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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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