The Plague and Syphilis at the Cradle of Modernity

A Medical Interpretation of History

Introduction

To truly understand History special attention should be paid to what Julius Evola and others called the third dimension of History, i.e. to consider that actions and events may have hidden causes and consequences, invisible to the unaware observer and the “party historian”, whose historiography is often based, naively, on secondary and uncertain elements. The questions that will be investigated in this essay are the following. Could pathological factors have played a bigger role in the last few centuries than it is commonly assumed? It has been proven that numerous European kings and leaders suffered from a mental illness or a physical affliction, which of course affected their actions to more or less significant extent (1). Could the same have happened to a large part of the European peoples and modify the course of History on a large scale? More generally, from a traditional viewpoint, how have the deadliest diseases impacted Europe’s History? The two major diseases which will be examined are the plague and syphilis. The latter will be examined in greater length because we think that syphilis has been, so to speak, left out of the radar by all historians; and we think that syphilis, in a cycle characterized by the importance of sex and woman, has played a major and unsuspected role. The former has already been examined by a few writers; our text will be a summary but not only as a few new points will be made.

The plague

As we said, the first disease that will be examined is the black plague that spread in Europe during the fourteenth century. It came from Asia and it seems that it is traders who brought it to Europe and not rats as today’s historians pretend. It is the lack of borders and international trade which enabled the transmission. It is easy to notice the similarity with today’s open borders policy and “free trade”, as Europe is flooded with harmful junk coming from third world countries; not only with toxic toys but also defective key industrial components which go in sensitive industrial facilities.

Let us go back to the black plague. Dozens of millions of Europeans died in a few years. Many villages ceased to exist. The dysgenic results were obvious. Hundreds of thousands of old family lines disappeared. And there is ground to think that this epidemic is the root cause of the great acceleration in the racial “denordification” of Europe and the rise of the brachycephalic elements which took place during that time, as explained by race researcher de Lapouge (2), who, however, was unable to explain it. It was all the more catastrophic as a large part of Europe’s best racial stock had disappeared earlier during the “crusades”, fighting vainly in the desert sand; French historian Fernand Braudel has estimated that up to four or five million European men could have been killed in the crusades. Soon after the plague had disappeared, the surviving men and women, perhaps encouraged by the Church, felt that they had to repopulate the Earth and unions were more anarchical than in the past; twins and triplets were common (3).

However, these were not the only consequences of the black plague, as it seems that it sealed the death of medieval civilization and marked the beginning of a new cycle, whose nature was clearly more capitalist and bourgeois. Below are a few points which tend to indicate it.

Due to the great depopulation, serfdom gradually became obsolete and the aristocracy lost economic power and, as a result, a certain form of competition between aristocrats and peasants began. Aristocrats started looking for paid offices in cities while individual peasants could acquire wealth thanks to cheaper land prices and international trade due to the food surplus that could be sold abroad. Also, a large number of surviving individuals got rich through the inheritance that they obtained and indulged in a hedonistic lifestyle. However, even if many became much richer, the general living conditions had become worse, which increased the dysgenic effects. Aside from these socio-economic changes, general mental health of the population was durably affected and superstition increased. For example, because of the plague, up to 800,000 people in Germany and Northern France joined the ranks of the flagellants.

Another point is how the plague could have affected literature and how it was falsified. To take an example, the Valhalla and the Ragnarök concepts could have Christian origins for the following reason. It seems that Iceland (and Norway, too) was precisely the land which was the hardest hit by the plague as almost the whole of its population was destroyed (4). The question is whether this “apocalyptic” event could have had an influence on Nordic writings such as the Edda, which, however, official chronology assumes it was written in the thirteenth century. If it is really from the thirteenth century, could it have been altered to suit the new general mindset that was born out of the catastrophe? On a related subject, the black plague certainly made it easier for Christian evangelists to convert Scandinavia. Finally, it should be mentioned that several “recentists” have sought to reinterpret the black plague to fit their own particular scenario.

Syphilis

The second disease that we wish to examine is syphilis, whose uncertain origins have been generating a heated controversy for centuries. A summary can be found on the internet (5). It should be noted that, from what we have read, the history of syphilis is more complex and nuanced than what is summarized there. However, as this is off the subject, we will not talk much about it. We will simply say that the “Columbian theory” looks very plausible to us, and that the syphilis outbreak in Europe could have happened thanks to sexual relationships between “native Americans” and Colombus’ crew and soldiers. If so, thanks to Colombus, this would be the first American import to Europe.

The goal of this study is not to examine the obvious dysgenic effects and the negative social consequences of syphilis. It will instead examine the more or less hidden mental consequences of the malady and how it participated in triggering the “Renaissance”, as that era came to be called in the “syphilitic” nineteenth century (6).

The epidemics of 1494

Before talking about this, it is necessary to be factual and describe the syphilis epidemics of 1494. Historical research indicates that early syphilis, a few years on after 1494, was frequently deadly and extremely contagious. Historian Sabellicus estimated in 1502 that the twentieth of Europeans had syphilis; however, Albrecht Dürer wrote: “God save me from the French disease. I know of nothing of which I am so afraid… Nearly every man has it and it eats up so many that they die”; Erasmus, himself a late-stage syphilitic whose doctors were afraid to come close to him for fear of contracting the disease, wrote that it was “the disease that killed the most people”; and Leo Africanus estimated that nine tenths of the North Africans were infected. Regarding the Europeans, that is not surprising given their sexual habits, as finely illustrated in Guy Breton’s book “Histoire d’amour de l’histoire de France”. It should be mentioned that, obviously, it is very difficult to come up with a precise estimation of the number of people who were affected.

The malady evolved a lot overtime. It caused millions of deaths only during the first few years after the outbreak of 1494 and became less deadly as the decades passed, although this does not mean contagion ceased. As a contagious, hereditary, lifelong malady, syphilis was almost never cured effectively and consistently before the 1940s when it was found that penicillin worked as a healing drug. The most used form of treatment during the “Renaissance” was mercury; it was seldom effective and often aggravated the patient’s state; and if it was able in some cases to cure secondary syphilis, it did not prevent neurosyphilis according to modern scientists. These are the reasons why it is reasonable to assume that syphilis frequently persisted under hidden forms: "for the most part, after the initial chancre and rash had cleared up, the disease only showed such lesions when it relapsed during the first few years. Other than that, it was invisible and therefore secret, and although the victim was often dreadfully sick much of the time and complained of feeling poisoned, the aches and pains were rarely attributed to syphilis" (7). It was only in the nineteenth century that syphilis was recognized as having the potentiality to cause any disease; as such, it was nicknamed “the Great Imitator”. If syphilis often went undetected as the root cause of harsh physical sufferings, it is sound to assume that its consequences on mental health went undetected even more. They could have been even more invisible as they often may not have resulted in sheer dementia; syphilis does not alter clarity of mind, at least until the last stages of the disease. It is now time to describe what has been called neurosyphilis, which is at the core of the second part of this study.

Neurosyphilis as a mental disease

Neurosyphilis is the last stage of an untreated syphilis. It is likely to happen a few years after the initial infection if the first stages have not been lethal to the subject. The symptoms are diverse: “Prodromal or warning signs, often occurring over as much as a decade, may be obvious to family and friends, who are often shocked and confused when they observe long periods of extreme clarity and typical behavior alternating with episodes of bizarre, uninhibited, even criminal acts, and loss of previously held ethical values. William Osler described ‘a change in character (…) which may astonish the friends and relatives’ and warned to watch for ‘important indications of moral perversions manifested in offenses against decency’. In the final period close to the onset of paresis, mood shifts become more extreme as euphoria, electric excitement, bursts of creative energy, and grandiose self-reflections alternate with severe, often suicidal depression. Delusions of grandeur, paranoia, exaltation, irritability, rages, and irrational, antisocial behavior define the progression toward insanity. The patient may suddenly begin to gamble, go on absurd spending sprees, or imagine owning vast riches. A calm person becomes emotional, a neat person sloppy, a timid one aggressive. Here the condition is often misdiagnosed as paranoid persecutory psychosis or schizophrenia” (8). The same author also writes that “paresis often begins with a dramatic episode characterized by delusions; grandiosity; identification with religious, mythic, or royal figures; and sometimes rage and violent acts”. A medical encyclopedia mentions the following symptoms: “abnormal walk (gait), blindness, confusion, dementia, depression, headache, incontinence, inability to walk, irritability, numbness in the toes, feet, or leg, poor concentration, seizure, stiff neck, tremors, visual disturbances, weakness” (9). Other studies are more evocative and make a direct link between neurosyphilis and “creative, intellectual or philosophical activity” (10). The pathological manifestations that we will pay special attention to are, of course, of a mental nature. More precisely, it is about the influence of syphilis on the brain’s creative capabilities that we are going to examine – but not only however – because the “Renaissance” has been an era characterized by a great efflorescence in a number of areas.

The matter at hand is, firstly, to determine the extent to which neurosyphilis occurred in the sixteenth century and, secondly, the role it played in triggering the great upheavals of that time, namely the “Renaissance” and Protestantism, and, as a consequence, “our” modern world. The first question cannot be answered with certainty as neurosyphilis went undetected; that is the reason why data is unavailable. However, as millions of Europeans died from syphilis in a few decades, and as other hundreds of thousands caught syphilis but did not die, it is safe to assume that a large number of Europeans developed neurosyphilis. The second question is at the core of this essay and it will be discussed at greater length. We would like to say our readers that we do not state that syphilis always had a total influence on a person’s works – whatever these works were. We do not do any facile, simple-minded reductionism. However, we argue that syphilis’ influence should be revised upwards. We will conclude by saying that we hope that our study will not be accused of being “fanciful”; serious illnesses do have consequences on someone’s mental health and relationship to the world. Although the topic of syphilis is little-discussed and even less known by the medical community, a few medical practitioners have written interesting texts; for example, impressionist Edouard Manet, a few years before his death at the age of 51, as he had been eaten away by syphilis for the last 13 years, suddenly chose to paint still lifes and pretty girls, sometimes naked, which he had never done before when he was sound (11). Toulouse-Lautrec, another unfortunate painter, knew a similar fate. Born in 1864, the toll that syphilis had taken on his health became very visible as early as in the early 1890s; he caught it from his model-turned-mistress and, probably, prostitutes as well as it is known that he spent a lot of time studying brothels for his art. It is around that time that he created a series of paintings, called “Elles”, depicting the various occupants of the red light district in a sympathetic and humane way, which shocked the French society.

The impact of neurosyphilis in the “profane” world during the “Renaissance”

As a start to our investigation, the characteristics of the “Renaissance” must be briefly examined first and compared to the pathological phenomenon neurosyphilis induces. As for the various representative figures of that period, it is often not possible, due to the significant unavailability of unequivocal records, to determine whether this or that great figure had syphilis. We have found that the best method to reach some results was to examine their works, deeds and general behaviour. Of course it is not possible in this study to do it in a comprehensive way, as this would imply scrutinizing the biographies of hundreds of “Renaissance” men. That is why it can only be considered introductive (12). We will quote a few more extracts from J. Hayden’s book to illustrate how a retrospective diagnosis should be performed. “Often, having no reason to suspect it (syphilis) and seeing no whisper of it in the literary archive, they (biographers) just miss it. Sometimes it has been covered up or discreetly ignored out of consideration for family members still alive. Some have found it irrelevant. Others have cited it parenthetically, or in a footnote, or at most in paragraph, as if instead of being a life-changing and defining event, infection with syphilis was of no more importance than a passing head cold. And many have found mentioning it to be rude and inappropriate. The reluctance to attribute a shameful disease like syphilis to a great person, the danger that the work will in some way be linked to the disease, an oeuvre tainted and denigrated – all contribute to sparse references to syphilis.” (…) “The syphilologists left lists of questions to ask when interviewing a patient about a suspected syphilitic infection than can be modified for the retrospective biographer digging through a literary archive. First, was there a pattern of infection during youth? Look for indications of high-risk sexual behavior, especially with prostitutes; an admission of having syphilis, perhaps written circumspectly to a friend or close family member; or a diagnosis by a physician, even if revealed only posthumously. Was there at the possible time of infection a severe fever (typhus, typhoid, malaria) accompanied by extreme malaise? At any time were there indications of treatment with mercury or arsenic or, later, potassium iodide? Was there a sudden change from relatively good health to a lifetime of mysterious, painful ailments? Was there unexpected vow chastity? Social withdrawal? Sudden misanthropy, reworking of values, taking on (or casting off) of religion? Next, over the following decades, was the person subject to a wide variety of illnesses, in one part of the body after another, that were suspicion arousers of a developing case of syphilis? Were there episodes of bizarre, uncharacteristic behavior? In the later stages, were there personality changes that warned of approaching neurosyphilis: grandiosity, euphoria, rages, violent or criminal behavior, extreme depression? Or were there sharp and mysterious pains, acute gastrointestinal distress, or an imbalanced gait that warned of tabes dorsalis?” (…) “The following pattern of revelation is often seen when researching a biographical history where syphilis is suspected: 1. Keeping it secret: Although statements are made privately by friends and doctors, syphilis is not publicly acknowledged during a person’s lifetime. 2. Diagnosing it: The first medical biographies, often written with experience in long-term untreated syphilis, accept a diagnosis based on the mental and physical condition of the subject and on the statements of friends and doctors. 3. Ignoring it: Syphilis is then dropped by subsequent biographers, who for decades sideline the question of health in general as being rude or irrelevant. 4. Missing it: The file is reopened and a debate begins in the literature. Specialists not trained to identify syphilis, often harboring mistaken ideas about the disease, tend to look and reject each clue in turn without considering the larger pattern over the lifetime. Medical consensus runs against syphilis.”

As previously said, the main characteristic of the “Renaissance” is a great creative efflorescence in several domains. We will now examine in turns several of those and make inferences. We will begin with the world of the arts, although other areas will necessarily be approached in the meantime. The “Renaissance” – especially from the beginning of the sixteenth century – was characterized by an admiration of classical Antiquity, as it suddenly became worthy of attention and, for example, ancient mythology became respectable and was in some respects considered as prefiguring Christianity. That period came to be looked with envy and a number of “Renaissance” men identified with what they thought was Antiquity. That was not all: there was a will to recreate what was perceived as Antiquity. The result was a confused mix between Greco-Roman Antiquity themes, biblical themes and sixteenth century themes. That sudden exaltation for Greco-Roman Antiquity, which for its most part was previously held as infamous due to the supremacy of Christian theology, could be attributed to a certain extent to neurosyphilis, as it can produce such exaltation and “loss of previously held ethical values”. Also, that identification with mythological, extraordinary, legendary, figures is typical of neurosyphilis. Finally, that will oriented towards grandiosity, to – superficially – imitate Antiquity, and even recreate it, is clearly of a hubris nature generated to some extent by neurosyphilis.

“Renaissance” was also characterized by “humanism”. Let us focus on this word, which is recent, as we know that it was introduced in the French language by Pierre de Nolhac in 1886. Firstly, “humanism” means emancipating from various things. Secondly, it consists in exalting “human genius” and man’s creative power. Thirdly, it implies than every man must do all that he can to develop his own faculties. Historian Braudel wrote that “humanism” was always against something; against the submission to God; against any doctrine which would disregard man; against any system which would reduce man’s responsibility; etc. “Humanism” is always about claiming something; it is the fruit of pride, hubris.

As a result, in the world of the arts during the “Renaissance”, esthetics played a greater role and “profane” works became more numerous. Individual “man” appeared much more, be it in painting, sculpture or literary works. Painters and sculptors strove to reach a “perfect” realism in their works, which, in other words, amounted to recreate reality. That explains why scientific techniques and mathematical calculations were devised at that time by painters to reach “perfection”. The invention of all those techniques indicates that a great intellectual activity took place. And, as we will see further on, syphilitic man often has a great intellectual activity, if not voracity, as he wants to learn and know everything and be “universal”. We take this opportunity to remind that neurosyphilis, far from weakening one’s mental faculties, is likely to strongly increase them; a little-known but well-documented case is that of poet Heinrich Heine, whose neurosyphilis rendered him very prolific (13).

It is interesting to consider whether the Christian cathedrals, whose construction for many of them seems to actually have been started during the “Renaissance”, could be the product of the hubris that we have described, of that will to recreate what was the most visible of Greco-Roman Antiquity, that is the large monuments. For instance, the clergy of Beauvais in Northern France did build a cathedral whose spire was 153 metres high – however, the spire collapsed in 1573, four years after the completion of the works. The “gargoyles” and the other sculptures showing half-human half-animal creatures within cathedrals could be interpreted in the same vein, as the desire to create a new, hybrid being, thus imitating “God” who created humans, according to Christian theology. This general hypothesis is all the more sound since the priests and the prelates, far from being abstinent, suffered from syphilis as much as the rest of the population, if not more; we know well the story of young Cesare Borgia who was so disfigured by syphilis that he had to wear a facial mask.

Let us now focus on Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, three “big shots” of the “Renaissance”, and also “fathers” of modernity in a way, in order to illustrate what we have written. We have chosen these well-known individuals because we can access extensive biographical documents; however, through their individuality, we also wish to provide a general portrait of the time and the reader should considerate that what we are going to describe may have happened in one way or another to hundreds of thousands of people. Of course, we encourage our readers to perform similar investigations on famous or less-famous “Renaissance” characters.

Regarding Leonardo, it has been claimed that his mother may have been an Arab slave (14) and there is evidence that he indulged in homosexual debauchery in his youth (15). But historians have never agreed whether Leonardo was homosexual and whether in his adult life he remained chaste or not. Freud wrote an interesting book on Leonardo, “Eine Kindheitserinnerung des Leonardo da Vinci”, in which he argues that Leonardo was homosexual. In the possible case that Leonardo would have had a dissolute life in his early years and later stopped pursuing relationships altogether, this would be of significant importance because a sudden vow of chastity is, according to J. Hayden, a fact that medical biographers should not hesitate to interpret as the result of a syphilitic infection. Just by looking at Leonardo’s self-portrait we do think that he was syphilitic, as a scholar put it when he compared syphilitic Heinrich Heine to Leonardo: “Bloodshot eyes, violet lips, half-open eyelids gave him the sub-human appearance of a veiled and mysterious da Vinci” (16). It is also noteworthy that Leonardo suffered a progressive paralysis during the last few years of his life, a symptom typical of syphilis. That is not all. There are other elements of a more subtle nature which point to a syphilitic condition. Firstly, Leonardo’s eclecticism – he was, among other things, a painter, a sculptor, a musician, a poet, a philosopher, a writer, a scientist, an engineer, an architect, an inventor, a botanist and an anatomist – is a sign of intense intellectual activity, which could be caused by neurosyphilis. Secondly, as many syphilitic people, he showed in his works a marked, if not manic, interest for sex, although in the case of Leonardo it is more or less hidden. His drawing of the “Vitruvian man”, which has now become very famous and used by a variety of “counter-initiation” forces, is a good example of this tendency; in this drawing, which supposedly shows the analogy between man and the universe, it is the genitals of the crucified man which are at the centre. In passing, could the crucified man be the Christian God? Thirdly, Leonardo had a marked taste for ugliness and strangeness, which is visible in a number of his drawings representing freakish, monstrous faces and bodies, as well as in at least two of his paintings, Mona Lisa and St John, which are likely to represent androgynous persons. Such a taste can of course be correlated to neurosyphilis as this disease is likely to provoke not only severe depression and a constant state of anxiety but also makes the mind gravitate towards inverted, “negative”, if not evil, conceptions. We have mentioned the famous Mona Lisa portrait. We will analyze it, as a final point. The Mona Lisa portrait is known for being very enigmatic. There has been a lot of speculation about the real identity of the person painted – we say “person” because, as we have said, there is ground to assume it is an androgynous being. According to two prevalent theories, it could represent Leonardo himself or his mother. A proof of that would be that Mona Lisa was the work that Leonardo cherished the most. As such, he refused to hand it over to the man who had paid for it. And medical experts have concluded that the person painted was ridden with various diseases, including syphilis (17). As Leonardo was well-versed in anatomy, he could have represented these pathological symptoms without difficulties. Finally, we will mention that a group of scientists has recently sought to exhume Leonardo’s supposed remains in France in order to examine his bones and check any pathological conditions which may have caused his death (18). It seems that syphilis and tuberculosis were on top of their list.

It is generally admitted that Raphael died of syphilis at the age of 37, while his father, coincidentally, died in 1494, the year the epidemics began (19). As most artists of the time and perhaps today, he led a dissolute life and had several mistresses besides his fiancée, who also died of malady, just three months after him. We can trace the influence that syphilis had on Raphael’s works. Firstly, Raphael aspired to grandiosity, in the sense that he was greatly preoccupied by the appearance of his painting style and did not spare any effort to better it, so much that a critic said that he was the first artist to put beauty before thought, thus ending medieval art and beginning modernism (20). We are aware that such an aspiration may have other causes; however, as we have uncovered the powerful influence that syphilis carries, it is worth mentioning. Secondly, as with Manet and Toulouse-Lautrec, there has been a marked change in his paintings which had been so far for most of them of a religious nature and portraits of sovereign figures: three or four years before his death, probably as the physical pain and psychological torment increased, he started painting his mistresses either naked or making a gesture with sexual overtone (21).

The more we look into the lives of the men of the “Renaissance” who have been revered the more we discover how disreputable they actually were. Michelangelo is another shady character, which can be guessed simply by looking at his physiognomy (22); as a note, we will mention that he was involved in faking works of art and pass them off as coming from Antiquity. He was a homosexual and one “lover” of his has been identified; these are facts that historians have tried to hide until recently by arguing that he had no sexual life (23). Thus, there is a possibility that he caught syphilis. We also have a letter from a close friend of Michelangelo in which he celebrates the fact that the artist has been "cured of a malady from which few men recover" (24). To us, this malady can only be syphilis and the “recovery” the disappearance of some physical symptoms. Also, the fact that Michelangelo died at an old age and, it seems, without the physical symptoms that syphilis induces does not constitute a rebuttal to our theory because syphilis may manifest itself either physically or psychologically (25). And we are going to see how Michelangelo presented psychological symptoms typical of syphilis. Firstly, he identified with a god and made himself known as “Il Divino”. Secondly, as in the case of Leonardo, he was eclectic intellectually; he was not only a painter but also a sculptor, an architect and a poet. Thirdly, again as in the case of Leonardo, he had a marked taste for strangeness; his paintings are full of bizarre beings, such as those having a woman’s face and a man’s muscular body. Fourthly, he was asocial and a misanthrope, which can be, according to J. Hayden, caused by neurosyphilis. Finally, he had a marked interest for sexuality; for example, the nudes in his famous Last Judgment caused outrage and underpants were added later. Regarding that specific work, a contemporary of Michelangelo said it should be for “the public baths and the taverns” and not for a church. As for us, what caught our attention about this painting were the fear and the suffering which are present everywhere on it; these are the products of a brain ridden with dread. It is all the more true since Michelangelo was allowed by papal authorities to do as he liked to paint this fresco.

We will now discuss in a similar, synthetic fashion the world of literature during the sixteenth century and the early seventeenth century. We will approach various themes: poetry, theatre play, philosophy, novel, etc.

Poetry followed the same course which was explained a few paragraphs before: sexuality as a poetical theme became prevalent; feelings in general, especially suffering, became a theme worthy of poetry; Antiquity poets were imitated, sometimes in a bombastic way; many new poetical forms, as well as words, were created; the emphasis was put on external beauty; etc. Again, we think that it would not be imprudent to assert that “Renaissance” poetry was the product of syphilis to a large extent. We can reach such a conclusion only by scrutinizing the lives of a few of the poets of the era who, for many of them, had syphilis; we can see then that it was the true driving force which made them write poetry.

It is beyond a doubt – even if numerous biographical texts do not mention it – that the French “prince of poets and poet of princes”, Pierre de Ronsard, had syphilis. He suddenly became deaf in his late teenage years, which made him choose poetry as a “career” course, and, then, had various illnesses throughout his lifetime. This is not surprising as it seemed that he was sexually promiscuous; his notable work “Les Amours” is dedicated to, and mentions, at least a dozen of his female lovers. Ronsard was above all eclectic and showed a great intellectual activity. He strived to imitate Greco-Roman poets and surpass them. A bombastic work of his was “La Franciade”, an epic poem on the history of France mimicking Virgil’s Aenid. This work is typical of the hubris of the time because there simply was no historical reason to write such an epic poem; there was no Augustus who had restored, at least to some extent, France’s former grandiosity. It is also noteworthy that Ronsard and his colleagues of the group “La Pléïade” gave themselves the grandiose task to create a new French language, which was to be more polished than the “barbarian” language of the fifteenth century. How their work influenced the shaping of the ideas of the masses through language modification remains to be investigated.

Ronsard’s colleague, Joachim du Bellay, the “French Ovid”, also had syphilis, as his father perhaps. He also developed numerous pathological conditions throughout his life, which was short; he was eaten away much quicker than Ronsard as he died at the age of 37. His work is full of tales and complaints on his sufferings and his poor destiny, besides the numerous love stories. Or are these really about love? When “Renaissance” writers talk about love and employ words such as “burning”, “fire”, “contagion”, “disease” and “infection”, they may be talking about their own experience of syphilis and not so much about unrequited love. As many “Renaissance” men, he was enamored with what he thought was Greco-Roman Antiquity; following his stay in Rome, he wrote in a few poems how he was deeply disappointed that sixteenth-century Rome had nothing to do with what he thought that it was.

Although that he did not write only poetry, their most famous English counterpart was Shakespeare, the “founder of the English language”, whose syphilis can barely be doubted – if he really existed and authored all those texts, as indeed many critics have put into question Shakespeare’s very existence; others have proponed various original hypotheses, such as Martin Lings who argued that Shakespeare was a Sufi initiate (26); as this is not our subject, we will consider that Shakespeare was as he is described by official history. We do not have much work to do here because Shakespeare’s probable syphilis, as well as its influence on his work, has already been investigated in a 2005 academic paper (27). We will just say that Shakespeare’s disease may have had other, more subtle influences on his work that remain to be investigated; we will not do it as we do not have a thorough knowledge of Shakespeare’s works. We will now quote the abstract of this study: “Shakespeare’s obsessive interest in syphilis, his clinically exact knowledge of its manifestations, the final poems of the sonnets, and contemporary gossip all suggest that he was infected with ‘the infinite malady’. The psychological impact of venereal disease may explain the misogyny and revulsion from sex so prominent in the writings of Shakespeare’s tragic period. This article examines the possibility that Shakespeare received successful treatment for syphilis and advances the following new hypothesis: Shakespeare’s late-life decrease in artistic production, tremor, social withdrawal, and alopecia were due to mercury poisoning from syphilis treatment. He may also have had anasarca due to mercury-related membranous nephropathy. This medical misadventure may have prematurely ended the career of the greatest writer in the English language.” Other interesting passages include the following: “Fabricius concludes that the ‘picture of William Shakespeare is clearly that of a Bohemian and libertine who is the ringleader of an aristocratic jet set specializing in the courtship of beautiful ladies’ and implies that Shakespeare had venereal disease. However, the strongest evidence that Shakespeare had a sexually transmitted disease is that he tells us so himself, in the sonnets” and “Shakespeare’s fellow writers Robert Greene, Thomas Nashe, and George Peele all died young, apparently from syphilis acquired in the London brothels. Is there evidence that Shakespeare’s own lifestyle put him at risk for syphilis?”. The author of this study received criticism for interpreting Shakespeare’s life to some extent in terms of syphilis. The usual accusations of “insufficient evidence” and “extrapolation” were made. However, we are forced to extrapolate to a certain extent given that strictly medical data is often insufficient. This critique rather shows that truthfully analyzing the far-reaching role of syphilis amounts to revisionism; thus an “Establishment” scholar is not free to say how the “Renaissance” was to a certain extent the result of a disease.

Let us now uncover François Rabelais’s relationship with syphilis, which has been censored, ignored or downplayed by most scholars. The latter, however, have been praising Rabelais as one of the great writers and creators of modern European writing. To the best of our knowledge, there is no definite proof indicating that Rabelais had syphilis. However, his life path is telling, aside from his possible homosexuality (28). He suddenly became very interested in medicine, so much that he left his monastery to study medicine. Two years later, he became a medical doctor and in 1532 he chose to work in a public hospital in Lyon so that he could care for syphilitic patients; such a career choice is all the more strange since that, given his proven accomplishments and known connections, he could have pursued a comfortable monastic career, among other possibilities. That is not all. The very fact that he started writing books seems to have been caused by syphilis (29). Indeed, what most scholars have omitted to say about Rabelais’ books is that syphilis and syphilitics are everywhere in them. It is not the place to do a dry literary analysis. We will only say that Rabelais dedicates his books to syphilitics, whom he calls “mes amours”, and talks of them in a large number of passages, mostly to describe them and their sorry fate. Moreover, his books were especially written for them, to be read as an alleviating treatment; this practice was actually not so uncommon at the time; for example pregnant women used to “apply” to themselves the Life of Saint Margaret. Besides this medical side of Rabelais’ books, two elements are noteworthy in respect to the subject of this study. Firstly, the world that Rabelais constructed is particularly bizarre and one can wonder whether it is the product of disease. Secondly, Rabelais, a devout Christian and a former monk, bitterly attacked Christianity in his books, which is clearly a case of loss of previously held values. And, according to Hayden, casting off a religion may be the result of neurosyphilis. As a conclusion, would Rabelais, that “great writer and creator of modern European writing”, have written books if syphilis had not occurred? Probably not. And today’s readers of Rabelais do not know that they are reading medical literature.

Rabelais once wrote to Erasmus, the “Prince of Humanists”, – who popularized the word “syphilis” – that he regarded himself as his “spiritual child”, which is not surprising given their numerous similarities. Erasmus had a large number of mistresses and, as a consequence, had syphilis, as we said. However, we will not go into the detail of his life. We will only say that it is highly probable that neurosyphilis affected his life path: a former monk, he showed a great intellectual activity – as well as a great, disease-caused vanity and self-complacency – which he employed to attack the Church; he became the leader of a reactionary movement; he thought that reviving letters meant reviving Ancient Greece; he was obsessed with the salvation of the souls, going against scholasticism of the time which was busier having “metaphysical” speculations, etc.

We will stop here analyzing particular individuals who have shaped the worlds of arts and philosophy. However, what we have done could be repeated for many other notable individuals of the “Renaissance”. As two final examples, we could mention Montesquieu who alluded to his syphilis in his – raving – writings (30) and Machiavelli who felt the need to leave us the account of one of his numerous couplings with a prostitute: “His work accomplished, Cesare took to the streets. Machiavelli, his contemporary and a man with a wit as unflinching as his politics, has left a chilling account of his coupling with a prostitute who, when he lights a lamp afterwards, is revealed as a bald, toothless hag so hideous that he promptly throws up over her” (31). Machiavelli also left us a well-known description of how he spent his evenings and wrote “The Prince”: “On the coming of evening, I return to my house and enter my study; and at the door I take off the day's clothing, covered with mud and dust, and put on garments regal and courtly; and reclothed appropriately, I enter the ancient courts of ancient men, where, received by them with affection, I feed on that food which only is mine and which I was born for, where I am not ashamed to speak with them and to ask them the reason for their actions; and they in their kindness answer me; and for four hours of time I do not feel boredom, I forget every trouble, I do not dread poverty, I am not frightened by death; entirely I give myself over to them. And because Dante says it does not produce knowledge when we hear but do not remember, I have noted everything in their conversation which has profited me, and have composed a little work On Princedoms, where I go as deeply as I can into considerations on this subject, debating what a princedom is, of what kinds they are, how they are gained, how they are kept, why they are lost.” Scholars and biographers alike have considered this passage only as being full of imagery. However, there may be a literal meaning behind these words given the pathological mental conditions Machiavelli probably endured. We also know that Machiavelli strongly identified with Polybius, while Erasmus chose Latin author Lucian, as did Rabelais and Bonaventure des Périers. Could Machiavelli have considered Polybius as his personal daemon, in a similar fashion to the daemon of Socrates? Moreover, the extent to which the humanists altered and falsified, to fit their own views, the writings of ancient authors remains to be ascertained.

We have chosen not analyze the pathological lives of the various European kings of the “Renaissance” even though their actions may have been strongly influenced by syphilis. This choice was explained by the simple fact that the actions of these sovereigns have not had an influence as durable as that of “philosophers” and “artists” who have strongly contributed to shape the forma mentis of the future generations. Hence our decision to examine only characters coming from the world of ideas.

The impact of neurosyphilis in the “sacred” world during the “Renaissance”

As was hinted at a few paragraphs up, we believe that neurosyphilis played a role in the creation of what came to be called Protestantism, which is, after all, only another form of “humanism”. It is probable that the founder of Protestantism, Luther, had syphilis even if, again, there is no definite proof. Several Luther biographers such as Denifle, Grisar and O’Hare (32) argued that he was syphilitic whereas others argued the contrary. The life of Luther must be analyzed carefully given the bias present in both Catholic and Protestant writings about him. However, in the case of his possible syphilis, the matter seems to be substantiated. O’Hare wrote the following: “By his own admission Luther made no scruple of drinking deeply in order to drive away temptations and melancholy, and whilst his enemies may have gone too far in charging him with gross immorality, there is, however, much in this direction which cannot be ignored or excused. His ghastly utterances, his bubbling over with obscenity, his boiling spring of sensuality were known to all, and it could not be wondered at if men thought that these defects could only be explained and partially defended on the ground of an abnormal sexual condition which was supposed to have been heightened by licentious irregularities. In the "Analecta Lutherana" by Theodore Kolde, there is a medical letter of Wolfgang Rychardus to Johann Magenbuch, Luther's physician, dated June II, 1523, taken from the Hamburg Town Library, which is of a character to make one wonder on reading it whether Luther did not at one period suffer from syphilis, at any rate in a mild form” (33).

There is more. A number of Luther’s acts and decisions, which historians have not explained in a satisfying manner, may have been the direct result of syphilis. We will not dwell on traits typical of neurosyphilis that he had his whole post-adolescent life: melancholy, despair, depression and frequent mood swings from cheerfulness to gloom. Overall, he was of a violent, despotic and uncontrolled nature. He had a titanic pride but he was also a tireless worker, a forceful writer and a great orator.

The first element of Luther’s life which will be examined is his becoming a monk. Nothing at all predisposed him to be a monk as, according to his father’s will, he was to work in the field of law. Luther’s behavioural dispositions were definitely not those expected of a monk, as his friends told him when they tried to dissuade him from entering the monastery during an unusual “farewell to the world” supper that he gave. However, despite everything, he suddenly chose to become a monk at the age of 22 (34). There are two reasons which are commonly given to explain this decision – that he was gradually attracted to theology though the study of philosophy and that during a thunderstorm a lightning bolt struck near him, which he saw as a divine call to the monastic life – but they bear little historical truth because Luther himself explained later in one of his letters why he took such a vow: “When I was over-stricken and overwhelmed by the fear of impending death, I made an involuntary and forced vow”. We propose that this fear of death – and thus his becoming a monk to seek a refuge and salvation eventually – was due to syphilis that he had contracted a few months or years before.

The second element that we wish to examine is his outlook towards himself and man in general, which of course durably affected Protestantism later. Luther himself admitted that he was driven into a religious career by despair (“I entered the monastery and renounced the world because I despaired of myself all the while”). He saw nothing in himself but sin and in the Christian God nothing but anger and revenge. He created his own mortification methods, which were very harsh, because, being original and self-opinionated and stubborn-minded, he disregarded the usual remedies which were encouraged in the monasteries. Eventually, as the disease was evolving on the mental plane, he developed his own religious conceptions – based to a large extent on the question of “salvation” – which necessarily reflected the opinion that he had of himself. He held that man was fundamentally of a corrupt nature; he wrote the following: “Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins even in his mother’s womb, when, as yet, a mere fetus, an impure mass of matter, before it becomes a human creature, it commits iniquity and incurs damnation. As he grows the innate element of corruption develops. Man has said to sin, ‘Thou art my father’, and every act he performs is an offense against God; and to the worms, ‘You are my brothers’, and he crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and cannot produce good fruit; a dung-hill and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it. Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath.” Such a view can only have stemmed from a deep pathological state. As a consequence, “all action whatever, even that which is directed towards good, being an emanation from our corrupt nature, is, in the sight of God, nothing more or less than deadly sin: therefore our actions have no influence on our salvation; we are saved by faith alone without good works”. Predestination – that is the idea that man cannot shape his destiny – is the next step.

To sum up, we propose that Luther’s pessimistic and passive conception of man was the consequence of his syphilitic state.

The final element that we will examine is Luther’s rebellion against the established order, thus launching what later came to be called “Protestantism”. It is necessary first to remind that Luther created his own religious conceptions because he saw the Christian ones as ineffective and unable to “save” him. He eventually came to despise a large part of Christian theology, its doctrine of salvation particularly. He chose to strike it openly in 1517, after being a monk for twelve years. We propose that it is not by chance that Luther attacked first the indulgences, as they were closely linked to Luther’s obsession – salvation –, which were being sold in Germany by a papal commissioner. We also contend that “Protestantism” made progress not only because a large part of the people had had enough of Church abuse but also because at that time syphilis was hitting will full force every class of the people. Luther in a way allowed a greater propagation of the disease by insisting on the importance of faith alone – without the “good works” (35). In short, pleasure was given more space through “Protestantism”, which is perhaps one of the reasons why sex historically has been playing a greater role in certain Anglo-Saxon peoples, namely the English and the Americans, both in a repressive way – in Puritanism for example – and a favouring way – in modern American “culture” for example.

Syphilis in the next centuries

The ravage caused by syphilis of course continued in the next centuries but they will not be investigated in this study. We will only mention that neurosyphilis has played a role in certain decisive currents and events. The “French Revolution” – as well as other long-lasting revolutionary currents – is a striking example (36). The whole Romantic Movement – as well as other cultural phenomena such as the development of “classical music” – is another. As a final word, we would like to remind that History is shaped by only a few individualities whose mental health is of tremendous importance as it will affect their actions and, thus, the course of History. And, however, that is precisely the reason why one must remain cautious when the accusation of syphilis is launched against someone; it is used as a smear or a device to sell books. A notable example is Adolf Hitler who has been made a syphilitic by some historians, although there is no proof at all that it was so: “Morell (Hitler’s physician) routinely performed on Hitler both the Wassermann and Meinecke tests, which are tests for syphilis, and they came up negative in 1940. There is not the slightest hint of syphilis in Morell's diaries or in his medical notes on the man who was his patient from 1937 to 1945” (37).

Notes and references

1. Two books in French dealing with the subject extensively have been identified:
-http://archive.org/details/lhrditdesstigma00boucgoog
-http://archive.org/details/pathologiemental00brac
However, they contain a few inevitable mistakes; for example, the well-known prognathism of the Habsburg family should not be regarded as the consequence of a disease or “consanguinity” but of race mixing with non-European elements.
2. G. de Lapouge, Race et milieu social: évolution anthropologique de la population de la France, 1909.
« Le Moyen-Age a été une époque très belliqueuse: cependant le grand accroissement de la richesse et de la population jusqu'à la veille de la guerre de Cent ans montre que les pertes étaient promptement et amplement réparées. Certes l'état des choses n'était pas parfait, mais jamais, même sous la paix romaine, le pays n'avait connu une pareille prospérité et de si rapides progrès. L'émigration était faible, l'immigration purement individuelle et presque négligeable. L'institution du servage limitait beaucoup les déplacements intérieurs de population. Il ne semble pas y avoir jamais eu un temps où la population ait été plus stable. C'est cependant à cette époque que commence la plus remarquable transformation que l'on connaisse. L'élément brachycéphale qui, pour des raisons inconnues, commence à se multiplier dans des proportions si grandes, est notre Alpinus contemporain ».
3. A. Philippe, Histoire de la peste noire (1346-1350) d’après des documents inédits, 1853.
4. A. Philippe, ibid.
5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_syphilis.
6. It is well understood from the author of this study that other, non pathological, factors allowed the “Renaissance” to happen; we do not claim that syphilis is the sole initiating factor of the “Renaissance”.
7. D. Hayden, Pox: Genius, Madness, and the Mysteries of Syphilis, 2003.
8. D. Hayden, ibid.
9. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001722/.
10. For example: www.academia.edu/1362620/Sex_Syphilis_Psychiatry_part_1.
11. peintresetsante.blogspot.fr/2012/08/la-syphilis-dedouard-manet-1832-1883.html.
12. D. Hayden, in her book, proposes a method to determine whether a famous figure of the past had syphilis; however, she considers mostly individuals of the nineteenth century for whom detailed biographical documents are extant.
13. europepmc.org/articles/PMC1815551/pdf/procrsmed00307-0057.pdf.
14. www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/apr/12/art.italy.
15. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci's_personal_life#Leonardo.27s_sexuality.
16. europepmc.org/articles/PMC1815551/pdf/procrsmed00307-0057.pdf.
17. www.scientistsofamerica.com/?texte=26.
18. www.landrucimetieres.fr/spip/spip.php?article2430.
19. It seems that debauchery in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was even more prevalent in Italy than in France, especially among the well-off and the “artists”.
20. J. Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism, National Library Association, 1853.
21. The sexual gesture is the right hand on the heart or on the breast, depending on how one interprets it. That gesture could also express a pathological condition.
22. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo-Buonarroti1.jpg.
23. They were not the only one to do it; a descendant of Michelangelo in the seventeenth century falsified his poetry, which was of homoerotic nature.
24. R. King, Michelangelo and Pope’s Ceiling, Pimlico, 2003, p. 185.
25. Painter Titian (1488-1576) knew a similar fate; he had syphilis but died old. We know from a visitor to his studio that he was exhausted from sleeping with his models and that, perhaps as payment for a cure, he painted the portrait of Girolamo Fracastoro, the doctor who coined the name for the sexually transmitted disease syphilis in his 1530 poem.
26. archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10805.
27. J. Ross, Shakespeare’s Chancre: Did the Bard Have Syphilis?, CID 2005:40 (1 February); cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/399.long.
28. www.academia.edu/3647301/Queer_Rabelais.
29. L. Randall, Representations of syphilis in sixteenth-century French literature, The University of Arizona, 1999, arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/284029.
30. R. Cottrell, Montaigne Studies - An Interdisciplany Forum (Vol. III), Ohio State University, 1991, p. 11.
31. www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/17/syphilis-sex-fear-borgias.
32. beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/07/martin-luthers-syphilis-vs-syphilis-of.html.
33. P. F. O’Hare, The Facts about Luther, Frederick Pustet Inc., 1916.
Historian Grisar says the following:
The new material furnished by Theodore Kolde in his "Analecta Lutherana" consists of a medical letter of Wolfgang Rychardus to Johann Magenbuch dated June 11, 1523, taken from the Hamburg Town Library, and is of a character to make one wonder whether Luther did not at one period suffer from syphilis, at any rate in a mild form.
The circumstances of the letter are as follows: Luther was recovering from a serious attack of illness which he himself believed to be due to a bath. We learn from Melanchthon that this indisposition was accompanied by high fever. On May 24, however, the patient was able to report that he was better, but that he "was over-burdened with distracting labours." At that time a certain Apriolus, a renegade Franciscan and zealous disciple of Luther's (his real name was Johann Eberlin), was staying with Luther at Wittenberg. He forwarded detailed accounts of Luther's illness to a physician with whom he was intimate, Wolfgang Rychardus, at Ulm. Rychardus was also a great admirer of the Wittenberg professor and at the same time, as it would appear, a devoted friend of Melanchthon's. In consequence of Apriolus's reports he wrote the medical letter now in question to another physician then studying at Wittenberg, Johann Magenbuch of Blaubeuren, who also was intimate with the Wittenberg Reformers, had helped Melanchthon in his Greek lexicon with regard to the medical side, and was then in attendance on Luther. It was Magenbuch who had first brought Rychardus into touch with Luther, and both had already exchanged letters concerning him. Rychardus remained Luther's friend at a later date.
Rychardus wrote to the physician attending Luther, that he had heard of the illness of the new "Elias " (Luther), but now rejoices to learn he is convalescent. It was evident that God was preserving him. In the meantime, out of pity [in a letter not extant], Apriolus had given him various particulars concerning Luther's illness and his sleeplessness. He points out that it was not sufficient that Luther should only enjoy some sleep every second night, though, of course, his mental exertion explained his sleeplessness, hence, as a careful physician, he recommends his friend Magenbuch to give the patient a certain sleeping-draught, which he also describes, and with which Magenbuch ("qui medicum agis") must already be acquainted. "But if,' he says, "the pains of the French sickness disturb his sleep" these must be alleviated by means of a certain plaster, the mysterious components of which, comprising wine, quicksilver ("vinum sublimatum"), and other ingredients he fully describes; this would induce sleep which was absolutely essential for the restoration of health. "For God's sake take good care of Luther," he concludes, and adds greetings to Apriolus his informant.
Divergent interpretations have naturally been placed upon this letter by Luther's friends and enemies. It might have sufficed to detail the circumstances and the contents of the letter, did not the somewhat violent objections raised against the view, that, owing to the information given him by Apriolus, Rychardus took Luther to be suffering from the French sickness, render some further remarks necessary. It has been said that Luther was not ill at all at the time Rychardus wrote, but had recovered his health long before. It is true that in June, 1523, his life was no longer in danger, since Rychardus had heard from Giengerius, who came from the fair at Leipzig, that Elias had recovered ("convaluisse Helium"); but then his friend Apriolus forwarded the above disquieting accounts ("multa de valetudine adscripsit") which led Rychardus to write his letter, which in turn is an echo of his informant's letter. The circumstance that Luther was on the whole much better is therefore, as a matter of fact, of no importance.
It has also been said that "Rychardus can be understood as speaking in general terms without any reference to Luther." According to this view of the matter the physician's meaning would amount to this: "Luther must be made to sleep by means of the remedy well known to you [and which he describes], but if along with it ('cum hoc') the pains of the French sickness should disturb anyone's sleep, they must be allayed by a plaster," etc. It is surely all too evident that such an explanation is untenable.
Again, the word "if" has been emphasised; Rychardus does not say that Luther has syphilis, but that if he has it. But, as a matter of fact, he does not write "if he be suffering from it," but, "if this malady disturbs his sleep"; taken in connection with the account of the illness, supplied by Apriolus, the most natural (we do not, however, say necessary)interpretation to be placed on his words is that he was aware the patient was suffering from this malady, perhaps only slightly, yet sufficiently to endanger his sleep. "But if, when use is made of the sleeping-draught indicated, syphilis should prevent his sleeping," is surely a proviso which no physician would make in the case of a patient in whom syphilitic symptoms were not actually present; Rychardus would never have spoken of the "new Elias" in this way unless he had reason to believe in the existence of the malady. It would have been far-fetched to introduce the subject of so disgusting a complaint, and much more natural to speak of other commoner causes which might disturb sleep.
It must, however, be allowed, that, both before and after this letter was written, no trace of such an illness occurs in any of the documents concerning Luther. The "molestice " twice mentioned previously, which by some have been taken to refer to this malady, have, as a matter of fact, an altogether different meaning, which is clear from the context.
34. Luther would only start the “Reformation” in 1517, which means that he was a monk for more than twelve years – that must not be forgotten.
35. Luther also gained protection by favouring the lust of the higher classes; for instance he gave a dispensation to Philip of Hesse to commit bigamy.
36. New levels of sheer atrocity were reached during the “French Revolution” with, for example, “butchers” cutting and selling “aristocrat meat”. To what extent such actions were the result of pathological conditions?
37. www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/medical/Syphilis3.html

T. L., 2013