That under such circumstances the women’s genitals, and the men’s no less, were exposed to many sorts of injury, may be readily supposed; though we have sought in vain so far for any direct evidence of the fact. So we may perhaps be allowed to quote here an observation originating with _Abu Oseibah_, De vitis medicorum illustrium, (On the Lives of Famous Physicians), according to _Reiske_[144]. This properly speaking belongs to a later period chronologically, but it is pertinent in the present connection. Reiske says: “Caput XIII. habet observationem—2. de ingenti _penis inflammatione, quae nata fuerat ex impuro cum bestia concubitu_, cum coruncula urethram obstruente, sanata modo prorsum empirico atque crudeli. Impositum glabro lapidi penem medicus subito praeter aegri expectationem, qua poterat vi percutiebat manu in pugnum coacta, ut obturaculum et ulcus dissiliret. Sapit hic casus _luem veneream_; et posset inservire illis pro argumento, qui morbum hunc etiam veteribus cognitum fuisse contendunt. Cadit autem is casus circa annum Christi 940.” (Chapter XIII contains the following observation,—2. Of a violent _inflammation of the penis, which had originated in unclean intercourse with a beast_, with a coruncle, or knot, constricting the urethra, cured in a manner to the last degree empirical and cruel. The penis being laid on a rough stone, the Physician suddenly when the patient was not expecting it, struck it as heavily as ever he could with his doubled fist, so that the stoppage and ulcer might burst. This case has a smack of the _Venereal disease_ about it; and might serve as an argument for those who hold that this disease was known to the Ancients as well. But the case falls about the year of Our Lord 940.) Climate. § 28.