The Plague of Lust, Vol. 2 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical AntiquityRosenbaum, Julius
History
The Plague of Lust, Vol. 2 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical Antiquity
Rosenbaum, Julius
Sexually transmitted diseases -- History
But if men were so reluctant, how much more so must women have
been, who were universally held to have committed a crime if they
had given any part of their body to the eyes of a stranger. Just as
the assistance of the Physician was disdained in childbirth, and to
account for the fact the fable of Agnodicé invented, in the same way
in complaints of the genitals women hesitated to submit themselves to
the inquisition of the Physician. But seeing the female sexual organs
are pre-eminently the home and breeding place of Venereal disease,
this closed what was precisely the most direct way to a correct
understanding of maladies of the genitals. The ancient Physicians,
like our own forefathers, could at best make leucorrhœa the universal
scape-goat; and accordingly even _Galen_, as we shall find presently,
laid no stress on the circumstance, and drew no inference from it, that
wherever men were attacked by gonorrhœa, the women with whom they had
had coition likewise suffered from the complaint.
Further, to this general sense of shame was added a certain timidity
before the professional status of real Physicians as a class, as well
as the pretty universally prevalent idea of the _ignominiousness of a
sickness brought on by a person’s own fault_, at any rate among the
educated part of the population. This comes out in the following
passage of _Plato_,[275] where he says: “Does it appear to you
disgraceful to stand in need of medical help, when it is not wounds at
all or such sicknesses as depend on the seasons that have befallen, but
when a man through indolence and a way of life such as we have noted
(i. e. a very luxurious one), is filled full of fluxes and accumulations
of wind like a sea, giving occasion to the noble sons of Asclepius
to designate these complaints by the names of superfetations and
catarrhs?” This was more than a mere expression of individual opinion;
there is no doubt affections of the genital organs, more especially if
their relation to sexual intercourse was known, belonged to the class
of diseases held to be most disgraceful,[276] and the Poet is justified
in saying:
_Diis me legitimis nimisque magnis_
Ut Phoebo puta, filioque Phoebi
_Curatum dare mentulam verebar_.
(To the lawful gods, deities too exalted for me, such for instance as
Phoebus, and Phoebus’ son, I feared to entrust my member for cure.)
Thus it was not to the “noble sons of Asclepius”, in other words the
Physicians, who treated freemen only, that patients resorted for help,
but to the gods, or else to the medical underlings (ὑπηρέται τῶν
ἰατρῶν,—subordinate assistants of the physicians), to the slave-doctors
and quacks, who plied their trade in the doctor’s shops,—establishments
where, as we have seen above, paederasts and pathics foregathered.
Exactly the same state of things prevailed down to the middle of the
last Century; and to this day a majority of such sufferers rarely as a
matter of fact come under any other hands.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account