According to the belief which is now tending to prevail, syphilis was brought to Europe at the end of the fifteenth century by the first discoverers of America.  In Seville, the chief European port for America, it was known as the Indian disease, but when Charles VIII and his army first brought it to Italy in 1495, although this connection with the French was only accidental, it was called the Gallic disease, “a monstrous disease,” said Cataneus, “never seen in previous centuries and altogether unknown in the world.”

The synonyms of syphilis were at first almost innumerable.  It was in his Latin poem Syphilis sive Morbus Gallicus, written before 1521 and published at Verona in 1530, that Fracastorus finally gave the disease its now universally accepted name, inventing a romantic myth to account for its origin.

Although the weight of authoritative opinion now seems to incline towards the belief that syphilis was brought to Europe from America, on the discovery of the New World, it is only within quite recent years that that belief has gained ground, and it scarcely even yet seems certain that what the Spaniards brought back from America was really a disease absolutely new to the Old World, and not a more virulent form of an old disease of which the manifestations had become benign.  Buret, for instance (Le Syphilis Aujourd’hui et chez les Anciens, 1890), who some years ago reached “the deep conviction that syphilis dates from the creation of man,” and believed, from a minute study of classic authors, that syphilis existed in Rome under the Caesars, was of opinion that it has broken out at different places and at different times, in epidemic bursts exhibiting different combinations of its manifold symptoms, so that it passed unnoticed at ordinary times, and at the times of its more intense manifestation was looked upon as a hitherto unknown disease.  It was thus regarded in classic times, he considers, as coming from Egypt, though he looked upon its real home as Asia.  Leopold Glueck has likewise quoted (Archiv fuer Dermatologie und Syphilis, January, 1899) passages from the medical epigrams of a sixteenth century physician, Gabriel Ayala, declaring that syphilis is not really a new disease, though popularly supposed to be so, but an old disease which has broken out with hitherto unknown violence.  There is, however, no conclusive reason for believing that syphilis was known at all in classic antiquity.  A.V.  Notthaft ("Die Legende von der Althertums-syphilis,” in the Rindfleisch Festschrift, 1907, pp. 377-592) has critically investigated the passages in classic authors which were supposed by Rosenbaum, Buret, Proksch and others to refer to syphilis.  It is quite true, Notthaft admits, that many of these passages might possibly refer to syphilis, and one or two would even better fit syphilis than any other disease.  But, on the whole, they furnish no proof at all, and no syphilologist, he concludes,