Satir. VI. 455.:

    Nec curanda viris Opicae castigat amicae
    Verba Soloecismum liceat fecisse marito.

(And rebukes the expressions of her clownish (Opican) friend, things
not worth men’s notice. Surely a husband should be allowed to make a
solecism).

[77] _Martial_, bk. I. Epigr. 78.,

    Pulchre valet Charinus, et tamen pallet.
    Parce bibit Charinus, et tamen pallet.
    Bene concoquit Charinus, et tamen pallet.
    Sole utitur Charinus, et tamen pallet.
    Tingit cutem Charinus, et tamen pallet.
    _Cunnum Charinus lingit, et tamen pallet._

(Charinus is in excellent health, and yet he is pale. Charinus drinks
moderately, and yet he is pale. Charinus digests well, yet he is pale.
Charinus takes the sun, yet he is pale. Charinus dyes his skin, yet he
is pale. _Charinus licks a woman’s organ, yet he is pale)._

[78] _Martial_, bk. XI. Epigr. 86. As to this Zoilus see _Martial_, bk.
XI. Epigr. 61.

[79] _Martial_, Bk. III. Epigr. 61.

[80] _Greek Anthology_ bk. II. Tit. 13. Note 19.,

    Τὴν φωνὴν ἐνοπήν σε λέγειν ἐδίδαξεν Ὅμηρος,
      Τὴν γλῶσσαν δ’ ἐν _ὀπῇ_ τίς σ’ ἐδίδαξεν ἔχειν.

(Homer taught you to utter your voice and speak whole words, but,
pray! who taught you to have your tongue in a hole?) Here ὀπὴ (hole)
obviously stands for the female organ,—a meaning omitted in the
Lexicons.

[81] So too in the following Epigram of _Ausonius_ (127.),

    Eune, quod uxoris gravidae _putria inguina_ lambis,
      Festinas glossas non natis tradere natis.

(Eunus, you lick the flabby organs of your pregnant wife; is it you
are in a hurry to give learned explanations to your babes unborn?)
we should explain the _putria inguina_ not so much as _rotten_,
_ulcerous_, but rather as _laxata_ or _laxa_ (relaxed, flabby).
Similarly _Horace_, Epod. VIII. 7., speaks of _mammae putres_ (the
flabby dugs) of an old woman.

[82] _Martial_, IX. 63.,

    Ad coenam invitant omnes te, Phoebe, cinaedi:
      Mentula quem pascit, non, puto, purus homo est.

(All the _cinaedi_, Phoebus, invite you to dinner: a man the penis
feeds is not, I think, a _clean_ man).

_Petronius_, Sat., Non taces, nocturne percussor, qui ne tum quidem,
quum fortiter faceres, cum _pura muliere_ pugnasti. (Silence, stabber
by night, who not even when you were at your best, ever faced _a clean
woman_).

[83] _Martial_, Bk. IV. Epigr. 43.

[84] _Persius_, Satir. V. 186-188.

[85] _Wendelinus Hock de Brackenau_ entitled his Treatise on the
Venereal Disease: _Mentagra_, sive Tractatus de causis, praeseruatis,
regimine et cura Morbi Gallici, vulgo Mala Francosz., etc., (Mentagra,
or a Treatise on the Causes, Preventives, Treatment and Cure of the so
called French Disease, etc.). Strasburg 1514. 4to. _Sartorius_ Frid.
praes. _Conrad. Johrenio_, Diss. de mentagra ad loc. Plinii Secundi
hist. nat. lib. XXVI. cap. 1. (Dissertation on mentagra in connexion
with the passage of Pliny Secundus’ Hist. Naturalis bk. XXVI. ch. 1.).
Frankfurt-on-Oder N. D. 49 pp. 4to. Gives a sort of exegesis of the
passage, speaks in first place of new diseases in general, passes on to
the Venereal Disease, the antiquity of which the author upholds, and
finally discusses Mentagra, which he holds to be a leprous-syphilitic
affection. The work is still quite worth reading, more especially as
the author quotes some passages from the Chronicle of _Anhalt von
Beckmann_, at that time still unprinted, and which we find mentioned
hardly anywhere else.

[86] _Hensler_, “Vom abendländischen Aussatze im Mittelalter”, (On
Occidental Leprosy in the Middle Ages). Hamburg 1790. pp. 67, 206, 307.

[87] _Pliny_, Hist. Nat. Bk. XXVI. chs. 1, 2, 3.

[88] _Galen_, De comp. med. secundum locos, edit. Kühn Vol. XII. p.
841. προσχαριζόμενον τῇ ἐξωτάτῳ γραμμῇ τοῦ λειχῆνος μικρόν τι τῶν
ἀπαθῶν σωμάτων. (giving up to the external mark of the scab yet another
small part of the bodies hitherto unaffected).

[89] _Galen_, (De comp. med. secundum locos bk. V., edit. Kühn Vol.
XII. p. 830.) quotes from Criton the following description in further
confirmation: Πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν γενείων λειχῆνας πάθος ἀηδέστατον,
καὶ γὰρ κνησμοὺς ἐπιφέρει καὶ περίστασιν τῶν πεπονθότων καὶ κίνδυνον
οὐκ ὀλίγον, ἕρπει γὰρ ἔστιν ὅτε καθ’ ὅλου τοῦ προσώπου, καὶ ὀφθαλμῶν
_ἅπτεται_, καὶ σχεδὸν τῆς _ἀνωτάτω δυσμορφίας_ ἐστὶν αἴτιον, καὶ
διὰ τοῦτο χρηστέον ἂν εἴη ἐπιμελέστερον τῇ θεραπείᾳ, ἐφορῶντα τοὺς
_παροξυσμοὺς_ καὶ _τὰ διαλείμματα_ καὶ _συγκρίνοντα ἀπὸ τῶν κεχρονισμένων
τὰ νεοσύστατα_, ἐφ’ ὧν ἁρμόσει χρῆσθαι τοῖς ξηραίνουσι φαρμάκοις· _ὅταν
δ’ εἰς ψώραν ἢ λέπραν μεταπέσῃ_ πρὸς τοῖς ξηραίνουσι χρῆσθαι καὶ τοῖς
ῥύπουσιν. (But in the case of _lichenes_, scabs, on the chin the malady
is most troublesome. Now it brings on itchings and a critical condition
of the afflicted and no small danger; for it creeps sometimes over
the whole face, and _attacks the eyes_, and generally is productive
of the _most utter disfigurement_. Wherefore physicians should devote
more than ordinary care to its treatment, watching _the crises of the
malady, and the intervals, and judging from the symptoms that have
become chronic such as have but just broken out_, on the appearance of
which it will be expedient to exhibit siccative medicines. On the other
hand when _it has resolved itself into the itch or leprosy_, exhibit
cathartics in combination with the siccatives). The same is contributed
also by _Aëtius_, Tetrab. II. serm. 4. ch. 16. Besides the discrepant
statement to the effect that the eyes are attacked as well, the most
noteworthy points are the crises and intervals Mentagra went through,
and its passing over into Psora and Lepra (Itch and Leprosy).

[90] _Galen_ and _Aëtius_, loco citato, give particulars of the
composition of a number of these.

[91] _Gruner_, Morborum antiquitates pp. 162-171.

[92] _J. C. Dieterich_, Iatreum Hippocraticum, continens Narthecium
medicinae veteris et novae (Hippocratic Remedies, containing a Treasury
of Ancient and Modern Medicine), Ulm 1661. 4to., p. 692.

[93] Hence also _Diogenes Laertius_, VI. 2. 6., ἅλα λείχειν (to lick up
salt).

[94] The explanation of _Galen_, De simpl. medicam. temperam. et
facult. bk. VII. ch. 11. 6. (edit. Kühn, XII. p. 57.): λειχὴν ὠνομάσθαι
δ’ οὕτω δοκεῖ διὰ τὸ λειχῆνας θεραπεύειν (and it seems lichen,—moss, is
so called because it cures lichenes,—scabs), is hardly likely to find
any one else to subscribe to it.

[95] _Aristophanes_, Knights 1280-1283. In the Wasps, 1280-1283,
_Aristophanes_ says, speaking of the same Ariphrades:

    Εἶτ’ Ἀριφράδην πολύ τι θυμοσοφικώτατον,
    ὃν τινά ποτ’ ὤμοσε μαθόντα παρὰ μηδενὸς,
    ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ σοφῆς φύσεος αὐτόματον ἐκμαθεῖν
    γλωττοποιεῖν εἰς τὰ πορνεῖ’ εἰσιόνθ’ ἑκάστοτε

(Then Ariphrades, much more ingenious-clever, who he swore without
ever having learnt the trick from any, but all out of his own wisdom,
discovered how to work the tongue, going into the brothels everywhere).

Also Peace 883-885.:

    ΤΡ. τίς; ΟΙΚ. ὅστις; Ἀριφράδης,
    ἄγειν παρ’ αὑτὸν ἀντιβολῶν. ΤΡ. Ἀλλ', ὦ μέλε,
    τὸν ζωμὸν αὐτῆς προσπεσὼν ἐκλάψεται.

(_Trygaeus._ Who? _Servant._ Who? why Ariphrades, begging to bring her
to him. _Trygaeus._ But, dear man, he will fall on her, and lick up her
broth).

[96] _Anthologia Graeca_, cum versione Latina _Hugonis Grotii_,
edita ab H. de Bosch (_Greek Anthology_, with Latin version by _Hugo
Grotius_, edit. H. de Bosch) Utrecht 1795. 4to., Vol. I. p. 38. bk. II.
Tit. 5. Epigr. 9. _Brunck’s_ Analecta, Vol. III. p. 165. Epigr. 76.
Here too should be quoted the following Epigram (_Brunck’s_ Analecta,
Vol. II. p. 386. Anthology, bk. II. Tit. 5. Epigr. 8.) of _Ammianus_,
which at the same time speaks for the general meaning of _licking_:

    Οὐχ ὅτι τὸν κάλαμον λείχεις, διὰ τοῦτό σε μισῶ,
     Ἀλλ’ ὅτι τοῦτο ποιεῖς καὶ δίχα τοῦ καλάμου.

(Not because you lick the _reed_, not for this do I abominate you; but
because you do so even without the reed). _Ausonius_, Epigr. 126.,
endeavours in another way, by initial letters, to indicate λείχει (he
licks):

    Λαῒς, Ἔρως, et Ἴτυς, Χείρων et Ἔρως, Ἴτυς alter
      Nomina siscribis, prima elementa adime:
    Ut facias verbum, quod tu facis, Eune magister:
      Dicere me Latium non decet opprobrium.

(Λαῒς, Ἔρως, and Ἴτυς, Χείρων and Ἔρως, Ἴτυς repeated,—if you write
these names, then take off the first letters, you make a verb with them
that means what you do, learned Eunus; it does not become me to name
the abomination nation in Latian speech). At the same time we see from
this that in the IVth. Century, where _Ausonius_ lived at Bordeaux, the
vice of the _cunnilingue_ was still constantly practised and that not
even in secret. Should the words of _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedagog.
II. ch. 8. p. 178., also be brought into connection with this: ἡ δὲ
ἐπιτήδευσις τῆς εὐωδίας, δελεάρ ἐστι ῥαθυμίας, πόῤῥωθεν _εἰς λίχνον_
ἐπιθυμίον ἐπισπωμένης. (And the cultivation of sweet perfume is a bait
of idleness, indirectly alluring to dainty voluptuousness)? The _male
olere_ (to have an evil smell) held good equally for the _cunnilingue_.

_Diogenes Laertius_, V. 65., quotes verses of _Crates_, where we
read: οὔτε _λίχνος_, πόρνης ἐπαγγελλόμενος παρῇσι (nor dainty desire,
proclaimed on the cheeks of a harlot); the same occur also in _Clement
of Alexandria_, loco citato ch. 10. Finally yet another quotation, from
_Martial_ (XI. 59.), should come in here; he says to a pathic:

    At tibi nil faciam: sed lota mentula laeva
    λειχάζειν cupidae dicet avaritiae,

(But to _you_ I will do no harm; nay! rather shall my member, when
your left hand has done its work and been washed, say to your grasping
avarice,—now lick, fellate, me). This passage has been misunderstood by
most of the commentators, because they chose to read _lana_ (woollen
cloth) for _laeva_ (the left hand), or else thought to find here a
reference to manustupration (masturbation with the hand). But really
it means nothing more than that the poet declares he will resort to
_irrumation_, after his mentula (member) has been washed with the left
hand, [the Latin cannot mean this; _lotā_ is ablative case, and must
be taken with _laevā_. _Transl._],—a usage to which we shall come back
again subsequently; but which is at once clearly authenticated by a
fragment of _Lucilius_, where we read:

    Laeva lacrimas mutoni absterget amica.

(With the left hand his mistress wipes the tears from his penis).

[97] _Galen_, Isagoge ch. 18. (edit. Kühn Vol. XIV. 779).

[98] _Galen_, loco citato ch. 13. pp. 657, 758.

[99] _Plato_, Phaedo p. 81 A., οἱ ἀφικομένη ὑπάρχει αὐτῇ εὐδαίμονι
εἶναι, πλάνης καὶ ἀγνοιας καὶ φόβων καὶ _ἀγρίων ἐρώτων_ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
κακῶν τῶν ἀνθρωπείων ἀπηλλαγμένῃ. (So having come there, the soul is
in a state of assured happiness being free of error and ignorance and
fear, and _fierce passions_ and the other ills of mankind).

[100] _Plutarch_, De solert. anim. p. 972 D., _Ἔρωτες_ δὲ πολλῶν οἱ μὲν
ἄγριοι καὶ περιμανεῖς γεγόνασιν, οἱ δὲ ἔχοντες οὐκ ἀπάνθρωπον ὡραϊσμόν.
(But for the passions of many, some are naturally fierce and frantic,
but there are others again that show no anti-social effeminacy). The
_Etymologicum Magnum_ says: ἄγριοι οἱ παιδεράσται, ἤτοι _ὅτι ἄγριόν
ἐστι τὸ πάθος_ ἡ παιδεραστία. (wild,—means the paederasts, that is,
because the _passion of paederastia is a wild one_). Perhaps too the
phrase of Theocritus is referable to the same: ἄγριον, ἄγριον ἕλκος
ἔχει κατὰ μηρὸν Ἄδωνις (a savage, savage wound has Adonis in the thigh).

[101] In _Hesychius_ occurs also the form ἀγριοψωρία (malignant
itch). Whether the latter is connected with our subject, technical
investigations must inform us. The passing over of Mentagra into Psora
(Itch) points that way.

[102] Willian, “Die Hautkrankheiten” (Skin-Diseases), transl. by F.
Friese, Breslau 1794. 4to., Vol. 1. pp. 29 and 32.

[103] _Paulus Aegineta_, De re Med. bk. IV. ch. 3., ἀγρίους δὲ
καλοῦσι λειχήνας τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν μετρίως ξηραινόντων οὐδὲν ὀνιναμένους.
ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν σφοδρῶς παροξύνοντας. (now they call _malignant lichens_
those which get no benefit from the milder siccatives, and are actually
aggravated by the more violent).

[104] _Oribasius_, De morb. curat., edit. Eunap. bk. III. ch.
59., in Steph. collect. p. 637., Ergo quibus nihil affertur auxilii
ab iis medicamentis quae mediocriter siccant et exacerbantur ab iis
quae siccant vehementer, eas λειχῆνας ἄγριους vocant. (Accordingly such
_lichens_ as are in no way benefited by remedies that are moderate
siccatives, and are aggravated by those that are violent ones, these
they call λειχῆνας ἀγρίους (malignant lichens)).

[105] _Jöhrens_, in his Dissertation already cited speaks
thus on the subject (p. 47): “De feminis, cum suavia maritorum evitare
nequiverint, quomodo ab ista infectione liberae evaserint, maius
restat dubium: nos opinamur, cum viri barbam saepius radi soliti
fuerint, ea propter patentibus a novacula poris virulentum illud
fermentum aut incentivum toxicum facilis sese insinuare et characterem
suum imprimere; imberbes contra feminas, glabritie cutis resistente
_porisque minus patulis_, sospitari potuisse.” (In the case of women,
when they have been unable to avoid the caresses of husbands, it
remains very doubtful how they have got off free from this infection.
Our own opinion is that as men have always been accustomed to have the
beard shaved frequently, for this reason the pores being opened more
widely by the action of the razor, that virulent ferment and active
poison creeps in more easily and produces its characteristic effect. On
the other hand women being beardless, the baldness of the skin offering
an obstacle and the _pores being less open_, have been able to escape).

[106] However this did happen in isolated cases, as is shown
by the example of Philaenis, who indeed was a Tribad properly, in
_Martial_, bk. VII. Epigr. 67.,

    Post haec omnia cum libidinatur,
    Non fellat, putat hoc parum virile.
    Sed plane medias vorat puellas.
    Di mentem tibi dent tuam, Philaeni,
    Cunnum lingere quae putas virile.

(After all these indulgences when she still feels lustful, she does not
_fellate_, this she deems unmanly; she just mouths girls’ middles. The
gods give you your desire, Philaenis, you who think it a _manly_ vice
to act the cunnilingue). Comp. bk. IV. Epigr. 41. But it was always a
very exceptional thing to find this vice practised among women; in fact
_Juvenal_, Sat. II. 47-49., denies it altogether:

            Non erit ullum
    Exemplum in nostro tam detestabile sexu,
    Taedia non lambit Cluviam, nec Flora Catullam.

(No such detestable example is to be found in our sex,—Taedia does not
lick Cluvia, nor Flora Catulla).

[107] It is a surprising circumstance that the words _basium_,
_basiare_, _basiator_ (kiss, to kiss, kisser) appear only to have
come into use by the Romans from the time of Catullus onwards, and
are found almost exclusively in Martial, Juvenal and the still later
Petronius, so coinciding with a period in which dissoluteness of morals
had reached the highest pitch among the Romans. Some would derive the
word _basium_ from βάζω, loqui, (to speak); so perhaps it may have been
used in a similar way to narrare (to tell) in _Martial_ (III. 84.) in
the sense of _cunnilingere_. Βάζω, βαίνω, βεινῶ and βινῶ (to speak,
to go, to have sexual intercourse) seem all to have one and the same
stem. The second of the two Epigrams of _Martial_ quoted in the text
reminds us almost involuntarily of the first Tarsica of Chrysostom.
Apparently _basium_ and _basiare_ always imply a _vicious kiss_, to
_kiss viciously_, in a general way. Hence _Martial_, XI. 62., Mediumque
mavult basiare quam summum, (And she had rather kiss his middle than
his head). _Petronius_, Sat., Ultime cinaedus supervenit,—extortis
nos clunibus cecidit, modo basiis olidissimis inquinavit. (Finally a
_cinaedus_ appeared,—he made at us with writhing buttocks, and anon
befouled us with most evil-smelling kisses).

[108] _Galen_, loco citato, mentions in particular the
physicians. _Crito_ and _Pamphilus_, who lived in the reign of
Domitian, and who accordingly were contemporaries of _Martial’s_, as
pre-eminently successful in the treatment of _mentagra_.

[109] Also _Hippocrates_, De aere aq. et loc. p. 549. Vol. I.
ed. Kühn, says: ἀλλὰ τὴν _ἡδονὴν κρατέειν_, διότι πολύμορφα γίνεται
τὰ ἐν τοῖς θηρίοις· περὶ μὲν οὖν _Αἰγυπτίων_ καὶ Λιβύων οὕτως ἔχειν
μοι δοκεῖ. (But that _love of pleasure_ gained the mastery, inasmuch
as the passions in beasts are of many forms; now with regard to the
_Egyptians_ and Libyans this seems to me to be the case).

[110] _Julian_, Caesares, in “Opera Omnia” Paris 1630. 4to.,
Pt. II. p. 9., Ἐπιστραφέντες δὲ πρὸς τὴν καθέδραν ὤφθησαν ὠτειλαὶ κατὰ
τὸν νῶτον μυρίαι, καυτῆρες τινὲς καὶ ξέσματα, καὶ πληγαὶ χαλεπαὶ καὶ
μώλωπες, ὑπὸ τῆς ἀκολασίας καὶ ὠμότητος, ψωραί τινες καὶ λειχῆνες, οἷον
ἐγκεκαυμέναι. (for translation see text).

[111] _Suetonius_, Vita Tiberii ch. 68.

[112] _Tacitus_, Annals bk. IV. ch. 57.

[113] _Galen_, De composit. medicament. secundum genera bk. V.
ch. 12. edit. Kühn Vol. XIII. p. 836.

[114] _Bertrandi_, “Abh. von den Geschwüren” (Treatise on
Ulcers) from the Italian. Erfurt 1790. 8vo. § 200.

[115] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. II. serm. 4. ch. 16., Quandoquidem
vero plurimi sunt qui illitionum usum aversantur, _maluntque adhibere
emplastra_, utpote quae neque per sudores obtortos defluant, neque
rarefacta etiam cutem circumtendant, annectam et horum aliquot
apparatus. (However, inasmuch as there are many who are opposed to the
use of salves, and prefer to apply plasters, on the ground that the
latter are not liable to run through sweatings that are superinduced
nor yet to liquify and spread on the skin, I will add some forms of
these plasters).

[116] _Plinius Valerianus_, De re medica bk. II. 56., Graeco
nomine lichenes appellatur, quod vulgo mentagram appellant, et est
vitium, quod per totam faciem solet serpere, oculis tantum immunibus;
descendit vero in collum et pectus ac manus, foedat cutem; eosque,
qui sic vexantur, osculari non convenit, quoniam contactus eorum
perniciosus fore perhibetur. (In Greek nomenclature the name _lichenes_
is given to what the common people call _mentagra_, and is a malady
that as a rule creeps over the whole face, the eyes alone being
unaffected. But it also goes down to the neck and breast and hands,
disfiguring the skin. It is not right for those so afflicted to kiss,
for their contact is said to be injurious.)—_Marcellus Empiricus_, De
med. liber ch. 19., Ad lichenem sive mentagram, quod vitium neglectum
solet per totam faciem et per totum corpus serpere et plures homines
inquinare. Nam Soranus medicus quondam ducentis hominibus hoc morbo
laborantibus curandis in Aquitania se locavit. (For _lichen_ or
_mentagra_, a malady which if neglected will creep over the whole face
and the whole body, and disfigures many men. Indeed Soranus a Physician
at one time sold his professional services in Aquitania to two hundred
patients suffering from this disease).

[117] _Marcellus Empiricus_, De medicam. liber ch. 19.,
Adversum _Elephantiasin, quod malum plerumque a facie auspicatur,
primumque oritur quasi lenticulis variis et inaequalibus, cute alba,
alibi tenui, plerisque locis dura et quasi scabida et ad postremum sic
increscit ut ossibus, caro adstricta, tumescentibus primum digitis
atque articulis indurescat_. Hic morbus peculiariter Aegyptiorum
populis notus est nec solum in vulgus extremum, sed etiam reges ipsos
frequenter irrepsit, unde adversus hoc malum solia ipsis in balneo
repleta humano sanguine parabantur. Mustelae igitur exustae cinis
et eiusdem belluae, id est elephantis sanguis immixtus et inlitus,
huiusmodi corporibus medetur. (_Against _elephantiasis_, which malady
is generally seen in the face, beginning first with a sort of scales of
various shape and different size, the skin being white, in some parts
thick, in others thin, in most places hard and with a sort of scab over
it; eventually the malady increases to such a degree that the flesh is
as it were drawn tight over the bones, the fingers and joints swelling
first, and becomes indurated._ This disease was particularly familiar
among the peoples of Egypt, and not merely did it affect the lowest
vulgar, but even frequently crept in amongst kings themselves, whence
it came that, to combat the evil, baths filled with human blood were
prepared for them in the bath-house. The ashes therefore of a burned
weasel and the blood of the corresponding beast, that is to say the
elephant, were mixed together and used as an ointment in the remedial
treatment of bodies so afflicted).—_Actuarius_, Meth. med. bk. VI. ch.
6. On diseases of the _Face_, reads: Ad affectus eminentes, _facieique
pruritus ac principum elephantiae_, (For the principal affections,
_itchings of the face and the beginnings of elephantiasis_). Again
_Aretaeus_, De sign. chron. bk. II. ch. 13. edit. Kühn p. 179., says:
τὰ πολλὰ μὲν ὅκως καὶ _ἀπὸ σκοπιῆς τοῦ προσώπου ἀρχόμενον_ τηλεφανὲς
πῦρ κακόν, (Most oftentimes resembling a far-seen bale-fire _beginning
from the watchtower, as it were, of the face_).

[118] Commentar. in Horatium. Antwerp 1608. Vol. II. p. 469.

[119] _Zachar. Platner_, De Morbo Compano ad verba Horatii bk.
I. Sat. V. v. LXII. prolusio (Dissertation on the Companian Disease
as mentioned by Horace). Leipzig 1732. 4to., also reprinted in his
Opuscula, Leipzig 1794. 4to. Vol. II. pp. 21-28. The author holds the
disease to have been a sort of warts, having a resemblance with those
observed in Syphilitic patients.—_Nebel_, E. L. W., De morbis veterum
obscuris (On some Obscure Diseases of the Ancients), Sect. I., Giessen
1794. 8vo. pp. 18-25. The author believes the Morbus Campanus to have
been identical with Sycosis or θύμιον (large wart), but to have had no
connection with the _Lues Venerea_ (Venereal Contagion).

[120] Noteworthy is the explanation of _Isidore_, Etymol. bk.
IV. ch. 9. 17., _Oscedo_ est, qua infantum ora exulcerantur, dicta
a languore oscitantium. (_Oscedo_ is a complaint whereby children’s
mouths become ulcerated, so called from the languor of those gaping);
the latter part is unintelligible. Were these _oscitantes_ (gapers)
possibly _fellators_? _Lucian_, Pseudolog. ch. 27. says of Timarchus,
ἀναπετάσας τὸ στόμα, καὶ ὡς ἔνι πλατύτατον κεχηνὼς, ἠνείχου τυφλούμενος
ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν γνάθον. (and with a gape as wide as is possible to make,
you were borne away, your jaw blocked by him).

[121] _Horace_, Odes III. 27. 11. _Ausonius_, Idyll. XI. 15.

[122] _Luxus_ in the sense of sexual excess occurs not
unfrequently in ancient writers, e. g. in _Tacitus_, Hist. IV. 14.,
_Suetonius_, Nero 29. _Capua luxurians_ is well known from the
history of Hannibal. It is worth noting that _Paracelsus_ gives the
name _luxus_ to Venereal disease; he says, De causis et origine luis
Gallicae, (Of the Causes and Origin of the French Contagion), bk. I.
ch. 5.: _Luxus_ autem nomen quod attinet, illud ab influentia, id
est, efficiente causa desumptum esse intelligendum est. Est autem
_luxus_ irritatio quaedam ac titillatus spermatis, ad perficiendum
actum venereum, a morbis in corpore latentibus causata, itaque Veneris
impressione a morbo in actu ipso facta, tum ex vulgari luxu fit
_luxus morbi_ seu _morbidus_. Proinde _luxus_ hic non naturalis sed
_Satyricus_ dicendus erit. (But _luxus_ the name that is applied to
it, this name must be understood as being taken from the influencing
circumstance or efficient cause. Now _luxus_ is a certain irritation or
tickling of the seed, leading to the performance of the Venereal act
and caused by diseases latent in the body, and so a strong motion of
love being made in consequence of the disease in the act itself, then
from the common expression _luxus_, is formed _luxus_ of the disease,
or morbid _luxus_. It follows this _luxus_ will have to be called not
natural, but _Satyric luxus_).

[123] Possibly a _double entendre_ lurks even in the _ad
pugnam venere_ (they came to the fight). _Festus_, under the word,
says: Osculana pugna in proverbio, quo significabatur victos vincere,
(An Osculan—otherwise Asculan,—fight a proverbial saying that signified
the vanquished being victorious). The Roman general Laevinus was beaten
by King Pyrrhus at Asculum, soon after at the same place the King was
himself beaten by Sulpicius.

[124] Ovid, De arte amandi bk. III. v. 778., Nunquam
Thebais Hectoreo nupta resedit equo, (Never did his Theban
bride—Andromaché,—sit on the Hectorean stallion). Comp. _Martial_, bk.
XI. Epigr. 105.

[125] It is worthy of note that _Rhazes_, Elchavi seu
Continens, Brescia 1486. fol., p. 276., mentions certain ulcers on
the verge, that come from _ascensio mulieris supra virum_ (the woman
getting on the man)!

[126] _Seneca_, Nat. Quaest. bk. I. ch. 16., also says of
Hostius, who had contrived magnifying mirrors for his use, in order
to see himself in all positions: Et quia non tam diligenter intueri
poterat, _cum compressus erat et caput merserat, inguinibusque
alienis obhaeserat_, opus sibi suum per imagines offerebat, (But
as he could not so accurately see, when he was shut in and had
plunged down his head, and was fast to another’s private parts,
under those circumstances he had his doings represented to him by
pictures).—_Catullus_, LXXXIII. 7.,

    Nam nihil est quidquam sceleris quo prodeat ultra,
    Non si _demisso_ se ipse voret _capite_.

(For there exists no further form of wickedness that he can resort
to,—not even if he devour himself _with down-pressed head_).
_Propertius_, bk. II. 15. 22., Mecum habuit positum lenta puella caput,
(A limber girl held her head down-pressed along with me).

[127] Equum, qui nunc aries appellatur, in muralibus machinis,
Epeum ad Troiam (sc. invenisse), (The horse, which now is called the
ram, among engines for attacking walls, Epeus invented at Troy), says
_Pliny_, Hist. Nat. bk. VII. ch. 57. (edit. Franz, Vol. III. p. 287.);
similarly _Pausanias_, bk. I. ch. 23., ἵππος δούρειος μηχάνημα εἰς
διάλυσιν τοῦ τείχους (a horse of wood an engine for the destruction
of the wall). Further ἵππος (horse) is used as a nickname for a lewd
man. The Scholiast on _Oribasius_, Collect. Med. bk. XXIV. ch. 8. in
_A. Mai_, Auct. Class. e vatican. codd. edit. Vol. IV. p. 30. mentions
ἵππος πύργος (horse tower), but in what sense we have not been able to
decide.

[128] _Mutilus_, κολοβὸς, κόλος, the special expression
for beasts that have lost one or both horns. Thus _mutilus aries_ (a
mutilated, hornless, ram) _Columella_ de R.R. VII. 3., _capella mutila_
(mutilated she-goat) VII. 6., _bos mutilus_ (mutilated ox) _Varro_, De
ling. Lat. VIII. ch. 26. (Heindorf).

[129] The Scholiast _Acro_ even in his time says on this
passage: Campanum in morbum. Aut oris foeditatem aut arrogantiam.
Dicuntur enim Campani foedi osse, arrogantes. Sic foeda accipiamus.
Aliter, Campani, qui et Osci dicebantur ore immundi. Unde etiam Oscenos
dicimus. (As to the Campanian disease, this is either foulness of
mouth, or arrogance. For the Campanians are said to be foul, arrogant.
So let us take it as foul. In another sense, the Campanians, who
were also called Oscans are filthy of mouth. For which reason we say
_Osceni_—obscene). _Lambinus_ expresses himself yet more distinctly:
Campani, qui antea Osci dicebantur, habiti sunt ore impuro atque
incesto; τοῦτ’ ἔστι τῷ στόματι αἰσχροποιοῦντες καὶ λεσβιάζοντες,
morbum igitur animi intellige, ut Od. I. 37. (The Campanians,
who were previously called Oscans, were considered of impure and
abominable mouth; that is to say as acting uncleanly with the mouth or
_Lesbianizing_; understand therefore a mental disease, as in Od. I.
37.). The Latin _Morbus_ is frequently so used.

[130] _Homer_, Iliad XI. 233.

          (κἀκείνου)
    Ἀτρείδης μὲν ἅμαρτε, παραὶ δέ οἱ ἐτράπετ’ ἔγχος·
    αἰχμὴ δ’ ἐξεσύθη παρὰ νείατον ἀνθερεῶνα.

(Now him Atreides missed, and his spear was turned aside past him,
and the point sped rushing past the very edge of his chin). Similarly
_Diogenes_ according to Diogenes Laertius’ (VI. 53.) report parodied the
Homeric verse (Iliad X. 282): “No sleeper must drive a spear through
your back,” as he woke a handsome youth, who lay incautiously asleep.

[131] In _Festus_, under the word bigenera (hybrids), we read:
_Cicursus_ ex apro et scropha domestica, (_Cicursus_ from the wildboar
and the domestic sow). Comp. _Varro_, De L. L. bk. VII. p. 368. edit.
Sp.

[132] _Aristotle_, De Generatione Animalium, bk. IV. ch. 3.,
Παραπλήσιον τούτῳ καὶ τὸ νόσημα τὸ καλούμενον σατυρίασις· καὶ γὰρ ἐν
τούτῳ διὰ ῥεύματος ἢ πνεύματος ἀπέπτου πλῆθος εἰς τὰ μόρια τοῦ προσάπου
παρεμπεσόντος ἄλλου ζώου καὶ σατύρου φαίνεται τὸ πρόσωπον. (Akin to
this also is the disease known as Satyriasis; for in this complaint, in
consequence of the super-abundance of rheum or crude humour that has
become segregated to the regions of the face, the latter seems that of
a strange animal or a Satyr).

[133] Besides Acro, _Florus Christianus_ also, in his notes on
Aristophanes’ Wasps v. 1337., referred the morbus Campanus to
_fellation_, saying, Hac detestanda libidine iuxta Lesbios usi sunt
_etiam Campani_ sive Nolani, ut ex Ausonio et Horatio patet, quorum
testimonia non arcessam, quia hoc occupatum ab eruditioribus. Hoc
tantum dicam, aenigma illud, quod in Clodii Metelli uxorem iactum
putant: In triclinio Coa, in cubiculo Nola, respicere ad hanc Lesbiam
et Campanam foeditatem. (This hateful form of lust was practised by
the _Campanians_ or Nolans, as well as by the Lesbians, as is manifest
from what Ausonius and Horace say,—whose evidence however I will not
quote, this ground being already preoccupied by more learned writers.
This much only will I add, viz. the riddle that was directed against
the wife of Metellus Clodius: “On the banquet-couch a Coan, in the
bed-chamber a Nolan,” and which is thought to allude to this Lesbian
and Campanian abomination). The riddle is found in _Quintilian_,
Instit. Orat. VIII. 6.; but is differently explained in Forberg, loco
citato p. 283. He says: _Coam_ dici, quod voluerit in triclinio coire,
_Nolam_, quod noluerit in cubiculo, (that she was called a _Coan_,
because willing to have intercourse on the banquet-couch, a Nolan,
because unwilling to do so in the bed-chamber), that is to say, Clodia
would satisfy her lust only publicly, not in private.

[134] _Hier. Magius_, Bk. V. De sodomitica immanitate ad Leg. cum vir
nubit. 31. C. ad leg. Jul. De adulter.—_Wolfart_, Diss. de sodomia vera
et spuria in hermaphrod. Erfurt 1743.—_Bechmann_, De coitu damnato. Pt.
II, ch. 1.—_Schurig_, Gynaecology, § 2. ch. 7.

[135] _Plutarch_, Bruta animalia ratione uti, (That brutes employ
reason), ch. 15.

[136] Lucretius, De rerum natura, bk. V. 888.,

    Ne forte ex homine et veterino semine equorum
    Confieri credas Centauros posse, nec esse.

(Never suppose that the Centaurs _could_ be framed from man and
the bestial seed of horses, and _were_ not so framed). _Clement of
Alexandria_, Coh. p. 51. Aristonymus the Ephesian begat with a she-ass,
Fulvius Stella with a mare, the former a girl, the latter a boy.
_Plutarch_, Parall. ch. 26.

[137] Leviticus, Ch. XX, 15-19., “And if a man lie with a beast, he
shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a
woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill
the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death.” Comp.
_Philo_, De specialibus legibus,—Works, edit. Mangey, Vol. II. p. 307.

[138] _Plutarch_, Bruta animalia ratione uti, (That brutes employ
Reason), ch. X., ὁ Μενδήσιος ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τράγος λέγεται πολλαῖς καὶ
καλαῖς συνειργνυμένος γυναιξὶν οὐκ εἶναι μίγνυσθαι πρόθυμος· ἀλλὰ πρὸς
τὰς αἰγας ἐπτόηται μᾶλλον. (The Mendesian Goat in Egypt is said, though
shut up with many beautiful women, not to be eager to have intercourse
with them; but rather is he inflamed towards the she-goats). Yet this
did sometimes happen; _Herodotus_, Hist. bk. II. ch. 46., Καλεῖται δὲ
ὅ τε τράγος καὶ ὁ Πὰν Αἰγυπτιστὶ Μένδης· ἐγένετο δ’ ἐν τῷ νομῷ τούτῳ
ἐπ’ ἐμεῦ τοῦτο τὸ τέρας. γυναικὶ τράγος ἐμίσγετο ἀναφανδόν· τοῦτο ἐς
ἐπίδεξιν ἀνθρώπων ἀπίκετο. (Now the goat and Pan are called in Egyptian
Mendes; and there occurred in this district in my time the following
marvel,—a he-goat had intercourse with a woman openly; and this came
to be an example among men). Strabo. XVII. p. 802., Μένδης, ὅπου τὸν
Πᾶνα τιμῶσι, καὶ ζωὸν τράγον· οἱ τράγοι ἐνταῦθα γυναιξὶ μίγνυνται.
(Mendes, where they honour Pan, and a live goat; the he-goats there
have intercourse with women). In a fragment (from Pindar) there given,
we read:

    ἔσχατον Νείλου κέρας αἰγιβάται
    ὅθι τράγοι γυναιξὶ μίγνυνται.

(The furthest mouth of the Nile, where bucking he-goats conjoin with
women). The Museum Herculanense actually preserves representations
of the thing on Monuments. _Plutarch_, De solertia animalium (Of the
Intelligence of Animals), ch. 49., relates a similar case even with
crocodiles, which was said to have happened at Antaeopolis.

[139] _Boettiger_, “Sabina oder Morgenscenen in Putzzimmer einer
Römerin,” (Sabina, or Morning Scenes at the Toilette of a Roman Lady),
Bk. II. p. 454.

[140] _Pliny_, Hist. Nat. Bk. XXXIX. ch. 4., Anguis Aesculapius
Epidauro Romam advectus est, vulgoque pascitur et in domibus. (The
snake of Aesculapius was introduced from Epidaurus to Rome, and is very
commonly kept there, even in houses). _Martial_, bk. VII. Epigr. 86.,
Si gelidum collo nectit Gracilla draconem. (If Gracilla twines a clammy
snake round her neck). Comp. _Lucian_, Alexander, Works, Vol. IV. p.
259. _Philostratus_, Heroic. Bk. VIII. ch. 1.

[141] Suetonius, Vita Augusti, ch. 94.

[142] This last statement acquires no little additional interest from
the fact that according to more modern observations on the part of _J.
Carver_ (Voyage dans l’Amérique Sept., etc. trad. de l’Anglais,—Travels
in North America, etc., transl. from the English, Yverdun 1784., pp.
355 sqq.) and Crêve-Cœur (Lettres du Cultivateur Américain,—Letters
from an American Farmer, Vol. III. p. 48), the bite of the rattle-snake
would appear to call up on the skin of the person bitten, each
recurrent year, marks resembling the hue of the snake. Comp. _C. W.
Stark_, “Allgem. Pathologie” (General Pathology), Leipzig 1838. p.
364. Perhaps too the expression κίναδος belongs in this connection,
of which the Scholiast on Aristophanes, Clouds 447., says, εἶδός τι
θηρίου.—κακοῦργος οὖν, φησὶν, ὡς ἀλώπηξ, τινὲς δὲ κίναδος ζῶον μικρὸν
_τὸ αἰδοῖον εἰςσωθοῦν καὶ ἐξωθοῦν_. (a kind of beast,—mischievous,
they say, as a fox, but others say κίναδος means a little animal that
_forces its way in and out of the privates_). Suidas brings forward the
same statement, under the word κίναδος. From the connection in which
_Democritus_ mentions it in Stobaeus’ Sermon. 42., περὶ κιναδέων τε καὶ
ἑρπετέων (Of κίναδοι and Creeping Things), _Schmeider_ in his Lexicon
supposes it to signify _snakes_ particularly. Again _Schnieder_,
Arrian’s Indica p. 50., interprets it by ὄφις (a snake). The close
resemblance with κίναιδος (Cinaedus) is striking.

[143] _Juvenal_, Sat. VI. 332, 33.

                      Hic si
    Quaeritur, et desunt homines: more nulla per ipsam,
    Quominus imposito clunem summittat _asello_.

(If he is sought in vain, and men are not to be found; _she_ makes no
delay, but straightway submits her rear to the _donkey_ that is made to
mount her). Comp. _Appuleius_, Metamorphos. Bk. X. 226. Pasiphaé’s bull
is familiar to all. Comp. Suetonius, Nero II. Martial, Spectac. VI.

[144] _Jo. Jac. Reiske_ and _Jo. Ern. Fabri_, Opuscula medica ex
monumentis Arabum et Ebraeorum, (Minor Medical Treatises derived from
the Monuments of the Arabs and Jews), Revised edition by _Ch. G.
Gruner_, Halle 1776. 8vo., p. 61.

[145] _Hippocrates_, De aere aq. et loc., edit. Kühn Vol. I. p. 549.

[146] Comp. _Simon Zeller von Zellenberg_, Abhandl. über die ersten
Erscheinungen venerischer Lokal-Krankheitsformen und deren Behandlung,
(Treatise on the first Appearances of Local Forms of Venereal disease,
and their Treatment), (One treatise under six heads),—Vienna 1820.
large 8vo. pp. 11-18.

[147] According to _Al. Donné_, Recherches microscopiques sur la
nature des mucus et la matière des divers écoulements des organes
genitourinaires chez l’homme et chez la femme, (Microscopic Researches
into the Nature of the Mucous Secretions and the Constituents of the
Various Discharges from the genito-urinary Organs in Male and Female),
Paris 1837., the vaginal mucus disengaged under normal circumstances
_always exhibits an acid reaction_.

[148] According to _J. P. Schotte_, Von einem ansteckenden,
schwarzgallichten Faulfieber, welches im Jahr 1778 in Senegall
herrschte, (Account of a Contagious, black biliary, putrid Fever,
prevalent in Senegal in the Year 1778), from the English (Stendal)
1786. 8vo., p. 103., both men and women in Senegal get ulcers, quite
without any syphilitic contagion, in the one sex on the _glans penis_
or the under side of the prepuce, in the other on the inner side of the
_labia_.

[149] _Virey_, De la Femme, 2nd. edition, Brussels 1826., p. 70.,
En effet, dans la chaleur, lorsque les excrétions de la peau, des
glandes sébacées, des cryptes du vagin, augmentent en abondance et
en fétidité, il n’est pas étonnant que le sang menstruel, pour peu
qu’il séjourne en ces parties voisines de l’anus, qui sont dans un
état d’orgasme, acquière bientôt de l’odeur. (Indeed in a hot climate,
when the secretions from the skin, from the sebaceous glands, from the
recesses of the vagina, increase in abundance and in foulness, it is
not surprising that the menstrual blood, remaining for a time as it
does in the regions contiguous to the anus, these regions being in a
state of sur-excitation, quickly acquires an evil smell). So _Haller_
too says (Elem. Physiolog. Vol. VII. pt. II. p. 146.), _Ex Asia
videtur opinio de menstrui sanguinis foetida et venenata natura ad nos
pervenisse_, et per medicos potissimum Arabes ad Europaeos transiisse.
In calidissimis certe regionibus, si ad aestuosum aerem immundities
accesserit, non repugnat, sanguinem in loco calente, in vicinia faecum
alvinarum retentum, acrem fieri et foetire.... _Lentorem aliquem possit
mucus admistus addidisse._ (_It is from Asia that the opinion as to the
fetid and poisonous character of menstrual blood would seem to have
come to us_, being transmitted mainly by the Arab physicians to those
of Europe. No doubt in very hot climates, if dirty habits be added to
the extreme heat of the atmosphere, there is nothing at all unlikely
in the blood, retained as it is in a hot locality, in close proximity
to the faeces in the bowels, growing sour and smelling foul.... _A
certain viscous quality may very well have been added by the admixture
of mucous discharge_). What has been observed as to the injuriousness
of menstrual blood by our predecessors since _Pliny_ (Hist. Nat. VII.
15. XIX. 10. XXVIII. 7.) may be found partially collected in _Schurig_,
Parthenologia 227-240. Comp. _Frank de Frankenau_, Satyrae Medicae
(Medical Satires), p. 89. Comp. pp. 54. sqq.—_Hensler_, Geschichte der
Lustseuche, (History of Venereal Disease), Vol. I. pp. 204. sqq., where
it is demonstrated that a great proportion of the Writers on Venereal
disease at the beginning of the XVIth. Century attribute its rise to
intercourse with women during menstruation.

[150] _Burdach_, Die Physiologie als Erfahrungswissenschaft,
(Physiology as an Experimental Science), 2nd. edition, Vol. I. p.
196.—_Boerhaave_, Tract. de lue venerea, (Treatise on Venereal
Contagion), Venice 1753., p. 6., says, In Asia ad partes genitales sub
praeputio naturaliter sordes colliguntur, quae acres redditae generant
multa mala, quae praecipue ad luem veneream accedere proxime videntur;
non vere sunt lues venerea; imo nostri nautae hoc etiam experiuntur,
dum in illis terris degunt, nam nisi quotidie praeputium eluerent aqua
salsa et aceto, vel similibus remediis brevi eodem morbo laborarent.
(In Asia filth of sorts naturally enough collects on the genital parts
beneath the prepuce, and this turning sour originates many complaints,
which seem above all others to approximate closely to the Venereal
disease. This our sailors found out, when living in those regions; for
if they did not daily thoroughly wash the prepuce with salt water and
vinegar, or similar remedies, they would soon suffer from the disease
in question).

[151] _Thevenot_, Travels, Pt. I., p. 58., says, “The Arabs in fact
have the prepuce so long that, if they did not have it circumcised,
they would suffer much inconvenience from it; and little children are
to be seen among them whose prepuce hangs down to a very considerable
length;—not to mention that, supposing their foreskin uncircumcised,
every time after passing water some drops would remain behind,
rendering them unclean.”

[152] _Niebuhr_, Beschreibung von Arabien, (Description of Arabia)
Copenhagen 1772. 4to., p. 77.

[153] _Josephus_, Contra Apionem bk. II. ch. 13., ὅθεν εἰκότως μοι
δοκεῖ τῆς εἰς τοὺς πατρίους αὐτοῦ νόμους βλασφημίας δοῦναι δίκην
Ἀπίων τὴν πρέπουσαν· περιετμήθη γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης, _ἑλκώσεως αὐτῷ περὶ
τὸ αἰδοῖον γενομένης_· καὶ μηδὲν ὠφεληθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς περιτομῆς ἀλλὰ
σηπόμενος ἐν δειναῖς ὀδύναις ἀπέθανεν. (for translation see text).
The expression περὶ τὸ αἰδοῖον (about the privates) is evidently to
be understood here as meaning the _glans penis_, or at any rate the
prepuce. This is implied by the general sense of the whole passage.

[154] _Philo_, De circumcisione, Works edit. Th. Mangey Vol. II. p.
211. Ἓν μὲν, χαλεπῆς νόσου καὶ δυσιάτου πάθους ἀπαλλαγὴν, ἣν _ἄνθρακα
καλοῦσιν_, ἀπὸ τοῦ καίειν ἐντυφόμενον, ὡς οἶμαι, ταύτης τῆς προσηγορίας
τυχόντος, ἥτις οὐ κολώτερον τοῖς τὰς ἀκροποσθίας ἔχουσιν ἐγγίνετο·
Δεύτερον, τὴν δι’ ὅλου τοῦ σώματος καθαρότητα πρὸς τὸ ἁρμόττειν τάξει
ἱερωμένῃ. Παρ’ ὃ καὶ ξυρῶντο τὰ σώματα προσυπερβάλλοντες οἱ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ
τῶν ἱερέων. ὑποσυλλέγετο γὰρ καὶ ὑποστέλλει καὶ θριξὶ καὶ ποσθίαις ἔνια
τῶν ὀφειλόντων καθαίρεσθαι. (for translation see text above).

[155] That is to say so far as it is suffered to remain for any
length of time in the vagina and comes more or less in contact with
the atmospheric air; for in the case of healthy menstrual blood no
injurious combination is set up at all or any foul acridity developed,
as _John Stedman_ (Physiolog. Versuche und Beobachtungen,—Physiological
Investigations and Observations, transl. from the English, Leipzig
1778. 8vo., pp. 50-54.) long ago maintained. It is more probable
however that any slight putrefactive action occurring is in each case
due not so much to this as to the _acid quality_ of the menstrual
blood, which in conjunction with the acid vaginal mucus undergoes
a kind of acetous fermentation in the vagina, the product of which
has thus a corrosive effect. _Retzius_ indeed has lately not only
found menstrual blood to possess an exceedingly acid reaction, but
even proved that it contains free phosphoric and lactic acids. Comp.
Arsberättelse om Svenska Läkare Sällskapets Arbeten, 1835., pp. 19-21.
Froriep’s Notiz, Vol. 49., p. 237.

[156] Hence too _Hugo Grotius_ writes (Commentar. ad Mosis lib.
III.—Commentary on Book of Leviticus, ch. 15.): Sciendum est autem
in Syria et locis vicinis non minus τὴν γονόῤῥοιαν quam τὰ ἐμμήνια
habere aliquid contagione nocens, (But it is to be observed that in
Syria and the neighbouring regions ἡ γονοῤῥοία (discharge from the
genitals) no less than τὰ ἐμμήνια (menstrual discharge) contains a
principle contagiously injurious). Even _Astruc_, the eager advocate
of the American origin of Venereal disease, says (Vol. I. p. 92.):
Sane constat in hac nostra Europa, quae magis temperata est, si cum
menstruatis res habeatur, balanum et praeputium leviore phlogosi
aut superficiariis pustulis, quae tamen brevi cessant, _plerumque_
affici. Quanto graviora ergo iis impendere credendum est, quos in
calidiore et aestuante climate misceri cum foeminis non pudet, dum
illis menses actu fluunt natura acerrimi et quasi virosi. Ideo forsan
factum est, ut medici Arabes, qui regiones calidiores incolebant,
quam Graeci et Latini, et primi et saepe disseruerint de pustulis et
ulceribus virgae, oriundis ex coitu cum foeda muliere, hoc est (?),
cum muliere menstruata. (It is an undoubted fact that in this Europe
of ours, though enjoying a more temperate climate, if intercourse is
had with women during menstruation, the _glans penis_ and prepuce are
_generally_ attacked by some little inflammation or by superficial
pustules, which however soon disappear. What much more serious
consequences then must we suppose threaten those who in a warmer
climate, one steaming with heat, are not ashamed to make coition with
women, whilst their _menses_ are actually flowing, these being from
the nature of the case exceedingly acrid and almost poisonous. Perhaps
this is why the Arab physicians, who lived in warmer countries than the
Greek and Latin practitioners, first and most often treated of pustules
and ulcers of the verge, arising from coition with an unclean woman,
that is to say (?) with a woman during menstruation). Comp. _Fr. Eagle_
and _Judd_ in Behrend’s Syphilologie, Vol. I. 117 and 285.

[157] _Palladius_, Lausiaca historia, ch. 39. in Magna Bibliotheca
Patrum (Great Library of the Fathers), Vol. XIII., Paris 1644. fol.,
p. 950.: Οὕτως δὲ γαστριμαργῶν καὶ οἰνοφλυγῶν ἐνέπεσεν καὶ εἰς τὸν
βόρβυρον τῆς γυναικείης ἐπιθυμίας· καὶ ὡς ἐσκέπτετο ἁμαρτῆσαι _μιμάδι
τινὶ προσομιλῶν συνεχῶς τὰ πρὸς τὸ ἕλκος ἑαυτοῦ διελέγετο· τούτων
οὕτως ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ διαπραττομένων γέγονεν αὐτῷ κατά τινα οἰκονομίαν ἄνθραξ
κατὰ τῆς βαλάνου· καὶ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἐνόσησεν ἑξαμηνιαῖον χρόνον, ὡς
κατασαπῆναι αὐτοῦ τὰ μορία καὶ αὐτομάτως ἀποπεσεῖν_· ὕστερον δὲ
ὑγιάνας καὶ ἐπανελθών ἄνευ τούτων τῶν μελῶν, καὶ εἰς φρόνημα θεϊκὸν
ἐλθὼν καὶ εἰς μνήμην τῆς οὐρανίου πολιτείας, καὶ ἐξομολογησάμενος
πάντα τὰ συμβεβηκότα αὐτῷ τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν, ἐνεργῆσαι μὴ φθάσας
ἐκοιμήθη μετὰ ὀλίγας ἡμέρας. (for translation see text above). For
κατὰ _τινὰ_ οἰκονομίαν (by a certain providence) we ought probably to
read κατὰ _θινὰν_ or _θείαν_ οἰκονομίαν, a collocation of words
constantly found in Palladius, and occurring in this very chapter a
few lines before, in the sense of “by Divine providence”. On the other
hand the words τὰ πρὸς τὸ ἕλκος ἑαυτοῦ διελέγετο are to us absolutely
unintelligible. _Helvetius_ translates the passage: Incidit in coenum
femineae cupiditatis et cum peccare constituisset cum quadam mima
assidue colloquutus, _ulcus suum aperuit_, (He fell into the mire
of lust after women, and having set his mind on sinning, constantly
conversing with a certain actress, _he opened his sore_. Indeed the
γυναικείη ἐπιθυμία (womanly lust) itself is ambiguous, as strictly
speaking it points to something unmanly, and if we compare with it
the γυναικεία νοῦσος (womanly disease) of Dio Chrysostom (p. 209.),
our thoughts cannot but turn to the vice of the pathic,—which however
Hero could not very well practise with an actress, and to which he
could hardly owe an _anthrax_ on the _glans penis_. But ch. 35. shows
us plainly enough that _Palladius_ in using the phrase means lust,
indulgence with women, accomplishing coition. It is related in that
chapter of the Abbot Elias, how he had founded a nunnery, and was
thereupon assailed by violent desire to abuse the nuns; wherefore he
prayed, ἀπόκτεινόν με, ἵνα μὴ ἴδω αὐτὰς θλιβομένας. ἢ _τὸ πάθος_ μου
λάβε, ἵνα αὐτῶν φροντίζω κατὰ λόγον. (Kill me, that I may not see them
troubled, or else take away my _passion_, that I may look upon them
with reason and moderation). Thereafter he fell asleep and dreamed the
angels had castrated him, and on waking found indeed that he still
possessed his genitals, but he declared, ὅτι οὐκέτι ἀνέβη εἰς τὴν
καρδίαν μου πάθος _γυναικὸς ἐπιθυμίας_. (there no more entered into my
heart the passion of _lust after_ women). But now what does τὰ πρὸς τὸ
ἕλκος mean? Guided by the general sense, we might take it as meaning
the genital organs, though we have searched in vain for analogous
passages. But in that case it could be made to apply only to the
female genitals or to the rectum, because these only exhibit a breach
of continuity (ἕλκος,—a wound); or else we should have to suppose the
seed to be looked upon in a sort of way as matter discharged, and the
male genitals, which secrete it, therefore called ἕλκος (a wound), for
otherwise the ἑαυτοῦ (his own) cannot be got in. No less uncertain
is the meaning of διελέγετο; “to converse” cannot possibly be taken
as the sense here. _Suidas_ and _Hesychius_ explain διαλέγεσθαι by
συνουσιάζειν (to associate with). _Pollux_, Onomast. V. 93. περὶ
μίξεως ζώων (On the intercourse of Animals) says, διαλεχθῆναι.—οὐδ’
ἡ διάλεξις, ἀλλὰ διειλέχθην αὐτῇ καὶ διειλεγμένος εἰμὶ ὡς Ὑπερίδης.
II. 125. Ὑπερίδης δὲ διειλεγμένος, ἐπ’ ἀφροδισίων. Ἀριστοφάνης δὲ
διαλέξασθαι ἔφη. (διελεχθῆναι,—not ordinary conversation, but it means
“I had converse with her”, or “I am conversant”, as says Hyperides,
II. 125. Now Hyperides says “conversant with”, speaking of love
intercourse; and Aristophanes “to have converse with”). Comp. Küster
and Brunck on Aristophanes’ Plut. 1083. Moeris p. 131. Abresch, lect.
Aristaenet. p. 50. But the meaning of accomplishing coition is implied
already in προσομιλῶν (associating with), so that διαλέγεσθαι must
here indicate some other more special circumstance. The Scholiast
of Aristophanes on Lys. 720 interprets διαλέγουσιν by διορύττουσιν
(bore through), penetrate); accordingly we must take διαλέγεσθαι as
deponent, in which case we should have to read τὰ πρὸς τὸ ἕλκος _αὐτῆς_
διελέγετο (he penetrated _her_ private parts), and make the τὰ πρὸς
ἕλκος refer to the actress and her hymen (or fibula?), just as in the
passage cited from Josephus on p. 315. the expression περὶ τὸ αἰδοῖον
(about the privates) signifies the foreskin. If we would keep ἑαυτοῦ
(his own), then we must take διαλέγομαι in the sense of καθαίρειν (to
purify) (Hesychius says διαλέγειν, ἀνακαθαίρειν,—to purify), and put
in an οὐκ (not),—i. e. he did not purify his genitals. If we keep to
the meaning of separation, division, we might understand the sentence
as saying that Hero tore apart his foreskin; though really ἕλκος could
scarcely be applied with any propriety to the male genitals at all. For
its being used of the female genitals on the other hand a good analogy
is offered by ἐσχάρα (a scab), which occurs in Aristophanes, Knights
1286. and often elsewhere. Eustathius, on Odyss. p. 1523., says: δῆλον
δ’ ὅτι ἐσχάραν καὶ τὸ γυναικεῖον ἐκάλουν μόριον. (Now it is evident they
used to call the female part ἐσχάρα). However in this case the learned
reader must be left to decide for himself.

[158] _Leviticus_ ch. 20. v. 18. It is true _Maimonides_ according
to _Selden_, Uxor Hebraica (The Jewish Wife), Frankfurt 1673. 4to.,
p. 133., says: At vero si esset mensibus immunda, tametsi deducta
fuerit, _etiam et coitus sit secutus_, nuptiae non perficiebantur.
(But indeed if she were unclean with menstruation, though she had
been led forth to a husband’s house, _even if coition had followed_,
the marriage was not proceeded with)—but in that case of course it
happened unwittingly; though no doubt it may very well on the other
hand have been done not unfrequently wittingly. _Festus_ explains the
Latin word _imbubinare_ by “menstruo mulierum sanguine inquinare” (to
pollute with the menstrual blood of women), which might almost justify
us in conjecturing, that _buboes_ had been observed to originate
from intercourse with women during menstruation. _Hippocrates_, De
natura pueri (On the Bodily Constitution of the Boy), edit. Kühn Vol.
I. p. 390., derives affections of the sort in women from arrested
menstruation.

[159] _Leviticus_ Ch. 15. Want of space forbids our giving this
Chapter here; but anyone who will read it through carefully, must
easily see that in it the question is merely of a morbid discharge
from the genitals (basar), the duration of which was uncertain. For
this reason those affected continued still unclean for nine days
after the cessation of the flux, whereas the man who had encountered
ordinary pollution (verse 16.) was unclean only till the evening.
The Septuagint translators render the flux by ῥύσις (flowing, flux),
the person affected by the flux γονοῤῥυής (having a flux from the
genitals), while they say of ordinary pollution, ὡς ἐὰν ἐξέλθῃ ἐξ
αὐτοῦ κοίτη _σπέρματος_ (“if any man’s seed of copulation go out of
him”). _Astruc_ and others wished to refer the flux from the genitals
to Lepra (Leprosy), but in that case the Leprosy must needs have been
previously noticeable in the person affected by the flux, and the flux
therefore been really a symptom. Thus it would have demanded no further
special ordinance for purification, as that commanded for Leprosy would
have been used for it. Again the same would also have occurred, had
the flux been noticed as _first_ symptom of the Leprosy, for then the
Priest was bound to have confined the person so affected and put him
under observation, to see whether the other symptoms of Leprosy would
show themselves as well. But of this there is nothing whatever to be
found in the writings attributed to Moses, who clearly distinguishes
between the flux and Leprosy, as also does the Author of II Samuel III.
29. Speaking generally, no other Author ever mentions the flux as a
constant or frequent symptom of Leprosy, while _Schilling_ even denies
its occurrence altogether. Comp. _Hensler_, Vom abendl. Aussatze (On
Oriental Leprosy), pp. 130, 396.

[160] _Astruc_, De morbis venereis (Of Venereal diseases), p. 93., Quid
igitur mirum varia, heterogenea, acria multorum virorum semina (et
smegmata we may add) una confusa, cum acerrimo et virulento menstruo
sanguine mixta, intra uterum aestuantem et olidum spurcissimarum
mulierum coercita, mora, heterogeneitate, calore loci brevi
computruisse ac prima morbi venerei semina constituisse, quae in
alios, si qui forsan continentiores erant, contagione dimanavere?...
Cum ergo in omnibus terrae locis, _ubi lues venerea antiquitus endemia
fuisse videtur_, eundem aeris fervorem cum pari incolarum impudicitia
coniunctum fuisse manifestum sit, haud inanis inde locus est colligendi
morbum natura eundem, quo regiones longissime dissitae et inter quas
nulla fuit commercii communio, simili modo infestabantur, a simili
causarum earundem concursu, in quo tantum convenirent, generatum
olim fuisse et _generari etiamnum_, si indigenae iisdem moribus
vivant. (What is there surprising then in the fact that the various,
heterogeneous, acrid seminal fluids of a number of different men (and
unguents as well, we may add), all confounded together and mixed with
the exceedingly acrid and virulent menstrual blood, confined within
the steaming hot and fetid womb of the dirtiest of women, by long
continuance in one place, by heterogeneity of components, by the heat
of the locality, should very soon have grown putrid, and so laid the
first seeds of Venereal disease,—which then passed on by contagion
to other men, men that were very possibly more self-restrained?...
So, inasmuch as in all parts of the world, _wherever Venereal disease
appears to have been endemic in Antiquity_, it is plain the same heat
of the atmosphere was united with a similar immorality on the part of
the inhabitants, there is therefore sufficient ground for concluding
that the disease, identical in its nature and one whereby regions
far removed from one another and between which existed no commercial
intercourse were attacked in a like way, was originally produced by a
like conjunction of identical causes, a conjunction wherein these only
agreed,—and _is still so produced_, supposing the inhabitants to still
live after the same fashion). _Wizmann_ (loco citato p. 32.) moreover
is of opinion that Venereal disease under the conditions just named
originates in Turkey to this day _in its true form_. A similar view is
shared by _Eagle_ and _Judd_ (loco citato p. 306.).

[161] _Herodotus_, bk. III. ch. 106., ἡ Ἑλλὰς τὰς ὥρας πολλόν τι
κάλλιστα κεκραμένας ἔλαχη. (Hellas possesses seasons in many respects
most admirably combined). Comp. _Dahlmann_, Herodotus pp. 90. sqq.
_Plato_ again praises the εὐκρασία τῶν ὡρῶν (happy mingling of the
seasons) of Hellas in more than one passage; e. g. Timaeus 24, C.,
Critias III E., Epinom. 987 D.; and _Aristophanes_ in a fragment of his
Horae preserved by Athenaeus, Deipnos. IX. p. 372. says of Attica:

    ὥστ’ οὐκέτ’ οὐδεὶς οἵδ’ ὁπηνίκ’ ἐστὶ τοὐνιαουτοῦ.

(So never yet has any man been able to tell precisely in what part of
the year he is).

[162] _Galen_, De symptomat. causis bk. III. ch. 11., edit. Kühn Vol.
VII. p. 267., καὶ μὴν αἰ γονόῤῥοιαι, χωρὶς μὲν τοῦ συντείνεσθαι τὸ
αἰδοῖον, ἀῤῥωσίᾳ τῆς καθεκτικῆς δυνάμεως τῆς ἐν τοῖς σπερματικοῖς
ἀγγείοις· ἐντεινομένου δέ πως, οἷον σπασμᾷ τινι παραπλήσιον πασχόντων
ἐπιτελοῦνται. (Moreover gonorrhoeas, except in the case of the member
being in a state of tension, arise from weakness of the retentive
capacity in the spermatic vessels; but when there is tension of any
sort, they are subject to a kind of spasm resembling that of convulsive
patients).

[163] _Larrey_, “Relation historique et chirurgicale de l’expédition
de l’armée d’Orient, en Egypt et en Syrie,” (Historical and Surgical
Account of the Expedition of the Army of the East, in Egypt and Syria),
Paris 1803. p. 116., Pendant le travail de la suppuration, les blessés
furent seulement incommodés des vers ou larves de la mouche bleue,
commune en Syrie. L’incubation des oeufs que cette mouche deposait
sans cesse dans les plaies ou dans les appareils, étoit favorisée par
la chaleur de la saison, l’humidité de l’atmosphère et la qualité de
la toile à pansement (elle étoit de coton) la seule qu’on ait pu se
procurer dans cette contrée. La présence de ces vers dans les plaies
paraissait en accélérer la suppuration, causait des demangeaisons
incommodes aux blessés et nous forçait de les panser trois ou quatre
fois le jour. Ces insectes, formés en quelques heures, se développaient
avec une telle rapidité, que du jour au lendemain, ils étaient de la
grosseur d’un tuyau de plume de poulet. On faisait à chaque pansement
des lotions d’une forte décoction de rhue et de petite sauge, qui
suffisaient pour les détruire; mais ils se reproduisaient bientot après
par le défaut des moyens propres à écarter l’approche des mouches
et à prévenir l’incubation de leurs oeufs. (During the action of
suppuration, the only inconvenience the wounded met with was from the
worms or larvae of the blue fly, common in Syria. The hatching of the
eggs, which this fly was continually depositing in the wounds or their
dressings, was favoured by the heat of the season, the moisture of the
atmosphere, and the nature of the material used for bandages. This was
cotton, the only material for the purpose that could be procured in
that country. The presence of these worms in the wounds appeared to
accelerate their suppuration, caused the wounded men to suffer from
troublesome itchings and forced us to renew the dressings three or four
times a day. These insects, formed in a few hours, developed with such
extraordinary rapidity, that from one day to the next, they reached
the size of a fowl’s quill. At each dressing lotions were applied
of a strong decoction of rue and dwarf sage, which was effectual in
destroying them; but they reappeared again very soon afterwards owing
to the want of proper means for preventing the approach of the flies
and hindering the hatching of their eggs). Compare what Larrey (p.
278.) says as to the climate of Syria.

[164] _Eusebius_, Histor. Eccles. bk. VIII. 14., τί δεῖ τὰς ἐμπαθεῖς
ἀνδρὸς αἰσχρουργίας μνημονεύειν; ἢ τῶν πρὸς αὐτοῦ μεμοιχευμένων
ἀπαριθμεῖσθαι τὲν πληθύν; οὐκ ἦν γέ τοι πόλιν αὐτὸν παρελθεῖν, μὴ
οὐχὶ ἐκ παντὸς φθορὰς γυναικῶν παρθένων τε ἁρπαγὰς εἰργασμένον.—cap.
16. μέτεισι γοῦν αὐτὸν θεήλατος κόλασις· ἐξ αὐτῆς αὐτοῦ καταρξαμένη
σαρκὸς, καὶ μέχρι τῆς ψυχῆς παρελθοῦσα. _ἀθρόα μὲν γὰρ περὶ τὰ μέσα
τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων τοῦ σώματος ἀπόστασις γίγνεται αὐτῷ· εἶθ’ ἕλκος ἐν βάθει
συριγγώδες καὶ τούτων ἀνιάτος νομὴ κατὰ τῶν ἐνδοτάτῳ σπλάγχνων· ἀφ’ ὧν
ἀλεκτόν τι πλῆθος σκωλήκων βρύειν, θανατώδη τε ὀδμὴν ἀποπνέειν_,
τοῦ παντὸς ὄγκου τῶν σωμάτων ἐκ πολυτροφίας αὐτῷ καὶ πρὸς τῆς νόσου
εἰς ὑπερβολὴν πλήθους πιμελῆς μεταβεβληκότος· ἣν τότε κατασαπεῖσαν,
ἀφόρητον καὶ φρικτοτάτην τοῖς πλησιάζουσι παρέχειν τὴν θέαν, ἰατρῶν
δ’ οὖν οἱ μὲν, οὐδ’  ὅλως ὑπομεῖναι τὴν τοῦ δυσώδους ὑπερβάλλουσαν ἀτοπίαν
οἷοι τε, κατεσφάττοντο. οἱ δὲ διῳδηκότος τοῦ παντὸς ὄγκου καὶ εἰς
ἀνέλπιστον σωτηρίας ἀποπεπτωκότος μηδὲν ἐπικουρεῖν δυνάμενοι, ἀνηλεῶς
ἐκτείνοντο. (What need to recall the passions and abominations of the
man? or to count the multitude of debaucheries done by him? Nay, he
could not pass through a city without leaving behind him everywhere
ruin of women and rape of virgins.—ch. 16. Yet heaven-sent punishment
overtakes him, commencing with his very flesh and going on to assail
the life. For an incessant suppurative inflammation attacks him in
the region of the private parts of the body; then later on a wound
penetrating deep in like a fistula and an incurable eating sore
affecting these inmost intestines. Then from these an indescribable
number of worms bred, and a corpse-like smell was given off, the whole
bulk of the bodily parts having through high living and under the
influence of the disease changed into an exaggerated superfluity of
fat. Then this rotting away, displayed an intolerable and an appalling
spectacle to his attendants; while among his physicians, some finding
themselves utterly unable to endure the exceeding horribleness of
the stench, put an end to their lives; while others, the whole bulk
having gone to complete rottenness, and the patient in a condition
that admitted no hope of recovery, being unable to afford any help,
were cruelly put to death). This passage occurs as well, word for
word, in _Nicephorus_, Histor. Eccles. VII. 22. Aur. Victor. Epit. ch.
40., Galerius Maximianus _consumptis genitalibus_ defecit, (Galerius
Maximianus died, _the genital organs being destroyed_).—_Zosimus_,
Hist. II. 11. speaks merely of τραῦμα δυσίατον (a wound difficult to
cure), and _Paulus Diaconus_, Hist. miscell. XI. 5., says: putrefacto
introrsum pectore, et vitalibus dissolutis, cum ultra horrorem humanae
miseriae etiam vermes eructaret, medicique iam ultra foetorem non
ferentes, crebro iussu eius occiderentur etc. (the bosom having
putrefied within, and the vitals rotted away, when exceeding the climax
of human horror and suffering he began to bring up worms, and his
physicians unable to bear the excessive foulness of the stench, were
being executed at his frequent order, etc.). The same fate happened to
_Herod_, of whom _Josephus_, Antiq. XVII. 6. says: τοῦ αἰδοίου σῆψις
σκώληκας ἐμποιοῦσα (mortification of the genitals producing worms).
Comp. _Bochart_, Hierozoicon, edit. Rosenmüller vol. III. p. 520.

[165] This reading is clearly preferable. The Septuagint translators
render it σήπη καὶ σκώληκες κηρονομήσουσιν αὐτὸν, (Rottenness and worms
shall be his heritage), where however it must be admitted σῆτες (moths)
is also retained by the Editors.

[166] “Nouvelles recherches sur la structure de la peau”, (Recent
Investigations as to the Structure of the Skin), with 3 Plates. Paris
1835. 221 pp. 8vo.

[167] “Vergleichende Untersuchungen über die Haut des Menschen und der
Haussaügethiere, besonders in Beziehung auf die Absonderungsorgane
des Hauttalgs und des Schweisses,” (Comparative Investigations as to
the Skin in Man and the Domestic Mammals, with particular reference
to the Organs of Secretion of the Sebaceous Humour and the Sweat), in
_Muller’s_ Archiv. für Physiologie Jahrg. 1835., pp. 399-418. With
copperplates, a comparison of which will very much facilitate the
proper understanding of what follows.

[168] Already we find _Lorry_, “Abb. von den Krankheiten der Haut,”
(Treatise on Diseases of the Skin), Vol. I. p. 50., saying: “There
is found to exist moreover a certain sympathy between the generative
parts of men and women and the skin, which under the violent stimulus
of sexual coition swells; but after it is over, sweat comes out on it,
and _sometimes little heat-pimples appear_. p. 83., Now at puberty, a
period when all the glands are opened, there is brought to the organs
of transpiration a great quantity of a subtle and fluid material, there
arises a peculiar smell, and if this matter has accumulated, it clogs
the minute vessels, the humour contained in these becomes thick by
retardation and solidification,—the result being a pimply eruption on
the skin. This much is certain, that if both sexes are fully developed,
and live chaste, an extensive series of mutually connected pustules may
arise, _just as if they were produced by the swelling of the glands
in the skin_. The pustules are ranged in the same order as that in
which the glands lie; exactly as if they were the meeting-place of the
humours that would seem to have been dispersed in the skin.” Comp.
_Haller_, Elem. physiolog. Vol. VII. bk. XXVIII. sect. 3. § 4.

[169] More precise information on this, as well as on several other
opinions expressed in the course of these Inquiries as to the pathology
of Venereal disease, the reader will find placed at his disposal in
our forthcoming Work, “Introduction to a Scientific Knowledge of the
Venereal Disease.”

[170] Comp. _Hillary_, “Beobachtungen über die Veränderungen Luft und
die damit verbundenen epidemischen Krankheiten auf der Insel Barbados,”
(Observations on Changes of Atmosphere and the Epidemic Sicknesses
connected with them in the Island of Barbadoes), transl. from the
English by J. Ch. G. Ackermann. Leipzig 1776. 8vo., pp. 3 sqq.

[171] _Alex. Traj. Petronius_, De morbo Gallico, (On the French
Disease—Syphilis), bk. II. chs. 24., and 26 (Aphrodisiacus pp. 1225,
1226.) in his time says: Et in regione calida, quoniam secundum naturae
suae impetum ad cutem fertur, minus saevire, in frigida vero, quoniam
contra suam naturam ad interna migrare cogitur, magis.—Neque nos non
lateat, in ambiente (ut dicunt) calido, quoniam ad cutim attractio
fit, morbum hunc et secundum naturae suae impetum creari, et simul ad
exteriora prorumpere solere. In frigido autem, quia intro repellitur
contra suae naturae motum retroverti et solidas corporis partes saepius
depasci. Frequentius etiam in regione calida quam frigida apparere;
hic enim circumfusus aer, ne morbus ad cutim extendatur, prohibet
(nam intro pellit), illic vero et ad cutim trahit et eandem retinet.
(Moreover in a hot region, inasmuch as in accordance with the impulse
of its nature it is carried to the skin, it is there less virulent;
whereas in a cold one, as it is compelled against its nature to travel
to the inward parts, it is more so.—Again we should not let this escape
our notice, that in a hot environment (as they say), inasmuch as an
attraction takes place towards the skin, this disease also according
to the impulse of its nature is there brought into being, and is wont
to break out towards the external parts. On the other hand in a cold
one, because it is drawn within, it is turned back contrary to the
motion of its nature, and more often feeds upon the solid parts of the
body. Again it appears more frequently in a hot region than in a cold
one; for in the latter case the surrounding air (driving it within as
it does) hinders the disease from extending to the skin, whereas in
the former it draws it to the skin and keeps it there). But specially
pertinent in this connection is p. 1211.—_Puydebat_, “Über den Einfluss
des Climas auf den Menschen,” (Of the Influence of Climate on Man), in
the “Bulletin méd. de Bordeaux, 1836. May 21. (Froriep Notiz. 1836.
Vol. 49. p. 179.) writes: Die immer geöffneten Hautporen hauchen in den
heissen Ländern einen reichlichen, mehr oder weniger stark riechenden
Schweiss aus. Die Hautdrüsen sondern eine ölige Flüssigkeit in Menge
ab, welche die Haut schlüpfrig macht und derselben jenes bei den
Negern so auffallende Ansehn giebt. Dieser Zustand der Haut macht sie
zu Exanthemen, z. B. Masern, Blattern, Syphilis, Lepra, Elephantiasis
geneigt. (The ever open skin-pores expire in hot countries a rich and
more or less strongly smelling sweat. The cutaneous glands secrete an
oily fluid in quantities, which makes the skin slippery and gives it
that appearance so striking in Negroes. This state of the skin makes it
liable to exanthematic effections, e. g. Measles, Small-pox, Syphilis,
Leprosy, Elephantiasis).—In cold countries the transpiration of the
skin is very weak; in consequence the internal secretions are increased
in quantity, while in hot countries they are lessened from a directly
opposite cause.” Comp. _J. von Röser_, “Ueber einige Krankheiten des
Orients,” (On some Diseases of the East). Augsburg 1837., pp. 67-71.,
to whose statements we shall have to return on several future occasions.

[172] _Joannes Leo_, “Descriptio Africae”, (Description of Africa),
Leyden 1632. 12mo., p. 86., Paucis admodum toto Atlante, tota Numidia
totaque Libya hoc notum est contagium. Quodsi quisquam fuerit qui
se eo infectum sentiat, mox in Numidiam aut in Nigritarum regionem
proficiscitur, cuius tanta est aeris temperies, ut optimae sanitati
restitutus inde in patriam redeat: quod quidem multis accidisse ipse
meis vidi oculis, qui nullo adhibito neque pharmaco neque medico,
praeter saluberrimum iam dictum aërem, revaluerant. (To very few
persons indeed in the whole of the Atlas, the whole of Numidia and of
Libya, is this contagion known. But if there should be any man who
feels himself attacked by it, he presently journeys into Numidia or the
district of the Nigritae, where the nature of the air is such that he
returns home again restored to excellent good health. This I have seen
happen to many with my own eyes, who without help of druggist or doctor
recovered by the exceeding salubrity of the air as aforesaid). Comp.
_Scaliger_, Exercitat. CLXXX. ch. 18.—_Petronius_, loco citato p. 1213.

[173] _Schnurrer_, “Geographische Nosologie,” (Geographical
Nosology,—Distribution of Diseases), p. 454.

[174] _Brown, W. G._ “Reisen in Afrika, Egypten und Syrien.” (Travels
in Africa, Egypt and Syria), transl. from the English by C. Sprengel.
Weimar 1800. 8vo., p. 389., tells us of a marine at Kahira, who had
become infected, how the man, having in the mean time taken no means
whatever to combat the disease and without giving up either the use of
brandy or the practice of copulation, two months later got a violent
itching eruption over his whole body, and particularly on the head and
over the glands of the neck. This he treated by sprinkling over it a
sort of red earth, whereupon it dried up and disappeared, so that four
weeks later he found himself completely cured and his skin as clean
and smooth as before. _Schnurrer_, loco citato p. 453., also gives the
story, but with sundry inaccuracies. Similar observations were made
by _Th. Clarke_ at the Cape of Good Hope, London Med. Gazette 1833.
_Behrend_, Syphilidologie Vol. I. pp. 241 sqq. The Minorite _Conti_
declared in opposition to _Norberg_ (Biörnstähl’s Briefe, 6 vol. p.
410.): “Christian no less than Mussulman in the East is strictly
forbidden to cohabit with a woman before the eighth day after her
purification. If it _is_ done within that period, the man’s body is
poisoned: he experiences swelling, ulcers, sores, itch and pains in
the limbs, and shows all the symptoms of leprosy. At this time the
female does not become pregnant, because the blood is unclean, but if
conception does occur, the child also gets a bad itch, and generally
is affected like his parents.” _Fr. Eagle_ (Lancet July 1836., Note
671.). _Behrend’s_ Syphilidologie, Vol. I. p. 118., relates a number of
cases that occurred in London where after intercourse with women during
menstruation both gonorrhœa and chancre supervened.

[175] _Von Roeser_, loco citato p. 69. _Sonnerat_, “Reise nach
Ostindien”, (Journey to the East Indies), I. 94, 99. _Schnurrer_,
Geogr. Nosologie p. 409. Note, says: “In Hindostan in particular
experience has shown that a badly treated syphilis changes into
leprosy.” That this is not a thing of such extreme rarity in Europe
either, we shall prove more fully in another place. Meantime compare
what _Hensler_, “Vom Abendländischen Aussatze”, (On Oriental Leprosy),
pp. 228 sqq., says on the subject.

[176] _Galen_, Ad Glaucon. de meth. med. II., edit. Kühn Vol. XI.
p. 142., says: κατὰ γοῦν τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν _ἐλεφαντιῶσι πάμπολλοι_
διά τε τὴν δίαιταν καὶ _τὴν θερμότητα τοῦ χωρίου·—ἅτε δὲ θερμοῦ τοῦ
περιέχοντος ὄντος καὶ ἡ ῥοπὴ τῆς φορᾶς αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸ θέρμα γίνεται_·
(At any rate in the neighbourhood of Alexandria very many persons
suffer from elephantiasis as well through their mode of life as owing
to _the heat of the locality_;—for indeed as a result of the excessive
heat of the climate, the tendency of their constitution is also towards
heat). In Germany and Mysia he asserts the disease is seldom observed,
and in Scythia almost never.

[177] Phlyctaenae (blisters) in erysipelas of the uterus are mentioned
by Hippocrates, De ant. mulierum, edit. Kühn II. p. 541. _Galen_, edit.
Kühn Vol. XVII. A. p. 358., ἴσθι γὰρ ὅτι τὰ ἐξανθήματα ἐν ταῖς τῆς
μήτρας διαθέσεσιν εἰς τὸ δέρμα ἐκραγέντα σημαίνουσιν ὅτι ἡ φλεγμονὴ
ἢ ἐρυσίπελας ἐκ τοῦ ἀποζέοντος καὶ λεπτοῦ αἵματος ἐν ταῖς μήτραις
ἐγγίνεται, ὡς ἐν τῷ περὶ γυναικείης φύσεως γέγραπται. (Be assured that
those eruptions that break out on the skin in certain morbid conditions
of the womb signify that the inflammation or erysipelas proceeds from
the deficiency and poorness of the blood in the womb, as is stated in
my Work, On the Female Constitution).

[178] _Aristotle_, Problem IV. 18.

[179] _Aëtius_, Tetrab, IV. serm. 1. ch. 122., Novimus quosdam
audaciores qui sibi ipsis testes ferro resecarunt; castratis enim non
in peius malum ipsum procedet. Neque enim temere reperias, inquit
Archigenes, ullum aliquem castratum elephantiasi laborantem, neque item
facile mulierem. Quare etiam quidam ex confidentioribus medicis manum
admoverunt, et quotquot sane ex eis ex sectione periculum evaserunt,
per consequentis curationis usum perfecte ab hac maligna affectione
liberati sunt. (We know of some bolder spirits who have amputated their
own testicles with the knife; for after castration the actual evil will
not then proceed to any worse length. For, says Archigenes, you will
not readily find any single case of a castrated man suffering from
elephantiasis, nor will you easily discover a woman at all affected by
this disease. Wherefore, in fact, some of the more daring practitioners
have operated, and there is no doubt that such of their patients as
escaped the dangerous effects of the operation, have been through
the employment of subsequent precautions completely freed from this
malignant complaint). Comp. _Hensler_, “Vom Aussatz”, (On Leprosy),
p. 401. With regard to _the immunity of women_, an assertion likewise
made in connection with _mentagra_ (p. 288), _von Roeser_ writes (loco
citato p. 67.) referring to Venereal disease: “Above all it is now the
case in Greece and Turkey that the practising physician,—and I have
been assured of the fact by many persons,—exceedingly seldom meets with
syphilitic female patients in his practice; that yet notwithstanding
this none of _the sequelæ and different forms of subsequent mischief_
that are usually found resulting from the disease when every kind of
medical aid is neglected, are seen in patients of that sex.”—P. 71.,
“Only poison would seem, as a result of the secretive process exerted
by the affected parts of the skin and the mucous membrane, which is
much more powerful in women than in men, to be more readily eliminated
from the body than is the case with men, so much so indeed that it is
an almost unheard of thing in Egypt to find a female patient under
medical treatment.”—still this does not justify the conclusion that
women _never_ suffered from Venereal disease, as even von Roeser
himself admits. Again Larrey, loco citato p. 253., actually found
himself constrained in view of the wide dissemination of the disease
among the French soldiers, to establish a special hospital for infected
women, in order to check the spread of the complaint.

[180] Comp. _Foot_, “Abh. über die Lustseuche” (Treatise on Venereal
Disease), transl. from the English by _H. Ch. Reich_, Vol. I. p. 62.

[181] Surgeon in Chief of the Esbekieh Hospital at Cairo.

[182] The passage of _Aretaeus_ (Morb. chron. bk. II. ch. 13. edit.
Kühn p. 180.) can hardly be cited as evidence on the other side in this
case, as the question there discussed is elephantiasis, not the leprosy
of the Jews at all. Any how we read there: τρίχες ἐν μὲν τῷ παντὶ
προτεθνήσκουσι, χερσὶ μηροῖσι κνήμῃσι, αὖθις ἥβῃ, γενείοισι ἀραιαὶ,
ψεδναὶ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ κόμαι· τὸ δὲ μᾶλλον πρόωροι, πολιοὶ καὶ
φαλάκρωσις ἀθρόη· οὐκ εἰς μακρὸν δὲ ἥβη καὶ ἐπιμίμνοιεν παυραὶ τρίχες,
ἀπρεπέστεραι τῶν ἀποιχομένων. (Hair dies first in every part, on hands,
thighs, shins; again on pubes and cheeks it becomes thin, and scanty
also on the head. The locks are prematurely white, and baldness becomes
general; nor is it long before pubes and cheeks are bare, and if a few
scanty hairs should remain, they are uncomely as compared with those
that have disappeared). Nor would it be any fairer to cite the fact
that Albinos are covered over the whole body with a fine, white, woolly
hair.

[183] Already _J. D. Michaelis_, “Fragen an eine Gesellschaft gelehrter
Männer, die auf Befehl Ihro Majestät des Königs von Dänemark nach
Arabien reisen,” (Questions addressed to a Society of Learned Men,
travelling at the Command of HM. the King of Denmark to Arabia),
Frankfurt-on-the-Main 1762., p. 23., says in the 11th. question on
Leprosy under head No. 8.: “Does it possess a natural diagnostic mark
in this, if it breaks out everywhere at once, and covers the whole
body? From Leviticus XIII. 12-13. we might seem to be almost justified
in concluding this to be so. But I am in doubt how in that case this
passage is to be interpreted in accordance with the history of the
disease.” Comp. p. 335. Note 1.

[184] Philosoph. Transactions Vol. XXXI. _Foot_, Treatise on Venereal
Disease, Vol. I. pp. 25 sqq.

[185] _D. Hennen_, Sketches of the Medical Topography of the
Mediterranean. London 1830.

[186] _Galen_, De febr. diff., bk. I., edit. Kühn Vol. VII. 284 sqq.,
δριμὺ δ’ ἀποῤῥοῖ καὶ δακνῶδες περίττωμα τοῖς ἤτοι κακοχυμοτέροις,
ἢ ἐδέσματα μοχθηρὰ προσφερομένοις τοιαῦτα γοῦν ἐδέσματα καὶ νῦν
ἀναγκασθέντες ἐσθίειν πολλοὶ διὰ λιμὸν οἱ μὲν ἀπέθανον ἀπὸ σηπεδονωδῶν
τε καὶ λοιμωδῶν πυρετῶν, _οἱ δὲ ἐξανθήμασιν ἑάλωσαν ψωρώδεσι τε καὶ
λεπρώδεσιν_. (But there discharges an acrid and biting excretion, and
this in patients already only too much afflicted with evil humours, or
else food becomes noxious to them, though normally able to tolerate
such food; and now being forced to eat, many died in consequence of
the plague, some from putrefying and pestilential fevers, while others
again _were attacked by exanthematic eruptions of the psora and lepra
types_).

[187] Martial, Bk. VI. Epigr. 37.,

    O quanta _scabie_ miser laborat!
    Culum non habet, est tamen cinaedus.

(How sad a scurvy (_scabies_) does the wretch groan under! Bottom all
gone; and yet he is a cinaedus!)

Bk. XI. Epigr. 8.,

    Penelopae licet esse tibi sub principe Nerva
    Sed prohibet _scabies_ ingeniumque vetus.

(You may be a Penelope under Nerva as Emperor; only that _scurvy_
hinders you and inveterate viciousness). The _mala scabies_ (horrid
scurvy) from _Horace_, Ars Poet. 453., is familiar; as well as the
statement of _Justin_ (Hist. XXXVI. 2.) to the effect that the Jews
were driven out of Egypt on account of Scabies and Vitiligo (Tetter),
that the Egyptians might not be infected by them. Comp. _Michaelis_,
“Mosaisches Recht”, (Mosaic Law) IV. 209. The infectious nature of
psora is declared also by _Aristotle_, Problem. VII. 8. _Galen_, De
puls. diff., IV. 1. The transition of _mentagra_ into _psora_ has been
already mentioned.

[188] _Aristophanes_, Birds 151. makes Euelpides say: βδελλύττομαι
τὸν Λέπρεον ἀπὸ Μελανθίου (I detest the “Leprean” of Melanthius), on
which the Scholiast remarks: Μελάνθιος ὁ τραγικός· κωμωδεῖται γὰρ εἰς
μαλακίαν καὶ ὀψοφαγίαν. Πλάτων δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν Σκύθαις ὡς _λάλον_ σκώπτει·
εἶχε δὲ Μελάνθιος λέπραν. (Melanthius the Tragedian; for he is derided
on account of his luxurious living and gluttony. But Plato laughs at
him in the “Scythians” as a _garrulous_ person; now Melanthius had
_leprosy_). The same thing is mentioned in the “Peace”, 803., with
the addition, καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον ἐν Κόλαξιν Εὔπολις ὡς κίναιδον αὐτὸν
διαβάλλει καὶ κόλακα· ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς λευκὰς ἔχοντα καὶ λεπράς. (and
still more severely does Eupolis in his “Flatterers” ridicule him
as being _pathic_ and a flatterer; moreover as having whites,—white
leprosies,—and leprosies). Here we would particularly call attention
to the λευκαί (white leprosies), which we have already noted as a
consequence of the habits of the _cunnilingue_; and with this the
λάλον (garrulous, talkative) of the Comic poet Plato agrees very
well, for _Hesychius_ explains γλωσσοστροφεῖν (to ply the tongue) by
_περιλαλεῖν_ and στωμύλλεσθαι (_to be very talkative, to babble_). Thus
_lepra_ would seem to be attached as penalty to the vice of the pathic,
Elephantiasis is stated to be infectious by _Aretaeus_, Morb. chron.,
II. 12. and _Paulus Aegineta_, IV. 1.; however, present day experience
tells us nothing of this, and the later Greek physicians refer it again
to deficient gall (Marx, Orig. contag., p. 78.); what was the meaning
of its great contagiousness in earlier times?

[189] _Von Roeser_, loco citato p. 69. Inflammation of the throat, or
ulcerations of the throat, are very rare; still rarer are diseases of
the bones, and then only taking the form of swellings of the periosteum.

[190] _Hippocrates_, Epidem. Bk. III., edit. Kühn Vol. III. p. 486.,
στόματα πολλοῖσιν ἀθώδεα, ἑλκώδεα· ῥεύματα περὶ τὰ αἰδοιᾶ πολλά·
ἑλκώματα, φύματα, ἔξωθεν ἔσωθεν τὰ περὶ βουβῶνας, ὀφθαλμίαι ὑγραὶ,
μακραὶ χρόνιαι μετὰ πόνων· ἐπιφύσεις βλεφάρων ἔξωθεν ἔσωθεν, πολλῶν
φθείροντες τὰς ὄψιας, ἃ σῦκα ἐπονομάζουσιν· ἐφύετο δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀλλῶν
ἑλκέων πολλὰ καὶ αἰδοίοισιν. (for translation see text above).

[191] _Hippocrates_, Bk. IV. Aphor. 82., edit. Kühn Vol. III. p. 735.,
ὁκόσοισιν ἐν τῇ οὐρήθρῃ φύματα φύεται, τουτέοισι διαπυήσαντος καὶ
ἐκραγέντος λύσις. (for translation see text above). The same Aphorism
is repeated again Bk. VII. Aphor. 57. p. 763., ὁκόσοισιν ἐν τῇ οὐρήθρῃ
φύματα γίνονται, τουτέοισι διαπυήσαντος καὶ ἐκραγέντος _λύεται ὁ
πόνος_. (Patients having abscesses in the urethra, _find relief from
the suffering_, so soon as these have suppurated and broken).—_Celsus_,
bk. II. ch. 8. translates this by: Quibus in fistula urinae minuti
abscessus, quos φύματα Graeci vocant, esse coeperunt, iis ubi pus ea
parte profluxit, sanitas redditur. (Patients in whom small abscesses
have been set up in the urinary canal, which the Greeks call  φύματα,
recover when once matter has flowed out at the spot).—_Galen_, in his
Explanation of the first Aphorism of Hippocrates (edit. Kühn Vol. XVII.
B. p. 778.) says: πρόχειρον γὰρ παντὶ γνῶναι τῶν ἐν τῷ πόρῳ τῷ οὐρητικῷ
τῷ κατὰ τὸ αἰδοῖον, τοῦτο γὰρ οὐρήθραν καλοῦσι· συνισταμένων φυμάτων
τὴν λύσιν γίγνεσθαι ῥαγέντων· ἐνδέχεται γὰρ ἰσχουρίαν δή τινα γενέσθαι
καὶ διὰ τὸ τοιοῦτον φῦμα καὶ μέντοι καὶ ὡς τὸ φῦμα τοῦτο ῥαγὲν _ἰάσεται
τὴν ἰσχουρίαν εὔδηλον_. (For it is within the knowledge of every
observer that in the case of abscesses that have been set up in the
urinary canal in the region of the privates,—called the urethra,—relief
is afforded when once these have burst. For it is likely some
retention of urine occurs on account of such abscess, and so the fact
of this abscess having burst will obviously remedy the retention).
Comp. _Galen_, De loc. affect. Bk. I. ch. 1., bk. VI. ch. 6. _Paulus
Aegineta_ bk. IV. ch. 22.

[192] _Hippocrates_, Coact. praenot., edit. Kühn Vol. I. p. 312.,
οἷσι δὲ φῦμα περὶ τὴν κύστιν ἐστὶ τὸ παρέχον τὴν δυσουπίην, παντοίως
σχηματισθέντες ὀχλέονται· _λύσις δὲ τούτου γίνεται πύου ῥαγέντος_.
(Patients having an abscess in the region of the bladder that causes
difficulty of micturition, find themselves troubled and affected in
all sorts of ways; _but relief from this is experienced, when once the
matter has broken out_).

[193] _Hippocrates_, De aere aquis et locis, edit. Kühn Vol. I. p.
526., κἢν μὲν τὸ θέρος αὐχμηρὸν γένηται, θᾶσσον παύονται αἱ νοῦσοι·
ἢν δὲ ἔπομβρον, πολυχρόνιοι γίνονται καὶ φαγεδαίνας κοινῶς ἐγγίνεσθαι
ἀπὸ πάσης προφάσιος, ἢν ἕλκος ἐγγένηται. (And if the Summer is a dry
one, the diseases will cease more speedily; if on the other hand it is
rainy, they become chronic, and such that cancerous sores are set up on
any pretext, if an injury of any sort occur).

[194] _Galen_, in his Commentary on this passage (Vol. XVII. A. p.
671) says in this connection: διεσήπετο δ’ ὑπὸ τῶν μοχθηρῶν χυμῶν ὑγρῶν
τὰ στερεά· ποικίλον δ’ εἶναι τὸ ῥεῦμα διὰ τὴν τῶν σηπομένων διαφθορὰν
εὔλογον· ὑπὸ γὰρ κοινῆς αἰτίας τῆς σηπεδόνος ἕκαστον τῶν σηπομένων ἴδιον
εἶδος ἴσχει τῆς διαφθορᾶς. (But under influence of the morbid moist
juices the solid parts rotted away; so it is only reasonable to expect
the discharge to be complex, resulting from the destruction of the
parts rotted away; for although proceeding from one common cause, that
of decomposition, each of the rotting parts has its own particular form
of decomposition).

[195] _Galen_, in his Commentary loco citato p. 672., adds: φοβερωτέραν
εἶχε φαντασίαν ἐν τοῖς περὶ κεφαλὴν μορίοις, διὰ τὸ κᾂν βραχὺ τὴν παρὰ
φύσιν ἐνταῦθα παραλαχθείη, πλέον γίνεσθαι τὸ αἶσχος ἢ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα
μόρια μεγάλην ἐκτροπὴν εἰς τὸ παρὰ φύσιν ἔχοντα. μηροῦ μὲν γὰρ τὸ
βραχίονος ἢ κνήμης ἢ πήχεως ἀποῤῥυὲν δέρμα μικροτέραν ἔχει φαντασίαν,
εἰ δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς συναποπέσοιεν αἱ τρίχες τῷ δέρματι καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον
ἡ τοῦ γενείου σὺν αὐταῖς, ἡ μὲν φαντασία τοῦ πάθους γίνεται μεγάλη, ὁ
κίνδυνος δ’ ᾗττον ἢ εἰ περὶ αἰδοῖα συμβαίη τὸ τοιοῦτον πάθος ἢ λάρυγγα
καὶ θώρακα καί τι τῶν κυρίων· οὐ μόνον δὲ τὰ περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν οὕτως
γινόμενα φοβερὰ μᾶλλον ἦν ἢ κακίω, ἀλλὰ καὶ καθ’ ὁτιοῦν ἄλλο μέρος
οὕτως ἐκπίπτοντα· κακίω γὰρ ἦν ἐφ’ ὧν ἀπέστησεν εἰς τὸ βάθος ὁ τὸ
ἐρυσίπελας ἐργαζόμενος χυμὸς κ. τ. λ. (It offered a more terrifying
appearance where the parts about the head were affected, because even
if only a small deviation occur there from what is normal, the feeling
of disgust experienced is greater than in connection with other parts
of the body, even when showing a great divergence towards what is
abnormal. For the fact of the skin of the thigh being perished, or even
when showing of the upper arm, or of the leg, or fore-arm, affords a
less formidable appearance, but if the hair fall from the head and the
skin along with it, and still more if that of the cheeks and chin go
with it, the appearance of injury is very great; but the danger is all
the while really less than if the like were to happen to the private
parts or larynx and thorax or any of the vital parts. And not only are
such things when they happen to the head more terrifying than actually
dangerous, but also when it so falls out with regard to any other part;
for much more dangerous is the case of those in whom the humour that
sets up erysipelas has penetrated deeply in, etc.).

[196] Hippocrates, loco citato p. 284., πολλοῖσι μὲν γὰρ βραχίων καὶ
πῆχυς ὅλος [ὅλως] περιεῤῥύη· οἷσι δ’ ἐπὶ τὰ πλευρὰ ταῦτα ἐκακοῦτο ἢ
τῶν ἔμπροσθέν τι ἢ τῶν ὄπισθεν· οἷσι δὲ ὅλος ὁ μηρὸς ἢ τὰ περικνήμια
ἐψιλοῦτο καὶ ποὺς ὅλος· ἢν δὲ πάντων χαλεπώτατον τῶν τοιούτων, ὅτε περὶ
ἥβην καὶ αἰδοῖα γενοίατο, καὶ τὰ μὲν περὶ ἕλκεα καὶ μετὰ προφάσιος
τοιαῦτα· πολλοῖσι δὲ ἐν πυρετοῖσι καὶ πρὸ πυρετοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ πυρετοῖσι
ξυνέπιπτεν. (for translation see text above). For ἢ τὰ περικνήμια
ἐψιλοῦτο should evidently be read more correctly with _Galen_, De
temperam. bk. I., edit. Kühn Vol. I. p. 532. ἢ τὰ περὶ τὴν κνήμην
ἀπεψιλοῦτο.

[197] _Galen_, Vol. XVII. A. p. 674., Καὶ χωρὶς λοιμώδους
καταστάσεως, ὅταν ἐν τούτοις τοῖς χωρίοις ἤτοι φλεγμονή τις ἢ
ἐρυσίπελας γένηται, ῥᾷστά τε σήπεται καὶ συμπαθείας ἐργάζεται τῶν
ὑπερκειμένων μορίων· διὸ καὶ πολλάκις ἀναγκαζόμεθα _μετὰ τὸ περικόψαι
τὰ σεσηπότα τὴν χώραν ἐκκαίειν_· οὐδὲν οὖν θαυμαστὸν, τοιαύτης
καταστάσεως γινομένης ὡς καὶ βραχίονα καὶ μηρὸν καὶ κνήμην, πλευράν τε
καὶ κεφαλὴν διασήπειν, ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἥκειν κακώσεως τὰ περὶ αἰδοῖα....
Ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ γέγονε περὶ τῶν ἐρυσιπελάτων, ὅσα δ’ ἕλκωσιν ἤ
τι μικρὸν οὕτως ἄλλο τῶν ἔξωθεν αἰτίων συνέστη· ἐφεξῆς δὲ περὶ τῶν ἄνευ
τοιαύτης αἰτίας γενομένων ποιήσεται τὸν λόγον. (for translation see
text above).

[198] Hippocrates moreover, Aphorism. Vol. I. p. 724., says:
τοῦ δὲ θέρεος ... καὶ _σηπεδόνες αἰδοίων_ καὶ ἵδρωα. (And in the Summer
... occur also _putrefactions of the privates_ and transpirations).

[199] Very possibly in many cases these affections of the
extremities and genital organs owed their existence to _anthrax_
or _carbuncle_; for not only does _Hippocrates_ (p. 487.) say that
ἄνθρακες πολλοὶ κατὰ θέρος καὶ ἄλλα ἃ σὴψ καλέεται (many cases
of malignant pustule in Summer-time, as well as other complaints
known under the general name of putrefaction) appeared under these
meteorological conditions, but _Galen_ likewise (Method. med. bk. XIV.,
edit. Kühn Vol. X. p. 980.) observed an _anthrax_ epidemic in Asia,
that itself began with numerous _phlyctaenae_ (blisterous swellings)
resembling millet seeds; these subsequently broke and gave rise to an
ἕλκος ἐσχαρῶδες (scabby sore). Indeed the destruction of the skin took
place even without the previous occurrence of _phlyctaenae_. πολλάκις
δὲ οὐ μία _φλύκταινα_ γεννᾶται κνησαμένων, ἀλλὰ _πολλαὶ_ μικραὶ καθάπερ
τινὲς κέγχροι καταπυκνοῦσαι τὸ μέρος ὧν ἐκρηγνυμένων ὁμοίως ἐσχαρῶδες
ἕλκος γεννᾶται· κατὰ _δὲ τοὺς ἐπιδημήσαντας ἄνθρακας ἐν Ἀσίᾳ καὶ
χωρὶς φλυκταινῶν_ ἐνίοις εὐθέως ἀπεδάρη τὸ δέρμα. (And often _not one
phlyctaena_ is originated on patients scratching themselves, but _many_
minute ones like millet seeds, closely covering the affected part;
and when these have broken, a kind of scabby sore is produced. And in
cases of _anthrax_ (malignant pustule), which was at one time epidemic
in Asia, in some patients even without there having been previous
_phlyctaenae_, the skin was immediately destroyed).—Comp. _Galen_, De
tumor. praeternat. Vol. VII. p. 719. Further, this information is in
any case of importance for the more correct appreciation of the facts
as to the Plague of Athens.

[200] _Thucydides_, Peloponnesian War, bk. II. ch. 49.,
Διεξῄει γὰρ διὰ παντὸς τοῦ σώματος ἄνωθεν ἀρξάμενον τὸ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ
πρώτον ἱδρυθὲν κακόν· καὶ εἴ τις ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων περιγένοιτο, τῶν γε
ἀκρωτηρῖων ἀντίληψις _αὐτὸν_ ἐπεσήμαινε· κατέσκηπτε γὰρ ἐς αἰδοῖα καὶ
ἐς ἄκρας χεῖρας καὶ πόδας· καὶ πολλοὶ στερισκόμενοι τούτων διέφευγον·
(for translation see text above). In this passage it is usual to
read ἀντίληψις _αὐτοῦ_ ἐπεσήμαινε, supplying κακοῦ from the previous
clause to go with αὐτοῦ—(the seizure of the disease itself on the
extremities manifested itself); but even supposing the double genitive
with ἀντίληψις defensible, the construction is still very awkward,
and is made still more so by the fact that in taking it this way we
are compelled to translate ἐπεσήμαινε by “manifested itself” (mali
vis, apprehendens extremas corporis partes se prodebat, manifestam
faciebat,—the strength of the disease declared itself, made itself
manifest, in seizing the extremities of the body,—is Wittenbach’s
interpretation, Select. Hist. p. 367.), without by so doing obtaining
any clear meaning of the sentence. On the other hand this is got
directly we read with _Reiske_ (Annotations p. 21. in his “Thucydides
Reden, übersetzt von Reiske, nebst lateinischen Anmerkungen über
dessen gesammtes Werk,”—Speeches in Thucydides translated into German
by Reiske, together with Latin Notes on his “Histories” generally,
Leipzig 1761. 8vo.) ἀντίληψις _αὐτὸν_ ἐπεσήμαινε,—a seizure put its
mark on him. But whether αὐτοῦ is read or αὐτὸν in any case it will
be impossible to take the sentence as _Kraus_, p. 54., has done, when
he says: “The pustulous suppurative eruption begins with the head and
spreads little by little over the entire body even to the hands and
feet. The fact that Thucydides had the eruption especially in his
mind when he speaks of the gradual spread of the evil throughout the
whole body is shown by the expressions chosen by him “The disease goes
through the entire body and _marks_ (ἐπεσήμαινε) hands and feet.” Now
by what other of the symptoms mentioned would the affection of the
hands and feet have been likely to make itself evident except by the
eruption?” There must surely be few readers of Thucydides capable of
putting so radically false an interpretation on the Historian’s words.

[201] _Lucretius_, De rerum natura bk. VI. 1205 sqq.

[202] _Kraus_, “Ueber das Alter der Menschenpocken,“—(On the Antiquity
of Small-pox), Hanover 1825., pp. 54 sqq.

[203] _Paulinus Fabius_, Praelectiones Marciae, etc. 352 (but he
_defends_ his accuracy, as do Lambinus and Mercurialis),—_Scuderi_ Pt.
I. p. 126. To these we may add _Petr. Victorius_, Variar. lect. bk.
XXXV. ch. 8.

[204] As in the Antonine Plague in the year 235 A. D.,—_Galen_, De
usu part. III. ch. 5., De prob. pravisque alimentor. succ. ch. 1.,
edit. Kühn Vol. VI. p. 749.; _Cyprian_, Works, Venice 1728. fol., p.
465.—Further note _Hecquet_, “Obs. sur la chute des os du pied dans
une femme attaquée d’une fèvre maligne,” (Observations on the Falling
in of the Bones of the Foot in the case of a Woman attacked by a
Malignant Fever), in Memoires de Paris 1746. Histor. p. 40.—_J. C.
Brebis_, De sphacelo totius fere faciei post superatam febrem malignam
oborto, (On the Mortification of almost the whole Face supervening
after Recovery from a Malignant Fever), in Act. Acad. N. C. Vol. IV.
p. 206.—_Percival_ (Samml. auserles. Abh. Vol. XV. p. 335.) observed
during an epidemic of putrid fever at Manchester many patients
with violent erysipelas on the face and head; and in the Typhus
epidemics of 1806-1813, _von Hildebrand_ (“Ueber den ansteckenden
Typhus,”—On infectious Typhus), 2nd. edition, Vienna 1814., p. 200.
and _Horn_ (“Erfahrungen über die Heilung des ansteckenden Nerven- und
Lazarethfiebers,”) (Experiences in the Cure of infections Nervous and
Hospital Fevers), 2nd. edition, Berlin 1814., pp. 49, 71. saw violent
inflammations of an erysipelas character set up in the nose, elbows,
fingers and particularly the toes of their patients, which rapidly
passed over into mortification.

[205] A further, question arises whether we should not read, instead of
κατέσκηπτε γὰρ καὶ ἐς τὰ αἰδοῖα (for it attacked the genitals also),
κατέσκηπτε γὰρ _κακὸν_ ἐς τὰ αἰδοῖα (for mischief, evil, attacked the
genitals).

[206] _Joseph Franc_, Prax. med. univ. praecept. Pt. I. Vol. III.
sect. 2., Typhus, ch. 2. § 4. Note 11. Observation 108., says:
“Notwithstanding the fact that in the General Hospital of Vienna
Venereal patients were separated from others, yet it often happened at
the time I was Physician in Chief there, that patients suffering from
concealed Venereal disease or paying patients were admitted into the
common Wards. Now if one or the other got typhus, or if such a patient
was already lying there, or was brought there, _the Venereal cases
without exception took the typhus_, and particularly so during the
mercurial treatment.”

[207] _Schönlein_, “Vorlesungen”, (Prelections), Vol. II. p. 48., “The
syphilitic exanthema either remains stationary when typhus arises, or
disappears instantly and for ever—or the part affected with syphilis
becomes gangrenous.” _Neumann_, “Specielle Pathologie und Therapie”,
(Special Pathology and Therapeutics), Vol. II. p. 107., “Violent,
severe typhoïdal fevers cure syphilis completely; its symptoms
disappear with the commencement of the illness and never return.—Again
after Petechial fever I have in most cases observed that the syphilis
troubles that disappeared at its commencement never came back again.”
_Historical_ vouchers will be afforded in plenty by our later
investigations.

[208] Works, Vol. I. p. 765. Epistola ad Amunem, monachum. (Letter to
Amunis, a monk).

[209] _Euripides_, Alcestis 98.,

    πυλῶν πάροιθεν δ’ οὐχ ὁρῶ
    πηγαῖον ὡς νομίζεται
    χέρνιβ ’ἐπὶ φθιτῶν πύλαις,
    χαίτα τ’ οὔτις ἐπὶ προθύροις
    τομαῖος, ἃ δὴ νεκύων
    πένθει πιτνεῖ.

(Before the doors I see no lustral water from the fountain, as is wont
at the doors of the departed, and in the forecourt is no shorn hair,
which is ever cut in mourning for the dead.) Comp. _Kirchmann_, De
funeribus Rom. (On Roman Funerals) bk. I. last ch., bk. II, ch. 15.
_Lomeier_, De veterum gentil. lustrationibus (On Public Purifications
among the Ancients), ch. 16. _Casaubon_, On the “Characters” of
Theophrastus, ch. 16.

[210] It may be mentioned by way of supplement that Leprosy among the
Ancients was pretty nearly universally regarded as a punishment from
the gods. Even the Greeks held this view, as comes out clearly from
_Aeschylus_, Choeph. II. 2. This fact points to various conclusions as
to liability to infection in Leprosy and the obscurity in which the
causes of the disease are involved.

[211] In accordance with the explanations given on a previous page
it might be thought quite conceivable that so long as the hymen
was intact, a part of the mucous discharge of the vagina and of
the menstrual blood was retained, and acquired a certain degree of
malignity. This acting on points of the penis where the surface had
been accidentally broken in the act of defloration, or even on the
mucous membrane of the urethra, might exert an injurious influence.

[212] _Euripides_, Iphigeneia in Tauris 380. _Porphyrius_, bk. II. περὶ
Ἀποχῆς (On Abstinence), _Dio Chrysostom_, Homily XIII, on Epist. to
Ephesians.—_Theophrastus_, Charact. ch. 16.—_Th. Bartholinus_, Antiq.
veteris puerperii synopsis (Synopsis of Antiquities of Childbirth in
Old Times). Copenhagen 1646. 8vo.

[213] Deipnosoph. bk. XII. p. 518., Πάντες δὲ οἱ πρὸς ἑσπέραν οἰκοῦντες
βάρβαροι πιττοῦνται καὶ ξυροῦνται τὰ σώματα· καὶ παρά γε τοῖς Τυῤῥηνοῖς
ἐργαστήρια κατεσκεύασται πολλὰ, καὶ τεχνῖται τούτου τοῦ πράγματός
εἰσιν, ὥσπερ παρ’ ἡμῖν οἱ κουρεῖς· παρ’ οὓς ὅταν εἰσέλθωσι, παρέχουσιν
ἑαυτοὺς πάντα τρόπον, οὐδὲν αἰσχυνόμενοι τοὺς ὁρῶντας, οὐ δὲ τοὺς
παριόντας· χρῶντοι δὲ τούτῳ τῷ νόμῳ πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῶν τὴν
Ἰταλίαν οἰκούντων, μαθόντες παρὰ Σαμνιτῶν καὶ Μεσαπίων. (Now all the
Barbarians that dwell towards the West, use pitch as a depilatory,
and shave their bodies. Indeed amongst the Tyrrhenians establishments
are fitted up in numbers for this purpose, and there are artistes who
practise this profession, like barbers among ourselves. And when men
go into their shops, they expose themselves in every part, feeling no
shame of spectators nor of passers-by. And this custom is followed
also by many of the Greeks and of the inhabitants of Italy, who have
learned it from Samnites and Messapians). The depilation of men and
boys was attended to by women (_Martial_, XI. 79.) at the period of the
highest degree of dissoluteness; in fact there was a special guild of
such women, known as _ustriculae_. _Tertullian_, De pallio ch. 4. In
the same way men performed this service for women, as e. g. _Domitian_,
according to _Suetonius_, ch. 22., Erat fama, quasi concubinas ipse
develleret (Rumour went, to the effect that the Emperor used to “pluck”
his mistresses with his own hand,)—and _Heliogabalus_ according to
_Lampridius_, ch. 31., In balneis semper cum mulieribus fuit, ita ut
eas ipse psilothro curaret, ipse quoque barbam psilothro accurans,
quodque pudendum dictu est, eodem quo mulieres accurabantur, et eadem
hora. Rasit et virilia subactoribus suis ad novaculam manu sua, qua
postea barbam fecit. (At the baths he was always with the women,
going so far as to apply the “psilothrum” (a depilatory) in their
treatment himself, finishing off his own beard also with “psilothrum”,
and using, disgusting to relate, the same as the women were being
treated with, and at one and the same time. Moreover he shaved his
debauchees’ (pathics) privates to the navel with his own hand, and then
shaved his own beard).

[214] They used to remove the hair on the _face_ (_Martial_, III. 74.),
from the _nose_ (Ovid, Art. Amand. I. 520.), on the arches of the
_eyebrows_ (Cicero, Orat. pro Roscio), from the armpits (_Juvenal_,
XIV. 194., _Seneca_, Epist. 115.), on the _arms_ (_Martial_, III. 63.),
the _hands_ (_Martial_, V. 41.), on the _legs_ (_Juvenal_, IX. 12.) As
to the beard, that has already been spoken of.

[215] _Martial_, II. 62., Cui praestas culum, quem, Labiene, pilas. (To
whom you give your fundament, Labienus, that you strip of hair).

[216] _Martial_, II. 62.,

    Quod pectus, quod crura tibi, quod brachia vellis,
    Quod cincta est brevibus _mentula tonsa_ pilis,
    Haec praestas, Labiene, tuae, quis nescit? amicae.

(You pluck your chest, your legs, your arms, your _shaven member_ is
surrounded by short hair,—all these pains you offer, everyone knows it,
to your mistress.) Bk. IX. 27.,

    Cum _depilatos_, Chreste _coleos_ portes,
    Et _vulturino mentulam parem collo_,
    Et prostitutis laevius caput culis,
    Nec vivat ullus in tuo pilus crure
    Purgentque crebrae cana labra volsellae etc.

(For you have _your testicles freed from hair_, Chrestus, and _your
member like a vulture’s neck_, and your head smoother than those
posteriors that you prostitute. Not a hair lives on your leg, and
frequent application of the tweezers keeps clean your shaven lips,
etc.) Comp. Bk. IX. 48. 58. _Suetonius_, Otho 12. _Persius_, IV. 37.
_Ausonius_, 131.

[217] _Aristophanes_, Lysistrat. 151.,

    Εἰ γὰρ καθῄμεθ’ ἔνδον ἐντετριμμέναι
    κἀν τοῖς χιτωνίοισι τοῖς ἀμοργίνοις
    γυμναὶ παρίοιμεν, _δέλτα παρατετιλμέναι_,
    στύοιντ’ ἂν ἅνδρες κἀπιθυμοῖεν πλεκοῦν.

(For if we sat within doors anointed with unguents, and if we appeared
lightly clad in robes of Amorgian flax, _our bellies plucked clear of
hair_, the men would all have erections, and would be fain to lie with
us.) For the same reason Mnesilochus was freed of hair on the genitals
and in all other parts of the body, so as not to be recognised in the
assemblage of women.

[218] Aristophanes, Eccl. 718., says of prostitutes:

    καὶ τάς γε δούλας οὐχὶ δεῖ κοσμουμένας
    τὴν τῶν ἐλευθέρων ὑφαρπάζειν Κύπριν,
    ἀλλὰ παρὰ τοῖς δούλοισι κοιμᾶσθαι μόνον.
    κατωνάκῃ _τὸν χοῖρον ἀποτετιλμένας_.

(And the slave-women ought not to bedizen themselves and snatch
away the love that is free-women’s by rights; but should lie with
slaves only, their pudenda plucked clean to please the wearer of the
smock.) Frogs 515., Ξ. πῶς λέγεις; ὀρχηστρίδες; Θ. ἡβυλλιῶσαι κἄρτι
παρατετιλμέναι (Xanthius. What say you? dancing-girls? Therap. Yes!
young wenches, just _plucked clean_). Comp. Lysistrat. 88.

[219] _Martial_, bk. XII. Epigr. 32.,

    Nec plena turpi matris olla resina
    Summoenianae qua pilantur uxores.

(Nor yet your mother’s jars full of foul resin, wherewith the suburban
dames free themselves of hair.)

[220] Martial, bk. X. Epigr. 90.,

    Quid vellis _vetulum_, Ligella, _cunnum_?
    Quid busti cineres tui lacessis?
    Tales _munditiae_ decent puellas.
    Erras, si tibi cunnus hic videtur,
    Ad quem mentula pertinere desit.

(Why pluck you bare, Ligella, _your old organ_? why vex you the ashes
of your tomb? Such _nice allurements_ are for girls. You are mistaken
if you think yours is of a sort that a man’s member should be fain
to belong to it.) This passage, together with those quoted a little
above from Aristophanes and Theopompus, will explain sufficiently what
_Horace_ (Sat. I. 2. v. 36.) meant by his “mirator _cunni_ Cupiennius
_albi_,” (Cupiennius admirer of a _white organ_), for the _albus_
(white) here evidently stands for _rasus_, _depilatus_, _nudus_,
(shaven, freed from hair, bare); as in _Juvenal_, Sat. I. 111., Nuper
in hanc urbem _pedibus_ qui venerat _albis_, (Who but now had arrived
in this city with white, i. e. bare, feet.) The commentators have
hitherto always explained it by _matrona stola alba_, seu _candida_,
_vestita_, (a matron clad in a white, or glistening-white, robe),
because, as _Heindorf_ puts it, no other interpretation is to hand.
But really there are several possible explanations on similar lines.
It might be for “_canus_ cunnus”, (hoary, aged; organ) (_Martial_, bk.
IX. 38., bk. II. 34.), though again the meaning of _depilatus_ (free
of hair), in another sense, might equally well be at the bottom of
this, as is the case with _cana labra_ (hoary, white, lips)—IX. 28. Or
_albus_ (white) may be taken as synonymous with _increta_, _cerussata_
(whitened with chalk, painted with ceruse), to which _Martial_ supplies
the explanation, when he says (III. 42.),

    Lomento rugas uteri quod condere tentas,
    Polla, tibi ventrem, non mihi labra linis;

(When you endeavour to hide the wrinkles on your stomach with powder,
’tis your own belly, Polla, not my lips, you smear with the stuff),—as
also bk. IX. 3., Illa _siligineis_ pinguescit adultera _cunnis_,
(It—i. e. your penis—in adulterous loves, grows fat on women’s organs
powdered with fine wheaten flour); [but another way of taking the line
is: She, i. e. your mistress,—adulterous dame, grows fat on wheaten
cakes—cakes baked in the shape of _cunni_.] The _Lomentum_, which is
not derived from _lavimentum_ or _lavamentum_ (something to wash with),
as Scheller, following Voss, makes it to be, but from the Greek λείωμα
faba communita (_ground_ beans), was bean-meal (_Vegetius_, De re
veterin. V. 62., says: in subtilissimo lomento, hoc est farina fabacea,
(in the finest _lomentum_, that is bean-flour.); and at the present
day the Japanese, it seems, according to _Thunberg_, use a kind of
bean-meal instead of soap. Roman ladies were most careful to maintain
the _aequor ventris_ (smoothness of the belly)—_Aulus Gellius_, Noctes
Att. I. 2.); whence _Martial_, (III. 72.) says, addressing Laufella,
who refuses to bathe with him:

    Aut tibi pannosae pendent a pectore mammae
    Aut _sulcos uteri_ prodere nuda times.

(Either your breasts hang flabby from your bosom, or you fear, if you
strip, to betray the furrows on your belly.) To obviate wrinkles on
the face, they sprinkled their faces with chalk; and so _Petronius_,
(Satyr. ch. 23.) says: et inter rugas malarum tantum erat cretae, ut
putares detectum parietem nimbo laborare, (and amidst the wrinkles of
the cheeks was so much chalk, that you would think a partition-wall
had been stripped and was wrapped in a cloud of dust); and we read
in _Lucian’s_ poem (Greek Anthology, Bk. II. tit. 9.) μὴ τοίνυν τὸ
πρόσωπον ἅπαν ψιμύθῳ κατάπλαττε. (Now don’t besmear all your face with
ceruse). However if _cunnus must_ be taken as equivalent to _femina_
(a woman), it would be on all fours with _albus amicus_ (white,
white-faced, friend) in _Martial_ (bk. X. 12.), which _Farnabius_
explains by σκιατρόφος (reared in the shade, delicate), answering
more or less to our “_Whey-face_”. At any rate _any_ of these
interpretations are for certain nearer the truth than the _stola alba_
(clad in _a white robe_) one.

[221] Italae nonnullae se depiles tangere amant circa partes hymenaeo
sacras, _veritae foetationem morpionum_ (Some Italian women like
to feel the skin bare of hair round those parts that are sacred to
marriage, _fearing the foul breeding of lice_), writes _Rolfink_,
“Ordo et methodus generationi dicat. partium cognoscendi fabricam,”
(Orderly and Systematic Knowledge of the Structure of the Parts
devoted to Procreation). Jena 1664. 4to., p. 185. This may have been
one motive among the Ancients also for the removal of the hair, for
Aristotle in his time (Hist. Anim. bk. V. ch. 25.) is acquainted with
felt-lice (crabs), and calls them φθεῖρες ἄγριοι (wild lice), without
however mentioning what part of the person they infest. His words are:
ἔστι δὲ γένος φθειρῶν, _οἳ καλοῦνται ἄγριοι_, καὶ σκληρότεροι τῶν
ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς γιγνομένων· εἰσὶ δὲ οὗτοι καὶ δυσαφαίρετοι ἀπὸ τοῦ
σώματος. (There is another kind of lice, _called wild lice_, and more
troublesome than the common sort. It is most difficult to rid the body
of these). _Celsus_, De re medica bk. VI. chs. 6. and 15., mentions
them as occurring in the eye-lashes: Genus quoque vitii est, qui inter
pilos palpebrarum pediculi nascuntur. φθειρίασιν Graeci nominant.
(There is another kind of taint, lice that breed among the hair of the
eyelids; it is called in Greek φθειρίασις—lousiness.)

[222] _Lockervitzens, Christ._ Disp. II on Circumcision, Witepsk 1679.
4to.—_Antonius_, Dissertation on the Circumcision of the Gentiles,
Leipzig 1682. 4to.—_Grapius_, Did Abraham borrow Circumcision from
the Egyptians? Rostock 1699. 4to. Jena 1722. 4to.—_Vogel_, Graduation
Exercise on Questions as to the Advantages of the Medical Employment
of Circumcision, Göttingen 1763. 4to.—_Hofmann_, On Circumcision as
deserving of the name of an Old Testament Sacrament. Altorf 1770.
4to.—_Ackermann, J. Ch. G._, “Aufsätze über die Beschneidung” (Essays
on Circumcision) in _Weise’s_ “Materialien für Gottesgelahrtheit
und Religion,” (Materials for Theological and Religious Study),
1 vol. Gera 1784. 8vo., pp. 50 sqq. comp. _Blumenbach’s_ Med.
Biblioth. Vol. I. p. 482.—_Meiners_, Christ., De circumcisionis
origine et causis, (On the Origin and Reasons of Circumcision), in
Commentat. Societ. Göttingen Vol. XIV. pp. 207 sqq.—_Borhek_, “Is
Circumcision Hebraic by First Origin? and What prompted Abraham
to its Introduction? A Historico-exegetical Enquiry,” Duisburg
and Lemgo 1793. 8vo.—_Bauer, F. W._ “Description of the Religious
Constitution of the Ancient Jews.” Leipzig 1805. large 8vo. Vol. I.
pp. 76 sqq.—_Cohen, Moses_,“Dissertation on Circumcision, regarded
under its Religious, Hygienic and Pathological Aspects”. Paris 1816.
4to.—_Brück, A. Th._ “A Word on the Advantages of Circumcision,” in
Rust’s Magaz. Vol. VII. 1820. pp. 222-28.—_Hofmann, A. G._ in Ersch
and Gruber’s “Encyclopaedie”, _Circumcision_, Vol. IX, (1822) pp.
265-70.—_Autenrieth, J. H._, “Treatise on the Origin of Circumcision
among savage and semi-savage Peoples, with reference to the
Circumcision of the Israelites; together with a Critique by C. Chr. von
Flatt.” Tübingen 1829, large 8vo.

[223] _Herodotus_, Hist. Bk. II. ch. 104. _Origen_, Bk. V. ch. 41.
Works edit. De la Rue, Vol. I. p. 609 D.—_Cyril_, Contra Julian. Bk. X.
edit. Spanhem. p. 354. B.—_Diodorus Siculus_, Bk. I. ch. 28.—_Strabo_,
Geograph. Bk. XVII. ch. 2. 5. edit. Siebenkess. In _Sanchuniathon_
(Fragments edit. Orelli, p. 36.) Circumcision is actually referred back
to Cronos.

[224] _Ludolf_, Histor. Aethiop. Bk. III. ch. 1. pp. 30 sqq. _Paulus_,
“Sammlg. morgenländischer Reisebeschreibg.” (Collection of Descriptions
of Eastern Travel), Pt. III. p. 83.

[225] Forster’s “Beobachtungen,” (Observations), p. 842.—Cook’s Last
Voyage, Vol. I. p. 387., Vol. II. pp. 161, 233.

[226] _J. Gumilla_, “Histoire de l’Oronoque,” (Hist. of Oronoko),
Avignon 1708. Vol. I. p. 183. _Veigl_ in _Murr’s_ “Sammlung der Reisen
einiger Missionare,” (Collection of Travels of Various Missionaries),
p. 67.—_de Pauw_, “Reflections sur les Américains,” (Reflections
on the Natives of America), Vol. II. p. 148. _Spizelius, Theoph._,
Elevatio revelationis Montezinianae de repertis in America tribubus
Israeliticis, (Confutation of the Montezinian revelation as to the
Finding of the lost Tribes of Israel in America.) Bâle 1661. 8vo.
_Burdach_, Physiology. Vol. III. p. 386.

[227] Gospel of St. John, Ch. VII. v. 23., Εἰ περιτομὴν λαμβάνει
ἄνθρωπος ἐν σαββάτῳ, ἵνα μὴ λυθῇ ὁ νόμος Μωσέως, ἐμοὶ χολᾶτε ὅτι ὅλον
ἄνθρωπον _ὑγιῆ ἐποίησα_ ἐν σαββάτῳ. (for translation see text above).

[228] I Samuel, Ch. XVII. v. 14. It is true we find even in Genesis the
covenant with Jehovah celebrated by Abraham by means of circumcision;
but it was in later times only in each case that this custom was
referred back to him as being racial father of the Nation. For the same
reason in the case of Joshua the matter is so represented as if the
Jews had been already circumcised at their expulsion from Egypt. If
this had really and truly been the case, it is impossible to see why
circumcision was not carried out on those born on the march to Canaan.
They were perfectly able to keep other laws, and they could have
observed this too, if it had been given them at the time!

[229] Leviticus, Ch. XIX. v. 6.

[230] Leviticus, Ch. XII. v. 3.

[231] _J. G. Hofmann_, De causa foecunditatis gentis circumcisae in
circumcisione quaerenda, (On the Reason for the Fertility of the
Circumcised Race to be sought in the fact of their Circumcision),
Leipzig 1739. 4to.—_S. B. Wolfsheimer_, De causis fecunditatis
Hebraeorum nonnullis sacr. cod. praeceptibus nitentibus, (On the Causes
of the Fertility of the Jews as dependent upon certain Precepts of the
Sacred Volumes), Halle 1742.—_Bauer_, loco citato Vol. I. p. 63.

[232] The Talmud says: Quicunque Israelita liberis operam non dat, est
velut _homicida_. (An Israelite, whoever he be, that fails to give heed
to the procreation of children, is a kind of _murderer_). _Selden_,
Uxor. Hebraic. Bk. I. ch. 9.

[233] _Stoll_, Praelectiones in diversos morbos chronicos, (Lectures
on certain Chronic Diseases), Vol. I. p. 96, writes as follows:
Antiquissimum cum _Henslero_ pronuntiavi, atque inter Aegyptios,
Judaeos, Graecos dein et Romanos perfrequentem _ut quasdam harum
gentium consuetudines, mores, leges ac statuta forte inde possis
repertere_.... Sic praeceptum _circumcisionis_, antiquissima plane
consuetudo, idcirco fortassis instituta fuerat, atque tanquam ritus
sacer, tanquam praeceptum quoddam, de quo dispensari nemo queat,
introducebatur, quod circumcisus videatur difficilius morbum urethrae
contrahere, rariusque ablato scilicet praeputio, intra quod virus
haeret, rodit, cancros facit, quod et ipsum efficitur pessime in
phymosi, paraphymosi. Glans ipsa in homine minus facile virus resorbere
videtur, occallescens nempe.... Nota viriginitatis sedulo examinata est
in neonuptis puellis; custodia foeminarum per totum orientem; adulterii
crimen, maxime foeminarum, morte expiatum _videntur docere, scivisse
antiquitatem remotissimam, morbum quendam gravem, immundum volgivaga
Venere dari et communicari_. (With _Hensler_ I pronounce it—Venereal
disease—to be of most ancient origin, and to have been of such
frequency among the Egyptians, Jews, as well as the Greeks and Romans,
that it may well _be possible to discover in it the cause of sundry
habits, customs, laws and enactments of these Peoples_.... For instance
the precept of circumcision, evidently an extremely ancient custom, was
very possibly first instituted for this reason, and was introduced in
the guise of a sacred rite, a ceremonial precept from which there can
be no dispensation, because the circumcised man would seem less readily
to contract disease of the urethra, and in cases where the prepuce has
been removed, inside which the poison remains adherent and corrodes,
less frequently suffers from chancres, an effect that follows in its
worst form in phymosis and paraphymosis. The _glans penis_ itself in
a man thus treated seems to absorb the poison less easily, being in
fact grown partially callous.... The fact that the sign of virginity
was scrupulously examined in newly married virgins, the careful guard
kept over women throughout the East, the penalty of death attached to
the crime of adultery, especially in women, _all seem to show that the
remotest Antiquity was aware of some serious, foul disease being given
and communicated by indiscriminate Love_.

[234] _Strabo_, Geograph. Bk. XVII. ch. 11. § 5.—_Reland_, De religione
Muhamedan., (On the Mohammedan Religion), p. 75. _Niebuhr_, Description
of Arabia, p. 70.

[235] _Seezen_, in a letter to von Hammer on the Mines of the East.
Vol. I. p. 65.

[236] _Paulus_, “Sammlung morgenländ. Reisebeschreibg.,” (Collection
of Descriptions of Eastern Travel), Vol. III. p. 83.—_Olivier’s_
“Reise in Aegypten, Syrien, etc.,” (Travels in Egypt, Syria, etc.), p.
413.—_Seezen_, loco citato p. 65. Perhaps even the ancient Egyptians
circumcised maids in their time. _Ambrosius_, Abraham Bk. II. ch.
11., in Works Vol. I. p. 347., Paris edition of 1686. _Galen_, De usu
partium Bk. XV.

[237] _Ludolf_, History of the Ethiopians Bk. III. ch. 1.

[238] _Chardin_, Voyages en Perse, (Travels in Persia), Vol. X. p. 76.,
Amsterdam edition.

[239] _Mungo Park_, Travels p. 180.—Voyage au pays de Bambouc, (Journey
to the Land of Bambuk), p. 48.

[240] _Veigl’s_ “Gründliche Nachrichten von der Landschaft Maynas in
Südamerika,” (Trustworthy Account of the Province of Maynas in South
America), in _Murr’s_ “Sammlung der Reisen einiger Missionarien von der
Gesellschaft Jesu,” (Collection of the Travels of various Missionaries
of the Society of Jesus), Nüremberg 1785., p. 67.

[241] _Plutarch_, On Isis and Osiris ch. 94. Hence we commonly find
among the Ancients the custom, merely after the evacuation of urine
and fæces, of cleansing the parts concerned. Accordingly _Josephus_,
De Bello Judaic. Bk. II. ch. 8., says: καίπερ δὲ φυσικῆς οὔσης τῆς
τῶν σωματικῶν λυμάτων ἐκκρίσεως ἀπολούεσθαι μετ’ αὐτὴν, καθάπερ
μεμιασμένοις, ἔθιζον. (And even though the evacuation of the bodily
defilements was in the course of nature, they were accustomed to wash
themselves after it, as in the case of men polluted). The Romans used
for the purpose a sponge fastened to the end of a stick, as we see from
_Seneca_, Letter 70, where he says: Lignum, quod ad emendanda obscoena
adhaerente spongia positum est, totum in gulam sparsit, (The stick
that is placed with a sponge fixed to it for cleansing filth, this he
shook right in his mouth). Slaves took stones, bulbs, etc. for the
purpose. _Aristophanes_, Plut. IV. 1. After making water it was usual
to wash the hands. _Petronius_, Satyr. 27. Exonerata ille vesica, aquam
poposcit ad manus. (After relieving his bladder, he asked for water for
his hands). This care for cleanliness roused, as mentioned before, the
utmost anger on the part of Saint Athanasius; but it is to this day the
custom among the Turks, for it is enjoined by the Koran (Sure IV. 42.),
even adding that only one hand ought to be used (_Niebuhr_, Description
of Arabia, p. 78.), namely the _left_. The same hand was used also by
the Romans, as well as perhaps by all ancient Peoples. Hence _Martial_
says, bk. XI. 59., sed lota mentula laeva.... (but my member, when
my left hand has been washed....). With the left hand, amica manus
(the _mistress_ hand), masturbation was performed, _Martial_, IX. 42.
XI. 74.; it served to cover the genitals, _Lucian_, Amor. 13., hence
according to _Ovid_, Ars amandi, Bk. II. 613.

    Ipsa Venus pubem quoties velamina ponit,
    Protegitur laeva semireducta manu

(Venus herself, as oft as she lays aside her garments, half withdrawn
covers herself with her left hand), and Priapus is represented in Art
holding the penis with the left hand, Priapeia 24. 34. If we are not
mistaken, this was also the case with Horus among the Egyptians. What
has just been said explains at the same time the reason why the left
hand has from of old been held in disrepute, an idea still preserved in
the expression, to marry, to be married, _with the left hand_.

[242] _Friedr. Hoffmann_, Diss. med. 3., asserit luem Veneream
Constantinopolidos non grassari, quod feminae munditiei apprime
studiosae post opus aquam sumant et locos diligenter colluant (asserts
that Venereal disease is not prevalent at Constantinople, because
the women being extremely careful of cleanliness take water after
their work and scrupulously wash the parts), says _Astruc_, I. p.
108. This is further confirmed by _Oppenheim_, “Ueber den Zustand der
Heilkunde etc. in der Türkei,” (On the Condition of Medical Science
etc. in Turkey), Hamburg 1838., p. 81., who writes: “Without the great
cleanliness of the Turks, who after any single occasion of coition not
only practise washing, but wherever at all possible, go to the bath as
well, the disease (Venereal) would undoubtedly be still more widely
spread.”

[243] Herodotus, Histor. Bk. I. ch. 198., Ὁσάκις δ’ ἂν μιχθῇ γυναικὶ
τῇ ἑωυτοῦ ἀνὴρ Βαβυλώνιος περὶ θυμίημα καταγιζόμενον ἵζει· ἑτέρωθι δὲ
ἡ γυνὴ τὠυτὸ τοῦτο ποιέει· ὄρθρου δὲ γενομένου λοῦνται καὶ ἀμφότεροι·
ἄγγεος γὰρ ουδενος ἅψονται πρὶν ἂν λούσωνται· ταὐτὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ Ἀράβοι
ποιεῦσι. (for translation see text above).

[244] _Eusebius_, Praeparat. evangel. p. 475. C., Μηδὲ εἰς ἱερὰ
εἰσιέναι ἀπὸ γυναικῶν ἀλούτοις ἐνομοθέτησαν. (And they enjoined that
men should not enter into temples unwashed after women).

[245] _Chaeremon_ in _Porphyry_, περὶ ἀποχ. bk. IV. §. 7, The
expression _pollutiones_ (pollutions) for nocturnal ejaculation of seed
shows the Romans also saw a defilement in this. Comp. _Heinsius_ on
Ovid’s Art of Love, bk. III. 96.

[246] Josephus, Contra Apionem, bk. II. p. 1381., καὶ _μετὰ τὴν νομιμὸν
συνουσίαν_ ἄνδρος καὶ γυναικὸς ἀπολούσασθαι _κελεύει ὁ νόμος_· ψυχῆς τε
καὶ σώματος ἐγγίνεται μολυσμός. (Even _after the lawful intercourse_ of
man and wife _the Law orders_ men to wash: a defilement both of soul
and body ensues).

[247] _Philo Judaeus_, De special. legg., τοσαύτην δ’ ἔχει πρόνοιαν
ὁ νόμος τοῦ μηδ’ ἐπὶ γάμοις νεωτερίζεσθαι, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς συνιόντας
εἰς ὁμιλίαν ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας κατὰ τοὺς ἐπὶ γάμοις θεσμοὺς, ὅταν
εὐνῆς ἀπαλλάττωντο, οὐ πρότερον ἐᾷ τινος ψαύειν ἢ _λουτροῖς_ καὶ
_περιῤῥαντηρίοις χρῆσθαι_. (But the Law takes such precautions that
nothing strange and unlawful be done in marriage, that it suffers
not even such as come together in intercourse, men and women united
according to the laws of marriage, when they quit the bed, to touch
anything before they have _employed baths and sprinklings_.) The
same Writer, De mercede meretricis non accepienda in sacrar., (Of
Harlots’ Hire not meet to be Taken in the Holy Place), Works edit.
Mangey Vol. II. p. 265., moreover states that in his time the public
women made frequent use of warm baths.

[248] _Europa_ bathed in Crete after coition with Zeus (Antigonus
Carystius, Hist. mirab. 179.), Venus after the first embraces of Vulcan
(Athenaeus, Deipnos. XV. p. 681.), Ceres after lying with Neptune
(Pausanias, Arcad. p. 256.).

[249] In Amor. 42. Lucian says of the women (Hetaerae), νύκτας ἐπὶ
τούτοις διηγούμεναι, καὶ τοὺς ἑτερόχρωτας ὕπνους καὶ θηλύττητος εὐνὴν
γέμουσαν· _ἀφ’ ἧς ἀναστὰς ἕκαστος εὐθὺ λουτροῦ χρεῖός ἐστι_. (passing
their nights in this way, enjoying indiscrimate sleep and a couch
teeming with wantonness; from the which each man when he has risen,
straightway is in need of bathing). _Hesiod_, Works and Days 731.,
writes,

    μηδ’ αἰδοῖα γονῇ πεπαλαγμένος ἔνδοθι οἴκου
    ἑστίη ἐμπελαδὸν παραφαινέμεν, ἀλλ’ ἀλέασθαι.

(Nor yet when done with generation, within the house hard by the hearth
expose the privates, but retire aside).

[250] _Persius_, Sat. II. 15.,

    Haec sancte ut poscas, Tiberino in gurgite mergis
    Mane caput bis terque et _noctem flumine purgas_.

(That you may make this request free from taint, you plunge your head
in Tiber’s flood twice and three times at dawn, and _purge away your
night in the stream_). _Gregory the Great_, Answers to ten Questions
of Augustine, first English Bishop: Vir cum propria uxore dormiens,
intrare ecclesiam, non debet, sed neque lotus intrare statim debet....
Et quamvis de hac re diversae hominum nationes diversa sentiant, atque
custodire videantur, _Romanorum tamen semper atque ab antiquioribus_
usus fuit, post ad mixtionem propriae coniugis et lavacrii
purificationem ab ingressu ecclesiae paullatim reverenter abstinere. (A
man sleeping with his own wife, ought not to enter a church, and not
even when washed ought he to enter immediately after.... And although
on this matter different nations of mankind hold different opinions
and appear to keep different customs, yet the Romans’ practice always
and from the most ancient times has ever been, that subsequently to
intercourse with his lawful wife and the purification of the bath a man
reverently abstain for a while from entering a church). For the same
reason _Tibullus_ says, Carmina bk. II. 1.,

    Vos quoque abesse procul jubeo discedite ab aris,
    Queis tulit hesterna gaudia nocte, Venus.

(You too I bid stand afar off, depart ye from the altars, to whom
yesternight Venus brought her joys). Comp. _Ovid_, Amor., bk. III.
eleg. 6.

[251] _Ovid_, Amor., bk. III. eleg. 7. 84.

    Neve suae possent intactam scire ministrae,
    Dedecus hoc _sumta_ dissimulavit _aqua_.

(And that her handmaids might not know her untouched, she dissembled
this disgrace by _taking water_).

_Ovid_, Ars Amandi, bk. III. 619.,

    Scilicet obstabit custos ne scribere possis,
    _Sumendae_ detur cum tibi tempus _aquae_.

(Of course your guard will put obstacles in the way to hinder your
writing, though time be given you for _taking water_).

_Martial_, bk. VII. Epigr. 34.,

    Ecquid femineos sequeris matrona recessus?
    Secretusque tua, cunne, lavaris aqua?

(What! do you a matron penetrate into women’s secret haunts? and by
stealth are you washed, O female organ, in the water that appertains
to you?) _Petronius_, Sat. 94., Itaque extra cellam processit, tanquam
_aquam peteret_. (And so she came forward outside her chamber, and
if she _were going for water_).—_Cicero_, Orat. pro Caelio, ch. 14.
represents his grandfather Appius Claudius Caecus, who (442 A. U. C.)
had constructed the Appian Way, say to his depraved granddaughter:
Ideo aquam adduxi ut ea tu inceste uterere? (Was it for this I brought
the water to Rome, that you might use it for abominable purposes?)
Comp. Casaubon on Cicero, Letters to Atticus, bk. I. Letter 16. For
the same reason women and girls who only rarely participated in sexual
intercourse were called _siccae_ (dry) (_Plautus_, Miles Glor. III.
1. 192. _Martial_, XI. Epigr. 82. _Petronius_, Sat. 37.), in contrast
to the _uda puella_ (wet girl) _Juvenal_, Sat. X. 321. _Martial_, XI.
17., who was obliged to wash herself frequently. So too _illota_ or
_illauta_ virgo (unwashed maid) stands for _intacta_ virgo (untouched
maid), as in _Plautus_, Poenul. I. sc. 2. 22. Nam quae lavata est,
nisi perculta est, meo quidem animo, quasi _illauta_ est. (For she who
is washed, unless she is bedecked as well, in my opinion, is as good
as _unwashed_). In fact the whole of this scene is important for our
subject.

[252] _Festus_, p. 19. under word _Aquarioli_: Aquarioli
dicebantur mulierum impudicarum sordidi asseclae. (Aquarioli, or
water-boys, a name given to the shameless attendants of immodest
women).—_Tertullian_, Apologet. ch. 43. They were also known as
_baccariones_ from baccarium, a word which _Isidor_ explains by
aquarium (a water vessel). An old Gloss says: baccario πορνοδιάκονος,
meritricibus aquam infundens (baccario, a prostitutes’ attendant, one
who pours water for whores); another: aquarioli, βαλλάδες, βαλλὰς, from
βάλλων ὕδωρ, ab aqua jaciunda (water-boys, or throwers, from throwing
water). These aquarioli at the same time carried on the business of
procurers; so _Juvenal_ says, Sat. VI. 331., veniet conductus aquarius.
(Some water-carrier will come, hired for the purpose). Comp. _Lipsius_,
Antiq. lect. I. 12. Hence also the word _aquaculare_ was used meaning
lenocinari (to be a pandar); see _Turnebus_, Adversar. XIV. 12. XXVIII.
5. Besides this they held themselves, especially in the public baths,
at the disposal of lustful women, very often earning in this way the
Bath farthing they had to pay. Probably Dasius in _Martial_, bk. II.
Epigr. 52., was such an Aquariolus.

    Novit loturas Dasius numerare, poposcit
    Mammosam Spatalen pro tribus, illa dedit.

(Dasius knew well how to count the women going to bathe; he asked
big-bosomed Spatalé the price for three, and she gave it). Hence the
_quadrantaria permutatio_ (farthing barter) in Cicero, Orat pro Caelio
ch. 26. Comp. _Juvenal_, Sat. VI. 428.,

    Callidus et cristae digitos impressit aliptes,
    Ac summum dominae femur exclamare coegit.

(The artful masseur too pressed his fingers on the clytoris, and
made the upper part of his mistress’ thigh resound under his hands).
From the passage of _Martial_ it follows that _Busch_, “Handbuch der
Erfindungen,” (Manual of Inventions), vol. II. p. 8., is mistaken in
saying: _Women_ and persons not yet adult had the bath _gratis_; in
fact in the passage from Juvenal, Sat. II. 152., quoted by him, it
is a question of boys only. For the rest, the Aquarioli recall the
λουτροφόροι (water-bearers) of the Greeks; these were boys, whose
duty it was to fetch the water for the Bride’s bath before marriage.
_Pollux_, Onomast. III. 43. _Harpocration_, under the word, p. 49.
_Meursius_, Ceramicus ch. 14. p. 40. _Böttiger_, “Vasen gemälde”
(Vase-painting), I. p. 143. Again the παρανύμφοι (groomsmen), who
anointed the bride, and as a rule were from 17 to 19 years old, may be
mentioned here by way of illustration. Hancarville, Antiquités Vol. I.
plate 45. Vol. III. plate 43. Vol. IV. plate 69.

[253] _Columella_, De re rust. bk. XII. ch. 4., His autem omnibus
placuit, eum, qui rerum harum officium susceperit, castum esse
continentemque oportere, quoniam totum in eo sit, ne contractentur
pocula vel cibi, nisi aut ab impubi aut certe abstinentissmo rebus
venereis. Quibus si fuerit operatus vel vir vel femina, debere eos
flumine aut perenni aqua, priusquam penora contingant, ablui. (But all
were agreed upon this, that he who should undertake the performance
of these duties ought to be chaste and continent, since all depends
on his care that drink and food be not defiled, unless indeed they
are prepared by one still immature or at any rate one extremely
self-restrained in the matter of love. But if it has been indulged in
by man or woman, they ought to be cleansed in the river or in flowing
water, before they touch the victuals). From what precedes the words
quoted, it may be conjectured that this custom prevailed also among the
Carthaginians and Greeks.

[254] _Propertius_, bk. III. eleg. 9., At primum pura somnum tibi
discute limpha. (But first shake off your sleep with pure water).
_Apuleius_, Metamorphos. bk. II., Confestim discussa pigra quiete,
alacer exsurgo meque purificandi studio, marino lavacro trado. (Soon
as ever dull sleep is shaken off, at once I briskly rise, and with
the desire of purification, I give myself to the bath of sea water.)
_Tacitus_, Germania ch. 22., Statim e somno, quem plerumque in diem
extrahunt, lavantur, saepius calida, ut apud quos plurimum hiems
occupat. (Immediately on rising from sleep, which as a rule they
prolong into the day-time, they wash, generally in warm water, as one
would expect among men whose winter lasts most of the year).

[255] _Lomeier_, De lustrationibus veterum gentium, (Of the Lustrations
of Ancient Peoples), ch. XVI. p. 167., Et Priapus iter ad fontem
monstrare dicebatur, quod qui quaeve viros experirentur lotione opus
haberent; (Moreover Priapus was said to point the way to the fountain,
because such men, or women as had intercourse, were in need of
washing); in confirmation of which he then alleges the passage quoted
in the text.

[256] _Martial_, Bk. II. Epigr. 50. Comp. bk. II. 70., bk. III. 69. 81.
_Petronius_, Sat. 67., Aquam in os non coniiciet. (He will not throw
water into his mouth).

[257] E. g. the Epigram of _Martial_ (VI. 81.) on Charidemus, who
according to VI, 56. was a _fellator_.

[258] _Martial_, bk. VII. Epigr. 34. 35.,

    Inguina succinctus nigra tibi servus aluta
    Stat, quoties calidis tota foveris aquis.

(A slave girt about the loins with a pouch of black leather stands by
you, as oft as you are washed all over with warm water). _Claudian_, I.
106.,

    Pectebat dominae crines et saepe lavanti
    Nudus in argento lympham portabat alumnae.

(He was wont to comb his mistress’ hair, and oft when she bathed, naked,
he would bring water for his lady in a silver ewer).

[259] _Dio Cassius_, Histor. bk. XLIX. ch. 43., τά τε βαλανεῖα προῖκα
δι’ ἔτους καὶ ἀνδράσι καὶ γυναιξὶ λούεσθαι παρέσχε. (And he opened the
Baths gratuitously throughout the summer both to men and women). Comp.
_Pliny_. Hist. nat. bk. XXVI. ch. 24. 9. Dio Cassios. LIV. 29.

[260] _Plutarch_, Cato Major ch. 39., συλλούσασθαι δὲ μηδέποτε· καὶ
τούτου κοινὸν ἔθος ἔοικε Ῥωμαίων εἶναι. καὶ γὰρ πενθεροῖς γάμβροι
ἐφυλάττοντο συλλούεσθαι, δυσωπούμενοι τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν καὶ γύμνωσιν· εἶτα
μέντοι παρ’ Ἑλλήνων, τὸ γυμνοῦσθαι μαθόντες αὐτοὶ πάλιν τοῦ καὶ μετὰ
γυναικῶν τοῦτο πράσσειν ἀναπεπλήκασι τοὺς Ἑλλήνας. (And never bathed
together; indeed the common habit of doing so appears to be of Roman
origin. For at first sons-in-law used to guard against bathing with
fathers-in-law, feeling shame at such exposure and stripping naked.
Later on however having learned the habit of stripping naked from the
Greeks, they again in their turn have taught the Greeks that of doing
so along with women). The _balnea virilia_ (men’s baths) are mentioned
in _Aulus Gellius_, Noct. Att. X. 3., where he shows that they were
also used by women.

[261] Catalect. Graecor. Poetarum,

    ἀνδράσιν Ἑρμῆς εἰμί· γυναιξὶ δὲ Κύπρις ὁρῶμαι·
      ἀμφοτέρων δὲ φέρω συμβολά μοι τοκέων
    Τοὔνεκεν οὐκ ἀλόγως με τὸν Ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔθεντο
      _ἀνδρογύνοις λουτροῖς_ παῖδα τὸν ἀμφίβολον.

(To men I am Hermes; for women I am looked upon as Cypris; and I bear
the tokens of both my parents. Therefore not without good reason have
they set me up, the Hermaphrodite, the boy of double nature, before
male-female baths).

[262] _Martial_, Bk. VI. 34. bk. III. 51. bk. II. 76. As early as
_Ovid_, Art of Love, bk. III. 639., we read:

    Quum custode foris tunicam servante puellae
    Celent furtivos balnea tuta iocos,

(When the doorkeeper at the entrance keeps the girl’s garments, and the
discreet baths cover surreptitious amusements); also in _Quintilian_,
Institut. bk. V. ch. 9., nam si est signum adulterae lavari cum viris,
etc. (if indeed it is a mark of a lewd woman to bathe with men).

[263] _Spartian_, Life of Hadrian ch. 18., Lavacra pro sexibus
separavit. (He assigned separate baths for the two sexes). Dio Cass.
LXIX. ch. 8.

[264] _Julius Capitolinus_, Life of Marcus Antoninus ch. 23., Lavacra
mixta submovit, mores matronarum composuit diffluentes et iuvenum
nobilium. (He abolished the mixed Baths, and restrained the loose
habits of the Roman ladies and of the young nobles).

[265] _Lampridius_, Life of Alexander Severus ch. 24., Balnea mixta
Romae exhiberi prohibuit, quod quidem iam ante prohibitum Heliogabalus
fieri permiserat. (He forbad the opening of mixed Baths at Rome, a
practice which, though previously prohibited, Heligabalus had allowed
to be followed).

[266] _Clement of Alexandria_, Paedagog. bk. III. ch. 5., says
of women: καὶ δὴ τοῖς μὲν ἀνδράσι τοῖς σφῶν οὐκ ἂν ἀποδύσαιντο,
προσποίητον αἰσχύνης ἀξιοπιστίαν μνώμεναι· ἔξεστι δὲ τοῖς βουλομένοις
τῶν ἄλλων οἴκοι τὰς κατακλείστους, γυμνὰς ἐν τοῖς βαλανείοις θεάσασθαι·
ἐνταῦθα γὰρ ἀποδύσασθαι τοῖς θεαταῖς, ὥσπερ καπήλοις σωμάτων, οὐκ
αἰσχύνονται ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν Ἡσίοδος (Oper. et Dies lib. II. 371).

    Μὴδὲ γυναικείῳ λυτρῷ χρόα φαιδρύνεσθαι,

παραινεῖ· κοινὰ δὲ ἀνέωκται ἀνδράσιν ὁμοῦ καὶ γυναιξὶ τὰ βαλανεῖα·
κἀντεῦθεν ἐπὶ ἀκρασίαν ἀποδύονται· ἐκ τοῦ γὰρ εἰσορᾶν, γίνεται
ἀνθρώποις ἐρᾶν· ὥσπερ ἀποκλυζομένης τῆς αἰδοῦς αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὰ λουτρὰ·
αἱ δὲ μὴ εἰς τοσοῦτον ἀπερυθριῶσαι, τοὺς μὲν ὀθνείους ἀποκλείουσιν,
ἰδίοις δὲ οἰκέταις συλλούονται, καὶ δούλοις ἀποδύονται γυμναὶ, καὶ
ἀνατρίβονται ὑπ’ αὐτῶν, ἐξουσίαν δοῦσαι τῷ κατεπτηχότι τῆς ἐπιθυμίας,
τὸ ἀδεὲς τῆς ψηλαφήσεως· οἱ γὰρ παρεισαγόμενοι παρὰ τὰ λουτρὰ ταῖς
δεσποίναις γυμναῖς, μελέτην ἴσχουσιν ἀποδύσασθαι πρὸς τόλμαν ἐπιθυμίας
ἔθει πονηρῷ παραγράφοντες τὸν φόβον. (And of a truth they would not
strip before their own husbands, feigning a pretended plausibility of
mock-modesty; but for other men, whosoever will, may readily see the
women that are so close shut up at home, naked at the Baths. For there
they are nowise ashamed to strip before the spectators, looking on
like dealers in human flesh; whereas Hesiod (Works and Days, bk. II.
371.) advises “But do not, for the earning of a woman’s price, let her
wash her skin bright and clean.” Now the Baths are open for men and
women alike. And hence their stripping leads to incontinence; for from
seeing, men come to desire, as though their modesty were washed away
in the Baths. Other women that have not attained such effrontery, shut
out strangers indeed, but wash along with their own house-slaves, and
are stripped naked before their servants and are rubbed by them, giving
opportunity to the man a-tremble with longing, the free right to handle
without fear; for the men that are admitted into the Baths with their
naked mistresses take care to strip in such a way as to correspond to
the daring audacity of their longing, putting down fear to the count of
evil habit).—_Cyprian_, De Virginum habitu: Quid vero, quae promiscuas
balneas adeunt, quae oculis ad libidinem curiosis, pudori ac pudicitae
dicata corpora prostituunt, quae cum viros ac a viris nudae vident
turpiter ac videntur, nonne ipsae illecebram vitiis praestant. (But in
truth, those women that frequent indiscrimate Baths, that expose to
prying and lustful eyes their bodies that should be dedicate to modest
shamefacedness, that along with men see what is disgraceful to see and
in nakedness are seen by men, do not such women offer an enticement to
sinfulness?) Comp. _Mercurialis_, De arte Gymnast. bk. I. ch. 10.—It
is true we read in _Julius Caesar_, De bello Gallico bk. VI. ch. 21.,
of the ancient Germans: Intra annum vero vicessimum feminae notitiam
habuisse, in turpissimis habent rebus; cuius rei nulla est occultatio,
quod et _promiscue in fluminibus perluuntur_, (But to have known a
woman under the twentieth year is held by them most disgraceful; and
there is no concealment of it, as _they bathe indiscriminately in the
rivers_); but here the antecedent clause bars any suspicion of sexual
excesses having been invited by the practice.

[267] _Seneca_, Epist. 86. says, speaking of the bath of Scipio:
Balneolum angustum, tenebricosum ex consuetudine antiqua; non videbatur
maioribus nostris caldum nisi obscurum. (A little narrow bath-chamber,
dim and gloomy after the antique fashion; our fathers could not believe
a bath warm unless it was dark too).—Next he describes explicitly the
luxury of the Roman Baths, and then goes on,—In hoc balneo Scipionis
minimae sunt rimae magis quam fenestrae, muro lapideo exsectae, ut
sine iniuria munimenti lumen admitterent. At nunc _blattaria_ vocant
_balnea_, si qua non ita aptata sunt, ut totius diei solem fenestris
amplissimis recipiant; nisi et lavantur et colorantur; nisi ex solio
agros et maria prospiciant.... Imo si scias, non quotidie lavabatur.
Nam ut aiunt, qui priscos mores urbis tradiderunt, brachia et crura
quotidie abluebant, quae scilicit sordes opere collegerant: ceterum
toti nundinis lavabantur. Hoc loco dicet aliquis, liquet mihi
immundissimos fuisse. Quid putas illos oluisse? militiam, laborem,
virum. Postquam munda balnea inventa sunt, spurciores sunt. (In this
bath of Scipio there are tiny chinks rather than windows, cut through
the stone wall, so as to admit light without detriment to the shelter
afforded. But nowadays men call them _Baths for night-moths_, any
that are not disposed in such a way as to let the sunlight enter all
day long by immense windows; if they are not washed and sun-burned at
once; if they cannot look out on fields and sea from the pavement....
If you must know the truth, he did not bathe every day. For we are
told by those who have handed down accounts of the primitive manners
of the City, our ancestors would wash daily arms and legs, for these
had grown soiled with the dust of toil: but they washed all over only
on market-days. Hearing this, it will be said, “It appears to me they
must have very filthy people.” Well! what think you it was they smelt
of? Of fighting, and honest work, and manly vigour. Sweet, clean Baths
have been introduced; but the population is only more foul). Comp.
_Plutarch_, Quaest. convival. VIII. 9. _Sidonius Apollinaris_ bk. II.
Epist. 11. _Pliny_, Hist. nat. XXX. 54.

[268] _Ammianus Marcellinus_, XXVIII., Tales, ubi comitantibus
singulos quadraginta ministris, tholos introierint balnearum, ubi
sunt, minaciter clamantes, si apparuisse subito ignotam compererint
meretricem, aut oppidanae quondam prostibulum plebis, vel meritorii
corporis veterem lupam, certatim concurrunt, palpantesque ad venam
deformitate magna blanditarum ita extollunt, ut Semiramin. (Such men,
when with forty servants attending each master they have entered the
rotundas of the Baths, where they remain with loud threatening shouts,
if they should note an unknown courtesan to have put in an appearance,
or some prostitute once popular with the common herd, or some old
harlot who has sold her person for years, they strive who shall be
first on the spot, and wheedling her to the top of her bent, with
mighty exaggeration of flattery, praise her beauty as though she were
a Semiramis). _Lampridius_, Life of Heliogabalus ch. 26., Omnes de
circo, de theatro, de stadio, de omnibus locis et _balneis_, meretrices
collegit in aedes publicam. (All the prostitutes from circus, from
theatre, from race-course, from all places and from _the Baths_, he
brought together into public establishments). Comp. _Suetonius_,
Caligula ch. 37.

[269] Martial, bk. I. Epigr. 24.,

    Invitae nullum, nisi cum quo, Cotta, lavaris,
      Et dant convivam balnea sola tibi.
    Mirabar, quare nunquam me, Cotta, vocasses.
      Iam scio, me nudum displicuisse tibi.

(You invite no man, Cotta, but your bathing companion; the Baths only
supply a guest for you. I used to wonder, why you had never asked me;
now I know that you did not like the look of me when naked). Comp.
_Martial_, Bk. I. 97. bk. VII. 33. bk. IX. 34. _Juvenal_, Sat. VI. 373.

[270] It must be left to future investigation to decide, whether the
great number of _phalli_ found in so many places where Temples formerly
existed, is not in part to be explained by supposing these figures to
have formed thank-offerings for the happy recovery of the corresponding
parts from sickness.

[271] _Oppenheim_, Ueber den Zustand der Heilkunde in der Türkei, (On
the Condition of of Medical Knowledge in Turkey), p. 81., “Without the
very great cleanliness of the Turks, who after every occasion of sexual
intercourse not only wash carefully, but also wherever it is possible
go to the bath likewise, the disease would undoubtedly be yet more
widely spread than it is.... Yet the Turk will never admit, or rather
he simply cannot bring himself to conceive, that he has contracted
an infection through unclean cohabitation, but will be found always
to give some other cause as occasioning his sickness. In fact the
language itself shows this; the Turkish expression for gonorrhœa is
“_Belzouk_”, literally: chill of the back (from _bel_, back and _zouk_,
cold), and chill or overheating will always be represented as having
brought it on.”—Moreover _Zeller von Zellenberg_, Abh. über die ersten
Erscheinungen venerischer Lokal-Krankheitsformen und deren Behandlung,
(Dissertation on the earliest Appearances of Forms of Local Venereal
Disease, and their Treatment), Vienna 1810., p. 7., is of the opinion,
that the reason of the imperfect knowledge possessed by the Ancients of
gonorrhœa, chancre and buboes is to be found in this delayed appearance
of the symptoms of disease after coition.

[272] We see this in the clearest possible way from the passage of
_Herodotus_, bk. I. ch. 9, 10., where Candaules wishes to induce Gyges
to see his wife naked, in order to convince him of her beauty, but the
latter objects: ἅμα δὲ κιθῶνι ἐκδυομένῳ συνεκδύεται καὶ τὴν αἰδῶ γυνή·
πάλαι δὲ τὰ καλὰ ἀνθρώποισι ἐξεύρηται, ἐκ τῶν μανθάνειν δεῖ·
(but when she strips off her tunic, a woman strips off therewith
her modesty likewise; now mankind have long ago ascertained what is
honourable, and from this we must learn how to act). Then Herodotus
adds to this further (ch. 10.), παρὰ γὰρ τοῖσι Λυδοῖσι, σχεδὸν δὲ
παρὰ τοῖσι ἄλλοισι βαρβάροισι, καὶ ἄνδρα ὀφθῆναι γυμνὸν, ἐς αἰσχύνην
μεγάλην φέρει· (for among the Lydians, as indeed among pretty nearly
all Barbarians, for a person to be seen naked is counted for the
greatest disgrace). Comp. _Plutarch_, De audiend. rat. p. 37. _Diogenes
Laertius_, VIII. 43. _Plato_, Politics V. 6. p. 457. A., V. 3. p. 452.,
Οὐ πολὺς χρόνος, ἐξ οὗ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐδόκει αἰσχρὰ εἶναι καὶ γέλοια,
ἅπερ νῦν τοῖς πολλοῖς τῶν βαρβάρων, γυμνοὺς ἄνδρας ὁρᾶσθαι. (It is
no long time since it appeared to the Greeks, as it does still to most
of the Barbarian peoples, shameful and ridiculous for men to be seen
naked). In reference to the genital organs _Hesiod_ says (Works and
Days 733.):

    μηδ’ αἰδοῖα γονῇ πεπαλαγμένος ἔνδοθι οἴκου
    ἑστίῃ ἐμπελαδὸν παραφαινέμεν, ἀλλ’ ἀλέασθαι·

(Nor yet when done with generation, within the house hard by the hearth
expose the privates, but retire aside). St. Augustine, De civit. dei
bk. XIV., Omnes gentes adeo tenent in usu pudenda velare, ut quidam
barbari illas corporis partes nec in balneis undas habeant. (All
nations in fact make it a habit to cover the privates, so much so that
some Barbarians do not expose the parts of the body naked even in the
Baths). _St. Ambrose_, Offic. I. 18., Licet plerique se et in lavacro,
quantum possunt, tegant, ut vel illic, ubi nudum totum est corpus,
huius modi intecta portio sit. (Most men may also cover themselves,
as much as they can, even in the Bath, so that even there, where the
whole body is naked, a part may so be hidden). _Arnobius_, bk. V.,
Propudiosa corporum monstratur obscoenitas, obiectanturque partes
illae, quas pudor communis abscondere, quas naturalis verecundiae lex
iubet, quas inter aures castas sine venia nefas est ac sine honoribus
apellare praefatis. (The foulest abomination of men’s bodies is
exhibited, and those parts exposed, which common modesty, the natural
law of shamefacedness, bids us conceal, which among ears polite it
is forbidden to name without asking pardon and making a preface of
apologies).—bk. III., Insignire his partibus, quas enumerare, quas
persequi probus audeat nemo, nec sine summae foeditatis horrore mentis
imaginatione concipere. (To parade those parts, which no honourable man
dare name or describe, nor even without a shudder at such a height of
foulness conceive a mental picture of). Comp. p. 42. and _Oppenheim_,
loco citato p. 128., who undoubtedly ranks the importance of the vice
of paederastia too high, when he finds in it the main reason for the
feeling of shame prevalent among the Turks.

[273] _Aristophanes_, Wasps 578., παίδων τοίνυν δοκιμαζομένων αἰδοῖα
πάρεστι θεᾶσθαι. (Yet when boys are under test, men may see their
privates). Comp. _Athenaeus_, Deipnos. bk. XII. p. 550. Petit, Ad
legg. Attic. p. 227. At Rome likewise in cases of marriage disputes
the men were obliged to offer their genital organs for examination
(_Quintilian_, Declam. 279.), a Law which was only revoked by
Justinian. Comp. _Gundlingiana_ No. 23. pp. 342 sqq. We learn from
_Plato_, Theaetet. 151., ποίαν χρῆ ποίῳ ἀνδρὶ συνοῦσαν ὡς ἀρίστους
παῖδας τίκτειν, (what sort of maid must mate with what sort of man
to produce as fine children as may be), that the marriageable girls
were examined by the midwives,—a procedure that Plato wished to see
universally introduced in his ideal State (De legg. bk. XII.). But
against this _Theodoretus_, Contra Graecos bk. IX., declaims vigorously.

[274] In any case it is an error to suppose that by this it is implied
that the maidens and young men were absolutely naked. They were merely
μονόπεπλοι (single-frocked), clothed in a single short frock, slit
up at the hips, for which reason they were also known by the name
φαινομηρίδες (showing the thighs) (_Pollux_, Onomastic. VII. 55.), a
costume which was pretty much the general Doric one; thus _Moeris_ says
δωριάζειν τὸ παραγυμνοῦσθαί τινα μέρη, (to follow Dorian fashions,
to expose certain parts). Comp. _Meursius_, Laconic. bk. I. end.
_K. O. Müller_, The Dorians, IInd. Part pp. 263, 265. _Josephus_,
De special. legg., Works, Vol. II. p. 328. The meaning of γυμνὸς is
nothing more than “lightly clad”, in mere underclothing, without outer
cloak. So _Eubulus_, (Athenaeus bk. XIII. p. 568.) says, speaking of
the brothel-girls, γυμνάς—ἐν λεπτονήτοις ὑμέσιν ἑστωτας (standing
“naked”—in light-spun garments). _Aelian_, Var. hist. XIII. 37., ἐν
χιτωνίσκῳ γυμνὸς, (“naked” in a tunic). Similarly _nudus_ (naked) in
Latin, as _Cuper_ (Observat. bk. I. ch. 7.) long ago pointed out,
often has no other meaning, but merely stands for _tunicatus_ (clad
in the tunic), in tunic only, without cloak or toga. We see this very
clearly in _Petronius_, Satir. 55., Aequum est induere nuptam ventum
textilem,—Palam prostare nudam in nebula linea. (’Tis right a bride
should put on woven wind,—that she should stand openly for sale,
“naked” in a linen cloud!) In precisely the same way the Jews use their
word עָרֹם (arôm), Isaiah Ch. XX. 2., Job Ch. XXIV. 7. 10. I Samuel
ch. XIX. 24., and the Arabs مسلوخ (mesluch).

[275] _Plato_, Republic, bk. II. p. 405. The Speech of _Lysias_ Ὑπὲρ
Φανίου contains a passage, preserved for us by _Athenaeus_, bk. XII. p.
552., in which these principles are expressed in Court, to induce the
Judges to condemn the dissolute Cinesias: τοῦτον δὲ τὸν ὑπὸ πλείστων
γινωσκόμενον οἱ θεοὶ οὕτως διέθεσαν, ὥστε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτοῦ βούλεσθαι
ζῆν μᾶλλον ἢ τεθνάναι, παράδειγμα τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἵν’ ἴδωσιν ὅτι τοῖς ἄλλοις
ὑβριστικῶς πρὸς τὰ θεῖα διακειμένοις, οὐκ εἰς τοὺς παῖδας ἀποτίθενται
τὰς τιμωρίας, ἀλλ’ αὐτοὺς κακῶς ἀπολύουσι, μείζους καὶ χαλεπωτέρας,
καὶ τὰς νόσους, ἢ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις, προσβάλλοντες· τὸ μὲν γὰρ
ἀποθανεῖν ἢ καμεῖν νομίμως κοινὸν ἅπασιν ὑμῖν ἐστίν· τὸ δ’ οὕτως ἔχοντα
τοσοῦτον χρόνον διατελεῖν, καὶ καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκοντα μὴ
δύνασθαι τελευτῆσαι τὸν βίον, τούτοις μόνοις, προσήκει τοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα,
ἅπερ οὗτος, ἐξημαρτηκόσιν. (But this man, who is known to most of you,
the gods have brought to such a pass that his enemies may well wish him
to live rather than die, to be an example to other men, showing them
that where men’s conduct is too violently overbearing towards the gods,
these do not inflict punishments on their children, but pay them out in
person with misfortunes, bringing down on them calamities and diseases
greater and more severe than fall to the lot of others. For death and
sickness are admittedly common to all of you; but to continue so long
in such a condition, and dying every day, yet not be able to have
done with his life, this is the fate only of men who have committed
such evil deeds as he has). Again, the Taxili, an Indian people,
regarded any bodily sickness as disgraceful, and on its appearance gave
themselves to the fire; αἴσχιστον δ’ αὐτοῖς νομίζεσθαι νόσον σωματικήν·
τὸν δ’ ὑπονοήσαντα καθ’ αὑτοῦ τοῦτο ἐξάγειν ἑαυτὸν διὰ πυρὸς νήσαντα
πυράν, (But they hold a bodily disease to be most disgraceful; and the
man who has formed a suspicion of the existence of such in himself,
goes through the fire, after making a funeral pyre) says _Strabo_,
Geograph. bk. XV. p. 716. 65. We should compare with this the suicide
of Festus spoken of above and of the “Municeps” _Pliny_ tells of.

[276] _Aretaeus_, De caus. et sign. chron. morb. (On the Causes and
Symptoms of Chronic Diseases), bk. II. ch. 5., says indeed explicitly
of gonorrhœa: ἀνώλεθρον μὲν ἡ γονόῤῥοια, _ἀτερπὲς δὲ καὶ ἀηδὲς μέσφι
ἀκοῆς_, (Gonorrhœa is not indeed a dangerous complaint, but it is
one that is hateful and abominable of repute).

[277] _Martial_, bk. VI. Epigr. 31.,

    Uxorem, Charideme, tuam scis ipse sinisque
    _A medico futui_. Vis sine febre mori!

(Your wife, Charidemus, you know _to be entered by the doctor_ of your
own knowledge, and suffer it. You are fain to die without a fever!)
Similar instances occurred equally in the time of Hippocrates, as we
gather from the oath, in which stands the clause: εἰς οἰκίας δὲ ὁκόσας
ἂν ἐσίω, ἐσελεύσομαι ἐπ’ ὠφελείῃ καμνόντων, ἐκτὸς ἐὼν πάσης ἀδικίης
ἑκουσίης καὶ φθορίης τῆς τε ἄλλης, καὶ _ἀφροδισίων ἔργων, ἐπί τε
γυναικείων σωμάτων καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἐλευθέρων τε καὶ δούλων_. (Also into
whatsoever houses I enter, I will go in there for the succour of sick
persons, devoid of all voluntary offence and all evil-doing, and above
all of all amorous practices, whether on the persons of women or free
men or slaves). At the same time we learn from this document, that even
then paederastia was wide-spread enough already, and that physicians
were actually not ashamed to abuse their patients in this, as in other
vicious ways! Undoubtedly it is from no other reason that the Turk
at this very moment will rather expire than allow a clyster to be
administered to him.

[278] _Martial_, bk. II. Epigr. 40.,

    Omnes Tongilium medici iussere lavari,
    O stulti! febrem creditis esse? gula est.

(All the doctors ordered Tongilius to bathe; fools! think you it is a
fever? it is gluttony that is the matter). Comp. bk. XI. Epigr. 87.

[279] _Galen_, Method. medendi, bk. VIII. ch. 6., edit. Kühn Vol. X.
p. 580., σχεδὸν εἴρηταί μοι πάντα περὶ τῶν ἐφημέρων πυρετῶν· οἱ γὰρ
ἐπὶ βουβῶσι πυρέξαντες οὐδὲ πυνθάνονται τῶν ἰατρῶν ὅ τι χρὴ ποιεῖν·
ἀλλὰ τοῦθ’ ἕλκους ἐφ’ ᾧπερ ἂν ὁ βουβὼν αὐτοῖς εἴη γεγεννημένος, αὐτοῦ τε
τοῦ βουβῶνος προνοησάμενοι, λούονται κατὰ τὴν παρακμὴν τοῦ γενομένου
κ. τ. λ. (for translation see text above). The _Diatriton_ mentioned
in the next sentence was the fast till the third day, which was
generally prescribed by _Thessalus_ and the _methodic_ school. For this
reason it was called διάτριτον θεσσαλείον (Thessalus’ _diatriton_),
and the physicians who held to it διατριτάριοι ἰατροὶ (doctors of the
_diatriton_), as we gather from the subsequent statement of _Galen_.
Of the ephemera in case of buboes _Galen_ also speaks, ad Glauconem
meth. med. bk. I. ch. 2., edit. Kühn Vol. XI. p. 6., καὶ οἱ ἐπὶ βουβῶσι
δὲ πυρετοὶ τούτου τοῦ γένους εἰσὶ, πλὴν εἰ μὴ χωρὶς ἕλκους φανεροῦ
γένοιντο, (Moreover the fevers that follow on buboes are of this kind,
the exception being if they have not been without open ulceration).
_Celsus_ moreover, De re med. bk. VI. ch. 18., says à propos of
diseases of the genitals, that he means to undertake their description,
quia in vulgus eorum curatio praecipue cognoscenda est, quae
invitissimus quisque alteri ostendit, (because a general acquaintance
is particularly desirable with the means of curing such complaints as
every man is most reluctant to make known to another).

[280] _Galen_, Meth. med., bk. XIII. ch. 5. p. 881., οὕτως οὖν
καὶ δι’ ἕλκος ἐν δακτύλῳ γινόμενον ἤτοι ποδὸς ἢ χειρὸς οἱ κατὰ τὸν
βουβῶνα καὶ τὴν μασχάλην ἀδένες ἐξαίρονταί τε καὶ φλεγμαίνουσι, τοῦ
καταῤῥέοντος ἐπ’ ἄκρον τὸν κῶλον  αἵματος ἀπολαβόντες πρῶτοι· καὶ κατὰ
τράχηλον δὲ καὶ παρ’ ὦτα πολλάκις ἐξῄρθησαν ἀδένες, ἑλκῶν γενομένων
ἤτοι κατὰ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἢ τὸν τράχηλον ἤ τι τῶν πλησίων μορίων·
ὀνομάζουσι δὲ τοὺς οὕτως ἐξαρθέντας ἀδένας βουβῶνας. (Thus then in
consequence of an ulcer that has formed in a finger or toe the glands
of the groin and the arm-pit become swollen and inflamed, having been
the first to receive back the blood that flows down to the extremity of
the limb. Moreover on the neck and about the ears glands are frequently
swollen, when ulcers have been set up in the head or neck or any of
the neighbouring parts. And glands swollen up in this way are known as
buboes).

[281] Hippocratic Oath, in _Hippocrates_, Vol. I. p. 2., ἃ δ’ ἂν ἐν
θεραπείῃ ἢ ἴδω ἢ ἀκούσω, ἢ καὶ ἄνευ θεραπείης, κατὰ βίον ἀνθρώπων, ἃ μὴ
χρή ποτε ἐκκαλέεσθαι ἔξω, σιγήσομαι, ἄῤῥητα ἡγεύμενος εἶναι τὰ τοιαῦτα.
(and whatsoever I may see or hear in my practice, or even apart from
practice, connected with men’s life, what ought not in any case to be
revealed, this I will say nought of, holding such secrets inviolable).

[282] _Hippocrates_, De locis in homine, edit. Kühn Vol. II. p. 139.

[283] _Galen_, Method. medendi bk. IV. ch. 2., edit. Kühn Vol. X. p.
238.

[284] _Oppenheim_, loco citato p. 123. The Eastern Christian woman in
question actually assured Niebuhr herself that she would never agree
to the knife being applied to her husband’s genitals, and yet in this
case it was merely a question of dividing an over short _frenulum_.
_Michaelis_, “Mosaisches Recht”, (Mosaic Law), Vol. IV. p. 3.

[285] Examples of such are at any rate plentiful in _Martial_, e. g. bk.
XI. Epigr. 75.,

    Curandum penem commisit Bacchara Graecus
    Rivali medico: Bacchara Gallus erit.

(Bacchara entrusted the cure of his member to a rival doctor: Bacchara
was a Greek, he will now be a Gaul,—“Gallus”, castrated Priest of
Cybelé).

bk. II. Epigr. 46.,

    Quae tibi non stabat, praecisa est mentula, Glypte.
    Demens, cum ferro quid tibi? Gallus eras.

(Your member, Glyptus, that you could never get to stand erect, has
been cut. Fool,—why! what had you to do with the knife? You were a
“Gallus” already).

bk. III. Epigr. 81.,

    Abscissa est quare Samia tibi mentula testa,
    Si tibi tam gratus, Baetice, cunnus erat?

(Why has your member been cut with a Samian potsherd, if the female
organ, Baeticus, was so dear to you)?

[286] _Scribonius Largus_, De compos. medicam. edit. Bernhold,
Strasburg 1786., p. 2., writes in his Introduction to the Callistus:
Siquidem verum est, antiquos herbis ac radicibus eorum corporis vitia
curasse: quia etiam tunc genus mortalium _inter initia non facile
se ferro committebat_. Quod etiam nunc plerique faciunt, ne dicam
omnes; et, nisi magna compulsi necessitate speque ipsius salutis, non
patiunter sibi fieri, quae sane vix sunt toleranda. (If in fact it is
true that the Ancients cured the diseases of their bodies by means of
herbs and roots: for even then the race of mortals _at the beginning
did not readily entrust its cure to the knife_. And this is what even
now the most part do; and, unless constrained by a sore need and by the
hope of actual recovery, do not suffer operations to be performed on
them, which in very deed are hardly to be endured).

[287] _Galen_, Method. medendi bk. IV. ch. 1., edit. Kühn Vol. X. p.
233.

[288] _Hippocrates_, Coact. praenot., edit. Kühn Vol. I. p. 343., τὰ
ἑρπηστικὰ ὑπεράνω βουβῶνος πρὸς κενεῶνα καὶ ἥβην γινόμενα, σημαίνει
κοιλίην πονηρευομένην. (Spreading eruptions that appear above the groin
towards the flank and pubes point to an evil condition of stomach).

[289] _Galen_, Method. medendi bk. IV. ch. 3., edit. Kühn Vol. X. pp.
243 sqq.

[290] Hence _Hensler_ is quite right in saying as he does (History
of Venereal Disease Vol. I. p. 298.): “It is extraordinary that a
precision should have been demanded on the part of the Ancients, which
they could not possibly possess, such indeed as cannot be expected
in any disease during its childhood. As to requiring them to have
announced the cause of the evil with certainty and clearness, this is
always only the result of time and reiterated experience.”

[291] _Galen_, De locis affect. bk. VI. ch. 5., edit. Kühn Vol. VIII.
p. 422., φαινομένου δὲ σαφῶς, ἰσχυροτάτην ἔχειν τὴν δύναμιν ἐνίας
τῶν οὐσιῶν, ὑπόλοιπον ἂν εἴη ζητεῖν, εἰ διαφθορά τις ἐν τοῖς ζώοις
δύναται γενέσθαι τηλικαύτη τὸ μέγεθος, ὡς ἰῷ θηρίου παραπλησίαν ἔχειν
ποιότητά τε καὶ δύναμιν. (But it being plainly evident that there are
some creatures that have the power developed in the highest degree, it
would be superfluous to enquire whether there can exist in animals a
destructive force so great in amount as to possess a quality and power
similar to poison in snakes). In fact he answers this question in the
affirmative so far as regards semen and menstrual blood, appealing to
the poisonous quality of the spittle of dogs in rabies.

[292] _Heyne_, De febribus epidemicis Romae falso in pestium censum
relatis Progr., (On certain Epidemic Fevers at Rome incorrectly
referred to the Category of Plagues,—a Graduation Exercise), Göttingen
1782., p. 4. (Works vol. III.), Hoc enim erat illud, quod antiquitatem
omnino ab subtiliore naturae adeoque et morborum cognitione revocavit
et retraxit, quod ea, quae ad interiorem eius notitiam spectabant,
inprimisque quae ab solenni rerum cursu recedebant, ad religiones
metumque deorum referebantur. (For indeed this was the cause which
withdrew and kept back Antiquity generally from a more precise
acquaintance with nature and so with diseases, viz. that everything
which regarded the more intimate knowledge of it, and above all
everything that was somewhat out of the common course of things, became
a matter of religious scruples and superstition). Comp. _C. F. H.
Marx_, Origines Contagii, (Original Causes of Contagion) Carlrühe and
Baden 1824.

[293] As a rule they ascribed the origin of the contagion to σῆψις
(putrefaction), and from their point of view septic, or putrefactive,
diseases were pretty much the same as infectious (_Galen_, De febr.
diff. I. 4.). Hence it would seem probable the ἕλκεα σηπεδόνα
(putrefying ulcers) were at any rate partly looked at in the same
light,—a circumstance of the highest importance as bearing on ulcers of
the genitals, as in that case these latter are manifestly represented
as being infectious. It is to be hoped that experts will give their
decision as to this. At any rate as early as _Galen’s_ time (De locis
effect. bk. VI. ch. 5., edit. Kühn Vol. VIII. p. 422.) the action of
contagion was regarded as analogous to that of the electric ray-fish
(νάρκη θαλάττιος) and the magnet, and the conclusion was drawn: ταῦτά
τε οὖν ἱκανὰ τεκμήρια τοῦ σμικρὰν οὐσίαν ἀλλοιώσεις μεγίστας ἐργάζεσθαι
μόνῳ τῷ ψαῦσαι. (these then are sufficient evidences of the fact that a
small creature may produce very great variations by contact alone).

[294] These were treated by the female physicians (αἱ ἰατρίναι),
_Galen_, De loc. effect. VI. 5., Vol. VIII. p. 414. and the midwives,
who had to examine the female genitals in cases of disease affecting
them, and report the results to the Physicians. Σκέψασθαι κέλευσον τὴν
μαῖαν ἁψαμένην τοῦ τῆς μήτρας αὐχένος, (bid the midwife examine by
touch the neck of the womb), _Galen_ says, loco citato p. 433.

[295] _Galen_, De morborum causis, ch. 9., edit. Kühn Vol. VII. p. 39.

[296] _Galen_, Methodus medendi bk. II. ch. 2., edit. Kühn Vol. X. p.
84.

[297] _Hensler_, History of Venereal Disease Vol. I. p. 191. He says
explicitly: “However I do not propose to follow up to its original
cause the history either of gonorrhœa, valuable as the results might
be, nor that of any other complaint liable to occur. It is sufficient
for my purpose to elucidate my Authorities for Venereal disease at its
first appearance from the circumstances of their epoch, though no doubt
incidentally the eye must sometimes take a wider sweep and look further
and higher.”

[298] _Galen_, De loc. affect, bk. VI. 6. (VIII. p. 439.), τὸ δὲ τῆς
γονοῤῥοίας ὄνομα προφανῶς ἐστι σύνθετον ἐκ τῆς γονῆς καὶ τοῦ ῥεῖν·
ὀνομάζεται γὰρ τὸ σπέρμα καὶ γονός. (Now the name of gonorrhœa is
evidently compounded from the words γονὴ and ῥεῖν. For the semen
(σπέρμα) is also known as γονός.)

[299] _Galen_, loco cit. p. 441., γονόῤῥοια μὲν οὖν τῶν σπερματικῶν
ὀργάνων ἐστὶ πάθος, οὐ τῶν αἰδοίων, οἷς ὁδῷ χρῆται πρὸς ἔκρουν ἡ
γονή· (Gonorrhœa accordingly is an affection of the seminal organs,
not of the privates, which the seed merely uses as its passage for
excretion).—De usu partium bk. XIV. ch. 10. (IV. p. 188.), κατὰ δὲ τὰς
γονοῤῥοίας αὐτῶν μόνων ἐστὶ τὸ πάθημα τῶν σπερματικῶν ἀγγείων. (But in
gonorrhœas the affection is one solely of the seminal vessels).

[300] _Galen_, De symptom. caus. bk. II. ch. 2. (VII. p. 150.), ὥσπέρ
γε καὶ τῆς γονοῤῥοίας ἡ ἑτέρα διαφορά· εἰ μὲν γὰρ μετὰ ἐντάσεως τοῦ
αἰδοίου γένοιτο, οἷον σπασμός ἐστιν, εἰ δὲ χωρὶς ταύτης, ἀῤῥωστία
τῆς καθεκτικῆς δυνάμεως. (As is the case too with the second variety
of gonorrhœa. For if it be combined with tension of the private, it
is a sort of spasm, but if without this, a weakness of retentive
force).—Bk. III. ch. 11. (p. 267.), καὶ μὴν καὶ αἱ γονόῤῥοιαι, χωρὶς
μὲν τοῦ συνεντείνεσθαι τὸ αἰδοῖον, ἀρρωστία τῆς καθεκτικῆς δυνάμεως τῆς
ἐν τοῖς σπερματικοῖς ἀγγείοις· ἐντεινομένου δέ πως, οἷον σπασμῷ τινι
παραπλήσιον πασχόντων ἐπιτελοῦνται. (Moreover also gonorrhœas, if not
combined with a state of tension of the private, are from a weakness of
retentive power in the seminal vessels; but if there is any tension,
they are marked by a sort of spasm resembling that of spasmodic
patients).

[301] _Galen_, De tumoribus praeternat., ch. 14. (VII. p. 728.),
καθάπερ καὶ τὰς κατὰ φύσιν ἐντάσεις τῶν αἰδοίων μὴ καθισταμένας τινὲς
ὀνομάζουσι σατυριασμὸν, τινὲς δὲ πριαπισμόν. (Precisely as tensions
of the privates not originating in a natural way are called by some
Satyriasis, by others Priapism). The latter, as we gather from _Galen_,
Method. XIV. ch. 7. (X. p. 968.), by the younger physicians.

[302] _Galen_, De usu partium bk. XIV. ch. 10. (IV. p. 187.), πηλίκην
γὰρ ἔχει δύναμιν εἰς τὴν τῶν περιεχομένων ἔκκρισιν ὁ οἷον σπασμὸς τῶν
μορίων τοῖς ἀφροδισίοις ἑπόμενος, ἔνεστί σοι μαθεῖν ἔκ τε τῶν ἐπιληψίων
τῶν μεγάλων κἀκ τοῦ παθήματος, ὃ δὴ καλεῖται γονόῤῥοια· κατὰ μὲν γὰρ
τὰς ἰσχυρὰς ἐπιληψίας, ὅτι τὸ πᾶν σῶμα σπᾶται σφοδρῶς, καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ
γεννητικὰ μόρια, διὰ τοῦτο ἐκκρίνεται τὸ σπέρμα· κατὰ δὲ τὰς γονοῤῥοίας
αὐτῶν μόνων ἐστὶ τὸ πάθημα τῶν σπερματικῶν ἀγγείων· ὁποίαν οὖν τάσιν
ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις νοσήμασι πάσχει, τοιαύτην ἴσχοντα ταῖς συνουσίαις
ἐκκρίνει τὸ σπέρμα. (for how great a force in the way of stimulating
the secretion of the surrounding glands is exerted by the species
of spasm of the parts that follows on amatory action, you may learn
from the seizures in the more serious forms of epilepsy, as also from
the affection which is known as gonorrhœa. For in violent epileptic
seizures, because the whole body is strongly convulsed, and with it the
procreative parts, for this reason the semen is secreted; whereas in
gonorrhœas the affection is one solely of the actual seminal vessels.
Accordingly whatever tension these parts undergo in the diseases
mentioned is the same in degree as they experience on secreting semen
in acts of sexual intercourse). Comp. Note 2.

[303] _Galen_, Method. medendi bk. XIV. ch. 7. (X. p. 967.), αὐτίκα
γέ τοι πάθος ἐστὶ τὸ καλούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν νεωτέρων πριαπισμὸς, ἐπειδὴ
τὸ αἰδοῖον ἀκουσίως ἐξαίρεται, τῶν οὕτω διακειμένων· ὃ θεασάμενός τις
τῶν ἐν τοῖσδε τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι προγεγυμνασμένων ἑτοίμως γνωριεῖ τοῦ
τῶν ἐμφυσημάτων ὑπάρχον γένους· (The immediate complaint is what is
called by the younger school Priapism, when the private part is erected
involuntarily in patients so afflicted; and if any of my readers who
have been prepared beforehand in the present memoranda see this, he
will readily recognize the phænomenon to belong to the class of the
emphysemata, or inflations). De sympt. caus. bk. III. ch. 11. (VII. p.
266).

[304] _Galen_, De causis morb. ch. 6. (VII. p. 22.), καὶ ὡς ἐνίοτε
μὲν εἰλικρινὴς ἐπιῤῥεῖ τούτων ἕκαστος τῶν χυμῶν, ἐνίοτε δ’ ἀλλήλοις
ἐπιμίγνυνται· καὶ ὡς αἱ τῶν οἰδούντων—μορίων διαθέσεις ἐντεῦθεν ἐπὶ
πλεῖστον ποικίλλονται ... καὶ σατυριάσεις ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γένους εἰσὶ.
(And so sometimes each of these humours is secreted pure, while at
other times they are mixed one with the other; and so from this
circumstance the conditions of the parts suffering swelling vary in the
highest degree.... Now cases of satyriasis are of this kind). Comp.
Method. med. bk. XIV. ch. 7.

[305] _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 56., ἡ σατυρίασις ἐστὶ παλμὸς
τοῦ αἰδοίου φλεγμονώδει τινι διαθέσει τῶν σπερματικῶν ἀγγείων ἑπόμενος
μετ’ ἐντάσεως· καὶ εἰ μὴ παύσαιτο ὁ παλμός, κατασκήπτειν εἴωθεν εἰς
πάρεσιν τῶν σπερματικῶν ἀγγείων ἢ σπασμόν, καὶ ἀπόλλυντας ὀξέως οἱ
σπασθέντες· τελευτῶντες δὲ φυσῶνται γαστέρα καὶ ὑδροῦσι ψυχρόν.
(Satyriasis is palpitation of the private part following on an
inflammatory condition of the spermatic vessels and accompanied with
tension. If the palpitation do not cease, it commonly passes into
paresis of the spermatic vessels or spasm, and patients attacked by the
spasm quickly succumb; and in their last moments they have the abdomen
distended and suffer from cold sweats.)

[306] _Actuarius_, Method. med. bk. I ch. 22., Priapismus vero
est permanens constansque colis extensio.—Corripit hic affectus
cum calidus crassusque spiritus in colem decumbit, qui ubi non
facile egredi permittitur, penem vi extendit. Hi exiguum vel nihil
seminis eiaculantur, sentiunt tamen quod spiritus una excludatur
et levari quidem aegri ita quadamtenus videntur: verum denuo eodem
malo corripiuntur, donec intensionis causa fuerit sublata. Coles
resolvitur, aut quod nervi illius aliqua intemperie debilitentur
aut quod spiritus confluens deficiat vel meatus eius obstruantur
dissecenturve. (Now priapism is a permanent and chronic state of
erection of the member.—This complaint attacks a patient, when a hot
and heavy spirit descends into the member, which not being suffered to
readily escape, violently erects the penis. Such patients ejaculate
little or no semen, yet feel that the spirit is voided along with it,
and so far as there _is_ any emission, appear to be relieved thereby;
but they are again attacked afresh by the same evil, until the cause
of the tension has been removed. Then the member is relaxed, either
because its muscles are weakened by some morbid condition, or because
the spirit converging to it fails or its passages are blocked and
become dried up).

[307] _Aretaeus_, Morb. chron. sympt. bk. II. ch. 5., ἀπὸ σατυριήσεως
ἐς γονοῤῥοίης ἀπόσκηψιν ἡ κατάστασις. (The established tendency
after satyriasis is towards a determination of gonorrhœa). _Caelius
Aurelian_, Acut. morb. bk. III. ch. 18., Omnibus tamen in ultimo
conductio nervorum fit, quam Graeci spasmon vocaverunt et voluntarius
seminis iactus. (Yet in all cases eventually a certain action of the
muscles takes place, which the Greeks call spasm, and a voluntary
ejaculation of semen).

[308] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. XIV. ch. 7. (X. p. 970.), γίνεται δὲ
οὐ πολλοῖς μὲν τὸ πάθος τοῦτο, νεανίαις γε μὲν μᾶλλον ἢ κατ’ ἄλλην
ἡλικίαν· (Now this complaint does not attack many, and young men are
more liable than any other age). _Caelius Aurelian_, Acut. morb. bk.
III. ch. 18., Sed antecedentes ipsius passionis causae sunt epota
medicamina—ἐντατικὰ—, item immodicus atque intemporalis usus veneris.
Est autem communis passio viris atque feminis, quae solet accidere
aetatibus mediis atque iuventuti. (But the antecedent causes of the
actual complaint are the taking of drugs, viz. aphrodisiacs, as also
immoderate and unseasonable indulgence in love. And the complaint is
common both to men and women, and regularly attacks persons in middle
life as well as the young).

[309] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. XIV. ch. 7. (X. pp. 969 sqq.). Comp.
De Composit. medicam. secund. locos, bk. IX. ch. 9. (XIII. p. 318.).
_Caelius Aurelian_, Acut. morb. bk. III. 18., Chron. morb. bk. II.
1. V. 9. _Actuarius_, Method. med. I. 15. _Nonnus_, Epitom. ch. 194.
_Priscian_, bk. II. ch. 11.

[310] _Caelius Aurelian_ bk. III. ch. 18., Prohibentes etiam hominum
ingressum et magis iuvenum feminarum atque puerorum. Pulchritudo enim
ingredientium admonitione quadam provocat aegrotantes; quippe cum etiam
sani saepe talibus usi statim in veneream veniant voluptatem, provocati
partium effecta tentigine. (Forbidding the entrance even of men, much
more that of youths, women and boys. For the beauty of those entering
excites the patients by calling up remembered images; for even healthy
subjects frequently enjoying such sights straightway fall in lustful
love, incited by a certain tension of the parts being produced). He
also recommended shaving the hair of the pubis.

[311] _Galen_, De loc affect. VI. 6. (VIII. p. 439.), ἡ μὲν οὖν
γονόῤῥοια σπέρματος ἀπόκρισίς ἐστιν ἀκούσιος, ἔξεστι δὲ καὶ ἀπροαίρετον
ὀνομάζειν, ὥσπερ καὶ σαφέστερον, ἀπόκρισιν σπέρματος συνεχῶς
γιγνομένην, χωρὶς τῆς κατὰ τὸ αἰδοῖον ἐνστάσεως ... ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τ’ ἄλλα
πάντα τὰ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν ἐκκενούμενα κατὰ διττὸν τρόπον τοῦτο
πάσχει, ποτὲ μὲν ἐκ τῶν περιεχόντων αὐτὰ σωμάτων ἐκκρινόμενα, ποτὲ δὲ
αὐτομάτως ἐκρέοντα δι’ ἀῤῥωστίαν τῶν αὐτῶν σωμάτων οὐ κατεχόμενα, οὕτως
καὶ τὸ σπέρμα· (Now gonorrhœa is an involuntary discharge of semen, or
we may call it unintentional, if we prefer, as being a clearer term,
the discharge of semen taking place continuously, without erection in
the member.... And just as other parts of our body when evacuated,
suffer this in one of two ways, sometimes being discharged by the
bodies that surround them, at others flowing out automatically, as
failing to be retained through some weakness in the bodies themselves,
so is it also with the semen).—_Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 55., ἡ
γονόῤῥοια σπέρματος ἐστὶν ἀκούσιος ἀπόκρισις σανεχῶς γινομένη χωρὶς τῆς
κατὰ τὸ αἰδοῖον ἐνστάσεως, διὰ τὴν τῆς καθεκτικῆς δυνάμεως ἀσθένειαν
γινομένη. (Gonorrhœa is an involuntary discharge of seed going on
persistently without erection in the member, being due to feebleness of
the retentive power). _Nonnus_, Epitome ch. 193., says the same.

[312] _Galen_, loco citato p. 441., ὥσπερ γε καὶ τὴν τῆς γονοῤῥοίας,
ἀνάλογον οὔρων ἐκκρίσεσιν ἀκουσίοις, ὅταν ἡ κατέχουσα δύναμις αὐτὴ
παραλυθεῖσα τύχῃ. (Similarly too the discharge of gonorrhœa, analogous
to the involuntary discharges of urine, whenever the retentive power
itself has come to be paralysed). _Actuarius_, Method. med. bk. I. ch.
22., Causa autem eius est, seminalium vasorum fluxus facilitas, aut
impotentia aut quod ob enatam intemperiem semen continere nequeant, aut
quod _humor_ quispiam _mordax_ ibi abundans stimulet. (Now the cause
of it is the facility of flow from the seminal vessels, either from
impotence or because they are unable to retain the semen in consequence
of a morbid condition that has arisen, or else because some _acrid_
humour is there in over-abundance, stimulating the flow).

[313] _Galen_, De sanitate tuenda Bk. VI. ch. 14. (VI. p. 443.),
Μοχθηροτάτη δὲ σώματός ἐστι καὶ ἡ τοίαδε· σπέρμα πολὺ καὶ δερμὸν ἔνιοι
γεννῶσιν, ἐπείγει γὰρ αὐτοὺς εἰς ἀπόκρισιν, οὗ μετὰ τὴν ἔκκρισιν
ἔκλυτοί τε γίγνονται τῷ στόματι τῆς κοιλίας, ... ἀσθενεῖς γίγνονται,
καὶ ξηροὶ καὶ λεπτοὶ, καὶ ὠχροὶ, καὶ κοιλοφθαλμιῶντες οἱ οὕτω
διακείμενοι· εἰ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ταῦτα πάσχειν ἐπὶ ταῖς συνουσίαις ἀπέχοιντο
μίξεως ἀφροδισίων δύσφοροι μὲν τὴν κεφαλὴν, δύσφοροι δὲ καὶ τῷ στομάχῳ,
καὶ ἀσώδεις· οὐδὲν δὲ μέγα διὰ τῆς ἐγκρατείας ὠφελοῦνται· συμβαίνει
γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐξονειρώττουσι παραπλησίας γίνεσθαι βλάβας, ἃς ἔπασχον ἐπὶ
ταῖς συνουσίαις· _ὡς δέ τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔφημοι, δακνώδους τε καὶ θερμοῦ
πάνυ τοῦ σπέρματος αἰσθάνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἀπόκρισιν, οὐ μόνον ἑαυτὸν,
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας αἷς ἂν ὁμιλήσῃ_· (However the most troublesome
condition of body is the following: some patients produce copious
and hot semen, and this provokes them to ejaculation, then after its
ejaculation, they grow relaxed at the neck of the belly, ... and become
weak, and dried up, and thin, and pale, and hollow-eyed,—the patients
that find themselves so affected. And if after suffering in these
ways, they then indulge in the intercourse of sexual love, they are
afflicted in head and in stomach, and with nausea. Nor on the other
hand do they get any great benefit from continence; for they come, by
having pollutions in dreams, to undergo similar inconveniences to those
they incurred in sexual intercourse. And as one of them said to me, _he
experienced a biting and exceedingly hot sensation from the semen in
its ejaculation,—and not himself only, but also such women as he had
intercourse with_).

[314] _Aretaeus_, De morbor. chronic. symptom. bk. II. ch. 5.,
Ἀνώλεθρον μὲν ἡ γονόῤῥοια, _ἀτερπὲς δὲ καὶ ἀηδὲς μέσφι ἀκοῆς_· ἣν
γὰρ ἀκρασίη καὶ _πάρεσις_ τὰ ὑγρὰ ἴσχῃ καὶ γόνιμα μέρεα, ὅκως διὰ
ψυχρῶν ῥέει ἡ θορὴ, οὐδὲ ἐπισχεῖν ἐστὶ αὐτὴν οὐδὲ ἐν ὕπνοισι· ἀλλὰ
γὰρ ἤν τε εὕδῃ, ἤν τε ἐγρηγορέῃ, ἀνεπίσχετος ἡ φορὴ, ἀναίσθητος δὲ ἡ
ῥοὴ τοῦ γόνου γίγνεται· _νοσέουσι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες τήνδε τὴν νοῦσον_,
ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ κνησμοῖσι τῶν μορίων καὶ ἡδονῇ προχέεται τῇσι ἡ θορή· ἀτὰρ
καὶ πρὸς ἄνδρας ὁμιλίῃ ἀναισχύντῳ· ἄνδρες δὲ οὐδ’ ὅλως ὀδάξονται·
τὸ δὲ ῥέον ὑγρὸν λεπτὸν, ψυχρὸν,  ἄχρουν, ἄγονον· πῶς γὰρ ζωογόνον
ἐκπέμψαι σπέρμα ψυχρὴ οὖσα ἡ φύσις· ἢν δὲ καὶ νέοι πάσχωσι, γηραλέους
χρὴ γενέσθαι πάντας τὴν ἕξιν, νωθώδεας, ἐκλύτους, ἀψύχους, ὀκνέοντας,
κωφούς, ἀσθενέας, ῥικνούς, ἀπρήκτους, ἐπώχρους, λευκοὺς, γυναικώδεας,
ἀποσίτους, ψυχροὺς, μελέων βάρεα, καὶ νάρκας σκελέων, ἀκρατέας, καὶ ἐς
πάντα παρέτους· ἥδε ἡ νοῦσος ὁδὸς ἐς παράλυσιν πολλοῖσι γίγνεται· πῶς
γὰρ οὐκ ἂν τῶν νεύρων ἥδε ἡ δύναμις πάθοι τῆς ἐς ζωῆς γένεσιν φύσιος
ἀπεψυγμένης. (Gonorrhœa is not indeed a dangerous thing, but it _is_ a
disagreeable one, and one that is _in the highest degree unseemly in
repute_. For if incontinence and _paresis_ attack the soft procreative
parts, the semen flows all the same even though the organs are cold,
nor is it possible to stop it even in sleep; for whether a man sleep,
or wake, the running is continual, and the flow of the seed goes on
unconsciously. _And women also are subject to this complaint_; but in
their case the discharge of the semen is accompanied with itchings and
with pleasurable feeling, as well as with shameless intercourse with
men, whereas men are not in any way excited. And the moisture that
is discharged is thin, cold, colourless, unfruitful; for how should
its nature, that is cold, send forth fertile semen? And if young
men suffer from it, they are bound to grow old in constitution and
condition, sluggish, relaxed, lifeless, hesitating, dull of hearing,
weak, shrunken, ineffectual, pallid, white, womanish, without appetite,
chilly, heavy of limb, and stiff of leg and palsied in every part. This
complaint is the avenue to paralysis for many; for how should this
power of the nerves not suffer when the natural parts pertaining to the
generation of life are chilled).

[315] _Celsus_ De re med. bk. IV. ch. 21., Est etiam circa naturalia
vitium, nimia profusio seminis, quod sine venere, sine nocturnis
imaginibus sic fertur, ut interposito spatio, tabe hominem consumat.
(There is another complaint connected with the private parts, viz.
excessive discharge of semen, which apart altogether from love, and
apart from nocturnal pollutions in dreams, is so persistent that, given
a sufficient interval of time, it destroys a man by wasting).

[316] _Alexander of Tralles_, bk. IV. ch. 9., δέονται γὰρ οὗτοι τῶν
ἐπικιρνώντων καὶ ἐμψυχόντων πάνυ καὶ λουτρῶν εὐκράτων· ὥστε παχυνθεῖσαν
ἠρέμα τὴν γονὴν καὶ εὔκρατον γενομένην, μηκέτι φέρεσθαι. (For these
patients require compound and very cooling drugs, and lukewarm baths;
so that the seed growing quietly thicker and well-conditioned, may no
longer flow away).

[317] _Galen_, Definit. medic. n. 288. (XIX. p. 426.), Γονόῤῥοιά
ἐστιν ἀπόκρισις ἐπιφέρουσα σπέρματος νόσημα μετὰ τοῦ τήκεσθαι τὸ σῶμα
καὶ ἀχρούστερον ἀποτελεῖσθαι· γίνεται δὲ ἀτονησάντων τῶν σπερματικῶν
ἀγγείων, ὥστε τρόπον τινὰ παρειμένων αὐτῶν μὴ κρατεῖσθαι τὸ σπέρμα.
(Gonorrhœa is a discharge producing a diseased state of semen
accompanied by wasting of the body and an unhealthy-looking complexion;
and it arises through the semen vessels having become atonic, so that,
these being in a way paralysed, the semen is not retained).

[318] _Actuarius_, Method. med. bk. I. ch. 22., Et in seminis quidem
profluvio, neque coles intenditur, neque aeger eadem qua sanus
afficitur voluptate, sed perinde ac si superfluum quiddam excerneretur,
sensu privatur. Quod si morbus moram traxerit, necesse est ut aeger
in colliquationem collabatur ac pereat; quod pinguior humoris portio
eiiciatur ac vitalis spiritus non parum una effluat. (Moreover in
this excessive flux of semen, neither is the member erected, nor does
the patient experience the same pleasure as he does in health, but
exactly as though something superfluous were being eliminated, he is
robbed of sensation. But if the malady runs a more protracted course,
the sufferer cannot but fall into collapse and succumb, inasmuch as
the richer portion of the humour is ejaculated, and the vital spirit
must escape along with it). As early as _Hippocrates_, De morbis bk.
II., edit. Kühn Vol. II. p. we read: ἡ νωτιὰς φθίσις ἀπὸ τοῦ μυελοῦ
γίνεται· λαμβάνει δὲ μάλιστα νεογάμους καὶ φιλολάγνους ... καὶ ἐπὴν
οὐρέῃ ἢ ἀποπατέῃ, προέρχεταί οἱ θορὸς πουλὺς καὶ ὑγρὸς, καὶ γενεὴ οὐκ
ἐγγίνεται, καὶ ὀνειρώσσει, κἂν συγκοιμηθῇ γυναικί, κἂν μή. (Spinal
consumption arises from the marrow; and it attacks particularly newly
married men and lascivious subjects.... And every time the patient
makes water or evacuates, semen flows from him copious and wet, and
he does not succeed in generating, and has nocturnal pollutions,
whether he sleep with a woman or no). Ought this not to be referred to
gonorrhœa?

[319] _Aretaeus_, p. 424. loco citato; also De curat. morb. chron. bk.
II. ch. 5., καὶ τοῦ ἀτερπέος τοῦ πάθεος εἵνεκεν καὶ τοῦ κατὰ σύντηξιν
κινδυνώδεος καὶ τῆς ἐς διάδεξιν γένος χρείης λύειν χρὴ μὴ βραδέως
τὴν γονόῤῥοιαν πάντων κακῶν οὖσαν αἰτίην· (Equally on account of the
disagreeable nature of the malady as on account of the risk of _tabes_
or wasting and for the sake of the needful maintenance of posterity,
gonorrhœa should be rapidly cured, being the cause of very many evils).
Truly if not another passage remained to us from the Ancient writers
besides these two of Aretaeus’, they alone would suffice to convince us
of the existence in his time of virulent gonorrhœa brought on by sexual
intercourse; and it is quite inconceivable how _Simon_, Versuch einer
krit. Gesch. (Essay towards a Critical History), Bk. I. p. 24., can
say: “Thus for instance _all_ the symptoms, which Aretaeus mentions in
his Chapter on Gonorrhœa, speak for _true seminal flux_!”

[320] _Theodorus Priscianus_, bk. II. logic, ch. 11., Satyriasis,
gonorrhœa vel priapismus, quibus similis est sub immoderata patratione
molestia, his accidentibus disterminantur. Gonorrhœa sine veretri
extensione vel usus venerii desiderio, spermatis affluentissima sub
effusione corpora debilitat et per chronica tempora producitur.
(Satyriasis, gonorrhœa or priapism, maladies involving similar
inconvenience as in immoderate copulation, are distinguished by the
following particularities. Gonorrhœa without erection of the member
or desire for the enjoyment of love, debilitates the body by a most
copious discharge of semen, and is protracted over chronic periods of
time).

[321] _Julius Firmicus Maternus_, Astronomica bk. III. chs. 7 and 8.,
In loco octavo ♀ ab horoscopo constituto ... si ☿ cum ea fuerit vel
cum ☿ Venerem in hoc loco positam, malevola stella respexerit, vel
per quadratum vel diametrum, vel si cum ipsis, in hoc loco fuerit
inventa, omne eius qui natus fuerit patrimonium dissipatur vel
qualicunque proscriptione nudatur, _mors vero illi per gonorrheam_,
id est _defluxionem seminis_, aut contractionem vel spasmum aut
apoplexin fertur. (In the eighth place determined by the horoscope
stands ♀ Venus.... If ☿ (Mercury) be in conjunction with it, or if
Venus standing in this place with ☿ (Mercury) be faced by an evil
star, whether by quadrate or diameter, or if such star is found in
conjunction with them in this place, all the patrimony of him who has
been born under this conjunction is wasted, or is lost utterly by some
proscription or another, and _his death is brought about by gonorrhœa,
that is to say a flux of the semen_, or cramp or spasm or apoplexy.)

[322] Caelius Aurelianus, Morb. Chron. bk. V. ch. 7., Item antecedens
causa supradictae passionis, quam _seminis_ appellamus _lapsum_,
fuisse probatur, a qua discernitur, si quidem illa passio etiam per
diem vigilantibus aegris fluere facit semen, nulla phantasia in usum
venereum provocante. (Such is proved to have been another antecedent
cause of the above named malady, which we call _discharge of semen_;
but a distinct cause has to be assigned, if it so be that the malady
in question makes the semen flow even by day and when the patients
are awake, and though no dream provokes to the exercise of love).
_Philagrius_ appears to have made this distinction quite correctly,
when as quoted by _Aëtius_ (Tetrab. III. serm. 3. ch. 34.), De seminis
in somno profluvio, Philagrii (On the discharge of semen in sleep,
according to Philagrius), he says: Semen in somnis profundere dicuntur
quicumque dum dormiunt, _naturae genitale semen_ emittunt, quod ipsum
eis ut plurimum ob vitiati humoris materiam, aut materiae multitudinem
aut ob partium seminalium robur contingit. Iam vero quidam et ob
animi moestitiam aut inediam, per somnos praeter consuetudinem semen
excreverunt, atque id materiae acrimonia irritati, non ob partium
seminalium robur, pertulerunt etc. (They are said to discharge semen in
sleep, whoever during slumber, ejaculate _the genital seed of nature_,
because they possess it in the greatest degree of abundance either on
account of the constituting material of the semen being vitiated or
on account of the copiousness of this material, or else on account of
the vigour of the seminal organs. But there are also many cases where
men have emitted semen in sleep contrary to their wont in consequence
of sadness of spirits or fasting, having done so because irritated
by the acridness of the material, and not through any vigour of the
seminal organs, etc.). The only pity is that Aëtius has not preserved
for us his (Philagrius’) opinion as to gonorrhœa, and has not shown
clearly exactly what belongs to Philagrius in the Chapter; for a great
deal, as indeed is stated, is from Galen and referred by the compiler
to gonorrhœa. Philagrius in fact only lived in the latter half of
the Fourth Century,—A.D. 364 according to Sprengel, 300 according to
Lessing.

[323] _Actuarius_, Meth. med. bk. IV. ch. 8., Convenit ad haec reliqua
victus ratio, quae ad siccitatem declinet, sed non sit calidior, verum
frigida. Insuper nutriendus aeger est, viresque modice reficiendae;
namque ob continuam excretionem languet corpus et imbecillum est.
Quies apta est, et balnea quae humectent tamen alioqui non sunt
idonea. Animalia agrestia, quae refrigerantibus exsiccantibusque
condiantur, sunt accommodata et vinum pauculum tenueque. (Consistent
with this are the remaining rules of diet. This should incline towards
dryness, but must not be at all hot, but cold. Further the sufferer
must be adequately nourished, and his strength fairly well kept up;
for owing to the constant ejaculation of semen the body grows languid
and weak. Rest is desirable, and baths, in other circumstances used
for moistening the body, are not here advisable. Game, seasoned with
cooling and desiccating condiments, is appropriate, and a little thin
wine.)

[324] _Celsus_, bk. IV. ch. 21. In hoc affectu salutares sunt
vehementes frictiones, perfusiones natationesque quam frigidissimae.
(In this complaint violent frictions are advantageous, also aspersions
and plunge baths as cold as they can be borne).

[325] _Galen_, De sanitate tuenda bk. VI. ch. 14. (VI. p. 444.),—The
best illustration in reference to the statements made in this
connection by _Aëtius_ (Tetrab. III. serm. 3. ch. 33.), which indeed
is superscribed as Galen’s and draws most of its material from him
and from Aretaeus, showing however in many ways that it was based on
personal observation or that the author had before him some better and
older authority. Unfortunately the passage, previously glanced at, was
subsequently mislaid by us, and so we are able merely to give it in a
Footnote, with the request that the reader will complete from it what
is said in the text. Profluvium igitur seminis, vasorum seminariorum
affectio est, non pudendi, _quae dolorem quidem non ita valde inferre
solet, molestiam autem non vulgarem et_ pollutionem exhibet ob assiduum
et invitis contingentem seminis fluxum. Oboritur autem aliquando
etiam ex seminariorum vasorum fluxione, _quandoque etiam satyriasi
praecedente profluvium seminis succedit_. Contingit autem affectio
maxime pubertatem transgressos citra decimum quartum annum, imo aliis
etiam aetatibus. Est autem semen quod profluit, aquosum, tenue, citra
appetentiam coeundi et ut plurimum quidem citra sensum, quandoque vero
cum voluptate quadam promanans. Corrumpitur affectis sensim universum
corpus ac gracilescit, praesertim circa lumbos. Consequitur et
debilitas multa, non ob multitudinem seminis profluentis sed ob locorum
proprietatem. _Non solum autem viris sed et mulierculis hoc accidit,
et in feminis sane aegre tollitur._ Ceterum cura communis est cum ea
quae in omni fluxione adhibetur. _Primum igitur in quiete et pauco
cibo ac aquae potu affectos asservare oportet_; deinde etiam lumbos
et pubem contegere lanis vino et rosaceo aut oenanthino aut melino
madefactis. Neque vero ineptae sunt spongiae posca imputae. Sequentibus
vero diebus cataplasmatis ex palmis, malis, acacia hypocisthide,
oenanthe, rhoe rubro et similibus. Insessibus item adstringentibus
utendum est, ex lentisci, rubi, myrti et similium in vino austero sive
mero sive diluto decocto. Cibis autem utendum qui aegre corrumpantur
et difficulter permutantur et resiccandi vim habent. Dandum etiam cum
potu et cibis, viticis ac _cannabis_ semen praesertim tostum. Rutae
item semen ac folia, lactucae semen et cauliculi ac nymphaeae radix.
In potu vero quotidie pro communi aqua, _aqua in qua ferrum saepe
extinctum est_ praebeatur. Quidam vero corticem radicis halicacabi ex
aqua eis bibendum praebuerunt, neque ineptum fuerit huius aliquando
periculum facere. _Antidotus_ etiam _haec magnae celebritatis_ tum ad
hoc modo semen profudentes, tum ad assidua in omnis profluvia commode
exhibetur. Seminis salicis ʒvjj calaminthae ʒvj seminis viticis albae
ʒv rutae ʒjv seminis cicutae ʒjj cum aqua in pastillos digerito et
ex eis ad Ponticae nucis magnitudinem cum poscae cyathis tribus
praebeto. _Omnem vero acrium rerum esum et multi vini potum_ et olerum
exhibitionem _vitare oportet_, diaetam vero universam resiccatoriam et
adstringentem constituere. Post prima autem mox tempora ad unctiones et
exercitatricem diaetam transeundum, per quam totum corpus et praesertim
affecta, ad sanitatem perducantur, et plurima quidem tempora circa
unctiones immorandum, paucies vero lavandum, si aut lassitudini aut
cruditati mederi velimus. Bonum fuerit etiam, _si nihil prohibuerit, ad
frigidae lavationem_ defugere, quae omnem morbum ex fluxione obortum
depellere consuevit, maxime si medicamentaria qualitate aqua praedita
sit, velut sunt in Albulis aquae, quae etiam in potu acceptae eis summe
prosunt. Sunt autem sapore subsalso et tactu lactei teporis. Convenit
item per intervalla quaedam illitionibus et epithematis et malagmatis
uti, quae rubefacere et emollire possint, atque ea quae in profundo
haerent ad superficiem transferre. _Decubitus_ porro _frequenter
in latus fiat_, calaminthae foliis et rutae et viticis substratis.
Epithema autem in eis usu venit hocce. Capillum Veneris multum
contundito et terito cum aceto aut apii succo aut seridis aut psyllii
eoque cochlearum carnes coctas excipito et simul in linteolum infarta
coxendicibus imponito. Utendum vero et praescripto ad priapismum
cerato et iis quae paulo mox ad seminis in somno profluvia dicentur.
_Omnem autem de rebus venereis cogitationem excludere oportet._ (Thus
we see excessive discharge of semen is an effection of the seminal
vessels, not of the member. _This complaint does not indeed as a rule
cause any very great pain, but it does occasion no ordinary degree
of inconvenience_ and defilement in consequence of the constant
involuntary discharge of semen. However sometimes it may arise from
a flux in the seminal vessels, and _occasionally on an antecedent
attack of satyriasis profuse discharge of semen supervenes_. The malady
particularly attacks those who have passed the period of puberty but
are under fourteen, but other ages are also liable. And the semen
that is discharged is watery, thin, the discharge being unaccompanied
with any desire for coition, and indeed as a rule without any feeling
whatever, though at times taking place with a certain voluptuous
sensation. The whole body of those attacked suffers and becomes wasted,
especially in the lumbar region. There follows great weakness, not so
much owing to the amount of the semen discharged as to the nature of
the parts affected. _Again, this disease is not peculiar to men, but
assails young women as well, and in the case of females is eliminated
with very great difficulty._ However the treatment is the same as that
applied in all fluxes. First of all therefore patients must observe
rest and a scanty diet both in food and drinking water; then the loins
and pubis should be covered with cloths moistened with wine, and
_rosaceum_ and oenanthinum and melinum (oil of roses, of young vine
buds, of melilot). Sponges soaked in posca (acid drink of vinegar and
water) are also appropriate. Then on the succeeding days cataplasms
of palms, apples, acacia, hypocisthis (parasitic plant growing on
the cisthus), wild vine, red wild-poppy, and the like. Embrocations
moreover should be employed of an astringent character, consisting
of a decoction of the mastic, bramble, myrtle and the like, in hard
wine, whether unmixed or diluted. Diet should embrace such foods as
resist corruption and deterioration, and possess a desiccative quality.
Along with the food and drink should be administered the juice of the
agnus castus and of _hemp_, especially after boiling. Also the juice
and leaves of rue, the juice of lettuce and colewort and the root of
nymphaea (water-lily). As to drink for daily use, instead of ordinary
water, water should be given in which _iron has been repeatedly
tempered_. Some practitioners indeed have administered the bark of the
root of the bladder-wort in water as a beverage for such patients,
and it will not be inappropriate to make trial of this on occasion.
Another _antidote of great renown_ is exhibited with advantage both for
sufferers from this discharge of semen, as well as for constant fluxes
of all kinds. Take of juice of the sallow Ʒvjj, of calamint Ʒvj, of
juice of the white agnus castus Ʒv, of rue Ʒjv, of juice of hemlock
Ʒjj; compound with water into small cakes or lozenges, and administer
one of these of the size of a hazel-nut along with three cups of posca
(vinegar and water). _But the patient must avoid all eating of acrid
things and the drinking of much wine_ and the use of vegetables; the
diet must be generally of a desiccative and astringent type. Moreover
presently after the earlier stages embrocations and an active mode
of life should be adopted, whereby the whole body and particularly
the parts affected are brought into a healthy state; the embrocations
should be persevered in for long periods of time, but washing on the
other hand sparingly employed, if we wish to remedy the lassitude and
acrid habit of body. It will be of advantage moreover, _if there is
nothing to prevent, to have recourse to cold bathing_, which has the
property of expelling all diseases arising from flux, more especially
if the water is endowed with a healing quality, such as the waters of
Albulae, which also are of the greatest use in these cases when taken
as a drink. They are of a slightly salt taste, and of a milky warmth to
the touch. Further, it is suitable to employ at intervals lotions and
poultices and plasters, such as will redden and soften the skin, and
bring to the surface those matters that lie latent underneath. Again,
_rest should frequently be taken lying on the side_, the leaves of
calamint and rue and agnus castus being spread as a couch. A poultice
employed in these cases is as follows. Pound a quantity of Venus-hair
and rub it up with vinegar or parsley juice or that of endive or
fleabane, add to it the cooked meat of snails, pack all together in a
linen cloth and lay upon the hips. Also the wax plaster prescribed for
priapism should be employed, and the remedies to be mentioned presently
for discharges of semen during sleep. Lastly _all thinking about love
ought to be avoided_.)

[326] Similarly _Aretaeus_, Morb. chron. therap. bk. II. ch. 5., says:
εἰ δὲ καὶ σώφρων ἔοι ἐπὶ τοῖσι ἀφροδισίοισι καὶ λούοιτο ψυχρῷ, ἐλπὶς
ὡς ὤκιστα ἀνδρωθῆναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, (And if he indulge with moderation
in love and bathe in cold water, there is good hope that the man will
rapidly recover manly vigour). This need surprise us the less, if we
remember that the notion of a superfluitas seminis (superfluity of
seed),—this was why Diogenes practised onanism, _Galen_, Vol. VIII. p.
419.,—was all the time in the background, and gonorrhœa according to
Caelius Aurelianus and other authorities actually arose from too great
self-continence. Si igitur Venerem exercere consueverit et crebriore
uti concubitu, nunc autem continentius et purius innocentiusque degat,
sine dubio a copia id sustinet cum partes illam ferre nequeunt. (If
therefore a man is in the habit of practising love and indulging in
fairly frequent cohabitation, well and good; but if on the contrary
he live a too continent, pure and innocent life, without a doubt he
endures this evil from the over-copiousness (of semen), as the parts
cannot tolerate it.) This idea owed its origin partly to the confusion
of gonorrhoea with nocturnal pollutions,—a confusion found even in the
passage from Galen quoted a little above, and in especial was revived
in the XVth. and XVIth. Centuries under the auspices of the monks and
nuns. It at the same time gave occasion to the practice of resorting to
copulation with a maiden as a cure for gonorrhœa. At any rate it was an
opinion already found in Hippocrates, that copulation was a desiccative
measure which in diseases arising from the phlegmatic humour
(_Hippocrates_, Epidem. bk. VI. Vol. III. p. 609., _Galen_, XVII. A. p.
284.) is of advantage to hot and moist constitutions (_Galen_, Vol. VI.
p. 402.)

[327] _Galen_, De sympt. caus. bk. III. ch. 11. (VII. p. 265.), ἀλλὰ
καὶ τὰ μοχθηρὰ διὰ τῶν ὑστερῶν ῥεύματα, καλεῖται δὲ _τὸ σύμπτωμα_ ῥοῦς
γυναικεῖος, ἐκκαθαιρομένου κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μόριον ἅπαντος τοῦ σώματος
γίγνεται. (Besides there are the troublesome fluxes by way of the womb;
and the _symptom_ of these is known as “female discharge”, and takes
place as the whole body purges itself by this part). _Nonnus_, ch. 204.
_Paulus Aegineta_, bk. II. ch. 63. _Rufus_ of Ephesus, bk. I ch. 44.

[328] _Aretaeus_, De sign, chron. morb. bk. IV. ch. 11., ἄλλος ῥόος
λευκὸς ἡ ἐπιμήνιος κάθαρσις λευκὴ δριμεῖα καὶ ὀδαξώδης ἐς ἡδονήν.
ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖσι καὶ ὑγροῦ λευκοῦ, πάχεος, γονοειδέος πρόκλησις· τόδε τὸ
εἶδος _γονόρῤῥοιαν γυναικείαν ἐλέξαμεν_· ἔστι δὲ τῆς ὑστέρης φύξις,
οὕνεκεν ἀκρατὴς τῶν ὑγρῶν γίγνεται· ἀτὰρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα ἐς χροιὴν λευκὴν
ἀμείβει. (Another white discharge is the menstrual purging, white,
acrid, and provoking a pleasurable itching. But in addition to these
forms there is also a calling out of a moist, white, thick, semen-like
discharge; and this species we have named “_female gonorrhœa_”; and
it is an escape from the womb, because this cannot retain the moist
humours. Further, it actually changes the blood to a white colour.)
Perhaps too what _Galen_, De semine bk. II. ch. 1. (IV. p. 599.), says
is pertinent in this connection: ταῖς δ’ ἄλλαις ἔλαττόν τε καὶ ὑγρὸν
ἐκπίπτον φαίνεται πολλάκις ἔσωθεν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν ὑστερῶν, ἵναπερ οὐρεῖ.
(but in other women there appears to be a smaller and moist discharge
very often, inside, coming from the womb itself, in micturition). Again
_Theod. Priscianus_, bk. III. 10., says: Aliquando etiam spermatis
spontanei et importuni fluxu feminae fatigantur, quod Graeci gonorrhœam
appellant. (Sometimes too women are troubled with a discharge of
involuntarily and unexpectedly emitted semen, a complaint the Greeks
call gonorrhœa.) Comp. the passage quoted above from Aëtius.

[329] _Celsus_, De re medica bk. VI. ch. 18., Solet etiam interdum ad
_nervos_ ulcus descendere; profluitque pituita multa sanies tenuis
malique odoris, non coacta at aquae similis, in qua caro recens lota
est; doloresque is locus et punctiones habet. Id genus quamvis inter
purulenta est, tamen lenibus medicamentis curandum est.... Praecipueque
id ulcus multa calida aqua fovendum est, velandumque neque frigori
committendum. (Moreover the ulcer is wont sometimes to descend to the
_cords_; and then there is discharged a quantity of phlegm, a thin
_sanies_ of an ill odour, not congealed but like water in which a
piece of fresh meat has been washed; and the place experiences pain
and a pricking sensation. This sort, though it comes under the head of
purulent complaints, should nevertheless be treated with mild drugs....
And above all this form of ulcer should be fomented with copious
warm water, and should be covered and not exposed to cold). From the
last sentence it may be concluded that it is not the acute form of
blennorrhœa of the urethra that is in question here (bk. IV), but the
chronic. The words _ad nervos_ (to the cords) have given occasion
to some very extraordinary explanations. _Simon_, Krit. Gesch. Vol.
I p. 23., considers it would be most natural to refer this to the
inside of the member, to the urethra in fact, though as a matter of
fact gonorrhœa of the glans penis might just as likely be intended in
the passage. But in the latter case the interpretation is absolutely
impossible, as the glans penis is never called _nervus_. The corpora
cavernosa it is true are described in several places by _Galen_, e. g.
De loc. aff. bk. VI. ch. 6., as “a pipe-like cord, for the body is
cord-like in form, the whole being hollow like a pipe”, but he adds
χωρὶς τῆς καλουμένης βαλάνου (always excepting the glans penis, as it
is called), and indeed that _nervus_ generally signifies the penis is
evident at once from Horace, Epod. XII. 19.; even the plural _nervos_
is found in _Petronius_, Sat. 129., 134.,—so the Greeks similarly
use νεῦρον (nerve, cord) for the penis, sometimes with the addition
σπερματικὸν (spermatic, seminal), as Eustathius points out,—Comm. on
the Iliad, X. 1390. However Celsus had no idea of this in his mind;
everything shows that with him the _ad nervos_ points to nothing but
the _vasa deferentia_ or spermatic cords, as he distinctly declares
himself in bk. VII. ch. 18: Dependent vero (testiculi) ab inguinibus
per _singulos nervos_, quos κρεμαστῆρας Graeci nominant. (But the
testicles hang from the groin by separate cords, which the Greeks call
κρεμαστῆρες,—suspenders). Similarly _Columella_, De re rustic. bk. VI.
ch. 26., Testium nervos, quos Graeci κρεμαστῆρας ab eo appellant, quod
ex illis genitales partes dependent. (The cords of the testicles, which
the Greeks name κρεμαστῆρες,—suspenders, because the genital parts
hang by them); again _Pollux_, Onomast. bk. II. Ch. 4., κρεμαστῆρας δὲ
λέγονται τὰ νεῦρα, τοῦς διδύμους ἀνέχει. (κρεμαστῆρες,—suspenders, is
the name of the cords; and they support the testicles). The possibility
of the suppuration extending to the seed reservoir and the spermatic
cords is proved by the case lately observed and made known by _Ricord_.

[330] _Actuarius_, Method. med. bk. IV. ch. 8., Caeterum non est
ignorandum, nonnunquam in interna penis parte exiguum tuberculum
oboriri, quod dum disrumpitur, sanguinem aut exiguum puris effundit;
quare quidam arbitrantur ex profundo ea prodire, citraque rationem
metuere coeperunt. Verum res ex penis dolore deprehenditur. Venae autem
sectione sola, victuque frigidiusculo aegrum a molestia vindicavimus.
_Quod si vitium moram traxerit et vulnus_ (ἕλκος?) _altius pervenerit_,
enemata morsus expertia, qualibus in lippitudine utimur, infundimus.
Balneo ac omni mordenti evidenterque calefaciente tum cibo tum potione
abstinemus, ita namque promptius aeger valetudinem recipit. (However it
must not be forgotten that sometimes a small tubercle is established in
the internal part of the penis, which on bursting discharges blood and
a small quantity of pus; for which reason some suppose these symptoms
to proceed from a deep-seated evil, and have been unreasonably alarmed.
But the truth may be gathered from the pain in the penis. However by
the mere opening of a vein and a cooling diet we have saved a patient
from all inconvenience. On the other hand if the mischief has followed
a protracted course and the sore (ἕλκος?,—ulcer) has penetrated farther
in, we introduce clysters free from biting acridity, such as we make
use of for blear-eyed patients. We forbid the bath, and everything
acrid and manifestly heating whether in food or drink, for in this way
the sufferer recovers his health more rapidly).

[331] _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 59., εἰ δὲ κατὰ τὸν καυλὸν
ἔνδον τῆς τοῦ αἰδοίου τρήσεως ἀφανὲς ἕλκος γένηται, γινώσκεται ἐκ
τοῦ πύον ἢ αἷμα κενοῦσθαι χωρὶς οὐρησέως. Θεραπεύεται δὲ πρῶτον μὲν
ὑδαρεῖ μελικράτῳ _κλυζόμενον_, ἔπειτα δὲ γάλακτι, κἄπειτα μίξαντες τῷ
γάλακτι τὸ τοῦ ἀστήρος κολλύριον, ἢ τὸν λευκὸν τροχίσκον, ἢ τὸν διὰ
λωταριῶν ἐν μολυβδαίνῃ θυίᾳ παραπέμπειν, ἥγουν καὶ _πτερὸν_ βάψαντες
διαχρίειν, εἶτα _λεπτὸν στρεπτὸν_ χρίσαντες ἐνθῆναι· κάλλιστον δὲ
ἐστί καὶ τὸ λαμβάνων κηκίδος καὶ πομφόλυγος, ἀμύλου τε καὶ ἀλόης ἶσα,
λειωθέντα ῥοδίνῳ καὶ χυλῷ ἀρνογλώσσου. (But if in the canal within the
perforation of the member an invisible ulcer arise, it is recognized
from the fact of matter or blood being discharged without micturition.
And it is treated first by being _rinsed_ with a weak honey-mixture,
and then with milk and afterwards by mixing with the milk the salve of
the _aster atticus_, or the white lozenge, or a preparation of lotus
pounded in a leaden mortar; _a feather_ should be dipped in this and
it should be rubbed on, or else _a piece of thin material made into a
twist_ should be smeared with it and the drug introduced by this means;
but the best of all is by taking equal parts of gall-apple, flowers of
zinc, starch-flour and aloes smeared with rose-sap and plantain-sap).

[332] _Caelius Aurelianus_, Morb. chron. bk. II. ch. 8., In iis enim
qui ulcus habuerint, cum mictum fecerint, sanguis fluet attestante
mordicatione et dolore et aliquando egestione corpusculorum, quae
ἐφελκύδας Graeci vocaverunt. (In patients who have got an ulcer,
whenever they make water, blood will flow and the fact be attested by
accompanying biting sensation and pain and sometimes by the ejection of
small particles which the Greeks have named ἐφελκύδες).

[333] _Galen_, De loc. affect. bk. I. ch. 5., εἰ γοῦν ὑμενώδους χιτῶνος
ἐκκριθείη μόριον, ὅτι μὲν ἕλκωσίς ἐστὶ που, δηλώσει.... εἰ δ’ οὐρηθείη
τῆς οὐρήθρας αὐτῆς. (If for example a small portion of the membranous
coat be shed, this will show there is ulceration somewhere.... And if
in micturition particles of the urethra itself be passed). Comp. Paulus
Aegineta, loco citato.

[334] _Galen_, De symptom. caus. bk. III. ch. 8., ἴσχονται μὲν γὰρ ἢ
ἀδυνατούσης ἐκκρίνειν τῆς κύστεως, ἢ στεγνωθέντος αὐτῆς, τοῦ στομάχου·
ταυτὶ μὲν οὖν ἄμφω τὰ νοσήματα τῆς κύστεως ἓν κοινὸν ἔχει σύμπτωμα,
τὴν ἰσχουρίαν·—αἱ μὲν οὖν _στεγνώσεις_ τοῦ στομάχου δι᾽ ἔμφραξίν τε
καὶ _μύσιν_ ἀποτελοῦνται· καὶ γίνεται ἡ μὲν _ἔμφραξις_ ὑπὸ θρόμβου τε
καὶ πύου παχέος καὶ λίθου καὶ πώρου καὶ διὰ _βλάστημά_ τι κατ’ αὐτὸν
ἐπιτραφὲν τὸν πόρον ὁποῖα κἀν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἐκτὸς ὁρᾶται γινόμενα
κατά τε τὰ ὦτα καὶ ῥῖνας _αἰδοῖά_ τε καὶ ἕδραν· ἡ δὲ _μύσις_ ἤτοι
δι’ ὄγκον ἐπὶ φλεγμοναῖς ἀποτελεῖται καὶ _σκίῤῥοις_ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις
οἰδήμασιν, ὅσα τε τὸν τράχηλον ἐξαίροντα τῆς κύστεως εἰς τὸν ἐντὸς
πόρον ἀποχεῖ τὸν ὄγκον. (For they suffer either because the bladder is
unable to secrete or because its orifice is stopped; but both these
complaints of the bladder have one symptom in common, viz. retention of
urine.... Now the _stoppages_ of the orifice are produced by _blocking_
or by _closing up_; and stoppages are caused by a clot or dense
matter or a calculus or chalkstone or some growth that has formed in
the actual passage, as is also observed to occur in other, external,
organs, the ears, the nostrils, genitals, or fundament; but closure
is due either to a tumour following on phlegmonous affections or by
indurations or other swellings which dilate the neck of the bladder
and discharge the tumour into the internal passage). Comp. _Caelius
Aurelianus_ bk. V. ch. 4.

[335] _Galen_, De loc. affect. bk. I. ch. 1. (VIII. p. 12.), οὕτω
δὲ εἰ καὶ σάρκα τινὰ δι᾽ ἕλκωσιν ἐπιτραφεῖσαν ἡγούμεθα τὸν τράχηλον
τῆς κύστεως ἐμφράττειν, ἔκ τε τῶν προηγησαμένων τοῦ ἕλκους σημείων
ἔκ τε τοῦ κενωθῆναι τὸ οὖρον ἐπὶ τῷ _καθετηρι_ συλλογιούμεθα· καί
ποτε καὶ γενόμενον οἶδα τοιοῦτόν τι πάθημα· διαβαλλομένου γοῦν τοῦ
καθετῆρος, ἤλγησεν κατ’ ἐκεῖνο τοῦ πόρου τὸ μέρος, ἔνθα καὶ πρότερον
ἐτεκμηράμεθα τὴν ἕλκωσιν εἶναι· _θλασθείσης δὲ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑπὸ τοῦ
καθετῆρος_, ἠκολούθησε μὲν μετὰ τὴν τῶν οὔρων ἔκκρισιν αἵματός τέ τι
καὶ θρύμματα τῆς σαρκός· ... τὸ δ’ εἴτε πάθος εἶναι λεκτέον τοῦ πόρου
τὸ γεγονός, εἶτε αἴτιον ἰσχουρίας ἐν τῷ πόρῳ περιέχεσθαι, τῶν ἀχρήστων
εἰς τὴν τέχνην ἐστίν. (Accordingly if we suspect some accretion of
tissue, the result of ulceration, to be blocking the neck of the
bladder, our diagnosis will depend both on the foregoing signs of
the existence of an ulcer and also on the fact of the urine being
voided on the introduction of a _catheter_. Sometimes moreover I have
noted the following case to occur; on turning the catheter about pain
was experienced at the part of the canal where we had previously
conjectured the ulceration to be situated, and the tissue being broken
down by the catheter, there followed after the evacuation of the urine
some blood and particles of tissue.... Whether in this case we ought to
describe the mischief as something affecting the urethral canal, or say
that the cause is something lying in the same canal, is scientifically
unimportant). For the catheter must always have the shape of the
passage leading to the bladder (Method. med. bk. IV. ch. 7. X. p.
301.); accordingly it must be bent into the shape of the letter
“S” (Introduct. ch. 19. Vol. XIV. p. 788). The inventor of it was
Erasistratus (ibid. p. 751.). The employment of the catheter is well
described by _Paulus Aegineta_ bk. VI. ch. 59., who adds that different
catheters must be used according to age and sex.

[336] _Oribasius_, Bk. L. ch. 8. (Mai’s Classicor. auctor. e Vatican.
codd. edit.—Classical Authors edited from the Vatican MSS.), Vol. IV.
p. 187.

[337] The word ἰποτήριον is also found written ἰπωτήριον in _Galen_, De
comp. medic. sec. gen. bk. IV. ch. 7. (XIII. p. 725.), who gives it as
a φάρμακον (remedy) invented by Heraclides of Tarentum, but which is
not described in detail. The word is missing in our Lexicons, though
Castellus gives it.

[338] _Galen_, In Hippocrat. de diaet. in acut. (XV. p. 759.), γίνεται
δ’ ἔντασις ὄρχεως ἐνίοτε μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς καθ’ ἑαυτὸν φλεγμονῆς, ἐνιοτε
δὲ ὑπό τινος τῶν ἄνω φλεγμαινόντων ἑλκομένου. (Now tension of the
testicles occurs sometimes owing to inflammation in the testicles
itself, at other times owing to one of more inward parts that are
inflamed becoming ulcerated).

[339] _Paulus Aegineta_, Bk. III. ch. 54.

[340] _Galen_, De prognost. ex puls. bk. IV. ch. 10. (IX. p. 416.).
Synops. de puls. ch. 31. (ibid. p. 540).

[341] _Celsus_, Bk. VII. 18. VI. 18.

[342] _Hippocrates_, de Nat. Homin. edit. Kühn. Vol. I. p. 364.
_Galen_, Vol. XV. p. 131.

[343] _Galen_, Vol. XI. p. 877., XII. p. 50.

[344] _Aretaeus_, De sign. chronic. bk. II. ch. 8., θώυμα δὲ τουτέων
μέζων, εἰς ὄρχιας καὶ κρεμαστῆρας ἀδόκητον ἄλγος ἐπιφοιτῇ· πολλοὺς
τῶν ἰητρῶν ἥδε ἡ ξυμπαθείη λήθει· καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐξέταμόν κοτε τοὺς
κρεμαστῆρας, ὡς ἰδίην ἔχοντας αἰτίην· (And there is another thing
more surprising than this, when the pain suddenly shifts to the
testicles and spermatic cords. Now this sympathy between the different
organs escapes many physicians; and sometimes they actually cut out
the spermatic cords as if these contained the special cause of the
suffering). In the edition due to Kühn’s industry the word κρεμαστῆρες
is translated by _musculos cremasteres dictos_ (the muscles called
cremasteres). The expression is also found in the “De sign. acut.” II.
6., and _Petit_ in his Commentary on the first named passage declares
in all seriousness that the sympathy was sufficiently well known to
anatomists, arising from the connection of the cremasteres muscles with
the peritonaeum and its processes, which statement appears to rest on
the datum of _Galen_, De usu partium bk. XIV. ch. 11. (IV. p. 193.) and
De semine bk. II. ch. 5. (IV. p. 635.), where the cremasteres certainly
are called μυώδη σώματα (muscular bodies) and compared with the round
ligaments of the womb. Still _Galen_ says distinctly in the latter
passage that they contained arteries, veins and the spermatic ducts,
in the Isagoge ch. 11. (XIV. p. 719.) ὃς (γόνος) φέρεται ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς
διὰ τῶν κρεμαστήρων (it,—the seed,—is conveyed to them through the
cremasteres). On the other hand in the “De musc. sect.” Vol. XVIII.
B. p. 997., the musculi cremasteres properly so called are clearly
described, and the statement added: Τὸ δὲ ἔργον αὐτῶν ἀνατείνειν
τὸν ὄρχιν· ὅθεν ἔνιοι κρεμαστῆρας αὐτοὺς ὀνομάζουσι (but their duty
is to hold up the testicles, for which reason some name them the
cremasteres,—suspenders). Neither Blancard-Kühn nor yet Kraus’s Lexicon
give under the word “Cremaster” any meaning but that of the muscles;
the same is true of Schneider. Comp. _Paulus Aegineta_ bk. VI. ch. 61.,
where the spermatic cords are also called παραστάται (supporters), as
also by Galen, Defin. med. XIX. p. 362. and De semine bk. I. Vol. IV.
p. 565., where they are spoken of as κιρσοειδῆς παραστάται (varicose
parastatae). A denomination Herophilus first made use of (Galen IV. p.
582.) and which according to _Athenaeus_ Deipnos. bk. IX. p. 396. was
likewise given to the testicles.

[345] _Hippocrates_, Epidem. bk. V., edit. Kühn Vol. III. p. 548.
Besides Hippocrates mentions almost exclusively the sympathetic
swellings of the testicles that occur in cases of interruptions of
the respiration, particularly in coughs. Sextus Placitus Papyriensis
likewise, ch. 92. 4., ch. 101. 2., speaks of prurigo veretri (itching
of the privates).

[346] _Galen_, De semine ch. 15. (IV. p. 564).

[347] _Galen_, De medic. sec. loc. bk. IX. ch. 8. (XIII. p. 317.).
_Paulus Aegineta_ bk. III. ch. 54. Both authors also make mention in
this connection of _sarcosis testium_ (swelling of the flesh of the
testicles). _Rambach_, Thesaurus Eroticus, a work which now for the
first time is within our reach to consult, quotes under _ova_ pro
coleis (ova,—eggs, put for testicles):

            Vel tantus ad ora veniret
    Aut aliis causis ita computresceret ovum,
    Ne fieri posset quin crudelis medicina
    Ova recidisset, medici reprobabilis usus.

(In fact such foulness appeared, or from other causes the testicle was
so rotten, that nought could be done but for cruel surgery to cut out
the testicles,—the horrid habit of doctors), and assigns to it the name
_Ovidius Pseud._ Is this perhaps a specimen of those old lines properly
to be ascribed to some mediaeval monk?

[348] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. V. ch. 4. (X. p. 325.), καὶ κατὰ
τοῦτο ἐπ’ αἰδοίων καὶ ἕδρας εἰς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀνάγκην ἀφικνούμεθα
πολλάκις, ὅτι ῥᾳδίως σήπεται τὰ  μόρια διά τε τὴν σύμφυτον ὑγρότητα
καὶ ὅτι περιττωμάτων εἰσὶν ὀχετοί. (And in this respect with regard
to the privates and fundament we constantly come back to the same
conditions of causation, viz. that these parts are readily affected
by putrefaction, as well owing to their natural moistness as because
they are channels for excretions). Commentar. in Hippocrat. De humor.
(XVI. p. 414.), ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ φύσις τῶν τόπων οὐ μικρὸν πρὸς τὸ δέχεσθαι
σηπεδόνας ποιεῖ· καὶ γὰρ τὸ στόμα καὶ τὰ αἰδοῖα πολλὴν ὑγρότητα τῇ
φύσει κέκτηται· καὶ προσέτι τοὺς ἀδένας ἔχουσιν ἐγγὺς, ἄπερ πάντα τὰ
περιττὰ εἰσδέχεσθαι πεφύκασιν. (Moreover the nature of the localities
has no small influence on their liability to putrefactive changes.
For the mouth and the private parts possess much moisture of their
very nature; and besides this they have the glands close by, all which
circumstances tend naturally to make them the receptacles of excessive
moisture). De usu partium bk. XI. ch. 14. (III. p. 910.), ἤδε δὲ καὶ
περὶ τὴν τῶν αἰδοίων φύσιν αἱ τρίχες ἅμα μὲν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐγένοντο, θερμὰ
γὰρ καὶ ὑγρὰ τὰ χωρία. (Now this quality and the fact of the privates
being naturally surrounded with hair would seem to be necessary
consequences, because the localities are hot and damp).—_Cassius_,
Problem. 2., Cur supremae corporis sedes ad nomas sunt opportunae,
similiter et concavae? An quia noma putrefactio est quaedam et sensus
interitus atque extinctio. Supremae autem partes ob alimenti penuriam
calore facile destituuntur, ita ut hac de causa census ablationem
incurrant. Concavae vero ob humidae in ipsis materiae affluentem
copiam, cuius occasione putredine corripiunter. (Why are the extreme
parts of the body liable to nomae (eating ulcers), and likewise the
concave parts? It is because a _noma_ is a form of putrefaction and a
perishing and extinction of sensation? Now the extreme parts owing to
the scantiness of the nourishment they get are easily robbed of heat,
so that for this reason they incur loss of sensation. On the other hand
the concave parts owing to the excess of moist matter that collects in
them, which is the occasion of their being attacked by putrefaction).
Comp. what was said above under the head of “Climate”.

[349] _Hippocrates_, Aphorism. Vol. III. p. 724. _Galen_, Vol. XVI. p.
27.

[350] _Galen_, Comment in Hippocrat. De humor. Vol. XVI. p. 414.

[351] _Hippocrates_, De nat. muliebr. Vol. II. p. 586., ἀφθήσῃ τὰ
αἰδοῖα (the privates affected with aphthae). De morb. muliebr. bk. II.
Vol. II. p. 614.

[352] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. XIII. ch. 11. (X. p. 903.), ἀντισπᾶν
γὰρ χρὴ τῶν ἀρχομένων ῥευματίζεσθαι παρρωτάτω τὸ περιττὸν, οὐχ ἕλκειν
ἐπ’ αὐτὰ· κατὰ τοῦτον οὖν τὸν λόγον οὐδὲ γαστρὸς οὐδ’ ἐντέρων ἀρξαμένων
φλεγμαίνειν ὑπηλάτῳ χρῆσθαι προσήκει· τὴν δ’ αὐτὴν ἔνδειξιν ἔχει
τούτοις μὲν μήτρα τοῖς ὀργάνοις αἰδοῖα· τό γε μὴν ἐμέτοις χρῆσθαι τῶν
αἰδοίων πεπονθότων ἀντισπαστικόν ἐστὶ βούθημα. (For what is necessary
is to reject the excess as far as may be from the parts that are
beginning to be congested, not to draw it towards them. Therefore in
accordance with this reasoning neither in the case of belly nor of
intestines, when these have begun to be inflamed, is it expedient to
employ purging medicine; also the same indication as in the case of
these organs holds good for womb, and private parts. The treatment when
the privates are attacked is revulsory, viz. the use of emetics).

[353] _Galen_, loco citato p. 904., ἐπὶ δὲ νεφρῶν καὶ κύστεος αἰδοίου
τε καὶ μήτρας τὰς ἐν τοῖς σκέλεσι, μάλιστα μὲν τὰς κατὰ τὴν ἰγνύαν, εἰ
δὲ μὴ, τὰς παρὰ σφυρόν (In complaints of the kidneys and bladder, of
the privates and womb, bleedings on the legs, and particularly in the
hollow of the knee, or otherwise at the ankle).

[354] _Oribasius_, Medicin. collect. bk. IX. ch. 24., Pudendis
incommoda sunt pinguia, prosunt autem adstringentia. (Fatty matters
are prejudicial to the privates, astringents on the contrary are of
advantage).

[355] _Galen_, De medicam. sec. loc. compos. bk. IX. ch. 8. (XIII. p.
315.), τὰ δ’ ἐν αἰδοίοις ἕλκη καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἕδραν χωρὶς φλεγμονῆς ὄντα
ξηραινόντων πάνυ δεῖται φαρμάκων. (Now ulcers on the privates and
about the fundament, if free from the phlegmonous condition, require
dessicative drugs above all). Method. med. bk. V. ch. 15. (X. p. 381.).

[356] _Galen_, loco citato pp. 317, 383.—_Oribasius_, Synops. bk. IX.
ch. 38.

[357] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. X. ch. 9. (X. p. 702.).—_Aëtius_,
Tetrab. II. serm. 1. ch. 91.

[358] _Galen_, De compos. medic. sec. loc. bk. IX. ch. 8. (XIII. p.
316.). _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 59. _Oribasius_ De loc. affect.
bk. IV. ch. 102.

[359] _Galen_, loco citato p. 316. _Paulus Aegineta_, loco citato.
Oribasius, loco citato.

[360] _Galen_, loco citato p. 317.

[361] _Galen_, loco citato p. 316. De simplic. medic. temperam.
ac facult. bk. X. (XII. p. 235.). _Paulus Aegineta_, loco cit.
_Oribasius_, loco cit.

[362] _Galen_, De simplic. medic. temperam, ac. facult. bk. X. ch. 2.
(XII. p. 268.).

[363] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. V. ch. 15. (X. p. 382.), De composit.
medic. sec. loc. bk. IX. ch. 8. (XIII. p, 316.). _Paulus Aegineta_,
loco cit. _Aëtius_, Tetrab. I. serm. 1. _Nonnus_, Epit. ch. 195.

[364] _Galen_, De simplic. medic. temperam. ac facult. bk. VI. (XI. p.
822.). _Aëtius_, loco cit.

[365] _Oribasius_, De virtute simplicium bk. II., under word
“Molibdos”,—lead.

[366] _Hippocrates_, De natura muliebri Vol. II. p. 586.

[367] _Galen_, De composit. med. sec. loc. bk. VII. (XIII. p. 36.).

[368] _Galen_, loco cit. p. 316., Method. med. bk. V. ch. 15. (X. p.
382.), De simplic. medicam. temperam. ac facult. bk. VI. (XI. p. 832.).
_Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 59. _Oribasius_, De loc. affect. IV.
102. Collect. IX. 24. _Nonnus_, Epitom. ch. 195.

[369] Orpheus de lapidibus XVIII. 33.,

    ἀνδρός τ’ αἰδοίων ἄκος ἔσσεται, ὅς κε πίῃσι.

(And it shall be a cure of the privates of a man, whosoever shall drink
thereof).

[370] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. V. ch. 15. (X. p. 363.).

[371] _Galen_, De simplic. medic. temperam. ac facult. bk. X. (XII. p.
285.).

[372] _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 59. _Oribasius_, Collect. bk. IX.
ch. 24. _Nonnus_, Epitom. ch. 195.

[373] _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. IV. ch. 44. _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2.
ch. 17.

[374] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2. ch. 24. Collect. L. ch. 9.

[375] _Hippocrates_, Coac. praenot. Vol. I. p. 389., Aphorism. Vol.
III. p. 752. _Galen_, Method. med. bk. III. ch. 1. (X. p. 161.).

[376] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. XIV. ch. 15. (X. p. 1001 sqq.).

[377] _Galen_, loco cit. bk. V. ch. 15. (X. p. 381.), De simplic.
medic. temperam. ac facult. bk. VI. (XI. pp. 832, 806.).

[378] _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. VI. ch. 57.

[379] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. V. ch. 15 (X. p. 381.), _Aëtius_,
Tetrab. III. 2. ch. 15., recommended drawing the prepuce forwards in
micturition, so as to make the urine flow between the foreskin and
glans penis, by which means the ulcers and fissures are readily cured.

[380] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. V. ch. 15. (X. 381.). _Paulus
Aegineta_, bk. III. 59. _Oribasius_, Synops. IX. 37. _Marcellus
Empiricus_, ch. 33.

[381] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2. ch. 3.

[382] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2. ch. 17.

[383] _Actuarius_, Method. med. II. ch. 12. _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm.
2. ch. 18. _Sextus Placitus Papyriensis_, ch. V. 2. V. 43. _Theodor.
Priscianus_ I. 25.

[384] _Galen_, Isag. ch. 16. (XIV. p. 777.).

[385] _Galen_, De temperam. 4. (I. p. 532.).

[386] _Pollux_, Onomast. bk. IV. ch. 26. 206., θηρίωμα, γίνεται μὲν
ἕλκος περὶ ἀνδρῶν αἰδοῖα, ἔστι δὲ ὅτε καὶ περὶ δακτ_ύλους_ [read
δακτυ_λιους_], καὶ ἀλλὰχοῦ, αἷμα πολὺ καὶ μέλαν καὶ δυσῶδες ἀφιὲν μετὰ
μελανίας τὴν σάρκα ἀνεσθίον. (θηρίωμα,—malignant sore, is an ulcer
affecting men’s privates, as well as sometimes the fingers (? the
anus), and other parts, discharging much black evil-smelling blood,
accompanied with black colour and eating away the flesh).

[387] _Sextus Placitus Papyriensis_, XV. 3.

[388] _Galen_, Isagog. ch. 11. (XIV. p. 719.), ταῖς δὲ γυναιξὶν ἡ
ὑστέρα ἔοικεν ὀσχῇ ἀνεστραμμένῃ, (but in women the vagina is like a
scrotum inverted), though in accordance with what comes next the uterus
may also by understood to be here intended. Commentar. in Hippocrat.
De Alimento (XV. p. 326.), περὶ δὲ τῆς ὑστέρας ὀλίγα ῥηθήσεται· καὶ
πρῶτον μὲν, πότερον ὑστέρον ἢ μήτραν κλητέον ἐστὶ τὸ μόριον ἐκεῖνο, ὃ
πρὸς τὴν κύησιν ἔδωκε φύσις ταῖς γυναιξὶν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει. (Now about
the vagina we shall not say much. However first of all we may remark as
to the question whether we should name the part which nature has given
to women for connection ὑστέρος or μήτρα, that this is a matter of
indifference). Moreover the Physicians use κόλπος (fold, bosom), e. g.
_Galen_, De tumoribus praeter naturam ch. 4. (VII. p. 717.) for the
vaginal canal, as the Romans did _sinus_ (fold, bosom) in Latin.

[389] _Celsus_, bk. V. ch. 25. _Marcellus_, De medic, ch. 7. 17.
_Sextus Placitus Papyriensis_ II. 7., XV. 2., XXXI. 12. _L. Apuleius_,
De herb. XLIX. 1., LXXIV. 3., CXXI. 2.

[390] _Celsus_, bk. V. 28. 25. _Galen_, Vol. II. p. 150., X. p. 993.
XI. p. 9. 1001., XVI. p. 180., XVII. B. pp. 274, 855., XIX., p. 428,
_Oribasius_, De virt. simpl. bk. II. 1. under word “Leucoion”, De loc.
affect. bk. IV. ch. 112. _Aëtius_, Tetrab. I. serm. 1. under word
“Leucoion”, Tetrab. IV. serm. 4. ch. 83. _Actuarius_, Method. med. bk.
VI. chs. 8, 9.

[391] _Aretaeus_, De sign. chron. bk. II. ch. 11.

[392] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 4. chs. 88-94.

[393] The uterine speculum is mentioned by _Aëtius_ also chs. 86, 88.
and its use described; as also by _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 65.,
bk. VI. ch. 73., and for the examination of the rectum, bk. VI. ch. 78.

[394] _Galen_, De loc. affect. bk. VI. ch. 5. (VIII. p. 436.). _Paulus
Aegineta_, bk. III. chs. 59, 75. _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2. ch.
15., serm. 4. ch. 107.

[395] _Hippocrates_, De natura muliebri Vol. II. pp. 586, (588), 591.,
De morbis mulier. bk. II. Vol. II. 878.

[396] _Nonnus_, Epitom. ch. 206., distinguishes between ῥυπάρον ἕλκος,
νομὴ μετὰ φλεγμονῆς (foul ulcer, eating sore with inflammation) and
ἄνευ φλεγμονῆς νομή (eating sore without inflammation); as does _Paulus
Aegin._, bk. III. ch. 66.

[397] By means of the uterine syringe, μητρεγχύτης. _Galen_, Synopsis
medic. sec. loc. IX. ch. 8. (XIII. p. 316.). _Oribasius_, Collect.
medic. bk. X. ch. 25.

[398] _Celsus_, bk. VII. ch. 28. _Pliny_, Histor. nat. XXX. 4. _Sextus
Placitus Papyriensis_, XXXII. 2. _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 73.

[399] _Cedrenus_, Σύνοψις ἱστορικὴ (Historical Survey), edit. J.
Goar and H. Fabrot, Paris 1647. fol., p. 266. In Diocletian’s time
when persecutions of the Christians were general, a fair and modest
maiden was charged with having spoken disrespectfully of the gods;
for punishment she was sent to a brothel with the order that she must
reimburse the brothel-keeper three shillings a day. The latter was
to make her serve as a prostitute, and she was to receive all who
wished to go with her. Account however was taken of the fact that she
declared _she had an ulcer on her privates_, and this obliged them to
wait till it was cured (προσφασιζομένη ἕλκος ἔχειν ἐπὶ κρυπτοῦ τόπου
καὶ τούτου ἀπαλλαγὴν ἐκδέξασθαι) (pretexting she had an ulcer in a
secret place, and must wait for its removal). The same story is told by
_Palladius_, Hist. lausiac. ch. 148., as having happened at Corinth,
who calls the ulcer an evil-smelling one, that might easily stir the
repugnance of her visitors against the girl, (λέγουσα, ὅτι ἕλκος ἔχω
τι εἰς κεκρυμμένον τόπον, ὅπερ ἐσχάτως ὄζει, καὶ δέδοικα μὴ εἰς μῖσός
μου ἔηθητε τῷ ἀποτροπαίῳ τοῦ ἕλκους· ἔνδοτε οὖν μοι ὀλίγας ἡμέρας καὶ
ἐξουσίαν μου ἔχετε καὶ δωρεάν με ἔχειν,)—(saying “I have an ulcer in
a secret part, which smells very ill, and I fear you may come to feel
repugnance towards me owing to the foulness of the ulcer; grant me
therefore a few days, then may work your will of me and I undertake to
give myself freely”). The last sentence shows clearly that the ulcer
was easy to cure. Comp. Nicephorus, Hist. eccles. bk. VII. chs. 12, 13.

[400] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. II. chs. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10. _Galen_,
Synops. med. sec. loc. bk. IX. ch. 7. (XIII. p. 315.). _Oribasius_, De
loc. affect. bk. IV. ch. 93. _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 59.

[401] _Galen_, Euporist. bk. I. ch. 14. (XIV. p. 382.), Synops. med.
sec. loc. bk. IX. ch. 7. (XIII. p. 315.), _Oribasius_, De loc. affect.
bk. IV. ch. 93. _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 59.

[402] _Galen_, Euporist. bk. I. ch. 14. (XIV. p. 382.). _Oribasius_, De
loc. affect, bk. IV. ch. 94.

[403] _Galen_, Synops. med. sec. loc. bk. IV. ch. 6. (XIII. p. 309.),
ch. 7. (p. 314.), Synops. med. sec. gen. bk. V. ch. 12. (XIII. p.
837.). _Oribasius_, De loc. affect. bk. IV. ch. 92. _Paulus Aegineta_,
bk. III. ch. 59. _Nonnus_, Epit. ch. 198.

[404] _Celsus_, bk. VI. ch. 18., bk. VII. 30., bk. V. 20. _Galen_,
Synops. med. sec. loc. bk. IX. ch. 6. (XIII. p. 309.), Synops. med.
sec. gen. bk. V. ch. 13. (XIII. p. 840.), De simplic. med. temp. ac
facult. bk. IX. chs. 3, 23. (XII. p. 231.), bk. XI. ch. 1. (XII.
p. 333.), _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 59., bk. VI. ch. 80.
_Oribasius_, De loc. affect. bk. IV. ch. 95. _Dioscorides_ bk. I. ch.
34., ch. 94. _Scribonius Largus_, De compos. med. ch. 223. _Marcellus_,
ch. 31. _Nonnus_, Epitom. ch. 196. _Isidorus_, Origin. bk. IV. ch. 7.

[405] _Aëtius_, loco citato ch. 9. from Leonidas. _Paulus Aegineta_,
bk. VI. ch. 78.

[406] _Celsus_, VI. 18. _Galen_, (X. p. 381.), Synops. med. sec. loc.
bk. IX. ch. 6. (XIII. p. 307.), De simplic. temperam ac facult. bk. VI.
(XI. p. 821.). _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 59.

[407] _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. VI. ch. 80.

[408] _Galen_, Method. med. ad Glaucon. bk. II. ch. 1. (XI. p. 77.),
De tumor. praet. nat. ch. 15. (VII. p. 729.), Comment. in Hippocrat.
Aphorism. (XVII. B. p. 636.).—_Paulus Aegineta_, bk. IV. ch. 22.
_Actuarius_, bk. II. ch. 12. _Cassius_, Problem. 42. _Nonnus_, Epitom.
247. _Heliodorus_, in Mai’s Class. auctor. e Vatic. codd. edit. Vol.
IV. p. 13. note 3.

[409] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. XIII. ch. 5. (X. pp. 180 sqq.). Comp.
_Celsus_, bk. V. ch. 28. _Oribasius_, Sympos. bk. VII. 31., De morb.
curat. bk. III. ch. 46.

[410] _Hippocrates_, De natura pueri, Vol. I. p. 390.

[411] _Hippocrates_, Epidem. bk. VI. Vol. III. p. 619.

[412] In reference to ανθραξ _Galen_ says, Isagog. ch. 16. (XIX. p.
777.): ἀνθράκωσις δέ ἐστιν ἕλκος ἐσχαρῶδες μετὰ νομῆς καὶ _ῥεύματος_ καὶ
_βουβῶνος_ ἐνίοτε καὶ πυρετῶν γινομένων περὶ τὸ ἄλλο πᾶν σῶμα, ἔστι δὲ
ὅτε καὶ περὶ ὀφθαλμούς. (But ἀνθράκωσις (malignant ulcer) is a scabby
ulcer conjoined with eating ulcer and _discharge_ and _bubo_, as also
with fevers sometimes affecting the whole body and at other times the
eyes in particular).

[413] _Galen_, loco citato p. 887., ἐχούσης δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης τὸ μῆκος
μεῖζον τοῦ πλάτους, ἐγκάρσιον ἔστω τὸ μῆκος ἐπὶ τοῦ βουβῶνος, οὐ
κατ’ εὐθὺ τοῦ κώλου· καὶ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν οὕτως ἐπιπτύσσεται τὸ δέρμα
ἑαυτῷ, καμπτόντων τὸ κῶλον. (But such an incision having greater length
than breadth, the length should be diagonally to the groin, not in the
line of the direct diameter of the limb. For in this way the skin is
naturally folded over itself, when patients bend the limb).

[414] _Sextus Placitus Papyriensis_, De medicamentis ex animal. ch. 1.
note 14., Cervi pudenda si tecum habueris, inguina tibi non tumebunt,
et si tumor antiquus fuerit, velociter recedet. (If you carry with
you a stag’s genitals, your groin will never swell, and if you have a
long-standing swelling, it will quickly disappear.) We must further
note supplementarily that _Prophylactics against female gonorrhœa_
appear also to have been known and used; at any rate _Galen_, Euporist.
bk. II. ch. 26. note 37. (XIV. p.485.), cites measures against humidity
of the genital organs during coition πρὸς τὸ μὴ καθυγραίνεσθαι τὸ
αἰδοῖον ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις τῶν γυναικῶν;—(to guard against the humidity
of the genitals in coition amongst women), consisting in fact in unripe
gall-apples, ashes and wine as a lotion, or infusion of gall-apples
with sulphurated wool as a vaginal-plug, honey and nitre as an
embrocation!

[415] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. II. ch. 2. (X. p. 83).

[416] _Hippocrates_, Aphorismor. Vol. III. p. 742., De liquidorum usu
Vol. II. p. 163.

[417] _Galen_, Synops. medic. sec. loc. bk. IX. ch. 8. (XIII. p. 317).

[418] _Celsus_, bk. V. ch. 28. _Oribasius_, De morb. crat. bk. III.
ch. 54. Synops. bk. VII. ch. 37, ch. 42., Collect. bk. XLIV. ch. 11.
Mai loco cit. p. 31. _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2. ch. 61. _Paulus
Aegineta_ bk. IV. ch. 9.

[419] _Hippocrates_, Prorrhet. bk. II. Vol. I. p. 204.

[420] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2. ch. 15.

[421] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2. ch. 20.

[422] _Galen_, Definit. medic. Vol. XIX. p. 446.

[423] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2. ch. 3.

[424] _Oribasius_, Synops. medic. sec. loc. bk. V. ch. 4. (XII. p.
823.). _Aëtius_, Tetrab. II. serm. 4. ch. 14.

[425] _Oribasius_, Synops. bk. VII. ch. 40. _Aëtius_, loco citato.
_Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 3.

[426] _Marcellus_, De medic. ch. 31., gives prescriptions “ad ficos qui
in locis verecundioribus nascuntur,” (for fig-like swellings that occur
in the more private parts). _Nonnus_, Epit. 214.

[427] _Aspasia_, De natura mulier. Vol. II. p. 588., De morb. mulier.
bk. II. Vol. II. p. 879. The Etymologicum Magnum under the word
explains κίων by ἀπὸ τοῦ κίειν καὶ ἀνίεναι εἰς ὕψος (so called from its
going upwards and rising to a height). Comp. _Phil. Ingrassias_, De
tumor. praet. natur. p. 273.

[428] _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 4. ch. 106.

[429] _Celsus_, bk. VI. ch. 18. _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2. ch. 3.
_Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 59., bk. IV. ch. 15., bk. VI. ch. 80.
_Sextus Placitus Papyriensis_, XI. 7. _Apuleius_, De herb. LXXX. 8. A
large number of remedies against them are given by _Galen_: Vol. XIII.
309, 312, 422, 447, 512, 560, 715, 738, 781, 787, 824, 828, 831, 833,
837, 840.

[430] _Celsus_, bk. V. ch. 28. Comp. _Galen_, Defin. med. (XIX. p.
444.). _Oribasius_, Synops. VII. ch. 39., Collect. bk. XLV. ch. 12.,
bk. L. ch. 7. (in Mai loco cit. p. 43, p. 186). _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV.
serm. 2. ch. 3., serm. 4. ch. 105. _Paulus Aegineta_, bk. III. ch. 59.,
bk. VI. chs. 58, 71. _Nonnus_, Epit. ch. 197. _Pollux_, Onomast. bk.
IV. ch. 25. sect. 194., θύμος, ὐπέρυθρος ἔκφυσις, τραχεῖα, ἔναιμος, οὐ
δυσαφαίρετος, μάλιστα περὶ αἰδοῖα καὶ δακτύλιον καὶ παραμήρια· ἔστὶ
δ’ ὅτε καὶ ἐπὶ προσώπῳ. (θύμος,—_thymus_, a reddish outgrowth, rough,
suffused with blood, not difficult to remove, occurring chiefly on the
genital organs and anus and insides of the thighs; but sometimes on the
face too). _Marcellus_, ch. 33. _Myrepsus_, XXXVIII. ch. 157.

[431] _Hippocrates_, De ulcer. Vol. III. p. 319., shows a knowledge of
them very uncommon so early as his time.

[432] _Celsus_, bk. V. ch. 28. ch. 1. _Galen_, Defin. med. (XIX. p.
444.) _Oribasius_, Collect. bk. XLV. ch. 11. ch. 14. (Mai loco cit. 41,
43.) _Aëtius_, Tetrab. IV. serm. 2. ch. 3., serm. 4. ch. 105. _Paulus
Aegineta_, bk. IV. ch. 15., bk. VI. ch. 87. _Actuarius_, bk. II. ch.
11., bk. IV. ch. 15., bk. VI. ch. 9. _Pollux_, Onomast. bk. IV. ch. 25,
sect. 195.

[433] _Galen_, Method. med. bk. XIV. ch. 17. (X. p. 1011.).

[434] Perhaps some weight should be attached to the fact that the
ancient physicians recommend as remedies against ulcers of the nose and
mouth exactly the same means as they employed in cases of ulcer of the
genitals. Comp. _Celsus_ bk. VI. ch. 18.

[435] _Celsus_, bk. VI. ch. 8., bk. VII. ch. 11. _Galen_, Synops. med.
sec. loc. bk. III. ch. 3. (XII. 678.). _Oribasius_, De loc. affect.
Vol. IV. chs. 45, 46. _Aëtius_, Tetrab. II. serm. 2. chs. 90, 91, 93.
_Paulus Aegineta_ bk. III. ch. 23. _Alexander of Tralles_ bk. III.
ch. 8. _Caelius Aurelianus_ morb. chron. bk. II. ch. 1. _Actuarius_,
Method. med. bk. II. ch. 8., bk. VI. ch. 4. _Nonnus_, Epit. ch. 93.
_Pollux_, Onomast. bk. IV. ch. 25. sect. 204. The remark of _Galen_,
Isagog. ch. 20. (XIV. p. 792.), is interesting that _falling way of
the nose_ from the palate gives sufferers an apelike look, ἀλλὰ κἂν
ἐξ ὑπερώας μεσίζῃ ἡ ῥὶς, ὥς φησι, σιμοῦνται ἀθεραπεύτως,—(but if the
nose separates from the palate, they get flat-nosed, as they say,
like monkeys,—incurable.) A special _nasal syringe_, rhynenchytes, is
mentioned by _Caelius Aurelianus_, Chron. bk. I. ch. 4., bk. III. ch.
2. Comp. _Calmasius_, Ad Solin p. 274.

[436] _Johannes Moschus_, Pratum spirituale (Meadow of the Soul) ch.
14. in Magna Bibliotheca veterum Patrum (Great Library of the Ancient
Fathers) Vol. XIII. Paris 1644. fol., p. 1062. Ὁ Ἀββᾶς Πολυχρόνιος
πάλιν ἡμῖν διηγήσατο, ἡμῖν λέγων, ὅτι ἐν τῷ κοινοβίω τοῦ Πενθουκλὰ,
ἀδελφὸς ἦν πάνυ προσέχων αὑτὸν καὶ ἀσκητής· ἐπολεμήθη δὲ εἰς πορνείαν,
καὶ μὴ εἰσενεγκὼν τὸν πολέμον, ἐξῆλθεν τοῦ μοναστηρίου καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς
Ἰεριχὼ πληρῶσαι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν αὐτοῦ· _καὶ ὡς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ καταγώγιον
τῆς πορνείας, εὐθέως ἐλεπρούθη ὅλως_· καὶ θεασάμενος ἑαυτὸν ἐν τοιούτῳ
σχήματι, εὐθέως ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς τὸ μοναστήριον αὐτοῦ, εὐχαριστῶν τῷ
θεῷ καὶ λέγων, ὅτι ὁ  θεὸς ἐπήγαμέν μοι τὴν τοιαύτην νόσον, ἵνα ἡ ψυχή
μου σωθῇ. (The Abbot Polychronius again related an incident to us,
telling us how in the Monastery of Penthula there was a brother well
self-disciplined and ascetic. But he was sorely tempted to fornication,
and unable to fight the temptation, he went forth from the Monastery
and departed to Jericho to fulfil his desire; and when he _entered into
the common house of fornication, straightway he became leprous all
over_. And when he saw himself in such a case, straightway he returned
to his Monastery, blessing God and saying, “God hath brought down this
disease upon me, that my soul might be saved”).

[437] _Galen_, De locis affect. bk. II. ch. 8. (VIII. pp. 91, 104.).
τοὺς δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ τὰ ὀστέα προστυπεῖς εὑρήσεις, ὡς αὐτῶν δοκεῖν τῶν
ὀστέων ὄντας· ... ὅτι δ’ οἱ τῶν περικειμένων τοῖς ὀστοῖς ὑμένων πόνοι
βύθιοί τ’ εἰσὶν, τοῦτ’ ἔστι διὰ βάθους τοῦ σώματος ἐπιφέροντες αἴσθησιν,
αὐτῶν τε τῶν ὀστῶν ἐπάγουσιν φαντασίαν ὡς ὀδυνωμένων, οὐδὲν θαυμαστόν·
ὀνομάζουσι γοῦν αὐτοὺς _ὀστοκόπους_ οἱ πλεῖστοι, γίνονται τὰ πολλὰ
μὲν ἐπὶ γυμνασίοις, ἔστιν ὅτι δὲ καὶ διὰ ψύξιν, ἢ πλῆθος. (Now you will
find patients suffering from pains in the parts surrounding the bones
inclined to suppose they are suffering from the bones themselves....
And it is not at all surprising that pains in the membranes that lie
about the bones being deep-seated, that is giving a sensation of
being deep-seated in the body, make patients imagine it is the bones
themselves that suffer. In fact they call them generally bone-racking
pains; and they are set up as a rule after bodily exercises, but also
sometimes as a consequence of cold or heat).

[438] _Natalis Comes_, Mythologia bk. III. p. 383., Deinde dicta
(Cyprus) _Cerastia_, ut inquit Xenagoras in libro secundo de insulis,
quod illam homines habitarent, _qui multos tumores, tanquam cornua
quaedam in capitibus habere_ viderentur, cum cornua κέρατα dicta
sint a Graecis et κεράσται cornuti. (Then it (Cyprus) was also named
_Cerastia_, as Xenagoras says in his second Book “On Islands”, because
its inhabitants _often had protuberances that looked like horns on
their heads_, for horns are called κέρατα in Greek, and those having
horns κεράσται. Comp. _Stephanus_, De urbibus, under word Κύπρος, and
Σφήκεια. _Tzetzes_, in Lycophron. Cassandr. 474. p. 173., ἐκαλεῖτο
δὲ καὶ Κεραστία, ὡς μὲν Ἀνδροκλῆς ἐν τῷ περὶ Κύπρου λέγει, διὰ τὸ
_ἐνοικῆσαι αὐτῇ ἄνδρας, οἳ εἶχον κέρατα_· ὡς δὲ Ξεναγόρας ἐν τῷ περὶ
Νήσων, διὰ _τὸ ἔχειν πολλὰς ἐξοχὰς_, ἃς κέρατα καλοῦσι, Κεραστία
ὠνομάσθη. (And it was also called Κεραστία, according to Androcles
in his Book “On Cyprus”, _because men lived in it who had horns_;
but according to Xenagoras in his “On Islands”, because they had
many protuberances, which they call horns, for this reason it was
named Κεραστία). Even supposing the etymology to be a fable, is
the fact therefore on which it was based bound to be mythical too?
Again _Pollux_, Onomast. bk. IV. ch. 25., says, Κέρατα, ἐν τῷ τόπῳ
τῶν κεράτων περὶ τὸ μέτωπου _πωρώδεις ἐκφύσης_, (horns,—_a sort of
callous outgrowths_ at the place where horns grow on the forehead).
The words succeeding περὶ τὸ δέρμα (on the skin) are no doubt more
appropriately taken with ἕρπης (creeping eruption) that comes next
after them. In _Sextus Placitus Papyriensis_, ch. XI. 5. we read:
Elephantis stercus illitum omnes tumores emendat, et _duritias, quae in
fronte nascuntur_, mire tollit, (Elephant’s dung rubbed on cures all
swellings, and removes in a wonderful way the _callosities that grow on
the forehead_), but this really and truly can only be held applicable
to cutaneous tubercles.)