In Antiquity we find that for a considerable length of time the medical sciences were far from being confined to a distinct profession, and further, where this does seem to be the case, there is always a not insignificant proportion of such knowledge that comes to us merely as popular or traditional Medicine. It is therefore evident, that if we would gain definite information as to the existence of a Disease among the Ancients, we ought by no means to confine our attention to the medical writers. This becomes still more necessary, if we are bound at the same time to try and discover the Ætiological relations of such a disease, of which it can be stipulated at the outset that it is intimately connected with the whole life and activity of peoples. The Historian accordingly is absolutely compelled to test and examine thoroughly everything that can possibly enlighten him as to these relations,—to interrogate the Literature of whole Nations.

But here comes in the drawback that only comparatively speaking a very restricted proportion of the Authors of Antiquity have come down to us, even after due account has been taken of the possibility that many an unknown author may lurk concealed in some corner or other of the globe. Then again the Authors that have been preserved are almost without exception Greeks or Romans, so that for the major part of the nations of Antiquity the national authorities are all but entirely lacking, or else, where something of the sort does exist, it is written in a language the correct interpretation of which is still partially to seek. From all this it clearly follows that a complete and final explanation of any controverted matter of Ancient times can never strictly speaking be expected, and in particular that it would be a very rash conclusion to declare positively that a Disease did not exist in Antiquity, because in the extant and known books no mention occurs of it.

But in as much as this general incompleteness of information exists with regard to all relations of Antiquity, and yet for many of them sufficient explanations have already been obtained, it is obviously incumbent on us to undertake for our subject also the enquiry how far the extant authorities are capable of throwing light on it,—a task that exceeds indeed the powers of any individual, even should he be able to bring to it all the qualifications indispensable for the understanding of the said authorities. Consequently there is no other course left open for him but to institute at the outset a survey of what has so far been accomplished and ascertained, and then to bring into line with this whatever he has gleaned from his own study of the authorities, in the hope that another enquirer, like-minded and better equipped, may follow on in the track of his endeavours, and so by dint of united efforts the intended goal may one day be reached.

It would be unprofitable for us, having laid claim, as authorities for our special enquiry into the Ætiological relations, to the remains of Antiquity in their entirety, to consider them in detail in this place. At the same time it might well seem expedient to specify more exactly such of them as are in a position to afford us information as to the Disease itself. These fall into two classes, viz. physicians and laymen. The estimation of the first class as authorities for the Venereal disease demands a number of conditions which we shall only get to know in the course of our subsequent exposition of the Ætiological relations themselves, and will therefore more conveniently find its place after this,—in that part of the work where the question is discussed of the influence of medical aid on the disease. Similarly only a part of the lay authorities come in here,—authorities from whom, as may be supposed, we have only to expect rather fragmentary information, but who are all the more important, when they do exist, as by their evidence is proved men’s wide, in fact universal, acquaintance with the disease; and they cannot be charged with having made their observations of it through such or such a pair of theoretical spectacles.

The more copious the materials the Historian provides as to the Ætiological relations, the more scanty will be his contributions on the question of the existence of the disease, as historical characters of highest importance, or conspicuous frequency of the disease, give him occasion to mention it.

The case is different, from the first with the Poets. The Satirists and writers of Comedy it is true can only supply hints, and these are often quite unintelligible for later times, if Scholiasts and Commentators had not taken on them the task of explanation,—though again their statements must often be used with caution, as they are so apt to impute to earlier times the opinions of their own. But here also the field of these hints is very circumscribed, as they are only admissible so far as it is possible to extract from the subject-matter a ridiculous, satirical motif (versus iocosi, carmina plena ioci,—jesting verses, songs full of jest, are demanded by the very personality of Priapus); and even then acquaintance with the fact alluded to in general terms is presupposed on the part of hearer and reader. We see from this how ill-considered is the contention of those who say that poets like Horace, Juvenal or Martial, if they had been acquainted with the injurious consequences of sexual intercourse with Hetaerae, could hardly have failed to allude to them on occasion in unequivocal terms. Hensler4 excellently observed long ago:—“In our Century certainly no German poet says one word about it,—neither the dallying light-o’-love versifiers nor the serious poets. But from this to draw the conclusion,—then Venereal disease did not exist among the people, then it has never been seen in Germany this year, would make physicians and barber-surgeons smile!”

Then again consider the widely different character of the Peoples and their Languages. The flowery Asiatic and Hindoo was, to begin with, far enough removed from the spirit of Satire, and on all occasions preferred to have recourse to images that to us may well seem more than obscure. The Greek writers of Iambi (Satiric verses in the Iambic metre) are all but completely lost to us, while of the Comedians we possess only Aristophanes, in the interpretation of whom we are certainly not yet far enough advanced to make all his allusions plain to us. Above all, those who pronounce so dogmatically as to the existence of the Disease on the evidence of hints, appear to have hardly a notion of the condition in which the Lexicography of both Greek and Latin is,—a condition still in many respects deplorable.

Besides this the Greeks, and for a time to an almost greater degree the Romans,5 were above all things reticent in speech. The Roman still preserved intact through all the frivolity of his later days certain shrines, that were never broken open until the period of the utter corruption of morals; and then no doubt afforded all the richer booty. But in Satire it was not the fact that became matter of derision, but the habits of the voluptuary merely as affecting morality, as for instance is clearly seen from a perusal of the passages of Juvenal6 read in their mutual connection. Moreover the following account will sufficiently prove that even among the Romans affections of thee genitals were never ascribed to natural, only to unnatural coition, Paederastia and the like; and that it was the vice that was derided, and not properly speaking its consequences.

After the Satirists come the Epigrammatic poets, near akin to them. Whether in this province the Greeks will afford much material, later investigations must decide; how abundantly the Roman Martial has rewarded our repeated perusals, the reader will soon be enabled to convince himself.

From the Erotic poets who composed their lays under the inspiration of AphroditÉ surrounded by the Graces or of the roguish Eros, no one will expect to gain anything towards our object. The fact that the lascivious Erotic writers of Antiquity have for the most part been lost can only be deplored by the Historian of the Venereal disease; for undoubtedly such works were in existence in considerable profusion, only as in our own day they were carefully kept concealed from the eyes of the uninitiated. That the Greeks were not poor in such-like productions Cynulcus teaches us, who says to a Sophist7: “Thou lyest in the tavern, not in company with friends, but with harlots, hast a throng of panders round thee, and carriest always with thee the works of Aristophanes, Apollodorus, Ammonius, Antiphanes and the Athenian Gorgias, who all of them have written of the Athenian Hetaerae. One may fitly call thee a Pornograph, like the painters Aristides, Pausanias and Nicophanes.” Writings of the same character were still extant in Martial’s8 time, for the lascivious epigrams on the walls of the grottos, temples and statues of Priapus9, on garden-walls, and so forth, afforded an inexhaustible mine for collecting amateurs, to whom we owe the Priapeia that have come down to the present day. Had they all been preserved to posterity, we should doubtless have had no need to bewail the lack of clear information as to the Venereal disease among the Ancients.

Connected with the poems are the myths and legends of Antiquity. These however being difficult to understand when studied for their own sake owing to the confusion that still reigns in all the interpretations and discussions of them, hardly admit of being used for our purpose with advantage.

Finally we have yet to mention the Fathers as authorities for the history of the Venereal disease, for their “Orationes contra Gentes” (Denunciations of the Gentiles) especially afford much valuable material towards a knowledge of the moral condition of the nations of Antiquity. True it is very likely these only too willingly allow exaggerations at the cost of Paganism, and attribute to an earlier time as already existing then, what really belongs to their own day. Still these drawbacks lose much of their importance in so far as the question for the present is only,—whether previously to the end of the XVth. Century the Venereal Disease existed or no.

The difficulties that arise in the systematic study and manipulation of all these authorities require no further discussion here, being sufficiently well known to every investigator of Antiquity—be he physician or layman.