The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical Antiquity — John Shaqi
The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical AntiquityRosenbaum, Julius
History
The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical Antiquity
Rosenbaum, Julius
Sexually transmitted diseases -- History
A view, which _Becket_ first sought to establish on precise grounds,
appeared on the contrary too bold to other investigators, who thought
to find some way of evading it. This was to the effect that Leprosy
under favourable conditions had changed into Venereal Disease, and
the increased rarity of the former seemed to speak for this opinion.
Supporters of this last view are in especial _Sprengel_ and _Choulant_
in his Preface to Fracastori’s “Syphilis”. Whilst the particular home
of the Disease was fixed in this way by some authors, _Swediaur_ and
_Beckman_ thought to find it in the East Indies, and held that the
“Dschossam”, a familiar Indian disease, or else the “Persian Fire”
must be looked upon as the original form of the Complaint. _Schaufus_
agreed with them in part; he believed Venereal disease to have been
brought by the Gypsies from India to Europe. _Dr. Wizmann_[3] made
the disease arise in the IInd. Century in Dacia, which at that date
was transformed into a Roman Colony and had to welcome the licentious
Roman soldiery. The excesses of these colonists, in a strange climate,
and seconded by a combination of conditions favourable to epidemic
sickness, produced the disease, which he says is generated to this
day in its genuine form in Turkey. Accordingly _Wizmann_, as also
_Sprengel_ and _Choulant_, and to some extent _Gruner_, who considered
the Moors to be the parents of the Venereal disease, may be regarded as
taking up an intermediate position between the two extreme views, and
as making a sort of transition to the opinions of those who look upon
the Disease as a new one.
The special supporters of this view were, as mentioned above, the
non-medical, though a considerable number of men calling themselves
Physicians agreed with them, though on other grounds, differing only
as to the mode in which the Disease arose. The prevailing astrological
views found the original cause of the Disease in the Conjunction of
the Planets, a conjunction declared beforehand by prophecy to bode
disaster. With this were included as contributing to the effect
Inundations, the oppressed condition of Nations, Famine and the
like. The disease was called an epidemic, or what at that period was
practically synonymous, a pestilential disease, a Plague, and ascribed
of course to the wrath of God. There were other accounts given, that
still carry some show of probability; the Disease was referred to the
poisoning of wells and of wine (Caesalpinus), to the admixture of
gypsum with the flour (Fallopia), or actually to indulgence in human
flesh.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account