The Plague of Lust, Vol. 2 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical AntiquityRosenbaum, Julius
History
The Plague of Lust, Vol. 2 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical Antiquity
Rosenbaum, Julius
Sexually transmitted diseases -- History
The readings also vary as to σαράπους (turning out the feet); _Franz_
gives ἀγράπους and ἀράπους; in the text of Hippocrates[24] on the other
hand, as well in the Commentary of Galen it appears as ἡ Σεραπὶς, the
latter also giving it in the genitive—τῆς Σεράπιδος. But inasmuch as
the name of the goddess occurs sometimes as Σέραπις, sometimes as
Σάραπις;, and as the genitive ending—πιδος easily admits of change
into—πόδος, it may very likely be that after all Σαράπους stood
originally in Hippocrates’ text. The author of the Gloss (loco citato
p. 136.) explains the word by ἡ διασεσηρότας καὶ διεστῶτας ἔχουσα τοὺς
δακτύλους τῶν ποδῶν that is, a woman who has the toes drawn apart and
separated. But how are we to bring this explanation into agreement with
the κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, (after the same fashion), that is to say,
with one of the modes of Love that are under discussion? Think of the
_fellator_ or _fellatrix_, we are told, cowering down (ἐν γόνασι,—on
the knees) according to _Lucian’s_ picture (p. 229 above), and you will
see the stress of the body’s weight must always fall on the front part
of the foot, and to widen the point of support he is instinctively
compelled to spread the toes. Well! but who can fail to see how very
forced such an explanation is? still we do not in the least know how
we are to deal with it further. Of course we might leave the author
of the Gloss his interpretation and proceed to look about for another
of our own, though we have in many cases to confess the fact that our
investigations undertaken with this end in view have not exactly led to
any definite results. With the reading Σεραπίς we really do not know
how to deal. Perhaps the common representation, or else some particular
quality, of the goddess so named gave occasion for a comparison
which we now fail to understand, one that might possibly suggest an
explanation of the _Harpocratem reddere_ (to recall Harpocrates)
of Catullus (69.) implying _irrumare_[25]. Whether the reader will
take within his purview the Σεραφίμ, ἐμπρηστάς· ἔμπυρα στόματα· ἢ
θερμαίνοντας (Seraphim: kindlers; fiery mouths: or, making hot) of
_Suidas’_ Lexicon, we must leave to him; in that case _Martial’s_ (II.
28.) _calda Vetustinae nec tibi bucca placet_ (nor does Vetustina’s
hot mouth please you) might afford an analogy. Proceeding to consider
σαράπους, we find _Hesychius_ has σαραπίους, which he explains by
μαινίδας (mad-women), and _Dioscorides_ is at one with him in regarding
the vice as something done μανικῶς (madly). In _Diogenes Laertius_
(I. 4.) we read Pittacus was called: σαράποδα καὶ σάραπον διὰ τὸ
πλατύπουν εἶναι καὶ ἐπισύρειν τὼ πόδε. (_turning out the feet_, because
of his being flat-footed and trailing his two feet). It would be
hardly credible to suppose that the author of the Gloss borrowed his
explanation cited just above from Diogenes Laertius or Suidas, in whom
the passage occurs as well. Further, the MSS. of Diogenes give also
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account