Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations
in hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other
spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.
The book contains a number of decorative borders and separators. These
have been ignored.
Anchors for footnotes 27 and 59 were missing and have been added in
appropriate places.
The Orphean hymn in footnote 12 is in error. The correction is shown
with the footnote.
(the act the Lesbian) in footnote 327 is erroneous but could be ‘to
act ...’ or ‘the act of ...’ so remains uncorrected.
In footnote 382 “The word θηλείας even in the edition mentioned stands
both in text and margin as γρ. δειλίας.” makes little sense and has
been altered to “The word θηλείας in the edition mentioned stands in
text; and in the margin as γρ. δειλίας.”
The footnotes are located at the end of the book.
In the main text, italics are represented thus _italic_, however this
marking indicates letter-spacing in Latin and Greek passages. Bold is
indicated thus =bold=.
An index to both volumes is included in volume II. This has been copied
into the end of this volume by the transcriber.
THE
PLAGUE OF LUST
VOLUME I
_This work, printed for a small number of subscribers,
Medical Men—Experts and Specialists in
Nervous Diseases—Lawyers—Psychiatrists
Travellers and Anthropologists—is not
sold to the Trade, and is strictly
limited to FIVE HUNDRED
NUMBERED COPIES._
_The present copy is_
=No. 105=
THE
PLAGUE OF LUST,
BEING A HISTORY OF VENEREAL DISEASE
IN
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY,
AND INCLUDING:—DETAILED INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE
CULT OF VENUS, AND PHALLIC WORSHIP, BROTHELS,
THE Νοῦσος Θήλεια (FEMININE DISEASE) OF THE
SCYTHIANS, PAEDERASTIA, AND OTHER SEXUAL
PERVERSIONS AMONGST THE ANCIENTS,
AS CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS
THE EXACT INTERPRETATION OF THEIR WRITINGS
BY
Dr. JULIUS ROSENBAUM
TRANSLATED FROM THE SIXTH (UNABRIDGED) GERMAN EDITION
BY
AN OXFORD M.A.
THE FIRST OF TWO VOLUMES
=Paris=
CHARLES CARRINGTON
PUBLISHER OF MEDICAL, FOLK-LORE AND HISTORICAL WORKS.
13, FAUBOURG MONTMARTRE, 13
MDCCCCI
The price of this work complete is FIVE GUINEAS.
TRANSLATOR’S FOREWORD.
The Translator of Dr. Rosenbaum’s great book, the _Geschichte der
Lustseuche im Alterthume_, feels that no apology is required for
presenting a Work of this calibre and importance in an English
dress,—for the first time. Needless to say the Book in no way
appeals,—or is meant to appeal,—to the general reading public. It is
a book for Students and Specialists, as is recognized indeed by the
conditions of the present publication, in a limited edition and at a
high price.
To Historical Students and Medical Specialists alike it is of the
highest value and interest, and in many respects an indispensable
addition to their Library. The object the Writer proposed to himself
was a History of Venereal Disease, to trace its existence, symptoms
and incidence, from the earliest notices of its occurrence recorded
in Literature onwards. This ambitious programme he has only partially
carried out in the present Work, which forms Part I. of the projected
Treatise as a whole, and deals with the Disease under its various forms
and successive manifestations throughout Antiquity. In it he devotes
his efforts to proving,—and we think with conclusive success,—the
existence, denied by so many, of the dread Disease in different
shapes in Europe, Asia and Africa long before the Christian era, and
all through the period of Classical Antiquity, scouting utterly, the
popular theory of its first introduction at the end of the Fifteenth
and beginning of the Sixteenth Centuries from America.
With this end in view the learned and laborious Author collects an
enormous _apparatus criticus_ of quotations from Greek and Latin
writers, both in prose and verse, and this not merely from the
better known authors of Antiquity, but equally from later and much
less familiar sources. Obscure Erotic Writers, historical fragments,
Christian Fathers,—all is fish that comes to his comprehensive, though
not undiscriminating, net; and probably there is not to be found in
the whole range of Scholarship so wide and complete a collection of
historical and literary illustrations and allusions brought together
with the express purpose of throwing light on one special subject of
enquiry.
Such in briefest outline is the scope and achievement of Dr.
Rosenbaum’s masterpiece. But brief as it is, it suffices to show to
how many classes of Students and Scientists the work appeals. First
and foremost it is of direct service to Physicians in general and
Specialists in Venereal Disease in particular, to Enquirers into the
problems of Insanity and the morbid manifestations of a diseased brain,
as well as to Anthropologists and all scientific observers of Humanity.
On another side, in virtue of its wealth of curious and recondite
quotation, it is of the highest interest and attraction to Classical
Scholars and every Student of Antiquity and Ancient Literature; while
midway between these two categories, Students of Morals and Human
Institutions cannot possibly afford to neglect a storehouse of “human
documents” so invaluable in the domain of their studies.
Even to the general Historical Student, who without laying any claim to
the proud title of Specialist, is deeply interested in the conditions
of human life on our planet in former days, and eager to enquire into
all matters relating to the health and happiness of mankind, the Book
has a great deal to offer. Few things have more profoundly modified
these factors of human well-being than Venereal disease and its ravages
in all ages; while any systematic enquiry into this most important
subject cannot fail to throw many side-lights,—lurid enough, but none
the less instructive,—on life and morals, social relations and sexual
aberrations, among different Peoples and at different Epochs. What can
be more interesting,—painful as the interest often is,—than much of the
information here afforded, at first hand and from authentic citations
of Ancient writers, of social and sexual habits and ideals, of strange
rites and rituals and abominable practices, prevalent as well in
the free Republics of Greece as under the corrupt sway of the Roman
Emperors.
Great and wonderful no doubt were the Communities of the Ancient world,
beautiful the fine flower of graceful living, and high the level of
philosophic and literary culture attained, consummate the artistic
relics they have left us; but what a seamy side this same Classical
Civilization had to show,—what unspeakable abominations underlay its
social life, what atrocities of foulness, cruelty and lust,—some of
them flourishing under the sanction of Religion itself,—counterbalanced
the virtues of wise citizenship and warlike valour and Stoic
self-denial. Lurid and terrible indeed are some of the pictures of
horror that shape themselves from certain of Dr. Rosenbaum’s pages,—the
whole Section, for instance, in Vol. I. dealing with “Brothels and
Courtesans”, and in an even higher degree that on “Paederastia” and the
diseases consequent on this unnatural practice. Specially graphic and
vivid sections again, in Vol. II., are those treating of the practice
of “Depilation” among Greeks and Romans, and the Baths and Bathing
habits of Antiquity.
To return for a moment to the Medical and Anthropological aspects
of the Work. Perhaps no single branch of Scientific Enquiry has
made such noteworthy strides of late years as Anthropology, and in
particular the special Department of that Science devoted to morbid
and anomalous manifestations of the sexual appetite,—unnatural lusts,
sensual aberrations, sexual inversions, and all the rest. The subject,
no doubt, is repulsive, but it is none the less profoundly important
from the scientific side, in connexion both with the general advance
of our knowledge of Mankind, and with the special Study of Insanity
and Madness, as well as from the humanitarian point of view as giving
material for the eventual alleviation of many of these manifestations
of Mental Disease. Out of a host of names, it is only necessary to
mention two, those of Lombroso and Krafft-Ebing, to demonstrate the
high place these investigations have vindicated for themselves among
the scientific triumphs of the Century that has just closed. On this
side the _Geschichte der Lustseuche_ is of the highest importance,
supplying as it does innumerable instances of those very phaenomena of
morbid sexual perversions that constitute the subject matter of this
rapidly progressive branch of Science, one likely in the near future to
prove of infinite benefit to afflicted humanity.
Of the Author personally there is no need to say much, nor indeed
is there much to be said. His life was quiet and uneventful, as a
Scholar’s and Savant’s should be. After holding a Professorship at
Berlin, he was summoned to fill a similar post at the University of
Halle, where he succeeded to the Chair left vacant by the death of the
celebrated Dr. Baumgarten-Crusius; and it was here that he completed
his great Work,—in spite of difficulties and lack of books, which he
naïvely and rather pathetically laments in his Preface. Halle had
already been made illustrious by an earlier and even more distinguished
worker in the same field, the famous Sprengel (died March 15, 1833),
author of a masterly _History of Medicine_ and many other professional
works; and with a characteristic touch of Teutonic sentimentality
our Author dates the Preface to his own _Geschichte_ on Sprengel’s
birth-day.
A by no means unimportant feature of Dr. Rosenbaum’s book, and one
according well with his patient and laborious methods, is the very
extensive and valuable Bibliography, which will be found at the end of
the Work. This embraces almost everything that has been written on the
subject in all languages, and should prove of inestimable service to
the serious student.
For any errors that may have crept into his version, the Translator
must crave indulgence. Some such are inevitable, more particularly in
the renderings of the innumerable Latin and Greek quotations, many of
which are involved in diction and obscure in allusion, and some of
disputed interpretation. The labour involved has been no small one,—the
mere proof-reading itself being a heavy task in a book like the present
crammed with citations from several languages.
For the general appearance and get up of the Book, the Publisher, Mr.
Charles Carrington, of Paris, is responsible, and his name, so well
known in connection with the production of Medical and Scientific works
of this kind, is a sufficient guarantee of excellence.
In conclusion, the Translator offers with confidence the result of his
labours to all Englishmen interested as Specialists in the History of
Medicine, in Anthropology and the Scientific Study of Insanity, as
also in Classical Scholarship and the Study of Antiquity and Ancient
Literature, as well as to Enquirers generally into the History of
Morals and the life and life conditions of earlier days. In doing
so, he feels sure of a favourable reception for so important and
scholarly a Work, throwing such a flood of light on all these different
departments of study.
OXFORD, June 14, 1901.
DR. ROSENBAUM’S
PREFACE TO THE FIRST (GERMAN) EDITION
AUTHOR’S PREFACE
TO THE
FIRST (GERMAN) EDITION.
It is now six years ago, during my residence in Berlin, and with a
view to a historical Survey of miliary fevers, that I began a closer
and more systematic study of the Epidemics of the XVth. and XVIth.
Centuries. In the course of these enquiries my attention was inevitably
directed to the subject of Venereal disease, which exerted so powerful
an influence at that epoch both on the physical and the moral life of
nations. Accustomed as I was to regard History as being something more
than a mere quasi-mechanical aggregation of facts, the observation
was soon borne in upon me that only through a painstaking examination
of the contemporary conditions of epidemic disease could the Venereal
Disease of the period be really understood. Consequently I felt I must
isolate this terrible scourge of humanity from the general survey,—so
general as to be well-nigh all-embracing,—and consider it as a
phænomenon apart.
Once started on these lines, I occupied myself specially with the
subject, and arrived at the surprising result, that the Venereal
Disease of the XVth. Century owed its terrible characteristics solely
and entirely to the contemporary exanthematic-typhoïdal _Genius
Epidemicus_, which made itself known in the South of Europe by
petechial fevers and by the _Sudor Anglicus_ (English Sweating-fever)
in the North. I concluded further that the disease was not epidemic
at all, merely liable to arise under epidemic influence; and must
consequently have been already extant before the arrival of the said
_Genius Epidemicus_.
Time and circumstances compelled me to remain satisfied provisionally
with this general conclusion, and only after I had fixed my abode
permanently at Halle, could I resume my earlier investigations. Yet
again these were interrupted, partly by my work on the Diseases of the
Skin for the Dictionary of Surgery edited by Prof. Blasius, partly by
my Habilitation (formal entry on the Staff) at the University of that
place, to which I had been repeatedly invited after the unexpected
death of the late Dr. Baumgarten-Crusius. Eventually I was enabled
to devote the greater part of my leisure hours to this subject, one
which in the meantime was never quite lost sight of. I began to sift
and arrange the material I found accumulated, but in a short time I
convinced myself that in its treatment I had to strike out a different
road from that followed hitherto, if I ever intended on my own
account to reach important results; and I felt it would be impossible
to complete the whole Survey in a single moderate-sized volume.
Consequently I proceeded to limit myself to the enquiry whether or
no Venereal disease had been extant in Ancient times, and it is this
investigation that I now publish as a first Part of the History of
Venereal disease.
The general plan I have followed in my treatment of the subject is
sufficiently explained in the Introduction; while a perusal of the text
will show in what relation my investigations stand towards those of
my predecessors, and at the same time to what extent these have been
made use of, or indeed could be made use of, in my work. Owing to the
very nature of the subject the Survey as a whole was bound to assume
a critical character, dealing as it does not solely with the history
of the Disease, but also with the examination of an extensive array of
views and opinions already formulated. The conduct of this examination
I leave the reader to judge of; but I believe I can confidently assert
it was always the matter, never the man, that I subjected to critical
treatment. Accordingly I laid little stress on brilliant results, and
made no effort to conceal lack of facts by dazzling hypotheses; instead
I made it my supreme object to come at the truth as near as possible,
and preferred to confess my ignorance, if the helps and authorities
I had at my disposal failed me, rather than advance propositions the
baselessness of which a sober criticism is only too soon in a position
to demonstrate.
“I imposed this law on myself—to believe no man’s mere assertion; to
depend on original authorities; to look at every passage with my own
eyes, and read it in connexion with its context; to pick out the plain
fact observed from the Chaos of hypotheses, and to accept as exact
only what I could deduce from the authorities myself and see to be
the evident purport of the observation,—absolutely unconcerned how
each arbitrary theory might be affected or the sacrosanct authority
of such or such a Scholar stand or fall. Why should we deem great men
infallible? why find it impossible to honour them and yet dissent
from them in opinion?—I felt I owed to my reader a corresponding
impartiality in statement of the facts and arguments based upon them.
If I was determined to take nothing on trust, but to examine and see
for myself, I could not reasonably demand faith from the reader and
refuse to communicate to him the proofs and original documents I had
drawn upon. It was no case of mere quotation from books,—I was bound
to lay open the original evidence for his inspection.” These words of
Hensler’s I took as my guiding-principle, and if I have deviated from
their standard in the Third Section, this only happened because the
greater part of the passages there quoted have been repeatedly handled
by my predecessors, and I feared to increase the bulk and consequently
the cost of the Book to the prejudice of the reader.
I am well aware that the method I have adopted hardly corresponds
with the taste of the present day; and if the public choose to find
in my work nothing but an idle display of quotations, I cannot fail
to be mortified. Nevertheless I prefer to encounter, if needs be, the
reproach of pedantry rather than that of superficiality. With the
difficulties I met with in connection with particular investigations I
need not trouble the reader at greater length, as they are sufficiently
familiar to everyone engaged in similar researches. I may be allowed
to point out what a task was presented by the co-ordination of so
considerable a number of scattered data. These I had, in the almost
total absence of earlier works on the same subject, to collect mostly
by my own reading from very widely separated Authors; and anything like
symmetry of arrangement was made still more difficult when, as occurred
more than once, the discovery of a single passage forced me to entirely
re-write a substantial part of my manuscript, often within a short
time of its going to Press. For the same reason the indulgent reader
must excuse it, if here and there a later observation involves the
supplementing and in some degree correcting of a previous statement,—a
thing that would have been done much more frequently, had I not dreaded
treating my material in too rambling a fashion. It would be quite easy
now to subjoin in the form of appendices a multitude of additional
proofs, of course only corroborating views already laid down,—proofs
I owed to further reading of the Ancient authors. However absolute
completeness is impossible of attainment for the individual; and I can
only hope the humble request I hereby express,—a request addressed
specially to professional students of Antiquity,—that others may favour
me with contributions and remarks relevant to my subject, may be not
entirely without result. So later on perhaps the material accumulated
may be utilised more efficiently, if the interest manifested by
the learned in my undertaking is of such a nature as to demand a
re-modelling of the whole Investigation.
The necessity I found myself under of expressing this request for
countenance on the part of students of Antiquity is the very thing
that specially induced me to strongly recommend the First Part of my
work, even on its Title-page, to their particular consideration; and it
will be a source of self-congratulation if the attempts incidentally
introduced to gain a better insight into the relics of Antiquity,
meeting with their approval, become an inducement to the Physician in
his professional studies to offer a helping hand to human weaknesses.
The question at issue is nothing less than that of gaining a clear
insight into the nature and origin of the operation of a Disease that
destroys the very marrow of Nations. Without such insight the Physician
cannot hope, whether in the particular case or speaking generally,
to obtain a radical cure; and of all forms of Disease the Venereal
is pre-eminently that where obscurity in the history of the malady
conditions obscurity in its curative treatment. For the first time it
is successfully proved with irrefragable certainty that the Ancients
were infested with this _morbus mundanus_ (World-disease) just as
much as the Moderns. Honourable nations are freed from the shameful
reproach of fathering this Complaint; and at the same time Physicians
see themselves forced to seek a reason for the untrustworthiness they
recognise at the present day as belonging to the so-called “Specifics”,
not in the nature of these remedies, but in the changes which the
Disease has undergone under external influences. Moreover they will
find that the non-mercurial treatment nowadays so highly extolled is
far from being the mere creature of fashion; rather it is the direct
consequence of the alteration in the common and universal _genius_ of
the Complaint, which appears at this moment to be again tending to a
gradual disappearance. The grounds for this assertion I have already
more than once explained to my hearers in my repeated Lectures on
Venereal Disease; and I propose to communicate them fully in the Second
Part of my History of the Disease, framed on the same principles as the
First.
When I shall publish this Second Part, if ever, will depend first
on the reception of the preceding volume; secondly on whether
more favourable external conditions provide the leisure that is
indispensably necessary for Historical investigations of the sort, and
at the same time put at my disposal a more complete literary apparatus
than has hitherto been the case. For historico-medical studies in
general there exists hardly a more unfavourable[1] place than Halle;
and this is specially and peculiarly so with regard to epidemic
diseases. As far as Venereal Disease is concerned the whole literary
wealth of our University Library amounts to something like ten or
twelve Works, half of which are all but worthless. I myself shrank from
no expense to obtain possession of the literary helps required, and
my collections, particularly on the subject of Epidemics, might boast
of being not inferior to those of any private individual; yet they
are quite insufficient for my purpose, so much, especially from the
earlier Centuries, being no longer procurable by way of purchase.
But when all that is extant in writing is procured, the business is
still far from being done. I am still in want of quite a formidable
array of facts that can only be the fruit of observations in more
recent times. For this reason may I appeal to my elder professional
brethren, and above all to the different medical Unions and
Associations at home and abroad with the request that they will,
whether directly or indirectly, help me to the possession of the facts
in question. Such are in particular facts concerning the influence of
the _Genius Epidemicus_ on the different forms or Venereal Disease,
and first and foremost it behoves me to learn—_what influence Typhus
manifested during the first fifteen years of this Century, particularly
since 1811, in different Countries_. That such an influence, and a
disastrous one, _did_ take place is evidenced not only by the 364
pp. of collected Authorities, but also by the data of the brilliant
SACHS in his “Concise Dictionary of Practical Therapeutics”, II. Pt.
1. (Article: Guajac) p. 637. To my sorrow I have only just, since
the appearance of the Index to that valuable Work, become acquainted
with these data, which appealed to me all the more from the fact that
throughout they corroborate the results reached by myself in the
historical sphere.
SACHS, and so far as I know he was the first to express this opinion
openly, holds as a fully established conclusion that the Venereal
Disease of the XVth. Century owed the characteristics it then possessed
merely to the prevailing _Genius epidemicus typhodes_; though at the
same time I cannot favour his assumption of a leprous-syphilitic
Diathesis (general condition of body) as already existent. Nothing is
better fitted to give a clear insight into these earlier conditions
than a knowledge of the period of the Thirty Years’ War and of the
Typhus epidemics at the beginning of the present Century. Would it had
happened to any of those heroes of the healing art who played an active
part in the great Drama of that time to have crowned his day’s-work
by leaving us a more detailed medical recital of the incidents. The
number of men qualified for the task grows daily fewer, the possibility
of gathering the material required daily harder of realization; and,
though it is not so yet, the work may later on be impracticable[2].
In conclusion—may I be allowed hereby to offer my sincere thanks to
all who in any way have granted me active support in the course my
enquiries. I should be glad to give their names, did I not fear they
might dislike seeing themselves recorded in connection with a History
of Venereal Disease. In spite of this scruple I feel compelled to make
an exception in the case of one of them, viz. my friend, Dr. ECKSTEIN,
Headmaster of the Royal High-School (Pädagogium) of Halle. He shared
with me the exceedingly laborious duty of correcting the proofs; and
both myself and my readers into the bargain owe him a debt of warmest
gratitude for so doing.
Written on the birth-day of C. SPRENGEL.
CONTENTS
AND
GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
INTRODUCTION:
PAGE
CONCEPTION AND CONTENTS OF THE HISTORY
OF A DISEASE IN GENERAL XXV
POSSIBILITY OF THE HISTORY OF A DISEASE IN GENERAL
AND OF VENEREAL DISEASE IN PARTICULAR XXVIII
ABSTRACT OF OPINIONS XXXI
GENERAL SCHEME OF TREATMENT XXXIV
FIRST PART.
Venereal Disease in Antiquity.
AUTHORITIES DISCUSSED 3
FIRST SECTION
INFLUENCES WHICH PROMOTED THE GENERATION OF DISEASE CONSEQUENT
UPON USE OR MISUSE OF THE GENITAL ORGANS 10
THE CULT OF VENUS 12
THE LINGAM AND PHALLIC WORSHIP 33
MALADIES OF THE GENITAL ORGANS AT ATHENS 39
MALADIES OF THE GENITAL ORGANS AT LAMPSACUS 41
PLAGUE OF BAAL-PEOR 49
BROTHELS AND COURTESANS 64
PAEDERASTIA 108
DISEASES CONSEQUENT ON PAEDERASTIA 126
THE ῥέγχειν (SNORING, SNORTING) OF THE INHABITANTS OF TARSUS 133
Νοῦσος Θήλεια (FEMININE DISEASE) OF THE SCYTHIANS 143
BIBLIOGRAPHY: AUTHORITIES AND HISTORIANS 257
INTRODUCTION.
Conception and Contents of the History of a Disease in general.
If we would undertake to write the history of a Disease, the very first
thing needful is to frame in one’s own mind a clear conception of what
the History of a Disease in a general way is, for it is from a right
preliminary conception, that the right conditions will follow which
a Historian as such is bound to fulfil. Consult experience,—in other
words enquire what has been usually understood under the name History
of a Disease, and you find to be included in the idea,—first, a more or
less complete chronological comparison of the different observations
and views of different Physicians at different times on such or such
a Disease, secondly, a survey of the course of the Disease in the
individual case. The first is properly only a history of the opinions
of Physicians, the History of the Literature so to speak of the
Disease, which must come before the _actual_ History, while the latter
is nothing else than a history of a Disease in a single instance, that
is to say the history of a particular case of disease, the history
of individual patients; and this we have long been in the habit of
reckoning a part of Clinics.
Nay, the _sum_ of such clinical histories if taken all together will
not help us to the actual history of a Disease, so long as they merely
give an account of the visible symptoms by which the disease makes its
presence known. By this means we shall be learning merely the ideal
course of the Malady, getting a pictorial representation of it such
as is demanded by Pathological specialists,—as it were the _internal_
history of the Disease. We cannot write the history of a single Man or
of a single Nation so as to be a sufficient basis for the understanding
and right appreciation of them, if we grasp only their inner history,
that of their _internal_ development, and consequently view them by
themselves as a something separated off from all surroundings, instead
of bearing in mind as we should the forms their relations take to
environment, to the outer world generally,—in fact their _external_
history. Similarly we are just as little in a position to furnish the
history of a _Disease_, if we include in the matter of our enquiry only
the course of the disease and not its external relations as well.
It is only the inner genetic co-ordination of the two, viz. the
internal and the external history (for Disease has also an external
history) that can conduct to the _actual History_ of the Disease.
This may be defined as _a genetic co-ordination and statement of the
symptoms of a Disease under different conditions and in different
individuals, from the first moment at which they arose and came under
observation down to the time when the report is made_; or, expressed
more briefly, the History of a Disease is _a genetic co-ordination and
account of its development and progress in time_ (as conditioned by
time). Supposing Time, Relations, and Number of individuals definitely
limited, a Special History is the result; while the General History
of a Disease properly speaking can _never_ be viewed as isolated from
its surroundings. In that case the conditions on which the generation
and origin of the particular Disease depend would necessarily cease
entirely and for ever to exist.
Now if we analyse the conception of the History of a Disease into its
component parts, we shall get to know its special _contents_, the
efficient factors of which it is compounded, and which the Historian
has to comprehend and express. The function of History is to exhibit
something that has happened; naturally therefore the first thing the
Historian must do is to look out for the point of time at which the
process of change began. But certain generating factors and influences
are indispensable to every process of change, and their activity again
is dependent on certain favourable external conditions; and so it
becomes the next duty of the Historian to authenticate the existence
of the said favourable influences as well as of the generating
factors, and concurrently to determine in what manner they came into
active operation. Inasmuch as it happens however sometimes that the
interposing or favouring as well as the generative factors are known to
be present, and yet no outbreak of disease occurs, so far as we see, or
only an incompletely developed one, those influences also will require
authentication which hindered or modified the potential activity of the
factors.
Only after all this has been systematically and sufficiently analyzed,
will it become possible to trace the development and course of
the Disease itself and to mark the successive changes offered to
observation from its first appearance to the time when its history
was recorded. Now these changes are imposed upon it either by its own
proper nature or from outside, and so the Historian must explain also
the internal and external relations involved. Again in any individual
case the various manifestations or signs of a Disease by no means
appear all together at one time, but rather develope in a series; so in
the _general_ course of a Disease, as recorded historically, a similar
continuous series of symptoms will be more or less clearly noticeable,
yet without implying that it is dependent solely on external
conditions. Further, as every Disease is liable at any given time to
come into conflict with another, the Historian will in this case also
have to point out, what forms the relations of either took at the
moment, whether the disease in question showed itself as determining
the other or was itself determined by it, whether it consented to enter
into combinations, whether it led to the annihilation of its adversary
or was itself annihilated, or whether lastly both remained in a manner
neutral. Finally account must be taken of the influence of medical aid,
and generally of the relation of the Physician to the Disease.
These different points once successfully and in a competent manner
co-ordinated into a kind of organic connexion, the resulting History
of Disease, a clinical History, yet as wide as humanity itself, will
supply the most momentous factor towards an insight into the nature and
essence of Disease. It will not merely afford the theoretical enquirer
the necessary materials for his speculations as to Disease in general
and systems of treatment, but also teach the practical Physician the
conditions of a rational method of Therapeutics; and will consequently
be equally interesting, and what is more, equally needful to both. Such
an organic connexion can only be established on the condition that
the Historian calls to remembrance step by step, as he proceeds, the
sciences of Physiology and Pathology. Only by their help is it possible
always and everywhere to mark the inner necessity of the relation of
cause and effect and to distinguish the essential from the accidental.
Possibility of the History of a Disease in General and of Venereal
Disease in Particular.
Having learned the Conception and proper Contents of the History of a
Disease, we naturally proceed to another closely connected question,—do
all Diseases admit of such a historical exposition? It may be taken
for granted at the outset with tolerable certainty that the answer to
this question will be affirmative for the majority of actual Diseases;
at any rate hardly an objection can be alleged from the theoretical
stand-point. At the same time practical Experience must be allowed a
voice on this point.
Unhappily we gain but little that is comforting from experience. It can
scarcely be said that even a beginning has been made so far towards
writing the History of a Disease in the indicated sense; and besides
this, diseases have been primarily selected for consideration in which
the historical factor obtrudes itself, as it were, on the attention, to
wit the epidemic diseases. For the rest hardly anything at all has been
done, excepting only in the case of Leprosy and the Venereal Disease,
for which with singular unanimity an epidemic character has always been
claimed. The Proteus-like character of these Maladies hindered every
attempt of speculation to penetrate their nature, and so enquirers
saw themselves forced to consult History. But the merest superficial
glance at the treatment of Venereal disease by its Historians (and
this applies equally to Leprosy) will show that little more than an
insufficient collection of materials towards an actual History of the
disease has thus far seen the light; and this in spite of the fact that
no contemptible number of the most distinguished Scholars have devoted
time and trouble to the subject, in many cases making it their life’s
work.
However, if the matter is looked into more closely, it will be evident
that a large proportion of these scholars directed their attention to
one single point only, viz. the antiquity and time of origin of the
Disease; and regarded all the other factors only in so far as they
supported one or other of the views they had formulated. Besides the
co-ordination of these factors is seen to be so loose that no general
result of any stringency could ever be obtained. The few men whose
definite purpose it was to arrive at such a result, failed, in view of
the difficulty of collecting the material, to reach the completeness
they had proposed, and so deferred working up what they had accumulated
till death put an end to their enterprise. In especial this was the
case with _Hensler_, and the non-appearance of the Second Part of his
History of the Venereal Disease must doubtless long continue to be
mourned as an irreparable loss.
The Past, on which all experience must draw, affords us so little
assistance here that it is to the Future we must look for everything.
The Present cannot show us in existence any history of Venereal disease
as we understand it, but this in no way entitles it to deny the
possibility of such a History. Thus it is of the highest importance
to make the attempt to arrange and sift the material now ready and
accessible, so far as it concerns the Venereal Disease, on principles
conformable to the Conception and proper Contents as indicated above
of the History of a Disease, and for this a relative completeness of
the collected materials suffices. If in this way we are successful in
sketching the history of Venereal Disease at any rate in its general
outlines, it can quite well be left to the continued efforts of
other Investigators to fill in the individual lines of the picture,
especially as then and then only is the particular point ascertained by
anticipation, at which later accessions must be worked in.
In every History, what comes first and foremost is to get to know the
original Authorities from which the material for its treatment can be
drawn, and this forms the proper Contents of the _Literary_ history
of the Disease. Accordingly our first duty will be to give a general
survey of the literary helps lying ready to hand for the use of the
Historian of Venereal Disease, and at the same time to specify how far
these were accessible to ourselves. Thus the reader will be enabled
at the very outset to form a judgement as to the completeness of the
information supplied; and succeeding Enquirers will learn the gaps that
are left remaining for them to fill up.
This will conclude a Survey of the historical results so far obtained
in connection with the antiquity and time of origin of the Disease; and
it will then be possible to indicate the special Scheme we propose to
follow in our treatment of the task before us.
Abstract of Opinions advanced at various Periods on the question of the
Antiquity and First Rise of the Venereal Disease.
The different Opinions advanced at various periods on the question of
the Antiquity and Origin of the Venereal Disease may at the outset be
brought under two main divisions, according as the disease is supposed
to have been already known to the Ancients and from their time onwards
to have been continuously observed, _or_ on the other hand regarded as
having first arisen in the ninetieth year of the XVth. Century. Both
views were framed much about the same time, and depended largely on the
position and education of the person delivering judgement. The former
may be styled the view of the learned, the latter the popular view,
though indeed at their first inception it was not so much scientific
reasons in either case as men’s prejudices that formed their basis.
The few really learned Physicians of the end of XVth. Century and
beginning of the XVIth. took as the theme of their study not Nature but
rather the medical Writings of the Greeks and Arabians, a field that
had long been left unappropriated by them, and all were far too firmly
convinced, that _Hippocrates_, and still more _Galen_ and _Avicenna_
had already included in their Works everything that could ever be the
subject of scientific treatment at any given time.
Attention was concentrated upon the Skin Affection that was the
predominant form at first, and this was naturally enough taken for a
kind of Leprosy, and called sometimes Elephantiasis (_Seb. Aquilanus_,
_Phil. Beroaldus_), sometimes “Formica” (_Schellig_, _Cumanus_,
_Gilinus_, _Leonicenus_, _Steber_), by others “Saphat” (_J. Widmann_,
_Nat. Montesaurus_, _Jul. Tanus_, _Jo. de Fogueda_, _Sim. Pistor_).
Hence the view advanced subsequently by _Sydenham_, _Haller_, _Plenk_,
_Thierry_, _Haward_, and held for a time by _Sprengel_, that the
original form of the Venereal Disease was the “Yaws” or “Piana”, and
consequently that Africa must be assigned as the original home of the
disease; and in this way the Moors also were brought in as part of the
concatenation. Later on, when the conviction grew up that the beginning
of the Disease consists in local affections of the genital organs,
it was easy to show that these had always been in existence from the
most ancient times. But as no direct information on the relation
between affections of the Genitals and Skin-disease was to be found in
the earlier Writers, enquirers were driven to the supposition, that
Syphilitic affections of the Skin had been confounded by the Ancients
with Leprosy.
A view, which _Becket_ first sought to establish on precise grounds,
appeared on the contrary too bold to other investigators, who thought
to find some way of evading it. This was to the effect that Leprosy
under favourable conditions had changed into Venereal Disease, and
the increased rarity of the former seemed to speak for this opinion.
Supporters of this last view are in especial _Sprengel_ and _Choulant_
in his Preface to Fracastori’s “Syphilis”. Whilst the particular home
of the Disease was fixed in this way by some authors, _Swediaur_ and
_Beckman_ thought to find it in the East Indies, and held that the
“Dschossam”, a familiar Indian disease, or else the “Persian Fire”
must be looked upon as the original form of the Complaint. _Schaufus_
agreed with them in part; he believed Venereal disease to have been
brought by the Gypsies from India to Europe. _Dr. Wizmann_[3] made
the disease arise in the IInd. Century in Dacia, which at that date
was transformed into a Roman Colony and had to welcome the licentious
Roman soldiery. The excesses of these colonists, in a strange climate,
and seconded by a combination of conditions favourable to epidemic
sickness, produced the disease, which he says is generated to this
day in its genuine form in Turkey. Accordingly _Wizmann_, as also
_Sprengel_ and _Choulant_, and to some extent _Gruner_, who considered
the Moors to be the parents of the Venereal disease, may be regarded as
taking up an intermediate position between the two extreme views, and
as making a sort of transition to the opinions of those who look upon
the Disease as a new one.
The special supporters of this view were, as mentioned above, the
non-medical, though a considerable number of men calling themselves
Physicians agreed with them, though on other grounds, differing only
as to the mode in which the Disease arose. The prevailing astrological
views found the original cause of the Disease in the Conjunction of
the Planets, a conjunction declared beforehand by prophecy to bode
disaster. With this were included as contributing to the effect
Inundations, the oppressed condition of Nations, Famine and the
like. The disease was called an epidemic, or what at that period was
practically synonymous, a pestilential disease, a Plague, and ascribed
of course to the wrath of God. There were other accounts given, that
still carry some show of probability; the Disease was referred to the
poisoning of wells and of wine (Caesalpinus), to the admixture of
gypsum with the flour (Fallopia), or actually to indulgence in human
flesh.
When coition could no longer be denied as an interposing factor, rumour
resorted to all sorts of wild tales, the copulation of a courtesan with
a Leper, copulation with animals, and particularly with asses, and
finally with the voluptuous Indian women of America. From the latter
story grew up by degrees the theory of the American origin of Venereal
Disease, which found its chief supporters in _Astruc_ and _Girtanner_,
and in spite of Hensler’s exertions seems even yet not absolutely
forgotten.
General Scheme of Treatment.
It now becomes important to consider more closely these various views,
as well as the reasons advanced for them, and to subject them to
examination. But as the result of this examination will cover to some
extent the same ground as the formal History, it will be expedient to
treat the two as far as possible in connection with one another. By
this method it will _ipso facto_ appear how far the individual views
are tenable, and how far the grounds alleged in their favour valid. And
this is all the more necessary for two reasons, first because by this
means a host of repetitions is avoided, secondly because only in this
way are such gaps as still remain clearly recognised and made tangible.
All the different views fall, as already stated, into two groups,
according as they maintain the antiquity or the modernness of the
Venereal Disease. In conformity with this division we must separate
our investigation from the outset into two parts, of which Part I is
to comprise the Venereal Disease in Antiquity, Part II the Venereal
Disease to the end of the XVth. Century. To this will be added further
as a Third Part, the History of the Disease down to our own day.
Each of the two earlier Parts will open, in accordance with the views
declared above, with a statement and examination of the Authorities.
After that will follow an investigation of the influences that evoked
diseases as a consequence of the use or misuse of the Genital organs
and are favourable to their genesis, as well as those influences
capable of staying, or in the case of diseases already established,
modifying their progress. The difficulty of such an investigation is as
striking as is its necessity; for on this subject there is an almost
total lack of previous Works of any use to consult; and yet it is only
by their help we can possibly win a deeper insight into the history of
Venereal Disease.
The attitude of medical Science in face of these influences and their
consequences will next claim our attention, so far as it is competent
to exert a determining and modifying effect on the form and character
of the Disease. In this connection it is especially important to
determine whether the Physicians correctly diagnosed these diseases for
what they are, or generally speaking had any opportunity of doing so.
Having come to a clear understanding, as far as is possible, on
all these points, we shall then be in a position to give a genetic
exposition of the development of the Disease itself. This will form the
conclusion of each separate part, as well as of the whole Work; and
then and then only we shall be able to say our task is fulfilled.
THE PLAGUE OF LUST IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY.
FIRST PART.
AUTHORITIES.
In Antiquity we find that for a considerable length of time the medical
sciences were far from being confined to a distinct profession, and
further, where this does seem to be the case, there is always a not
insignificant proportion of such knowledge that comes to us merely
as popular or traditional Medicine. It is therefore evident, that if
we would gain definite information as to the existence of a Disease
among the Ancients, we ought by no means to confine our attention to
the medical writers. This becomes still more necessary, if we are
bound at the same time to try and discover the ætiological relations
of such a disease, of which it can be stipulated at the outset that it
is intimately connected with the whole life and activity of peoples.
The Historian accordingly is absolutely compelled to test and examine
thoroughly everything that can possibly enlighten him as to these
relations,—to interrogate the Literature of whole Nations.
But here comes in the drawback that only comparatively speaking a very
restricted proportion of the Authors of Antiquity have come down to us,
even after due account has been taken of the possibility that many an
unknown author may lurk concealed in some corner or other of the globe.
Then again the Authors that _have_ been preserved are almost without
exception Greeks or Romans, so that for the major part of the nations
of Antiquity the national authorities are all but entirely lacking,
or else, where something of the sort does exist, it is written in
a language the correct interpretation of which is still partially
to seek. From all this it clearly follows that a complete and final
explanation of any controverted matter of Ancient times can never
strictly speaking be expected, and in particular that it would be a
very rash conclusion to declare positively that a Disease did not exist
in Antiquity, _because_ in the extant and known books no mention occurs
of it.