This last phrase shows clearly the origin of Roche’s opinion. It is evident that he denies the influence attributed to venereal excesses, in the production of gout, only to sustain a favorite theory. Roche certainly never would have said, that there is more libertinism in the lower than in the higher walks of life, if he had not been preoccupied with the desire of proving that good living is the cause of gout, to the exclusion of every other cause. It may be asserted, that one mode of living predisposes to the gout more than another; and we will agree with every author, that this disease appears particularly in individuals who are well fed; but we cannot admit, that the possible action of certain influences, as that of venereal excesses, should be denied. Impressed, however, with the vast extent of the influence of venereal excesses, and with the uncertainty of its limits, we prefer to allow, with all authors, that venereal excesses, like many other known and unknown causes, may predispose to gout. This opinion seems to be more logical than that sustained by Roche with his usual ability. Roche, also, in accordance with other authors, regards venereal excesses as injurious to those affected with gout. “The indulgence in venereal pleasures,” says Barthez, “should seldom be permitted to those affected with gout; for they should abstain from whatever weakens or exhausts. Coste, who has written on gout, is much more formal. “A gouty person,” says he, “should choose between living apart from his wife, and being cured of his disease; or caressing her, and rendering his disease incurable. Whenever a gouty person sees a female,” he adds, “if young, a new root to his disease sprouts forth; and if he be old, he drives a nail into his coffin.” This opinion differs from that of Pietsch, who maintains that gout arises from the absorption of vitiated semen, which is retained by continence in the seminal vesicles.