[157] Palladius, Lausiaca historia, ch. 39. in Magna Bibliotheca Patrum (Great Library of the Fathers), Vol. XIII., Paris 1644. fol., p. 950.: Οὕτως δὲ γαστριμαργῶν καὶ οἰνοφλυγῶν ἐνέπεσεν καὶ εἰς τὸν βόρβυρον τῆς γυναικείης ἐπιθυμίας· καὶ ὡς ἐσκέπτετο ἁμαρτῆσαι μιμάδι τινὶ προσομιλῶν συνεχῶς τὰ πρὸς τὸ ἕλκος ἑαυτοῦ διελέγετο· τούτων οὕτως ὑπ’αὐτοῦ διαπραττομένων γέγονεν αὐτῷ κατά τινα οἰκονομίαν ἄνθραξ κατὰ τῆς βαλάνου· καὶ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἐνόσησεν ἑξαμηνιαῖον χρόνον, ὡς κατασαπῆναι αὐτοῦ τὰ μορία καὶ αὐτομάτως ἀποπεσεῖν· ὕστερον δὲ ὑγιάνας καὶ ἐπανελθών ἄνευ τούτων τῶν μελῶν, καὶ εἰς φρόνημα θεϊκὸν ἐλθὼν καὶ εἰς μνήμην τῆς οὐρανίου πολιτείας, καὶ ἐξομολογησάμενος πάντα τὰ συμβεβηκότα αὐτῷ τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν, ἐνεργῆσαι μὴ φθάσας ἐκοιμήθη μετὰ ὀλίγας ἡμέρας. (for translation see text above). For κατὰ τινὰ οἰκονομίαν (by a certain providence) we ought probably to read κατὰ θινὰν or θείαν οἰκονομίαν, a collocation of words constantly found in Palladius, and occurring in this very chapter a few lines before, in the sense of “by Divine providence”. On the other hand the words τὰ πρὸς τὸ ἕλκος ἑαυτοῦ διελέγετο are to us absolutely unintelligible. Helvetius translates the passage: Incidit in coenum femineae cupiditatis et cum peccare constituisset cum quadam mima assidue colloquutus, ulcus suum aperuit, (He fell into the mire of lust after women, and having set his mind on sinning, constantly conversing with a certain actress, he opened his sore. Indeed the γυναικείη ἐπιθυμία (womanly lust) itself is ambiguous, as strictly speaking it points to something unmanly, and if we compare with it the γυναικεία νοῦσος (womanly disease) of Dio Chrysostom (p. 209.), our thoughts cannot but turn to the vice of the pathic,—which however Hero could not very well practise with an actress, and to which he could hardly owe an anthrax on the glans penis. But ch. 35. shows us plainly enough that Palladius in using the phrase means lust, indulgence with women, accomplishing coition. It is related in that chapter of the Abbot Elias, how he had founded a nunnery, and was thereupon assailed by violent desire to abuse the nuns; wherefore he prayed, ἀπόκτεινόν με, ἵνα μὴ ἴδω αὐτὰς θλιβομένας. ἢ τὸ πάθος μου λάβε, ἵνα αὐτῶν φροντίζω κατὰ λόγον. (Kill me, that I may not see them troubled, or else take away my passion, that I may look upon them with reason and moderation). Thereafter he fell asleep and dreamed the angels had castrated him, and on waking found indeed that he still possessed his genitals, but he declared, ὅτι οὐκέτι ἀνέβη εἰς τὴν καρδίαν μου πάθος γυναικὸς ἐπιθυμίας. (there no more entered into my heart the passion of lust after women). But now what does τὰ πρὸς τὸ ἕλκος mean? Guided by the general sense, we might take it as meaning the genital organs, though we have searched in vain for analogous passages. But in that case it could be made to apply only to the female genitals or to the rectum, because these only exhibit a breach of continuity (ἕλκος,—a wound); or else we should have to suppose the seed to be looked upon in a sort of way as matter discharged, and the male genitals, which secrete it, therefore called ἕλκος (a wound), for otherwise the ἑαυτοῦ (his own) cannot be got in. No less uncertain is the meaning of διελέγετο; “to converse” cannot possibly be taken as the sense here. Suidas and Hesychius explain διαλέγεσθαι by συνουσιάζειν (to associate with). Pollux, Onomast. V. 93. περὶ μίξεως ζώων (On the intercourse of Animals) says, διαλεχθῆναι.—οὐδ’ ἡ διάλεξις, ἀλλὰ διειλέχθην αὐτῇ καὶ διειλεγμένος εἰμὶ ὡς Ὑπερίδης. II. 125. Ὑπερίδης δὲ διειλεγμένος, ἐπ’ἀφροδισίων. Ἀριστοφάνης δὲ διαλέξασθαι ἔφη. (διελεχθῆναι,—not ordinary conversation, but it means “I had converse with her”, or “I am conversant”, as says Hyperides, II. 125. Now Hyperides says “conversant with”, speaking of love intercourse; and Aristophanes “to have converse with”). Comp. Küster and Brunck on Aristophanes’ Plut. 1083. Moeris p. 131. Abresch, lect. Aristaenet. p. 50. But the meaning of accomplishing coition is implied already in προσομιλῶν (associating with), so that διαλέγεσθαι must here indicate some other more special circumstance. The Scholiast of Aristophanes on Lys. 720 interprets διαλέγουσιν by διορύττουσιν (bore through), penetrate); accordingly we must take διαλέγεσθαι as deponent, in which case we should have to read τὰ πρὸς τὸ ἕλκος αὐτῆς διελέγετο (he penetrated her private parts), and make the τὰ πρὸς ἕλκος refer to the actress and her hymen (or fibula?), just as in the passage cited from Josephus on p. 315. the expression περὶ τὸ αἰδοῖον (about the privates) signifies the foreskin. If we would keep ἑαυτοῦ (his own), then we must take διαλέγομαι in the sense of καθαίρειν (to purify) (Hesychius says διαλέγειν, ἀνακαθαίρειν,—to purify), and put in an οὐκ (not),—i.e. he did not purify his genitals. If we keep to the meaning of separation, division, we might understand the sentence as saying that Hero tore apart his foreskin; though really ἕλκος could scarcely be applied with any propriety to the male genitals at all. For its being used of the female genitals on the other hand a good analogy is offered by ἐσχάρα (a scab), which occurs in Aristophanes, Knights 1286. and often elsewhere. Eustathius, on Odyss. p. 1523., says: δῆλον δ’ὅτι ἐσχάραν καὶ τὸ γυναικεῖον ἐκάλουν μόριον. (Now it is evident they used to call the female part ἐσχάρα). However in this case the learned reader must be left to decide for himself.]
[158] Leviticus ch. 20. v. 18. It is true Maimonides according to Selden, Uxor Hebraica (The Jewish Wife), Frankfurt 1673. 4to., p. 133., says: At vero si esset mensibus immunda, tametsi deducta fuerit, etiam et coitus sit secutus, nuptiae non perficiebantur. (But indeed if she were unclean with menstruation, though she had been led forth to a husband’s house, even if coition had followed, the marriage was not proceeded with)—but in that case of course it happened unwittingly; though no doubt it may very well on the other hand have been done not unfrequently wittingly. Festus explains the Latin word imbubinare by “menstruo mulierum sanguine inquinare” (to pollute with the menstrual blood of women), which might almost justify us in conjecturing, that buboes had been observed to originate from intercourse with women during menstruation. Hippocrates, De natura pueri (On the Bodily Constitution of the Boy), edit. Kühn Vol. I. p. 390., derives affections of the sort in women from arrested menstruation.
[159] Leviticus Ch. 15. Want of space forbids our giving this Chapter here; but anyone who will read it through carefully, must easily see that in it the question is merely of a morbid discharge from the genitals (basar), the duration of which was uncertain. For this reason those affected continued still unclean for nine days after the cessation of the flux, whereas the man who had encountered ordinary pollution (verse 16.) was unclean only till the evening. The Septuagint translators render the flux by ῥύσις (flowing, flux), the person affected by the flux γονοῤῥυής (having a flux from the genitals), while they say of ordinary pollution, ὡς ἐὰν ἐξέλθῃ ἐξ αὐτοῦ κοίτη σπέρματος (“if any man’s seed of copulation go out of him”). Astruc and others wished to refer the flux from the genitals to Lepra (Leprosy), but in that case the Leprosy must needs have been previously noticeable in the person affected by the flux, and the flux therefore been really a symptom. Thus it would have demanded no further special ordinance for purification, as that commanded for Leprosy would have been used for it. Again the same would also have occurred, had the flux been noticed as first symptom of the Leprosy, for then the Priest was bound to have confined the person so affected and put him under observation, to see whether the other symptoms of Leprosy would show themselves as well. But of this there is nothing whatever to be found in the writings attributed to Moses, who clearly distinguishes between the flux and Leprosy, as also does the Author of II Samuel III. 29. Speaking generally, no other Author ever mentions the flux as a constant or frequent symptom of Leprosy, while Schilling even denies its occurrence altogether. Comp. Hensler, Vom abendl. Aussatze (On Oriental Leprosy), pp. 130, 396.
[160] Astruc, De morbis venereis (Of Venereal diseases), p. 93., Quid igitur mirum varia, heterogenea, acria multorum virorum semina (et smegmata we may add) una confusa, cum acerrimo et virulento menstruo sanguine mixta, intra uterum aestuantem et olidum spurcissimarum mulierum coercita, mora, heterogeneitate, calore loci brevi computruisse ac prima morbi venerei semina constituisse, quae in alios, si qui forsan continentiores erant, contagione dimanavere?... Cum ergo in omnibus terrae locis, ubi lues venerea antiquitus endemia fuisse videtur, eundem aeris fervorem cum pari incolarum impudicitia coniunctum fuisse manifestum sit, haud inanis inde locus est colligendi morbum natura eundem, quo regiones longissime dissitae et inter quas nulla fuit commercii communio, simili modo infestabantur, a simili causarum earundem concursu, in quo tantum convenirent, generatum olim fuisse et generari etiamnum, si indigenae iisdem moribus vivant. (What is there surprising then in the fact that the various, heterogeneous, acrid seminal fluids of a number of different men (and unguents as well, we may add), all confounded together and mixed with the exceedingly acrid and virulent menstrual blood, confined within the steaming hot and fetid womb of the dirtiest of women, by long continuance in one place, by heterogeneity of components, by the heat of the locality, should very soon have grown putrid, and so laid the first seeds of Venereal disease,—which then passed on by contagion to other men, men that were very possibly more self-restrained?... So, inasmuch as in all parts of the world, wherever Venereal disease appears to have been endemic in Antiquity, it is plain the same heat of the atmosphere was united with a similar immorality on the part of the inhabitants, there is therefore sufficient ground for concluding that the disease, identical in its nature and one whereby regions far removed from one another and between which existed no commercial intercourse were attacked in a like way, was originally produced by a like conjunction of identical causes, a conjunction wherein these only agreed,—and is still so produced, supposing the inhabitants to still live after the same fashion). Wizmann (loco citato p. 32.) moreover is of opinion that Venereal disease under the conditions just named originates in Turkey to this day in its true form. A similar view is shared by Eagle and Judd (loco citato p. 306.).
[161] Herodotus, bk. III. ch. 106., ἡ Ἑλλὰς τὰς ὥρας πολλόν τι κάλλιστα κεκραμένας ἔλαχη. (Hellas possesses seasons in many respects most admirably combined). Comp. Dahlmann, Herodotus pp. 90. sqq. Plato again praises the εὐκρασία τῶν ὡρῶν (happy mingling of the seasons) of Hellas in more than one passage; e.g. Timaeus 24, C., Critias III E., Epinom. 987 D.; and Aristophanes in a fragment of his Horae preserved by Athenaeus, Deipnos. IX. p. 372. says of Attica:
ὥστ’οὐκέτ’οὐδεὶς οἵδ’ ὁπηνίκ’ ἐστὶ τοὐνιαουτοῦ.
(So never yet has any man been able to tell precisely in what part of the year he is).
[162] Galen, De symptomat. causis bk. III. ch. 11., edit. Kühn Vol. VII. p. 267., καὶ μὴν αἰ γονόῤῥοιαι, χωρὶς μὲν τοῦ συντείνεσθαι τὸ αἰδοῖον, ἀῤῥωσίᾳ τῆς καθεκτικῆς δυνάμεως τῆς ἐν τοῖς σπερματικοῖς ἀγγείοις· ἐντεινομένου δέ πως, οἷον σπασμᾷ τινι παραπλήσιον πασχόντων ἐπιτελοῦνται. (Moreover gonorrhoeas, except in the case of the member being in a state of tension, arise from weakness of the retentive capacity in the spermatic vessels; but when there is tension of any sort, they are subject to a kind of spasm resembling that of convulsive patients).
[163] Larrey, “Relation historique et chirurgicale de l’expédition de l’armée d’Orient, en Egypt et en Syrie,” (Historical and Surgical Account of the Expedition of the Army of the East, in Egypt and Syria), Paris 1803. p. 116., Pendant le travail de la suppuration, les blessés furent seulement incommodés des vers ou larves de la mouche bleue, commune en Syrie. L’incubation des oeufs que cette mouche deposait sans cesse dans les plaies ou dans les appareils, étoit favorisée par la chaleur de la saison, l’humidité de l’atmosphère et la qualité de la toile à pansement (elle étoit de coton) la seule qu’on ait pu se procurer dans cette contrée. La présence de ces vers dans les plaies paraissait en accélérer la suppuration, causait des demangeaisons incommodes aux blessés et nous forçait de les panser trois ou quatre fois le jour. Ces insectes, formés en quelques heures, se développaient avec une telle rapidité, que du jour au lendemain, ils étaient de la grosseur d’un tuyau de plume de poulet. On faisait à chaque pansement des lotions d’une forte décoction de rhue et de petite sauge, qui suffisaient pour les détruire; mais ils se reproduisaient bientot après par le défaut des moyens propres à écarter l’approche des mouches et à prévenir l’incubation de leurs oeufs. (During the action of suppuration, the only inconvenience the wounded met with was from the worms or larvae of the blue fly, common in Syria. The hatching of the eggs, which this fly was continually depositing in the wounds or their dressings, was favoured by the heat of the season, the moisture of the atmosphere, and the nature of the material used for bandages. This was cotton, the only material for the purpose that could be procured in that country. The presence of these worms in the wounds appeared to accelerate their suppuration, caused the wounded men to suffer from troublesome itchings and forced us to renew the dressings three or four times a day. These insects, formed in a few hours, developed with such extraordinary rapidity, that from one day to the next, they reached the size of a fowl’s quill. At each dressing lotions were applied of a strong decoction of rue and dwarf sage, which was effectual in destroying them; but they reappeared again very soon afterwards owing to the want of proper means for preventing the approach of the flies and hindering the hatching of their eggs). Compare what Larrey (p. 278.) says as to the climate of Syria.
[164] Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. bk. VIII. 14., τί δεῖ τὰς ἐμπαθεῖς ἀνδρὸς αἰσχρουργίας μνημονεύειν; ἢ τῶν πρὸς αὐτοῦ μεμοιχευμένων ἀπαριθμεῖσθαι τὲν πληθύν; οὐκ ἦν γέ τοι πόλιν αὐτὸν παρελθεῖν, μὴ οὐχὶ ἐκ παντὸς φθορὰς γυναικῶν παρθένων τε ἁρπαγὰς εἰργασμένον.—cap. 16. μέτεισι γοῦν αὐτὸν θεήλατος κόλασις· ἐξ αὐτῆς αὐτοῦ καταρξαμένη σαρκὸς, καὶ μέχρι τῆς ψυχῆς παρελθοῦσα. ἀθρόα μὲν γὰρ περὶ τὰ μέσα τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων τοῦ σώματος ἀπόστασις γίγνεται αὐτῷ· εἶθ’ ἕλκος ἐν βάθει συριγγώδες καὶ τούτων ἀνιάτος νομὴ κατὰ τῶν ἐνδοτάτῳ σπλάγχνων· ἀφ’ ὧν ἀλεκτόν τι πλῆθος σκωλήκων βρύειν, θανατώδη τε ὀδμὴν ἀποπνέειν, τοῦ παντὸς ὄγκου τῶν σωμάτων ἐκ πολυτροφίας αὐτῷ καὶ πρὸς τῆς νόσου εἰς ὑπερβολὴν πλήθους πιμελῆς μεταβεβληκότος· ἣν τότε κατασαπεῖσαν, ἀφόρητον καὶ φρικτοτάτην τοῖς πλησιάζουσι παρέχειν τὴν θέαν, ἰατρῶν δ’ οὖν οἱ μὲν, οὐδ’ ὅλως ὑπομεῖναι τὴν τοῦ δυσώδους ὑπερβάλλουσαν ἀτοπίαν οἷοι τε, κατεσφάττοντο. οἱ δὲ διῳδηκότος τοῦ παντὸς ὄγκου καὶ εἰς ἀνέλπιστον σωτηρίας ἀποπεπτωκότος μηδὲν ἐπικουρεῖν δυνάμενοι, ἀνηλεῶς ἐκτείνοντο. (What need to recall the passions and abominations of the man? or to count the multitude of debaucheries done by him? Nay, he could not pass through a city without leaving behind him everywhere ruin of women and rape of virgins.—ch. 16. Yet heaven-sent punishment overtakes him, commencing with his very flesh and going on to assail the life. For an incessant suppurative inflammation attacks him in the region of the private parts of the body; then later on a wound penetrating deep in like a fistula and an incurable eating sore affecting these inmost intestines. Then from these an indescribable number of worms bred, and a corpse-like smell was given off, the whole bulk of the bodily parts having through high living and under the influence of the disease changed into an exaggerated superfluity of fat. Then this rotting away, displayed an intolerable and an appalling spectacle to his attendants; while among his physicians, some finding themselves utterly unable to endure the exceeding horribleness of the stench, put an end to their lives; while others, the whole bulk having gone to complete rottenness, and the patient in a condition that admitted no hope of recovery, being unable to afford any help, were cruelly put to death). This passage occurs as well, word for word, in Nicephorus, Histor. Eccles. VII. 22. Aur. Victor. Epit. ch. 40., Galerius Maximianus consumptis genitalibus defecit, (Galerius Maximianus died, the genital organs being destroyed).—Zosimus, Hist. II. 11. speaks merely of τραῦμα δυσίατον (a wound difficult to cure), and Paulus Diaconus, Hist. miscell. XI. 5., says: putrefacto introrsum pectore, et vitalibus dissolutis, cum ultra horrorem humanae miseriae etiam vermes eructaret, medicique iam ultra foetorem non ferentes, crebro iussu eius occiderentur etc. (the bosom having putrefied within, and the vitals rotted away, when exceeding the climax of human horror and suffering he began to bring up worms, and his physicians unable to bear the excessive foulness of the stench, were being executed at his frequent order, etc.). The same fate happened to Herod, of whom Josephus, Antiq. XVII. 6. says: τοῦ αἰδοίου σῆψις σκώληκας ἐμποιοῦσα (mortification of the genitals producing worms). Comp. Bochart, Hierozoicon, edit. Rosenmüller vol. III. p. 520.