In 1570, by order of Philip II., the regulations in force in the principal towns of Andalusia were extended to those of Castile. By these it was enacted that a woman became a prostitute of her own free will, and that no one could compel her to continue such, even though she had incurred debts. A surgeon was directed to pay her a weekly visit at her house, and report to the deputies of the Consistory those who were diseased, in order that they might be removed to hospital. The keeper of a brothel could not receive into his house any one who had not been previously examined, nor allow any one who was diseased to remain there, under a fine of a thousand maravedis, with thirty days' imprisonment. Each room was to contain certain furniture, and the house was to be closed on holidays, during Lent, Ember Week, and on all fast days, under a punishment of a hundred stripes to each woman who received visitors, as well as to the keeper of the house. These and other orders were to be hung upon different parts of the house, under a fine (about six dollars) and eight days' imprisonment. The subject of venereal disease in Spain has acquired some interest from a generally received opinion that its appearance was made in that country, whence it was disseminated throughout Europe. Columbus and his crew were reported to have introduced it from America, but later investigations have proved that syphilis was not known on this side of the Atlantic until imported by Europeans. Facts have been advanced in preceding pages showing its almost simultaneous appearance in Italy and Spain, and we recur to the subject now merely with reference to the theory of its American origin. A late work, _Lettere sulla Storia de Mali Venerei, di Domenice Thiene, Venezia_, 1823, enumerates some proofs on the question. The main points are: 1. That neither Columbus nor his son allude, in any way, to such a disease in the New World. 2. Among frequent notices of the disease in the twenty-five years following the discovery of America, there is no mention of its originating there, but, on the contrary, a uniform derivation of it from some other source is assigned. 3. That the disorder was known and described before the siege of Naples, and therefore could not be introduced by the Spaniards at that time. 4. That it was known in a variety of countries in 1493 and the early part of 1494; a rapidity of diffusion irreconcilable with its importation by Columbus in 1493. 5. That the first work professing to trace its origin in America was not published till 1517, and was the production, not of a Spaniard, but a foreigner. The question of its origin is more definitely settled by a letter of Peter Martyr, noticing the symptoms in the most unequivocal manner, and dated April 5, 1488, about five years before the return of Columbus. Some doubts have been thrown upon the accuracy of this letter, but they do not invalidate it.[240]