On the pathology and treatment of gonorrhoea and spermatorrhoea / by J.L. Milton.

  • Milton, J. L. (John Laws), 1820-1898.
Date:
1887
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On the pathology and treatment of gonorrhoea and spermatorrhoea / by J.L. Milton. 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.

    16/496 (page 2)
    Moses ; but in reality any description found there, of any one of these diseases, would at once break down if confronted with the simplest defini- tion of the complaint ever yet given, and all the more certainly when we recollect how doubtful we must ever feel about the nature of much of the translation from the Hebrew writ. M. Chabalier's next contention is that HijDpocrates described five kinds of leucorrhoea, irrespective of those arising from inflammation of the womb. But a description of five and fifty would bring us no nearer the mark unless it showed that one of these was a purulent inflammation of the vagina and urethra derived from intercourse, and in its turn conveying infection to the male ; and I presume M. Chabalier will admit that this is one of the things which we do not find in Hippocrates. As to the quota- tion from Herodotus next brought forward by M. Chabalier, about the Scythians being afflicted with a running from the penis, I must, for rea- sons given elsewhere,' affirm that there is not the least justification for such a rendering of the passage, which clearly refers to a visible and here- ditary complaint. If M. Chabalier will bring forward the name of any commentator or lexicographer, who has thus translated in jDrint the Greek adjective used by Herodotus, I will at once admit that he may be right; till then I must contend that he is entirely wrong. The meaning of the term is hidden in impenetrable obscvu'ity, and though it was used for ages after, only the vaguest of ideas was attached to it. But for one fatal ob- jection I should feel inclined to take part with Astruc, who, quoting from Hii^pocrates, says these Scythians were simply eunuchs who dressed like women and did woman's work. The objection is that the complaint was considered to be hereditary, and that in no age or country did eunuchs ever do anything of the kind. After Herodotus comes Celsus, who is ushered forth as describing gonorrhoea and orchitis. No better authority than that of the famous old Eoman surgeon need be asked for, if we only felt sure that we are dealing with attested facts. But the truth is that Celsus never does anything of the kind. He describes primary sores, balanitis and j)himosis, but as to gonorrhoea, there is, in the whole of his work, not merely no definition, but not one unec^uivocal symptom of it, and the orchitis he mentions Avas most probably hydrocele. Certainly it was not gonorrhoeal, for he speaks of it as arising without inflammation, a very unlikely account for so great an observer as Celsus to give of an affection which bears all the visible marks of this state. Besides, if Celsus had been at all acciuainted with gonorrhoeal orchitis, he would have referred it to its proper cause ; the connection between the inflammation of the urethra and that of the testicle is so direct and so palpable, that I question whether any one ever yet made a mistake as to what gonorrhoeal orchitis was due to. The same may be