The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2) / Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical Antiquity
Date: 2020-06-02T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Sexually transmitted diseases -- History

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2)

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2)

Author: Julius Rosenbaum

Release date: June 1, 2020 [eBook #62300]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Turgut Dincer, Les Galloway and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
book was produced from images made available by the
HathiTrust Digital Library.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PLAGUE OF LUST, VOL. 1 (OF 2) ***

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.

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.

The book contains several blank pages and long and multi page footnotes hence there are gaps in, and variable spacing of, page numbers. Many index entries refer directly to muli-page footnotes, where this is clearly the case, the index link directs to the footnote.

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 unfavourable1 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 impracticable2.

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
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. Wizmann3 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.

But in as much as this general incompleteness of information exists 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. Hensler4 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 Juvenal6 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 Sophist7: “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’s8 time, for the lascivious epigrams on the walls of the grottos, temples and statues of Priapus9, 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 Venus11.

§ 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 Deity12, 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 alluring13 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 overflowing14, 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 purification15 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 hand16 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 pruriency17. “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 Pausanias18, “the Assyrians first introduced amongst themselves, after the Assyrians the Paphians in Cyprus19, and among the Phoenicians20 the inhabitants of Ascalon in Palestine. From the Phoenicians the inhabitants of Cythera21 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 Sabaean22 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 Herodotus23 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-wenches24. And accordingly Q. Curtius25 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 Strabo2627 says consecrate their daughters for some considerable length of time to Anaitis, and only after this suffer them to marry. Herodotus28 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 Phoenicians29, 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. Lucian30 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 Carthaginians31 also, as in Cyprus32, 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. Heyne34 and Fr. Jacobs35, 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 strangers36. 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 Heeren37.

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 classes38 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 Africa39 and in the Balearic Islands40, where the right of preference went by age.

We must then take into consideration several causal factors to help us to an explanation of the custom in question. The original motive may very well have been in every case the consecration of the maiden’s virginity to the goddess,41—Hieroduli (Temple hand-maids) in the earlier meaning. Further again the maiden was bound to pay her tribute to the goddess of sexual Pleasure42, so as to co-operate with the husband with a view to the procreation of children. Little by little the custom lost its purer character. After a time it ceased to be any longer one of universal obligation, and became binding only for the poorer classes, who found in it an opportunity of earning a dowry43 for their daughters. Meantime the rich adopted the habit of presenting female slaves to the temple of the goddess, thereby giving occasion for the establishment of the regular Hieroduli,—who subsequently grew into filles de joie in the proper sense, and laying the foundation of the brothel system (see later). Out of the idea of consecration was subsequently developed on the one hand that of initiation for the married state,—an idea found again in the “proof-nights” custom of the Middle Ages, and on the other the idea of bondage that grew into the “Jus primae noctis” (Right of first night).

As second factor then must be reckoned the belief in the harmfulness of the blood resulting from rupture of the hymen at defloration; and connected with this the actual injury that the man’s genital organs are occasionally exposed to in deflowering a maid with narrow vaginal orifice, or at any rate the effort necessarily called for to perforate the hymen, a motive not without actual weight amongst indolent Asiatics44. To this day the bridegroom at Goa gives thanks to the Priapus (Lingam), that has loosed his bride’s virgin-zone, with marks of the deepest adoration and gratitude for having performed this honourable service and so relieved him of a heavy task45.

For the maid defloration is yet more painful, and as she had to go through it once and once only with a stranger, she might readily get the idea that it was the stranger alone that was to blame; consequently that every surrender to a stranger must involve the same sufferings. This would deter her from a second experience of the kind, and all the more so because the subsequent embraces of the husband stirred in her only pleasurable sensations. So the wife had no inducement to break the marriage vow.

§ 5.

When and under what circumstances the cult of Venus first came into Greece can hardly be discovered, though indeed Pausanias states in the passage quoted above that it was Aegeus (Erechtheus) who brought it to Athens. For a long period it played only a subordinate part, being kept under by the primeval god Eros (Love)46. No doubt the physical element may have come in early times from abroad47, but before long the stamp of the spiritual was strongly impressed upon it (the Graces were added as handmaidens to Aphrodité!),—so strongly that the idea of the procreating power fell henceforth into the background, to give place to that of Love, an idea that was entirely foreign to Asia. The amalgamation of Eros and Aphrodité, who was now first hallowed by him, or as the poet puts it, now first brought forward into the assemblage (Order) of the Gods, came about so gradually and imperceptibly that it would hardly be possible to obtain a clear conception of the views of the Greeks on the point. In consequence of the growing intercourse with the peoples of Asia, and particularly the Phoenicians48, foreign customs and usages came to be introduced and adopted with ever increasing frequency; and during the flourishing period of Greece we see the Asiatic character of the Venus ritual come into ever greater prominence, and the goddess herself in a sense re-introduced. Especially was this the case in the Islands and the seaport-towns, where as a rule the worship of Aphrodité first arose. Hence she was entitled the goddess “born of the (Sea) Foam”, and temples were built to her as “Protectress of Havens.”49

But the Greek genius found this physical Cult too strongly opposed to its own spirit. The Greek could not bring it into unison with his Eros-worship; and accordingly distinguished his goddess, under the name of Aphrodité Urania (Heavenly Aphrodité)50, from that worshipped by other Peoples as Aphrodité Pandemos51 (Aphrodité Common to all Men). The latter was relegated to the Islands52, and particularly Cyprus; and never properly speaking became a national Deity.

It is very interesting as a general fact that the Venus Urania always belongs, so it appears, to the inland regions, the Venus Pandemos on the contrary to the sea-ports and islands53; for it was as a rule from East to West along the coast-lines that the Asiatic form of the Cult spread, a thing that could not have happened except through the instrumentality of a people early practising navigation, such as the Phoenicians.

It cannot fail to have an important bearing on our subject to make a more precise acquaintance with the geographical distribution of the Venus-cult. We propose to give here a brief enumeration of the localities where she had her temples. The passages in evidence for this will be found given with tolerable completeness in Manso,—p. 46, also pp. 158 sqq.

In Cyprus: at Paphos, whither came yearly a great concourse of people at the festival time54; in Pamphilia; in Asia Minor; along the Coast-line of the Aegean; in Caria (Cnidos); Halicarnassus; Miletus; Ephesus; Sardis; Pergamus; Pyrrha; Abydos (Aphrodité πόρνη—harlot); in Thessaly; at Tricca; in Boeotia, (Tanagra—on the Sea); in Attica, (Athens, Colias, Pera55, on the Cephissus); in the Islands of the Aegean Sea, (Ceos, Cos, Samos, where the temple was built from the earnings of the Hetaerae); in the Peloponnese: at Argolis, Epidaurus, Troezen, Hermioné, (was visited by maids and widows before their marriage); in Laconia, (Amyclae, Cythera); Arcadia, (Megalopolis, Tegea, Orcomenus); Elis, (Olympia, Elis); Achaia, (Patrae, Corinth); on the Coast of the Corinthian Gulf. From Greece we come to Sicily, where the temple of Venus on Mount Eryx was hardly inferior to that of Paphos, also at Syracuse56.

Not without importance for our purpose is the statement of Strabo57, that in the island of Cos in the temple of Aesculapius was an effigy of Venus Anadyomené (coming from the bath), while according to Pausanias58 in a wood near the temple of the same god at Epidaurus was built a chapel of Aphrodité, since very possibly this may throw some light on the question of the knowledge of complaints of the genital organs possessed by the physicians of Cos. Böttiger59 is of opinion that it was from the infirmaries and lazarettos of the Phoenicians that the earliest medical science of the Greeks was introduced—to the island of Cos; to Aegina, on the Peloponnesian coasts, especially at Epidaurus. Probably these establishments were originally under the protection of the national deity, until the latter was superseded by the god Aesculapius.

As regards the cult of Aphrodité itself and the manner in which it was celebrated in Greece, there appears to be a great lack of particulars capable of supplying a general knowledge of the subject, and especially so where the Pandemian Aphrodité is concerned. Accordingly we will limit ourselves here to mentioning the female Hieroduli60 who as bondswomen of Aphrodité dwelt within the precinct of her Temple, and performed the necessary observances in her honour. These were, as already pointed out, of Asiatic origin, and to be found in greater numbers particularly at Ameria61 and Comana62 in Pontus, where they united with the temple-service the traffic of their bodies, (τῶν ἐργαζομένων ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος—of women who traffic with their body), just as in later times male Hieroduli gave up their persons for Paederastia.

When the cult of Venus came into Greece, the Hieroduli were introduced along with it. But they stripped off in Greece their Asiatic character, which they assumed again only in particular sea-port towns at the period of the decline of the moral greatness of the Nation, in places where the temple of Aphrodité Πόρνη (Harlot) was found. Specially was this so at Corinth63, in which city were more than a thousand female Hieroduli, who were presented as slaves to the Temple. These attracted a great concourse of strangers to the place, and in particular used to prey upon sea-faring visitors. Possibly however in this case as in others a confusion took place between the Hieroduli properly so-called and the Hetaerae (Lady-Companions), who were euphemistically entitled Priestesses, Handmaids of Aphrodité, because they were under the patronage of that goddess, just as in a general way sexual enjoyment was called an offering to Venus.

This would offer the best solution of the question, early debated, of the morality of the Hieroduli. It was quite opposed to Greek feeling to worship Aphrodité after the Asiatic manner in her temples; and so the Greek distinguished his Venus Urania from the Venus Pandemos, and on the same principle separated her temples into two categories, and made the temples of Aphrodité Pandemos, Porné and Praxis (Common to All, Harlot, Sexual Intercourse) into the οἰκήματα τῆς Ἀφροδίτης (houses of Aphrodité) serving as ordinary brothels, the latter being only intended for Foreigners originally.

How and under what form the cult of Venus came into Italy is uncertain, but the legend represents Aeneas as having brought it from Troy to Lavinium and Laurentum64, and already in the time of Romulus a Venus Myrtea (Venus of the Myrtle) was venerated at Rome. In addition a Venus Cloacina, Erycina, Victrix, and Verticordia (Venus—the Purifier, of Mount Eryx, of Victory, the Turner of Hearts) are mentioned, as also a Venus Calva (bald), whose worship King Ancus is said to have introduced, at a time when the Roman women had lost their hair through a plague and it had grown again by the help of Venus65. Not only are the notices as to Venus worship in Italy very scanty, but everything on the subject points to the fact that what there was of it in later times showed little of the Asiatic impress; and we can conveniently leave the matter where it is. Some questions belonging to the subject will be discussed later under the heading Brothels. In Spain too the worship of Venus was so unimportant that there is no need to enter more closely into the point.

The Lingam and Phallic Worship.

§ 6.

Whilst the cult of Venus sprang up in the interior of Asia and was disseminated from thence over other parts of the world, it is in India that the Lingam ritual took its rise, a ritual more closely corresponding with the egotism of man. The idea that was early formed as the result of observation, that the man’s genitals were the determining element in the process of generation, was bound to conceive these organs themselves as being, in the prevailing system of Pantheism, under the Government of a Deity, and therefore as specially holy66. Now how could this Deity be represented to the eyes of men otherwise than by that organ whereby he pre-eminently showed himself efficacious? The later legend it is true put the matter into another shape; and we find in Sonnerat67 the myth of the Lingam-ritual amongst the worshippers of Vishnu related in the following form:

“The Penitents had by means of their sacrifices and prayers attained great power; but their hearts and their wives’ hearts must ever remain pure, if they would continue in possession of it. Now Siva had heard the beauty of these latter highly extolled, and formed the determination of seducing them. With this aim in view he took on him the form of a young mendicant68 of perfect beauty, bade Vishnu transform himself into a fair maiden and resort to the spot where the Penitents dwelt, in order to make them fall in love with him. Vishnu betook himself thither, and as he passed through their midst threw them such tender glances that they were all enamoured. They left all their sacrifices to follow after the youthful fair one.69

Their passions grew all the fiercer, till at last they seemed all lifeless and their languishing bodies resembled wax that melts near the fire.

Siva himself hied to the dwelling-place of the women. In mendicant guise he carried in one hand a water-bottle, and sang as he went, as beggars do. Now his song was so entrancing, that all women gathered round him, and thereupon under the gaze of the fair singer fell into complete distraction. This was so great with some that they lost their ornaments and clothing, and followed him in the garb of nature without noticing the fact.

When he had marched through the village, he left it, but not unaccompanied, for all followed him into a neighbouring thicket, where he had his will of them. Soon afterwards the Penitents became aware that their sacrifices no longer possessed their former efficacy, and that their power was no more the same as before. After a period of pious contemplation they now learned that it had been Siva who in the form of a Youth had seduced their wives into profligacy, and that they themselves had been led astray by Vishnu in the likeness of a Maid.

Accordingly they determined to slay Siva by means of a sacrifice.

(After many vain attempts), ashamed to have lost their honour without being able to avenge themselves, they made a last desperate effort; they united into one all their prayers and expiations, and directed them against Siva. It was the most terrible of their sacrifices, and God himself could not withstand the effects of its operation. They went forth like a flame of fire and fastened on Siva’s organs of generation and severed them from his body. Enraged with the Penitents, Siva now resolved to set the whole world in conflagration to punish them. The fire was already beginning to seize all around, when Vishnu and Brahma, on whom it was incumbent to save the living creatures in the world, thought of means to put a stop to it. Brahma took the form of a pedestal(?) and Vishnu that of the female organs of generation, and in this way copied Siva’s organs of generation, and thereby the universal conflagration was stayed. Siva suffered himself to be appeased by their prayers, and promised not to burn up the world, if men would pay divine honours to the dissevered organs.”

Now if we consider this myth, as related here, more closely, we can scarcely avoid the suspicion that it is one of those that in later times were fabricated in many forms and foisted in as genuine. For it is entirely adapted to explain the origin of the Venereal disease in a way that leaves little to be desired; for which reason it was used by Schaufus as the basis of his argument that the Venereal disease was introduced into Europe from India. But on the other hand this particular story is so accordant with the ancient creed of the Hindoos in general that, if it is of later origin, it must have been put together with the assistance of older legends. The continued union with the god, the power which the Penitents owed to him, was connected with purity of heart, with avoidance of sensuality70; directly they indulged in the latter, they were deprived of the divine influence, just as in the Mosaic legend resulted from the Fall of Man. This is one part of the legend,—manifestly a double one, while the other includes the punishment of the being who wrought this profanation. His genitals were destroyed by burning, which was attacking the World (i.e. men through the women seduced by Siva?), and ceased only through the prayers of the Penitents, which again became efficacious; thereupon the organs thus happily made sound again were suspended as thank-offerings in the temple of the god.

It would seem then that it was the sickness of the male genitals which gave occasion for their consecration and worship; and this is so far not inconsistent with reason, as the external position of the sexual parts in the male make every affection and injury perceptible at once with but little trouble, while the female organs lie in a more concealed situation. So that to the present day diseases of the male genitals are far more precisely known and appreciated than those of the female.

Should the enquirer push his search for an explanation further still, he might, arguing from what is said as to Vishnu’s having copied Siva’s sexual organs that had been blighted by the fire under the form of female genitals, allege a sort of natural cause for the conflagration, to wit the suggestion of a mode of cure which was frequently recommended and practised in the Middle Ages, when persons thought to drive away the clap by coition with virgins. But this is surely nothing else than an explanation of the Lingam71 superimposed on the symbol of the Juni, the feminine principle, in the form of the triangle, which Böttiger holds to be identical with the navel-stone of the Paphian goddess.

F. G. Klein72 professes to have proved from annals of Malabar that long before the discovery of the West Indies Venereal disease was known in the East Indies, for the Malabar physicians Sangarasiar and Alessianambi, who lived more than nine hundred years ago, and other physicians even before them, make mention he says of the Disease and its cure by means of Mercury. But in Antiquity affections of the genitals must have certainly been rarities amongst the inhabitants of India, for the Greeks73 count them amongst the longlived peoples, as owing to their moderation they were subject to few diseases. Again the climate of India is by no means to be considered as a factor favourable to the disease, Munro74 assuring us that simple herbs and moderate mode of life make the Hindoo recover, when no European could fail to succomb.

§ 7.

Whether the Phallus ritual in Egypt, where it is supposed to have arisen from the generative organs of Osiris cut off by Typho, have an Indian origin or no, it is impossible to decide75. But that it existed is certain, for not only are miniature Phalli often found with Mummies, but it was also portrayed in the Temple of Karnak76; and Herodotus77 mentions it, and adds at the same time that in the statutes the Phalli were movable. Perhaps from it was developed in part the cult of Mendes, of which we shall speak later. Although Herodotus78 declares that the Egyptians were the first people who had forbidden the accomplishment of coition in the temples, yet Strabo79 writes that they dedicated to Zeus the fairest and best-born maidens, whom the Greeks called Pallades, and compelled them to give themselves to men until their menstruation began for the first time, whereupon they were married.

As regards Greece on the contrary there is scarcely a doubt that the worship of Bacchus, and with it the Phallic ritual80, was transplanted to that country from India. To explain the occasion of this introduction there is a legend related in the highest degree worthy of attention in connection with the history of affections of the genitals. It is told by Natalis Comes81 in the following terms:

“Fuerunt et Phallica in Dionysi honorum instituta, quae apud Athenienses agebantur, apud quos primus Pegasus ille Eleutheriensis Bacchi cultum instituit, in quibus cantabant quem ad modum Deus hic morbo Athenienses liberavit et quem ad modum multorum bonorum auctor mortalibus extitit. Fama est enim quod Pegaso imagines Dionysi ex Eleutheris civitate Boeotiae in Atticam regionem portante Athenienses Deum neglexerunt neque, ut mos erat, cum pompa acceperunt: quare Deus indignatus pudenda hominum morbo infestavit, qui erat illis gravissimus: tunc eis ab oraculo, quo pacto liberari possent petentibus, responsum datum est: solum esse remedium malorum omnium, si cum honore et pompa Deum recepissent; quod factum fuit. Ex ea re tum privatim tum publice lignea virilia thyrsis alligantes per eam solennitatem gestabant. Fuit enim Phallus vocatum membrum virile. Alii Phallum ideo consecratum Dionyso putarunt, quia sit autor creditus generationis.”

(There were Phallic rites too established in honour of Dionysus, (these were observed among the Athenians; for it was at Athens that the far-famed Pegasus first established the worship of Eleutherian Bacchus)82, at which men chanted hymns telling how the god freed the Athenians from a plague, and how he was the giver of many good gifts to mortals. For the story relates that Pegasus brought the images of Dionysus from Eleutherae, a city of Boeotia, to the land of Attica; but the Athenians slighted the god, and did not, as was the wont, receive him with a procession. Wherefore the god was wroth, and afflicted the men’s private parts with a disease that was most grievous to them. So they consulted the oracle, asking in what way they might be freed from the plague, and received the answer: there was one only remedy for all their ills, viz. that they should welcome the god with due honour and fitting procession. And this they did accordingly. And in commemoration thereof they used to bind virilia (male generative organs) of wood to the thyrsi (Bacchic staves), and carry them thus at the solemnity in question; and this was done both privately and publicly. For Phallus is the name given to a man’s privy member. Others again considered that it was consecrate to Dionysus for this reason, because he was deemed the author of procreation).

Still more striking is the legend which the same author, Natalis Comes83, gives of the introduction of Priapus worship into Lampsacus, though it bears so great a resemblance to the preceding that the one might almost be thought to have been taken from the other. Aphrodité, he says, on the occasion of Bacchus’84 progress to India was made pregnant by him, and on her return to Lampsacus was brought to bed of Priapus, whose deformity was caused by the goddess Juno85, who afforded succour to the mother at the time of his birth:

“Deinde, cum adolevisset (Priapus) pergratusque foret Lampsacenis mulieribus, Lampsacenorum decreto ex agro Lampsaceno exulavit.—Fuerunt qui memoriae prodiderint Priapum fuisse virum Lampsacenum, qui cum haberet ingens instrumentum et facile paratum plantandis civibus, gratissimus fuerit mulieribus Lampsacenis. Ea causa postmodo fuisse dicitur, ut Lampsacenorum omnium ceterorum invidiam in se converterit, ac demum eiectus fuerit ex ipsa insula. At illud facinus aegerrime ferentibus mulieribus et pro se deos precantibus, post cum nonnullis interiectis temporibus Lampsacenos gravissimus pudendorum membrorum morbus invasisset, Dodonaeum oraculum adeuntes percunctati sunt an ullum esset eius morbi remedium. His responsum est: morbum non prius cessaturum, quam Priapum in patriam revocassent. Quod cum fecissent, templa et sacrificia illi statuerunt, Priapumque hortorum Deum esse decreverunt.”

(Subsequently when he—Priapus—had come to man’s estate, and was now exceedingly pleasing to the women of Lampsacus, by a decree of the Lampsacenes he was exiled from the territory of Lampsacus.—Some there are to tell the tradition that Priapus was a man of Lampsacus who had a huge “instrument” ready and willing for the making of new citizens, and who on that account was most pleasing to the Lampsacene women. Wherefore it is said afterwards to have come about that he incurred the envy and hatred of all the rest of the men of Lampsacus, and eventually was expelled from the island altogether. But this was a disaster that the women most bitterly regretted; so they prayed to the gods to help them, and after some interval of time had elapsed a most grievous disease of the private parts attacked the men of Lampsacus. Then they reported to the oracle of Dodona, and enquired of the god if there were any remedy for this plague. The reply was to the effect that the disease would not cease till they had recalled Priapus to his native land. This they did; and furthermore built temples and established sacrifices in his honour, and decreed that Priapus should be the god of gardens).86

Whatever interpretation we may give to these legends of Bacchus and Priapus, this much at any rate may be gathered from them without fear of contradiction, that affections of the male genitals at the time when they first became prevalent were taken to be the original cause of the introduction of Phallic worship,—in connection with the defloration of virgins mentioned in § 4. This is not without importance as bearing on the antiquity of the well-known Indian legend of the Lingam-ritual; and at the same time shows clearly that those affections of the genital organs must have borne a malignant character that men could not explain to themselves otherwise than as proceeding from the wrath of a Deity, a deity who on the other hand alone possessed the power to remove these ills. Another factor of great importance in connection with affections of the genitals in Antiquity, and of all the greater importance in as much as it leads us to the conclusion that resort was had for their cure not to human but to divine assistance, partly indeed depends on reasons which we shall discuss more exactly later on. However these reasons may in part be gathered at once from the following supremely important poem in the Priapeia87, to which de Jurgenew first called attention in his Dissertation, p. 11, but without communicating it in its entirety:

Voti solutio.

Cur pictum memori sit in tabella
Membrum quaeritis unde procreamur?
Cum penis mihi forte laesus esset,
Chirurgique manum miser timerem,
Diis me legitimis, nimisque magnis
Ut Phoebo puta, filioque Phoebi
Curatum dare mentulam verebar.
Huic dixi, fer opem, Priape, parti,
Cuius tu, pater, ipse par videris:[88]
Qua salva sine sectione facta,
Ponetur tibi picta, quam levaris,
Parque consimilisque concolorque.
Promisit fore: mentulam movit
Pro nutu deus et rogata fecit.

Paying a Vow.

(Why, you ask, is portrayed on the tablet the member whereby we are begotten? When, as it befell, my penis was damaged, and like a wretched coward I dreaded the Surgeon’s hand, I was afraid to entrust myself and the cure of my organ to the great official gods, that were too high for me, such I mean as Phoebus and Phoebus’ son. “To the member, I said, do thou, Priapus, give aid,—the member that thou art fashioned in the likeness of88. Then when it has been healed without the knife, a painted image of the part thou has relieved shall be dedicated to thee,—a match, a perfect match in form and in hue.” Thus he made his vow; the god nodded his penis in token of assent, and answered his prayers.)

This poem, whoever its author may have been89, testifies most explicitly that the Poet’s genital organs were seriously affected (by Phimosis and Ulcers?), that he from fear (timerem) of the Surgeon’s knife, from shame (verebar) before the regular physician in view of the part affected and of the way in which he had got the disease, had recourse to prayer and vow before the image of Priapus, and thereupon happily recovered without medical assistance!

The veneration of Priapus was pretty well universal in Italy, as the Roman poets teach us, and equally so the Phallic worship, of which the frequent representations of the Phallus that we find at Pompeii bear witness; in fact the latter, as Knight shows, maintained itself in connection with the veneration of Saints Cosmus and Damian down to the last Century at Isernia. The just quoted Poem from the Priapeia might perhaps serve to afford us an indication as to how the Phallus ritual has come to be connected with these Christian Saints; for probably patients attacked by the Venereal disease prayed to them, just as the Romans did to Priapus. Possibly examples of such cures by the saints in question are found in the “Acta Sanctorum Bollandi”. (Bollandist Lives of the Saints),—under Sept. 27.; but we are not able to consult the book. These Saints however were not the only ones that were venerated in the Middle Ages in the same way as the Priapus of the Ancients. In France unfruitful wives used to pray to St. Guerlichon, in Normandy to St. Giles, in Anjou to St. René, in connection with whom they practised rites which Stephanus declares himself ashamed to specify90.

Plague of Baal-Peor.

§ 8.

Although the period at which the worship of Priapus was introduced among the different Peoples cannot be always definitely fixed, and although Classical Mythology invariably counts him as belonging to the newer91 gods, yet he appears in quite early times to have played a not unimportant part in Syria92,—if that is to say the conclusion93, pretty generally believed on other grounds, is well founded, that the god Baal Peor was a sort of Priapus, in whose temple, situated on Mount Peor94, young Maidens were offered up. The Rabbis95 derive the name from פְּעוֹר aperire sc. hymenem virgineum, (to open sc. the hymen of a virgin), as if it had sprung from the Phallus ritual, as still found in Italy. At Goa indeed a man’s member made of iron or ivory is fastened in the Pagoda, which in the case of every bride is pushed by the parents and relations into her vagina, until it brings away with it visibly the bloody traces of the rupture of the hymen96; a proceeding that is connected, as shown in § 4., with the belief in the malignity of the menstrual blood, and in that of blood coming from the ruptured hymen. On the Coromandel Coast likewise a wooden Priapus is to the present day most ardently venerated by the inhabitants97.

Here again we encounter a legend, which is not without importance for the history of the affections consequent upon the misuse of the genital organs, to wit the story of the Plague that broke out amongst the Jews at Shittim in consequence of their having taken part in the worship of Baal-Peor. Sickler98 was the first who, as a champion of the antiquity of the Venereal disease, made this the subject of a more precise examination. However, in order to obtain as clear an insight into the matter as possible, it will be needful to quote at length the passages of the Old Testament connected with the subject, according to the English Revised Version99:

Numbers, Ch. 25. verses 1-18: “And Israel
“abode in Shittim, and the people began to
“commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab:

2) “for they called the people unto the sacrifices

“of their gods, and the people did eat, and

3) “bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined

“himself unto Baal-Peor: and the anger of the
4) “Lord was kindled against Israel. And the
“Lord said unto Moses, Take all the chiefs of
“the people, and hang them up unto the Lord
“before the sun, that the fierce anger of the
5) “Lord may turn away from Israel. And Moses

“said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every

“one his men that have jointed themselves unto

6) “Baal-Peor. And, behold one of the children

“of Israel came and brought unto his brethren
“a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses,
“and in the sight of all the congregation of

“the children of Israel, while they were weeping

7) “at the door of the tent of meeting. And
“when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son
“of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from
“the midst of the congregation, and took a

8) “spear in his hand; and he went after the man

“of Israel into the pavilion, and thrust both of

“them through, the man of Israel, and the

“woman through her belly. So the plague was

9) “stayed from the children of Israel. And those

“that died by the plague were twenty and four

“thousand100.... Now the name of the

14) “man of Israel that was slain, who was slain

“with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the

“son of Salu, a prince of a fathers’ house among

15) “the Simeonites. And the name of the Midianitish

“woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter

“of Zur; he was head of the people of a fathers’

16) “house in Midian.—And the Lord spake unto

17) “Moses, saying, Vex the Midianites, and smite

18) “them: for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith

“they have beguiled you in the matter of

“Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter

“of the prince of Midian, their sister, which
“was slain on the day of the plague in the
“matter of Peor.”
Numbers, Ch. 31. verses 7-24: “And they
“warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded
9)  “Moses; and they slew every male.... And

“the children of Israel took captive the women

“of Midian and their little ones; and all their

14) “cattle, etc.... And Moses was wroth with

15) “the officers of the host, ... and Moses said

“unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16) “Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through

“the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against

“the Lord in the matter of Peor, and so the plague

17) “was among the congregation of the Lord. Now

“therefore kill every male among the little ones,

“and kill every woman that hath known man by

18) “lying with him. But all the women children,

“that have not known man by lying with him,

19)  “keep alive for yourselves. And encamp ye

“without the camp seven days: whosoever hath

“killed any person, and whosoever hath touched

“any slain, purify yourselves on the third day

“and on the seventh day, ye and your captives.

20) “And as to every garment, and all that is made

“of skin, and all work of goats’ hair, and all

“things made of wood, ye shall purify yourselves.

21) “And Eleazar the priest said unto the

“men of war which went to the battle, This is the

“statute of the law which the Lord hath commanded

22) “Moses: howbeit the gold, and the

23) “silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the

“lead, every thing that may abide the fire, ye

“shall make to go through the fire, and it shall

“be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with

“the water of separation (impurity): and all that

“abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through

24) “the water. And ye shall wash your clothes

“on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean,

“and afterward ye shall come into the camp.”

Besides these passages in the Books of Moses we find the plague of Baal-Peor further mentioned in the following places in the Old Testament:

Joshua, Ch. 22. v. 17: “Is the iniquity of

“Peor too little for us, from which we have not

“cleansed ourselves unto this day, although there

“came a plague upon the congregation of the
“Lord?”
Psalm 106. verses 28-30.: “They joined
“themselves also unto Baal-Peor, and ate the

29) “sacrifices of the dead (idols). Thus they

“provoked him to anger with their doings; and

30) “the plague brake in upon them. Then stood

“up Phinehas, and executed judgement: and
“so the plague was stayed.”
Hosea, Ch. 9. v. 10.: “I found Israel like
“grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers

“as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first

“season; but they came to Baal peor, and

“consecrated themselves unto the shameful thing,

“and became abominable like that which they

“loved.”

§ 9.

We find the Jews on their march towards Canaan already arrived at the Jordan, from which river Shittim lay at a distance of 60 Stades or 2-1/2 leagues according to Josephus101, and the neighbouring Peoples in a state of terror at their near approach and at their victories. The King of the Moabites, Balak, had sent to the soothsayer Balaam, that the latter by his arts (his curse) might annihilate the threatening foe. Balaam however, inspired by the spirit of the Lord, blessed the sons of Israel instead of cursing them, but gave Balak counsel how he could in another way bring about the ruin of the Jews. This counsel is indicated in the passage quoted, Numbers Ch. 31, v. 16, without being explicitly stated; but what it was can indeed be partially gathered from the context of the whole passage, and was apparently so understood by the author of the Apocalypse, when he says:102 “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there some that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.” Both Philo and Josephus, who perhaps lived only a little later, picture the course of events in full detail, though, it is true, from unknown authorities.

Philo103 writes as follows:

“Quae prius, inquit (Bileam), dixi oracula sunt omnia et vaticinationes: de reliquo quae loquar, animi mei coniecturae erunt.—Age vero praeclara eius monita videamus, quibus artibus instructa fuerint ad certissimam offensionem eorum, qui semper vincere poterant. Cum enim intelligeret Hebraeos una tantum ratione capi posse, violata facinore aliquo lege, per stupri libidinem et intemperantiam, magna mala, ad maius impietatis scelus inducere studebat voluptatis esca. Huius enim, aiebat, regionis, o rex, mulieres specie reliquis longe praestant: viri autem nulla re facilius quam mulieris forma expugnari possunt. Proinde si formosissimas quaestum facere prostareque permiseris, iuventutem adversariorum velut hamis capient. Ita autem doceri eas oportet, ne statim floris sui volentibus copiam faciant. Nam molestus ille aculeus simulatae recusationis libidinem acrius excitabit, et amorem accendet, actique libidine tanquam obtorto collo trahuntur, quidvis et facere et pati in animum inducent. Amatorem igitur ut quaeque sic affectum nacta erit, quae ad venationem illam subornantur, ferociter dicat: tibi consuetudine mea frui nefas est, nisi a patriis institutis desciveris, mutataque sententia eadem iuxta mecum colere coeperis. Huius defectionis fides ea demum mihi perspecta fuerit, si libamentorum eorundem et sacrorum particeps esse volueris, quae simulacris et statuis reliquisque signis ex ritu facere solemus.—Sic igitur ille tum consulebat: rex ista non abs re dici ratus, sublata de adulteris lege et abrogatis omnibus de stupro corruptelaque sanctionibus, proinde quasi nunquam rogatae essent, liberam facit mulieribus quibuscum vellent consuescendi potestatem. Illae vero licentia et impunitate data adolescentulorum multitudinem illiciebant, multo ante eorum animis circumventis et illecebrarum praestigiis ad impietatem impulsis: usque dum postremo pontificis filius Phinees, facta ista supra modum indignatus (teterrimum enim ei videbatur eodem tempore corpora et animos pro deditiis, illa voluptatibus, hos sceleri et impiae fraudi tradi iuvenilis audaciae memorabile facinus viroque dignum forti edidit. Nam quendam sui generis sacris operatum ad scortum ingredi conspicatus, neque submittentem in terram vultum, neque latere cupientem, neque, ut assolet, clanculum aditum suffurantem, sed inverecundam fiduciae intemperantiam prae se ferentem et in flagitio ridiculo velut in re praeclara magnifice se efferentem, exacerbatus indignitate rei et iusta repletus ira, cursu irrumpens adhuc in lecto iacentes amatorem et meretriculam confodit, genitaliaque eis praeterea desecat, quibus incestum satum patrarant. Istud exemplum aliqui continentiae et religionis studiosi iussu Mosis imitati, omnibus qui initiati fuerant simulacris manu factis, propinquis iuxta necessariisque occidione occisis, scelus gentis expiarunt inexorabili sceleratorum supplicio,—unoque die viginti quatuor millia hominum caesa sunt, et una statim sublata est communis labes, qua totus exercitus maculosus polluebatur.”

(All my words, said he (Balaam), thus far are dark sayings and prophecies; what I shall speak henceforth will be the counsels of my own mind.—But come let us look into his excellent advice, in what artful ways it has been framed for the sure and certain destruction of our ever-victorious foes. For perceiving that the Hebrews could be overcome in one fashion only, viz. through their violating the law by some terrible wrongdoing, he set himself, employing the bait of lust, to lead them on by way of fornication and incontinence, great offences in themselves, to the still greater crime of impiety. For this land, he said, oh! King, far excels all others in the beauty of its women; and by no other thing may men’s minds be so readily mastered as by a woman’s fairness. So if thou suffer the fairest amongst them to play the harlot and offer their beauty for a price, they will catch the young men of our enemies, so to speak, on their hooks. But they must be instructed not to surrender the enjoyment of their persons straightway at the first offer. For the sharp sting of a feigned refusal will, as thou knowest, excite their longing more keenly than ever, and inflame their passion, till driven on by lustfulness they are dragged along, as it were, by a halter round their necks, and there is nothing they will not consent to do or suffer. Accordingly the lover that each of the fair women who are set on to this task has won for herself and brought to this condition, must be bluntly told: It is impossible for thee to enjoy my love unless thou break with the customs of thy fathers, and change thy heart, and undertake the observance of the same rites as we. And this desertion of thy people’s faith will I then only hold as manifested, when I shall see thee willing to partake in those same libations and sacrifices that we are wont duly to pay to our idols and statues and other images.—Now such was the advice Balaam then offered; and the King deeming that he spake much to the purpose, repealed the law as to unlawful intercourse, and removed all punishments for fornication and licentious conduct, and made them as though they had never been, giving free licence to the women to lie with any man they pleased. And the latter, permission being granted and impunity guaranteed, soon ensnared a great number of the young Jewish warriors, whose minds indeed had long beforehand been entangled and by every trick and allurement impelled towards impiety.

At the last the high-priest’s son, Phinehas, above measure indignant at such deeds of shame, and convinced that both souls and bodies were at one and the same time being enslaved, the one by sensual pleasures, the other by wickedness and craft and impiety104, did a deed at once memorable for youthful daring, and worthy of a hero. For when he saw a kinsman of his own and one of the priestly order go in to a harlot, and this without any look of shame fixed on the ground, without any attempt at concealment, without any stealing up privily and making, as men are wont in such a case, a surreptitious entrance, but instead carrying it off with an air of shameless self-confidence and bearing himself proudly as though his act were one to merit renown and not ridicule, he was fired by the indignity, and filled with righteous anger rushes up and bursts in on the lover and his wanton actually lying on the bed. He pierces them through, and furthermore cuts away those organs wherewith they were satisfying their unholy passion. This example was followed, by command of Moses, by other zealous partisans of purity and religion; and those who had been initiated into the service of idols died the death at the hands of their family and kinsfolk, and so the wickedness of the nation was expiated by a merciless punishment of the wrongdoers;—and in one day four and twenty thousand men were slain, and thereby was straightway removed the common stain wherewith the whole host was spotted and polluted).

In much the same way, only still more fully, Josephus105 relates the circumstance. Licentiousness had laid hold of almost the entire host, and ancestral institutions were in danger of being abandoned altogether. Consequently, Josephus says, Moses appointed an assemblage of the People and in a speech drew attention to the perils that threatened. Sambrias (Simri) however made a defence, maintaining that they had long enough obeyed tyrannous laws and would fain live free henceforth. Hereupon he quitted the assembly, and was assassinated in his tent by the enraged Phinehas. Josephus (§ 12.) proceeds:

“Iuvenes autem omnes, qui virtutis aliquid sibi vindicarent et honestatis studio tenerentur, Phineesis fortitudinis exemplo accensi, eiusdem cum Zambria criminis reos interfecerunt. Multi itaque illorum, qui leges patrias violarant, horum egregia virtute perempti sunt. Peste autem reliqui omnes perierunt, deo hunc illis morbum immittente. Et quotquot e cognatis, qui cum prohibere debuerint, eos ad haec impulerant, a deo pro sceleris sociis habiti, pariter sublati erant.”106

(But all the younger men who laid any claim to manly virtue and tried to live honorably, fired by the example of Phinehas’ bold deed, slew all that were guilty of the same crime as Sambrias. And so by their singular courage and patriotism numbers of the men who had broken their ancestral laws were destroyed. But all that survived perished by a plague, that God sent upon them. Moreover such of their kinsfolk as ought to have hindered them, but instead had urged them to these courses, these God deemed accomplices in the wickedness, and they also were cut off.) Philo and Josephus are not indeed to be regarded as authentic eye-witnesses of what they record; still the passages quoted from them prove this much, that in their time the opinions they express were generally held.

The Jews were thus led astray by the daughters of the Moabites, and both practised fornication with them and made sacrifice in their temples to the god of the country, whose priestesses, as Balaam declared, were conspicuous above other women for their beauty. The consequence of these excesses was an infectious disease, (according to Josephus it communicated itself, but, he says, only to kinsmen!), which cost many107 their lives. The number however fell far short of 24000, for these perished mainly by the sword of their brethren, as Philo and Josephus expressly remark, and the author of the Pentateuch intimates, when he says (Numbers Ch. 26. v. 5.), “And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto Baal-Peor.” The narrator declares that by this slaughter the plague was stayed for the sons of Israel; but it certainly cannot have ceased altogether, as is manifest from the passages quoted from Joshua, where Phinehas asserts: that to that day the people was not yet cleansed from the misdoing of Peor.

The disease therefore cannot have been merely some passing disorder. It must evidently have been somewhat widely disseminated by the Moabitish women, and have been of very common occurrence among them; and that it was readily infectious follows from the whole course of Moses’ proceedings. The latter was angry because the woman had been suffered to live, and commanded to put to death all of them that had known men in carnal intercourse, but to keep alive the young virgins,—and their number was, according to Ch. 31. v. 35., thirty-two thousand!—who were brought into the camp as prisoners and there divided amongst their captors. So we see the executions took place not in order that opportunity for intercourse with the heathen women,—a thing which might very well on its own account have been an abomination to the Lord,—might be altogether removed, (for how in that case account for the maidens being saved alive, brought into camp, and divided as booty?)108 but that by this means the risk of the further dissemination of the disease might be for ever prevented.

The imminence of this risk in Moses’ opinion is shown finally by the purification of the host which he had despatched for the massacre of the Moabites and their women. He made it, prisoners and all the spoil included, halt for a period of seven days outside the camp, and twice over submit to a thorough purification. The Jews had slain many thousands of men in their previous wars, nay! just before they marched against the Moabites, they had actually slaughtered 24000 of their own youth; yet they had never been ordered to leave the camp for seven days, and twice over during this time to purify themselves and all their possessions. Only after the annihilation of the Moabitish women (not of the Moabite men), from the accomplishment of which they had just returned, had this happened. All this points to some most cogent reason. Here comes into operation the same law which was enforced on occasion of purification after Leprosy and after foul discharge: and indeed also after contact with a dead person,—even where they had first caused the death of the said person! Thus no one can very well dispute the view taken by Philo,109 when he says with regard to the purification after the annihilation of the Moabites:—

“Nam ut legitima hostium caedes sit, attamen qui hominem interfecit quamquam iure, quamquam vim propulsans, quamquam coactus, non insons esse videtur nec extra noxiam, propter summam illam et communem hominum inter ipsos cognationem. Quo nomine piacula suscipienda fuerunt interfectoribus ad luendum scelus, quod conceptum censebatur.”

(For whereas the slaying of enemies is lawful, nevertheless whosoever has killed a man, whether lawfully, or whether initiating the violent act, or whether on compulsion, seems not to be innocent or free from responsibility; and this is owing to that supreme and general relationship of all mankind with one other. Wherefore certain expiations had to be undertaken by any man who had killed another, to wipe out the guilt that was deemed to have been incurred).

What was the precise nature of the disease that the Jews had brought on themselves by their intercourse with the Moabitish women cannot indeed be determined; but that it affected the genital organs can hardly admit of a doubt. The fact, if it is a fact, that not a few lost their lives owing to it, need be no objection, since the ulceration of the genitals that prevailed at the end of the XVth. Century caused similar fatalities, and as we shall presently see, the uncircumcised Apion met his death in some such way. Now the Jews were almost without exception still uncircumcised at that time, for it was Joshua110 who first on his arrival in Canaan, at the bidding of Jehovah, circumcised the children of Israel with stone knives on the hill Araloth. When the people adopted the worship of Baal Peor, we may be sure they ceased at the same time to observe the ancestral laws of purification,—if indeed these latter even as regards foul discharge and leprosy as well as intercourse with women during menstruation were not perhaps, as might almost be believed, first enacted in all their severity only in consequence of the plague of Baal Peor. Again it may well have been this experience that first taught the inhabitants of Palestine the necessity of circumcision, which was then laid down as an ordinance by command of Jehovah!

Brothels and Courtesans111.

§ 10.

There is no doubt that it was in the Asiatic cult of Venus that the first elements were given for sexual excesses. It is hardly a matter of surprise therefore if these same elements came constantly, as has been shown above, into greater and greater prominence, and in this way pushed the original form of the Worship into the background. By degrees as enlightenment increased and the respect felt towards the gods diminished, Venus also soon lost her old character as goddess of procreation and sank into the patroness of sensual gratification. Her temples as well as her holy groves lost their exclusive title to bestow the blessing of fruitfulness on the embraces of the sexes, and came merely to serve as appointed trysting-places of carnal pleasures. The offerings made at her shrines were no longer to win an assurance of posterity; they became bribes paid to buy a free opportunity for the indulgence of sensuality. They degenerated into fornication-fees, as her temples did into brothels. The priestesses of Astarté or Mylitta stood at the beck and call alike of strangers and natives, and the opportunity was ever open for sexual enjoyment. Hence too it is that a special designation for the brothel will be looked for in vain in Asia. The thing existed there without the name being required; and the State found no need to establish an institution, which had long ago, without any intervention on its part, taken form under the cloak of religion.

Even amongst the Jews, who frequently enough, but always as a temporary aberration merely, adhered to the foreign cult, brothels in the strict sense seem never to have existed112. Although courtesans are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, and even the dwelling of a Wanton as well as her behaviour pictured with considerable fullness of detail113, yet all this would seem to have had more of a private than of a public character,—due heed being given to the fact that not a few passages are to be taken only in a figurative sense. Prostitution as a regular calling was strictly prohibited114 to the daughters of Israel; and such women as practised it openly seem to have been mainly foreigners, perhaps natives of Phoenicia and Syria, who at the same time entertained with dancing and the music of stringed instruments115. But the attempt to draw a conclusion from this as to the pre-eminent chastity of the Jewish women, as e.g. Beer (on p. 25 loco citato) wishes to do, would be justifiable neither for earlier nor yet for later times. The passages of the Old Testament dealing with Sodom and with the dissoluteness under Mannasseh even in the very Temple at Jerusalem are sufficient by themselves to prove the contrary.

As to Macedonia there is a passage in Athenaeus, quoted from Hermesianax to this effect: ἀλλὰ Μακεδονίης πάσας κατενίσατο λαύρας (But he went through all the alleys of Macedonia), where Dalechamp translates the word λαύρα by brothel, but Casaubon even in his time threw doubt on this rendering.116 Possibly however this judgement is connected with similar licentious practises among the Macedonians to what we find among the Persians117, who indulged in sexual intercourse with their own mothers, daughters, etc., and begat children upon them,—a practice which Euripides118 makes the Barbarians generally guilty of.

But if there were actually brothels existing in Macedonia, this would be the less surprising, as its inhabitants may well be reckoned amongst Greeks in many respects.

The Greek knew perfectly the boundary between the physical and the ethical, and sought ever to subordinate the former to the latter. His whole life belonged in the first instance to the State, of it he was bound to be a citizen, and for it to endeavour to produce good citizens. Consequently polygamy early disappeared in Greece, and so too community of wives, a custom which prevailed down to historical times at Sparta only. Monogamy was the first law of marriage, and marriage was the bounden duty of every true citizen119, to save his family from dying out. But while the Asiatic prided himself on the number of his children, the Greek’s boast was of their excellence. Only with the object of procreating offspring was the Greek husband to rest in the arms of his spouse (ἐπ’ ἀρότῳ παίδων γνησίων—for the sowing, procreation of lawful children), and not to desecrate the holy Torus (marriage-couch) by mere lustfulness. Where this was stirred in him, he ceased to be free; a slave of lust, he must consort only with slave-women, and not with free citizenesses120. Nay! even this was permitted solely to avoid greater evils; and illicit coition never ceased to be held as something οὐ καλόν—unseemly121, particularly when it was indulged in by married men.

It has been shown how under the clearer skies of Greece the Asiatic worship of Venus took on a form more worthy of mankind, how the Greek distinguished his Venus Urania (Heavenly Venus) from the Venus of the rest of the world, the Pandemian (Venus common to all), and so set up a barrier to the flood of dissoluteness,—a barrier however that was little by little broken down in later times. Foreigners, especially the voluptuous inhabitants of Asia, when they saw that the Greek cult did not like their native worship abet their carnal appetites, imported slave-women. These were purchased by the Greeks, and handed over as offerings to the temple of Aphrodité under the title of Temple-servants or “Hieroduli”122; and acquainted as they were with the needs of their fellow-countrymen, sought in every way to supply them,—as was in particular the case at Corinth.

This example could not well remain without influence on private life. The Greek indeed took no part in the Asiatic form of the Venus-worship; all the same illicit connection grew more and more universally prevalent, and as it could not be gratified in any other way, wives123 and daughters of fellow-citizens were imperilled. To avert this danger Solon (B. C. 594) according to the statements of Philemon and Nicander124 introduced actual brothels, οἴκημα, πορνεῖον, (house, brothel) and public women, πόρναι (prostitutes), who were accessible at a trifling charge. The houses of ill-fame were situated, as Pollux informs us, at Athens in the neighbourhood of the Harbour125, and in the Ceramicus according to Hesychius126, in later times also in the city itself127. They were presided over by a Whoremaster (πορνοβοσκός, πορνοτρόφος—harlot-maintainer, harlot-keeper). As to the internal arrangements of brothels among the Greeks we have been unable so far to discover anything more precise, but in all probability the same conditions held good as among the Romans.

Besides the regular brothels, women were also kept at the taverns128 (καπηλεία, καπηλεῖον, καπήλιον, πανδοκεῖα,—tavern, inn), which likewise were situated chiefly near the Port. The women were bought slaves, as the passages quoted above (p. 70. note 2.) show; and even such free Greek women129 as at a later period undertook the calling, were then looked upon as slaves130. All women of this class, as well as the whore-masters, were professionally under the supervision of the Ἀγορανόμοι (Market Commissioners131, who fixed how much each was allowed to receive for her services. This fee was called μίσθωμα, διάγραμμα or ἐμπολή,—fee, scale, purchase). It varied in amount;—8 Chalci— = 1 obol, a little less than twopence (τριαντοπόρνη,—an obol, two-penny, girl)132, 2 obols— = about three-pence halfpenny (διωβολιμαῖα, χαλκιδῖτις,—a two obol, three-pence halfpenny, girl)133, a drachma—a franc, say ten-pence134, a Stater—= 4 drachmae, say three and three-pence (στατηριαία,—a stater, three and three-penny, girl).135

The Hetaera (Lady-Companion) seems in this respect to have enjoyed a greater liberty of choice, and a knowledge of their prices to have been regarded as something out of the common136. The well-known Gnathaena at Athens asked 1000 Drachmae for a night from a foreign Satrap137; Phryné a mina (= 100 drachmae, something over four pounds sterling). But the most notorious of all was Lais at Corinth for the high price at which she sold the marks of her favour, from which arose the proverb: Non cuivis homini contingit adire Corinthum, (It is not every man that can go to Corinth)138.

Licences to follow the calling were granted to the whore-masters, and also the women, on payment of a fixed duty, called “prostitute tax” (τέλος πορνικόν)139, which was leased out yearly by the Magistracy, and collected by professional farmers of the prostitution-tax or Collectors, known as πορνοτελώναι, who kept a complete list, in which were included even the “Pathici” (pathic sodomites), of all liable to the impost. From the proceeds of this prostitution-tax Solon would seem to have built a temple at Athens to Aphrodité Pandemos140. From this an idea may be formed, even if nothing more than a sort of brothel is to be understood by the term, of the large number of women of this character and of the considerable revenue of the city.

The public women were either such as lived in the brothels (πόρναι, αἱ προστᾶσαι τῶν οἰκημάτων,—harlots, prostitutes of the “houses”), where they used to stand at the doors, and that in rows (ἐπὶ κέρως τεταγμένας,—drawn up in column) more or less stripped, in almost transparent dresses (γυμναὶ, ἐν λεπτοπήνοις ὑμέσιν,—stripped, in fine-woven robes)141, or else they were kept partly as ἑταῖραι μουσικαί—“musical” hetaerae, like the harp-girls in German beer-halls, or with procurers (μαστροπός, προαγωγός,—bawds, procurers) in their taverns (προαγωγεῖα, μαστρόπιον, ματρύλλεια,—procurer’s house, bawdy-house, brothel). Or again they followed their trade in the Port-Market (the δεῖγμα) as δεικτηριάδες (Market-girls)142, in the στοὰ μακρὰ, (Long Portico), and generally in the Lanes of that neighbourhood (χαμαιτύπαι143, χαμαιευνάδες, χαμαιεύνης, χαμαιτηρίς, χαμεύνης,—all nick-names for common strumpets, “ground-thumpers,” “sleepers on the ground”), where they either surrendered themselves on the spot or hied to recognised harlots’ dens (χαμαιτυπεῖον) or houses of accommodation (τέγος)144.

The place of their abode shows at once what class of men frequented “filles de joye” of the sort. It was foreign sailors145 in particular who here indemnified themselves for their compulsory continence at sea. Of Greeks only the dregs of the people and debauchees who had lost all self-respect came here; and even these used by preference the taverns146, where procuration was carried on as well147,—for which reason they had fallen into general disrepute. For as late as Aristophanes’148 time the lower class of citizens felt no hesitation about taking their pleasure along with their wives in inns. On the other hand persons of repute, prominent by office and dignities, were actually forbidden by law to visit such places. “Were an Areopagite to have been seen but once in an Inn,” says Hyperides149, “his colleagues would no longer have tolerated him as a member of the Areopagus.” Later, matters changed, for the moralizing Isocrates150 says, “Nay! no well-conducted slave dares even eat or drink anything in an Inn”; and Theophrastus, portraying the character of a madman quite devoid of shame gives this as a trait,—he would be quite capable of keeping an Inn!

The hetaera (female-companion) must be distinguished from the πόρνη (harlot), though both were under similar conditions as to police surveillance. The hetaera was also strictly speaking a slave-woman, usually stolen as a child or otherwise obtained by procuresses, or bought by older hetaerae. They were educated151 in all that was understood by the Ancients under the name “Music”, that over and above their charms of person, they might especially captivate their lovers by their intellectual cultivation, who bought them to give them their freedom,—and then more often than not were presently abandoned by them. The great nursery of hetaerae was above all places Corinth, from which centre they travelled through all parts of Greece, as e.g. did Neaera, and frequently acquired enormous riches. The better class of them were everywhere held in high esteem; and many a hetaera, grown weary of her condition, gave her hand to a husband, in order to close her life as an honest wife152, or else retired so as at any rate to lead a blameless existence153. Frequently indeed they were also “Dames de Maison”, and often kept a considerable number of girls under the title of hand-maids. This was the case with Nicareta, just mentioned, at Corinth, as well as with the famous Aspasia at Athens, the latter of whom flooded all Hellas with her protegées154. Such as were held in less respect often put themselves under the protection of their more renowned sisters, or else carried on the calling on their own account, and this especially when they were not so well educated, not “musical” (πεζαι ἑταιραι—prose lady-companions)155, at Athens going to settle at the Peiraeus to entice the merchants who arrived in the port, whilst the more choice merely showed themselves there156. They often followed the troops on service in crowds, accompanying for instance the general Chares157 and Pericles to Samos, where they made so large an income that they even built a temple of Ἀφροδίτη ἐν Καλάμοις (Aphrodité at Calami,—the Reeds)158. For the remaining details as to the life of the hetaerae the classical Treatise of Friedrich Jacobs159 should be consulted.

Even these regular “filles de joie” at first existed almost exclusively for foreigners, who often squandered prodigious sums in their arms; the Athenians at any rate up to the time of Themistocles did not go with them160. But the example proved too strong to resist. Little by little the younger men acquired a taste for the freer society of the highly educated and luxuriously bedecked161 courtesans, who on their side were possessed of tact enough to subordinate the purely sensual to the intellectual, in order to captivate the Greek sense of beauty. Even older men might easily be seen at their feet, for the Greek ladies had but too little aptitude for stepping beyond the household sphere162. And so it was no longer matter for surprise when Chares took with him on his expedition, as stated above, a large number of hetaerae. The Athenian youth was already in the habit of killing time in their society163; and the important rôle they played in the time of Pericles needs to be no further insisted on. The Greek however never descended to the lowest level of shameless, brutal, coarseness. Before he threw himself into the arms of the foreign Wanton, he first raised her to some equality with himself; and of the handmaid and slave made a friendly companion or hetaera!

The account here given applies particularly only to Athens, for our efforts to discover anything more precise as to brothels and courtesans in the remaining States and Cities of Greece have not so far been crowned with success.

§ 11.

With the Roman, who could spare hardly a thought to any other feeling than his pride, love played but an insignificant rôle in his existence. Even the deference he showed towards marriage and the married woman was not really so much the outcome of a pure morality as of the interest that the State must of necessity feel in the nursing-mothers of each succeeding generation; in fact it can scarcely be regarded as much more than a mere measure of policy. When a Censor like Metellus in a public Speech intended to encourage matrimony could say164: Si sine uxore possemus, Quirites, esse, omnes ea molestia careremus: sed quoniam ita natura tradidit, ut nec cum illis satis commode, nec sine illis ullo modo vivi possit, saluti perpetuae potius quam brevi voluptati consulendum. (If we could live without a wife, Quirites, we should all be free from such inconvenience; but since nature has arranged it in this wise that neither with women in any real comfort, nor without them at all, can existence be carried on, we ought to think of our life-long well-being rather than of a momentary gratification),—and when even the strict Cato declared165: In adulterio uxorem tuam si deprehendisses, sine iudicio impune necares: illa te, si adulterares, digito non auderet contingere, neque ius est. (If you should have detected your wife in adultery, you might kill her without trial and be scatheless; but she, if you were the adulterer, would not dare to lay a finger upon you, nor is it lawful she should),—it can hardly surprise us to find a complete lack of the ideal or intellectual element in the relations of the sexes. These never really rose among the Romans much above the level of the bestial; and harlots are found already in evidence at the very threshold of Roman history166, whilst association with them far from ever being a subject of blame, is rather represented as being a custom sanctified by immemorial usage that had never been forbidden167.

In spite of this however, and of the fact that the Etruscans168, at a time when Rome was hardly more than coming into existence, already led a life that was worse than licentious, while Messapians, Samnites and Locrians, as has been shown, habitually gave up their daughters to prostitution,—in spite of all this I say, the sexual excesses of the Romans were for the first 500 years on the whole insignificant. Their way of life as warriors and husbandmen hardly suffered them to sink into indolent sloth, the beginning of all vicious living, whilst the law of the XII Tables, “coelibes prohibeto” (be it forbidden to remain bachelors)169 forced men in the vigour of their powers to satisfy the impulse of nature in the arms of the lawful wife. But more and more did the Romans come into contact with foreign Peoples, and began to adopt more and more their customs and vices. In the year 513 A.U.C. (B.C. 240) the Floralia were introduced, which even granting they cannot have had the origin that Lactantius170 assigns them, yet by the very nature of the celebrations were an outrage on all good morals. Yet so universally popular were they that Cato could win no greater concession to his indignant zeal against them than that their closing scenes should be delayed until he had retired171.

The enormous wealth the Romans had won as booty in their continual Wars of spoliation, could not be hoarded unused, it must be enjoyed; and how enjoyed, the warriors knew already. The younger members of the Equestrian and Patrician orders went on travels, and learned in the arms of Greek and Asiatic wantons how to lavish their money secundum artem. Then on their return to Rome finding the native Scorta (common harlots) no longer to their taste, they brought home with them their freed-woman “Amica” (Mistress), who was a fair match for the Greek hetaera in greed, if not in refinement. It was not long before the old-fashioned Roman matron succumbed in the struggle with her for supremacy, and by dint of her only too successful endeavours to outdo the foreign courtesan in recherché vice and effrontery, became but the more despicable in the eyes of the proud Roman. She had indeed learned to be a mother, but not to love. At the same time the Roman himself, surrounded as he thus was by no softening influences, ceased not only to be a citizen of the state, but even to be a man at all; and the Ruler of the World sank at last to such a depth of exaggerated viciousness that it became his glory and boast to be without a rival in its enormity.

The conclusion then is indisputable that only subsequently to the Wars in Asia was Roman morality undermined172. At the same time it is impossible from the information given above to assign any definite point of time at which brothels and public women came into vogue at Rome, or at any rate when their existence as such was officially recognized by those in charge of the police supervision of the city. With the regulations and arrangements however we are more precisely acquainted. The brothels, lupanaria173, fornicas174, were situated chiefly in the Second District (Secunda Regio) of the city175, the Coelimontana, particularly in the Subura (Suburbana) that bordered the town-walls, lying in the Carinae,—the valley between the Coelian and Esquiline Hills. In the same district was the Macellum magnum, or Great Market, for all sorts of provisions176 along the banks of the Tiber, as well as the Cookshops, Stalls or Shops (Tabernae)—of the Barbers, even of the Public Executioner177, and the Castra peregrina, (Foreign Camp), barracks for foreign troops quartered in Rome under the Emperors as a garrison,—all circumstances that occasioned a great concourse of men178. To the North the Subura marched with the “Isis and Serapis”,—the Third District (Tertia Regio), where was situated the temple of Isis with its gardens and groves. The regular brothels are pictured to us as being in the highest degree uncleanly and dirty179, so that their frequenters carried away the smell with them. They possessed a definite number of “chambers”, Cellae180, and above the door of each of these was inscribed the name of the girl, that which she had adopted on her first admission181, and the price of her embraces182. In each “chamber” was to be found a bed (pavimentum, cubiculum, pulvinar,—pavement, sleeping-place, couch), which was spread with a particular kind of coverlet, lodix, lodicula, (blanket, little blanket)183, and a lamp, lucerna184.

As for the brothel-keeper, the Romans seem to have had no special word to express this; they use in fact leno in this signification, though the word properly means the Procurer who merely offers his house for the purpose, but does not keep women, giving them board and wage. Perhaps this arose from the fact that in earlier times no regular brothels existed in Rome; the women merely hired a lodging, and the owner of the house had nothing at all to do with their business, whilst the match-maker or pandar confined his efforts to procuring girls for his patrons and letting out his “chambers” for a fixed charge merces cellae (hire of the chamber)185, paid by each visitor. Only when the business became more profitable, did Lenones or Lenae (Procurers, Procuresses), for women also carried on Lenocinium (procuration), actually keep girls, whom they bought, as slaves186. The Leno had his Villicus puellarum (Superintendent of the Maids), who assigned name and price, provided the girls with clothes187, and kept a list of them and what they earned188. In fact such of the women as were bond-servants were obliged,—and this applied equally to those that were not slaves,—to deliver up not merely the As for the hire of the chamber, but the whole fee as well, according to the amount fixed by the brothel-keeper (Leno)189, though much underhand trickery of various sorts occurred in connection with this regulation190.

The brothels were not allowed to be opened before the ninth hour (four o’clock in the afternoon), so as not to draw young men away from their duties191. The girls either stood (Prostibula—women who stand in front)192 or sat (Proseda—women who sit in front)193 before the “chambers” or Lupanaria (brothels), to call the passers-by to them. Did a lover make his appearance, then the door of the “chamber” was carefully fastened194, and “occupata” (engaged) written over the door195, an unoccupied “chamber” being called nuda (naked)196. Towards morning the “chambers” were opened, and the Leno (brothel-keeper) let the girls go197. It would seem to follow from this that these either did not live in the brothel-keeper’s house at all, or that the “chambers” were situated somewhere else, away from head-quarters. From a passage in Juvenal198 it has, perhaps wrongly, been concluded that these “chambers” were at the Circus Maximus. Such places are at any rate mentioned by Dionysius of Halicarnassus as existing at the Portico above the shops199; and without doubt several passages are to be found in Latin authors to prove that the women plied their trade even after the close of the Representations200, and we know that besides the regular Ludi Circenses (Games of the Circus) other performances of a similar kind were held in the Circus.

Besides the brothels, we find, particularly in the Taverns (cauponae, tabernae—inns, taverns) and Cookshops (popinae, ganea—cookshops, eatinghouses201, women kept by the hosts for the gratification of their patrons. As a rule these also were bought slave-women, who served the guests, entertained them with dance and music, and surrendered their persons on desire. The hostesses themselves devoted their attention to both trades, as e.g. is shown by the “Copa” (Mine Hostess) ascribed to Virgil; and hence they, and their husbands with them, stood in the eye of the Magistrate on the same footing with Lenones and Meretrices (Brothel-keepers and Prostitutes)202.

Now who frequented these places? Down to the time of the Empire only the lowest class of the people, particularly Sailors203, Freedmen and Slaves204, though indeed later, when Claudius and Nero205 set so eminent an example, high and low equally might be found both in brothels and in Taverns and Cookshops. The bakers, envious of the profits made by the inn-keepers, organized their tabernae (bread-stalls or shops) in the mills in such a way that they too could provide their customers with what they wanted206. This appears to have been done first in Campania207. But not solely in regular Houses and “Chambers” were “filles de joie” to be met with. They carried on their trade also as Scorta erratica (wandering whores, street-walkers) the commonest sort, in all public places, at the corners of streets208, round the tombs and monuments209, in out-of-the-way nooks of the town and the surrounding plantations in its neighbourhood210. In these places they carried on their trade, some no doubt on their own account, other perhaps as slaves working for their masters and mistresses and bound to deliver in a fixed sum daily.

The different kinds of “filles de joye” so far particularized were all of them slave-women, but over and above these there were in Rome a large number of Gay Women who carried on their profession entirely on their own account, either merely as a second string to their bow, like the Mimes, Dancers, Harp-girls, Ambubaiae211, or else as sole aim and object of their lives, in the character of Scorta nobilia (noble whores) or bonae meretrices (good harlots) to use Plautus’ expressions. They were all of them foreigners, and generally freed-women212, and were distinguished not only for their more elaborate dress213, but also on account of their education, which far and away surpassed that of the Roman ladies. In this respect however they fell short of the level reached by the Greek hetaerae in the best times of Greece, and for this reason never obtained the influence at Rome on the life of the city and of the State which the former possessed at Athens. They were not so much friends (Amicae) as mistresses (Dominae) of their Roman lover, and their relations with him bodily only and not intellectual. For the rest this class yet awaits a Friedrich Jacobs to be its historian. They were either kept by an individual lover, or else gave themselves only to rich admirers at their own private lodgings,214 that lay perdu far from the bustle of street and market; but no doubt descended, when the time of youth and beauty was over, to the condition of common courtesans or even of mere street-walkers.

Just as happened in Greece, immodesty spread not a little among the daughters and wives of the Roman citizens also, and already in the reign of Germanicus, Tacitus could report215: “Eodem anno gravibus senatus decretis libido feminarum coercita, cautumque ne quaestum corpore faceret, cui avus aut pater aut maritus Eques Romanus fuisset.” (This same year severe decrees of the Senate were passed to restrain unchastity on the part of women, and it was forbidden for any to give her person for hire, whose grandfather, father, or husband had been a Roman knight). So it cannot cause any great surprise to find Martial216 declaring:

“Quaero diu totam, Sophroni Rufe, per urbem:
Si qua puella neget; nulla puella negat.”

(I have long been searching the city through, Sophronius Rufus, if there is e’er a maid to say no; there is not one!) To this result the introduction at Rome of the worship of Isis had contributed not a little217. Under pretence of serving Isis, the matrons found an opportunity of wantoning unhindered in the arms of paramours218, for the husbands dared not enter the temple precincts while their wives offered were performing their ten days’ devotion there. Probably in cases of disease of the genitals Roman women offered their prayers to Isis, as the men did to Priapus, for the temples of the goddess were full of images of parts of the body that had been healed and of maimed organs219, and contained numerous establishments for the care of sick persons of this particular character.

But of more influence than all the rest was the example which the Emperors Tiberius, Nero, Caligula and the infamous Messalina220 gave. Not contented with the possession of a Harem, they set up actual brothels in their palaces,—a practice the aristocracy soon copied, organizing similar establishments on their estates, to be able to wallow indisturbed in the mire of bestial lusts221.

Of vice as practised in the Baths and of male whores in the brothels we shall speak later.

Now how were Brothels and Courtesans affected in connection with the police of the State in Rome? It has been shown already that no penalty whatever attached either to illicit intercourse or to prostitution in general, because the disgrace to individuals involved in the commission of such offences in the eyes of their fellows was thought sufficient to ensure at any rate the daughters of citizens against unchastity. But the case was different with married women who were guilty of a breach of marriage honour. Of the manifold punishments we will mention only one here: the offender was imprisoned and obliged to surrender her person to all comers, whilst each time this took place a notification was given by the ringing of a bell;—a procedure that continued till finally abolished by the Emperor Theodosius222.

They sought indeed to avoid the punishment by declaring themselves engaged in Lenocinium (Procuration) as a calling, or by joining the ranks of the the actresses; but the Lex Papia included provisions to put a stop to this irregularity223.

Lenocinium (Procuration) in fact as well as the licentia stupri (fornication permit) had to be notified before the Aediles224, whose especial duty it was to see that no Matron became a prostitute225. With this object they were bound to frequently search all such places as have been specified above (loca aedilem metuentia—places that fear the aedile)226; but dared not themselves indulge in any immorality there227. When that pure-minded prince Caligula became Emperor, he introduced the Whore-duty (vectigal ex capturis—tax on prostitution-fees) as a State impost228. This, Alexander Severus retained, it is true, but assigned the revenue from it to the maintenance of the public buildings, that it might not contaminate the State Treasure.229

The information here collected, imperfect as it may be in many respects, is yet sufficient to throw some light on the external relations of brothels and courtesans. It shows convincingly that in the entire absence of police supervision on the sanitary side, such diseases as arose generally in Antiquity consequent upon coition must have had their especial home and chief focus in the brothels and their denizens. But of what nature these diseases were, and what parts of the body they attacked, we shall only then be able to determine, when we come to consider more precisely the actual excesses that led to them, whether within or without the walls of the brothels.

Paederastia.

§ 12.

In the preceding investigations we have shown how the natural aim and object of coition, viz. procreation of children, fell more and more into the background, in order to make way for sensual gratification; and we have made acquaintance with the establishments that grew up in course of time for its indulgence. The facility with which the bestial instinct could be satisfied and the titillation of carnal pleasure procured, was bound to rob the customary manner of sexual indulgence of the charm of novelty, and to set the depraved imagination of the voluptuary at work to solve the problem of how to import manifold variations into the simple act of copulation. This stage reached, it inevitably followed that the natural ways of union of the sexes began to appear insufficient, and the methods of so-called unnatural Love (Venus illegitima) grew up, wherein at last almost every trace of the specific purpose of the genital organs was lost sight of.

The “figurae Veneris legitimae” (modes of natural Love) are not altogether without interest for the physician230, but their study is less necessary for our particular purpose. The modes of “Venus illegitima” (unnatural Love) are what concern us here. The major part of these have unfortunately never been included by writers on the history of Venereal disease within the range of their enquiries. Hence it has come about that while on the one hand they have given quite false interpretations of various morbid affections, they have on the other mistaken for the names of diseases expressions signifying nothing more than forms of the unnatural sensual indulgence alluded to. The historical enquirer into these subjects must indeed tread very slippery ground. Supposing him to rise superior to the possible reproaches of morality, fortified by the words of St. Paul231, still he can find absolutely nowhere in his investigations any secure stopping-place, he must make up his mind to dispense with all external help and to be thrown utterly on his own resources. Not only do the best and fullest Dictionaries of the Greek and Latin languages leave him almost completely in the lurch, but above and beyond this he has very often to struggle with positive errors both in the Dictionaries and on the part of the professional Philologists in their annotations to the writings of the Ancients. These mistakes he must first of all discover, and afterwards correct. What such an undertaking involves, what powers it demands, will be obvious to anyone who is in any degree conversant with the systematic study of Antiquity. Nevertheless the task should not remain unattempted, if that is, we wish ever to come to a clear understanding of the relations of words and things in this connection; and on this ground the following researches no less than others find a legitimate place here. These we offer as the best that the limitation of our powers allowed,—at the same time gladly acknowledging the no small assistance we have received from the Treatises of Forberg and Meier232.

Paederastia appears, as is the case with all sexual perversions, to owe its origin to the stimulation of the Asiatic climate, the mother of exuberance and voluptuousness. The primary condition of its genesis may be easily traced, if side by side with the dictum of Forberg (loco citato, p. 235): “Et voluptas quidem paediconis facile intelligitur, cum omnis voluptas mentulae pendeat ex frictione” (And the pleasure indeed of the sodomite is readily intelligible, since all voluptuous pleasure depends on friction of the penis), we take into consideration the fact that the genital organs of Asiatic women,—a fact true also of Italian and Spanish women233—like their whole bodies, exhibit great looseness, and further note that the “Sphincter ani”234 muscle far and away surpasses the “Constrictor cunni” in strength. So it is by no means improbable that the Apostle Paul is accurate when he says235: “Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonoured among themselves; for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness.”

In Asia natural copulation formed a part of the Temple service of Venus, and in course of time Paederastia as well was joined with it, as is seen from the following passage of St. Athanasius236: “Sane olim Phoeniciae mulieres in idolorum templis prius prostabant, suique meretricii quaestus primordia diis, qui illic colebantur, consecrabant, suam deam stupris propitiam reddi, benevolamque hoc pacto effici ratae. Viri quoque propriam ementiti naturam, nec amplius mares se esse patientes, in feminas se converterunt, pergratum et honorificum matri deorum se ita facturas arbitrati. Omnes denique una cum perditissimis vivunt, et secum ipsi pugnant ut peiores quotidie evadant, atque ut dixit sanctus Christi minister Paulus:—(Here follows the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Romans.)—Haec autem et similia agendo, fatentur certe et arguunt deos, quos ipsi colunt, huiusmodi vitam duxisse, scilicet ex Jove puerorum corruptiones atque adulteria, ex Venere meretriciam vitam ... ex aliis alia didicere, quae quidem cum leges puniunt, tum probi homines abhorrent.”

(Indeed the Phoenician women used in former times to prostitute themselves for hire in the temples of their idols and to offer up the gains of their fornication as first-fruits to the deities that were worshipped therein, deeming that in this way they won the favour and goodwill of their goddess. Moreover men, perverting their own proper nature, and no more enduring to be males, turned themselves into the likeness of women, supposing that by so doing they rendered a service most grateful and honourable to the Mother of the Gods. In one word they all consort with the most abandoned of mankind, and strive one with the other how they may grow worse and worse day by day; and as St. Paul the Apostle of Christ says:—(Here follows the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Romans.)—By such and such-like acts they verily confess and show forth that those gods that themselves worship led lives of a like kind. Thus from Jupiter they learned to seduce boys and to commit adultery, from Venus harlotry, and so on from the other gods other vile practices,—practices which are at once punished by the laws and abominated by every honourable man). The same passage explains also how the Old Testament comes to designate Cinaedi (on pathic Sodomites) by the expression קָדֵשׁ (kadêsh, sanctus,—holy, consecrated). This originally implied nothing more than a person who devoted himself for the glory of a God as a servant in his Temple; and we have good reason for believing we can establish the conjecture that the whole cult of the Priests of Cybelé, etc., who had to practice emasculation and who were known by the name of Galli, rests originally on a simple misunderstanding of the expressions εὐνοῦχοι and ἀνδρόγυνοι (eunuchs, men-women),—expressions which will be discussed later on,—these words having meant at first nothing more than Cinaedi (sodomites). It was only in later times that Paederastia became a motive for Castration, as by this means the body of the male could be made to preserve for a longer period the youthful boyishness that approximated it to the female form. This is shown in the following passage of Lucian237, a passage of special interest for the history of Paederastia:

“So at first when men still lived the old heroic life and reverenced virtue that brought them nearer the gods, they obeyed the laws that nature had laid down and marrying in due proportion of age became the fathers of noble children. But little by little the age degenerated from that high level to the pit of sensual indulgence, and struck out new and abnormal modes of gratification. Soon a reckless licentiousness broke the very laws of nature; and for the first time a lover looked on a man as on a woman to lust after him, and worked his wicked will either by superior force or by dint of artful persuasions. So in one bed came together one and the same sex. And each seeing himself in the other, took no shame in anything they did or in anything they suffered to be done. Wasting their seed on barren238 rocks, as the saying goes, they bought a brief pleasure at the cost of deepest infamy. Indeed with some to such a height of overmastering force did their reckless passion rise that they actually violated nature with the knife; and only when they had emptied men of their manliness did they attain the summit and acmé of their gratification.

“But the wretched and unhappy creatures, that they may remain longer boys, suffer themselves to be no more men,—an ambiguous riddle midway between the sexes, neither preserving the sex they were born to, nor yet having any other to belong to. The bloom that was kept a while in youth withers in old age and makes them wither with it in premature decay. At one moment they are counted as boys, then lo! they are old men; there is no middle time of manhood between the two. Thus wanton luxury, the foul mother of every evil thing, contriving shameful pleasures one to cap the other, fell into the slough of that disease that cannot even be named with decency, (μέχρι τῆς οὐ ῥηθῆναι δυναμένης εὐπρεπῶς νόσου) that no province of impurity might remain unexplored.”

In later times indeed castration was resorted to after the attainment of man’s estate, in order that the Eunuchs might be able to appease the titillation of sensual desire in the women without fear of impregnating them239.

In Syria, where this vicious practice of paederastia was especially in vogue, the Jews also appear to have been acquainted with it240. From Asia, whether through the instrumentality of the Phoenicians, or as Welcker241 maintains, through that of the Lydians, Paederastia came in the first instance to Crete, and spread from thence over the whole of Greece242.

Just as was the case with the cult of Venus in that country, so the “love of boys” assumed quite a different form in Greece. As Paedophilia (Affection for boys) it took rank as one of the means of education, being consecrate to the heavenly Eros, while Paederastia (Carnal love of boys) fell to the province of the common Eros. Down to quite modern times Paedophilia has been confounded with Paederastia, and in this way a shameful stigma attached to the Greek nation,—a stigma that Meier, following the initiative of Jacobs and K. O. Müller (loco citato), was the first to free the Greeks from. Granted, the two things approached very near each other; still Paederastia was never approved by the Greeks243. At Sparta the violation of boys was punished by loss of civil rights, exile or death244, and it was the same at Athens, as Meier (loco citato) pp. 167 sqq. has sufficiently proved. The fact that the laws relating to this offence were promulgated at Athens only after the time of Solon shows that paederastia, as well as brothels, did not come into use there till about that time. True Athens in later times was quite as notorious for the prevalence there of paederastia as Corinth was for its Gay Women245; and Aristophanes’ Comedies show only too abundantly how much occasion he could find for scourging the “Pathics”, and how the Gymnasia and Palaestrae (Wrestling-grounds) also were responsible for a great deal of the harm done.

For, as Aristophanes246 says:

ἐν παιδοτρίβου δὲ καθίζοντας, τὸν μηρὸν ἔδει προβαλέσθαι
τοὺς παῖδας, ὅπως τοῖς ἔξωθεν μηδὲν δείξειαν ἀπηνές.

εἶτ’ αὖ πάλιν αὖθις ἀνισταμένους ξυμψῆσαι, καὶ προνοῆσαι
εἴδωλον τοῖσιν ἐρασταῖσιν τῆς ἥβης μὴ καταλείπειν.

(Of old when boys sat at the trainer’s, they were bound to throw out the thigh, so as not to expose to the spectators’ gaze anything unbecoming; then again when they got up again, they had to scrape out the mark in the sand, and take care not to leave behind a model of their youthful shape,—an incitement to lovers).

Besides the Gymnasia and Palaestrae, the barber’s shops (κουρεῖα)247, perfumers’ shops (μυροπωλεῖα)248, Surgeries (ἰατρεῖα)249, Money-changers’ counters (τράπεζαι)250, bath-houses251, and to a greater or less extent all kinds of workshops (ἐργαστήρια)252, particularly when in situations handy to the Market, served as trysting-places of the paederasts and pathics. Here the former sought victims for their vicious desires, and the latter opportunities to sell their persons; while many of the proprietors of such places may well have acted as Procurers (προαγωγοί, μαστροποί,—Procurers, Pandars) for this purpose. The vice itself was chiefly practised in lonely, obscure parts of the town, and particularly on the Pnyx hill253.

The Eleans and Bœotians are not only reproached with paederastia, but the violation of boys is alleged to have been allowed among these peoples254. Megara it is true is charged with ὕβρις (shameful violence), a common designation for paederastia255, but we may certainly doubt whether the temple of Ἀφροδίτη πρᾶξις there, which Pausanias256, mentions, had anything to do with this vice. The author in question says: “After the sanctuary of Dionysus is shown a temple of Venus. The image of Venus is of ivory, and is called Aphrodité Praxis. It is the most ancient image in the temple.” No other author however mentions any such cult as existing in Megara, and even though the word πρᾶξις (intercourse), as Meier (loco citato p. 153, note 49) has shown by examples, is used specially of paederastia, yet at the same time the passage of Euripides, Ion 894.

θεὸς ὀμευνέτας ἆγες ἀναιδείᾳ

Κύπριδι χάριν πράσσων.

(Thou, god, partner of my bed, didst lead me, in shamelessness doing favour to Cypris—Love), clearly proves that πράσσειν (to do, to have intercourse) was used of coition generally257.

Moreover in the passage of Plutarch quoted a little above paederastia is called χάρις ἄχαρις (a grace that is without grace) and further down Ἔρως, Ἀφροδίτης μὴ παρούσης,—Ἔρως χωρὶς Ἀφροδίτης, (Love—Eros—where Aphrodité is not, Love without Aphrodité); so how can it have been regarded by the Greeks as under the patronage of Venus? Undoubtedly πρᾶξις is here synonymous with πόρνη (harlot), and the Ἀφροδίτη πρᾶξις at Megara is nothing else than the Ἀφροδίτη πόρνη of other cities.

Chalcis had gained such notoriety for paederastia258, that χαλκιδίζειν (to act the Chalcidian) was said proverbially for παιδεραστεῖν (to practise paederastia). It was the same with Chios and Siphnos, as the expressions χιάζειν and σιφνιάζειν (to play the Chian, the Siphnian) in Hesychius prove. Hesychius says indeed σιφνιάζειν: i.e. to finger behind; for the Siphnians are ill-spoken of as enjoying boy-lovers. To act the Siphnian then means, to poke with the finger. But the first explanation by καταδακτυλίζειν (to finger behind), as well as the gloss of Suidas259, show clearly that the inhabitants of the island of Siphnos,—one of the Cyclades, practised a species, if we may use the expression, of Onania postica (back-door, posterior masturbation),—like the cobbler at Vienna, who to allay the Prurigo ani (itching of the anus) pushed his hammer up his posterior, and then alas! could not pull it out again. In the same way the Siphnians used the fingers260.

The inhabitants of Italy were according to Suidas (under the name Θάμυρις—Thamyris) inventors of paederastia; and Etruscans, Samnites and Messapians, as well as the Greeks dwelling in Magna Graecia, lay under the reproach of practising the most vicious forms of love with men and violation of boys261. In all probability the vice spread from here to Rome, where it is found as early as the year 433 A.U.C.262. To such an extent did it increase that in 585 A.U.C. (B.C. 169), as Meier has demonstrated, the Lex Scantinia had to be passed against it. Yet all this amounted as yet to nothing in comparison with the scenes of horror that were enacted under the Emperors Tiberius, Caligula, etc., of whom Martial263 says:

Tanquam parva foret sexus iniuria nostri

Foedandos populo prostituisse mares264,

Iam cunae leonis erant, ut ab ubere raptus

Sordida vagitu posceret aera puer,

Immatura dabant infandas corpora poenas.

Non tulit Ausonius talia monstra pater:

Idem qui teneris nuper succurrit ephebis,

Ne faceret steriles saeva libido viros.

Dilexere prius pueri, iuvenesque senesque:

At nunc infantes te quoque, Caesar, amant.

(As though it were a small wrong done our sex to make males prostitutes264 to be debauched by the crowd, cradles now became a part of the brothel-keeper’s stock in trade, that the baby-boy torn from the breast might solicit a sordid wage by his wailing, and immature bodies paid horrible penalties. Horrors such as these the great Father of Italy (Domitian) would not suffer: that same good Emperor who of late came to the rescue of tender youths, that raging lust might not make men unfruitful. Heretofore boys loved him,—and young men and old; now the very infants too love thee, Caesar).

Yet this was of little avail; the vice descended from generation to generation, and passed on to the Christian nations, just as the Roman punishments did in their legal codes.

Diseases consequent on Paederastia.

§ 13.

If we consider, first that the contractile power of the Sphincter ani muscle offered great resistance to the paederast, a resistance only to be overcome by the exertion of considerable force, secondly that the glands of the rectum exude a malodorous secretion, which under the influence of climate,—a subject to be dealt with more precisely later on,—assumes a more or less acrid quality, it will not surprise us to find that manifold forms of disease showed themselves in Ancient times both among paederasts and cinaedi (pathics). These were no doubt all the more serious in cases where the one set of organs or the other was already morbidly affected. As to the paederast indeed the direct evidence is scanty, yet it is not entirely wanting, as may be seen from the following Epigram of Martial265:

In Naevolum.

Mentula cum doleat puero, tibi, Naevole, culus,

Non sum divinus, sed scio quid facias.

(To Naevolus.—When I see pained and sore the boy’s penis and your posterior, Naevolus,—I’m no wizard, but I know what it is you do). Here we see both parts suffering from disease, the paederast in his penis, the pathic in his posterior: and Martial concludes Naevolus was a cinaedus.

But more especially must phimosis and paraphimosis have had a tendency to be set up in the case of the paederast. These at first, because the continuous state of erection of the penis which is a feature of these affections was obviously the most visibly conspicuous symptom, were designated by the name Satyriasis, the usual appellation of the latter condition. This will also give a probable explanation of the mortality from this cause observed by Themison in Crete266,—a locality notorious, as we have seen, for the dishonouring of boys,—and generally for the frequency of Satyriasis, which often took an almost epidemic character in that island. Paraphimosis it should be noted in passing had already been only too frequently noted as affecting masturbators. Physicians indeed say nothing as to the predisposing causes, and explain the disease as arising from an Acrimonia humorum (Acridness of the humours) or from drinking a Philtre (Love-potion). Naumann267 appears to wish to make the Satyriasis that prevailed in Crete some form of leprous affection, but for this view we can find absolutely no ground.

Much more frequent mention is found of affections of the rectum among the pathics as consequences of paederastia. First come fissures, and in their train ulcers of the rectum; whence the expressions sectus, percisus (cut), and the like are applied so often in Roman writers to the pathic, and to his vice generally. So Martial268 says:

In Carinum.

Secti podicis usque ad umbilicum

Nullas reliquias habet Carinus,

Et prurit tamen usque ad umbilicum.

O quanta scabie miser laborat!

Culum non habet, est tamen cinaedus.

(To Carinus. —Carinus has no relics left of his fundament, cut up to the very navel; and yet he itches with desire up to the very navel. Oh! what a vile itch torments the unhappy man! He possesses no posterior, and nevertheless is a cinaedus (pathic).)

In Lesbiam269.

De cathedra quoties surgis, jam saepe notavi,

Paedicant miseram, Lesbia, te tunicae.

Quas cum conata es dextra, conata sinistra

Vellere, cum lacrimis eximis et gemitu.

Sic constringuntur gemina Symplegade culi,

Et Minyas intrant Cyaneasque nates.

Emendare cupis vitium deforme? docebo.

Lesbia, nec surgas censeo, nec sedeas!

(To Lesbia.—As oft as you rise from your chair, Lesbia, I have many a time noticed the fact, your undergarments, poor lady, play the paederast with you. You endeavour to pluck them away first with the right, anon with the left hand; finally you release them with tears and groaning. So drawn together are the twin Symplegades of your fundament, and enter in between Minyan and Cyanean buttocks. Would you fain cure this ungraceful defect? I will tell you how: I think, Lesbia, you’d better not get up, nor yet sit down!)

Usually indeed the Pathic tried to conceal his complaint, and to make it pass under some other name, as does Charisianus:

De Charisiano270.

Multis jam, Lupe, posse se diebus

Paedicare negat Charisianus.

Caussam cum modo quaererent sodales:

Ventrem, dixit, habere se solutum.

(On Charisianus.—Charisianus says, Lupus, that for many days he has been unable to indulge in paederastia. When his comrades asked the reason; his bowels, he said, were relaxed!)

But most frequently of all are the fig-like swellings on the fundament (Ficus, Mariscae,—figs, large figs) mentioned by Ancient authors as a consequence of paederastia.

De se Priapus271.

Non sum de fragili dolatus ulmo;
Nec quae stat rigida supina vena,
De ligno mihi quolibet columna est,
Sed viva generata de cupresso.—
Hanc, tu quisquis es, o malus, timeto:
Nam si vel minimos manu rapaci
Hoc de palmite laeseris racemos:
Nascetur, licet hoc velis negare,
Inserta tibi ficus a cupresso.

(Priapus on Himself.—I am not hewn of fragile elm, nor is my pillar that stands bent back with penis stiffly erect of any chance wood, but born of the living cypress.—Beware this image, thief, whoe’er thou art; for should you damage with plundering hand the tiniest clusters of this stem, there shall grow a fig, deny it if you will, of cypress-wood inserted up your fundament.)

De Labieno272.

Ut pueros emeret Labienus, vendidit hortos,

Nil nisi ficetum nunc Labienus habet.

(On Labienus.—To buy boys Labienus sold his gardens; nought but a fig-garden does Labienus now possess.)

Ad Caecilianum273.

Cum dixi ficus, rides quasi barbara verba.

Et dici ficos, Caeciliane, iubes.

Dicemus ficus, quas scimus in arbore nasci,

Dicemus ficos, Caeciliane, tuos.

(To Caecilianus.—When I have said ficus, you laugh, Caecilianus, as though I had committed a solecism, and declare ficos should be the word. We will say ficus, meaning the figs that we know grow on the tree, but your figs, Caecilianus, we will call ficos).

Now too we shall understand the medico ridente (the doctor grinning) in the following passage of Juvenal (II. 12):

Sed podice laevi

Caeduntur tumidae, medico ridente, mariscae.

(But from your smooth posterior are cut, the doctor grinning the while, the bloated swellings). Just as it admits of no doubt that in the passage of Horace274:

Nam, displosa sonat quantum vesica, pepedi

Diffissa nate ficos.

(For as loud as a burst bladder sounds, I farted my swellings (ficos—figs) away, splitting the rump), ficos and not as commonly ficus must be read.

That these morbid growths were not entirely free from contagious matter seems to be indicated by the following passages. In the Priapeia (Carm. 50) we read:

Quaedam, si placet hoc tibi, Priape,
Ficosissima me puella ludit,
Et non dat mihi, nec negat daturam;
Causasque invenit usque differendi.
Quae si contigerit fruenda nobis,
Totam cum paribus, Priape, nostris
Cingemus tibi mentulam coronis.

(A certain girl, if it please you to listen, Priapus, is playing with me. Most sorely afflicted is she with swellings; and she will not give herself to me, yet does not say she never will, and ever finds excuses for putting off and putting off. Now if ever she shall be mine to enjoy, I and my comrades with me, will wreath all thy penis, Priapus, with garlands). The girl, who was badly affected with these swellings, and that presumably in the secret parts, refuses her lover coition. The latter does not insist, but prays to Priapus, as was habitually done in all cases of affections of the genitals (see p. 74 above) and vows to deck his penis with garlands. It follows that the lover was aware these swellings would be injurious to him, if he should constrain the girl, of whom the poet says, nec negat daturam (yet does not say she will not give herself), to lie with him. Still clearer evidence of this may be found in the following Epigram of Martial, where a whole family is affected with these swellings or tumours:

De familia ficosa.275
Ficosa est uxor, ficosus et ipse maritus,
Filia ficosa est, et gener atque nepos.
Nec dispensator, nec villicus, ulcere turpi,
Nec rigidus fossor, sed nec arator eget.
Cum sint ficosi pariter iuvenesque senesque,
Res mira est, ficus non habet unus ager.

(On a tumourous household.—The goodwife is tumourous, tumourous the goodman her husband, tumourous the daughter of the house, and the son-in-law and the grandson. Neither house-steward nor factor is free of the foul ulcer, nor the rugged ditcher, nor yet the ploughman. Now when all alike, young and old have tumours (ficos, ficus), the strange thing is, not a single field has fig-trees (ficus)). For the rest the words ulcere turpi (foul ulcer) show that ficus, like σύκος and σύκωσις (fig, fig-like swelling) in Greek, signifies not only a fig-shaped swelling, but also an ulcer with granulous surface, like a fig cut in two. Or possibly it would be better to understand here swellings that have passed into the ulcerated stage276.

Seeing how plainly the passages just quoted from non-medical Writers point to these swellings being a consequence of paederastia, it is surprising that not one of the Ancient physicians, spite of Juvenal’s medico ridente (the doctor grinning the while), ever so far as we know, alleges this form of licentiousness as cause of affections of the sort. On the other hand we cannot help remarking that the frequency of these swellings in the time of Martial and Juvenal can hardly be explained as arising solely from the general prevalence of paederastia. More probably, then as now, the Genius epidemicus (Epidemic influences) bore no unimportant share in bringing about the result, just as was the case (see later) with Mentagra (Eruption of the chin).

However not merely primary affections of the posteriors were the punishment of the Cinaedus, but also secondary ones of the mouth and throat. First and foremost was hoarseness of the voice, to which Martial277 alludes, when he makes the champion of the baths the cinaedus Charinus speak raucidulo ore (with a weak, hoarse voice). This we find, following Reiske’s278 indication, more explicitly dealt with in Dio Chrysostom279:—

“But this is surely worth mentioning, and it is a thing no one can deny. I mean the noteworthy fact that a disease has attacked so many in this city,—one which I used to hear of as prevailing much more frequently with others than amongst you. What is it I mean? Even though I could explain myself no more clearly, yet you might easily guess the answer. Do not think I am speaking of secrets, of hidden doings, when the astounding fact itself speaks plainly enough. For there are many in this city that are asleep, even while they walk and stand and speak; though they may appear to most observers to be awake, yet it is not really so.

“Now they give, in my opinion, the clearest proof that they are asleep,—they snore (ῥέγχουσιν). I cannot, by heaven, express myself more clearly with decency. True only a few of the sleepers are suffering from the complaint I mean, and of the others it affects only the drunken, the overfed and such as have lain ill. But I maintain this vicious practice (ἔργον) shames the city and brands it publicly. The grossest ignominy is brought down upon their native city by these sleepers by day, and they ought, I say, to have been expelled your borders, as has been their fate everywhere else. For it is not now and then, nor here and there, they are met with; but at all times and in all places in the city occasion may be found to threaten, scorn or deride them. For the rest the practice has actually penetrated now to boys still young, and adults that yet would fain be reputable, suffer themselves to be led away into regarding the matter as a trifle, and if they refrain from the decisive step, yet it was their wish to take it.

“If there were a city in which wailing were to be heard all day long, and no one could walk about in it, no! not one minute, without listening to the sound of lamentation, tell me, what man would willingly stay here? Now wailing, as all agree, is a sign of unhappiness; but that other sound is the sign of shamelessness and lewdness the most scandalous. Surely one would much rather choose to associate with unhappy men than with paederasts280. I might avoid listening, if a single man were to be blowing the flute everlastingly, but if in a particular place there is an everlasting noise of flutes, singing or guitar-playing,—such as might be where the rocks ever ring with the Syrens’ song,—I could not, having arrived there, endure to remain. And this unmusical and harsh tone of voice281, what man of any virtue can abide it? If a man passes in front of a home in which he catches the sound, he says, “Of a surety there is a brothel there!” Now what shall be said of a city where nothing but this tone of voice prevails universally, so that no exception can be made of time or day or place whatever? For in streets and houses, in public places, in the theatre and in the Gymnasium, paederastia is rife282.

“Again I have never yet heard a flute-player of a morning in the city, but this horrible sort of din is raised283 from earliest dawn.

“I do not indeed shut my eyes to the fact that it will be said I am talking silly nonsense most likely, in making such allegations, and that there is nothing in it. Nay! but surely you are only carrying pot-herbs in your cart, and behold with indifference profusion of white bread on the road, as well as salt and fresh meat. But just consider the thing (πρᾶγμα i. e. paederastia) in this way too: If any one of these objectors should come into a city, where all men, when they point to a thing, point at it with the middle finger284, when any one gives the right hand, gives it with this same gesture, and when he stretches out the hand, as the people does in voting or the judges in giving decisions, does so in the same way, what, pray will he think of such a city? What, if further all men walk in this city with skirts up-raised, as if wading in a quagmire? For do you not really and truly know what has given occasion to the defamation you suffer; what it is has offered matter to such as are unfriendly disposed to you for censure on our city? Tell me, what is the reason they nickname you “hawks” (κερκίδες)285?

“Well, but you opine the question is not what others say of you, but what you really do yourselves? Good; but if a single disease of such a sort attacks a people that they all of them acquire women’s voices, and no man, neither stripling nor grey-beard, can utter a word in a man’s voice, is not this a horrible thing, and harder to bear, I should suppose, than any Plague? For it is not shameful to have a fever, nor even to die.

“Nay! but to speak with women’s voice is after all to speak with human voice, and no one is filled with aversion when he hears a woman. But, tell me, whose is this voice; does it not belong to the Androgyni (men-women), the Cinaedi? or to such as have had the genitals amputated? True it is not invariably found with all such, but it is characteristic of them and a sign of what they are.

“Well then! suppose a stranger from a distance to judge from your voices, what kind of men you are, and what are your pursuits (πράττειν,—what it is you do). You are not fit, I tell you, to be neatherds or shepherds. I wonder would any one take you for descendants of the Argives, as you profess to be, or indeed for Greeks at all,—you who outdo the Phoenicians in lubricity? At any rate I do think it would behove a man of any morality in such a city to close his ears with wax far more than if he were sailing past the Syrens’ shore. There he would run the risk of death, but here of foulest licence, of violation, of the vilest seduction.

“Once Ionic harmony was in vogue, or Doric, or yet another sort, the Phrygian and Lydian, now it is the music of Aradus and the Phoenician modes that please you; you love this rhythm par excellence, as others do the Spondaic. Was ever a race of men that were good musicianers—through the nose?!

(p. 409). “But such a rhythm must needs have something to follow. You would seem not to know what; just as with other nations the wrath of the gods overtook some single part, the hands, the feet or the face286, in the same way among you an endemic disease has attacked the nose. Just as the angry Aphrodité they say made the Lemnian women’s armpits abominable, know now that the gods in their anger have played havoc with the noses of most of your fellow citizens, and that is why they have this characteristic voice of their own. Indeed from where else could it have come?

“But I say this thing is the mark of most infamous lewdness, of most infamous madness, of contempt for all decency (all morality), and (a proof) of the fact that there is no more any single thing held to be disgraceful. Their speech, their gait, their look, proclaim it.”

From this passage of Dio Chrysostom, who lived at the end of the First and beginning of the Second Century A.D., we see that at that period the vice of paederastia prevailed at Tarsus to an appalling extent; and very possibly it is this circumstance that gave occasion to the declaration of the Apostle St. Paul287, whose native town of course Tarsus was, when he says:

“Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonoured among themselves.... For their women288 changed the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.” This recompense was no doubt the ῥέγχειν (snoring), which according to Reiske was the consequence of an affection of the throat and nose in which the breath was exhaled with a characteristic noise. To corroborate this view he quotes in his edition of Dio Chrysostom the following passage from Ammianus Marcellinus289, who picturing the habits of the Romans in the middle of the Fourth Century, wrote thus: “Haec nobilium instituta. Ex turba vero imae sortis et pauperrimae, in tabernis aliqui pernoctant vinariis: nonnulli velabris umbraculorum theatralium latent, quae Campanam imitatus lasciviam Catulus in aedilitate sua suspendit omnium primus; aut pugnaciter aleis certant, turpi sono fragosis naribus introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes.” (Such are the usages of the nobles. But of the masses, those of lowest and poorest lot, certain spend the night in wine-taverns, some lurk under the curtains of the theatre awnings,—which Catulus in his aedileship, imitating Campanian luxury, was the very first to erect; or quarrel and fight at dice, making an ugly rattling sound the while by drawing in the breath through their rough nostrils).

Now we know that paederasts had foul breaths, as Martial290 indeed noted, consequently the mucous membrane of the mouth was morbidly affected in its action, and further that they spoke raucidulo ore (with hoarse voice)291, which must have been with many the ordinary consequence of a thickening of the tissues by previous ulceration; and at this fact this Speech of Dio Chrysostom, as Reiske understands it, may very well hint. But to take the main gist of his speech, the author of the “Tarsica” signifies by ῥέγχειν (to snort) something quite different from this, as the whole context shows clearly.

It was in fact a signal or mode of solicitation, by which the pathics sought to allure the paederasts to them and invited them to lewdness, as comes out more plainly in the following passage of Clemens Alexandrinus292: Αἱ δὲ ἀνδρογύνων συνουσίαις ἥδονται· παρεισῥέουσιν δὲ ἔνδον κιναίδων ὄχλοι, ἀθυρόγλωσσοι· μιαροὶ μὲν τὰ σώματα, μιαροὶ δὲ τὰ φθέγματα, εἰς ὑπουργίας ἀκολάστους ἠνδρωμένοι, μοιχείας διάκονοι, κιχλίζοντες καὶ ψιθυρίζοντες, καὶ τὸ πορνικὸν ἀναίδην εἰς ἀσέλγειαν διὰ ῥινῶν ἐπιψοφοῦντες ἐπικιναίδισμα, ἀκολάστοις ῥήμασι καὶ σχήμασι τέρπειν πειρώμενοι, καὶ εἰς γέλωτας ἐκκαλούμενοι, πορνείας παράδρομον· ἔστι δ’ὅτε καὶ ὑπεκκαιόμενοι διὰ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ὄργην, ἤτοι πόρνοι αὐτοὶ ἢ καὶ κιναίδων ὄχλον εἰς ὄλεθρον ἐζηλωκότες, ἐπικροτοῦσι τῇ ῥινὶ, βατράχων δίκην, καθάπερ ἔνοικον τοῖς μυκτῆρσι τὴν χολὴν κεκτημένοι. (But they delight in the assemblies of the Androgyni (men-women); and crowds of pathics hurry along to join them within, everlasting chatterers, abominable in person and abominable in voice; reared up to manhood for unchaste ministrations, servants of adultery; tittering and whispering, and sounding though their nose the debauched cinaedus’ call to shameful licentiousness, striving to please with indecent words and gestures, and challenging to laughter, a race and competition in harlotry. Then again at times kindled by some chance gust of anger, whether debauchees themselves or roused to a fatal emulation with the crowd of pathics, they make a rattling sound with the nose, like frogs, as though they kept their stock of gall up their nostrils).

But possibly the Tarsians were also Fellatores (ii qui penem alienum in os admittunt, ibique eo sugunt ut voluptas quaedam libidinosa paretur,—those who allow another’s penis to be put in their mouth, and suck it) (see later), and snorted as fellatores did at their task,—for the word ῥέγχειν (to snort) is manifestly used in several different senses. It only remains to mention that a pale complexion was also reckoned one of the signs of a Cinaedus, a fact to which Juvenal’s (II. 50.) words refer: Hippo subit iuvenes et morbo pallet utroque. (Hippo submits to men, and is pale with two-fold disease). Of these marks of the Cinaedus we shall speak in greater detail directly.

Νοῦσος Θήλεια (Feminine Disease)293.

§ 14.

The passage of Dio Chrysostom discussed in the preceding section brings us, in virtue of a variety of hints it contains, to the much canvassed Νοῦσος Θήλεια (feminine disease) of the Scythians. Stark has collected with the greatest care everything that has so far been adduced by different authors in explanation of the subject; and on his Work we must base our own efforts in the investigations that follow.

Herodotus294 relates how the Scythians had made themselves masters of all Asia, and how some of them on their homeward march had plundered the very ancient temple of Venus Urania at Ascalon, a town of Syria; and then proceeds as follows:

“On such of the Scythians as plundered the temple at Ascalon, and on their posterity for successive generations, the goddess inflicted the θήλεια νούσος—feminine disease. And the Scythians say themselves it is for this cause they suffer the sickness, and moreover that any who visit the Scythian country may see among them what is the condition of those whom the Scythians call Ἐναρέες”. (a Scythian word, probably having the same meaning as Greek ἀνδρόγυνοι—men-women).

The different views that have been formulated at different times as to the nature of the νοῦσος θήλεια may be readily classified as follows. It was regarded as:—

1. a Vice, this vice being,
a) Paederastia; manifestly the oldest explanation,—already alluded to by Longinus, but specially championed by Bouhier295, also entertained by the interpreters of Longinus, Toll and Pearce, as well as by Casaubon (Epistolae) and Costar296;

b). Onanism (Self Masturbation),—a view Sprengel297 is inclined to decide in favour of.

2. a bodily Disease,—to wit,
a). Haemorrhoids (Piles); an opinion maintained by Paul Thomas de Girac298, Valckenaar in his Notes to Herodotus, Bayer299, and the authors of the “General History of the World”300;
b). actual Menstruation, for which le Fèvre and Dacier would seem to have declared;
c). Gonorrhoea (Clap), which Patin301, Hensler302 and Degen303 understood to be meant;
d). actual loss of the Testicles, true Eunuchs, Mercurialis304 considered must have been implied; and with this view Stark’s conclusion in part coincides, who understood a disease involving complete loss of virile power, both corporeal and mental, and producing an actual metamorphosis of the male type into the female.

(3). a mental Disease, in fact a form of Melancholia. This is the view adopted by Sauvages305, Heyne, Bose, Koray306 and Friedreich.

It would naturally be our task to examine the reasons alleged for and against these separate views. Supposing however we succeed in satisfactorily proving one of them to be the right one, then ipso facto all the rest come to nothing; and so we propose here to essay the advocacy of the oldest of them,—the view that makes the νοῦσος θήλεια to be the vice of paederastia. En passant we must call attention to the fact that under the name of paederastia must be understood not only the vicious habit of the paederast pure and simple, of the man that is who practices the act, but also of the pathic, who offers opportunities for its commission. This is a point which above all others has been quite left out of sight by the adversaries of the view in question.

The next question we have to answer would seem to be this: Could paederastia be regarded as a consequence of the vengeance of Venus? As it is the Scythians that are in question, the first thing would naturally appear to be to determine what conception the Scythians had of Venus. But inasmuch as the data are lacking for any demonstration of the sort, while the Scythians themselves ascribe the νοῦσος θήλεια to the vengeance of Venus, we may very well refer for a reply to this first question to the general character of the cult of the goddess307 and what has been said on the whole subject above; and herein there seems to exist no reason why we should not answer the query asked above in the affirmative. Granted that Venus was regarded as goddess of fruitfulness or as dispenser of the joys of Love, then in either aspect it was but natural she should withdraw the marks of her favour from the culprits (the paederasts). These neither wished for posterity nor enjoyed the delights connected with natural coition, but were equally indifferent towards the one and towards the other308; and the first sign of the vengeance of the goddess consists in the withdrawal of her benefits.

How Stark, following the lead of an anonymous French author quoted by Larcher309, can maintain there is no question of punishment here, as in that case Venus would be acting against her own interest, we fail to understand; and Larcher himself calls this unknown writer un homme d’esprit, mais peu instruit (witty but superficial). This is proof sufficient in our opinion that only a jest is intended, but one that Stark, p. 7 (notes 19 and 20.), has taken with the utmost seriousness.

However our view is directly supported by another myth, which Dio Chrysostom mentions, speaking of the sweating at the armpits with which the Lemnian women were afflicted. According to this legend Venus punishes the women of Lemnos310:

“Haec Dea veluti etiam ceteri, sua sacrificia praetermitti non aequo animo ferebat: quae cum Lemniae mulieres Veneris sacrificia sprevissent, Deae maxime iram in se concitasse creditae sunt, quod etiam non impune putantur fecisse. Nam tantum foetorem illis excitasse feminis Dea perhibetur, ut a suis maritis contemnerentur.” (This goddess, no less than other deities, could not bear the neglect of her proper sacrifices with equanimity. Thus the women of Lemnos, having omitted to perform these sacrifices of Venus, are believed to have brought down on themselves the most serious anger of the goddess, and this they are accounted not to have done with impunity. For the goddess, as is related, caused such a foul odour to arise among the women, that they were scorned by their husbands.) If the view mentioned just above as taken by the Apostle Paul and by St. Athanasius is the right one, it would seem that the Lemnian women had suffered themselves to be used by their husbands for purposes of paederastia; then as a consequence there had been set up the evil odour of the mouth and breath, and this had driven the men to desert their wives to live with the captive Thracian slave-women (Apollonius).

But indeed the Ancients generally, or at any rate the Greeks and Romans, seem to have always held the opinion that unnatural coition, as well as all the similar forms of indulgence taking its place, were a consequence of the wrath of Venus, against whom the individuals had offended311. This appears also from the play of Philoctetes, of whom the Scholiast to Thucydides312 says: “Moreover Philoctetes, having on account of the death of Paris fallen sick of the feminine disease, and being unable to bear the shame of it, left his country and founded a city, which in memory of his misfortune he named Malacia—Effeminacy.” Martial313 had the same myth in his mind when he wrote:

In Sertorium

Mollis erat, facilisque viris Paeantius heros,

Vulnera sic Paradis dicitur ulta Venus.

Cur lingat cunnum Siculus Sertorius, hoc est,

Ex hoc occisus, Rufe, videtur Eryx.

(To Sertorius.—The Hero, son of Paeas (Philoctetes), was effeminate and easy of access to men; in this way Venus is said to have avenged the murder of Paris. Why should Sicilian Sertorius lick the pudendum of women? this is why, because it would appear, he was the slayer, Rufus, of a man of Eryx.) Of course there can be no question here of the disease which detained Philoctetes at Lemnos and prevented his taking part in the expedition to Troy; and if the older legend says nothing as to the νοῦσος θήλεια of Philoctetes, it is clear from this (as Meier, loco citato, has shown) that only in times when paederastia was becoming prevalent, were all these legends invented, to get as it were a sort of excuse by alleging a distinguished predecessor in the practice. So Martial says, addressing Gaurus:314

Quod nimio gaudes noctem producere vino,

Ignosco: vitium, Gaure, Catonis habes.

Carmina quod scribis Musis et Apolline nullo,

Laudari debes: hoc Ciceronis habes.

Quod vomis: Antoni, quod luxuriaris: Apici;

Quod fellas—vitium dic mihi, cuius habes?

(That you love to prolong the night with excess of wine, I can excuse; you have the vice, Gaurus, of Cato. That you write verses with no inspiration of Muses and Apollo, for this, you should be praised; it is a fault of Cicero’s you have. That you vomit, well! ’twas a habit of Antony’s; that you are a gourmand, ’twas Apicius’ weakness.—That you suck (as a fellator), whose vice have you here, pray tell me!) The above Epigram of Martial’s (To Sertorius) shows very clearly how the poets represented each form of unnatural indulgence of the sexual impulse as vengeance of Venus. It is a cunnilingus that is in question here, and his vice is accounted for in this way:—just as Philoctetes on account of the slaying of Paris had been punished by Venus with paederastia, so the Sicilian Sertorius probably became a cunnilingus because he had killed an inhabitant of Eryx, where was situated a famous temple of the goddess. Similarly it will not surprise us if besides paederastia Philoctetes was saddled with the vice of Onanism at a later period, as is implied in the following poem of Ausonius:315

Subscriptum picturae Crispae mulieris impudicae

Praeter legitimi genitalia foedera coetus,
Repperit obscoenas Veneres vitiosa libido.
Herculis haeredi quam Lemnia suasit egestas,
Quam toga facundi scenis agitavit Afrani,
Et quam Nolanis capitalis luxus inussit;
Crispa tamen cunctas exercet corpore in uno:

Deglubit, fellat, molitur per utramque cavernam,

Ne quid inexpertum frustra moritura relinquat.

(Inscribed beneath a Portrait of Crispa,—an immodest woman.—Over and above the natural modes of intercourse in legitimate coition, vicious lust has discovered impure ways of love: the way that his loneliness at Lemnos taught the heir of Hercules (Philoctetes), that which the comedies of eloquent Afranius displayed on the stage, and that which deadly luxury branded on the men of Nola. But Crispa practises them all in her sole person: she skins, she sucks, she works by either aperture, that she may not leave anything untried, and so have lived in vain!)

No doubt Stark, p. 19, is quite right in saying this passage has nothing to do with the θήλεια νοῦσος; but the poet has by no means, as he puts it in his note, temporum ordine lapsus,—committed an anachronism. He makes no mention whatever of any vengeance of Venus, saying nothing more than that loneliness led the inheritor (of the arrows) of Hercules to Onanism. This is not merely advancing a conjecture, as Stark does, but (to say nothing of the Lemnia egestas—Lemnian loneliness), admits of being legitimately developed from the whole sequence of thought in the Epigram. Crispa’s vices are mentioned in the order of their shamefulness. The least disgraceful is Onanism, such as Philoctetes practised, next comes the vice of the cinaedus and of the pathic, for which Afranius serves as example, and lastly fellation. Thus it shows a complete want of comprehension, when the commentators quote the scholion to Thucydides given a little above as an explanation. Had Philoctetes been referred to as a pathic, the succeeding verse would be entirely superfluous; which verse does not receive a word of notice from the expositors, presumably because they failed to understand the allusion. The true explanation is afforded by a passage in Quintilian:316 “Togatis excellit Afranius, utinamque non inquinasset argumenta puerorum foedis amoribus, mores suos fassus.” (Afranius excels in fabulae togatae (polite comedies), and it were to be wished he had not defiled his plots by disgusting intrigues with boys, thereby discovering his own morals). Forberg, loco citato p. 283, quotes this passage indeed, but explains (both here and on p. 343) the libido (lust) of Philoctetes as being that of the pathic.

To prove that Venus manifested her wrath in the way specified, we may further cite the race of the daughters of Helios, whom she punished by the infliction of licentious love. Thus Hyginus says:317 Soli ob indicium (concubitus cum Marte) Venus ad progeniem eius semper fuit inimica, (Because of the Sun’s revelation (of her intrigue with Mars) Venus was ever a bitter enemy of his posterity); and Seneca:318

Stirpem perosa Solis invisi Venus
Per nos catenas vindicat Martis sui
Suasque: probris omne Phoebeum genus
Onerat infandis.

(Venus, loathing the posterity of the hated Sun, punishes on us the fetters that bound her lover Mars and her. With abominable and disgraceful practices she afflicts the whole race of Phoebus).

An example of such vengeance is afforded by Pasiphaë, of whom the Scholiast on the passage of Lucian cited below relates how, Ἡλίου οὖσα ἐκ μήνιδος Ἀφροδίτης ταύρου ἠράσθη, (being a daughter of the Sun, she became enamoured of a bull through the influence of angry Aphrodité), a fable which might very well be explained—for ταύρος (a bull), like κένταυρος (a Centaur), occurs in the sense of paederast—as meaning that she had become a female pathic. So Theomnestus says in Lucian:319 “So lecherous a look resides in the eyes, that compelling all beauty to its will, it can find no satiety. And often was I uncertain whether this were not some spite of Aphrodité. Yet am I none of the children of Helios, neither a natural heir of the Lemnian women, nor puffed up with the scornful insensibility of Hippolytus, that I could have provoked against me such an implacable hatred on the part of the goddess)”. Philo Judaeus320 also represents paederastia as a punishment of such men as married a woman legally repudiated, and the like: πρὸς δὲ συμβάσεις εἴ τις ἐθέλοι χωρεῖν ἀνὴρ τῇ τοιαύτῃ γυναικὶ, μαλακίας καὶ ἀνανδρίας ἐκφερέσθω δόξαν, ὡς ἐκ τετμημένος τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ βιωφελέστατον μισοπόνηρον πάθος.... δίκην οὖν τινέτω σὺν τῇ γυναικί. (But if any man should wish to enter into contracts with such a woman, let him bear the ill-repute of softness and effeminacy, as having eradicated from his soul that sentiment of hatred for ill-doers which is most useful for life,—So let him pay his penalty along with the woman). In Athenaeus one of the speakers exclaims (Deipnos., XIII. p. 605 D.): Ὁρᾶτε οὖν καὶ ὑμεῖς, οἱ φιλόσοφοι παρὰ φύσιν τῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ χρώμενοι, καὶ ἀσεβοῦντες εἰς τὴν θεὸν, μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν διαφθαρῆτε τρόπον. (Beware then ye too, philosophers who indulge the pleasures of Aphrodité against nature, and act impiously towards the goddess, that ye be not destroyed in the same way).

According to Diodorus (V. 55) the sons of Neptune in consequence of the wrath of Venus plunged into such madness that they violated their mother. The Propontides, who had denied the godhead of Venus, were cast by her into such an amorous phrenzy that they publicly gave themselves to men, and they were subsequently turned into stones.321 Myrrha, whose mother proclaimed herself to be fairer than Venus, was driven by the goddess into unchastity with her own father.322

In later times this idea was even transferred to the Star of Venus. The following appears in Firmicus “In octavo ab horoscopo loco, Mercurius cum Venere, si vespertini ambo, inefficaces et apocopos reddent, et qui nihil agere possint.” (In the eighth place of the horoscope, Mercury in conjunction with Venus, if both are evening stars, will make men impotent eunuchs and such as can effect nothing.)—a notion that first arose perhaps from the name Hermaphroditus323.

Thus there would be nothing inconsistent with the views universally held in Antiquity in considering the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) of the Scythians, and equally that of Philoctetes, as consequences of the wrath of Venus. That paederastia was invariably regarded as a Vice by the Ancients (and particularly by the Greeks) we have already, following the lines laid down by Meier, we think sufficiently proved. Stark, who repeatedly (pp. 12, 16, 20.) denies this, has been led into error merely by the mistake that was generally prevalent in his time of confusing paedophilia and paederastia; and it is on this misapprehension he bases his argument. How the Scythians came to hold this belief that the wrath of Venus was to blame for what they suffered, must indeed be left an open question. But it should be remembered it was not the pathics themselves who advanced this opinion, but only the rest of the Scythians; for Herodotus says expressly, λέγουσί τε οἱ Σκύθαι διὰ τοῦτο σφεας νοσέειν (and the Scythians say that for this cause they were afflicted). Again it was only ὀλίγοι τινὲς αὐτῶν ὑπολειφθέντες (a few of the Scythians who were left behind), a few of the stragglers, who would seem to have plundered the temple of Aphrodité; and it certainly was only later that this act of impiety was brought into connection with the vice,—in the same way as the killing of Paris by Philoctetes was with the legend of his lewd practices.

§ 15.

The second question we have to answer will be this: how could Herodotus write that the descendants of these few stragglers alive in his time suffered from the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease)? From the fact that, while descendants are named, strictly speaking only male descendants can be in question, it is clear the statement is only a general one, and must not be understood to imply more than that certain members of these families were Cinaedi, not of course that the whole posterity was afflicted with the νοῦσος θήλεια. We see at the present day how the impurity of the father passes on to the son; so it need be matter for no surprise whatever to find the vice of the cinaedi descending in the same way among certain members of a family. As a matter of fact these Scythian temple-robbers are by no means the only examples Antiquity holds up to us of such a thing, for the Orator Lysias324 says of the family of Alcibiades, that most members of it had become prostitutes.

What is more, the opinion was avowedly and directly held by the Ancients, that pathics were born with the predisposition to the vice. In particular Parmenides (509 B.C.) expressed this view in a Fragment, which Caelius Aurelianus325 has preserved in a chapter of his Work. This chapter treats solely of the vice of the pathic, and is of the greatest importance for our subject. We could not forgo quoting it in full, particularly as it is the sole authority for the views held by physicians on this vice, and up to now appears to have been entirely overlooked.

De mollibus sive subactis; quos Graeci μαλθακοὺς VOCANT.

“Molles sive subactos Graeci μαλθακοὺ vocaverunt, quos quidem esse nullus facile virorum credit. Non enim hoc humanos ex natura venit in mores, sed pulso pudore, libido etiam indebitas partes obscoenis usibus subiugavit. Cum enim nullus cupiditati modus, nulla satietatis spes est, singulis Sparta non sufficit sua. Nam sic nostri corporis loca divina providentia certis destinavit officiis. Tum denique volentes alliciunt veste atque gressu, et aliis femininis rebus, quae sunt a passionibus corporis aliena, sed potius corruptae mentis vitia. Nam saepe tumentes [timentes], vel quod est difficile, verentes quosdam, quibus forte deferunt, repente mutati parvo tempore virilitatis quaerunt indicia demonstrare, cuius quia modum nesciunt, rursum nimietate sublati, plus quoque quam virtuti convenit, faciunt et maioribus si peccatis involvunt. Constat itaque etiam nostro iudicio, hos vera sentire. Est enim, ut Soranus ait, malignae ac foedissimae mentis passio. Nam sicut feminae Tribades326 appellatae, quod utramque Venerem exerceant, mulieribus magis quam viris misceri festinant et easdem, invidentia pene virili sectantur, et cum passione fuerint desertae, seu temporaliter relevatae, ea quaerunt aliis obiicere, quae pati noscuntur, iuvamini humilitate [iuvandi voluptate ex] duplici sexu confecta, velut frequenti ebrietate corruptae in novas libidinis formas erumpentes, consuetudine turpi nutritae, sui sexus iniuriis gaudent, illi comparatione talium animi passione iactari noscuntur. Nam neque ulla curatio corporis depellendae passionis causa recte putatur adhibenda, sed potius animus coercendus, qui tanta peccatorum labe vexatur. Nemo enim pruriens corpus feminando correxit, vel virilis veretri tactu mitigavit, sed communiter querelam sive dolorem alia ex materia toleravit. Denique etiam a Clodio historia curationis data ascaridarum esse perspicitur, quos de lumbricis scribentes vermiculos esse docuimis longaonis327 in partibus natos. Parmenides328 libris quos de natura scripsit, eventu, inquit conceptionis molles aliquando seu subactos homines generare. Cuius quia graecum est epigramma et hoc versibus intimabo [imitabo]: Latinos enim, ut potui, simili modo composui, ne linguarum ratio misceretur.

Femina, virque simul Veneris cum germina miscent

Venis, informans diverso ex sanguine virtus

Temperiem servans bene condita corpora fingit.

At si virtutes permixto semine pugnent,
Nec faciant unam, permixto in corpore dirae
Nascentem gemino vexabunt semine sexum.

Vult enim seminum praeter materias esse virtutes, quae si se ita miscuerint et [ut] eiusdem corporis [vim unam] faciant, unam congruam sexui generent voluntatem. Si autem permixto semine corporeo virtutes separatae permanserint utriusque Veneris natos adpetentia sequatur. Multi praeterea sectarum principes genuinam dicunt esse passionem et propterea in posteros venire cum semine, non quidem naturam criminantes, quae suae puritatis metas aliis ex animalibus docet: nam sunt eius specula a sapientibus nuncupata: sed humanum genus, quod ita semel recepta tenet vitia, ut nulla possit instauratione purgari, nec ullum novitati liquerit locum, sitque gravior senescentibus mentis culpa, cum plurimae genuinae, seu adventitiae passionis corporibus infractae consenescant, ut podagra, epilepsia, furor et propterea aetate vergente mitiores procul dubio fiant. Omnia et enim vexantia validos effectus dabunt firmitate opposita subiacentium materiarum, quae cum in senibus deficit, passio quoque minuitur, ut fortitudo; sola tamen supra dicta, quae subactos seu molles efficit viros, senescenti corpore gravius invalescit et infanda magis libidine movet, non quidem sine ratione. In aliis enim aetatibus adhuc valido corpore et naturalia ventris [veneris] officia celebrante, gemina luxuriae libido non divititur, animorum nunc faciendo, nunc facie iactata [animo eorum nunc patiendo nunc faciendo iactato]: in iis vero qui senectute defecti virili veneris officio caruerint, omnis animi libido in contrariam ducitur appetentiam, et propterea femina validius Venerem poscit. Hinc denique coniiciunt plurimi etiam pueros hac passione iactari. Similiter enim senibus virili indigent officio, quod in ipsis est nondum, illos deseruit.” (On effeminate men or subservients, called μαλθακοὶ—soft, effeminate, by the Greeks.—Effeminate men, or subservients, were called by the Greeks μαλθακοὶ. A man finds it difficult to believe in the existence of such creatures. For it was not nature prompted the introduction of this as part of human habits; rather was it lust that, expelling shame, subjected to foul uses parts of the body that should never have been so employed. For no limit being set to passion, and no hope of satiety being entertained, the several members find each its own realm insufficient; whereas divine providence destined the different portions of the body to perform definite functions. In fine they go out of their way to allure by dress and gait and other feminine attributes, things unconnected with bodily emotions, being rather due to a corrupted mind. For often, moved by fear, or (however difficult to believe) by shame, towards persons whom they happen to respect, they change of a sudden and for a brief space seek to show marks of manly power; but not knowing where to put the limit, they are again carried away by excess, and going beyond what is fit for an honest man are involved in yet greater offences. Thus it is evident, in our opinion, that such men have a sense of the true state of things. For theirs is, as Soranus declares, the passion of a corrupt and utterly foul mind. For as women that are called Tribades, because they practise the love of either sex, are eager to have intercourse with women more than with men, and pursue these with a jealousy almost as violent as a man’s, and when they have been deserted by their love or for the time being superseded, seek to do to other women what they are known to suffer, and winning from their double sex a pleasure in giving pleasure, like persons deboshed by constant drunkenness, being nurtured on evil habitude, delight in wrongs to their own sex,—even so these men (pathics) are seen by a comparison with women of this sort to be tormented with a passion that is of the mind. For no bodily treatment it is rightly deemed should be adopted to expel the passion, rather must the mind be disciplined which is afflicted with such a pollution of vices.

For no man ever remedied a prurient body by foul practices as a woman, nor got mitigation by contact of the male member, but concurrently he suffered some complaint or pain from a different (material) cause. So in fact the history of a cure given by Clodius is found to be really a case of recovery from “ascaridae”, which writers on intestinal worms have shown are a kind of worm born in the region of the rectum or straight gut. Parmenides in his books on natural science says “Effeminate men or subservients occasionally bring forth as a result of conception.” But as his Epigram is in Greek, I will imitate it in verse; so I have composed Latin lines like the original so far as I could make them, that there might not be a mixture of the two languages:—“When a woman and a man together mingle in the veins the seeds of love, the formative virtue that moulds of the diverse blood, if it keep due proportion, makes well-framed bodies. But if the virtues are discordant in the commingled seed, and have no unity, in the commingled body furies will torment the nascent sex with two-fold seed.” He means that over and above the material seed there are certain virtues residing in it; and if these have commingled in such a way as to have one and the same operative force in the same body, then they produce one single will that tallies with the sex. But if when the bodily seed was commingled, the virtues remained separate, the appetite for love of both kinds must pursue the offspring.

Many leading doctors of the schools moreover declare that the passion is innate, and therefore passes on with the seed to descendants, not indeed hereby incriminating nature, which teaches men the bounds of its purity by the example of other animals (for animals are called by wise men nature’s mirrors), but rather the human race that retains so obstinately vices once adopted, that by no renewal can it be purified, and has left no room for change. Similarly a mental depravity grows graver as men advance in life, whereas most affections of the body, whether innate or adventitious, get weaker as men get older, for instance gout, epilepsy and madness, and so as age advances undoubtedly grow milder. For all troublesome factors will produce strong effects in proportion to the firmness to resist possessed by the affected parts, and as this firmness is deficient in old men, so the complaint or passion diminishes in intensity, as does the general strength. But that passion which makes men subservient or effeminate, grows stronger and more serious as the body grows old and stirs the sufferers with yet more abominable lustfulness,—and not without a reason. For at other ages, the body being still strong and capable of performing the natural offices of love, there is no division of lust into double forms of wantonness, through their mind being tossed to and fro now by passive now by active lewdness. But in such as have failed from age, and become incapable of the manly office of love, all the wantonness of the mind is directed on the appetite for the opposite form of gratification; and for this cause a woman demands love more strongly than a man. In fact many conjecture it is for this reason that boys also are tormented by this passion. For they resemble old men in lacking power for the virile function. It is not yet born in boys; old men have lost it.)

To leave on one side for the present the many inferences of various sorts that this passage of Caelius Aurelianus must necessarily lead us to, as they will find a more suitable place later on, and to return to our question,—the mere fact of Herodotus mentioning posterity at all ought of itself to be sufficient to negative any idea of actual eunuchs, of loss of the generative power. For had the Scythians returning from Ascalon lost this power, they could have had no more descendants, and therefore the νούσος θήλεια could not have passed on to these, but must have become extinct with the original sufferers. On the other hand children already begotten by them before that period could have been in no way influenced by a disease communicable through the act of generation. Accordingly the νοῦσος θήλεια cannot possibly have affected these Scythians so as to annihilate the power of generation. Both must have co-existed side by side; and the contrary can never be proved from anything Herodotus says. As to another passage of Herodotus that might seem to demand some notice here, where the expression ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman) is put side by side with ἐνάρεες, we will speak subsequently.

§ 16.

But, it is maintained by those who take a different view,—the individuals who suffered from the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) could be recognized as doing so by their looks; thus it cannot have been a mere vice, it must have been an actual bodily complaint. We will not say a word more insisting on the declarations general amongst ancient writers, for example the words of Ovid: Heu! quam difficile est crimen non prodere vultu (Alas! how difficult it is not to betray a vice by the look), but will simply ask the question,—had the Ancients really no bodily marks of identification by which they could recognise in an individual the vice of the pathic or cinaedus? On this point we must look to the Physiognomists for information, and as a matter of fact they supply it in considerable completeness. First of all Aristotle329:

“Distinguishing Masks of the Cinaedus:

“An eye broken-down, as it were, knees bent inwards, inclination of the head to the right side; movements of the hands always back downwards and flaccid, the gait double, as it were, one leg being crossed over the other in walking, the gaze wandering; such a man for example was the Sophist Dionysius.” Polemo enters into greater detail330:

“Distinguishing Marks of the Androgynus (Man-woman): “The man-woman has a lecherous and wanton look, he rolls his eyes and lets his gaze wander; forehead and cheeks twitch, eyebrows are drawn together to a point, neck bent, hips in continual movement. All the limbs twitch spasmodically, knees and hands seeming to crack; like an ox he glares round him and fixes his eyes on the ground. He speaks with a thin voice, at once croaking and shrill, exceedingly uncertain and trembling.” In very similar terms the pathic is sketched by Adamantus331. Dio Chrysostom in his speech cited a little above332 relates how “a physiognomist had come into a certain city, in order to give an exhibition of his art there, and declared he could tell by looking at any individual whether he were brave or timid, a boaster or a debauchee, a cinaedus or an adulterer. A man was brought to him who had a meagre body, eyebrows grown together, a dirty look, who was in evil condition, with callosities on his hands, and dressed in coarse gray clothing, one that was overgrown with hair to the knuckles, and ill-shaved, and the physiognomist was asked, what sort of a man he was. When he had looked at him a considerable time, and at the end was still uncertain, as it seems to me, what he should finally say, he declared he did not know and ordered the man to go. But when the latter sneezed, just as he was going, he cried out instantly he was a cinaedus. Thus the sneeze betrayed the man’s habits, and prevented them, in spite of all the rest, from continuing hid.” No doubt the man’s walk had already given the Physiognomist an indication, and the gesture he made when he sneezed, quickly confirmed his Diagnosis. In fact the cinaedus probably made a grip at his posterior as he sneezed, so as to close the orifice, the weakened or possibly ruptured Sphincter ani no longer being able to perform this office (χαυνοπρώκτος,—wide-breeched, in Aristophanes!). Indeed with a healthy Sphincter it is often hardly possible during a sneeze to keep back the out-rush of wind and even of the more liquid faeces.333

Further the following passage of Lucian should be quoted in this connection:334

“But I tell you, pathic,—your habits are so obvious that even the blind and the deaf cannot fail to recognise them. If you only open your mouth to speak, only undress at the baths, nay, if you do not yourself undress, but only your slaves put off their garments, what think you,—are not all your secrets of the night at once revealed? Now just tell me, if your Sophist Bassus, or the flute-player Batalus, or the cinaedus Hemitheon of Sybaris, who wrote your beautiful laws, how you must polish the skin, and pluck out the hair (with tweezers), how you must submit to the performance of paederastia, and how yourselves perform it,— now if one of these men should throw a lion’s skin round him, and enter with a club in his hand, what would the spectators really believe?—that it was Hercules? Surely not, unless they were utterly blear-eyed. A thousand things betray such a masquerade,—gait, look, voice,335 the bowed neck, the ceruse, the mastich, the paint on the cheeks that you make yourselves up with; in a word it were easier, as the proverb says, to hide five elephants under your armpit than to conceal one cinaedus!”

Now if the natural marks of identification that have been specified were sufficient to betray the cinaedus, even when he was devoid of all external adornment from art,336 how much more readily recognizable must the pathic become, if he arranged his get-up and costume to match his shameful practices,337 and that this was so Martial affords evidence in countless places. In fact these male whores used to have the beard quite clean shaven (ἐξυρημένοι close-shaven) and not merely on the posteriors but generally all over the body, with the exception of the head, carefully removed the hair, so as make themselves more like women.

αὐτίκα γυναικεῖ’ ἢν ποιῇ τις δράματα,
μετουσίαν δεῖ τῶν τρόπων τὸ σῶμ’ ἔχειν,

(Directly, if a man play women’s parts, the body must have its share in the characterization), Aristophanes makes Agatho say at the Thesmophoria, where Mnesilochus has been transformed into a woman by means of depilation, so as to be able to back up the women in opposition to Euripides in their attacks on him at that festival.

On the other hand cinaedi let the hair of the head grow long338 (comae,—long locks), and dressed altogether like women. Hence the reply of the Cynic Diogenes339 to a young man clothed after this fashion, who had asked him a question on some subject or other; he would not answer, he said, till his questioner had lifted up his clothes, and shown him his sex! Equally important is the conversation of Socrates with Strepsiades in the “Clouds” of Aristophanes:340

Στρεψιάδης.... Λέξον δή μοι τὶ παθοῦσαι,
εἴπερ Νεφέλαι γ’ εἰσὶν ἀληθῶς, θνηταῶς εἴξασι γυναιξίν·
οὐ γὰρ ἐκεῖναί γ’ εἰσὶ τοιαῦται . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Σωκράτης. Γίγνονται πάνθ’ ὅ τι βούλονται· κᾆτ’ ἢν μὲν ἴδωσι κομήτην,
ἄγριόν τινα τῶν λασίων τούτων, οἷόν περ τὸν Ξενοφάντου,
σκώπτουσαι τὴν μανίαν αὐτοῦ, Κενταύροις ᾔκασαν αὐτάς.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Καὶ νῦν ὅτι Κλεισθένη εἶδον, ὁρᾷς, διὰ τοῦτ’ ἐγένοντο γυναῖκες.

(Strepsiades.—Now tell me, how comes it that, if these are really and truly clouds, they resemble women? Common clouds are not like that.... Socrates.—They can easily make themselves anything they please. And so, if they but catch sight of one of those long-haired, ruffianly, shaggy fellows, such a man as Xenophantus’ son for example, straightway in derision of their folly they change into Centaurs. And now when they beheld Cleisthenes, see you? they became women!) Cleisthenes was a notorious cinaedus at Athens, whom Aristophanes had made a special butt for his wit; for example, he makes Mnesilochus, mentioned just above, after his transformation into a woman, say,—he looks just like Cleisthenes now.

The evidence adduced will, we think, be sufficient to show that the Scythians had good reason for saying, that with persons in this case (cinaedi) it was easy to recognise by looking at them what stamp of men they were: and that Juvenal341 was right when he wrote:

Verius ergo
Et magis ingenue Peribomius: hunc ego fatis
Imputo, qui vultu morbum incessuque fatetur.

(More truly then and more candidly Peribomius says: the man I consider a victim of fate, who in face and gait betrays the disease he suffers from.)—a passage that strongly confirms what has been advanced. Peribomius is quite candid, he confesses to being a pathic, for in any case his appearance would betray the fact. He finds the less reason to deny it, as he regards the vice which has mastered him as an infliction of providence (fatis imputo). Here is proof that the opinion of the Greeks as to the pathic’s being one who had incurred the anger of the gods, was still commonly held in Juvenal’s time, though perhaps less as a matter of conviction than in order to provide an excuse for indulgence. So we must further read hoc for hunc in the passage (hoc ego fatis imputo,— this I regard as an infliction of fate); unless indeed we construe thus, ego, qui morbum vultu incessuque fatetur, hunc (sc. morbum) fatis imputo. “I in truth,—as for the man who confesses by look and gait his disease, this disease I regard as an infliction of fate.” The words are obviously Peribomius’ own expression of opinion; and directly afterwards the poet goes on:

Horum simplicitas miserabilis, his furor ipse
Dat veniam: sed peiores, qui talia verbis
Herculis invadunt et de virtute locuti
Clunem agitant.

(These men’s simplicity moves our pity; their very infatuation craves pardon. But worse are they who enter such courses with Hercules’ words on their lips, and prating of manly virtue, heave the wanton buttocks.)

§ 17.

But the passage just quoted from Juvenal is of still greater importance for another reason. In it the vice of the cinaedus is called morbus (a disease); and in virtue of its explicitness it is sufficient by itself to settle all doubts as to this being a usual mode of expression with the Romans, who ordinarily designated any vice by this name342. The only question remaining will be, Did the Greeks also use this form of expression? Any scholar possessed of a special acquaintance with the Greek language will most certainly not hesitate an instant to answer this question in the affirmative, the Lexicographers having long ago collected an exhaustive list of examples of such use343.

Plutarch344 says, comparing the action of the Sun with that of Love:— Καὶ μὴν οὔτε σώματος ἀγύμναστος ἕξις ἥλιον, οὒτε Ἔρωτα δύναται φέρειν ἀλύπως τρόπος ἀπαιδεύτου ψυχῆς· ἐξίσταται δ’ ὁμοίως ἐκάτερον καὶ νοσεῖ, τὴν του θεοῦ δύναμιν, οὐ τὴν αὑτοῦ μεμφόμενον ἀσθένειαν.—(ch. XXIII.) Τὴν μὲν πρὸς ἄῤῥενα ἄῤῥενος ὁμιλίαν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀκρασίαν καὶ ἐπιπήδησιν εἴποι τις ἂν ἐννοήσας,

Ὕβρις τάδ’ οὐχ ἡ Κύπρις ἐξεργάζεται.

Διὸ τοὺς μὲν ἡδομένους τῷ πάσχειν εἰς τὸ χείριστον τιθέμενοι γένος κακίας, οὔτε πίστεως μοῖραν, οὔτε αἰδοῦς.... Ἀλλὰ πολλὰ φαῦλα καὶ μανικὰ τῶν γυναικῶν ἐρώτων· Τὶ δὲ οὐχὶ πλείονα τῶν παιδικῶν; Ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ τοῦτο παιδομανία τὸ πάθος, οὐδέτερον δὲ Ἔρως ἔστιν. (And in fact neither can an untrained body bear the sun, nor can any fashion of uneducated soul bear Love (Eros) without pain; but each equally is disorganized and grows sick, having to blame the power of the god, not its own weakness.—ch. XXIII.—Now intercourse of male with male one would rather call, after due reflection, incontinence and violent assault.

“’Tis overmastering insolence works this result, not love (Cypris).”345

Wherefore such as take pleasure in pathic lust, devoting themselves to the vilest kind of wickedness, have no portion in honour or in modesty.—Indeed much there is base and insane in amours with women; how much more so in those with boys! Now the name of the latter passion is paedomania—346madness for boys,—but neither kind is Love—Eros).

These passages are of the highest importance in connection with our subject, as confirming in the most distinct manner what has been said above as to the wrath of Venus; but for the sake of greater clearness they had to be held over for discussion till now. It is clearly stated in them: that paederastia is no work of Venus, i.e. not an expression or consequence of the customary activity of the goddess, but a ὕβρις (act of insolent violence) and the consequence of ὕβρις i.e. of some act that has roused the anger of the gods. Here we have the oldest view of all: that paederastia is a consequence of the vengeance of Venus, arising in consequence of a ὕβρις, and again in turn itself constituting a ὕβρις.347

But besides this the later view of a more enlightened time is also implied. According to this it was not any δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ (operation of a god’s might), but simply an ἀσθενεία or ἀκρασία348 (weakness, incontinence) of the individual that was in question, (and it is for this reason Plutarch quotes the line of Manetho, an old and obscure poet, in this sense); Paederastia was called a πάθος, a form of insanity (παιδομανία—madness for boys), and was not looked upon in any sense as a consequence of the power of Eros—Love. That the vice was also called νόσος (a disease) is shown,—not to mention the expression νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease), which we have yet to fully explain,—by the Speech of Dio Chrysostom cited above, as well as by a number of passages quoted in the course of our investigation,—e.g. on p. 125. In the “Wasps” of Aristophanes, Xanthias relates how a son had confined his father and put him under surveillance, and then goes on (vv. 71 sqq.):

νόσον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἀλλόκοτον αὐτοῦ νοσεῖ ,
ἣν οὐδ’ ἂν εἷς γνοίη ποτ’ οὐδὲ ξυμβάλῃ,
εἰ μὴ πύθοιθ’ ἡμῶν· ἐπεὶ τοπάζετε·

(For his father is sick of a portentous sickness, one that no one would ever know or conjecture the nature of, unless he should have learned it from us; for if you doubt me, guess yourselves.)

Love of play is suggested, and love of drink, love of sacrifice and finally love of winning guests and seeing them at his house (φιλόξενον—lover of guests), which last conjecture Sosias understands in an obscene sense as implying a cinaedus, and (vv. 84 sqq.) says:

μὰ τὸν κύν’, ὦ Νικόστρατ’, οὐ φιλόξενος,
ἐπεὶ καταπύγων ἐστὶν ὅγε Φιλόξενος,

(No! no! by heavens! Nicostratus, not a lover of guests (φιλόξενος) for our friend Philoxenus is a man given to unnatural lust,) where φιλόξενος and καταπύγων are explained as being synonymous. Now if paederastia had not been a disease, how should they have come to call a man φιλόξενος, when guessing the form his sickness took? For the rest there was a well-known cinaedus Philoxenus, to whom allusion is made. The scholiast quotes a very noteworthy line from Eupolis (in the “Urbes”) or else from Phrynichus (“in the Satyrs”) as follows:

ἔστι δέ τις θήλεια Φιλόξενος ἐκ Διομείων.

(And there is a certain female Philoxenus of Diomeia);

The healthy good sense of the Greeks could not possibly regard the vice of the Pathic otherwise than as a deviation from Nature, an unnatural appetite; and every unnatural appetite (ἀκολασία—“intemperance”) was a νόσος or πάθος (disease, or suffering, passion), or a consequence of these, as the passages quoted from Aristotle and elsewhere show conclusively. From the point of view of the paederast reasons perhaps were to be discovered, that appeared to justify his peculiar taste; and the mode in which he obtained the titillation of sensual pleasure was looked upon merely as one way of getting rid of the semen, as a figura Veneris (mode of Love) standing in close relationship with Onanism. The paederast was relegated to the category of voluptuaries, but without his incurring any special condemnation. On the other hand for the pathic who lent himself as subject of the vice, no excuse of this sort was forthcoming. His lust was not seen (this was impossible at the time) to have a bodily origin in “prurigo ani” (itching of the anus), and could only be regarded as springing from a depraved imagination (ἀνίατον νόσον ψυχῆς ἡγούμενος—deeming it an incurable disease of the soul); it must be that a demon had dragged him along irresistibly in his train, and drove his victim who was incapable of helping himself (ἀσθενής—“weak”) to degradation.

All men thus held in thrall by evil demons were supposed to have offended against the gods, to have roused their anger, and were avoided and shunned by their fellows. If in addition they showed any traces of mental aberration, madness, epileptic convulsions, or the like, rude peoples saw in these the manifestation of a god’s influence, and took the victim’s sayings and dreams for oracles. So Herodotus relates (IV. 67.) that the Scythians considered the ἐναρέες to have received the gift of prophecy from Aphrodité,—οἱ δὲ ἐναρέες οἱ ἀνδρόγυνοι, τὴν Ἀφροδίτην σφισι λέγουσι μαντικὴν δοῦναι (now the ἐναρέες, the men-women, declare that Venus brought madness on the object of her anger), and held the vice of the pathic to be due to the goddess’s wrath, or at a later time to be an (incurable) disease of the soul (ψυχή),—as is proved again by the passage of Caelius Aurelianus already quoted; but they did not ascribe to such men the power of prophecy, though in a certain sense every actual madman was supposed to possess it349. For the vice of the pathic was not in the eyes of the Greeks actual madness, but rather a vice (νόσος—disease) that robbed the sufferer of the power of governing himself350, in the same sense as they called sexual love a madness. From this point of view therefore the commentators who saw in the νοῦσος θήλεια a mental affliction, had some grounds for their view; but should not have lost sight of the fact of its being a vice at the same time.

But why did the νοῦσος (disease) receive the epithet θήλεια (feminine)? Taking the word to be used passively,—as obviously is done by those who make out the νοῦσος θήλεια to have been an affection similar in character to menstruation,—we might find its explanation in the dictum of Tiresias, who, as is well known, ascribed to the woman the greater pleasure in the act of coition. From this fact,—if it is a fact,—a greater longing on the part of the woman for coition may be deduced; for which reason Plato compared the uterus (womb) to a wild beast. Thus the νοῦσος θήλεια would be feminine concupiscence. Just as the woman longs intensely for natural coition with the man, in the same way and with a like intensity does the pathic long after unnatural351. Thus the punishment inflicted by Venus would have consisted in the goddess having implanted in the man the concupiscence of a woman.

If on the other hand θήλεια (feminine) is taken in an active sense, as it is by Stark and other interpreters,—and with greater correctness, then the νοῦσος θήλεια is a form of lust that transforms men into women,—and this can be said of paederastia in several senses, as is manifest from what has been said already on preceding pages. The Pathic becomes a woman, because he renounces his man’s prerogative, as being the stronger, to play the active part352, and assumes instead the passive rôle of the woman353, Entering into competition as he does with the ladies of pleasure in courting the favour of men, he has recourse to all the arts they invoke to gain their object; and seeks by artificial means to bring his body into as close a resemblance as possible to the female form. He dresses himself out like a woman of pleasure, adopts female dress, and lets the hair of the head grow long, whilst at the same time he carefully eradicates by the process of dropacismus (use of pitch-ointment as a depilatory) every trace of hair on other parts of the person, even sacrificing what was the chief ornament of a man in Ancient times,—his beard354. All this was done by the hero of Aristophanes’ “Thesmophoriazusae”, and without a doubt an underlying irony à propos of the pathics was at the bottom of the poet’s conception. Care of the skin, such as women adopt, by means of baths, friction with pumice-stone, etc. complete the feminine appearance355,—hence the expressions μάλακος, μαλθακός (soft or effeminate) for the pathic, μαλακία, μαλθακία (softness, effeminacy) for the pathic’s vice; and outraged Nature avenges herself by seconding his endeavours. In consequence of the stretching of the fundament, the buttocks become broader towards the lower part, and the space between them wider, causing the hips to take more the shape they have in a woman, the pelvis itself seems to be enlarged, while the legs lose their straightness and the knees bend more and more inwards (γονύκροτος—knock-kneed,)—in short the whole of the lower half of the body assumes the feminine type.

Deterioration of body is followed by deterioration of mind, and the character also grows womanish.356 The pathic despises intercourse with women, and will not enter into marriage, so long as he continues to find his lust satisfied. When this ceases to be the case as years advance, Nature herself forbids his propagating his race; the genital organs that have withered through disuse and refuse their office.357 Driven from the society of men, he takes refuge, neither woman nor man himself, with the women, who in contempt use him as a slave, and like Omphalé of old with Hercules, put the distaff into his hands! Thus from the νοῦσος θήλεια, the vice, an actual disease has sprung; and we can now see that Longinus358 was surely right in calling the expression of Herodotus ἀμίμητος,—an inimitable one, for certainly in no more concise or better way can the facts and the consequences of the vice of the Pathic be characterized.

However if any one should consider all this still insufficient to prove the case, and regard the indication given by Longinus as not explicit enough, he may learn from Tiberius the Rhetorician359 that as a matter of fact the Ancients understood the νοῦσος θήλεια in Herodotus in this and in no other sense. He says:

“Now a paraphrase is when authors alter a simple, straightforward statement of fact that is complete, for the sake of style or effect or sublimity of phrase, and express the matter in other words, and these more forcible and suitable; as e.g. in Herodotus, when he wrote ἐνέσκηψεν ἡ θεὸς θήλειαν νόσον (the goddess afflicted them with feminine disease) instead of “made them men-women or cinaedi”. The word ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman) is used here in the same way as in another passage where Herodotus says360, οἱ δὲ ἐνάρεες, οἱ ἀνδρόγυνοι (and the ἐνάρεες, the men-women). The false interpretation of this word has more than anything else led to misunderstanding as to the νοῦσος θήλεια, for it was supposed that by ἀνδρόγυνοι (men-women) actual eunuchs were intended, whereas pathics are meant and nothing more. How the case really stood might have been seen from Suidas, who tells us: ἀνδρόγυνος· ὁ Διόνυσος, ὡς καὶ τὰ ἀνδρῶν ποιῶν καὶ τὰ γυναικῶν πάσχων· ἢ ἄνανδρος καὶ Ἑρμαφρόδιτος· καὶ ἀνδρογύνων, ἀσθενῶν. γυναικῶν καρδίας ἐχόντων. (man-woman: Dionysus, as both performing a man’s part and suffering a woman’s. Synonyms, “unmanly”, and “Hermaphrodite”. Also of men-women, weakly men, having the hearts of women.) Dionysus361 then performed the act of coition as a man, and suffered himself to be used as a woman, and for this reason was called ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman). We find the word used in the same way in Plato362, in the passage of Dio Chrysostom quoted a little above, in various places in the Writers on Physiognomy, in Philo, loco citato, and in Artemidorus363. From the last we quote a passage highly interesting for our purpose:

“A man saw in a dream his penis covered with hair to the extreme tip, shaggy with very thick hair that grew all of a sudden on it. He was a notorious cinaedus, indulging in every abominable pleasure, effeminate and a man-woman; only never using his member as a man does. In this way it happened that that part was so little employed, that through not being rubbed against another body hair actually grew on it.” The same author relates in another place364: “A man saw in a dream the rôle365 of a man-woman played on the stage; his privy member fell sick. A man thought he saw a priest of Cybelé (a castrated man); his privy member fell sick. This happened in the first instance because of the name, in the second because of the coincidence of the fact with the spectator’s condition. And indeed you know what κωμῳδεῖν (to represent in comedy) signifies in dreams, and what it means to see a priest of Cybelé. You remember too that if any one dreams he sees a Comedy or Tragedy and remembers it afterwards, the event can be predicted according to the plot of the piece dreamed of.”

The passage affords us yet another proof as to the causes that were supposed in Antiquity to condition the rise of diseases of the genitals, and we need certainly feel no surprise if we find the ætiological relations of these complaints even in professional writers wrapped in all but impenetrable obscurity.

Now what is the word ἐναρέες? Some scholars take it to be Greek; and accordingly would read ἐναγέες (persons who have sinned against the godhead), as Bouhier did, and perhaps Caelius Rhodoginus even in his time, or else ανάριες (imbelles, ad luctum veneream inepti,—unwarlike, i.e. unfit for the struggle of love), which was Coray’s emendation. Stark does not believe in any corruption of the word, but thinks it should be derived from ἐναίρω (spolio,—I rob, spoil), ἔναρα (spolia,—spoils), making it signify virilitate spoliati,—men robbed of their virility. But ἐναίρω according to Buttmann’s Lexilogus, p. 276., means “to send down to Hades”, to slay, ἔναρα the spoils taken from the slain, and from this comes the idea of spoliation, deprivation. The word undoubtedly occurs (Homer, Iliad XXIV. 244.) in the sense of “to be slain”, but the meaning virilitate spoliari (to be deprived of virility) without the addition of some supplemental word can certainly not be authenticated in old Writers. Supposing this derivation to be correct, ἐναρέες might signify simply (Temple) robbers, and as a matter of fact the glosses give ὁπλίται (warriors) as an explanation. It is a surprising thing that those who make out the νοῦσος θήλεια to have been gonorrhœa (clap), should not have derived the word from ἐάρ, the sap, the seed, with inserted ν.

However a Greek origin of the word is rendered unlikely by one simple circumstance. Herodotus writes τοὺς καλέουσι Ἐναρέας οἱ Σκύθαι, (whom the Scythians call Ἐναρέες,—which is obviously the same thing as saying, “in the language of the Scythians they are called Ἐναρέες”. And again why should Herodotus have explained it by ἀνδρόγυνοι (men-women), if it was a word that every Greek could understand. In this view moreover Wesseling and Schweighäuser, scholars possessing a special, critical knowledge of their Herodotus, concur. We do not indeed know to what family of speech the Scythian belongs; but it may be assumed that the word signifying the disease took its origin from the same country where the νοῦσος θήλεια itself arose. We believe ἐναρέες366 to have been originally a Syrian word, which the Scythians, or more likely the Greeks367, first adopted into their own idiom. The Greeks were particularly good at the transformation or, if you please, distortion, of foreign names! The word which we think must be claimed as the original is the Semitic נַעֲרָה (naãrâ),—the girl, the woman in the abstract; and we conjecture Herodotus wrote ναρέες, a form which is actually found according to Coray in one Manuscript. The meaning then would be the womanish man, and this gives a complete correspondance with νοῦσος θήλεια and ἀνδρόγυνος. Another conjecture is based on the name of the Babylonish Praefect or Ἄνναρος, to which Coray calls attention, adding: mais qui pourroit bien être un surnom altéré par les copistes, et relatif à sa vie effeminée et au milieu des femmes. (but which might very possibly be a surname changed by the transcribers and referring to his effeminate life and his living surrounded by women.) In Athenaeus368 we read in fact: Κτησίας δ’ ἱστορεῖ, Ἀνναρον τὸν βασιλέως ὕπαρχον καὶ τῆς Βαβυλωνίας δυναστεύσαντα στολῇ χρῆσθαι γυναικείᾳ καὶ κόσμῳ· καὶ ὅτι βασιλέως δούλῳ ὄντι κ. τ. λ. (Ctesias relates in his History that Annarus, the King’s Praefect and Governor of Babylon wore a woman’s robes and ornaments; and that being a slave of the King, etc.) Still as a matter of fact it is difficult to see why the transcriber should have introduced the name as Ἄνναρος, the whole form of the sentence demanding a proper name. Coray refuses to admit that ἐναρέες is a foreign word at all, for he says, “cette manière de s’exprimer n’est souvent qu’une version littérale du mot étranger dans la langue de l’écrivain qui l’emploie”. (such a mode of expression is very often nothing more than a literal translation of the foreign word into the language of the writer using it). But if this were the case, and the word one that a Greek would have understood, why did Herodotus go out of his way to explain it by ἀνδρόγυνοι? Supposing a transcriber to have inserted Ἄνναρον into the text, yet even then the word must have been familiar to him in the sense of womanish, unmanly. But if it has this meaning, Coray’s conjecture,—to read ἀναρέες for ἐναρέες, should be unhesitatingly adopted,—if that is (a point to which Prof. Pott has drawn attention) the derivation is taken from Sanskrit or Zend.

In Zend in fact man is nara, woman narî; in Sanskrit nrî is the stem, nom. nâ, pl. nar-as,—or else nara the stem and nom. naras, from which has come the Greek ἀνήρ (man) by addition of the prosthetic, (not privative), α. Now from nara, by prefixing α privative, which exists both in Zend and Sanskrit, may be formed a-nara, with the meaning of not-man, unmanly,—a meaning which is preserved in the name Ἄναρος (the doubling of the ν is undoubtedly wrong); and so ἀναρέες would be literally the same by etymology with Hippocrates’ ἀνανδριεῖς (unmanly men), occurring in a passage to be presently discussed. This, and equally ἀνανδρία, ἀνάνδρος (unmanliness, unmanly) are all expressions for the pathic and his vice, as is shown again and again by passages quoted in the course of our investigation.

But again, if with Coray an actual verbal translation of a foreign word is supposed, then ἀνανέρες (ἀ-ν-ἀνέρες) might be read,—a word which though quite legitimately formed, was not in actual use by the Greeks, and for this reason Herodotus naturally enough explained it by ἀνδρόγυνοι. In any case the remarkable fact remains that no one of the ancient Lexicographers, Suidas for instance or Hesychius369, should have thought the word, in whatever form it may have been read, worthy of notice in his Dictionary.

§ 18.

We have now, we think, adequately discussed the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) in the preceding Sections, and proved that the oldest view of all, viz. that the vice of the Pathic must be understood by that term, may be justified from every point of view. It only remains to subject to examination passages from such other authors as have employed the expression. These Stark, §§ 11-18., has most carefully collected. In this way we shall see how far they may be brought into harmony with the view adopted.

Philo370 relates among a number of other evidences of the outspokenness of Diogenes the Philosopher, when he was a captive and exposed for sale as a slave, how his fellow-prisoners all stood sad and cast down, but he again and again gave free course to his witty humour. “For instance when he cast his eye on one of the buyers, who suffered from the feminine disease, he would seem to have gone up to the man, whose outward appearance announced him to be an unmanly man, and said: ‘Do you buy me, for you seem to be in want of a man!’ The buyer, conscious and ashamed, slunk away among the crowd, whilst the bystanders marvelled at Diogenes’ wit and boldness.”

In another place371 Philo says, after having spoken of the Laws of Moses against harlotry: “Yet another evil much more serious than the one mentioned, has crept into states, paederastia to wit, the bare naming of which was formerly an outrage. But now it is a matter of boast, not only with those who practise it, but also with the pathics, the men of whom it is customary to say,—They suffer from feminine disease. In fact they are effeminated in body and soul, and not one spark of manliness do they suffer to appear in them. They braid and deck their hair to look like women, they smear and paint their faces with ceruse and cosmetics and such like things, anoint their persons with fragrant ointments,—for a fragrant smell is an attraction much sought after by such. Expending every possible care on their outward adornment, they are not ashamed even to employ every device to change artificially their nature as men into that of women. Against such it is right to be bloodthirsty, obeying the Law, which commands: to slay,—and fear no penalty,—the man-woman who transgresses the law of nature, to let him live not a day, not an hour,—shaming as he does himself, his family, his country, nay! the whole race of mankind. The paederast must endure the same penalty, for he pursues after a pleasure that is contrary to Nature, and, so far as in him lies, makes States desert and empty of inhabitants, annihilating the begetting of children. More than this he endeavours to entice others and lead them away into two most abominable vices, unmanliness and effeminacy, bedizening youths (like women), and womanizing men in the vigour of their age, just at the time when they ought rather to be roused to aim at strength and hardihood. In a word, like a bad farmer, he lets the rich and fertile ploughland lie untilled, and makes it unfruitful, but labours day and night where he can expect no harvest whatever. Now this comes, I think, from the fact that in most States prizes are really offered for incontinence and effeminacy,—the vices of the paederast and the pathic. At any rate these men-women may be seen constantly strutting in the agora at the hour of high market, walking in procession at the sacred festivals, sharing, unholy as they are, in holy offices, participating in mysteries and sacrifices, even engaging in the rites of Demeter. Some of them have brought the charm of their youth to such a pass that craving a complete transformation into women, they have amputated their generative members; and now clad in purple robes, as if they had wrought some great benefit to their country, and surrounded by a body guard, they enter in state, all eyes fixed on them. Now if only such indignation as our Lawgiver has expressed, were generally entertained against those guilty of such effrontery, and if they were banished, as expiating the common guilt of their country, without appeal, this would do much to improve many of their companions. The punishment of such as had been condemned, if in no possible way to be shirked, would contribute no little to checking any imitation of these lusts on the part of others.”

In the third passage, Philo372 is speaking of the difference between the symposia (banquets) of his time and those of the Greeks, and says:—“The Platonic banquet has to do almost entirely with Love, but not the love of men for women, or of women for men,—for these are passions that are satisfied conformably with the law of Nature,—but the love of men whose affections are directed to youths. For all the noble things that are said besides about Eros (Love) and the heavenly Aphrodité are to be taken as mere fine talk. By far the most part in fact concerns Ἔρως κοινὸς and Ἔρως πάνδημος (Common Love, Public Love), which destroys all manliness, the virtue that is most needful in war and peace, infecting the mind with the “feminine disease”, and turning men into men-women, whereas they should be equipped with everything conducive to manly vigour. Instead of this it ruins young men’s manliness, and gives them the nature and character of a wanton; also inflicting injury on the Lover in the most important factors of life,—body, soul and property. For the thoughts of the paederast must needs be all centred on the boy he loves, and his gaze quick to see that object only: while for all other concerns, private or public, his eyes are blinded and useless, and this especially if he is unhappy in his love. His worldly condition takes hurt in two ways, partly through neglect, partly through expenditure on the loved one. Associated with this is yet another, and a greater because general, mischief. Such men bring about the depopulation of Cities, and cause a lack of a good, sound strain of men, producing barrenness and unfruitfulness. They resemble those that are unskilful in husbandry, etc.”

In a fourth passage again, one overlooked however by Stark, Philo373 says, speaking of the inhabitants of Sodom and their unbridled dissoluteness and vice:—

“For not only being mad after women did they form disgraceful unions with strange women, but actually, men as they were, they had intercourse with males: they that practised the vice had no shame for the sex they shared in common with those that suffered it, but were guilty of wasting their seed and disdaining the generation of offspring. But conviction of guilt was of no avail to restrain men mastered by an overpowering lust. Later, learning by degrees the custom for such as were born men yet to endure the treatment proper to women, they brought upon themselves feminine disease, a curse they could in no wise contend against. For not merely womanizing their bodies by effeminacy and wanton luxury, but utterly unsexing their very souls, they destroyed, so far as in them lay, all the manliness of their sex. In fact, if Greeks and Barbarians had been unanimous and had all been eager at once after such intercourse, the consequence would have been to make every city desolate, as though wasted by some pestilential sickness.”

In the fifth and last passage of all Philo374 is speaking of those whose entry into the sanctuary was interdicted by the Lawgiver: “He forbad all that were unworthy to frequent, the Temple, beginning with the men-women, those that are sick of the true (the feminine) disease, who transgressing the established law of Nature, annex the lust and looks of incontinent women. He expelled all eunuchs, those with strangled testicles and those with amputated, who carefully safeguard the bloom of youthfulness against decay, and transform the manly type into a womanish shape. He expelled not only harlots, but harlots’ children as well, etc.”

If we review systematically and in detail these passages of Philo, given by Stark only in fragments, any unprejudiced reader must see that there is not one of them that does not refer to the vice of the Pathic. As to the second and third passages Stark himself (pp. 13 and 22.) admits this, while as to the fourth we do not know what he thought, it having been unknown to him: thus it is only in relation to the first and fifth passages that we have to examine his reasons for supposing this not to be the case. After quoting the text and Mangey’s Latin translation, Stark remarks à propos of the first passage,—that dealing with Diogenes:—“Quin hic verum corporis, nec animi vitium seu morbum indicetur, quo laborantes virilitate orbarentur et hanc suam impotentiam corporis habitu atque oris specie proderent, nullus dubito. Nam hoc et verborum series aperte declarat et ex eo colligi potest, quod ille, qui hoc crimine tactum se sentiret, pudore movetur.... Si vero Pathicorum labes, quam ab interpretibus quibusdam hic suspicari video, ita intelligenda esset, haec neque ex vultu coniici poterat neque a Graecis tam turpi macula notabatur, ut huic vitio deditis causa esset, quam ab rem eius opprobrium effugerent. Tantum enim abfuit, ut Pathici dedecus suum occultarent, ut potius multo fastu atque pompa prae se ferrent.... Verum autem Eunuchum genitalium exsectione redditum his verbis significari, non crediderim, quia hi neque inter licitatores, sed potius inter vendendos reperiri, neque ob harum partium defectum pudore tangi solerent.” (I have no doubt whatever that a real fault of body, and not of mind, in other words a disease, is intended here,—a disease that robbed the sufferers of virility, who then betrayed this impotence by the condition and appearance of body and countenance. This indeed is fully shown by the context, from which it may also be gathered that the sufferer who felt himself touched by this vice, has a feeling of shame.... But if it is the taint of the pathics that is to be understood here, as I see is conjectured to be the case by some commentators, this taint could not be guessed at from the face; nor yet was it marked by the Greeks with so strong a stigma of disgrace, as to cause those who were given to it to strive to escape the opprobrium. For so far were pathics from wishing to conceal their shame, that they actually made a point of displaying it ostentatiously.... On the other hand I should not be inclined to suppose that a Eunuch, an actual Eunuch by amputation of the genitals, is meant by these words. These were hardly likely to be found among the bidders, but rather with the slaves for sale: nor were eunuchs accustomed to feel shame on account of the loss of these organs.)

In § 16 above it has been abundantly proved that the recognition of a pathic ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως, ex voltu, (by the look), was a simple and familiar thing with the Ancients, and especially so if we understand, as is only reasonable, by ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως not merely by the face, but by the whole appearance of the person as well. We can only wonder at Stark’s repeated denials of the existence of such external marks of recognition, and all the more so, as every Text-book of Medical Jurisprudence making any pretensions to complete detail (e.g. Masius, Mende) gives information on the point. Again, it is proved that paederastia was always regarded by the Greeks, till the time when they lost their independence, as a disgraceful vice,—the reason why the buyer spoken of slunk away with a blush. As for the ostentatious show of pathics, and particularly their importance and the power they acquired, to which Stark refers (p. 12. in his Note—28), this is only true for times as late as Philo’s own, (he lived 40 A.D.), whereas Diogenes appears in History in the middle of the 4th. Century B.C. Stark, again, cites as evidence the words from the second passage: Puerorum amor, de quo vel loqui olim probrum fuit maximum, nunc laudi ducitur, (The love of boys, merely to speak of which was formerly a deep disgrace, but which now is made a boast),—without observing that his contention as to paederastia not being held disgraceful in Antiquity is most obviously contradicted by it. Undoubtedly actual castrated eunuchs were not meant, but the reasons Stark brings forward to show this are without force, for he will hardly be able to prove that in Asia the Castrated never acquired importance and wealth, so as to be in a position to buy themselves slaves. Further it may be gathered that the man Diogenes addressed was rich or held an important station from the fact that the bystanders marvelled at Diogenes’ boldness and outspokenness, a point that Stark indeed has forgotten to mention. For Philo’s own times the second passage is evidence enough. Equally do we fail to see why a castrated eunuch would be unlikely to blush, when the fact is thrown in his face. Stark (p. 22) explains the νοῦσος θήλεια as vitium corporis or effeminatio interno morboso corporis statu procreata, (a fault of body, condition of effeminacy produced by an internal morbid state of body). Now if it were really this, how could he possibly speak of the sufferers as crimine tactos, (touched by his vice)? They had nothing to be ashamed of, unless indeed they had acquired the disease in a shameful way, but this was not the case according to his original assumption. This is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria.375

So far as the fifth passage is concerned, Stark declares castrated eunuchs to be certainly intended, and blames the editor of Philo (Mangey) for wishing to read for ἀπὸ τῶν νοσούντων τὴν ἀληθῆ νόσον ἀνδρογύνων (with the men-women, those that are sick of the true disease) τὴν θήλειαν νόσον (the feminine disease). He says in his note 30.: “Mangetius (a mistake for Mangey) reponit θήλειαν. Quare hoc fieri, non dicam debeat, sed ne oporteat quidem, non video. Nam νόσος ἀνδρογύνων idem est, quod νόσος θήλεια. Si igitur haec vox verbis superioribus adiiciatur, iners atque inutilis appareat et pleonasmum vanum efficiat, necesse est: τὸ ἀληθῆ contra, quod ille demit, non vacuum ceteris additur verbum, ut eo perspicue demonstraretur, hic verum morbum seu illud corporis vitium esse intelligendum, quod viros exsecando paritur, nec hanc animi labem, qua contaminati solum muliebria patiuntur, quaequae iisdem verbis nuncupatur, ut loci mox laudandi docebunt.” (Mangetius restores θήλειαν—feminine. I cannot see why he should do this; in fact he had no business to do so whatever. For νόσος ἀνδρογύνων (disease of men-women) is the same thing as νόσος θήλεια (feminine disease). So if this expression is added on to the preceding words, it can only appear redundant and useless and make a silly pleonasm. Τὸ ἀληθῆ (the word true disease) on the other hand is not otiose when added to the other words. It shows distinctly that the true disease or notorious vitiation of body was meant to be understood, that which arises from castrating men, and not merely the taint of mind that makes the men whom it affects endure the treatment proper to women, and which is called by the same name,—as will be shown in passages to be cited presently.)

These last words evidently refer to the third passage, where we read: Θήλειαν δὲ νόσον ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἀπεργαζόμενος καὶ ἀνδρογύνους κατασκευάζων (infecting the mind with feminine disease, and turning men into men-women), for Stark himself explains the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) as being identical with the ἀνδρογύνων νόσος (disease of men-women). So he is bound to explain this sentence too as a Pleonasmus vanus (silly, useless, pleonasm), for as a matter of fact those suffering from νοῦσος θήλεια are men-women (ἀνδρόγυνοι). But if a pleonasm is found in these latter words, it is difficult to see why there should not be one equally well in the fifth passage.

Yet for all he says, it is far from being demonstrated that this pleonasm is useless and silly. The sequence of thought is evidently this: Common Eros (Love) infects the soul (ψυχή) with the νοῦσος θήλεια, rousing the insatiable craving to play the part of the woman, to be pathic in fact; and then, this craving being indulged, the man becomes a man-woman (ἀνδρόγυνος). As long as he goes on practising the vice of the pathic, he is sick of the νοῦσος θήλεια, and so it is perfectly correct to speak of the νοῦσος θήλεια ἀνδρογύνων (feminine disease of men-women). A man-woman, that is a person who suffers coition to be consummated with him as with a woman, and concurrently also consummates coition with women as a man, or at any rate has the ability to do so,—this anyone may quite well be, without suffering for all that from the νοῦσος θήλεια. For instance he may be constrained by force to be a pathic, or may regard it as a way of earning money, like the male prostitutes of Greece and Rome; and in that case has no interest further in the vice of the pathic as such. On the other hand if he is urged to it by prurigo ani impudica (lascivious itch of the anus), this is sheer lubricity, not to be expected in a sensible, healthy-minded man. It can only be the consequence of a morbid condition of temperament and body. Such a man is the victim of νοῦσος θήλεια, the craving to be a woman! This is just the position taken in the fifth passage, as the subsequent words show quite plainly.

But granted that Philo actually wrote in this fifth passage τὴν ἀληθῆ νόσον ἀνδρογύνων (the true disease of men-women), would a bodily defect, castration, be signified by the expression? Certainly not. We could then take it in no other way but this, “he began with the men-women, who suffered from the true disease,” and should be constrained to ask, “what disease?”,—a definite disease being manifestly intended, as the addition of the definite article (τὴν) shows. But this would imply that men-women who were not suffering from this particular disease were not excluded from visiting the Temple. Yet most certainly Philo would never make any such statement. However Stark translates with Mangey: Exorsus a vero semivirorum morbo laborantibus that is, “he began with those suffering from the true disease of men-women”, from which it would follow that there were other persons who suffered from the apparent disease of the men-women, or no reason exists for the special emphasis the definite article gives.

Really the question all along is not of castrated persons at all, and cannot be, if the sense of the whole passage is taken into account; for these (castrated persons) are specially and separately forbidden access to the Temple in the next sentence,—a fact which nothing but the introduction into the text of the conjunction γὰρ (for) by Mangey, (following a MS. it is true), has obscured. The words as they stand are Θλαδιὰς [γὰρ] καὶ ἀποκεκομμένους τὰ γεννητικὰ ἐλαύνει, (he expells all eunuchs, those with strangled testicles, and those with amputated). So if the men-women who suffered from the νοῦσος θήλεια were actual eunuchs, this would indeed be a Pleonasmus vanus et ineptus (silly and idle pleonasm). Stark has evidently been led to maintain the opinion he does, and to blame Mangey’s emendation, which is in any case justified, by a mistake as to the construction of the sentence. Stark construed νοῦσον ἀνδρογύνων (disease of men-women), whereas the construction requires: τὴν ἄρχην ποιούμενος ἀπὸ ἀνδρογύνων, τῶν νοσούντων τὴν θήλειαν (ἀληθῆ) νόσον (beginning with men-women,—those that were sick of the feminine—true—disease), the latter words being simply in apposition to ἀνδρογύνων.

§ 19.

We now proceed to consider the passages from the historian Herodian (170-240 A.D.). He relates376:

“Now he (Antoninus) had two generals, of whom the one, an oldish man but stupid and quite unacquainted with state affairs, was yet held to be a good soldier; his name was Adventus. The other who was called Macrinus, was not inexperienced in forensic practice and possessed besides some knowledge of law. Now the latter Antoninus frequently assailed in public with gibes, saying he was neither a soldier nor a man, going so for as positive insult. For having heard that he led a somewhat free life, and abominated scanty, rough eating and drinking (in which Antoninus as a hardy soldier took a pride), and wore a woman’s cloak or other elegant raiment, he accused him of ἀνανδρία and θήλεια νοῦσος (unmanliness and feminine disease), and was constantly threatening to put him to death. Macrinus could not endure such treatment and was very much exasperated. And this was the result ... etc.” Here ἀνανδρία and θήλεια νοῦσος (unmanliness and feminine disease) are laid to Macrinus’ charge by Antoninus by way of insult, but it is not in any way stated that he had become actually impotent or Pathic. True ἀνανδρία (unmanliness) is frequently used of the Pathic, but here it refers simply to a womanish way of life in connexion with eating and drinking, whilst the θήλεια νοῦσος (feminine disease) is inferred from the female costume, a thing in which, as we have seen, the Pathics delighted377.

Stark indeed gives the following note on the passage: “Ego quidem impotentiam virilem et illam morbosam in sexum sequiorem degenerationem, quae per animi mollitiem aeque ac per corporis mutationem se prodit, hic accipiendam esse credo, nec video, cur interpres labem illam qua muliebris tolerantiae viri maculantur, intellectam velit.” (In fact I consider we must take to be here meant impotence and that morbid degeneration towards the inferior sex which betrays itself at once by effeminacy of mind and bodily deterioration; at the same time I see no reason for a commentator thinking that specific pollution to be signified whereby men are affected who suffer themselves to be treated as women.) However if only Stark had chanced to read through the succeeding 13th. chapter of Herodian as well, he would have found Antoninus only meant to put upon the man an ordinary coarse jest; for he there makes the very same reproach against the Centurion Martialis, whose brother he had had executed a few days previously; αὐτῷ τε τῷ Μαρτιαλίῳ ἐνύβρισεν, ἄνανδρον αὐτὸν καὶ ἀγεννῆ καλῶν καὶ Μακαρίνου φίλον, (And he insulted Martialis himself, calling him unmanly and ignoble and a friend of Macarinus.) In any case the passage shows that even at that period Paederastia was held to be dishonourable and the name of Pathic involved an insult.

The Church Historian Eusebius Pamphili (264-340 A.D.) relates in his Life of Constantine378 that on a part of the peak of Mount Lebanon stood a Temple of Venus: “Therein was a school of vice for licentious persons of every description, for all such as dishonoured their bodies in various ways; womanish men, that are no men at all, abrogated their natural dignity and propitiated the goddess by θήλεια νοῦσος (feminine disease); and again unlawful unions of women, lecherous embraces, abominable and abominated acts, were indulged in in this Temple, as in a spot where neither law nor religion held good. And there was no one to overlook their doings, for no respectable man dared go near the place.” Now to any one examining the whole drift of the passage, it cannot for a single moment remain doubtful that by θήλεια νοῦσος is here meant some particular form of vice; and the words of the text are such that, even if the expression only occurred here and nowhere else at all, absolutely no other meaning could be assigned to it but that of the vice of the Pathic. We have already shown that the words ἀκόλαστος (licentious person), πράξις, πράττειν (action, to act) are used of the Pathic, whilst the phrase τὸ σεμνὸν τῆς φύσεως (natural dignity) finds its explanation in the τὸ φύσεως νόμισμα (custom of nature) of Philo, and γύννιδες (womanish men) is interpreted in Zonaras379 by ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman), μαλακός (soft, effeminate), and in Eustathius380 by θηλυδρίας μὴ εὖ διακέιμενος πρὸς τὰ ἀφροδίσια (womanish man, one not properly behaved with regard to love),—meanings the real force of which we have elsewhere verified, but which most certainly are not to be taken as implying actual castration, as Stark (§ 16) thinks. Indeed the last named says, commenting on the passage of Eusebius: “Haec verba non solum de mera morum atque cultus mutatione muliebri rationi magis congrua, intelligi posse, sed etiam per veram evirationem genitalium truncatione confectam aptissime explicanda esse, cum verborum series et Eustathii, Hesychii ac Zonarae atque Valesii auctoritas me suadet, tum multo magis illud monet, quod in cultu Veneris virorum exsectionem solemnem fuisse compertum habemus. Sin autem contenderis, viros tales exsectos et effeminatos etiam muliebria passos esse, ego quidem non repugno, exploratam vero rem esse atque ratam, ex ipsis auctoris verbis non liquet.” (That these words may be understood not merely of a simple change of mode of life and habit to one more closely assimilated to the female type, but that they are most suitably to be explained as implying an actual effemination of the individual produced by amputation of the genitals, both the context of the passage and the authority of Eustathius, Hesychius, Zonaras and Valesius induces me to believe, and still more am I led to this view by the fact we already know, viz. that the castration of men was customary in connection with the cult of Venus. But if you further maintain that such men so castrated and effeminated submitted to the treatment proper to women, I do not deny it; I only say that this point is not duly ascertained and certified on the showing of the Author’s own words.)

Certainly we have already seen from the passage of Lucian and from Philo that Paederastia supplied a motive for the making of Eunuchs; but the passages quoted from Athanasius and other Authors have also taught us that the pollution of boys was carried out in honour of Venus in her temples. As for the auctoritas Valesii (authority of Valesius), Stark adds in his notes (49): “Eandem vim his verbis tribuit, ut ex interpretatione ejus Latina Eusebii videre est. Histor. scriptor. ecclesiast. Paris 1677. fol. p. 211. B.” (He assigns the same force to these words, as may be seen from his Latin translation of Eusebius). To our regret we are unable to refer to this edition,—which it appears to us would have been a highly desirable precaution; for the one which lies before us,381 a word for word, only more correct, re-impression of the Paris edition, gives the version of Valesius entirely in our sense: “Quippe effeminati quidam et feminae potius dicendi quam viri, abdicata sexus sui gravitate, muliebria patientes, daemonem placabant.” (Whereas certain effeminate men, that should rather be called women than men, abrogating the dignity of their sex, and suffering treatment proper to women, used in this way to propitiate their deity.) The same holds good of the translation given by Stark: “Viri effeminati et non viriles, naturae dignitatem ultro exuentes, morbo muliebri deam placabant.” (Effeminate men and unmanly, of their own will putting off their nature dignity, used to propitiate the goddess with feminine disease.) Ought this to be taken as implying a claim on his behalf to the translation generally as adduced by him or merely to the rendering of the word γύννιδες by viri effeminati? The previous authorities, Eustathius, Hesychius and Zonaras, at any rate refer only to γύννιδες, while Stark himself assigns it the meaning of the Vice of the Pathic in the last words quoted.

Bishop Synesius (378-431 A.D.) in his Speech De Regno382 addressed to the Emperor Arcadius exhorts the latter to set bounds to the insubordination in the army, and for the foreign subject peoples, that are continually meditating treason, to attack them and really conquer them, rather than wait till their hostile temper break out in open revolt. That the renown of the Romans stood fast, that they were victorious, wherever they came and marched through the countries of the world, like the gods, supervising men’s insolence and government. “But those Scythians, Herodotus tells us so, and we see it for ourselves, are all fallen under the νόσος θήλεια (feminine disease). And it is they of whom the subject peoples mainly consist, etc.” He goes on to say how they had submitted only in appearance, while secretly they laughed at the folly of the Romans, who took their submission seriously, etc. Now in the first place we must remember the fact that Synesius, like all Greek Orators and Fathers of later times, considered it his special duty to cite the Classical Greek authors as frequently as possible, and with this object made almost any peg do to hang a quotation on. He says of the Romans that they, ὡς Ὅμηρός φησι τοὺς θεούς

Ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίαν ἐφέποντες

(as Homer says of the gods, “visiting the insolence and good government of men”), and to explain this ὕβρις (insolence), he recalls the statement of Herodotus to the effect that the Scythians suffered from the νοῦσος θήλεια, a statement which, he adds, still holds good of them; that the vice had prevailed amongst them from the earliest times, that it was quite inveterate, and that accordingly men of such abandoned character could never be trusted, trained as they were to dissemble; all this Synesius is specially anxious to enforce strongly upon Arcadius! In this sequence of thought we find a sufficient explanation of the καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρῶμεν (and we see it for ourselves); this refers not so much to the ocular recognition of the νοῦσος θήλεια, the possibility of which however we have demonstrated elsewhere, as to the fact that the disease was still to be met with among the Scythians, in order to show which Synesius laid special stress on the phrase, and added—undoubtedly to the sacrifice of truth—the word ἅπαντας (all of them). Besides which, Dionysius Petavius reminds us in his notes on this passage that the name “Scythian” is used here, as it is in Strabo, in its widest signification, and includes Goths, Alani, Vandals, Germans, Huns, in fact all the Northern peoples. This is the more interesting as Sextus Empiricus383 relates of the Germans that they practised Paederastia, Prof. Meier (loco cit. p. 131. Note 20.), who cites the passage, doubted the truth of the statement, on the ground that Sextus Empiricus is the only author, and even he does so only as a matter of hearsay (ὡς φασιν—as men say), to lay this vice to the charge of the Germans, whose purity of morals is not impugned by any other Writers. But surely he did not take into consideration that Sextus Empiricus lived about 200 years after Christ, and is speaking of the Germans of his own times, not of the old Germans such as Tacitus and Caesar knew them. It is hardly likely the Germans of Sextus’ and Synesius’ day should have entirely escaped the universal degeneracy of all Nations; and again, with what object did German Emperors at a later date promulgate laws against the vice of Paederastia, Sodomy, etc., if it did not exist among their people?

Clement of Alexandria, after speaking of the objectionable character of the worship of the different gods of the Heathen, goes on to relate as follows384:

“All blessings befall that King of the Scythians, whatever his name may have been, who when one of his subjects copied the service of the Mother of the gods usual among the people of Cyrené, beating the drum and clashing the cymbals hung at his neck, and dedicating himself as a Menagyrtes (Priest of Cybelé), shot him dead, as a man who had been made no man (ἄνανδρος) among the Greeks, and as a teacher of the feminine disease (νόσος θήλεια) to the rest of the Scythians.” Herodotus385 who tells the same story, calls the King Saulius and the offending citizen Anarcharsis386, but makes no mention, any more than do Diogenes Laertius and Philo387, of the θήλεια νοῦσος (feminine disease). Accordingly we must evidently regard this as an addition on the part of Clement of Alexandria, who judging from his own times, when the Priests of Cybelé universally practised paederastia with each other, and in order to further lay stress on the fact that the Scythian king had done right in killing the man who was introducing a heathen, and besides an exceedingly licentious, form of worship, felt no hesitation in making the addition. And as a matter of fact, how widely paederastia prevailed in the time of Clement of Alexandria, and how intimately he was acquainted with it, is proved by the passages quoted on previous pages from his writings. Stark prefers here also to understand a vera eviratio (true effemination), i.e. that they were actually castrated, maintaining that this was the case with the priests of Cybelé, whilst Larcher considers merely the womanish cult of the Dea Mater (Goddess Mother) to be indicated.

The last passage in which the expression θήλεια νοῦσος (feminine disease) occurs, is a scholion on the word γαλλιαμβικὸν (viz. μέτρον—galliambic metre) in Hephaestion388. The Scholiast says: Γαλλιαμβικὸν δὲ ἐκλήθη, ἐπεὶ λελυμένον ἐστὶ τὸ μέτρον· οἱ δὲ Γάλλοι, διαβάλλονται ὡς θήλειαν νόσον ἔχοντες, διὸ καὶ σώματα φόρον ἐτέλουν Ῥωμαίοις εἰς τοῦτο· οἱ τοιοῦτοι δέ ἱερεῖς εἰσὶ Δήμητρος. (Now it was called galliambic, because the metre is loose; and the Galli are evil spoken of as having feminine disease. Wherefore also they used to pay their bodies as tribute to the Romans—or, their bodies used to pay tribute to the Romans—to this day; and such men are priests of Demeter.) Stark gives (p. 21.) the following translation of this. “Galliambicum vocabatur, quod solutum est metrum; Galli enim utpote morbo muliebri laborantes inculpantur, quod Romanis corpora ad hoc (tanquam) tributum persolverent,” (It was called galliambic, because the metre is loose; for the Galli are accused as suffering from feminine disease, inasmuch as they used to pay their bodies to the Romans to this day as it were a tribute),—but without committing himself to any more precise explanation of the words. The meaning of the first two sentences is plain enough: The metre is called the galliambic, because it is loose, resolved, i. e. instead of long syllables short are used, and so the metres changed from masculine to feminine. Now the Galli are charged with practising θήλεια νόσος (feminine disease) (as Homer, Odyssey I. 368., says: ὑπέρβιον ὕβριν ἔχοντες—having, practising very audacious insolence). But what do the words that follow mean: διὸ καὶ σώματα φόρον ἐτέλουν Ῥωμαίοις εἰς τοῦτο? The tanquam (as it were) added in the Latin translation shows that the translator took the sentence in a figurative sense. But what is the subject of the sentence? is it σώματα or Γάλλοι—ἔχοντες? The translator must necessarily have taken the latter as the subject: “wherefore they paid or offered up their bodies to the Romans as it were for tribute”; and this could imply nothing less than that the Galli gave themselves up to the Romans as Pathics. Now does the arrangement of the words admit of this? We think not; for in that case the Scholiast must needs have put ἑαυτῶν with σώματα or at any rate the article τὰ.

Therefore if we take the sentence literally and regard σώματα as being the subject, it reads: “wherefore also the bodies (of the Galli) were subject to tax to the Romans to this day.” We have seen already how the word τέλος signified among the Greeks the “prostitution tax,” and how the Septuagint translators rendered the Hebrew קְדֵשָׁה (Kêdeshah) and קָדֵשׁ (Kâdesh), by which names the Priests of Cybelé were understood, by τελεσφόρος and τελισκόμενος (subject to tax, paying tax), how the Priests of Cybelé are characterised by other writers as men who were Pathics in honour of their goddess, and how as a matter of fact the Cinaedi or Exoleti at Rome in the time of the Emperor Severus had to pay an impost similar to the prostitution-tax. The scholion then shows us that the Galli also were subjected to this impost payable to the State. Were it a question merely of Castrated persons or indeed of anything else but actual Paederastia, the whole scholion would be unintelligible; yet Stark maintains that simply Eunuchs are intended, and this because of the words that are appended, to the effect that the Galli were Priests of Demeter. No doubt they may have been castrated, but this is a side issue; the important point is, that they were Pathics.

Finally we have still a passage from Dio Chrysostom389 to mention, in which however the hitherto almost stereotyped expression θήλεια νόσος (feminine disease) is exchanged for γυναικεία νόσος (womanly disease). The author is here expounding how all acts are under the governance of a definite Genius or Spirit, and says: “for a weakling and faint-hearted Spirit of this sort leads readily to the γυναικεία νόσος (womanly disease) and other shames, to which is attached punishment and disgrace.” Then in the following sentences the life and appearance of one governed by this Spirit are more exactly described, in such a way that there can be no possibility of supposing anything else to be intended than the vice of the Pathic, and even Stark (p. 12.) admits this much.

On reviewing once again what has been said, we find that the Scythians in Asia became acquainted with paederastia, when Pathics returned from foreign lands, and henceforth practised the vice at home as well. Their fellow-countrymen could only suppose an evil demon animated them. So when at length as a natural result of their vice they fell sick in body and in mind, when nervous disorders and imbecility visited the unfortunates, they never for a moment ascribed this to the vice these men practised, but rather regarded their condition as a consequence of the avenging wrath of Venus, whose temple they had robbed, and thus brought into connection an earlier incident and a later.

When the Greek became acquainted with the vice, he of course shared at first the notion of the avenging action of a deity, but he directed his attention less to the consequences of this vice, which in Greece were generally slighter, than to the Vice itself, which robbed the man of his manly characteristics and normal activity, and drove him to take on him the rôle of the woman in exchange for that of the man. But to be a woman was invariably among all nations a disgrace for the man, whom Plato (Timaeus 42.) considered the γένος κρεῖττον (superior sex), while Aristotle not merely represents the woman as owing her existence to an ἀνάγκη (unavoidable necessity), but calls her an ἄῤῥεν πεπηρωμένον (crippled male), an ἀναπηρία φυσική (natural crippling), even a παρέκβασις τῆς φύσεως (aberration of nature)390. But no man of sound intellect could possibly suffer himself to be used as a woman; therefore he must needs be sick, be afflicted with a disease that assimilated him to a woman (θήλεια—feminine). When Herodotus wrote, the Greeks to be sure knew the vice which was practised with boys (Paederastia) or youths, who had not yet reached man’s estate, but these were always first corrupted by adults; they did not practise the vice of their own impulse and could not as a rule be held accountable. When however they saw adults, men who were already in possession of manly prerogatives, appear as Pathics—not merely boys and youths not yet capable of the procreative act,—they could in no way explain the phenomenon to their satisfaction except by supposing them to have been attacked by a disease that changed them into women391. This also gives the reason why the expression νοῦσος Θήλεια (feminine disease) occurs so seldom in the Greek writers, for it was the violation of boys, not the violation of men, that was a familiar fact to them. For in the fact that the beautiful form of a boy was capable of firing a sensual longing to enjoy it, the Greek saw nothing at all unnatural; and he found excuses for the momentary forgetfulness of self-respect on the part of the paederast, as he did in the case of the boy or youth. But if there had been seduction, then the offence was strongly reprobrated, unless the Pathic had been a slave.

Neither bodily nor psychical consequences of the vice of the Pathic ever attained in Greece, as has been said, any very high degree of development; and most of the characteristic marks of the Cinaedus were regarded as artificial, worn half intentionally by him for show. Even in his peculiar gait, voice and look, the Greeks saw more an invitation to the perpetration of the vice than anything else; and if Plato denies to this class of persons the wish for natural coition, this is rather a sign how completely the vice mastered them than a proof of the annihilation of their power to procreate at all.

Even when positive diseases did actually occur in consequence of the vice, public opinion was far from ascribing these to the vice itself; nervous and mental affections were regarded as a punishment from the gods, or else they were treated according to their several symptoms without any examination into the original cause. Bodily ailments, especially if they did not affect the posterior or penis, were set down to any cause but the true one, often to quite ridiculous ones. The νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) was invariably thought of merely as a form of vice dependent on a morbid imagination, while its consequences as such were left entirely out of consideration. Nam neque ulla curatio corporis depellendae passionis causa recte putatur adhibenda, sed potius animus coercendus, qui tanta peccatorum labe vexatur, (For the right opinion is this: no bodily treatment should be applied in order to expel the complaint, rather should the mind be disciplined that is vexed by so foul a stain of sinful indulgences), are the words of Coelius Aurelianus in the passage quoted on page 159.

From this it is evident the later enquirers quoted above could take the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) for a purely mental affection, and be right in a sense,—but a sense that certainly never entered into their heads to consider. For they looked upon the intellectual imbecility that resulted from the vice of the Pathic as being the essence of the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease), and the bodily derangements as merely secondary and dependent on the psychica disturbances. Thus to some extent they confounded cause and effect, putting one for the other; yet without hitting on the true explanation, against which the meritorious Stark has tried so hard not perhaps to shut his eyes, but rather to forcibly remove it in any possible way out of the range of his ideas. For this very reason it has pursued him from beginning to end of his investigations, and in spite of all his struggles has found at last a reluctant and partial recognition from him.

As to the remaining views cited above, no attentive reader surely needs any further confutation of these.

§ 20.

We have now, we think sufficiently, proved that Herodotus as well as the other writers who use the expression νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease), denoted by it merely a Vice, which lent a feminine character to the behaviour and indeed to the whole look and mode of life of a man, assimilating him equally in body and in mind to the woman. Throughout the enquiry we have kept our eyes fixed on the cause of this transformation; and we shall now find it easy to estimate the value of a passage of Hippocrates, originally brought forward by Mercurialis (loco citato, p. 143. Note 10.) later by Zwinger392 and others, but which Stark in particular has characterised as a more complete delineation of the disease, merely pointed out and named νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) by Herodotus. On the other hand Bouhier specially and strenuously denies the identity of the two, yet without accurately recognising the true relationship.

Hippocrates in his well-known Work on Air, Water and Environment, describes the country of the Scythians as a bare but well-watered tableland, with so cold and damp a climate that a heavy mist covered the fields all day long and only a short summer was enjoyed. The inhabitants he says are arrogant, puffed up and exceedingly idle creatures, in outward look and mode of life having little distinctly marked characteristics of sex, the men having only very moderate desire for coition, and the women, whose menstruation is less frequent, possessing little capacity for conception. Then he goes on393: “Moreover there are very many men amongst the Scythians resembling Eunuchs (εὐνουχίαι); these not only follow women’s occupations (show feminine inclinations, behave as women?—γυναικεῖα ἐργάζονται) just like the women, but also bear a name signifying this, for such men are called No-men (ἀνανδριεῖς). The natives ascribe the cause to a deity; they are afraid of these men, and show them a slavish respect (προσκυνέουσι394), though each individual dreads such a fate for himself. It seems to me that affections of this sort may be said to have come from a deity to exactly the same degree as all other diseases,—no single one is more than any other in a sense of divine origin. Each one of them has its own peculiar nature, and nothing happens outside its nature. Now how these affections arise in my opinion, I will proceed to state. From constant riding they get κέδματα395 (varicose dilatations), because their feet always hang away from the horse. Hence they become lame, and get, those that are seriously ill, ulcers on the hips (in the region of the ischium, festering of the cotyla or joint-socket?396). Then they treat themselves with a view to cure in the following fashion. So soon as the complaint breaks out, they open their veins on either side of the ear; then when the blood has flowed, they fall asleep from weakness, and go on sleeping till they wake, some of them cured and some of them not. But it appears to me that by such a treatment they ruin themselves397. For there lie near the ears certain veins, and when these are severed, the men so cut become seedless (unfruitful); and it is these veins that, as I think, they sever. But when subsequently they approach women, and find themselves in no condition to use them (to consummate coition with them), at the first they are not discouraged, but keep quiet. However later, after they have tried twice, three times, or oftener, with no better success, they believe themselves to have sinned against the deity, whom they hold to be to blame, put on a woman’s frock, and acknowledge their unmanliness (ἀνανδρίην), behave as women, and in company with the women perform the same tasks as they do. The like of this however happens only to the rich Scythians, not to the poor, in fact to the nobler classes and such as have attained to some considerable wealth, to a smaller degree to those of lesser position, because these latter do not ride.

But surely the complaint, since it is above all others of divine origin, must attack not solely the noblest and richest Scythians, but all equally,—or even to a greater extent those who possess little, and therefore fail to make offerings; if that is to say the gods take pleasure in (active) veneration on the part of men and see that they win a due return for it398. For naturally the rich offer much to the gods, bring correspondingly great contributions from their goods as marks of their veneration; but the poor less, because they possess nothing. Then are these discontented, because they have given them no wealth; so that those who possess little suffer more of the punishments for such faults than the rich. But as a matter of fact, as I have said before, these things come from the deity to just the same degree as the others; for everything happens in accordance with nature, and so does this affection arise among the Scythians from the original cause I have pointed out. Now it is precisely the same among the rest of mankind; where riding is practised most and most continuously, there very many suffer from κέδματα (varicose dilatations), hip and foot affections, and accomplish coition very badly (are only slightly disposed to coition). And this is the case with the Scythians, and they are of all men most like eunuchs, for the following reasons: Because they always wear trousers, and besides that pass the greatest part of their time on horseback, so that they cannot touch the genitals with the hand, through cold and lassitude forget the desire for coition and coition itself, and (in their senseless infatuation) think of nothing else but how to resign their manly privilege399. This is an account of how it is with the stock of the Scythians.”

Now if we separate the facts which are brought forward in this passage of Hippocrates from his attempted explanations, there can be no doubt that the same thing is in question here as that which Herodotus describes. There are men amongst the Scythians who behave as women, speak as women, perform women’s work and keep with the women, and their condition the Scythians consider as something sent by the deity, and for this reason honour and fear these men. All the rest is part of the attempted explanations of the author, who brings together every possible consideration in order to discover a natural cause of the phenomenon, leaving utterly and entirely unrecognized all the time the most natural cause of all. This of course was due to no other reason except that it was unknown to him, and that he was acquainted with the circumstances not from his own observation, but only from hearsay. This is a conjecture which Heyne (loco citato) had already made in his time, but which has met with many opponents, yet without the argument having ever been properly brought to the test of the evidence. In favour of Heyne’s view a passage from the book περὶ ἄρθρων (On Joints)400 might be cited, in which the limping of the men of the Amazons in consequence of the dislocation of the limbs is clearly declared to be an unauthenticated myth; for which reason Gruner401 denied Hippocrates’ authorship of this work in opposition to the general witness of Antiquity.

But really and truly we are as well without the passage; for if what he relates were the result of his own observation, how could the author write in connexion with his remark that the Scythians bled themselves behind the ears, ταύτας τοίνυν μοι δοκέουσι τὰς φλέβας ἐπιτάμνειν (now these are the veins, as it seems to me, that they cut)? Is the actual fact possibly, that all these attempted explanations flowed from the pen of some later, or of several later, writers? At any rate for ourselves, we have never yet been able to get rid of a suspicion to that effect. But be this as it may, so much at least is certain, as was stated above; viz. that the Author was unacquainted with the actual cause of attempts to explain it, probably from misunderstanding the effemination of the Scythians, and that all of the words ἀνανδρίες and εὐνουχίαι (unmanly, eunuch-like), aim at referring the loss of the generative power, i.e. ἀνανδρία in its strict sense, to some natural reason, while the effemination is looked upon merely as a secondary circumstance.

That Hippocrates was not, any more than the later Physicians of antiquity, fully and exactly acquainted with the consequences of the vice of the Pathic as affecting the body, we see from the following passage, appearing in an exceedingly corrupt form in the text of Foesius402: εὐνοῦχος ἐκ κυνηγεσίης καὶ διαδρομῆς ὑδραγωγὸς γίνεται· ὁ παρὰ τὴν Ἐλεαλκέος κρήνην· ὁ περὶ τὰ ἓξ ἄτεα ἱππουρίν τε καὶ βουβῶνα καὶ ἴξιν καὶ κέδματα· ὁ τὸν κενεῶνα φθινήσας ἑβδομαῖος ἀπέθανεν, προπιούντων ἄπεπτον, ἁλμυρὰ μετὰ μέλιτος· πορνείη ἄχρωμος δυσεντερίης ἄκος. (a eunuch by hunting or running becomes dropsical; he that is beside the fountain of Elealces; he that about six years [suffered from] “horse-tail” [a disease of the groin due to too much riding], swelling of the groin, varicocele and dilatations; he that was sick in the flank died the seventh day, when they were about to administer a raw drink, salt liquid with honey; inordinate fornication is a cure for dysentery.??) All editors of Hippocrates have been especially scandalized by the connection in which πορνείη ἄχρωμος (inordinate fornication) stands in this passage; only Foesius defended it, referring to other passages in Aëtius403 and Paul of Aegina404, in which coition is recommended in chronic diarrhœa as drying up the humours. This he might equally well have established from Hippocrates himself, for the latter says (Epidem. bk. VI. sect. 5. note 29.), λαγνεία τῶν ἀπὸ φλέγματος νούσων ὠφέλιμον (lasciviousness is advantageous in diseases that arise from phlegm) and (note 26.), μίξις τὰ κατὰ τὴν γαστέρα σκληρύνει (sexual intercourse hardens the contents of the belly)]405. However this holds good only of the man who performs coition, inasmuch as the effusion of semen compels the body to supply what is lost, and this can only be done at the cost of other secretions, and so must stop the flow of any morbid secretions as well to a greater or less degree. But the question here is not of the coition the man performs, but of that which he suffers another to perform on him, in fact the vice of the Pathic, as the word (fornication) clearly shows; and that Pathics have habitually a pallid complexion has been already mentioned (p. 144).

To bring some sort of sense into the passage quoted above, Mercurialis would read πόρνη ὡς ἄχρωμος (like a shameless harlot), Dacier πορνείη ἄχρωμον ἄκος, (fornication is a shameless remedy ...) and Richard Mead προῤῥοὴ ἄχρωμος (an inordinate effusion). But Triller406 was the first to come to the conclusion that the words were in the wrong order, and emends the sentence thus: ὁ τὸν αἰῶνα φθινήσας, πορνείῃ ἄχρωμος, ἑβδομαῖος ἀπέθανεν, προϊόντων ἀπέπτων. Ἁλμυρὰ μετὰ μέλιτος δυσεντερίης ἄκος, (he that destroyed his life and vigour, being inordinate in fornication, died on the seventh day, undigested matters coming from him. Salt drinks with honey are a remedy for dysentery). This certainly makes it more readable, particularly if πορνείη ἄχρωμος is put before ὁ τὸν αἰῶνα, inasmuch as the pallid complexion was undoubtedly a forerunner of phthisis. His reasons, which we beg the reader to peruse for himself in the author’s work, are at any rate to us so convincing that we do not hesitate a moment to adopt his emendations. These have unfortunately hitherto gone entirely unnoticed; for Grimm, who appears to have taken no exception to the passage generally, has translated entirely in accordance with the old text, and not added any note at all. The same is the case with Lilienhain, who has more recently gone over the same ground again; though both have restored instead of κενεῶνα (belly) αἰῶνα (life) previously conjectured by Foesius.

Granted that by these means the last sentence is made intelligible, and justice done Hippocrates by no longer making him recommend coition as a remedy against dysentery, still the preceding sentence likewise stands in need of correction. For ἴξιν obviously ἰξίαν or ἰξίας (varicosities) must be read, which indeed was done by former translators, and long ago suggested by Foesius; but as to ἱππουρίν, no sufficient account has ever yet been given by any editor. The word appears to us to be corrupt, and to have got into the text owing to the fact that in the Manuscript, instead of προπιούντων,—which indeed no single Codex has, the majority reading ὑποπνοιούντων, there stood in the next line ὑποπορούντων, ὑποῤῥυόντων or ὑπποῤῥεόντων. Cornarius read, περὶ ἓξ ἔτεα ἐξ ἱππασίης βουβῶνα, ἰξίας, κ. τ. λ. (for about six years, in consequence of riding, inguinal swellings, varicosities, etc.), but without assigning his reasons; in all probability however he made this conjecture, which does not commend itself at any rate to us, with the passage about the Scythians in his mind’s eye.

But we can only arrive at a probable emendation on the condition that we correctly estimate the sequence of the sentences as a whole. If we are not greatly mistaken, it is as follows: First of all the question is of a Eunuch who became dropsical; then in connection with this, the rest is added applying to another Eunuch. In the Book περὶ γονῆς (Of the Seed), (Vol. I. p. 273. K.) we read: οἱ δὲ εὐνοῦχοι διὰ ταῦτα οὐ λαγνεύουσιν, ὅτι σφέων ἡ δίοδος ἀμαλδύνεται τῆς γονῆς—αὕτη δὲ ἡ δίοδος ὑπὸ τῆς τομῆς οὐλῆς γενομένης στερεὴ γέγονεν. (Now Eunuchs are not lascivious, because in them the passage of the seed is wasted away,... and this passage has become hardened by the wound where they were cut getting skinned over but festering within). Now we might well be tempted to read in the text: ὁ περὶ τὰ ἓξ ἔτεα ὑπὸ τῆς τομῆς οὐλῆς καὶ βουβῶνα, that is to say, the man suffered for six years in consequence of the skinning over of the cut from swelling in the groin, etc. However this could hardly be justified, and we think it much better to join ὑπὸ and οὐλῆς and either to read ὕπουλος, ὑπουλῶς or ὑπουλὴν περὶ τὰ βουβῶνα, that is, he had had for six years festering places in the inguinal region,—which idea possibly Calvus may have had in his mind, or else ὑπουλήν τε καὶ βουβῶνας, he had had for six years festering places (fistulas), inguinal swellings, etc., or finally, what might seem the best of all, ὕπουλον βουβῶνα, a festering inguinal region407. In the De morbis mulierum, (On the Diseases of Women), bk. I., edit Kühn, Vol. II. 680. we read, ὀδύνη ἔχει καὶ τὰς ἰξύας καὶ τοὺς κενεῶνας καὶ τοῦς βουβῶνας (pain holds both the loins and belly and the inguinal regions),—so we might perhaps similarly read here, ὕπουλον (ἔχει) καὶ βουβῶνα καὶ ἰξύα καὶ κενεῶνα καὶ κέδματα, πορνείη ἄχρωμος, φθινήσας κ. τ. λ. (he has in a festering condition both inguinal region and loin and belly and also varicosities, being inordinate in fornication, in pain etc.), which would give κέδματα the meaning of Varices (varicosities), and the sense of the whole passage would then be as follows: “A Eunuch in consequence of hunting and running became dropsical; another at the fountain of Elealces, who for six years had had festering (fistulous) ulcers in the inguinal region, the loins and in the region of the os sacrum, as well as varicosities, had grown pallid and suffered wasting through indulgence in the vice of the pathic, died, after making involuntary evacuations, to counteract which he had taken salt with honey, a usual remedy against dysentery, on the seventh day.”

Be this as it may, at any rate it is shown very distinctly by the passage that its author was but very slightly acquainted with the consequences resulting from the vice of the Pathic, for he ascribes to it nothing but the pallidness of complexion, whereas the whole series of morbid symptoms might very well have been due to it (Comp. p. 180.). Certainly the Author is to be excused, for as a rule the bodily consequences resulting from the vice of the Pathic were in Greece very slight and of rare occurrence, neither did the vice in that country reach anything like such a height. Again among the pastoral Scythians, whose racial character in other respects was but little marked, the local bodily consequences fell rather into the background, while the assimilation of the whole person to the female type occurred the more readily; but at the same time stood out all the more glaringly conspicuous to the eyes of a foreign observer, as he had noted nothing to correspond at home. Thus it was easy for him to be misled in considering the marvellous phœnomenon into forgetting its real origin, which no doubt was, in seeming, somewhat remote; and was apt to think of any other cause rather than the vice of the pathic, the consequences of which even distinguished Physicians of more modern times failed adequately to appreciate. Is it for us to throw a stone on these grounds at Hippocrates and his contemporaries?

In confirmation of our view as to the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) we might further cite from more modern times the examples given by Reineggs and J. von Potocki in the case of the Mongolian race of the Nogay, and by the older Historians of America, particularly in connection with Florida and Mexico. Notoriously down to the present day Paederastia is in Asia one of the common vices, while as to America some reporters when speaking of the Men-women and Hermaphrodites of that Continent, expressly state that they indulged in the vice. But as the original Authorities are not accessible to us, we can only refer to Heyne, loco citato, p. 41. and Stark, loco citato, pp. 29 and 31., especially as without this the subject has already occupied overmuch space. Still we trust the less blame may attach to us on this account from the fact that so distinguished a scholar as Stark, whose conclusions even professed Philologists have endorsed, may naturally claim of a younger enquirer in the same field who challenges his views, not mere general phrases, but the most complete and satisfactory reasons possible. This much merit we trust he cannot deny us!

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
AUTHORITIES AND HISTORIANS.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Authorities.

1) Nicolai Leoniceni, Vicentini, et Joannis Almenar, Hispani, 1. de morbo Gallico, Angeli Bolognini, Bononiensis, de cura ulcerum exteriorum et unguentis communibus in solutione continui lib. II. Alexandri Benedicti Veronensis, 1. de pestilenti febre, Dominici Massariae, Vicentini, de ponderibus et mensuris medicinalibus lib. III. Papiae ex offic. Bernhardini de Garaldis. MDXVI. fol.

(Nicholas Leonicenus, of Vicenza, and Joannes Almenar, Spaniard, “On Syphilis”; Angelas Bologninus, of Bologna, “On the Treatment of External Ulcers and on Common Ointments applied in Breach of Continuity”,—2 books; Alexander Benedictus, of Verona, “On Malignant Fever”; Dominic Massaria, of Vicenza, “On Medical Weights and Measures”,—3 books. Pavia (printed by Bernhardinus de Garaldis) 1516. fol.).

The Work is rare; and appears only to have been seen by Astruc, II. p. 623. Comp. Girtanner, II. p. 41. Gruner, Aphrodisiac. pt. IV.

2) Nicolai Massae, Veneti, Artium et Medicinae Doctoris, Liber de morbo Gallico, mira ingenii dexteritate conscriptus. Joannis Almenar, Valentini Hispani, Philosophi ac Medici, Liber perutilis de morbo Gallico, VII capitulis quidquid desideratur complectens. Nicolai Leoniceni, Vicentini, fidissimi Galeni interpretis, compendiosa ejusdem morbi cura. Angeli Bolognini, Medici eximii, libellus de cura ulcerum exteriorum: et de unguentis in soluta continuitate a Modernis maxime usitatis, in quibus multa ad curam Morbi Gallici pertinentia inserta sunt s. l. MDXXXII 8.

(Nicholas Massa, of Venice, Doctor of Arts and Medicine, “Treatise on Syphilis,—a Work of extraordinary Hability and Competence”. Joannes Almenar, of Valencia (in Spain), Philosopher and Physician, “A Treatise of the greatest Utility on Syphilis, embracing in Seven Chapters all Information required”; Nicholas Leonicenus, of Vicenza, the most faithful Translator of Galen, “Compendious Treatment of Syphilis”; Angelus Bologninus, a highly renowned Physician, “Pamphlet on the Treatment of External Ulcers: and on Ointments applied in Broken Continuity as mostly Employed by the Moderns, wherein are included many Particulars concerning the Treatment of Syphilis.” (no place of publication) 1532. 8vo.).

This Work was in the Sloane (Sir Hans Sloane), and in the Trew (Christopher James Trew) Libraries. Astruc, II. p. 652. conjectures that the book was printed at Venice; which Haller, Bibliotheca Med. Pract. (Library of Medical Practice), I. p. 535. wrongly gives as proved.—Comp. Girtanner, II. p. 70., Gruner, Aphrod. p. V.

3) Liber de morbo Gallico, in quo diversi celeberrimi in tali materia scribentes medicinae continentur auctores, videlicet Nicolaus Leonicenus, Vicentinus. Ulrichus de Hutten Germanus. Petrus Andreas Matheolo, Senensis. Laurentius Phrisius. Joannes Almenar, Hispanus. Angelus Bologninus. Venetiis per Joannem Patavinum et Venturinum de Ruffinellis. Anno Domini MDXXXV. 8.

(“Treatise on Syphilis,” in which the various most Celebrated Authors writing on that Department of Medicine are contained viz. Nicholas Leonicenus, of Vicenza; Ulrich von Hütten, German; Petrus Andreas Matheolo, of Sienna; Laurentius Phrisius; Joannes Almenar, Spaniard; Angelus Bologninus. Venice, printed by Joannes Patavinus and Venturinus de Ruffinellis. Anno Domini 1535. 8vo.).

In the copy from the Sloane Library which Astruc, II. p. 659., had before him, was, printed on the same paper and with the same type, although the Title-page made no mention of it: Nicholas Poll, Medicinae Professoris et Sacrae Caesareae Majestatis Physici, Libellus de Cura Morbi Gallici per lignum Guajacanum (Nicholas Poll, Professor of Medicine and Physician to the Holy Roman Emperor, Pamphlet “On the Treatment of Syphilis by the Guajac wood”. Gruner, Aphrod. p. V., who possessed the same edition, does not mention this, but says the book is printed without pagination, and that each book has a separate Title (nova cuique libro inscriptione praefixa,—a fresh Title being prefixed to each book), so that a Part might easily be missing. Trew and Hensler also possessed the Work. Comp. Girtanner, II. p. 73.

4) Morbi Gallici curandi ratio exquisitissima a variis iisdemque peritissimis medicis conscripta: nempe Petro Andrea Matheolo, Senensi. Joanne Almenar, Hispano. Nicolao Massa, Veneto. Nicolao Poll, Caesareae Majestatis Physico. Benedicto de Victoriis, Faventino. Hic accessit Angeli Bolognini de ulcerum exteriorum medela opusculum perquam utile. Ejusdem de unguentis ad cujusvis generis maligna ulcera conficiendis lucubratio. Cum indice rerum omnium quae in curationem cadere possunt copiosissimo. Basileae apud Joann. Bebelium. MDXXXVI. 299 S. 4.

(“The Most Approved Method of treating Syphilis;” by Several and these the Most skilful Doctors, viz. Peter Andreas Matheolo, of Sienna; Joannes Almenar, Spaniard; Nicholas Massa, of Venice; Nicholas Poll, Physician to His Imperial Majesty; Benedictus de Victoriis of Faenza. To this is added: Angelus Bologninus, On the Medical Treatment of External Ulcers,—a Pamphlet of the Highest Utility. By the Same Author, Treatise on the Compounding of Ointments against Malignant Ulcers of every Kind. With a most Copious Index of all Matters incidental to the Treatment. Bâle, published by Joann. Bebelius, 1536. pp. 299. 4to.).

This Edition, according to the Dedication to Adam Bresinius (Basil. Idibus Martii 1536.—Bâle, 15th March 1536.), was seen through the press by Joseph Tectander from Cracow. The Tract of Benedictus de Victoriis included in it is a College Exercise which Tectander had had copied down and printed without the author’s knowledge. Comp. Astruc, II. p. 266.—Girtanner, II. p. 74.—Gruner, Aphrod. p. V.

A pirated impression of this Edition appeared at Lyons: Lugduni 1536, expensis Scipionis de Gabiano et fratrum, mense Augusto,—(Lyons 1536, at the cost of Scipio de Gabiano and his Brothers, August) pp. 280, and 16. (printed in cursives). Comp. Astruc II. p. 660. and H. Choulant, Fracastori Siphilis. Leipzig 1830. p. 8.

5) De morbo Gallico omnia quae extant apud omnes medicos cujuscunque nationis, qui vel integris libris, vel quoque alio modo hujus affectus curationem methodice aut empirice tradiderunt, diligenter hinc inde conquisita, sparsim inventa, erroribus expurgata et in unum tandem hoc corpus redacta [ab Aloysio Luisino, Utinensi]. In quo de ligno Indico, Salsa Perillia, Radice Chyne, Argento vivo, ceterisque rebus omnibus ad hujus luis profligationem inventis, diffusissima tractatio habetur. Cum indice locupletissimo rerum omnium scitu dignarum, quae in hoc volumine continentur. Opus hac nostra aetate, quo Morbi Gallici vis passim vagatur, apprime necessarium. Catalogum scriptorum sexta pagina comperies. [Sebast. Aquilanus, Nicol. Leonicenus, Nic. Massa, Natal. Montesaurus, Anton. Scanarolus, Jac. Cataneus, Joan. Benedictus, Hier. Fracastorius, Georg. Vella, Joan. Paschalis, Nic. Poll, Petr. Andr. Mathaeolus, Ulr. ab Hutten, Wendelinus Hock de Brackenau, Coradinus Gilinus, Laurent. Phrisius, Gonsalvus Fernandez de Oviedo, Joan. Almenar, Aloysius Lobera, Leonh. Schmaus, Petr. Maynardus, Anton Benivenius, Alphons. Ferrus, Joan de Vigo, Anton. Gallus, Casp. Torella, Joan. Bapt. Montanus, Andr. Vesalius, Leonhard. Fuchsius, Joan. Manardus, Joan. Fernelius, Benedictus Victorius, Amatus Lusitanus, Anton. Musa Brassavolus, Alex. Fontana, Nic. Macchellus, Hier. Cardanus, Gabr. Fallopius, Ant. Fracantianus, Joan. Langius, Petr. Bayr]. Tomus prior. Venetiis apud Jordanum Zilettum. 1566. 8. 736 u. 28 S. fol.

De morbo gallico Tomus posterior, in quo medicorum omnium celebrium universa monumenta ad hujus morbi cognitionem et curationem attinentia, quae hucusque haberi potuerunt nunquam alias impressa, nunc primum conjecta sunt. Cum indice locupletissimo rerum omnium scitu dignarum, quae in hoc volumine continentur. Catalogum scriptorum quarta pagina comperies. [Bartholomaeus Montagnana, Martin. Brocardus, Benedict. Rinius, Francisc. Frizimelica, Petr. Trapolinus, Bernard Tomitanus, J. Sylvius, Mich. J. Paschalius, Prosp. Borgarutius, Bartholom. Maggius, Alex. Trajan. Petronius]. Venetiis MDLXVII. ex officina Jordani Ziletti. 24 u. 216 S. fol.

Appendix tomi prioris de morbo gallico, in quo, qui eidem jam antea destinati fuerant, reliqui congesti sunt autores. Cum indice rerum memorabilium in eo contentarum abunde amplo et copioso. Catalogum scriptorum quarta pagina comperies. [Anton. Chalmeteus, Leonh. Botallus, Dominic. Leonus, Augerius Ferrerius, Petr. Haschardus, Guilielmus Rondeletius, Dionys. Fontanonus, Jos. Struthius]. Venetiis MDLXVII. Ex officina Jord. Ziletti. 4, 96 und 6 S. fol.

(“On Syphilis—All Works Extant on this Subject by All Doctors of Every Nation, who whether in separate Books or in any other Manner have dealt methodically or empirically with its Treatment, carefully compiled from various Sources, with original remarks interspersed, and errors removed, the Whole arranged for the first time in One Work, (by Aloysius Luisinus, of Udine,—Friuli). In which India wood (Ironwood, Guajac), Sarsaparilla, China Root, Quicksilver, and all other means discovered for the destruction of this contagion, are most copiously considered. With a very full Index of all Matters worthy of note contained in this Volume. A Work pre-eminently necessary in our Day when the infection of this Complaint is so widely diffused. List of Authors will be found on page 6. First Volume. Venice, published by Jordanus Ziletti, 1566. 8vo. 736, and 28. fol.

“On Syphilis,” Second Volume,—in which are included all the Works of all the Celebrated Doctors concerning the Diagnosis and Treatment of this Disease that have been thus far obtainable, now for the first time printed. With a very full Index of all Matters worthy of note contained in this Volume. List of Authors will be found on page 4. Venice 1567, (printed by Jordanus Ziletti). pp. 24, and 216. fol.

Appendix to First Volume “On Syphilis”, in which are collected the remaining Authors intended from the first to be included, but not hitherto printed. With a most ample and copious Index of noteworthy Matters contained therein. List of Authors will be found on page 4. Venice 1567 (printed by Jord. Ziletti. pp. 4, 96, and 6. fol.)

Astruc, II. p. 780., rightly censures the unsystematic arrangement of the different Writings, the omission of Prefaces, Dedications and indeed all matter except the actual texts. This edition received subsequently a new Title-page, as is shown, according to Astruc, II. p. 846., by the fact that not only does the number of pages, lines and words closely agree with the above mentioned edition, but also at the end of the First Part the name of the printer Ziletti occurs with the date 1556. The new Title reads as follows:—

“Aphrodisiacus sive de lue venerea in duo volumina bipartitus, continens omnia quaecunque hactenus de hac re sunt ab omnibus Medicis conscripta, ubi de ligno Indico, Salsa parillia, Radice Chinae, Mercurio ceterisque omnibus ad hujus luis profligationem inventis, diffusissima tractatio habetur ab excellente Aloysio Luisino, Utinensi Medico celeberrimo novissime collecta. Venet. apud Baretium et socios. 1599. fol.

(“Aphrodisiacus: or A Treatise on the Venereal Disease,—in Two Volumes, containing all that has been written on this subject to the present day by all Doctors, and in which Indian wood (Ironwood, Guajac), Sarsaparilla, China Root, Mercury and all other remedies discovered for the Destruction of this Disease are most fully treated, compiled and newly edited by the excellent Aloysius Luysinus, a Celebrated Physician of Udine,—Friuli. Venice, published by Baretius and Associates, 1599. fol.

6) Aphrodisiacus sive de lue venerea; in duos tomos bipartitus, continens omnia quaecunque hactenus de hac re sunt ab omnibus Medicis conscripta. Ubi de Ligno Indico, Salsa Perilla, Radice Chynae, Argento vivo, ceterisque rebus omnibus ad hujus luis profligationem inventis, diffusissima tractatio habetur. Opus hac nostra aetate, qua Morbi Gallici vis passim vagatur apprime necessarium: ab excellentissimo Aloysio Luisino Utinensi, Medico celeberrimo novissime collectum, indice rerum omnium scitu dignarum adomatum. Editio longe emendatior, et ab innumeris mendis repurgata. Tomus primus et secundus. Lugd. Batav. apud. Joann. Arnold. Langerak et Joh. et Herm. Verbeck. MDCCXXVIII. 1366 gespaltene Seiten, ohne 11 Blatt Vorrede und 10-1/2 Blatt Index. fol.

(“Aphrodisiacus: or A Treatise on the Venereal Disease,—in Two Volumes, containing all that has been written on this subject to the present day by all Doctors. In which Indian wood (Ironwood, Guajac), Sarsaparilla, China Root, Quicksilver and all other remedies discovered for the Destruction of this Disease are most fully treated. A Work pre-eminently necessary in our Day when the infection of this Complaint is so widely diffused; the whole collected for the first time by the most excellent Aloysius Luisinus, of Udine,—(Friuli), a most famous Physician, and provided with an Index of all Matters worthy of note. Much improved Edition, freed from very numerous errors. Vols. I and II. Leyden, published by Joann. Arnold. Langerak and Joh. and Herm. Verbeck, 1728. pp. 1366, besides 11 leaves Preface and 10-1/2 leaves Index. fol.

Is, as Astruc, II. p. 1071., justly observes, a mere reprint of the Venice edition, the only alteration being that the Appendix to the First Part is added immediately after the First Part. Comp. Choulant, p. 9. The Preface at the beginning by Boerhave contains his views on the Venereal Disease, and has been several times since printed separately and translated.

7) Daniel Turner: Aphrodisiacus, containing a Summary of the Ancient Writers on the Venereal Disease, under the following heads: I. of its Original; II. of the Symptoms; III. of the various Methods of cure. London, printed for John Clarke. MDCCXXXVI. 8vo.

An Abridgement from the “Aphrodisiacus” of Luisinus, arranged under the three heads named on the Title-page. (Astruc, II. p. 1110.)

8) John Armstrong: A Synopsis of the history and cure of the Venereal Disease. London 1737. 8vo.

Another Abridgement from Luisinus. (Girtanner, iii. p. 430.)

9) Aphrodisiacus sive de lue venerea in duas partes divisus, quarum altera continet ejus vestigia in veterum auctorum monimentis obvia, altera quos Aloysius Luisinus temere omisit scriptores et medicos et historicos ordine chronologico digestos, collegia notulis instruxit, glossarium indicemque rerum memorabilium subjecit D. Christianus Gothofredus Gruner etc. Jenae apud Christ. Henr. Cunonis heredes. MDCCLXXXVIIII. XIV. 166 und 16 S. fol.

(“Aphrodisiacus: or A Treatise on the Venereal Disease, divided into two parts, whereof the one contains Traces of this Disease to be met with in the Writings of Ancient Authors, the other Those Writers, whether Doctors or Historians, whom Aloysius Luisinus has without sufficient reason omitted, arranged in chronological order. Collected and edited, with Notes, Glossary, and Index of noteworthy Matters, by D. Christianus Gothofredus Gruner, etc. Jena, published by heirs of Christ. Henr. Cuno. 1789. pp. XIV, 166 and 16. fol.).

A second additional Title-page bears: Volume Third. In the Preface Gruner accepts the Moorish origin of the Disease, which he further maintains in the Book itself, and gives a survey of the Bibliography. In the first Part he gives the passages from the Bible, the Greek, Roman, Arabic and Arabist Works, so far as they had been discovered at that time. The second Part contains the Works wanting or imperfectly given in Luisinus’ Collection, and passages from the following Authors: “Joan Nauclerus, Steph. Infessura, Petr. Delphinius, Joan. Burchardus, Philipp. Beroaldus, Alex. Benedictus, Conrad. Schelling, Jac. Wimphelingius, Chronicon Monasterii Mellicensis, Joan. Salicetus, Marcellus Cumanus, Chronica von Cöln, Joan. Trithemius, Universitas Manuasca. Sebast. Brant, Joh. Grünbeck, Decretum Senatus Parisiensis, Proclamatio Anglica, Joan. Sciphover de Meppis, Bartholom. Steber, Simon Pistoris, Anton. Benivenius, Petr. Pinctor, Joan. Bapt. Fulgosus, Christoph. Columbus, Petr. Martyr, Franciscus Roman. Pane, Elias Capreolus, M. Anton. Coccius Sabellicus, Albericus Vesputius, Wendelinus Hock de Brackenau, Petr. Crinitus Linturius, Clementius Clementinus, Joan. Vochs, Angel. Bologninus, Francisc. Guiccardinus, Berlerus, Leo Africanus, Petr. Bembus, Paul. Jovius, Joan. de Vigo, Symphor. Champegius, Francisc. Lopez de Gomara, Ulric. ab Hutten, Desider. Erasmus, Missa de ben. Job., Joannes le Maire, Gonsalvus Ferdinandus de Oviedo, Joan. de Bourdigne, Joan. Ludov. Vives, Aureolus Theophr. Paracelsus, Magnus Hundt, Leonh. Fuchs, Sebast. Frank, Sebast. Montuus, Joan. Bapt. Theodosius, Hieron. Benzonus, Petr. de Cieça de Leon, Joan. Fernelius, Michael Angel. Blondus, Augustin. de Zaratte, Joan. Stumpf, Rodericus Diacius Insulanus, Hieron. Montuus.”

10) De morbo gallico scriptores medici et historici partim inediti partim rari et notationibus aucti. Accedunt morbi gallici origines maranicae. Collegit, edidit. glossario et indice auxit D. Christ. Gothofr. Gruner. Jenae sumptibus bibliopolii academici 1793. XVIII. XXXVI. 624. S. 8.

(“Medical and Historical Writers on Syphilis” some not before published, others rare, with Notes. To which are added Moorish Sources of Syphilis. Collected and edited, with the addition of a Glossary and Index, by D. Christ Gothofr. Gruner. Jena, at the cost of the University Press, 1793. pp. XVIII, XXXVI, 624. 8vo.).

Forms the second Supplement to the Collection of Luisinus, and contains Works and passages from the following Authors, etc.: “Ancient Laws of Nüremberg,” “Matthaeus Landauer, Julianus Tanus (de saphati), Antonius Codrus, Anonymi prognosticatio, Jacob. Unrestus, Bilibaldus Birkheimer, Augustinus Niphus, Hieron. Emser, Philipp. Beroaldus, Leonard. Giachinus, Janus Cornarius, Thomas Rangonus, Joan. Anton. Rovellus (de patursa), Remaclus Fuchs, Aloysius Mundella, Anton. Fumanellus, Hier. Cardanus, Hier. Bonacossus, Bernard. Corius, Joan. Langius, Joach. Curaeus, Joan. Hessus, Thom. Erastus, Achill. Pirmin. Gasserus, Joan. Crato, Thom. Jordanus (luis novae Moravia exortae descriptio,—Description of new Disease and its Moorish Origin). “Comp. N. allg. deutsch. Bibl. Vol. IX. p. 183.”

11) D. Christ. Goth. Gruner Spicilegium scriptorum de morbo gallico. Spic. I-XV. Jenae 1799-1802. 4.

(D. Christ. Goth. Gruner, “Selection of Writers on Syphilis”, Selections, I-XV. Jena 1799-1802. 4to.).

This third Supplement to Luisinus was never regularly published; the separate Selections were issued as “Programs” in connection with the Public Announcements of Doctorial Graduations in the Faculty of Medicine at Jena. Selections I-VI. contain Investigations as to the History and Nature of the Disease; VII-XI. Passages from the Poems and Letters of Conrad Celte, from a Letter of Albert Durr, from Symphorian. (Champerius, Vocabulorum Medicorum Epitoma); XII, Passages from the Poems of Henric. Bebelius, Hel. Eoban. Hessus and a quotation from a Work of Petr. Parvus; XIII, XIV. Passage from Erasmus, Jac. von Bethencourt, Jo. Lud. Vives, Enric. Cordus, Georg, Bersmannus, Engelbert, Werlichius, and the Latin translation of a Fragment from a Book written in the Coptic language which the Society of Missions had sent to Cardinal Borgia; Domeier communicated it to Baldinger and the latter handed it on to Gruner to make use of in his Collection.

In Selection XV. Gruner makes some objections against the view expressed by Hensler in his “Program,” “De herpete seu formica Veterum”. This Collection belongs in part to the Works mentioned in the next section (“Historians”), but appears to be little known generally, for it has escaped even Choulant in his usually complete Survey of the “Scripta Historica de Morbo Gallico”,—Historical Works on Syphilis, in the Edition of the Poem of Fracastor, pp. 5-9. Hacker, p. 20. mentions it indeed, but appears not even to have seen it, as he gives nothing more precise as to its contents.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Historians.

1) Patin, Carol. Eques. D. Marci Paris. primar. Prof. Luem veneream 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.

(Carol. Sam. Törnberg, “Selection of Medical “Programs”,—giving a Historical Synopsis of Views as to the True Origin of Syphilis.” Jena 29 Aug. 1807. pp. 26. 8vo.).

The Author decides for the American origin, but without adducing anything fresh.

25) J. B. C. Rousseau, New observations on Syphilis, tending to settle the disputes about its importation, by proving that it is a disease of the human race, that has and will always exist among the several Nations of the Globe. In Coxe, Philadelph. med. Museum. 1808. Vol. IV. No. 1. pp. 1-11.

26) H. A. Robertson, Historical Inquiry into the Origin of the Venereal Disease. Pts. I. II. in the London Medical Repository 1814. Vol. II. pp. 112-119, 185-192.

The Author maintains the antiquity of Venereal Disease, but denies that the Malady which prevailed amongst the French at the siege of Naples was true Syphilis; he supposes it rather to have been a fever resembling the Plague accompanied by pustulous eruptions. A later Paper in the same Periodical, 1818. vol. IX. pp. 465-495., contains the result of his observations in Spain during the War, so far as they confirm his earlier views.

27) Rob. Hamilton, On the early History and Symptoms of Lues. In the Edinburgh medical and surgical Journal 1818. Vol. XIV. pp. 485-498.

The Author seeks to prove that the Disease at the end of the XVth. Century was not “Lues Venerea”, but “Sibbens”. Comp. Ehrhardt, Med. Chirurg. Zeitung. 1819. Vol. I. p. 198.

28) Gust. Adolph Werner, de origine ac progressu luis venereae animadversiones quaedam. Diss. inaug. med. Lips. 1819. 29. S. 4.

(Gust. Adolph Werner, “Some Thoughts on the Origin and Progress of the Venereal Disease,”—a Medical Graduation Exercise. Leipzig 1819. pp. 29. 4to.).

Maintains the antiquity of the Disease, citing again the passages already known. The Ancients, he says, confounded Syphilis with Leprosy; the Immorality prevailing at the end of the XVth. Century and the arrival of the Moors in Italy were the original cause and occasion of the general extension of the Disease. According to Choulant in Pierer, Allgem. Med. Annalen, Year 1825. p. 237., Prof. Heinrich Robbi was the Author of this Dissertation.

29) J. L. W. Wendt, Bydrag til historien af den veneriske sygdoms begyndelse og fremgang i Danemark. Kjöbnhavn 1820. 8. Deutsch in Hufelands Journ. 1822. Bd. 55. S. 1-51.

(J. L. W. Wendt, “Contribution to the History of the Origin and Progress of the Venereal Disease in Denmark.” Copenhagen 1820. 8vo. In German in Hufeland’s Journ. vol. 55. pp. 1-51).

Shows that Venereal Disease became known in Denmark after 1495; that its treatment was given over especially to the Surgeons and quacks; also an account of the medical Police-regulations against the Disease.

30) Nicol. Barbantini, Notizie istoriche concernanti il contagio venereo, le quali precedono la sua opera sopra questo contagio. Lucca 1820. 8.

(Nicol. Barbantini, “Historical Notices concerning the Venereal Contagion,—introductory to his Work on this Disease.” Lucca 1820. 8vo.).

Appears to be not yet at all well known in Germany. Neither through the booksellers nor in any other way could we obtain the Work. It would seem to be out of print.

31) Domenico Thiene, Lettere sulla storia de’ mali venerei. Venezia 1823. 303. S. gr. 8.

(Domenico Thiene, “Letters on the History of Venereal Maladies.” Venice 1823. pp. 303. large 8vo.).

Contains 9 letters as follows: I. On the common opinion of the American origin of the Venereal Disease,—to Signor C. Sprengel, pp. 7-27, in which the American Source and Girtanner’s Arguments for it are confuted. He cites here in the Notes, p. 238, an Italian poem of George Summaripa, a Patrician of Verona (1496), not previously known, in which the Disease is represented as having come from Gaul; which a letter of Nicolaus Scillatius re-printed on p. 236 confirms. This had already been given in Brera, Giornale di Medicina, August 1817, vol. XII. p. 123, and borrowed and made use of by Huber, p. 37., and Sprengel, Geschichte der Medicin, 3rd ed., vol. II. p. 701., in correction of Choulant’s statement, as cited below p. 238.—II. Of Discharge from the Penis (Scolagione) or Gonorrhœa of the Ancients,—to Signor Christ. Goff. Gruner408, shows that the Gonorrhœa of the Ancients was no mere Spermatorrhœa, but actual Gonorrhœa (Clap) pp. 31-48.—III. Of Discharge from the Penis (Scolagione) or Gonorrhœa of the Middle Ages,—to Signor F. Swediaur, pp. 51-73. Shows that actual Gonorrhœa existed in the Middle Ages.—IV. Of Ulcers, Buboes and other such Affections of the Secret Parts in Antiquity,—to Signor Nic. Barbantini, pp. 77-92.—V. Of the true Venereal Disease or Syphilis,—to Signor Anton Scarpa, pp. 95-119. Survey of the Venereal Disease to the end of the XVth Century and of its changes, with special reference to the sympathy of the Genital organs and those of the Throat.—VI. On certain modern Forms of Disease referable to the Venereal Taint,—to Signor Cullerier, pp. 123-144. Considers the Brünn Sickness in the year 1577, the “Sibbens, Amboina pox, Canadian Disease,” “Scherlievo” and “Falcadina”.—VII. Of certain ancient Forms of Disease referable to the Venereal Taint,—to Signor Dr. Cambieri, pp. 148-178. In this are more exactly described the “Yaws”, “Pians”, “Judham”, Mentagra, Malum mortuum and Morphea, and the near relationship of leprosy with Venereal Disease hinted at.—VIII. Of the Origin of the Venereal Disease,—to Signor Filip. Gabr. Hensler, pp. 182-208. The Author considers the Disease endemic in Africa, whence it came into Italy with the Moors, and to America with the Negro slaves.—IX. On the public Hygiene of Venereal Maladies,—to Franc. Aglietti, pp. 212-235. Chronological Survey of Legislation as to Brothels. The book ends, pp. 230-303, with Annotations in which he gives specially the documentary proofs on which his conclusions rest, and that too arranged according to the numbers given in the text.

An Abstract of this Work, rare apparently in Germany, is given by Choulant in Pierer’s Allgem. Med. Annalen, Year 1825. pp. 236-244.

32) V. A. Huber, Bemerkungen über die Geschichte und Behandlung der venerischen Krankheiten. Stuttgart und Tübingen. 1825. 124 S. 8.

(V. A. Huber, “Remarks on the History and Treatment of Venereal Diseases.” Stuttgart and Tübingen 1825. pp. 124. 8vo.).

The Author specially combats the American origin, and to this end examines particularly the Spanish Chroniclers. Without exactly wishing to arrive at a definite conclusion for or against, he contents himself with exposing the inconsistencies in the reasoning of the supporters of either view.—Commendatory notices of the Book are found in: Heidelberg Jahrb. 1825. Pt. XII. pp. 1194-1199.—Hecker’s Lit. Annalen 1826. Vol. IV. pp. 77-97.—Hufeland’s Bibliothek d. prakt. Heilde. 1826. Vol. LV. pp. 262-268.

33) Alex. Dubled, Coup d’œil historique sur la maladie vénérienne. Paris 1825.?

(Alex. Dubled, “Historical Survey of the Venereal Disease.” Paris 1825.?

Hacker, p. 164, says: “would seem to contain much of interest.” We have not been able to obtain a sight of this Work; however it appears to quite agree with what Dubled has repeated in a later work, “Statement of the new Doctrine as to Venereal Disease,” transl. from the French. Leipzig 1830. pp. VI-VIII and pp. 1-10. He says, p. V of the Preface,—“Finally, inasmuch as the systematic historical study of the Venereal Disease seems also to confirm the truth of my view, I have prefixed to this Work the Historical Survey, which at the time of its composition I read before the Surgical Section of the Royal Academy of Medicine. A Report that should have been rendered by it never appeared.” Then follows a Preface belonging to the Historical Survey, subscribed—Paris, October 1823, to which year accordingly must be assigned the above-mentioned Work. But the whole publication, as may be supposed from the scanty number of pages, is more than superficial.

34) S. J. Beer, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Syphilis. In Okens Isis. Jahrg. 1828. Bd. II. S. 728-731.

(S. J. Beer, “Contributions to the History of Syphilis.” In Oken’s Isis. Year 1828. Vol. II. pp. 728-731).

The Author, a Jewish Physician, seeks to prove that the Moors did not suffer from Venereal Disease, because they as Martyrs of their Faith, could not therefore be dissolute, immoral men, because (Deuteronomy, Ch. 33. v. 17.) excesses in love, especially with Gentiles (Nehemiah Ch. X. vv. 29, 30) are strictly forbidden, finally because Don Isac Abarbanel, born 1437, in his Exposition of the Prophets (printed 1650), on Zachariah Ch. XIV. v. 12. says expressly, that the Disease “Zarfosim” occurs only amongst the “Goiem” (Gentiles) and not amongst the Jews. The Author promises eventually to issue a Treatise on Syphilis which he has in hand on a larger scale; but to our knowledge it has not appeared.

35) H. Spitta, Beitrag zur Geschichte der Verbreitung der Lustseuche in Europa. In Heckers lit. Annalen 1826. Bd. IV. S. 371-374.

(H. Spitta, “Contribution to the History of the Spread of the Venereal Disease in Europe.” In Hecker’s Lit. Annalen 1826. Vol. IV. pp. 371-374).

The contribution is a passage from the following book: “Libro que trata de las cosas, que traen de las Indias Occidentales, que sirven al uso de medicina, y de la orden qui se ha de tener en tomar la Rayz de Mechoacan etc. Hecho y copilado por el Doctor Monardes, medico de Sevilla. 1565.” (Book treating of Substances imported from the East Indies and used in Medicine, and of the Course to be observed in taking the Mechoacan Root, etc. Written and compiled by Dr. Monardes, Physician of Seville. 1565). This work treats of the drug “Guajac”, and lays down the American origin of Venereal Disease as confidently as if the Author had been on the spot when it happened! The value of the whole argument may be judged from this passage, “Our Creator willed that from that same country whence Venereal Disease (el mal de las buvas,—the malady of buboes) came, should come also the Means of its cure.”

36) Pet. de Jurgenew, Luis venereae apud veteres vestigia. Diss. inaug. Dorpati Livon. 1826. 54 S. 8.

(Pet. de Jurgenew, “Traces of the Venereal Disease amongst the Ancients.” Medical Graduation Exercise, Dorpat (in Livonia) 1826. pp. 54. 8vo.).

An industrious, partly critical, Collection of the passages connected with this subject down to Peter Martyr in chronological order, of which however perhaps only those given on given p. 11, though these are incomplete, from the “Lusus in Priapum” or “Priapeia” had not previously been noted. Comp. Recension by Struver in Rust’s and Casper’s Krit. Repertor. Vol. XX. p. 141.

38) Friedr. Alex. Simon, Versuch einer kritischen Geschichte der verschiedenartigen, besonders unreinen Behaftungen der Geschlechtstheile und ihrer Umgegend, oder der örtlichen Lustübel, seit der ältesten bis auf die neueste Zeit, und ihres Verhältnisses zu der Ende des XV. Jahrhunderts erschienenen Lustseuche; nebst praktischen Bemerkungen über die positive Entbehrlichkeit des Quecksilbers bei der Mehrzahl jener Behaftungen, oder der sogenannten primairen syphilitischen Zufälle. Ein Beitrag zur Pathologie und Therapie der primairen Syphilis, für Aerzte und Wundärzte. I. Thl. Hamburg. 1830. XVIII. 253 S. II. Thl. 1831. XVI. 543 S. gr. 8.

(Friedr. Alex. Simon, “Essay towards a Critical History of the different sorts of Infections, particularly of foul Infections, of the Sexual parts and their Neighbourhood, in other words of Local Venereal Maladies, from the earliest times to the most recent, and of their Relation to the Venereal Disease that made its appearance at the end of the XVth Century; together with Practical Remarks as to the positive Needlessness of Mercury in the case of the majority of those Infections, or the so-called primary Syphilitic Symptoms. A Contribution to the Pathology and Therapeutics of Primary Syphilis, for Physicians and Surgeons.” I Part. Hamburg 1830. pp. XVIII, 253. II Part. 1831. pp. XVI, 543. large 8vo.).

The first Part of this Work, one displaying great care and diligence, contains the History of Gonorrhœa, Swellings of the Testicles, Ulcers and warty Growths in the Urethra, Scalding Urine, Strictures, Ulcers and Fistulae in the Perinœum, so far as these subordinate affections were observed before the appearance of the Venereal Disease; the second Part the History of the Ulcers or Shankers in the Sexual organs, particularly after coition where infection is suspected, down to the most recent time. The promised Critical History of the Venereal Disease with reference to its appropriate Treatment has unfortunately never yet appeared, though only then can we estimate the justice of many of the Author’s views and statements touching the local Symptoms. Would that an end might be put to the delay!

38) Math. Jaudt, de lue veterum et recentium. Diss. inaug. med. Monachii 1834. 23 S. 8.

(Math. Jaudt, “On Syphilis amongst Ancients and Moderns.” Medical Graduation Exercise. Munich 1834. pp. 23. 8vo.).

In this somewhat cursory Treatise the Author assumes with the English writers a “Lues antiqua” (ancient Contagion), which manifested itself only through affections of the Genitals of a similar nature, and a “Lues universalis” (general Contagion) since 1494-1496, both of which now occur; hence he would deduce the distinction in the treatment with Mercury,—Mercury not being necessary for the former, but required for the latter.

39) Max Ludov. Schrank, de luis venereae antiquitate et origine. Dissert inaug. Ratisbonae (Monachii) 1834. 24 S. 8.

(Max Ludov. Schrank, “On the Antiquity and Origin of the Venereal Disease.” Graduation Exercise. (Ratisbon Bavaria) 1834. pp. 24. 8vo.).

The Author seeks to prove by citation of the familiar passages of the ancient writers: (1) “luem veneream antiquissimis temporibus jamjam cognitam itidemque contagiosam, sub finem saeculi XV. majorem malignitatis gradum, conditionibus secundis concurrentibus, ostendisse, ideoque, (2) Americam ejusdem patriam non esse habendam” (that the Venereal Disease was already known in the most ancient times, that towards the end of the XVth. Century, under the concurrence of favouring conditions, it exhibited a greater degree of malignancy; consequently that America is not to be considered its place of origin. He seems especially to have made use of Huber’s Work.

40) Prof. Naumann, zur Pathogenie und Geschichte des Trippers, in Schmidt’s Jahrb. der in- und ausländ. gesammt. Medicin Jahrg. 1837. Bd. XIII. S. 94-105.

(Prof. Naumann, “Pathology and History of Gonorrhoea”, in Schmidt’s Jahrb. der in- und ausländ. gesammt. Medicin, Year 1837. Vol. XIII. pp. 94-105).

Contains valuable notices on the history of Venereal disease, specially dealing with Gonorrhoea in Antiquity; cites several very important passages from Galen previously overlooked, and by their help maintains the antiquity of the Disease. The matters dealt with in this Treatise had already been gone into by the same Author in the Seventh Volume of his Handbook to Medical Clinics.

41) August Zennaro, Diss. inaug. de syphilidis antiquitate et an sit semper contagio tribuenda, Patav. 1837. 32 S. gr. 8.

(August Zennaro, “Graduation Exercise, on the Antiquity of Syphilis; should it be considered always Contagious?” Padua 1837. pp. 41. large 8vo.).

42) Jos. Ferd. Masarei, Diss. sist. argumentum, morbos venereos esse morbos antiquos. Viennae 1837. 8.

(Jos. Ferd. Masarei, “Exercise maintaining the thesis that: the Venereal diseases are ancient Diseases.” Vienna 1837. 8vo.).

Besides the above Works, specially devoted to the History of Venereal Disease and dealing exclusively with this, the subject is discussed also by most of the larger Hand-books and Manuals on this Malady, e.g, Swediaur, Bertrandi, Foot, Barbantini, Jourdan. However we must particularize:

Joan. Astruc, de morbis venereis libri sex. In quibus disseritur tum de origine, propagatione et contagione horumce affectuum in genere: tum de singulorum natura, aetiologia et therapeia, cum brevi analysi et epicrisi operum plerorumque quae de eodem argumento scripta sunt. Paris 1736. XVIII. 20. 628. 50 S. 4. Paris (Nachdruck zu Basel). 1738. 4.—Translated by Will. Borrowby. Lond. 1737. 8.—Editio secunda: de morbis venereis libri IX. Paris 1740. 4. Vol. I. XXXVI. 608 S. (Enthält zugleich Dissertatio I. de origine, appellatione natura et curatione morborum venereorum inter Sinas S. DXXXVII-DLXVI). Vol. II. 537-1196 S. (Unsere Citate beziehen sich auf diese Ausgabe).—Paris 1743. Vol. I-IV. 12. Die ersten 4 Bücher wurden von Boudon und Aug. Franc. Jault ins Französische übersetzt. Paris 1740. 12. Vol. I-III.—Editio tertia aucta per Jo. Astruc et Ant. Louis. Paris 1755. Vol. I-IV. 12. Nachdruck Venetiis 1760. 4. mit Hinzufügung von Gerardi van Swieten, Epistolae duae de mercurio sublimato und Jos. Mar. Xav. Bertini, diss. de usu mercurii.—Translated by Sam. Chapmann. Lond. 1755. 1. deutsch von Joh. Gottlob Heise. Frankf. und Leipz. 1784. gr. 8. Editio quarta: Paris. 1773. Vol. I-IV. 12.—Editio quinta, cura Ant. Louis. Paris 1777. Vol. I-IV. 12.

(Jean Astruc, “On Venereal Diseases,—Six books. In which is discussed the Origin, Propagation and Contagion of these Maladies generally; secondly the Nature, Etiology and Therapeutics of the same individually; together with a brief Analysis and Appreciation of most of the Works dealing with this Subject.” Paris 1736. XVIII, 20, 628, 50 pp. 4to. Paris (pirated edition, Bâle) 1738. 4to.—Translated by Will. Borrowby, Lond. 1737. 8vo.—Second Edition: “On Venereal Diseases,—IX books.” Paris 1740. 4to. Vol. I. pp. XXXVI, 608. (Contains also Dissertation I, “On the Origin, Nomenclature, Nature and Treatment of Venereal Diseases amongst the Chinese”, pp. DXXXVII-DLXVI). Vol. II. pp. 537-1196. (Our citations refer to this Edition).—Paris 1743, Vols. I-IV. 12mo. The first 4 books were translated into French by Boudon and Aug. Franc. Jault. Paris. 1740. 12mo, Vols. I-III.—Third Edition enlarged by Jo. Astruc and Ant. Louis. Paris 1755. Vols. I-IV. 12mo. Pirated edition, at Venice 1760. 4to., with addition by Gerardi van Swieten, “Epistolae Duae de Mercurio sublimato” (Two Letters concerning Mercury Sublimate), and Jos. Mar. Xav. Bertini, “Diss. de usu Mercurii”. (Dissertation on the Use of Mercury).—Translated by Sam. Chapmann. Lond. 1755. 8vo.; in German by Joh. Gottlob Heise. Frankfort and Leipzig 1784, large 8vo.—Fourth Edition: Paris 1773. Vols. I-IV. 12mo.—Fifth Edition, edit. Ant. Louis. Paris 1777. Vols. I-IV. 12mo).

To Astruc belongs the credit of having been the first who began to collect on a comprehensive plan and to sift the material for a history of the Venereal Diseases that had been accumulating for Centuries. His historical results are imperfect and one-sided, in so far as they are directed solely to maintaining the American origin; but at the same time his chronological Review of the Writers from 1475 to 1740 is even now almost indispensable, as he gives comprehensive Extracts from all the Works that were at his disposal, that fill the whole of the second Volume of his Book. Down to Hensler, almost all later Historians owe to him their Bibliography of Authorities, though they are not always honest enough to specify the mine from which they drew their knowledge. According to Bertrandi, “Treatise on the Venereal Diseases”, transl. from the Italian by C. H. Spohr, Vol. I. p. 44. Note k., Astruc has copied almost the whole of the first book of this Work, without naming the Author(!?), from: Charles Thuillier, “Observations sur les maladies vénériennes avec leur cure sûre et facile, lettres sur les accidents, l’origine et les progrès de la vérole,” (Observations on the Venereal diseases, with a sure and easy method of cure: Letters on the Symptoms, Origin and Progress of the Pox.) Paris 1707. pp. 211-261. 8vo.

Christoph Girtanner, Abhandlung über die venerische Krankheit. I. Bd. Götting. 1788. 459 S, II. und III. Bd. 1789. 933 S. gr. 8. Zweite Ausgabe 1793. III Bde. gr. 8.—Dritte Ausgabe vom I. Bde. 1796.—Vierte Ausgabe vom I. Bde., mit Zusätzen und Anmerkungen herausgegeben von Ludw. Christoph Wilh. Cappel 1803. XVI. 455 S. gr. 8. (Christoph Girtanner, “Treatise on the Venereal Disease.” I Vol; Göttingen 1788. pp. 459, II and III Vols. 1789. pp. 933. large 8vo.—Third edition of Vol. I. 1796.—Fourth edition of Vol. I., edited with Addition and Notes by Ludw. Christoph Wilh. Cappel, 1803. pp. XVI, 455. large 8vo.).

In the First Volume the Author gives, Bk. I. Pt. 1. pp. 1-57, a history of the Venereal disease, in which he employs every possible artifice and perversion of the facts in his endeavour to prove the American origin of the Disease. In the Second and Third Vols. (in which the pages run on continuously, pp. 808) he gives a general review of all the Works that have appeared on Venereal disease from 1595 to 1793, the total—including Supplements—amounting to 1912. As far as Astruc served, he has often translated him word for word,—without declaring the fact. But as only those Works which support his own views, in particular the American origin, are estimated with any accuracy, while the rest are summarily disposed of,—often without any precise account of the Contents, it is properly speaking solely for the sake of the Titles that the Review as a whole is of use to Historians. A Continuation of this Bibliographical review is found in: Heinr. August Hacker, Literatur der syphilitischen Krankheiten vom Jahr 1794 bis mit 1829, etc. Leipzig 1830. 264 S. gr. 8. (Heinr. August Hacker, “Literature of the Venereal Disease from the year 1794 down to and including 1829, etc.” Leipzig 1830. pp. 264. large 8vo.).

Unfortunately a major portion of the Books, particularly of the foreign ones, did not actually come into the hands of the Author, so that he was forced often to content himself with merely citing the Titles; and in such as are more precisely designated, he omits, as indeed is the case also with Girtanner, to give the length (pagination, or number of sheets) of the Works, from which at any rate a relative judgement might be made as to their completeness. Then since its publication almost another decade has passed, and the continuation of his Collection is still awaited on the part of the Author; consequently a second edition, carried on so as to cover the latest period, one that has been very prolific in Literary productions, is both necessary and desirable, and in it what is deficient might easily be supplied. Again from earlier Literature many additions might well be made and supplements giving what was overlooked or only cursorily noted by Girtanner. However would it not on the whole be more expedient to undertake an entirely new Work dealing with the whole Literature of Venereal Disease, but on other principles than those of Girtanner? Indeed for such a task the use of a Library such as Göttingen would be required. It would undoubtedly be of very great utility.

George Rees, On the primary Symptoms of the lues venerea, with a critical and chronological account of all the English writers on the subject, from 1735 to 1785. Lond. 1802. 8vo.

Finally we have to mention the Writers on the History of Medicine who have treated more or less fully the History of the Venereal Disease. To this class belong in especial:

J. Freind, histoire de la médicine, traduit de l’Anglais par Etienne Coulet. Leide 1727. 8. T. III. S. 192-277. (J. Freind, “History of Medicine,” translated from the English by Etienne Coulet. Leyden 1727. 8vo. Vol. III. pp. 192-277).

Seeks to prove the American origin.

Chr. Godfr. Gruner, Morborum antiquitates. Vratislav. 1774. gr. 8. S. 69-101. (Chr. Godfr. Gruner, “Antiquities of Diseases.” Breslau 1774. large 8vo. pp. 69-101).

Decides for the American origin.

Curt. Sprengel, Versuch einer pragmat. Geschichte der Arzneikunde. 3. Auflage. Halle 1828. Bd. II. S. 521-525. 697-714. Bd. III. S. 204-217. Bd. V. S. 579-594. (Curt. Sprengel, “Attempt at a Pragmatic History of Medicine.” 3rd. edition. Halle 1828. Vol. II. pp. 521-525, 697-714. Vol. III. pp. 204-217. Vol. V. pp. 579-594).

The Author accepts the Development of Venereal disease from Leprosy.

In connection with other Diseases the Venereal is also dealt with in the following Works:

Franc. Raymond, Histoire de l’éléphantiasis, contenant aussi l’origine du Scorbut, du Feu St. Antoine, de la Vérole etc. Lausanne 1767. 132 S. 8. (Franc. Raymond, “History of Elephantiasis, containing also the Origin of Scurvy, St. Anthony’s Fire, Pox, etc.” Lausanne 1767. pp. 132. 8vo.).

The Author maintains the Antiquity of the Disease. Comp. “Commentar. de rebus in Scientia naturali et Medicina gestis” (Record of Exploits in Natural Science and Medicine). Leipzig Vol. XVI. pp. 455-460.

Gerhard Gebler, Diss. Migrationes celebriorum morborum contagiosorum. Götting. 1780. 4. (Gerhard Gebler, “Dissertation: The Migrations of the more important Contagious Diseases.” Göttingen 1780. 4to.)

According to Girtanner the portion dealing with Venereal Disease is word for word from Astruc.

End of the First Volume.

INDEX
OF
GREEK AND LATIN WORDS
EXPLAINED IN THE TEXT,
AND OF THE
SUBJECTS DISCUSSED
IN BOTH VOLUMES

INDEX
OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR EMENDED.

- Ausonius, 153, II. 67.

- Aristophanes, II. 62, 163.

- Aristotle, 183.

- Dio Chrysostom, 134.

- Eusebius, 222.

- Galen, II. 7, 10, 48, 52.

- Hephaestion, 230.

- Herodian, 219.

- Herodotus, 17, 144.

- Hippocrates, 239, 250, II. 9, 54, 171, 172.

- Horace, 93, 131, 178, II. 196.

- Juvenal, 174.

- Lucian, 156.

- Martial, 152, II. 41, 64, 67, 80.

- Moses, 52, II. 156.

- Palladius Heliopolitanus, II. 127.

- Persius, II. 37, 68.

- Philo, 207.

- Pliny, II. 71.

- Pollux, II. 319.

- Seneca, 89.

- Septuagint, The, II. 141.

- Synesius, 226.

- Thucydides, II. 179.

INDEX
OF GREEK WORDS EXPLAINED.

ἀγριολειχῆναι, II. 80.

ἄγριος, 135, II. 80.

ἀγριοψωρία, II. 80.

ἀκόλαστος, 135.

ἀλώπηξ, II. 46.

ἀλωπεκία, II. 46.

ἀνανδρία, 219.

ἀνάρσιος, 206.

ἀνδρόγυνα λούτρα, II. 219.

ἀνδρόγυνος, 195
ἀφροδισιάζεσθαι, 235.

βαλλάδες, II. 80.

βάταλος, 225.

γλωσσαλγία, II. 31
γρυπαλώπηξ, II. 23.

γυμνός, II. 230.

γυναικεία ἐπιθυμία, II. 128.

γυνή, 190.

γύννιδες, 223.

δασύπους κρεῶν ἐπιθυμεῖ, 200.

δεικτηρίαδες, 76.

διάγραμμα, 72.

διαλέγεσθαι, II. 128.

διονυσιακός, II. 108.

διωβολιμαῖα, 73.

ἕλκεα Αἰγύπτια, II. 37.

Βουβαστικά, II. 37.

σηπεδόνα, II. 247.

Συριακά, II. 37.

ἕλκος, II. 128.

ἐμπολή, 73.

ἐνάρεες, 201.

ἐνοίκιον, 76.

ἐπίπαστα, II. 51.

ἔργον, II. 10.

ἐσχάρα, II. 129.

ἑταῖραι μουσικαί, 76.

πέζαι, 79.

εὐνοῦχος, 199.

θηρίωμα, II. 296.

θύμιον, II. 311.

θύμος, II. 311.

ἰατρεῖα, 120.

ἰατρίναι, II. 248.

ἰποτήριον, II. 282.

ἵππος, II. 103.

ἴσχια, 242.

καθῆσθαι ἐπ’ οἰκήματος, 18, 71.

καπηλεία, 73.

καπηλεῖον, 73.

καπήλιον, 73.

καταδακτυλίζειν, 123.

καταπορνεύειν, 18.

κέδματα, 242.

κέρας, II. 108.

Κεραστία, II. 319.

κῆπος, 47.

κίναδος, II. 114.

κίων, II. 310.

κουρεῖα, 120.

κρεμαστῆρες, II. 277, 284.

κρητίζειν, 117, 123.

κτείς, 51.

κυναλώπηξ, II. 46.

κύων τεῦτλα οὐ τρώγει, 200.

λαλεῖν, II. 163.

λειχὴν ἄγριος, II. 80.

λειχῆνες, II. 74.

λεσβιάζειν, II. 4.

λεῦκαι, II. 56.

μάργος, II. 10.

μαστρόπιον, 76.

μαστροπός, 76, 121.

ματρύλλεια, 72, 76.

μίσθωμα, 72.

μύζουρις, II. 15.

μυλλοί, 29.

μυοχάνη, II. 14.

μυριοχαύνη, II. 16.

μυσάχνη, II. 15.

μυσιοχάνη, II. 15.

νοῦσος θήλεια, 144.

νόσος, 179, 180.

γυναικεία, 234.

οἴκημα, 71.

ὀλισβόκολλιξ, 162.

ὄλισβος, 162.

ὀπή, II. 67.

ὄφις, 200.

παιδοκόραξ, II. 50.

παραστάται, II. 285.

πασχητιασμός, 190.

πέος, 51.

περιλαλεῖν, II. 163.

πορνεῖον, 71.

πόρνη, 71, 76.

πορνοβοσκός, 72.

πορνοτελώνης, 74, 75.

πορνοτρόφος, 72.

πράττειν, 123.

προαγωγεῖα, 72, 76.

προαγωγός, 76, 122.

ῥέγχειν, 134, 143.

ῥιναυλεῖν, II. 26.

ῥιναύλουρις, II. 26.

ῥινοκολοῦρος, II. 24.

ῥοδοδάφνη, II. 5.

ῥοδωνία, II. 7.

σαράπους, II. 15.

σάρξ, II. 158.

σαπέρδιον, II. 19.

σῆφις, II. 247.

σιφνιάζειν, 123.

σκύλαξ, II. 46.

σκυτάλαι, 198.

σόφισμα, II. 4.

στατηριαῖα, 74.

στεγανόμιον, 76.

στομαλγία, II. 31.

στῦμα, II. 10.

στυμάργος, II. 9.

στῦω, II. 10.

στωμύλλεσθαι, II. 163.

συκίνη ἐπικουρία, 197.

σύκον, II. 310.

σφιγκτήρ, 112.

σφιγκτής, 112.

τέγος, 76.

τέλος πορνικόν, 74.

τιμᾶσθαι, 244.

τριαντοπόρνη, 72.

τρόπος, II. 14.

φθίνας, II. 57.

φοινία, 229.

ἐν Φοινίκῃ καθεύδεις, II. 51.

φοινικέη νόσος, II. 52.

φοινικίζειν, II. 48.

φοινικιστής, II. 61.

φύγεθλον, II. 303.

φύματα, II. 169.

χαλεπός, 135.

χαλκιδίζειν, 123.

χαλκιδίτις, 72.

χαμαιευνάδες, 76.

χαμαιεύνης, 76.

χαμαιτηρίς, 76.

χαμαιτύπαι, 76.

χαμαιτυπεῖον, 76.

χαμεύνης, 76.

χιάζειν, 123.

χοιράς, II. 303.

χρυσάργυρον, 108.

INDEX
OF LATIN WORDS EXPLAINED.

- aes uxorium, 84.

- alicariae, 99.

- ambubaiae, 100.

- amica, 101.

- albus, II. 196.

- aquaculare, II. 214.

- aquam sumere, II. 213.

- aquarioli, II. 213.

- baccariones, II. 214.

- basiare, II. 88.

- basiator, II. 88.

- basium, II. 88.

- bustuariae, 100.

- capitalis luxus, II. 102.

- capra, 134.

- captura, 94.

- caput demissum, II. 103.

- catamitus, 179.

- cellae, 89.

- lustrales, 100.

- consistorium libidinis, 91.

- corvus, II. 50.

- cunnus albus, II. 196.

- diobolaria, 94.

- digitus infamis, 136.

- medius, 136.

- dogma, II. 4.

- effeminatus, 194.

- equus, II. 103.

- fellare, II. 3.

- femina, 191.

- ficus, 131.

- fornix, 88.

- frons, 89.

- grex, 179.

- Harpocratem reddere, II. 19.

- hortus, 47.

- illauta puella, II. 213.

- imbubinare, II. 130.

- inguen, II. 303.

- irrumare, II. 3.

- leno, 93.

- lepus pulmentum quaeris, 200.

- lomentum, II. 196.

- longano, 162.

- lupanar, 88.

- lustrum, 100.

- luxus, II. 102.

- capitalis, II. 102.

- merces cellae, 92.

- meretrices bonae, 100.

- lodices, 91.

- moechus, II. 24.

- morbus, 177.

- navis, 133.

- nervus, II. 277.

- nonaria, 95.

- nudus, II. 230.

- oscedo, II. 100.

- patientia feminea, 228.

- patientia muliebris, 228.

- penis, 51.

- percidi, 127.

- pollutiones, II. 210.

- proseda, 95.

- prostibula, 95.

- pustulae lucentes, II. 61.

- quadrantaria permutatio, II. 214.

- robigo, II. 57.

- salgama, II. 51.

- sanctus, 113.

- sarapis, II. 19.

- scorta devia, 103.

- erratica, 99.

- nobilia, 101.

- vestita, 103.

- sectus, 126.

- sicca puella, II. 213.

- summoenianae, 88.

- Syrii tumores, II. 67.

- tacere, II. 32.

- titulus, 89.

- togata, 93.

- uda puella, II. 220.

- villicus puellarum, 93.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

A.

Acrochordon (kind of wart), II. 314.

Aediles have supervision over the Brothels, 107,
keep a list of the public prostitutes, 107.

Ætiology, Neglect of, II. 243.

Afranius, Paederast, 154.

Agoranomi at Athens have supervision over the Brothels and Whoremasters, 72.

Alcibiades, most members of his family Pathics, 160.

Anginae (quinsies) common in Egypt, II. 36,
among Fellators, II. 32.
Anthrax (malignant pustule), II. 125,
consequent upon sexual intercourse, II. 128,
Epidemic in Asia, II. 179.
Anus, Ulcers, 134, II. 295,
Condylomata, 130,
Rhagades, 129, II. 302.
Aphaca, Temple of Aphrodité at, 222.

Aphrodité ἀναδυομένη (rising from the sea) in the Temple of Aesculapius, 30,
εὔπλοια (giving a prosperous voyage), 27,
λιμενίας (of harbours), 27,
οὐράνια (heavenly), 27,
πάνδημος (of the people), 27,
ποντιά (of the sea), 27,
πραξις (doing, sexual intercourse), 121,
φιλομήδης (laughter-loving, or loving the genitals), 39.

Apion, II. 124.

Armenian women bound to give themselves up an offering to the honour of Venus, 19.

Athens, Brothels at, 71,

Plague, II. 180,

Diseases of Genital organs in consequence of Neglect of worship of Bacchus, 78,

Ulcers on the foot common, II. 38,

Inns, 8, 78.

B.

Baal Peor, 52.

Babylonian women bound to give themselves up an offering to the honour of Venus, 18.

Bacchus ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman), 195,
is lascivious, 43,
Pathic, 194,
practises “Onania postica”, 195,
his worship, 79, 195.
Bachelors at Rome, Tax on, 84.

Barbers’ Shops at Athens, Resorts of the Pathics, 120,
in Rome, II. 221.

Bassus Cinaedus, 171.

Batalus Cinaedus, 171.

Bathing after Coition, II. 209,
in common, II. 219,
gives occasion for Vice, II. 219.

Baths at Athens, Resorts of the Pathics, II. 120,
in Rome, II. 221.

Blood, vaginal, unclean, II. 320,
mucus, II. 121.

Bones, affections of the, II. 318.

Bordeaux, derivation of name, 28.

Brothels do not exist in Asia, 64,
in Greece under supervision of the Agoranomi, 72,
established at Athens by Solon, 70,
in Rome, 88,
were under supervision of the Ædiles, 107,
on country estates, 105,
in Palaces, 105.
Bubonic swellings, II. 238, 303,
among Eunuchs, 253,
in connection with ulcers of the foot, II. 238.

C.

Caesar a Pathic, II. 41.

Campanus Morbus, II. 99.

Carthaginian women bound to give themselves up an offering in honour of Venus, 22.

Castration of Pathics, 116,
in Elephantiasis, II. 154.
Catheter, II. 281.
Chancres, II. 286,
called θηρίωμα (malignant sore), II. 296,
robigo (blight), II. 57,
φθινὰς (wasting), II. 57,
in Egypt have tendency to form scabs, II. 149,
on the posteriors, II. 301,
on the glans penis, II. 295,
on the female genital organs, II. 296,
on the skin of the penis, II. 155,
on the mons Veneris, II. 155,
on the prepuce, II. 293.
Circumcision, or Cutting, of Maids, II. 206.

Cleanliness checks the rise of Venereal disease, II. 187.

Cleopatra keeps Cinaedi, 178.
Climate, II. 115,
influence on genital organs, II. 120,
on diseases of the genital organs, II. 135,
on activity of generation, II. 117.
Coition in Temples, 23,

Unnatural Coition due to vengeance of Venus, 151.

Complexion, pale, of Cinaedi, 143,
of Cunnilingues, II. 64.
Condylomata, II. 313,
on the posteriors, 130, II. 311,
on the genitals, II. 310.

Contagion, views of the Ancients as to, II. 246,
in Southern countries more transient, II. 164.

Corpse unclean, II. 189.

Crete, paederastia in, 117,

Satyriasis common there, 127.

Cunnilingus, II. 46,
practises vice with women at time of Menstruation, II. 188,
diseases of the, II. 63.

Cyprus is called Κεραστία (horned), II. 319,
its inhabitants frequent sufferers from Bony Outgrowths (Exostosis) of the Skull, II. 319,
their daughters bound to give themselves up an offering in honour of Venus, 22.

D.
Defloration, its performance impure, 25.
Depilation, II. 191,
executed by women on men, II. 192,
by men on women, II. 192,
of Pathics, 172, II. 192,
of the anus, II. 192,
of the genital organs, II. 192.

Diatriton (fasting until the third day), II. 237.

Diseases, bodily, brought on by men’s own fault are disgraceful, II. 231.

Diseases, Names of, II. 249.

Dispensaries at Athens, resort of the Pathics, 120.

Dolores Osteocopi (Pains that rack the Bones), II. 319.

Doctors have few opportunities of observing diseases of the Genitals, II. 225,
inexperienced “in re venerea” (in Venereal matters), II. 237,
lewd-minded, II. 236,

Doctors from Egypt cure the Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin) at Rome, II. 91.

Doctors’ shops at Athens, resort of the Pathics, 120.

Dogs used as cunnilingi, II. 48.

Dowry, earned by maidens by prostitution, 21, 25.

E.
Egypt, quinsies common, II. 37,
and ulcers of the neck, II. 35,
form taken there by Venereal disease, II. 149,
inhabitants lascivious, II. 91,
offer up their daughters to Zeus, 40,

Physicians experienced in the cure of Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin), II. 91.

Elephantiasis, II. 97, 154,
communicated by Coition, II. 154,
infectious, II. 163.

Epinyctis, II. 309.

Erotic poets, lascivious, 8.

Eunuchs, kept by distinguished women, 116, 178,
do not suffer from Calvities (Baldness), II. 153,
nor from Elephantiasis, II. 154.

Exanthema of the Genital organs, II. 319.

Excrescences on the Genital organs, II. 311.

Exostosis (Bony outgrowths) of the Skull, II. 108, 319,
common in Cyprus, II. 319.

F.

Fakeers in India, 34.

Fellator, Diseases of the, II. 3.

Felt-lice (Pediculi pubis), II. 197.

Fish diet induces Leprosy and Ulcers, II. 38, 39.

Floralia at Rome, 84.

G.

Galerius Maximianus, II. 140.

Galli, Priests of Cybelé, 231,
pay prostitution-tax to the Romans, 231.

Gangrene of the Genitals, II. 176,
during the Plague of Athens, II. 179,
of the limbs, II. 182.

Genitals, their purification after coition, II. 208,
exposure in the case of Youths at Athens, II. 229,
compulsory by law at Rome, II. 229.

Genitals, Diseases of induced by Dreams, 200,
at Athens, in consequence of the neglect of the Worship of Bacchus, 43,
at Lampsacus in consequence of the banishment of Priapus, 44,

Cure is won by prayers to Priapus, 45,
women treated by women’s Physicians, II. 248.

Genius Epidemicus its influence on Venereal Disease, II. 167,
on Ulcers of the Genitals, II. 172.

Germans practise Paederastia, 228.

Glans penis, male, more active secretion from glands of this part in hot countries, II. 124,
liable to Inflammation and Ulceration, II. 295,

Ulcers of, II. 124,
Thymus (warty excrescence) II. 313.
Gonorrhœa
in Hippocrates, II. 171,
Moses, II. 130,
common in Southern countries, II. 136,
is ignominious, II. 234, II. 265,
in man, II. 260,
in woman, II. 269.
Greece, Climate, II. 134,
Cult of Venus, 27.

Groin, tumours in the, a consequence of riding, 242.

H.
Hæmorrhoids, II. 310,
among Pathics, 130,
common in the time of Martial and Juvenal, 133.

Hair, Affection of the, II. 156,
in Leprosy and Elephantiasis, II. 157.

Hares,—androgynic (sometimes male, sometimes female), 200.

Hand, left—ill-reputed, II. 209,
used for Onanism, II. 209,
in purification of the Genital organs, II. 213.

Heliades punished for licentious love, 154.

Helos (callosity) on the glans penis, II. 296.

Hemitheon, Cinaedus, 172.

Hermaphroditus, statues of—in front of Baths, II. 220.

Hero suffers from ulcers on the genitals, II. 127.

Herod, disease from which he suffered, II. 140.

Herpes (creeping eruption), II. 308.

Hetaerae, 79,
dress of, 81,

Seminary at Corinth, 79,
follow the Greek armies, 80.

Hieroduli, female, 30.

I.

Ignis Persicus (Persian fire), II. 130.

India, Venereal disease in, 40.

Infection, views of the Ancients on, II. 248,
in the South more transient, II. 164.

Inguinal tumours, a consequence of riding, 242.

Inns of ill-repute at Athens, 76,
fornication practised in them, 8,
at Rome, 98.

Irrumator, II. 3.

Ischuria (Retention of urine) in case of ulcers of Urethra, II. 170.

Isis, Worship of—at Rome, 103.

J.

Jews, their Diseases at Shittim, in consequence of worship of Baal-Peor, 52,
their daughters give themselves up an offering to the honour of Astarté, 66.

Juno, Patron-goddess of Lust, 44.

K.

Kissing disseminates Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin), II. 88.

Kissing, Mania for,—at Rome, II. 88.

L.

Lame men are lecherous, 240.

Lampsacus, affections of the genitals among the men there in consequence of the expulsion of Priapus, 44.

Lemnos, women of,—their evil smell, 148.

Lepra (scaly leprosy), Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin) changes into it, II. 72,
produced by vicious practices, II. 163, II. 317.

Leprosy, connection with Venereal disease, II. 150,
a punishment from the gods, II. 189, II. 315,
spreads from the genital organs, II. 154, 156.

Lesbos, women of—are fellatrices, II. 4,
tribads, 161.

Liber, another name of Bacchus, 43.

Lingam-worship in India, 33.

Locris, women of—give themselves up an offering in honour of Venus, 22.

Lydian women give themselves up an offering in honour of Venus, 21.

M.

Matrix, dilater of the, II. 299.

Matrix (or injecting) syringe, II. 300.

Mena, goddess of Menstruation, 25.

Mendes, cult of—in Egypt, II. 113.

Menstrual blood unclean, 23,
liable to putrefaction, II. 126,
injurious consequences in Coition, II. 121, 149,
produces skin-affections, II. 149.

Menstruation, women during—Coition with such, II. 130,
produces affections of the genital organs in man, II. 127,

Leprosy, II. 149.

Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin), II. 71,
is subject to epidemic influence, II. 100,
changes into Lepra and Psora, II. 72.

Miletus, women of—are artificial tribads, 162.

Morbus Campanus, II. 98,

Phoeniceus, II. 54.

Mucous membrane, its secretions in the South more copious and acrid, II. 121.

Mutuus, the Priapus of the Romans, 26.

Myrmecia, II. 314.

Myrrha punished by Venus, 157.

N.

Names of Diseases, II. 249.

National diversities influence the rise of Venereal disease, II. 131, 321.

Neuralgia of the testicles and spermatic cord, II. 284.

O.
Ointments for the skin, II. 139.
Oscans are licentious, II. 100,
are Cunnilingues, II. 101.
Ozaena (fetid polypus), II. 317.
P.
Paederastia, 108,
at Athens, 119,
in Bœotia, 121,
Chalcis, 122,
Chios, 122,
Crete, 117,
Elis, 121,
Germany, 228,
Greece, 117,
Italy, 124,
Rome, 124,
Siphnos, 124,
Syria, 116,
Tarsus, 139,
practised in Temples, 111,
is a mental disorder, 182,
inclination to it is innate, 236,
and hereditary, 160,
due to vengeance of Venus, 146, 172, 182.
Paederasts, diseases of, 126.
Paedophilia, 117.

Paralysis of the Tongue due to the practices of the Cunnilingue, II. 64.

Parmenides, Fragment of, 163.

Patients suffering from affections of the genital organs deceive the Physician, II. 235,
dread the knife, 46, II. 241,
treat themselves, II. 238.

Pathics, signal of invitation employed by, 143,
condition at Athens, 120,
kept in the Roman brothels, 124,
had to pay Prostitution-tax, 126, 231,
characteristics, 169,
dress, 172,
allow the hair of the head to grow long, 173,
depilate their persons, II. 191,
resemble women, 189,
seed-ducts in their case go to the anus, 235,
bear children, 235,
diseases of, 126,
pale complexion, 143,
foul breath, 142,
suffer from affection of the mouth, 134, 142,
ulcers on posteriors, 127,
hæmorrhoids, 130.
Penis, artificial, 161, 198.
Phallus-worship, 40,
in Egypt, 40,
Greece, 41,
India, 33,
Syria, 49.
Philoctetes is Onanist, 155,
Pathic, 152.

Phlyctaenae (blisters) on the skin in diseases of the Uterus, II. 153.

Phoeniceus Morbus, II. 54.

Phoenician women give themselves up an offering in honour of Venus, 21.

Physicians have few opportunities of observing diseases of the Genitals, II. 225,
inexperienced “in re venerea” (in Venereal subjects), II. 237,
lewd-minded, II. 235,

Physicians from Egypt cure the Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin) at Rome, II. 91.

Piles (hæmorrhoids), II. 310,
among Pathics, 130,
common in time of Martial and Juvenal, 133.
Polyandry, II. 120.
Polygamy, II. 120.
Prepuce, ulcers, II. 293,
rhagades (chapped sores), II. 293,
thymus (warty excrescence), II. 311.
Priapism, II. 136.
Priapus, 43,
lover of gardens, 47, II. 215,
made of fig-wood, 195,
red, II. 57,
used to rupture the hymen, 24, 26, 51,
possesses fructifying virtues, 26,
sufferers from complaints of the genitals pray to him, 50.

Priests undertake the deflowering of virgins, 47.

Prophylactics against Bubo, II. 307,
against Gonorrhœa, II. 307.

Propotides punished by Venus, 156.

Prostitute-keepers (Whoremasters) at Athens, 72,
under supervision of the Ædiles, 107,
considered infamous, 98.

Prostitutes’ fees fixed by the Agoranomi at Athens, 73,
at Rome, 94.
Prostitution-tax at Athens, 74,
leased out by the Magistrate at Athens, 75,
at Rome, 107,
at Byzantium, 107,
paid by Pathics, 107, 126, 231,
by the Priests of Cybelé, 231.
Prostitution-tax, farmers of—at Athens, 75.
R.

Rhagades (chapped sores) of the posteriors, 127,
of the female genitals, II. 298,
of the prepuce, II. 293.
Rhinocolura, Colony of II. 24.
Rome, Baths at, II. 220,
Brothels, 88,
Cult of Priapus, 43,
Cult of Venus, 33,
Inns, 98,
Isis-worship, 103,
Mania for kissing, II. 88,
Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin), II. 71,
Paederastia, 123,
Prostitution-tax, 107.
Roseola in gonorrhœal patients, II. 143.
S.
Satyriasis, II. 255,
common in Crete, 127.
Scabies (Itch), II. 69, II. 162.

Scythians, νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) of the, 144,
men-women, 240.

Shamefacedness of patients, II. 235.

Skin, reaction of the—in affections of the genital organs, II. 141, II. 153, II. 159.

Skin-diseases, infectious in Venereal disease, II. 165.

Smell, foul—from the mouth of Pathics, 142,
of Fellators, II. 30.

Snakes used for vicious purposes, II. 113.

Sneeze betrays the Cinaedus, 171.

Sodomy, II. 110,
with he-goats, II. 113,
with asses, II. 114,
with snakes, II. 113.

Suicide due to ulcers of genital organs, II. 42,
to ulcers of the neck, II. 40.

Sycosis of the Chin, II. 81.

Syringe, Matrix or Injecting, II. 300.

T.

Tarsus, frequency of paederastia there, 139.

Testicles, inflammation of, II. 282,
ulcers, II. 285,
induration, II. 285.

Tetter of the chin (Mentagra), II. 71,
subject to epidemic influence, II. 100,
changes into Lepra and Psora, II. 72.

Throat, Ulcers of the—among fellators, II. 14, II. 34.

Thymus (warty excrescence) on the genital organs, II. 311.

Tiberius, sickness of, II. 92.

Tongue, Paralysis of the—due to the practices of Cunnilingue, II. 66.

Tribads, artificial, 161.

Typhus, influence on Venereal disease, II. 182.

U.

Ulcers, Egyptian, II. 35,
a result of vengeance of the Dea Syra, II. 37,
on the tibia common at Athens, II. 38,
origin, II. 242,
general treatment, II. 239.
Ulcers of the Genitals, II. 139, II. 275,
offspring of evil humours, II. 242,
readily change to caries, II. 139, II. 177,
worms in them, II. 141,
common under putrid epidemic conditions, II. 168,
treated with knife, II. 176,
by actual cautery, II. 176,
of women—are feared by men, II. 162,
lead to suicide, II. 176.

Ulcers of the Throat in case of Fellators, II. 14, II. 34,
lead to suicide, II. 42.
Urethra, ulcers of the, II. 171, II. 177,
caruncles, II. 279,
strictures, II. 279.
V.
Vaginal blood, unclean, II. 320,
mucus, II. 121.
Varices (dilated veins) cause impotency, 242.
Venereal disease, names, II. 249,
changes into Leprosy, II. 140,
into Elephantiasis, II. 149,
relation to Leprosy, II. 150,
to Typhus, II. 182,
cured without professional aid, II. 148, II. 238,
of the mucous membranes and bones not common in Southern countries, II. 250.

Venus, calva (bald), 33,
Cult of, 13,
in Asia, 16,
Babylon, 17,
Greece, 27,
Italy, 33.

Virgins give themselves up an offering in honour of Venus in Armenia, 18,
at Babylon, 18,
Carthage, 20,
in Cyprus, 22,
Locris, 22,
Lydia, 20,
Palestine, 66,
Phœnicia, 20,
in honour of Zeus in Egypt, 40,
reason of custom, 22.
W.
Whoremasters at Athens, 72,
under supervision of the Ædiles, 107,
considered infamous, 98.

Women, allow paederastia to be practised with them, 139,
seldom suffer from Mentagra (Tetter of the chin), II. 84,
or Elephantiasis, II. 153,
or Venereal disease, II. 153.

Worms in ulcers, II. 137.

Z.

Zeus, the Egyptians give up their daughters as an offering in his honour, 41.

PRIVATELY ISSUED BOOKS.
Editions de Luxe in English and French.

BOOKS IN ENGLISH.

Untrodden Fields of Anthropology by Dr. Jacobus X.... Observations on the Esoteric Manners and Customs of Semi-civilised Peoples. Two stout 8vo Volumes of about 480 Pages each, accompanied by a Set of 24 Illustrations.

[Price £2. 10s.

Genital Laws, their Observance and Violation by Dr. Jacobus X.... One fine Volume of some 470 pages, bound in cloth.

[Price £2. 2s.

(Analytical Table of Contents, price 6d. for postage.)

A Medico Legal Examination of the Abuses, Aberrations and Crimes of the Genital Sense. Complete in one fine Volume, 8vo of 540 pages.

[Price £2. 2s.

The Ethnology of the Sixth Sense. Its Anomalies, Perversions and Follies. One thick volume of about 460 pages, on stout vellum Paper.

[Price £1. 1s.

The Basis of Passional Psychology by Dr. Jacobus X. ... consisting of two 8vo volumes of over 600 pages, finely printed on English antique Paper.

[Price (complete) £3. 3s. (delivery inclusive).

One Hundred Merrie and Delightsome Stories. Literal and Unexpurgated translation of that old, and racy French classic, Les Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles, with Fifty fine, hand-coloured Illustrations bound up in their proper places. Two beautiful dem. 8vo volumes, of (over) 540 pages, on fine antique English deckle-edged paper, bound in water coloured silk. Price (complete)

£3. 3s.

The Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies. Now for the first time done into English from the French of Pierre Bourdeille, Seigneur de Brantôme. In two crown 8vo volumes, each volume consisting of some 390 to 420 pages, with 24 and 26 full pages coloured Illustrations by Ad. Lambrecht. Price of the work complete, with the Illustrations,

£4. 4s. net.

The Sword and Womankind by Edouard de Beaumont, translated by Alfred Allinson, M.A., Oxon. Complete in one volume, with an etched frontispiece by Paul Avril.

[Price £1. 1s.

The Secret Cabinet of History by Dr. Cabanes. Medico-Historical Glimpses into the Private Lives of Kings, Queens and other High Persons. One fine volume.

[Price 12s. 6d.

The Curious Bypaths of History with a fine frontispiece after Daniel Vierge. The whole in one volume on hand-made Van Gelder paper.

[Price 21s.

Musk, Hashish and Blood. Nineteen realistic Tales by Hector France and Twenty Two engravings by Paul Avril, consisting of one stout vol. strongly bound in cloth.

[Price £1. 1s.

The Chastisement of Mansour by Hector France. One volume with Eight Illustrations by Bazeilhac.

[Price 10s.

Thais. Now done into English for the first time from the French of Anatole France. With 21 superb copper-plate etchings by Martin van Maele. One vol. 8vo of 304 pages, strongly bound in English cloth.

[Price 21s.

BOOKS IN FRENCH.

Etude sur la Flagellation, à travers le Monde. Aux points de Vue Historique, Médical, Domestique et Conjugal. Un volume in-8vo. d’environ 680 pages, accompagné de 21 Illustrations hors texts grav. sur bois, dessinées par René Lelong.

[Prix 50 francs.

Curiosités et Anecdotes sur la Flagellation. Bel ouvrage in-8 écu, soigneusement imprimé, d’environ 400 pages.

[Prix 40 francs.

Les Mysteres de la Maison de la Verveine ou Miss Bellassis fouettée pour vol. Illustrations par Ad. Lambrecht. Un volume, imprimé sur beau papier.

[Prix 20 francs.

L’Ethnologie du Sens Génital. Les Lois et Singularités de la Passion sexuelle. Ouvrage Unique et Original en Langue française. Un gros Volume d’environ 440 Pages. Etude Physiologique de l’Amour Normal et de ses Abus, Perversions, folies & Crimes dans l’espèce Humaine par le Dr. Jacobus X....

[Prix 15 francs.

PARIS
CHARLES CARRINGTON
LIBRARIE DE FOLK-LORE, ANTHROPOLOGIE
13, Faubourg Montmartre, 13

FOOTNOTES:

1 It would be a great mistake to think that because SPRENGEL wrote his History here, the opposite must be true. The greater part of the Works collected by him are no longer to be found. It is only too evident that the earlier administrators of the library, especially ERSCH, so famous as a Historian of Literature, left the medical side almost totally unconsidered; and what gaps the Administration of to-day has to fill up is sufficiently evidenced by the yearly Lists of Additions.

2 The Bibliography of Authorities and Historians has been placed at the end of the present volume.

3 “On the Venereal Disease in the Northern Provinces of European Turkey” in: Russian Compendium for Natural and Medical Science, edited by Alex. Crichton, Jos. Rehmann, C. Fr. Burdach, vol. I. Riga and Leipzig 1815. large 8vo. pp. 230.

4 “Geschichte der Lustseuche” (History of the Venereal Disease), Vol. I. p. 326.

5 Celsus, De re medica Bk. VI. ch. 18., “Proxima sunt ea, quae ad partes obscoenas pertinent, quarum apud Graecos vocabula et tolerabilius se habent et accepta iam usu sunt, cum omni fere medicorum volumine atque sermone iactentur, apud nos foediora verba, ne consuetudine quidem aliqua verecundius loquentium commendata sunt.”

(Next are particulars relating to the unmentionable parts; the name of these among the Greeks are less objectionable and are now accepted by usage, as they are freely employed by physicians both in books and speech, whereas with ourselves the words are coarse, not approved by any customary use on the part of those who speak with any regard to modesty.) How strictly the words, especially in the case of the poets, were scrutinised in this respect even in later times still, is shown by the passage in Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic. Bk. X. ch. 10.; and in Petronius, Satir. 132, Polyaenus says: Ne nominare quidem te (scil. penem) inter res serias fas est. Poenitentiam agere sermonis mei coepi, secretoque rubore perfundi, quod oblitus verecundiae meae cum ea parte corporis verba contulerim, quam ne ad cogitationem quidem admittere severioris notae homines solent.”

(It is forbidden even to mention thee (viz. the penis) in serious discourse. I have begun to do penance for my words and to feel the glow of a secret blush, because forgetful of my modesty I expressed in words that part of the body, which men of the stricter type refuse to admit even into their thoughts.) So the collector of Priapeia appeals to the reader: Conveniens Latio pone supercilium! (Lay aside the disapproving frown that befits Latium); and later on people used to say of such talk, they wished to speak plain Latin, just as we say, speak plain English; while the Greek would excuse himself by his ἄγροικος καὶ ἄμουσός εἰμι, (I am but am unpolished rustic).

6 Satir. II. 8-13.

7 Athenaeus, Deipnosoph. bk. XIII. ch. 21.—Comp. Aristotle, Politics bk. VII. ch. 17.

8 Bk. XII. Epigr. 43.—Comp. H. Paldamus, “Römische Erotik.” Greisswald 1833. large 8vo.

9 Priapeia, Carm. 1.

Ludens haec ego teste te, Priape,
Horto carmina digna, non libello;
Ergo quidquid est, quod otiosus
Templi parietibus tui notavi
In partem accipias bonam rogamus.

Carm. 41.

Quisquis venerit huc, poeta fiat,
Et versus mihi dedicet iocosos;
Qui non fecerit, inter eruditos
Ficosissimus ambulet poeta.

Carm. 49.

Tu quicunque vides circa tectoria nostra

Non nimium casti carmina plena ioci;

(The songs I sing, thou art my witness, Priapus, are worthy but of a garden, not of a book. Wherefore whate’er it be that in leisure hours I have writ on thy temple-walls, receive, we pray, in good part.)

(Whosoe’er comes hither must become a poet and dedicate to me some merry lines; whoe’er refuses, amidst the learned let him walk most wooden of poets.—N.B. ficosus means at once like a fig-tree and afflicted with piles; perhaps we might render “most costive of poets”.)

(Thou beholdest, whoe’er thou art, around the plaster of our walls lines teeming with not too chastened a wit.)

also in Martial, bk. XII. Epigr. 62. we read:

Qui carbone rudi, putrique creta

Scribit carmina, quae legunt cacantes.

(Who with rough charcoal or crumbly chalk writes verses that men read as they shit.)

10 Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. bk. II. ch. 10. ὅσοι δὲ τὴν παραβολὴν διώκουσι, πταίουσι περὶ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν, σφᾶς αὐτοὺς βλάπτοντες, κατὰ τὰς παρανόμους συνουσίας.

(“Now they that follow the parable sin aginst nature, hurting their own selves, according to their lawless conversation.”)

11 Larcher, “Mémoire sur Venus,” (Memoir on Venus). Paris 1775. pp. 312. 8vo.—De la Chau, “Dissertation sur les Attributs de Venus,” (Dissertation on the Attributes of Venus. Paris 1776. pp. 91. 4to. In German, by C. Richter. Vienna 1783. pp. 179. 8vo.—J. C. F. Manso, “Ueber die Venus,” (On Venus): in “Versuche über einige Gegenstände aus der Mythologie der Griechen und Römer,” (Essays on certain Subjects from the Mythology of the Greeks and Romans). Leipzig 1784. large 8vo. pp. 1-308. The Treatise is the most complete account we possess on the subject of Venus.—Lenz, C. G., “Die Göttin von Paphos auf alten Bildwerken und Baphomet,” (The Goddess of Paphos in Ancient Sculptures and Baphomet.) Gotha 1808. pp. 26. 4to., with Copperplates.—Münter, Fr., “Der Tempel der himmlischen Göttin zu Paphos,” (The Temple of the heavenly Goddess at Paphos). Copenhagen 1824. pp. 40. with Copperplates.—Lajard, Felix. “Recherche sur le culte, les symboles, les attributs et les monuments figurés de Venus en orient et en occident,” (Researches on the Cult, Symbols, Attributes and artistic Monuments of Venus in East and West). Paris 1834. 4to., with 30 Plates, fol. Known to us only from the notices.

12 Orpheus, Hymn. 55.

Οὐρανίη Ἀφροδίτη,
παντογενὴς, γενέτειρα θεὰ, γεννᾷς δὲ τὰ πὰντα,
ὅσσα τ’ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστι καὶ ἐν γαίῃ πολυκάρπῳ
ἐν πόντου τε βυθῷ. γαμοστόλε, μῆτερ ἐρώτῶν.

(Heavenly Aphrodité, parent of all, mother Goddess,—for thou engenderest all things, all things that are in heaven and in fruitful earth and in depth of ocean,—harbinger of marriage, mother of loves).
[Transcriber’s Note: παντογενὴς (parent of all) should read ποντογενὴς
(sea-born).]

Homer, Hymn. 9. to Venus:

Κυπρογενῆ Κυθέρειαν ἀείσομαι, ἥτε βροτοῖσιν
μείλιχα δῶρα δίδωσιν, ἐφ’ ἱμερτῷ δὲ προσώπῳ
αἰεὶ μειδιάει, καὶ ἐφ’ ἱμερτὸν φέρει ἄνθος.

(Cyprus-born Cytherea will I sing, who to men gives sweet gifts, and on her lovely visage has ever a smile, and brings a lovely blossom of love).

13 Hesiod, Theogonia, 190-206.

14 Consult the Poem of Sappho in Brunck, Analect. vet. poet. Graec., Vol. I. p. —Suidas under the word Ψιθυριστής (whisperer), as epithet of Venus. Eustathius on Homer, Odyssey, XX., p. 1881. Her attribute was a key to the Heart. Pindar, Pyth. IV. 390. Comp. Ovid, Fast. IV. 133 sqq.

15 The Trojan women used to betake themselves before their marriage to the river Scamander, to bathe in it and say: Receive, Scamander, our Virginity. Aeschines, Epist. II. p. 738.

16 Herodotus, Bk. II. ch. 64. Καὶ τὸ μὴ μίσγεσθαι γυναιξὶ, ἐν ἱροῖς, μηδὲ ἀλούτους ἀπὸ γυναικῶν ἐς ἱρὰ ἐσιέναι, οὗτοι εἰσὶ οἱ πρῶτοι θρησκεύσαντες· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι σχεδὸν πάντες ἄνθρωποι, πλὴν Αἰγυπτίων καὶ Ἑλλήνων, μίσγονται ἐν ἱροῖσι.

(And the practice of not having intercourse with women in temples, and not going into temples unwashed after such intercourse, these practices they were the first to observe as a matter of religion; for almost all the rest of mankind, except Egyptians and Greeks, have sexual intercourse in temples.) Comp. Clement of Alexandria, Stromat. bk. I. p. 361.

17 Already in his time St. Jerome affirmed: omnem concubitum coniugale esse peccatum, nisi causa procreandi sobolem (that all conjugal coition is a sin, except for the sake of begetting offspring); and Andr. Beverland (de peccato originali—On Original Sin, p. 60.); Ingenitum nefas nil aliud est, quam coeundi ista libido, (Inborn sin is nothing else than the foul craving for coition). With this should be compared the view of Lycurgus, which Plutarch cites in his life of him.

Also Athenaeus (Deipnosoph. Bk. XXI. p. 510.) says: προκριθείσης γοῦν τῆς’ Ἀφροδίτης, αὕτη δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ ἡδονὴ, πάντα συνεταράχθη. (thus Aphrodité being rather chosen,—now this is sensual pleasure,—all was thrown into confusion.) Clement of Alexandria, Paedog. bk. II. ch. 10. Ψιλὴ γὰρ ἡδονὴ, κἂν ἐν γάμῳ παραληφθῇ, παράνομός ἐστι καὶ ἄδικος καὶ ἄλογος. (For base pleasure—i.e. pleasure for its own sake,—even though it have been enjoyed in wedlock, is unlawful and unjust and unreasonable.)—Philo, De opificio mundi, pp. 34, 35, 38. De Allegoria, II. p. 1100. ὄφιν εἶναι σύμβολον ἡδονῆς. (the snake is the symbol of sensual pleasure.) With some coarseness Rabbi Zahira explains the Fall. The Tree, he says, that bore the forbidden fruit signifies the instrument of generation in Man; not the Tree in the midst of the garden of Eden, he comments, but the Tree in the midst of the body, which is not in the midmost of the garden, but in the midmost of the Woman, for it is there that the garden is planted. Nork, “Braminen und Rabinen,” (Brahmins and Rabbis). Meissen 1836. large 8vo. pp. 91.

18 Descript. Graeciae, bk. I. ch. 14.

19 Homer, Odyss. Bk. VIII. 362.—Hesiod, Theog. 193.—Strabo, XIV. 983.—Tacitus, Hist. II. 3.—Pausanias, VIII. 5. 2.

20 Sanchoniathon, Fragment. edit. Orelli, p. 34., Eusebius, Praeparat. Evang., I. 10., τὴν δὲ Ἀστάρτην Φοίνικες τὴν Ἀφροδίτην εἶναι λέγουσι. (Now the Phoenicians say that Astarté is Aphrodité.)

21 Herodotus, Bk. I. ch. 105. Homer, Hymn. IX. 1. Ruhnken, Epist. crit. I. p. 51. Heyne, Antiquarische Aufs. I. p. 135.

22 Hence the Father Ephraim Syrus (Hymn in Opp. Vol. II. p. 457. Gesenius, “Kommentar. zum Jesaias,” (Commentary on Isaiah), Pt. II. p. 540. Ephraim lived 379 A. D.):—It is Venus that led astray her followers, the Ishmaelites. Into our land also she came, how most abundantly do the sons of Hagar honour her.

A street-walker (they call) the Moon,
Like a courtesan they represent Venus.
Twain they call female among the Stars.
And not merely names are they,
Names without meaning, these female names,

Abounding in Wantonness are they in themselves.

For since they are the women of all men,
Who amongst them can be modest,
Who amongst them chaste,

Who exercised his wedlock after the fashion of the fowls?

Who (otherwise than the Chaldaeans) introduced the Festival of that frantic Goddess, at whose Solemnities Women practise harlotry?

23 Histor. Bk. I. ch. 199. Ἐπεὰν δὲ μιχθῇ, ἀποσιωσαμένη τῇ θεῷ, ἀπαλλάσσεται ἐς τὰ οἰκία· καὶ τὠπὸ τούτου οὐκ οὕτω μέγα τί οἱ δώσεις ὥς μιν λάμψεαι. (But after she has gone with a man, and so acquitted her obligation to the goddess, she returns to her home; and from that time forth no gift however great will prevail with her.) The same thing is related also by Baruch VI. 42, 43. Comp. Voss on Virgil, Georgics, II. 523 sqq. To this day we find amongst the bold sons of the Desert, the Arabians, some trace of this devotion of their fathers, Niebuhr writes (“Beschreibung von Arabien”—(Description of the Arabians), Copenhagen 1772, p. 54. note.): “I read that the Europeans have investigated with great erudition and eloquence the question, Num inter naturalis debiti et conjugalis officii egerium liceat psallere, orare, etc.? (Whether in the performance of the debt of nature and the conjugal office it is lawful to sing, to pray, and so on?) I do not know what the Mohammedans have written on this matter. I have been assured that it is their custom to begin all their occupations with the words; Bismallâh errachmân errachhîm (in the name of the merciful and gracious God), and that they must say this also “ante conjugalis officii egerium (before the performance of the conjugal office), and that no reputable man omits this.” So at the present day in Italy the courtesan bows before the image of her Madonna, before she gives herself, and says to her, “Madonna, mi ajuta!” or “Madonna, mi perdonna!” (Madonna, be my aid!, Madonna, pardon me!) whilst she draws a veil over her picture, and calls this Christianity! For the rest Constantine abolished the custom in question at Babylon and at Heliopolis, and destroyed the Temples of Venus at those places. Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III. p. 58. Socrates, Eccles. Hist. I. 18.

24 Heeren, “Ideen über Politik und Handel,” (Ideas on Political Science and Trade), Pt. I. 2. p. 257.

25 So we think we ought to understand the καταπορνεύει τὰ θήλεα τέκνα (prostitute down their female children) in the text, for the expression is evidently formed on the same plan as the καθῆσθαι ἐπ’ οἰκήματος (to sit down at a house of ill-fame in Plato, Charmides, 163. c.; because the brothels lay near the harbour, and so in the more low-lying region, away from Athens itself. In the same way the Romans used the verb descendere (to go down), e. g. Horace, Satires I. 2. 34., because the public houses of ill-fame at Rome were in the valley, in the Subura.

26 Hist. of Alexander the Great, Bk. V. ch. 1. Comp. Isaiah, XIV. 11., XLVII. 1. Jeremiah, LI. 39. Daniel, V. 1.

27 Bk. XI. p. 532. Ἀλλὰ καὶ θυγατέρας οἱ ἐπιφανέστατοι τοῦ ἔθνους ἀνιεροῦσι παρθένους, αἷς νόμος ἐστὶ, καταπορνευθείσαις πολὺν χρόνον παρὰ τῇ θεῷ μετὰ ταῦτα δίδοσθαι πρὸς γάμον. (Moreover the chief men of the nation consecrate their daughters when still virgins, and it is the custom for these, after acting as prostitutes for a long time in the service of the goddess, then to be given in marriage). Hence the Scholiast also to Juvenal, Satir. I. 104, “Mesopotameni homines effrenatae libidinis sunt in utroque sexu, ut Salustius meminit,” (The inhabitants of Mesopotamia are people of unbridled lustfulness in either sex, as Sallust records); and Cedrenus, Chaldaeorum et Babyloniorum leges plenae sunt impudicitiae atque turpitudinis, (the laws of the Chaldaeans and Babylonians are full of indecency and foulness).

28 Bk. I chs. 93, 94. The ἐνεργαζόμεναι παιδίσκαι (maids working at their handicraft) mentioned in this passage are maids who, to use Heine’s expression, practice their horizontal craft. Herodotus’ story is also found mentioned in Strabo Bk. XI. p. 533., Aelian, Var. Hist., bk, IV. ch. 1., and Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XII. p. 516.

29 Augustine, De Civit. Dei, bk. IV. ch. 10. Cui (Veneri) etiam Phoenices donum de prostitutione filiarum, ante quam iungerent eas viro, (To whom—Venus,—the Phoenicians also made a gift of the prostitution of their daughters, before they married them to a husband). Athenagoras, Adv. Graecos, p. 27. D., Γυναῖκες γοῦν ἐν εἰδωλείοις τῆς Φοινικίας πάλαι προκαθέζοντο ἀπαρχόμεναι τοῖς ἐκεῖ θεοῖς ἑαυτῶν τὴν τοῦ σώματος αυτῶν μισθαρνίαν, νομίζουσαι τῇ πορνείᾳ τὴν θεὸν ἑαυτῶν ἱλάσκεσθαι. (Thus women used of old to sit in the idolatrous temples of the Phoenicians, offering as first-fruits to the gods therein the hire of the prostitution of their own bodies, deeming that by fornication was their goddess propitiated). Comp. Eusebius, De Praeparat. Evangel. IV. 8.—Athanasius, Orat. contra Gentes.—Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. I. 8.

30 De Dea Syra, ch. 6.

31 Valerius Maximus, bk. II. ch. 6. 15., Sicae enim fanum est Veneris, in quod matronae (Poenicarum) conferebant; atque inde prosedentes ad quaestum, dotes corporis iniuria contrahebant, (for at Sica is a shrine of Venus, to which the matrons—amongst the Phoenicians—used to repair; and there sitting for hire, earned their dowers by the prostitution of their persons).

32 Justinus, Histor. Philipp., bk. XVIII, ch. 5., Mos erat Cypriis, virgines ante nuptias statutis diebus, dotalem pecuniam quaesituras, in quaestum ad litus maris mittere, pro reliqua pudicitia libamenta Veneri soluturas. (It was a custom among the Cyprians to send the virgins before their marriage on fixed days to the sea-shore, there to sit for hire and so earn money for their dowry, to thus render to Venus the first-fruits of their maidenhood). Comp. Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XII, p. 516.

33 Justinus, Histor. Philipp., bk. XXI. ch. 3., Cum Rheginorum tyranni Leophronis bello Locrenses premerentur, voverant, si victores forent, ut die festo Veneris virgines suas prostituerent. Quo voto intermisso cum adversa bella cum Lucanis gererent, in concionem eos Dionysius vocat: hortatur ut uxores filiasque suas in templum Veneris quam possint ornatissimas mittant, ex quibus sorte ductae centum voto publico fungantur, religionisque gratia uno stent in lupanari mense omnibus ante iuratis viris, ne quis ullam attaminet. Quae res ne virginibus voto civitatem solventibus fraudi esset, decretum facerent: ne qua virgo nuberet, priusquam illae maritis traderentur. etc. (The people of Locri, when they were hard pressed in the war with Leophron tyrant of the Rhegians, had made a vow, that should they be victorious, they would abandon their virgins to prostitution on the feast-day of Venus. But this vow was broken, and when they were waging a disastrous war with the Lucanians, Dionysius calls them to an assembly, wherein he urges them to send their wives and daughters to the Temple of Venus in the gayest array they could, and that of these a hundred should be chosen by lot to carry out the public vow; that to fulfil the obligation to the goddess they should stand publicly in a brothel one month, all men having previously bound themselves by oath that none should deflower any one of them. Further that this thing should be no detriment to the maidens who so freed the city of its vow, a decree should be passed to the effect that no maiden might marry, until these were given to husbands; etc.). Comp. Athenaeus, Deipnos., bk. XII. p. 516. Strabo, bk. VI. p. 259, says: προεγάμει τὰς νυμφοστοληθείσας, (he used to lie first with maidens that had been made brides).

34 “De Babyloniorum instituto, ut mulieres ad Veneris templum prostarent,” (On the Babylonian custom of Women prostituting themselves at the Temple of Venus), note on Herodotus, I. p. 199 in Commentat. Soc. Reg. Götting., Vol. XVI. pp. 30-42.

35 Vermischte Schriften, vol. VI. pp. 23-50, “Ueber eine Stelle bei Herodot.” (On a passage in Herodotus).

36 According to Tacitus, Histor. II. 2., Under no circumstances must blood flow on the altars of the Paphian goddess.

37 “Ideen über Politik und Handel,” (Ideas on Political Science and Trade), I. 2. p. 180. note 2.

38 The King of Calicut at the southern extremity of Malabar gives his principal Priest a honorarium of 500 dollars, that he may loose his wives’ virgin-zone for him in the name of the Deity. Sonnerat, “Voyage aux Indes orientales” (Travels to the East Indies), Vol. I. p. 69. Hamilton, “New Account of the East Indies,” Vol. I. p. 308.

39 Herodotus, bk. IV. ch. 172.—Pomponius Mela, bk. I. ch. 8. § 35.

40 Diodorus Siculus, bk. V. ch. 18.

41 Menstruation was under the protection of the goddess Mena (Augustine, De Civ. Dei, bk. XI. 11. VII. 2.; but Myllita was the Moon!

42 Therefore in the case of the Lydians the women themselves selected their Strangers. Strabo, bk. XI. p. 533., δέχονται δὲ οὐ τοὺς τυχόντας τῶν ξένων, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα τοὺς ἀπὸ ἴσου ἀξιώματος. (but they receive not just the first-comers amongst the strangers, but by preference those of an equal position).

43 So even in the Middle Ages, e. g. at Venice, it was quite usual for the daughters to earn their dowry by selling their bodies, and there, as in France, it was the mothers who acted as procuresses to their daughters with this object. Stephanus, “Apologie d’Herodote”, Vol. I. pp. 46-49. Fr. Jacobs, loco citato, p. 40.

44 Memorari quoque solent causae physicae, seu marium seu feminarum corporis infirmitatis, quibus floris virginei decerpendi molestia aggravatur. (Certain physical reasons also are mentioned, connected with bodily defects whether of the man or the woman, which aggravate the difficulty of deflowering a virgin), Heyne, loco citato, p. 39. When these partly dietetic and prophylactic relations of the practice disappeared from the memory of the people, the Priapus kept only its fecundating qualities, and accordingly we read in Augustine, De Civitate Dei, bk. VI. ch. 9., Sed quid hoc dicam, cum ibi sit et Priapus nimius masculus, super cuius immanissimum et turpissimum fascinum sedere nova nupta jubeatur more honestissimo et religiossimo matronarum? (But why tell of this, though Priapus is there, with the exaggerated penis of a man, on whose huge and foul organ the newly-wed bride is told to sit, following the custom held highly honourable and religious of matrons?) Comp. Lactantius, I. 20.—Tertullian, Adnot. II. 11. The same is related by Arnobius, bk. VI. ch. 7., of the similar god Mutuus: Etiamne Mutuus, cuius immanibus pudendis, horrentique fascino, vestras inequitare matronas, et auspicabile ducitis et optatis. (Mutuus too, on whose huge pudenda, and horrid organ you think it auspicious and desirable for your matrons to ride).

45 Linschotten, “Orientalische Schiffahrt,” (Oriental Voyage), Pt. I. ch. 33.

46 Orpheus, Argonaut. 422.—Lucian, De Saltat. ch. 27., Dialog. Deorum, 2.

47 Strabo, XI. p. 495.

48 Herodotus, bk. I. ch. 105., καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἐν Κύπρῳ ἱρὸν ἐνθεῦτεν ἐγένετο, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι Κύπριοι· καὶ τὸ ἐν Κυθήροισι Φοίνικές εἰσι οἱ ἱδρυσάμενοι, ἐκ ταύτης τῆς Συρίης ἐόντες, (for the Temple in Cyprus was built from it,—i.e. in imitation of the temple of Venus at Ascalon, as the Cyprians themselves admit; and that in Cythera was erected by the Phoenicians, who belong to this part of Syria.). Clemens Alexandrinus, Ad Gentes, p. 10., speaks of Cinyras as having been the man who introduced the temple-service in Cyprus. Comp. Jul. Firmicus, De Error. profan. relig. p. 22. Arnobius, Ad Gentes, bk. V., (for the Temple in Cyprus was built from it,—i.e. in imitation of the temple of Venus at Ascalon, as the Cyprians themselves admit; and that in Cythera was erected by the Phoenicians, who belong to this part of Syria.). Clemens Alexandrinus, Ad Gentes, p. 10., speaks of Cinyras as having been the man who introduced the temple-service in Cyprus. Comp. Jul. Firmicus, De Error. profan. relig. p. 22. Arnobius, Ad Gentes, bk. V.

49 Ποντία, Λιμενιάς (of the Sea, of Harbours), at Hermioné, Pausanias, Attica ch. 34. Mitscherlich, on Horace, Odes bk. I. 3. 1. Also the epithet εὔπλοια (of fair Winds), Pausanias, Attica I. 3., should be mentioned here. Musaeus, Hero and Leander 245. Horace, Odes III. 26. 3. “Venus Marina”, (Venus of the Sea).

50 Pausanias, bk. III. 23., VI. 25., VIII. 32., IX. 16.—Plato, Sympos.—Xenophon, Sympos. ch. 8.

51 Augustine, De Civit. Dei, bk. IV. ch. 10. “An Veneres duae sunt, una virgo, una mulier? An potius tres, una virginum, quae etiam Vesta est, alia conjugatarum, alia meretricum? (Are there two Venuses, one a virgin, the second a matron? Or rather are there three, one of virgins, who is also Vesta, another of wives, another of harlots?)

52 “Quae Cnidon fulgentesque tenet Cycladas et Paphon,” (The goddess who haunts Cnidos and the gleaming Cyclades and Paphos), Horace, Odes III. 28. 13. Ἐνοικέτις τῶν νήσων (Inhabitress of the isles), Suidas.

53 Remarkably enough some would derive the name Bordeaux (Bordel) from the French bord and eau, because the houses of ill-fame were almost always to be found on the bank of the river or in bagnios! Parent-Duchatelet, “Die Sittenverderbniss in der Stadt Paris,” (The Corruption of Morals in the City of Paris), Vol. I. p. 125.

54 Strabo, XIV. 683.

55 Suidas, under expression κυλλοῦ πήραν (cripple’s wallet) quotes that here—at Pera,—was a Fountain which made fruitful and facilitated delivery.

56 According to Athenaeus, Deipnosoph., XII. p. 647., at the Feast of the Thesmophoria at Syracuse μυλλοί, representations of the female genital organs, moulded of sesame and honey, were carried about. This calls to remembrance the Juni of the Indians and the Phallus images.

57 Bk. XIV. p. 657.

58 Bk. II. ch. 27.

59 “Ideen zur Kunst-Mythologie,” (Ideas towards a Study of the Mythology of Art). Dresden 1826. large 8vo. p. 207.

60 Coveel, “De Sacerdotio Veterum Virginum.” (On the office of Priestess as filled by Virgins in Antiquity). Abo 1704. 8vo.—Hirt, A., “Die Hierodulen, mit Beilagen von Böckh und Buttmann,” (The Hieroduli, with Supplements by Böckh and Buttmann). I Pt. Berlin 1818. large 8vo.—Kreuser, J., “Der Hellenen Priesterstaat, mit vorzüglicher Rücksicht auf die Hierodulen,” (Priestly Institutions of the Hellenes, with particular reference to the Hieroduli). Mayence 1822. 8vo.—Adrian, “Die Priesterinnen der Griechen,” (The Priestesses of the Greeks). Frankfort-on-the-Main 1822. 8vo.—Schinke, in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encyclopaedie, II. Sect. 8 Pt. p. 50.

61 Strabo, Bk. XII. p. 557.

62 Strabo, Bk. XII. p. 559.—Heyne, Ch. G. “Comment. de Sacerdotio Comanensi de Religionum cis et trans Taurum consensione,” (Commentaries on the Priesthood of Comana, and generally on the Similarity of Religions on the nearer and farther side of the Taurus range), Comment. Soc. Reg. Götting. Vol. XVI. pp. 101-149.

63 Strabo, bk. VIII p. 378., Τό τε τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἱερὸν οὕτω πλούσιον ὑπῆρξεν, ὥστε πλείους ἢ χιλίας ἱεροδούλους ἐκέκτητο ἑταίρας, ἃς ἀνετίθεσαν τῇ θεῷ καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες· Καὶ διὰ ταύτας οὖν ἐπολυοχλεῖτο ἡ πόγις καὶ ἐπλουτίζετο. οἱ γὰρ ναύκληροι ῥᾳδίως ἐξανηλίκοντο, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἡ παροιμία φησίν, Οὐ παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐς Κόρινθον ἔσθ’ ὁ πλοῦς. (And the temple of Aphrodité was so rich that it possessed more than a thousand Hetaerae attached to its service as Hieroduli, whom both men and women dedicated to the goddess. And so for this reason the city was frequented by multitudes and grew wealthy; for shipmasters used readily to visit the port, and on this account says the proverb: It does not fall to every man to sail to Corinth.) Comp. the Commentators on Horace, Epist. I. 17. 36. Alexander ab Alexandro, Genial. dier. lib., VI. ch. 26., Corinthi supra mille prostitutae in templo Veneris assiduae degere et inflammata libidine quaestui meretricio operam dare et velut sacrorum ministrae Deae famulari solebant. (At Corinth more, than a thousand prostitutes were wont to live always in the temple of Venus and with lust ever a flame to give their lives to the gains of harlotry and to serve the goddess as handmaidens of her rites).

64 Solinus, Polyhist. ch. 2. Festus, F., under word Frutinal (an Etruscan name of Venus).—Micali, “L’Italia avanti il Dominio dei Romani,” (Italy before the Dominion of the Romans). II. p. 47.—Heyne on Virgil, Aeneid bk. V. Excursus 2.—Bamberger, “Uber die Entstehung des Mythus von Aeneas Ankunft zu Latinum,” (On the Origin of the Myth of Aeneas’ Coming to Latium), in Welcker and Näke’s Rhein. Museum für Phil., VI. 1. 1838. pp. 82-105.

65 Servius, on Virgil, Aeneid bk. I. 720.—Julius Capitolinus, Vita Maximin. ch. 7. Baldness was in Antiquity, and particularly at Rome, as it is still, frequently one of the sequelae of sexual excesses.

66 Richard Payne Knight, An account of the Remains of the Worship of Priapus, lately existing at Isernia, in the kingdom of Naples: in two Letters,—one from Sir William Hamilton to Sir Joseph Banks, and the other from a Person residing at Isernia. To which is added a discourse on the worship of Priapus and its connexion with the mystic Theology of the Ancients. London (published by T. Spilsburg) 1786. pp. 195. 4to., with 18 Copperplates. Comp. with regard to this rare work C. A. Böttiger in Amalthea, vol. 3. pp. 408-418., and Choulant in Hecker’s Annalen, Vol. XXXIII (1836). pp. 414-418.—J. A. Dulaure, “Les Divinités génératrices, ou sur le Culte du Phallus,” (Divinities of generation, or on Phallic worship). Paris 1805., a work which to our regret we have been unable to make use of.

67 Hence in Orpheus, Hym. V. 9., the Protogonos (First-born) i. e. Eros, is called Πρίηπος ἄναξ (King Priapus).

68 “Voyage aux Indes et à la Chine,” (Journey to the Indies and China), Vol. I.—Schaufus, “Neueste Entdeckungen über das Vaterland und die Verbreitung der Pocken und der Lustseuche,” (Latest Discoveries as to the Original Home and Dissemination of the Pox and Venereal Disease). Leipzig 1805., pp. 31 sqq., from which we give the quotation that follows in the text.

69 The beggars or Fakirs in India wander about the country in thousands, almost uncovered, (Augustine, De Civit. Dei, chs. 14, 17.) and excessively dirty (Havus “Historicae Relatio de Regno et Statu magni Regis Magor,” (Historical Account of the Reign and State of the great King Magor). Antwerp 1605. p. 1695); after their visits unfruitful wives especially become fruitful (δύνασθαι δὲ καὶ πολυγόνους ποιεῖν καὶ ἀῤῥενογόνους διὰ φαρμακευτικῆς,—and they can make even the barren have many children by means of their drugs,—Strabo says, Bk. II.). The people bestir themselves to do them every honour and the men quit their villages, so as to leave the monks a free hand. Papi, “Briefe über Indien,” (Letters on India), p. 217.—P. von Bohlen, “Das alte Indien,” (Ancient India), Königsberg 1830. Vol. I. p. 282.

70 Strabo and Arrian, Indic. 17., already in their time state, at any rate of the nobler Indian women, that they could have been allured to profligacy at no price, except at that of an elephant. According to von Bohlen (“Das alte Indien,”—Ancient India, Vol. II. p. 17, Vol. I. p. 275.) it would seem that not the slightest trace (?) can be found of the immoral life of the Indian priests in Antiquity, on the contrary that chastity was the first thing needful to gain them respect and honour, and their whole literature is never ready to extol a priest or hero more highly than when he has withstood the enticements to unchastity. Hence what is asserted of the Devâdasis or Priestesses of the gods as being courtesans for the Priests is also in the main untrue, since it rests, as in the case of the Hieroduli, chiefly on a confusion with the Bhayatri (Bayaderes, the Hetaerae of the Greeks), or holds good only for particular places (Häfner, “Landreise längs der Küste Orixa und Koromandel,”—(Journey along the Orissa and Coromandel Coast). Weimar 1809. Vol. I. pp. 80 sqq.—Papi, “Briefe über Indien,” (Letters about India), p. 356.—Wallace, “Denkwürdigkeiten,” (Memorabilities), p. 301.)—In this connection should be mentioned also the narrative of the Jesuit—in other respects suspicious—in the edifying letters addressed to Schaufus, ch. I. p. 40, that during his residence in a Hindoo town he had been informed, that it would be unsafe at the present moment to allow foreigners to visit the Devadâsis, on the contrary that there was nothing to fear from those attached to the Pagoda of the place. Even if we admit the truth of this narrative for more modern times too, still the conclusion that Schaufus draws from it, that in Hindostan every Pagoda is a brothel, is surely somewhat hasty.—Some other legends of the origin of the Lingam ritual in India are given in Meiner’s “Allgem. kritische Geschichte der Religionen,” (Universal Critical History of Religions), Vol. I. P. 254.

71 Anquetil, Voyage, p. 139., “Le Lingam, c’est à-dire, les parties naturelles de l’homme réunies à celles de la femme,” (The Lingam, that is to say, the natural parts of the man joined to those of the woman). Comp. Roger, “Neu eröffnetes Indisches Heidenthum,” (Paganism of India newly Revealed). Nürnberg 1863. 8vo., II. 2.

72 “De Morbi Venerei Curatione in India usitata,” (On the Mode of Curing the Venereal Disease practised in the East Indies). Copenhagen 1795. Comp. Tode, Med. Journal Vol. II. Pt. 2. Unfortunately we have been able to obtain a sight neither of Klein’s Treatise nor of Tode.

73 Strabo, Geogr. pp. 1027, 1037. μηδὲ γὰρ νόσους εἶναι πολλὰς διὰ τὴν λιτότητα τῆς διαίτης καὶ τὴν ἀοινίαν. (nor yet are their diseases many, owing to their plainness of living and abstinence from wine). Comp. Ctesias, Indic. 15. Lucian, Macrob. ch. 4. Diodorus Siculus, Bk. II. ch. 40. Pliny, Histor. Nat. Bk. XVII. ch. 2.

74 Sprengel’s “Neue Beiträge zur Völkerkunde,” (New Contributions to Ethnology), Bk. VII. p. 76.

75 In this connection may be cited the view which Clement of Alexandria, Ad Gentes p. 10., expresses as to the origin of Aphrodité: Ἡ μὲν ἀφρογενής τε καὶ κυπρογενὴς, ἡ Κινύρᾳ φίλη, τὴν Ἀφροδίτην λέγω, τὴν φιλομηδέα, ὅτι μηδέων ἐξεφαάνθη, μηδέων ἐκείνων τῶν ἀποκεκομμένων Οὐρανοῦ, τῶν λάγνων, τῶν μετὰ τὴν τομὴν τὸ κῦμα βεβιασμένων· ὡς ἀσελγῶν ὑμῖν μορίων ἄξιος Ἀφροδίτη γίνεται καρπὸς ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς. (Now the foam-sprung, Cyprus-born goddess, the patroness of Cinyras, Aphrodité I mean, she that loves the parts of a man, because from them she sprung, to wit those parts that were lopped off from Uranus, those lewd parts which after their severance violated the sea-wave. Of such foul components is Aphrodité the worthy child in the mysteries).

76 Minutoli, “Reise zum Tempel des Jupiter Ammon,” (Journey to the Temple of Jupiter Ammon), p. 121.—Münter, “Religion der Babylonier,” (Religion of the Babylonians), p. 130.

77 Bk. II. ch. 48. “Description de l’Egypte” II. p. 411.—Wyttenbach, on Plutarch, Isid. p. 186.

78 Histories bk. II. ch. 64. Καὶ τὸ μὴ μίσγεσθαι γυναιξὶ ἐν ἱροῖσι, μηδὲ ἀλούτους ἀπὸ γυναικῶν ἐς ἱρὰ ἐσιέναι, οὗτοί εἰσι οἱ πρῶτοι θρησκεύσαντες· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι σχεδὸν πάντες ἄνθρωποι, πλὴν Αἰγυπτίων καὶ Ἑλλήνων, μίσγονται ἐν ἱροῖσι· καὶ ἀπὸ γυναικῶν ἀνιστάμενοι, ἄλουτοι ἐσέρχονται ἐς ἱρόν. (And the practice of not having intercourse with women in temples, and not going into temples unwashed after such intercourse, these practices they were the first to observe as a matter of religion; for almost all the rest of mankind, except Egyptians and Greeks, have sexual intercourse in temples). Comp. also Clement of Alexandria, Stromat. Bk. I. p. 361.

79 Geogr. Bk. XVII, ch. 46. Τῷ δὲ Διΐ, ὃν μάλιστα τιμῶσιν, εὐειδεστάτη καὶ γένους λαμπροτάτου παρθένος ἱερᾶται, ἃς καλοῦσι οἱ Ἕλληνες Παλλάδας· αὕτη δὲ καὶ παλλακεύει, καὶ σύνεστιν οἷς βούλεται, μέχρις ἂν ἡ φυσικὴ γένηται τοῦ σώματος κάθαρσις· μετὰ δὲ τὴν κάθαρσιν δίδοται πρὸς ἄνδρας. (And to Zeus, whom they reverence most, a maiden, most beautiful and of highest lineage, is consecrated, and these priestesses the Greeks call Pallades. And she acts as a courtesan, and lies with whom she pleases, until the natural purging (menstruation) of the body begins. And after this she is given in marriage). So here we find brought into connection with the Zeus of the Egyptians the same practice we observed amongst Asiatics in the Venus cult.

80 According to Herodotus, bk. II. 51., the Greeks borrowed the Phallic ritual under the form of the Hermae (pillars of Hermes) from the Pelasgians, by which name according to Böttiger, “Kunstmythologie,” (Mythology of Art), p. 213, Phoenicians should be understood. Comp. Cicero, De Nat. Deorum bk. III. ch. 22., and Creuzer’s note on the passage.

81 “Mythologiae, sive Explicationis Fabularum Libri X,” (Mythology, or the Explanation of Legendary Tales, in X Books). Frankfort 1588. 8vo. pp. 498. The Author borrowed this legend according to p. 487 from Perimander, “De Sacrificiorum Ritibus apud Varias Gentes,” (On the Rites of Sacrifice amongst Various Nations), bk. II. But it is also found in the Scholiast to Aristophanes, Acharn. 1. 242: ὁ Ξανθίας τὸν φαλλὸν.—περὶ δὲ αὐτοῦ τοῦ φαλλοῦ τοιαῦτα λέγεται. Πήγασος ἐκ τῶν Ἐλευθήρων λαβὼν τοῦ Διονύσου τὰ ἀγάλματα ἧκεν εἰς τὴν Ἀττικήν· οἱ δὲ Ἀττικοὶ οὐκ ἐδέξαντο μετὰ τιμῆς τὸν θεόν· ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀμισθί γε αὐτοῖς ταῦτα βουλευσαμένοις ἀπέβη. μηνίσαντος γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ, νόσος κατέσκηψεν εἰς τὰ αἰδοῖα τῶν ἀνδρῶν, καὶ τὸ δεινὸν ἀνήκεστον ἦν, ὡς δὲ ἀπεῖπον πρὸς τὴν νόσον κρείττω γενομένην πάσης μαγγανείας καὶ τέχνης, ἀπεστάλησαν θεωροὶ μετὰ σπουδῆς· οἱ δὲ ἐπανελθόντες ἔφασαν ἴασιν εἶναι μόνην ταύτην, εἰ διὰ πάσης τιμῆς ἄγοιεν τὸν θεόν· πεισθέντες οὖν τοῖς ἠγγελμένοις οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, φαλλοὺς ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ δημοσίᾳ κατεσκεύασαν, καὶ τούτοις ἐγέραιρον τὸν θεόν, ὑπόμνημα ποιούμενοι πάθους. (Xanthias mentions the Phallus.—Now about the Phallus itself the following story is told. Pegasus removed the statues of Dionysus at Eleutherae from there, and came to Athens with them. However the Athenians did not receive the god with due honour. But for this ill counsel they by no means got off scot-free; for the god was wroth, and a disease fell upon the private parts of the men. The plague was incurable; and after they had tried in vain every device of magic art and physician’s skill against the disease that only grew the more, envoys were despatched with all speed to the oracle. So these went up, and brought back the reply that the only remedy was this, that they should bring in the god in procession with all possible honour. Therefore the Athenians, submitting themselves to what was reported as the will of heaven, made phalli—private and public, and presented them to the god as a complimentary gift, thus commemorating the affliction). A different explanation from this is given by the Scholiast to Lucian, “De Syra dea,” (Of the Syrian goddess), ch. 16., where the Phallus service is brought in a measure into connection with Paederastia.

82 Comp. Pausanias, Descriptio Graeciae bk. I. ch. 2.

83 I. ch. p. 528.; perhaps following Posidonius, “De heroibus et daemonibus,” (Of heroes and demigods)? comp. p. 391. But Servius on Virgil, Georgics IV. 111., also has this legend. Suidas, under the word πρίαπος. Scioppius, who likewise relates it in his edition of the Priapeia, adds: fuit autem morbus ille quem hodie Gallicum vocamus, (but it was the disease which we nowadays call the French disease—Siphylis).

84 Diodorus Siculus, Bk. IV. ch. 4., says of Bacchus: He had a tender body and was extremely effeminate; his beauty distinguished him above all others, and his temper was strongly inclined to voluptuousness. On his progresses he used to take with him a crowd of women, etc. Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. Bk. II. ch. 2., Ὀργῶσι γοῦν ἀναιδέστερον ἀναξέοντες οἴνου, καὶ οἰδοῦσι μαστοί τε καὶ μόρια, προκηρύσσοντες ἤδη πορνείας εἰκόνα. (So they revel shamelessly being full of wine, and breasts and members swell, showing forth already an image of harlotry). Sufficiently noteworthy is the following passage from Augustine, De Civit. Dei bk. VI. ch. 4., Liberum a liberamento appellatum volunt, quod mares a coeundo per eius beneficium emissis seminibus liberentur; hoc idem in feminis agere Liberam quam etiam Venerem putant, quod et ipsas perhibeant semina emittere et ob hoc Libero eamdem virilis corporis partem in templo poni, femineam Liberae. (The name of Liber (Bacchus) they derive from liberamentum, the act of freeing, because males in the act of coition are freed by his aid when the seed is emitted; the same function they consider Libera, who is identified with Venus, to perform for women, because they say that women also emit seed, and that for this reason that same part of the male body is consecrated to Liber in his temple, and the corresponding female part to Libera).

85 Juno was not merely the Patron goddess of the birth-hour, but also of fornication. Comp. Dousa, Praecidan. pro Tibullo, ch. 18.—Politian, Miscell. ch. 89. Hence also “filles de joies” used to swear by Juno, as we see from Tibullus, Bk. III. Eleg. 4.,

Esto perque suos fallax iuravit ocellos,

Junonemque suam, perque suam Venerem,

(Be it so, she said, and the deceiver sware it by her own eyes, and by Juno and by Venus, her patron goddesses). Bk. IV. Eleg. 18.,

Haec per sancta tuae Junonis nomina iuro,

Quae sola ante alios est mihi magna Deos.

(This by the holy divinity of Juno, thy goddess, I swear, who alone before other deities is great in my eyes); and also from Petronius, who (Satir. ch. 25.) makes a “fille de joie” declare: Junonem meam iratam habeam, si unquam meminerim virginem fuisse (Juno my patron goddess be wroth with me, if ever I remember to have been a maid). According to Lucian, De Syra Dea ch. 16., Bacchus dedicated to Juno noverca (stepmother) divers Phalli.

86 The Greeks used to make little figures of men with big genitals of wood, which they called Νευρόσπαστα (figures moved by strings, puppets). Lucian, De Syra Dea ch. 16. Herodotus, II. 48. Diodorus, I. 88.—Hesychius says: νάνος· ἐπὶ τῶν μικρῶν· ὡς νάνον καὶ αἰδοῖον ἔχοντα μέγα· οἱ γοῦν νάνοι μεγάλα ἔχουσιν αἰδοῖα, (dwarf: applied to the undersized; dwarf, but having large private parts. Dwarfs do have large private parts). Which reminds us of the unhappy “cretins” with monstrous generative organs, who are notoriously passionate Onanists (Masturbators) also.

87 “Priapeia, sive diversorum poetarum in Priapum lusus, illustrati commentariis Casp. Scioppii, Franci; L. Apuleji Madaurensis Ἀνεχόμενος ab eodem illustratus. Heraclii imperatoris, Sophoclis Sophistae, C. Antonii, Q. Sorani et Cleopatrae reginae epistolae de prodigiosa Cleopatrae reginae libidine. Huic editioni accedunt Jos. Scaligeri in Priapeia Commentarii ac Friderici Linden-Bruch. Patavii 1664. 8. pag. 45. carmen XXXVII,” (Priapeia, or Verses of Various Poets to Priapus, illustrated by commentaries of Caspar Scioppius, a Frenchman; also Lucius Apuleius, of Madaura, his Ἀνεχόμενος, illustrated by the same Scholar. Letters of the Emperor Heraclius, Sophocles the Sophist, Caius Ausonius, Quintus Soranus and Queen Cleopatra, concerning the extravagant and wanton voluptuousness of the said Queen. To this edition are appended the Commentaries of Joseph Scaliger and of Fridericus Linden-Bruch to the Priapeia. Padua 1664. 8vo., p. 45. Ode XXXVII).

88 Similarly we read in the distich Antipater, Antholog. Graec. bk. II. Tit. 5. No. 3.:

Ἑστηκὸς τὸ Κίμωνος ἰδὼν πέος, εἶφ’ ὁ Πρίηπος,

Οἴμοι, ὑπὸ θνητοῦ λείπομαι ἀθάνατος.

(When Priapus saw Cimon’s penis standing stiff, he said, “Woe’s me!” I am thrown in the shade by a mortal, immortal though I be).

89 In the Codex Coburgensis the Priapeia begin with the following words: P. Virgilii Maronis Mantuani poetae clarissimi Priapi carmen incipit feliciter, (the Song of Priapus by Publius Virgilius Maro, of Mantua, the renowned poet, begins happily). Comp. Bruckhusius Notes to Tibullus bk. IV. Eleg. 14. At any rate the majority of the poems belong to the golden age of Roman literature. For readers of the old poets it may perhaps not be out of place here to remark that Priapus as Cultor Hortorum (Patron of Gardens) is not unfrequently mentioned with an equivocal meaning, if indeed he has not come into the garden entirely through misunderstanding. So we read in Priapeia, Ode 4.,

Quod metis hortus habet, sumas impune licebit;

Si dederis nobis, quod tuus hortus habet,

(What my garden has thou mayest take at will, if only thou give to us what thine possesses) and in the “Anechomenos” of Apuleius.

Thyrsumque pangant hortulo in Cupidinis,

(Let them plant the thyrsus (Bacchic staff) in the garden-plat of Cupid). Similarly Lucretius, Bk. IV. 1100., says, ut muliebria conserat arva, (to sow the woman’s seed-fields), and Virgil, Georgics III. 136., speaks of, genitali arvo, (the seed-field of generation). Possibly in this direction may be found a better interpretation of the, irriguo nihil est elutius horto, (There is nought more insipid than a new-watered garden), of Horace, Satires Bk. II. 4. 16. The Greeks used in the same way their word κῆπος (garden), e. g. Diogenes Laertius, II. 12, and Hesychius explains it by τὸ ἐφήβιον γυναικεῖον (the female organ of puberty). Similarly in Aristophanes καλὸν ἔχουσα τὸ πεδίον, (having the plain beautiful). The Koran also says, Thy Wife is thy field!

90 “Apologie pour Herodote,” (Defence of Herodotus), II., 253.

91 Strabo, bk. XIII. 588.

92 Lucian, De Dea Syra, § 28., relates that at Hieropolis there was a Phallus 180 or 1800 feet in size.

93 Creuzer, Symbolik, Bk. II. p. 85.—de Wette, Archäologie, § 233 k.—Wiener, Biblisches Realwörterbuch. 2nd. ed. Leipzig 1833., Vol. I. p. 139. Article, Baal; and p. 260. Article, Chamos.

94 Numbers, Ch. 23. v. 28. Deuteronomy, Ch. 4, v. 46.

95 Jonathan, on Numbers Ch. 25. v. I. Might one draw attention to the old Greek πέος (the penis), which is found in Aristophanes and Antipater,—p. 72. Note 2. loco citato? The adjective πεοίδης (πεώδης) is given in Eustathius according to Schneider, in the sense: with thick, swollen member; and Rodigin, Lect. Antiq. Bk. VIII. ch. 6. p. 377, says: Postremo qui ex intemperanti Veneris usu pereunt, dicuntur Peolae, media producta, quia Peos signet pudendum, sive veretrum, (Lastly those who are undone by excessive indulgence in Love are called Peolae, with the middle vowel long, because Peos means the private, or privy, member. Possibly the old form was πέορ, just as sometimes πόϊρ stands for πάϊς in the Laconian dialect. Moreover Penis might surely more readily be derived from πέος than from what is commonly given as its derivation, pendendo (because it hangs), in as much as the parts of the body are named from the condition of their activity, not of their rest. Thus Baal-Peor would be “Lord of the Penis”! ἄναξ Πρίηπος (King Priapus).

96 Lintschotten, “Orientalische Reisen,” (Eastern Travels), Pt I. ch. 33.—Beyer on Seldens, Syntagm. de Diis Syris, p. 235. perhaps the Greeks called the penis also κτείς on this account,—κτεὶς from κτέω, I cleave!

97 Gynaeologie, Vol. II. p. 337. The worship of the Lingam is reported among the Druses by Buckingham, “Travels among the Arab Tribes inhabiting the Countries east of Syria and Palestine, etc.” London 1825. p. 394. On the worship of Gopalsami, a god of a similar character to Priapus worshipped in the neighbourhood of Jagrenat, and the licentious representations customary at his festival, even including representations of unnatural lusts, compare Hamilton, “A New Account of the East Indies.” Edinburgh 1727. 8vo. pp. 378 sqq.—Moore, C., “Narrative of the Operations of Capt. Little’s Detachment, and of the Mahratta Army.” London 1794. 4to., p. 45.—There were similar representations in several temples of Mexico. Kircher, Oedipus Aegypt., I. sect. 5. p. 422.—J. de Laet, “Beschryvinge van West-Indien,” (Descriptions of the West Indies). Leyden 1630. fol., Bk. VI. ch. 5. p. 284.

98 “Diss. exhibens novum ad historiam luis venereae additamentum,” (Dissertation containing New Material towards a History of the Venereal Disease). Jena 1797. 32mo., p. 8.

99 The quotations from the Bible are given by Dr. Rosenbaum according to the German translation of de Wette, “Die Heilige Schrift, übersetzt von Dr. de Wette,” (The Holy Scriptures, translated by Dr. de Wett, 2nd. edition. Heidelberg 1835. large 8vo.

100 “Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.” St. Paul, 1st. Epistle to Corinthians, Ch. 10. v. 8. μέμνησθε γὰρ τὰς τέσσαρας καὶ εἴκοσι χιλιάδας δὶα πορνείαν ἀπωσμένας, (for remember the four and twenty thousand that were rejected for fornication).

101 Antiquitat. Judaeor. Bk. V. ch. 1.

102 Ch. 2. v. 14. Comp. Areth. Commentar. in Apocalips. ch. 2. Isidor. Pel. bk. III. ep. 150. Suidas under word προφητεία, (prophecy).

103 “Vita Mosis,” (Life of Moses), Works Vol. II. p. 217.

104 Factis per mulierum obscenam libidinem et protervam petulantiam quae corpora consuescentium stupro debilitarent, animosque impietate profligarent. ibid. p. 129. (Practices that originating in the foul lustfulness and provocative wantonness of the women weakened the bodies of those consorting with them, and leading them into impiety destroyed their minds).

105 Antiquit. Judaic. bk. IV. ch. 6. §§ 6-13.

106 Ἀπόλλυνται μὲν οὖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς τούτων ἀνδραγαθίας πολλοὶ τῶν παρανομησάντων, ἐφθάρησαν δὲ πάντες καὶ λοιμῷ, ταύτην ἐνσκήψαντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν νόσον· ὅσοι τε συγγενεῖς ὄντες, κωλύειν δέον, ἐξώτρυνον αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ταῦτα, συναδικεῖν τῷ Θεῷ δοκοῦντες, ἀπέθνησκον.

107 Yet this would appear to have been no serious loss, for the disease was quite able indeed to weaken the power of the Jews, but not to actually destroy it. So Balaam says in Josephus (loco cit. § 6.): Hebraeorum quidem genus nunquam funditus peribit, nec bello, nec peste, nec inopia terrae fructuum, nec alio casu inopinato delebitur.—In mala autem nonnulla et calamitates ad breve tempus incident; a quibus licet deprimi humique affligi videantur, postea tamen reflorescent, cum eos timere coeperint qui damna illis intulerant. (The nation of the Hebrews in fact will never utterly perish, and can be destroyed neither by war, nor plague, nor famine of the fruits of the earth, nor any other unlooked for disaster.—They will fall however for a brief space into sundry ills and calamities; whereby they may well seem to be broken down and brought to the earth. But they will flourish again, when once they have learned to fear the enemies that brought the disasters upon them). It was in order to bring about this consummation that Balaam gave his advice just cited.

108 In fact Moses gives direct permission to captives to wed. Deuteronomy 21. vv. 11-13., “... and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, ... after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.” Comp. besides Ruth, Ch. 1. v. 4., Ch. 4. v. 13.—1 Chronicles, Ch. 2. v. 17.—1 Kings, Ch. 3. v. 1., Ch. 14. v. 21. Only after the exile was matrimonial connection with foreigners forbidden. Ezra, Ch. 9. v. 2., Ch. 10. v. 3. Nehemiah, Ch. 13. v. 23. Josephus, Antiq. Jud., XI. 8. 2., XII. 4. 6., XVIII. 9. 5.

109 Vita Mosis, (Life of Moses), Bk. I., Works Vol. II. p. 130.

110 Ch. 5. v. 5., “... but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, they had not circumcised.”.

111 J. Laurentius, “De adulteriis et meretricibus Tractatus,” (Treatise on Adultery and Courtesans), in Gronovius’ Thesaurus Antiq. Graecor. Vol. VIII. pp. 1403-16.—G. Franck de Franckenau, “Disp. qua lupanaria sub verbo Hurenhäuser ex principiis quoque medicis improbantur,” (Disputation wherein Brothels (under the name “Hurenhäuser”—brothels) are condemned on medical as well as other grounds), Heidelberg 1674. 4to., in the author’s Satirae Medicae, (Medical Satires), pp. 528-549.—J. A. Freudenberg (C. G. Flittner) “Ueber Staats- und Privatbordelle, Kuppelei und Concubinat, in moralisch-politischer Hinsicht, nebst einem Anhange über die Organisirung der Bordelle der alten und neuen Zeiten,” (On Public and Private Brothels, Procuration and Concubinage, in their moral and political Aspects; together with an Appendix on the Organization of Brothels in Ancient and Modern Times), Berlin 1796. 8vo. We have not been in a position to make use of this book.

112 Michaelis, “Mosaisches Recht,” (Mosaic Law), Pt. V. p. 304. From 1 Kings Ch. 3. v. 16. it might indeed be gathered that such establishments were in existence; but strictly speaking the passage proves only that two women of this character dwelt in a particular house. Comp. Philo, De special. legg. (Works ed. Mangey, Vol. II. p. 308.). The maidens’ chambers that according to 2 Kings, Ch. 17. v. 30. were set up in the precincts of the Temple at Jerusalem were cells with figures of Astarté, in which the Jewish maidens offered themselves to the goddess, and so in fact though not in name brothels.

113 Proverbs, Ch. 7. vv. 6-27. Compare Genesis, Ch. 38. v. 14.—Ezekiel, Ch. 25.

114 Leviticus, Ch. 19. v. 19.—Deuteronomy, Ch. 23. v. 17.; this latter passage Beer (loco citato) would fain utilise to free the Jews from the suspicion of having disseminated the Venereal disease in the XVth. Century. Spencer, “De Legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus,” (On the ritual laws of the Jews), p. 563., however showed at once that the prohibition strictly speaking only went so far as to forbid that harlotry should be practised for the honour of God, as among other Asiatic peoples; and explains the first passage in this sense, that the Jews must not, as had happened, dedicate their daughters to the service of Mylitta.

115 Richter, XVI. 1.—1 Kings, Ch. 3. 16.—Proverbs, Ch. 2. 16., Ch. 5. 3., Ch. 7. 10., Ch. 23. 27.—Amos, Ch. 2. 7., Ch. 7. 17.—Baruch, Ch. 6. 43. Comp. Grotius, “Ad Matthaei Evangelium,” (Commentary on St. Matthew), V. 3. 4.—Hartmann, “Die Hebräerin am Putztisch und als Braut,” (The Hebrew woman at the Toilette table and as Bride), Amsterdam 1809. Pt. II. pp. 493 sqq.

116 Deipnosoph., bk. XIII. p. 598. v. 65.

117 Philo, De special. legg., Works ed. Mangeyn, Vol. II. p. 301. Clement of Alexandria, Stromat. III. quotes from Xanthus: μίγνυντο δὲ, φήσιν, οἱ Μάγοι μητράσι, καὶ θυγατράσι, καὶ ἀδελφαῖς μίγνυσθαι θεμιτὸν εἶναι, (Now the Magi, he says, used to have intercourse with mothers, and held it lawful to do so with daughters and with sisters). Comp. the same author’s Recognit., bk. IX. ch. 20.—Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. hypot. bk. III. 24.—Origen, Contra Celsum, bk. V. p. 248.—Jerome, Contra Jovian. bk. II.—Cyril, Adv. Julian. bk. IV.—Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus 1375 and 452.

118 Euripides, Andromaché, 174.

τοιοῦτονῦτον πᾶν τὸ βάρβαρον γένος, πατήρ τε θυγατρὶ, παῖς τε μητρὶ, μίγνυται.

(Such is the habit of the whole barbarian race,—father has intercourse with daughter, and son with mother).

119 Osann, “De caelibum apud veteres populos conditione,” (On the Status of Bachelors among the Ancient Peoples), Commentat. I. Giessen 1827. 4to.

120 Demosthenes, Orat. in Neaeram, edit. Wolf, p. 534., τὰς μὲν γὰρ ἑταίρας ἡδονῆς ἕνεκ’ ἔχομεν, τὰς δὲ παλλακὰς τῆς καθ’ ἡμέραν θεραπείας τοῦ σώματος, τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας τοῦ παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως καὶ τῶν ἔνδον φύλακα πιστὴν ἔχειν. (for hetaerae—lady-companions—we keep for our pleasure, but concubines for the daily service of the person, and wives for the procreation of lawful children and to have a trusty guardian of household matters). The same sentence is quoted from Demosthenes by Athenaeus, Deipnos., bk. XIII. ch. 31., but with the difference that he says παλλακὰς τῆς καθ’ ἡμέραν παλλακείας (concubines for daily concubinage). Comp. Plutarch, Praecept. Coniugal., ch. 16. 29. It is true this purely moral view, as it was originally, of marriage, came in times subsequent to just the flourishing period of Greece to contrast so sharply with the rest of the Greeks, full and imaginative as it was, that it appears an exceedingly homely bit of prose, and one is led away to pass a not exactly favourable judgement as to the position of Greek married women and their level of culture. But is this quite fair?

121 Aristotle, Politics bk. IV. ch. 16., Viri autem cum alia muliere aut aliorum concubitus omnino indecorus et inhonestus habeatur, cum sit apelleturque maritus. Quod si quid tale tempore procreandis liberis praescriptio quispiam facere manifesto deprehendatur, ignominia scelere digna notetur. (But as to the connexion of a man with a woman who is not his wife or of a woman with a man who is not her husband, while such intercourse in whatever form or under whatever circumstances must be considered absolutely discreditable to one who bears the title of husband or wife, so especially any one who is detected in such action during the time reserved for the procreation of children should be punished with such civil degradation as is suitable to the magnitude of his crime).—Seneca, Controvers. bk. IV. Preface, says: Impudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, in servo necessitas, (Immodesty in a free-man is a vice, in a slave a necessity).

122 Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 374.

123 In the time of Xenarchus immorality with married women was particularly universal. Athenaeus, XIII. p. 569.

124 Athenaeus, Deipnosoph. bk. XIII. p. 569., καὶ Φιλήμων δ’ ἐν Ἀδελφοῖς προιστορῶν, ὅτι πρῶτος Σόλων, διὰ τὴν τῶν νέων ἀκμὴν, ἔστησεν ἐπὶ οἰκημάτων γύναια πριάμενος· καθὰ καὶ Νίκανδρος ὁ Κολοφώνιος ἱστορεῖ ἐν τρίτῳ Κολοφωνιακῶν, φάσκων αὐτὸν καὶ Πανδήμου Ἀφροδίτης ἱερὸν πρῶτον ἱδρύσασθαι ἀφ’ ὧν ἠργυρίσαντο αἱ προστᾶσαι τῶν οἰκημάτων· ἄλλ’ ὅ γε Φιλήμων οὕτως φησί·

Σὺ δ’ εἰς ἅπαντας εὗρες ἀνθρώπους, Σόλων, σὲ γὰρ λέγουσιν τοῦτ’ ἰδεῖν πρῶτον [βροτῶν]. δημοτικὸν, ὦ Ζεῦ, πρᾶγμα καὶ σωτήριον· μεστὴν ὁρῶντα τὴν πόλιν νεωτέρων, τούτους τ’ ἔχοντας τὴν αναγκαίαν φύσιν, ἁμαρτάνοντας τ’ εἰς ὃ μὴ προσῆκον ἦν, στῆσαι πριάμενον τότε γυναῖκας κατὰ τόπους κοινὰς ἅπασι καὶ κατεσκευασμένας. Ἐστᾶσι γυμναί· μὴ ’ξαπατηθῇς· πάνθ’ ὅρα· — — — — ἡ θύρα ’στ’ ἀνεῳγμένη. εἷς ὀβολός· εἰσπήδησον· οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐδὲ εἷς ἀκκισμὸς, οὐδὲ λῆρος, οὐδ’ ὑφήρπασεν. ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς ὡς βούλει σὺ χὣν βούλει τρόπον. Ἐξῆλθες ; οἰμώζειν λέγ’, ἀλλοτρία ’στί σοι.

(So too Philemon in his play the “Adelphi” relates that it was Solon who first on account of the vigorous desires of the young men bought and established public women in brothels. The same is related by Nicander of Colophon in the Third book of his Colophoniaca, who says that he (Solon) was the first to found a temple of the Pandemian Aphrodité, built from the gains of the women in charge of brothels. Philemon writes as follows “Well hast thou deserved of all men, Solon; for thou they say wert first to invent a thing both popular, by Zeus, and salutary. Seeing the city crowded full of young men, and these possessed of the natural appetites of manhood, and consequently offending in quarters unmeet, bought women and established them in certain places to be common to all and put there for that very purpose. There they are, standing all but naked; don’t be cheated; examine everything.... The door is open. One obol; in you go. There’s not an atom of coyness, no coquetry, no stealing off; but right away as you please and how you please. You have left the house? tell the girl go hang! she’s nothing to you.”)

Alexander ab Alexandro, Genial. Dier., bk. IV. ch. 1. Solon vero ut ab adulteriis cohiberetur inventus, coëmptas meretriculas Athenis prostituit primus, obviasque in venerem esse voluit, ne matronarum contagio polluerentur. (But Solon, in order that young men might be kept from adulterous connexions, was the first to buy women and set them up as harlots at Athens; and wished all to resort to them for the gratification of love, that they might not be polluted by intrigue with matrons). Comp. Meursius, “Solon, sive de eius vita, legibus, dictis atque scriptis,” (Solon—his Life, Laws, Words and Works). Copenhagen 1732. 4to., p. 98.

125 Onomast., bk. IX. ch. 5. 34., Τὰ δὲ περὶ τοὺς λιμένας μέρη, δεῖγμα, χῶμα, ἐμπόριον· — τοῦ δ’ ἐμπορίου μέρη, καπηλεῖα, καὶ πορνεῖα, ἃ καὶ οἰκήματα ἄν τις εἴποι. (And the parts of the city near the harbour, market, mole, exchange;—and parts of the exchange, inns and brothels or “houses” as one might say). Meursius, Peiraeeus, last chapter—From this low-lying situation of the brothels comes the expression ἐπ’ οἰκήματος καθῆσθαι (to live down in a “house”, e. g. in Plato, Charmides 163 c.—C. Ernesti on Xenophon, Memorab. Socrat., II. 2. 4.

126 s. v. Κεραμεικός· τόπος Ἀθήνῃ ἐστιν, ἔνθα αἱ πόρναι προεστήκεσαν· εἰσὶ δὲ δύο Κεραμεικοὶ, ὁ μὲν ἔξω τείχους, ὁ δὲ ἐντός. (Under the word “Ceramicus”: this is a place at Athens, where the Prostitutes plied their trade. There are two Ceramici, the Ceramicus without, and the Ceramicus within, the walls). Comp. Meursius, Graecia feriata (Holiday Greece), p. 186.

127 Pollux, Onomast. bk. IV. ch. 5. 48., Καὶ ταῦτα δὲ, εἰ καὶ αἰσχίω, μέρη πόλεως, ἀσωτεῖα, πεττεῖα, κυβεῖα, κυβευτήρια, σκιραφεῖα, ματρυλεῖα, ἀγωγεῖα, προαγωγεῖα. (And these also are parts of the city, though somewhat disreputable ones, the profligates’ quarter, the gamesters’ quarter, the dicers’ quarter, the quarter of dicing-houses, of gaming-houses, of bawdy houses and of pimps’ establishments).

128 Philostratus, Epist., 23., πάντα με αἵρει τὰ σὰ, τὸ καπηλεῖον ὡς Ἀφροδίσιον. (Everything about you draws me, like the tavern, home of love).

129 In the better times of Athens this never occurred. The women were kept far too closely shut up; and their moral behaviour was subject to the supervision of the γυναικονόμοι (Commissioners for the oversight of Women). Meursius, Lect. Attic. II. 5.—Reiske, Index Graec. in Demosthen. p. 66. A regulation which existed even among the self-indulgent Sybarites. Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XII. p. 521. Later it was poverty especially that drove free Greek women to take up the calling of prostitute. Demosthenes, In Neaeram p. 533., παντελῶς ἤδη ἡ μὲν τῶν πορνῶν ἐργασία ἥξει εἰς τὰς τῶν πολιτίδων θυγατέρας δι’ ἀπορίαν, ὅσαι ἂν μὴ δύνωνται ἐκδοθῆναι. (Completely after a while will the trade of prostitutes come to be the occupation of the daughters of our fellow-citizenesses through poverty, that will force all to it who cannot get a dower).

130 Lysias, Orat. I. in Theomnestum.

131 Suidas, διάγραμμα· τὸ μίσθωμα· διέγραφον δὲ οἱ ἀγορανόμοι, ὅσον ἔδει λαμβάνειν τὴν ἑταίραν ἑκάστην—μίσθωμα· ὁ μισθὸς ὁ ἑταιρικὸς. (“Scale”: the fee; for the Market-Commissioners fixed the scale, how much each hetaera was to receive.—“fee”: the pay of a hetaera).

132 Hesychius, s. v. τριαντοπόρνη· λαμβάνουσα τριᾶντα, ὅ ἐστι λεπτὰ ἓν εἴκοσι. (under the word τριαντοπόρνη: girl who receives a trias, which is twenty one lepta).

133 Suidas, s. v. χαλκιδῖτις. παρὰ Ἰωσήπῳ ἡ πόρνη, ἀπὸ τῆς εὐτελείας τοῦ διδομένου νομίσματος. (under the word χαλκιδῖτις: in Josephus = prostitute, from the smallness of the coin given.—Eustathius, on Homer, II. bk. XXIII., p. 1329., Od. bk. X., p. 777.

134 Aristophanes, Thesmoph. 1207., δώσεις οὖν δραχμήν. (you will give a drachma then).

135 Pollux, Onomast. IX. 59., οὔ φησιν εἶναι τῶν ἑταιρῶν τὰς μέσας Στατηριαίας. (he denies that of the hetaerae the middling ones were the Stater-girls).

136 Athenaeus, XII. p. 547., states it of the Peripatetic philosopher Lycon: καὶ πόσον ἑκάστη τῶν ἑταιρουσῶν ἐπράττετο μίσθωμα, (and how much pay each of the hetaerae-girls charged).

137 Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XIII. chs. 44, 45.

138 Horace, Epist. I. 17. 36.—Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic. bk. I. ch. 8. Comp. above p. 63. note 1.

139 Aeschines, Orat. in Timarch. p. 134. ed. Reisk., Ἀποθαυμάζει γὰρ, εἰ μὴ πάντες μέμνησθ’, ὅτι καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν ἡ βουλὴ πωλεῖ τὸ πορνικὸν τέλος· καὶ τοὺς πριαμένους τὸ τέλος τοῦτο οὐκ εἰκάζειν, ἀλλ’ ἀκριβῶς εἰδέναι τοὺς ταύτῃ χρωμένους τῇ ἐργασίᾳ· ὁπότε οὖν δὴ τετόλμηκα ἀντιγράψασθαι, πεπορνευμένῳ Τιμάρχῳ μὴ ἐξεῖναι δημηγορεῖν, ἀπαιτεῖν φησὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτὴν οὐκ αἰτίαν κατηγόρου, ἀλλὰ μαρτυρίαν τελώνου τοῦ παρὰ Τιμάρχου τοῦτο ἐκλέξαντος τὸ τέλος· ἀλλὰ τοὺς τόπους ἐπερωτήσει ὅπου ἐκαθέζετο, καὶ τοὺς τελώνας, εἰ πώποτε παρ’ αὐτοῦ πορνικὸν τέλος εἰλήφασιν. (He expresses extreme surprise, though possibly you don’t all remember, at the fact that every year the senate sells the lease of the prostitution-tax; and that the purchasers do not conjecture, but know precisely, those who practise this calling. So when I have the audacity to counter-plead, that Timarchus as having exercised the trade of prostitution is not competent to address the people, he does not deny the fact charged against his client by the accuser, but says, ‘I demand the evidence of any tax-collector who collected this tax from Timarchus.’ ... but he will cross-examine as to the localities where he was established in the business, and will question the collectors as to whether they have ever levied prostitution-tax upon him).

This passage shows at the same time in the clearest way that Schneider is wrong, when in his Lexicon he explains πορνοτελώνης, occurring in Pollux. Onomast. VII. 202., IX. 29., as meaning a privileged or licenced whore-master, paying a duty to the magistrates on his trade. Besides, anything like a sanitary police supervision on the part of the Agoranomi at this period is of course out of the question. For the word ἀσφαλῶς (safely) in the fragment of Eubulus, (Athenaeus bk. XIII. p. 568), where it is said of the brothel-girls:

παρ’ ὧν βεβαίως ἀσφαλῶς τ’ ἔξεστί σοι
μικροῦ πριάσθαι κέρματος τὴν ἡδονήν

(from whom surely and safely you may buy your pleasure for a small coin), admits of an easy explanation, if we consider that these common women are contrasted here not with the hetaerae but with the free women of the city, illicit intercourse with whom was always dangerous for the voluptuary, being punished as rape or adultery. The most telling proof is afforded by the passage of Diogenes Laertius, bk. VI. ch. 4., where he says: “When Antisthenes saw a man accused of adultery, he said to him, Unhappy man, what serious risk you might have avoided for an obol! (ὦ δυστυχὴς, πηλίκον κίνδυνον ὀβολοῦ διαφυγεῖν εδύνασο). Also the passage of Xenarchus, (Athenaeus, bk. XIII. p. 569.), is pertinent, where it is said, καὶ τῶν δ’ ἑκάστην ἐστὶν ἀδεῶς, εὐτελῶς, (and of the women each can be enjoyed without fear, cheaply). Hence too the verses of Menander (Lucian, Amor. 33.) should read,

καὶ φαρμακεῖαι, καὶ νόσων χαλεπωτάτη
φθόνος, μεθ’ οὗ ζῇ πάντα τὸν βίον γυνὴ

(and medicines, and hardest of diseases—envy, wherewith a woman dwells all her life long) and not, as the received text has it,

καὶ φαρμακεῖα, καὶ νόσοι· χαλεπώτατος
φθόνος.

(and medicine, and disease; hardest is envy).

140 Comp. above p. 70. note 2. Harpocration, Lexicon X. rhetor.—Eustathius, Comment. on Homer’s Iliad XIX. 282., p. 1185., Quod auro gaudeat Venus, de qua est in fabula, ille quoque manifestum facit, qui tradit: Solonem Veneris vulgaris templum dedicasse e mulierum quaestu, quas coemtas prostituerat in cellis, in adolescentum gratiam, (That Venus, of whom is question in the tale, rejoices in gold, is manifest from the historian who relates, how Solon dedicated a temple of the Common (Pandemian) Venus from the gains of the women that he had bought and established in chambers as prostitutes, to gratify the young men). Comp. Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. I. p. 470.

141 How clean and neat they were can be gathered from the fact that a certain Phanostrata got the sobriquet of Phtheiropyle (doorlouser), ἐπειδήπερ ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας ἑστῶσα ἐφθειρίζετο, (because she used to stand at the door and pick the lice off her).

142 Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XIII. ch. 37. Comp. Palmerius, Exercitat. p. 523.

143 Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XIII. ch. 27.—Suidas, s. v. χαμαιτύπη· ἡ πόρνη, ἀπὸ τοῦ χαμαὶ κειμένη ὀχεύεσθαι, (under the word χαμαιτύπη: harlot, from her copulating lying on the ground).

144 Here they reckoned “Money for house-room”, ἐνοίκιον for στεγανόμιον (Pollux, Onomast. I. 75.), the same in fact as the pretium mansionis (price of house-room) of the Romans in their inns. Comp. Casaubon, on Athenaeus I. ch. 14.

145 Bergler, on Alciphron VI. p. 25.

146 Zell, “Ferienschriften,” (Holiday Papers), First Series. Freiburg 1826. No. 1., “Die Wirthshäuser der Alten,” (Inns of the Ancients), pp. 3-53.

147 Athenaeus, Deipnosoph. bk. XIII. p. 567., Σὺ δὲ ὦ Σοφιστὰ, ἐν τοῖς καπηλείοις συναναφύρῃ οὐ μετὰ ἑταίρων, ἀλλὰ μετὰ ἑταιρῶν, μαστροπευούσας περὶ ταυτὸν οὐκ ὀλίγας ἔχων. (But you, Sophist, wallow in the inns not with companions but with female-companions (hetaerae), keeping a host of women pandaring for your pleasure).

148 Lysistrat. 467.

149 Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 567.

150 Areopagit. p. 350. ed. Wolf.—Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 567., ἐν καπηλείῳ δὲ φαγεῖν ἢ πινεῖν οὐδεὶς οὐδ’ ἂν οἰκέτης ἐτόλμησεν. (But no one, not even a servant, would have dared to eat or drink in an inn).

151 This can best be seen from the Speech of Demosthenes, In Neaeram. ed. H. Wolf. Bâle 1572. fol., p. 519., where we read as follows in the Latin translation: Iam peregrinam esse Neaeram, id vobis ab ipso primordio demonstrabo. Septem puellas ab ipsa infantia emit Nicareta, Charisii Elei liberta, Hippiae coqui eius uxor, gnara et perita perspiciendae venustae parvulorum naturae et eos sollerter educandi instituendique scia, ut quae artem eam exerceret, atque ex ea re victum collegisset, filiarum autem eas nomine compellavit, ut quam maximas ab iis, qui earum consuetudinem, tanquam ingenuarum appetebant, mercedes exigeret, posteaquam autem florem aetatis earum magno cum quaestu prostituit: uno, ut dicam, fasce, corpora etiam earum, cum septem essent, vendidit: Antiae, Stratolae, Aristoclae, Metanirae, Philae, Isthmiadis et Neaerae. Quam igitur unusquisque earum emerit, et ut ab iis qui eos a Nicareta emerant, libertate donatae sint. (That Neaera was a foreigner by birth, I will make it my first business to prove. Seven girls were bought in earliest childhood by Nicareta, freed-woman of Charisius of Elis, wife of his cook Nicias,—a knowing woman, astute at noting the promise of beauty in children and skilful in their clever upbringing and instruction, as might be expected of one who practised that art as a profession and had made her living thereby. Her daughters however she called them, that she might demand the greater fees from such as sought to enjoy their favours, as being free-born maidens. Then when they had reached the flower of their age, she prostituted them with great profit to herself, selling their persons, seven as they were, in one bundle, so to express it,—whose names were Antia, Stratole, Aristoclea, Metanira, Phile, Isthmias, and Neaera. Thus each of them found a purchaser, and on such conditions that they were presented with their freedom by the lovers who had bought them from Nicareta).

152 Comp. the list, compiled chiefly from Athenaeus, of the most renowned hetaerae in Musonius Philosophus, “De luxu Graecorum” ch. XII. in Gronovius’ Thesaurus Antiq. Graecor. vol. VIII. pp. 2516 sqq.

153 Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 577. μεταβάλλουσαι γὰρ τοιαῦται εἰς τὸ σῶφρον, τῶν ἐπὶ τούτῳ σεμνυνομένων εἰσὶ βελτίους. (For women of this class when they change and adopt an honest life, are of better character than those who pride themselves on this account).

154 Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 569., Καὶ Ἀσπασία δὲ ἡ Σωκρατικὴ ἐνεπορεύετο πλήθη καλῶν γυναικῶν καὶ ἐπλήθυνεν ἀπὸ τῶν ταύτης ἑταιρίδων ἡ Ἑλλὰς. (And Aspasia too, the preceptress of Socrates, used to import multitudes of handsome women, and Greece was filled with her hetaerae). Even the King of the Sidonians, Strato, had his wants supplied from there. Athenaeus, bk. XII. P. 531.

155 Hesychius, s. v. πέζας μοίχους· οὕτως ἐκάλουν τὰς μισθαρνούσας ἑταίρας χωρὶς ὀργάνου. (under the expression πέζας μοίχους,—common, prose fornicators: this was the name given to hetaerae who were prostitutes without playing any instrument). Comp. Photius, Lexicon, under same word.—Procopius Anecdot. p. 41.—Cuperi Observat I. 16. p. 116.—Casaubon, on Sueton. Nero. ch. 27.

156 Athenaeus, Deipnos., bk. XIII. p. 582.

157 Chares took flute-players, singing-girls and πέζαι ἑταίραι with him, according to Athenaeus, Deipnos., bk. XII. p. 532.

158 Athenaeus, Deipnos., bk. XIII. p. 573. When Darius was marching to take the field against Alexander, he had 350 παλλακὰς (concubines) in his train (Athenaeus, XIII. p. 557.), of whom 329 understood music. (ibid. p. 608).

159 “Vermischte Schriften,” (Miscellaneous Writings), Vol. IV. pp. 311 sqq.

160 Athenaeus, Deipnos., bk. XII. p. 533. Θεμιστοκλῆς δ’, οὔπω Ἀθηναίων μεθυσκομένων, οὐδ’ ἑταίραις χρωμένων, ἐκφανῶς τέθριππον ζεύξας ἑταιρίδων κ. τ. λ. (But Themistocles, at a period when Athenians were not yet in the habit of getting drunk, nor frequenting harlots, openly put in harness a four-horse team of hetaerae, etc.).

161 Athenaeus, Deipnos., bk. XII. p. 532.

162 Comp. Bernhardy, “Grundiss der Griechischen Literatur,” (First Sketch of Greek Literature), Pt. I. p. 40.

163 Hetaerae were bound by law to wear gay, party-coloured clothes, Suidas, s. v. ἑταιρῶν ἄνθινον. Νόμος Ἀθήνησι, τὰς ἑταίρας ἄνθινα φέρειν· (under the expression ἑταιρῶν ἄνθινον—flowered robe of hetaerae: it was a law at Athens that the hetaerae must wear flowered robes); at Locri Zaleucus prescribed the same costume, Suidas, s. v. Ζάλευκος (under the word Zaleucus); it was also law among the Syracusans, Athenaeus, Deipnos., bk. XII. ch. 4. Comp. Petit, “Legg. Attic.,” (Laws of Athens), p. 476. The same is stated of the Lacedaemonians by Clemens Alexandrinus, Paedog., bk. II. ch. 10. Comp. Wesseling, on Diodorus Sic., IV. 4.—Sidon. Apoll., Epist., XX. 3. Iamblichus, De Vita Pythagor., ch. 31.—A. Borremans. Var. Lect., ch. 10. p. 94.—Artemidorus, Oneirocrit., bk. II. ch. 3.

164 Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic., bk. I. ch. 6.

165 Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic., bk. X. ch. 23.

166 Livy, Hist. I. 4., II. 18.

167 Cicero, Orat. pro Coelio, ch. 20., Si quis est, qui etiam meretriciis amoribus interdictum iuventuti putet, est ille quidem valde severus, negare non possum: sed abhorret non modo ab huius seculi licentia, verum etiam a maiorum consuetudine atque concessis. Quando enim factum non est? quando reprehensum, quando non permissum? (If any is found to think that young men should be forbidden to indulge simple intrigues with harlots, I can only say he is an exceedingly stern moralist, I cannot deny he is right in the abstract. But his view is opposed not merely to the free habits of the present age, but also to the usage and permitted licence of our fathers? When, I ask, has this not been done? when rebuked, when not allowed?

Horace, Sat., bk. I. 2. vv. 31-35.,

Quidam notus homo, cum exiret fornice: Macte
Virtute esto, inquit sententia dia Catonis.
Nam simul ac venas inflavit tetra libido,

Huc iuvenes aequum est descendere; non alienas

Permolere uxores.

(When a certain well-known citizen came out of a brothel, “Bravo! go on and prosper!” was the word of Cato, great and wise. For when fierce desire has swollen the veins, right it is that young men should resort hither, and not grind their neighbours’ wives),—a passage that involuntarily reminds us of the fragment of Philemon quoted above.

168 They had indiscriminate intercourse with the women, who did not hold it disgraceful to appear half-naked (γυμναὶ) and to practise both among themselves and in common with the men gymnastic exercises, and this in the presence of spectators, even in that of young men. These were actually enjoined to practise copulation, and to have the whole body polished and freed from hair by professional male artistes). Athenaeus, Deipnos., bk. XII. pp. 517, 518.

169 The law was in the first instance made only with a view to the future, in order to ensure the state a sufficiently large number of citizens; Sozomenes, Histor. Eccles., I. 9., Vetus lex fuit apud Romanos, quae vetabat coelibes ab anno aetatis quinto et vigesimo pari iure essent cum maritis.—Tulerant hanc legem veteres Romani, cum sperarent, futurum hac ratione, ut urbs Roma et reliquae provinciae imperii Romani hominum multitudine abundarent. (There was an old law among the Romans, which forbad bachelors after the age of 25 to enjoy equal political rights with married men.—The old Romans had passed this law in the hopes that in this way the city of Rome, and the provinces of the Roman empire as well, might be ensured an abundant population). For the same reason Caesar, after the African War when the city was much depopulated through the great number of the slain, established prizes for such citizens as had the most children).—Dio Cassius, Bk. XLIII. 226.—All this availed little. The Censors Camillus and Posthumius were soon obliged to introduce a tax on celibacy,—the “old-bachelors’ tax” (Aes uxorium).—Festus, p. 161., L. Valerius Maximus, bk. II. ch. 9.—Augustus endeavoured in vain by the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus (Julian Law concerning marriage in the different classes) to counteract the tendency; till the Lex Papia Poppaea originating with the Senate (B.C. 9.) was ratified; (Tacitus, Annal. III. 25.—Dio Cassius, (LIV. 16., LVI. 10.), though even this did not long remain in force. Comp. Lipsius, Excurs. ad Tacit. Annal. III. 25.—Heineccius, Antiquit. Roman. Jurispr. (Antiquities of Roman Law), I. 25. 6. p. 209.—Hugo, “Geschichte des römischen Rechts,” (History of Roman Law), I. p. 237., II. p. 861.

170 Instit Divin., I. 20. 6., Flora cum magnas opes ex arte meretricia quaesivisset, populum scripsit haeredem, certamque pecuniam reliquit, cuius ex annuo foenere suus natalis dies celebraretur editione Ludorum, quos appelant Floralia. (Flora having acquired great riches by the harlot’s calling made the people her heir, and left a certain sum of money, the interest of which was to be applied to celebrating her birth-day by the exhibition of the games which are called Floralia.—I. 20. 10., Celebrantur cum omni lascivia. Nam praeter verborum licentiam, quibus obscoenitas omnis effunditur, exuuntur etiam vestibus populo flagitante meretrices, quae tunc mimarum funguntur officio et in conspectu populi, usque ad satietatem impudicorum hominum cum pudendis motibus detinentur. (They are solemnized with every form of licentiousness. For over and above the looseness of speech that pours forth every obscenity, harlots strip themselves of their clothing at the importunities of the mob, and then act as mimes,—pantomimic actors,—and in full view of the crowd indulge in indecent posturings, till their shameless audience is satisfied). It may be noted that scarcely 40 years after the introduction of the Floralia, P. Scipio Africanus in his Speech in defence of Tib. Asellus could say: Si nequitiam defendere vis, licet: sed tu in uno scorto maiorem pecuniam absumsisti, quam quanti omne instrumentum fundi Sabini in censum dedicavisti. Ni hoc ita est: qui spondet mille nummum? Sed tu plus tertia parte pecuniae perdidisti atque absumsisti in flagitiis. (If you choose to defend your profligacy, well and good! but as a matter of fact you have wasted on one strumpet more money than the total value, as you declared it to the Census commissioners, of all the plenishing of your Sabine farm. If you deny my assertion, I ask who dare wager a thousand sesterces on its untruth? You have squandered more than a third of the property you inherited from your father, and thrown it away in debauchery).—Gellius, Noct. Attic., VII. 11.—As not only did hetaerae build a temple to Aphrodité, but a similar one was also erected in their honour at Abydos (Athenaeus, XIII. p. 573.), and Phryné wished to rebuild Thebes at her own cost, on the condition that an inscription should be set up to the effect, “Alexander destroyed it; Phryné the hetaera restored it”, there is not the slightest reason for counting the above story as merely one of the ridiculous inventions common in the Fathers.

171 Valerius Maximus, II. 10. 8.—Seneca, Epist 97.—Martial, Epigr. I. 1 and 36.

172 Read the Speech of Cato in Livy, Hist., bk. XXXIV. 4., where the following passage is found amongst others: Haec ego, quo melior lactiorque in dies fortuna rei publicae est, imperiumque crescit, et iam in Graeciam Asiamque transcendimus, omnibus libidinum illecebris repletas, et regias etiam attrectamus gazas, eo plus horreo, ne illae magis res nos ceperint, quam nos illas. (All these changes, as day by day the fortune of the State is higher and more prosperous and her Empire grows greater, and our conquests extend over Greece and Asia, lands replete with every allurement of the senses, and we appropriate treasures that may well be called royal,—all this I dread the more from my fear that such high fortune may rather master us than we master it). Scarcely 10 years later the same author says (bk. XXXIX. 6.): Luxuriae enim peregrinae origo ab exercitu Asiatico invecta in urbem est. (For the beginnings of foreign luxury were brought into the city by the Asiatic army). Juvenal, Sat. VI. 299.:

Prima peregrinos obscoena pecunia mores
Intulit et turpi fregerunt secula luxu
Divitiae molles.

(Foul money it was that first brought in foreign manners; wealth weakened and broke down the vigour of the age with base luxury). But pre-eminently applicable are the following words (III. 60 sqq.) of the same poet:

Non possum ferre, Quirites!

Graecam urbem, quamvis quota portio faecis Achaeae?

Iam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes,
Et linguam et mores et cum tibicine chordas
Obliquas, nec non gentilia tympana secum
Vexit et ad Circum iustas prostare puellas.

(I cannot bear, Quirites, to see Rome a Greek city,—and yet how mere a fraction of the whole corruption is found in these dregs of Achaea? Long since has the Syrian Orontes flowed into the Tiber, and brought along with it the Syrian tongue and manners and cross-stringed harp—and harper, and exotic timbrels, and girls bidden stand for hire at the Circus).

173 The usual derivation of the word lupanar (brothel) is from Lupa, the wife of Faustulus (Livy, I. 4.); thus Lactantius, Divin. Instit., bk. I. 20 sqq., says, fuit enim Faustuli uxor et, propter vulgati corporis vilitatem, Lupa inter pastores, id est meretrix, nuncupata est, unde etiam lupanar dicitur. (For she was the wife of Faustulus, and because of the easy rate at which her person was held at the disposal of all, was called among the shepherds Lupa, (she-wolf), that is harlot, whence also Lupanar—a brothel—is so called). Comp. Isidore, bk. XVIII. etymol. 42. Jerome, in Eusebius’ Chronicle. However it is a fruitless effort to try and connect lupar and lupanar with lupus, the wolf. If we are not mistaken, the root-word is the Greek λῦμα, filth, and so, shameless person; from this comes lupa, just as from λῦμαρ was formed lupar, the oldest form for lupanar, which has maintained itself in the adjective luparius, and in lupariae in Rufus and A. Victor as synonyms of lupanar. Indeed Lactantius speaks of the hetaerae Leaena and Cedrenus as γυναῖκας λυκαίνας.

174 The common derivation of fornix (brothel) is from furnus or fornax (an oven), or else makes it identical with fornix, an archway. Isidore, bk. X. 110., writes: a fornicatrix is one whose person is public and common. These women used to lie under archways, and such places are called fornices, whence also fornicariae (whores). Granted that the women used to resort in numbers to the arches in the town-walls through which sorties were made (Livy, XXXVI. 23., XLIV. 11.), yet several passages in ancient authors prove clearly that the fornices were houses (especially Petronius, Satir. 7., Martial XI. 62.). The ancient Glosses have:—“fornicaria”: πορνὴ ἀπὸ καμάρας ᾗ ἵστανται, (a harlot, from the chamber where they take their stand). But in all probability the brothels took their name from the circumstance of their being situated in the neighbourhood of the town-wall and its arches; for which reason the women were also called Summoenianae (women of the Summoenium,—district under the walls). Martial, XI. 62., III. 82., I. 35., XII. 32. Or should we say that fornix was formed from πορνικὸν?

175 Adler, “Beschreibung der Stadt Rom,” (Description of the City of Rome), pp. 144 sqq.

176 Martial, bk. VII. Epigr. 30., bk. X. Epigr. 94.

177 Martial, bk. II. Epigr. 17.

178 Hence Martial’s expression (XII. 18.), clamosa Subura (the clamorous Subura).

179 Horace, Satir. I. 2. 30., Contra alius nullam nisi olenti in fornice stantem. (On the other hand another man cares for no woman but such as stand in the foul-smelling brothel).—Priapeia,

Quilibet huc, licebit, intret

Nigra fornicis oblitus favilla.

(All that please, none will say nay, may enter here, smeared with the black spot of the brothel).—Prudentius, Contra Symmachum, bk. II., spurcam redolente fornice cellam, (a filthy chamber in the stinking brothel).—Seneca, Controv., I. 2., Redoles adhuc fuliginem fornicis. (You reek still of the soot of the brothel).—Juvenal, Sat VI. 130., says of the Empress Messalina:

Obscurisque genis turpis, fumoque lucernae

Foeda lupanaris tulit ad pulvinar odorem.

(And disfigured and dim-eyed, fouled with the smoke of the lamp, she bore back the stink of the brothel to the imperial couch).

180 Juvenal, Sat. VI. 122., 127.—Petronius, Sat. 8.—Lipsius, Saturn. I. 14. Hence Cella and Cellae (chambers) are constantly used in the sense of lupanar (brothel).

181 Martial, bk. XI. 46., Intrasti quoties inscripta limina cellae, (As oft as you have crossed the thresholds of a “chamber” with inscription over). Seneca, Controv., bk. I. 2., Deducta es in lupanar, accepisti locum, pretium constitutum est, titulus inscriptus est, (You were taken away to a brothel, you received your stand, your price was fixed, your name written up).—Meretrix vocata es, in communi loco stetisti, superpositus est cellae tuae titulus, venientes recepisti, (You were called a harlot, you took your stand in a public brothel, your name-ticket was put up above your chamber, you received such as came).—Nomen tuum pedendit in fronte, pretia stupri accepisti, et manus, quae diis datura erat sacra, capturas tulit, (Your name hung on your door, you took the price of fornication, and your hand, that was meant to offer sacred gifts to the gods, held the fees). This last passage interpreters have wished to understand as if the name-ticket were fastened on the woman’s forehead; but, not to mention that in this case tibi would have to be read for tuum, it is a perfectly well known fact that frons (front, forehead) was used in Latin for the face of a door (Ovid, Fasti, I. 135., Omnis habet geminas, hinc atque hinc, ianua frontes, (Every door has two faces, inside and out). Seneca says pependit (it hung there), and afterwards is promoted onto the list of the Leno (Brothel-keeper)!

182 This is seen most clearly from the following passage in the “Vita Apollonii Tyrii”, (Life of Apollonius of Tyre), p. 695., Puella ait, prosternens se ad pedes eius: miserere, domine, virginitatis meae, ne prostituas hoc corpus sub tam turpi titulo. Leno vocavit villicum puellarum et ait, ancilla, quae praesens est et exornetur diligenter et scribatur et titulus, quicunque Tarsiam deviolaverit, mediam liberam dabit: postea ad singulos solidos populo patebit. (Says the girl, throwing herself at his feet: “Sir! have pity on my maidenhood, and do not prostitute this fair body under so ugly a name.” The Brothel-keeper (Leno) called the Superintendent (villicus) of the girls and says, “Let the maid here present be decked out with every care, and a name-ticket written for her; the man that takes Tarsia’s virginity shall pay half a “libera” (?), afterwards she shall be at the disposal of all comers at a “solidus” or “aureus”, gold coin worth 25 denarii, say 20 shillings—each). So we see even in the name there prevailed a certain luxury; and a young girl of handsome person would fain have a handsome-sounding name to match.

183 Petronius Satir. 20.—Barth, on Claudian, note 1173.—Martial, XIV. 148., 152.—Juvenal, VI. 194. From this the women themselves were often called lodices meretrices (blanket harlots) in contradistinction to the Street-walkers.

184 Martial, XIV. 39-42. XI. 105.—Apuleius, Metam., V. p. 162.—Horace, Satir. II. 7. v. 48.—Juvenal, Sat. VI. 131.—Tertullian, Ad Uxor., II. 6., Dei ancilla in laribus alienis—et procedet de ianua laureata et lucernata, ut de novo consistorio libidinum publicarum, (The handmaid of God in strange dwellings,—and she shall go forth from the door that is laurel-decked and lamp-lit, as it were from a new assembly-hall of public lusts), where the expression consistorium libidinum (assembly-hall of lusts) for brothel is noticeable.

185 Petronius, Satir. 95., Vos me hercule ne mercedem cellae daretis, (Ye would not, by heavens, give even the hire of the chamber). The fee amounted usually to an As. Petronius, Satir. 8., Iam pro cella meretrix assem exegerat, (Already had the harlot demanded the As for the chamber). Martial, I. 104., Constat et asse Venus, (And an As is the recognised price of Love). II. 53., Si plebeia Venus gemino tibi vincitur asse, (If you win for yourself a base-born Love for a couple of Asses). Comp. the inscription in Gruter, “Inscript. antiq. totius orbis Romani”, (Ancient Inscriptions of the whole Roman world). Amsterdam 1616., No. DCLII. 1.—Heinsius on Ovid, Remedium Amoris 407.

186 Seneca, Controv. I. 2., Nuda in litore stetit ad fastidium emptoris, omnes partes corporis et inspectae et contrectatae sunt. Vultis auctionis exitum audire? Vendit pirata, emit leno.—Ita raptae pepercere piratae, ut lenoni venderetur: sic emit leno, ut prostituerit. (Naked she stood on the shore at the pleasure of the purchaser; every part of her body was examined and felt. Would you hear the result of the sale? The pirate sold, the pandar bought.—For this the pirates spared their captive, that she might be sold to a pandar; for this the pandar bought her, that he might employ her as a prostitute).—Quintilian, Declam. III., Leno etiam servis excipitur, fortasse hac lege captivos vendes, (A pandar too is supplied with slaves; perhaps in this way you will sell your captives).—Lex § 1. de in ius vocando: Prostituta contra legem venditionis venditorem habet patronum, si hac lege venierat, ut, si prostituta esset, fieret libera, (Law § 1. Of the right of appeal: A female slave prostituted contrary to the condition of sale has the seller for patron, if she was sold on this condition, that, should she be prostituted, she should become free). These sales took place in the Subura. Martial, VI. 66.

187 Seneca, Controv., I. 2., Stetisti cum meretricibus, stetisti sic ornata ut populo placere posses, ea veste quam leno dederat, (You stood with the harlots, you stood decked out so as to please the public, wearing the dress that the leno had given you). The dress of the public women was always gay-coloured and very bold; they had to wear the male toga (gown). Cicero, Philipp. II., Sompsisti virilem togam, quam statim muliebrem reddidisti. Primo vulgare scortum: certa flagitii merces, nec ea parva. (You assumed the man’s toga, which straightway you made a woman’s. First a common strumpet; sure was the profit of your shame, and not small either.)—Tibullus, IV. 10. Martial, II. 30. Hence public women were also called togatae (wearing the toga or man’s gown). Martial, VI. 64. Horace, Sat I. 2. 63., Quid interest in matrona, ancilla, peccesque togata? (What difference does it make whether it is with a married woman, or a serving-maid, or a toga’d harlot (togata), that you offend?) Ibidem 80-83.,

Nec magis huic inter niveos viridesque lapillos

(Sit licet hoc, Cerinthe, tuum,) tenerum est femur aut crus

Rectius; atque etiam melius persaepe togatae est.

(Nor amidst all her showy gems and green jewels is her thigh more soft (though it is your belief, Cerinthus, that it is) or her leg straighter; nay! very often that of the toga’d harlot is the better limb).

It is well-known what trouble Bentley gave himself to explain this locus implicatissimus (most intricate passage), as he calls it, because he supposed the common reading to be corrupt and accordingly altered the text, all to bring out a comparison of Cerinthus’ thigh—a comparison that never was in Horace’s mind at all. Several years ago in our Work, “De Sexuali Organismorum Fabrica,” (On the Sexual Fabric of Organisms), Spec. I., Halle 1832. large 8vo., p. 61., we disentangled the matter and showed exactly how it stood, proving that the “Sit licet hoc, Cerinthe, tuum” (Though this be your (opinion), Cerinthus) must be taken as a parenthesis, consequently that the usual reading is the right one. But as the book would seem to have come into few hands, and least of all into those of Philologists, we may be allowed to take this opportunity of once more developing our view. The comparison is between the matron and the “togata”, and it is maintained that the matron, i. e. the noble Roman lady, possesses for all her jewelry neither a softer thigh nor a straighter leg than the “togata”, the girl of common stamp; that the latter in fact can often make a better show of both, even though her leg is as crooked as the matron’s is,—a peculiarity that every female leg has, because in a woman the knee projects more forwards. Aristotle, Hist. Anim., IV. 11. 6., even in his time notes this fact: τὸ θῆλυ τῶν ἀῤῥένων καὶ γονυκροτώτερον. (the female is more knock-kneed also than the male). Comp. same author’s Physiognom., 3. 5. 6. Adamant., Physiognom., II. 107. ed. Sylb. Polemo, Physiognom., p. 179. Anatomical investigation moreover proves this most clearly. But as Cerinthus seems to be ignorant of it, in spite of its being a well known Act, he lets himself be deluded by the outward magnificence of attire and distinguished birth, and believes the matron to be the better built, and it is for this mistake the poet taunts him. Horace in this passage is merely giving a commentary on v. 63 above. Now compare what Plautus, Mostell., I. 3. 13, makes Scopha say to Philemation, Non vestem amatores mulieris amant, sed vestis fartum (’Tis not the dress of a woman that lovers love, but the lining of the dress); also Martial, III. Epigr. 33.; and the folly of Cerinthus is made quite obvious. The phrase—Sit licet hoc tuum (Though this be yours) in the sense, “though you look at it this way, take the dazzle of jewels as the criterion of a woman’s beauty”, surely needs no further confirmation.

188 Seneca, Controv., I. 2., Da mihi lenonis rationes; captura conveniet. (Give me the brothel-keeper’s accounts; the fee will suit).

189 Seneca, Controv., I. 2., Deducta es in lupanar, accepisti locum, pretium constitutum est. (You were taken to a brothel, you took your place, your price was fixed). Ovid, Amores, I. 10., Stat meretrix cuivis certo mercabilis aere. (There stands the harlot that any man can buy for a fixed sum). The fee was called captura (fee) (compare Schulting, on Seneca, loco citato, and Casaubon on Suetonius, Caligula 40.), quaestus meretricius (harlot’s hire) (Cicero, Philipp. II. 18.) or simply quaestus (hire); merces (cost) and pretium stupri (price of fornication); aurum lustrale (brothel, literally den, money). The women used to demand its payment. Juvenal, Sat. VI. 125. Excepit blanda intrantes atque aera poposcit. (Blandly she welcomed her visitors as they entered and asked for the fee). Hence the expression “basia meretricum poscinummia” (harlots kisses that ask for money) in Apuleius, Met., X. p. 248. For the rest prices were very various among the brothel-harlots as they were with the others. Comp. Martial, X. 75., IX. 33., III. 54. The lowest fee was one As or 2 obols (three pence); hence girls of the sort were called by the Romans also diobolares meretrices (two-obol harlots) (Festus) or diobolaria scorta (two-obol whores) (Plautus, Poen., I. 2. 58.). Comp. p. 90 above.

190 Plautus, Trinum., IV. 2. 47., Quae adversum legem accepisti a plurimis pecuniam. (You who contrary to the regulation accepted money from a great many men).

191 Hence the women were also called Nonariae (Ninth-hour women). Persius, Sat. I. 133. The Scholiast observes on the passage: Nonaria dicta meretrix, quia apud veteres a nona hora prostabant, ne mane omissa exercitatione illo irent adolescentes. (A harlot was called “Nonaria”, because in former times they used to act as prostitutes from the ninth hour only, for fear the young men should resort thither in the morning to the neglect of their athletic exercises).

192 Nonius Marcellus, V. § 8., Inter meretricem et prostibulum hoc interest: quod meretrix honestioris loci est et quaestus: nam meretrices a merendo dictae sunt, quod copiam sui tantummodo noctu facerent: prostibula, quod ante stabulum stent quaestus diurni et nocturni causa. (This is the difference between a meretrix (harlot) and a prostibulum (common strumpet): a meretrix is of a more honorable station and calling; for meretrices were so named a merendo (from earning wages), because they plied their calling only by night; prostibula, because they stand before the stabulum (stall, “chamber”) for gain both by day and night).—Plautus, Cistell. fragm., Adstat ea in via sola: prostibula sane est. (She stands there in the way alone: surely she is a prostibula—common whore).

193 Plautus, Poenul., I. 2. 54.,

An te ibi vis inter istas vorsarier

Prosedas, pistorum amicas, reliquias alicarias,

Miseras coeno delibutas, servilicolas, sordidas,

Quae tibi olent stabulum, statumque, sellam et sessibulum merum,

Quas adeo haud quisquam tetigit, neque duxit domum?

(It is your wish to pass your time there amongst those common strumpets, bakers’ mistresses, refuse of the spelt-mill girls, drabs besmeared with filth, slaves’ darlings, squalid creatures that reek of their stand and trade, of the chair and bare stool, women that no free man ever touched or took home?) This serves also to explain the passage in Juvenal, III. 136., Et dubitas alta Chionem deducere sella. (And you hesitate to hand down Chione from her high seat).

194 Martial, XI. 45., I. 35. Usually however this appears only to have been done, when the customer was gratifying unnatural lusts.

195 Plautus, Asin., IV. 1. 19., In foribus scribat, occupatam esse se. (Let her write on the door that she is engaged).

196 Martial, XI. 62.,

Quem cum fenestra vidit a Suburana

Obscoena nudum lena fornicem clausit.

(When she saw him from a window in the Subura, the foul brothel-mistress shut the unoccupied “chamber”).

Juvenal, VI. 121.,

Intravit calidum veteri centone lupanar,

Et cellam vacuam atque suam.

(She entered the brothel cosy with its old patch-work quilt, and the chamber that was vacant and her own.). Messalina had hired, we see, a special “chamber” of her own, where she acted as a prostitute under the name of Lycisca.

197 Juvenal, VI. 127.,

Mox, lenone suas iam dimittente puellas,

Tristis abit—tamen ultima cellam clausit.

(Presently when time is up and the brothel-keeper dismisses his girls, sadly she takes her departure,—but she was the last to shut her chamber).

198 III. 65., et ad circum iussas prostare puellas (and girls bidden stand for hire at the Circus).

199 Of Heliogabalus Lampridius, (Vita Heliog. ch. 26.) relates: Omnes de circo, de theatro, de stadio—meretrices collegit. (He collected all the harlots,—from circus, theatre and stadium—race-course). An old poem (Priapeia, carm. 26,) says:

Deliciae populi, magno notissima circo

Quintia.

(The darling of the people, Quintia, so well known in the Great Circus). Comp. Buleng. De Circo ch. 56. Supposing this view to be correct, we might read in the passage of Juvenal, III. 136., as several Critics do, “alta Chionem deducere cella” (to lead Chione down from her lofty “chamber”).

200 Already in Livy, II. 18., we read the account: Eo anno Romae, cum per ludos ab Sabinorum iuventute per lasciviam scorta raperentur, etc. (That year at Rome, when during the games harlots were carried off in their wantonness by the youth of the Sabines, etc.) Plautus, Casin. Prolog., 82-86.; this passage is repeatedly cited in this connection, but really has only a remote bearing on the matter. But in confirmation Isidore, XVIII. 42., says: Idem vero theatrum idem et prostibulum, eo quod post ludos exactos meretrices ibi prosternerentur. (But theatre and brothel were identical, for after the games were over, harlots used to prostitute themselves there). Comp. Buleng. De Theatro I. 16. and 49. Lipsius, Elect., I. 11. Of course these statements may refer equally well to the Floralia or, as Isidore lived so much later, to the lascivious representations of brothel-life of which Tertullian tells us. The latter writes, De Spectaculis ch. 17., Ipsa etiam prostibula, publicae libidinis hostiae, in scena proferantur, plus miserae in praesentia feminarum, quibus solis latebant: perque omnis aetatis, omnis dignitatis ora transducuntur, locus, stipes, elogium, etiam quibus opus est, praedicatur. (Nay, the very harlots, victims of the public lust, are brought forward on the stage, more wretched still in the presence of women, who alone used to be ignorant of such things; and they are discussed by the lips of every age and every condition, and place, origin, merits, even what should never be mentioned, are freely spoken of). In 1791 in a public theatre in Paris just such things were represented as Juvenal in his Sixth Satire speaks of as being acted at Rome. Gynaeology Pt. III. p. 423. That whores were to be found in the Theatre as well as in the Circus is shown by Lampridius, Vita Heliogab., ch. 32., fertur et una die ad omnes circi et theatri et amphitheatri et omnium urbis locorum meretrices ingressus. (And access is given on one day to all the harlots of circus, theatre and amphitheatre and all the places of the city). Comp. ch. 26., and Abram. on Cicero’s Speech for Milo ch. 24. p. 177. Perhaps at all these spots “chambers” (cellae) were put up, to which the word locorum (places) above may very well refer.

201 Horace, Epist. I. 14. 21.,

Fornix tibi et uncta popina
Incutiunt urbis desiderium, video; et quod
Angulus iste feret piper et thus ocius uva;
Nec vicina subest vinum praebere taberna

Quae possit tibi; nec meretrix tibicina, cuius

Ad strepitum salias terrae gravis.

(The brothel and greasy cookshop make you long for the city, I can see; and the fact that this little nook (i.e. Horace’s Sabine farm) will yield the pepper-plant and thyme sooner than the grape, and no neighbourly tavern is at hand to give you wine, and no harlot flute-player to whose din you may thump the floor with your heavy feet). Martial, VII. 60., complains of the great number of such places. Here and at the money changer’s shops, but especially the latter, the Procurers were to be found. Plautus, Trucul. I. 1. 47.,

Nam nusquam alibi si sunt, circum argentarias

Scorti lenones quasi sedent quotidie.

(For if they are nowhere else, at any rate round the banks harlots and pandars sit as it were daily). Comp. Stockmann “De Popinis” (Of Cookshops). Leipzig 1805. 8vo.

202 Codex Theodos. bk. IX. tit. VII. 1. p. 60. edit. Ritter.

203 Horace, Epodes, XVII. 20., Amata nautis multum et institoribus (A woman much loved by sailors and traders).—Petronius, Satir. 99.—Juvenal, Sat. VIII. 173-175. Seneca, Controv., I. 3.

204 Columella, Res Rustica, I. ch. 8., Socors et somniculosum genus id mancipiorum, otiis, campo, circo, theatris, aleae, popinae, lupanaribus consuetum, nunquam non easdem ineptias somniat. (That slothful and sleepy tribe of domestic slaves, habituated to ease, games, circus, theatres, dice, cookshop, brothels, would ever be dreaming the same sort of follies).

205 Suetonius, Claudius, ch. 40., Nero, ch. 27—Tacitus, Annal., XIII. 25.

206 Paulus Diaconus, XIII. 2., Horum mancipes tempore procedente pistrina publica latrocinia esse fecerunt: cum enim essent molae in locis subterraneis constitutae, per singula latera earum domuum tabernas instituentes, meretrices in eis prostare faciebant, quatenus per eas plurimos deciperent, alios qui pro pane veniebant, alios qui pro luxuriae turpitudine ibi festinabant. (The owners of these as time went on turned the public corn-mills into mischievous frauds. For the mill-stones being fixed in places underground, they set up stalls on either side of these chambers and caused harlots to stand for hire in them, so that by their means they deceived very many,—some that came for bread, others that hastened thither for the base gratification of their wantonness).

207 Festus, p. 7., Alicariae meretrices appellabantur in Campania solitae ante pistrina alicariorum versari quaestus gratia. (Harlots were called alicariae (spelt-mill girls) in Campania, being accustomed to ply for gain in front of the mills of the spelt-millers).—Plautus, Poenul., I. 2. 54., Prosedas, pistorum amicas, reliquias alicarias. (Common strumpets, bakers’ mistresses, refuse of the spelt-mill girls).

208 Catullus, LVIII. 1.,

Illa Lesbia, quam Catullus unam
Plusquam se atque suos amavit omnes,
Nunc in quadriviis et angiportis
Glubit magnanimos Remi nepotes.

(The fair Lesbia, that Catullus loved above all women, more than himself and all his friends, now at cross-ways and in alleys skins the high-souled sons of Remus). We see from this that it was partly such freed-women girls that, past their prime and come down in the world, no longer visited by rich admirers, had to seek their living on the streets.—Plautus, Cistell.,

Intro ad bonam meretricem; adstat ea in via

Sola; prostibula sane est.

(I am going in to a “good” harlot; she stands in the road alone,—she is surely a common whore).—Plautus, Sticho: Prostibuli est stantem stanti suavium dare, (It’s a strumpet’s way to give a kiss standing to a standing lover); whence it might be concluded that only street-whores were called “Prostibula”.—Prudentius, Peristeph., XIV. 38.,

Sic elocutam publicitus iubet

Flexu in plutea sistere virginem.

(When she had uttered this public address, he bids the maiden stand at the turn of the street).

209 Martial, I. 35., Abscondunt spurcas et monumenta lupas. (The monuments too hide filthy strumpets). Hence they were called bustuariae (women that haunt tombs). Martial, III. 93., Admittat inter bustuarias moechas. (Let him admit her among the fornicators of the tombs). Comp. Turnebus, Advers., XIII. 19.

210 Prudentius, Symmach., I. 107.,

Scortator nimius, multaque libidine suetus
Ruricolas vexare lupas, interque salicta,
Et densas sepes obscoena cubilia inire,

(An inordinate fornicator, wont to vex the rustic harlots with multiplied lusts, and amidst the willow-plantations and thickset hedges to creep into foul lairs); where Barth, Advers., X. 2., for ruricolas (haunting the country, rustic) would read lustricolas (haunting wild dens),—those who prostituted themselves in wild-beasts’ dens, desert places. Hence also a brothel is called lustrum (den) and cellae lustrales (den-like chambers), and harlots’ hire aurum lustrale (den-money).—Credenus, De Romulo et Remo: ὁ τοίνυν πάππος Ἀμούλιος διὰ τὴν πορνείαν παροξυνθεὶς εἰς τὰς ὕλας αὐτοὺς ἐξέθετο, οὓς εὑροῦσα γυνὴ πρόβατα νέμουσα ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἀνεθρέψατο. Εἴθιστο δὲ τοῖς ἐγχωρίοις λυκαίνας τὰς τοιαύτας καλεῖν γυναῖκας διὰ τὸ ἐπίπαν ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσι μετὰ λύκων διατρίβειν, διὸ καὶ τούτους ὑπὸ λυκαίνης ἀνατραφῆναι μυθολογεῖται. (So their grandfather Amulius exasperated by his wife’s adultery took the children into the woods and exposed them there; but his wife, as she was pasturing sheep, found them, and reared them on the mountain. Now it was the custom of the inhabitants of those parts to call women of this kind “she-wolves” (λυκαίνας) on account of their living entirely on the mountains with the wolves, whence also the tale is told that these babes were fostered by a she-wolf).

211 Horace, Sat. I. 2. 1., Ambubaiaram collegium (Society of—Syrian—Singing-girls).—Suetonius, Nero, ch. 27.

212 Plautus, Cist., I. 1. 39.,

Eunt depressum, quia nos sumus libertinae,

Et ego et mater tua, ambae meretrices sumus.

(They go about to depreciate us, because we are freed-women, both I and your mother, we are both courtesans).—Livy, XXXIX. 9.

213 They were called for this reason vestita scorta (dressed out whores). Juvenal, Satir. III. 135.—Horace, Sat. I. 2. 28.,

Sunt qui nolint tetigisse, nisi illas

Quarum subsuta talos tegat instita veste.

(There are men who will refuse to touch any woman but those whose frilled tunic has a flounce touching their heels).—Comp. Burmann on Petronius, pp. 64 and 95.—Ferrarius, De re vestiar. (On costume), bk. III. ch. 23.

214 Horace, Odes II. 11. 21., Quis devium scortum domo eliciet Lyden? (Who will entice from her home the sequestered harlot Lydé?).

215 Annal., II. 85. In fact mention had been made of Vestilia, member of a Praetorian family, as being a public prostitute.

216 Bk. IV. Epigr. 71. Already in his time Ovid dared to say: casta est, quam nemo rogavit. (she is chaste—whom no man has solicited).

217 Although the goddess Isis was worshipped at Rome as early as Sulla’s time (Apuleius, Metam., XI. p. 817. edit. Oudendorp), she did not possess a public temple there till the Triumvirate (711 A. A. C.) Dio Cassius, bk. XLVII. 15. p. 501., XLIII. 2. p. 692., LIV. 6. p. 734., XL. 47. p. 252. edit. Fabricius.—Tertullian, Apologet., ch. 6. Spartian, Caracalla, 9. Suetonius, Domitian, 12.

218 Ovid, Ars Amandi, I. 27.—Burmann on Propertius, p. 348. Josephus, Antiq. Jud. XVIII. 4. Hence in Juvenal, Sat. VI., 488., Isiacae sacraria lenae (sanctuaries of Isis—the brothel-mistress).

219 Tibullus, bk. I. carm. 3. 27.

Nunc dea, nunc succurre mihi; nam posse mederi,

Picta docet templis multa tabella tuis.

(Now goddess, even now help me; for that thou canst heal, many a painted tablet in thy temples shows). Gerning, “Reise durch Oestreich und Italien” (Journey through Austria and Italy). Vol. II. pp. 188-199.—St. Non, “Voyage pittoresque” (Picturesque Tour), Vol. II. pp. 170 sqq. Hardly anything is yet known as to the connection of the worship of Isis with the healing of disease, least of all with regard to establishments for the sick; for the particulars collected by Hundertmarck (“De principibus Diis Artis medicae tutelaribus” (Of the principal Gods that presided over the Medical Art). Leipzig 1735. 4to. and “Diss. de Artis Medicae incrementis per aegrotorum apud Veteres in Vias Publica et Templa expositionem” (Treatise on advances in medical Art due to the practice of the Ancients of exposing the sick in Public Ways and Temples). Leipzig 1739. 4to.) are quite insufficient.

220 Juvenal, Sat VI. 121, 131. Tacitus, Annal., XI. ch. 37.—Dio Cassius, IX. p. 686. Messalina adulteriis et stupris non contenta (iam enim etiam in cella quadam in palatio et ipsa sessitabat et alias prostituebat) maritus simul multos ritu legitimo habere cupivit. (Messalina not satisfied with adultery and fornication (for already in a certain chamber within the very palace she was in the habit of sitting as a prostitute herself and also of making other women do the same), was eager to have many husbands at once under sanction of the laws).—Xiphilinus, LXXIX. p. 912., Denique in palatio habuit cellam quandam, in qua libidinem explebat, stabatque nuda semper ante fores eius, ut scorta solent. (At last she had in the palace a certain chamber, in which she was wont to satiate her lustfulness, and used to stand always stripped before its doors, as whores do). Suetonius, Caligula, ch. 41., Ac ne quod non manubiarum genus experiretur, lupanar in palatio constituit: distinctisque et instructis pro loci dignitate compluribus cellis, in quibus matronae ingenuique starent. (And that there might be no species of gain left that she had not tried, she established a brothel in the palace; and a number of chambers were set apart and furnished in conformity with the dignity of the locality, and there matrons and men of birth stood for hire).

221 Ulpian, Lex ancillarum ff. de haered. petit. (Law as to female-slaves making claim of heirship). Pensiones, licet a lupanario praeceptae sint: nam et multorum honestorum virorum praediis lupanaria exercentur. (Rents, even though they be received from a brothel; for many honourable men have brothels kept on their estates).

222 Paulus Diaconus, Hist. miscell., bk. XII. ch. 2., Aliam rursus abrogavit huiusmodi causam. Si qua mulier in adulterio capta fuisset, hoc non emendabatur, sed potius ad augmentum peccandi contradebatur. Includebant eam in angusto prostibulo et admittentes qui cum ea fornicarentur, hora qua turpitudinem agebant, tintinnabula percutiebant, ut eo sono illius iniuria fieret manifesta. Haec audiens Imperator, permanere non est passus, sed ipsa prostibula destrui iussit. (Again he repealed another regulation of the following nature. If any should have been detected in adultery, by this plan she was not in any way, reformed, but rather utterly given over to an increase of her ill behaviour. They used to shut up the woman in a narrow room, and admitting any that would commit fornication with her, and at the moment when they were accomplishing their foul act, to strike bells, that the sound might make known to all the injury she was suffering. The Emperor hearing this, would suffer it no longer, but ordered the very rooms to be pulled down).

223 De adult. lex X. (On adultery, law X.), Mulier quae evitandae poenae adulterii gratia lenocinium fecit, aut operas suas scenae locavit, adulterii accusari damnarique senatus consulto potest. (A woman who in order to avoid the penalty attached to adultery has practised procuration, or has sold her services to the stage, can be accused on the charge of adultery and condemned in virtue of a decree of the Senate).—Suetonius, Tiberius, 35., Feminae famosae, ut ad evitandas legum poenas iure ac dignitate matronali exsolverentur, lenocinium profiteri coeperant: quas ne quod refugium in tali fraude cuiquam esset, exsilio affecit. (Infamous women, in order to be relieved of the legal status and dignity of matrons and thus escape the penalties assigned by the laws, began to follow procuration as a calling. These he exiled, that none might find a way of escape in such a subterfuge).

224 Tacitus, Annal., II. 85., Nam Vistilia, praetoria familia genita, licentiam stupri apud aediles vulgaverat, more inter veteres recepto, qui satis poenarum adversum impudicas in ipsa professione flagitii, credebant. (For Vistilia, born of a family of Praetorian rank, had publicly notified before the aediles a permit for fornication, according to the usage that prevailed among our fathers, who supposed that sufficient punishment for unchaste women resided in the very nature of the calling.) Comp. Lipsius, Excurs. O. p. 509.—Schubert, De Romanorum aedilibus (On the Roman Aediles), bk. IV. Königsberg 1828., p. 512.

225 Livy, bk. X. 31., bk. XXV. 2.

226 Seneca, De vita beata ch. 7.—The aediles in fact exercised police supervision over the public welfare, and in particular over weights and measures and the sale of goods (Suetonius, Tiberius, ch. 34.), games of chance, etc. Martial, V. 85. bk. XIV. 1. Comp. Schubert, loco citato, bk. III. ch. 45.

227 Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic., bk. IV. 14.;—where an action at law is cited, in which the aedile Mancinus had wished to force his way at night into the lodging of Mamilia, a courtesan, who had thrown stones and chased him away. In the result we read: Tribuni decreverunt aedilem ex eo loco iure dejectum, quo eum venire cum coronario non decuisset. (The tribunes gave as their decision that the aedile had been lawfully driven from that place, as being one that he ought not to have visited with his officer). This happened, as is seen by comparison with Livy, bk. XL. ch. 35., in the year B. C. 180.

228 Suetonius, Caligula, ch. 40., Vectigalia nova atque inaudita ... exercuit; ... ex capturis prostitutarum quantum quaeque uno concubitu mereret. Additumque ad caput legis, ut tenerentur publico et quae meretricium et qui lenocinium fecissent, nec non et matrimonia obnoxia essent. (He levied new and hitherto unheard of imposts; ... a proportion of the fees of prostitutes,—so much as each earned with one man. A clause was also added to the law, directing that both women who had practised harlotry and men who had practised procuration should be rated publicly; furthermore that marriages should be liable to the rate).

229 Lampridius. Alexander Severus, ch. 24., Lenonum vectigal et meretricum et exoletorum in sacrum aerarium inferri vetuit, sed sumptibus publicis ad instaurationem theatri, circi, amphitheatri et aerarii deputavit. (He forbad that the tax on harlots and on male debauchees should be paid into the sacred Treasury of the State, but allotted it as a public contribution towards the repair of the theatre, circus, amphitheatre and treasury). Also at Byzantium a similar duty was paid under the name of χρυσάργυρον (tribute of gold and silver), which however the Emperor Anastasius abolished, and at the same time ordered the tax-rolls to be burned. (Zonaras, Annal.—Nicephorus, Hist. eccles., bk. XVI. ch. 40.).

230 Compare Ch. G. Gruner, “Dissertatio de Coitu eiusque variis formis quatenus medicorum sunt.” (Treatise on Coition and its Different Forms in their Medical Aspect). Jena 1792. 4 vols. German edition: “Üeber den Beischlaf” (On Coition). Leipzig 1796. 8 vols. Comp. Salzburg med. chir. Zeitung. Jahrg. 1796. III. 5.—Forberg, p. 118, loco citato.

231 Epistle to Titus, ch. I. v. 5. Πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς· τοῖς δὲ μιασμένοις ... οὐδὲν καθαρὸν, ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις. (To the pure all things are pure; but to them that are defiled ... nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.)

Also Clement of Alexandria, one of the Fathers of the Church, who speaks largely on this special point of Paederastia, says (Paedagog., Bk. III. ch. 3.) εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν ἄπρακτον ὑπολείπεται, οὐδὲ ἐμοὶ ἄῤῥητον. (For if nought is left undone by them, neither shall aught be left untold by me).

232 Antonius Panormites, “Hermaphroditus”. First German edition, with explanatory appendices, by Frider. Carol. Forberg. Coburg 1824. 8 parts. The Editor’s Appendices treat (pp. 205-393): De figuris Veneris (Concerning the modes of Love), and in particular, ch. I. De fututione (Of Copulation)—pp. 213-234; ch. II. De paedicatione (Of Sodomy)—pp. 234-277; ch. III. De irrumando (Of vicious practices with the mouth)—pp. 277-304; ch. IV. De masturbando (Of masturbation)—pp. 304-321; ch. V. De cunnilingis (de eis qui cunnos mulierum lingunt, Of men who lick women’s private parts)—pp. 322-345; ch. VI. De tribadibus (Of women who practise vice with one another)—pp. 345-369; ch. VII. De coitu cum brutis (Of unnatural copulation with animals)—pp. 369-372; ch. VIII. De spintris (Of pathic Sodomites)—p. 373. All the important passages in ancient authors are here noted in every case, and given in the original.

The following work was unfortunately not procurable by us: C. Rambach, Glossarium Eroticum,—a Commentary to the Poets and Prose-writers of Classical Antiquity and Supplement to all Lexicons of the Latin Language. 2nd. edition. Stuttgart 1836.

233 Patentiora sunt nobis Italis Hispanisve, quis neget? Veneris ostia. (With us, Italians or Spaniards, the orifices of Love are more open,—who can deny the fact?). Aloysia Sigaea Satira sotadica, p. 305. Compare Martial, I, Bk. XI. epigram 22. Less frequently, and only for later times, may the reason have existed which Martial specifies in the case of the young wife, Martial Bk. XI. epigr. 78:

Paedicare semel cupido dabit illa marito,

Dum metuit teli vulnera prima novi.

(She—the newly-wed wife—will allow her longing husband just once to lie with her as with a man, while she still dreads the first wounds of the unfamiliar weapon). Comp. Priapeia, carmen II.

234 For this reason the Greeks called the pathic sodomite also σφιγκτὴρ or σφίγκτης. Hesychius: σφίγκται οἱ κίναιδοι καὶ ἁπαλοὶ. (σφίγκται = sodomites and effeminate men). Photius: σφίγκται Κρατῖνος τοὺς κιναιδώδεις καὶ μαλθάκους. (σφίγκται used by Cratinus = sodomitish and womanish men). Strato in Antholog. MS.:

Σφιγκτὴρ οὐκ ἔστιν παρὰ παρθένῳ, οὐδὲ φίλημα

Ἁπλοῦν, οὐ φυσικὴ χρωτὸς εὐπνοΐη.

(With a virgin there is no sphincter, no frank kiss, no natural fragrance of the skin).

Hesychius sub verbo:

μεγαρικαὶ σφίγγες·

Καλλίας πόρνας τινὰς οὕτως εἴρηκειν.

(Hesychius (Lexicon) on the phrase μεγαρικαὶ σφίγγες says: Callias speaks of certain harlots by this title).

Suidas sub verbo:

μεγαρικαὶ σφίγγες.

αἱ πόρναι οὕτως εἴρηνται,
ἴσως δὲ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ σφίγκται οἱ μαλακοὶ
ὠνομάσθησαν· ἢ καὶ ἀπὸ
Μαίας οὕτω λεγομένης ἐν Μεγάροις·

Ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἡμῖν Μεγαρική τις μηχανή.

ἀντὶ τοῦ, πονηρά· διεβάλλοντο
γὰρ ἐπὶ πονηρία οἱ Μεγαρεῖς.

(Suidas (Lexicon) on the phrase μεγαρικαὶ σφίγγες says: harlots are so called, and perhaps for the same reason debauched men are entitled σφίγκται; or else from a saying current in Megara to this effect:—But we have a certain Megarian trick,—that is a knavish one. For the Megarians were ill spoken of for their knavishness).

235 Epistle to the Romans, ch. I. vv. 24-26, 27.

236 Athanasius, Oratio contra Gentes, ch. 26. in “Opera Omnia studio Monachorum Ord. St. Benedicti.” (Complete Works of St. Athanasius, edit. by the Monks of the Order of St. Benedict). Padua 1777. folio.—Vol. I. p. 1.

237 Amores, chs. 20, 21. The hetaera Glycera would seem, according to Clearchus’ report, to have said, καὶ οἱ παῖδες εἰσι καλοὶ, ὅσον ἐοίκασι γυναικὶ χρόνον. (And boys are beautiful for so long as they resemble a woman). Athenaeus, Deipnos. bk. XIII. p. 605 D. According to Hellanicus, as Donatus, on Terence’s Eunuch., I. 2. 87. notifies, the custom of emasculating boys would seem to have come from the Babylonians. Herodotus, III. 92., says that the Babylonians were bound to deliver every year as tribute to the Persian king 500 castrated boys.

238 As a matter of curiosity a tale of Phlegon, De Rebus mirabilibus, ch. 26., may find a place here. According to the report of the physician Dorotheus a Cinaedus (pathic sodomite) at Alexandria in Egypt bore a child, which was preserved at that place. The text reads, Δωρόθεος δέ φησιν ὁ ἰατρὸς ἐν Ὑπομνήμασιν, ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, τῇ κατ’ Αἴγυπτον, κίναιδον τεκεῖν· τὸ δὲ βρέφος ταριχευθὲν, χάριν τοῦ παραδόξου, φυλάττεσθαι. (Now Dorotheus the Physician says in his Memoirs, that at Alexandria in Egypt a cinaedus brought forth; and that the babe was mummified and kept as a curiosity). The same thing is reported in the following chapter of a slave with the Roman army in Germany under the command of T. Curtilius Mancias. These stories may possibly borrow some probability from modern investigations as to the “foetus” within the “foetus”. The expression “to sow seed on barren rocks” occurs, it may be mentioned, very frequently in connection with paederastia in the Fathers.

239 Juvenal, Sat. VI. 366 sqq.,

Sunt quas eunuchi imbelles ac mollia semper
Oscula delectent et desperatio barbae.
Et quod abortivo non est opus, illa voluptas
Summa tamen, quod iam calida matura iuventa
Inguina traduntur medicis, iam pectine nigro.
Ergo exspectatos ac iussos crescere primum,
Testiculos, postquam coeperunt esse bilibres,
Tonsoris damno tantum rapit Heliodorus.

(Women there are to find delight in unwarlike eunuchs and kisses ever soft and the lack of a beard that can never grow, and this especially because then there is no need for any abortive. But the pleasure is greatest when the organs are delivered full-grown to the surgeons, just in the heat of youth, just when the down of puberty is darkening. Then when the testicles, long looked for and at first encouraged to grow, begin to be of double balanced weight, lo! Heliodorus whips them off,—to the barber’s loss).

Martial, VI. 67.,

Cur tantum Eunuchos habeat tua Gellia, quaeris

Pannice? vult futui Gellia, non parere.

(Why your Gellia is fain to have eunuchs only, do you ask, Pannicus? Because she wishes to be f-ck-d, not to be a mother). In longam securamque libidinem exsectus spado, (A eunuch castrated with a view to long-continued and harmless lust), says St. Jerome. The information given by Galen (De usu Partium bk. XIV. 15. edit. Kühn, vol. IV. p. 571) is notable, to the effect that the athletes at Olympia were castrated, that their strength might not be wasted by coition. Have the words “Olimpia agona” (Olimpic—Olympic—games) been in some way misunderstood in the passage?

240 Genesis XIX. 4., Levit., XVIII. 2., XXIX. 13.

241 Welcker, Aeschylus—Trilogy, p. 356.

242 Athenaeus, Deipnosoph., p. 602., τοῦ παιδεραστεῖν παρὰ πρώτων Κρητῶν εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας παρελθόντος, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Τίμαιος. (The practice of paederastia having been introduced among the Greeks first by the Cretans, as Timaeus relates).—Heraclitus Ponticus, fragment, περὶ πολιτείας III. p. 7.—Servius on Virgil—Aeneid bk. X. 325., de Cretensibus accepimus, quod in amore puerorum intemperantes fuerunt, quod postea in Laconas et totam Graeciam translatum est. (Of the Cretans we have been told that they were excessive in their love of boys, a practice afterwards imported into Laconia and all parts of Greece.) Comp. K. O. Müller, “Die Dorier”, (The Dorians), Vol. II. pp. 240 sqq. K. Höck, “Kreta”, (Crete), Vol. III. p. 106. Though in Crete as in all Dorian States Paedophilia was a universal and official institution, yet paederastia too was common enough, as is shown by the censure expressed by Plato (De Legibus bk. I. 636., bk. VII. 836.) and Plutarch, (De puerorum educatione ch. 14.).—as also by the expression Κρῆτα τρόπον (Cretan fashion) given in Hesychius; and probably the word κρητίζειν (to play the Cretan) is to be understood from this point of view also. Pfeffinger, “De Cretum vitiis,” (Of the Vices of the Cretans). Strasbourg 1701. 4to. From this Aristotle (Politics II. 7. 5.) may have got the idea that the lawgiver in Crete introduced paederastia in order to check the increase of population. Hesychius says at any rate κρῆτα τρόπον, παιδικοῖς χρῆσθαι. (Cretan fashion, i.e. to indulge in boy-loves). Of the Scythians later on.

243 Thus Plutarch, Eroticus, ch. 5., Ἡ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀῤῥένων ἀκόντων, μετὰ βίας γενομένη καὶ λεηλασίας, ἂν δὲ ἑκουσίως, σὺν μαλακίᾳ καὶ θηλύτητι βαίνεσθαι κατὰ Πλάτωνα νόμῳ τετράποδος καὶ παιδοσπορεῖσθαι παρὰ φύσιν ἐνδιδόντων, χάρις ἄχαρις παντάπασι καὶ ἀσχήμων καὶ ἀναφρόδιτος. (But the pleasure that is won from males against their will by dint of force or robbery, or if voluntarily, then only because in their wantonness and effeminacy they consent to men treading them, as Plato puts it, like a four-footed beast, and emitting seed with them unnaturally—this pleasure is a graceless one altogether, and unseemly and loveless). The passage of Plato referred to here is in the Phaedrus, p. 250 E., ὥστε οὐ σέβεται προσορῶν, ἀλλ’ ἡδονῇ παραδοὺς τετράποδος νόμον βαίνειν ἐπιχειρεῖ καὶ παιδοσπορεῖν, καὶ ὕβρει προσομιλῶν οὐ δέδοικεν οὐδ’ αἰσχύνεται παρὰ φύσιν ἡδονὴν διώκων. (And so he feels no reverence when he looks on him, but giving way to pleasure endeavours to tread like a four-footed beast and to emit his seed, and using insolent violence in his intercourse, has no fear and no shame in pursuing pleasure in an unnatural way). As something παρὰ φύσιν (contrary to nature) we find paederastia further characterized in Athenaeus, Deipnosoph., bk. XIII. p. 605. Lucian, Amores, 19. Philo, De legg. spec., II. p. 306. 17. Libanius, Orat., XIX. p. 500. ἡ παράνομος Ἀφροδίτη. (Unlawful Love). Galen, De diagnos. et curat. anim. effect. (On the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diseases of Animals). edit. Kühn. Vol. V. p. 30. τῆς παρὰ φύσιν αἰσχρουργίας (of unnatural viciousness). In the Anthologia Graeca, bk. II. tit. 5. No. 10. is the distich following by an unknown author:

Υἱὸς Πατρικίου μάλα κόσμιος, ὃς διὰ Κύπριν

Οὐχ ὁσίην ἑτάρους πάντας ἀποστρέφεται.

(Son of Patricius, a very discreet man, who by unholy love seduces all his comrades). But above all the passage in Aeschines, Orat. in Timarch. edit. Reiske, p. 146., is to the point in this connection: ὁρίζομαι δ’ εἶναι, τὸ μὲν ἐρᾶν τῶν καλῶν καὶ σωφρόνων, φιλανθρώπου, πάθος καὶ εὐγνώμονος ψυχῆς· τὸ δὲ ἀσελγαίνειν ἀργυρίου τινὰ μισθούμενον, ὑβριστοῦ καὶ ἀπαιδεύτου ἀνδρὸς ἔργον εἶναι ἡγοῦμαι· καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀδιαφθόρως ἐρᾶσθαι, φημὶ καλὸν εἶναι· τὸ δὲ ἐπαρθέντα μισθῷ πεπορνεῦσθαι, αἰσχρόν. (Now I make this distinction, that to love honourable and prudent friends is the passion of an amiable and reasonable soul; whereas to behave licentiously, hiring anyone for the purpose, I consider the act of a ruffianly and uncultivated man. Similarly, to be loved purely, I declare to be a noble thing; but, induced by pay, to allow oneself to be debauched, a foul thing). Anyone who has read this passage attentively, together with what follows in the Speech, cannot possibly any longer confound Paedophilia with Paederastia, or maintain that the latter was approved by the Greeks.

244 Aelian, Var. Hist., III. 12.—Xenophon, De republ. Lacedaem, II. 13., Sympos., VIII. 35. Plato, De leg., VIII. p. 912.

245 Lucian, Amores, 41., Μηδὲν ἀχθεσθῇς, εἰ ταῖς Ἀθήναις ἡ Κόρινθος εἴζει, (Do not be annoyed, if Corinth yields to Athens), on which the scholiasts add the explanation: ἢ ὡς τῆς Κορίνθου μὲν ἀνακειμένης Ἀφροδίτῃ (διὸ καὶ πολλὴ ἐν Κορίνθῳ ἡ γυναικεία μίξις) Ἀθηνῶν δὲ παιδεραστίᾳ κομώντων ἤτοι τῇ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν καὶ σώφρονι ἢ τῇ τῷ ὄντι μιαρᾷ καὶ διαβεβλημένῃ. (while Corinth is devoted to Aphrodité (wherefore in Corinth there is much varied intercourse with women), Athens prides herself on paederastia, whether a love of boys that is philosophic and wise, or a love that is veritably vile and despicable). Aristophanes, Plutus, vv. 149-152.,

Καὶ τὰς χ’ ἑταίρας φασὶ τὰς Κορινθίας,
Ὅταν μὲν αὐτάς τις πένης πειρῶν τύχῃ
Οὐδὲ προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν· ἐὰν δὲ πλούσιος,
Τὸν πρωκτὸν αὐτὰς
εὐθὺς ὡς τοῦτον τρέπειν.

(And they say that the Corinthian hetaerae, should any poor man chance to solicit them, pay no attention whatever; but if it be a rich man, at once they turn their posterior to him).

246 Clouds, vv. 973 sqq.—see also F. A. Wolf’s German translation.

247 Lysias, Contra Pancl., 731., from which passage it would seem that each “Deme” had its own κουρεῖον (barber’s shop) in the city. Demosthenes, Contra Aristogit., 786, 7. Theophrastus, Charact., VIII. 5. XI. Plutarch, Sympos., V. 5. Aristophanes, Plut., 339.

248 Aristophanes, Knights, 1380., where the expression τὰ μειράκια τἀν τῷ μύρῳ (the striplings, those in the myrrh-market) is intentionally ambiguous.

249 Aelian, Var. Hist., VIII. 8. Aeschines, In Timarch., § 40. says that Timarchus resided at the Surgery of Euthydicus, not to learn medicine, but to sell his person.

250 Theophrastus, Charact., V. edit. Ast, p. 183.

251 Theophrastus, Charact., VIII. 4.

252 Xenophon, Memorab., IV. 2. 1. Diogenes Laertius, III. 21.

253 Aeschines, In Timarch., p. 35., τὰς ἐρημίας καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐν πλείστῃ ὑποψίᾳ ποιούμενος. (regarding the lonely localities and the darkness as in the highest degree suspicious). p. 112. p. 90., ἡ πρᾶξις αὕτη εἴωθε γίγνεσθαι λάθρα καὶ ἐν ἐρημίαις. (this practice is usually carried on secretly and in lonely places). p. 104, it is said that Timarchus had more experience περὶ τῆς ἐρημίας ταύτης καὶ τοῦ τόπου ἐν τῇ Πνυκὶ. (about this lonely spot and the locality of the Pnyx) than of the Areopagus. Comp. Plato, Sympos., p. 217 b.

254 Plato, Sympos. p. 182. 6. Xenophon, Sympos. VIII. 34.—Cicero, De Republ., IV. 4., Apud Eleos et Thebanos in amore ingenuorum libido etiam permissam habet et solutam licentiam. (Among the Eleans and Thebans, in the love of free men, lust has actually a permitted and unchecked licence). Maximus Tyrius, Diss. XXXIX. p. 467. Plutarch, De pueror. educat., ch. 14. The Elean “boy-loving” was even more notorious than the Boeotian. Xenophon, De Republ. Lacedaem., II. 13. Maximus Tyrius, Diss., XXVI. p. 317.

255 Theognis, Sentent., 39.

256 Descript. Graeciae, Bk. I. ch. 43., Μετὰ δὲ τοῦ Διονύσου τὸ ἱερόν ἐστιν Ἀφροδίτης ναός· ἄγαλμα δὲ ἐλέφαντος Ἀφροδίτῃ πεποιημένον, Πρᾶξις ἐπίκλησιν· τοῦτ’, ἐστιν ἀρχαιότατον ἐν τῷ ναῷ·

257 Pollux, Onomast., bk. VII. ch. 33. says: εἰ δὲ χρὴ καὶ τὰς αἰσχίους πράξεις τέχνας ὀνομάζειν, (if that is we must call the more disgraceful πράξεις—doings, modes of intercourse—arts); and then cites the different designations of whores, brothels, etc.

258 Hesychius under the word χαλκιδίζειν. Athenaeus Deipnos., bk. XIII. p. 601 e. Plutarch, Amat., 38. 2.

259 Σιφνιάζειν· ἐπὶ τῶν τὰς χεῖρας προσαγόντων τοῖς ἰσχίοις, ὥσπερ λεσβιάζειν ἐπὶ τῶν παρανομούντων ἐν τοῖς ἀφροδισίοις· σιφνιάζειν δὲ καὶ λεσβιάζειν, ἀπὸ τῆς νήσου Σίφνου καὶ τῆς Λέσβου· ὡς καὶ τὸ κρητίζειν ἀπὸ τῆς Κρήτης· καὶ τὸ Σίφνιος δὲ ἀῤῥαβὼν, ὁμοίως σιφνιάζειν γὰρ τὸ ἅπτεσθαι τῆς πυγῆς δακτύλῳ. Λεσβιάζειν δὲ τὸ τῷ στόματι παρανομεῖν. Hesychius s. v. Σίφνιοι· ἀκάθαρτοι· ἀπὸ Σίφνου τῆς νήσου. Σίφνιος ἀῤῥαβών· περὶ τῶν Σιφνίων ἄτοπα διεδίδοτο, ὡς τῷ δακτύλῳ σκιμαλιζόντων· δηλοῖ οὖν τὸν διὰ δακτυλίου αἰδούμενον ἐπὶ τοῦ κακοσχόλου. (To play the Siphnian: said of those who apply the hands to the loins; as “to play the Lesbian” of those who act viciously in carnal pleasures.) Σιφνιάζειν and λεσβιάζειν from the islands Siphnos and Lesbos; just as the expression κρητίζειν (to play the Cretan) from Crete. Also the phrase “Siphnian surety”; for in the same way “to play the Siphnian” means to finger the posterior. But “to play the Lesbian”; to act viciously with the mouth.—Hesychius under the word Σίφνιοι: Siphnians, i.e. unclean persons; from the island of Siphnos. “Siphnian surety”: of the Siphnians abominable tales were told, to the effect that they poked the posterior with the finger. Signifies therefore one who acts disgracefully in connection with the anus, said of the idle voluptuary. Comp. σκιμαλίσαι, σκινδαρεύεσθαι in the same—Hesychius.

260 Comp. Libanius, In Florent., p. 430. Toup, Opusc. critic., Leipzig 1780. p. 420.

261 Athenaeus, Deipnos., bk. XIII. p. 517 f.

262 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Exc. p. 2336. Valerius Maximus, Bk. VI. 1. 9. Suidas, under Γαΐος Λαιτώριος (Caius Laetorius).

263 Bk IX. Epigr. 9. Comp. Suetonius, Nero 28, 29. Dio Cassius, LXII. 28., LXIII. 13. Juvenal, Satir. I. 62., and especially Tacitus, Annal., Bk. XV. 37.—Tatian, Orat. ad Graec., p. 100., Παιδεραστία μὲν ὑπὸ βαρβάρων διώκεται, προνομίας δὲ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων ἠξίωται, παίδων ἀγέλας, ὥσπερ ἵππων φορβάδων, συναγείρειν αὐτῶν πειρωμένων. (Paederastia is followed by barbarians generally, but is held in pre-eminent esteem by Romans, who endeavour to get together herds of boys, as it were of brood mares). Justin Martyr, Apolog., I. p. 14., Πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τοὺς πάντας σχεδὸν ὁρῶμεν ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ προάγοντας, οὐ μόνον τὰς κόρας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἄρσενας· καὶ ὃν τρόπον λέγονται οἱ παλαιοὶ ἀγέλας βοῶν, ἢ αἰγῶν, ἢ προβάτων τρέφειν, ἢ ἵππων φορβάδων, οὕτω νῦν δὲ παῖδας, εἰς τὸ αἰσχρῶς χρῆσθαι μόνον, καὶ ὁμοίων θηλειῶν, καὶ ἀνδρογύνων, καὶ ἀῤῥητοποιῶν πλῆθος κατὰ τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος ἐπὶ τούτου τοῦ ἅγους ἔστηκεν. (First because we behold nearly all men seducing to fornication not merely girls, but also males. And just as our fathers are spoken of as keeping herds of oxen, or goats, or sheep, or of brood mares, so now they keep boys, solely for the purpose of shameful usage, treating them as females, or men-women, and doing unspeakable acts. To such a pitch of pollution has the multitude throughout the whole people come).

264 That boys were kept in the brothels at Rome as paramours is seen from a host of passages in Ancient authors, e. g. Martial, bk. XI. Epigr. 45.,

Intrasti quoties inscriptae limina cellae

Seu puer arrisit, sive puella tibi.

(As oft as you have crossed the threshold of a “chamber” inscribed with name on door, whether it were boy that threw you a smile, or girl). They, as well as women, had to pay the Whore-tax. Comp. above p. 118. Note 6.

265 Bk. III. Epigr. 71.

266 Caelius Aurelianus, Acut. morb. (Acute Diseases), bk. III. ch. 18., Aliorum autem medicorum, excepto Themisone, nullus hanc passionem conscribit, cum non solum raro, verum etiam coacervatim, saepissime invasisse videatur. Memorat denique Themison, apud Cretam multos satyriasi interfectos. (But of other physicians none, with the exception of Themison, describes this complaint, though it appears to have attacked the population very frequently not only sporadically, but actually as an epidemic. In fact Themison records that in Crete men died of Satyriasis).

267 “Handbuch der medicin. Klinik” (Manual of Clinical Medicine), Vol. VII. pp. 88 and 670.

268 Bk. VI. Epigr. 37.

269 Martial, Bk. XI. Epigr. 99.

270 Martial, XI. 88.

271 Martial, VI. 49.

272 Martial, Bk. XII. Epigr. 33.

273 Martial, Bk. I. Epigr. 66. The old Grammars had the following lines:

Haec ficus, fici vel ficus, fructus et arbor,

Hic ficus, fici, malus est in podice morbus.

(Feminine:—ficus, gen. -i and -us, fig and fig-tree; masculine:—ficus, gen. -i, is an evil disease of the fundament.)

274 Satir. Bk. I. Sat. VIII. 46.

275 Martial, Bk. VII. Epigram 71.

276 There still remains some doubt in our mind as to the meaning of another Epigram of Martial’s, Bk. IV. Epigr. 52.

Gestari iunctis nisi desinis, Hedyle, capris

Qui modo ficus eras, iam caprificus eris,

(Unless you cease, Hedylus, to go with “she-goats” in copulation, you who were but now a fig-tree, will presently be a wild fig-tree (goat-fig)).

If capra (she-goat) here has the meaning of scortum (common strumpet),—and it cannot very well signify anything else,—the passage is an undoubted proof that such swellings were a consequence of coition with common prostitutes, and that the latter were ordinarily affected with them.—In Petronius, Sat. ch. 46., it is said of some one: Ingeniosus est et bono filo etiamsi in nave morbosus est. (He is of good abilities and good fibre, but he is diseased with swellings on the fundament.) Burmann notes on this: In nave—id est mariscas habet. Navis est podex ficosus. Hinc dictum illud Casellii apud Quintilianum, (De Instit. Orat. VI. 3. 87.) Consultori dicenti, navem dividere volo, respondentis, perdes. (In nave—that is, he has swellings. Navis (literally a ship) means a fundament afflicted with swellings. Hence the bon mot of Casellius, quoted in Quintilian. In reply to a client who said “I wish to cut (divide into shares) my ship” (navis,—means also diseased fundament), he retorted, “It’ll be fatal!”)

277 Bk. VII. Epigr. 34. Persius, Satir. I. 33., Hic aliquis—Rancidulum quiddam balba de nare locutus. (Hereupon some one spoke something offensive through stuttering nose—in a stuttering nasal voice). Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist. bk. IX., Orationem salebrosas passam iuncturas per cameram volutatam balbutire. (To stammer out through the palate’s vault all a-tremble a speech where the periods are joltingly united).

278 Joannes Jac. Reiske, and Joannes Ern. Faber, “Opuscula medica ex monumentis Arabum et Ebraeorum,” (Medical Tracts—from Arabic and Hebrew Writings), edit. Ch. G. Gruner. Halle 1776. 8vo., p. 61 Note: Ita tamen miror, ab antiquitatis patronis argumentum inde allatum non fuisse, quod veterum cinaedi passi fuerint in naribus et in palato vitium, a quo clare non potuerint eloqui, sed ῥέγχειν, stertere et rhonchissare debuerint. Cf. diserta sed acris oratio Dionis Chrysostomi Tarsica prior etc. (Yet I wonder at this, that the advocates of its antiquity have not drawn an argument from the fact that among the Ancients the cinaedi suffered from an affection of the nose and palate, that prevented their speaking distinctly, and made them ῥέγχειν, snore and snort, Comp. the eloquent, but censorious, Speech of the Rhetor Dio Chrysostom, First Tarsica, etc.) Gruner in his Antiq. Morborum (Antiquity of Diseases), p. 77., likewise cited this reference, but it appears without having personally compared the passages with precision.

279 Speeches, edit. by Joannes Jac. Reiske. 2 Vols. Leipzig 1784 large 8vo., Vol. II. Speech XXXIII (not XXXII, as given in Reiske and Gruner), pp. 14 sqq.

280 Ἀκολάστοις (intemperate). This word often occurs in the sense of paederast, especially when the latter is spoken of as pursuing the vice passionately. Thus Aeschines, in Timarch., pp. 63, 183. Plato, Sympos., 186 c.

281 Τὸν δέ γε ἄγριον τοῦτον καὶ χαλεπὸν ἦχον. (This rough and harsh tone of voice). The word ἄγριος (rough, savage) is specially used of the paederast, Aristophanes, Clouds 347., and the Scholiast on the passage; the same is true of χαλεπὸς (hard, harsh). The Scholiast on Aeschines, In Timarch., p. 731 R., ἀγρίους τοὺς σφόδρα ἐπτοημένους περὶ τὰ παιδικὰ καὶ χαλεποὺς παιδεραστάς. (rough men that are above measure agog for boy-loves,—hard paederasts.) All through the Speech are found a host of allusions to the expressions in common use to signify paederastia, which may well make the right understanding of it difficult.

282 Τὸ πρᾶγμα (the thing) has the same meaning here as πρᾶξις (doing, intercourse) in Aeschines, In Timarch., pp. 159, 160. Plato, Sympos., 181 b.

283 Κινεῖται (is raised, is stirred), from which the word Κίναιδος, cinaedus, is derived.

284 On the digitus medius (middle finger) or infamis compare Upton on Arrian’s Diss. Epictet, II. 2. p. 176.—“Abhandlung von den Fingern, deren Verrichtungen und symbolischen Bedeutung.” (Treatise on the Fingers, their Gestures and Symbolic Meaning). Leipzig 1756. pp. 172-221. But in particular Forberg, loco citato p. 338. note h.: Cum digitus medius porrectus, reliquis incurvatis, tentam repraesentet mentulam cum coleis suis, factum est, ut medium digitum hoc modo ostenderent (Graeci uno verbo dixerunt σκιμαλίζειν) cinaedis, sive pelliciendis, sive irridendis. (In as much as the middle finger stretched out, the other fingers being bent under, represents the extended penis with its bags (testicles), it came about that the Greeks used to show the middle finger in this way (the Greeks expressed it by one word σκιμαλίζειν) to cinaedi, whether to beckon them or by way of derision.). Martial, I. 93., Saepe mihi queritur Celsus.... Tangi se digito, Mamuriane, tuo. (Often Celsus complains to me that he is touched by your finger, Mamurianus.) VI. 70., Ostendit digitum, sed impudicum. (He shows a finger, but an indecent one). Οἱ δὲ Ἀττικοὶ καὶ τὸν μέσον τῆς χειρὸς δάκτυλον καταπύγωνα ὠνόμαζον. (Now the Attics used to call the middle finger of the hand the lewd finger.) Pollux, Onomast., II. 4. 184. Suetonius, Caligula, ch. 56., Osculandam manum offerre, formatam commotamque in obscoenum modum. (To offer his hand to be kissed, put into an obscene shape and moved in an obscene way.) Th. Echtermeyer, “Progr. über Namen und symbol. Bedeut. der Finger bei den Griechen und Römern.” (Names and Symbolic Meaning of the Fingers amongst the Greeks and Romans.) Halle 1835. 4to., pp. 41-49., treats very exhaustively of this subject.

285 On account of the resemblance of its harsh, screeching note? Reiske remarks on this passage: Est autem κερχνίς avis quaedam a stertendo sic dicta, vel stridore, quem edit similem iis qui stertunt. (But the κερχνίς,—hawk, is a bird so called from the snoring, or harsh note it utters, like men who snore). Comp. Schneider, Lexicon, under words κέρχνος and κέρχω (hoarseness, to make hoarse).

286 Horace, Odes II. 8.,

Ulla si iuris tibi peierati
Poena, Barine, nocuisset unquam,
Dente si nigro fieres, vel uno Turpior ungui,
Crederem.

(If any punishment for perjured faith had ever hurt you, Barinus, if you had had but a blackened tooth, or had been disfigured in one single nail, I would believe).

287 Epistle to the Romans, Ch. I. vv. 24, 26, 27.

288 Names of noted women are given by Martial, bk. XI. Epigr. 95. Comp. below. p. 118. note 3.

289 Rerum Gestarum bk. XIV. ch. 19.—Petronius, Satir., ch. 68., says of a slave: duo tamen vitia habet, quae si non haberet, esset omnium nummorum: recutitus est et stertit. (Yet has he two faults, lacking which he would be a man above price: he is circumcised and he snorts.)—Terence, Eunuch., Act V. sc 1. v. 53, Fatuus et insulsus, bardus, stertit noctes et dies. Neque istum metuas ne amet mulier. (Foolish and silly, a stupid fellow, he snores all night and all day. Have no fear that a woman could love him.)

290 Bk. XII. Epigr. 87.,

Paediconibus os olere dicis.

Hoc si sic, ut ais, Fabulle, verum est,

Quid tu credis olere cunnilingis?

(You say paederasts’ breath smells foul. If what you allege is true, Fabullus, what sort of a breath think you have cunnilingi?—cunnilingi, i. e. illi qui pudenda mulierum lingunt, men who lick women’s private parts).

291 Lucian, Philopatr., ch. 20. relates: Ἀνθρωπίσκος δέ τις, τοὔνομα Χαρίκενος, σεσημμένον γερόντιον, ῥέγχον τῇ ῥινὶ, ὑπέβηττε μύχιον, ἐχρέμπτετο ἐπισεσυρμένον· ὁ δὲ πτύελος κυανώτερος θανάτου· εἶτα ἤρξατο ἐπιφθέγγεσθαι κατισχνημένον. (But a little man, whose name was Charicenus, a tiny mouldy old man, snorting through his nose, gave a deep cough and cleared his throat with a long-drawn hawking,—and his spittle was blacker than death. Then he began to speak in a thin voice). The same is said of an Egyptian boy in Lucian’s Navigium, ch. 2. Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic., Bk. III. ch. 5., gives the following story: Plutarchus refert, Arcesilaum philosophum vehementi verbo usum esse de quodam nimis delicato divite, qui incorruptus tamen et castus et perinteger dicebatur. Num cum vocem eius infractam, capillumque arte compositum et oculos ludibundos atque illecebrae voluptatisque plenos videret: Nihil interest, inquit quibus membris cinaedi sitis, posterioribus an prioribus. (Plutarch reports a biting phrase made use of by the philosopher Arcesilaus of a certain rich and over-dainty man, who yet had the name of being unspoiled and temperate and highly virtuous. Noting his broken voice, and hair artfully arranged, and rolling eyes full of allurement and wantonness, “It makes no odds,” he said, “which members ye play the cinaedus with, whether those behind or those in front.”) Comp. § 16. below.

292 Paedagog., bk. III. ch. 4. p. 230.

293 E.G. Bose, νόσῳ θηλείᾳ· (Discussion of the νόσος θήλεια of the Scythians). Leipzig 1774. 4to.—Chr. Heyne, “De maribus inter Scythas morbo effeminatis et de Hermaphroditis Floridae.” (On the transformation of males into females among the Scythians as the result of disease, and on the Hermaphrodites of Florida). Göttingen 1779., Vol. I. pp. 28-44.—E. L. W. Nebel, “De Morbis Veterum obscuris.” (On some Obscure Diseases of the Ancients) Sect. I. Giessen 1794. No. I. pp. 17, 18.—Graaf, “Morbus femineus Scytharum.” (Feminine Disease of the Scythians). Würzburg N. D. 8vo., is cited by Friedreich. p. 33.—C. W. Stark, “De νούσῳ θηλείᾳ apud Herodotum Prolusio.” (Disquisition on the νούσος θήλεια in Herodotus). Jena 1827. 64 pp. 4to.—J. B. Friedreich, “Νοῦσος θήλεια”, a Historical fragment in his “Magazin für Seelenheilkunde” (Magazine of Medical Psychology). Pt. I. Würzburg 1829., pp. 71-78., and in his “Analekten zur Natur- und Heilkunde” (Selections in Natural and Medical Science) Würzburg 1831. 4to., pp. 28-33.

294 Herodotus, Hist. Bk. I. ch. 105. Τοῖσι δὲ τῶν Σκυθέων συλήσασι τὸ ἱρὸν τὸ ἐν Ἀσκάλωνι, καὶ τοῖσι τούτων αἰεὶ ἐκγὁνοισι, ἐνέσκηψε ἡ θεὸς θήλειαν νοῦσον· ὥστε ἅμα λέγουσί τε οἱ Σκύθαι διὰ τοῦτό σφεας νοσέειν, καὶ ὁρᾷν παρ’ ἑωυτοῖσι τοὺς ἀπικνεομένους ἐς τὴν Σκυθικὴν χώρην ὡς διακέαται, τοὺς καλέουσι Ἐναρέας οἱ Σκύθαι.—for translation see text.

295 “Recherches et Dissertations sur Herodote.” (Researches and Dissertations on Herodotus). Dijon 1746. 4to., pp. 207-212. Ch. XX., Ce que c’étoit que la maladie des femmes, que la Déesse Venus envoya aus Scythes. (What was the nature of the “Women’s Disease” which the goddess Venus sent on the Scythians).

296 Costar, “Defence des Œuvres de Voiture.” (Defence of the Works of Voiture), and “Apologie” p. 194.

297 Sprengel, “Apologie des Hippocrates.” (Defence of Hippocrates). Leipzig 1792. Pt. II. p. 616.

298 De Girac, “Réponse à l’Apologie de Voiture par Costar.” (Reply to Costar’s Apology of Voiture). p. 54.

299 Bayer, “Memoria Scythica in Commentat. Petropolitan,” (Memoir on the Scythians,—in St. Petersburg Commentaries). 1732., Vol. III. pp. 377, 8.

300 Part. VI. p. 35.

301 Patin, “Comment. in vetus monument. Ulpiae Marcellin.” (Commentary on the ancient Monument of Ulpia Marcellina) p. 413.

302 Hensler, “Geschichte der Lustseuche.” (History of Venereal Disease). Altona 1783., Vol. I. p. 211.

303 Degen, Translation of Herodotus (German), Vol. I. p. 81. note.

304 Mercurialis, Various Readings. Bk. III. d. 64.

305 Sauvages, “Nosologia methodic.” (Systematic Nosology). Lyons 1772., Vol. VII. p. 365.

306 Koray on Hippocrates, “De aere aq. et loc.” (On influence of Air, Water and Locality)., Vol. II. p. 326.

307 In Euripides’ Hippolytus, v. 5., Venus says of herself:

τοὺς μὲν σέβοντας τἀμὰ πρεσβεύω κράτη,
σφάλλω δ’ ὅσοι φρονοῦσιν εἰς ἡμᾶς μέγα.

(I love and protect him who recognises my right, and undo him whose pride rebels against me).

308 Plato, Sympos. 192 b., πρὸς γάμους καὶ παιδοποιΐας οὐ προσέχουσι τὸν νοῦν φύσει, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἀναγκάζονται, ἀλλ’ ἐξαρκεῖ αὐτοῖς μετ’ ἀλλήλων καταζῆν ἀγάμοις. (To marriage and the procreation of children they pay no attention whatever naturally, but are only forced by the law to do so. It is enough for them to live out their lives with one another unwed).

309 “Histoire d’Herodote, par M. Larcher.” (Herodotus’ History, translated (French) by Mons. Larcher). Vol. I. Paris 1786., p. 368. Un homme d’esprit, mais peu instruit, croyoit que le sentiment de M. le President Bouhier se detruisoit de lui-même. Peut on supposer, disoit il, que Vénus aveugle en sa vengeance, se soit fait à elle même l’affront le plus sanglant, et qu’aux dépens de son culte, elle ait procuré des adorateurs au Dieu de Lampsaque, qu’elle ne doit chérir que lorsqu’il vient sacrifier sur ses autels. (A witty but superficial critic considered the opinion of the president Bouhier to be self-contradictory. Can Venus be supposed, he argued, so blind in her vengeance as to have put on herself the deadliest of affronts, and at the expense of her own worship to have given adorers to the god of Lampsacus, whom she must only patronize when he comes to sacrifice at her altars?)

310 Natalis Comes, Mythologia p. 392., according to the report of several Scholiasts. The Scholiast on Lucian, Amores ch. 2., writes Ἐπεὶ καὶ ταῖς Λημνίαις γυναιξὶν ἔγκοτος Ἀφροδίτη γενομένη, εἶτα δυσώδεις αὐτὰς ποιήσασα, ἀποκοίτους αὐτὰς ποιῆσαι τοὺς ἄνδρας αὐτῶν ἠνάγκασεν. (When Aphrodité, angered with the women of Lemnos, had then made them malodorous, and so compelled their husbands to expel them from their beds). Similarly the Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius, Argonaut., I. 609., αἱ Λήμνιαι γυναῖκες ... τῶν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης τιμῶν κατολιγωρήσασαι, καθ’ ἑαυτῶν τὴν θεὸν ἐκίνησαν· πάσαις γάρ δυσοσμίαν ἐνέβαλεν, ὡς μηκέτι αὐτὰς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἀρέσκειν. (The Lemnian women, by neglecting the honours due to Aphrodité, stirred the goddess’ anger against them. For she inflicted on them all an ill-odour, so that they were no longer pleasing to their husbands). To the same purport the Scholiast on Euripides, Hecuba v. 887., who cites Didymus as authority:

Ἐν Λήμνῳ γυναῖκες ἐτέλουν ἐτήσιον ἑορτὴν Ἀφροδίτῃ· ἐπεὶ οὖν ποτε καταφρονήσασαι τῆς θεοῦ, ἀπέλιπον τὸ ἔθος, ἡ Ἀφροδίτη ἐνέβαλεν αὐταῖς δυσωδίαν, ὡς μὴ δύνασθαι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν ἄνδρας αὐταῖς πλησιάσαι· αἱ δὲ νομίσασαι, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν καταφρονεῖσθαι, τούτους πάντας ἀπέκτειναν. ὁ δέ Δίδυμος οὕτω. (At Lemnos the women used to celebrate a yearly festival in honour of Aphrodité. And so when on one occasion they scorned the goddess and neglected the custom, Aphrodité afflicted them with an ill odour, so that their own husbands could not come near them. And they concluding they were scorned by their husbands, killed them all. Didymus confirms this). The Lesbian Myrtilus or Myrsilus gives a different account of the origin of the evil smell of the Lesbian women, representing it in the First Book of his “Lesbica” as a consequence of the magic arts of Medea, who had landed with Jason at Lemnos. The story was taken from the lost Work of Myrtilus by Antigonus Carystius, Histor. mirab. collect., edit. J. Meursius. Leyden 1629. 4to., ch. 130. p. 97., Τὰς δέ Λημνίας δυσόσμους γενέσθαι, Μηδείας ἀφικομένης μετ’ Ἰάσονος καὶ φάρμακα ἐμβαλλούσης εἰς τὴν νῆσον· κατὰ δέ τινα χρόνον καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις, ἐν αἷς ἱστοροῦσι τὴν Μήδειαν παραγενέσθαι, δυσώδεις αὐτὰς οὕτως γίνεσθαι ὥστε μηδένα προσϊέναι. (And that the Lemnian women became malodorous, when Medea came thither with Jason and cast poisonous drugs on the island; and that for some length of time and particularly in those days when Medea is related to have been there, they were so ill-smelling that no man could approach them.) Also the Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius, I. 165., says: τῶν ἄλλων ἱστορούντων, ὅτι κατὰ χόλον τῆς Ἀφροδίτης αἱ Λημνιάδες δύσοσμοι ἐγένοντο, Μυρτίλος ἐν πρώτῳ Λεσβικῶν διαφέρεται· καὶ φησὶ τὴν Μήδειαν παραπλέουσαν, διὰ ζηλοτυπίαν ῥίψαι εἰς τὴν Λήμνον φάρμακον, καὶ δυσοσμίαν γενέσθαι ταῖς γυναιξίν, εἶναί τε μέχρι τοῦ νῦν κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἡμέραν τινὰ, ἐν ᾗ διὰ τὴν δυσωδίαν ἀποστρέφονται τὰς γυναῖκας ἄνδρές τε καὶ υἱεῖς. (Whereas others relate that in consequence of the anger of Aphrodité the women of Lemnos became evil-smelling, Myrtilus in the first Book of the “Lesbica” tells a different tale. He says that Medea, sailing past the land, moved by envy cast a poison on the island, and so an ill odour fell on the women; further that there is down to the present time a day once a year, on which owing to this foul odour husbands and sons turn and flee from the women.) Finally there is an Epigram of Lucillius in the Greek Anthology (edit. H. de Bosch, Vol. I. p. 416.) Bk. II. Tit. 14. no. 4., mentioning the evil smell of the Lemnian women:

Οὔτε Χίμαιρα τοιοῦτον ἔπνει κακὸν, ἡ καθ’ Ὅμηρον,

Οὐκ ἀγέλη ταύρων (ὡς ὁ λόγος) πυρίπνους,
Οὐ Λῆμνος σύμπασ’, οὐχ Ἁρπυιῶν τὰ περισσὰ,
Οὐδ’ ὁ Φιλοκτήτου ποὺς ἀποσηπόμενος,
Ὥστε σε παμψηφεὶ νικᾶν, Τελέσιλλα, Χιμαίρας,
Σηπεδόνας, ταύρους, ὄρνεα, Λημνιάδας.

(Neither the Chimaera of Homer had so ill a smell, nor yet the herd (as the story goes) of fire-breathing bulls, not all Lemnos, not the foulest of the Harpies, nor even Philoctetes’ putrefying foot. So you see, Telesilla, you outdo—the vote is unanimous,—Chimaeras, putrefactions, bulls, birds, Lemnian women!) The stench of Telesilla outdid, we see, all known evil smells, even that of the Lemnian women, etc. Also in Valerius Flaccus, bk. II. 99-241., is found this myth of the Lemnian women.

311 Hence Iphis, in Ovid, Metam., IX. 723 sqq., says:

Iphis amat, qua posse frui desperat, et auget

Hoc ipsum flammas: ardetque in virgine virgo.

Vix tenens lacrimas: Quis me manet exitus, inquit,

Cognita quam nulli, quam prodigiosa novaeque

Cura tenet Veneris? si dii mihi parcere vellent.

Naturale malum saltem et de more dedissent.

Nec vaccam vaccae, nec equas amor urit equarum.

Femina femineo correpta cupidine nulla est.

Vellem nulla forem.

(Iphis loves one that she knows, alas! she can never enjoy, and this fact itself increases her passion. A maiden burns for a maiden. Hardly keeping back her tears she cries: What fate awaits me,—me who suffer sorrow of Venus known to none, a sorrow monstrous and of strange new sort? If the gods were willing to spare me, they would have given me a natural curse surely, one of ordinary kind. No cow burns for a cow, no mare for the love of mares, nor any woman is taken with love for a woman. Would I were no woman!)

Similarly Lucillius says of the paederast Cratippus in the Greek Anthology, bk. II. Tit. V. no. 1.;

Τὸν φιλόοπαιδα Κράτιππον ἀκούσατε· θαῦμα γὰρ ὑμῖν

Καινὸν ἀπαγγέλλω· πλὴν μεγάλαι νεμέσεις·

Τὸν φιλόπαιδα Κράτιππον ἀνεύρομεν ἄλλο γένος· τί;

Τῶν ἑτεροζήλων ἤλπισα τοῦτ’ ἂν ἐγὼ;

Ἤλπισα τοῦτο, Κράτιππε; μανήσομαι, εἰ λύκος εἶναι

Πᾶσι λέγων ἐφάνης ἐξαπίνης ἔριφος.

(Of the boy-loving Cratippus will I tell you; for a strange new wonder I report. Yea! great are the penalties he pays. The boy-loving Cratippus we have found has another character. What character? I should have thought him to be of those whose love is eager on one side only. Did I think so, Cratippus? Well, I shall seem a madman, if—professing the while to all to be a wolf,—you of a sudden appear in the character of a kid).

But most important in this connection is the passage of Aeschines, Orat. in Timarch., p. 178., μὴ γὰρ οἴεσθαι, ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰς τῶν ἀτυχημάτων ἀρχὰς ἀπὸ θεῶν, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀσελγείας γίνεσθαι, μηδὲ τοὺς ἠσεβηκότας, καθάπερ ἐπὶ ταῖς τραγῳδίαισι, Ποινὰς ἐλαύνειν καὶ κολάζειν δᾳσὶν ἡμμέναις· ἀλλ’ αἱ προπετεῖς τοῦ σώματος ἡδοναὶ, καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἱκανὸν ἡγεῖσθαι. (For you must not dream, Athenians, that the causes of calamities are from the gods, and that such are not rather due to the wickedness of mankind. Do not imagine the impious are driven by Furies, as is represented in the Tragedies, and chastised with blazing torches; nay! it is reckless indulgence in bodily pleasures that is the scourge, and immoderate desires). Comp. Theon, Progymn., ch. 7.—Cicero, Orat. in Pison., 20., Nolite putare, Patres Conscripti, ut in scena videtis homines consceleratos impulso deorum terreri Furiarum taedis ardentibus. Sua quemque fraus, suum facinus, suum scelus, sua audacia de sanitate ac mente deturbat. Hae sunt impiorum Furiae, hae flammae, hae faces. (Dream not, Conscript Fathers, that wicked men, as you see represented on the stage, are driven in terror, at the instigation of the gods, by the blazing torches of the Furies. ’Tis his own dishonesty, his own wickedness, his own baseness, his own recklessness, that destroys each man’s health and sanity. These are the furies that torment the impious, these the flames and torches).

312 De Bello Peloponnesiaco, Bk. I. ch. 12. (edit. Bauer. Leipzig 1790. 4to., p. 33.), καὶ Φιλοκτήτης διὰ τὸν Πάριδος θάνατον θήλειαν νόσον νοσήσας, καὶ μὴ φέρων τὴν αἰσχύνην, ἀπελθὼν ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος, ἔκτισε πόλιν, ἣν διὰ τὸ πάθος Μαλακίαν ἐκάλεσε.—for translation see text above. Our view on this passage is shared by Manso, pp. 46 and 70.

313 Bk. II. Epigr. 84. How Meier, loco citato p. 160., could derive a proof from this passage that Philoctetes had been the pathic of Hercules is beyond our comprehension, seeing that Hercules had long been dead when Philoctetes was punished with this vice by Venus.

314 Bk. II. Epigr. 89.

315 Works of Ausonius; Delphin edition, revised by J. B. Souchay. Paris 1730. 4to., p. 4. Carm. 71. Following a ridiculous custom the “Obscoena e textu Ausoniano resecta” (Objectionable passages removed from the text of Ausonius) are printed together at the end of the Book, and separately paged.

316 Instit. orat, Bk. X. ch. 1.

317 Fab. 148.—Barth on Statius’ Thebaid. V. 59.

318 Tragoed. Hippolyt., 124.; and Servius on Virgil, Aeneid, Bk. VI. v. 14., Venus vehementer dolens stirpem omnem Solis persequi infandis amoribus coepit. (Venus, exceedingly indignant, proceeds to afflict all the descendants of the Sun with abominable loves.)

319 Amores, ch. 2., οὕτω τις ὑγρὸς τοῖς ὄμμασιν ἐνοικεῖ μύωψ, ὃς ἅπαν πάλλος εἰς αὑτὸν ἁρπάζων ἐπ’ οὐδενὶ κόρῳ παύεται· καὶ συνεχὲς ἀπορεῖν ἐπέρχεταί μοι, τίς οὗτος Ἀφροδίτης ὁ χόλος· οὐ γὰρ Ἡλιάδης ἐγώ τις, οὐδὲ Λημνιάδων ἔρις, οὐδὲ Ἱππολύτειον ἀγροικίαν ὠφρυωμένος, ὡς ἐρεθίσαι τῆς θεοῦ τὴν ἄπαυστον ταύτην ὀργήν. (for translation see text above.) The word ἔρις—strife, in this passage is obviously corrupt, having got into the text probably by confusion with ἐρεθίσαι—to provoke, standing just below in the MS. Jacobs proposed ἔρνος—scion, but according to Lehmann this is too poetical a word for Lucian; ἐρεὺς—in the sense of heir, might very well be read, giving the same meaning. Could ὕβριν—insolence, have been the original word in the text? Lucian must have written the passage with a reference to the above mentioned punishment of the Lemnian women by Venus, and by Λημνιάδων—Lemnian women, we must understand not the descendants of the women of Lemnos, but these women themselves, Apollonius Rhodius (Argon., I. 653.) also using Λημνιάδες δὲ γυναῖκες—Lemnian women, of these same inhabitants of the island. Now the Greeks characterized every form of behaviour of a kind to incur the anger of the goddess by the word ὕβρις—overbearing insolence; and this would exactly fit in the passage, for the οὐδὲ ... οὐδὲ—neither ... nor, calls for a correspondence of phrase in each clause, and ὕβρις and ἀγροικία—brutal insensibility, tally excellently. For ὕβρις in the sense indicated comp. Clement of Alexandria, Paedag., Bk. II. ch. 10., ἐπιθυμία γὰρ κακὴ ὄνομα ὕβρις, καὶ τὸν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ἵππον, ὑβριστὴν ὁ Πλάτων (Phaedr. pp. 1226, 27.) προσεῖπεν, Ἵπποι θηλυμανεῖς ἐγενήθητέ μοι, ἀναγνούς. (for evil concupiscence is called ὕβρις, and the horse of concupiscence Plato named Ὑβριστὴς—Overbearing, having read “Wild horses ye became to me.”) We should then have to translate, supposing we read ὕβριν in the text, “I am neither puffed up with the insolence of the women of Lemnos, nor yet with the brutal insensibility of Hippolytus.” Very possibly an Attic writer would not have expressed himself so; but we must remember that Fr. Jacobs, a man of fine discrimination of Classical diction, denied from the first Lucian’s authorship of the passage ob orationem difficilem valdeque impeditam—because of its difficult and exceedingly awkward style. The unfavourable judgement which Lehmann in his edition passes on this Work (Lucian’s Amores) so far as its general tenor is concerned, is based we may observe almost entirely on the confusion of paedophilia with paederastia. However under no circumstances has any actual allusion been made to the lewdness of the Lemnian women, if Belin, de Ballu, and others agree in this rendering.

320 De special legib., Opera Vol. II. p. 304.

321 Ovid, Metamorphos., bk. X. 238.

322 Ovid, Metamorphos., bk. X. 298.—Servius on Virgil, Eclog. X. 18. Fulgentius, Mytholog. III. 8.

323 Ausonius, Epigr. C.,

De Hermaphrodito

Mercurio genitore satus, genetrice Cythere,

Nominis ut mixti, sic corporis Hermaphroditus,

Concretus sexu, sed non perfectus, utroque:

Ambiguae Veneris, neutro potiundus amori.

(Of Hermaphroditus.—Born of Mercury as sire, of Cythera as mother, Hermaphroditus, at once of compound name and compound body, combined of either sex, but complete in neither; a being of ambiguous love, that can enjoy the joys of neither passion.)

324 Orat contra Alcibiad., I. p. 550., οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ αὐτῶν ἡταιρήκασιν. (the majority of them have become prostitutes.) Comp. Meier, loco citato p. 173., who in another place, p. 154 note 79., has authenticated the meaning of ἑταιρεῖν (to be a hetaera, prostitute, used of men, viz. to submit the body for pay to another to violate.)

325 “De morbis acutis et chronicis, lib. VIII.” (On acute and chronic Diseases—8 Books.) edit. Amman. Amsterdam 1722. 4to. Chronic Diseases, Bk. IV. ch. 9. In this book diseases of the intestinal canal are treated, and immediately preceding the subject of Worms. So the vice must have been regarded as if it were a disease of the rectum, though the author says it had its origin in a mental derangement. Comp. C. Barth, Adversar., bk. IV. ch. 3., bk. XLIII. ch. 21, bk. XLVIII. ch. 3., bk. XXIII. ch. 2. bk. XIII. ch. 13., where several emendations are to be found of the corruptions of the text.

326 Tribades dictae a τρίβω, frico, frictrices, sunt quibus ea pars naturae muliebris, quam clitoridem vocant, in tantam magnitudinem excrescit, ut possint illa pro mentula vel ad futuendum vel ad paedicandum uti. “Tribades”, so called from τρίβω,—I rub, women that rub, are such as have that portion of the woman’s parts which is called the clitoris grown to a size so excessive that they can use it as a penis whether for fornicating or for paederastia. So says Forberg, loco citato p. 345. Comp. Hesychius ἑταιρίστριαι τριβάδες (lewd women, tribades.) The Lesbian women were especially notorious for it. Lucian, Dialog. meretr. 5., τοιαύτας (ἑταιριστρίας) ἐν Λέσβῳ λέγουσι γυναῖκας, ὑπὸ ἀνδρῶν μὲν οὐκ ἐθελούσας αὐτὸ πάσχειν, γυναιξὶ δὲ αὐτὰς πλησιαζούσας, ὥσπερ ἄνδρας. (such women—tribades, they say there are in Lesbos, who will not suffer it from men, but themselves go with women, as if they were men). But we must beware of connecting the word λεσβιάζειν (the act the Lesbian) with this; it means something quite different, as we shall see later on. The Milesian women were skilled Tribades, employing an artificial penis made of leather, which was called by the Greeks ὄλισβος. Aristophanes, Lysistrat. 108-110.,

οὐκ εἶδον οὐδ’ ὄλισβον ὀκταδάκτυλον,
ὃς ἦν ἂν ἠμῖιν σκυτίνη ’πικουρία.

(Since when the Milesians betrayed us, I have never seen even an eight-inch olisbos, that would have been a leathern succour for us.) Suidas, s. v. ὄλισβος· αἰδοῖον δερμάτινον, ᾧ ἐχρῶντο αἱ μιλήσιαι γυναῖκες, ὡς τριβάδες, καὶ αἰσχρουργοί. ἐχρῶντο καὶ αὐτοῖς καὶ αἱ χῆραι γυναῖκες.—s. v. μισήτης· μισῆται δὲ γυναῖκες ὀλίσβῳ χρήσονται. (under the word ὄλισβος: a member of leather; which the Milesian women used, such as tribades and bad women. They were used by widows also.—under the word μισήτης (lewd person): and lewd women will use the olisbos.) Comp. the Scholiast to the passage of Aristophanes quoted. There were also cakes shaped like an olisbos and called ὀλισβόκολλοξ (olisbos-loaves)—Hesychius, which remind us of the cakes in the shape of a penis that were sold in Italy at the feast of SS. Cosmus and Damian. (see Knight, loco citato p. 62.)

327 Longao or Longano signifies the rectum—straight gut, the large intestine, the longus anus, prolonged anus, as it were. The word is found frequently in Caelius Aurelianus and in Vegetius, De re veterin. (On Veterinary medicine). II. 14., 21., 28. IV. 8. Since the large intestine was used for sausages (Apicius. De re coq.) (On Cookery, Bk. IV. ch. 2.), the sausage was also called longano or longavo. Varro, De ling. lat. V. 111.

328 We have not been able to ascertain whether the Fragment here quoted is extant in Greek as well, for the Fragments of Parmenides, by G. G. Fülleborn. Züllichau 1795. 8vo. were as inaccessible by us as were Brandis’ Commentationes Eleaticae.

329 Physiognomicon ch. 3., in Scriptores Physiognomiae veteres (Ancient Writers on Physiognomy), edit. J. G. Fr. Franzius. Altenburg 1780 large 8vo., p, 51., Κιναίδου σημεῖα, ὄμμα κατακεκλασμένον, γονύκροτος, ἐγκίσεις τῆς κεφαλῆς εἰς τὰ δεξιά· αἱ φοραὶ τῶν χειρῶν ὑπτίαι καὶ ἔκλυτοι, καὶ βαδέσεις διτταὶ, ἡ μὲν περινεύοντος, ἡ δὲ κρατοῦντος, τὴν ὀσφύν, καὶ τῶν ὀμμάτων περιβλέψεις· οἷος ἂν εἴη Διονύσιος ὁ σοφιστής. (for translation see text above). On p. 77. γονύκροτος (knock-kneed) is laid down as a characteristic of a woman. On p. 155 we read, οἱ ἐγκλινόμενοι εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι, κίναιδοι. (those who bend to the right in walking are cinaedi.); on p. 50. καὶ ἰσχνὰ ὄμματα κατακεκλασμένα—ἅμα δὲ καὶ τὰ κεκλασμένα τῶν ὀμμάτων, δύο σημαίνει, τὸ μὲν μαλακὸν καὶ θῆλυ. (and withered, broken-down looking eyes,—and this broken-down appearance of the eyes denotes two things, the one being softness and effeminacy). Clement of Alexandria, Paedagog. bk. III. ch. 11., οὐδὲ κατακεκλασμένος, πλάγιον ποιήσας τὸν τράχηλον, περιπατεῖν ὥσπερ ἑτέρους ὁρῶ κιναίδους ἐνθάδε πολλοὺς ἄστει. (nor yet with broken-down look, bending the neck askance, to walk about as I see others do here, cinaedi,—yea, many of them in the city).

330 Physiognom. bk. II. 9. l. c. p. 290., Ἀνδρογύνου σημεῖα. Ὑγρὸν βλέπει καὶ ἰταμὸν ὁ ἀνδρόγυνος, καὶ δονεῖται τὰ ὄμματα, καὶ περιτρέχει· μέτωπον σπᾶ, καὶ παρειάς, αἱ ὀφρύες οἰδαίνουσι κατὰ χώραν, τράχηλος κέκλιται, ὀσφὺς οὐκ ἀτρεμεῖ· κινεῖται πάντα τὰ μέλη ἅλματι· γονάτων κρότος καὶ χειρῶν φαίνεται· ὡς ταῦρος περιβλέπει εἰς ἑαυτὸν καὶ καταβλέπει· φωνεῖ λεπτὸν, κράζει δὲ λιγυρὰ, σκολιὰ πάνυ καὶ πάνυ ἔντρομα. (for translation see text above.) p. 275., οἱ τὰ γόνατα ἔσω νεύοντες, γυναικεῖοί τε καὶ θηλυδρίαι. (men that bow the knees inwards are womanish and effeminate).

331 Physiognom. bk. II. 38. l. c. p. 440., Εἶδος ἀνδρογύνου. Ὁ ἀνδρόγυνος ὑγρὸν βλέπει, καὶ ἰταμὸν καὶ δονεῖται τὰ ὄμματα καὶ περιτρέχει· μέτωπον σπᾶ καὶ παρειάς. αἱ ὀφρύες μένουσι κατὰ χώραν, τράχηλος κέκλιται, ὀσφὺς οὐκ ἀτρεμεῖ· κινεῖται πάντα τὰ μέλη καὶ ἐπιθρώσκει· ἁλματίας ἐστὶ, γονύκροτος, χειρῶν φοραὶ ὕπτιαι· περιβλέπει ἑαυτὸν· φωνὴ λεπτὴ, ἐπικλάζουσα, λιγυρὰ, σχολαία πάνυ. (Appearance of the Man-woman. The man-woman has a lecherous and wanton look, he rolls his eyes and lets his gaze wander; forehead and cheeks twitch, eyebrows remain drawn to a point, neck bowed, hips in continual movement. All the limbs move and jump; he is spasmodic, knock-kneed, the movements of the hands with backs downwards; he gazes round him; his voice is thin, plangent, shrill, very uncertain.) p. 382., οἱ τὰ γόνατα ἔσω νεύοντες ὥσπερ συγκρούειν, γυναικεῖοι καὶ θηλυδρίαι. (men that bow the knees inwards as if to strike them together are womanish and effeminate.)

332 Tarsica I. p. 410., These distinguishing marks were adequate for the Romans too, as we see from the passage of Aulus Gellius quoted on p. 143 above; side by side with which may be put another passage of the same author, Bk. VIII. ch. 12.

333 Still another explanation would seem possible, according to Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. bk. II. ch. 7. p. 179., ναὶ μὴν καὶ τῶν ὤτων οἱ γαργαλισμοὶ καὶ τῶν πταρμῶν οἱ ερεθισμοὶ, ὑώδεις εἰσὶ κνησμοὶ, πορνείας ἀκολάστου (Yea! and moreover ticklings of the ears, and irritations causing sneezing, these are swinish itches, signs of excessive licentiousness). For the rest Seneca, Epist. 114., also says, Non vides—si ille effeminatus est, in ipso incessu apparere mollitiam? (See you not—if he is effeminate, that his lasciviousness is apparent in his very walk?)

334 Lucian, Adversus indoctum ch. 23., ...... μυρία γάρ ἐστι τὰ ἀντιμαρτυροῦντα τῷ σχήματι, βάδισμα καὶ φωνὴ, καὶ τράχηλος ἐπικεκλασμένος, καὶ ψιμύθιον, καὶ μαστίχη καὶ φῦκος οἷς ὑμεῖς κοσμεῖσθε, καὶ ὅλως, κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν, θᾶττον ἂν πέντε ἐλέφαντας ὑπὸ μάλης κρύψειας, ἢ ἕνα κίναιδον. (for translation see text above).

335 Clement of Alexandria, Paedog. Bk. II. ch. 7. p. 173., also says ἀλλὰ τὸ τεθρυμμένον τῆς φωνῆς, θηλυδρίου. (but the broken character of the voice is a mark of the womanish man).

336 Martial, Bk. VII. Epigr. 57.,

—sed habet tristis quoque turba cinaedos,

Difficile est, vero nubere, Galla, viro.

(... but the dismal throng contains cinaedi as well; ’tis a difficult matter, Galla, to marry a real man). Comp. Bk. IX. Epigr. 48.; and Juvenal, Satir. II. 8-13.,

Quis enim non vicus abundat
Tristibus obscoenis? castigas turpia, cum sis
Inter Socraticos notissima fossa cinaedos:

Hispida membra quidem et durae per brachia setae

Promittunt atrocem animum? sed podice laevi

Caeduntur tumidae, medico ridente, mariscae.

(For what street has not its crowd of dismal debauchees? you inveigh against vice, when you are the most notorious pit of abomination of all the host of Socratic cinaedi. Shaggy limbs indeed and sturdy bristles on your arms promise a rugged virtue; but your fundament is smooth, and the great bursting swellings on it are cut, the doctor grinning the while.) Seneca, Epist. 114., Ille et crura, hic nec alas vellit. (One man plucks bare his very legs, another not even the armpits.)

337 Aeschines, Orat. in Timarch. p. 179., expresses it excellently, οὕτω τοὺς πεπορνευμένους, κᾂν μὴ παρῶμεν τοῖς αὐτῶν ἔργοις, ἐκ τῆς ἀναιδείας καὶ τοῦ θράσους καὶ τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων γινώσκομεν. (So with regard to debauchees, even though we are not present at their actual doings, we recognize them by their bold, shameless bearing and their general habits.)

338 This was the special adornment of the woman, and was sacred to Venus; we read in Ausonius,

Barba Iovi, crines Veneri decor; ergo necesse est,

Ut nolint demi, quo sibi uterque placet.

(The beard is Jove’s pride, her locks Venus’s: they must needs then object to the removal of that wherein each takes special delight). Hence Ambrosius too, Hexamer. bk. VI., writes, Haud inscitum extat adagium: nullus comatus qui non idem cinaedus. (There is a familiar proverb that says: never a long-haired man but is a cinaedus.) In Martial, III. 58., they are called capillati (long-haired.)

339 Diogenes Laertius, Vita Diogenis Bk. VI. 54.

340 Clouds, 340 sqq. See also (German) Translation of Aristophanes by Fr. A. Wolf.

341 Satir. II. 16. W. E. Weber (“Die Satiren des D. J. Juvenalis.”—The Satires of Decimus Junius Juvenalis. Halle 1838.) is mistaken in his way of taking this passage. Not only does he in his translation assign Peribomius’ words to Juvenal himself, but also in the notes, pp. 286 sqq., gives quite wrong explanations of several words. For instance he says, “inter Socraticos ... cinaedos, (amongst the Socratic cinaedi), the Socratic breed of wantons, the kind that give themselves an air of sober and highly moral habits, like Socrates;” but really the poet merely meant to express the idea of later times that Socrates had been a paederast. Discussing the passage Weber remarks of Peribomius, “One who in looks and gait, as being effeminate and of a womanish dandified bearing, confesses his evil state,—one of enervation and womanish amorousness,” whereas as a matter of fact Peribomius makes no other confession than simply that he is a pathic. We are not to suppose any sort of intentional suppression of the facts, as indeed is shown both by the rest of the translation and also expressly on p. VI of the Preface; so we are bound to characterize what is said in these places as the result of downright mistake.

342 When Juvenal, V. 50., says: Hippo subit iuvenes et morbo pallet utroque, (Hippo submits to young men, and is pale with a double disease), this must be understood to mean that Hippo is not only a pathic, but also a Fellator (see subsequently). Further Epigr. 131. of Ausonius is to the point in this connection:

Inguina quod calido levas tibi dropace, causa est:

Irritant volsas levia membra lupas;
Sed quod et elixo plantaria podice vellis,
Et teris incusas pumice Clazomenas,

Causa latet: bimarem nisi quod patientia morbum

Appetit et tergo femina, pube vires.

(The reason why you make the private parts smooth with hot pitch-ointment (as a depilatory) is this: Smooth limbs excite the passions of the harlots, plucked smooth themselves. But why you pluck the hair from your fundament, soaked in hot water first, and polish with pumice your well-pounded Clazomenae (i. e. buttocks) the reason is obscure: unless indeed your long-suffering lust hankers for a double disease (vice),—a woman behind, in your member a strong man).

Manilius, Astronomica bk. V. vv. 140-156., says:

Taurus, in aversos praeceps cum tollitur artus,

Sexta parte sui certantes luce sorores
Pleiades ducit: quibus aspirantibus, almam
In lucem eduntur Bacchi Venerisque sequaces:

Perque dapes, mensamque super petulantia corda,

Et sale mordaci dulces quaerentia risus.
Illis cura sui cultus, frontisque decorae
Semper erit: tortos in fluctum ponere crines,
Aut vinclis revocare comas et vertice denso
Fingere et appositis caput emutare capillis,
Pomicibusque cavis horrentia membra polire,

Atque odisse virum, sterilesque optare lacertos.

Femineae vestes; nec in usum tegmina plantis,

Sed speciem; fractique placent ad mollia gressus.

Naturae pudet atque habitat sub pectore caeca

Ambitio et morbum virtutis nomine iactant.

Semper amare parum est: cupient et amare videri

(When the Bull tending downwards lifts his head with limbs bent back, he brings with him in his sixth house the sister Pleiades, his equals in brilliancy. When these are in the ascendent, there are brought forth to the light of day such as follow after Bacchus and Venus; and hearts that wanton at feast and board, and that seek to raise the merry laugh by biting wit. These will ever be giving thought to their bedizenment and becoming appearance; to curl the hair and lay it in waving ripples or else to gather in the locks with circlets and arrange them in a heavy top-knot, and to alter the head by adding false ringlets; to polish the shaggy limbs with hollow pumice-stone; yea! and to hate the very sight of a man, and long for arms without growth of hair. Women’s robes they wear; the coverings of their feet are less for use than show; and steps broken in to an effeminate gait are their delight. Nature they scorn; indeed in their breast there lies a pride they cannot avow, and they vaunt their disease (vice) under the name of virtue. Ever to love is a little thing in their eyes; their wish will be to be seen to love).

Seneca, Quaest. nat. bk. VII. ch. 31., Egenus etiam in quo morbum suum exerceat, legit. (The poor man too chooses one on whom he may practise his disease (vice).—Seneca, Epist. 114. Cum vero magis vires morbus exedit et in medullas nervosque descendere deliciae. (But when the disease (vice) has eaten deeper into a man’s vigour, and its delights penetrated to the very marrow and nerves).—Comp. Epist. 75.—Cicero, De finibus I. 18., in Verrem II. 1. 36., Tusc. quaest. IV. 11.—Wyttenbach, in Bibliothec. critic. Pt VIII. p. 73.—Horace, Sat. I. 6. 40., Ut si qui aegrotat quo morbo Barrus, haberi ut cupiat formosus. (As if one who is sick of the same disease as Barrus, as if he should long to be considered handsome.) Another passage of the same author (Odes I. 37. 9.) must be mentioned:

Contaminato cum grege turpium

Morbo virorum.

(With her (Cleopatra’s) herd of foul men stained with disease—vice). It is taken by Stark as by most of the commentators to mean castrated persons, though strictly speaking it implies nothing more than a contemptuous circumlocution for Egyptians. The boys that were kept in the brothels at Rome for purposes of paederastia were for the most part from Egypt, whence they were imported in flocks. Accordingly the poet calls the whole entourage of Cleopatra pathics. There can be no mistake, if only we translate thus: cum contaminato grege virorum, morbo turpium, (with a polluted herd of men, defiled with disease—vice). In this Horace was all the more justified, because as a matter of fact Cleopatra did keep cinaedi, as we learn from Suidas: s. v. κίναιδα καὶ κιναιδία· ἠ ἀναισχυντία· ἀπὸ τοῦ κινεῖν τὰ αἰδοῖα. Ὁ τῆς Κλεοπάτρας κίναιδος Χελιδὼν ἐκαλεῖτο. (under the words κίναιδα and κίναιδία: shameless practice; from the moving (τὸ κινεῖν of the genitals. Cleopatra’s cinaedus was called Chelidon. True Terence, Eunuch. I. 2. 87., makes Phaedria say:

Porro eunuchum dixisti velle te,

Quia solae utuntur his reginae, repperi,

(I have discovered wherefore you said you wanted a eunuch, because only queens use them) and Donatus observes on the passage that reginae (queens) stands for feminae divites (rich ladies). Accordingly just as Eunuchus is used for cinaedus or pathicus, in the same way cinaedus might very well stand in Suidas for eunuch, and as a matter of fact the entourage of Cleopatra may have consisted of actual eunuchs. Still it is Horace’s main point that they were pathics. As to the reason why reginae (queens, rich ladies) kept castrati (eunuchs) at all, comp. p. 125 above.—The Latin grex (herd) is sufficiently explained by the παίδων ἀγέλας (herds of boys) in the passages already quoted (p. 131.) from Tatian and Justin Martyr, along side which we may put the μειρακίων ὡραίων ἀγέλαι (herds of lads in the bloom of youth) of Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. bk. III. ch. 4. The word is used in the same sense by Seneca, Epist 95., Transeo puerorum infelicium greges, quos post transacta convivia aliae cubiculi contumeliae expectant. Transeo agmina exoletorum per nationes coloresque descripta. (I pass over the herds of unhappy boys, whom after the feast is done, other affronts of the bed-chamber await. I pass over the serried ranks of debauchees (cinaedi) marshalled by nation and complexion.) Cicero, Ad Atticum I. 13., Concursabant barbatuli iuvenes, totus ille grex Catilinae, (Thither flocked the youths of the baby beards, all the herd of Catiline’s friends.) Petronius, Sat. ch. 40., Grex agit in scena mimum. (The common herd plays the mime on the stage.) Grex was used generally for any crowd of common men.—The use of the word contaminatus (polluted) brings to mind catamitus, which bears the sense of pathic, e. g. in Cicero, Philipp. II. 31., Appuleius, Metam. I. p. 107 and especially is used as a nickname for Ganymede. Plautus, Menaechm. I. 2. 34.—Festus: Catamitum pro Ganymede dixerunt, qui fuit Jovis concubinus, (Men said catamitus for Ganymedes, who was Jupiter’s bed-fellow),—which probably led to the ridiculous idea being entertained, e.g. by Scheller, that the word was derived from Ganymedes by corruption in the pronunciation! The fact that the word is metrically a “Paeon tertius”, that is to say the i in the third syllable is long, might have led us at once to the conclusion that originally the word was catamytus, and derived from the Greek καταμύσσω (to tear), and so has the same meaning as the Latin percisus (cut), or else that it stands for καταμίκτος (mixed), and is connected with καταμίγνυμι (to mix), and so in fact concubinus (sharing the bed), as Festus says! At any rate the passages quoted above from Cicero and Seneca, which might easily be multiplied, prove that Stark’s supposition expressed on p. 22., to the effect that morbus (disease) is used in this sense only in the poets, is unfounded.

343 Menander, in Lucian, Amores ch. 43., says: νόσων χαλεπωτάτη φθόνος (of diseases the cruellest is envy.) It is used of envy by Aristophanes, Birds 31. νόσον νοσοῦμεν τὴν ἐναντίαν Σάκᾳ. (we are sick of the disease that was Saces’ enemy.) Euripides, Medea 525., γλωσσαλγία αἴσχιστος νόσος (garrulousness, a most shocking disease.) But in a special way νόσος (disease) was used of Love (Pollux) Onomast. Bk. VI. 42., εἰς Ἀφροδίτην νοσῶν. (being sick of Love). Eubulus, in Nannio, quoted by Athenaeus, Deipnos. Bk. XIII. ch. 24., says:

μικροῦ πρίασθαι κέρματος τὴν ἡδονήν
καὶ μὴ λαθραίαν Κύπριν (αἰσχίστην νόσων
πασῶν) διώκειν, ὕβρεος, οὐ πόθου χάριν.

(To buy pleasure for a small coin, and not pursue secret amours,—most base of all diseases,—for overmastering lust’s sake and not for love.) Νόσημα (disease) is used in the same sense in Lucian, Amores 3., and πάθος (suffering, passion) in many passages in the same Work. Plutarch, Amator. p. 763., καὶ λελάληκε (Μένανδρος) περὶ τοῦ πάθους φιλοσοφώτερον. (And he—Menander—has talked about the passion more like a philosopher). The following passage in Philo, De specialibus legibus,—Opera. edit. Mangey, Vol. II. p. 301., is of interest: Ἔχει μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ἡδονὴ πολλάκις μέμψιν, ὅταν ἀμέτρως καὶ ἀκορέστως χρῆταί τις αὐτῇ, καθάπερ οἱ ἄπληστοι περὶ ἐδωδὴν, κἂν εἰ μηδὲν τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων προσφέροιντο· καὶ οἱ φιλογυναίοις συνουσίαις ἐπιμιμηνότες, καὶ λαγνίστερον προσομιλοῦντες γυναιξὶν οὐκ ἀλλοτρίαις, ἀλλὰ ταῖς ἐαυτῶν. Ἡ δὲ μέμψις σώματός ἐστι μᾶλλον ἢ ψυχῆς κατὰ τοὺς πολλοὺς, πολλὴν μὲν ἔχοντος εἴσω φλόγα, ἣ τὴν παραβληθεῖσαν τροφὴν ἐξαναλίσκουσα ἑτέραν οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν ἐπιζητεῖ πολλὴν ἰκμάδα, ἧς τὸ ῥοῶδες διὰ τῶν γενητικῶν ἀποχετεύετο, κνησμοὺς καὶ ὀδαξισμοὺς ἐμποιοῦν καὶ γαργαλισμοὺς ἀπαύσους.

(So the gratification even of natural pleasure is often blameworthy, when it is indulged immoderately and insatiably, just as men who are insatiably greedy about eating are blameworthy, even though they should not partake of any forbidden meats. So too men who are madly devoted to intercourse with women, and go with women lewdly,—not strange women but their own wives. And the blame lies rather with the body than with the mind in most cases, for the body has within it a great flame, which using up the fuel cast to it, does not for long lack much moisture, the watery humour of which is drawn off by intercourse with women, producing ticklings and gnashings with the teeth and unappeasable itchings.) Immoderate copulation then with a man’s own wife is only a reproach that concerns the body more than the mind; on the other hand Philo in the succeeding sentences speaks of those who practise fornication with strange women as, ἀνίατον νόσον ψυχῆς νοσοῦντας (sick of an incurable sickness of the soul., Clement of Alexandria) Paedag. bk. II. ch. 10., μικρὰν ἐπιληψίαν τὴν συνουσίαν ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης ἔλεγε σοφιστής, νόσον ἀνίατον ἡγούμενος. (the sophist of Abdera used to speak of coition as a miniature epilepsy, deeming it an incurable disease). Gellius, bk. XIX. ch. 2., indeed attributes this expression to Hippocrates, Stobaeus, Florileg. I. 6. De intemperantia, to Eryximachus.

344 Eroticus ch. 19. in Plutarch, Opera Moralia, edit. A. G. Winckelmann, Vol. I. Zürich 1836. large 8vo.

345 Manetho, Astronom. bk. IV. 486.,
ἐν αἷς ὕβρις, οὐ Κύπρις ἄρχει.

(women in whom overmastering insolence, not Love, rules).

346 Plutarch, De capt. util. ex host. p. 88. f., οὐκοῦν μηδὲ μοιχὸν λοιδορήσῃς, αὐτὸς ὢν παιδομανής. (Therefore you must not reproach even an adulterer, being yourself a paedomaniac). Comp. Jacobs, Animadv. in Antholog. (Notes on the Anthology), I. II. p. 244. Athenaeus, XI. p. 464.

347 Isocrates, Paneg. 32., ὕβρις παίδων (violence towards—violation of—boys). Aeschines, Timarch. pp. 5. and 26., πιπράσκειν τὸ σῶμα ἐφ’ ὕβρει and ὕβριν τοῦ σώματος (to buy the body for violation, violation of the body).

348 Aristotle, Nicomach. Ethics bk. VII. ch. 5., ἀλλὰ μὴν οὕτω διατίθενται οἱ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν ὄντες· θυμοὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐπιθυμίαι ἀφροδισίων καὶ ἔνια τῶν τοιούτων ἐπιδήλως καὶ τὸ σῶμα μεθιστᾶσιν, ἐνίοις δὲ καὶ μανίας ποιοῦσιν· δῆλον οὖν ὅτι ὁμοίως ἔχειν λεκτέον τοὺς ἀκρατεῖς τούτοις. cap. 6. αἱ δὲ νοσηματώδεις ἢ ἐξ ἔθους, οἱον τριχῶν τίλσεις καὶ ὀνύχων τρώξεις, ἔτι δ’ ἀνθράκων καὶ γῆς, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἡ τῶν ἀφροδισίων τοῖς ἄρρεσιν· τοῖς μὲν γὰρ φύσει τοῖς δ’ ἐξ ἔθους συμβαίνουσιν, οἱον τοῖς ὑβριζομένοις ἐκ παίδων· ὅσοις μὲν οὖν φύσις αἰτία, τούτους μὲν οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴπειεν ἀκρατεῖς, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὰς γυναῖκας, ὅτι οὐκ ὀπυίουσιν ἀλλ’ ὀπυίονται.—πᾶσα γὰρ ὑπερβάλλουσα καὶ ἀφροσύνη καὶ δειλία καὶ ἀκολασία καὶ χαλεπότης αἱ μὲν θηριώδεις αἱ δὲ νοσηματώδεις εἰσίν. ch. 8. ἀνάγκη γὰρ τοῦτον μὴ εἰναι μεταμελητικόν, ὥστ’ ἀνίατος· ὁ γὰρ ἀμεταμέλητος ἀνίατος·—ὁ δ’ ἐλλείπων πρὸς ἃ οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ ἀντιτείνουσι καὶ δύνανται, οὗτος μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν· καὶ γὰρ ἡ τρυφὴ μαλακία τίς ἐστιν· ὅς ἕλκει τὸ ἱμάτιον, ἵνα μὴ πονήσῃ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴρειν λύπην κ. τ. λ. ... ἀλλ’ εἴ τις πρὸς ἃ οἱ πολλοὶ δύνανται ἀντέχειν, τούτων ἡττᾶται καὶ μὴ δύναται ἀντιτείνειν, μὴ διὰ φύσιν τοῦ γένους ἢ διὰ νόσον, οἷον ἐν τοῖς Σκυθῶν βασιλεῦσιν ἡ μαλακία διὰ τὸ γένος, καὶ ὡς τὸ θῆλυ πρὸς τὸ ἄρρεν διέστηκεν· δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ ὁ παιδιώδης ἀκόλαστος εἶναι, ἔστι δὲ μαλακός.—ἀκρασίας δὲ τὸ μὲν προπέτεια τὸ δ’ ἀσθένεια· οἱ μὲν γὰρ βουλευσάμενοι οὐκ ἐμμένουσιν οἷς ἐβουλεύσαντο διὰ τὸ πάθος, οἱ δὲ διὰ τὸ μὴ βουλεύσασθαι ἄγονται ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους. (ch. 5., But this is the very condition of people who are under the influence of passion; for fits of anger and the desires of sensual pleasures and some such things do unmistakably produce a change in the condition of the body, and in some cases actually cause madness. It is clear then that we must regard incontinent people as being in much the same condition as people so affected, i.e. people asleep or mad or intoxicated.—ch. 6., Other such states again are the results of a morbid disposition or of habit, as e.g. the practice of plucking out one’s hair, or biting one’s nails, or eating cinders and earth, or of committing unnatural vice; for these habits are sometimes natural,—when a person’s nature is vicious,—and sometimes acquired, as e.g. by those who are the victims of outrage from childhood. Now whenever nature is the cause of these habits, nobody would call people who give way to them incontinent, any more than we should call women incontinent for being not males, but females.—For all excess whether of folly, cowardice, incontinence, or savagery is either brutal or morbid.—ch. 8., for he is necessarily incapable of repentance and is therefore incurable, as to be incapable of repentance is to be incurable:—If a person gives in where people generally resist and are capable of resisting, he deserves to be called effeminate and luxurious; for luxury is a form of effeminacy. Such a person will let his cloak trail in the mud to avoid the trouble of lifting it up, etc.—if a person is mastered by things against which most people succeed in holding out, and is impotent to struggle against them, unless his impotence is due to hereditary constitution or to disease, as effeminacy is hereditary in the kings of Scythia, or as a woman is naturally weaker than a man. But the man addicted to boys would seem to be incontinent, and is effeminate.—Incontinence assumes sometimes the form of impetuosity, and at other times that of weakness. Some men deliberate, but their emotion prevents them from abiding by the result of their deliberation; others again do not deliberate, and are therefore carried away by their emotion).

This passage has been quite misunderstood by Stark, loco citato p. 27, for he has made it too refer to the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease); in this error indeed Camerarius, (Explic. Ethic. Aristot. Nicomach.—Explanations of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics—Frankfort 1578, 4to., p. 344) whom he cites, had preceded him. Stark says: Excusat autor eos, qui propter naturae quandam mollitiem et levitatem vitiorum illecebris resistere nequeant. Haec infirmitas vel ex morbo procreata vel a sexus differente natura profecta esse potest. Quarum rationum exempla et quidem alterius διὰ νόσον, Scytharum morbum, alterius διὰ φύσιν τοῦ γένους mulierum debilitatem affert. (The author is excusing such as on account of a certain softness and lightness of nature cannot resist the allurements of vice. This weakness may have been either induced by disease, or have sprung from the different nature of the sexes. Of which cases he gives two examples—of the one διὰ νόσον (on account of disease), the disease of the Scythians, of the other διὰ φύσιν τοῦ γένους (on account of congenital nature), the relative weakness of women). But Aristotle says expressly in the passage that the μαλακία (softness, effeminacy) of the Scythians, as well as of a woman, was διὰ γένους (congenital),—that Scythians equally with women are weakly by birth; while his examples of the διὰ νόσον (on account of disease) do not come till further on. The Scythians, he says, like women, are μαλακοί (soft), and the same is true of the man who practises vices with boys (παιδιώδης); it is a part of their nature, and so they are not ἀκόλαστοι (“intemperate”), for the ἀκόλαστος is such a man as cannot owing to disease govern himself (ἀκρασία, ἀσθενεία, διὰ τὸ πάθος—incontinence, weakness, owing to passion). Thus the question cannot possibly be here of the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease), but merely of a weakly, effeminate mode of life; and this is properly speaking μαλακία, while the vice of the pathic is called μαλθακία,—but the two words were constantly interchanged, and thus a part of the blame for the mistake may very well lie with the transcribers. A Pathic is habitually μαλακός, but the μαλακὸς is not necessarily also a Pathic. Hence it might very probably be right to read, as Aspasius and other editors have actually done, Περσῶν for Σκυθῶν (kings of the Persians for kings of the Scythians), even though the MSS. show no variants; and indeed to confirm this one might bring forward the trailing of the cloak (ὃς ἕλκει τὸ ἱμάτιον—the man who trails his cloak) which is mentioned as an example, and which was, as is well known, a fashion among the Persians.—ch. 10., οὐ γὰρ πᾶς ὁ δι’ ἡδονήν τι πράττων οὔτ’ ἀκόλαστος οὔτε φαῦλος οὔτ’ ἀκρατής, ἀλλ’ ὁ δι’ αἰσχράν. (For not every man that does a thing for pleasure is “intemperate” or base or incontinent, but he that does it for disgraceful pleasure).

349 Cicero, De Divinat. I. 38., Aristoteles quidem eos etiam, qui valetudinis vitio furerent et melancholici dicerentur, censebat habere aliquid in animis praesagiens atque divinum. (Aristotle indeed considered that such men as were mad in consequence of ill-health and were called “melancholics”, also possessed in their minds somewhat of the prophetic and divine).

350 Aristotle, Nicomach. Ethics VII. ch. 11., ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀκρατὴς οὐκ ἐμμένει τῷ λόγῳ διὰ τὸ μᾶλλον. ch. 12. ἔτι ἐμπόδιον τῷ φρονεῖν αἱ ἡδοναὶ, καὶ ὅσῳ μᾶλλον χαίρει, μᾶλλον, οἷον τὴν τῶν ἀφροδισίων οὐδένα γὰρ ἂν δύνασθαι νοῆσαί τι ἐν αὐτῇ. ... ἔτι παιδία καὶ θηρία διώκει τὰς ἡδονάς. (For the reason why the incontinent person does not abide by reason lies in an excess.—ch. 12., Pleasures too are an impediment to thoughtfulness, and the greater the pleasure, the greater the impediment, as e.g. the pleasure of love, for thought is out of the question, while it lasts.... And lastly children and brute beasts pursue pleasure).

351 So Quintilian, Declam. III., says: Siculi in tantum vitio regnant, ut obscoenis cupiditatibus natura cesserit, ut pollutis in femineam usque patientiam maribus incurrat iam libido in sexum suum. (The Sicilians are so predominant in vice, that Nature has ceased to satisfy their fool lusts,—that males are debauched to a feminine passivity (to suffer treatment proper to women), and men fall back for the gratification of their concupiscence on their own sex).

Seneca, Epist. 95., Libidine vero ne maribus quidem cedunt, pati natae. (In concupiscence they yield not even to males, though born to the passive part).

352 Nonne vehementissime admiraretur, si quisquam non gratissimum munus arbitraretur, virum se natum, sed depravato naturae beneficio in mulierem convertere se properasset. (Should one not marvel exceedingly, if any man should fail to hold it a most excellent privilege to have been born a man, but should rather, degrading the gift of nature, have hasted to turn himself into a woman) says Rutilius Lupus, De figur. sentent. bk. II. Speaking of men who use unguents, Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. bk. II. ch. 8. p. 177., says, ἀνδρωνῖτιν ἐκθηλύνουσιν and τὰ γενικὰ ἐκθηλύνειν (they womanize their manhood, to womanize their sex). Similarly, though with a different reference, Clearchus says of the Lydians, τέλος, τὰς ψυχὰς ἄποθηλυνθεντες ἦλλαξάντο τὸν τῶν γυναικῶν βίον. (in fine, having become womanized in their souls, they adopted the mode of life of women). Athenaeus, Deipnos. XII. p. 516.

353 Hence paederastia is called also πασχητιασμός (practice of passive lust) in Lucian, Gallus 32. Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. bk. II. ch. 10. Eustathius, Comment. in Hexameron. p. 38. Also the verb πασχητιάω (to indulge in passive lust) is found in Lucian, Amor. 26., in this sense. The same is excellently expressed by an anonymous poet in the Greek Anthology. bk. II. tit. 5. No. 2.,

Ἀνέρας ἠρνήσαντο, καὶ οὐκ ἐγένοντο γυναῖκες·

Οὔτ’ ἄνδρες γεγάασιν, ἐπεὶ πάθων ἔργα γυναικῶν,

Οὐδὲ γυναῖκες ἔασιν, ἐπεὶ φύσιν ἔλλαχον ἀνδρῶν.

Ἀνέρες εἰσὶ γυναιξὶ καὶ ἀνδράσιν εἰσὶ γυναῖκες.

(They refused to be men, and failed to become women. They are no men, for they endure the tasks of women, nor yet are they women, for they inherited at birth the nature of men. Men are they to women, and women to men).

In Aeschines, Orat. in Timarch., edit. Reiske p. 128., the pathic Timarchus is called the γυνὴ (woman, wife) of Hegesander, his violator: θαυμασάντων δὲ ὑμῶν, πῶς ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνὴ, καὶ τίς ὁ λόγος, εἶπε μικρὸν διαλιπών· ἀγνοεῖτε, ἔφη, ὅ, τι λέγω· ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ ἐστὶν Ἡγήσανδρος ἐκεῖνος νυνὶ, ἔφη, πρότερον δ’ ἦν καὶ αὐτὸς Λεωδάμαντος γυνὴ· ἡ δὲ γυνὴ Τίμαρχος οὑτοσίν. (And when you wondered how he could be man and woman, and what the phrase meant, he replied after a moment’s pause. You don’t understand, he cried, what I mean. The husband is Hegesander yonder, he went on, now; but once Hegesander himself was wife of Leodamas; and the wife of Hegesander is Timarchus here). St. Amphilochius, who lived under Theodosius, says in his “Epistola iambica ad Seleucum” (Letter in iambic verse to Seleucus) vv. 90-99.,

ἄλλοι δ’ ἐκείνων ἔθνος ἀθλιώτατον,
τῶν ἀῤῥένων τὴν δόξαν ἐξορχούμενον,
μελῶν λιγυσμοῖς συγκατακλῶντες φύσιν.

ἄνδρες, γυναῖκες ἄῤῥενες, θηλυδρίαι.

Οὐκ ἄνδρες, οὐ γυναῖκες, ἀψευδεῖ λόγῳ.

Τὸ μὲν γὰρ οὐ μένουσι, τὸ δ’ οὐκ ἔφθασαν,

Ὃ μὲν γὰρ εἰσὶν οὐ μένουσι τῷ τρόπῳ,
ὃ δ’ αὖ κακῶς θέλουσιν, οὐκ εἰσὶν φύσει.

Ἀσωτίας αἴνιγμα καὶ γρίφος παθῶν.

ἄνδρες γυναιξὶ καὶ γυναῖκες ἀνδράσιν.

(Others of them belong to that most miserable tribe that dances away their repute as man, breaking down their nature to the shrill tones of songs,—men that are male women, womanish men. Not men and not women are they in very truth. For the one sex they will not keep, the other they have not gained; for what they really are they remain not, such is their fashion, and what they foully long to be, that they are not, such is their nature. An enigma of uncleanness, and a riddle of lust. Men they are to women, and women to men).

Comp. Barth, Adversar. bk. XLIII. ch. 21. p. 1968., and the expression θήλεια Φιλόξενος (a feminine Philoxenus) quoted p. 169 above. The Romans also used their word femina (woman, wife) in the same way; as may be gathered from Ausonius, Epigr. LXIX.—In eum qui muliebria patiebatur (On one who suffered himself to be treated as a woman), where we read at the end:

Nolo tamen veteris documenta arcessere famae.

Ecce ego sum factus femina de puero.

(Yet I need not call up instances from ancient legend. Lo! I myself have become a woman, who was erst a boy).

Petronius, Satir. 75, femina ipse mei domini fui.—I myself (masc.) was my master’s wife. Justin, Hist. Philipp. I. 3. Curtius, III. 10.

354 Comp. Epictetus, Dissertat. I. 16. 10., and Upton on the passage.

355 Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. bk. III. ch. 3., Εἰς τοσοῦτον δὲ ἄρα ἐλήλακεν ἡ χλιδὴ ὡς μὴ τὸ θῆλυ μόνον νοσεῖν περὶ τὴν κενοσπουδίαν ταύτην, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ζηλοῦν τὴν νόσον· μὴ γὰρ καθαρεύοντες καλλωπισμοῦ, οὐχ ὑγιαίνουσιν. πρὸς δὲ τὸ μαλθακώτερον ἀποκλίνοντες, γυναικίζονται, κουρὰς μὲν ἀγεννεῖς, καὶ πορνικὰς ἀποκειρόμενοι· χλανίσι δὲ διαφανέσι περιπεπεμμένοι, καὶ μαστίχην τρώγοντες, ὄζοντες μύρου. Τί ἄν τις φαίη, τούτους ἰδών; ἀτεχνῶς καθάπερ μετωποσκόπος, ἐκ τοῦ σχήματος αὐτοὺς καταμαντεύεται, μοιχούς τε καὶ ἀνδρογύνους, ἀμφοτέραν Ἀφροδίτην θηρωμένους· μισότριχας, ἄτριχας· τὸ ἄνθος τὸ ἀνδρικὸν μυσαττομένους· τὰς κόμας δὲ ὥσπερ αἱ γυναῖκες κοσμουμένους.... Διὰ τούτους γοῦν πληρεῖς αἱ πόλεις πιττούντων, ξηρούντων, παρατιλλόντων τοὺς θηλυδρίας τούτους· ἐργαστήρια δὲ κατεσκεύασται καὶ ἀνέῳκται πάντῃ· καὶ τεχνῖται τῆς ἑταιρικῆς ταύτης πορνείας, συχνὸν ἐμπολῶσιν ἀργύριον ἐμφανῶς, οἱ σφὰς καταπιττοῦσιν· καὶ τὰς τρίχας τοῖς ἀνασπῶσι πάντα τρόπον περιέχουσιν· οὐδὲν αἰσχυνόμενοι τοὺς ὁρῶντας, οὐδὲ τοὺς παριόντας, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἑαυτοὺς ἄνδρας ὄντας. (To such a height then has wanton luxury advanced, that not merely the female sex is sick with this eagerness after frivolities, but even men are eager after the disease; for indeed none being free from love of self-adornment, they are not free from disease. But giving way to effeminacy, they play at being women, cutting the hair in ignoble and meretricious fashion; decked out too in transparent robes, chewing mastich-gum and scented with myrrh. What should a man say, on seeing them? Why! exactly like a phrenologist, he divines them from their look as adulterers and men-women, such as hunt after both kinds of Love,—abhorrers of hair, hairless men, that loathe the bloom of manhood,—men that dress their locks like women.—For these men’s needs cities are full of such as apply pitch-ointments, sear and pluck out the hairs of these effeminates. For this purpose shops are established and open everywhere; and artistes of this meretricious harlotry earn many a fee openly, the artistes that lay on the pitch-ointments for them. And to those that pluck out their hairs they offer every facility, feeling no shame of spectators nor of passers-by, nay! nor even of themselves that are no men).

356 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagog., bk. III. ch. 5., δι’ ἀλαζονείαν περιττὴν, μάλιστα δὲ τὴν αὐτεξούσιον ἀπαιδευσίαν, καθ’ ἣν κατηγοροῦσιν ἀνάνδρων ἀνδρῶν, πρὸς γυναικῶν κεκρατημένων, ἀποδεικνύμεναι. (Known by their excessive chicanerie, and particularly that voluntary indiscipline of character, whereof they accuse womanish men that are mastered by women).

357 “Besides haemorrhoidal swellings are a very usual symptom with these unhappy sufferers; and when the evil has reached its highest development, the power of erection in the male member is completely lost, the scrotum entirely relaxed and the testicles flaccid,” C. L. Klose in Ersch und Gruber, Encyclopädie: Article, Paederastia, Sect. III Vol. 9. p. 148. In fact it is the usual practice of the paederast to elicit the pathic’s semen at the same time by using the hand!

358 περὶ ὕψους, ch. 28., Καὶ τὸ ἀμίμητον ἐκεῖνο τοῦ Ἡροδότου, τῶν δὲ Σκυθέων τοῖς συλήσασι τὸ ἱερὸν ἐνέβαλεν ἡ θεὸς θήλειαν νοῦσον. (And that inimitable phrase of Herodotus’, “and on such of the Scythians as plundered her temple the goddess inflicted feminine disease.”)

359 De figuris, edit. J. Fr. Boissonade. London 1818. 8vo., ch. 35 pp. 56 sqq., Περίφρασις δ’ ἔστιν ὅταν τῆς ἁπλῆς καὶ εὐθεῖας γινομένης ἑρμενείας εὐτελοῦς οὔσης, μεταβαλλόντες, κόσμου ἕνεκα ἢ πάθους, ἢ μεγαλοπρεπείας, ἄλλοις ὀνόμασι, καὶ πλείοσι τῶν κυρίων καὶ ἀναγκαίων, τὸ πρᾶγμα ἑρμηνεύσωμεν· οἷον ἐστὶ—παρὰ δὲ Ἡροδότῳ, ἐνέσκηψεν ἡ θεὸς θήλειαν νόσον, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησεν ἀνδρογύνους ἢ κατεαγότας. (for translation see text above). The Greek word κατεαγότας (broken, enervated) corresponds to the Latin percisus. The Romans undoubtedly used effeminatus (effeminate) as synonymous with cinaedus, as is shown by a passage in Seneca, De benefic., bk. VII. ch. 25., Aristippus aliquando delectatus unguento, male, inquit, istis effeminatis eveniat, qui rem tam bellam infamaverunt. (On one occasion Aristippus being much pleased with a certain perfume, said: Confound those vile effeminates, who have made so fine a delicacy infamous). This is obviously a free translation of the Greek words as they stand in Diogenes Laertius, Vita Aristippi, bk. II. ch. 8. note 4.,—and in Clement of Alexandria, Paedag., bk. II. ch. 8. p. 279., Ἀρίστιππος γοῦν ὁ φιλόσοφος, χρισάμενος μύρῳ, κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολωλέναι χρῆναι τοὺς κιναίδους ἔφασκεν, τοῦ μύρου τὴν ὠφέλειαν εἰς λοιδορίαν διαβεβληκότας. (Now Aristippus the philosopher, after he had anointed himself with myrrh, said, foully should the foul cinaedi perish, because they have brought into disrepute that excellent creature myrrh.).

360 Bk. IV. ch. 67.

361 Perhaps it is from this that Bacchus gets his secondary title of Attis. Clement of Alexandria, Ad Gentes, p. 12, says, δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἀπεικότως τὸν Διόνυσόν τινες Ἄττιν προσαγορεύεσθαι θέλουσιν, αἰδοίων ἐστερημένον. (For which reason some maintain, and not without probability, that Dionysus is called Attis, as being deprived of the genital organs). According to the Scholiast to Lucian, De Dea Syra, ch. 16, Dionysus was roaming about in the search for his mother Semelé, when he came upon Polyymnus, and the latter promised to reveal his mother’s place of abode, if he would practise paederastia with him. This he did, and Polyymnus accompanied him to Lerna, where Semelé would seem to have been, and died there. Mourning the death of his paederast, Dionysus hewed out of fig-tree wood private parts of wood, and carried them about with him constantly in memory of Polyymnus. For this reason Dionysus is worshipped with Phallic emblems). (λυπηθεὶς δὲ ὸ Διόνυσος, ὅτε ὁ ἑραστὴς αὐτοῦ ἔθνησκε, αἰδοῖον ξύλινον ἐκ συκίνου ξύλου πελεκήσας, κατεῖχεν ἀεὶ πρὸς μνήμην τοῦ Πολυύμνου· διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν τοῖς φαλλοῖς τιμῶσιν τὸν Διόνυσον.) The story is related at greater length by Clement of Alexandria, Cohortat. ad Gentes, p. 22; but he calls the lover Prosymnus (as does Arnobius, bk. V. 27. Comp. Tzetzes, in Lycophron., 213), and actually makes Bacchus practise Onania postica (Masturbation by the posterior), for he says: ἀφοσιούμενος τῷ ἐραστῇ ὁ Διόνυσος, ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον ὁρμᾷ, καὶ πασχητιᾷ· κλάδον οὖν συκῆς, ὡς ἔτυχεν, ἐκτεμνὼν ἀνδρείου μορίου σκευάζεται τρόπον· ἐφέζεταί τε τῷ κλάδῳ, τὴν ὑπόχεσιν ἐκτελῶν τῷ νεκρῷ ὑπόμνημα τοῦ πάθους τούτου μυστικὸν· φαλλοὶ κατὰ πόλεις ἀνίστανται Διονύσῳ. (Dionysus by way of performing due service to his lover’s memory, hastens to his tomb, and proceeds to practise passive lust. So cutting down the branch of a fig-tree, he fashions it to a semblance of a man’s member; and then he mounts the branch in a sitting posture, fulfilling his promise to the dead man,—a mystic memorial of his pathic loves. Phalli are set up in Cities in honour of Dionysus). In Arnobius, loco citato, we read that Dionysus: Ficorum ex arbore ramum validissimum praeferens dolat, runcinat, levigat et humani penis fabricatur in speciem: figit super aggerem tumuli, et postica ex parte nudatus, accedit, subdit, insidit. Lascivia deinde luxuriantis assumpta, huc atque illuc clunes torquet et meditatur ab ligno pati, quod iam dudum in veritate promiserat.—(Bringing with him a sturdy branch of a fig-tree, hews, planes and smoothes it, and fashions it into the shape of a man’s penis; then he fixes it upright on the mound of the tomb, and stripping his posteriors, advances, mounts, and sits down on it. Then imitating the lascivious motions of a wanton in the act, writhes his buttocks this way and that, and imagines himself to be receiving from the wooden member the treatment which he had long ago promised in reality). Similarly we read in Petronius, Sat., Profert Enothea scorteum fascinum quod ut oleo et minuto pipere atque urticae trito circumdedit semine, paulatim coepit inserere ano meo. (Enothea produces a man’s member made of leather, which first of all she covered with oil and ground pepper and pounded nettle-seed, and then began by degrees to push it up my anus). Now too we shall be able to explain to our satisfaction what is the meaning of the phrase συκίνη ἐπικουρία ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενῶν (fig-wood succour,—said of weak allies), which is mentioned by Suidas under the word ὄλισβος (artificial member), and for which in the passage quoted above Aristophanes substitutes σκυτίνη ’πικουρία (leathern succour). On this the Scholiast observes: σκυτίνην ἐπικουρίαν καλεῖ τὴν σκυτίνην βοήθειον, εἴτε τὴν δερματίνην βοήθειαν, τὴν πληροῦσαν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀντὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν· τοῦτο δὲ ποιοῦσιν αἱ ἀκόλαστοι γυναῖκες· σκυτίνην δὲ ἐπικουρίαν λέγει, παρὰ τὴν παροιμίαν· Συκίνη ἐπικουρία· ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενῶν βοηθημάτων καὶ ἴσως ἐνταῦθα γραπτέον, συκίνη ἀντὶ τοῦ σκυτίνη. (leathern succour: so Aristophanes calls the leathern help, or help of hide, the instrument that satisfies (women’s) longings in default of men. This is a practice that incontinent women follow. He says leathern (σκυτίνη), succour playing on the proverb, “Fig-wood (συκίνη) succour”, said of weak efforts at assistance. Possibly we should read συκίνη (of fig-wood) for σκυτίνη (of leather) here. Again: σκυτάλαι· στρογγύλα καὶ λεῖα ξύλα.—σκυτάλη· βακτηρία ἀκροπαχής (batons: rounded and polished staves)—(baton: a blunt-pointed staff) in Suidas, and the passage in Aristophanes, τοῦτ’ ἔστ’ ἐκεῖνο τῶν σκυτάλων, ὧν πέρδετο (this is the particular baton that made him break wind), which Suidas, under the word σκυτάλον (baton) has obviously misunderstood, just as much as the Scholiast has. For in all these passages it is the Priapus ficulnus (Priapus of fig-wood), also well-known to the Romans, that we must understand to be intended. Apposite in this connection is Horace’s (Sat I. 8. 1.), Olim truncus eram, inutile lignum (Once the trunk of a fig-tree was I, a useless log,)—on which the commentators have wasted a host of extraordinary interpretations.

362 Symposion, p. 189., ἀνδρόγυνον γὰρ ἓν τότε μὲν ἦν καὶ εἶδος, καὶ ὄνομα, ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων κοινὸν τοῦ τε ἄῤῥενος καὶ θήλεος. (For then there was a third, a man-woman, sex, in form as well as in name, commingled of both sexes, the male and the female.) Plainer still is this passage from Lucian, Amores 28., πᾶσα δὲ ἡμῶν ἡ γυναικωνῖτις ἔστω Φιλαινὶς, ἀνδρογύνους ἔρωτας ἀσχημονοῦσα. καὶ πόσῳ κρεῖττον εἰς ἄῤῥενα τρυφὴν βιάζεσθαι γυναῖκα ἢ τὸ γενναῖον ἀνδρῶν εἰς γυναῖκα θηλύνεσθαι· (And let all our women’s apartments be Philaenis, foully indulging in male-female loves. And how much better it were that a woman should trespass on male wantonness than that the noble manliness of men should be effeminated and made womanish.) Clement of Alexandria, Paedag., bk. II. ch. 10., ἐντεῦθεν συμφανὲς ἡμῖν ὁμολογουμένως παραιτεῖσθαι δεῖν τὰς ἀῤῥενομιξίας, καὶ τὰς ἀκράτους σπορὰς καὶ κατόπιν εὐνὰς καὶ τὰς ἀσυμφύεις ἀνδρογύνους κοινωνίας. (Hence it is manifest we ought avowedly to deprecate intercourse with males and inordinate embraces and copulation behind and unnatural unions of men-women.) A little further on the same author says, αἱ δολεραὶ γυναῖκες καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν οἱ γυναικώδεις. (deceitful women and the womanish kind of men,) and speaks of θηλυδριώδης ἐπιθυμία (effeminate lustfulness). A résumé of pretty nearly all words of this class is given by Suidas, s. v. Ἄῤῥεν καὶ Ἀῤῥενικῶς. Καὶ ἡμίανδρος καὶ ἡμιγύναιξ καὶ διγενὴς καὶ θηλυδρίας, καὶ ἑρμαφρόδιτος, καὶ ἴθρις, οὗ ἰσχὺς τεθέρισται· καὶ ἀῤῥενωπὸς, ὁ ἀνδρόγυνος· καὶ ὁ ἀνδρεῖος· ὁ στεῤῥὸς· λέγουσι δ’ οὕτω τὰ μὲν ἄλλα γύνιδας, ἔχοντας δέ τι ἀνδρόμορφον. Ἱππῶναξ δὲ, ἡμίανδρον, τὸν οἷον ἡμιγύναικα· λέγεται δὲ καὶ ἀπόκοπος, καὶ βάκηλος [βάτταλος] καὶ ἀνδρόγυνος, καὶ Γάλλος, καὶ γύννις, καὶ Ἄττις καὶ εύνουχώδης. (under the words Ἄῤῥεν and ἀῤῥενικῶς (masculine, masculinely): Semi-man, semi-woman, double-sexed, womanish man, hermaphrodite, eunuch—one whose virility has been cut; masculine-looking, the man-woman,—also the manly, the strong, man. By such names are signified effeminate men that yet have some look of men. Hipponax also uses in this sense semi-man, and its synonym semi-woman. Such a one is called also castrated, eunuch (pathic), man-woman, Gallus—eunuch-priest of Cybelé, Attis, eunuch-like.) The same holds good of the word εὐνοῦχος (eunuch), which by no means signifies only actual castrated eunuchs. Thus Clement of Alexandria, Paedagog., bk. III. ch. 4., says, εὐνοῦχος δὲ ἀληθὴς, οὐχ ὁ μὴ δυνάμενος, ἀλλ’ ὁ μὴ βουλόμενος φιληδεῖν· ... εὐνοῦχοι πολλοὶ, καὶ οὗτοι μαστροποὶ τῷ ἀξιοπίστῳ τοῦ μὴ δύνασθαι φιληδεῖν, τοῖς εἰς ἡδονὰς ἐθέλουσι ῥαθυμεῖν ἀνυπόπτως διακονούμενοι. (But the true eunuch is not he that cannot, but he that will not, love.... Many eunuchs, and these serving as pandars, by reason of the certainty that they cannot love, to such as are fain to indulge in secure pleasures without suspicion.)

363 Oneirocritica., bk. V. ch. 65., Ἔδοξέ τις τὸ αἰδοῖον αὐτοῦ ἄχρις ἄκρας τῆς κορώνης τετριχῶσθαι, καὶ λάσιον εἶναι πυκνῶν πάνυ τριχῶν αἰφνίδιον φυεισῶν· ἀποπεφασμένος κίναιδος ἐγένετο πάσῃ μὲν ἀκολάστῳ χρησάμενος ἡδονῇ, θηλυδρίας ὢν καὶ ἀνδρόγυνος, μόνῳ δὲ τῷ αἰδοίῳ κατὰ νόμον ἀνδρῶν μὴ χρώμενος. Τοιγαροῦν οὕτως ἤδη ἀργὸν ἦν αὐτῷ τὸ μέρος ἐκεῖνο, ὡς διὰ τὸ μὴ τρίβεσθαι πρὸς ἕτερον σῶμα καὶ τρίχας ἐκφύσαι. (for translation see text above).

364 Ἀνδρόγυνον κωμῳδεῖν ἔδοξέ τις δρᾶμα· ἐνόσησεν αὐτῷ τὸ αἰδοῖον. Γάλλους ὁρᾶν ἔδοξέ τις· ἐνόσησεν αὐτῷ τὸ αἰδοῖον. Τὸ μὲν πρῶτον διὰ τὸ ὄνομα οὕτως ἀπέβη, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον διὰ τὸ συμβεβηκὸς τοῖς ὁρωμένοις. Καί τοι καὶ τὸ κωμῳδεῖν οἰσθα ὃ σημαίνει, καὶ τὸ Γάλλους ὁρᾶν. Μέμνησο δὲ, ὅτι, εἴτε κωμῳδεῖν, εἴτε τραγῳδεῖν ὑπολάβοι τις, καὶ μνημονεύει, κατά τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τοῦ δράματος κρίνεται καὶ τὰ ἀποτελέσματα. (for translation see text above). The signification of κωμῳδεῖν and τραγῳδεῖν (to represent Comedy, Tragedy) is given by Artemidorus, bk. I. ch. 56. As to the Galli comp. bk. II. 69. In bk. II. ch. 12. we read: Ὕαινα δὲ γυναῖκα σημαίνει ἀνδρόγυνον ἢ φαρμακίδα, καὶ ἄνδρα κίναιδον οὐκ εὐγνώμονα. (Hyaena signifies a woman that is male-female or a sorceress, and a man that is a cinaedus without moderation). It was a widespread belief amongst the Ancients that the hyaena was at one time a male and at another a female (comp. Aelian, Hist. anim., I. 25. Horapollo, Hieroglyph., II. 65. Ovid, Metamorph., Bk. XV. Fab. 38. Tertullian, De Pallio, ch. 3.). As early however as the time of Aristotle it had been declared a fable by him, Hist. anim., Bk. VI. ch. 32., and Clement of Alexandria says the same, Paedagog., II. 9. Yet the idea was still cherished at the beginning of the present Century at the Cape of Good Hope, see Corn. de Jong, “Reise nach dem Vorgebirge der Guten Hoffnung,” (Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope). Hamburg 1803. Pt I. Letter 6. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagog., bk. II. ch. 9., tells a still more remarkable tale of the hare, καὶ τὸν μὲν λαγῶν κατ’ ἔτεος πλεονεκτεῖν φασὶ τὴν ἀφόδευσιν, εἰς ἀριθμοὺς οἱς βεβίωκεν ἔτεσιν ἴσχοντα τρυπάς· ταύτῃ ἄρα τὴν κώλυσιν τῆς ἐδωδῆς τοῦ λαγὼ, παιδεραστίας ἐμφαίνειν ἀποτροπὴν. (Moreover it is said that the hare gets every year fresh means of voiding its excrement, having holes corresponding to the number of years it has lived; and that for this reason the prohibition against eating hare appears to be a dissuasion from paederastia). This is confirmed by St. Barnabas, Epist., ch. 10. and by Pliny, Hist. Nat., VIII. 55. To this fable also we must look for an explanation of the proverbial saying δασύπους κρεῶν ἐπιθυμεῖ (puss longs for flesh-meats), and Lepus tute es, et pulmentum quaeris? (Are you a hare, and look for condiments?) in Terence, Eunuch., III. 36. Possibly too the κύων τεῦτλα οὐ τρώγει (dog does not gnaw pot-herbs) of Diogenes has a connection with the same notion,—Diogenes Laertius, VI. 2. 6. So Strato in the distich (Greek Anthology bk. I. tit. 72. No. 6.):

Ἔστι Δράκων τὶς ἔφηβος,
ἄγαν καλὸς· ἀλλὰ δράκων ὢν
Πῶς εἰς τὴν τρώγλην ἄλλον ὄφιν δέχεται;

(A certain youth there is, Draco (serpent) by name, very fair to see; but being a serpent, how comes it he takes another snake into his hole?) Aristophanes, Eccles., 904., κἀπὶ τῆς κλίνης ὄφιν εὕροις, (and on your bed may you find a snake), on which the Scholiast comments ὄφις—λαμβάνεται ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰδοίου οὐ τεταμένου δηλαδὴ, ἀλλ’ ἀνειμένου. (ὄφις—snake: to be taken as meaning the privy member,—not erect that is, but relaxed). So in the Priapeia, LXXXIII. 33., we find: licebit aeger, angue lentior (will be reckoned as sick, slacker than a snake).

365 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagog., Bk. II. ch. 10., οὐδὲ τῶν κατεαγότων, τούτων δὴ τῶν τὴν κιναιδίαν τὴν ἄφωνον ἐπὶ τὰς σκηνὰς μετιόντων ὀρχηστῶν ἀποῤῥέουσαν εἰς τοσοῦτον ὕβρεως τὴν ἐσθῆτα περιορώντων. (nor yet of the debauchees, those dancers I mean that bring onto the stage cinaedia in pantomime, and suffer their costume to flow loosely to such a degree of indecency).

366 Naumann (Schmidt’s Jahrbuch 1837. Vol. 13. p. 100.) says: Ἐναρέες, probably a Scythian word, calls to mind the dwarf Anar or Onar in the old Northern Mythology,—a eunuch in a sort, but who was nevertheless reverenced as father-in-law of Odin. (J. Grimm, “Deutsche Mythologie” (German Mythology). Göttingen 1835. p. 424). With this Hippocrates’ statement would agree, according to which these eunuchs were regarded by their countrymen with a reverence almost as if they had been gods.—As to this, first observe that it yet remains to be proved that the Scythian language belongs to the Indo-Germanic family, secondly that with Onar or Anar there is no question at all of a non-man or actual eunuch, for Anar begat a daughter on Notta. This daughter, Jördh, was wife of Odin, making Anar Odin’s father-in-law.

367 Such a corruption of the word on the part of Herodotus is all the more likely, as it is clearly established by modern investigations (as indeed Heyne, loco citato, maintained long ago) that he never was in Scythia proper. Comp. Herodoti Musae, edit. J. Ch. F. Baehr, Vol. IV. Leipzig 1835., p. 395., and Vol. I. p. 455. C. G. L. Heyse, De Herodoti vita et intineribus Diss. (Dissertation on the Life and Journeys of Herodotus). Berlin 1826. 8vo. p. 104.

368 Deipnos., bk. XII. p. 530 D.

369 Hesychius does give the word ἀνάρσιοι, and explains it by ἀνάρμοστοι πολέμιοι· ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ συνηρμοσθῆναι τοῖς ἤθεσιν. (incompatible foes: from their not being compatible in character and disposition). Plutarch, περὶ τῆς ἐν Τιμαίῳ ψυχογονίας (On the Generation of the Soul in Plato’s “Timaeus”) near the end says: οἱ ποιηταὶ καλοῦσιν ἀναρσίους τοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους, ὡς ἀναρμοστίαν τὴν διαφορὰν οὖσαν. (the poets call incompatible such as are hostile and at enmity, the difference being irreconcileable). Zonaras, Lexicon, writes: s. v. ἀνάρσιοι· ἐχθροί· ἀδικοί· ἀνάρμοστοι. (under the word ἀνάρσιοι—incompatible: hostile; unjust; irreconcileable). Similarly the Etymologicum Magnum; s. v. ἀνάρσιοι· ἀδικοὶ, ἐχθροί.—ὁ ἀνάρμοστος καὶ ἀσύμφωνος· Ὦρος · πολέμιος, ὑβριστής· καὶ ἄναρσις· νεῖκος, πόλεμος. (under the word ἀνάρσιοι—incompatible: unjust, hostile,—one that is irreconcileable, discordant. Orus (the Grammarian) gives: enemy, overbearing man; also ἄναρσις,—incompatibility: strife, war). According to this we might very well read for ἐναρέες ἀνάρσιοι; for the Temple-robbers had been ἄδικοι and ὑβρισταὶ (unjust, overbearing), and were further known as pathics—whose vice was ἀδικία and ὕβρις (injustice, overbearing violence), as we have seen again and again. Another point is that Homer, Iliad XXIV. 365., Odyssey X. 459., uses the expression ἀνάρσιοι in the sense of ὑβρισταὶ, ἄδικοι (overbearing, unjust men), and this fact was always likely to be of weight with Herodotus, even when he was translating a foreign word. Inasmuch as the word ἀνάρσιοι had several meanings, he may very well have added the ἀνδρόγυνοι in the second passage, instead of the καλοῦσι Σκύθαι (the Scythians call it), in explanation of it.

370 Liber quisquis virtuti studet. Opera. edit. Mangey, Vol. II. p. 465., Λέγετο γοῦν, ὅτι θεασάμενός τινα τῶν ὠνουμένων, ὃν θήλεια νόσος εἶχεν ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως οὐκ ἄῤῥενα, προελθὼν ἔφη, σύ με πρίω· σὺ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς χρείαν ἔχειν μοι δοκεῖς· ὡς τὸν μὲν δυσωπηθέντα ἐφ’ οἷς ἑαυτῷ σύνοιδε, καταδῦναι, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους τὸ σὺν εὐτολμίᾳ εὐθυβόλον ἐκπλήττεσθαι. (for translation see text above).

Diogenes Laertius, bk. VI. ch. 2. note 4, relates the story only in outline: Φησὶ δὲ Μένιππος ἐν τῇ Διογένους πράσει, ὡς ἁλοὺς καὶ πωλούμενος ἠρωτήθη τί οἶδε ποιεῖν; ἀπεκρίνατο, Ἀνδρῶν ἄρχειν· καὶ πρὸς τὸν κήρυκα, Κήρυσσε, ἔφη, εἴ τις ἐθέλει δεσπότην αὑτῷ πρίασδαι. (Menippus says in the sale of Diogenes that the philosopher, a captive and for sale as a slave, was asked what he could do. He answered, “Govern men”; turning to the crier and adding, “Cry!—does anyone wish to buy a master to govern him?”). Comp. ibid. note 9.

371 De Specialibus Legibus, pp. 305 sqq., Ἐπεισκεκώμακε δὲ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἕτερον πολὺ τοῦ λεχθέντος μεῖζον κακὸν τὸ παιδεραστεῖν, ὃ πρότερον μὲν καὶ λεχθῆναι μέγα ὄνειδος ἦν, νυνὶ δ’ ἐστὶν αὔχημα οὐ τοῖς δρῶσι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς πάσχουσιν, οἱ νόσον θήλειαν νοσεῖν ἐθιζόμενοι. τάς τε ψυχὰς καὶ τὰ σώματα διαῤῥέουσι, μηδὲν ἐμπύρευμα τῆς ἄῤῥενος γενεᾶς ἐῶντες ὑποτύφεσθαι, περιφανῶς οὕτως τὰς τῆς κεφαλῆς τρίχας ἀναπλεκόμενοι καὶ διακοσμούμενοι, καὶ ψιμμυθίῳ καὶ ψύκεσι καὶ τοῖς ὁμοιοτρόποις τὰς ὄψεις τριβόμενοι, καὶ ὑπογραφόμενοι, καὶ εὐώδεσι μύροις λίπα χριόμενοι (προσαγωγὸν γὰρ μάλιστα ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις τὸ εὐῶδες) ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς εἰς εὐκοσμίαν ἠσκημένοις καὶ τὴν ἄῤῥενα φύσιν ἐπιτηδεύσει· τεχνάζοντας εἰς θήλειαν μεταβάλλειν, οὐκ ἐρυθριῶσι. Καθ’ ὧν φονᾷν ἄξιον νόμῳ πειθαρχοῦντας, ὃς κελεύει τὸν ἀνδρόγυνον τὰ φύσεως νόμιμα παρακόπτοντα, νηποινεὶ τεθνάναι, μηδεμίαν ἡμέραν ἀλλὰ μηδ’ ὥραν ἐώμενοι ζῇν, ὄνειδος αὑτοῦ καὶ οἰκίας καὶ πατρίδος ὄντα καὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος ἀνθρώπων γένους. Ὁ δὲ παιδεραστὴς ἔστω τὴν αὐτὴν δίκην ὑπομένων, ἐπειδὴ τὴν παρὰ φύσιν ἡδονὴν διώκει, καὶ τὰς πόλεις, τό γ’ ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἧκον μέρος, ἐρήμους καὶ κενὰς ἀποδείκνυσιν οἰκητόρων, διαφθείρων τὰς γονὰς, καὶ προσέτι, τῶν μεγίστων κακῶν, ἀνανδρίας καὶ μαλακίας ὑφηγητὴς καὶ διδάσκαλος ἀξιοῖ γίνεσθαι· τοὺς νέους ὡραΐζων καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀκμῆς ἄνθος ἐκθηλεύων. ὃ πρὸς ἀλκὴν καὶ ῥώμην ἀλείφειν ἁρμόττον ἦν. Καὶ τελευταῖον, ὅτι κακοῦ τρόπον γεωργοῦ, τὰς μὲν βαθυγείους καὶὧνὡν δ’ οὐδὲν βλάστημα προσδοκᾶται τὸ παράπαν, εἰς ταῦτα πονεῖται καθ’ ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτωρ. Αἴτιον δ’ οἶμαι, τὸ παρὰ πολλοῖς τῶν δήμων, ἀκρασίας καὶ μαλακίας ἆθλα κεῖσθαι. Τοὺς γοῦν ἀνδρογύνους ἰδεῖν ἐστὶ διὰ πληθούσης ἀγορᾶς ἀεὶ σοβοῦντας, κἂν ταῖς ἑορταῖς προπομπεύοντας καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τοὺς ἀνιέρους διειληχότας, καὶ μυστηρίων καὶ τελετῶν κατάρχοντας, καὶ τὰ Δήμητρος ὀργιάζοντας. Ὅσοι δ’ αὐτῶν τὴν καλὴν νεανιείαν προσεπιτείνοντες, εἰς ἅπαν ὠρέχθησαν μεταβολῆς τᾶς εἰς γυναῖκας, τὰ γεννητικὰ προσαπέκοψαν, ἁλουργίδας ἀμπεχόμενοι, καθάπερ οἱ μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιοι ταῖς πατρίσι, προέρχοντο δορυφορούμενοι, τοὺς ὑπαντῶντας ἐπιστρέφοντες. Εἰ δ’ ἦν ἀγανάκτησις οἵα παρὰ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ νομοθέτῃ, κατὰ τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμώντων· καὶ ὡς κοινὰ τῶν πατρίδων ἄγη καὶ μιάσματα δίχα συγγνώμης ἀνῃροῦντο, πολλοὺς ἂν ἑτέρους νουθετεῖσθαι συνέβαινεν. Αἱ γὰρ τῶν προκαταγνωσθέντων τιμωρίαι ἀπαραίτητοι, ἀνακοπην οὐ βραχεῖαν ἐργάζοντο τοῖς ζηλωταῖς τῶν ὁμοίων ἐπιτηδευμάτων. (for translation see text above)

372 De vita contemplativa, p. 480., Τὸ δὲ Πλατωνικὸν ὅλον σχεδόν ἐστι περὶ ἔρωτος, οὐκ ἀνδρῶν ἐπὶ γυναιξὶν ἐπιμανέντων, ἢ γυναικῶν ἀνδράσιν αὐτὸ μόνον (ἐπιτελοῦντο γὰρ αἱ ἐπιθυμίαι αὗται νόμῳ φύσεως)· ἀλλὰ ἀνδρῶν ἄρσεσιν ἡλικίᾳ μόνον διαφέρουσι. Καὶ γὰρ εἴτι περὶ ἔρωτος καὶ οὐρανίου Ἀφροδίτης κεκομψεῦσθαι δοκεῖ, χάριν ἀστεϊσμοῦ παρείληπται· τὸ γὰρ πλεῖστον αὐτοῦ μέρος ὁ κοινὸς καὶ πάνδημος Ἔρως διείληφεν· ἀνδρείαν μὲν τὴν βιωφελεστάτην ἀρετὴν κατὰ πόλεμον καὶ κατ’ εἰρήνην ἀφαιρούμενος, θήλειαν δὲ νόσον ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἀπεργαζόμενος, καὶ ἀνδρογύνους κατασκευάζων, οὓς ἐχρῆν πᾶσι τοῖς πρὸς ἀλκὴν ἐπιτηδεύμασι συγκροτεῖσθαι. Λυμῃνάμενος δὲ τὴν παιδικὴν ἡλικίαν καὶ εἰς ἐρωμένης τάξιν καὶ διάθεσιν ἀγαγὼν, ἐζημίωσε καὶ τοὺς ἐραστὰς περὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότατα, σῶμά τε καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ οὐσίαν. Ἀνάγκη γὰρ τοῦ παιδεραστοῦ τὸν μὲν νοῦν τετάσθαι πρὸς τὰ παιδικὰ, καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα μόνον ὀξυδερκοῦντα, πρὸς δὲ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ἴδιά τε καὶ κοινὰ τυφλούμενον ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας καὶ μάλιστα εἰ ἀποτυγχάνοιτο, συντήκεσθαι· τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν ἐλαττοῦσθαι διχόθεν, ἔκ τε ἀμελείας, καὶ τῶν εἰς τὸν ἐρώμενον ἀναλωμάτων. Παραφύετο δὲ καὶ μεῖζον ἄλλο πάνδημον κακόν· ἐρημίαν γὰρ πόλεων, καὶ σπάνιν τοῦ ἀρίστου γένους ἀνθρώπων, καὶ στείρωσιν καὶ ἀγονίαν τεχνάζονται, οἳ μιμοῦνται τοὺς ἀνεπιστήμονας τήν γεωργίας, κ. τ. λ. (for translation see text above). This passage at any rate shows beyond a doubt that Philo quite failed to understand Plato, who not only clearly and distinctly distinguishes paedophilia from paederastia, but also analyzes at length the injuries to body and soul the latter involves on the pathic,—particularly in the Phaedrus, pp. 239-241, which we beg the reader to consult. To quote textually would occupy too much space.

373 De Abrahamo, pp. 20. sqq., Οὐ γὰρ μόνον θηλυμανοῦντες ἀλλοτρίους γάμους διέφθειρον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄνδρες ὄντες ἄῤῥεσιν ἐπιβαίνοντες, τὴν κοινὴν πρὸς τοὺς πάσχοντας οἱ δρῶντες φύσιν οὐκ αἰδούμενοι, παιδοσποροῦντες ἠλέγχοντο μὲν ἀτελῆ γονὴν σπείροντες. Ὁ δ’ ἔλεγχος πρὸς οὐδὲν ἦν ὄφελος, ὑπὸ βιαιοτέρας νικωμένων ἐπιθυμίας· εἶτ’ ἐκ τοῦ κατ’ ὀλίγον ἐθίζοντες τὰ γυναικῶν ὑπομένειν τοὺς ἄνδρας γεννηθέντας, θήλειαν κατεσκεύαζον αὑτοῖς νόσον, κακὸν δύσμαχον. Οὐ μόνον γὰρ τὰ σώματα μαλακότητι καὶ θρύψει γυναικοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀγεννεστάτας ἀπεργαζόμενοι, τό γ’ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἧκον μέρος, τὸ σύμπαν ἀνθρώπων γένος διέφθειρον. Εἰ γοῦν Ἕλληνες ὁμοῦ καὶ βάρβαροι συμφωνήσαντες ἐζήλωσαν τὰς τοιαύτας ὁμιλίας, ἠρήμωντο ἂν ἑξῆς αἱ πόλεις, ὥσπερ λοιμώδει νόσῳ κενωθεῖσαι. (for translation see text above).

374 De Sacrificantibus, p. 261., προανείργει πάντας τοὺς ἀναξίους ἱεροῦ συλλόγου, τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιούμενος ἀπὸ τῶν νοσούντων τὴν ἀληθῆ [θήλειαν] νόσον ἀνδρογύνων, οἳ τὸ φύσεως νόμισμα παρακόπτοντες, εἰς ἀκολάστων γυναικῶν πάθος καὶ μορφὰς εἰσβιάζοντο· Θλαδίας γὰρ καὶ ἀποκεκομένους τὰ γεννητικὰ ἐλαύνει, τό τε τῆς ὥρας ταμιεύοντας ἄνθος, ἵνα μὴ ῥᾳδίως μαραίνοιτο, καὶ τὸν ἄῤῥενα τύπον μεταχαράττοντας εἰς θηλύμορφον ἰδέαν. Ἐλαύνει δὲ οὐ μόνον πόρνας ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῆς πόρνης κ. τ. λ.

375 Paedagog., bk. III. ch. 3., “πρὸς τοὺς καλλωπιζομένους τῶν ἀνδρῶν”: ἕνα τινὰ τούτων τῶν ἀγεννῶν παιδαγωγικῶς ἐπιπλήττων ὁ Διογένης, ὁπηνίκα ἐπιπράσκετο, ἀνδρείως σφόδρα, Ἧκε, εἶπεν, μειρακίον, ἄνδρα ὠνῆσαι σαυτῷ· ἀμφιβόλω λόγῳ τὸ πορνικὸν ἐκείνου σωφρονίζων· τὸ γὰρ ἄνδρας ὄντας, ξύρεσθαι καὶ λεαίνεσθαι, _πῶς οὐκ ἀγεννές_; (“To men who bedizen their persons”: One of these base fellows Diogenes rebuked like a schoolmaster. At the very time he was on sale as a slave, he cried with wonderful boldness: ‘Come, young man, buy a man for yourself’: by this double entendre chastising his meretricious habits. For is it not a base thing, that men should have their bodies shaved and polished smooth? )

376 Herodian, Historiarum Libri Octo, edit. Th. Guil. Irmisch. Leipzig 1780. 8vo., Vol. II. Bk. IV. ch. 12.: εἰς τοῦτον οὖν, ὡς μηδὲ στρατιωτικὸν, μηδὲ γενναῖον, δημοσίᾳ πολλάκις ἀπέσκωπτε, καὶ μέχρις αἰσχρᾶς βλασφημίας· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἤκουεν αὐτὸν καὶ διαίτη ἐλευθερίῳ χρώμενον, καὶ τὰ φαῦλα καὶ ἀπεῤῥιμμένα τῶν ἐδεσμάτων καὶ ποτῶν μυσαττόμενον, οἷς, ὡς στρατιωτικὸς δὴ, ὁ Ἀντωνῖνος ἔχαιρε, χλαμύδιον ἤ τινα ἄλλην ἐσθῆτα ἀμφιεσάμενον ἀστειοτέραν, εἰς ἀνανδρίαν καὶ θήλειαν νόσον διέβαλλεν, ἀεί τε ἀποκτενεῖν ἠπειλει· ἅπερ οὐ φέρων ὁ Μακρῖνος, πάνυ ἤσχαλλε· συνέβη δέ τι καὶ τοιοῦτον κ. τ. λ. for translation see text. A somewhat similar circumstance is given in Livy, Hist. XXXIX. ch. 42.

377 Aeschines, Orat. in Timarch. edit. Reiske, p. 139. μὴ Δημοσθένην καλουμενον, ἀλλὰ Βάταλον,—p. 142. ἐπεὶ καὶ περὶ τῆς Δημοσθένους ἐπωνυμίας, οὐ κακῶς ὑπὸ τῆς φήμης, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὑπὸ τῆς τίτθης, Βάταλος προσαγορεύεται, ἐξ ἀνανδρίας τινὸς καὶ κιναιδεῖας ἐνεγκάμενος τοῦνομα· εἰ γάρ τις σου τὰ κομψὰ ταῦτα χλανίσκια περιελόμενος, καὶ τοὺς μαλακοὺς χιτωνίσκους, ἐν οἷς τοὺς κατὰ τῶν φίλων λόγους γράφεις, περιενέγκας δοίη εἰς τὰς χεῖρας τῶν δικαστῶν, οἴομαι ἂν αὐτοὺς, εἴ τις μὴ προειπὼν τοῦτο ποιήσειεν, ἀπορῆσαι, εἴ τε ἀνδρὸς, εἴ τε γυναικὸς εἰλήφασιν ἐσθῆτα. (called not Demosthenes, but Batalus, i.e. Pathic.—Now with regard to Demosthenes’ surname, he is excellently called by common report, though not by his nurse, Batalus—Pathic, having got the name from a certain unmanliness and cinaedism. For if a man should strip you of these elegant robes you wear and your womanish tunics, clad in which you indite your speeches against your friends, and bring them up and put them in the hands of the jurymen, I suppose, if he should do so without any previous explanation, the latter would be quite unable to tell whether it were a man’s or a woman’s clothes they had got hold of.)—a passage which affords the best commentary to what is stated in the text both here and on previous pages.

378 Bk. III. ch. 55: Σχολή τις ἦν αὕτη κακοεργίας πᾶσιν ἀκολάστοις, πολλῇ τε ῥαστώνῃ διεφθορόσι τὸ σῶμα· γύννιδες γοῦν τινες ἄνδρες οὐκ ἄνδρες, τὸ σεμνὸν τῆς φύσεως ἀπαρνησάμενοι, θηλείᾳ νόσῳ τὴν δαίμονα ἱλεοῦντο· γυναικῶν τ’ αὖ παράνομοι ὁμιλίαι, κλεψιγαμοί θ’ ὁμιλίαι, ἄῤῥητοί τε καὶ ἐπίῤῥητοι πράξεις, ὡς ἐν ἀνόμῳ καὶ ἀποστάτῃ χώρῳ κατὰ τόνδε τὸν νεὼν ἐπεχειροῦντο· ἔφορός τε οὐδεὶς ἦν τῶν πραττομένων, τῷ μηδένα σεμνῶν ἀνδρῶν αὐτόθι τολμᾶν παρίεναι. for translation see text. As to this Temple of Venus compare Zosimus, Histor., bk. I., Etymolog. Magnum, under word ’Aphaka; Suidas, under word Χριστόδωρος; Selden, Syntagm. de Diis Syris, II.

379 Zonaras, Lexicon. edit. Tittmann. Leipzig 1808. 4to. p. 457.

380 Eustathius, Commentar. in Homer., Iliad 1680. 44., Stark cites merely the figures. We can clearly see the meaning of γύννιδες in the following passage of Clement of Alexandria, Paedag., bk. III. ch. 3. p. 227, τί τοίνυν οὐκ ἂν ἐπιτηδεύσειαν αἱ γυναῖκες, αἱ εἰς μαχλοσύνην σπεύδουσαι, τοιαῦτα τολμῶσιν ἐνοποριζόμεναι τοῖς ἀνδράσιν; μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ ἄνδρας βατάλους δὲ καὶ γύννιδας καλεῖν τούτους χρή· ὧν καὶ αἱ φωναὶ τεθρυμμέναι καὶ ἡ ἐσθὴς τεθηλυμμένη ἁφῇ καὶ βαφῇ· δῆλοι δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἐλεγχόμενοι τὸν τρόπον ἔξωθεν ἀμπεχόνῃ, ὑποδέσει, σχήματι, βαδίσματι, κουρᾷ, βλέμματι. Ἀπὸ ὁράσεως γὰρ ἐπιγνωσθήσετο ἀνὴρ, ἡ Γραφὴ λέγει κ. τ. λ. (What then would not women practise, such women as run into wantonness, rivalling the men that dare such abominations? but these men ought we not rather to call batali (cinaedi) and womanish fellows? whose voices are broken languishingly and their dress fashioned like women’s in texture and colour. Now such-like men are clearly manifest in outward appearance for what they are by their show, and their foot-gear, by their bearing, and walk, and hair, and glance. For by the eyes shall a man be known, says the Scripture, etc.). The word batalos meaning cinaedus is found also in Aeschines, In Timarch., p. 139, 163, 142. De legatione falsa, p. 273. Harpocration under the word, conjectured that the Cinaedi were called for the same reason that e. g. Eupolis ὁ πρωκτός (the wide-bottomed) was called βάταλος; and Plutarch also, Vita Demosth. 4 Schol. Aeschin. p. 742., Etymolog. Magnum, 190. 20., agrees in same idea. Comp. Schäfer, Apparat. Crit. ad Demosthen., I. 875. Moreover this was the nickname of Demosthenes (De Corona 288. 18.). At any rate this passage of Clement of Alexandria tells in favour of the possibility of recognizing Pathics by their exterior!

381 Eusebii Pamphili Ecclesiasticae historiae libri decem; eiusdem de vita imp. Constantini libri IV. Quibus subiicitur Oratio Constantini ad Sanctos et Panegyricus Eusebii. Henricus Valesius graecum textum collatis IV. MSS. Codicibus emendavit, Latine vertit et Adnotationibus illustravit. Iuxta exemplar quod antea Parisiis excudebat Antonius Vitré, nunc vero verbo tenus et correctius edebant Moguntiae Christian Gerlach et Simon Beckenstein. MDCLXXII. fol. (Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical Histories, X books; also the same author’s Life of the Emperor Constantine, IV books. Together with Constantine, “Ad Sanctos”, and the Panegyric of Eusebius. Greek text emended by the collation of four MSS, a Latin translation provided and illustrative notes added, by Henricus Valesius. Based on the edition first printed at Paris by Antonius Vitré, now re-edited unexpurgated and corrected by Christian Gerlach and Simon Beckenstein at Maintz. 1672. fol.)

382 Synesii Episcopi Cyrenes Opera quae extant omnia, interprete Dionysio Petavio—codicum fide recensita ac notis illustrata et eodem modo omnia secunda hac editione multo accuratiora et uberiora prodeunt. Lutetiae Parisiorum 1633. fol. p. 25. A. Ὡς Ὅμηρός φησι τοὺς θεοὺς Ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίαν ἐφέποντες Σκύθας δὲ τούτους, Ἡρόδοτός τέ φησι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρῶμεν, κατεχομένους ἅπαντας ὑπὸ νόσον θηλείας· οὗτοι γάρ εἰσιν, ἀφ’ ὧν οἱ πανταχοῦ δοῦλοι κ. τ. λ. Synesius Bishop of Cyrené, Complete Works so far as Extant. edit. Dionysius Petavius; text revised and compared with MSS., and illustrated with explanatory notes; the whole re-issued in a more accurate and fuller form in this Second Edition. Paris 1633. fol., p. 25. A., “As Homer—Odyssey XVII. 487—says of the gods, visiting the insolence and good government of men; but these Scythians Herodotus declares, and we see the fact for ourselves, to be all fallen under the feminine disease; and it is they from whom come as a rule the slaves, etc.” The word θηλείας in the edition mentioned stands in text; and in the margin as γρ. δειλίας.

383 Pyrrh. Hypotyp., bk. III. ch. 199., Νενόμισται τὸ τῆς ἀῤῥενομιξίας παρὰ Γερμανοῖς ὥς φασιν οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἀλλ’ ὡς ἕν τι τῶν συνηθῶν (But the practice of intercourse with males is not among the Germans, so they say, reckoned a shameful thing, but as one of the customary acts)—Aristotle, Polit. II. 6. 6., Strabo, Geogr., IV. 199. Diodorus, Bibl. V. 32. Athenaeus, Deipn., p. 603 a., relate the same thing of the Celts. Quintilian who lived about 42 after Christ, directly denies the fact, it is true: Declam. 3, Nihil tale novere Germani et sanctius vivitur ad Oceanum. Non sit mihi forsitan quaerendum aversis auribus saeculi huius in tantum vitia regnare, ut obscoenis cupiditatibus natura cesserit, ut pollutis in femineam usque patientiam maribus incurrat iam libido in sexum suum, finem tamen aliquem sibi vitia ipsa exceperunt, ultimumque adhuc huius flagitii crimen fuit corrupisse futurum virum. Hoc vero cuius est dementiae? In concubinatum iuniores leguntur, et in muliebrem patientiam vocatur fortasse iam maritus. (The Germans know no such practice; for life is purer near the Ocean. Would it were possible to shut my ears to the fact that Vice in this age prevails to such a degree that Nature has had to yield to foul lusts, that men corrupted even to the length of suffering themselves to be treated as women are filled with lust towards their own sex; yet vice itself set some limit to its own excesses, and the last extremity of this lewdness was to have ruined one that might have grown into a man. But what a height of insanity is here! Young men are chosen as mistresses, and a man is called upon to endure the treatment proper to a woman.) Who can fail to see that in this passage the words feminea patientia, muliebris patientia, are given as a translation of νοῦσος θήλεια?

384 Cohortatio ad Gentes, edit. Potter. Oxford 1715., Vol. I. p. 20., Πολλὰ κἀγαθὰ γένοιτο τῷ τῶν Σκυθῶν βασιλεῖ, ὅστις ποτὲ ἦν· οὗτος τὸν πολίτην τὸν ἑαυτοῦ, τὸν παρὰ Κυζικηνοῖς μητρὸς τῶν θεῶν τελετὴν ἀπομιμούμενον παρὰ Σκύθαις, τύμπανόν τε ἐπικτυποῦντα, καὶ κύμβαλον ἐπηχοῦντα τοῦ τραχήλου, οἷα τινὰ Μηναγύρτην ἐξηρημένον, κατετόξευσεν, ὡς ἄνανδρον αὐτόν τε παρὰ Ἕλλησι γεγενημένον, καὶ τῆς θηλείας τοῖς ἄλλοις Σκυθῶν διδάσκαλον νόσου. for translation see text.

385 Herodotus, Histories, Bk. IV. ch. 76.

386 In Anacharsid. I. ch. 8. note 4. The question here is solely of Greek customs (ἑλληνίζειν, βιοῦν ἤθεσιν Ἑλληνικοῖς—to Greecize, to live after Greek fashions), without any evil implication, or of Greek mysteries (τελετὰς Ἑλληνικὰς διατελοῦντα carrying out Greek rites). How else could the words, γλώσσης, γαστρὸς, αἰδοίων κρατεῖν (to be master of tongue, of belly, of members) have been used as a motto on the pedestals of statues of Anacharsis, and how could he himself have written to Croesus, that after he had learnt the customs of the Greeks, ἀπόχρη με ἐπανήκειν ἐς Σκύθας ἄνδρα ἀμείνονα (I was bound to return to the Scythians a better man). For the rest Anacharsis is called the son of Gnurus and brother of the Scythian king Caduidas, who stabbed him on a hunting party.

387 Archaelog. Jud., bk. II.

388 Hephaestionis Enchiridion (de metris) ad MS. fidem recensitum cum notis variorum, praecipue Leonardi Hotchkis, A. M. curante Th. Gaisford, Edit. nova et auct. Lips. 1832. c. 12. p. 75. (Hephaestion’s Enchiridion (on metres); the text revised and compared with the MSS., together with notes of various Commentators, notably Leonard Hotchkiss, M. A. edit. Th. Gaisford. New and enlarged edition). Leipzig 1832., ch. 12. p. 75.

389 Dio Chrysostom, De Regno, Orat. IV. p. 76., Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀσθένης τε καὶ ἄτολμος ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γένους δαίμων ἐπί τε τὰς γυναικείας νόσους καὶ ἄλλας αἰσχύνας, ὁπόσαις πρόσεστι ζημία καὶ ὀνείδη, προσάγει ῥαδίως. for translation see text.—Ὁ δ’ ἐκ μέσων ἀναβοάτων τῶν γυναικῶν, ὀξύτερον καὶ ἀκρατέστερον· λευκὸς ἰδεῖν, ἐντρυφερὸς αἰθρίας καὶ πόνων ἄπερος, ἀποκλίνων τὸν τράχηλον, ὑγροῖς τοῖς ὄμμασι, μάχλον ὑποβλέπων, ἀεὶ τὸ σῶμα καταθεώμενος, τῇ ψυχῇ δὲ οὐδὲν προσέχων, οὐδὲ τοῖς ὑπ’ αὐτῆς προστασσομένοις. (But that Spirit which cries out from the midst of women is something shriller and more intemperate; he is pale to look upon, wanton and luxurious, incapable of enduring open air or toil, drooping the neck, with liquorish eyes, casting stolen glances of lewdness, ever looking down upon the body, but giving no thought to the soul, nor the things beneath its ordinance).

390 Comp. author’s Work, De Sexuali Organismorum Fabrica (Of the Sexual Conformation of Organisms), Pt. I. Halle 1832. pp. 1-12., where these relations are brought out in detail, and referred back to anatomical reasons.

391 We expressed an opinion above (p. 175.) that no grounds of excuse could be found for the Pathic; but we must here modify this so far as to admit that Aristotle imagines himself to have discovered such. In the Problemata, IV. 26., he examines the question: διὰ τί ἔνιοι ἀφροδισιαζόμενοι χαίρουσι, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἅμα δρῶντες, οἱ δ’ οὔ; (Why some men take pleasure in being loved, and of these some in performing the act also, but others not?), i.e. why some find a pleasure in suffering paederastia to be practised with them (the word ἀφροδισιάζεσθαι is found in this meaning possibly also in Hippocrates, edit. Kühn, Vol. III. pp. 680 and 574., where exactly such symptoms of a complaint are described as might serve for an explanation of the ῥέγχειν—snorting (mentioned above), while either they exercise coition as men concurrently, or do not. As answer we read, to follow the translation given by Th. Gaza: An quod excrementis singulis locus determinatus a natura est, in quem instituto secerni naturali debeat, sollicitaque natura spiritus excurrens tumorem admovet, excrementumque una extrudere solet.... His autem proxime genituram quoque in testes et penem deferri constitutum est. Quibus itaque meatus habitu suo naturali privantur, vel quia occoecati sunt qui ad penem tendant, quod spadonibus hisque similibus evenit (οἷς δὲ οἱ πόροι μὴ κατὰ φύσιν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλ’ ἢ διὰ τὸ ἀποτυφλωθῆναι τοὺς εἰς τὸ αἰδοῖον, οἷον συμβαίνει τοῖς εὐνουχίαις), vel etiam aliis de causis, his talis humor in sedem confluit (εἰς τὴν ἕδραν συῤῥεῖ ἡ τοιαύτη ἰκμας), quippe qui hac transmeare soleat, quod eius loci contractio in coeundo et partium sedi oppositarum consumptio incidant. Qui si admodum semine genitali abundant, excrementum illud large in eum locum se colligit; itaque cum excitata cupiditas est, attritum pars ea desiderat, in quam confluit excrementum. Cupiditas autem excitari tum a cibo tum imaginatione potest. Cum enim alterutra de causa libido commota est, spiritus eodem concurrit, et genus id excrementi confluit, quo secedere natum est.... Quorum vera natura mollis et feminea est (οἱ δὲ φύσει θηλυδρίαι) ita ii constant ut genitura vel nulla vel minima conveniat, quo illorum secernitur qui praediti natura integra sunt, sed se in partem sedis divertat; quod propterea evenit quia praeter naturae normam constiterunt. Cum enim mares crearentur, ita degenerarunt ut partem virilem mancam atque oblaesam habere cogerentur, ... ita enim mulieres non viri crearentur. Ergo perverti citarique aliorsum, quam secernendum natura voluit, necesse est. Unde fit ut insatiabiles etiam sint modo mulierum (διὸ καὶ ἄπληστοι, ὥσπερ αἱ γυναῖκες). Humor enim sollicitans ille exiguus est, nec quicquam se promere conatur, refrigeraturque celeriter. Quibus itaque sedem humor ex toto adiit, ii pati tantummodo avent, quibus autem in utramque partem sese dispertit, ii et agere et pati concupiunt (καὶ ὅσοις μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν ἕδραν, οὗτοι πάσχειν ἐπιθυμοῦσιν· ὅσοις δὲ ἐπ’ ἀμφότερα, οὗτοι καὶ δρᾶν καὶ πάσχειν), idque eo amplius quo tandem plenius fluxerit. Sed sunt quibus vel ex consuetudine affectus hic accidet (ἐνίοις δὲ γίνεται καὶ ἐξ ἔθους τὸ πάθος τοῦτο). Fit enim ut tam gestiant quam cum agunt, usque genituram nihilo minus ita emittere valeant. Ergo agere cupiunt, quibus haec ipsa usu evenerunt et consuetudo magis veluti in naturam iccirco illis evadit, quibus non ante pubem sed in ea vitium patiendi invaluit (ἐθισθῶσιν ἀφροδισιάζεσθαι), quoniam his recordatio rei, cum desiderant, oritur; una autem cum recordatione gestiens exsultat voluptas. Desiderant autem perinde ac nati ad patiendum (ὥσπερ πεφυκότες, ἐπιθυμοῦσι πάσχειν) magna igitur parte vel ob consuetudinem rex exsistit sed si accidat ut idem et salax et mollis sit (λάγνος ὢν καὶ μαλακὸς) longe expeditius haec omnia evenire posse putandum est. (Is it because for each evacuation a particular locality has been fixed by nature, to which it must be secreted by the law of its being, and when effort occurs the spirit issuing out causes a swelling, and then pours out the evacuation along with it.—And similarly to these other secretions, the semen is naturally secreted to the testicles and private parts. And accordingly in the case of those in whom the passages are not in a natural state, either through those that lead to the private part being blocked as is the case with eunuchs and those similarly affected to eunuchs, or through some other circumstance, this sort of humour flows to the seat; for it passes that way, as is proved by the contraction of this part in the act of coition, and the wasting of the regions about the seat. Therefore whenever men have an excess of lewdness, in their case it collects in this quarter, and so when desire is excited, that part where it accumulates desires friction. And desire may be excited either by food or mentally; for whenever it is stirred by any circumstance, the spirit runs to that spot, and the particular secretion flows to the particular quarter natural to it.—But such as are womanish by nature are so constituted that no secretion or only a little occurs in the quarter where the secretion takes place with such as are naturally constituted, but to this spot (the seat) instead. And the reason is they are not naturally constituted, for being males they are yet so framed that of necessity the manly part in them is maimed. Now maiming either destroys an organ completely, or produces perversion and deterioration; but here it cannot be the former; otherwise the patient would be a woman outright. Wherefore it follows that it is perverted and deteriorated, and the secretion of semen elsewhere directed. And for this cause they are insatiable, like women; for the humour is small in quantity, is not constrained to find an issue, and quickly cools. And those in whom the secretion is to the seat, these desire passive pleasure only, but those in whom it is both to the seat and to the private parts, these desire both active and passive love; and to whichever part the secretion is greater, the more do they desire the corresponding kind of pleasure. Besides in some cases this occurs through habituation. Whichever act they do, a pleasurable feeling results, and so they emit semen correspondingly. Then they desire to do the act in which this most occurs, and thus this becomes in preference their custom, and a sort of second nature. Wherefore such as have been habituated to passive love not before puberty but about the time of puberty, because when they desire pleasure memory suggests what they must do, and on memory follows pleasure, acquire through habituation the desire for passive gratification just as if they were born to it. And if a man happen to be lewd and effeminate to begin with, all this results all the sooner).—In the Pathic then, according to Aristotle’s view, the semen-vessels carry the semen not to the penis, but to the fundament, and set up there the feeling of desire and sensual craving. These are the born Pathics (πεφυκότες), from whom he distinguishes the seduced Pathics, who indulge in the vice as the result of habituation (ἐξ ἔθους). This is the very same view that we have already (p. 172. Note 3.) gathered from his Ethics, and which supports in the strongest way what we there made good as against Stark.

392 Hippocratis Coi XXII. Commentarii tabulis illustrati, (Hippocrates of Cos, The XXII Commentaries; illustrated with Plates). Bâle 1579. fol., p. 273.

393 Hippocratis Opera (Hippocrates, Works), edit. Kahn, Vol. I. pp. 561-564.

394 For the use of this word, compare Létronne, Recherches pour servir à l’Histoire d’Egypte, (Researches with a view towards a History of Egypt), pp. 134, 148, 458; and what we have called attention to on an earlier page in Hecker’s Annalen (Annals), Vol. XXVI. p. 143.

395 The word κέδματα, which probably is used in several senses, can scarcely in this case betoken anything else than varicose veins, and is according synonymous with ἰξίαι, with which it also occurs in connection. It is interesting to find Aristotle also pronouncing those suffering from varicose veins incapable of generation; he writes in Problemata, Bk. IV. 20., Διὰ τί αἱ ἰξίαι τοὺς ἔχοντας κωλύουσι γεννᾶν, καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζώων ὅ, τι ἂν ἔχη; ἢ ὅτι ἡ ἰξία γίνεται, μεταστάντος; διὸ καὶ ὠφελεῖ πρὸς τὰ μελαγχολικά. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀφροδισιασμὸς μετὰ πνεύματος ἐξόδου. Εἰ οὖν ὁδοποιεῖται ἡ ὁρμὴ γινομένου αὐτοῦ, οὐ ποιεῖ ὁρμᾶν τὸ σπέρμα, ἀλλὰ καταψύχεται· μαραίνει οὖν τὴν συντονίαν τοῦ αἰδοίου. (Why varicosities hinder those that have them from begetting, both men and of other animals all that are subject to them? is it because the varicosity arises, through a transference of spirit; for which reason also it is of use in case of melancholia. But the act of love also occurs in conjunction with an outburst of spirit. If therefore the impulse is made at the time the varicosity is forming, it suffers not the seed to make a vigorous impulse, but it is quickly cooled; and so it wastes and destroys the tension of the private part). On the contrary according to Problemata, 31., the lame are lecherous: διὰ τ’ αὐτὸ δὲ καὶ οἱ ὄρνιθες λάγνοι και οἱ χωλοί· ἡ γὰρ τροφὴ ἀμφοτέροις. κάτω μὲν ὀλίγη, διὰ τὴν ἀναπηρίαν τῶν σκελῶν. (And for the same reason birds are lecherous and lame men; because in both cases the nourishment downwards is slight, on account of the deficiency in the legs). In connection with κέδματα we must refer to Foesius, Œconomia Hippocratis, Coray, loco citato p. 339 sqq., and Stark, loco citato Note 20., and observe that like the Latin ruptura and the English rupture it appears to specially signify swellings due to distension and subsequent bursting. That swellings of the groin are a result of long-continued riding, we see also from Livy, Hist. bk. XLV. ch. 39., where M. Servilius says: tumorem hunc inguinum in equo dies noctesque persedendo habeo (this swelling of the groin I have owing to sitting my horse nights and days on end). Comp. Plutarch, In Aemil., Vol. II. p. 308.

396 ἕλκοντα τὰ ἴσχια (they are ulcerated on the hip-joints) is found in the text. But the meaning of both words is disputed, and by no means fixed so far. With regard to ἰσχία—we must primarily understand the mass of muscle at the lower exterior portion of the “os ilium”, secondly the whole seat, and the joint-socket (cotyla) of the upper thigh. This is the interpretation of the Etymologicon Magnum; ἰσχία, ὅτι ἴσχει τοὺς καθημένους· σημαίνει δὲ ἰσχίον τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ὀσφῦν ὀστέον, εἰς ὃ ἔγκειται τὸ ἱερὸν ὀστοῦν, ὅπερ καὶ γλουτὸς καλεῖται, καὶ κοτύλη, παρὰ τὴν κοιλότητα· ἢ τὸ κοῖλον τοῦ γλουτοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἡ κοτύλη στρέφεται.(ἰσχία,—so called because supporting (ἴσχειν) those who sit; also ἰσχίον signifies the bone below, the loin, on which rests the os sacrum, which is also called γλουτός (rump), and also κοτύλη (joint-socket) in reference to its hollowness; or else the hollow of the rump, in which the joint-socket turns). Similar is the explanation of Suidas, Hesychius, Zonaras, the Scholiast on Homer, Iliad, V. 305, and on Theocritus, VI. 30. The general context shows that the meaning of “Joint-socket” is evidently to be preferred here.

397 The word διαφθείρεσθαι (ruin themselves) in the text is undoubtedly written by the author with reference to the ἀνανδρία (unmanliness). Still it is surprising that what is here pointed out as injurious is in the Epidem. bk. VI. edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 609. recommended as salutary. The expression there is: κεδμάτων τὰς ἐν τοῖσιν ὠσὶν ὄπισθεν φλέβας σχάζειν (in cases of varicose dilatations to open the veins that are behind in the ears). Palladius in his Commentary on this passage (edit. Dietz. Vol. II. p. 143.) declares the whole sentence wrong, writing: Πᾶς οὕτος ὁ λόγος ψευδής· κέδμα γάρ ἐστι διάθεσίς τις περὶ τὴν λαγόνα, ἢ φλεγμονὴ ἢ ῥευματικὴ διάθεσις· φησὶν οὖν ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ διαθέσει τέμνων τὰς ὄπισθεν φλέβας ὠφελήσεις· καὶ ποία συγγένεια τῆς λαγόνος καὶ τῶν ὤτων, καὶ ταῦτα τῶν ἐκεῖ ἀγγείων λεπτῶν ὄντων, καὶ τριχοειδῶν καὶ μηδὲν ἀξιόλογον κενῶσαι δυναμένων; (All this sentence is wrong; for κέδμα is really a certain condition of the parts about the flank, either inflammation or rheumatic condition.) Now they say that in this condition, by cutting the veins behind, you will do good; but what connexion is there between the flank and the ears, and especially as the vessels there are small, and like hairs, and not able to void any considerable quantity?).—Not a word is said here about the practice among the Scythians; are we to suppose Palladius was ignorant of the fact? Also in the “De Natura Ossium” (Of the Nature of Bones), (edit. Kühn, I. p. 508.) we find the operation recommended in pains of the hips, testicles, knees and knuckles; and according to a passage in the “De Morbis” (Of Diseases), bk. II. (edit. Kühn, bk. II. p. 223.) these veins should be seared, until they cease to pulsate. On the other hand in the “De Genitura” (Of Generation), (edit. Kühn, I. p. 373.) and the “De Locis in Homine” (Of certain Localities in the Body), edit. Kühn, II. p. 106.) incapacity for generation is represented as a consequence of blood-letting from these vessels. We leave to others the task of drawing the necessary conclusions in view of the unanimity of the Authors of the books named, and merely observe further that Dr. Paris (Roux Journ. de Med., Vol. XLIV. p. 355., Murray, Med. Pract. Bibliothek., Vol. III. p. 293.) while giving some observations on the diseases of the Turks, relates as following: Almost every Armenian, Greek, Jew, Turk, has a seton, and they abuse cupping to an equal extent. For a simple head-ache, they allow the first barber they come across to put a bandage round their throat, in order to retain the blood, and then with a razor make sundry cuts round about the ears, for then as much blood flows away, and without risk, as would fill a phial.

398 In the text of Froesius it stands: καὶ μᾶλλον τοῖσιν ὀλίγα κεκτημένοισιν, οὐ τιμωμένοισιν ἤδη, εἰ χαίρουσιν οἱ θεοὶ καὶ θαυμαζόμενοι ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων, κ. τ. λ. (to a greater extent those who possess little and therefore fail to make offerings; if that is to say the gods take pleasure in being venerated by men, etc). Coray has emended this into εἰ δὴ τιμώμενοι χαίρουσι (if that is to say the gods take pleasure in being honoured and venerated), on the grounds that τιμᾶν and θαυμάζειν (to honour, to venerate) are frequently used in conjunction with one another to express the veneration of the gods, which fact he confirms by passages from Euripides and Aristophanes. Yet this emendation can scarcely be right, even though de Mercy has also adopted it. The latest editor, Prof. Petersen of Hamburg, a professed Philologist, has undoubtedly maintained not without weighty reasons the old reading, noting Coray’s conjecture in the notes. Indeed neither is the old reading altogether correct, but can be easily restored, we think, if the words, as has already been done in our translation above, are read in the following way: οὐ τιμωμένοισιν· εἰ δὴ χαίρουσιν οἱ θεοὶ θαυμαζόμενοι,—a way of taking it that Coray had already seen to be possible, only that he preferred to read instead of οὐ τιμωμένοισιν,—ἢ τοῖσι τιμωμένοισιν, because he does not think that the words can refer at all to the poorer Scythians, as did Cornarius before him, though he translates quite correctly: “It affected to a greater extent poorer men, as being more negligent concerning the worship of the gods.” Foesius translates: “and they do not pay honour.” In fact Coray’s chief difficulty was as to the active meaning of τιμωμένοισι (i.e. “paying honour”, not “being honoured”); but this use is by no means so rare, and exactly in this sense of veneration paid to the gods by men is found in Homer, Od. XIX. 280, where we read of the Phaeacians on the occasion of Odysseus’ landing:

οἳ δή μιν περὶ κῆρι θεὸν ὣς τιμήσαντο.

(Now they honoured him from their heart as if he had been a god). The whole sense of the passage requires us to refer the words οὐ τιμωμένοισιν to the poorer Scythians, who possess little, and therefore can offer nothing to the gods, and also do not wish to do so, as is clearly shown in what follows; and it is exactly for this reason that Hippocrates says, then they ought to suffer more from the disease than the rich, if the gods practised any system of equivalent returns.

399 Ταῦτα δὲ τοῖσί τε Σκύθῃσι πρόσεστι, καὶ εὐνουχοειδέστατοί εἰσι ἀνθρώπων διὰ τὰς προφάσιας, καὶ ὅτι ἀναξυρίδας ἔχουσι ἀεὶ καὶ εἰσι ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων τὸ πλεῖστον τοῦ χρόνου, ὥστε μήτε χειρὶ ἅπτεσθαι τοῦ αἰδοίου, ὑπό τε τοῦ ψύχεος καὶ τοὺ κόπου ἐπιλήθεσθαι τοῦ ἱμέρου καὶ τῆς μίξιος, καὶ μηδὲν παρακινέειν πρότερον ἢ ἀνανδρωθῆναι. for translation see text above: “And this is the case ..., to resign their manly privilege.” We have it is true translated according to the text, yet we cannot possibly take this as being uncorrupted, but without for the moment being in a position to offer a complete emendation of it. The sequence of thought, if we are not altogether in error, is this: The Scythians ride continually, which of its self weakens their power of generation and desire for coition, then besides this they wear trousers, a thing that particularly struck the Greek because he did not use them himself. These trousers were so tight, that the wearer could not get at the genitals with his hand; again the genitals lay close to the body, did not hang down, could not be set in motion; at the same time they were also protected against the wind, so that no cooling process could take place; the idle repose and the constantly heightened temperature in combination weakened the genitals to such a degree that the impulse to coition was at last totally lost. Views which entirely agree with our experience of the present day, and indeed were by Faust, as is notorious, exaggerated almost to caricature. Now if Hippocrates has expressed, as is likely enough, these views in the words ὑπό τε τοῦ ψύχεος καὶ τοῦ κόπου (under the influence of cold and lassitude), the text must be corrupt, and this is what we wish to insist on. For if by the words we understand frost and lassitude, then the first at any rate is impossible; how could the Scythians suffer from frost, when they wore trousers! Then the cooling process spoken of just now must be intended by ψύχος (cold)! But if κόπος (striking, beating, so weariness, lassitude) is understood literally, in accordance with its derivation from κόπτω (to strike), in the sense of blows, shocks, and taken as referring to the genitals, especially the testicles, a negative and a verb must have been lost from the text, and this appears to us too the most probable explanation, though at the time we cannot say what verb. The matter would be at once decided, if we could translate: so that they could not put the hand to the genitals, and since these were encountered neither by the cooling wind, nor yet by the shock (against the horse’s back or the saddle), they forgot the desire for coition and coition itself, i.e. the genitals being neither fortified by the cold nor yet set in motion, do not remind the Scythians of the fact that they have such organs and must use them. The movement (κίνησις) in riding is at any rate regarded as early as Aristotle (Probl. bk. IV. 12.) as cause of the greater lasciviousness of those who ride. He asks: Quare qui equitant libidinosiores evadunt? An caloris agitationisque causa eodem afficiuntur modo, quo per coitum. Quocirca aetatis quoque accessione membra genitalia contrectata agitataque plenius augentur, quod igitur semper eo utuntur motu qui equitant, hinc fluentiore corpore praeparatoque ad concumbendum evadunt. (Why those who ride come to be more lascivious? Is it that on account of the heat and movement they are affected in the same way as by coition? Wherefore as age also advances, the genital organs being handled and moved more, are the more increased in size, so therefore because those who ride use the same movement hence they come to be of a more fluid body and one ready prepared for sexual intercourse). In Probl. 24. he is investigating the causes of the erection of the penis, and says διά τε τὸ βάρος ἐπιγίνεσθαι ἐν τῷ ὄπισθεν τῶν ὄρχεων αἴρεσθαι (now it is on account of the increase of weight in the hinder part of the testicles that it is raised). Comp. Probl. 25. Continual riding naturally stimulates the impulse, wherefore the Scythians are the first in later times to become ἀνάνδριες (unmanly), and this sooner than other riding nations because they wore trousers. However those who are better informed must decide the point!—Finally that in any case ἀνανδρωθῆναι (to be made unmanly) and not ἀνδρωθῆναι (to be made manly) must be read, any one who considers the passage at all carefully must easily see. Coray’s lucubration cannot for a moment convince us.

400 Edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 218., μυθολογοῦσι δέ τινες ὅτι οἱ Ἀμαζονίδες τὸ ἄρσεν γένος το ἑωυτῶν αὐτίκα νήπιον ἐὸν ἐξαρθρέουσιν, αἱ μὲν κατὰ γούνατα, αἱ δὲ κατὰ τὰ ἰσχία, ὡς δῆθεν χωλὰ γίνοιτο καὶ μὴ ἐπιβουλεύει τὸ ἄῤῥεν γένος τῷ θήλει· χειρώναξιν ἄρα τούτοισι χρέονται, ὁκόσα ἢ σκυτίης ἔργα ἤ χαλκείης ἢ ἄλλο τι ἑδραῖον ἔργον· εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀληθέα ταῦτα ἐστί, ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ οἶδα. (Now some relate the myth that the Amazons dislocate the male sex of their offspring while still quite young, some doing it at the knees, some at the hips, with the avowed object of laming them, and so the male sex does not rise in revolt against the female; then they employ them as handicraftsmen, for such tasks as shoe-making or brassworking or other sedentary occupations. But whether this tale is true, I do not know). Gardeil also in a work that is not often met with in Germany, his “Traduction des œuvres médicales d’Hippocrate, sur le texte grec, d’après l’édition de Foes”. (Translation of the Medical Works of Hippocrates,—from the Greek text of Foesius’ edition.), Vol. I. Toulouse 1801. large 8vo., p. 162., says: “On pourroit induire d’un endroit du traité des articles, à la fin du numéro 38 (27), que ce qu’ Hippocrate rapporte ici concernant les Scythes, et ce qu’il a dit ci-dessus, numéro 23, au sujet des Sarmates ne lui étoit connu que par une tradition dont il n’étoit pas bien assuré,” (It might be inferred from a passage in the Treatise on Joints, at the end of no. 38 (27), that what Hippocrates relates here concerning the Scythians, and what he had said in a previous passage, no. 23, of the Sarmatians, was known to him only by a tradition, the authenticity of which he was not well assured of).

401 “Censura Librorum Hippocraticorum”, (Criticism of the Works of Hippocrates), p. 181.

402 Epidem., bk. VII. end, edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 705. Comp. Papst, Allg. med. Zeitung. Altenburg Jahrg. 1838. No. 60. pp. 950-952., where we have already at an earlier date developed our views on this passage.

403 Bk. III. ch. 8., τὰς διαῤῥοίας χρονίους ἔστιν ὅτε ξηραίνει τὰ ἀφροδίσια, (On occasion indulgence in love dries up chronic diarrhœas).

404 Bk. I. ch. 35., τῶν κεχρονισμένων διάῤῥοιαν τὰ ἀφροδίσια ἐπιξηραίνουσι, (Indulgences in love dry up diarrhoea in the case of chronic sufferers).

405 In Epidem. bk. V. edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 574. it is related that the nasal catarrh of Timochares disappeared (ἀφροδισιάσαντι ἐξηράνθη—was dried up after he had indulged in love) after coition (Paederastia? p. 209. Note 1.); and this is repeated again in bk. VII. p. 680. Comp. Palladius, Schol. in Epidem. bk. VI. edit Diez., Vol. II. pp. 143, 145. Marsilius Cagnatus in Gruter’s Lampas, Vol. III. Pt. 2. p. 470.

406 Progr. de sordidis et lascivis remediis antidysentericis vitandis, (Graduation Essay on Avoiding filthy and licentious Remedies as against Dysentery), pp. 10 sqq.

407 Suidas writes: ὕπουλος—ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ἑλκῶν, τῶν ἐχόντων οὐλὰς ὑγιεῖς ἐπιπολαίως, ἔνδοθεν δὲ σηπεδόνας πυώδεις.—ὕπουλα γόνατα καὶ ὕπουλον πόδα καὶ ὕπουλον χεῖρα καὶ σῶμα· τὸ φλεγμαῖνον διά τινας πληγὰς καὶ ἑγγὺς τοῦ ἀφίστασθαι ὄν· Κρατῖνος· ὕπουλα ἕλκη· τὰ κρυπτά.—Hesychius: ὕπουλα δὲ λέγεται τὰ μὴ φανερὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἕλκη. ὕπουλος—applied to wounds, those that have healthy scars on the surface, but underneath offensive putrefactions,—said of the knees, or foot, or hand, or body; the part that is highly inflamed in consequence of blows and is near breaking. Cratinus gives: ὕπουλα wounds, i.e. hidden ones.—Hesychius: ὕπουλα is said of wounds that are not manifest to the eye.—The word ὕπαφρον (frothy beneath), which is found in Hippocrates, De Arte, Vol. I. p. 17. K., instead of which the MSS. also have ὑπόῤῥοον (liquid underneath), and Schneider in his Lexicon wished to read ὑπόφερον (bearing underneath), Hesychius explains as τὸ μὴ φανερὸν κρύφιον καὶ ὕπουλον (that which is not visible, concealed and festering underneath).—Ought we to read for καὶ ἴξιν perhaps κατ’ ἴξιν? Comp. Erotion, Glossary to Hippocrates, edit. Franz, p. 322.

408 A remarkable proof of the acquaintance of Italian scholars with German Literary History. The Author dedicated this letter in the year 1823 to Gruner who died in 1815, and forwarded him a copy with an autograph inscription. Both are preserved in the University Library at Jena.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PLAGUE OF LUST, VOL. 1 (OF 2) ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

- Transcriber’s Notes
- THE PLAGUE OF LUST,
- TRANSLATOR’S FOREWORD.

- AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE FIRST (GERMAN) EDITION.

- CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

- INTRODUCTION.

- Conception and Contents of the History of a Disease in general.

- Possibility of the History of a Disease in General and of Venereal Disease in Particular.

- Abstract of Opinions advanced at various Periods on the question of the Antiquity and First Rise of the Venereal Disease.

- General Scheme of Treatment.

- AUTHORITIES.

- FIRST SECTION.

- Influences which promoted the generation of Disease consequent upon the Use or Misuse of the Genital Organs.

- § 1.

- The Cult of Venus11.

- § 2.

- § 3.

- § 4.

- § 5.

- The Lingam and Phallic Worship.

- § 6.

- § 7.

- Plague of Baal-Peor.

- § 8.

- § 9.

- Brothels and Courtesans111.

- § 10.

- § 11.

- Paederastia.

- § 12.

- Diseases consequent on Paederastia.

- § 13.

- Νοῦσος Θήλεια (Feminine Disease)293.

- § 14.

- § 15.

- § 16.

- § 17.

- § 18.

- § 19.

- § 20.

- BIBLIOGRAPHY. AUTHORITIES AND HISTORIANS.

- BIBLIOGRAPHY. Authorities.

- BIBLIOGRAPHY. Historians.

- INDEX OF GREEK AND LATIN WORDS EXPLAINED IN THE TEXT, AND OF THE SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN BOTH VOLUMES

- INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR EMENDED.

- INDEX OF GREEK WORDS EXPLAINED.

- INDEX OF LATIN WORDS EXPLAINED.

- INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

- FOOTNOTES:

- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE