LUES VENEREA. 



licentious poets of former times and our own. Can a reader 

 of common fenfe fuppofe that Horace, Juvenal, Perlius, or 

 Ovid, could have been filent on a fiibjeft fo perpetually oc- 

 curring in the fatirical writings of Pope and Swift? On 

 Morbid Poifons, p. 88. edit. 2. 



But though it mull be owned that the attempts to trace 

 the exigence of the venereal difeafe as far back as the times 

 of Mofe-s and of the Greeks and Romans, have entirely 

 failed, we muft not infer that the people of thofe remote 

 periods were not fubjedl to maladies of the generative organs. 

 Celfu."! has exprefsly treated of fuch complaints, and they 

 probably afflided mankind at a much earlier period than 

 the reign of A'.iguftus. The ancients were certainly liable 

 to fores on the genitals ; but thefe ulcers, like many which 

 are met with at the prefeiit day in the f;mie lituation, were 

 not fyphiiitic, notwithftanding they might fometimes put on 

 a very bad afpeft. 



Giving up the fuppofition of lues venerea being of fuch 

 antiquity, ftiU it is contended that the diforder prevailed in 

 Europe long before the return of Columbus from his voyage 

 to America, or Charles VIII. befieged Naples ; two events 

 which happened at the clofe of the ijth century, when it is 

 commonly thought that the difeafe firlt; began its ravages in 

 Spain and Italy, and thence fpread to other parts of the old 

 world. We are told that Gulielmus Salicetus, who prac- 

 tifed at Verona in 1210, was well acquainted with the caufe 

 and effefts of fyphilis, and, in confirmation of this remark, 

 we are referred to his work on furgery, where may be found 

 a chapter, intitled, " De puftulis albis, et fciifuris et cor- 

 ruptionibus quae fiunt in virga et circa praeputium, j)ropter 

 coitum cum meretrice, vel alia caufa." Gordon, who lec- 

 tured on phyfic at the univerfity of Montpelier in i 289, men- 

 tions, in chap, j, " De paffionibus virgae," the affeftions 

 originating from conneftion witti women whofe wombs are 

 foul, virulent, fanious, infetlious, &c. ; and he likcwile fpe- 

 cifies a remedy for a chancre proceeding from fuch a caufe. 

 See Lombard fur la Maladie Ven. torn. i. p. 40. 



■ In the 30th and 3 i It vols, of the Philofophical Tranfaftions, 

 Mr. W. Becket publiflied his papers in fupport of the anti- 

 quity of lues venerea. In his firft differtation, he labours to 

 prove that a venereal gonorrhoea was known in England 

 fome ages before the year I4g4» under the name of ardor, 

 arfura, incendium, ifjc. in Englifh, Irenning or burning, of 

 which, indeed, there is frequent mention made by Britifh 

 hiftorians. In confirmation of this opinion, Mr. Becket 

 produces authorities, of which fome are earlier, and others 

 later than the year 1494, the period when lues venerea is 

 generally imagined to have firfl fhewn itfelf in Europe. 



The earlielt of thefe authorities being the moll material, 

 will alone be noticed by us. 



I. The firll is a manufcript treatife of John Arden, an 

 eminent furgeon in England, about the clofe of the 14th 

 century. In this book mention is made of turning, which, 

 according to Becket, is defined " a certain inward heat and 

 excoriation of the urethra." 



a. The fecond authority refts upon certain phyfical 

 .pieces fuppofed to have been written about the years 1390 

 and 1440. Thefe works aie faid to contain fome receipts 

 for the cure of this brenning, both in men and women. 



3. The third and lall that we fhall notice is founded upon 

 the manufcript.*, rules, and ordinances of the (lews, which 

 were by public authority allowed to be kept at London, in 

 the Borough of .Southwark, under the controul of the bifhop 

 of Winchefter. Thefe documents are fuppofed to have been 

 drawn up about tlie year 1430. One of them begins thus : 

 " Of tliofe, who keep women having a wicked infirmity," 

 and further, it is ordered, under a fcvere penalty, that no 



Vox^ XXI. 



ftew-holder keep any woman " wytliin his hous that liath 

 any fycknefs of brenning.'' 



The celebrated Dr. Aflruc, on the other hand, has de- 

 duced a different inference from thefe productions, without 

 denying that they may be authentic ; for he will not admit 

 that this burning was the fame difeafe as a venereal gonor- 

 rhcea, or that a venereal gonorrhoea \\'as at any time expreffed 

 by fuch a term. His arguments are fupported by confider- 

 ations of the following kind. 



1. The leprofy of the Arabians, which was formerly a 

 common difeafe in England, as well as in other parts of 

 Europe, was exceedingly contagious and infectious ; and, 

 therefore, lepers were, by fevt-ral fevere editts, prohibited 

 from having intercourfe with tlie red of mankind. 



2. In cafe any perfon had carnal knowledge of a leprous 

 woman, the leproly was communicated to him by almoft 

 immediate infedlion. That the difeafe was thus imparted, 

 is proved by Forelhi.% Obf Chirurg. lib. iv. Obf 8. Pal- 

 marius de Elephantiafi, cap 2. Parous, Op. lib. xic. 

 cap. 8. Fernelius de Partium Morbis et Symtomatis, lib. vi. 

 cap. 19. Valefius de Taranta, Philon. 7. cap. 39. Gor- 

 don's Lilii Partic. i. cap. 22. 



3. When the cafe did not turn out to be leprofv in the 

 worll form, yet the pudenda were for the moft part affefted 

 with an inflammation, eryfipelas, herpetic or miliary exulce- 

 rations, cuticular eruptions, &c. ; whence arofe a dyfuria, 

 called, in old language, ardor, arfura, incendium, caUfaSio, 

 and, in Engiifli, brenning. 



4. In confirmation of this (latement, Aflruc cites Theo- 

 doric's Chirurg. lib. vi. cap. ,5 ; a manufcript treatife on 

 furgery, intitled Rogernia ; Gilbert's Compend. Medicin. ; 

 Glanville's Breviarium Medicinse, lib. ii. cap. 4 ; John of 

 Gaddifdeu's Rofa Anglica, cap. de infecl. ex concubitu cum 

 leprofo vel 'eprofa ; and, lallly, John Manardus, of Ferrara, 

 in Epift. Med. lib. vii. 



5. All thefe writers defcribe the complaints caught by- 

 commerce with leprous women, and, on the whole, Aflruc 

 infers that the burning, or brenning, referred to by Mr/ 

 Becket, was the fame dilorder as, according to the doftor's 

 authorities, might arife from conneftion with a leprous 

 woman, or one who had lately cohabited with a leprous 

 man. As for the nefanda injirmitas, mentioned in the laws 

 of the Hews, Dr. Allruc conceives it mufl have been the 

 leprofy itfelf. De Morb. Venereis. 



We fhall not follow thefe gentlemen through the whole 

 of their arguments. The mofl important are fet before the 

 reader, and he mull judge of them himfelf. That difcharges 

 from the urethra, attended with heat and pain in making 

 water, muft have e.xilled from time immemorial, we de- 

 cidedly believe ; becaufe experience has well proved that 

 fuch coniplainls may often proceed from caufes which are 

 decidedly not venereal. Nay, it is even a queflion among 

 modern furgeons, wliether any claps at all originate from 

 the fame poifon as lues venerea. This point, though fo 

 highly interelling, is far from being fettled ; and notwith- 

 flanding the fentiments of Mr. Hunter, we think the argu- 

 ments and facls at prefent on record are rather more weighty 

 in favour of the doi'lrine, that a gonorrhoea does not depend 

 upon the fame virus as fypliilis. According to Fallopius, 

 wliat has been called a venereal gonorrhoia did not fhew 

 itfelf among the fvmptoms of this difeafe before the vear 

 1545, or T546, that is, above ixhy years after the period 

 commonly affigned for the firll eruption of fyphilis. (Traft. 

 de Morb. Giillico, cap. 23.) Suppofing that a gonorrhoea 

 really depended on the fame infcftious matter, is it credible 

 that the complaint fhould never occur for half a eenturr, 

 during all wluch time chancres, and other venereal afxeftions, 

 4D are 



