AN INQUIRY. 
109 
turn of Christopher Columbus that his sailors and soldiers carried 
into Europe the syphilitic infection ; but this assertion falls to 
the ground, like the preceding, before a serious examination. In 
fact, it is known that on his return in his first voyage, this bold 
navigator was assailed by a tempest that forced him to put into 
Lisbon, where King John II. retained him seven days in the 
midst of continual festivals. Thence he made sale to Palos, 
where he landed in the course of the month of March, 1493. 
From this city he went by land to Barcelona, with eighty-two 
men of his equipage and nine Indians. There he met King Fer¬ 
dinand, with Isabella and the whole court. After remaining 
some weeks at Barcelona, he started for Cadiz, to prepare for a 
second expedition. Now, at none of the points where he touched 
during his route, in none of the cities where he stopped with his 
retinue, did the slightest symptom of the venereal disease mani¬ 
fest itself for several years; while from the year, even, of his 
. arrival in Europe, or the year following, numerous attacks of a 
venereal nature were observed in many and very distant places in 
Italy, France and Germany.”— {Ibid, p. 342.] 
This brings us at length to the period of greatest prevalence 
of the famous epidemic, but before saying anything under this 
head, it may be well to state more clearly what is to be under¬ 
stood by the dual nature of the syphilitic poison, which is being 
so much discussed at the present day. Professor Bumstead says: 
“ I. The chanchroid is entirely distinct from syphilis. 
“ II. The chancroid, however, does not depend upon a specific 
virus of its own , incapable of being developed de novo. 
“ III. The chancroid, in many cases met with in practice, is 
derived from a chancroid, but it may arise, especially in persons 
debilitated from any cause, from inoculation with the products of 
inflammation, either simple or syphilitic, and subsequently per¬ 
petuate itself from one individual to another as a chancroid.”— 
[Venereal Diseases, 4th ed.] 
Baumler says : “ The poison of soft chancre may, under cer¬ 
tain circumstances, be produced de novo without the intervention 
of the syphilitic poison.” 
Professor Bumstead, in an article (M. Y. Med. Record , June 
J7th, 1876) criticising some of Mr, Hutchinson’s expressions of 
