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
The disease therefore cannot have been merely some passing disorder. It
must evidently have been somewhat widely disseminated by the Moabitish
women, and have been of very common occurrence among them; and that
it was readily infectious follows from the whole course of Moses’
proceedings. The latter was angry because the woman had been suffered
to live, and commanded to put to death all of them that had known men
in carnal intercourse, but to keep alive the young virgins,—and their
number was, according to Ch. 31. v. 35., thirty-two thousand!—who
were brought into the camp as prisoners and there divided amongst
their captors. So we see the executions took place not in order that
opportunity for intercourse with the heathen women,—a thing which
might very well on its own account have been an abomination to the
Lord,—might be altogether removed, (for how in that case account
for the maidens being saved alive, brought into camp, and divided
as booty?)[108] but that by this means the risk of the further
dissemination of the disease might be for ever prevented.
The imminence of this risk in Moses’ opinion is shown finally by the
purification of the host which he had despatched for the massacre
of the Moabites and their women. He made it, prisoners and all the
spoil included, halt for a period of seven days outside the camp, and
twice over submit to a thorough purification. The Jews had slain many
thousands of men in their previous wars, nay! just before they marched
against the Moabites, they had actually slaughtered 24000 of their own
youth; yet they had never been ordered to leave the camp for seven
days, and twice over during this time to purify themselves and all
their possessions. Only after the annihilation of the Moabitish women
(not of the Moabite men), from the accomplishment of which they had
just returned, had this happened. All this points to some most cogent
reason. Here comes into operation the same law which was enforced on
occasion of purification after Leprosy and after foul discharge: and
indeed also after contact with a dead person,—even where they had
first caused the death of the said person! Thus no one can very well
dispute the view taken by _Philo_,[109] when he says with regard to the
purification after the annihilation of the Moabites:—
“Nam ut legitima hostium caedes sit, attamen qui hominem interfecit
quamquam iure, quamquam vim propulsans, quamquam coactus, non insons
esse videtur nec extra noxiam, propter summam illam et communem hominum
inter ipsos cognationem. Quo nomine piacula suscipienda fuerunt
interfectoribus ad luendum scelus, quod conceptum censebatur.”
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