The introduction of venereal disease into Tahiti
A re‐examination
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9073694 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Howard Smith (0000-0002-1573-9508, University of Richmond, corresponding author), Howard M Smith |
| Year | 1975 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 38-45 |
| Publication date | 1975-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Pacific History (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-3344 • E-ISSN: 1469-9605 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/00223347508572264 |
| PMID | 11614794 |
| OpenAlex | W2042559897 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 3 |
18th century and the discovery of Tahiti for the Europeans in 1767 added considerably to this cult. The early descriptions of an idyllic, primitive society, where presumably not even man was vile, were used as a measure of the shortcomings of European 'civilization', and it was but a short step from this to the suspicion that European influence could do nothing but corrupt such an earthly paradise.1 It is small wonder then that the argu ment as to which European nation was responsible for the introduction of venereal disease into Tahiti claimed much attention in the journals of the men who visited the island soon after its discovery. The first European known to have landed on Tahiti was the Englishman Samuel Wallis, captain of the Dolphin, who discovered the island on 18 June 1767.2 He and his crew enjoyed a stay of about a month, and approxi mately eight months after their departure two French ships, La Boudeuse and L'Etoile, commanded by Louis-Antoine de Bougainville arrived and spent some 10 days on Tahiti.3 Since these were the first two Europeans to visit the island, both Wallis and Bougainville argued vehemently that the other brought venereal disease to the people. The French position was put forward again as recently as 1945,4 whereas the British have been content to rest their case on the defence presented by Wallis. The purpose of this paper is to examine the arguments of the English and the French in the light of the medical knowledge available about syphilis in the 18th cen tury?a point of view not yet given sufficient attention in this debate. The argument is complicated by the fact that the two major venereal diseases, syphilis and gonorrhoea, were not thought to be separate in the
Ancient history · Archaeology · Art history · Civilization · Nothing · Paradise · Wonder · Classics · Historical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis · Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes · History · History of Medicine and Tropical Health · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.04 |
| Citation span | 1980 - 1988 (9) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |