Chapter I: Historical and Introductory

THE ANTIQUITY OF GOUT

“Teeth, bones, and hair,” quoth the Sage of Norwich, “give the most lasting defiance to corruption,” and were it not that “Time which antiquates antiquities and hath an art to make dust of all things hath yet spared these minor monuments,” it might perhaps have been inferred that gout was the primordial arthritic disease that afflicted mankind.

That it was the first articular affection to achieve clinical individuality may be allowed, but, from the aspect of antiquity, gout is relatively modern—the appanage of civilisation. True, Hippocrates, discoursing in the famous Asclepion at Cos, enunciated his aphorisms on gout some 300 years before the Christian Era, the dawn of which moreover found Cicero in his discussions at Tusculum lamenting its excruciating tortures “doloribus podagræ cruciari” and the peculiar burning character of its pains “cum arderet podagræ doloribus.”

But what of that? For did not Flinders Petrie in the hoary tombs of Gurob (dating back to the 28th Dynasty 1300 B.C.) find in mouldering skeletons of bygone civilisations unequivocal evidence of _osteoarthritis_.[1] But despite these sure though silent witnesses of the prevalence of this disorder among the ancient people of Egypt, yet in contrast with gout, no hint transpires in the writings of Greek or Roman physicians, nor those of much later date, that the condition was recognised _clinically_, as a joint disorder, distinct from others of the same category.

Small call to marvel thereat, for how much more arresting the clinical _facies_ of gout, with its classic insignia—tumor, robor, calor, et dolor—than of osteoarthritis, its etiolate tokens indicative rather of infirmity than of disease. Apart from this, it may well be that the early Egyptians owed their relative immunity from gout, and alike their proneness to osteoarthritis, to living hard laborious days, unenervated by that luxury and sloth, which in the first century A.D. drew upon the ancient Romans the caustic reproofs of Pliny and Seneca. For the old philosophers lamented the growing prevalence of the disorder, almost unknown in the early, more virile days of the Empire, rightly seeing in it but another harbinger of impending decadence, clearly attributable as it was to riotous living and debauchery.

Indeed, we have it on the authority of Galen that “In the time of Hippocrates there were only a few who suffered from podagra, such was the moderation in living, but in our own times, when sensuality has touched the highest conceivable point, the number of patients with the gout has grown to an extent that cannot be estimated.”

Nothing, in truth, seems more clearly established than this, that gout is the Nemesis that overtakes those addicted to luxurious habits and dietetic excesses. On the testimony of eminent travellers we are assured that amongst aborigines the disease is unknown. The indigenous native tribes of India are immune, but not so the immigrant flesh-loving Parsees. Strange to relate, Anglo-Indians of gouty habit, while resident in the Orient, seem exempt, some say, owing to cutaneous activity, but more probably because _quâ_ Rendu “these are countries in which we cannot survive unless we are frugal.”

Nations too, like individuals, when fallen on hard times, lose their gout. Thus the Arabs, at the zenith of their mediæval Empire, were prone thereto, but in these latter days are almost exempt from its ravages. But, on the other hand, if we are to believe Professor Cantani, in no other disorder are the “sins of the fathers visited upon the children” with such pertinacity, claiming as he does that its marked incidence in Southern Italians is a direct heritage from the ancient Greeks and Romans.

PREVALENCE OF GOUT IN THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD

Reverting to our own country, what evidences as to its antiquity are forthcoming? This much may at any rate be affirmed, that according to Mason Good “Gout is one of the maladies which seem to have been common in England in its earliest ages of barbarism. It is frequently noticed by the Anglo-Saxon historian, and the name assigned to it is Fot-adl.”

Cockayne, in his “Leechdoms Wortcumming and Starcraft,” of early England, has it that the word “addle” appears to have been a synonym for ailment, thus “Shingles was hight circle addle.” That gout should have flourished so among our Anglo-Saxon forbears is perhaps a matter for regret but not for astonishment, when we recall their coarse Gargantuan feasts, washed down with doughty draughts of ale, “sack and the well spic’d hippocras.”

Gout, we see then, even in our own land, is full ancient, and the word, as Bradley as shown, may be traced in the English tongue right through the literature of the various periods.[2] This not only in the brochures of physicians, but also as in the days of Lucian in the works of historians, and the satires of poets, which indeed abound with allusions to the disease.

VIEWS OF THE HUMORALISTS

The Greek physicians, quite familiar as they were with the overt manifestations of gout, did not, as far as its nosology was concerned, commit themselves to any appellation that might imply their adherence to any theory as to its causation. They contented themselves with a mere _topographical_ designation, terming the affection, _podagra_, _chirargra_, etc., according as foot or hand was the seat of the disorder, while for polyarticular types the generic term _arthritis_ was invoked.

Nevertheless the old Greek physicians had their views as to its pathology. Thus the source of the peccant humours resided for them in the _brain_, which they had invested with all the functions of an absorbent and secreting gland. This hypothesis in time was displaced by the true humoral theory, according to which the bodily fluids, those found in the alimentary canal, the blood stream, and the glandular organs, were the primordial agents of disease. No need, albeit, for gibes on our part, for how true much of their conception of the genesis of disease even to-day. Indeed, what else than a fusion of the foregoing views? the modern theory of Sir Dyce Duckworth, who would ascribe gout to the combined influence of _neural_ and _humoral_ factors. And now to consider briefly the individual views of the fathers of medicine.

THE APHORISMS OF HIPPOCRATES

In the eyes of the pioneer priest-physician, the disorder was attributable to a retention of humours, and many of his dicta have stood the corroding test of time. He noted, like Sydenham, its tendency to periodicity, its liability to recur at spring and fall. Also that eunuchs are immune and youths also, _ante usum veneris_, while in females its incidence is usually delayed until after the menopause.

The curability of the disease in its earlier stages was affirmed, but that after the deposit of chalk in the joints it proved rebellious to treatment, which for him resided in purgation and the local application of cooling agents.

In the first and second centuries Celsus, Galen, and Aretæus the Cappadocian recounted their views as to its nature and therapy, while the Augustan poet in his Pontic epistles, like Hippocrates, laments that his gouty swellings defy the art of medicine.

“Tollere nodosam nescit medicina podogram.”

_Ovid_, _Ep. ex Pont._, I, 3, 23.

To Celsus, venesection at the onset of an attack seemed both curative and prophylactic. Corpulence of habit a state to be avoided, and conformably he prescribed frugality of fare and adequate exercise. Galen (130-200), more venturesome than his contemporaries, voiced his belief that tophi were compact of phlegm, blood, or bile, singly or in combination. For the rest, he enjoined bleeding and purgation and local applications, contravening, by the bye, Hippocrates’ claim as to the immunity of eunuchs in that in his (Galen’s) day their sloth and intemperance were such as readily begat the disorder.

About this period Lucian of Saramosta enumerated the various anti-gout nostrums vaunted as specifics in his day. Though in his comic poems, the Trago-podagra and Ocypus he rightly holds up to scorn the charlatanism rampant at the time, still it is quite clear that he possessed no mean knowledge of the clinical vagaries of gout and was quite alive to the mischief of too meddlesome treatment thereof.

Said the hero of the Trago-podagra:

“Irritantibus me
Soleo occupere multo iracundior
His vero qui cogitant nihil adversum mihi
Benignam adhibeo mentem, facilisque fio.”

Again, Seneca, in a jeremiad on the decadent habits of Roman ladies of the patrician order, observes: “The nature of women is not altered but their manner of living, for while they rival the men in every kind of licentiousness, they equal them too in their very bodily disorders. Why need we then be surprised at seeing so many of the female sex afflicted with gout.” That the old philosopher’s misgivings were but too well founded is obvious when we recall that so widespread were the ravages of gout among the Romans in the third century that Diocletian, by an edict, exempted from the public burdens those severely crippled thereby, in sooth a blatant illustration of political pandering to national vice.

But to return to the researches of physicians, those of Aretæus seem to have been the most enlightened of his time. A succinct account of the mode of invasion of gout and its centripetal spread in later stages to the larger joints is followed by enumeration of the exciting causes of outbreaks. Anent these, he quaintly notes the reluctance which the victims display to assigning the malady to its true cause—their own excesses—preferring to attribute it to a new shoe, a long walk, or an injury. Noting that men are more liable than women, he tells us, too, that between the gouty attacks the subject has even carried off the palm in the Olympic games. The white hellebore, to his mind, at any rate in early attacks, was the remedy _par excellence_. But, for the true nature of the disease, he, with humility and piety, avows that its secret origin is known only to the gods.

Not so his successor Cælius Aurelianus, who affirmed it to be not only hereditary but due to indigestion, over-drinking, debauchery, and exposure. Under their maleficent influence morbid humours were generated which sooner or later found a vent in one or other foot, with a predilection for tendons and ligaments; these structures he averred being the locus morbi. An abstemious dietary with exercise was his sheet anchor in therapy, with local scarification in preference to cupping and leeching, but violent purging and emetics he decried, and drugs to him made little appeal.

More ambitious than his predecessors, Alexander of Tralles, in the sixth century, held that there were many varieties of gout, some due to intra-articular effusions of blood, reminding us of Rieken’s view (1829) that hæmophilia is an anomalous variant of gout. Other cases, Alexander averred, were the outcome of extravasation of bile or other peccant fluids between tendons and ligaments. Abstinence, especially from wine and blood-forming foods, was enjoined and a plentiful use of drastic purgatives, elaterium, etc., with local sinapisms and blisters. For the absorption of chalk stones he commended unguents containing oil, turpentine, ammoniacum, dragon’s blood, and litharge.

Aetius, a contemporary, is noteworthy in that during the intervals of attacks he highly eulogised the use of friction while, like Alexander of Tralles, he seems to have been much impressed with the virtues of colchicum, of which he says, “Hermodactylon confestim minuit dolores.” Planchon, in 1855, in his treatise, “De hermodactes au point de vue botanique et pharmaceutique,” claims to have proved that the hermodactylon of the ancients was _Colchicum variegatum_, of similar properties to the _Colchicum autumnale_.

Paulus Ægineta, like most of his _confrères_, regarded gout and rheumatism as the same disorder, differing only in their location. He subscribed whole heartedly to the prevailing humoral theory, but inclined to think the site of the discharged humours was influenced by weakness or injury of the parts. He noted, too, that mental states, sorrow, anxiety, etc., might act as determining causes.

Nor will any historical _résumé_ rest complete without a reference to the numerous works of the Arabian physicians—Avicenna, Rhazes, Serapion, and Haly Abbas—who one or other all maintained gout to be hereditary, rare in women and due to peccant humours, developed in the train of depletions, debaucheries, and the like.