Now if first of all we bear steadfastly in mind that this φοινικίζειν was a vice, which prevailed primarily and especially among the Phoenicians and was later on disseminated abroad by them, and then consider how the Greeks designated every vice, and particularly excesses in love, as νόσος (disease), in the same way precisely as the Romans used _morbus_ (disease),—comp. § 17—we _must_ see that φοινικίζειν is the same thing as νόσος φοινικίη (Phoenician disease), and shall be in a position to form an opinion on the Gloss[65] falsely ascribed to _Galen_, which reads: _φοινικίη νόσος_· ἡ κατὰ Φοινίκην καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ἀνατολικὰ μέρη πλεονάζουσα. δηλοῦσθαι δὲ κἀνταῦθα _δοκεῖ_ ἡ ἐλεφαντιάσις. (_Phoenician disease_: a disease prevalent in Phoenicia and about the Eastern parts. Elephantiasis _appears_ to be signified by this). Even granting the first part of this Gloss to have been really written by _Galen_, the last sentence at any rate is obviously an extraneous and later addition. This is at once indicated by the use of the word δοκεῖ (it appears), which comes in curiously, standing as it does next-door to the _definite_ statement that this νόσος (disease) was common in Phoenicia; for surely anyone who knew this, must also have known what the disease was. Again if he had wished to describe it by some such phrase as the English “a sort of Elephantiasis”, he could hardly have failed to express himself in a different way to what he has. But as a matter of fact, _Galen_ knew perfectly well, as we have already seen, what φοινικίζειν was, and consequently what the φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease) was, and it could not by any possibility have occurred to him to suppose it any form of Elephantiasis. Unfortunately _Prof. Naumann_[66] has allowed himself to be misled by this extraneous addition; he writes: “In the Work of a Pseudo-Galen is given a short explanation of the φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease), or rather to speak strictly, the _conjecture_ is made,[67] that this malady, a common one in Phoenicia and the East, may have been Elephantiasis.” True indeed the word might _with equal likelihood_ express a disease characterized by redness of the skin φοινίκιος s. φοινίκεος i. q. puniceus, purpureus, cruentus; φοινιγμὸς irritatio cutis per vesicantia—φοινίκιος or φοινίκεος = Phoenician purple, purple, blood-red; φοινιγμὸς = irritation of the skin by rubefacients). Or should we suppose _some leprous-venereal malady_ endemic and aboriginal among the trading Phoenicians to be signified, which was called the _Morbus Phoeniceus_ (Phoenician disease) in the same way as in more modern times people spoke of the _Morbus Gallicus_ (French disease,—Syphilis)? In any case it is remarkable that _Themison_ (who also noted incidentally that Satyriasis at times attacks a population epidemically,—speaks of the special frequency of Satyriasis in Crete (_Caelius Aurelianus_, Acut. Morb. bk. III. ch. 18). As is well known,