If we do not choose to infer from this the proof of a then occurring, genuine and consistent genesis of the affections peculiar to the genitals, we are bound at any rate to admit that such a view must necessarily have debarred all thought of any _specific_ character as belonging to ulcers of these organs,—the more so as to this very day we look in vain for any clear conception of really characteristic symptoms marking out Venereal ulcers in particular. Further, the knowledge that ulcers of the genitals were contracted through sexual intercourse, lacked entirely, so far as the ancient Physicians were concerned, the necessary confirmation and authority to induce them to make a special and distinctive class of morbid process to include them, because as a rule they paid no sort of attention to the occasioning cause, unless in virtue of its being still present and active, or else by the necessity for its elimination, it could afford some indication for therapeutic purposes. _Galen_ brings this out best and most clearly in the following passage:[289] “Moreover it will be a fitting occasion now to make it clear that not one of the causes directly occasioning the diathesis, or particular condition of body, will give any indication as to treatment; guiding signs for the purpose must rather be gathered from the complaint itself. What is to be done in any individual case depends on the immediate purpose and the nature of the part attacked, on the predominant temperament and the like facts. For to put it shortly, _in no case can an indication as to what is beneficial be taken from any one of the factors that are no longer existent_,—i. e. in actual operation. But as it often happens that in order to diagnose some affection that cannot be recognized either by help of ratiocination or by the senses, we are obliged to inquire into the cause that occasioned it, laymen conclude the guiding signs for remedial treatment to be taken from the same source. But this is by no means so. This may be plainly seen in those instances where the diathesis is quite well known in all its details; for whether it be _ecchymosis or ulceration or erysipelas or putrescent ulcer_ (σηπεδὼν) _or phlegmonous affection in any organ, it is perfectly useless to trace out the cause that occasioned it_ (αἴτιον ποίησαν), _if this latter is now no longer active_. On the other hand for any affection, a clear insight into which is lacking, a knowledge of the occasioning cause is useful.”