non esse morbum novum; Oratio habita in Archilyceo Patavino die V.
Nvbr. 1687. Patavii 1687. 4.
(_Patin, Carolus._ of Paris, Chevalier of St. Mark, First Prof. of
Surgery at Padua, “The Venereal Disease not a new Complaint: Speech
delivered in the High Schools of Padua on Nov. 5th 1687.” Padua 1687.
4to.)
_Astruc_, II. p. 991., knew this Speech only from a citation of _Zach.
Platner_, who equally had not seen it, and supposed it had probably
never appeared, since _Nic. Comnenus Papadopoli_ in his “historia
gymnasii Patavini” (History of the High School of Padua) Vol. I. sect.
2. ch. 25. No. 159., does not mention it at all, though he cites freely
from _Patin’s_ Speeches and his separate Works. _Girtanner_, II. p.
279., however cites the complete Title as above; and must consequently
have seen the book, though he remarks nothing further about its
contents than, “He recapitulates the old well-known Reasons for the
Antiquity of the Venereal Disease”. For the rest, _Patin_ seems to
have taken the main part from the _Lettres Choisies_, Vol. III, Letter
370, p. 95, of his father _Guy Patin_, where the latter defends the
antiquity of Venereal Disease.
2) Quaestio medica quodlibetarius disputationibus mane discutienda die
Jovis 9 Dcbris 1717. _M. Johanne Baptista Fausto Alliot de Mussay_,
Doctore medico praeside. _An Morbus antiquus Syphilis?_ Proponebat
_Johannes Franciscus Leaulté_, Parisinus, Anno R. S. H. 1717. Typis
Johann. Quillau, facultatis medicinae Typographi. 8 Blatt. 4.
(“Medical Question to be discussed in open disputation for and against
in the morning, Thursday, 9th of December 1717. _M. Joannes Baptista
Faustus Alliot de Mussay_, Doctor of Medicine, presiding:—_Is Syphilis
an Ancient Disease?_ Raised by _Johannes Franciscus Leaulté_ of Paris.
1717. Printed by Johann. Quillau, Printer to the Faculty of Medicine. 8
leaves. 4to.)
According to _Astruc_, II. p. 1054., this Dissertation consists of 8
Corollaries, of which only the fifth seeks to establish the antiquity
of Venereal Disease, arguing from: _Horace_, Odes bk. I. 37. Sat. bk.
I. 5. 62 (morbus campanus,—the Campanian disease); _Juvenal_, Sat II.;
_Martial_, Epigr. bk. I. 66.; _Tacitus_, Annals bk. IV.; _Suetonius_,
Vita Octav. Augusti ch. 80.; _Lucian_, Pseudologista; _Valerius
Maximus_, Memorab. bk. III. ch. 5.; _Lucius Apuleius_, Metamorphos.
bk. X. The refutation given by _Astruc_ repeats almost word for word
_Girtanner_ vol. II. p. 357-363., though he gives it, as usual, as his
own Production.
3) _Becket_, William. An attempt to prove the Antiquity of the Venereal
Disease long before the discovery of the West-Indies. In Philosophical
Transactions. Vol. XXX. 1718. No. 357. p. 839.—A letter to Dr. _W.
Wagstaffe_ concerning the antiquity of the Venereal Disease. Ibid. Vol.
XXXI. 1720. No. 365. p. 47.—A letter to _Dr. Halley_, in answer to some
objections made to the history of the Venereal disease. No. 366. p. 108.
In England _Nic. Robinson_, “_A New Treatise of the Venereal Disease_”,
in three parts, London 1736. 8 vols., Pt. I. ch. 1., seeks to further
confirm the Reasons laid down by _Becket_ for the antiquity of the
Disease. According to _Astruc_, vol. II. p. 1058, _Sir Hans Sloane_,
“_Voyage to the Islands of Madeira, Barbadoes, Nevis, St. Christopher
and Jamaica_, with the Natural History,” London 1707. fol., Vol. I. in
the Introduction, pp. 2, 3., would seem to have already indicated the
most important passages cited by _Becket_.
4) _Sanchez_, (Antonio Nunhez Ribeiro) Dissertation sur l’origine de la
maladie vénérienne, pour prouver: que le mal n’est pas venu d’Amérique,
mais qu’il a commencé en Europe, par une Epidémie. à Paris chez
_Durand_ et _Pissot_. MDCCLII. 110 S. 8. Reprinted 1765. 12.
(_Sanchez, Antonio Nunhez Ribeiro._ “Dissertation on the Origin of the
Venereal Disease, to prove: that the Malady did not come from America,
but that it began in Europe by an Epidemic.” Paris, published by
Durand and Pissot. 1752. pp. 110. 8vo. Reprinted 1765. 12mo.)
The first issue of this Work published without the name of the Author,
must have been ready, as early as the year 1750, for not only is the
“Privilegium” (licence to print) subscribed in that year (August and
October), but also Sanchez says himself in the Preface to the second
Part that this First Part had appeared in Paris in 1750, published
by Durand. It runs thus: “M. _Castro_, Médecin de Londres, ayant
traduit en Anglais une dissertation avec ce titre: Sur l’origine de
la Maladie Vénérienne; imprimée à Paris, chez Durand 1750, envoya un
Exemplaire de la traduction à M. le Baron de Van-Swieten”,—M. _Castro_,
Physician in London, having translated into English a Dissertation
entitled: _On the Origin of the Venereal Disease_; printed at Paris
1750, and published by Durand, sent a Copy of the Translation to the
Baron Van-Swieten). The Title of this English Translation is: “_A
Dissertation on the Origin of Venereal Disease; proving that it was not
brought from America, but began in Europe by an Epidemical Distemper.
Translated from the original MS. by an Eminent Physician_”. London
1751. 8vo. According to this the Translation must have appeared very
nearly at the same time as the original.—A German Translation came out
under the Title: “_Treatise on the Origin of the Venereal Disease_,
in which is proved: that this Evil did not come from America, but
took its beginning in Europe by an Epidemic,” translated from the
French; edited by _Georg Heinrich Weber_. Bremen 1775. pp. 94. 8vo.—An
Abstract from the Original may be found in: “_Commentaria de rebus
in scientia naturali et medicina gestis_”—(Records of Achievements
in Natural Science and Medicine): Supplement. Leipzig 1772. pp.
156-159.—Allgem. deutsche Bibliothek, Vol. 28. p. 461.—_Tode_, Med.
Chir. Bibliothek. Vol. IV. Pt. I. p. 49.—_Haller’s_ Tagebuch. Vol.
III. p. 331.—The Work itself is divided into 7 Sections.—The _First
Section_ contains: Arguments proving that in most parts of Europe the
Venereal Disease became known and disseminated since 1493, and last of
all in the month of June 1495. pp. 1-10.—_Second Section_: When did
Christopher Columbus discover the Island of Hispaniola and when did he
return to Spain from his first and second voyages? pp. 11-20.—_Third
Section_: Did the Venereal Disease come from America at the time of
Columbus’ return from his second voyage? pp. 21-39.—_Fourth Section_:
Did the Troops of Fernandez Cordova communicate the Disease to the
French? pp. 40-47.—_Fifth Section_: Answer to some objections that
may be raised to prove that Venereal Disease took its origin from
America, pp. 47-79.—_Sixth Section_: Reasons which caused Writers on
Venereal Disease since the year 1517 to believe this Malady came from
America, pp. 79-87.—_Seventh Section_: Venereal Disease is an Epidemic
Complaint, which began in Italy and almost at the same time spread
over France and the rest of Europe, pp. 88-108.—_Recapitulation_: The
Disease existed in Italy and France before Columbus returned from
his second Voyage; the Troops of Cordova could not have communicated
it to the French, for the two never came into contact; the Disease
displayed all the appearance of an Epidemic; the discovery of the drug
“Guajac” gave occasion to the assumption of the American origin of
the Disease.—_Van Swieten_, who had received the English Translation
sent to him by Castro, only ought to weaken the proofs brought forward
in this book in his “Commentar. in Boerhavi Aphorismos” (Commentary
on Boerhaave’s Aphorisms), Leyden 1772., Vol. V. pp. 373 sqq., which
occasioned _Sanchez_ to issue the following Work, also published
anonymously.
5) Examen historique sur l’apparition de la maladie vénérienne en
Europe, et sur la nature de cette epidémie. A Lisbonne MDCCLXXIV. pp.
VIII. and 83. 8vo.
(“Historical Inquiry concerning the First Appearance of the Venereal
Disease in Europe, and the Nature of that Epidemic.” Lisbon 1774. pp.
VIII, and 83. 8vo.).
_H. Dav. Gaubius_ had this Work again re-printed together with the
preceding (Leyden 1777. 8vo.) and a Preface. An English Translation
was edited by _Jos. Skinner_. London 1792. 8vo.—The Work falls into
8 Divisions. Div. 1. Extracts from Pet. Pintor, Sebast. Aquitanus,
Pet. Delphinus, Petr. Martyr, pp. 1-24.—Div. 2. Symptoms of the so
called Venereal Disease, as they were observed in Italy in the month
of March 1793 and 1794. pp. 24-31.—Div. 3. In the history of Medicine
there is no Description of an epidemic Disease resembling in all its
consequences that which invaded Italy, Spain and France in the years
1493 and 1494. pp. 31-42.—Div. 4. The Venereal attacks, which have
been observed since the time of Hippocrates, were not the consequence
of the inflammatory or chronic Venereal Disease, such as it has
been observed since the years 1493 and 1494. pp. 42-45.—Div. 5. On
certain passages in _Astruc’s_ book “On the Venereal Disease”. pp.
45-54.—Div. 6. Conclusions from the passages of Pet. Pintor and Pet.
Delphinus concerning the Venereal Epidemic in Italy, France and Spain
in the years 1493, 1494. pp. 54-61.—Div. 7. Did the early Voyages who
discovered the Harbours and Peoples of North and South America observe
the Venereal Disease, and was their Manhood infected with it? pp.
62-72.—Div. 8. On the Spread of infectious Diseases by sea, and the
Quarantine observed during the Plague on the different coasts of the
Mediterranean Sea. pp. 73-81.—_Recapitulation_: The Venereal Disease
prevailed as a “Febris Pestilentialis” (pestilential fever) in March
1493, and after the arrival of Charles VIII in Italy (1494) took the
name of “Morbus Gallicus” (French Complaint); the Venereal affections
observed in Antiquity are distinct from the Venereal Disease as known
since 1494; the Spaniards imported it into the Antilles, and the French
were already infected when they came into Italy, where the Disease had
been prevalent before their arrival. The early Voyages mention not a
word of having found the Disease among the Savages. America, Africa
and the East Indies have never communicated their epidemic and endemic
Diseases to Europe; therefore the Venereal Disease cannot have been
brought by the Spaniards from America to Europe.—Both Works of Sanchez
are now rare. Comp. _Girtanner_, vol. III. pp. 460-471.—_Richter_,
Chirurg. Bibliothek. vol. III. p. 381.
6) _Berdoe_, Mermaduke: An essay on the Pudendagra. Bath 1771. 8vo.
_Girtanner_, vol. III. p. 577., says: the Author has collected
everything that is found in the older Writers on the subject of the
“Pudendagra”, and shows wherein it is distinct from the Venereal
Disease.
7) _Ph. Gabr. Hensler_, Geschichte der Lustseuche, die zu Ende des XV.
Jahrhunderts ausbrach. _Erster_ Band. Altona 1783. 335. 134 S. 8. Neuer
Abdruck oder Titel? 1794.
(_Ph. Gabr. Hensler_, “History of the Venereal Disease, which broke out
at the End of the XVth. Century.” First Volume. Altona 1783. pp. 335
and 134. 8vo. New Impression or new Title? 1794.)
The Work is divided into two Books. _First Book_: Notices of
contemporary Works on Venereal Disease, pp. 1-140. Section I., Works
before Leonicenus, pp. 5-26. Sect. II., Works from Leonicenus to
Almenar, pp. 27-68. Sec. III., Works of contemporary Writers directed
towards diminishing the Disease, pp. 69-140.—_Second Book_: Description
of the Disease. Sec. I., Local Affections. 1. Infection of the private
parts, pp. 144-150. 2. Scalding and Urine-Scalding before and at the
time of the Attack, pp. 151-168. 3. Discharge from the Penis in Men,
pp. 169-203. 4. Discharge in Women, pp. 204-217. 5. Foul Ulcer, pp.
228-244. 6. Abscesses of the groin, pp. 245-264. 7. Local Sequelae of
foul Discharge and Ulcer, pp. 265-275. (Swellings of the Testicles,
Ulcers of the Urethra, Scalding Urine, Sharp Urine, Ulcers and Fistulae
of the Perinaeum, Phimosis and Paraphimosis, Wasting of the Genitals).
8. Other Local Affections of the secret parts, pp. 277-302. (Eruptions,
Morbid Growths, Ulcers of the Anus, Piles). 9. Traces of the earlier
Taint in non-medical Writers, pp. 307-328.—Forming an Appendix, pp.
1-134, are excerpts from _Schellig_, _Wimpheling_, _Cumanus_, _Brant_,
_Grunpeck_, _Widmann_, _Steber_, _Pinctor_, _Grünbeck_, _Benedictus_,
different Historians of the XVth. and XVIth. Centuries, _St. Job_,
and _Christ. Columbus’_ “Epistola de insulis nuper in mari Indico
repertis,” (Letter on the Islands lately discovered in the Indian Sea).
8) _Ph. Gabr. Hensler_, über den westindischen Ursprung der Lustseuche.
Hamburg 1789. 92. 15 S. 8.
(_Ph. Gabr. Hensler_, “On the West-Indian Origin of the Venereal
Disease.” Hamburg 1789. pp. 92 and 15. 8vo.)
Also under the Title: “History of the Venereal Disease etc.” Second
Volume, Second Part. The First Part of this Vol., which was to
contain the Description of the Disease, never appeared. The Work is
particularly directed against _Girtanner_; and investigates. (2)
The exact Time of the appearance of the Disease in Italy. (3) The
eye-witnesses of the importation of Venereal Disease from Hispaniola
to Spain. (4) Eye-witnesses of the existence of Venereal Disease in
Hispaniola as its home. (5) Testimonies to the fact that Venereal
Disease was once endemic on the main-land of America. (6) Later
witnesses of the importation into Spain of the Venereal Disease
previously endemic in Hispaniola. The proofs are from (pp. 1-15):
_Oviedo_, _Welsch_, _Lopez de Gomara_, _Roman. Pane_, _Pedro de Cieça
de Leon_, _Augustin. de Zaratte_, _Hieron. Benzoni_.
9) _Phil. Gabr. Hensler_, Programma de Herpete seu Formica veterum
labis venereae non prorsus experte. Kilon. 1801. 64 S. 8.
(_Phil. Gabr. Hensler_, ““Program” (College Exercise) on the _Herpes_
(Creeping eruption) or _Formica_ of the Ancients,—a Malady not
unconnected with the Venereal Disease.” Kiel 1801. pp. 64. 8vo.)
This “Program”, which _Hensler_ wrote on his resignation as Dean and
for the Public Announcement of certain Graduations, is divided into
10 Divisions, of which Div. 1 gives a survey of the Contents, Div. 2
considers certain passages from the genuine Writings of Hippocrates
(Prorrhetic. 11, 18, 21, “de aere, aquis et locis”—“of the effects
of air, water and locality”, II. Aphorism. V. 22.) dealing with
_Herpes_, from which we gather that under the name _Herpes_ were
understood eating (phagedenic) Ulcers, that the _Herpes esthiomenes_
attacked especially the abdomen and the Genitals, that _Epinyctis_ was
pre-eminently a disease of adults, whence a suspicion arises of its
being communicated by coition. Div. 3 gives medical opinion on the
different kinds of _Herpes_ down to _Celsus_. Div. 4 gives the same on
_Epinyctis_, special importance being given to the pains at night. Div.
5 discusses the _Therioma_ of _Celsus_ (V. 28. 3.), which according
to _Pollux_, Onomast. IV. 15., specially affects the Genitals, and is
closely akin to the _Epinyctis_. Div. 6 gives the views of _Galen_ on
_Herpes_. Div. 7. The Author proceeds to the _Formica_ of the Arabians,
and shows that they have designated several distinct Skin-diseases by
this name. Div. 8 treats the views held by Arabic writers down to the
XVth. Century; whilst Div. 9 gives the shape these views took _during_
the XVth. Century. In Div. 10 _Hensler_ draws the following conclusions
from the evidence he has adduced: _Formica_ was the same thing as the
_Herpes_ of the Greeks; under both names, yet by no means exclusively,
were indicated syphilitic affections. Immorality at all periods
generated Venereal Disease, which arose at first rather sporadically,
but towards the end of the XVth. Century in consequence of its
universal diffusion became virtually epidemic. The early neglect of
Etiology, as well as the Galenian hypotheses of deteriorations of the
humours, stood in the way of the right understanding of the Disease.
Venereal Disease is not a single Malady, but a Diathesis (General
Condition of Body), which in accordance with time and circumstances
may manifest itself in different forms. “Hujusmodi vero lues mihi
illa _omnis_ esse videtur, quae _ipso coitu_, quo quidem loco luis
praecipuus focus est, facillime cum aliis _communicari_ et ad ipsam
prolem propagari possit. _Summa_ ejus _genera_ esse equidem arbitror
_Lepram_, malum, quod _Pians_ vocant, ipsamque Syphilidem.” “This
contagion seems to me to be a general one, and of this sort that it
is capable of being very readily communicated to others by the act of
coition, where indeed is the chief _nidus_ of the Disease, and of being
propagated even to posterity. Its main forms are, in _my_ opinion,
Leprosy, a Malady called _Pians_, and Syphilis itself.” (p. 54). The
_Pians_ would seem to be Pox, the seeds of which the Moors disseminated,
Syphilis a “Morbus Europae inquilinus” (a Disease native to Europe).
The three Diseases are akin, and merge into one another.
10) La America vindicada de la calumnia de haber sido madre del mal
venereo. Madrid 1785. 4.
(“America Vindicated from the Calumny of having been the Mother of the
Venereal Disease.” Madrid 1785. 4to.)
_Sprengel_ in the Annotations to _P. Ant. Perenotti di Cigliano_, “Of
the Venereal Disease”, p. 348., calls this Work, which would seem to
be in the University Library of Göttingen: “a well-written Tract,
wherein, from p. 34 onwards, it is demonstrated that Venereal Disease
did not come from Hayti.” Comp. Götting. gelehrte Anzeig. 1788. Sect
169 p. 1614.
11) _P. Ant. Perenotti di Cigliano_, Storia generale dell’ origine dell’
essenza e specifica qualita della infezione venerea. Turin 1788. 8.
(_P. Ant. Perenotti di Cigliano_, “General History of the Origin,
Essence and Specific Quality of the Venereal Contagion”. Turin 1788.
8vo.)
This Work with another of the same Author dealing with the treatment
of Venereal Disease was translated into German and furnished with
appendices by _C. Sprengel_, under the Title: _P. A. Perenotti di
Cigliano_, “Of the Venereal Disease, translated from the Italian,
with Appendices.” Leipzig 1791. pp. XVI, 384. large 8vo. The Author
maintains the antiquity of the Disease.
12) _Will. Turnbull_, An inquiry into the origin and antiquity of the
lues venerea, with observations on its introduction and progress in the
Islands of the South-Sea. London 1786. 8vo.
Of this there appeared a German translation by _Dr. Christ. Friedr.
Michaelis_. Zittau and Leipzig 1789. pp. 110. large 8vo. The Author
maintains the American origin, and especially seeks to confute _Becket_
and _Raynold Forster_.
13) _Just. Arnemann_, De morbo venereo analecta quaedam ex manuscriptis
musei Britannici Londinensis. Götting. 1789. 4.
(_Just. Arnemann_, “Certain Extracts from Manuscripts in the British
Museum in London dealing with the Venereal Disease.” Göttingen 1789.
4to.)
This Work contains according to _Girtanner_, III. p. 733., fresh proofs
for the American origin.
14) _M. Sarmiento_, Antiquitad de los bubas. Madrid 1788. 32 S. 8.
(_M. Sarmiento_, “Antiquity of Buboes.” Madrid 1788. pp. 32. 8vo.)
Comp. the English Review. 1778. p. 221.—Allgem. Literaturzeitung 1789.
vol. II. p. 647.
15) _M. S. G. Schmidt_, praeside (et auctore) _C. Sprengel_, de
ulceribus virgae tentamen historico-chirurgicum. Halae 1790. 8.
(_M. S. G. Schmidt_, (_Editor and part-Author, C. Sprengel_), “On
Ulcers of the Penis,—a Historico-Surgical Essay.” Halle 1790. 8vo.)
16) _Christ. Gothofr. Gruner_, Morbi Gallici origines Maranicae. Progr.
Jen. 1793. 4.
(_Christ. Gothofr. Gruner_, “Moorish Sources of Syphilis”. (University
“Program”) Jena 1793. 4to.)
Is re-printed in the above cited, p. 12. No. 10., Collection of
“Scriptores de Morbo Gallico” (Writers on Syphilis).
17) Sind die Maranen die wahren Stammväter der Lustseuche von 1493?
Im Journal der Erfind., Theorien und Widersprüche in der Natur- und
Arzneiwissenschaft. Stück III. Gotha 1793. S. 1-34. Stück IV. Gotha
1794. S. 119-129.
(“Are the Moors the true Parents of the Venereal Disease of 1493?” In
the Journal of Discoveries, Theories and Refutations in Natural Science
and Medicine. Part III. Gotha 1793. pp. 1-34. Part IV. Gotha 1794. pp.
119-129.)
Both these Papers would seem to have had _Prof. Fr. Aug. Hecker_,
of Erfurt, as Author; and are directed especially against the just
mentioned Work of _Gruner_, and the Moorish origin generally. _Gruner_
sought to maintain his views in the following Papers:
18) Die Maranen sind die wahren Stammväter der Lustseuche von 1493; in
s. _Almanach_ Jahrgang 1792. S. 51-92.—Geschichte der Maranen und der
Eroberung von Granada. _Ebendaselbst_ S. 158-196.—Die Maranen dürften
doch wohl die Stammväter der Lustseuche von 1493 sein. _Ebendas._ 1793.
S. 69-89. 1794. S. 229-268.
(“The Moors are the true Parents of the Venereal Disease of 1493;” in
his _Almanach_, Year 1792. pp. 51-92.—“History of the Moors and the
Conquest of Granada.” Ibid. pp. 158-199.—The Moors must be admitted the
Parents of the Venereal Disease of 1493.” Ibid. 1793. pp. 69-89. 1794.
pp. 229-268).
Comp. also some earlier Papers in Year 1784. pp. 224-237, Year 1790 pp.
139-157.
19) _Sim. N. H. Linguet_, Histoire politique et philosophique de Mal de
Naples. Paris 1796. 8.
(_Sim. N. H. Linguet_, “History, Political and Philosophical, of the
Neapolitan Disease.” Paris 1796. 8vo.).
This Work seems to be no longer on the market; at any rate we were
unable by any means to procure it
20) _C. Sprengel_, Ueber den muthmasslichen Ursprung der Lustseuche
aus dem südwestlichen Afrika. In dessen Beiträgen zur Geschichte der
Medicin. Halle 1796. Bd. I. Hft. 3. S. 61-104.
(_C. Sprengel_, “On the probable Origin of the Venereal Disease in
South-Western Africa.” In his Contributions to the History of Medicine.
Halle 1796. Vol. I. Pt. 3. pp. 61-104).
The Author maintains, following up a previous suggestion of
_Hensler’s_, that _Yaws_ and _Pians_ are the original forms of Venereal
Disease.
21) _J. F. B. Bouillon la Grange_, Observations sur l’origine de
la maladie vénérienne dans les Isles de la mer du Sud. In Recueil
périodique de la societé de Santé. T. I. 1797. 38-47.
_J. F. B. Bouillon la Grange_, “Observations on the Origin of the
Venereal Disease in the Islands of the South Sea.” In Periodical Review
of the Health Society. Vol. I. 1797. 38-47).
22) _Wilh. Ernest. Christ. Aug. Sickler_, Diss. exhibens novum ad
historiam luis venereae additamentum. Jenae 1797. (VIII. April.) 32 S.
8.
(_Wilh. Ernest. Christ. Aug. Sickler_, “Dissertation containing some
fresh Material towards a History of the Venereal Disease.” Jena 1797.
(Apr. 8.) pp. 32. 8vo.).
The Author here treats some of the passages from the Old Testament
referring to the Plague of the Jews that spread amongst them on account
of their worshipping Baal Peor, which had not before been used. The
little Work seems not to have been made use of by later Writers;
neither _Hacker_ nor _Choulant_ note it. The Author’s brother had first
called attention to the passages in _Augusti_ “Theologische Blätter”,
Gotha, No. 13.
23) _Dr. Schaufus_, Neueste Entdeckungen über das Vaterland und die
Verbreitung der Pocken und der Lustseuche. Leipzig 1805. 160 S. 8.
(_Dr. Schaufus_, “Latest Discoveries with regard to the Original Home
and Dissemination of Pox and Venereal Disease.” Leipzig 1805. pp. 160.
8vo).
Comp. _Ehrhardt_, Med. Chirurg. Zeitung. Insbruck 1806. Vol. I. p. 375.
_Pierer_, Allgem. Med. Annalen. 1866. p. 364.
The Author derives Venereal Disease from the East Indies and makes the
Gypsies bring it to Europe. From p. 65 to the conclusion of the Work he
treats fully of the Venereal Disease in the islands of the South Sea,
and at the same time gives an exhaustive list of the authorities on
this subject.
24) _Carol. Sam. Törnberg_, Spic. inaug. med. sistens sententiarum de
vera morbi gallici origine synopsin historicam. Jenae XXIX. August.
1807. 26 S. 8.