We have seen how _mentagra_ attacked the _cunnilingue_, and afterwards passed over into _psora_; in just the same way might elephantiasis,—a complaint indeed which the Gloss of the Pseudo-Galen actually puts in connection with the Morbus Phoeniceus (Phoenician Disease),—be brought on by indulgence in coition. This is in no way contradicted by the preference the disease exhibits for first making its appearance in the face, inasmuch as the cutaneous glands of the face are in a relation of special sympathy with the genital organs. That leprosy too no less than elephantiasis was communicated and contracted by coition is shown by a host of examples given in the Mediæval Historians[180]; in fact, a large number of Physicians held Venereal disease to be a species of leprosy or elephantiasis, while some made it actually originate in the act of coition with leprous persons; yet for all that we do not, according to _Hensler_, (“Vom Aussatz”,—On Leprosy, p. 396.), find it anywhere recorded that the genital organs were first affected,—apart that is from what _Astruc_ has brought forward on purpose to support his own view. As everybody knows, _he_ refers all local evils existing prior to the end of the XVth Century to Leprosy. But what would follow supposing traces _were_ actually to be found proving that what was known in Asia as leprosy did as a matter of fact first show itself in the genitals? Before we enter upon the closer examination of reasons for this supposition, we must quote a passage from the Work of _Von Roeser_ already several times mentioned, a passage equally important for the pathology of Venereal disease as for its History. _Von Roeser_, (p. 68.) writes thus: “Primary syphilis manifests itself _in Egypt in the very rarest cases on the prepuce or glans of the verge_; the chancres are more commonly found on the outer skin of the penis nearer the _mons Veneris_, or actually on this in the hairy parts which among Egyptians and Arabs are generally kept shaved, _or else on the scrotum_. _Pruner_[181] told me that the occurrence of a chancre on the prepuce, which indeed is absent in Mohammedans owing to circumcision, or on the _glans penis_ is in the ratio of 1: 3 to chancres on the last mentioned parts, hence in that country Astruc’s opinion that syphilitic ulcers hardly ever formed on the exterior of the verge, is strongly contradicted,—as is no less true amongst ourselves. That circumcision is not the sole cause of this phænomenon is manifest from the fact that in Smyrna and Constantinople I saw plenty of chancres on the _glans_, as well as amongst Jews at home, though I am not going to deny that circumcision may have some share in causing the rarity of the appearance of a chancre on the _glans_,—but this does not in any way explain the frequency of their appearance on the scrotum and the _mons Veneris_. A tendency to take the exanthematic type, a tendency which makes itself known also by the