Thermarum in solio si quis Polygitona vidit
Ulcera membrorum scabie putrefacta foventem,
Praeposuit cunctis spectacula talia ludis.
Principio tremulis gannitibus aëra pulsat,
Verbaque lascivos meretricum imitantia coetus
Vibrat et obscoenae numeros pruriginis implet.
_Brachia deinde rotat velut enthea daemone Maenas,_
Pectus, crura, latus, ventrem, femora, _inguina_, _suras_,
Tergum, colla, humeros luteae Symplegadis antrum.
Tam diversa locis vaga carnificina pererrat,
Donec marcentem calidi fervore lavacri
Blandus letali solvat dulcedine morbus.
Desectos sic fama viros, ubi cassa libido
Femineos coetus et non sua bella lacessit,
Irrita vexato consumere gaudia lecto:
Titillata brevi quum iam sub fine voluptas
Fervet et ingesto peragit ludibria morsu.
Turpia non aliter Polygiton membra resolvit,
Et quia debentur suprema piacula vitae,
Ad Phlegethonteas sese iam praeparat undas.
(_To the scabby Polygiton._—If any man caught sight of Polygiton on the
seat of the Thermae bathing the sores on his limbs all rotten with
scab, he preferred so entertaining a spectacle to all the games. First
he beats the air with twittering, whining noises, and utters broken
sounds in imitation of the wanton embraces of harlots, and completes
the symphony of his foul-minded lechery. _Then he twirls his arms about
like a Maenad under the god’s afflatus_; breast, legs, flank, belly,
thighs, _groin_, _calves_, back, neck, shoulders, cave of the bemired
Symplegades,—i. e. hollow between buttocks,—in so many different places
does the shooting torture fly, until he droops and faints in the warmth
of the hot bath and the disease is soothed and gives a fatal respite.
So it is said castrated eunuchs, when barren desire tries hard for
embraces with women and for contests they cannot properly engage in,
are consumed with empty transports on the tossed and tumbled bed,—till
eventually their lust, tickled and tickled, flames high for a last
moment, and completes the wanton act by applying the mouth and biting.
So with Polygiton a final spasm relaxes his disfigured limbs, and the
last sin-offerings of his life being due, thus makes himself ready for
the waves of Phlegethon).
True the connexion with the vice of _cunnilingere_ is apparently lost
here, but this also may be preserved without any great straining of
the words, as we shall see presently; and accordingly the _Tumores
Syrii_ can be quite well regarded as a consequence of the vice of the
_cunnilingus_.
Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin).
§ 25.
Ever since the so-called first appearance of Venereal Disease, most of
the advocates of the antiquity of the complaint have made a point of
bringing in _Mentagra_[85] within the purview of the quotations they
adduce to prove their contention, although strictly speaking they were
never likely to succeed in a direct demonstration that the disease was
really and truly connected with sexual excesses. Accordingly, to the
present day the majority of them see in it nothing more than a form
of Leprosy, particularly as _Hensler_[86] and _Sprengel_ were among
those who decided in favour of its leprous character. Instead of giving
a useless list of names of the different authors, who in former days
declared for the one view or the other, we think it more expedient
to quote first of all the capital authority, a passage in Pliny[87],
setting this down as it stands so as to be able afterwards to form a
correct appreciation of its bearing:
Cap. I. “Sensit et _facies_ hominum novos omnique aevo priore
incognitos, non Italiae modo, verum etiam universae prope Europae
morbos: tunc quoque non tota Italia, nec per Illyricum Galliasve aut
Hispanias magnopere vagatos, aut alibi, quam Romae circaque: sine
dolore quidem illos ac sine pernicie vitae: sed tanta foeditate, ut
quaecunque mors praeferenda esset.
Cap. II. “Gravissimum ex his _lichenas_ appellavere _Graeco nomine_:
_Latine_, quoniam a mento fere oriebatur, _ioculari primum lascivia_
(ut est procax natura multorum in alienis miseriis) mox et usurpato
vocabulo, _mentagram_: occupantem in multis totos utique vultus, oculis
tantum immunibus, descendentem[88] vero et in colla pectusque ac manus,
foedo cutis furfure[89].
Cap. III. “Non fuerat _haec lues_ apud maiores patresque nostros.
Et primum _Tiberii Claudii Caesaris_ principatu medio irrepsit in
Italiam, quodam Perusino equite Romano Quaestorio scriba, quum in
Asia apparuisset inde contagionem eius importante. Nec sensere id
malum feminae aut servitia, plebesque humilis, aut media: sed proceres
veloci transitu osculi maxime: foediore multorum qui perpeti medicinam
toleraverant, citatrice, quam morbo. Causticis[90] namque curabatur,
ni usque in ossa corpus exustum esset, rebellante taedio. Advenerunt
ex Aegypto, _genitrice talium vitiorum_, medici, hanc solam operam
afferentes, magna sua praeda. Siquidem certum est, Manilium Cornutum,
e Praetoriis legatum Aquitanicae provinciae, H.S. CC. elocasse in eo
morbo curandum sese.”
(Ch. I. Moreover the human _face_ experienced new diseases, and such
as had been unknown in any former age not merely to Italy but to the
whole of Europe very nearly, and these not widely diffused over Italy
generally, or through Illyricum or the provinces of Gaul or of Spain,
or indeed anywhere else but just in Rome and its neighbourhood. They
were painless, it is true, and did not involve loss of life, but were
of such a horrible nature that death in any form would have been
preferable.
Ch. II. The most serious of these diseases they called
_lichenes_,—scabs, a Greek name; in Latin, as the malady generally
showed itself first on the chin, it was known as _mentagra_,—chin-bane,
scab or tetter of the chin, at the first by way of jest and
mockery—for it is the nature of the multitude to make merry at
others’ misfortunes,—but soon this became the recognized word. In many
persons it covered absolutely the whole countenance, the eyes alone
being left unaffected, with a horrible scurf of the skin, going down
sometimes to the neck as well, and breast, and hands.
Ch. III. _This plague_ had not existed among our ancestors or fathers.
For the first time it crept into Italy in the middle of the reign of
_Tiberius Claudius Caesar_, a certain Perusinius, a Roman knight and
Quaestorian secretary, after a period of service in Asia, importing
the contagion from there. But women did not suffer from the malady,
or slaves, nor yet common folk of humble or middle-class station; but
nobles, and this particularly by the rapid infection of an embrace. In
many cases the scar, where patients had submitted to medical treatment,
was more horrible than the disease itself. For indeed it was curable
by caustics, except when the body had been consumed to the very bones,
the slowness of the treatment defeating its own end. Physicians
arrived from Egypt, _mother-land of such taints_, practising this cure
exclusively, to their own great profit. If, that is, it is true that
Manilius Cornutus, of the Praetorians and governor of the Province of
Aquitania, offered 200,000 sesterces for his cure when attacked by this
disease).
Here if ever, it particularly behoves us to begin with an elucidation
of the meaning of the name given to the malady under discussion.
_Gruner_[91] long ago called attention to the divergence of opinion
as to the signification of λειχῆνες (scabs) among the writers of
Antiquity, but without success in putting the actual facts in a clear
light. We must try if we can be more fortunate. An old etymologist
says: λειχὴν παρὰ τὸ λείχω, καὶ γὰρ φάσιν ἐκ τοῦ λείχειν τὸ πάθος
ἐπαίρεται[92], (λειχὴν comes from λείχω,—I lick, because they say
the complaint is set up by licking). On this we may say.—there is no
doubt λειχῆνες and λιχῆνες are derived from λείχειν or λίχειν, but
the explanation _Kraus_ gives of the reason in his Lexicon we cannot
think conceivable, viz. “because Lichen, the same as a parasitic plant
does, or a skin-disease in animals, always creeps round further and
further (see _Herpes_,—creeping eruption), or _as it were licks its
way_,” for λείχειν is not so much _lambere_, λάπτειν,—to lick over,
lick along, as _lingere_, _ligurire_[93],—to lick up, lick up greedily.
At the same time it is true the word (_lambere_) was used by the
Romans in a somewhat similar sense, so perhaps we ought not to refer
to _lambit flamma_ (a flame licks), but rather to Plautus’ expression
(_Pers. prolog. 5._), “_quorum imagines lambunt hederae sequaces_”
(whose images creeping ivy-tendrils lick, i. e. entwine). Most probably
there are two different stems underlying the word. Of these one is
λέγειν,—to lay, etc., hence λέγνη, the edging, the border, λίγνυς, soot
(depositing itself on the edge), together with the bye-forms λέχω, λίχω
with which in fact λιχὴν, _moss_[94], so far as it forms on the edge,
the surface, fringes it, would be connected. The other stem will be
λίγω, or λείγω (comp. λίβω and λείβω), λείχω and λείχην, λίγγω, λίζω,
to which would have to be referred also λίγυς and λιγυρὸς,—clear,
shrill (ligurire, lingere,—to lick greedily, to lick), in all of which
the underlying sense is of licking, and the noise connected with it.
It is plain that later on the derivatives of these stems suffered
manifold variations and corruptions; but how much of all this is to
be attributed to speakers and writers among the Greeks themselves,
and how much to subsequent transcribers and editors of their work, it
might be difficult to decide. But every day we have occasion to note a
number of words, to which accident or other circumstances have given an
ambiguous character. These, used quite unsuspectingly by the ignorant,
make the better informed person blush, or else extort a smile from him
that often enough causes the speaker no little embarrassment to know
the reason. Undoubtedly it was the same with the Greeks and Romans,
and so confusions between λίχω and λείχω, λιχὴν and λειχὴν, might have
easily arisen, from which people were subsequently unable to extricate
themselves. Originally perhaps λείχω, equally with _lingo_ and
_ligurio_ (to lick), may have had the simple sense of licking, and only
through later accretions to the meaning, have acquired an ambiguous
character; soon however this got transferred to it to the exclusion of
all others, and we find it used preferentially as the regular word for
_cunnilingere_. The correctness of our conclusion would seem to follow
above all from the passage of _Aristophanes_[95] given below, where it
is the additional words that narrow down the meaning of λείχω (I lick),
and definitely bring out the special signification. The words are said
of Ariphrades, who reminds us of the ἀποφρὰς (unmentionable), the name
Lucian appropriates to Timarchus:
Οὐδὲ παμπόνηρος, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσεξεύρηκέ τι·
τὴν γὰρ αὑτοῦ _γλῶτταν αἰσχραῖς ἡδοναῖς μαίνεται,
ἐν κασαυρίοισι λείχων τὴν ἀπόπτυστον δρόσον_,
καὶ μολύνων τὴν ὑπήνην, καὶ κυκῶν τὰς ἐσχάρας.
(Nor yet utterly villainous is he, but he has discovered yet another
device; for he polluted his own tongue with foul delights, _in the
stews licking up the abominable dew_, defiling the hair on the upper
lip, and tumbling the girls’ _nymphae_).
In the following Epigram[96] of an unknown author λείχω is found used
absolutely, without any supplementary words:
_Χείλων_ καὶ _λείχων_ ἴσα γράμματα· ἐς τί δὲ τοῦτο;
_Λείχει_ καὶ _Χείλων_, κἂν ἴσα, κἂν ἄνισα.
(Χείλων,—a proper name, also means _of the lips_,—and
λείχων,—licking,—have the like letters; now what does this point to?
Chilon licks lips, whether lips like his own, or whether unlike). In
explanation of this Epigram _Forbiger_ says (loco citato p. 326.):
“Lusus in Chilonem cunnilingum. Hunc ait iure quodam suo lingere, qui
vel nomine iisdem literis constante prae se fert lingentem et lingentem
quidem tum labra oris, ut labris ligentis similia, tum cunni, ut
dissimilia.” (Pun on the name of Chilon, a _cunnilingue_. The poet says
he (Chilon) licks by a sort of inherent right of his own, who even in
his name, made up of the same letters, proclaims himself as licking,
and licking now the lips of the mouth, which are like the lips of
the licker, now those of the female organ, which are unlike). Χεῖλος
was in fact used also of the lips of a woman’s organ, the _nymphae_;
the Scholiast on τὰς ἐσχάρας (the _nymphae_) in the passage from
Aristophanes given a little above, interprets this word by τὰ χείλη
τῶν γυναικείων αἰδοίων (the lips of the female privates). According
to _Schneider_ in his Lexicon χείλων (adj.) signifies _thick-lipped_.
Perhaps it was this very Epigram that led _Lambert Bosius_ to make the
statement that χείλων arose by a mere transposition of the letters from
λείχον.
Now if λείχην,—for we consider it should be thus accented,—is derived
from λείχω (I lick), we cannot but regard it as meaning: something
_produced by licking, a complaint brought on by licking_, and
particularly _by the licking of the cunnilingue_! Surely the Greeks
could hardly have expressed themselves more clearly. Then the fact that
the name came from the mouth of the common people is the very best
reason for its not having been understood by the educated. Yet all
the while an entirely similar form of expression has grown up in the
mouth of the German common people, the real meaning of which very few
have fathomed, but which most certainly arose in the same way as the
Greek λείχην. No doubt many of my readers have again and again heard
it said of some one with an eruption round the mouth, that is, someone
suffering from _Herpes labialis_ (Creeping eruption of the lips):
“Well! you _have_ been licking!”—for which educated people substitute
the obviously insufficient, “You _have_ been picking!” Very commonly
again one may hear: “You _have_ been licking _greben_, or picking
_greben_; and this word _greben_ is understood as being identical with
_grieben_,—_greaves_ in English, i. e. the remnants of lard that has
been cut up into pieces and fried, because the separate pustules of
the _herpes labialis_ resemble in appearance the _greaves_. So people
sometimes also say still more explicitly, “You _have_ been licking,
or picking, _greaves_; and one of them has been left sticking to your
mouth, to prove your greediness!”
This explanation may seem a very likely one to many; nevertheless we
incline to believe the word to be of later origin, and to have arisen
from ignorance of the actual facts. We consider it more probable
that _greben_ owes its origin to some corruption of language growing
out of _gremium_, the bosom. We have been led to this conjecture by
a statement of _Adelung’s_ in his Dictionary, Article “Grieben”,
where he says: “In middle-Latin _grieben_, (greaves), were called,
in accordance with a common interchange change of the letters b. and
m. _gremium_”,—though indeed we cannot regard the word as solely and
entirely mediæval Latin, for it is found occurring as early as _Pliny_
(Hist. Nat. XII. 19.) and _Columella_ (Res Rust. XII. 19. 3.), and is
evidently connected with _cremare_ (to burn). So just as in this case
_cremium_ and _gremium_ may have been used interchangeably, has _grebe_
grown out of _greme_ in German, and the latter come to be used as a
synonym of _griebe_,—the latter words according to this having as
little in common with one another as the former. However those better
practised in the science of word formation must here decide!
Now as to the word _Mentagra_ (Tetter, Scab). This was evidently a
word first framed by the Romans, as is distinctly stated not alone by
_Pliny_, but by _Galen_ as well (De compos. medic. secundum locos Bk.
V., edit. Kühn Vol. XII. p. 839.). The latter says: Ἐκδόριον λειχήνων·
ταύτῃ Πάμφιλος χρησάμενος ἐπὶ Ῥώμης πλεῖστον ἐπορίσατο _ἐπικρατούσης ἐν
τῇ πόλει τῆς μεντάγρας λεγομένης_. (Blister for Lichenes (Scabs); in
this way Pamphilus in his practise at Rome made most headway against
_the Mentagra as it was called, then prevalent in the city_). It is
usually considered to be formed on the analogy of _Podagra_, _Chiragra_
(gout of the feet, gout of the hands) etc. from _mentum_, the chin,
and ἄγρα, the act of catching, seizing hold of,—so a disease that
attacks the chin. But more probably all these words are compounded not
with ἄγρα at all, but with ἄλγος (suffering). That is to say just as
ἀλγαλέος, by Attic interchange of letters, becomes ἀργαλέος (grievous),
κεφαλαλγία becomes κεφαλαργία (head-ache), and ληθαλγία, ληθαργία
(drowsiness, lethargy), so from ποδαλγία we get ποδαργία, and then by
metathesis ποδάγρα (gout). (Comp. _Doederlein_ “Lateinische Synonyme
und Etymologien”,—Latin Synonyms and Etymologies Pt. 4. p. 424.). The
remark _Pliny_ adds however “_ioculari primum lascivia_” (at first by
way of jesting mockery) evidently points to some ambiguity underlying
the word. But whether this consists in the recognition of the likeness
in sound between _mentum_, the chin, and _menta_, or _mentula_,
the virile member, or is to be looked for in the ἄγρα, it might be
difficult to determine. Still it seems probable, but without wishing to
entirely exclude the former hypothesis, that the latter is the case, as
will appear directly.
_Galen_[97] distinguishes between λειχὴν ἁπλοῦς and λειχὴν ἄγριος
(simple _lichen_, and malignant _lichen_) in his enumeration of
Skin-diseases, and still more plainly in another place[98] he says:
“λειχὴν is likewise a Skin-disease; there are two forms of it, ὁ μὲν
ἥμερος καὶ πρᾳότερος, ὁ δὲ ἄγριος καὶ χαλεπώτερος (the one benignant
and milder, the other malignant and more serious). But in both of them
minute scales are detached from the skin, and the part of the skin
underneath the scales is reddened and almost ulcerated. The affection
arises from a salt phlegmatic humour (φλέγματος ἁλμυροῦ) and yellow
gall, hence the scales fall from the skin as in glazed pottery-ware
(? ἐπὶ τῶν ἁλμῶν τῶν κεραμίων). The affection is cured by internal
phlegmagogues and external embrocations.” We have already on p. 139.
above, in the footnote on ἄγριος (wild, savage) and χαλεπός (hard,
harsh), noted how these words are used with special reference to the
vice of paederastia, but they are also applied generally to the vice,
the different forms of which we have been examining here. This follows
from _Plato_[99] and _Plutarch_[100], at any rate so far as ἄγριος is
concerned, which indeed we may conveniently render by _vicious_. The
original meaning being overlooked, λείχην and λιχὴν had been taken as
synonymous,—possibly the Latin _lichenos_ first led to the mistake;
then naturally enough an appropriate epithet was sought, to signify
the _lichen_ which was the result of licking in a vicious fashion. But
this according to the already existing mode of speech could be nothing
else than ἄγριος[101] again,—λειχὴν ἄγριος, with which λειχὴν ἁπλοῦς,
_lichen insons_, (simple, innocent _lichen_) was naturally contrasted.
Yet while _Criton_, as cited in _Aëtius_, simply and quite
correctly interpreted Mentagra by ἄγριος λειχὴν (fierce, malignant
lichen), _Galen_ appears to have been still ignorant of the special
meaning. This is shown by the words ἥμερος and πρᾳότερος (gentle,
benignant,—milder), which obviously are correct opposites of ἄγριος
only _if_ the latter is understood, as it is in _Celsus_, as equivalent
to _ferus_ (fierce, malignant), but in no way account for the ἁπλοῦς
(simple, innocent), which Galen no doubt found already established as
distinguishing epithet of λιχὴν. How little he fathomed the nature of
the evil, is proved by his ætiology of it, which makes the complaint
result from the φλέγμα ἁλμυρὸν (salt phlegmatic humour) and the χολὴ
ξανθὴ (yellow gall). The unprofessional _Martial_ had a better word to
say on the subject when he wrote his _sordidique lichenes_ (filthy,
squalid-looking lichens). Similarly it would seem the _agra_ in
Mentagra should be taken as pointing to ἄγριος (fierce, malignant).
Can it be perhaps that in this way the μολύνων τὴν ὑπήνην (polluting
the hair on the upper lip) of _Aristophanes_, the Latin _barbam
inquinare_ (to pollute the beard), have come to be used as synonyms for
_cunnilingere_? _Martial_ seems to imply it by his _triste mentum_,
_mentum periculosum_ (disfigured chin, perilous chin). Perhaps too the
_Sycosis menti_ (Sycosis,—fig-like eruption, of the chin) of _Celsus_
and the later Greek medical writers should likewise be regarded as
coming under this head. At a matter of fact, _Archigenes_ says so in
so many words, as cited in _Galen_ (De comp. med. secundum locos.
Bk. V. edit. Kühn Vol. XII. p. 847.), ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν _συκωδῶν τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ
γενείου, λεγομένων δὲ μενταγρῶν, ὑπὸ δέ τινων λειχήνων ἀγρίων_, ποιεῖ
κ. τ. λ. (but in the case of the sycotic, or fig-like, eruptions
on the chin, which are called mentagrae, and by others malignant
lichens, he proceeds as follows, etc.), and calls the affection of the
chin, as do other Physicians, generally ἐξανθήματα ἐν τοῖς γενείοις
(efflorescences, eruptions on the chin),—p. 824.
If we have thus succeeded in establishing the meanings of _lichens_
and _mentagra_, the rest of the passage of _Pliny_ will admit of easy
explanation. The disease in many cases it seems invaded the whole
face, in the same way as the _atra lues_ (black contagion) in the
passages quoted above from _Martial_ under _fellation_. Perhaps all of
these,—indeed, _Pliny_ also says _lues_,—are the be referred, as is
actually done by _Farnabius_ in his notes, to _mentagra_, seeing that
the disease could perfectly well, though certainly much seldomer, arise
equally from the practise of _fellation_. The _double entendre_ between
_mentum_ (the chin) and _menta_ or _mentula_ (the virile member) would
so acquire all the more point.
The expression _foedo cutis furfure_ (with a horrible scurf of the
skin) appears to have led a number of authors to believe that this was
the capital characteristic of the complaint, and that the distinction
between λιχὴν and λείχην was merely one of degree. This view was
advocated in particular by _Willian_[102], who ascribes it also to
_Paulus Aegineta_[103] as well as to _Oribasius_[104] though both of
these authors limit themselves to saying that the moderately siccative
remedies are of no benefit in λείχην ἄγριος (malignant lichen), whereas
the more violent ones aggravate it, and that for this reason it was
called ἄγριος. Hence Willian’s _Lichen agrius_ (malignant lichen) has
nothing in common with the _lichen_ of the Greeks and Romans but the
mere name, for it follows clearly from the words _foediore cicatrice_
(with a more horrible scar) that occur a little further down in
_Pliny_, that a process of skinning over by ulceration was part of the
disease, and did not owe its existence solely to the caustic remedies
employed.
The _immunity of women_[105] equally admits of easy explanation, for
in the first place women were not likely to have readily conceived
the idea of acting after the manner of a _cunnilingue_[106], and even
if _fellation_ is admitted to be an occasionally concurrent cause of
_mentagra_, still it would seem, as already stated, to supervene much
less often as a consequence of the latter vice; while in cases where it
does, it is of a milder form and it is rather the internal parts of the
mouth that are imperilled. Besides, it is to be remembered that women
generally speaking suffer less frequently from pustulous disorders of
the cutaneous glands affecting the face than men do, as is well seen at
the present day with Acne. In the parts neighbouring on the genitals
this is exactly reversed. Still this immunity of women must not be
insisted on too far, as those persons of the female sex who used to
practise _fellation_, the Summoenianae (women of the suburbs) lay too
completely outside the range of _Pliny’s_ observation.
As to the _servi_ (slaves) and _Plebs humilis_ (Commons of humble
station), these were surely unlikely, however little restraint they
may have put on their sensual appetites, to have readily fallen into
suchlike forms of vice,—forms which spring as a rule from the brain of
unoccupied, rich idlers. We have only to appeal to modern experience
to substantiate this. How many individuals of the lowest and middle
classes have the records of forensic medicine to show as having been
paederasts and so on? Wild aberrations in morals have at no period
begun with the common man! So we see it was the Proceres (Nobles) who
were in an especial degree attacked by the _mentagra_.
At the same time the most conspicuous cause of _mentagra_, the practice
of _cunnilingere_ was by no means the _only_ way of getting it, for
the malady, like _condylomata_ on the genital organs, was evidently
connected with a contagion,—a fact which is clearly enough brought
out by the layman _Pliny_, whereas the Physicians say nothing about
this. Accordingly the disorder was capable of being disseminated by
_kissing_ from one individual to another. But it was not the _velox
transitus osculi_ (swift transmission of a kiss) that was instrumental
in spreading the disease, but rather the _basium_ (wanton kiss),—which
depended on some yet unidentified lascivious device[107], sucking,
playing with the tongue or the like. Still we must remember that at
the very time the _mentagra_ was spreading with such terrible rapidity,
a perfect _mania for kissing_ had broken out at Rome. _Martial_
describes this admirably in the two following Epigrams, which are of
the very highest importance in connection with our subject:
_Book XII. Epigram 59:_