Effugere non est, Basse, basiatores.
Instant, morantur, persequuntur, occurrunt
Et hinc et illinc, usquequaque, quacunque.
_Non ulcus acre pustulaeve lucentes_,
_Nec triste mentum sordidique lichenes_,
Nec labra pingui delibuta ceroto,
Nec congelati gutta proderit nasi.
Et aestuantem basiant et algentem,
Et nuptiale basium reservantem.
Non te cucullis asseret caput tectum,
Lectica nec te tuta pelle veloque,
Nec vindicabit sella saepius clausa.
Rimas per omnes basiator intrabit.
Non consulatus ipse, non tribunatus,
Saevique fasces, nec superba clamosi
Lictoris abiget virga basiatorem.
Sedeas in alto tu licet tribunali,
Et e curuli iura gentibus reddas:
Ascendet illa basiator atque illa:
Febricitantem basiabit et flentem:
Dabit oscitanti basium natantique,
Dabit et cacanti. Remedium mali solum est
Facias amicum, basiare quem nolis.
(_To Bassus_: Escape the kissers, no! it is not to be done, Bassus.
They set upon you, wait for you, pursue you, meet you, here, there,
and everywhere, in every street, at every corner. _Neither acrid ulcer
nor shiny pustules, neither disfigured chin_ nor foul scabs, nor lips
anointed with pink salve, nor the drop at the tip of a frozen nose will
save you. They kiss a man sweating with heat and starving with cold,
nay! even a man keeping his lips pure for the nuptial kiss. A head
muffled in hoods will not exempt you, nor a litter guarded with rug
and curtain, nor the sedan kept closed most of the time get you off.
The kisser will in by every chink. Not the very consulship, not the
tribuneship, not the stern fasces and threatening rod of the shouting
lictor will keep away the kisser. Though you sit exalted on the high
tribunal, or give laws to the people from the curule seat, both to one
and the other the kisser will climb up. He will kiss a man shaking with
fever, and drivelling with cold. He will give a kiss to a man gaping,
to a man swimming, even to a man shitting! The one and only cure for
the plague is to make a real friend, whom you will not need to kiss).
Now we shall be in a position to explain to our satisfaction what
_Martial_ meant by _basia lasciva_ (wanton kisses),—XI. 24.—_basia
maligna_ (pestilent kisses),—XII. 55.—and _Petronius_ (ch. 23.) by his
_conspuere aliquem basio immundissimo_ (to beslobber anyone with a most
filthy kiss); and we shall be in no way surprised at the fact that
_mentagra_ not only attacked the Roman nobles as a virtual epidemic,
but that the _velox transitus osculi_ (the swift transmission of a
kiss) was alleged by Pliny as a reason of its communication.
Finally as to the historical factor in connection with _mentagra_,—it
is implied in the account Pliny gives that it was _only at Rome_ it
was regarded as a new disease. It must have been already known to
the Greeks, for they possessed the name _Lichen_ for it. The Greek
physicians, of whom several of the ones quoted by _Galen_ lived some
considerable time before Claudius, know nothing about the disease being
a new one, while _Galen_ himself says simply, _ἐπικρατούσης_ ἐν τῇ
πόλει τῆς μεντάγρας λεγομέμης, (when the _mentagra_ as it was called
_was prevalent_ in the city). _Plutarch_ again, though he (Symposiaca
bk. VIII. Quaest. 9.) wrote a special Chapter on new diseases, with
particular reference to Elephantiasis, never mentions _mentagra_ at
all. He represents it as having been introduced into Rome from Asia,
and it was from Egypt, the _Genetrix talium vitiorum_ (Mother-land
of suchlike abominations), the Physicians[108] were imported who
understood how to cure the disorder. We have more than once noted that
Asia was the breeding place of sexual excesses, and described how vice
spread from thence over different countries and how as a result of
these practices the affections of the parts naturally concerned that
arose first in Asia subsequently passed on to these same countries.
For Rome this was in an especial degree the case with Egypt, where the
undermining of morality had gone farthest; _Martial_[109] spoke justly
when he said “_Nequitias tellus scit dare nulla magis_,” (No other land
knows better how to produce finished rascality). But the intercourse
with Asia and Egypt arose mainly in the time of Pompey, and became from
that period ever more active, while concurrently luxury was on the
increase and the old Virtus (manly virtue) of the Romans disappearing
more and more every day,—above all when Tiberius by his own example
elevated every form of vice into a sort of fancy article demanded by
fashion.
Not that the Emperor went unpunished, for he himself probably suffered
from _mentagra_. _Julian_[110] says of him, that when Romulus had
invited to the feast of the Saturnalia all gods and Caesars, Tiberius
appeared with the rest, “but when he turned round to take his seat,
on his back could be seen in thousands scars, marks of burnings and
scrapings, indurated weals and callosities, results of his excesses
and wild lusts, cankers and scabs as it were burnt in”. Nay! according
to _Suetonius_[111] his face itself bore _crebri et subtiles tumores_
(a multitude of minute swellings); and _Tacitus_[112] says of him:
_Praegracilis et incurva proceritas, nudus capillo vertex, ulcerosa
facies, ac plerumque medicaminibus interstincta_, (Tall and of a
most graceful, albeit bowed, figure; the head bald, the face covered
_with ulcers_, and generally patched with medical plasters). When
_Galen_[113] mentions a τροχίσκος πρὸς ἕρπητας ὁ Τιβηρίου Καίσαρος (a
lozenge for creeping eruptions, Tiberius Caesar’s), this does not in
any way necessarily imply that this was prescribed as a remedy against
eruptive symptoms on the _face_, for Tiberius, as we see from the
passage quoted from _Julian_, suffered from eruptions on all the other
parts of his body. Even if an affection of the face was intended, the
expression ἕρπης (creeping eruption), in view of the marked tendency
of the disease to spread to neighbouring parts, was not at all an
unnatural one to be used; and we may say, speaking generally, that
the view which holds the Greeks to have indicated by the word ἕρπης
any one definite and distinct form of eruption is entirely mistaken.
_Bertrandi_[114] indeed endeavours to show that _mentagra_ was a form
of malignant tetter. That the application of plasters as a remedy in
_mentagra_ was frequently recommended and employed is shown both by
_Galen_ and _Aëtius_[115].
But in proportion as the exciting cause grew ever more and more common,
the _cunnilingue_ being now no longer contented with girls, but
employing for the satisfaction of his shameful mania women and even
pregnant women as well, and at last actually women during menstruation,
the resulting consequences were bound to occur not only more frequently
but also in a more dangerous form. At first it was merely single
pustules, which appeared round the mouth and took possession of the
chin, and which were confounded with _Sycosis menti_ (Sycosis,—fig-like
eruption of the chin), a complaint liable to arise from other causes
as well and one long since familiar, without attracting particular
attention as anything uncommon. Later on when neither morbid vaginal
phlegm nor yet menstrual blood repelled the _cunnilingue_ any longer,
there was set up a diseased process in the cutaneous glands, the
resulting secretion rapidly drying formed a white crust or scurf, and
this was detached in flakes resembling bran. All this could not fail to
arouse remark, and accordingly the Romans, little practised in medical
diagnosis, saw in it a new disease, which in turn received a new name.
Just as in more modern times the introduction of Venereal disease was
attributed to a leprous Knight from the Holy Land, so now at Rome
_Perusinus, eques Romanus, Quaestorius scriba_ (Perusinus, a Roman
knight, a secretary in the Quaestorian office) was held responsible
for bringing _mentagra_ from Asia. As a matter of fact he probably
got his _mentagra_ in Asia in exactly the same manner in which it was
acquired in Rome,—if indeed we are on general grounds to give any
weight to this part of the story. At any rate modern times have given
us many examples of how much credence mankind is ready to give to an
account of the introduction of a disease by one definite individual.
But the disease did not stop at the cutaneous glands, the hair-glands
were also involved, the hair fell away, and ulcers formed, which spread
around with destructive virulence, as was particularly the case in
Martial’s day. On the other hand it is true deep-seated ulceration
never supervened, but the disease rather extended on the surface from
the face onwards, spreading more or less over the whole of the rest
of the body[116], and thus assumed the form of Psora (Itch) or Lepra
(Leprosy),—a phænomenon we shall have to return to once more later, its
right appreciation being of the utmost importance for the History of
Venereal Disease.
Now, since on the one hand every _cunnilingue_ is not attacked by
_mentagra_, while on the other sometimes ulcers of the inner portion
of the mouth, sometimes _mentagra_, and the latter sometimes local,
sometimes of wide extent, are noted, the following question calls
for an answer. What circumstances conditioned these phænomena and,
generally, the special frequency of _mentagra_ in Italy? Leaving out of
account a variety of other considerations, we are bound in this place
to call in along with other factors of our explanation some special
and particular influence of the _Genius epidemicus_ (the aggregate of
epidemical conditions at large), which just at that time favoured the
rise of skin complaints. However slight the material Antiquity affords
us on this point, and especially so far as concerns the time a little
before and after Our Lord’s birth, still we _do_ find a datum for Italy
at any rate which we certainly ought not to leave unutilized. This is
the statement of _Pliny_ (ch. 5. and Bk. XX. ch. 52.) to the effect
that it was in the time of Pompey the Great, or according to _Plutarch_
(loco citato) in that of Asclepiades, that _elephantiasis_ first showed
itself in Italy. It follows that at that period favourable external
circumstances also were in existence in connection with the conditions
of disease at large,—as indeed the ready extension of _mentagra_ from
the chin onwards to the rest of the body proves even more clearly.
But it must not for a moment be supposed that therefore _mentagra_
was of _epidemic origin_. Without at all wishing to embark on the
consideration of the ætiological factors of _elephantiasis_, we may
just mention the fact that according to Pliny’s account this disease
too, equally with _mentagra_, would seem to have always begun with the
_face_[117]. The conjecture is all but unavoidable, that very possibly
in either case it was the practices of the _cunnilingue_ that supplied
the exciting cause for the misfortune; and this would also probably
explain how it was _elephantiasis_ came to be connected in men’s minds
with the _Morbus phoeniceus_ (Phoenician disease). Still, as already
explained, this would only be equivalent to making it responsible in
_individual_ cases,—cases that tend inevitably to render the proper
understanding of the action of _elephantiasis_, as well as of its
history, considerably more difficult. May it not also be to some extent
the case that under the general name of _elephantiasis_ forms of
disease of very different sorts have been confounded? The views held
by the Ancients on this and on the other skin diseases still remain in
too much obscurity for anyone to be able to give a decisive judgement
on the point. For the rest most probably the _atra lues_ and _scelerata
lues_ (black contagion, abominable contagion), spoken of above,
likewise come under the category of _mentagra_. This we have felt
ourselves constrained to ascribe not solely to the practise of the vice
of the _cunnilingue_ as a cause, but to _fellation_ also,—only that in
the latter case, as we have pointed out, it is rather the inner, in the
former rather the external parts, that became affected.
Morbus Campanus.
(Campanian Disease).
§ 26.
Several of the commentators on _Horace_, and particularly _Laevinus
Torrentius_[118] have referred the much-discussed _Morbus
Campanus_[119] to the head of _mentagra_; accordingly this will be no
inappropriate place at any rate to mention it, though without aiming at
a complete explanation. _Horace_ represents two buffoons, _Messius_ and
_Sarmentus_, as rallying each other for the amusement of the company:
— — Messi clarum genus Osci,
Sarmenti domina extat, ab his maioribus orti
Ad pugnam venere. Prior Sarmentus: _Equi te
Esse feri similem dico._ Ridemus: et ipse
Messius: _Accipio_; caput et movet. _O, tua cornu
Ni foret exsecto frons_, inquit, _quid faceres, cum
Sic mutilus miniteris?_ At illi foeda cicatrix
Setosam laevi frontem turpaverat oris.
_Campanum in morbum_, in faciem permulta iocatus
Pastorem saltaret uti Cyclopa, rogabat;
Nil illi larva aut tragicis opus esse cothurnis.
Multa Cicirrus ad haec.
(Messius was sprung of the renowned race of the Oscans,
Sarmentus’ mistress is yet living; from these ancestors derived, they
came to the fray. First begins Sarmentus: “I declare you are just like
an unbroken horse.” At this sally we laugh, and Messius himself says:
“I accept the likeness,” and tosses his head. “Oh! if your horn had
not been amputated from your brow,” says he then, “what _would_ you
do, since you threaten us so fiercely, mutilated as you are?” Now an
ugly scar disfigured the left side of his shaggy brow. After making a
number of jibes at his _Campanian disease_, and his face, he asked him
to dance the shepherd Cyclops; saying there needed no mask and tragic
buskins. Many jests Cicirrus added as well).
Messius who is chiefly spoken of in the above passage, is in the
first place represented as an Oscan by birth. Now the whole race of
the Oscans was, as _Festus_ informs us, notorious for its unnatural
excesses in matters of Love; we read in him, p. 191: “_Obscum_ duas
diversas et contrarias significationes habet. Nam Cloatius putat eo
vocabulo significari sacrum, quo etiam leges sacrae Oscae dicuntur, et
in omnibus fere antiquis commentariis scribitur _Opicum_ pro Obsco, ut
in Titini fabula quinta: Qui Obsce et Volsce fabulantur, nam Latine
nesciunt. A quo etiam verba impudentia, et elata appellantur obscena,
_quia frequentissimus fuit usus Oscis libidinum spurcarum_.” (_Obscum_
has two different and contrary meanings. For Cloatius considers
_sacred_ to be signified by the word, in which sense sacred laws are
spoken of as leges Oscae (_Oscan_ laws), and in almost all the old
commentaries _Opicum_ is written for _Obscum_, as in the fifth Fable
of Titinius: “Who converse in _Obscan_ and Volscian, because they know
not how in Latin.” Whence also indecent words, and swelling ones,
are called _obscene_, _because the practice of unclean lusts was most
frequent among the Oscans_[120].)
Again on p. 194., “Oscos, quos dicimus, ait Verrius Opscos ante dictos,
teste Ennio, cum dicat: De muris res gerit Opscus. Adiicit etiam,
quod _stupra inconcessae libidinis obscena dicantur, ab eius gentis
consuetudine inducta_. Quod verum esse non satis adducor, cum apud
antiquos omnes fere obscena dicta sint, quae mali ominis habebantur.”
(The _Oscans_, as we call them, Verrius says were formerly called
_Opscans_, on the evidence of Ennius, for he says: “The Opscan directs
his attack upon the walls.” He adds further that _debaucheries of
lawless love are called “obscene”, as taking this name from the habits
of the nation in question_. But I am not sufficiently convinced of the
truth of this, inasmuch as in nearly all the ancient writers things
are called _obscene_ that were held to be of evil omen). However
what the _spurca libido_ (unclean lust) consisted in may be readily
conjectured from the following explanations of _Festus_: _Oscines aves_
Appius Claudius esse ait, quae _ore canentes_ faciant auspicium, ut
_corvus_[121], cornix, noctua, (Divinatory birds—_Oscines_ aves—are,
says Appius Claudius, such as give an augury by _singing with the
mouth_, as _the raven_, the crow, the owl); if only we remember
how the _fellator_, as was shown on a previous page, was nicknamed
_corvus_ (raven). Again in an Epigram of _Ausonius_ already quoted a
_cunnilingue_ is called _Opicus magister_; so that we cannot doubt the
question is here of that vice which is practised with the mouth.
In another Epigram of _Ausonius_ quoted and explained above, where the
different forms of the _obscoena Venus_ (obscene Love) are specified,
Crispa there mentioned practises,
_Et quam Nolanis capitalis luxus inussit_,
(That vice too which headlong wantonness branded on the men of
Nola), and this _capitalis luxus_[122] of the men of Nola, as the
general sense of the whole passage clearly shows, is nothing else but
_fellation_. But the town of Nola was in Campania, and the inhabitants
of Campania again consisted for the most part of Oscans; so whatever
is true of the latter, must needs also apply to the Campanians. The
Nolans and Oscans or Opicans being _fellators_ and _cunnilingues_, the
Campanians must be so too; and as a matter of fact _Plautus_ (Trinum.
II. 4. 144.) tells us: _Campas genus multo Syrorum antidit patientia_,
(The Campanian race far outdoes that of the Syrians in _passivity_).
Now Messius being represented as an Oscan, and this by way of mockery,
as all expounders admit, the point of the jest must evidently refer
to this _luxus capitalis_, and Messius accordingly be regarded as a
_fellator_. Now let us look if this view finds any confirmation in
what follows[123]. First of all Sarmentus says Messius is _equi feri
similis_ (like an unbroken horse). Wherein precisely the satire of this
consists is indeed somewhat doubtful, the commentators maintaining
an obstinate silence on the point; but there _must_ be some allusion
of some sort intended. We can scarcely suppose this to be to the
_Hectoreus equus_ (the Hectorean stallion) of Ovid[124] or the _equus
supinus_ (the stallion lying supine) of Horace,—Sat. II. 7. 50.[125].
The unbroken horse is noticeable as galloping with head down between
the fore-feet, a position taken, as we have already pointed out, by
the _cunnilingue_, but which in accordance with the passage of Lucian
quoted above can equally well be that of the _fellator_[126]. Messius
must have understood the allusion, for he says, “_Accipio_”,—_caput et
movet_, (“I accept”,—and moves his head). Sarmentus takes the movement
as a threat, for he in his turn understands the _equus ferus_ (wild
horse) in yet another sense as _aries_ (a ram)[127], and adds: If only
your horn had not been amputated! What should make you threaten to
butt, _mutilus_ (mutilated)[128] as you are?
Now in explanation of what it was led Sarmentus to indulge in this
jest, Horace goes on to say that Messius carried on the left side
of his brow a hideous scar. At this Sarmentus directs his wit,
making allusion to the _Campanus morbus_ (Campanian disease) and
Messius’ disfigured face, finishing up by asking the latter _pastorem
saltaret uti Cyclopa_ (to dance the shepherd Cyclops), adding that
for this he would need neither mask nor tragic buskins. But the
_Campanus morbus_[129] is indeed nothing else but the _capitalis
luxus_ (headlong wantonness) of the Nolans, the peculiar vice of the
Oscans, _fellation_ in fact, which Messius practised, and to which
he owed his _foeda cicatrix_ (hideous scar), his disfigured face;
and on both these points Sarmentus proceeds to rally him at great
length (_permulta iocatus_,—indulging in very many jests), without
Horace however recording his wit any further. In the _pastorem Cyclopa
saltare_ (to dance the shepherd Cyclops) again is contained an allusion
that has hitherto been quite misunderstood, one which _Lucian_ in
his Pseudologistae (ch. 27.) will best explain for us. He says to
Timarchus: “But in Italy, great gods! you acquired the heroic nickname
of ὁ Κύκλωψ (the Cyclops), because at one time you wanted to practise
your vice in imitation of the old legend, as it is found in _Homer_,
and actually, as you lay there drunk, held the κισσύβιον (wassail-bowl)
in your hand like a wanton Polyphemus; and the young man hired for the
purpose with outstretched _hasta_ (spear), that was well sharpened,
threw himself upon you like another Odysseus, to thrust out your
eye[130].
Yet did he miss his aim, and the spear turned slantwise beside you;
So that its point sped past, the edge of your chin merely grazing.
Thus it is by no means unreasonable to speak of you as using
“cold-mouthed phrases” (Ψυχρολογεῖν). But you, Cyclops, opening your
mouth, and gaping as wide as mortal man can, had your cheeks plugged
by him, or better you longed, as Charybdis with the ships was fain to
swallow down helm and sail and all, you longed to absorb the whole
Οὖτις (No-man).”
Finally the nickname Messius bears, _Cicirrus_ or _Cicerrus_, would
seem to embody a jesting allusion, as it was no doubt given him on
account of his throaty, croaking voice. It signifies the same thing as
κερκίδες (hawks) in Dio Chrysostom, and like that word is to be derived
from κέρχω (to croak)[131].
The _Morbus Phoeniceus_ (Phoenician disease) was not, as we have seen,
elephantiasis at all, and neither was the _Morbus Campanus_ (Campanian
disease) mentagra. But just as elephantiasis might supervene as a
consequence of _Morbus Phoeniceus_, so the _foeda cicatrix_ (hideous
scar), a mark left behind it by a previous malady, was a consequence
of the _Morbus Campanus_. Now what was the nature of this malady that
the mark it left behind showed as a _foeda cicatrix_, is precisely
what we would wish to determine. The Commentators all take the _cornu
exsectum_ (a horn amputated) as giving the explanation, though this is
by no means absolutely necessary according to the general drift of the
passage as explained; and Sarmentus might perfectly well under these
circumstances, arguing from the presence of a scar, assume or at any
rate profess to assume as the cause from which this had originated,
the previous existence of a horny excrescence, without the latter as
an actual matter of fact having ever had any previous existence. To
us at any rate the _cornu exsectum_ appears to stand in only a remote
connection with the _foeda cicatrix_, which was no doubt later on made
the subject of manifold further witticisms; only Horace has given us no
more details about the matter, either because they had entirely escaped
his memory, or possibly because he had not perfectly grasped the point
of these jokes. Certainly the conspicuously placed _at_ (but) seems to
point to a distinction of what follows from what precedes—unless indeed
it is so placed merely to mark the transition from the _oratio directa_
to the _oratio indirecta_.
However, granted there actually was an excrescence previously existing,
which had been removed by the knife, of what nature was the said
excrescence? It is scarcely possible, with Heindorf, to suppose the
Satyriasis of Aristotle[132] to be intended here; with much greater
probability _Schneider_ in his Greek Dictionary, under the word
διονυσιακὸς (Dionysiac, connected with Dionysus) drew attention to the
definition of _Galen_ (edit. Kühn XIX. p. 443.): διονυσίσκοι εἰσὶν
ὀστώδεις ὑπεροχαὶ ἐγγὺς κροτάφων γιγνόμεναι. λέγονται δὲ κέρατα ἀπὸ
τῶν κερασφορούντων ζάων κεκλημένα. (διονυσίσκοι are bony excrescences
growing near the temples, and they are called horns, so named from
the animals that carry horns). A passage of _Heliodorus_ (_Cocchi
Ant., Graecorum chirurgici libri, e collect. Nicetae Florent._ 1754.
fol., p. 125.) which _Oribasius, De fracturis_, has preserved, gives
a slightly different account; it reads: Ὀστώδης ἐπίφυσις ἐν παντὶ μὲν
γίγνεται μέρει τοῦ σώματος, πλεοναζόντως δὲ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ, μάλιστα
δὲ πλησίον τῶν κροτάφων·Ὅταν δὲ δύο ἐπιφύσεις γένωνται πλησιάζουσαι
τοῖς κροτάφοις, κέρατα ταῦτα τινες εἴωθασιν ὀνομάζειν, ἔνιοι δὲ
_διονυσιακοὺς_ τοὺς οὕτω πεπονθότας ἀνθρώπους προσηγόρευσαν. (Bony
outgrowth may occur in every part of the body, but pre-eminently on
the head, and particularly near the temples. But when there are two
such growths in the neighbourhood of the temples, some are wont to call
them _horns_, but others name the patients so afflicted διονυσιακοὶ).
Then follows the description of the outgrowth, and the method of its
removal by excision. On this passage _Cocchi_ found an old marginal
gloss from the hand of Nicotas (?), κέρατα μὲν λέγεται ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν
κεράτων ἐκφύσεως, τῶν γιγνομένων τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζώοις. _Διονυσιακοὺς_ δὲ
αὐτοὺς προσαγορεύουσιν, ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐμφερείας _ὡς αὐτός_
φησιν ἐν τοῖς χειρουργουμένοις,—(they are called horns from the growth
of the horns that appear on the lower animals. And they name them
διονυσιακοὶ from the likeness to the god Dionysus, as he says himself,
in the carved figures),—which on the whole confirms the statement of
Heliodorus, though he (Cocchi) prefers, following this indication,
to emend the passage of Galen also so as to read, διονυσιακοί, _οἷς_
ὀστώδεις ὑπεροχαὶ ἐγγὺς κροτάφων _γίγνονται_, (Dionysiaci, so they are
called, i. e. those in whom bony excrescences grow near the temples).
This much, that we should read διονυσιακοὶ for διονυσίσκοι, is evident,
but whether the rest of the emendations are to be accepted may well
be open to doubt, as the second clause of the sentence, “and they are
called κέρατα (horns), so named from the animals that carry horns”,
obviously implies that the term διονυσιακοὶ is used in reference not to
the individual, but to the outgrowth. Schneider indeed agrees with the
emendation of Cocchi, but has in error put Sarmentus in the place of
Messius.
Now supposing the latter has actually had an earlier bony outgrowth,
it is not exactly evident why after its skilful removal a _foeda
cicatrix_ (hideous scar) should have remained,—if indeed we do not
prefer to regard the _foedus_ (hideous, foul) as perhaps pointing to
the _cause_ that had occasioned the outgrowth in question. In that case
it would certainly be interesting to see thus referred to the vice of
the _fellator_ affections of the bones carrying the same meaning as our
own tophi (concretions on the bone in gouty affections). But in all
probability it was merely cutaneous tubercles that had been removed
by surgical means, the actual cautery or the knife, and these, as is
invariably their nature to do, had left behind an ugly scar. Thus
Messius would seem to have resembled Calvus _tuberossimae frontis_
(with brow most thickly covered with tubercles) in Petronius (ch. 15.)
and the face represented on a gem, of which a delineation is said to be
found in _Corius’_ Museum Etruriae Plate II. fig. 3.,—a work we have
been unable to procure. But enough of the Morbus Campanus[133]!
Sodomy, or Bestiality.
§ 27.
In the various forms of vice hitherto considered we have seen mankind
approximating more and more closely to the animal and putting himself
to a greater or less degree on the same footing; now we behold him in
_Sodomy_[134] sinking finally far _below_ the level of the animal,
renouncing not merely the human but even the animal nature, in virtue
of which he has been able so far to call himself at lowest a member of
the species. So it is with complete justice that _Plutarch_[135] says:
“At gallus si gallum conscendat absente gallina, vivus comburitur,
aruspice aliquo pronuntiante grave atroxque id esse ostentum. Ita
ipsi homines hoc confessi sunt, castitate a brutis se superari, eaque
naturae vim non facere voluptatum percipiendarum causa. Vestras
libidines natura, quamquam legis auxilio fulta, tamen intra suos non
potest coercere fines: quin eae instar fluvii exundantes atrocem
foeditatem, tumultum confusionemque naturae gignant in re venerea. Nam
et capras, porcas, equas iniverunt viri, et feminae insano mascularum
bestiarum amore exarserunt. Ex huiusmodi enim coitibus vobis sunt
Minotauri, Silvani seu Aegipanes atque (ut mea fert sententia) etiam
Sphinges et Centauri nati[136]. Enimvero fame coactus canis aut avis
aliquando cadavere humano vescitur; ad coitum nullus unquam est homo a
bestia sollicitatus, bestias vero cum ad hanc, tum ad alias voluptates
vos vi trahitis ac contra jus usurpatis.” (But if the cock tread
the cock in the absence of the hen, he is burned alive, any augur
pronouncing this to be a serious and sinister prodigy. Thus men have
themselves admitted that they are surpassed by brutes in chastity,
and that the latter do not do violence to nature with a view to the
gratification of their desires. Whereas your lusts nature cannot,
though seconded by the aid of law, restrain within their due bounds, or
stay them from overflowing like a river in flood and producing horrid
abominations, a wild cataclysm and confusion of nature in matters of
love. For men have had intercourse with she-goats and sows and mares,
while women have been inflamed with mad love of male beasts. Indeed
it is from such unions that your Minotaurs have been engendered,
and Silvani or Aegipans, and—as I suppose,—the Sphinxes too and
Centaurs[136]. True under compulsion of hunger, dog and bird sometimes
feed on a human corpse; but no man has ever been invited to coition by
any beast, though you constrain beasts by force to this as well as to
other shameful pleasures, and use them contrary to all right).
Like all other forms of vicious lust, Sodomy too was an outcome of
Asiatic[137] and Egyptian luxury, and already in quite early times
familiar in those regions,—in fact, as is the case with sexual excesses
generally, this vice appears to have developed from the religious cult
of the countries named. Among the Egyptians[138] at any rate we meet
with Mendes, the sacred Goat or Pan, worshipped by means of Sodomy on
the part of his female devotees, who were shut up along with him.
_Boettiger_[139] goes so far as to conjecture that the tame snakes
in the temple of Aesculapius, which were also kept in private
houses[140] as a plaything of the women, were trained and employed
by them for purposes of Sodomy. In confirmation a passage is brought
forward in this connection by _Forberg_, loco citato, p. 368, from
_Suetonius_[141], in which the mother of Augustus, Atia, is spoken
of: “In Asclepiadis Mendetis Θεολογουμένων libris lego, Atiam cum
ad sollemne Apollinis sacrum media nocte venisset, posita in templo
lectica, dum ceterae matronae dormirent, obdormisse; draconem repente
irrepsisse ad eam paulloque post egressum: illamque expergefactam
_quasi a concubitu mariti purificasse se_ et statim in corpore eius
exstitisse maculam, velut depicti draconis, nec potuisse unquam
eximi, adeo ut mox publicis balneis perpetuo abstinuerit”[142]. (In
the books of the _Theologoumena_ (sacred writings) of the Asclepiad
Mendes I read how Atia, who had come to the wonted festival of Apollo
at midnight, when her litter had been set down in the Temple, and
the other matrons were sleeping, herself fell asleep; how a snake
suddenly crept in to her, and presently emerged again; and how on
waking she _purified herself as after intercourse with her husband_,
and immediately there appeared a mark on her body, representing the
likeness of a snake, which could never be got rid of, so much so that
soon she left off ever after frequenting the public baths).
However the Roman women seem to have especially made use of the
ass[143] for the satisfaction of their _nymphomania_, an animal that
was famed in Antiquity for its salaciousness.
That under such circumstances the women’s genitals, and the men’s no
less, were exposed to many sorts of injury, may be readily supposed;
though we have sought in vain so far for any direct evidence of
the fact. So we may perhaps be allowed to quote here an observation
originating with _Abu Oseibah_, De vitis medicorum illustrium, (On
the Lives of Famous Physicians), according to _Reiske_[144]. This
properly speaking belongs to a later period chronologically, but it is
pertinent in the present connection. Reiske says: “Caput XIII. habet
observationem—2. de ingenti _penis inflammatione, quae nata fuerat ex
impuro cum bestia concubitu_, cum coruncula urethram obstruente, sanata
modo prorsum empirico atque crudeli. Impositum glabro lapidi penem
medicus subito praeter aegri expectationem, qua poterat vi percutiebat
manu in pugnum coacta, ut obturaculum et ulcus dissiliret. Sapit hic
casus _luem veneream_; et posset inservire illis pro argumento, qui
morbum hunc etiam veteribus cognitum fuisse contendunt. Cadit autem is
casus circa annum Christi 940.” (Chapter XIII contains the following
observation,—2. Of a violent _inflammation of the penis, which had
originated in unclean intercourse with a beast_, with a coruncle, or
knot, constricting the urethra, cured in a manner to the last degree
empirical and cruel. The penis being laid on a rough stone, the
Physician suddenly when the patient was not expecting it, struck it as
heavily as ever he could with his doubled fist, so that the stoppage
and ulcer might burst. This case has a smack of the _Venereal disease_
about it; and might serve as an argument for those who hold that this
disease was known to the Ancients as well. But the case falls about the
year of Our Lord 940.)
Climate.
§ 28.
Now that we have made ourselves acquainted with the various use
to which the Ancients put the genital organs, we are confronted
inevitably with the question,—how were the genitals themselves
affected by it all? Impossible to suppose they can have preserved
their integrity absolutely intact, while at the same time such parts
as were substituted in use for the one or the other form of them,
were exposed,—as is abundantly proved by the different diseases
described, diseases affecting the _pathic_, the _fellator_ and the
_cunnilingue_ respectively,—to manifold complaints, and very often
had to pay severely for the misuse to which they were put. Granting
that the unnatural use of the mouth and the rectum must necessarily
have endangered those parts specifically more than the penis, an organ
particularly adapted and intended for friction, still this will by no
means imply the entire immunity of the latter from ill effects. Indeed
the fact of such immunity is sufficiently disproved by the passages
quoted specifically under paederastia, without taking into account
at all the large number of actual maladies of the genitals that are
mentioned by professional and non-professional writers of Antiquity.
With some of these we have already made acquaintance,—maladies which no
one would for a moment think of ascribing _exclusively_ to the practice
of the vice of paederastia.
Accordingly we must look for other factors, which being in part
unconnected with the use of the genitals, are not like this to be
regarded as an immediately efficient cause, but rather as predisposing
circumstances, exercising from the first an independent influence on
the normal condition of those organs. For mere use or misuse cannot
possibly be taken as in itself a sufficient reason to account for
disease, even though the Ancients may have looked upon complaints
of the genitals partly as a direct consequence of _illicita Venus_
(unlawful Love), or in other words as it were a result of the vengeance
of outraged Nature. The genitals, like all organs of the human body,
exhibit over and above their functional activity on behalf of the
general organism and its reproduction, evidences also of an independent
activity directed towards the maintenance of their own integrity
and individual existence,—and these are bound to differ more or
less according to difference of locality and difference of time, as
indeed may be predicated of the organism as a whole, if we trust the
indications it gives.
Now this differentiation according to locality is conditioned above
all else by climate; hence the question we have now first of all to
answer is this: _what influence did climate manifest in Ancient times
on the activity of the genital organs in general and in particular?_
and, _to what extent may a factor favourable to the rise of affections
of the genitals be deduced from it?_ True, direct information on the
point has so far reached us only sparingly, still such as we have is
enough to justify a general view on the whole question, especially if
we reinforce it with the results of more recent observation,—always
provided this be done with proper precaution, for we sometimes find
the Ancients commending the climate of a particular country as being
exceedingly healthy, whereas in more modern times exactly the opposite
is noted. As the evidence extant and available extends only to Asia,
and in particular Syria, Palestine and Asia Minor, to Egypt, Greece
and Italy, there can for the present be no question except as to the
climate of these countries.
Next as to _the influence of sexual activity in general_,
_Hippocrates_[145] himself tells us, after discussing the climate
of Asia: “But ἡδονή (pleasure) must necessarily predominate (among
them), and this is why among animals so many varieties are found; and
I suppose this to be equally true in the case of the Egyptians and
Lydians also.” Of course ἡδονή in this passage signifies concupiscence
in particular;—no special proof is needed of this. As a matter of fact
we observe at the present day how in hot climates, where the whole
vegetative life presents a luxuriant character, and all Nature appears
to feel the procreative impulse unceasingly, man too falls in with the
universal stress and strain of each species to maintain its foothold.
Yet as this must inevitably be done at the expense of the individual
life, we see the effort very frequently resulting in the production of
barren or sexless blossoms, and not fruit at all. The son of the South
is like a tree growing in rich, rank soil; he ripens betimes to the
sexual life, but equally early is constrained to abandon it again. The
youthful imagination springs up in its fresh quick activity, while the
body withers concurrently, and stung by lust,—lust that is yet further
exaggerated by the misuse of _aphrodisiacs_, at last has nothing left
but to drag out an invalid existence, finding a morbid gratification
in the artificial ways and means whereby imagination, sickened and
debauched by its own extravagances, seeks to supply from extraneous
sources the failing titillation of desire the organ craves. No better
confirmation of all this can be found than what is supplied already in
our investigations as so far conducted.
We saw how in Asia lust and its abominable brood arose and extended
thence over neighbouring lands, and how the rhythmic rites of the
_Venus ebria_ (drunken Venus) could indeed refine, but hardly
increase their excesses. Babylon, Syria and Egypt were the nurseries
of licentiousness, finding only at Rome a really self-taught and
competent rival. The clear sky of Greece could cover only inhabitants
of corresponding character in body and mind, and none but a Greek
was capable of setting up the ideal, and verifying it in practice,
of a fair soul in a fair body. Deep as the Greek may have sunk in
degradation after the fall of national liberty and under foreign
influence, and though unbridled lust may have often mastered
individuals, it never dominated the nation as a whole, it was
artificially brought into existence and was never dependent on climate.
Even at Rome, colossal as was the scale on which vice manifested
itself, it ever remained but a foreign importation, for which foreign
wantons had first paved the way at a period when the climate of Asia
exerted a more immediate influence there than that of Greece.
Like licentiousness in general, Polygamy also, in part owing its
existence to it as it does, was a consequence of the Asiatic climate;
but how far it may be fairly held to have influenced the rise of
Venereal disease, we do not as yet venture to decide; we feel
constrained to keep this point over for later investigations. The same
applies to Polyandry,—in its strict sense, when we regard it as a
form of marriage; though of course over and above this it comes into
connection with vice, inasmuch as every prostitute lives in a state of
Polyandry, as does every amateur of the sex in one of Polygamy. Under
these circumstances affections of the genitals cannot but arise among
persons otherwise healthy, as every Physician of large practice can
verify by examples, and as experiments on animals have sufficiently
demonstrated to be the case[146]. Nevertheless these hints, for we
cannot and ought not to look upon them as anything more than hints,
as any more complete discussion would carry us too far a-field for
our present purpose,—may very well suffice to recall to the reader’s
memory the influence exerted by climate on the genital functions,
especially as adequate proofs in confirmation of all this are comprised
in our preceding Sections.
§ 29.
Far more important in view of our immediate object is the _influence
exerted by Climate on the individual activity of the genital organs_,
and here again we have in the first place to fix our eyes on Asia and
Egypt. The burning rays of the sun to which these regions and their
inhabitants are exposed, increase in a marked way the activity of the
skin, and of course in the same proportion do the secretions from the
mucous surfaces become less in quantity, but their product more highly
charged in quality. Then, this being the case, a certain acridity or
corroding quality of the secretion is readily set up, often making
itself noticeable by a characteristic smell. This same influence
must equally manifest itself in the mucous membrane of the inner
parts of the genitals, and vaginal mucus accordingly acquire an acrid
quality[147], if it is not removed pretty frequently from the surface
of the membrane, and becoming as it were rancid, exert a corrosive
effect on everything it comes in contact with[148].
Now shortly before as well as shortly after the commencement of
menstruation the secretion of mucus in the genitals is increased,
and thus the menstrual blood, having in any case a tendency to
decomposition, will mingle with this acrid, strong-smelling mucous
discharge, and in this way assume a foul, acrid character itself[149].
This is the origin of the ill repute into which menstrual blood, and
this especially in hot climates, has fallen from the earliest times
onwards, for no doubt the virulent qualities alleged against it really
belong to it solely and entirely as a result of the admixture with it
of this vaginal mucus. Sea-water and fresh river-water are each of them
separately innocuous for health, but mix them together so as to make
brackish water, and the exhalations given off become highly detrimental!
A similar state of things exists also in connection with the male
genital organs. The surface of the _glans penis_, where it lies
contiguous to the external skin, exhibits along with the latter an
increased secretion from the sebaceous follicles[150], the discharge
from which, if it is allowed to remain any length of time between
the prepuce and the _glans_[151], likewise acquires an acrid quality;
then re-acting on these parts, sets up an inflammatory condition of
the aforesaid sebaceous follicles. “In fact”, says _Niebuhr_[152] “the
Medical Officer of the English at Haleb (Russel) ascertained that in
hot countries more copious humours collect about the _glans penis_ than
in cold; and a friend of mine in India, who in that hot climate had
employed only the ordinary European precautions to ensure cleanliness,
got a sort of ulcers on the _glans_, an inconvenience he would have
been much more likely to escape, had he been circumcised. Subsequently
he always washed this part of his person very carefully, and from
that time forth experienced no trace of a recurrence of the trouble.
Washing the whole body and particularly the privates is an absolute
necessity in hot countries; and it is perhaps for this reason that the
religious founders of the Jews, the Mohammedans, the Fire-Worshippers,
the Heathen in India, etc., have commanded the observation of this
practice.”
In close accord with this is the story _Flavius Josephus_[153] relates
of _Apion_ the Egyptian: “Wherefore it appears to me Apion deservedly
paid a fitting penalty for his scorn of ancestral customs; for only
when forced by necessity was he circumcised, ulceration having been
set up about his privates (his _glans penis_); and as a matter of fact
the circumcision proved vain, for gangrene supervened, and he died in
terrible pain.” Again the passage just quoted will also afford a clear
understanding of the following from _Philo_[154]:
“Therefore were it more becoming, quitting childish and frivolous
mockery altogether, intelligently and earnestly to investigate the
causes in which this custom (Circumcision) originated, rather than
to accuse whole nations of folly in a spirit of mere prejudice.
It certainly does not seem probable to an intelligent enquirer,
approaching the question in this mood, that so many thousands of
folk in every age should have been circumcised without a sufficient
cause, submitting to great pain merely to mutilate their own and
their children’s bodies. On the other hand there are many inducements
to adopt outright and follow up the custom of our forefathers; and
in an especial degree the four following. First, _the prevention of
a virulent disease and one very difficult to cure_. This is known
as _Anthrax_,—a denomination derived, as I suppose, from the ardent
(fierce) burning (ἀπὸ τοῦ καίειν ἐντυφόμενον) that accompanies it,
and _readily arises in such as have the foreskin intact_. Secondly, to
secure that purity of the whole person obligatory upon the Priestly
caste. Whence it comes that the Priests in Egypt also scrupulously
shave the whole body; for there is something collects and is deposited
underneath the hair as well as under the foreskin, that must be
removed.”
From a comparison of these two passages from Niebuhr and from Philo
respectively it may be gathered that the _anthrax_ disease above
mentioned did not in any way owe its rise to a _specifically_
syphilitic origin, as has been now and again assumed by different
enquirers. What we really learn from them is to recognize the liability
of the sebaceous follicles of the _glans penis_ to lapse into a
condition of ulceration. True this tendency can be minimised to some
extent by circumcision, as well as by unremitting care to secure
cleanliness; yet it can never be completely removed, conditioned as
it really is by climatic influences that do not admit of elimination.
When once the corroding vaginal mucus of the woman, particularly in
combination with the menstrual blood with its readiness to undergo
putrefaction[155] re-acting on the mucous membrane, has set up sores
and ulcers, then follows as a necessary consequence a still more
dangerous mixture of matter and mucus. Next when under these conditions
the man’s _glans_, possessing as it does an equally great liability in
its cutaneous glands to be attacked by ulceration, enters in coition a
vagina in this state, it cannot occasion much surprise if blennorhoea
of the urethra or ulceration of the _glans penis_ supervene[156],
especially if we consider the fact that the act of coition sets the
organs concerned in enhanced activity, making them more susceptible
than ever to external injurious irritations. This is yet more likely to
be the case, as concurrently a large amount of secretion is yielded by
the morbidly affected mucous surface of the vagina, and very possibly
this secretion undergoes under the influence of nervous excitation (as
the saliva does under the influence of anger) some vital-chemical,
contagious alteration of composition. Again supposing the woman to be
at the time of coition actually in menstruation, a period when her
genital organs are _ipso facto_ roused to a condition of exaggerated
activity, the disturbance must be yet greater, and the mischief
resulting even more manifest.
This will in part account for the fact that ulcers on the genitals,
brought about by coition, are so ready in Asia to assume a putrid
character, and show that the Ancients had good reason to designate them
by the name ἄνθραξ (anthrax, malignant pustule). For that ἄνθραξ was
actually a consequence of coition we may see from a passage, already
cited by Hensler and Simon, from Bishop _Palladius_[157], who relates
of a certain Hero, how the Demon led him to Alexandria, how he there
visited theatres and horse-races, and roamed round the taverns. “And
thus, being by this time a glutton and a drunkard, he _fell moreover
into the mire of lust after women_; and being now set upon sinning,
_he lived with a certain actress_, (and had carnal intercourse with
her?). _Then when he had done all this, by a (Divine) providence he
got an “anthrax” on the glans penis; and was so sick for six months
that his (private) parts rotted away and dropped off of themselves._
But subsequently recovering and getting off with the loss of these
members, coming to a knowledge of God and a remembrance of the heavenly
kingdom, and after confessing all that had befallen him, he fell asleep
a few days afterwards, without having had the time to manifest works
(of repentance).” In spite of the difficulties some of the expressions
in the text exhibit, the main fact is perfectly plain, and admits of
no doubt whatever, viz. that Hero had brought the ἄνθραξ on himself by
carnal intercourse with an actress, and the moral reflections Palladius
tags on to it cannot invalidate the fact. The objections _Astruc_
raises against the conclusiveness of the passage have already been
refuted by _Hensler_ (Geschichte der Lustseuche,—History of Venereal
Disease, I. pp. 317 sqq.), who while citing as parallel instances the
passages adduced by _Becket_ from the early XVth Century, very justly
remarks: “What proof _would_ they have, if this is not conclusive?”
Did the female genitals perhaps receive the names ἐσχάρα (scab) and
ἄνθραξ (malignant pustule), _because_ they very often made men a
present of these things?!
In any case it is an interesting fact that to this day in India
_anthrax_ and chancrous ulcers are looked upon as akin, and both
according to _Sir William Jones_ (Asiatic Researches Vol. II.) are
known by the name Nar Farsi or Ateshi Farsi (_Ignis Persicus_—Persian
Fire) to the Cabirajas or Indian physicians. Now if we think of the
great care taken by the Jews to ensure the multiplication of their
race, the readiness with which various forms of ulceration pass over
into mortification in hot localities,—as is shown by the examples of
Apion and Hero,—and consequently the serious liability of the organs
of generation to be destroyed, it will occasion less surprise when we
read among the laws of _Moses_[158] the following injunction: “And if a
man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her
nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the
fountain of her blood; and both of them shall be cut off from among
their people.” Surely great and serious resulting injuries must in no
inconsiderable number of instances have been before his eyes for a
Lawgiver to feel himself constrained to assign the death penalty to
the act of coition with women during menstruation,—and this in spite
of the fact that he had already in a general way declared the woman
at this time, as well as everything she touched, to be unclean. Again
on the other hand coition with women in this condition must with the
Jews have been amongst things practised with more than ordinary
frequency, if only such an extreme punishment availed to check it;
and so we cannot really be surprised to find that the Holy Books of
that Nation perhaps earlier than the writings of any other People were
acquainted only too well with diseases of the genital organs acquired
by coition. The particular disease that broke out in consequence of the
worship of Baal-Peor has been discussed above in §§ 8 and 9; while the
fact that the Mosaic books contain the first traces of a knowledge of
_Gonorrhoea_ has long been regarded as proved beyond a doubt[159].
If the Climate already exerted such an influence on the aboriginal
inhabitants, how much greater must this have been where foreigners
were concerned, on whom all endemic excitants of disease in a country
notoriously work with augmented virulence. In Antiquity this fact must
have been even more conspicuously true, inasmuch as at that period the
Nations still remained much more unmixed than they subsequently became.
It is a thing which always hitherto, speaking generally, has been far
too little taken account of by Pathologists, but which is surely of
vast importance in connection with the rise and spread of Venereal
disease,—without its being in any way implied that we must necessarily
therefore adopt the theory of its American origin[160]. If we are not
much mistaken, this factor was operative also in the case of the Plague
of Baal-Peor. Now what holds good for the Jews, must equally hold good
for the other peoples of Asia and of Egypt, and even in an enhanced
degree, since these, as we have seen above, gave way to vicious
indulgence to a yet more excessive degree.
Nevertheless, then as now distinctions no doubt existed, and probably
in Antiquity as at the present day there were districts, whose
physical conditions of climate might be regarded as actually forming
a counteracting factor, and where in spite of excesses the genital
organs seldom became diseased. The evidence for this must be given
by later investigations, for we must of necessity first possess a
geographical Nosology of Venereal disease at the present day, if we
are ever to succeed in finding and utilizing the materials for the
same in Antiquity. What has been so far collected by the meritorious
_Schnurrer_ in his Geographical Nosology is too incomplete to justify
us at present in drawing any certain conclusions, more particularly as
the greatest part of the material contributed by him is drawn from the
communications of non-medical enquirers.
The climate of _Greece_ neither exercised any pre-eminently
stimulating effect on the sexual activity of the genitals, nor yet did
it afford a ground for the enhancement of their individual activity.
Thus enjoying as it did in consequence of that happy combination of
its seasons justly celebrated by ancient Writers[161] the advantages,
without the disadvantages, of the Tropics, and its inhabitants
possessing all functions in a more vigorous proportion, the climate
could not possibly have been directly favourable to the rise of
affections of the genitals; and for this reason made unnecessary all
precautionary measures aimed at them, such as were required in Asia.
_Italy_ exhibits but little analogy with the Greek climate; still it
cannot certainly without considerable qualification be reckoned among
factors favourable to maladies of the genital organs. From this we
may at any rate partly explain why the physicians of Greece and Rome
give so little satisfactory information on the diseases in question,
though indeed, as we shall see presently, in this case other and quite
distinct factors were at work.
§ 30.
We have now seen that Climate is _ipso facto_ an important factor
favourable to the rise of affections of the genital organs. How much
_more_ powerful an influence must it exert on such affections when
already in existence. Thus the question, _what influence did Climate
manifest in Antiquity on the character and course of affections of the
genitals_, is one of the utmost moment in connection with a History of
Venereal disease,—the more so as on a correct answer being given to
it depends the correctness of our views as to the form taken in such
cases by the morbid process in Ancient times. True such a question
presupposes the existence of these affections, and ought therefore,
strictly speaking, only to be raised after the conclusion of our
present investigations. However we think enough evidence has already
been adduced in the preceding pages to remove all possible doubt from
the mind of an attentive reader as to such being the case. Besides,
this appears to us the more convenient course,—to survey in its
entirety the influence exerted by Climate, rather than to take up our
investigation of the subject afresh in different places, and thus to a
greater or less extent mangle the discussion of it.
Preponderance of the vegetative principle combined with a certain
slackness of tissue is the character of all organisms coming under
the influence of the climate of Southern lands. In these countries an
extra-ordinary stimulus acts on the mucous membrane of the genitals,
and the character described will find its expression here also.
Reaction will proceed not so much from the arterial side, or show
itself under the guise of sthenic inflammation, but rather take the
form merely of intensified secretion. What this increased secretion
aims at is the removal of the abnormal stimulus, and the flow of
mucus so originating manifests itself as simple, so to speak merely
catarrhal, blennorrhoea. This, where the atmosphere is not impregnated
with moist vapours, readily disappears, if only somewhat greater care
is bestowed on the maintenance of cleanliness,—and all the more so, as
re-absorption, which in hot climates acts vigorously on all the mucous
membranes generally, very soon gets the upper hand again in the case
of that of the genital organs, seconded as it is by the activity of
the external skin. The latter is always in a condition of enhanced
action at the same time, while the extent of its surface of course
markedly exceeds that of the mucous membrane of the genitals. On the
other hand where the atmosphere is especially moist, the activity of
the skin, as well as the process of re-absorption internally, appears
to be less; and so under these circumstances the mucous flow will
assume more of a chronic character, but at the same time to an even
greater degree be free from inflammatory reaction.
All the more recent observations agree in one thing, viz. that in
Southern countries the gonorrhoeal forms predominate, and speaking
generally, almost always run a mild course that hardly calls for
medical interference. There is no doubt Climatic conditions in
Antiquity differed but little from those of to-day; so that we may
safely assume that equally in Ancient times blennorrhoea showed the
same general characteristics, a fact which existing traditions moreover
prove beyond question. The frequency of blennorrhoea of the genital
organs in Antiquity is shown at once by the just quoted passage from
the Mosaic Books, while its mildness of character may be gathered
amongst other things from the remedies employed by the old Physicians,
who almost without exception followed the principle laid down by
_Celsus_ (VI. 18.), to treat gonorrhoea _levibus medicamentis_ (with
gentle remedial measures), if they were called upon to apply treatment
at all. At least this is true of acute blennorrhoea; the chronic form
of the complaint, with which alone as a general rule they had to do, of
course required astringents. No doubt each failure of arterial reaction
afforded yet another reason for the belief on the part of the Ancients
that gonorrhoea was a result of weakness of the seed-secreting vessels,
and their idea that the discharge was merely badly prepared semen.
Supposing, as must have happened, that marks of increased activity
appeared, these proceeded not so much from the circulatory system
at all as from the nerves, and _Galen_[162] was correct in referring
Priapism under these conditions to spasmodic convulsion.