Second Part.

§ 21. Irrumation and Fellation.

(Irrumare, Fellare).

Very much more abominable and repulsive still is the habit of Irrumation1 (penem in os arrigere est irrumare—to erect the penis and insert it into the mouth of another person) and the practice of the Fellator2 (si quis vel labris vel lingua perfricandi atque exsugendi officium peni praestat—one who with the lips or the tongue performs the office of rubbing and sucking another’s penis). This the Greeks called λεσβιάζειν (to follow the Lesbian mode), because the vice was especially practised by the Lesbian women, though in common with all others of the sort it came originally from Asia. Lucian in his Pseudologista3, in which he severely criticizes the the dissolute Timarchus, who had taken the expression ἀποφρὰς (unmentionable) in ill part, says: “By the gods, what should make you fly into a passion, since it is a matter of common report that you are a Fellator and a Cunnilingus4. Are you as much in the dark as to the meaning of these words as you are about that of ἀποφρὰς (unmentionable)? and do you take them for titles of honour? Or is it that you are now accustomed to them, but not to ἀποφρὰς, and so wish to erase it as something unknown to you from the list of your Titles? (ch. 28).—I am well aware what were your practices in Palestine, in Egypt, in Phoenicia and Syria, as well as in Hellas and Italy, and above all just now in Ephesus, where you set the crown on your extravagances, (ch. 11).—However you will never persuade your fellow-citizens that they ought not to regard you as the filthiest of all men, the very refuse of the whole city. Now it may be you rely on the belief of the generality in Syria, that you have never been accused (there) of any guilt or vice. But by Hercules! the city of Antioch looked on at the whole history, when you carried off the young man who came from Tarsus, and—but there, it would not become me to go over such ground again. All who were there know the facts and remember it all, that time when they saw you sitting at his knees (καὶ σὲ μὲν ἐς γόνυ συγκαθήμενον ἰδόντες), and doing you know very well what to him, that is if you have not utterly and entirely forgotten the whole matter, (ch. 20).—But when they caught you lying at the knees of the son of Oinopion the Cooper (τοῦ μειρακίου ... ἐν γόνασι κείμενον—lying at the knees of the stripling), what make you of that? Did they not surely take you for a man of the sort to be expected, when they saw you doing such a thing? (ch. 28).—How, by Zeus! after such a deed, have you the effrontery to give us the kiss of salutation?—Sooner kiss an adder or a viper? The danger and pain of the bite a Physician may yet remove, if called in. But after your kiss and with such poison on his lips who dare draw near to Temple or altar? What god would listen to the suppliant? how many vessels of holy water, how many lustrations, would be needful? (ch. 24).—In Syria you are known as ῥοδοδάφνη (rose-laurel)5; why, a man cannot explain for very shame, great Athené!—But in Palestine as φραγμὸς (the hedge)6, on account of the prickles of your beard, I suppose. In Egypt again as συνάγχη (sore throat),—and this is a well known business. It must have been a close thing with you not to be choked, that time you came across the sailor of a three-master, who fell upon you and stopped your mouth for you (ὃς ἐμπεσὼν ἀπέφραξέ σοι τὸ στόμα).”

This passage brings us next to a gloss of the Pseudo-Galen7, on which Naumann8, after laying down his view as to the Morbus phoeniceus (Purple Plague),—a subject to be discussed presently,—goes on to express himself thus: “However we must go yet farther. In the above cited work of the Pseudo-Galen is included an Index of words, which with a high degree of probability we may conclude to refer to Venereal diseases, so far as known to the Ancients (loco citato, under word στρυμάργου, p. 142). We read there that Dioscorides called στρυμάργους or στομάργους (evil-mouthed) men in whom the longing for sensual indulgence had risen to frenzy. Of similar meaning to this would seem to be the expressions μυοχάνη (maxillarum hiatu insignis—conspicuous for the wide opening of the arm-pits) or μυσάχνη (meretrix—prostitute), μῦσος (facinus abominandum—an abominable act), σαράπους (crura ambulando divaricans—straddling the legs in walking), and γρυπαλώπηξ (from γρύπος curvus—curved, hooked,) probably denoting the erection of the penis; at any rate a dissolute man is called in Aristophanes κυναλώπηξ (fox-dog). But most notable is the added observation, to the effect that Erasistratus called such persons ῥινοκολοῦροι (i.e. qui mutilati naribus sunt—men who have been mutilated in their noses). Just at the time of the Greek occupation of Egypt, Rhinocorura or Rhinocolura was the name of a wretched sort of “Botany Bay” situated at the North-Eastern extremity of the country, lying in the desert on the shores of the Mediterranean between Gaza and Pelusium, and serving as a place of residence for lepers (Pliny, Hist. Nat., Bk. V. ch. 4. Livy, Hists. Bk. XXXV. ch. 11). Now if we bring together all the information given here, and especially if we consider the various shameful forms of indulgence of the sexual impulse and the mutilation of the nose that is connected with them, there cannot be much doubt left that these ancient and fragmentary notices refer to Venereal evil, whether in conjunction with leprous affections or not.”

But to test the correctness of these explanations and conclusions, it will be necessary first of all to quote the gloss itself in full: στρυμάργου. οἶδε καὶ ταύτην τὴν γραφὴν ὁ Διοσκουρίδης, οὐ μόνον τὴν στομάργου, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο οὐχ ὡς κύριον ὄνομα ἐξηγεῖται, ἀλλὰ τὸν μανικῶς ἐπτοημένον περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια δηλοῦσθαί φησιν· εἰρῆσθαι γὰρ παρὰ τῷ Ἱπποκράτει καὶ ἀλλὰ πολλὰ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπίθετα, καθάπερ μυοχάνη, σαράπους, γρυπαλώπηξ· ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ’ Ἐρασιστράτῳ φησὶν ὁ ῥινοκολοῦρος, that is to say:—στρυμάργου: Dioscorides knows this form also, not merely that of στομάργου, but this too he regards not as a proper name, but says that it signifies one who is madly set upon love-indulgences; for that in Hippocrates as well many other epithets of the same sort (which refer to the same sort of vice) are mentioned, e.g. μυοχάνη, σαράπους, γρυπαλώπηξ; also he says that in Erasistratus (the expression) ῥινοκολοῦρος is found.

The reader sees in the first place that it is not merely expressions peculiar to Dioscorides that are here cited, as we might be led to suppose by Naumann’s statement, but that they are every one of them found, as we shall presently prove more particularly, in Hippocrates, the ῥινοκολοῦρος of Erasistratus of course excepted. Dioscorides mentions them only in his commentary on the Second Book of the “Epidemia”, when laying down the passages to be cited immediately, and declares them not to be proper names, but adjectives which all refer to insane indulgence in the pleasures of love; accordingly there can be no question here of bodily disorders, let the words in themselves signify what they will. Now if we examine into this more closely, we shall find first of all that we must obviously read στυμάργου in place of στρυμάργου, for not only is this form given by the author of the gloss (under στομάργου9), quoted on the preceding page, but the text also of Hippocrates10 offers it in both passages; whereas στρυμάργου gives no sort of sense.

The word στυμάργος in fact is derived either from στῦμα11, the act of erecting the penis, and and ἔργον (work), so signifying anyone who performs the work of causing an erection of the penis,—or else from στύω12, I erect the penis, and μάργος13, (mad), i. e. one who erects, uses, the penis in a madly lascivious fashion, so an Irrumator, and with this Hesychius’ interpretation agrees: λεσβιάζειν,—πρὸς ἀνδρὸς στόμα στύειν, (to lesbianize,—to erect the penis in a man’s mouth). Στομάργος on the other hand is formed by a combination of στόμα, the mouth, and ἔργω or ἔργον (I work, work), a word constantly used to express the employment of the genital organs14, in fact indulgence in love generally, and signifies a man who performs the work (of love) with the mouth, so a Fellator15. Now since only the most abandoned lust, lust that has really grown into a form of insanity, is capable of undertaking such obscenities, the interpretation of Dioscorides μανικῶς ἐπτοημένον περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια (one that is insanely, madly, set on the pleasures of love) is quite satisfactory, assuming a hesitation on the part of the author to set forth the actual fact more explicitly, especially as we have already proved under the head of Paederastia16 how unnatural sexual desires were commonly regarded as a Mania or form of insanity. Even if we were not in a position adequately to explain the rest of the words, yet the phrase that comes next to them καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον (and many others of the same fashion) at once shows that they bear the same signification as στύμαργος and στομάργος, or at any rate that they must all alike refer to unnatural satisfaction of the sexual impulse, for τρόπος (fashion) is the very word particularly appropriated to imply such-like practices, as we see from the expressions Κρῆτα τρόπον, Ἑλληνικὸν τρόπον17, (Cretan fashion, Greek fashion) used to indicate paederastia.

In relation to the word μυοχάνη the readings differ greatly in the different MSS. of Galen. Franz in his edition of the Glossaries to Hippocrates gives μιοχάνης and μυοχάνης, while the Pseudo-Galen explains it under the word μυοχάνη as ἐπίθετον χασκούσης· εἰ δὲ μυριοχαύνη γράφοιτο, ἡ ἐπὶ μυρίοις ἂν εἴη χαυνουμένη (epithet applied to a woman who gapes; now if μυριοχαύνη were read, it would mean “the woman who gapes wide for ten thousand men”); besides, various readings are found here,—μηοχάνη for μυοχάνη, also μιριοχάνη, and μυιοχάνη for μυριοχαύνη. Erotian says μηριοχάνη ὄνομα γυναικὸς (Meriochané—a woman’s name). In the text of Hippocrates18 is found Μυριοχαύνη, and the same form is given by the editions of Galen19. Inasmuch as χάνω and χαύνω both have the same meaning of gaping wide, that is with the mouth, it will practically make no difference which we choose as the end of the word; hence we have merely to consider the first part μου- or μυριο-, all the rest of the forms being obviously erroneous. If we read μουχάνη, we must suppose it compounded of μύος and χάνη; but inasmuch as μύος is merely a mistaken variant for μῦσος, the word must be read μυσοχάνη. Μῦσος in its turn we must derive either from μύζω, I suck,—so a woman who sucks with open mouth20, or from μυσιάω, I snort through the nose, particularly in the act of coition, and consequently read μυσιοχάνη, i.e. a woman who with mouth open snorts through the nose, precisely what the fellatrix undoubtedly does when at her work. This emendation certainly makes better sense, and is all the more likely from the fact that μυιοχάνη and μυριοχάνη are also found as variae lectiones. Naumann would seem desirous of reading μυσάχνη (μυζάχνη), in which case it must be formed from μύζω, I suck, and ἄχνη (froth), in fact the secretion that adheres to the surface (of the glans penis)21. This last reading is all the more admissible, as according to Suidas22 the word also occurs in Archilochus. Possibly however we must regard as equally correct the form μυριοχαύνη, and take it in the meaning given by the Gloss, viz. in millibus hians! (gaping in a thousand openings!), bearing in mind Lampridius’23 expression about Heliogabalus: Quis enim ferre posset principem per cuncta cava corporis libidinem recipientem! (For who could endure a Prince that welcomed lustful pleasure by every opening of the body!)

The readings also vary as to σαράπους (turning out the feet); Franz gives ἀγράπους and ἀράπους; in the text of Hippocrates24 on the other hand, as well in the Commentary of Galen it appears as ἡ Σεραπὶς, the latter also giving it in the genitive—τῆς Σεράπιδος. But inasmuch as the name of the goddess occurs sometimes as Σέραπις, sometimes as Σάραπις;, and as the genitive ending—πιδος easily admits of change into—πόδος, it may very likely be that after all Σαράπους stood originally in Hippocrates’text. The author of the Gloss (loco citato p. 136.) explains the word by ἡ διασεσηρότας καὶ διεστῶτας ἔχουσα τοὺς δακτύλους τῶν ποδῶν that is, a woman who has the toes drawn apart and separated. But how are we to bring this explanation into agreement with the κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, (after the same fashion), that is to say, with one of the modes of Love that are under discussion? Think of the fellator or fellatrix, we are told, cowering down (ἐν γόνασι,—on the knees) according to Lucian’s picture (p. 229 above), and you will see the stress of the body’s weight must always fall on the front part of the foot, and to widen the point of support he is instinctively compelled to spread the toes. Well! but who can fail to see how very forced such an explanation is? still we do not in the least know how we are to deal with it further. Of course we might leave the author of the Gloss his interpretation and proceed to look about for another of our own, though we have in many cases to confess the fact that our investigations undertaken with this end in view have not exactly led to any definite results. With the reading Σεραπίς we really do not know how to deal. Perhaps the common representation, or else some particular quality, of the goddess so named gave occasion for a comparison which we now fail to understand, one that might possibly suggest an explanation of the Harpocratem reddere (to recall Harpocrates) of Catullus (69.) implying irrumare25. Whether the reader will take within his purview the Σεραφίμ, ἐμπρηστάς· ἔμπυρα στόματα· ἢ θερμαίνοντας (Seraphim: kindlers; fiery mouths: or, making hot) of Suidas’ Lexicon, we must leave to him; in that case Martial’s (II. 28.) calda Vetustinae nec tibi bucca placet (nor does Vetustina’s hot mouth please you) might afford an analogy. Proceeding to consider σαράπους, we find Hesychius has σαραπίους, which he explains by μαινίδας (mad-women), and Dioscorides is at one with him in regarding the vice as something done μανικῶς (madly). In Diogenes Laertius (I. 4.) we read Pittacus was called: σαράποδα καὶ σάραπον διὰ τὸ πλατύπουν εἶναι καὶ ἐπισύρειν τὼ πόδε. (turning out the feet, because of his being flat-footed and trailing his two feet). It would be hardly credible to suppose that the author of the Gloss borrowed his explanation cited just above from Diogenes Laertius or Suidas, in whom the passage occurs as well. Further, the MSS. of Diogenes give also συράπους, a word found several times in the sense of “to stand with legs apart,” and Naumann too must have understood this in our passage, for he gives as his rendering crura ambulando divaricans (straddling the legs in walking). Now leaving altogether out of the question the fact that the feminine form is found in Hippocrates, and assuming the word to be used of men, it might perfectly well signify the irrumator, who takes the fellator between his opened thighs26, a posture that was generally regarded as obscene27. Indeed if we think of the fellator as sitting on the ground at his work, the word of course can be equally well used of a woman, or fellatrix.

As to γρυπαλώπηξ we read in Hippocrates (loco citato p. 629.) as follows: “Satyrus in Thasos bore the nick-name of γρυπαλώπηξ; when about twenty five he suffered from frequent nightly pollutions, and yet by day the same happened him even more constantly. When he was thirty years of age, he got consumption and died.” From this we see at once the question is of a dissolute man, who in consequence of his vicious practises had brought on such a weakness of the genitals, that he suffered from continual evacuation of seed, the result being that eventually Phthisis was set up, to which he succumbed. As variations of reading we find noted in Franz’s Gloss ῥυπαλώπηξ and τρυπαλάπηξ; Schneider in his Lexicon renders γρυπαλώπηξ by “griffin-fox”, so he must evidently have derived it from γρύψ (a griffin) and ἀλώπηξ (a fox). The Ancients depict the fox as a cunning, crafty animal and assign several characteristics as marking his behaviour that must probably be taken into consideration in the present connection,—and particularly the way he seizes and kills the hedge-hog. According to Aelian28 he endeavours to throw the creature on its back, so that its mouth comes uppermost, and then discharges its urine into it. Now in order to signify the irrumator, the Ancients really could hardly have invented a better expression, when they, firmly convinced of course of the fact as stated, compared him to a fox. But what is a γρυπαλώπηξ? Hesychius under the word γρυπός (hooked, curved) explains it as τὰ ἔξω τοῦ στόματος καμπυλόῤῥις· ὁ ἐπικαμπῆ τὴν ῥῖνα ἔχων. (hook-nosed outside the mouth; a man having his nose bent down). Suidas again says γρυπός, ὁ καμπυλόῤῥιν (γρυπός,—a hook-nosed man); so a man with a nose bent down crooked over the mouth. Now this we might very well understand as applying to the fellator, inasmuch as his nose, when the irrumator presses down hard on him, as the sailor does to Timarchus (p. 230 above), is of necessity compressed and bent down towards the mouth; γρυπαλώπηξ would according to this be a man who, like Timarchus in Lucian, is at once an irrumator and a fellator. Of yet another word, κυναλώπηξ (fox-dog) cited by Naumann, we propose to speak under the head of the Cunnilingue, who as we shall see might likewise be signified by the expression.

Finally, as to ῥινοκολοῦρος (nose-docked), for which the MSS. also have ῥινοκλοῦρος, it is certainly the case that in Antiquity the man who practised vice with strange women (Moechus,—adulterer) had his nose cut off29, and as Moechus equally signifies the fellator30, the latter also may very well have been obliged to forfeit his nose. Following this hint, it would be quite legitimate to suppose the punishment to have been put for the vice, and a fellator called ῥινοκολοῦρος (nose-docked) on this ground; in the same way as the loss of the nose might be looked upon as a consequence of vice, and anyone seeing a man in this case would at once think of his dissolute past life, as indeed frequently happens at the present day amongst ourselves.

The town of Rhinocolurus,—and its history is more than problematical,—would seem to have nothing whatever to do with the question. The passages from Pliny and Livy which Naumann quotes give absolutely nothing beyond the name; and the mere existence of the name Diodorus31 certifies, in his story of how Actisanes proceeded against the Robbers in a way of his own: “He did not wish to put the guilty to death, nor yet to leave them unpunished. So he had the accused brought up out of the whole country and inquired into each case most scrupulously; such as were found to be guilty all had their noses cut off by his orders, and were banished to the most remote spot in the Desert. The town he founded for them there received in remembrance of the punishment inflicted on its inhabitants the name of Rhinocolura. It lies on the borders of Egypt and Syria, not far from the sea-shore that borders the desert in that region, and displays an almost complete absence of all requisites for comfortable habitation. For the surrounding district possesses a soil thoroughly saturated with salt, while inside the town very little water is to be found and that positively tainted and of quite a bitter taste.” Diodorus relates further that these Colonists lived by catching quails; but of Leprosy there is no mention either here or in Strabo or Seneca, so that Naumann’s statement to the effect that it served as a dwelling-place for Lepers lacks entirely, up to the present and at any rate so far as we know, any historical foundation, though the character of the place is not against such a hypothesis. Nor is any question raised in any author as to the vicious life of the inhabitants of Rhinocolura,—in fact in later times it was actually famous for the number of its men of piety32.

Though the explanation of ῥινοκολοῦρος given just now might very well at a pinch be regarded as satisfactory, still we think it hardly answers sufficiently well to the κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον (after the same fashion), while the variant ῥινοκλοῦρος seems to point to ῥιναύλουρος or ῥιναύλουρις as the true reading. In Tatian (Orat. ad Graecos p. 83.) in fact we read: ῥιναυλοῦσι τὰ αἰσχρά, κινοῦνται δὲ κινήσεις ἃς οὐκ ἐχρῆν, καὶ τοὺς ὄπως δεῖ μοιχεύειν ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς σοφιστεύοντας αἱ θυγατέρες ὑμῶν καὶ οἱ παῖδες θεωροῦσι. (They flute their obscenities through the nose, and make movements that in decency they should not make, while actors who teach on the stage the whole art of how to debauch a woman are the spectacle your daughters and your boys gaze at.) The Scholiast observes on this ῥινοκτυποῦσιν, οἱονεὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῖς ῥώδωσι, συνέλκοντες ποιὸν ἦχον ἐπὶ καταγέλωτι ἀποτελοῦσι, (they make a noise with the nose, a sort of breathing with the nostrils; by drawing in these they produce a certain sound by way of mockery), and in Lucian, Lexiphanes ch. 19., we find ἔοικα δὲ καὶ ῥιναυστῆσειν, (and I am like to go nose-playing), of which the Scholiast gives the following explanation: ἀντὶ τοῦ ταῖς ῥισὶ καταυλῆσαι, ἐποίουν γὰρ τοῦτο ῥιναυλοῦντες, ἤτοι διὰ τῶν ῥινῶν ψοφοῦντες ἐπὶ διασυρμῷ τινῶν καὶ χλεύῃ. (put instead of fluting with the nostrils; for they used to do this when they nose-fluted, or in other words, made a noise with the nostrils by way of mocking people and joking). Now if we take ῥιναυλεῖν (to nose-flute) in these passages,—and all this confirms what has been previously said (above p. 144.) on the word ῥέγχειν (to snort) in the Speech of Dio Chrysostom,—for fistulam canere per nares, to play the flute with the nose, and at the same time remember that Eustathius (as was noted above, p. 236. Note 2.) derived ἀπομύζουρις and μύζουρις from μυζᾶν-οὐράν (οὐρά,—the tail, the penis), the Greeks would seem to have said ῥιναυλεῖν-οὐράν, penem pro fistula canere, (to play on the penis instead of a flute), and we should have the adjective or substantive ῥιναύλουρις, qui penem pro fistula canit per nares, (one who plays on the penis instead of a flute with the nostrils), which admirably expresses not only the action of the fellator, but also the music he makes to accompany it, as he is compelled to snort, drawing his breath heavily through the nose.

Which explanation the reader will choose, we must really leave to him, for interpretations of words of this sort can never be brought to the absolute test of evidence, inasmuch as nick-names as a rule take their origin only too often in external circumstances. Still this much we think we may pronounce with certainty, that the words of the Gloss have to do simply de rebus venereis, with matters of love, and not with Venereal complaints, and thus Naumann’s propositions33 at least are devoid of foundation. Perhaps it may be possible by means of a comparison of the licentious representations on old Vases, of which the late Hofrath Böttiger would seem to have possessed a choice collection, and some examples of which are preserved also at Berlin, in connection with one or other of the words given in the Gloss, as generally with the embodiments in Art of the Venus ebria (drunken Venus), to afford a better explanation, one that may indeed be of no particular value to the student of Antiquity pure and simple, but nevertheless is indispensable to the Physician for the correct understanding of sundry diseases of the Ancients, or at any rate one sufficient to avoid incorrect assertions and false conclusions, and to refute such.

We are not in a position to give a systematic history of the spread of the vice of the fellator and irrumator; but at any rate this much is certain that in Imperial times the Vice was most widely indulged in, as the Epigrams of Martial, and what Suetonius relates in his Life of Tiberius (chs. 44, 45.) sufficiently bear witness.

Diseases of the Fellator. § 22.

Now to pass on to the medical point of view, no one presumably will deny that the mouth of the fellator must necessarily be exposed to various complaints as a consequence of his Vice. Nevertheless there prevails universally, so far as our studies up to the present have enabled us to judge, complete silence among the Physicians of Antiquity as to the practice of λεσβιάζειν (to Lesbianize, to practise fellation) as a cause occasioning morbid affections of the mouth and the contiguous parts. This is the more surprising, as we find that non-professional Writers are not entirely unacquainted with such effects, as we shall show directly. For our purpose this silence is doubly unfortunate, depriving us as it does of all means of submitting such affections of the mouth as are described by Physicians to any proper appreciation in regard to their ætiological relationships,—an appreciation that in any case must naturally have been in view of our knowledge of the vice of the fellator one of extreme difficulty. The difficulty is this: fellator and fellatrix, equally with the Cunnilingue, the fornicater and fornicatrix, were liable to suffer from ulcers of the throat, for example, as a result of their peculiar vice, but in the former case these ulcers were primary, in the latter secondary,—now how is an inquirer to discover any diagnostic sign here, whereby to distinguish the one class from the other? Yet all the while, certainty on this point is of the very highest importance in view of the question as to the existence of Venereal disease in Antiquity, the chief argument always alleged against accepting the fact of such existence being the absence of secondary symptoms such as are nowadays commonly met with, especially about the throat34.

It is remarkable that not one, so far as we know, of the authors who have studied the history of Venereal Disease makes any mention of this circumstance; neither do the Pathologists ever bring forward the vice of the fellator as an ætiological factor. Clossius35 it is true speaks of Irrumatio, relying on Perenotti di Cigliano and Fabre; but these last are really speaking of the Cunnilingue, not of the fellator. Probably they are of Erasmus’opinion: λείχαζειν ni fallor tale quiddam est Graecis, quale fellare Latinis. Nam vox etiamnum manet, tametsi rem iam olim e medio sublatam arbritor. (λειχάζειν—to practise licking,—if I am not mistaken, is a similar practice with the Greeks to that of fellation with the Romans. The word indeed still remains, but the thing I believe to have long since entirely disappeared). On this however Forberg (loco citato p. 304.) very justly adds: Vereor ut vere: certe audio, ne ab nunc hominum quidem moribus plane abhorrere id schematis, quid viderint ii, quibus magnas urbes adire licet. (I fear this is not true: at any rate I am told this sort of practice is not entirely repugnant to the habits of some men even of our own day, to judge by what those see who have the opportunity of visiting large cities). How many primary ulcers of the throat, especially in the case of common Prostitutes, may have been mistaken for secondary ones, and have been treated accordingly, in fact are treated so still, without the Physician having a suspicion of how they were actually incurred! But what the Physicians of our own times are ignorant of, though familiar enough to many of the Laity, this knowledge we cannot reasonably demand from the Physicians of Antiquity. Yet supposing they did actually possess this knowledge, it was very excusable if they looked at what lay nearest before their eyes and regarded all throat ulcers as being primary,—in just the same way as any Practitioner of to-day finds it excusable in a Colleague that he thinks only of secondary ulcers, inasmuch as what in Ancient times happened very commonly is practised at the present day at any rate much less frequently. Consequently the absence of mention on the part of the old Physicians of secondary ulcers of the throat in connection with complaints of the genital organs cannot be considered as any sort of proof of their non-existence.

Among the maladies to which the fellator was exposed, we have in the first place to reckon the foul smell from the mouth36, which is mentioned as especially prevalent among the Romans. The Physicians as a rule derived it, if no local symptoms, of ulcers, etc., were apparent, from some fault of the stomach37,—an instance surely where the Laity were cleverer than the Profession! The sympathy between the mouth and the genitals and anus makes it evident why at the present day we notice, particularly in immoral women, an evil smell from the mouth, which they endeavour to conceal by chewing burned coffee and the like. No doubt this was the case in Antiquity38 as well, so we are by no means justified in attributing every instance of foul breath in harlots and cinaedi to the practice of fellation.

Yet another consequence of fellation was pain in the mouth (στομαλγία, mouth-ache; only we must remember as to this that Pollux, Onomast. III. 7. 69., cites ἀλγεῖν,—to suffer pain, as a synonym of to love), tongue-ache (γλωσσαλγία39) and toothache40, and generally pains of the palate and throat, rendering voice and speech indistinct. Hence Martial says41:

(The man who reads aloud his works, his throat and neck bound about with wool, declares he cannot speak, yet cannot hold his tongue).

But the evil by no means stopped here; there more often occurred as the result of the habit of fellation acute no less than chronic inflammations of the palate (sore throats, quinseys). In the passage quoted a little above from Lucian’s Pseudologistae, it is said of Timarchus: “In Egypt on the other hand they called you συνάγχη (sore throat),—as everybody knows.” In explanation Lucian adds: “It must have been a close thing with you not to be choked, that time you came across the sailor of a three-master, who fell upon you and stopped your mouth for you.” Without in any way detracting from the importance of what we are told here, it still appears to us, on full consideration, that Timarchus was not merely a fellator, but an irrumator as well, and this is the more probable as he no doubt acquired this nickname, because he, bene vasatus (well provided with a big member), frequently brought on sore throat, that is to say in those who served him as fellators!

Moreover this reveals to us the real meaning of a passage of Aretaeus, one that has often been quoted before as connected with Venereal disease. This occurs in the 9th Chapter of the Book42, which would certainly seem to admit only of a direct application; still we are convinced that much of the pathological description of sore throat (Ch. 7.) and many symptoms of the complaints of the uvula (Ch. 8.) owe their origin to fellation. Undoubtedly we have nowadays much fewer occasions to note affections of the uvula, which were of very common occurrence among the Ancients43, as is shown by their own accounts,—a circumstance hardly to be wondered at if we consider the particulars told us about Timarchus. Aretaeus in Ch. 9. makes a distinction between κίων (pillar, uvula) or columella (little pillar, uvula), when the whole uvula is inflamed and swollen, σταφυλὴ or uva (bunch of grapes), when only the lower part is affected, and ἰμάντιον (little strap), when the palatal membrane is attacked. “Κίων”, he goes on, “occurs most frequently with old men, σταφυλὴ with young men and such as are in the prime of life, affection of the palatal membranes (τὰ ὑμενώδεα) in those who are at the age of puberty and in boys.” The ninth Chapter runs as follows:

Of Ulcers of the Throat.

Ulcers arising in the throat of a benignant and harmless nature are common, the malignant and dangerous rare. Benignant ulcers of the sort are clean, of slight extent and superficial, neither inflamed nor painful. The malignant on the contrary are broad, hollow, lardaceous, with a white, livid, or black covering. These ulcers are known as aphthae. But if the covering is very tough, then the malady is an eschar, and is so called. At the edge of the eschar are set up an intense redness, inflammation and a congested state of the veins, as in anthrax (carbuncle, malignant pustule), while small, distinct and unconnected, elevations of the mucous membrane appear, which are continually uniting with fresh ones that successively follow, and so an extensive ulcer is established. If this extends from the outer mouth too far inwards, in fact once it has attacked the uvula and relaxed it, the disease spreads over the tongue, gums and lips, while the teeth become loose and blackened. Further the inflammation attacks the throat. Patients so affected die in a few days after the inflammation and fever are set up, of the evil odour and of hunger; the ulcer propagates itself by way of the wind-pipe to the chest, so that very likely suffocation supervenes the same day. For lungs and heart can tolerate neither so foul an odour nor the ulcers themselves nor the ichor (puriform, septic matter) coming from them, but cough and difficulty of breathing supervene. Origin of this affection of the throat is the swallowing of cold, pungent, hot, sour, or strongly astringent, substances. Now these parts serve the chest on behalf of the voice and the breathing, as also the abdomen for sifting the nutriment, and the stomach for swallowing food. But when these inward parts, viz. abdomen, stomach and chest, are attacked by a disease, the disease is in turn conveyed and carried to the œsophagus, the tonsils and neighbouring regions.

Children up to the age of puberty suffer most in this way, for children have the very greatest and most marked desire for coolness, because with them the natural heat is at its greatest; the longing for foods of various sorts and cold beverages is boundless; while they shout loudly both in quarrel and at play. This is equally true of girls up to the commencement of menstruation.

With regard to locality, Egypt gives most numerous examples of the disease, for this country has at once a dry air to breathe, and many sorts of comestibles,—roots, herbs, garden vegetables, pungent seeds; while the drink is either thick, being Nile water, or artificially made pungent with barley or with grape-skins. In Syria the disease is also found, especially in Coelesyria. For this reason the ulcers in question are known as Egyptian or Syrian ulcers.

The mode and fashion in which death occurs in these cases is deplorable. The pain is a cutting and burning pain, as in anthrax (carbuncle, malignant pustule), the breath foul-smelling, the patient exhaling an intensely offensive breath, and re-inhaling into the chest another no less so. Patients are so loathsome to themselves they cannot tolerate their own smell; the face is pale or livid, the temperature excessively high, the thirst as distressing as in fever. Yet they reject drink when offered from dread of the pain of swallowing; for they undergo great agony both by the compression of the palate and by the return of the liquid through the nose. No sooner have they lain down than they spring up again; then finding they cannot bear an upright posture, no sooner have they sat down than they are forced by their agony to lie back once more. Most commonly they move about in an upright attitude. For as they are unable to sleep, they avoid all rest, as though they were fain to drive away one torture with another. Inhalation is deep, for they long for fresh air to cool themselves; exhalation on the contrary short and hurried, for the ulcers already burning like fire are heated yet further by contact of the feverish breath as it streams out. Hoarseness comes on, and loss of voice, and this goes on continuously increasing, until suddenly coming to the end of their resistance they give up the ghost.”

In the portion of the work devoted to Therapeutics (Bk. I. ch. 9.), which bears the title: Θεραπεία τῶν κατὰ τὴν φαρύγγα λοιμικῶν παθῶν, (Pestilential Affections of the Throat Regions, their Curative Treatment), caustics are especially recommended, as the actual cautery cannot be employed, and finally we read: “In some cases the uvula is destroyed right back to the bones of the palate, and the throat to the root of the tongue and the epiglottis, and in consequence of this destruction they can get down neither solid food nor liquid, for liquids return through the nose, and so the patient dies of hunger.”

Now if we examine these statements more closely, we cannot first of all help wondering how the ætiological factors named by Aretaeus could possibly be regarded by him as sufficient to account for such dangerous ulcerations,—ulcerations which he himself even calls λοιμώδεα (of pestilential character), though of course they are perfectly adequate to explain simple ulcers of the throat. Indulgence in pungent comestibles and beverages is as little adequate to cause such symptoms as are the shouting and greediness of children, not to mention the fact that these are in no way peculiar to Egypt or Syria. The whole account shows us clearly that while Aretaeus was well acquainted with the forms the disease took, the ætiological factors were obscure to him and it was merely in a spirit of ill-timed speculation he subjoined them, proving once more how right Appuleius was when he exclaims: Dii boni! Quam facilis, licet non artifici medico, cuivis tamen docto Venereae cupidinis comprehensio. (Great gods! how easy it is for any educated man, always excepting a medical practitioner, to understand the passion of love).

We have already more than once in the course of these investigations proved how Egypt and Syria must be regarded as the nursery of licentiousness in Antiquity, and the passage quoted from Lucian (above p. 229.) directly establishes the fact for us; again, a little further on (p. 240. Note I.) it was mentioned how boys particularly, (but also young girls), were used and specially trained as fellators. Hence Martial44 wishes he had a boy,

(In the first place my boy must be born on the banks of Nile: no other land can produce more finished wickedness). From all this, as well as from a comparison of the passage in Lucian, we believe we are amply justified in concluding that Aretaeus’ulcers of the throat, these Αἰγύπτια καὶ Συριακὰ ἕλκεα (Egyptian and Syrian sores) were not unfrequently a consequence of fellation45. That this should be so is readily intelligible, when we consider the liability to corruption and the acrid quality of secretions from the glans penis in hot countries. Again the βουβαστικὰ ἕλκεα (Bubastic sores), which Salmasius cites from Aëtius46 as being identical with the Egyptian and Syrian ulcers, find a satisfactory explanation on this hypothesis, for Herodotus47 tells us in his time of the licentious worship of Bubastis, daughter of Isis, at Bubastos. In this expression (βουβαστικὰ ἕλκεα) the malady is named from one particular place, where it was probably specially prevalent, whereas in Aretaeus it is spoken of as general throughout the country.

In this connection we must not pass over the fact that Casaubon commenting on the passage of Persius (V. 187.) to be quoted directly is inclined to regard the ἕλκεα Συριακὰ (Syrian sores) as a punishment of the Dea Syra (Syrian goddess). In this he relies on a passage of Plutarch48 that runs to this effect: “But of the Syrian goddess the superstitious believe that, if a man eat a sprat or anchovy, the goddess consumes his shin-bones, fills his body full of sores, melts down his liver.” The legend must at any rate be of great antiquity, for we meet with it in Menander, in a fragment which Porphyrius49 has preserved,—in which however swelling of the belly and the feet is in question. To this also would seem to refer what Persius (loco citato) says:

(Then the tall Galli, and the one-eyed priestess with her sacred rattle, instil terror of the gods that make men’s bodies swell, unless three times at dawn you have eaten the prescribed head of garlic). True we cannot from the passage of Plutarch directly conclude that ulcers of the throat also were ascribed to the anger of the Syrian goddess in consequence of indulgence in a fish diet; rather should we expect what is said to apply primarily to external skin-ulcers, occurring on other parts, as just on the shin-bone. Still we shall be quite justified in making the reference general, more particularly as liver-complaint is also ascribed to the goddess’s interference, and we shall see that in Antiquity the cause of all ulcers was supposed to lie in some fault of the liver. Now as the fish had necessarily to be put into the mouth to be swallowed, and as it was always supposed the punishment of the goddess followed immediately on the offence, and affected the immediately active part, throat-ulcers might very naturally be taken to be a result of such punishment. This again only further confirms our explanation just above to the effect that ulcers of the throat were a consequence resulting from vicious indulgence. For the Temple-service of the Dea Syra was of course connected with every sort of licentious practice.

Taking into consideration this marked prevalence of Corrosion of the Shin-bones, we might argue with considerable probability that it pointed to the existence of a disease of the bones following as a result of vicious indulgence. On the other hand the observation that the precise time the body became covered with ulceration was after indulgence in fish-eating cannot help being of weight in connection with the doctrine of Leprosy; for to the present day we note as very frequent among peoples whose chief nutriment is fish various forms of Leprosy. And again, we may very likely see in this prohibition of a fish diet, which is also mentioned by Athenaeus50, a sanitary regulation justified by experience as necessary in Syria, where skin-diseases and ulcerations were so common.

But not alone in Egypt and Syria did fellation lead to suchlike unhappy results; we find the same to have been the case at Rome, as is proved by the following passage of Martial51, a passage that has hitherto been completely overlooked in this connection, but which is none the less of great importance:

(When corrupting disease began to sorely afflict his unworthy throat and black contagion was creeping to his very face, Festus, himself with dry cheeks, comforted his weeping friends, and determined to seek the pools of Styx. But still he never disgraced his dutiful lips with darkling poison, nor brought on a painful, miserable end by slow hunger; nay! rather by a Roman death he completed his holy life, and dismissed his soul the nobler way. Such a death fame may well exalt above great Cato’s end; Caesar was his friend).

The words indignae fauces (unworthy throat) obviously point to the practice of fellation, whereby he had brought on himself the pestis tabida and atra lues, (corrupting disease, black contagion), and so we have here a clear statement of the cause by one doctus venereae cupidinis (learned in the passion of love), which cause was quite unknown to the artifex medicus (medical practitioner). The pia ora (dutiful lips) are therefore to be taken merely ironically, as also the sancta vita (holy life). Even the Cinaedus, as well as the maidens who prostitute themselves in honour of Astarté, are invariably, as we have seen, described in the Old Testament as sanctus (holy), and we read e. g. in Job. Ch. XXXV. 14., of a good-for-nothing, how he will die like such a sanctus. It was precisely this signification of sanctus that led us to the idea of taking the throat affection for a secondary consequence of paederastia, especially if we understand a double entendre to underlie the last words huius Caesar amicus erat (Caesar was his friend). The Commentators it is true take them merely as said by way of contrast with the death of Cato of Utica, who was forced by Caesar’s enmity to take his own life, and as implying this was not the case with Festus, consequently that his suicide is so much the more remarkable52. However it is doubtful which Caesar is meant, whether the word is merely a Title or a proper name. In the second—and certainly this at first appeared to us to be the more likely,—view we were of course bound then to turn our attention to his character for dissoluteness. However as both Catullus53 and Suetonius54 represent him merely as a Cinaedus in regard to the male sex, if that is to say we subscribe to the accepted opinion, we afterwards came to the conclusion it was rather the Emperor generally that is spoken of here, and consequently that any other Emperor, e. g. Tiberius, or Nero, or another, might be intended. It is true that if pathicus (pathic) and omnium virorum mulier (wife of all men) are taken in a wider sense, there would be nothing to make the supposition impossible that Julius Caesar is pointed at. Only that perhaps another passage of Martial would seem to go against this, a passage where he seeks to excuse the several excesses and vices of a certain Gaurus by instancing an exalted personage as patronizing each of them, and says finally (Bk. II. 89.):

(But for your fellation: tell me whose vice you follow in this?) Still against the cinaedus view the words indignae fauces (unworthy throat) speak clearly. Probably in this connection the following passage of Martial should also come in,—where the Poet says of his servant (Bk. I. Epigr. 102.):

(Demetrius left us in the first years of his bloom; the fourth summer was but just added to his three lustres. We took all means to save our faithful house-slave from descending to the shades of Styx, when he was consuming under a malignant contagion that had fastened upon him, and remitted all my master’s rights for the sick lad,—who indeed well deserved to win recovery at my hands. On his death-bed he recognized what I had done for him, and called me his master, though so soon to go forth a free man to the streams of the nether world.)

Was this famulus (house-slave) the same person as the puer (boy, slave), who is mentioned by Martial, bk. XI. 95.?

That not boys only, but girls too, had to suffer in this way among the Romans, and lost their lives from the complaint in question, is shown, we think, by the following Epigram of Martial, Bk. XI. Epigr. 91.:

(Canacé of the Aeolians lies buried in this tomb, who died a child,—her seventh winter was her last. Oh! the shame and horror of it! haste, a tear, thou that passest by. Here is no occasion to lament the short span of human life. Sadder than death is the way of her death; a dread contagion ate away her face, and settled in the tender little mouth. Cruel disease infected her very kisses; and her lips were half gone when they were consigned to the grim pyre. If death must needs have come to her with a flight so swift, at least he should have taken another way. Death so hasted to close the issue of her persuasive voice, that her tongue might not have time to bend the cruel goddesses to mercy).

Besides the passages quoted, there are several others to be found in Martial, that must be taken as referring to the fellator; but since the maladies that occur are equally prevalent in the case of the Cunnilingue, it will be more convenient to adduce them under that head. Further, we only require to mention the fact that pale lips seem to have been regarded as a mark of the fellator55.

The Cunnilingue. § 23.

But the vice of the fellator is far surpassed in baseness by that of the Cunnilingue (qui opus peragit linguam arrigendo in cunnum, eumque lambit,—one who works by putting his tongue up into the female organ, and licking it). The Greeks called this practice σκύλαξ (a puppy), because it is a habit of dogs56, and Hesychius explains it by σχῆμα ἀφροδισιακὸν, ὡς τὸ τῶν φοινικιζόντων (a method of love, resembling that of those who phoenicize). We have already, in the passage of Lucian quoted a little above, found φοινικίζειν and λεσβιάζειν put side by side; Galen moreover57 does the same in the following passage, a noteworthy one for our purpose on several accounts: “The drinking of sweat, urine and the menstrual blood of women is vicious and shameful, and not less so when a person, as Xenocrates proposes to do, smears the regions of the mouth and throat with excrement, and swallows it down. He speaks also of taking the wax of the ears. For my part I could never bring myself to take this, even though by that means I were never to be ill again. But excrement I consider yet more disgusting, and it is for a man of any decency far more shameful to be called an Excrement-Eater58 than an αἰσχρουργὸς (worker of obscenities) or a cinaedus. But of αἰσχρουργοὶ59 (workers of obscenities), we abominate Phoenicians more than the Lesbians, and it seems to me the man does something of the same sort as the former who drinks menstrual blood (μᾶλλον βδελλυττόμεθα τοὺς φοινικίζοντας τῶν λεσβιαζόντων ᾧ60 φαίνεταί μοι παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχειν ὁ καὶ καταμηνίου πίνων.) A sensible man will neither seek to collect experiences on the point, nor yet on a practice, which it is true involves less, but still is sufficiently shameful, that of smearing a part of the body with excrement, because he has some hurt at that spot,—or with human seed. Xenocrates calls this latter commonly γόνος (seed, semen), and distinguishes with minute care between cases where simple seed rubbed in by itself is of benefit, and cases where the female has the same effect after combination with the male, as it is discharged from the woman’s womb.”

This explanation of Galen’s to the effect that the φοινικίζων (one who phoenicizes) resembles the man who drinks menstrual blood, shows clearly that φοινικίζειν is not, as all the Lexicons give it, and Forbiger (loco citato) also assumes, identical with λεσβιάζειν. It is true Forbiger (p. 329. Note v.) gives the meaning cunnilingere as well, although the explanation is undoubtedly unsatisfactory which he offers à propos of an Epigram,61—one certainly apposite in this connection, to the effect that the reason for this signification is, quod cunnilingos a natando in mari quodam Phoenicei coloris (mari rubro) dixissent, (that they had called them cunnilingues from their swimming as it were in a sea of Phoenician purple colour—a red sea); for the words in the Epigram, ἐν φοινίκῃ δὲ καθεύδεις (but you sleep in Phoenicia) cannot stand for anything else but simply φοινικίζειν, as indeed the passage from Aloisia Sigaea, which is quoted by Forbiger himself, proves conclusively62: Cum vellet mediam lambere, se velle dicebat in Liguriam, (When he wanted to lick my middle, he used to say he would fain be into Liguria—that is, would fain lick, ligurire). Accordingly just as λεσβιάζειν came into use as the distinctive name for the vice of the fellator, because it was practised to a distinctive degree in Lesbos, so too to be a cunnilingue was called φοινικίζειν, because the habit was at home among the Phoenicians. Undoubtedly men’s shamelessness was carried so far that they actually used women and girls at their period of menstruation for this purpose,—a fact of the highest interest for us, as we shall show directly. Seneca63 expresses himself plainly enough on the subject: “Quid tu, cum Mamercum Scaurum consulem faceres, ingnorabas, ancillarum suarum menstruum ore illum hiante exceptare? num quid enim ipse dissimulabat? num quid purus videri volebat?” (How came it you were ignorant, when making Mamercus Scaurus consul, that he was in the habit of catching in his open mouth the menstrual discharge of his maidservants? Did he make any concealment of it himself? did he pose as a pure-minded man? nay! not he). Again in another place64:

“Nuper Natalis tam improbae linguae quam impurae, in cuius ore feminae purgabantur.” (Quite lately Natalis showed himself as malignant of tongue as he is unchaste, into whose mouth women were used to purge themselves).

Now if first of all we bear steadfastly in mind that this φοινικίζειν was a vice, which prevailed primarily and especially among the Phoenicians and was later on disseminated abroad by them, and then consider how the Greeks designated every vice, and particularly excesses in love, as νόσος (disease), in the same way precisely as the Romans used morbus (disease),—comp. § 17—we must see that φοινικίζειν is the same thing as νόσος φοινικίη (Phoenician disease), and shall be in a position to form an opinion on the Gloss65 falsely ascribed to Galen, which reads: φοινικίη νόσος· ἡ κατὰ Φοινίκην καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ἀνατολικὰ μέρη πλεονάζουσα. δηλοῦσθαι δὲ κἀνταῦθα δοκεῖ ἡ ἐλεφαντιάσις. (Phoenician disease: a disease prevalent in Phoenicia and about the Eastern parts. Elephantiasis appears to be signified by this).

Even granting the first part of this Gloss to have been really written by Galen, the last sentence at any rate is obviously an extraneous and later addition. This is at once indicated by the use of the word δοκεῖ (it appears), which comes in curiously, standing as it does next-door to the definite statement that this νόσος (disease) was common in Phoenicia; for surely anyone who knew this, must also have known what the disease was. Again if he had wished to describe it by some such phrase as the English “a sort of Elephantiasis”, he could hardly have failed to express himself in a different way to what he has. But as a matter of fact, Galen knew perfectly well, as we have already seen, what φοινικίζειν was, and consequently what the φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease) was, and it could not by any possibility have occurred to him to suppose it any form of Elephantiasis. Unfortunately Prof. Naumann66 has allowed himself to be misled by this extraneous addition; he writes: “In the Work of a Pseudo-Galen is given a short explanation of the φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease), or rather to speak strictly, the conjecture is made,67 that this malady, a common one in Phoenicia and the East, may have been Elephantiasis.” True indeed the word might with equal likelihood express a disease characterized by redness of the skin φοινίκιος s. φοινίκεος i. q. puniceus, purpureus, cruentus; φοινιγμὸς irritatio cutis per vesicantia—φοινίκιος or φοινίκεος = Phoenician purple, purple, blood-red; φοινιγμὸς = irritation of the skin by rubefacients). Or should we suppose some leprous-venereal malady endemic and aboriginal among the trading Phoenicians to be signified, which was called the Morbus Phoeniceus (Phoenician disease) in the same way as in more modern times people spoke of the Morbus Gallicus (French disease,—Syphilis)? In any case it is remarkable that Themison (who also noted incidentally that Satyriasis at times attacks a population epidemically,—speaks of the special frequency of Satyriasis in Crete (Caelius Aurelianus, Acut. Morb. bk. III. ch. 18). As is well known, Phoenician and Hellenic Colonies had converged here; and the island remained in uninterrupted and active commercial intercourse with the maritime cities of Phoenicia.

According to the general supposition the Gloss of the Pseudo-Galen has reference to a passage of Hippocrates occurring in the Second book of the Prorrhetica,68 where we read as follows: “But λειχῆνες—tetters, as also λέπραι and λεῦκαι,—scaly leprosies and white leprosies, where any of these occur in the young or mere children, or after appearing on a small scale shall then increase but slowly, in these cases it is not right to call the exanthema or eruption an apostasis, (transitional state), but a νόσημα,—condition of disease. On the other hand where any of these affections occurs on a large scale and suddenly, it would then be an apostasis. But whereas λεῦκαι arise out of the most deadly diseases, as e. g. the νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ,—wasting disease, as it is called, λέπραι and λειχῆνες do so from the melancholic, or diseases proceeding from black bile. And of such the easier to cure are those that occur in the youngest patients and are of the latest origin, and arise in the softest and most fleshy parts of the body.” Foesius observes on the passage: “Nemini autem dubium est, quin hac parte mendosi sint codices omnes, cum ἡ νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ καλουμένη scribitur. Nam φοινικίη νόσος ex Galeni exegesi procul omni dubio reponendum.” (Now no one can doubt that all the MSS. are deceptive here, reading as they do ἡ νοῦσος ἡ φθινική. For φοινικίη vόσος must undoubtedly be restored from the Exegesis of Galen). J. W. Wedel69 on the contrary writes: “Legunt quidam pro φοινικίη—φθινικὴ, et vertunt tabem seu morbum tabidum, sed contra fidem codicum correctiorum, quibus Galenus ipse assentitur, et rei ipsius, de qua textus agit, evidentiam.” (Some read φθινικὴ for φοινικίη, and render it wasting or wasting disease,—but against the authority of the better class of MSS., with which Galen himself agrees, and against the evidence of the context of the matter treated of). In the latter of these two statements Wedel, in spite of his mistaken view of the matter generally, is perfectly right; whether he is so in the former as well, we are not in a position to say, for alas! we lack the critical apparatus absolutely indispensable for such a decision, not so much as the Edition of Mackius being on the shelves of our University Library.

In the first place we ought to make quite sure what Hippocrates understood under the name λεῦκαι. A disease of the Skin no doubt; but of what particular nature it was, would seem not to be so easy to determine. According to Coac. praenotion. (Vol. I. p. 321.) Hippocrates distinguished a λεύκη συγγενής and a λεύκη μὴ συγγενής (λεύκη inborn, and not inborn), the latter attacking individuals only after puberty. Hesychius says λεύκη, ἄνθος τι τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα γινόμενον, ἄλφος δὲ λευκή τις ἐν τῷ σώματι. (λεύκη—white leprosy, an eruption coming out on the exterior parts of the body, but ἄλφος—dull-white leprosy, a form of λεύκη in the body). Galen, Definit. med. (Vol. XIX. p. 140) λευκή ἐστιν ἡ ἐπὶ λευκὸν χρῶμα τοῦ σώματος παρὰ φύσιν μεταβολή. (λεύκη is the change to an unnatural white colour of the body). According to this it would appear to be merely superficial discolorations of the skin that writers understood by λεῦκαι,—a view that Rayer70 seems to coincide with. Pollux on the other hand offers an explanation as follows: ἀλφὸς μέλας, ἐπιδρομὴ σκιώδης, ἐπιπόλαιος, εὐίατος, ἀλφὸς λευκὸς, λευκότης ἐπιτρέχουσα τῇ ἐπιδερματίδι, αὐχμηρὰ, δυσίατος· λεύκη, ὅταν ἐπιτείνῃ ἡ λευκότης, καὶ φύσῃ τρίχωσιν λευκήν, εἰ δὲ κεντήσειας, ὕφαιμος, δυσίατος, ἐστιν ὅτε ὑπέρυθρος· ἐπανθεῖ δὲ αὐτὸ (?) τοῖς χείλεσιν, οἷον ἁλὸς ἄχνη. (Black ἀλφός, a dark-coloured spreading eruption, superficial and easily curable; white alphos, a whiteness running over the epidermis (of the prepuce), dry harsh and difficult to cure; λεύκη, when the whiteness extends, and produces a growth of white hairs, and if you prick it, it is suffused with blood, difficult to cure, also sometimes reddish in hue. And the eruption comes out on the lips like sea-foam). Here λεύκη is evidently a much more deeply penetrating malady, as indeed it is described by Celsus71 and Galen.72 It corresponds with the white Leprosy of Moses. But the most curious thing is the statement appended to the effect that the affection broke out on the lips like sea-foam. This is certainly to be referred to some other form of λεύκη, unless indeed we are to take it in connection with the succeeding words in the text, λειχὴν ἄγριος (malignant tetter), in which case, as we have seen with regard to Mentagra (Tetter of the chin), the remark is based on a perfectly sound observation; and besides, the αὐτὸ gives absolutely no sense. On the other hand if Pollux’datum in reference to the seat of λεύκη is correct, it must obviously afford much light for clearing up the meaning of the passage in Hippocrates, and in deference to it we shall be bound to read φοινικίη instead of φθινικὴ,73—an emendation that presents no difficulty, since φθινικὴ might very easily be read for φοινικίη, and indeed (as pointed out in the Note) was actually so read.

But one emendation leads on to another, and we shall find ourselves bound, on the analogy of the θαυμαστὸν πάθος (wonderful complaint) in Dio Chrysostom, to read here also θαυμαστωτάτων νοσημάτων (of the most wonderful diseases) for θανατωδεστάτων ν., and translate accordingly: “but λεῦκαι arise out of the most terrible aberrations of the mind,” such for instance as the vice of the cunnilingue is. If we examine further, we shall see it is not λευκαὶ but λεῦκαι that stands in the text, so it cannot be a question of a skin-affection of the leprosy type at all, for λευκὸς (white) rather implies transparent and shiny, and Martial (XI. 99.) in a passage to be discussed more fully later on, says:

(No biting ulcer, or shiny pustules, nor yet disfigured chin, and foul scabs). Accordingly we have here nothing whatever to do with the leprous-like λευκὴ, but only with pustulae lucentes (shiny pustules), which as we shall show presently were a consequence of the practices of the cunnilinigue. We have the more right to assume this, as the old Physicians ascribe λευκὴ to the φλέγμα (phlegmatic humour),—an explanation all the more likely to have been given, as directly afterwards follow the words, αἱ δὲ λέπραι καὶ οἱ λειχῆνες ἐκ τῶν μελαγχολικῶν (but leprosies and tetters arise out of the melancholic diseases). True this is in contradiction with another passage of Hippocrates,74 for in this we read: λέπρη καὶ κνησμὸς καὶ ψώρη καὶ λειχῆνες καὶ ἀλφὸς καὶ ἀλώπεκες ὑπὸ φλέγματος γίνονται. (leprosy, and itch, and scab, and tetters, and dull-white leprosy, and manges, arise from phlegm). This much at any rate appears to us to result, viz. that the whole passage under discussion cannot possibly be by Hippocrates, but much more probably is due to some author of the Alexandrine age, who enjoyed ample opportunities for studying the consequences of the unnatural excesses as so often observed since Pompey the Great’s time.

To assume that Hippocrates was actually acquainted with these in any completeness would up to the present be premature; at any rate we are bound, so far as our study of his writings enables us to judge, to deny him any knowledge of the fact that sexual excesses were the cause of the different affections of the genital organs chronicled by him. Of course he may have supposed all this to be notorious and the knowledge of it common property, but a host of statements would be found to tell against any such supposition. Opportunities of making acquaintance with the vice of the cunnilingue could certainly not have been lacking, it being so familiar a thing in his time that Aristophanes75 again and again derided it in his Comedies. Whatever conclusion we come to on this head, at least the passage of Hippocrates cannot justify anyone in maintaining that the φοινικίη νοῦσος,—(Phœnician disease) was true Elephantiasis, even if, as may be, the preliminary proposition that elephantiasis was a consequence of debauchery be made good,—a point to which we propose later on to return. On the subject of Satyriasis in Crete, we have already expressed our views.

Just as the Phoenicians carried the seed of the vice to Greece and other lands, so at a later period was it disseminated from Syria to Italy; and so Ausonius says (Epigr. 128.):

(Eunus from Syria, glutton of the privy parts, Opican (clownish) master (Phyllis teaches him his letters) sees the woman’s organ four-cornered: when compressed to a triangle he makes it out the letter Δ. From the valley between the thighs start two furrows, a pair one on either side, while between them is a line, where lies the opening, the crack of the fissure; this he declares is Ψ; for ’tis three-pronged in outline. Then when he puts in his own tongue to it, lo! it is Λ; and he can feel there is a true Φ marked therein. What, dunce, think you a Ρ is inscribed there, where a long Ι should by rights be placed? Miserable, contemptible scholar, may the Ȣ (a noose) reward your foulness, and the cleft Θ (letter of condemnation, being initial of θάνατος,—death) be set against your name!) The more detailed interpretation of these obscene hieroglyphics the reader may find in the commentators on the passage, as well as in Forberg, loco citato p. 335.

Diseases of the Cunnilingue. § 24.

Can anyone believe such a vice as this was practised without incurring punishment? Yet there prevails amongst the Physicians of Antiquity, even including Galen, who knew the facts, an unbroken silence. It is impossible to suppose that girls and women could have their genital organs purged in this mode altogether without evil results, more particularly as actual experience in more modern times has proved that as a consequence of the habit of cunnilingere inflammations of the external genitals have been set up in girls, as well as ulcerations in older women through the licking of these parts by dogs. Among Ancient writers we have found no vouchers for this; but on the other hand several such exist to show the mischief that results from the habit to the cunnilingue himself. Excluding from consideration the pale complexion77 and evil smell from the mouth, which were equally consequences of the other forms of vice already mentioned, we have paralysis of the tongue mentioned, at any rate in one passage78:

(Your tongue, Zoilus, has been stricken with a sudden doom, while in the act of licking. Why! surely, Zoilus, you copulate now). True this malady must be counted as one of very rare occurrence; but this is by no means the case with the ulcerations, which would seem not always to have confined their attacks to the tongue, but to have extended also, just as with the fellator, to the other parts of the mouth as well. This cannot but have had the effect of making it very difficult in diagnosis to distinguish between an affection of the sort due to fellation and one due to the vice of the cunnilingue.

Here again it is Martial to whom we are indebted for the proofs of our assertions. He leaves no room for doubt as to the way Manneius was punished for his debauchery in the following passage79:

(Manneius was a husband with his tongue, a fornicator with his mouth, a more polluted wretch than the big-cheeked wenches of the suburbs. When a vile bawd saw him naked from a window in the Suburra, she shuts her brothel up, and had rather kiss his middle than his head. The man who but now could penetrate every vessel of the inwards, and say with assured voice and certain knowledge whether it were a boy or a girl in the mother’s belly,—rejoice, rejoice, organs of women, for your business is done for you,—the same cannot erect a fornicating tongue. For at the very moment he is plunged tight in the swollen vulva, and hears the babes whimpering within, lo! a shocking disease paralyses his greedy tongue. Now can he be neither clean, nor yet unclean).

The Commentators, in particular Farnabius, refer the complaint spoken of in the passage just quoted to paralysis of the tongue. Farnabius says in fact: “Paralysisne ἀπὸ τῆς ἀφέδρου καὶ τῶν ἐμμηνιῶν, quorum malefico humore marcescunt segetes, apes moriuntur etc., Plin. c. 15 Lib. V., an sideratio?” (Is paralysis intended, resulting from the menstruation and menstrual discharges, the poisonous humour of which will wither up crops, kill bees, etc.—Pliny ch. 15. Bk. V., or a sudden stroke?) Even supposing us willing to admit the possibility of menstrual blood bringing on paralysis of the tongue, there can at any rate be no question of such a thing here, inasmuch as it was with a pregnant woman Manneius carried out his vicious practises, and women in pregnancy do not usually menstruate,—a fact about which the Philologist naturally enough was only imperfectly posted. Of course the possibility is always there, although the Poet says nothing about it; and the expression vulva tumens (swollen organ) evidently stands here, as is clearly shown by what follows, for uterus gravidus (pregnant womb)81. The solvere (to loose, destroy) points in any case to a destruction, a dwindling, of the part, brought about by the indecens morbus (shocking disease),—which disease might very likely find its explanation in the scelerata lues (noxious contagion) mentioned on page 258 above. As a result of this, naturally enough not only did arrigere (to erect—the tongue) become impossible, but the impurus (Cunnilingus) (unclean cunnilingue) grew generally incapable of practising his vice. Nor yet was he purus (clean)82 altogether, for was he not a cunnilingue?—and now he was even less purus, because he suffered from the indecens morbus (shocking disease), which even Farnabius has so far rightly understood, that he explains nec purus (nor yet clean) by morbo illo contaminatus (because contaminated by the said disease).

Rather more doubtful and difficult is the interpretation of the following passage of Martial83, which would yet appear to be pertinent here:

(I never called you a cinaedus, Coracinus; I am not so rash or so reckless, not being one to speak lies willingly. If I called you a cinaedus, Coracinus, may Pontia’s jar be my enemy, and Metilius’poisoned cup. I take oath by your Syrian tumours, by your Berecynthian frenzies. What I did say is a trivial, an insignificant thing, a thing well known, that you will not yourself deny,—I said, Coracinus, you were a cunnilingue).

What were these Syrii tumores (Syrian tumours) that afflicted the cunnilingue Coracinus? Beroaldus, Annotat. ch. 25., understands them as “tumores et vibices a cultris et flagris quibus sacerdotes Cybeles (quam deam Syriam esse volunt) se sauciabant.” (the swellings and weals from the knives and scourges with which the priests of Cybelé,—whom they claim to be the Syrian goddess—used to wound themselves). Farnabius on the contrary thinks only Berecynthios furores (Berecynthian frenzies) to be intended in this explanation, and makes the tumores Syrii mean “ulcera et morbos quibus credebatur irata Isis inflare peierantes,” (ulcers and maladies with which the angry Isis was supposed to afflict false swearers), appealing to the passage of Persius84, already brought forward a few pages back (p. 254.), which reads:

(Then the tall Galli, and the one-eyed priestess with her sacred rattle, instil terror of the gods that make men’s bodies swell, unless three times at dawn you have eaten the prescribed head of garlic).

Whether this passage affords any direct proof would seem doubtful, inasmuch as the inflare corpus (to make the body swell) properly speaking only refers to the abdomen. To this also the eating of the allium (garlic), which no doubt first won its magic significance on account of its carminative properties, appears to point.

However another explanation is possible. Referring back to the passage of Porphyrius quoted above on p. 254., the tumores Coracinus had contracted in consequence of his general incontinence with women, which incontinence had at last brought him as a senex? (old man) to such a condition of weakness that nothing was left him but the vice of cunnilingere to satisfy his still unexhausted lubricity. A side light in this case may be thrown on the matter by Horace’s description of the Anus libidinosa (The lecherous old woman) in Epodes VIII. 9. 19.:

(Flabby belly and skinny thigh joined with swollen calves,—A tool, that requires you, in order to call it up from the supercilious groin, to work it with the mouth). Casaubon in his commentary on the passage of Persius is for connecting this, as well as the Tumores Syrii, with ἕλκεα Συριακὰ (Syrian sores), and—as quoted on p. 253 above—to regard them as a consequence of the wrath of the Dea Syria (Syrian goddess). No doubt as a matter of fact the tumores were a result of debauchery, one that was prevalent in Syria and was disseminated thence to Rome, for they attacked a cunnilingue no less than other debauchees; but this brings us no nearer to a knowledge of their nature. We should perhaps be inclined to regard them as swellings of the tonsils or of the lympathic glands of the throat, having the same significance as the inguinal buboes in affections of the genitals.

But what are the Berecynthii furores (Berecynthian frenzies)? Possibly nocturnal pains in the bones, that torment a patient to the pitch of frenzy? The metaphor, drawn from the nocturnal rites of Cybelé, must be admitted to be a happy one. Still, however acceptable conjectures of the sort may be to many, we cannot take them seriously. It appears to us most judicious to regard the Syrii tumores as being ulcerations that covered the body of Coracinus, and by their violent itching reduced him to a state of frenzy. Our view as stated is confirmed by Epigram 108. of Ausonius:

In scabiosum Polygitonem.

(To the scabby Polygiton.—If any man caught sight of Polygiton on the seat of the Thermae bathing the sores on his limbs all rotten with scab, he preferred so entertaining a spectacle to all the games. First he beats the air with twittering, whining noises, and utters broken sounds in imitation of the wanton embraces of harlots, and completes the symphony of his foul-minded lechery. Then he twirls his arms about like a Maenad under the god’s afflatus; breast, legs, flank, belly, thighs, groin, calves, back, neck, shoulders, cave of the bemired Symplegades,—i.e. hollow between buttocks,—in so many different places does the shooting torture fly, until he droops and faints in the warmth of the hot bath and the disease is soothed and gives a fatal respite. So it is said castrated eunuchs, when barren desire tries hard for embraces with women and for contests they cannot properly engage in, are consumed with empty transports on the tossed and tumbled bed,—till eventually their lust, tickled and tickled, flames high for a last moment, and completes the wanton act by applying the mouth and biting. So with Polygiton a final spasm relaxes his disfigured limbs, and the last sin-offerings of his life being due, thus makes himself ready for the waves of Phlegethon).

True the connexion with the vice of cunnilingere is apparently lost here, but this also may be preserved without any great straining of the words, as we shall see presently; and accordingly the Tumores Syrii can be quite well regarded as a consequence of the vice of the cunnilingus.

Mentagra (Tetter of the Chin). § 25.

Ever since the so-called first appearance of Venereal Disease, most of the advocates of the antiquity of the complaint have made a point of bringing in Mentagra85 within the purview of the quotations they adduce to prove their contention, although strictly speaking they were never likely to succeed in a direct demonstration that the disease was really and truly connected with sexual excesses. Accordingly, to the present day the majority of them see in it nothing more than a form of Leprosy, particularly as Hensler86 and Sprengel were among those who decided in favour of its leprous character. Instead of giving a useless list of names of the different authors, who in former days declared for the one view or the other, we think it more expedient to quote first of all the capital authority, a passage in Pliny87, setting this down as it stands so as to be able afterwards to form a correct appreciation of its bearing:

Cap. I. “Sensit et facies hominum novos omnique aevo priore incognitos, non Italiae modo, verum etiam universae prope Europae morbos: tunc quoque non tota Italia, nec per Illyricum Galliasve aut Hispanias magnopere vagatos, aut alibi, quam Romae circaque: sine dolore quidem illos ac sine pernicie vitae: sed tanta foeditate, ut quaecunque mors praeferenda esset.

Cap. II. “Gravissimum ex his lichenas appellavere Graeco nomine: Latine, quoniam a mento fere oriebatur, ioculari primum lascivia (ut est procax natura multorum in alienis miseriis) mox et usurpato vocabulo, mentagram: occupantem in multis totos utique vultus, oculis tantum immunibus, descendentem88 vero et in colla pectusque ac manus, foedo cutis furfure89.

Cap. III. “Non fuerat haec lues apud maiores patresque nostros. Et primum Tiberii Claudii, Caesaris principatu medio irrepsit in Italiam, quodam Perusino equite Romano Quaestorio scriba, quum in Asia apparuisset inde contagionem eius importante. Nec sensere id malum feminae aut servitia, plebesque humilis, aut media: sed proceres veloci transitu osculi maxime: foediore multorum qui perpeti medicinam toleraverant, citatrice, quam morbo. Causticis90 namque curabatur, ni usque in ossa corpus exustum esset, rebellante taedio. Advenerunt ex Aegypto, genitrice talium vitiorum, medici, hanc solam operam afferentes, magna sua praeda. Siquidem certum est, Manilium Cornutum, e Praetoriis legatum Aquitanicae provinciae, H.S. CC. elocasse in eo morbo curandum sese.”

(Ch. I. Moreover the human face experienced new diseases, and such as had been unknown in any former age not merely to Italy but to the whole of Europe very nearly, and these not widely diffused over Italy generally, or through Illyricum or the provinces of Gaul or of Spain, or indeed anywhere else but just in Rome and its neighbourhood. They were painless, it is true, and did not involve loss of life, but were of such a horrible nature that death in any form would have been preferable.

Ch. II. The most serious of these diseases they called lichenes,—scabs, a Greek name; in Latin, as the malady generally showed itself first on the chin, it was known as mentagra,—chin-bane, scab or tetter of the chin, at the first by way of jest and mockery—for it is the nature of the multitude to make merry at others’misfortunes,—but soon this became the recognized word. In many persons it covered absolutely the whole countenance, the eyes alone being left unaffected, with a horrible scurf of the skin, going down sometimes to the neck as well, and breast, and hands.

Ch. III. This plague had not existed among our ancestors or fathers. For the first time it crept into Italy in the middle of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Caesar, a certain Perusinius, a Roman knight and Quaestorian secretary, after a period of service in Asia, importing the contagion from there. But women did not suffer from the malady, or slaves, nor yet common folk of humble or middle-class station; but nobles, and this particularly by the rapid infection of an embrace. In many cases the scar, where patients had submitted to medical treatment, was more horrible than the disease itself. For indeed it was curable by caustics, except when the body had been consumed to the very bones, the slowness of the treatment defeating its own end. Physicians arrived from Egypt, mother-land of such taints, practising this cure exclusively, to their own great profit. If, that is, it is true that Manilius Cornutus, of the Praetorians and governor of the Province of Aquitania, offered 200,000 sesterces for his cure when attacked by this disease).

Here if ever, it particularly behoves us to begin with an elucidation of the meaning of the name given to the malady under discussion. Gruner91 long ago called attention to the divergence of opinion as to the signification of λειχῆνες (scabs) among the writers of Antiquity, but without success in putting the actual facts in a clear light. We must try if we can be more fortunate. An old etymologist says: λειχὴν παρὰ τὸ λείχω, καὶ γὰρ φάσιν ἐκ τοῦ λείχειν τὸ πάθος ἐπαίρεται92, (λειχὴν comes from λείχω,—I lick, because they say the complaint is set up by licking). On this we may say.—there is no doubt λειχῆνες and λιχῆνες are derived from λείχειν or λίχειν, but the explanation Kraus gives of the reason in his Lexicon we cannot think conceivable, viz. “because Lichen, the same as a parasitic plant does, or a skin-disease in animals, always creeps round further and further (see Herpes,—creeping eruption), or as it were licks its way,” for λείχειν is not so much lambere, λάπτειν,—to lick over, lick along, as lingere, ligurire93,—to lick up, lick up greedily. At the same time it is true the word (lambere) was used by the Romans in a somewhat similar sense, so perhaps we ought not to refer to lambit flamma (a flame licks), but rather to Plautus’expression (Pers. prolog. 5.), “quorum imagines lambunt hederae sequaces” (whose images creeping ivy-tendrils lick, i.e. entwine). Most probably there are two different stems underlying the word. Of these one is λέγειν,—to lay, etc., hence λέγνη, the edging, the border, λίγνυς, soot (depositing itself on the edge), together with the bye-forms λέχω, λίχω with which in fact λιχὴν, moss94, so far as it forms on the edge, the surface, fringes it, would be connected. The other stem will be λίγω, or λείγω (comp. λίβω and λείβω), λείχω and λείχην, λίγγω, λίζω, to which would have to be referred also λίγυς and λιγυρὸς,—clear, shrill (ligurire, lingere,—to lick greedily, to lick), in all of which the underlying sense is of licking, and the noise connected with it.

It is plain that later on the derivatives of these stems suffered manifold variations and corruptions; but how much of all this is to be attributed to speakers and writers among the Greeks themselves, and how much to subsequent transcribers and editors of their work, it might be difficult to decide. But every day we have occasion to note a number of words, to which accident or other circumstances have given an ambiguous character. These, used quite unsuspectingly by the ignorant, make the better informed person blush, or else extort a smile from him that often enough causes the speaker no little embarrassment to know the reason. Undoubtedly it was the same with the Greeks and Romans, and so confusions between λίχω and λείχω, λιχὴν and λειχὴν, might have easily arisen, from which people were subsequently unable to extricate themselves. Originally perhaps λείχω, equally with lingo and ligurio (to lick), may have had the simple sense of licking, and only through later accretions to the meaning, have acquired an ambiguous character; soon however this got transferred to it to the exclusion of all others, and we find it used preferentially as the regular word for cunnilingere. The correctness of our conclusion would seem to follow above all from the passage of Aristophanes95 given below, where it is the additional words that narrow down the meaning of λείχω (I lick), and definitely bring out the special signification. The words are said of Ariphrades, who reminds us of the ἀποφρὰς (unmentionable), the name Lucian appropriates to Timarchus:

(Nor yet utterly villainous is he, but he has discovered yet another device; for he polluted his own tongue with foul delights, in the stews licking up the abominable dew, defiling the hair on the upper lip, and tumbling the girls’nymphae).

In the following Epigram96 of an unknown author λείχω is found used absolutely, without any supplementary words:

(Χείλων,—a proper name, also means of the lips,—and λείχων,—licking,—have the like letters; now what does this point to? Chilon licks lips, whether lips like his own, or whether unlike). In explanation of this Epigram Forbiger says (loco citato p. 326.): “Lusus in Chilonem cunnilingum. Hunc ait iure quodam suo lingere, qui vel nomine iisdem literis constante prae se fert lingentem et lingentem quidem tum labra oris, ut labris ligentis similia, tum cunni, ut dissimilia.” (Pun on the name of Chilon, a cunnilingue. The poet says he (Chilon) licks by a sort of inherent right of his own, who even in his name, made up of the same letters, proclaims himself as licking, and licking now the lips of the mouth, which are like the lips of the licker, now those of the female organ, which are unlike). Χεῖλος was in fact used also of the lips of a woman’s organ, the nymphae; the Scholiast on τὰς ἐσχάρας (the nymphae) in the passage from Aristophanes given a little above, interprets this word by τὰ χείλη τῶν γυναικείων αἰδοίων (the lips of the female privates). According to Schneider in his Lexicon χείλων (adj.) signifies thick-lipped. Perhaps it was this very Epigram that led Lambert Bosius to make the statement that χείλων arose by a mere transposition of the letters from λείχον.

Now if λείχην,—for we consider it should be thus accented,—is derived from λείχω (I lick), we cannot but regard it as meaning: something produced by licking, a complaint brought on by licking, and particularly by the licking of the cunnilingue! Surely the Greeks could hardly have expressed themselves more clearly. Then the fact that the name came from the mouth of the common people is the very best reason for its not having been understood by the educated. Yet all the while an entirely similar form of expression has grown up in the mouth of the German common people, the real meaning of which very few have fathomed, but which most certainly arose in the same way as the Greek λείχην. No doubt many of my readers have again and again heard it said of some one with an eruption round the mouth, that is, someone suffering from Herpes labialis (Creeping eruption of the lips): “Well! you have been licking!”—for which educated people substitute the obviously insufficient, “You have been picking!” Very commonly again one may hear: “You have been licking greben, or picking greben; and this word greben is understood as being identical with grieben,—greaves in English, i.e. the remnants of lard that has been cut up into pieces and fried, because the separate pustules of the herpes labialis resemble in appearance the greaves. So people sometimes also say still more explicitly, “You have been licking, or picking, greaves; and one of them has been left sticking to your mouth, to prove your greediness!”

This explanation may seem a very likely one to many; nevertheless we incline to believe the word to be of later origin, and to have arisen from ignorance of the actual facts. We consider it more probable that greben owes its origin to some corruption of language growing out of gremium, the bosom. We have been led to this conjecture by a statement of Adelung’s in his Dictionary, Article “Grieben”, where he says: “In middle-Latin grieben, (greaves), were called, in accordance with a common interchange change of the letters b. and m. gremium”,—though indeed we cannot regard the word as solely and entirely mediæval Latin, for it is found occurring as early as Pliny (Hist. Nat. XII. 19.) and Columella (Res Rust. XII. 19. 3.), and is evidently connected with cremare (to burn). So just as in this case cremium and gremium may have been used interchangeably, has grebe grown out of greme in German, and the latter come to be used as a synonym of griebe,—the latter words according to this having as little in common with one another as the former. However those better practised in the science of word formation must here decide!

Now as to the word Mentagra (Tetter, Scab). This was evidently a word first framed by the Romans, as is distinctly stated not alone by Pliny, but by Galen as well (De compos. medic. secundum locos Bk. V., edit. Kühn Vol. XII. p. 839.). The latter says: Ἐκδόριον λειχήνων· ταύτῃ Πάμφιλος χρησάμενος ἐπὶ Ῥώμης πλεῖστον ἐπορίσατο ἐπικρατούσης ἐν τῇ πόλει τῆς μεντάγρας λεγομένης. (Blister for Lichenes (Scabs); in this way Pamphilus in his practise at Rome made most headway against the Mentagra as it was called, then prevalent in the city). It is usually considered to be formed on the analogy of Podagra, Chiragra (gout of the feet, gout of the hands) etc. from mentum, the chin, and ἄγρα, the act of catching, seizing hold of,—so a disease that attacks the chin. But more probably all these words are compounded not with ἄγρα at all, but with ἄλγος (suffering). That is to say just as ἀλγαλέος, by Attic interchange of letters, becomes ἀργαλέος (grievous), κεφαλαλγία becomes κεφαλαργία (head-ache), and ληθαλγία, ληθαργία (drowsiness, lethargy), so from ποδαλγία we get ποδαργία, and then by metathesis ποδάγρα (gout). (Comp. Doederlein “Lateinische Synonyme und Etymologien”,—Latin Synonyms and Etymologies Pt. 4. p. 424.). The remark Pliny adds however “ioculari primum lascivia” (at first by way of jesting mockery) evidently points to some ambiguity underlying the word. But whether this consists in the recognition of the likeness in sound between mentum, the chin, and menta, or mentula, the virile member, or is to be looked for in the ἄγρα, it might be difficult to determine. Still it seems probable, but without wishing to entirely exclude the former hypothesis, that the latter is the case, as will appear directly.

Galen97 distinguishes between λειχὴν ἁπλοῦς and λειχὴν ἄγριος (simple lichen, and malignant lichen) in his enumeration of Skin-diseases, and still more plainly in another place98 he says: “λειχὴν is likewise a Skin-disease; there are two forms of it, ὁ μὲν ἥμερος καὶ πρᾳότερος, ὁ δὲ ἄγριος καὶ χαλεπώτερος (the one benignant and milder, the other malignant and more serious). But in both of them minute scales are detached from the skin, and the part of the skin underneath the scales is reddened and almost ulcerated. The affection arises from a salt phlegmatic humour (φλέγματος ἁλμυροῦ) and yellow gall, hence the scales fall from the skin as in glazed pottery-ware (? ἐπὶ τῶν ἁλμῶν τῶν κεραμίων). The affection is cured by internal phlegmagogues and external embrocations.” We have already on p. 139. above, in the footnote on ἄγριος (wild, savage) and χαλεπός (hard, harsh), noted how these words are used with special reference to the vice of paederastia, but they are also applied generally to the vice, the different forms of which we have been examining here. This follows from Plato99 and Plutarch100, at any rate so far as ἄγριος is concerned, which indeed we may conveniently render by vicious. The original meaning being overlooked, λείχην and λιχὴν had been taken as synonymous,—possibly the Latin lichenos first led to the mistake; then naturally enough an appropriate epithet was sought, to signify the lichen which was the result of licking in a vicious fashion. But this according to the already existing mode of speech could be nothing else than ἄγριος101 again,—λειχὴν ἄγριος, with which λειχὴν ἁπλοῦς, lichen insons, (simple, innocent lichen) was naturally contrasted.

Yet while Criton, as cited in Aëtius, simply and quite correctly interpreted Mentagra by ἄγριος λειχὴν (fierce, malignant lichen), Galen appears to have been still ignorant of the special meaning. This is shown by the words ἥμερος and πρᾳότερος (gentle, benignant,—milder), which obviously are correct opposites of ἄγριος only if the latter is understood, as it is in Celsus, as equivalent to ferus (fierce, malignant), but in no way account for the ἁπλοῦς (simple, innocent), which Galen no doubt found already established as distinguishing epithet of λιχὴν. How little he fathomed the nature of the evil, is proved by his ætiology of it, which makes the complaint result from the φλέγμα ἁλμυρὸν (salt phlegmatic humour) and the χολὴ ξανθὴ (yellow gall). The unprofessional Martial had a better word to say on the subject when he wrote his sordidique lichenes (filthy, squalid-looking lichens). Similarly it would seem the agra in Mentagra should be taken as pointing to ἄγριος (fierce, malignant). Can it be perhaps that in this way the μολύνων τὴν ὑπήνην (polluting the hair on the upper lip) of Aristophanes, the Latin barbam inquinare (to pollute the beard), have come to be used as synonyms for cunnilingere? Martial seems to imply it by his triste mentum, mentum periculosum (disfigured chin, perilous chin). Perhaps too the Sycosis menti (Sycosis,—fig-like eruption, of the chin) of Celsus and the later Greek medical writers should likewise be regarded as coming under this head. At a matter of fact, Archigenes says so in so many words, as cited in Galen (De comp. med. secundum locos. Bk. V. edit. Kühn Vol. XII. p. 847.), ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν συκωδῶν τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ γενείου, λεγομένων δὲ μενταγρῶν, ὑπὸ δέ τινων λειχήνων ἀγρίων, ποιεῖ κ. τ. λ. (but in the case of the sycotic, or fig-like, eruptions on the chin, which are called mentagrae, and by others malignant lichens, he proceeds as follows, etc.), and calls the affection of the chin, as do other Physicians, generally ἐξανθήματα ἐν τοῖς γενείοις (efflorescences, eruptions on the chin),—p. 824.