A history of syphilis : reprinted and enlarged from the original paper in the "Edinburgh Medical Journal" / by J.L. Milton, senior surgeon to St. John's Hospital for Diseases of the Skin.

  • Milton, J. L. (John Laws), 1820-1898
Date:
1880
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A history of syphilis : reprinted and enlarged from the original paper in the "Edinburgh Medical Journal" / by J.L. Milton, senior surgeon to St. John's Hospital for Diseases of the Skin. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    16/90 (page 12)
    from 1412 to 1419, says “ It is very curious to observe (in this manuscript), 1 Pro morbo qui dicitur . . . / followed by the French name of a disease, which is supposed not to have been known before in Europe before the discovery of America.” Very curious indeed, for if this be not a later interpolation, there is an end to all doubt about the origin of syphilis having taken place much earlier than is generally supposed ; it being, I imagine, certain that morbus gallicus or some equivalent is meant here, and that such a term was at the outset only applied to true syphilis. But there are grounds for believing that it is not a later inter¬ polation. Haeser gives evidence in support of the theory that morbus gallicus is derived, not from the classic name for France, but from the vulgar word galle (gale, itch, a disease which has on numerous occasions been mixed up with syphilis), the morbus gallicus having been at one time in France called galle (gale), used in England as far back as the fourteenth century to designate a running sore. He adds1 that the term Mala Franzos was known in Germany as early as 1472, an official record showing that in that year a choir singer of Mayence was relieved from his duties because he was suffering from that complaint. Dr. Hermann Friedberg rejects2 Haeser’s conclusions, on the ground that the german authors called the disease gallicus, not for any such reason, but distinctly because they thought it came from the French; but though this gentleman has treated the subject in a masterly way, I still think he fails to refute Haeser’s opinion. Of one thing however we may feel pretty well assured, which is that the old myth about the name dating from the french invasion of Italy can be given up. The next piece of evidence that we come to is the consulta¬ tion of Hugo Bencius, who died in 1448, and which may there¬ fore be even earlier than the notice of venereal disease mentioned by Clarke. It is taken from Astruc,3 who treats with derision the idea that the disease could have been syphilis, in which Haeser seems to concur, and it must be admitted that the picture 1 Op. citat., Vol. 2, p. 223. 2 Virchow's Archiv., B. 33, S. 291. 3 Op. citat., p. 46.