_Galen_, who has left us a Commentary on this passage (Vol. XVII. A.) mentions in the first place that aphthae, φύματα (abscesses) of the genitals, etc. specifically possessed (p. 661.) nothing of κακοηθεία (malignity), but only when as in this case they occurred in conjunction with a putrid general condition. “The putrid character easily arises even without a pestilential general condition, if the parts are attacked by phlegmonous affections or erysipelas, and spreads likewise over the neighbouring parts lying uppermost; hence it is we are compelled after cutting away the decayed tissues to cauterize the place. It is no wonder then, when such a condition has arisen that upper and fore-arm, thigh and lower leg, ribs and head are attacked, if the private parts suffer above all others.—So far the author has discussed those affections of a kind akin to erysipelas which associate themselves with ulcerations or other comparatively insignificant external cause; in what follows he speaks of such attacks as occurred without any such occasioning cause”[197]. Now if we examine these statements, so far as they are of immediate interest in view of our object, we may unhesitatingly conclude from them, that in Hippocrates’ time a large number of patients suffered from ulcers of the genitals. These it seems under the influence of the prevailing typhoïdal conditions were assailed by inflammation of an erysipelas-like type, rapidly passing over into humid gangrene, which latter destroyed the parts attacked, readily extended its ravages, and eventually killed the patient. This is an observation which _Galen_ likewise had frequent occasion to make (so probably under the head of Influence of the Climate of Asia, pp. 318, 326, 329.), without any exactly definite typhoïdal conditions having been prevalent[198], and even saw himself under these circumstances very generally constrained, in order to put a stop to the spread of the mortification, _to amputate the gangrenous tissue, and afterwards cauterize the wound_. What was the origin of these ulcers of the genitals is indeed not stated; but it is certain they were not invariably conditioned by the prevailing _genius epidemicus_. Besides, since Hippocrates several times mentions them without giving the cause that produced them, it is a more likely conjecture to suppose that this cause was one universally familiar (it consisted in an act of unclean intercourse with women), than to assume it to have been _absolutely unknown_ to physicians generally[199].