But what of that? For did not Flinders Petrie in the hoary tombs of Gurob (dating back to the 28th Dynasty 1300 B.C.) find in mouldering skeletons of bygone civilisations unequivocal evidence of _osteoarthritis_.[1] But despite these sure though silent witnesses of the prevalence of this disorder among the ancient people of Egypt, yet in contrast with gout, no hint transpires in the writings of Greek or Roman physicians, nor those of much later date, that the condition was recognised _clinically_, as a joint disorder, distinct from others of the same category. Small call to marvel thereat, for how much more arresting the clinical _facies_ of gout, with its classic insignia—tumor, robor, calor, et dolor—than of osteoarthritis, its etiolate tokens indicative rather of infirmity than of disease. Apart from this, it may well be that the early Egyptians owed their relative immunity from gout, and alike their proneness to osteoarthritis, to living hard laborious days, unenervated by that luxury and sloth, which in the first century A.D. drew upon the ancient Romans the caustic reproofs of Pliny and Seneca. For the old philosophers lamented the growing prevalence of the disorder, almost unknown in the early, more virile days of the Empire, rightly seeing in it but another harbinger of impending decadence, clearly attributable as it was to riotous living and debauchery. Indeed, we have it on the authority of Galen that “In the time of Hippocrates there were only a few who suffered from podagra, such was the moderation in living, but in our own times, when sensuality has touched the highest conceivable point, the number of patients with the gout has grown to an extent that cannot be estimated.” Nothing, in truth, seems more clearly established than this, that gout is the Nemesis that overtakes those addicted to luxurious habits and dietetic excesses. On the testimony of eminent travellers we are assured that amongst aborigines the disease is unknown. The indigenous native tribes of India are immune, but not so the immigrant flesh-loving Parsees. Strange to relate, Anglo-Indians of gouty habit, while resident in the Orient, seem exempt, some say, owing to cutaneous activity, but more probably because _quâ_ Rendu “these are countries in which we cannot survive unless we are frugal.” Nations too, like individuals, when fallen on hard times, lose their gout. Thus the Arabs, at the zenith of their mediæval Empire, were prone thereto, but in these latter days are almost exempt from its ravages. But, on the other hand, if we are to believe Professor Cantani, in no other disorder are the “sins of the fathers visited upon the children” with such pertinacity, claiming as he does that its marked incidence in Southern Italians is a direct heritage from the ancient Greeks and Romans. PREVALENCE OF GOUT IN THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD