Part 2

There is perhaps no subject of greater interest, nor one which awakens more sympathy, than that of the Leper; it affords a most curious, though painful topic of enquiry, particularly in the present day, when so much has been said and written, as to the probability and possibility of the loathsome scourge again obtaining a hold in this, our own country.

Much confusion and ignorance exists, as to what true Leprosy really is. I do not pretend, nor do I assume, to be in any way an authority on the disease, nor to be at all deeply versed in the matter; my remarks will consist chiefly in retailing to you, some of the many and curious circumstances connected with the malady, with which I have become acquainted in studying the various Lazar Houses and Leper Wells, once so liberally scattered all over the country, from an antiquary's point of view, and in examining the writings of those competent to express an opinion, from personal and other observations. Your kind indulgence is, therefore, asked for any shortcomings on my part.

THE LEPROSY OF THE BIBLE.

It is necessary at the outset, to state clearly, that the disease known as Leprosy in Holy Scripture, was an entirely and altogether different disorder, to that, which, in the Middle Ages, was so terribly prevalent, not in this country only, but over the whole Continent of Europe.

Sir Risdon Bennett tells us the Leprosy of Scripture was a skin disease known to the medical faculty as Psoriasis. The use of the Greek and Latin word Lepra, to signify both kinds of Leprosy, has no doubt contributed largely to the confusion existing as to these two disorders. The Leprosy of the Bible was Psoriasis, that of the Middle Ages Elephantiasis Græcorum.

There are six cases only, which include nine instances of Leprosy, recorded in the Old Testament:--

Moses--Exodus, iv., 6. } Miriam--Numbers, xii., 10. } Miraculously Gehazi--2 Kings, v., 27. } afflicted. Uzziah--2 Chronicles, xxvi., 19. } Naaman--2 Kings, v., 1. Four Lepers--2 Kings, vii., 3.

In the New Testament we have but three cases, involving twelve persons, viz.:--

(1) Man, recorded by St. Matthew, viii, 2; St. Mark, i., 40; St. Luke, v., 12.

(2) Ten Lepers, St. Luke, xvii., 12.

(3) Simon, St. Matthew, xxvi., 6; St. Mark, xiv., 3.

The first account or mention of the disorder in the Bible, is to be found in Leviticus; nearly three chapters, xiii., xiv., xv., being devoted to the examination and cleansing of the afflicted, with the minutest detail.

In chapter xiii., we are told that "if a man has a bright spot deeper than the skin of the flesh, the hair on which has turned white, or the white spot has a raw in it, and the scab be spread in the skin--then shall the priest pronounce him unclean." But, if he have all the above symptoms, and "the scabs do not spread, or, if he be covered from head to foot--as white as snow--with the disease, then shall the priest pronounce him clean." It should be observed, that whereas the "unclean" Leper "shall dwell alone," no such restriction was placed upon the "clean or White Leper," who was free to go about as he desired, and also to mingle with his fellow-men. This is clear from the accounts given us of Gehazi conversing with the King; of Naaman performing his ordinary duties as captain of the host of the King of Syria; we are told he was "a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the Lord had given victory unto Syria; he was also a mighty man of valour," and also, from the instance of our Blessed Lord being entertained in the house of Simon the "Leper." On no other ground than this assumption, can these instances be reconciled with the Levitical Law.

In the Levitical, and in every other account of the disease, it is significant that there is no mention, or hint, of any loss of sensation in connection with the disorder, of any affection of the nerves, nor of any deformity of the body; no provision is made for those who were unable to take care of themselves, nor is there a tittle of evidence, or the barest hint given, that the disease was either contagious or dangerous. Only two persons in the whole of the Bible are stated to have died from the disease, and in each of these cases, it was specially so ordained by the Almighty, as a specific punishment for a particular sin. Cures were not only possible, and common, but they were the rule. Josephus speaks of Leprosy in a man as but "a misfortune in the colour of his skin." S. Augustine said that when Lepers were restored to health, "they were mundati, not sanati, because Leprosy is an ailment affecting merely the colour, not the health, or the soundness of the senses, and the limbs."

It is a most curious, and interesting problem which has yet to be solved, why a man should be "unclean" when he was but partially covered by the disease, and yet, when he was wholly covered with it, he should be "clean."

That no argument in support of contagion can be drawn simply from the sentence of expulsion from the camp, is evident from Numbers v., 2-4; for Lepers, and non-Lepers, are equally excluded on the ground of "uncleanness." The laws of seclusion applied as rigorously to the uncleanness induced by touching a leper, or even a dead body, as well as in other cases, where no question of contagion could exist. It appears more than probable that the "cleansing" was merely a ceremonial, ordained for those attacked by the disease at a certain stage, implying some deeper meaning, than I for one, am able to discern. I therefore leave it to the theologian to whom it appertains, rather than to a humble and enquiring layman as myself.

That the descriptions of the various forms of skin disease were intended, not to denote differences in their nature or pathology, but to enable the priests to discriminate between the "clean" and "unclean" forms, is manifest. They were intended purely for practical use.

The first allusion--the only one in the Bible--we have to a Lazar, or Leper house, occurs in 2 Kings, xv., 5, "And the Lord smote the King so that he was a Leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a 'several' house."

THE LEPROSY OF THE MIDDLE AGES.

The Leprosy of the Middle Ages known as Elephantiasis Græcorum, Lepra Arabum, and Lepra tuberculosis, is not yet extinct. It is very curious that whilst Lepra Arabum is the same as Elephantiasis Græcorum or true Leprosy, the Elephantiasis Arabum is a totally distinct disease. The former is the most loathsome and revolting of the many awful and terrible scourges, with which the Almighty, in his wisdom, has seen fit, from time to time, to visit mankind.

It is, I believe, a singular fact, that the Jews, "the chosen people of God," have a special immunity from the disease, being less predisposed than other races. Dr. V. Carter says that during a period of seventeen years, out of a very large number of cases in Bombay, he had seen only four cases, and but one death among Jews, that is of Elephantiasis Græcorum.

Belcher on "Our Lord's Miracles," says that in Tangiers at the present day, the two diseases are found, the Lepra Hebræorum prevailing chiefly among the Jewish residents, and presenting exactly the symptoms as described in Leviticus. On the other hand, in Syria, Elephantiasis Græcorum is unknown among the Jews.

It appears to have been very prevalent in this country; but when, and how it was introduced, is not known. Some certify it was brought back by the Crusaders, being the only thing they ever did bring back. But it existed here long anterior to the days of the first crusade. The City of Bath is said to have originated from an old British King afflicted with Leprosy, who being obliged, in consequence, to wander far from the habitation of men, and being finally reduced to the condition of a swineherd, discovered the medicinal virtues of the hot springs of Bath, while noticing that his pigs which bathed therein were cured of sundry diseases prevailing among them.

The following epigram on King Bladud, who was killed 844, B.C.,--father of King Leir, or Leal, d. 799, B.C.,--was written by a clergyman of the name of Groves, of Claverton:--

"When Bladud once espied some hogs Lie wallowing in the steaming bogs, Where issue forth those sulphurous springs, Since honour'd by more potent kings, Vex'd at the brutes alone possessing What ought t' have been a common blessing, He drove them, thence in mighty wrath, And built the mighty town of Bath. The hogs thus banished by their prince, Have lived in Bristol ever since."

Many Lazar or Leper Houses were built in England during the early part of the reign of William the Norman, who founded several.

The medical writers of the 13th and 14th centuries, which include the names of Theodoric, the monk, a distinguished surgeon of Bologna; the celebrated Lanfranc, of Milan and afterwards of Paris; Professor Arnold Bachuone, of Barcelona, reputed in his day the greatest physician in Spain; the famous French surgeon Guy de Chauliac; Bernhard Gordon; and our own countrymen Gilbert, c. 1270; John of Gaddesden, Professor of Medicine in Merton College, Oxford, and Court Physician to Edward II., minutely describe the disease.

It was the custom in those affected days, when a medical man or anyone wrote a book on medicine or a medicinal subject, to call it either a "rose" or a "lily," as "Rosa Angelica," "Lilium medecinæ."