Note 312 — Chapter XIV

Cf. Iwan Bloch, “Schopenhauer’s Illness in the Year 1823. A Contribution to Pathography based upon an Unpublished Document.” Published in Medizinische Klinik, 1906, Nos. 25 and 26. (This gives an account of all Schopenhauer’s utterances regarding syphilis.)

[313] At a meeting of the Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, held on April 19, 1906, I read a paper on “La Syphilis Prétendue Préhistorique,” in which I discussed this question. The important question of ancient bones is further considered in the second volume of my work on “The Origin of Syphilis,” pp. 317-364 (now in the press).

[314] The results of this study I have briefly epitomized in an address given before the Social Science Congress in Berlin, entitled “The First Appearance of Syphilis in Europe” (Jena, 1904).

[315] Regarding the gradual acquirement (by means of natural selection) of immunity to epidemic diseases, the works of Archdall Reid may be most profitably consulted (“The Present Evolution of Man,” London, 1896; “The Principles of Heredity,” London, 1905). Dr. Reid’s views on the part played in human history by the transference of diseases from immunized to non-immunized races are of especial interest. Unfortunately, as regards syphilis, he accepts Hirsch’s erroneous statements relative to the antiquity of that disease, and its origin in the eastern hemisphere (see also p. 384, note [346]).—Translator.

[316] Cf. A. Neisser, “The Experimental Investigation of Syphilis as it Stands at the Present Day” (Berlin, 1906).

[317] Cf. Erich Hoffmann, “The Etiology of Syphilis” (Berlin, 1906); Hans Hübner, “Recent Researches into the Nature of Syphilis,” published in the Journal for the Suppression of Venereal Diseases, 1906, vol. v., pp. 468-481.

[318] I must not omit allusion to some recent admirable works on venereal diseases: A. Blaschko, “Venereal Diseases”—a popular exposition—(Berlin, 1904); Paul Zweifel, “Venereal Diseases and their Importance to Health” (Leipzig, 1902); Alfred Fournier, “Syphilis a Social Danger”; Karl Ries, “Blameless Sexual Infection” (Stuttgart, 1904); O. Burwinkel, “Venereal Diseases” (Leipzig, 1905); Waldvogel, “The Dangers of Venereal Diseases and their Prevention” (Stuttgart, 1905). In view of the large number of popular works on venereal diseases, those without professional knowledge should confine themselves to the best names, because in this province trashy literature is extraordinarily abundant, and by the false and erroneous views it diffuses, it does much more harm than good. The writings mentioned in this note I am able to recommend as thoroughly scientific and trustworthy.

[319] Galewsky, “The Transmission of Venereal Diseases in the Suckling of Children,” published in the Journal for the Suppression of Venereal Diseases, 1906, vol. v., pp. 365-371.

[320] It is true that such a hardening may also occur in other non-syphilitic affections of the genital organs—for example, when they are peculiarly situated or as a result of cauterization. Only the physician can determine whether in such a case syphilitic infection has actually occurred.

[321, 322] According to English experience, the congenitally syphilitic child rarely exhibits any sign of syphilis when born. Thus, Hutchinson writes (“Syphilis,” p. 73): “At the time of birth, the congenitally syphilitic infant almost invariably has a clear skin, and appears to be in perfect health.” According to Osler also (“Medicine,” sixth edition, p. 269): “The child may be born healthy-looking or with well-marked evidence of the disease. In the majority of instances the former is the case, and within the first month or two the signs of the disease appear.”—Translator.

[323] Cf. the recently published admirable work of Edmond Fournier, “Recherches et Diagnostic de l’Hérédo-Syphilis Tardive” (Paris, 1907).

[324] Parrot regarded rickets as a manifestation of congenital syphilis, but this view has never found acceptance in England. Hutchinson remarks (“Syphilis,” p. 408): “The typical forms of rickets are constantly met with in conditions which do not lend the slightest support to the suggestion of syphilis.” As Cheadle remarks: “Syphilis modifies rickets; it does not create it.”—Translator.

[325] This view must be accepted with reserve. See, for instance, Osler’s “Medicine,” sixth edition, p. 271: “Is syphilis transmitted to the third generation? The general opinion is opposed to this view. Occasionally, however, cases of pronounced congenital syphilis are met with in the children of parents who are perfectly healthy, and who have not, so far as is known, had syphilis, and yet, as remarked by Coutts, who reported such a group of cases, they do not bear careful scrutiny. The existing difference of opinion is well illustrated in the account by G. Boeck (Berl. Klin. Wochenschrift, September 12, 1904) of four instances of hereditary lues in the second generation, while in the same journal Jonathan Hutchinson expresses his belief that syphilis is not transmitted to the third generation.”—Translator.

[326] As more important scientific works on syphilis I must mention that of Isidor Neumann (Vienna, 1899, second edition), containing the entire bibliography of the subject; that of Joseph Lang (Wiesbaden, 1896, second edition); but, above all, the epoch-making work of Alfred Fournier, “Traité de Syphilis” (Paris, 1898)—English translation, Fournier, “The Treatment and Prophylaxis of Syphilis” (Rebman Ltd., London, 1906).

[327] The most important scientific work on gonorrhœa is that of Ernest Finger, “Blennorrhœa of the Sexual Organs,” fifth edition (Leipzig and Vienna, 1901).

[328] Cf. M. von Zeissl, “Diagnosis and Treatment of Venereal Diseases,” third edition, pp. 171, 172 (Berlin and Vienna, 1905).

[329] Op cit., p. 172.