The curability of the disease in its earlier stages was affirmed, but that after the deposit of chalk in the joints it proved rebellious to treatment, which for him resided in purgation and the local application of cooling agents. In the first and second centuries Celsus, Galen, and Aretæus the Cappadocian recounted their views as to its nature and therapy, while the Augustan poet in his Pontic epistles, like Hippocrates, laments that his gouty swellings defy the art of medicine. “Tollere nodosam nescit medicina podogram.” _Ovid_, _Ep. ex Pont._, I, 3, 23. To Celsus, venesection at the onset of an attack seemed both curative and prophylactic. Corpulence of habit a state to be avoided, and conformably he prescribed frugality of fare and adequate exercise. Galen (130-200), more venturesome than his contemporaries, voiced his belief that tophi were compact of phlegm, blood, or bile, singly or in combination. For the rest, he enjoined bleeding and purgation and local applications, contravening, by the bye, Hippocrates’ claim as to the immunity of eunuchs in that in his (Galen’s) day their sloth and intemperance were such as readily begat the disorder. About this period Lucian of Saramosta enumerated the various anti-gout nostrums vaunted as specifics in his day. Though in his comic poems, the Trago-podagra and Ocypus he rightly holds up to scorn the charlatanism rampant at the time, still it is quite clear that he possessed no mean knowledge of the clinical vagaries of gout and was quite alive to the mischief of too meddlesome treatment thereof. Said the hero of the Trago-podagra: “Irritantibus me Soleo occupere multo iracundior His vero qui cogitant nihil adversum mihi Benignam adhibeo mentem, facilisque fio.” Again, Seneca, in a jeremiad on the decadent habits of Roman ladies of the patrician order, observes: “The nature of women is not altered but their manner of living, for while they rival the men in every kind of licentiousness, they equal them too in their very bodily disorders. Why need we then be surprised at seeing so many of the female sex afflicted with gout.” That the old philosopher’s misgivings were but too well founded is obvious when we recall that so widespread were the ravages of gout among the Romans in the third century that Diocletian, by an edict, exempted from the public burdens those severely crippled thereby, in sooth a blatant illustration of political pandering to national vice.