No doubt _Hensler_ and _Alex. Simon_ had already struck out this second way of exposition; but the latter writer merely examined the data of the several Writers by themselves without making any effort to build them up into one whole. To do this was, it is true, a proceeding quite foreign to the method adopted by the Ancients, but for our own time, accustomed as we now are to demand a systematic exposition of a subject, it seems absolutely indispensible. _Hensler_ on the other hand in his treatment of the question fixed his particular attention solely on the Middle Ages, and made it his immediate aim merely to prove that previously to the ninetieth year of the XVth Century local affections of the genital organs were already well known, and had been subjected to treatment.[297] Now with regard to the actual exposition that follows, we shall refrain in it as much as possible from going into particulars, such as the text itself or the views of the Authors might seem to make obligatory, as the needful space fails us, at any rate for the present. Moreover the matter coming under review has been discussed already by many others, while as for critical elucidations, let them be as pressingly required as they may, we lack all the necessary _apparatus criticus_. In fact in the case of several Writers, the translation, let alone the original text, was with difficulty accessible, for which reason many a passage of those already known may perhaps have been passed by unregarded. A complete collection of all passages, including those still unknown,—for the harvest as was mentioned above has by no means been all reaped,—will certainly not be demanded by any reasonable reader from a Student of thirty, for hardly even a greybeard Enquirer surely could boast of having read all printed works of the ancient Physicians. For the rest, our present object is not at all to give an exhaustive exposition of all the ideas and observations of ancient Physicians as to affections of the genital organs; it only concerns us here to bring together what is true and directly available for our task. Under this head would certainly seem to come the following seven points: 1. =Gonorrhœa= (_Clap_). Nimia profusio seminis,—excessive flow of seed (Celsus), γονόῤῥοια. Gonorrhœa, the name of which is compounded of γονή (badly made semen) and ῥεῖν (to flow),[298] consists in an affection of the seminal vessels, not of the private parts themselves, which merely serve as the road for the excretion of the seed.[299] _Two kinds_ of gonorrhœa must be distinguished, according as the malady is, or is not, combined with erection of the penis.[300]