50 
CHARLES F. RING. 
to rich discoveries in other departments than this. Viewed fiom 
our stand-point, order and harmony come out of chaos, and the 
distinctions before obscure, become clearly defined. 
.Regarding syphilis as a modern disease, it is necessary, to 
review all theories, for and against this view, until the closing 
years of the fifteenth century are reached—the period of out¬ 
break of this disease—when we will introduce a theory to account 
for its appearance at just that time, and not before. We only 
ask of those who read this discussion to view it in the light of 
common sense—which Emerson says is akin to genius and we 
shall be satisfied. 
HISTORY. 
The history of syphilis is involved in much obscurity. It is 
the offspring of a disease that caused much havoc near the end of 
the fifteenth century. That this disease in itself was not vene¬ 
real is conceded by most writers. Whether it had existed before, 
and had ever given rise to a syphilitic disease prior to this period, 
is for consideration hereafter. Some writers maintain that 
syphilis was known to antiquity. This view is held mainly, by 
those who, in recent times, have favored the “unity,’ as against 
the “duality,” in syphilis. Those who defend its “duality, i. e. 
that there are two poisons, one of which is constitutional, the 
other local, as the chancroidal, generally consider it to be a 
metamorphosis from leprosy, or to have been colonized from 
America by the crews of Columbus. Its relation to carcinomata 
and scrofiilosis, and to diseases recorded in Biblical history- 
believed in by some—must prove a myth if it be shown that 
syphilis was unknown prior to the end of the fifteenth century. 
Admitted that it was known in Biblical times, it does not impair 
the argument in the least, as to whether syphilis has had a 
modern origin. Syphilis was not known to writers in the middle 
ages down to the period we have named—hence it would appear 
that if it had had a prior existence it had become extinct. Evi¬ 
dence failing, we think, to establish an ancient origin, we must 
regard it as a comparatively new disease. 
We wish here to enroll ourself amongst the advocates of the 
“ dualism,” (an unfortunate term), of syphilis, and maintain that 
