The pathology and treatment of venereal diseases / by Robert W. Taylor.

  • Taylor, Robert W. (Robert William), 1842-1908.
Date:
1895
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The pathology and treatment of venereal diseases / by Robert W. Taylor. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    26/1034 (page 20)
    attacked. The disease, in the language of a poet of that period, is said to have neither spared the crown nor the cross. The epidemic of syphilis which stands out so boldly in medical his- tory occurred about the time (the latter part of the year 1494) when Charles VIII., king of France, with a large army invaded Italy with the intent of taking possession of the kingdom of Naples, which he claimed by right of inheritance. Charles left Rome on his way to Naples January 28, and reached the latter city February 21, 1495. After a time the Neapolitans revolted against the authority of Charles, and, aided by a Spanish army under the command of Gonsalvo of Cor- dova, they endeavored to drive the French out of Italy. There were then three armies encamped near Naples, and about this time the fear- ful epidemic broke out. It is not definitely established that the disease first appeared among the troops, but they certainly were attacked, and were one of the means of conveying the disease into other countries. There is ample evidence to prove that within a few years the disease had spread over the greater part of Europe. Thus we find that syphilis Avas by the Neapolitans called the morbus Gailicus, by the French mal de Naples, and was also called the Polish, Spanish, Turkish, and Christian disease. It was also named after some saints, and Avas called the disease of the holy man Job, of St. Leonard, St. Clement, St. Mevius, and St. Roche. It was not known as the American disease until twenty years after the return of Columbus from his first trip (1493). A writer named Oviedo, long after the death of that great navigator, by means of far-fetched arguments and distortions of facts tried to prove that his sailors became infected with syphilis from the Indians in America, and that they carried the disease to Europe. Oviedo and his statements and claims are really unworthy of historical chronicle. It seems strange—and it is certainly unparalleled—that such a strikingly well-marked disease as syphilis should thus break forth in epidemic form Avithin a quite restricted area of territory, and that its nature and origin should be Avholly unknoAvn to all observers and Avriters (and very many of them were learned and experienced men) of that period. Yet the fact remains that it was unknown in Europe prior to the last decade of the fifteenth century. Those physicians who had been fiimiliar with the chancroid and gonorrhoea prior to the year 1494 had very clear ideas as to their nature, and they knew perfectly well that they were not in any way related to the new disease. Consequently, early in the sixteenth cen- tury there was no confusion as to the nature of any of these diseases. As time went on, hoAvever, the men who witnessed the famous epidemic died, and in a fcAv years Avhat is known as the age of confusion in venereal diseases appeared. Then syphilis, chancroid, and gonorrhoea came to be regarded as one disease, having one origin, and Avas knoAAii as the venereal disease—lues Venerea. The above-mentioned confusion, Avith the resulting indiscriminate mode of treating these diseases, existed unabated until toAvard the close of the last century, and did not Avholly cease until the first half of the present century had been passed. The identity of gonorrhoea Avith syphilis was, hoAA'ever, denied even