LUES VENEREA. 



hofpital, Vienna, four thoufand eight hundred and eighty 

 perfons are faid to have been perfeftly cured of the venereal 

 difeafe, in the courfe of eight years, without undergoing any 

 tedious preparation, or having any dangerous fynnptom in- 

 tervene. 



The ingenious author of the Parallel of the different 

 Methods of treating the Venereal Difeafe (fuppofcd to have 

 been the phyfician Petit) is extremely fevere in cenfuring 

 this method of treatment, and afferts that, from repeated 

 experience, he has found the adminiftration of the folution 

 to be very precarious, and by no means produftive of the 

 good effedts fo lavifhly promifed by the Vienna praftitioners. 

 See Obf. on the ditTerent Methods of treating the Venereal 

 Difeafe, by W. Deafe, 1779, the Introduftion. 



From thefe obfervations on the mercurial remedies em- 

 ployed, and plans adopted, by the old furgeons, in the 

 treatment of fyphilitic afteClioiis, let us pafs on to the con- 

 fideration ot the practice of modern times, which has been 

 vattly influenced by the doftrines promulgated by Mr. Hun- 

 ter. The leading points of his theory having been already 

 llated in the foregoing columns, we ihall not repeat them 

 at large in this place. SufHce it to fay, that this furgeon 

 inculcated, that when the venereal poifon was abforbed, it 

 contaminated the fyftem at once, leaving only a difpofi'.ion 

 behind it, which is brought forih into attion in various parts 

 at various times ; that the local caufe ot this difpofition, and 

 its effects, maybe cured by mercury, but that the difpofi- 

 tion itfolf cannot ; and that parts, once cured, cannot be 

 •contaminated again from the iame ftoclc of infectio«u 



It muit nut be dilTembled, that the theories of Mr. Hun- 

 ter, refpeC^ing lues venerea are in fome refpefts obfcurc and 

 queftionable. Much difScul'y has been experienced in 

 rightly comprehending his exaft meaning ; ar.d he has even 

 been accufed of inconlillency and contradiction. Dr. 

 Adams, in his C^mm-'ntary on Hunter's Treatife, has pnb- 

 lifhed the fubftance of a converiation, which he once had 

 with this famous character, with regard to the difficulty at- 

 tending the comprehcnfion of the doArines in qiieltion. On 

 this orcalion, Mr. Hunter related the following cafe, to 

 fliew how eafily his opinions might be,underllood, even by 

 a perfon altogether unaccuflomed to fuch inquiries. 



" A gentleman," faid Mr. Hunter, " who had been 

 cured ot a chancre at a diftance from home, called to con- 

 fult me whether he might conlider himfelf as perfedlly free 

 from the difeafe. Whi'ft he was taking great pains to ex- 

 plain to me how he had been falivated, and how long he had 

 continued the ufe of merc.iry, after the chancre was healed, 

 I interrupted him by obferving, that if he had continued the 

 ufe of mercury till now, I could not protend to fay whether 

 he was free from the difeafe. — How then, faid the gentle- 

 man, am I to afcertain my real fituation ? — If, replied I, 

 you find no fymptoms in the courfe of three months, the 

 probability is that you will remain well, till you expcfe 

 yourfelf to a new fource of infection. 



" In about fix weeks he returned, with a fore throat and 

 eopper fpots- ' I explained to him, that he fhould not blame 

 his furgeon, who, even if he had known what was to hap- 

 pen, could not have prevented it. The patient went 

 through a very neceffary courfe of mercury, till he was 

 cured of every fymptom, and then demanded, with fome 

 impatience, whether he was then fecure. — You are Iccure, 

 replied I, from every return on your genitals, and on your 

 ildn and throat ; but as it is impoffible for me to fenow ■ 

 whether your bones are contaminated, I cannot pretend to 

 fay whether you will have nodes in a few weeks' time. He 

 now began to comprehend t:ie doftrine, and fubmitted to 

 await the reiult. In about fix weeksf he aSuallv had nodes ; 



after the cure of which, by a fevere falivation, I made no 

 fcruple to affure him that he was perfcftly free from the 

 difeafe." 



According to Mr. Hunter's principles, then, if mercury 

 were exhibited for ten years, it could not prevent the dif- 

 pofition, after it is once formed, from proceeding to action 

 fome time or another; and although this author admits that 

 this remedy may altogether hinder the difpofition from 

 takinp- place at all, yet that it has no power of eradicating 

 any for.ms of the difeafe, except what is pofitively in action, 

 and confequently more or lefs palpable. As it was likewife 

 a poficion in Mr. Hunti-r's theory, that the parts contami- 

 nated, or thofe to which the difpofition was imparted, be- 

 came thus infefted all about the fame time, and very foon 

 after the firft abforption of the virus into the conftitution, 

 the inference necelTarily followed, that mercury could feldom 

 avail in hindering the formation of the difpofition, except in 

 an early ftage of the cafe. According to the Hunterian 

 opinions, mercury given as a preventive, on any other prin- 

 ciple, was entirely ufelefs. The parts :ontra'ied the dif- 

 pofition foon after the virus had been abforbed into the- fyf- 

 tem, iinlefp, by good luck, mercury had been employed (o 

 early and efficiently as entirely to prevent fuch difpofition 

 from taking place. If it had not been ufed early enough, 

 and with fufficient effeft to prevent the formation of the dif- 

 pofition in the parts fufceptible of contamination, thefe 

 could not fall of falling afterwards, but at an uncertain 

 period, into a palpable ttate of lyphilitic action, and in that 

 ftate alone were capable of being cured by mercury. The 

 difpofition, though it might have been prevented, could not 

 be cured by mercury. That part of the doftrine, alfo, 

 which inculcates that parts, which have been once cured, 

 cannot be contaminated again from the fame flock of infec- 

 tion, tends ftrcingly to (horten .a mercurial courfe ; becaufe, 

 as the foregoing cafe iihiflratcs, when one order of parts 

 have been cured by mercury, there is no danger of a recur- 

 rence of the diflcmpcr in them : and though the difpofition 

 may exift in another order of parts, and, of courfe, mull 

 come into aClion, it would be abiurd to continue mercury 

 on that account, both bccaule tliis mineral abfolutely has not 

 the power of deftroying the dilpofition, and it can never be 

 known, a priori, whether thefe other parts arc contaminated 

 or not. 



The employment of the term difpofition has led to much 

 difputation. Many have not been able to underlland the 

 word, and others have raifed feveral obje£tions to it. The 

 critical examiners of Mr. Hunter's dodrine afk, how is it 

 poffible to prove that a venereal difpofition has, or has not, 

 exilled at any particular time ? If, after a certain courfe of 

 mercury, and the confequent removal of a chancre, blotches 

 fhould appear, then, fays Mr. Hunter, a dipofition had been 

 formed, which no quantity of mercury could have dellroyed. 

 But, cbfcrve the critics, may we not, with at Icafl equal 

 probability fay, that in fuch cafes mercury ha\^_been infuffi- 

 ciently ufed ? If, on the other linnd, after fuch a courfe, 

 no blotches fhould occur, the friends of the doAriiie tell us, 

 the fecondary order of i)arts had not been contaminated ; 

 but, in this cafe, it may be contended by the oppofite party, 

 that the mercurial courfe had been judicious and efficient. 

 It is infilled by Mr. Hunter's opponents, that the exiflence 

 of this incurable difpofition cannot be proved ; nor by his 

 friends can it be jnflly and confillently affumed ; for if it 

 be aflion, then its coincidence with other adlions is admitted 

 contrary to their principles ; if it be not action, then the 

 difeafe which follows is motion without impulfe, and effect 

 without a caufe. Tliis opinion, indeed, with regard to the 

 diS'erence of difpofition and action, it is maintained, was not 



fleadily 



