§ 21.
Irrumation and Fellation.
(_Irrumare_, _Fellare_).
Very much more abominable and repulsive still is the habit of
Irrumation[1] (_penem in os arrigere est irrumare_—to erect the _penis_
and insert it into the mouth of another person) and the practice of
the _Fellator_[2] (_si quis vel labris vel lingua perfricandi atque
exsugendi officium peni praestat_—one who with the lips or the tongue
performs the office of rubbing and sucking another’s _penis_). This the
Greeks called λεσβιάζειν (to follow the Lesbian mode), because the vice
was especially practised by the Lesbian women, though in common with
all others of the sort it came originally from Asia. _Lucian_ in his
_Pseudologista_[3], in which he severely criticizes the the dissolute
Timarchus, who had taken the expression ἀποφρὰς (unmentionable) in ill
part, says: “By the gods, what should make you fly into a passion,
since it is a matter of common report that you are a _Fellator_ and
a _Cunnilingus_[4]. Are you as much in the dark as to the meaning
of these words as you are about that of ἀποφρὰς (unmentionable)? and
do you take them for titles of honour? Or is it that you are now
accustomed to them, but not to ἀποφρὰς, and so wish to erase it as
something unknown to you from the list of your Titles? (ch. 28).—I
am well aware what were your practices in Palestine, in Egypt, in
Phoenicia and Syria, as well as in Hellas and Italy, and above all
just now in Ephesus, where you set the crown on your extravagances,
(ch. 11).—However you will never persuade your fellow-citizens that
they ought not to regard you as the filthiest of all men, the very
refuse of the whole city. Now it may be you rely on the belief of the
generality in Syria, that you have never been accused (there) of any
guilt or vice. But by Hercules! the city of Antioch looked on at the
whole history, when you carried off the young man who came from Tarsus,
and—but there, it would not become me to go over such ground again.
All who were there know the facts and remember it all, that time when
they saw you sitting at his knees (καὶ σὲ μὲν ἐς γόνυ συγκαθήμενον
ἰδόντες), and doing you know very well what to him, that is if you have
not utterly and entirely forgotten the whole matter, (ch. 20).—But
when they caught you lying at the knees of the son of Oinopion the
Cooper (τοῦ μειρακίου ... ἐν γόνασι κείμενον—lying at the knees of the
stripling), what make you of that? Did they not surely take you for a
man of the sort to be expected, when they saw you doing such a thing?
(ch. 28).—How, by Zeus! after such a deed, have you the effrontery to
give us the kiss of salutation?—Sooner kiss an adder or a viper? The
danger and pain of the bite a Physician may yet remove, if called in.
But after your kiss and with such poison on his lips who dare draw
near to Temple or altar? What god would listen to the suppliant? how
many vessels of holy water, how many lustrations, would be needful?
(ch. 24).—In Syria you are known as ῥοδοδάφνη (rose-laurel)[5]; why, a
man cannot explain for very shame, great Athené!—But in Palestine as
φραγμὸς (the hedge)[6], on account of the prickles of your beard, I
suppose. In Egypt again as συνάγχη (sore throat),—and this is a well
known business. It must have been a close thing with you not to be
choked, that time you came across the sailor of a three-master, who
fell upon you and stopped your mouth for you (ὃς ἐμπεσὼν ἀπέφραξέ σοι
τὸ στόμα).”
This passage brings us next to a gloss of the _Pseudo-Galen_[7], on
which _Naumann_[8], after laying down his view as to the _Morbus
phoeniceus_ (Purple Plague),—a subject to be discussed presently,—goes
on to express himself thus: “However we must go yet farther. In the
above cited work of the Pseudo-Galen is included an Index of words,
_which with a high degree of probability we may conclude to refer to
Venereal diseases, so far as known to the Ancients_ (loco citato,
under word στρυμάργου, p. 142). We read there that _Dioscorides_
called στρυμάργους or στομάργους (evil-mouthed) men in whom the
longing for sensual indulgence had risen to frenzy. Of similar meaning
to this would seem to be the expressions μυοχάνη (_maxillarum hiatu
insignis_—conspicuous for the wide opening of the arm-pits) or μυσάχνη
(_meretrix_—prostitute), μῦσος (_facinus abominandum_—an abominable
act), σαράπους (crura ambulando divaricans—straddling the legs in
walking), and γρυπαλώπηξ (from γρύπος _curvus_—curved, hooked,)
probably denoting the erection of the _penis_; at any rate a dissolute
man is called in Aristophanes κυναλώπηξ (fox-dog). But most notable
is the added observation, to the effect that Erasistratus called such
persons ῥινοκολοῦροι (_i. e._ _qui mutilati naribus sunt_—men who
have been mutilated in their noses). Just at the time of the Greek
occupation of Egypt, _Rhinocorura_ or _Rhinocolura_ was the name of a
wretched sort of “Botany Bay” situated at the North-Eastern extremity
of the country, lying in the desert on the shores of the Mediterranean
between Gaza and Pelusium, and serving as a place of residence for
lepers (_Pliny_, Hist. Nat., Bk. V. ch. 4. _Livy_, Hists. Bk. XXXV.
ch. 11). Now if we bring together all the information given here, and
especially if we consider the various shameful forms of indulgence of
the sexual impulse and the mutilation of the nose that is connected
with them, _there cannot be much doubt left that these ancient and
fragmentary notices refer to Venereal evil_, whether in conjunction
with leprous affections or not.”
But to test the correctness of these explanations and conclusions,
it will be necessary first of all to quote the gloss itself in full:
_στρυμάργου._ οἶδε καὶ ταύτην τὴν γραφὴν ὁ Διοσκουρίδης, οὐ μόνον τὴν
_στομάργου_, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο οὐχ ὡς κύριον ὄνομα ἐξηγεῖται, ἀλλὰ τὸν
μανικῶς ἐπτοημένον περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια δηλοῦσθαί φησιν· εἰρῆσθαι γὰρ παρὰ
τῷ Ἱπποκράτει καὶ ἀλλὰ πολλὰ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπίθετα, καθάπερ
_μυοχάνη, σαράπους, γρυπαλώπηξ_· ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ’ Ἐρασιστράτῳ φησὶν ὁ
_ῥινοκολοῦρος_, that is to say:—στρυμάργου: Dioscorides knows this
form also, not merely that of στομάργου, but this too he regards not
as a proper name, but says that it signifies one who is madly set upon
love-indulgences; for that in Hippocrates as well many other epithets
of the same sort (which refer to the same sort of vice) are mentioned,
e. g. μυοχάνη, σαράπους, γρυπαλώπηξ; also he says that in Erasistratus
(the expression) ῥινοκολοῦρος is found.
The reader sees in the first place that it is not merely expressions
peculiar to Dioscorides that are here cited, as we might be led to
suppose by Naumann’s statement, but that they are every one of them
found, as we shall presently prove more particularly, in _Hippocrates_,
the ῥινοκολοῦρος of Erasistratus of course excepted. _Dioscorides_
mentions them only in his commentary on the Second Book of the
“Epidemia”, when laying down the passages to be cited immediately, and
declares them not to be proper names, but adjectives which all refer
to insane indulgence in the pleasures of love; accordingly there can
be no question here of _bodily disorders_, let the words in themselves
signify what they will. Now if we examine into this more closely, we
shall find first of all that we must obviously read στυμάργου in place
of στρυμάργου, for not only is this form given by the author of the
gloss (under στομάργου[9]), quoted on the preceding page, but the text
also of Hippocrates[10] offers it in both passages; whereas στρυμάργου
gives no sort of sense.
The word στυμάργος in fact is derived either from στῦμα[11], the act
of erecting the penis, and and ἔργον (work), so signifying anyone
who performs the work of causing an erection of the penis,—or else
from στύω[12], I erect the penis, and μάργος[13], (mad), i. e.
one who erects, uses, the penis in a madly lascivious fashion, so
an _Irrumator_, and with this _Hesychius’_ interpretation agrees:
λεσβιάζειν,—πρὸς ἀνδρὸς στόμα στύειν, (to lesbianize,—to erect the
penis in a man’s mouth). Στομάργος on the other hand is formed by a
combination of στόμα, the mouth, and ἔργω or ἔργον (I work, work),
a word constantly used to express the employment of the genital
organs[14], in fact indulgence in love generally, and signifies a man
who performs the work (of love) with the mouth, so a _Fellator_[15].
Now since only the most abandoned lust, lust that has really grown
into a form of insanity, is capable of undertaking such obscenities,
the interpretation of _Dioscorides_ μανικῶς ἐπτοημένον περὶ τὰ
ἀφροδίσια (one that is insanely, madly, set on the pleasures of love)
is quite satisfactory, assuming a hesitation on the part of the author
to set forth the actual fact more explicitly, especially as we have
already proved under the head of Paederastia[16] how unnatural sexual
desires were commonly regarded as a _Mania_ or form of insanity. Even
if we were not in a position adequately to explain the rest of the
words, yet the phrase that comes next to them καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ κατὰ τὸν
αὐτὸν τρόπον (and many others of the same fashion) at once shows that
they bear the same signification as στύμαργος and στομάργος, or at any
rate that they must all alike refer to unnatural satisfaction of the
sexual impulse, for τρόπος (fashion) is the very word particularly
appropriated to imply such-like practices, as we see from the
expressions Κρῆτα τρόπον, Ἑλληνικὸν τρόπον[17], (Cretan fashion, Greek
fashion) used to indicate paederastia.
In relation to the word μυοχάνη the readings differ greatly in the
different MSS. of Galen. Franz in his edition of the Glossaries to
Hippocrates gives μιοχάνης and μυοχάνης, while the Pseudo-Galen
explains it under the word μυοχάνη as ἐπίθετον χασκούσης· εἰ δὲ
_μυριοχαύνη_ γράφοιτο, ἡ ἐπὶ μυρίοις ἂν εἴη χαυνουμένη (epithet applied
to a woman who gapes; now if _μυριοχαύνη_ were read, it would mean “the
woman who gapes wide for ten thousand men”); besides, various readings
are found here,—μηοχάνη for μυοχάνη, also μιριοχάνη, and μυιοχάνη
for μυριοχαύνη. Erotian says μηριοχάνη ὄνομα γυναικὸς (Meriochané—a
woman’s name). In the text of Hippocrates[18] is found Μυριοχαύνη,
and the same form is given by the editions of Galen[19]. Inasmuch as
χάνω and χαύνω both have the same meaning of gaping wide, that is with
the mouth, it will practically make no difference which we choose as
the end of the word; hence we have merely to consider the first part
μου- or μυριο-, all the rest of the forms being obviously erroneous.
If we read μουχάνη, we must suppose it compounded of μύος and χάνη;
but inasmuch as μύος is merely a mistaken variant for μῦσος, the word
must be read μυσοχάνη. Μῦσος in its turn we must derive either from
μύζω, I suck,—so a woman who sucks with open mouth[20], or from μυσιάω,
I snort through the nose, particularly in the act of coition, and
consequently read μυσιοχάνη, i. e. a woman who with mouth open snorts
through the nose, precisely what the fellatrix undoubtedly does when at
her work. This emendation certainly makes better sense, and is all the
more likely from the fact that μυιοχάνη and μυριοχάνη are also found
as _variae lectiones_. Naumann would seem desirous of reading μυσάχνη
(μυζάχνη), in which case it must be formed from μύζω, I suck, and ἄχνη
(froth), in fact the secretion that adheres to the surface (of the
_glans penis_)[21]. This last reading is all the more admissible, as
according to Suidas[22] the word also occurs in Archilochus. Possibly
however we must regard as equally correct the form μυριοχαύνη, and
take it in the meaning given by the Gloss, viz. _in millibus hians_!
(gaping in a thousand openings!), bearing in mind _Lampridius’_[23]
expression about Heliogabalus: _Quis enim ferre posset principem per
cuncta cava corporis libidinem recipientem!_ (For who could endure a
Prince _that welcomed lustful pleasure by every opening of the body_!)
The readings also vary as to σαράπους (turning out the feet); _Franz_
gives ἀγράπους and ἀράπους; in the text of Hippocrates[24] on the other
hand, as well in the Commentary of Galen it appears as ἡ Σεραπὶς, the
latter also giving it in the genitive—τῆς Σεράπιδος. But inasmuch as
the name of the goddess occurs sometimes as Σέραπις, sometimes as
Σάραπις;, and as the genitive ending—πιδος easily admits of change
into—πόδος, it may very likely be that after all Σαράπους stood
originally in Hippocrates’ text. The author of the Gloss (loco citato
p. 136.) explains the word by ἡ διασεσηρότας καὶ διεστῶτας ἔχουσα τοὺς
δακτύλους τῶν ποδῶν that is, a woman who has the toes drawn apart and
separated. But how are we to bring this explanation into agreement with
the κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, (after the same fashion), that is to say,
with one of the modes of Love that are under discussion? Think of the
_fellator_ or _fellatrix_, we are told, cowering down (ἐν γόνασι,—on
the knees) according to _Lucian’s_ picture (p. 229 above), and you will
see the stress of the body’s weight must always fall on the front part
of the foot, and to widen the point of support he is instinctively
compelled to spread the toes. Well! but who can fail to see how very
forced such an explanation is? still we do not in the least know how
we are to deal with it further. Of course we might leave the author
of the Gloss his interpretation and proceed to look about for another
of our own, though we have in many cases to confess the fact that our
investigations undertaken with this end in view have not exactly led to
any definite results. With the reading Σεραπίς we really do not know
how to deal. Perhaps the common representation, or else some particular
quality, of the goddess so named gave occasion for a comparison
which we now fail to understand, one that might possibly suggest an
explanation of the _Harpocratem reddere_ (to recall Harpocrates)
of Catullus (69.) implying _irrumare_[25]. Whether the reader will
take within his purview the Σεραφίμ, ἐμπρηστάς· ἔμπυρα στόματα· ἢ
θερμαίνοντας (Seraphim: kindlers; fiery mouths: or, making hot) of
_Suidas’_ Lexicon, we must leave to him; in that case _Martial’s_ (II.
28.) _calda Vetustinae nec tibi bucca placet_ (nor does Vetustina’s
hot mouth please you) might afford an analogy. Proceeding to consider
σαράπους, we find _Hesychius_ has σαραπίους, which he explains by
μαινίδας (mad-women), and _Dioscorides_ is at one with him in regarding
the vice as something done μανικῶς (madly). In _Diogenes Laertius_
(I. 4.) we read Pittacus was called: σαράποδα καὶ σάραπον διὰ τὸ
πλατύπουν εἶναι καὶ ἐπισύρειν τὼ πόδε. (_turning out the feet_, because
of his being flat-footed and trailing his two feet). It would be
hardly credible to suppose that the author of the Gloss borrowed his
explanation cited just above from Diogenes Laertius or Suidas, in whom
the passage occurs as well. Further, the MSS. of Diogenes give also
συράπους, a word found several times in the sense of “to stand with
legs apart,” and Naumann too must have understood this in our passage,
for he gives as his rendering _crura ambulando divaricans_ (straddling
the legs in walking). Now leaving altogether out of the question the
fact that the feminine form is found in Hippocrates, and assuming
the word to be used of men, it might perfectly well signify the
_irrumator_, who takes the _fellator_ between his opened thighs[26], a
posture that was generally regarded as obscene[27]. Indeed if we think
of the _fellator_ as sitting on the ground at his work, the word of
course can be equally well used of a woman, or _fellatrix_.
As to γρυπαλώπηξ we read in _Hippocrates_ (loco citato p. 629.) as
follows: “Satyrus in Thasos bore the nick-name of γρυπαλώπηξ; when
about twenty five he suffered from frequent nightly pollutions, and
yet by day the same happened him even more constantly. When he was
thirty years of age, he got consumption and died.” From this we see
at once the question is of a dissolute man, who in consequence of his
vicious practises had brought on such a weakness of the genitals, that
he suffered from continual evacuation of seed, the result being that
eventually Phthisis was set up, to which he succumbed. As variations
of reading we find noted in _Franz’s_ Gloss ῥυπαλώπηξ and τρυπαλάπηξ;
Schneider in his Lexicon renders γρυπαλώπηξ by “griffin-fox”, so he
must evidently have derived it from γρύψ (a griffin) and ἀλώπηξ (a
fox). The Ancients depict the fox as a cunning, crafty animal and
assign several characteristics as marking his behaviour that must
probably be taken into consideration in the present connection,—and
particularly the way he seizes and kills the hedge-hog. According to
_Aelian_[28] he endeavours to throw the creature on its back, so that
its mouth comes uppermost, and then discharges its urine into it.
Now in order to signify the _irrumator_, the Ancients really could
hardly have invented a better expression, when they, firmly convinced
of course of the fact as stated, compared him to a fox. But what is
a γρυπαλώπηξ? _Hesychius_ under the word γρυπός (hooked, curved)
explains it as τὰ ἔξω τοῦ στόματος καμπυλόῤῥις· ὁ ἐπικαμπῆ τὴν ῥῖνα
ἔχων. (hook-nosed outside the mouth; a man having his nose bent down).
_Suidas_ again says γρυπός, ὁ καμπυλόῤῥιν (γρυπός,—a hook-nosed man);
so a man with a nose bent down crooked over the mouth. Now this we
might very well understand as applying to the _fellator_, inasmuch as
his nose, when the _irrumator_ presses down hard on him, as the sailor
does to _Timarchus_ (p. 230 above), is of necessity compressed and
bent down towards the mouth; γρυπαλώπηξ would according to this be a
man who, like Timarchus in _Lucian_, is at once an _irrumator_ and a
_fellator_. Of yet another word, κυναλώπηξ (fox-dog) cited by Naumann,
we propose to speak under the head of the _Cunnilingue_, who as we
shall see might likewise be signified by the expression.
Finally, as to ῥινοκολοῦρος (nose-docked), for which the MSS. also have
ῥινοκλοῦρος, it is certainly the case that in Antiquity the man who
practised vice with strange women (_Moechus_,—adulterer) had his nose
cut off[29], and as _Moechus_ equally signifies the _fellator_[30],
the latter also may very well have been obliged to forfeit his nose.
Following this hint, it would be quite legitimate to suppose the
punishment to have been put for the vice, and a _fellator_ called
ῥινοκολοῦρος (nose-docked) on this ground; in the same way as the loss
of the nose might be looked upon as a consequence of vice, and anyone
seeing a man in this case would at once think of his dissolute past
life, as indeed frequently happens at the present day amongst ourselves.
The town of Rhinocolurus,—and its history is more than
problematical,—would seem to have nothing whatever to do with the
question. The passages from _Pliny_ and _Livy_ which Naumann quotes
give absolutely nothing beyond the name; and the mere existence of
the name _Diodorus_[31] certifies, in his story of how Actisanes
proceeded against the Robbers in a way of his own: “He did not wish
to put the guilty to death, nor yet to leave them unpunished. So he
had the accused brought up out of the whole country and inquired into
each case most scrupulously; such as were found to be guilty all had
their noses cut off by his orders, and were banished to the most remote
spot in the Desert. The town he founded for them there received in
remembrance of the punishment inflicted on its inhabitants the name of
Rhinocolura. It lies on the borders of Egypt and Syria, not far from
the sea-shore that borders the desert in that region, and displays an
almost complete absence of all requisites for comfortable habitation.
For the surrounding district possesses a soil thoroughly saturated
with salt, while inside the town very little water is to be found and
that positively tainted and of quite a bitter taste.” Diodorus relates
further that these Colonists lived by catching quails; but of _Leprosy_
there is no mention either here or in Strabo or Seneca, so that
Naumann’s statement to the effect that it served as a dwelling-place
for Lepers lacks entirely, up to the present and at any rate so far as
we know, any historical foundation, though the character of the place
is not against such a hypothesis. Nor is any question raised in any
author as to the vicious life of the inhabitants of Rhinocolura,—in
fact in later times it was actually famous for the number of its _men
of piety_[32].
Though the explanation of ῥινοκολοῦρος given just now might very well
at a pinch be regarded as satisfactory, still we think it hardly
answers sufficiently well to the κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον (after the same
fashion), while the variant ῥινοκλοῦρος seems to point to ῥιναύλουρος
or ῥιναύλουρις as the true reading. In _Tatian_ (Orat. ad Graecos p.
83.) in fact we read: _ῥιναυλοῦσι_ τὰ αἰσχρά, κινοῦνται δὲ κινήσεις ἃς
οὐκ ἐχρῆν, καὶ τοὺς ὄπως δεῖ μοιχεύειν ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς σοφιστεύοντας αἱ
θυγατέρες ὑμῶν καὶ οἱ παῖδες θεωροῦσι. (They flute their obscenities
through the nose, and make movements that in decency they should not
make, while actors who teach on the stage the whole art of how to
debauch a woman are the spectacle your daughters and your boys gaze
at.) The Scholiast observes on this ῥινοκτυποῦσιν, οἱονεὶ τὸ πνεῦμα
τοῖς ῥώδωσι, συνέλκοντες ποιὸν ἦχον ἐπὶ καταγέλωτι ἀποτελοῦσι, (they
make a noise with the nose, a sort of breathing with the nostrils; by
drawing in these they produce a certain sound by way of mockery), and
in _Lucian_, Lexiphanes ch. 19., we find ἔοικα δὲ καὶ ῥιναυστῆσειν,
(and I am like to go nose-playing), of which the Scholiast gives the
following explanation: ἀντὶ τοῦ ταῖς ῥισὶ καταυλῆσαι, ἐποίουν γὰρ τοῦτο
_ῥιναυλοῦντες_, ἤτοι διὰ τῶν ῥινῶν ψοφοῦντες ἐπὶ διασυρμῷ τινῶν καὶ
χλεύῃ. (put instead of _fluting with the nostrils_; for they used to do
this when they nose-fluted, or in other words, made a noise with the
nostrils by way of mocking people and joking). Now if we take ῥιναυλεῖν
(to nose-flute) in these passages,—and all this confirms what has been
previously said (above p. 144.) on the word ῥέγχειν (to snort) in the
Speech of Dio Chrysostom,—for _fistulam canere per nares_, _to play the
flute with the nose_, and at the same time remember that _Eustathius_
(as was noted above, p. 236. Note 2.) derived ἀπομύζουρις and μύζουρις
from μυζᾶν-οὐράν (οὐρά,—the tail, the penis), the Greeks would seem
to have said ῥιναυλεῖν-οὐράν, _penem pro fistula canere_, (to play on
the penis instead of a flute), and we should have the adjective or
substantive ῥιναύλουρις, _qui penem pro fistula canit per nares_, (one
who plays on the penis instead of a flute with the nostrils), which
admirably expresses not only the action of the _fellator_, but also the
music he makes to accompany it, as he is compelled to snort, drawing
his breath heavily through the nose.
Which explanation the reader will choose, we must really leave to him,
for interpretations of words of this sort can never be brought to the
absolute test of evidence, inasmuch as nick-names as a rule take their
origin only too often in external circumstances. Still this much we
think we may pronounce with certainty, that the words of the Gloss
have to do simply _de rebus venereis_, with matters of love, and not
with Venereal complaints, and thus Naumann’s propositions[33] at least
are devoid of foundation. Perhaps it may be possible by means of a
comparison of the licentious representations on old Vases, of which
the late _Hofrath_ Böttiger would seem to have possessed a choice
collection, and some examples of which are preserved also at Berlin,
in connection with one or other of the words given in the Gloss, as
generally with the embodiments in Art of the _Venus ebria_ (drunken
Venus), to afford a better explanation, one that may indeed be of
no particular value to the student of Antiquity pure and simple,
but nevertheless is indispensable to the Physician for the correct
understanding of sundry diseases of the Ancients, or at any rate one
sufficient to avoid incorrect assertions and false conclusions, and to
refute such.
We are not in a position to give a systematic history of the spread of
the vice of the _fellator_ and _irrumator_; but at any rate this much
is certain that in Imperial times the Vice was most widely indulged in,
as the Epigrams of _Martial_, and what _Suetonius_ relates in his Life
of Tiberius (chs. 44, 45.) sufficiently bear witness.
Diseases of the Fellator.
§ 22.
Now to pass on to the medical point of view, no one presumably will
deny that the mouth of the _fellator_ must necessarily be exposed
to various complaints as a consequence of his Vice. Nevertheless
there prevails universally, so far as our studies up to the present
have enabled us to judge, complete silence among the Physicians of
Antiquity as to the practice of λεσβιάζειν (to Lesbianize, to practise
_fellation_) as a cause occasioning morbid affections of the mouth
and the contiguous parts. This is the more surprising, as we find
that non-professional Writers are not entirely unacquainted with such
effects, as we shall show directly. For our purpose this silence is
doubly unfortunate, depriving us as it does of all means of submitting
such affections of the mouth as are described by Physicians to any
proper appreciation in regard to their ætiological relationships,—an
appreciation that in any case must naturally have been in view of our
knowledge of the vice of the _fellator_ one of extreme difficulty.
The difficulty is this: _fellator_ and _fellatrix_, equally with the
_Cunnilingue_, the fornicater and fornicatrix, were liable to suffer
from ulcers of the throat, for example, as a result of their peculiar
vice, but in the former case these ulcers were primary, in the latter
secondary,—now how is an inquirer to discover any diagnostic sign here,
whereby to distinguish the one class from the other? Yet all the while,
certainty on this point is of the very highest importance in view of
the question as to the existence of Venereal disease in Antiquity,
the chief argument always alleged against accepting the fact of such
existence being the absence of secondary symptoms such as are nowadays
commonly met with, especially about the throat[34].
It is remarkable that not one, so far as we know, of the authors who
have studied the history of Venereal Disease makes any mention of
this circumstance; neither do the Pathologists ever bring forward the
vice of the _fellator_ as an ætiological factor. _Clossius_[35] it is
true speaks of _Irrumatio_, relying on _Perenotti di Cigliano_ and
_Fabre_; but these last are really speaking of the _Cunnilingue_, not
of the _fellator_. Probably they are of Erasmus’ opinion: λείχαζειν
_ni fallor tale quiddam est Graecis, quale fellare Latinis. Nam vox
etiamnum manet, tametsi rem iam olim e medio sublatam arbritor._
(λειχάζειν—to practise licking,—if I am not mistaken, is a similar
practice with the Greeks to that of _fellation_ with the Romans. The
word indeed still remains, but the thing I believe to have long since
entirely disappeared). On this however _Forberg_ (loco citato p. 304.)
very justly adds: _Vereor ut vere: certe audio, ne ab nunc hominum
quidem moribus plane abhorrere id schematis, quid viderint ii, quibus
magnas urbes adire licet._ (I fear this is not true: at any rate I am
told this sort of practice is not entirely repugnant to the habits
of some men even of our own day, to judge by what those see who have
the opportunity of visiting large cities). How many primary ulcers of
the throat, especially in the case of common Prostitutes, may have
been mistaken for secondary ones, and have been treated accordingly,
in fact are treated so still, without the Physician having a suspicion
of how they were actually incurred! But what the Physicians of our own
times are ignorant of, though familiar enough to many of the Laity,
this knowledge we cannot reasonably demand from the Physicians of
Antiquity. Yet supposing they did actually possess this knowledge, it
was very excusable if they looked at what lay nearest before their eyes
and regarded all throat ulcers as being primary,—in just the same way
as any Practitioner of to-day finds it excusable in a Colleague that
he thinks only of secondary ulcers, inasmuch as what in Ancient times
happened very commonly is practised at the present day at any rate much
less frequently. Consequently the absence of mention on the part of the
old Physicians of secondary ulcers of the throat in connection with
complaints of the genital organs cannot be considered as any sort of
proof of their non-existence.
Among the maladies to which the _fellator_ was exposed, we have in the
first place to reckon the _foul smell from the mouth_[36], which is
mentioned as especially prevalent among the Romans. The Physicians
as a rule derived it, if no local symptoms, of ulcers, etc., were
apparent, from some fault of the stomach[37],—an instance surely where
the Laity were cleverer than the Profession! The sympathy between the
mouth and the genitals and anus makes it evident why at the present day
we notice, particularly in immoral women, an evil smell from the mouth,
which they endeavour to conceal by chewing burned coffee and the like.
No doubt this was the case in Antiquity[38] as well, so we are by no
means justified in attributing every instance of foul breath in harlots
and cinaedi to the practice of _fellation_.
Yet another consequence of _fellation_ was _pain in the mouth_
(στομαλγία, mouth-ache; only we must remember as to this that _Pollux_,
Onomast. III. 7. 69., cites ἀλγεῖν,—to suffer pain, as a synonym of
_to love_), _tongue-ache_ (γλωσσαλγία[39]) and _toothache_[40], and
generally pains of the palate and throat, rendering voice and speech
indistinct. Hence _Martial_ says[41]:
Qui recitat lana fauces et colla revinctus,
Hic se posse loqui, posse _tacere_ negat.
(The man who reads aloud his works, his throat and neck bound about
with wool, declares he cannot speak, yet cannot hold his tongue).
But the evil by no means stopped here; there more often occurred as
the result of the habit of _fellation_ acute no less than chronic
inflammations of the palate (sore throats, quinseys). In the passage
quoted a little above from _Lucian’s_ Pseudologistae, it is said of
Timarchus: “In Egypt on the other hand they called you συνάγχη (sore
throat),—as everybody knows.” In explanation _Lucian_ adds: “It must
have been a close thing with you not to be choked, that time you came
across the sailor of a three-master, who fell upon you and stopped your
mouth for you.” Without in any way detracting from the importance of
what we are told here, it still appears to us, on full consideration,
that Timarchus was not merely a _fellator_, but an _irrumator_ as
well, and this is the more probable as he no doubt acquired this
nickname, because he, _bene vasatus_ (well provided with a big
_member_), frequently brought on sore throat, that is to say in those
who served him as _fellators_!
Moreover this reveals to us the real meaning of a passage of
_Aretaeus_, one that has often been quoted before as connected with
Venereal disease. This occurs in the 9th Chapter of the Book[42],
which would certainly seem to admit only of a direct application;
still we are convinced that much of the pathological description of
sore throat (Ch. 7.) and many symptoms of the complaints of the uvula
(Ch. 8.) owe their origin to _fellation_. Undoubtedly we have nowadays
much fewer occasions to note affections of the uvula, which were of
very common occurrence among the Ancients[43], as is shown by their
own accounts,—a circumstance hardly to be wondered at if we consider
the particulars told us about Timarchus. _Aretaeus_ in Ch. 9. makes a
distinction between κίων (pillar, uvula) or columella (little pillar,
uvula), when the whole uvula is inflamed and swollen, σταφυλὴ or uva
(bunch of grapes), when only the lower part is affected, and ἰμάντιον
(little strap), when the palatal membrane is attacked. “Κίων”, he goes
on, “occurs most frequently with old men, σταφυλὴ with young men and
such as are in the prime of life, affection of the palatal membranes
(τὰ ὑμενώδεα) in those who are at the age of puberty and in boys.” The
ninth Chapter runs as follows:
Of Ulcers of the Throat.
Ulcers arising in the throat of a benignant and harmless nature are
common, the malignant and dangerous rare. Benignant ulcers of the sort
are clean, of slight extent and superficial, neither inflamed nor
painful. The malignant on the contrary are broad, hollow, lardaceous,
with a white, livid, or black covering. These ulcers are known as
_aphthae_. But if the covering is very tough, then the malady is an
eschar, and is so called. At the edge of the eschar are set up an
intense redness, inflammation and a congested state of the veins, as
in _anthrax_ (carbuncle, malignant pustule), while small, distinct
and unconnected, elevations of the mucous membrane appear, which
are continually uniting with fresh ones that successively follow,
and so an extensive ulcer is established. If this extends from the
outer mouth too far inwards, in fact once it has attacked the uvula
and relaxed it, the disease spreads over the tongue, gums and lips,
while the teeth become loose and blackened. Further the inflammation
attacks the throat. Patients so affected die in a few days after the
inflammation and fever are set up, of the evil odour and of hunger;
the ulcer propagates itself by way of the wind-pipe to the chest, so
that very likely suffocation supervenes the same day. For lungs and
heart can tolerate neither so foul an odour nor the ulcers themselves
nor the ichor (puriform, septic matter) coming from them, but cough
and difficulty of breathing supervene. Origin of this affection of
the throat is the swallowing of cold, pungent, hot, sour, or strongly
astringent, substances. Now these parts serve the chest on behalf
of the voice and the breathing, as also the abdomen for sifting the
nutriment, and the stomach for swallowing food. But when these inward
parts, viz. abdomen, stomach and chest, are attacked by a disease, the
disease is in turn conveyed and carried to the œsophagus, the tonsils
and neighbouring regions.
Children up to the age of puberty suffer most in this way, for children
have the very greatest and most marked desire for coolness, because
with them the natural heat is at its greatest; the longing for foods of
various sorts and cold beverages is boundless; while they shout loudly
both in quarrel and at play. This is equally true of girls up to the
commencement of menstruation.
With regard to locality, _Egypt_ gives most numerous examples of the
disease, for this country has at once a dry air to breathe, and many
sorts of comestibles,—roots, herbs, garden vegetables, pungent seeds;
while the drink is either thick, being Nile water, or artificially made
pungent with barley or with grape-skins. In _Syria_ the disease is also
found, especially in Coelesyria. For this reason the ulcers in question
are known as _Egyptian_ or _Syrian_ ulcers.
The mode and fashion in which death occurs in these cases is
deplorable. The pain is a cutting and burning pain, as in anthrax
(carbuncle, malignant pustule), the breath foul-smelling, the patient
exhaling an intensely offensive breath, and re-inhaling into the chest
another no less so. Patients are so loathsome to themselves they cannot
tolerate their own smell; the face is pale or livid, the temperature
excessively high, the thirst as distressing as in fever. Yet they
reject drink when offered from dread of the pain of swallowing; for
they undergo great agony both by the compression of the palate and
by the return of the liquid through the nose. No sooner have they
lain down than they spring up again; then finding they cannot bear an
upright posture, no sooner have they sat down than they are forced by
their agony to lie back once more. Most commonly they move about in
an upright attitude. For as they are unable to sleep, they avoid all
rest, as though they were fain to drive away one torture with another.
Inhalation is deep, for they long for fresh air to cool themselves;
exhalation on the contrary short and hurried, for the ulcers already
burning like fire are heated yet further by contact of the feverish
breath as it streams out. Hoarseness comes on, and loss of voice, and
this goes on continuously increasing, until suddenly coming to the end
of their resistance they give up the ghost.”
* * * * *
In the portion of the work devoted to Therapeutics (Bk. I. ch. 9.),
which bears the title: Θεραπεία τῶν κατὰ τὴν φαρύγγα λοιμικῶν παθῶν,
(Pestilential Affections of the Throat Regions, their Curative
Treatment), caustics are especially recommended, as the actual cautery
cannot be employed, and finally we read: “In some cases the uvula
is destroyed right back to the bones of the palate, and the throat
to the root of the tongue and the epiglottis, and in consequence of
this destruction they can get down neither solid food nor liquid, for
liquids return through the nose, and so the patient dies of hunger.”
* * * * *
Now if we examine these statements more closely, we cannot first of
all help wondering how the ætiological factors named by _Aretaeus_
could possibly be regarded by him as sufficient to account for such
dangerous ulcerations,—ulcerations which he himself even calls λοιμώδεα
(of pestilential character), though of course they are perfectly
adequate to explain simple ulcers of the throat. Indulgence in pungent
comestibles and beverages is as little adequate to cause such symptoms
as are the shouting and greediness of children, not to mention the fact
that these are in no way peculiar to Egypt or Syria. The whole account
shows us clearly that while _Aretaeus_ was well acquainted with the
forms the disease took, the ætiological factors were obscure to him and
it was merely in a spirit of ill-timed speculation he subjoined them,
proving once more how right _Appuleius_ was when he exclaims: _Dii
boni! Quam facilis, _licet non artifici medico_, cuivis tamen docto
Venereae cupidinis comprehensio._ (Great gods! how easy it is for any
educated man, _always excepting a medical practitioner_, to understand
the passion of love).
We have already more than once in the course of these investigations
proved how Egypt and Syria must be regarded as the nursery of
licentiousness in Antiquity, and the passage quoted from _Lucian_
(above p. 229.) directly establishes the fact for us; again, a little
further on (p. 240. Note I.) it was mentioned how boys particularly,
(but also young girls), were used and specially trained as _fellators_.
Hence _Martial_[44] wishes he had a boy,
Niliacis primum puer is nascatur in oris:
Nequitias tellus scit dare nulla magis.
(In the first place my boy must be born on the banks of Nile: no
other land can produce more finished wickedness). From all this, as
well as from a comparison of the passage in Lucian, we believe we are
amply justified in concluding that Aretaeus’ ulcers of the throat,
these Αἰγύπτια καὶ Συριακὰ ἕλκεα (Egyptian and Syrian sores) were
not unfrequently a consequence of _fellation_[45]. That this should
be so is readily intelligible, when we consider the liability to
corruption and the acrid quality of secretions from the _glans penis_
in hot countries. Again the βουβαστικὰ ἕλκεα (Bubastic sores), which
_Salmasius_ cites from _Aëtius_[46] as being identical with the
Egyptian and Syrian ulcers, find a satisfactory explanation on this
hypothesis, for _Herodotus_[47] tells us in his time of the licentious
worship of Bubastis, daughter of Isis, at Bubastos. In this expression
(βουβαστικὰ ἕλκεα) the malady is named from one particular place, where
it was probably specially prevalent, whereas in Aretaeus it is spoken
of as general throughout the country.
In this connection we must not pass over the fact that Casaubon
commenting on the passage of Persius (V. 187.) to be quoted directly
is inclined to regard the ἕλκεα Συριακὰ (Syrian sores) as a punishment
of the Dea Syra (Syrian goddess). In this he relies on a passage of
_Plutarch_[48] that runs to this effect: “But of the Syrian goddess
the superstitious believe that, if a man eat a sprat or anchovy, the
goddess consumes his shin-bones, fills his body full of sores, melts
down his liver.” The legend must at any rate be of great antiquity, for
we meet with it in _Menander_, in a fragment which _Porphyrius_[49]
has preserved,—in which however swelling of the belly and the feet
is in question. To this also would seem to refer what _Persius_ (loco
citato) says:
Hinc grandes Galli et cum sistro lusca sacerdos,
Incussere _Deos inflantes corpora_, si non
Praedictum ter mane caput gustaveris alli.
(Then the tall Galli, and the one-eyed priestess with her sacred
rattle, instil terror of _the gods that make men’s bodies swell_,
unless three times at dawn you have eaten the prescribed head of
garlic). True we cannot from the passage of Plutarch directly conclude
that ulcers of the throat also were ascribed to the anger of the Syrian
goddess in consequence of indulgence in a fish diet; rather should
we expect what is said to apply primarily to external skin-ulcers,
occurring on other parts, as just on the shin-bone. Still we shall be
quite justified in making the reference general, more particularly as
liver-complaint is also ascribed to the goddess’s interference, and
we shall see that in Antiquity the cause of all ulcers was supposed
to lie in some fault of the liver. Now as the fish had necessarily to
be put into the mouth to be swallowed, and as it was always supposed
the punishment of the goddess followed immediately on the offence,
and affected the immediately active part, throat-ulcers might very
naturally be taken to be a result of such punishment. This again only
further confirms our explanation just above to the effect that ulcers
of the throat were a consequence resulting from vicious indulgence. For
the Temple-service of the Dea Syra was of course connected with every
sort of licentious practice.
Taking into consideration this marked prevalence of _Corrosion of
the Shin-bones_, we might argue with considerable probability that
it pointed to the existence of a disease of the bones following as a
result of vicious indulgence. On the other hand the observation that
the precise time the body became covered with ulceration was after
indulgence in fish-eating cannot help being of weight in connection
with the doctrine of Leprosy; for to the present day we note as very
frequent among peoples whose chief nutriment is fish various forms
of Leprosy. And again, we may very likely see in this prohibition of
a fish diet, which is also mentioned by _Athenaeus_[50], a sanitary
regulation justified by experience as necessary in Syria, where
skin-diseases and ulcerations were so common.
But not alone in Egypt and Syria did _fellation_ lead to suchlike
unhappy results; we find the same to have been the case at Rome, as is
proved by the following passage of _Martial_[51], a passage that has
hitherto been completely overlooked in this connection, but which is
none the less of great importance:
_Indignas premeret pestis cum tabida fauces
Inque ipsos vultus serperet atra lues_:
Siccis ipse genis flentes hortatus amicos
Decrevit Stygios Festus adire lacus.
Nec tamen obscuro pia polluit ora veneno,
Aut torsit lenta tristia fata fame:
Sanctam Romana vitam sed morte peregit,
Dimisitque animam nobiliore via.
Hanc mortem fatis magni praeferre Catonis
Fama potest: huius Caesar amicus erat.
(_When corrupting disease began to sorely afflict his unworthy throat
and black contagion was creeping to his very face_, Festus, himself
with dry cheeks, comforted his weeping friends, and determined to
seek the pools of Styx. But still he never disgraced his dutiful lips
with darkling poison, nor brought on a painful, miserable end by slow
hunger; nay! rather by a Roman death he completed his holy life, and
dismissed his soul the nobler way. Such a death fame may well exalt
above great Cato’s end; Caesar was his friend).
The words _indignae fauces_ (unworthy throat) obviously point to the
practice of _fellation_, whereby he had brought on himself the _pestis
tabida_ and _atra lues_, (corrupting disease, black contagion), and so
we have here a clear statement of the cause by one _doctus venereae
cupidinis_ (learned in the passion of love), which cause was quite
unknown to the _artifex medicus_ (medical practitioner). The _pia ora_
(dutiful lips) are therefore to be taken merely ironically, as also the
_sancta vita_ (holy life). Even the Cinaedus, as well as the maidens
who prostitute themselves in honour of Astarté, are invariably, as we
have seen, described in the Old Testament as _sanctus_ (holy), and we
read e. g. in Job. Ch. XXXV. 14., of a good-for-nothing, how he will
die like such a _sanctus_. It was precisely this signification of
_sanctus_ that led us to the idea of taking the throat affection for
a secondary consequence of paederastia, especially if we understand
a _double entendre_ to underlie the last words _huius Caesar amicus
erat_ (Caesar was his friend). The Commentators it is true take them
merely as said by way of contrast with the death of Cato of Utica, who
was forced by Caesar’s enmity to take his own life, and as implying
this was not the case with Festus, consequently that his suicide is
so much the more remarkable[52]. However it is doubtful which Caesar
is meant, whether the word is merely a Title or a proper name. In
the second—and certainly this at first appeared to us to be the more
likely,—view we were of course bound then to turn our attention to
his character for dissoluteness. However as both _Catullus_[53] and
_Suetonius_[54] represent him merely as a _Cinaedus_ in regard to the
male sex, if that is to say we subscribe to the accepted opinion, we
afterwards came to the conclusion it was rather the _Emperor_ generally
that is spoken of here, and consequently that any other Emperor, e. g.
Tiberius, or Nero, or another, might be intended. It is true that if
_pathicus_ (pathic) and _omnium virorum mulier_ (wife of all men) are
taken in a wider sense, there would be nothing to make the supposition
impossible that Julius Caesar is pointed at. Only that perhaps another
passage of _Martial_ would seem to go against this, a passage where he
seeks to excuse the several excesses and vices of a certain Gaurus by
instancing an exalted personage as patronizing each of them, and says
finally (Bk. II. 89.):
Quod fellas; vitium dic mihi cuius habes?
(But for your _fellation_: tell me whose vice you follow in this?)
Still against the _cinaedus_ view the words _indignae fauces_ (unworthy
throat) speak clearly. Probably in this connection the following
passage of _Martial_ should also come in,—where the Poet says of his
servant (Bk. I. Epigr. 102.):
Destituit primos virides Demetrius annos:
Quarta tribus lustris addita messis erat.
Ne tamen ad Stygias famulus descenderet umbras,
_Ureret implicitum cum scelerata lues_,
Cavimus et domini ius omne remisimus aegro:
Munere dignus erat convaluisse meo.
Sensit deficiens sua praemia, meque patronum
Dixit, ad infernas liber iturus aquas.
(Demetrius left us in the first years of his bloom; the fourth summer
was but just added to his three lustres. We took all means to save our
faithful house-slave from descending to the shades of Styx, when he
was consuming under a malignant contagion that had fastened upon him,
and remitted all my master’s rights for the sick lad,—who indeed well
deserved to win recovery at my hands. On his death-bed he recognized
what I had done for him, and called me his _master_, though so soon to
go forth a free man to the streams of the nether world.)
Was this _famulus_ (house-slave) the same person as the _puer_ (boy,
slave), who is mentioned by _Martial_, bk. XI. 95.?
That not boys only, but girls too, had to suffer in this way among the
Romans, and lost their lives from the complaint in question, is shown,
we think, by the following Epigram of _Martial_, Bk. XI. Epigr. 91.:
Aeolidon Canace iacet hoc tumulata sepulchro,
Ultima cui parvae septima venit hiems.
Ah scelus, ah facinus! properas quid flere viator?
Non licet hic vitae de brevitate queri.
_Tristius est leto leti genus: horrida vultus
Abstulit et tenero sedit in ore lues:
Ipsaque crudeles ederunt oscula morbi;
Nec data sunt nigris tota labella rogis._
Si tam praecipiti fuerant ventura volatu,
Debuerant alia fata venire via.
(Canacé of the Aeolians lies buried in this tomb, who died a child,—her
seventh winter was her last. Oh! the shame and horror of it! haste, a
tear, thou that passest by. Here is no occasion to lament the short
span of human life. Sadder than death is the way of her death; a dread
contagion ate away her face, and settled in the tender little mouth.
Cruel disease infected her very kisses; and her lips were half gone
when they were consigned to the grim pyre. If death must needs have
come to her with a flight so swift, at least he should have taken
another way. Death so hasted to close the issue of her persuasive
voice, that her tongue might not have time to bend the cruel goddesses
to mercy).
Besides the passages quoted, there are several others to be found in
_Martial_, that must be taken as referring to the _fellator_; but
since the maladies that occur are equally prevalent in the case of the
_Cunnilingue_, it will be more convenient to adduce them under that
head. Further, we only require to mention the fact that _pale lips_
seem to have been regarded as a mark of the _fellator_[55].
The Cunnilingue.
§ 23.
But the vice of the _fellator_ is far surpassed in baseness by that
of the _Cunnilingue_ (_qui opus peragit linguam arrigendo in cunnum,
eumque lambit_,—one who works by putting his tongue up into the female
organ, and licking it). The Greeks called this practice σκύλαξ (a
puppy), because it is a habit of dogs[56], and Hesychius explains it
by σχῆμα ἀφροδισιακὸν, ὡς τὸ τῶν φοινικιζόντων (a method of love,
resembling that of those who phoenicize). We have already, in the
passage of _Lucian_ quoted a little above, found φοινικίζειν and
λεσβιάζειν put side by side; _Galen_ moreover[57] does the same in
the following passage, a noteworthy one for our purpose on several
accounts: “The drinking of sweat, urine and the menstrual blood of
women is vicious and shameful, and not less so when a person, as
Xenocrates proposes to do, smears the regions of the mouth and throat
with excrement, and swallows it down. He speaks also of taking the
wax of the ears. For my part I could never bring myself to take this,
even though by that means I were never to be ill again. But excrement
I consider yet more disgusting, and it is for a man of any decency far
more shameful to be called an Excrement-Eater[58] than an αἰσχρουργὸς
(worker of obscenities) or a _cinaedus_. But of αἰσχρουργοὶ[59]
(workers of obscenities), we abominate Phoenicians more than the
Lesbians, and it seems to me the man does something of the same sort
as the former who drinks menstrual blood (μᾶλλον βδελλυττόμεθα τοὺς
_φοινικίζοντας_ τῶν λεσβιαζόντων ᾧ[60] φαίνεταί μοι παραπλήσιόν τι
πάσχειν ὁ καὶ καταμηνίου πίνων.) _A sensible man will neither seek
to collect experiences on the point, nor yet on a practice, which it
is true involves less_, but still is sufficiently shameful, that of
smearing a part of the body with excrement, because he has some hurt at
that spot,—or with human seed. Xenocrates calls this latter commonly
γόνος (seed, semen), and distinguishes with minute care between cases
where simple seed rubbed in by itself is of benefit, and cases where
the female has the same effect after combination with the male, as it
is discharged from the woman’s womb.”
This explanation of Galen’s to the effect that the φοινικίζων (one
who phoenicizes) resembles the man who drinks menstrual blood, shows
clearly that φοινικίζειν is _not_, as all the Lexicons give it, and
_Forbiger_ (loco citato) also assumes, identical with λεσβιάζειν. It
is true _Forbiger_ (p. 329. Note v.) gives the meaning _cunnilingere_
as well, although the explanation is undoubtedly unsatisfactory which
he offers _à propos_ of an Epigram,[61]—one certainly apposite in this
connection, to the effect that the reason for this signification is,
_quod cunnilingos a natando in mari quodam Phoenicei coloris (mari
rubro) dixissent_, (that they had called them _cunnilingues_ from their
swimming as it were in a sea of Phoenician purple colour—a red sea);
for the words in the Epigram, ἐν φοινίκῃ δὲ καθεύδεις (but you sleep
in Phoenicia) cannot stand for anything else but simply φοινικίζειν, as
indeed the passage from _Aloisia Sigaea_, which is quoted by Forbiger
himself, proves conclusively[62]: _Cum vellet mediam lambere, se velle
dicebat in Liguriam_, (When he wanted to lick my middle, he used to say
he would fain _be into Liguria_—that is, would fain lick, _ligurire_).
Accordingly just as λεσβιάζειν came into use as the distinctive
name for the vice of the _fellator_, because it was practised
to a distinctive degree in Lesbos, so too to be a _cunnilingue_
was called φοινικίζειν, because the habit was at home among the
Phoenicians. Undoubtedly men’s shamelessness was carried so far that
they actually used women and girls at their period of menstruation
for this purpose,—a fact of the highest interest for us, as we shall
show directly. _Seneca_[63] expresses himself plainly enough on the
subject: “Quid tu, cum Mamercum Scaurum consulem faceres, ingnorabas,
_ancillarum suarum menstruum ore illum hiante exceptare_? num quid enim
ipse dissimulabat? num quid purus videri volebat?” (How came it you
were ignorant, when making Mamercus Scaurus consul, _that he was in
the habit of catching in his open mouth the menstrual discharge of his
maidservants_? Did he make any concealment of it himself? did he pose
as a pure-minded man? nay! not he). Again in another place[64]:
“Nuper Natalis tam improbae linguae quam impurae, _in cuius ore feminae
purgabantur_.” (Quite lately Natalis showed himself as malignant of
tongue as he is unchaste, _into whose mouth women were used to purge
themselves_).
Now if first of all we bear steadfastly in mind that this φοινικίζειν
was a vice, which prevailed primarily and especially among the
Phoenicians and was later on disseminated abroad by them, and then
consider how the Greeks designated every vice, and particularly
excesses in love, as νόσος (disease), in the same way precisely as
the Romans used _morbus_ (disease),—comp. § 17—we _must_ see that
φοινικίζειν is the same thing as νόσος φοινικίη (Phoenician disease),
and shall be in a position to form an opinion on the Gloss[65] falsely
ascribed to _Galen_, which reads: _φοινικίη νόσος_· ἡ κατὰ Φοινίκην
καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ἀνατολικὰ μέρη πλεονάζουσα. δηλοῦσθαι δὲ κἀνταῦθα
_δοκεῖ_ ἡ ἐλεφαντιάσις. (_Phoenician disease_: a disease prevalent in
Phoenicia and about the Eastern parts. Elephantiasis _appears_ to be
signified by this).
Even granting the first part of this Gloss to have been really written
by _Galen_, the last sentence at any rate is obviously an extraneous
and later addition. This is at once indicated by the use of the word
δοκεῖ (it appears), which comes in curiously, standing as it does
next-door to the _definite_ statement that this νόσος (disease) was
common in Phoenicia; for surely anyone who knew this, must also have
known what the disease was. Again if he had wished to describe it by
some such phrase as the English “a sort of Elephantiasis”, he could
hardly have failed to express himself in a different way to what he
has. But as a matter of fact, _Galen_ knew perfectly well, as we have
already seen, what φοινικίζειν was, and consequently what the φοινικίη
νόσος (Phoenician disease) was, and it could not by any possibility
have occurred to him to suppose it any form of Elephantiasis.
Unfortunately _Prof. Naumann_[66] has allowed himself to be misled by
this extraneous addition; he writes: “In the Work of a Pseudo-Galen is
given a short explanation of the φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease),
or rather to speak strictly, the _conjecture_ is made,[67] that
this malady, a common one in Phoenicia and the East, may have been
Elephantiasis.” True indeed the word might _with equal likelihood_
express a disease characterized by redness of the skin φοινίκιος s.
φοινίκεος i. q. puniceus, purpureus, cruentus; φοινιγμὸς irritatio
cutis per vesicantia—φοινίκιος or φοινίκεος = Phoenician purple,
purple, blood-red; φοινιγμὸς = irritation of the skin by rubefacients).
Or should we suppose _some leprous-venereal malady_ endemic and
aboriginal among the trading Phoenicians to be signified, which was
called the _Morbus Phoeniceus_ (Phoenician disease) in the same way
as in more modern times people spoke of the _Morbus Gallicus_ (French
disease,—Syphilis)? In any case it is remarkable that _Themison_ (who
also noted incidentally that Satyriasis at times attacks a population
epidemically,—speaks of the special frequency of Satyriasis in Crete
(_Caelius Aurelianus_, Acut. Morb. bk. III. ch. 18). As is well known,
Phoenician and Hellenic Colonies had converged here; and the island
remained in uninterrupted and active commercial intercourse with the
maritime cities of Phoenicia.
According to the general supposition the Gloss of the Pseudo-Galen has
reference to a passage of _Hippocrates_ occurring in the Second book of
the Prorrhetica,[68] where we read as follows: “But λειχῆνες—tetters,
as also λέπραι and λεῦκαι,—scaly leprosies and white leprosies, where
any of these occur in the young or mere children, or after appearing
on a small scale shall then increase but slowly, in these cases it
is not right to call the exanthema or eruption an apostasis,
(transitional state), but a νόσημα,—condition of disease. On the
other hand where any of these affections occurs on a large scale and
suddenly, it would then be an apostasis. But whereas λεῦκαι arise out
of _the most deadly diseases_, as e. g. the νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ,—wasting
disease, as it is called, λέπραι and λειχῆνες do so from the
melancholic, or diseases proceeding from black bile. And of such the
easier to cure are those that occur in the youngest patients and are of
the latest origin, and arise in the softest and most fleshy parts of
the body.” _Foesius_ observes on the passage: “Nemini autem dubium est,
quin hac parte _mendosi sint codices omnes_, cum ἡ νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ
καλουμένη scribitur. Nam φοινικίη νόσος ex Galeni exegesi procul
omni dubio reponendum.” (Now no one can doubt that _all the MSS. are
deceptive_ here, reading as they do ἡ νοῦσος ἡ φθινική. For φοινικίη
vόσος must undoubtedly be restored from the Exegesis of Galen). _J. W.
Wedel_[69] on the contrary writes: “Legunt quidam pro φοινικίη—φθινικὴ,
et vertunt tabem seu morbum tabidum, _sed contra fidem codicum
correctiorum_, quibus Galenus ipse assentitur, et rei ipsius, de qua
textus agit, evidentiam.” (Some read φθινικὴ for φοινικίη, and render
it _wasting_ or _wasting disease_,—_but against the authority of the
better class of MSS._, with which Galen himself agrees, and against
the evidence of the context of the matter treated of). In the latter
of these two statements Wedel, in spite of his mistaken view of the
matter generally, is perfectly right; whether he is so in the former as
well, we are not in a position to say, for alas! we lack the critical
apparatus absolutely indispensable for such a decision, not so much as
the Edition of _Mackius_ being on the shelves of our University Library.
In the first place we ought to make quite sure what Hippocrates
understood under the name λεῦκαι. A disease of the Skin no doubt;
but of what particular nature it was, would seem not to be so easy
to determine. According to _Coac. praenotion._ (Vol. I. p. 321.)
Hippocrates distinguished a λεύκη συγγενής and a λεύκη μὴ συγγενής
(λεύκη inborn, and not inborn), the latter attacking individuals
only after puberty. _Hesychius_ says λεύκη, ἄνθος τι τῶν περὶ τὸ
σῶμα γινόμενον, ἄλφος δὲ λευκή τις ἐν τῷ σώματι. (λεύκη—white
leprosy, an eruption coming out on the exterior parts of the body,
but ἄλφος—dull-white leprosy, a form of λεύκη in the body). _Galen_,
_Definit. med._ (Vol. XIX. p. 140) λευκή ἐστιν ἡ ἐπὶ λευκὸν χρῶμα τοῦ
σώματος παρὰ φύσιν μεταβολή. (λεύκη is the change to an unnatural
white colour of the body). According to this it would appear to be
merely superficial discolorations of the skin that writers understood
by λεῦκαι,—a view that _Rayer_[70] seems to coincide with. _Pollux_ on
the other hand offers an explanation as follows: ἀλφὸς μέλας, ἐπιδρομὴ
σκιώδης, ἐπιπόλαιος, εὐίατος, ἀλφὸς λευκὸς, λευκότης ἐπιτρέχουσα τῇ
ἐπιδερματίδι, αὐχμηρὰ, δυσίατος· _λεύκη_, ὅταν ἐπιτείνῃ ἡ λευκότης,
καὶ φύσῃ τρίχωσιν λευκήν, εἰ δὲ κεντήσειας, ὕφαιμος, δυσίατος, ἐστιν
ὅτε ὑπέρυθρος· _ἐπανθεῖ δὲ_ αὐτὸ (?) τοῖς _χείλεσιν, οἷον ἁλὸς ἄχνη_.
(Black ἀλφός, a dark-coloured spreading eruption, superficial and
easily curable; white alphos, a whiteness running over the epidermis
(of the prepuce), dry harsh and difficult to cure; λεύκη, when the
whiteness extends, and produces a growth of white hairs, and if
you prick it, it is suffused with blood, difficult to cure, also
sometimes reddish in hue. And the eruption comes out on the lips _like
sea-foam_). Here λεύκη is evidently a much more deeply penetrating
malady, as indeed it is described by _Celsus_[71] and _Galen_.[72] It
corresponds with the white Leprosy of Moses. But the most curious thing
is the statement appended to the effect that the affection broke out
on the lips like sea-foam. This is certainly to be referred to some
other form of λεύκη, unless indeed we are to take it in connection
with the succeeding words in the text, λειχὴν ἄγριος (malignant
tetter), in which case, as we have seen with regard to Mentagra (Tetter
of the chin), the remark is based on a perfectly sound observation;
and besides, the αὐτὸ gives absolutely no sense. On the other hand
if Pollux’ datum in reference to the seat of λεύκη is correct, it
must obviously afford much light for clearing up the meaning of the
passage in Hippocrates, and in deference to it we shall be bound to
read φοινικίη instead of φθινικὴ,[73]—an emendation that presents no
difficulty, since φθινικὴ might very easily be read for φοινικίη, and
indeed (as pointed out in the Note) was actually so read.
But one emendation leads on to another, and we shall find ourselves
bound, on the analogy of the θαυμαστὸν πάθος (wonderful complaint) in
Dio Chrysostom, to read here also θαυμαστωτάτων νοσημάτων (of the most
wonderful diseases) for θανατωδεστάτων ν., and translate accordingly:
“but λεῦκαι arise out of the most terrible aberrations of the mind,”
such for instance as the vice of the _cunnilingue_ is. If we examine
further, we shall see it is not λευκαὶ but λεῦκαι that stands in the
text, so it cannot be a question of a skin-affection of the leprosy
type at all, for λευκὸς (white) rather implies transparent and shiny,
and _Martial_ (XI. 99.) in a passage to be discussed more fully later
on, says:
Non ulcus acre, _pustulaeve lucentes_,
Nec triste mentum, sordidique lichenes,
(No biting ulcer, or _shiny pustules_, nor yet disfigured chin, and
foul scabs). Accordingly we have here nothing whatever to do with the
leprous-like λευκὴ, but only with _pustulae lucentes_ (shiny pustules),
which as we shall show presently were a consequence of the practices
of the _cunnilinigue_. We have the more right to assume this, as the
old Physicians ascribe λευκὴ to the φλέγμα (phlegmatic humour),—an
explanation all the more likely to have been given, as directly
afterwards follow the words, αἱ δὲ λέπραι καὶ οἱ λειχῆνες ἐκ τῶν
μελαγχολικῶν (but leprosies and tetters arise out of the melancholic
diseases). True this is in contradiction with another passage of
Hippocrates,[74] for in this we read: _λέπρη_ καὶ κνησμὸς καὶ ψώρη καὶ
_λειχῆνες_ καὶ ἀλφὸς καὶ ἀλώπεκες ὑπὸ _φλέγματος_ γίνονται. (_leprosy_,
and itch, and scab, and _tetters_, and dull-white leprosy, and manges,
arise from _phlegm_). This much at any rate appears to us to result,
viz. that the whole passage under discussion cannot possibly be by
Hippocrates, but much more probably is due to some author of the
Alexandrine age, who enjoyed ample opportunities for studying the
consequences of the unnatural excesses as so often observed since
Pompey the Great’s time.
To assume that Hippocrates was actually acquainted with these in any
completeness would up to the present be premature; at any rate we are
bound, so far as our study of his writings enables us to judge, to deny
him any knowledge of the fact that sexual excesses were the cause of
the different affections of the genital organs chronicled by him. Of
course he may have supposed all this to be notorious and the knowledge
of it common property, but a host of statements would be found to tell
against any such supposition. Opportunities of making acquaintance with
the vice of the _cunnilingue_ could certainly not have been lacking,
it being so familiar a thing in his time that _Aristophanes_[75] again
and again derided it in his Comedies. Whatever conclusion we come to on
this head, at least the passage of Hippocrates cannot justify anyone
in maintaining that the φοινικίη νοῦσος,—(Phœnician disease) was true
Elephantiasis, even if, as may be, the preliminary proposition that
elephantiasis was a _consequence_ of debauchery be made good,—a point
to which we propose later on to return. On the subject of Satyriasis in
Crete, we have already expressed our views.
Just as the Phoenicians carried the seed of the vice to Greece and
other lands, so at a later period was it disseminated from Syria to
Italy; and so _Ausonius_ says (Epigr. 128.):
Eunus Syriscus inguinum liguritor,
Opicus[76] magister (sic eum ducet Phyllis)
Muliebre membrum quadriangulum cernit:
Triquetro coactu Δ literam ducit.
De valle femorum altrinsecus pares rugas,
Mediumque, fissi rima qua patet, callem
Ψ dicit esse: nam trifissilis forma est.
Cui ipse linguam quum dedit suam, Λ est:
Veramque in illis esse Φ notam sentit.
Quid imperite, Ρ putas ibi scriptum
Ubi locari Ι convenit longum?
Miselle doctor, Ȣ tibi sit obscoeno,
Tuumque nomen Θ sectilis signet.
(Eunus from Syria, glutton of the privy parts, Opican (clownish) master
(Phyllis teaches him his letters) sees the woman’s organ four-cornered:
when compressed to a triangle he makes it out the letter Δ. From the
valley between the thighs start two furrows, a pair one on either side,
while between them is a line, where lies the opening, the crack of the
fissure; this he declares is Ψ; for ’tis three-pronged in outline.
Then when he puts in his own tongue to it, lo! it is Λ; and he can
feel there is a true Φ marked therein. What, dunce, think you a Ρ is
inscribed there, where a long Ι should by rights be placed? Miserable,
contemptible scholar, may the Ȣ (a noose) reward your foulness, and
the cleft Θ (letter of condemnation, being initial of θάνατος,—death)
be set against your name!) The more detailed interpretation of these
obscene hieroglyphics the reader may find in the commentators on the
passage, as well as in _Forberg_, loco citato p. 335.
Diseases of the Cunnilingue.
§ 24.
Can anyone believe such a vice as this was practised without incurring
punishment? Yet there prevails amongst the Physicians of Antiquity,
even including Galen, who knew the facts, an unbroken silence. It is
impossible to suppose that girls and women could have their genital
organs purged in this mode altogether without evil results, more
particularly as actual experience in more modern times has proved that
as a consequence of the habit of _cunnilingere_ inflammations of the
external genitals have been set up in girls, as well as ulcerations in
older women through the licking of these parts by dogs. Among Ancient
writers we have found no vouchers for this; but on the other hand
several such exist to show the mischief that results from the habit
to the _cunnilingue_ himself. Excluding from consideration the _pale
complexion_[77] and evil _smell from the mouth_, which were equally
consequences of the other forms of vice already mentioned, we have
_paralysis of the tongue_ mentioned, at any rate in one passage[78]:
Sidere percussa est subito tibi, Zoile, lingua,
Dum lingis. Certe, Zoile, nunc futuis.
(Your tongue, Zoilus, has been stricken with a sudden doom, while in
the act of licking. Why! surely, Zoilus, you copulate now). True this
malady must be counted as one of very rare occurrence; but this is by
no means the case with the ulcerations, which would seem not always
to have confined their attacks to the tongue, but to have extended
also, just as with the _fellator_, to the other parts of the mouth as
well. This cannot but have had the effect of making it very difficult
in diagnosis to distinguish between an affection of the sort due to
_fellation_ and one due to the vice of the _cunnilingue_.
Here again it is _Martial_ to whom we are indebted for the proofs of
our assertions. He leaves no room for doubt as to the way Manneius was
punished for his debauchery in the following passage[79]:
_Lingua maritus, moechus ore Manneius,_
_Summoenianis inquinatior buccis:_
Quem cum fenestra vidit a Suburrana
Obscoena nudum lena, fornicem claudit,
Mediumque mavult basiare, quam summum:
Modo qui _per omnes viscerum tubos_ ibat,
Et voce certa consciaque dicebat:
Puer, an puella matris esset in ventre;
(Gaudete cunni, vestra namque res acta est!)
_Arrigere linguam non potest fututricem
Nam, dum tumenti mersus haeret in vulva_[80]
Et vagientes intus audit infantes,
_Partem gulosam solvit indecens morbus;
Nec purus esse nunc potest, nec impurus._
(_Manneius was a husband with his tongue, a fornicator with his mouth,
a more polluted wretch than the big-cheeked wenches of the suburbs._
When a vile bawd saw him naked from a window in the Suburra, she shuts
her brothel up, and had rather kiss his middle than his head. The man
who but now could _penetrate every vessel of the inwards_, and say with
assured voice and certain knowledge whether it were a boy or a girl
in the mother’s belly,—rejoice, rejoice, organs of women, for your
business is done for you,—the same _cannot erect a fornicating tongue_.
For at the very moment _he is plunged tight in the swollen vulva_, and
hears the babes whimpering within, lo! _a shocking disease paralyses
his greedy tongue. Now can he be neither clean, nor yet unclean_).
The Commentators, in particular _Farnabius_, refer the complaint spoken
of in the passage just quoted to paralysis of the tongue. Farnabius
says in fact: “Paralysisne ἀπὸ τῆς ἀφέδρου καὶ τῶν ἐμμηνιῶν, quorum
malefico humore marcescunt segetes, apes moriuntur etc., Plin. c.
15 Lib. V., an sideratio?” (Is paralysis intended, _resulting from
the menstruation and menstrual_ discharges, the poisonous humour of
which will wither up crops, kill bees, etc.—Pliny ch. 15. Bk. V., or
a sudden stroke?) Even supposing us willing to admit the possibility
of menstrual blood bringing on paralysis of the tongue, there can
at any rate be no question of such a thing here, inasmuch as it was
with a pregnant woman Manneius carried out his vicious practises, and
women in pregnancy do not _usually_ menstruate,—a fact about which the
Philologist naturally enough was only imperfectly posted. Of course
the possibility is always there, although the Poet says nothing about
it; and the expression _vulva tumens_ (swollen organ) evidently stands
here, as is clearly shown by what follows, for _uterus gravidus_
(pregnant womb)[81]. The _solvere_ (to loose, destroy) points in any
case to a destruction, a dwindling, of the part, brought about by the
_indecens morbus_ (shocking disease),—which disease might very likely
find its explanation in the _scelerata lues_ (noxious contagion)
mentioned on page 258 above. As a result of this, naturally enough
not only did _arrigere_ (to erect—the tongue) become impossible, but
the _impurus_ (_Cunnilingus_) (unclean cunnilingue) grew generally
incapable of practising his vice. Nor yet was he _purus_ (clean)[82]
altogether, for was he not a _cunnilingue_?—and now he was even less
_purus_, because he suffered from the _indecens morbus_ (shocking
disease), which even Farnabius has so far rightly understood, that
he explains _nec purus_ (nor yet clean) by _morbo illo contaminatus_
(because contaminated by the said disease).
Rather more doubtful and difficult is the interpretation of the
following passage of _Martial_[83], which would yet appear to be
pertinent here:
Non dixi, Coracine, te cinaedum;
Non sum tam temerarius, nec audax,
Nec mendacia qui loquar libenter.
Si dixi, Coracine, te cinaedum,
Iratam mihi Pontiae lagenam,
Iratum calicem mihi Metili.
_Iuro per Syrios tibi tumores,
Iuro per Berecynthios furores._
Quod dixi tamen, hoc leve et pusillum est.
Quod notum est, quod et ipse non negabis:
_Dixi te_, Coracine, _cunnilingum_.
(I never called you a _cinaedus_, Coracinus; I am not so rash or
so reckless, not being one to speak lies willingly. If I called
you a _cinaedus_, Coracinus, may Pontia’s jar be my enemy, and
Metilius’ poisoned cup. _I take oath by your Syrian tumours, by your
Berecynthian frenzies._ What I _did_ say is a trivial, an insignificant
thing, a thing well known, that you will not yourself deny,—_I said_,
Coracinus, _you were a cunnilingue_).
What were these _Syrii tumores_ (Syrian tumours) that afflicted the
_cunnilingue_ Coracinus? _Beroaldus_, Annotat. ch. 25., understands
them as “tumores et vibices a cultris et flagris quibus sacerdotes
Cybeles (quam deam Syriam esse volunt) se sauciabant.” (the swellings
and weals from the knives and scourges with which the priests of
Cybelé,—whom they claim to be the Syrian goddess—used to wound
themselves). _Farnabius_ on the contrary thinks only _Berecynthios
furores_ (Berecynthian frenzies) to be intended in this explanation,
and makes the _tumores Syrii_ mean “_ulcera et morbos quibus credebatur
irata Isis inflare peierantes_,” (ulcers and maladies with which the
angry Isis was supposed to afflict false swearers), appealing to the
passage of Persius[84], already brought forward a few pages back (p.
254.), which reads:
Hinc grandes Galli et cum sistro lusca sacerdos,
_Incussere Deos inflantes corpora_, si non
Praedictum ter mane caput gustaveris alli.
(Then the tall Galli, and the one-eyed priestess with her sacred
rattle, instil terror of _the gods that make men’s bodies swell_,
unless three times at dawn you have eaten the prescribed head of
garlic).
Whether this passage affords any direct proof would seem doubtful,
inasmuch as the _inflare corpus_ (to make the body swell) properly
speaking only refers to the abdomen. To this also the eating of the
allium (garlic), which no doubt first won its magic significance on
account of its carminative properties, appears to point.
However another explanation is possible. Referring back to the passage
of _Porphyrius_ quoted above on p. 254., the _tumores_ Coracinus had
contracted in consequence of his general incontinence with women,
which incontinence had at last brought him as a _senex_? (old man) to
such a condition of weakness that nothing was left him but the vice of
_cunnilingere_ to satisfy his still unexhausted lubricity. A side light
in this case may be thrown on the matter by Horace’s description of the
_Anus libidinosa_ (The lecherous old woman) in Epodes VIII. 9. 19.:
Venter mollis et femur _tumentibus_
Exile _suris_ additum.—Fascinum
Quod ut superbo provoces ab inguine
Ore allaborandum est tibi.
(Flabby belly and skinny thigh joined with swollen calves,—A tool, that
requires you, in order to call it up from the supercilious groin, to
work it with the mouth). _Casaubon_ in his commentary on the passage of
_Persius_ is for connecting this, as well as the _Tumores Syrii_, with
ἕλκεα Συριακὰ (Syrian sores), and—as quoted on p. 253 above—to regard
them as a consequence of the wrath of the _Dea Syria_ (Syrian goddess).
No doubt as a matter of fact the _tumores_ were a result of debauchery,
one that was prevalent in Syria and was disseminated thence to Rome,
for they attacked a _cunnilingue_ no less than other debauchees; but
this brings us no nearer to a knowledge of their nature. We should
perhaps be inclined to regard them as swellings of the tonsils or of
the lympathic glands of the throat, having the same significance as the
inguinal buboes in affections of the genitals.
But what are the _Berecynthii furores_ (Berecynthian frenzies)?
Possibly nocturnal pains in the bones, that torment a patient to the
pitch of frenzy? The metaphor, drawn from the nocturnal rites of
Cybelé, must be admitted to be a happy one. Still, however acceptable
conjectures of the sort may be to many, we cannot take them seriously.
It appears to us most judicious to regard the _Syrii tumores_ as being
ulcerations that covered the body of Coracinus, and by their violent
itching reduced him to a state of frenzy. Our view as stated is
confirmed by Epigram 108. of _Ausonius_: