The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2) / Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical Antiquity

by Julius Rosenbaum

Diseases consequent on Paederastia.

§ 13.

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

In Naevolum.

Mentula cum doleat puero, tibi, Naevole, culus,

Non sum divinus, sed scio quid facias.

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

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

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

In Carinum.

Secti podicis usque ad umbilicum

Nullas reliquias habet Carinus,

Et prurit tamen usque ad umbilicum.

O quanta scabie miser laborat!

Culum non habet, est tamen cinaedus.

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

In Lesbiam[269].

De cathedra quoties surgis, jam saepe notavi,

Paedicant miseram, Lesbia, te tunicae.

Quas cum conata es dextra, conata sinistra

Vellere, cum lacrimis eximis et gemitu.

Sic constringuntur gemina Symplegade culi,

Et Minyas intrant Cyaneasque nates.

Emendare cupis vitium deforme? docebo.

Lesbia, nec surgas censeo, nec sedeas!

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

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

De Charisiano[270].

Multis jam, Lupe, posse se diebus

Paedicare negat Charisianus.

Caussam cum modo quaererent sodales:

Ventrem, dixit, habere se solutum.

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

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

De se Priapus[271].

Non sum de fragili dolatus ulmo;

Nec quae stat rigida supina vena,

De ligno mihi quolibet columna est,

Sed viva generata de cupresso.—

Hanc, tu quisquis es, o malus, timeto:

Nam si vel minimos manu rapaci

Hoc de palmite laeseris racemos:

Nascetur, licet hoc velis negare,

Inserta tibi ficus a cupresso.

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

De Labieno[272].

Ut pueros emeret Labienus, vendidit hortos,

Nil nisi ficetum nunc Labienus habet.

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

Ad Caecilianum[273].

Cum dixi ficus, rides quasi barbara verba.

Et dici ficos, Caeciliane, iubes.

Dicemus ficus, quas scimus in arbore nasci,

Dicemus ficos, Caeciliane, tuos.

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

Now too we shall understand the medico ridente (the doctor grinning) in the following passage of Juvenal (II. 12):

Sed podice laevi

Caeduntur tumidae, medico ridente, mariscae.

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

Nam, displosa sonat quantum vesica, pepedi

Diffissa nate ficos.

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

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

Quaedam, si placet hoc tibi, Priape,

Ficosissima me puella ludit,

Et non dat mihi, nec negat daturam;

Causasque invenit usque differendi.

Quae si contigerit fruenda nobis,

Totam cum paribus, Priape, nostris

Cingemus tibi mentulam coronis.

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

De familia ficosa.[275]

Ficosa est uxor, ficosus et ipse maritus,

Filia ficosa est, et gener atque nepos.

Nec dispensator, nec villicus, ulcere turpi,

Nec rigidus fossor, sed nec arator eget.

Cum sint ficosi pariter iuvenesque senesque,

Res mira est, ficus non habet unus ager.

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

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

However not merely primary affections of the posteriors were the punishment of the Cinaedus, but also secondary ones of the mouth and throat. First and foremost was hoarseness of the voice, to which Martial[277] alludes, when he makes the champion of the baths the cinaedus Charinus speak raucidulo ore (with a weak, hoarse voice). This we find, following Reiske’s[278] indication, more explicitly dealt with in Dio Chrysostom[279]:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Νοῦσος Θήλεια (Feminine Disease)[293].

§ 14.

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

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

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

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

1. a Vice, this vice being,

a) Paederastia; manifestly the oldest explanation,—already alluded to by Longinus, but specially championed by Bouhier[295], also entertained by the interpreters of Longinus, Toll and Pearce, as well as by Casaubon (Epistolae) and Costar[296];

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

2. a bodily Disease,—to wit,

a). Haemorrhoids (Piles); an opinion maintained by Paul Thomas de Girac[298], Valckenaar in his Notes to Herodotus, Bayer[299], and the authors of the “General History of the World”[300];

b). actual Menstruation, for which le Fèvre and Dacier would seem to have declared;

c). Gonorrhoea (Clap), which Patin[301], Hensler[302] and Degen[303] understood to be meant;

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

(3). a mental Disease, in fact a form of Melancholia. This is the view adopted by Sauvages[305], Heyne, Bose, Koray[306] and Friedreich.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Sertorium

Mollis erat, facilisque viris Paeantius heros,

Vulnera sic Paradis dicitur ulta Venus.

Cur lingat cunnum Siculus Sertorius, hoc est,

Ex hoc occisus, Rufe, videtur Eryx.

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

Quod nimio gaudes noctem producere vino,

Ignosco: vitium, Gaure, Catonis habes.

Carmina quod scribis Musis et Apolline nullo,

Laudari debes: hoc Ciceronis habes.

Quod vomis: Antoni, quod luxuriaris: Apici;

Quod fellas—vitium dic mihi, cuius habes?

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

Subscriptum picturae Crispae mulieris impudicae

Praeter legitimi genitalia foedera coetus,

Repperit obscoenas Veneres vitiosa libido.

Herculis haeredi quam Lemnia suasit egestas,

Quam toga facundi scenis agitavit Afrani,

Et quam Nolanis capitalis luxus inussit;

Crispa tamen cunctas exercet corpore in uno:

Deglubit, fellat, molitur per utramque cavernam,

Ne quid inexpertum frustra moritura relinquat.

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

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

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

Stirpem perosa Solis invisi Venus

Per nos catenas vindicat Martis sui

Suasque: probris omne Phoebeum genus

Onerat infandis.

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

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

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

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

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

§ 15.

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

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

De mollibus sive subactis; quos Graeci μαλθακοὺς VOCANT.

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

Femina, virque simul Veneris cum germina miscent

Venis, informans diverso ex sanguine virtus

Temperiem servans bene condita corpora fingit.

At si virtutes permixto semine pugnent,

Nec faciant unam, permixto in corpore dirae

Nascentem gemino vexabunt semine sexum.

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

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

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

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

§ 16.

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

“Distinguishing Masks of the Cinaedus:

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

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

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

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

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

αὐτίκα γυναικεῖ’ ἢν ποιῇ τις δράματα,

μετουσίαν δεῖ τῶν τρόπων τὸ σῶμ’ ἔχειν,

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

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

Στρεψιάδης.... Λέξον δή μοι τὶ παθοῦσαι,

εἴπερ Νεφέλαι γ’ εἰσὶν ἀληθῶς, θνηταῶς εἴξασι γυναιξίν·

οὐ γὰρ ἐκεῖναί γ’ εἰσὶ τοιαῦται . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Σωκράτης. Γίγνονται πάνθ’ ὅ τι βούλονται· κᾆτ’ ἢν μὲν ἴδωσι κομήτην,

ἄγριόν τινα τῶν λασίων τούτων, οἷόν περ τὸν Ξενοφάντου,

σκώπτουσαι τὴν μανίαν αὐτοῦ, Κενταύροις ᾔκασαν αὐτάς.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

Verius ergo

Et magis ingenue Peribomius: hunc ego fatis

Imputo, qui vultu morbum incessuque fatetur.

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

Horum simplicitas miserabilis, his furor ipse

Dat veniam: sed peiores, qui talia verbis

Herculis invadunt et de virtute locuti

Clunem agitant.

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

§ 17.

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

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

Ὕβρις τάδ’ οὐχ ἡ Κύπρις ἐξεργάζεται.

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

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

Wherefore such as take pleasure in pathic lust, devoting themselves to the vilest kind of wickedness, have no portion in honour or in modesty.—Indeed much there is base and insane in amours with women; how much more so in those with boys! Now the name of the latter passion is paedomania—[346]madness for boys,—but neither kind is Love—Eros).

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

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

νόσον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἀλλόκοτον αὐτοῦ νοσεῖ ,

ἣν οὐδ’ ἂν εἷς γνοίη ποτ’ οὐδὲ ξυμβάλῃ,

εἰ μὴ πύθοιθ’ ἡμῶν· ἐπεὶ τοπάζετε·

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

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

μὰ τὸν κύν’, ὦ Νικόστρατ’, οὐ φιλόξενος,

ἐπεὶ καταπύγων ἐστὶν ὅγε Φιλόξενος,

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

ἔστι δέ τις θήλεια Φιλόξενος ἐκ Διομείων.
(And there is a certain female Philoxenus of Diomeia);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 18.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίαν ἐφέποντες

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
AUTHORITIES AND HISTORIANS.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Authorities.

1) Nicolai Leoniceni, Vicentini, et Joannis Almenar, Hispani, 1. de morbo Gallico, Angeli Bolognini, Bononiensis, de cura ulcerum exteriorum et unguentis communibus in solutione continui lib. II. Alexandri Benedicti Veronensis, 1. de pestilenti febre, Dominici Massariae, Vicentini, de ponderibus et mensuris medicinalibus lib. III. Papiae ex offic. Bernhardini de Garaldis. MDXVI. fol.

(Nicholas Leonicenus, of Vicenza, and Joannes Almenar, Spaniard, “On Syphilis”; Angelas Bologninus, of Bologna, “On the Treatment of External Ulcers and on Common Ointments applied in Breach of Continuity”,—2 books; Alexander Benedictus, of Verona, “On Malignant Fever”; Dominic Massaria, of Vicenza, “On Medical Weights and Measures”,—3 books. Pavia (printed by Bernhardinus de Garaldis) 1516. fol.).

The Work is rare; and appears only to have been seen by Astruc, II. p. 623. Comp. Girtanner, II. p. 41. Gruner, Aphrodisiac. pt. IV.

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

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

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

3) Liber de morbo Gallico, in quo diversi celeberrimi in tali materia scribentes medicinae continentur auctores, videlicet Nicolaus Leonicenus, Vicentinus. Ulrichus de Hutten Germanus. Petrus Andreas Matheolo, Senensis. Laurentius Phrisius. Joannes Almenar, Hispanus. Angelus Bologninus. Venetiis per Joannem Patavinum et Venturinum de Ruffinellis. Anno Domini MDXXXV. 8.

(“Treatise on Syphilis,” in which the various most Celebrated Authors writing on that Department of Medicine are contained viz. Nicholas Leonicenus, of Vicenza; Ulrich von Hütten, German; Petrus Andreas Matheolo, of Sienna; Laurentius Phrisius; Joannes Almenar, Spaniard; Angelus Bologninus. Venice, printed by Joannes Patavinus and Venturinus de Ruffinellis. Anno Domini 1535. 8vo.).

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

4) Morbi Gallici curandi ratio exquisitissima a variis iisdemque peritissimis medicis conscripta: nempe Petro Andrea Matheolo, Senensi. Joanne Almenar, Hispano. Nicolao Massa, Veneto. Nicolao Poll, Caesareae Majestatis Physico. Benedicto de Victoriis, Faventino. Hic accessit Angeli Bolognini de ulcerum exteriorum medela opusculum perquam utile. Ejusdem de unguentis ad cujusvis generis maligna ulcera conficiendis lucubratio. Cum indice rerum omnium quae in curationem cadere possunt copiosissimo. Basileae apud Joann. Bebelium. MDXXXVI. 299 S. 4.

(“The Most Approved Method of treating Syphilis;” by Several and these the Most skilful Doctors, viz. Peter Andreas Matheolo, of Sienna; Joannes Almenar, Spaniard; Nicholas Massa, of Venice; Nicholas Poll, Physician to His Imperial Majesty; Benedictus de Victoriis of Faenza. To this is added: Angelus Bologninus, On the Medical Treatment of External Ulcers,—a Pamphlet of the Highest Utility. By the Same Author, Treatise on the Compounding of Ointments against Malignant Ulcers of every Kind. With a most Copious Index of all Matters incidental to the Treatment. Bâle, published by Joann. Bebelius, 1536. pp. 299. 4to.).

This Edition, according to the Dedication to Adam Bresinius (Basil. Idibus Martii 1536.—Bâle, 15th March 1536.), was seen through the press by Joseph Tectander from Cracow. The Tract of Benedictus de Victoriis included in it is a College Exercise which Tectander had had copied down and printed without the author’s knowledge. Comp. Astruc, II. p. 266.—Girtanner, II. p. 74.—Gruner, Aphrod. p. V.

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

5) De morbo Gallico omnia quae extant apud omnes medicos cujuscunque nationis, qui vel integris libris, vel quoque alio modo hujus affectus curationem methodice aut empirice tradiderunt, diligenter hinc inde conquisita, sparsim inventa, erroribus expurgata et in unum tandem hoc corpus redacta [ab Aloysio Luisino, Utinensi]. In quo de ligno Indico, Salsa Perillia, Radice Chyne, Argento vivo, ceterisque rebus omnibus ad hujus luis profligationem inventis, diffusissima tractatio habetur. Cum indice locupletissimo rerum omnium scitu dignarum, quae in hoc volumine continentur. Opus hac nostra aetate, quo Morbi Gallici vis passim vagatur, apprime necessarium. Catalogum scriptorum sexta pagina comperies. [Sebast. Aquilanus, Nicol. Leonicenus, Nic. Massa, Natal. Montesaurus, Anton. Scanarolus, Jac. Cataneus, Joan. Benedictus, Hier. Fracastorius, Georg. Vella, Joan. Paschalis, Nic. Poll, Petr. Andr. Mathaeolus, Ulr. ab Hutten, Wendelinus Hock de Brackenau, Coradinus Gilinus, Laurent. Phrisius, Gonsalvus Fernandez de Oviedo, Joan. Almenar, Aloysius Lobera, Leonh. Schmaus, Petr. Maynardus, Anton Benivenius, Alphons. Ferrus, Joan de Vigo, Anton. Gallus, Casp. Torella, Joan. Bapt. Montanus, Andr. Vesalius, Leonhard. Fuchsius, Joan. Manardus, Joan. Fernelius, Benedictus Victorius, Amatus Lusitanus, Anton. Musa Brassavolus, Alex. Fontana, Nic. Macchellus, Hier. Cardanus, Gabr. Fallopius, Ant. Fracantianus, Joan. Langius, Petr. Bayr]. Tomus prior. Venetiis apud Jordanum Zilettum. 1566. 8. 736 u. 28 S. fol.

De morbo gallico Tomus posterior, in quo medicorum omnium celebrium universa monumenta ad hujus morbi cognitionem et curationem attinentia, quae hucusque haberi potuerunt nunquam alias impressa, nunc primum conjecta sunt. Cum indice locupletissimo rerum omnium scitu dignarum, quae in hoc volumine continentur. Catalogum scriptorum quarta pagina comperies. [Bartholomaeus Montagnana, Martin. Brocardus, Benedict. Rinius, Francisc. Frizimelica, Petr. Trapolinus, Bernard Tomitanus, J. Sylvius, Mich. J. Paschalius, Prosp. Borgarutius, Bartholom. Maggius, Alex. Trajan. Petronius]. Venetiis MDLXVII. ex officina Jordani Ziletti. 24 u. 216 S. fol.

Appendix tomi prioris de morbo gallico, in quo, qui eidem jam antea destinati fuerant, reliqui congesti sunt autores. Cum indice rerum memorabilium in eo contentarum abunde amplo et copioso. Catalogum scriptorum quarta pagina comperies. [Anton. Chalmeteus, Leonh. Botallus, Dominic. Leonus, Augerius Ferrerius, Petr. Haschardus, Guilielmus Rondeletius, Dionys. Fontanonus, Jos. Struthius]. Venetiis MDLXVII. Ex officina Jord. Ziletti. 4, 96 und 6 S. fol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Aphrodisiacus sive de lue venerea; in duos tomos bipartitus, continens omnia quaecunque hactenus de hac re sunt ab omnibus Medicis conscripta. Ubi de Ligno Indico, Salsa Perilla, Radice Chynae, Argento vivo, ceterisque rebus omnibus ad hujus luis profligationem inventis, diffusissima tractatio habetur. Opus hac nostra aetate, qua Morbi Gallici vis passim vagatur apprime necessarium: ab excellentissimo Aloysio Luisino Utinensi, Medico celeberrimo novissime collectum, indice rerum omnium scitu dignarum adomatum. Editio longe emendatior, et ab innumeris mendis repurgata. Tomus primus et secundus. Lugd. Batav. apud. Joann. Arnold. Langerak et Joh. et Herm. Verbeck. MDCCXXVIII. 1366 gespaltene Seiten, ohne 11 Blatt Vorrede und 10-1/2 Blatt Index. fol.

(“Aphrodisiacus: or A Treatise on the Venereal Disease,—in Two Volumes, containing all that has been written on this subject to the present day by all Doctors. In which Indian wood (Ironwood, Guajac), Sarsaparilla, China Root, Quicksilver and all other remedies discovered for the Destruction of this Disease are most fully treated. A Work pre-eminently necessary in our Day when the infection of this Complaint is so widely diffused; the whole collected for the first time by the most excellent Aloysius Luisinus, of Udine,—(Friuli), a most famous Physician, and provided with an Index of all Matters worthy of note. Much improved Edition, freed from very numerous errors. Vols. I and II. Leyden, published by Joann. Arnold. Langerak and Joh. and Herm. Verbeck, 1728. pp. 1366, besides 11 leaves Preface and 10-1/2 leaves Index. fol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A second additional Title-page bears: Volume Third. In the Preface Gruner accepts the Moorish origin of the Disease, which he further maintains in the Book itself, and gives a survey of the Bibliography. In the first Part he gives the passages from the Bible, the Greek, Roman, Arabic and Arabist Works, so far as they had been discovered at that time. The second Part contains the Works wanting or imperfectly given in Luisinus’ Collection, and passages from the following Authors: “Joan Nauclerus, Steph. Infessura, Petr. Delphinius, Joan. Burchardus, Philipp. Beroaldus, Alex. Benedictus, Conrad. Schelling, Jac. Wimphelingius, Chronicon Monasterii Mellicensis, Joan. Salicetus, Marcellus Cumanus, Chronica von Cöln, Joan. Trithemius, Universitas Manuasca. Sebast. Brant, Joh. Grünbeck, Decretum Senatus Parisiensis, Proclamatio Anglica, Joan. Sciphover de Meppis, Bartholom. Steber, Simon Pistoris, Anton. Benivenius, Petr. Pinctor, Joan. Bapt. Fulgosus, Christoph. Columbus, Petr. Martyr, Franciscus Roman. Pane, Elias Capreolus, M. Anton. Coccius Sabellicus, Albericus Vesputius, Wendelinus Hock de Brackenau, Petr. Crinitus Linturius, Clementius Clementinus, Joan. Vochs, Angel. Bologninus, Francisc. Guiccardinus, Berlerus, Leo Africanus, Petr. Bembus, Paul. Jovius, Joan. de Vigo, Symphor. Champegius, Francisc. Lopez de Gomara, Ulric. ab Hutten, Desider. Erasmus, Missa de ben. Job., Joannes le Maire, Gonsalvus Ferdinandus de Oviedo, Joan. de Bourdigne, Joan. Ludov. Vives, Aureolus Theophr. Paracelsus, Magnus Hundt, Leonh. Fuchs, Sebast. Frank, Sebast. Montuus, Joan. Bapt. Theodosius, Hieron. Benzonus, Petr. de Cieça de Leon, Joan. Fernelius, Michael Angel. Blondus, Augustin. de Zaratte, Joan. Stumpf, Rodericus Diacius Insulanus, Hieron. Montuus.”

10) De morbo gallico scriptores medici et historici partim inediti partim rari et notationibus aucti. Accedunt morbi gallici origines maranicae. Collegit, edidit. glossario et indice auxit D. Christ. Gothofr. Gruner. Jenae sumptibus bibliopolii academici 1793. XVIII. XXXVI. 624. S. 8.

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

Forms the second Supplement to the Collection of Luisinus, and contains Works and passages from the following Authors, etc.: “Ancient Laws of Nüremberg,” “Matthaeus Landauer, Julianus Tanus (de saphati), Antonius Codrus, Anonymi prognosticatio, Jacob. Unrestus, Bilibaldus Birkheimer, Augustinus Niphus, Hieron. Emser, Philipp. Beroaldus, Leonard. Giachinus, Janus Cornarius, Thomas Rangonus, Joan. Anton. Rovellus (de patursa), Remaclus Fuchs, Aloysius Mundella, Anton. Fumanellus, Hier. Cardanus, Hier. Bonacossus, Bernard. Corius, Joan. Langius, Joach. Curaeus, Joan. Hessus, Thom. Erastus, Achill. Pirmin. Gasserus, Joan. Crato, Thom. Jordanus (luis novae Moravia exortae descriptio,—Description of new Disease and its Moorish Origin). “Comp. N. allg. deutsch. Bibl. Vol. IX. p. 183.”

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

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

This third Supplement to Luisinus was never regularly published; the separate Selections were issued as “Programs” in connection with the Public Announcements of Doctorial Graduations in the Faculty of Medicine at Jena. Selections I-VI. contain Investigations as to the History and Nature of the Disease; VII-XI. Passages from the Poems and Letters of Conrad Celte, from a Letter of Albert Durr, from Symphorian. (Champerius, Vocabulorum Medicorum Epitoma); XII, Passages from the Poems of Henric. Bebelius, Hel. Eoban. Hessus and a quotation from a Work of Petr. Parvus; XIII, XIV. Passage from Erasmus, Jac. von Bethencourt, Jo. Lud. Vives, Enric. Cordus, Georg, Bersmannus, Engelbert, Werlichius, and the Latin translation of a Fragment from a Book written in the Coptic language which the Society of Missions had sent to Cardinal Borgia; Domeier communicated it to Baldinger and the latter handed it on to Gruner to make use of in his Collection.

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Historians.

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

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

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

2) Quaestio medica quodlibetarius disputationibus mane discutienda die Jovis 9 Dcbris 1717. M. Johanne Baptista Fausto Alliot de Mussay, Doctore medico praeside. An Morbus antiquus Syphilis? Proponebat Johannes Franciscus Leaulté, Parisinus, Anno R. S. H. 1717. Typis Johann. Quillau, facultatis medicinae Typographi. 8 Blatt. 4.

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

According to Astruc, II. p. 1054., this Dissertation consists of 8 Corollaries, of which only the fifth seeks to establish the antiquity of Venereal Disease, arguing from: Horace, Odes bk. I. 37. Sat. bk. I. 5. 62 (morbus campanus,—the Campanian disease); Juvenal, Sat II.; Martial, Epigr. bk. I. 66.; Tacitus, Annals bk. IV.; Suetonius, Vita Octav. Augusti ch. 80.; Lucian, Pseudologista; Valerius Maximus, Memorab. bk. III. ch. 5.; Lucius Apuleius, Metamorphos. bk. X. The refutation given by Astruc repeats almost word for word Girtanner vol. II. p. 357-363., though he gives it, as usual, as his own Production.

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

In England Nic. Robinson, “A New Treatise of the Venereal Disease”, in three parts, London 1736. 8 vols., Pt. I. ch. 1., seeks to further confirm the Reasons laid down by Becket for the antiquity of the Disease. According to Astruc, vol. II. p. 1058, Sir Hans Sloane, “Voyage to the Islands of Madeira, Barbadoes, Nevis, St. Christopher and Jamaica, with the Natural History,” London 1707. fol., Vol. I. in the Introduction, pp. 2, 3., would seem to have already indicated the most important passages cited by Becket.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also under the Title: “History of the Venereal Disease etc.” Second Volume, Second Part. The First Part of this Vol., which was to contain the Description of the Disease, never appeared. The Work is particularly directed against Girtanner; and investigates. (2) The exact Time of the appearance of the Disease in Italy. (3) The eye-witnesses of the importation of Venereal Disease from Hispaniola to Spain. (4) Eye-witnesses of the existence of Venereal Disease in Hispaniola as its home. (5) Testimonies to the fact that Venereal Disease was once endemic on the main-land of America. (6) Later witnesses of the importation into Spain of the Venereal Disease previously endemic in Hispaniola. The proofs are from (pp. 1-15): Oviedo, Welsch, Lopez de Gomara, Roman. Pane, Pedro de Cieça de Leon, Augustin. de Zaratte, Hieron. Benzoni.

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

(Phil. Gabr. Hensler, ““Program” (College Exercise) on the Herpes (Creeping eruption) or Formica of the Ancients,—a Malady not unconnected with the Venereal Disease.” Kiel 1801. pp. 64. 8vo.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of this there appeared a German translation by Dr. Christ. Friedr. Michaelis. Zittau and Leipzig 1789. pp. 110. large 8vo. The Author maintains the American origin, and especially seeks to confute Becket and Raynold Forster.

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

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

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

14) M. Sarmiento, Antiquitad de los bubas. Madrid 1788. 32 S. 8.

(M. Sarmiento, “Antiquity of Buboes.” Madrid 1788. pp. 32. 8vo.)

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

15) M. S. G. Schmidt, praeside (et auctore) C. Sprengel, de ulceribus virgae tentamen historico-chirurgicum. Halae 1790. 8.

(M. S. G. Schmidt, (Editor and part-Author, C. Sprengel), “On Ulcers of the Penis,—a Historico-Surgical Essay.” Halle 1790. 8vo.)

16) Christ. Gothofr. Gruner, Morbi Gallici origines Maranicae. Progr. Jen. 1793. 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Author maintains, following up a previous suggestion of Hensler’s, that Yaws and Pians are the original forms of Venereal Disease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Alex. Dubled, “Historical Survey of the Venereal Disease.” Paris 1825.?

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

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

(S. J. Beer, “Contributions to the History of Syphilis.” In Oken’s Isis. Year 1828. Vol. II. pp. 728-731).

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

35) H. Spitta, Beitrag zur Geschichte der Verbreitung der Lustseuche in Europa. In Heckers lit. Annalen 1826. Bd. IV. S. 371-374.

(H. Spitta, “Contribution to the History of the Spread of the Venereal Disease in Europe.” In Hecker’s Lit. Annalen 1826. Vol. IV. pp. 371-374).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40) Prof. Naumann, zur Pathogenie und Geschichte des Trippers, in Schmidt’s Jahrb. der in- und ausländ. gesammt. Medicin Jahrg. 1837. Bd. XIII. S. 94-105.

(Prof. Naumann, “Pathology and History of Gonorrhoea”, in Schmidt’s Jahrb. der in- und ausländ. gesammt. Medicin, Year 1837. Vol. XIII. pp. 94-105).

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

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

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

42) Jos. Ferd. Masarei, Diss. sist. argumentum, morbos venereos esse morbos antiquos. Viennae 1837. 8.

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

Besides the above Works, specially devoted to the History of Venereal Disease and dealing exclusively with this, the subject is discussed also by most of the larger Hand-books and Manuals on this Malady, e.g, Swediaur, Bertrandi, Foot, Barbantini, Jourdan. However we must particularize:

Joan. Astruc, de morbis venereis libri sex. In quibus disseritur tum de origine, propagatione et contagione horumce affectuum in genere: tum de singulorum natura, aetiologia et therapeia, cum brevi analysi et epicrisi operum plerorumque quae de eodem argumento scripta sunt. Paris 1736. XVIII. 20. 628. 50 S. 4. Paris (Nachdruck zu Basel). 1738. 4.—Translated by Will. Borrowby. Lond. 1737. 8.—Editio secunda: de morbis venereis libri IX. Paris 1740. 4. Vol. I. XXXVI. 608 S. (Enthält zugleich Dissertatio I. de origine, appellatione natura et curatione morborum venereorum inter Sinas S. DXXXVII-DLXVI). Vol. II. 537-1196 S. (Unsere Citate beziehen sich auf diese Ausgabe).—Paris 1743. Vol. I-IV. 12. Die ersten 4 Bücher wurden von Boudon und Aug. Franc. Jault ins Französische übersetzt. Paris 1740. 12. Vol. I-III.—Editio tertia aucta per Jo. Astruc et Ant. Louis. Paris 1755. Vol. I-IV. 12. Nachdruck Venetiis 1760. 4. mit Hinzufügung von Gerardi van Swieten, Epistolae duae de mercurio sublimato und Jos. Mar. Xav. Bertini, diss. de usu mercurii.—Translated by Sam. Chapmann. Lond. 1755. 1. deutsch von Joh. Gottlob Heise. Frankf. und Leipz. 1784. gr. 8. Editio quarta: Paris. 1773. Vol. I-IV. 12.—Editio quinta, cura Ant. Louis. Paris 1777. Vol. I-IV. 12.

(Jean Astruc, “On Venereal Diseases,—Six books. In which is discussed the Origin, Propagation and Contagion of these Maladies generally; secondly the Nature, Etiology and Therapeutics of the same individually; together with a brief Analysis and Appreciation of most of the Works dealing with this Subject.” Paris 1736. XVIII, 20, 628, 50 pp. 4to. Paris (pirated edition, Bâle) 1738. 4to.—Translated by Will. Borrowby, Lond. 1737. 8vo.—Second Edition: “On Venereal Diseases,—IX books.” Paris 1740. 4to. Vol. I. pp. XXXVI, 608. (Contains also Dissertation I, “On the Origin, Nomenclature, Nature and Treatment of Venereal Diseases amongst the Chinese”, pp. DXXXVII-DLXVI). Vol. II. pp. 537-1196. (Our citations refer to this Edition).—Paris 1743, Vols. I-IV. 12mo. The first 4 books were translated into French by Boudon and Aug. Franc. Jault. Paris. 1740. 12mo, Vols. I-III.—Third Edition enlarged by Jo. Astruc and Ant. Louis. Paris 1755. Vols. I-IV. 12mo. Pirated edition, at Venice 1760. 4to., with addition by Gerardi van Swieten, “Epistolae Duae de Mercurio sublimato” (Two Letters concerning Mercury Sublimate), and Jos. Mar. Xav. Bertini, “Diss. de usu Mercurii”. (Dissertation on the Use of Mercury).—Translated by Sam. Chapmann. Lond. 1755. 8vo.; in German by Joh. Gottlob Heise. Frankfort and Leipzig 1784, large 8vo.—Fourth Edition: Paris 1773. Vols. I-IV. 12mo.—Fifth Edition, edit. Ant. Louis. Paris 1777. Vols. I-IV. 12mo).

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

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

In the First Volume the Author gives, Bk. I. Pt. 1. pp. 1-57, a history of the Venereal disease, in which he employs every possible artifice and perversion of the facts in his endeavour to prove the American origin of the Disease. In the Second and Third Vols. (in which the pages run on continuously, pp. 808) he gives a general review of all the Works that have appeared on Venereal disease from 1595 to 1793, the total—including Supplements—amounting to 1912. As far as Astruc served, he has often translated him word for word,—without declaring the fact. But as only those Works which support his own views, in particular the American origin, are estimated with any accuracy, while the rest are summarily disposed of,—often without any precise account of the Contents, it is properly speaking solely for the sake of the Titles that the Review as a whole is of use to Historians. A Continuation of this Bibliographical review is found in: Heinr. August Hacker, Literatur der syphilitischen Krankheiten vom Jahr 1794 bis mit 1829, etc. Leipzig 1830. 264 S. gr. 8. (Heinr. August Hacker, “Literature of the Venereal Disease from the year 1794 down to and including 1829, etc.” Leipzig 1830. pp. 264. large 8vo.).

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

George Rees, On the primary Symptoms of the lues venerea, with a critical and chronological account of all the English writers on the subject, from 1735 to 1785. Lond. 1802. 8vo.

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

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

Seeks to prove the American origin.

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

Decides for the American origin.

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

The Author accepts the Development of Venereal disease from Leprosy.

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

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

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

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

According to Girtanner the portion dealing with Venereal Disease is word for word from Astruc.

End of the First Volume.

---

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

---

[INDEX]
OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR EMENDED.

• Ausonius, [153], II. 67.
• Aristophanes, II. 62, 163.
• Aristotle, [183].
• Dio Chrysostom, [134].
• Eusebius, [222].
• Galen, II. 7, 10, 48, 52.
• Hephaestion, [230].
• Herodian, [219].
• Herodotus, [17], [144].
• Hippocrates, [239], [250], II. 9, 54, 171, 172.
• Horace, [93], [131], [178], II. 196.
• Juvenal, [174].
• Lucian, [156].
• Martial, [152], II. 41, 64, 67, 80.
• Moses, [52], II. 156.
• Palladius Heliopolitanus, II. 127.
• Persius, II. 37, 68.
• Philo, [207].
• Pliny, II. 71.
• Pollux, II. 319.
• Seneca, [89].
• Septuagint, The, II. 141.
• Synesius, [226].
• Thucydides, II. 179.

[INDEX]
OF GREEK WORDS EXPLAINED.

• ἀγριολειχῆναι, II. 80.
• ἄγριος, [135], II. 80.
• ἀγριοψωρία, II. 80.
• ἀκόλαστος, [135].
• ἀλώπηξ, II. [46].
• ἀλωπεκία, II. [46].
• ἀνανδρία, [219].
• ἀνάρσιος, [206].
• ἀνδρόγυνα λούτρα, II. 219.
• ἀνδρόγυνος, [195]
• ἀφροδισιάζεσθαι, [235].
• βαλλάδες, II. 80.
• βάταλος, [225].
• γλωσσαλγία, II. 31
• γρυπαλώπηξ, II. 23.
• γυμνός, II. [230].
• γυναικεία ἐπιθυμία, II. [128].
• γυνή, [190].
• γύννιδες, [223].
• δασύπους κρεῶν ἐπιθυμεῖ, [200].
• δεικτηρίαδες, [76].
• διάγραμμα, [72].
• διαλέγεσθαι, II. [128].
• διονυσιακός, II. 108.
• διωβολιμαῖα, [73].
• ἕλκεα Αἰγύπτια, II. 37.
• Βουβαστικά, II. 37.
• σηπεδόνα, II. 247.
• Συριακά, II. 37.
• ἕλκος, II. [128].
• ἐμπολή, [73].
• ἐνάρεες, [201].
• ἐνοίκιον, [76].
• ἐπίπαστα, II. 51.
• ἔργον, II. 10.
• ἐσχάρα, II. [129].
• ἑταῖραι μουσικαί, [76].
• πέζαι, [79].
• εὐνοῦχος, [199].
• θηρίωμα, II. 296.
• θύμιον, II. 311.
• θύμος, II. 311.
• ἰατρεῖα, [120].
• ἰατρίναι, II. 248.
• ἰποτήριον, II. 282.
• ἵππος, II. 103.
• ἴσχια, [242].
• καθῆσθαι ἐπ’ οἰκήματος, [18], [71].
• καπηλεία, [73].
• καπηλεῖον, [73].
• καπήλιον, [73].
• καταδακτυλίζειν, [123].
• καταπορνεύειν, [18].
• κέδματα, [242].
• κέρας, II. 108.
• Κεραστία, II. 319.
• κῆπος, [47].
• κίναδος, II. 114.
• κίων, II. 310.
• κουρεῖα, [120].
• κρεμαστῆρες, II. 277, 284.
• κρητίζειν, [117], [123].
• κτείς, [51].
• κυναλώπηξ, II. [46].
• κύων τεῦτλα οὐ τρώγει, [200].
• λαλεῖν, II. 163.
• λειχὴν ἄγριος, II. 80.
• λειχῆνες, II. 74.
• λεσβιάζειν, II. 4.
• λεῦκαι, II. 56.
• μάργος, II. 10.
• μαστρόπιον, [76].
• μαστροπός, [76], [121].
• ματρύλλεια, [72], [76].
• μίσθωμα, [72].
• μύζουρις, II. 15.
• μυλλοί, [29].
• μυοχάνη, II. 14.
• μυριοχαύνη, II. 16.
• μυσάχνη, II. 15.
• μυσιοχάνη, II. 15.
• νοῦσος θήλεια, [144].
• νόσος, [179], [180].
• γυναικεία, [234].
• οἴκημα, [71].
• ὀλισβόκολλιξ, [162].
• ὄλισβος, [162].
• ὀπή, II. 67.
• ὄφις, [200].
• παιδοκόραξ, II. 50.
• παραστάται, II. 285.
• πασχητιασμός, [190].
• πέος, [51].
• περιλαλεῖν, II. 163.
• πορνεῖον, [71].
• πόρνη, [71], [76].
• πορνοβοσκός, [72].
• πορνοτελώνης, [74], [75].
• πορνοτρόφος, [72].
• πράττειν, [123].
• προαγωγεῖα, [72], [76].
• προαγωγός, [76], [122].
• ῥέγχειν, [134], [143].
• ῥιναυλεῖν, II. 26.
• ῥιναύλουρις, II. 26.
• ῥινοκολοῦρος, II. 24.
• ῥοδοδάφνη, II. 5.
• ῥοδωνία, II. 7.
• σαράπους, II. 15.
• σάρξ, II. 158.
• σαπέρδιον, II. 19.
• σῆφις, II. 247.
• σιφνιάζειν, [123].
• σκύλαξ, II. [46].
• σκυτάλαι, [198].
• σόφισμα, II. 4.
• στατηριαῖα, [74].
• στεγανόμιον, [76].
• στομαλγία, II. 31.
• στῦμα, II. 10.
• στυμάργος, II. 9.
• στῦω, II. 10.
• στωμύλλεσθαι, II. 163.
• συκίνη ἐπικουρία, [197].
• σύκον, II. 310.
• σφιγκτήρ, [112].
• σφιγκτής, [112].
• τέγος, [76].
• τέλος πορνικόν, [74].
• τιμᾶσθαι, [244].
• τριαντοπόρνη, [72].
• τρόπος, II. 14.
• φθίνας, II. 57.
• φοινία, [229].
• ἐν Φοινίκῃ καθεύδεις, II. 51.
• φοινικέη νόσος, II. 52.
• φοινικίζειν, II. 48.
• φοινικιστής, II. 61.
• φύγεθλον, II. 303.
• φύματα, II. 169.
• χαλεπός, [135].
• χαλκιδίζειν, [123].
• χαλκιδίτις, [72].
• χαμαιευνάδες, [76].
• χαμαιεύνης, [76].
• χαμαιτηρίς, [76].
• χαμαιτύπαι, [76].
• χαμαιτυπεῖον, [76].
• χαμεύνης, [76].
• χιάζειν, [123].
• χοιράς, II. 303.
• χρυσάργυρον, [108].

[INDEX]
OF LATIN WORDS EXPLAINED.

• aes uxorium, [84].
• alicariae, [99].
• ambubaiae, [100].
• amica, [101].
• albus, II. 196.
• aquaculare, II. 214.
• aquam sumere, II. 213.
• aquarioli, II. 213.
• baccariones, II. 214.
• basiare, II. 88.
• basiator, II. 88.
• basium, II. 88.
• bustuariae, [100].
• capitalis luxus, II. 102.
• capra, [134].
• captura, [94].
• caput demissum, II. 103.
• catamitus, [179].
• cellae, [89].
• lustrales, [100].
• consistorium libidinis, [91].
• corvus, II. 50.
• cunnus albus, II. 196.
• diobolaria, [94].
• digitus infamis, [136].
• medius, [136].
• dogma, II. 4.
• effeminatus, [194].
• equus, II. 103.
• fellare, II. 3.
• femina, [191].
• ficus, [131].
• fornix, [88].
• frons, [89].
• grex, [179].
• Harpocratem reddere, II. 19.
• hortus, [47].
• illauta puella, II. 213.
• imbubinare, II. 130.
• inguen, II. 303.
• irrumare, II. 3.
• leno, [93].
• lepus pulmentum quaeris, [200].
• lomentum, II. 196.
• longano, [162].
• lupanar, [88].
• lustrum, [100].
• luxus, II. 102.
• capitalis, II. 102.
• merces cellae, [92].
• meretrices bonae, [100].
• lodices, [91].
• moechus, II. 24.
• morbus, [177].
• navis, [133].
• nervus, II. 277.
• nonaria, [95].
• nudus, II. 230.
• oscedo, II. 100.
• patientia feminea, [228].
• patientia muliebris, [228].
• penis, [51].
• percidi, [127].
• pollutiones, II. 210.
• proseda, [95].
• prostibula, [95].
• pustulae lucentes, II. 61.
• quadrantaria permutatio, II. 214.
• robigo, II. 57.
• salgama, II. 51.
• sanctus, [113].
• sarapis, II. 19.
• scorta devia, [103].
• erratica, [99].
• nobilia, [101].
• vestita, [103].
• sectus, [126].
• sicca puella, II. 213.
• summoenianae, [88].
• Syrii tumores, II. 67.
• tacere, II. 32.
• titulus, [89].
• togata, [93].
• uda puella, II. 220.
• villicus puellarum, [93].