Part 3

(Then the tall Galli, and the one-eyed priestess with her sacred rattle, instil terror of _the gods that make men’s bodies swell_, unless three times at dawn you have eaten the prescribed head of garlic). True we cannot from the passage of Plutarch directly conclude that ulcers of the throat also were ascribed to the anger of the Syrian goddess in consequence of indulgence in a fish diet; rather should we expect what is said to apply primarily to external skin-ulcers, occurring on other parts, as just on the shin-bone. Still we shall be quite justified in making the reference general, more particularly as liver-complaint is also ascribed to the goddess’s interference, and we shall see that in Antiquity the cause of all ulcers was supposed to lie in some fault of the liver. Now as the fish had necessarily to be put into the mouth to be swallowed, and as it was always supposed the punishment of the goddess followed immediately on the offence, and affected the immediately active part, throat-ulcers might very naturally be taken to be a result of such punishment. This again only further confirms our explanation just above to the effect that ulcers of the throat were a consequence resulting from vicious indulgence. For the Temple-service of the Dea Syra was of course connected with every sort of licentious practice.

Taking into consideration this marked prevalence of _Corrosion of the Shin-bones_, we might argue with considerable probability that it pointed to the existence of a disease of the bones following as a result of vicious indulgence. On the other hand the observation that the precise time the body became covered with ulceration was after indulgence in fish-eating cannot help being of weight in connection with the doctrine of Leprosy; for to the present day we note as very frequent among peoples whose chief nutriment is fish various forms of Leprosy. And again, we may very likely see in this prohibition of a fish diet, which is also mentioned by _Athenaeus_[50], a sanitary regulation justified by experience as necessary in Syria, where skin-diseases and ulcerations were so common.

But not alone in Egypt and Syria did _fellation_ lead to suchlike unhappy results; we find the same to have been the case at Rome, as is proved by the following passage of _Martial_[51], a passage that has hitherto been completely overlooked in this connection, but which is none the less of great importance:

_Indignas premeret pestis cum tabida fauces Inque ipsos vultus serperet atra lues_: Siccis ipse genis flentes hortatus amicos Decrevit Stygios Festus adire lacus. Nec tamen obscuro pia polluit ora veneno, Aut torsit lenta tristia fata fame: Sanctam Romana vitam sed morte peregit, Dimisitque animam nobiliore via. Hanc mortem fatis magni praeferre Catonis Fama potest: huius Caesar amicus erat.

(_When corrupting disease began to sorely afflict his unworthy throat and black contagion was creeping to his very face_, Festus, himself with dry cheeks, comforted his weeping friends, and determined to seek the pools of Styx. But still he never disgraced his dutiful lips with darkling poison, nor brought on a painful, miserable end by slow hunger; nay! rather by a Roman death he completed his holy life, and dismissed his soul the nobler way. Such a death fame may well exalt above great Cato’s end; Caesar was his friend).

The words _indignae fauces_ (unworthy throat) obviously point to the practice of _fellation_, whereby he had brought on himself the _pestis tabida_ and _atra lues_, (corrupting disease, black contagion), and so we have here a clear statement of the cause by one _doctus venereae cupidinis_ (learned in the passion of love), which cause was quite unknown to the _artifex medicus_ (medical practitioner). The _pia ora_ (dutiful lips) are therefore to be taken merely ironically, as also the _sancta vita_ (holy life). Even the Cinaedus, as well as the maidens who prostitute themselves in honour of Astarté, are invariably, as we have seen, described in the Old Testament as _sanctus_ (holy), and we read e. g. in Job. Ch. XXXV. 14., of a good-for-nothing, how he will die like such a _sanctus_. It was precisely this signification of _sanctus_ that led us to the idea of taking the throat affection for a secondary consequence of paederastia, especially if we understand a _double entendre_ to underlie the last words _huius Caesar amicus erat_ (Caesar was his friend). The Commentators it is true take them merely as said by way of contrast with the death of Cato of Utica, who was forced by Caesar’s enmity to take his own life, and as implying this was not the case with Festus, consequently that his suicide is so much the more remarkable[52]. However it is doubtful which Caesar is meant, whether the word is merely a Title or a proper name. In the second—and certainly this at first appeared to us to be the more likely,—view we were of course bound then to turn our attention to his character for dissoluteness. However as both _Catullus_[53] and _Suetonius_[54] represent him merely as a _Cinaedus_ in regard to the male sex, if that is to say we subscribe to the accepted opinion, we afterwards came to the conclusion it was rather the _Emperor_ generally that is spoken of here, and consequently that any other Emperor, e. g. Tiberius, or Nero, or another, might be intended. It is true that if _pathicus_ (pathic) and _omnium virorum mulier_ (wife of all men) are taken in a wider sense, there would be nothing to make the supposition impossible that Julius Caesar is pointed at. Only that perhaps another passage of _Martial_ would seem to go against this, a passage where he seeks to excuse the several excesses and vices of a certain Gaurus by instancing an exalted personage as patronizing each of them, and says finally (Bk. II. 89.):

Quod fellas; vitium dic mihi cuius habes?

(But for your _fellation_: tell me whose vice you follow in this?) Still against the _cinaedus_ view the words _indignae fauces_ (unworthy throat) speak clearly. Probably in this connection the following passage of _Martial_ should also come in,—where the Poet says of his servant (Bk. I. Epigr. 102.):

Destituit primos virides Demetrius annos: Quarta tribus lustris addita messis erat. Ne tamen ad Stygias famulus descenderet umbras, _Ureret implicitum cum scelerata lues_, Cavimus et domini ius omne remisimus aegro: Munere dignus erat convaluisse meo. Sensit deficiens sua praemia, meque patronum Dixit, ad infernas liber iturus aquas.

(Demetrius left us in the first years of his bloom; the fourth summer was but just added to his three lustres. We took all means to save our faithful house-slave from descending to the shades of Styx, when he was consuming under a malignant contagion that had fastened upon him, and remitted all my master’s rights for the sick lad,—who indeed well deserved to win recovery at my hands. On his death-bed he recognized what I had done for him, and called me his _master_, though so soon to go forth a free man to the streams of the nether world.)

Was this _famulus_ (house-slave) the same person as the _puer_ (boy, slave), who is mentioned by _Martial_, bk. XI. 95.?

That not boys only, but girls too, had to suffer in this way among the Romans, and lost their lives from the complaint in question, is shown, we think, by the following Epigram of _Martial_, Bk. XI. Epigr. 91.:

Aeolidon Canace iacet hoc tumulata sepulchro, Ultima cui parvae septima venit hiems. Ah scelus, ah facinus! properas quid flere viator? Non licet hic vitae de brevitate queri. _Tristius est leto leti genus: horrida vultus Abstulit et tenero sedit in ore lues: Ipsaque crudeles ederunt oscula morbi; Nec data sunt nigris tota labella rogis._ Si tam praecipiti fuerant ventura volatu, Debuerant alia fata venire via.

(Canacé of the Aeolians lies buried in this tomb, who died a child,—her seventh winter was her last. Oh! the shame and horror of it! haste, a tear, thou that passest by. Here is no occasion to lament the short span of human life. Sadder than death is the way of her death; a dread contagion ate away her face, and settled in the tender little mouth. Cruel disease infected her very kisses; and her lips were half gone when they were consigned to the grim pyre. If death must needs have come to her with a flight so swift, at least he should have taken another way. Death so hasted to close the issue of her persuasive voice, that her tongue might not have time to bend the cruel goddesses to mercy).

Besides the passages quoted, there are several others to be found in _Martial_, that must be taken as referring to the _fellator_; but since the maladies that occur are equally prevalent in the case of the _Cunnilingue_, it will be more convenient to adduce them under that head. Further, we only require to mention the fact that _pale lips_ seem to have been regarded as a mark of the _fellator_[55].

The Cunnilingue.

§ 23.

But the vice of the _fellator_ is far surpassed in baseness by that of the _Cunnilingue_ (_qui opus peragit linguam arrigendo in cunnum, eumque lambit_,—one who works by putting his tongue up into the female organ, and licking it). The Greeks called this practice σκύλαξ (a puppy), because it is a habit of dogs[56], and Hesychius explains it by σχῆμα ἀφροδισιακὸν, ὡς τὸ τῶν φοινικιζόντων (a method of love, resembling that of those who phoenicize). We have already, in the passage of _Lucian_ quoted a little above, found φοινικίζειν and λεσβιάζειν put side by side; _Galen_ moreover[57] does the same in the following passage, a noteworthy one for our purpose on several accounts: “The drinking of sweat, urine and the menstrual blood of women is vicious and shameful, and not less so when a person, as Xenocrates proposes to do, smears the regions of the mouth and throat with excrement, and swallows it down. He speaks also of taking the wax of the ears. For my part I could never bring myself to take this, even though by that means I were never to be ill again. But excrement I consider yet more disgusting, and it is for a man of any decency far more shameful to be called an Excrement-Eater[58] than an αἰσχρουργὸς (worker of obscenities) or a _cinaedus_. But of αἰσχρουργοὶ[59] (workers of obscenities), we abominate Phoenicians more than the Lesbians, and it seems to me the man does something of the same sort as the former who drinks menstrual blood (μᾶλλον βδελλυττόμεθα τοὺς _φοινικίζοντας_ τῶν λεσβιαζόντων ᾧ[60] φαίνεταί μοι παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχειν ὁ καὶ καταμηνίου πίνων.) _A sensible man will neither seek to collect experiences on the point, nor yet on a practice, which it is true involves less_, but still is sufficiently shameful, that of smearing a part of the body with excrement, because he has some hurt at that spot,—or with human seed. Xenocrates calls this latter commonly γόνος (seed, semen), and distinguishes with minute care between cases where simple seed rubbed in by itself is of benefit, and cases where the female has the same effect after combination with the male, as it is discharged from the woman’s womb.”

This explanation of Galen’s to the effect that the φοινικίζων (one who phoenicizes) resembles the man who drinks menstrual blood, shows clearly that φοινικίζειν is _not_, as all the Lexicons give it, and _Forbiger_ (loco citato) also assumes, identical with λεσβιάζειν. It is true _Forbiger_ (p. 329. Note v.) gives the meaning _cunnilingere_ as well, although the explanation is undoubtedly unsatisfactory which he offers _à propos_ of an Epigram,[61]—one certainly apposite in this connection, to the effect that the reason for this signification is, _quod cunnilingos a natando in mari quodam Phoenicei coloris (mari rubro) dixissent_, (that they had called them _cunnilingues_ from their swimming as it were in a sea of Phoenician purple colour—a red sea); for the words in the Epigram, ἐν φοινίκῃ δὲ καθεύδεις (but you sleep in Phoenicia) cannot stand for anything else but simply φοινικίζειν, as indeed the passage from _Aloisia Sigaea_, which is quoted by Forbiger himself, proves conclusively[62]: _Cum vellet mediam lambere, se velle dicebat in Liguriam_, (When he wanted to lick my middle, he used to say he would fain _be into Liguria_—that is, would fain lick, _ligurire_). Accordingly just as λεσβιάζειν came into use as the distinctive name for the vice of the _fellator_, because it was practised to a distinctive degree in Lesbos, so too to be a _cunnilingue_ was called φοινικίζειν, because the habit was at home among the Phoenicians. Undoubtedly men’s shamelessness was carried so far that they actually used women and girls at their period of menstruation for this purpose,—a fact of the highest interest for us, as we shall show directly. _Seneca_[63] expresses himself plainly enough on the subject: “Quid tu, cum Mamercum Scaurum consulem faceres, ingnorabas, _ancillarum suarum menstruum ore illum hiante exceptare_? num quid enim ipse dissimulabat? num quid purus videri volebat?” (How came it you were ignorant, when making Mamercus Scaurus consul, _that he was in the habit of catching in his open mouth the menstrual discharge of his maidservants_? Did he make any concealment of it himself? did he pose as a pure-minded man? nay! not he). Again in another place[64]:

“Nuper Natalis tam improbae linguae quam impurae, _in cuius ore feminae purgabantur_.” (Quite lately Natalis showed himself as malignant of tongue as he is unchaste, _into whose mouth women were used to purge themselves_).

Now if first of all we bear steadfastly in mind that this φοινικίζειν was a vice, which prevailed primarily and especially among the Phoenicians and was later on disseminated abroad by them, and then consider how the Greeks designated every vice, and particularly excesses in love, as νόσος (disease), in the same way precisely as the Romans used _morbus_ (disease),—comp. § 17—we _must_ see that φοινικίζειν is the same thing as νόσος φοινικίη (Phoenician disease), and shall be in a position to form an opinion on the Gloss[65] falsely ascribed to _Galen_, which reads: _φοινικίη νόσος_· ἡ κατὰ Φοινίκην καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ἀνατολικὰ μέρη πλεονάζουσα. δηλοῦσθαι δὲ κἀνταῦθα _δοκεῖ_ ἡ ἐλεφαντιάσις. (_Phoenician disease_: a disease prevalent in Phoenicia and about the Eastern parts. Elephantiasis _appears_ to be signified by this).

Even granting the first part of this Gloss to have been really written by _Galen_, the last sentence at any rate is obviously an extraneous and later addition. This is at once indicated by the use of the word δοκεῖ (it appears), which comes in curiously, standing as it does next-door to the _definite_ statement that this νόσος (disease) was common in Phoenicia; for surely anyone who knew this, must also have known what the disease was. Again if he had wished to describe it by some such phrase as the English “a sort of Elephantiasis”, he could hardly have failed to express himself in a different way to what he has. But as a matter of fact, _Galen_ knew perfectly well, as we have already seen, what φοινικίζειν was, and consequently what the φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease) was, and it could not by any possibility have occurred to him to suppose it any form of Elephantiasis. Unfortunately _Prof. Naumann_[66] has allowed himself to be misled by this extraneous addition; he writes: “In the Work of a Pseudo-Galen is given a short explanation of the φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease), or rather to speak strictly, the _conjecture_ is made,[67] that this malady, a common one in Phoenicia and the East, may have been Elephantiasis.” True indeed the word might _with equal likelihood_ express a disease characterized by redness of the skin φοινίκιος s. φοινίκεος i. q. puniceus, purpureus, cruentus; φοινιγμὸς irritatio cutis per vesicantia—φοινίκιος or φοινίκεος = Phoenician purple, purple, blood-red; φοινιγμὸς = irritation of the skin by rubefacients). Or should we suppose _some leprous-venereal malady_ endemic and aboriginal among the trading Phoenicians to be signified, which was called the _Morbus Phoeniceus_ (Phoenician disease) in the same way as in more modern times people spoke of the _Morbus Gallicus_ (French disease,—Syphilis)? In any case it is remarkable that _Themison_ (who also noted incidentally that Satyriasis at times attacks a population epidemically,—speaks of the special frequency of Satyriasis in Crete (_Caelius Aurelianus_, Acut. Morb. bk. III. ch. 18). As is well known, Phoenician and Hellenic Colonies had converged here; and the island remained in uninterrupted and active commercial intercourse with the maritime cities of Phoenicia.

According to the general supposition the Gloss of the Pseudo-Galen has reference to a passage of _Hippocrates_ occurring in the Second book of the Prorrhetica,[68] where we read as follows: “But λειχῆνες—tetters, as also λέπραι and λεῦκαι,—scaly leprosies and white leprosies, where any of these occur in the young or mere children, or after appearing on a small scale shall then increase but slowly, in these cases it is not right to call the exanthema or eruption an apostasis, (transitional state), but a νόσημα,—condition of disease. On the other hand where any of these affections occurs on a large scale and suddenly, it would then be an apostasis. But whereas λεῦκαι arise out of _the most deadly diseases_, as e. g. the νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ,—wasting disease, as it is called, λέπραι and λειχῆνες do so from the melancholic, or diseases proceeding from black bile. And of such the easier to cure are those that occur in the youngest patients and are of the latest origin, and arise in the softest and most fleshy parts of the body.” _Foesius_ observes on the passage: “Nemini autem dubium est, quin hac parte _mendosi sint codices omnes_, cum ἡ νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ καλουμένη scribitur. Nam φοινικίη νόσος ex Galeni exegesi procul omni dubio reponendum.” (Now no one can doubt that _all the MSS. are deceptive_ here, reading as they do ἡ νοῦσος ἡ φθινική. For φοινικίη vόσος must undoubtedly be restored from the Exegesis of Galen). _J. W. Wedel_[69] on the contrary writes: “Legunt quidam pro φοινικίη—φθινικὴ, et vertunt tabem seu morbum tabidum, _sed contra fidem codicum correctiorum_, quibus Galenus ipse assentitur, et rei ipsius, de qua textus agit, evidentiam.” (Some read φθινικὴ for φοινικίη, and render it _wasting_ or _wasting disease_,—_but against the authority of the better class of MSS._, with which Galen himself agrees, and against the evidence of the context of the matter treated of). In the latter of these two statements Wedel, in spite of his mistaken view of the matter generally, is perfectly right; whether he is so in the former as well, we are not in a position to say, for alas! we lack the critical apparatus absolutely indispensable for such a decision, not so much as the Edition of _Mackius_ being on the shelves of our University Library.

In the first place we ought to make quite sure what Hippocrates understood under the name λεῦκαι. A disease of the Skin no doubt; but of what particular nature it was, would seem not to be so easy to determine. According to _Coac. praenotion._ (Vol. I. p. 321.) Hippocrates distinguished a λεύκη συγγενής and a λεύκη μὴ συγγενής (λεύκη inborn, and not inborn), the latter attacking individuals only after puberty. _Hesychius_ says λεύκη, ἄνθος τι τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα γινόμενον, ἄλφος δὲ λευκή τις ἐν τῷ σώματι. (λεύκη—white leprosy, an eruption coming out on the exterior parts of the body, but ἄλφος—dull-white leprosy, a form of λεύκη in the body). _Galen_, _Definit. med._ (Vol. XIX. p. 140) λευκή ἐστιν ἡ ἐπὶ λευκὸν χρῶμα τοῦ σώματος παρὰ φύσιν μεταβολή. (λεύκη is the change to an unnatural white colour of the body). According to this it would appear to be merely superficial discolorations of the skin that writers understood by λεῦκαι,—a view that _Rayer_[70] seems to coincide with. _Pollux_ on the other hand offers an explanation as follows: ἀλφὸς μέλας, ἐπιδρομὴ σκιώδης, ἐπιπόλαιος, εὐίατος, ἀλφὸς λευκὸς, λευκότης ἐπιτρέχουσα τῇ ἐπιδερματίδι, αὐχμηρὰ, δυσίατος· _λεύκη_, ὅταν ἐπιτείνῃ ἡ λευκότης, καὶ φύσῃ τρίχωσιν λευκήν, εἰ δὲ κεντήσειας, ὕφαιμος, δυσίατος, ἐστιν ὅτε ὑπέρυθρος· _ἐπανθεῖ δὲ_ αὐτὸ (?) τοῖς _χείλεσιν, οἷον ἁλὸς ἄχνη_. (Black ἀλφός, a dark-coloured spreading eruption, superficial and easily curable; white alphos, a whiteness running over the epidermis (of the prepuce), dry harsh and difficult to cure; λεύκη, when the whiteness extends, and produces a growth of white hairs, and if you prick it, it is suffused with blood, difficult to cure, also sometimes reddish in hue. And the eruption comes out on the lips _like sea-foam_). Here λεύκη is evidently a much more deeply penetrating malady, as indeed it is described by _Celsus_[71] and _Galen_.[72] It corresponds with the white Leprosy of Moses. But the most curious thing is the statement appended to the effect that the affection broke out on the lips like sea-foam. This is certainly to be referred to some other form of λεύκη, unless indeed we are to take it in connection with the succeeding words in the text, λειχὴν ἄγριος (malignant tetter), in which case, as we have seen with regard to Mentagra (Tetter of the chin), the remark is based on a perfectly sound observation; and besides, the αὐτὸ gives absolutely no sense. On the other hand if Pollux’ datum in reference to the seat of λεύκη is correct, it must obviously afford much light for clearing up the meaning of the passage in Hippocrates, and in deference to it we shall be bound to read φοινικίη instead of φθινικὴ,[73]—an emendation that presents no difficulty, since φθινικὴ might very easily be read for φοινικίη, and indeed (as pointed out in the Note) was actually so read.

But one emendation leads on to another, and we shall find ourselves bound, on the analogy of the θαυμαστὸν πάθος (wonderful complaint) in Dio Chrysostom, to read here also θαυμαστωτάτων νοσημάτων (of the most wonderful diseases) for θανατωδεστάτων ν., and translate accordingly: “but λεῦκαι arise out of the most terrible aberrations of the mind,” such for instance as the vice of the _cunnilingue_ is. If we examine further, we shall see it is not λευκαὶ but λεῦκαι that stands in the text, so it cannot be a question of a skin-affection of the leprosy type at all, for λευκὸς (white) rather implies transparent and shiny, and _Martial_ (XI. 99.) in a passage to be discussed more fully later on, says:

Non ulcus acre, _pustulaeve lucentes_, Nec triste mentum, sordidique lichenes,

(No biting ulcer, or _shiny pustules_, nor yet disfigured chin, and foul scabs). Accordingly we have here nothing whatever to do with the leprous-like λευκὴ, but only with _pustulae lucentes_ (shiny pustules), which as we shall show presently were a consequence of the practices of the _cunnilinigue_. We have the more right to assume this, as the old Physicians ascribe λευκὴ to the φλέγμα (phlegmatic humour),—an explanation all the more likely to have been given, as directly afterwards follow the words, αἱ δὲ λέπραι καὶ οἱ λειχῆνες ἐκ τῶν μελαγχολικῶν (but leprosies and tetters arise out of the melancholic diseases). True this is in contradiction with another passage of Hippocrates,[74] for in this we read: _λέπρη_ καὶ κνησμὸς καὶ ψώρη καὶ _λειχῆνες_ καὶ ἀλφὸς καὶ ἀλώπεκες ὑπὸ _φλέγματος_ γίνονται. (_leprosy_, and itch, and scab, and _tetters_, and dull-white leprosy, and manges, arise from _phlegm_). This much at any rate appears to us to result, viz. that the whole passage under discussion cannot possibly be by Hippocrates, but much more probably is due to some author of the Alexandrine age, who enjoyed ample opportunities for studying the consequences of the unnatural excesses as so often observed since Pompey the Great’s time.