Part 6

But in proportion as the exciting cause grew ever more and more common, the _cunnilingue_ being now no longer contented with girls, but employing for the satisfaction of his shameful mania women and even pregnant women as well, and at last actually women during menstruation, the resulting consequences were bound to occur not only more frequently but also in a more dangerous form. At first it was merely single pustules, which appeared round the mouth and took possession of the chin, and which were confounded with _Sycosis menti_ (Sycosis,—fig-like eruption of the chin), a complaint liable to arise from other causes as well and one long since familiar, without attracting particular attention as anything uncommon. Later on when neither morbid vaginal phlegm nor yet menstrual blood repelled the _cunnilingue_ any longer, there was set up a diseased process in the cutaneous glands, the resulting secretion rapidly drying formed a white crust or scurf, and this was detached in flakes resembling bran. All this could not fail to arouse remark, and accordingly the Romans, little practised in medical diagnosis, saw in it a new disease, which in turn received a new name. Just as in more modern times the introduction of Venereal disease was attributed to a leprous Knight from the Holy Land, so now at Rome _Perusinus, eques Romanus, Quaestorius scriba_ (Perusinus, a Roman knight, a secretary in the Quaestorian office) was held responsible for bringing _mentagra_ from Asia. As a matter of fact he probably got his _mentagra_ in Asia in exactly the same manner in which it was acquired in Rome,—if indeed we are on general grounds to give any weight to this part of the story. At any rate modern times have given us many examples of how much credence mankind is ready to give to an account of the introduction of a disease by one definite individual. But the disease did not stop at the cutaneous glands, the hair-glands were also involved, the hair fell away, and ulcers formed, which spread around with destructive virulence, as was particularly the case in Martial’s day. On the other hand it is true deep-seated ulceration never supervened, but the disease rather extended on the surface from the face onwards, spreading more or less over the whole of the rest of the body[116], and thus assumed the form of Psora (Itch) or Lepra (Leprosy),—a phænomenon we shall have to return to once more later, its right appreciation being of the utmost importance for the History of Venereal Disease.

Now, since on the one hand every _cunnilingue_ is not attacked by _mentagra_, while on the other sometimes ulcers of the inner portion of the mouth, sometimes _mentagra_, and the latter sometimes local, sometimes of wide extent, are noted, the following question calls for an answer. What circumstances conditioned these phænomena and, generally, the special frequency of _mentagra_ in Italy? Leaving out of account a variety of other considerations, we are bound in this place to call in along with other factors of our explanation some special and particular influence of the _Genius epidemicus_ (the aggregate of epidemical conditions at large), which just at that time favoured the rise of skin complaints. However slight the material Antiquity affords us on this point, and especially so far as concerns the time a little before and after Our Lord’s birth, still we _do_ find a datum for Italy at any rate which we certainly ought not to leave unutilized. This is the statement of _Pliny_ (ch. 5. and Bk. XX. ch. 52.) to the effect that it was in the time of Pompey the Great, or according to _Plutarch_ (loco citato) in that of Asclepiades, that _elephantiasis_ first showed itself in Italy. It follows that at that period favourable external circumstances also were in existence in connection with the conditions of disease at large,—as indeed the ready extension of _mentagra_ from the chin onwards to the rest of the body proves even more clearly.

But it must not for a moment be supposed that therefore _mentagra_ was of _epidemic origin_. Without at all wishing to embark on the consideration of the ætiological factors of _elephantiasis_, we may just mention the fact that according to Pliny’s account this disease too, equally with _mentagra_, would seem to have always begun with the _face_[117]. The conjecture is all but unavoidable, that very possibly in either case it was the practices of the _cunnilingue_ that supplied the exciting cause for the misfortune; and this would also probably explain how it was _elephantiasis_ came to be connected in men’s minds with the _Morbus phoeniceus_ (Phoenician disease). Still, as already explained, this would only be equivalent to making it responsible in _individual_ cases,—cases that tend inevitably to render the proper understanding of the action of _elephantiasis_, as well as of its history, considerably more difficult. May it not also be to some extent the case that under the general name of _elephantiasis_ forms of disease of very different sorts have been confounded? The views held by the Ancients on this and on the other skin diseases still remain in too much obscurity for anyone to be able to give a decisive judgement on the point. For the rest most probably the _atra lues_ and _scelerata lues_ (black contagion, abominable contagion), spoken of above, likewise come under the category of _mentagra_. This we have felt ourselves constrained to ascribe not solely to the practise of the vice of the _cunnilingue_ as a cause, but to _fellation_ also,—only that in the latter case, as we have pointed out, it is rather the inner, in the former rather the external parts, that became affected.

Morbus Campanus.

(Campanian Disease).

§ 26.

Several of the commentators on _Horace_, and particularly _Laevinus Torrentius_[118] have referred the much-discussed _Morbus Campanus_[119] to the head of _mentagra_; accordingly this will be no inappropriate place at any rate to mention it, though without aiming at a complete explanation. _Horace_ represents two buffoons, _Messius_ and _Sarmentus_, as rallying each other for the amusement of the company:

— — Messi clarum genus Osci, Sarmenti domina extat, ab his maioribus orti Ad pugnam venere. Prior Sarmentus: _Equi te Esse feri similem dico._ Ridemus: et ipse Messius: _Accipio_; caput et movet. _O, tua cornu Ni foret exsecto frons_, inquit, _quid faceres, cum Sic mutilus miniteris?_ At illi foeda cicatrix Setosam laevi frontem turpaverat oris. _Campanum in morbum_, in faciem permulta iocatus Pastorem saltaret uti Cyclopa, rogabat; Nil illi larva aut tragicis opus esse cothurnis. Multa Cicirrus ad haec.

(Messius was sprung of the renowned race of the Oscans, Sarmentus’ mistress is yet living; from these ancestors derived, they came to the fray. First begins Sarmentus: “I declare you are just like an unbroken horse.” At this sally we laugh, and Messius himself says: “I accept the likeness,” and tosses his head. “Oh! if your horn had not been amputated from your brow,” says he then, “what _would_ you do, since you threaten us so fiercely, mutilated as you are?” Now an ugly scar disfigured the left side of his shaggy brow. After making a number of jibes at his _Campanian disease_, and his face, he asked him to dance the shepherd Cyclops; saying there needed no mask and tragic buskins. Many jests Cicirrus added as well).

Messius who is chiefly spoken of in the above passage, is in the first place represented as an Oscan by birth. Now the whole race of the Oscans was, as _Festus_ informs us, notorious for its unnatural excesses in matters of Love; we read in him, p. 191: “_Obscum_ duas diversas et contrarias significationes habet. Nam Cloatius putat eo vocabulo significari sacrum, quo etiam leges sacrae Oscae dicuntur, et in omnibus fere antiquis commentariis scribitur _Opicum_ pro Obsco, ut in Titini fabula quinta: Qui Obsce et Volsce fabulantur, nam Latine nesciunt. A quo etiam verba impudentia, et elata appellantur obscena, _quia frequentissimus fuit usus Oscis libidinum spurcarum_.” (_Obscum_ has two different and contrary meanings. For Cloatius considers _sacred_ to be signified by the word, in which sense sacred laws are spoken of as leges Oscae (_Oscan_ laws), and in almost all the old commentaries _Opicum_ is written for _Obscum_, as in the fifth Fable of Titinius: “Who converse in _Obscan_ and Volscian, because they know not how in Latin.” Whence also indecent words, and swelling ones, are called _obscene_, _because the practice of unclean lusts was most frequent among the Oscans_[120].)

Again on p. 194., “Oscos, quos dicimus, ait Verrius Opscos ante dictos, teste Ennio, cum dicat: De muris res gerit Opscus. Adiicit etiam, quod _stupra inconcessae libidinis obscena dicantur, ab eius gentis consuetudine inducta_. Quod verum esse non satis adducor, cum apud antiquos omnes fere obscena dicta sint, quae mali ominis habebantur.” (The _Oscans_, as we call them, Verrius says were formerly called _Opscans_, on the evidence of Ennius, for he says: “The Opscan directs his attack upon the walls.” He adds further that _debaucheries of lawless love are called “obscene”, as taking this name from the habits of the nation in question_. But I am not sufficiently convinced of the truth of this, inasmuch as in nearly all the ancient writers things are called _obscene_ that were held to be of evil omen). However what the _spurca libido_ (unclean lust) consisted in may be readily conjectured from the following explanations of _Festus_: _Oscines aves_ Appius Claudius esse ait, quae _ore canentes_ faciant auspicium, ut _corvus_[121], cornix, noctua, (Divinatory birds—_Oscines_ aves—are, says Appius Claudius, such as give an augury by _singing with the mouth_, as _the raven_, the crow, the owl); if only we remember how the _fellator_, as was shown on a previous page, was nicknamed _corvus_ (raven). Again in an Epigram of _Ausonius_ already quoted a _cunnilingue_ is called _Opicus magister_; so that we cannot doubt the question is here of that vice which is practised with the mouth.

In another Epigram of _Ausonius_ quoted and explained above, where the different forms of the _obscoena Venus_ (obscene Love) are specified, Crispa there mentioned practises,

_Et quam Nolanis capitalis luxus inussit_,

(That vice too which headlong wantonness branded on the men of Nola), and this _capitalis luxus_[122] of the men of Nola, as the general sense of the whole passage clearly shows, is nothing else but _fellation_. But the town of Nola was in Campania, and the inhabitants of Campania again consisted for the most part of Oscans; so whatever is true of the latter, must needs also apply to the Campanians. The Nolans and Oscans or Opicans being _fellators_ and _cunnilingues_, the Campanians must be so too; and as a matter of fact _Plautus_ (Trinum. II. 4. 144.) tells us: _Campas genus multo Syrorum antidit patientia_, (The Campanian race far outdoes that of the Syrians in _passivity_).

Now Messius being represented as an Oscan, and this by way of mockery, as all expounders admit, the point of the jest must evidently refer to this _luxus capitalis_, and Messius accordingly be regarded as a _fellator_. Now let us look if this view finds any confirmation in what follows[123]. First of all Sarmentus says Messius is _equi feri similis_ (like an unbroken horse). Wherein precisely the satire of this consists is indeed somewhat doubtful, the commentators maintaining an obstinate silence on the point; but there _must_ be some allusion of some sort intended. We can scarcely suppose this to be to the _Hectoreus equus_ (the Hectorean stallion) of Ovid[124] or the _equus supinus_ (the stallion lying supine) of Horace,—Sat. II. 7. 50.[125]. The unbroken horse is noticeable as galloping with head down between the fore-feet, a position taken, as we have already pointed out, by the _cunnilingue_, but which in accordance with the passage of Lucian quoted above can equally well be that of the _fellator_[126]. Messius must have understood the allusion, for he says, “_Accipio_”,—_caput et movet_, (“I accept”,—and moves his head). Sarmentus takes the movement as a threat, for he in his turn understands the _equus ferus_ (wild horse) in yet another sense as _aries_ (a ram)[127], and adds: If only your horn had not been amputated! What should make you threaten to butt, _mutilus_ (mutilated)[128] as you are?

Now in explanation of what it was led Sarmentus to indulge in this jest, Horace goes on to say that Messius carried on the left side of his brow a hideous scar. At this Sarmentus directs his wit, making allusion to the _Campanus morbus_ (Campanian disease) and Messius’ disfigured face, finishing up by asking the latter _pastorem saltaret uti Cyclopa_ (to dance the shepherd Cyclops), adding that for this he would need neither mask nor tragic buskins. But the _Campanus morbus_[129] is indeed nothing else but the _capitalis luxus_ (headlong wantonness) of the Nolans, the peculiar vice of the Oscans, _fellation_ in fact, which Messius practised, and to which he owed his _foeda cicatrix_ (hideous scar), his disfigured face; and on both these points Sarmentus proceeds to rally him at great length (_permulta iocatus_,—indulging in very many jests), without Horace however recording his wit any further. In the _pastorem Cyclopa saltare_ (to dance the shepherd Cyclops) again is contained an allusion that has hitherto been quite misunderstood, one which _Lucian_ in his Pseudologistae (ch. 27.) will best explain for us. He says to Timarchus: “But in Italy, great gods! you acquired the heroic nickname of ὁ Κύκλωψ (the Cyclops), because at one time you wanted to practise your vice in imitation of the old legend, as it is found in _Homer_, and actually, as you lay there drunk, held the κισσύβιον (wassail-bowl) in your hand like a wanton Polyphemus; and the young man hired for the purpose with outstretched _hasta_ (spear), that was well sharpened, threw himself upon you like another Odysseus, to thrust out your eye[130].

Yet did he miss his aim, and the spear turned slantwise beside you; So that its point sped past, the edge of your chin merely grazing.

Thus it is by no means unreasonable to speak of you as using “cold-mouthed phrases” (Ψυχρολογεῖν). But you, Cyclops, opening your mouth, and gaping as wide as mortal man can, had your cheeks plugged by him, or better you longed, as Charybdis with the ships was fain to swallow down helm and sail and all, you longed to absorb the whole Οὖτις (No-man).”

Finally the nickname Messius bears, _Cicirrus_ or _Cicerrus_, would seem to embody a jesting allusion, as it was no doubt given him on account of his throaty, croaking voice. It signifies the same thing as κερκίδες (hawks) in Dio Chrysostom, and like that word is to be derived from κέρχω (to croak)[131].

The _Morbus Phoeniceus_ (Phoenician disease) was not, as we have seen, elephantiasis at all, and neither was the _Morbus Campanus_ (Campanian disease) mentagra. But just as elephantiasis might supervene as a consequence of _Morbus Phoeniceus_, so the _foeda cicatrix_ (hideous scar), a mark left behind it by a previous malady, was a consequence of the _Morbus Campanus_. Now what was the nature of this malady that the mark it left behind showed as a _foeda cicatrix_, is precisely what we would wish to determine. The Commentators all take the _cornu exsectum_ (a horn amputated) as giving the explanation, though this is by no means absolutely necessary according to the general drift of the passage as explained; and Sarmentus might perfectly well under these circumstances, arguing from the presence of a scar, assume or at any rate profess to assume as the cause from which this had originated, the previous existence of a horny excrescence, without the latter as an actual matter of fact having ever had any previous existence. To us at any rate the _cornu exsectum_ appears to stand in only a remote connection with the _foeda cicatrix_, which was no doubt later on made the subject of manifold further witticisms; only Horace has given us no more details about the matter, either because they had entirely escaped his memory, or possibly because he had not perfectly grasped the point of these jokes. Certainly the conspicuously placed _at_ (but) seems to point to a distinction of what follows from what precedes—unless indeed it is so placed merely to mark the transition from the _oratio directa_ to the _oratio indirecta_.

However, granted there actually was an excrescence previously existing, which had been removed by the knife, of what nature was the said excrescence? It is scarcely possible, with Heindorf, to suppose the Satyriasis of Aristotle[132] to be intended here; with much greater probability _Schneider_ in his Greek Dictionary, under the word διονυσιακὸς (Dionysiac, connected with Dionysus) drew attention to the definition of _Galen_ (edit. Kühn XIX. p. 443.): διονυσίσκοι εἰσὶν ὀστώδεις ὑπεροχαὶ ἐγγὺς κροτάφων γιγνόμεναι. λέγονται δὲ κέρατα ἀπὸ τῶν κερασφορούντων ζάων κεκλημένα. (διονυσίσκοι are bony excrescences growing near the temples, and they are called horns, so named from the animals that carry horns). A passage of _Heliodorus_ (_Cocchi Ant., Graecorum chirurgici libri, e collect. Nicetae Florent._ 1754. fol., p. 125.) which _Oribasius, De fracturis_, has preserved, gives a slightly different account; it reads: Ὀστώδης ἐπίφυσις ἐν παντὶ μὲν γίγνεται μέρει τοῦ σώματος, πλεοναζόντως δὲ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ, μάλιστα δὲ πλησίον τῶν κροτάφων·Ὅταν δὲ δύο ἐπιφύσεις γένωνται πλησιάζουσαι τοῖς κροτάφοις, κέρατα ταῦτα τινες εἴωθασιν ὀνομάζειν, ἔνιοι δὲ _διονυσιακοὺς_ τοὺς οὕτω πεπονθότας ἀνθρώπους προσηγόρευσαν. (Bony outgrowth may occur in every part of the body, but pre-eminently on the head, and particularly near the temples. But when there are two such growths in the neighbourhood of the temples, some are wont to call them _horns_, but others name the patients so afflicted διονυσιακοὶ). Then follows the description of the outgrowth, and the method of its removal by excision. On this passage _Cocchi_ found an old marginal gloss from the hand of Nicotas (?), κέρατα μὲν λέγεται ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν κεράτων ἐκφύσεως, τῶν γιγνομένων τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζώοις. _Διονυσιακοὺς_ δὲ αὐτοὺς προσαγορεύουσιν, ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐμφερείας _ὡς αὐτός_ φησιν ἐν τοῖς χειρουργουμένοις,—(they are called horns from the growth of the horns that appear on the lower animals. And they name them διονυσιακοὶ from the likeness to the god Dionysus, as he says himself, in the carved figures),—which on the whole confirms the statement of Heliodorus, though he (Cocchi) prefers, following this indication, to emend the passage of Galen also so as to read, διονυσιακοί, _οἷς_ ὀστώδεις ὑπεροχαὶ ἐγγὺς κροτάφων _γίγνονται_, (Dionysiaci, so they are called, i. e. those in whom bony excrescences grow near the temples). This much, that we should read διονυσιακοὶ for διονυσίσκοι, is evident, but whether the rest of the emendations are to be accepted may well be open to doubt, as the second clause of the sentence, “and they are called κέρατα (horns), so named from the animals that carry horns”, obviously implies that the term διονυσιακοὶ is used in reference not to the individual, but to the outgrowth. Schneider indeed agrees with the emendation of Cocchi, but has in error put Sarmentus in the place of Messius.

Now supposing the latter has actually had an earlier bony outgrowth, it is not exactly evident why after its skilful removal a _foeda cicatrix_ (hideous scar) should have remained,—if indeed we do not prefer to regard the _foedus_ (hideous, foul) as perhaps pointing to the _cause_ that had occasioned the outgrowth in question. In that case it would certainly be interesting to see thus referred to the vice of the _fellator_ affections of the bones carrying the same meaning as our own tophi (concretions on the bone in gouty affections). But in all probability it was merely cutaneous tubercles that had been removed by surgical means, the actual cautery or the knife, and these, as is invariably their nature to do, had left behind an ugly scar. Thus Messius would seem to have resembled Calvus _tuberossimae frontis_ (with brow most thickly covered with tubercles) in Petronius (ch. 15.) and the face represented on a gem, of which a delineation is said to be found in _Corius’_ Museum Etruriae Plate II. fig. 3.,—a work we have been unable to procure. But enough of the Morbus Campanus[133]!

Sodomy, or Bestiality.

§ 27.

In the various forms of vice hitherto considered we have seen mankind approximating more and more closely to the animal and putting himself to a greater or less degree on the same footing; now we behold him in _Sodomy_[134] sinking finally far _below_ the level of the animal, renouncing not merely the human but even the animal nature, in virtue of which he has been able so far to call himself at lowest a member of the species. So it is with complete justice that _Plutarch_[135] says: “At gallus si gallum conscendat absente gallina, vivus comburitur, aruspice aliquo pronuntiante grave atroxque id esse ostentum. Ita ipsi homines hoc confessi sunt, castitate a brutis se superari, eaque naturae vim non facere voluptatum percipiendarum causa. Vestras libidines natura, quamquam legis auxilio fulta, tamen intra suos non potest coercere fines: quin eae instar fluvii exundantes atrocem foeditatem, tumultum confusionemque naturae gignant in re venerea. Nam et capras, porcas, equas iniverunt viri, et feminae insano mascularum bestiarum amore exarserunt. Ex huiusmodi enim coitibus vobis sunt Minotauri, Silvani seu Aegipanes atque (ut mea fert sententia) etiam Sphinges et Centauri nati[136]. Enimvero fame coactus canis aut avis aliquando cadavere humano vescitur; ad coitum nullus unquam est homo a bestia sollicitatus, bestias vero cum ad hanc, tum ad alias voluptates vos vi trahitis ac contra jus usurpatis.” (But if the cock tread the cock in the absence of the hen, he is burned alive, any augur pronouncing this to be a serious and sinister prodigy. Thus men have themselves admitted that they are surpassed by brutes in chastity, and that the latter do not do violence to nature with a view to the gratification of their desires. Whereas your lusts nature cannot, though seconded by the aid of law, restrain within their due bounds, or stay them from overflowing like a river in flood and producing horrid abominations, a wild cataclysm and confusion of nature in matters of love. For men have had intercourse with she-goats and sows and mares, while women have been inflamed with mad love of male beasts. Indeed it is from such unions that your Minotaurs have been engendered, and Silvani or Aegipans, and—as I suppose,—the Sphinxes too and Centaurs[136]. True under compulsion of hunger, dog and bird sometimes feed on a human corpse; but no man has ever been invited to coition by any beast, though you constrain beasts by force to this as well as to other shameful pleasures, and use them contrary to all right).

Like all other forms of vicious lust, Sodomy too was an outcome of Asiatic[137] and Egyptian luxury, and already in quite early times familiar in those regions,—in fact, as is the case with sexual excesses generally, this vice appears to have developed from the religious cult of the countries named. Among the Egyptians[138] at any rate we meet with Mendes, the sacred Goat or Pan, worshipped by means of Sodomy on the part of his female devotees, who were shut up along with him.