the saliva does under the influence of anger) some vital-chemical, contagious alteration of composition. Again supposing the woman to be at the time of coition actually in menstruation, a period when her genital organs are _ipso facto_ roused to a condition of exaggerated activity, the disturbance must be yet greater, and the mischief resulting even more manifest. This will in part account for the fact that ulcers on the genitals, brought about by coition, are so ready in Asia to assume a putrid character, and show that the Ancients had good reason to designate them by the name ἄνθραξ (anthrax, malignant pustule). For that ἄνθραξ was actually a consequence of coition we may see from a passage, already cited by Hensler and Simon, from Bishop _Palladius_[157], who relates of a certain Hero, how the Demon led him to Alexandria, how he there visited theatres and horse-races, and roamed round the taverns. “And thus, being by this time a glutton and a drunkard, he _fell moreover into the mire of lust after women_; and being now set upon sinning, _he lived with a certain actress_, (and had carnal intercourse with her?). _Then when he had done all this, by a (Divine) providence he got an “anthrax” on the glans penis; and was so sick for six months that his (private) parts rotted away and dropped off of themselves._ But subsequently recovering and getting off with the loss of these members, coming to a knowledge of God and a remembrance of the heavenly kingdom, and after confessing all that had befallen him, he fell asleep a few days afterwards, without having had the time to manifest works (of repentance).” In spite of the difficulties some of the expressions in the text exhibit, the main fact is perfectly plain, and admits of no doubt whatever, viz. that Hero had brought the ἄνθραξ on himself by carnal intercourse with an actress, and the moral reflections Palladius tags on to it cannot invalidate the fact. The objections _Astruc_ raises against the conclusiveness of the passage have already been refuted by _Hensler_ (Geschichte der Lustseuche,—History of Venereal Disease, I. pp. 317 sqq.), who while citing as parallel instances the passages adduced by _Becket_ from the early XVth Century, very justly remarks: “What proof _would_ they have, if this is not conclusive?” Did the female genitals perhaps receive the names ἐσχάρα (scab) and ἄνθραξ (malignant pustule), _because_ they very often made men a present of these things?!