(In the first place my boy must be born on the banks of Nile: no other land can produce more finished wickedness). From all this, as well as from a comparison of the passage in Lucian, we believe we are amply justified in concluding that Aretaeus’ulcers of the throat, these Αἰγύπτια καὶ Συριακὰ ἕλκεα (Egyptian and Syrian sores) were not unfrequently a consequence of fellation45. That this should be so is readily intelligible, when we consider the liability to corruption and the acrid quality of secretions from the glans penis in hot countries. Again the βουβαστικὰ ἕλκεα (Bubastic sores), which Salmasius cites from Aëtius46 as being identical with the Egyptian and Syrian ulcers, find a satisfactory explanation on this hypothesis, for Herodotus47 tells us in his time of the licentious worship of Bubastis, daughter of Isis, at Bubastos. In this expression (βουβαστικὰ ἕλκεα) the malady is named from one particular place, where it was probably specially prevalent, whereas in Aretaeus it is spoken of as general throughout the country.

In this connection we must not pass over the fact that Casaubon commenting on the passage of Persius (V. 187.) to be quoted directly is inclined to regard the ἕλκεα Συριακὰ (Syrian sores) as a punishment of the Dea Syra (Syrian goddess). In this he relies on a passage of Plutarch48 that runs to this effect: “But of the Syrian goddess the superstitious believe that, if a man eat a sprat or anchovy, the goddess consumes his shin-bones, fills his body full of sores, melts down his liver.” The legend must at any rate be of great antiquity, for we meet with it in Menander, in a fragment which Porphyrius49 has preserved,—in which however swelling of the belly and the feet is in question. To this also would seem to refer what Persius (loco citato) says:

(Then the tall Galli, and the one-eyed priestess with her sacred rattle, instil terror of the gods that make men’s bodies swell, unless three times at dawn you have eaten the prescribed head of garlic). True we cannot from the passage of Plutarch directly conclude that ulcers of the throat also were ascribed to the anger of the Syrian goddess in consequence of indulgence in a fish diet; rather should we expect what is said to apply primarily to external skin-ulcers, occurring on other parts, as just on the shin-bone. Still we shall be quite justified in making the reference general, more particularly as liver-complaint is also ascribed to the goddess’s interference, and we shall see that in Antiquity the cause of all ulcers was supposed to lie in some fault of the liver. Now as the fish had necessarily to be put into the mouth to be swallowed, and as it was always supposed the punishment of the goddess followed immediately on the offence, and affected the immediately active part, throat-ulcers might very naturally be taken to be a result of such punishment. This again only further confirms our explanation just above to the effect that ulcers of the throat were a consequence resulting from vicious indulgence. For the Temple-service of the Dea Syra was of course connected with every sort of licentious practice.

Taking into consideration this marked prevalence of Corrosion of the Shin-bones, we might argue with considerable probability that it pointed to the existence of a disease of the bones following as a result of vicious indulgence. On the other hand the observation that the precise time the body became covered with ulceration was after indulgence in fish-eating cannot help being of weight in connection with the doctrine of Leprosy; for to the present day we note as very frequent among peoples whose chief nutriment is fish various forms of Leprosy. And again, we may very likely see in this prohibition of a fish diet, which is also mentioned by Athenaeus50, a sanitary regulation justified by experience as necessary in Syria, where skin-diseases and ulcerations were so common.

But not alone in Egypt and Syria did fellation lead to suchlike unhappy results; we find the same to have been the case at Rome, as is proved by the following passage of Martial51, a passage that has hitherto been completely overlooked in this connection, but which is none the less of great importance:

(When corrupting disease began to sorely afflict his unworthy throat and black contagion was creeping to his very face, Festus, himself with dry cheeks, comforted his weeping friends, and determined to seek the pools of Styx. But still he never disgraced his dutiful lips with darkling poison, nor brought on a painful, miserable end by slow hunger; nay! rather by a Roman death he completed his holy life, and dismissed his soul the nobler way. Such a death fame may well exalt above great Cato’s end; Caesar was his friend).

The words indignae fauces (unworthy throat) obviously point to the practice of fellation, whereby he had brought on himself the pestis tabida and atra lues, (corrupting disease, black contagion), and so we have here a clear statement of the cause by one doctus venereae cupidinis (learned in the passion of love), which cause was quite unknown to the artifex medicus (medical practitioner). The pia ora (dutiful lips) are therefore to be taken merely ironically, as also the sancta vita (holy life). Even the Cinaedus, as well as the maidens who prostitute themselves in honour of Astarté, are invariably, as we have seen, described in the Old Testament as sanctus (holy), and we read e. g. in Job. Ch. XXXV. 14., of a good-for-nothing, how he will die like such a sanctus. It was precisely this signification of sanctus that led us to the idea of taking the throat affection for a secondary consequence of paederastia, especially if we understand a double entendre to underlie the last words huius Caesar amicus erat (Caesar was his friend). The Commentators it is true take them merely as said by way of contrast with the death of Cato of Utica, who was forced by Caesar’s enmity to take his own life, and as implying this was not the case with Festus, consequently that his suicide is so much the more remarkable52. However it is doubtful which Caesar is meant, whether the word is merely a Title or a proper name. In the second—and certainly this at first appeared to us to be the more likely,—view we were of course bound then to turn our attention to his character for dissoluteness. However as both Catullus53 and Suetonius54 represent him merely as a Cinaedus in regard to the male sex, if that is to say we subscribe to the accepted opinion, we afterwards came to the conclusion it was rather the Emperor generally that is spoken of here, and consequently that any other Emperor, e. g. Tiberius, or Nero, or another, might be intended. It is true that if pathicus (pathic) and omnium virorum mulier (wife of all men) are taken in a wider sense, there would be nothing to make the supposition impossible that Julius Caesar is pointed at. Only that perhaps another passage of Martial would seem to go against this, a passage where he seeks to excuse the several excesses and vices of a certain Gaurus by instancing an exalted personage as patronizing each of them, and says finally (Bk. II. 89.):

(But for your fellation: tell me whose vice you follow in this?) Still against the cinaedus view the words indignae fauces (unworthy throat) speak clearly. Probably in this connection the following passage of Martial should also come in,—where the Poet says of his servant (Bk. I. Epigr. 102.):

(Demetrius left us in the first years of his bloom; the fourth summer was but just added to his three lustres. We took all means to save our faithful house-slave from descending to the shades of Styx, when he was consuming under a malignant contagion that had fastened upon him, and remitted all my master’s rights for the sick lad,—who indeed well deserved to win recovery at my hands. On his death-bed he recognized what I had done for him, and called me his master, though so soon to go forth a free man to the streams of the nether world.)

Was this famulus (house-slave) the same person as the puer (boy, slave), who is mentioned by Martial, bk. XI. 95.?

That not boys only, but girls too, had to suffer in this way among the Romans, and lost their lives from the complaint in question, is shown, we think, by the following Epigram of Martial, Bk. XI. Epigr. 91.:

(Canacé of the Aeolians lies buried in this tomb, who died a child,—her seventh winter was her last. Oh! the shame and horror of it! haste, a tear, thou that passest by. Here is no occasion to lament the short span of human life. Sadder than death is the way of her death; a dread contagion ate away her face, and settled in the tender little mouth. Cruel disease infected her very kisses; and her lips were half gone when they were consigned to the grim pyre. If death must needs have come to her with a flight so swift, at least he should have taken another way. Death so hasted to close the issue of her persuasive voice, that her tongue might not have time to bend the cruel goddesses to mercy).

Besides the passages quoted, there are several others to be found in Martial, that must be taken as referring to the fellator; but since the maladies that occur are equally prevalent in the case of the Cunnilingue, it will be more convenient to adduce them under that head. Further, we only require to mention the fact that pale lips seem to have been regarded as a mark of the fellator55.

The Cunnilingue.
§ 23.

But the vice of the fellator is far surpassed in baseness by that of the Cunnilingue (qui opus peragit linguam arrigendo in cunnum, eumque lambit,—one who works by putting his tongue up into the female organ, and licking it). The Greeks called this practice σκύλαξ (a puppy), because it is a habit of dogs56, and Hesychius explains it by σχῆμα ἀφροδισιακὸν, ὡς τὸ τῶν φοινικιζόντων (a method of love, resembling that of those who phoenicize). We have already, in the passage of Lucian quoted a little above, found φοινικίζειν and λεσβιάζειν put side by side; Galen moreover57 does the same in the following passage, a noteworthy one for our purpose on several accounts: “The drinking of sweat, urine and the menstrual blood of women is vicious and shameful, and not less so when a person, as Xenocrates proposes to do, smears the regions of the mouth and throat with excrement, and swallows it down. He speaks also of taking the wax of the ears. For my part I could never bring myself to take this, even though by that means I were never to be ill again. But excrement I consider yet more disgusting, and it is for a man of any decency far more shameful to be called an Excrement-Eater58 than an αἰσχρουργὸς (worker of obscenities) or a cinaedus. But of αἰσχρουργοὶ59 (workers of obscenities), we abominate Phoenicians more than the Lesbians, and it seems to me the man does something of the same sort as the former who drinks menstrual blood (μᾶλλον βδελλυττόμεθα τοὺς φοινικίζοντας τῶν λεσβιαζόντων ᾧ60 φαίνεταί μοι παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχειν ὁ καὶ καταμηνίου πίνων.) A sensible man will neither seek to collect experiences on the point, nor yet on a practice, which it is true involves less, but still is sufficiently shameful, that of smearing a part of the body with excrement, because he has some hurt at that spot,—or with human seed. Xenocrates calls this latter commonly γόνος (seed, semen), and distinguishes with minute care between cases where simple seed rubbed in by itself is of benefit, and cases where the female has the same effect after combination with the male, as it is discharged from the woman’s womb.”

This explanation of Galen’s to the effect that the φοινικίζων (one who phoenicizes) resembles the man who drinks menstrual blood, shows clearly that φοινικίζειν is not, as all the Lexicons give it, and Forbiger (loco citato) also assumes, identical with λεσβιάζειν. It is true Forbiger (p. 329. Note v.) gives the meaning cunnilingere as well, although the explanation is undoubtedly unsatisfactory which he offers à propos of an Epigram,61—one certainly apposite in this connection, to the effect that the reason for this signification is, quod cunnilingos a natando in mari quodam Phoenicei coloris (mari rubro) dixissent, (that they had called them cunnilingues from their swimming as it were in a sea of Phoenician purple colour—a red sea); for the words in the Epigram, ἐν φοινίκῃ δὲ καθεύδεις (but you sleep in Phoenicia) cannot stand for anything else but simply φοινικίζειν, as indeed the passage from Aloisia Sigaea, which is quoted by Forbiger himself, proves conclusively62: Cum vellet mediam lambere, se velle dicebat in Liguriam, (When he wanted to lick my middle, he used to say he would fain be into Liguria—that is, would fain lick, ligurire). Accordingly just as λεσβιάζειν came into use as the distinctive name for the vice of the fellator, because it was practised to a distinctive degree in Lesbos, so too to be a cunnilingue was called φοινικίζειν, because the habit was at home among the Phoenicians. Undoubtedly men’s shamelessness was carried so far that they actually used women and girls at their period of menstruation for this purpose,—a fact of the highest interest for us, as we shall show directly. Seneca63 expresses himself plainly enough on the subject: “Quid tu, cum Mamercum Scaurum consulem faceres, ingnorabas, ancillarum suarum menstruum ore illum hiante exceptare? num quid enim ipse dissimulabat? num quid purus videri volebat?” (How came it you were ignorant, when making Mamercus Scaurus consul, that he was in the habit of catching in his open mouth the menstrual discharge of his maidservants? Did he make any concealment of it himself? did he pose as a pure-minded man? nay! not he). Again in another place64:

“Nuper Natalis tam improbae linguae quam impurae, in cuius ore feminae purgabantur.” (Quite lately Natalis showed himself as malignant of tongue as he is unchaste, into whose mouth women were used to purge themselves).

Now if first of all we bear steadfastly in mind that this φοινικίζειν was a vice, which prevailed primarily and especially among the Phoenicians and was later on disseminated abroad by them, and then consider how the Greeks designated every vice, and particularly excesses in love, as νόσος (disease), in the same way precisely as the Romans used morbus (disease),—comp. § 17—we must see that φοινικίζειν is the same thing as νόσος φοινικίη (Phoenician disease), and shall be in a position to form an opinion on the Gloss65 falsely ascribed to Galen, which reads: φοινικίη νόσος· ἡ κατὰ Φοινίκην καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ἀνατολικὰ μέρη πλεονάζουσα. δηλοῦσθαι δὲ κἀνταῦθα δοκεῖ ἡ ἐλεφαντιάσις. (Phoenician disease: a disease prevalent in Phoenicia and about the Eastern parts. Elephantiasis appears to be signified by this).

Even granting the first part of this Gloss to have been really written by Galen, the last sentence at any rate is obviously an extraneous and later addition. This is at once indicated by the use of the word δοκεῖ (it appears), which comes in curiously, standing as it does next-door to the definite statement that this νόσος (disease) was common in Phoenicia; for surely anyone who knew this, must also have known what the disease was. Again if he had wished to describe it by some such phrase as the English “a sort of Elephantiasis”, he could hardly have failed to express himself in a different way to what he has. But as a matter of fact, Galen knew perfectly well, as we have already seen, what φοινικίζειν was, and consequently what the φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease) was, and it could not by any possibility have occurred to him to suppose it any form of Elephantiasis. Unfortunately Prof. Naumann66 has allowed himself to be misled by this extraneous addition; he writes: “In the Work of a Pseudo-Galen is given a short explanation of the φοινικίη νόσος (Phoenician disease), or rather to speak strictly, the conjecture is made,67 that this malady, a common one in Phoenicia and the East, may have been Elephantiasis.” True indeed the word might with equal likelihood express a disease characterized by redness of the skin φοινίκιος s. φοινίκεος i. q. puniceus, purpureus, cruentus; φοινιγμὸς irritatio cutis per vesicantia—φοινίκιος or φοινίκεος = Phoenician purple, purple, blood-red; φοινιγμὸς = irritation of the skin by rubefacients). Or should we suppose some leprous-venereal malady endemic and aboriginal among the trading Phoenicians to be signified, which was called the Morbus Phoeniceus (Phoenician disease) in the same way as in more modern times people spoke of the Morbus Gallicus (French disease,—Syphilis)? In any case it is remarkable that Themison (who also noted incidentally that Satyriasis at times attacks a population epidemically,—speaks of the special frequency of Satyriasis in Crete (Caelius Aurelianus, Acut. Morb. bk. III. ch. 18). As is well known, Phoenician and Hellenic Colonies had converged here; and the island remained in uninterrupted and active commercial intercourse with the maritime cities of Phoenicia.

According to the general supposition the Gloss of the Pseudo-Galen has reference to a passage of Hippocrates occurring in the Second book of the Prorrhetica,68 where we read as follows: “But λειχῆνες—tetters, as also λέπραι and λεῦκαι,—scaly leprosies and white leprosies, where any of these occur in the young or mere children, or after appearing on a small scale shall then increase but slowly, in these cases it is not right to call the exanthema or eruption an apostasis, (transitional state), but a νόσημα,—condition of disease. On the other hand where any of these affections occurs on a large scale and suddenly, it would then be an apostasis. But whereas λεῦκαι arise out of the most deadly diseases, as e. g. the νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ,—wasting disease, as it is called, λέπραι and λειχῆνες do so from the melancholic, or diseases proceeding from black bile. And of such the easier to cure are those that occur in the youngest patients and are of the latest origin, and arise in the softest and most fleshy parts of the body.” Foesius observes on the passage: “Nemini autem dubium est, quin hac parte mendosi sint codices omnes, cum ἡ νοῦσος ἡ φθινικὴ καλουμένη scribitur. Nam φοινικίη νόσος ex Galeni exegesi procul omni dubio reponendum.” (Now no one can doubt that all the MSS. are deceptive here, reading as they do ἡ νοῦσος ἡ φθινική. For φοινικίη vόσος must undoubtedly be restored from the Exegesis of Galen). J. W. Wedel69 on the contrary writes: “Legunt quidam pro φοινικίη—φθινικὴ, et vertunt tabem seu morbum tabidum, sed contra fidem codicum correctiorum, quibus Galenus ipse assentitur, et rei ipsius, de qua textus agit, evidentiam.” (Some read φθινικὴ for φοινικίη, and render it wasting or wasting disease,—but against the authority of the better class of MSS., with which Galen himself agrees, and against the evidence of the context of the matter treated of). In the latter of these two statements Wedel, in spite of his mistaken view of the matter generally, is perfectly right; whether he is so in the former as well, we are not in a position to say, for alas! we lack the critical apparatus absolutely indispensable for such a decision, not so much as the Edition of Mackius being on the shelves of our University Library.

In the first place we ought to make quite sure what Hippocrates understood under the name λεῦκαι. A disease of the Skin no doubt; but of what particular nature it was, would seem not to be so easy to determine. According to Coac. praenotion. (Vol. I. p. 321.) Hippocrates distinguished a λεύκη συγγενής and a λεύκη μὴ συγγενής (λεύκη inborn, and not inborn), the latter attacking individuals only after puberty. Hesychius says λεύκη, ἄνθος τι τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα γινόμενον, ἄλφος δὲ λευκή τις ἐν τῷ σώματι. (λεύκη—white leprosy, an eruption coming out on the exterior parts of the body, but ἄλφος—dull-white leprosy, a form of λεύκη in the body). Galen, Definit. med. (Vol. XIX. p. 140) λευκή ἐστιν ἡ ἐπὶ λευκὸν χρῶμα τοῦ σώματος παρὰ φύσιν μεταβολή. (λεύκη is the change to an unnatural white colour of the body). According to this it would appear to be merely superficial discolorations of the skin that writers understood by λεῦκαι,—a view that Rayer70 seems to coincide with. Pollux on the other hand offers an explanation as follows: ἀλφὸς μέλας, ἐπιδρομὴ σκιώδης, ἐπιπόλαιος, εὐίατος, ἀλφὸς λευκὸς, λευκότης ἐπιτρέχουσα τῇ ἐπιδερματίδι, αὐχμηρὰ, δυσίατος· λεύκη, ὅταν ἐπιτείνῃ ἡ λευκότης, καὶ φύσῃ τρίχωσιν λευκήν, εἰ δὲ κεντήσειας, ὕφαιμος, δυσίατος, ἐστιν ὅτε ὑπέρυθρος· ἐπανθεῖ δὲ αὐτὸ (?) τοῖς χείλεσιν, οἷον ἁλὸς ἄχνη. (Black ἀλφός, a dark-coloured spreading eruption, superficial and easily curable; white alphos, a whiteness running over the epidermis (of the prepuce), dry harsh and difficult to cure; λεύκη, when the whiteness extends, and produces a growth of white hairs, and if you prick it, it is suffused with blood, difficult to cure, also sometimes reddish in hue. And the eruption comes out on the lips like sea-foam). Here λεύκη is evidently a much more deeply penetrating malady, as indeed it is described by Celsus71 and Galen.72 It corresponds with the white Leprosy of Moses. But the most curious thing is the statement appended to the effect that the affection broke out on the lips like sea-foam. This is certainly to be referred to some other form of λεύκη, unless indeed we are to take it in connection with the succeeding words in the text, λειχὴν ἄγριος (malignant tetter), in which case, as we have seen with regard to Mentagra (Tetter of the chin), the remark is based on a perfectly sound observation; and besides, the αὐτὸ gives absolutely no sense. On the other hand if Pollux’datum in reference to the seat of λεύκη is correct, it must obviously afford much light for clearing up the meaning of the passage in Hippocrates, and in deference to it we shall be bound to read φοινικίη instead of φθινικὴ,73—an emendation that presents no difficulty, since φθινικὴ might very easily be read for φοινικίη, and indeed (as pointed out in the Note) was actually so read.

But one emendation leads on to another, and we shall find ourselves bound, on the analogy of the θαυμαστὸν πάθος (wonderful complaint) in Dio Chrysostom, to read here also θαυμαστωτάτων νοσημάτων (of the most wonderful diseases) for θανατωδεστάτων ν., and translate accordingly: “but λεῦκαι arise out of the most terrible aberrations of the mind,” such for instance as the vice of the cunnilingue is. If we examine further, we shall see it is not λευκαὶ but λεῦκαι that stands in the text, so it cannot be a question of a skin-affection of the leprosy type at all, for λευκὸς (white) rather implies transparent and shiny, and Martial (XI. 99.) in a passage to be discussed more fully later on, says:

(No biting ulcer, or shiny pustules, nor yet disfigured chin, and foul scabs). Accordingly we have here nothing whatever to do with the leprous-like λευκὴ, but only with pustulae lucentes (shiny pustules), which as we shall show presently were a consequence of the practices of the cunnilinigue. We have the more right to assume this, as the old Physicians ascribe λευκὴ to the φλέγμα (phlegmatic humour),—an explanation all the more likely to have been given, as directly afterwards follow the words, αἱ δὲ λέπραι καὶ οἱ λειχῆνες ἐκ τῶν μελαγχολικῶν (but leprosies and tetters arise out of the melancholic diseases). True this is in contradiction with another passage of Hippocrates,74 for in this we read: λέπρη καὶ κνησμὸς καὶ ψώρη καὶ λειχῆνες καὶ ἀλφὸς καὶ ἀλώπεκες ὑπὸ φλέγματος γίνονται. (leprosy, and itch, and scab, and tetters, and dull-white leprosy, and manges, arise from phlegm). This much at any rate appears to us to result, viz. that the whole passage under discussion cannot possibly be by Hippocrates, but much more probably is due to some author of the Alexandrine age, who enjoyed ample opportunities for studying the consequences of the unnatural excesses as so often observed since Pompey the Great’s time.

To assume that Hippocrates was actually acquainted with these in any completeness would up to the present be premature; at any rate we are bound, so far as our study of his writings enables us to judge, to deny him any knowledge of the fact that sexual excesses were the cause of the different affections of the genital organs chronicled by him. Of course he may have supposed all this to be notorious and the knowledge of it common property, but a host of statements would be found to tell against any such supposition. Opportunities of making acquaintance with the vice of the cunnilingue could certainly not have been lacking, it being so familiar a thing in his time that Aristophanes75 again and again derided it in his Comedies. Whatever conclusion we come to on this head, at least the passage of Hippocrates cannot justify anyone in maintaining that the φοινικίη νοῦσος,—(Phœnician disease) was true Elephantiasis, even if, as may be, the preliminary proposition that elephantiasis was a consequence of debauchery be made good,—a point to which we propose later on to return. On the subject of Satyriasis in Crete, we have already expressed our views.

Just as the Phoenicians carried the seed of the vice to Greece and other lands, so at a later period was it disseminated from Syria to Italy; and so Ausonius says (Epigr. 128.):

(Eunus from Syria, glutton of the privy parts, Opican (clownish) master (Phyllis teaches him his letters) sees the woman’s organ four-cornered: when compressed to a triangle he makes it out the letter Δ. From the valley between the thighs start two furrows, a pair one on either side, while between them is a line, where lies the opening, the crack of the fissure; this he declares is Ψ; for ’tis three-pronged in outline. Then when he puts in his own tongue to it, lo! it is Λ; and he can feel there is a true Φ marked therein. What, dunce, think you a Ρ is inscribed there, where a long Ι should by rights be placed? Miserable, contemptible scholar, may the Ȣ (a noose) reward your foulness, and the cleft Θ (letter of condemnation, being initial of θάνατος,—death) be set against your name!) The more detailed interpretation of these obscene hieroglyphics the reader may find in the commentators on the passage, as well as in Forberg, loco citato p. 335.

Diseases of the Cunnilingue. § 24.

Can anyone believe such a vice as this was practised without incurring punishment? Yet there prevails amongst the Physicians of Antiquity, even including Galen, who knew the facts, an unbroken silence. It is impossible to suppose that girls and women could have their genital organs purged in this mode altogether without evil results, more particularly as actual experience in more modern times has proved that as a consequence of the habit of cunnilingere inflammations of the external genitals have been set up in girls, as well as ulcerations in older women through the licking of these parts by dogs. Among Ancient writers we have found no vouchers for this; but on the other hand several such exist to show the mischief that results from the habit to the cunnilingue himself. Excluding from consideration the pale complexion77 and evil smell from the mouth, which were equally consequences of the other forms of vice already mentioned, we have paralysis of the tongue mentioned, at any rate in one passage78:

(Your tongue, Zoilus, has been stricken with a sudden doom, while in the act of licking. Why! surely, Zoilus, you copulate now). True this malady must be counted as one of very rare occurrence; but this is by no means the case with the ulcerations, which would seem not always to have confined their attacks to the tongue, but to have extended also, just as with the fellator, to the other parts of the mouth as well. This cannot but have had the effect of making it very difficult in diagnosis to distinguish between an affection of the sort due to fellation and one due to the vice of the cunnilingue.

Here again it is Martial to whom we are indebted for the proofs of our assertions. He leaves no room for doubt as to the way Manneius was punished for his debauchery in the following passage79:

(Manneius was a husband with his tongue, a fornicator with his mouth, a more polluted wretch than the big-cheeked wenches of the suburbs. When a vile bawd saw him naked from a window in the Suburra, she shuts her brothel up, and had rather kiss his middle than his head. The man who but now could penetrate every vessel of the inwards, and say with assured voice and certain knowledge whether it were a boy or a girl in the mother’s belly,—rejoice, rejoice, organs of women, for your business is done for you,—the same cannot erect a fornicating tongue. For at the very moment he is plunged tight in the swollen vulva, and hears the babes whimpering within, lo! a shocking disease paralyses his greedy tongue. Now can he be neither clean, nor yet unclean).

The Commentators, in particular Farnabius, refer the complaint spoken of in the passage just quoted to paralysis of the tongue. Farnabius says in fact: “Paralysisne ἀπὸ τῆς ἀφέδρου καὶ τῶν ἐμμηνιῶν, quorum malefico humore marcescunt segetes, apes moriuntur etc., Plin. c. 15 Lib. V., an sideratio?” (Is paralysis intended, resulting from the menstruation and menstrual discharges, the poisonous humour of which will wither up crops, kill bees, etc.—Pliny ch. 15. Bk. V., or a sudden stroke?) Even supposing us willing to admit the possibility of menstrual blood bringing on paralysis of the tongue, there can at any rate be no question of such a thing here, inasmuch as it was with a pregnant woman Manneius carried out his vicious practises, and women in pregnancy do not usually menstruate,—a fact about which the Philologist naturally enough was only imperfectly posted. Of course the possibility is always there, although the Poet says nothing about it; and the expression vulva tumens (swollen organ) evidently stands here, as is clearly shown by what follows, for uterus gravidus (pregnant womb)81. The solvere (to loose, destroy) points in any case to a destruction, a dwindling, of the part, brought about by the indecens morbus (shocking disease),—which disease might very likely find its explanation in the scelerata lues (noxious contagion) mentioned on page 258 above. As a result of this, naturally enough not only did arrigere (to erect—the tongue) become impossible, but the impurus (Cunnilingus) (unclean cunnilingue) grew generally incapable of practising his vice. Nor yet was he purus (clean)82 altogether, for was he not a cunnilingue?—and now he was even less purus, because he suffered from the indecens morbus (shocking disease), which even Farnabius has so far rightly understood, that he explains nec purus (nor yet clean) by morbo illo contaminatus (because contaminated by the said disease).

Rather more doubtful and difficult is the interpretation of the following passage of Martial83, which would yet appear to be pertinent here:

(I never called you a cinaedus, Coracinus; I am not so rash or so reckless, not being one to speak lies willingly. If I called you a cinaedus, Coracinus, may Pontia’s jar be my enemy, and Metilius’poisoned cup. I take oath by your Syrian tumours, by your Berecynthian frenzies. What I did say is a trivial, an insignificant thing, a thing well known, that you will not yourself deny,—I said, Coracinus, you were a cunnilingue).

What were these Syrii tumores (Syrian tumours) that afflicted the cunnilingue Coracinus? Beroaldus, Annotat. ch. 25., understands them as “tumores et vibices a cultris et flagris quibus sacerdotes Cybeles (quam deam Syriam esse volunt) se sauciabant.” (the swellings and weals from the knives and scourges with which the priests of Cybelé,—whom they claim to be the Syrian goddess—used to wound themselves). Farnabius on the contrary thinks only Berecynthios furores (Berecynthian frenzies) to be intended in this explanation, and makes the tumores Syrii mean “ulcera et morbos quibus credebatur irata Isis inflare peierantes,” (ulcers and maladies with which the angry Isis was supposed to afflict false swearers), appealing to the passage of Persius84, already brought forward a few pages back (p. 254.), which reads: