In the medical writings of Aretæus, Aetius, and the later school of Greek physicians, the disease is described under the title of elephantiasis, for (says Aretæus) “it is disgusting to the sight, and terrible in all respects (_est visu fœdus et in omnibus terribilis_), like the beast of the same name.”[149] The Arabian medical authors applied the corresponding term of “_Das Fil_,” “elephant disease,” or elephantiasis, to an affection entirely different, and one apparently unknown to the Greek physicians, namely, the tumid, Barbadoes, or Cochin leg of modern pathologists. At the same time the Arabian authorities described the disease, known to the Greeks under the name of elephantiasis, by the Arabic terms “_Judam_,” or “_Juzam_” and “_Aljuzam_.”[150] The confusion thus apt to arise from describing two different diseases under a corresponding name was greatly increased by the errors committed by the Latin translators of Avicenna, Rhazes, and other Arabic authors. These translators rendered the _Das fil_ or Elephant disease of the Arabic original, by the words elephanta and elephantiasis; and having thus, first, by an improper adaptation, appropriated the use of the latter Greek term to a disease very different in its specific characters from the elephantiasis of the Greeks themselves, they subsequently added to the intricacies of the subject by translating the Arabic “Juzam” (the disease that was in reality identical with the elephantiasis of the Greeks) by the term lepra—a term which the Greek physicians had generally applied to different forms of scaly eruption, but never to any form of tubercular disease.[151] By these unfortunate mistakes medical men were betrayed into great confusion in the use of these several terms. An identity in names did not signify an identity in objects. The tumid leg, _das fil_, or elephantiasis of the Arabians, is a disease perfectly different from the tuberculous face affection or elephantiasis of the Greeks.