with regard to all relations of Antiquity, and yet for many of them
sufficient explanations have already been obtained, it is obviously
incumbent on us to undertake for our subject also the enquiry how far
the extant authorities are capable of throwing light on it,—a task that
exceeds indeed the powers of any individual, even should he be able to
bring to it all the qualifications indispensable for the understanding
of the said authorities. Consequently there is no other course left
open for him but to institute at the outset a survey of what has so far
been accomplished and ascertained, and then to bring into line with
this whatever he has gleaned from his own study of the authorities,
in the hope that another enquirer, like-minded and better equipped,
may follow on in the track of his endeavours, and so by dint of united
efforts the intended goal may one day be reached.
It would be unprofitable for us, having laid claim, as authorities for
our special enquiry into the ætiological relations, to the remains
of Antiquity in their entirety, to consider them in detail in this
place. At the same time it might well seem expedient to specify more
exactly such of them as are in a position to afford us information as
to the Disease itself. These fall into two classes, viz. physicians
and laymen. The estimation of the first class as authorities for the
Venereal disease demands a number of conditions which we shall only get
to know in the course of our subsequent exposition of the ætiological
relations themselves, and will therefore more conveniently find its
place after this,—in that part of the work where the question is
discussed of the influence of medical aid on the disease. Similarly
only a part of the lay authorities come in here,—authorities from
whom, as may be supposed, we have only to expect rather fragmentary
information, but who are all the more important, when they do exist, as
by their evidence is proved men’s wide, in fact universal, acquaintance
with the disease; and they cannot be charged with having made their
observations of it through such or such a pair of theoretical
spectacles.
The more copious the materials the Historian provides as to the
ætiological relations, the more scanty will be his contributions on the
question of the existence of the disease, as historical characters of
highest importance, or conspicuous frequency of the disease, give him
occasion to mention it.
The case is different, from the first with the _Poets_. The _Satirists_
and _writers of Comedy_ it is true can only supply hints, and these
are often quite unintelligible for later times, if Scholiasts and
Commentators had not taken on them the task of explanation,—though
again their statements must often be used with caution, as they are
so apt to impute to earlier times the opinions of their own. But here
also the field of these hints is very circumscribed, as they are only
admissible so far as it is possible to extract from the subject-matter
a ridiculous, satirical _motif_ (_versus iocosi_, _carmina plena
ioci_,—jesting verses, songs full of jest, are demanded by the very
personality of Priapus); and even then acquaintance with the fact
alluded to in general terms is presupposed on the part of hearer and
reader. We see from this how ill-considered is the contention of those
who say that poets like _Horace_, _Juvenal_ or _Martial_, if they had
been acquainted with the injurious consequences of sexual intercourse
with Hetaerae, could hardly have failed to allude to them on occasion
in _unequivocal_ terms. Hensler[4] excellently observed long ago:—“In
our Century certainly no German poet says one word about it,—neither
the dallying light-o’-love versifiers nor the serious poets. But from
this to draw the conclusion,—_then_ Venereal disease did not exist
among the people, _then_ it has never been seen in Germany this year,
would make physicians and barber-surgeons smile!”
Then again consider the widely different character of the Peoples and
their Languages. The flowery Asiatic and Hindoo was, to begin with,
far enough removed from the spirit of Satire, and on all occasions
preferred to have recourse to images that to us may well seem more
than obscure. The Greek writers of Iambi (Satiric verses in the Iambic
metre) are all but completely lost to us, while of the Comedians
we possess only _Aristophanes_, in the interpretation of whom we
are certainly not yet far enough advanced to make all his allusions
plain to us. Above all, those who pronounce so dogmatically as to the
existence of the Disease on the evidence of hints, appear to have
hardly a notion of the condition in which the Lexicography of both
Greek and Latin is,—a condition still in many respects deplorable.
Besides this the Greeks, and for a time to an almost greater degree the
Romans,[5] were above all things reticent in speech. The Roman still
preserved intact through all the frivolity of his later days certain
shrines, that were never broken open until the period of the utter
corruption of morals; and then no doubt afforded all the richer booty.
But in Satire it was not the fact that became matter of derision, but
the habits of the voluptuary merely _as affecting morality_, as for
instance is clearly seen from a perusal of the passages of Juvenal[6]
read in their mutual connection. Moreover the following account will
sufficiently prove that even among the Romans affections of thee
genitals were never ascribed to _natural_, only to _unnatural_ coition,
Paederastia and the like; and that it was the vice that was derided,
and not properly speaking its consequences.
After the Satirists come the _Epigrammatic poets_, near akin to them.
Whether in this province the Greeks will afford much material, later
investigations must decide; how abundantly the Roman _Martial_ has
rewarded our repeated perusals, the reader will soon be enabled to
convince himself.
From the _Erotic poets_ who composed their lays under the inspiration
of Aphrodité surrounded by the Graces or of the roguish Eros, no one
will expect to gain anything towards our object. The fact that the
_lascivious_ Erotic writers of Antiquity have for the most part been
lost can only be deplored by the Historian of the Venereal disease; for
undoubtedly such works were in existence in considerable profusion,
only as in our own day they were carefully kept concealed from the
eyes of the uninitiated. That the Greeks were not poor in such-like
productions Cynulcus teaches us, who says to a Sophist[7]: “Thou
lyest in the tavern, not in company with friends, but with harlots,
hast a throng of panders round thee, and carriest always with thee
the works of _Aristophanes_, _Apollodorus_, _Ammonius_, _Antiphanes_
and the Athenian _Gorgias_, _who all of them have written of the
Athenian Hetaerae_. One may fitly call thee a _Pornograph_, like the
painters _Aristides_, _Pausanias_ and _Nicophanes_.” Writings of the
same character were still extant in _Martial’s_[8] time, for the
lascivious epigrams on the walls of the grottos, temples and statues of
Priapus[9], on garden-walls, and so forth, afforded an inexhaustible
mine for collecting amateurs, to whom we owe the Priapeia that have
come down to the present day. Had they all been preserved to posterity,
we should doubtless have had no need to bewail the lack of clear
information as to the Venereal disease among the Ancients.
Connected with the poems are the myths and legends of Antiquity. These
however being difficult to understand when studied for their own sake
owing to the confusion that still reigns in all the interpretations and
discussions of them, hardly admit of being used for our purpose with
advantage.
Finally we have yet to mention the Fathers as authorities for the
history of the Venereal disease, for their “Orationes contra Gentes”
(Denunciations of the Gentiles) especially afford much valuable
material towards a knowledge of the moral condition of the nations
of Antiquity. True it is very likely these only too willingly allow
exaggerations at the cost of Paganism, and attribute to an earlier time
as already existing then, what really belongs to their own day. Still
these drawbacks lose much of their importance in so far as the question
for the present is only,—whether previously to the end of the XVth.
Century the Venereal Disease existed or no.
The difficulties that arise in the systematic study and manipulation
of all these authorities require no further discussion here, being
sufficiently well known to every investigator of Antiquity—be he
physician or layman.
FIRST SECTION.
Influences which promoted the generation of Disease consequent upon the
Use or Misuse of the Genital Organs.
§ 1.
Directly it becomes a question of studying the diseases of a particular
part or organ, diseases occasioned by the nature of the use made
of that particular part or organ, it is primarily requisite to
investigate more precisely the different forms of this use. Then and
then only shall we be in a position to define the share which secondary
influences are competent to have in producing the said diseases. The
_natural_ use of the genital organs is simply the performance of the
acts necessary to beget children. On this depends the preservation
of the whole species. It is therefore improbable that Nature should
have made such use liable to produce disease. As a matter of fact the
experience of all ages shows that in a judicious marriage, the natural
aim and object of which is the procreation of children, diseases of the
genitals seldom, if ever, arise.
There must then be a secondary use of the genital organs, which is
carried out without any view of begetting offspring, or in which
this plays only a subordinate part, and consequently some other
than the _natural_ object is that pursued. This object is _Sensual
gratification_, which is associated with the use of the genital organs,
and the use of the genital organs for the attainment of this object is
_Sensuality_. Every misuse of any given organ cannot but be associated
with detriment both to the organ itself and to the whole organism as
well. This must of course also be the case with the genitals,[10]
and it is in the misuse of them, in Sensual practices, that the most
prominent efficient cause of maladies of these organs must be sought.
Now it is our business to give a history of the maladies of the genital
organs; and this is only possible on the condition that we have first
of all gained a clear insight into the history of Sensuality.
Doubtless it is a melancholy task for the Historian to follow up and
reveal the moral degradation of Peoples and Nations even to its most
revolting details, and the Ethical philosopher might find not a few
objections to raise against an undertaking of the kind. None the less
is the Physician compelled to search out under all forms the traces
of Vice in its most secret hiding-places, and so fathom the nature of
the Disease in each individual case; and still more with Nations as a
whole is he permitted,—nay! it is his bounden duty, to fix his eyes on
their doings and those of each of their component parts. Thus only can
he detect the nature of a Disease, which destroys the marrow of Peoples
more surely and more terribly for this very reason that its genesis
proceeds in secret.
The reproach that the Moral repute of Nations is hereby ruined, and
the general mass saddled with the guilt of vices which of course only
individuals ever committed, has no place here, for it is solely through
the precise knowledge of the doings of these individuals that a due
appreciation is possible of the danger that threatens the whole body
politic from this source. Had not a false ideal of Morality hitherto
restrained the individual, as it did the mass, from speaking out the
truth, we should be much farther advanced than we are in the knowledge
of a Disease, whose characteristic symptom it is that those who suffer
from it endeavour, as far as they possibly can, to conceal its cause!
The Cult of Venus[11].
§ 2.
The imaginative son of the South, already of his very nature prone to
attribute all that his unpractised intellect failed to comprehend to
the influence of a special Deity, was bound to do this pre-eminently
in the case of an act that is even yet to us moderns wrapped in
impenetrable obscurity,—the act of generation and conception. How
could he think of this Deity[12], that used his own body as its
instrument and in so doing bestowed on him the highest pleasure of the
senses, otherwise than under the shape of a Being equally alluring and
loving, convinced that this Being must be infinitely more alluring[13]
than even the beloved form that he held in his arms? “The young man’s
fancy” craves a lovely maiden; the maiden needed a loving sister, into
whose arms she could trustingly throw herself, who intuitively divined
all her soft, sweet emotions, to express which she sought in vain for
words, which she scarce dared to own to herself that she was conscious
of, and understood them!
To the Goddess’ Temple she wandered, before her poured out the longings
that filled her heart to overflowing[14], and at the last offered up
herself a gift at the holy place, that so Aphrodité Ἀφροδίτη εὔκαρπος,
κουροτρόφος, γενετύλλις,—Aphrodité rich in fruit, giving offspring, of
the birth-hour) might be glorified in her, and herself be a participant
in the highest happiness of Woman,—the joys of Motherhood. First she
prepared herself by bodily purification[15] before she trod the
Temple threshold, then at the Temple altar she received spiritual
purity; and thus thrilled through and through with the influence of the
holiest, the Priest’s hand[16] led her to the arms of her Lover, who
as unspoiled yet and unsophisticated as she, had not sought to unveil
the most august secrets of Nature with audacious hand. Intoxicated with
rapture he drew his darling on to the Torus (sacred couch) bedecked
with fragrant blossoms, and almost unconsciously to himself, became the
creator of a being wherein both saw themselves made young again.
If Man is really the noblest of created Beings, made by the Creator
in his own image, in very truth then the power that unconsciously
raises Man to the level of his Maker must be a divine power too, and
that act in the exercise of which it comes itself into play an act of
most sublime worship. Are we to suppose there never was a time when
Man, pure as he came from the hand of his Creator, followed in the
singleness of his heart no other law but that written in his heart?
Surely not merely in the dreams of the Poet was found the legend of an
Eden, from which Man was driven out by his own guilt; more true to say
that to this day we are all of us born therein. But alas! others’ guilt
or our own tears us away from out the garden of Paradise, ere we have
yet been able often to raise our eyes to take delight in its glory.
Thus it is that many a man now and again has the memory of a Dream,
that accompanies him on his pilgrimage through life, and he hopes to
find in the future what long ago, before he grew conscious of its
existence, became a thing of the past. Perchance it may be the fatal
tasting of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was nothing else than the
misuse of the genital organs, to content bestial longings, to arouse
the titillation of an enervating pruriency[17]. “And the eyes of them
both were opened, and they knew that they were naked!” The bestial had
won the victory over the divine, which fled away from the desecrated
altar; and the Genius of Mankind wept over their Fall!
Here is the History at once of Man individually and of whole Peoples.
Over the Temple-worship of Aphrodité also impended such a crisis;
and sooner or later the holy courts of Venus Urania (Heavenly Venus)
changed into the Lupanar of Venus Vulgivaga (Brothel of Venus of the
Streets).
§ 3.
A precise knowledge of the extension of the Venus-cult in chronological
order would readily supply us the means of following up historically
the moral deterioration of the Peoples of Antiquity; but so long as we
do not possess this, History cannot be expected to give us anything of
great value. All that we are for the present in a position to give,
pertinent to the object we aim at, is as follows:
“The worship of this Urania,” says Pausanias[18], “the Assyrians first
introduced amongst themselves, after the Assyrians the Paphians in
Cyprus[19], and among the Phoenicians[20] the inhabitants of Ascalon in
Palestine. From the Phoenicians the inhabitants of Cythera[21] learned
to know and worship her. At Athene Aegeus introduced her worship.” It
was at Babylon then that the cult of Venus originated as _Mylitta_
worship, spread over the inland parts to Mesopotamia as the Sabaean[22]
religion, and was passed on by the Phoenicians to the seaboard peoples
as Astarté-worship. For at the spot where this cult first arose, it
lasted longest in its original purity, and _Herodotus_[23] could report
how at Babylon the daughters of the country were compelled _once_ in
their life-time to give themselves for money to a strange man to win
the favour of the goddess, then to return to their dwelling all the
more virtuous for the sin, and neither promises nor gifts, however
great these might be, availed ever again to draw them into the arms of
a stranger. Later indeed it was different even here, perhaps through
the influence of the Phoenicians, who had manifold dealings with them.
For _Herodotus_ himself relates elsewhere (Bk. I. 196), that after the
capture of Babylon by the Persians, the poorer classes, dreading the
forcible abduction of their daughters, if means of subsistence failed
them, made them harbour-wenches[24]. And accordingly _Q. Curtius_[25]
felt bound to write of Babylon:
“Nihil urbis eius corruptius moribus, nihil ad irritandas
illiciendasque immodicas voluptates instructius. Liberos coniugesque
cum hospitibus stupro coire, modo pretium flagitii detur, parentes
maritique patiuntur.... Feminarum convivia ineuntium in principio
modestus est habitus, dein summa quaeque amicula exuunt, paulatimque
pudorem profanant: ad ultimum ... ima corporum velamenta proiiciunt;
nec meretricum hoc dedecus est sed matronarum virginumque apud quas
comitas habetur vulgati corporis vilitas.”
(Nothing can well be more corrupt than the manners of this City,
nothing more artfully adapted to excite the passions and allure to
voluptuous excesses. Strangers are permitted by parents and husbands,
provided the price of shame is forthcoming, to have lustful intercourse
with their children and their wives.... At their first entrance to the
banquet-room the women’s dress is modest, presently they remove their
outer robes one by one, and little by little violate all modesty, ...
at the last stripping off the innermost coverings of their persons. And
this is no mere abomination of harlots, but the habit of matrons and
maids, who consider that in thus making themselves cheap and exposing
their bodies they are showing courtesy). This custom we find again
carried still further amongst the Armenians, who _Strabo_[26][27] says
consecrate their daughters for some considerable length of time to
Anaitis, and only after this suffer them to marry. _Herodotus_[28]
relates the same custom of the Lydians, degenerated in the same
way as had been the case in later times at Babylon, for here too
the lower classes used to abandon their daughters to prostitution
for a livelihood. Still in its original purity the usage reached
the Phoenicians[29], but with them also would seem to have early
degenerated, although in particular towns of Phoenicia the practice
appears to have been followed only under certain circumstances.
_Lucian_[30] relates that the women, of Byblus, where was a Temple of
Ἀφροδίτη βυβλίη (Venus of Byblos), _if_ they would not allow their hair
to be cut off at the Funeral-feast of Adonis, were bound in honour of
Venus for one whole day to abandon their bodies to strangers. Among the
Carthaginians[31] also, as in Cyprus[32], maidens had to earn their
dowry, and the Tyrant Dionysius introduced the same custom, no doubt
with a secondary design of a profit for himself, amongst the people of
Locri.[33]
§ 4.
As to the _reason_ for this custom, one might be found in the opinion
that prevailed almost universally in Antiquity amongst the Asiatic
peoples, that the first-fruits of everything were consecrate to the
Deity, and accordingly the virgin’s hymen must be offered up to Venus.
But this will not in any way explain why the self-surrender must nearly
always take place with a _Stranger_ (ἀνδρὶ ξείνῳ) of all people in the
world. _Heyne_[34] and _Fr. Jacobs_[35], who paid special attention to
this custom, are it is true agreed in thinking that a religious motive
lay at the bottom of it, though they differ in their conception of what
it was; but neither of them hit on the right explanation. A careful
distinction must be made between the _Ceremony_ and the _Act_ of the
self-surrender. The first was a matter of religion, the second not; for
the women were conveyed at Babylon outside the Temple-precincts, in
Cyprus to the sea-shore, for the purpose of yielding their bodies to
strangers[36]. Had the act been regarded at that period as a religious
one, it would of necessity have been practised, as was the case before
and again later, in the Temple or at least within its precincts, and of
course with fellow-countrymen, strangers not being allowed to take part
in any native religious practice.
The discrepancies however soon disappear if it is remembered that in
Antiquity, as to this day amongst many savage peoples, not only was the
menstrual blood (of which more fully later) held to be impure, but also
the blood that flowed, when a virgin was deflowered, from the rupture
of the hymen, and consequently the act of defloration as well. The same
held good in the case of coition with widows, because it was believed
that with them the menstrual blood accumulated in greater quantity,
then was discharged on occasion of the first coition, and must
necessarily cause injury to the man. This also explains why _Herodotus_
(loco citato) says γυναῖκες (women) and not simply κόραι or παρθένοι
(girls, virgins); and removes at once _Heyne’s_ doubts (p. 32) and the
difficulties raised by _Heeren_[37].
The dwellers on the sea-coast, who enjoyed more active intercourse
with the rest of the world, left to strangers the polluting act of
defloration, whilst among inland peoples this office was undertaken
for those of the higher classes[38] by the priests, or else an idol,
specially appropriated for the purpose, a Priapus or Lingam (see
later) was employed. Subsequently several mistaken reasons may well
have been alleged for the custom; the only idea that continued to be
consistently held was that defloration was not a proper function of
the bridegroom. It was rather made a matter of honour, and accordingly
brides offered themselves first to the wedding-guests, as among the
Nasomonians in Africa[39] and in the Balearic Islands[40], where the
right of preference went by age.