Summary This article aims to contribute to the growing literature on the treatment of venereal disease in the British Empire. In 1926 the British Social Hygiene Council reported for the Cypriot government on the prevalence of venereal diseases and many of its recommendations were adopted since Cyprus, the report claimed, had a significant problem with venereal diseases. The report discussed the prevalence of venereal diseases and did not explore the origins of the problem. This article has two aims. The first is to trace the origins of the perceived prevalence of venereal diseases in the 1920 s to the wartime formation of the Cypriot Mule Corps, and the wartime actions to resolve venereal diseases amongst muleteers. This action solved the problem from a military perspective, but spread the problem throughout the island, hence the prevalence underscored in the report. The second aim is to compare how the second campaign, in the aftermath of the recommendations of the British Social Hygiene Council, differed to the first and how effective these measures were. The article argues that the two approaches were very different, yet both were grounded in a social conservatism, especially the wartime campaign. venereal diseases, British Colonial Cyprus, the Great War and diseases, inter-war years and diseases, Cypriot Mule Corps, British Social Hygiene Council In March 1927 Sir Ronald Storrs, the recently appointed Governor of Cyprus, advertised for a ‘Specialist in Venereal Diseases’. This was a recommendation of the British Social Hygiene Council, a London-based organisation that focused on the social conditions (i.e. promiscuity) that it believed caused venereal diseases, after its representatives had visited the island in 1926. This recommendation was for the Appointment of a specialist officer with experience in the diagnosis and treatment of venereal diseases. The duties of this officer would be to organise a campaign against venereal disease; carry out treatment at the three larger hospitals and supervise all other hospitals and dispensaries; implement, under the Chief Medical Officer, the venereal diseases scheme; give postgraduate level teaching in hospital clinics to general practitioners on the latest methods of diagnosis and treatment; and to homologate the medical effort with the sociological work of the Cyprus Social Hygiene Council.1 Storrs accepted the urgent need for such a specialist officer and appointed Reginald Edward Hopton on 29 July 1927.2 This was only one act of the authorities in light of the report. This article explores what the Cypriot authorities did to combat venereal disease between 1916 and 1939, when action was taken on two separate occasions: first during the war as a wartime necessity to maintain the Cypriot Mule Corps, and secondly after 1926 when the British Social Hygiene Council reported on what had become a serious problem. The article argues that the problem grew with the wartime service of men in the Cypriot Mule Corps, which started in summer 1916, and the inadequate measures the authorities had taken to deal with the problem then. These measures had solved the problem from the short-term military perspective, but spread the problem throughout the island; hence by 1926 the British Social Hygiene Council was asked by the mayor of Larnaca to investigate. It took no interest in understanding why the problem had become so bad, beyond blaming the promiscuity of men, focusing instead on treatment and education. How did this approach and the results compare with that taken during the war? Background and Historiography VD and the British Empire There are several publications on sexual activity and venereal diseases in the British Empire. A good starting point (although not the first) is Ronald Hyam’s book, which focused on how the British Empire offered sexual opportunities, especially for white colonial officials (i.e. men).3 Although sexual activity is not the same as venereal diseases, other scholars expanded upon Hyam’s study, some of whom criticised him for being too male orientated and for neglecting race, how sex was used to subjugate the colonial population, and venereal diseases.4 From these studies a literature developed on the history of venereal diseases in the British Empire, which has expanded to include other empires, most recently the German and Italian.5 Philippa Levine’s 2003 study on venereal diseases and the British Empire remains the seminal study.6 Her book thoroughly explored British colonialism and race relations around the policing of venereal diseases until 1918. She argued that the regulations and laws governing prostitution (prostitutes were considered the main conduits of venereal disease) throughout the empire were dictated by the desire of British authorities to regulate sexual practices (especially inter-racial relations) and control the spread of venereal diseases. This argument corresponds closely with Walther’s findings for Germany’s overseas possessions before the First World War and here for the period 1916–39.7 In Cyprus, regulations to monitor prostitution were introduced in 1917 and after 1927 these were altered in an effort to eradicate professional prostitution. During the first campaign in 1917 and 1918, wartime contingency resulted in actions that banished prostitutes and, with minimal treatment of those diseased, the problem spread throughout the island. During the second campaign, the aim, driven by a sophisticated education campaign, was to stem venereal diseases by regulating the sexual practices of Cypriot men, not because of inter-racial sexual relations, but to break the seemingly accepted practice of visiting prostitutes, whether men were married or not. Thus, morality and current medical practices in tandem aimed at educating and regulating the bodies of these men (and treating men and women who already had a venereal disease) and women (i.e. prostitutes) to control sexual practices and venereal diseases. Much of the scholarship on prostitution and venereal diseases in the British Empire has been on the Asia-Pacific and especially and unsurprisingly, on India, with Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong also covered.8 Some work has also been done on the Caribbean for an earlier period, Kenya, Egypt and Gibraltar.9 One of the failings of the historiography (in book form) is the limited comparison across geographical spaces and, with the exception of Levine, modes of colonial government. Levine provides an excellent model in selecting four cases with differing colonial governance: India, Hong Kong, the Straits Settlement and Queensland. Yet geographically all four cases belong to the Asia-Pacific region.10 Philip Howell also produced a comparative study, introducing Gibraltar and two British cases, Liverpool and Cambridge, while also including Hong Kong.11 The inclusion of two British cases, however, shifted the focus from the imperial periphery to the metropole, missing an opportunity to compare across geographical spaces and settler/non-settler typologies. This article aims to include Cyprus in the story of venereal disease in the British Empire, offering an opportunity for comparison with other cases for 1916 to 1939. Venereal Diseases and the Great War and Inter-War Years As there is a significant body of work on the Great War and the inter-war years on venereal diseases in a British context, it is possible to situate the case of Cyprus alongside this broader context. As Mark Harrison has argued, at the outbreak of the Great War there were three largely differing views on how to regulate venereal diseases in the British Army (although I would say this applies more broadly to society). They ranged from the moralist position of sexual control and even abstinence, to medically-regulated prostitution—which acknowledged the prevalence and even the necessity of sex for the armed forces, but placed the onus on the prostitute to be healthy, to the third option, which similarly recognised the need for medical regulation, but this time placing the responsibility on the man, with the new technologies of prophylaxis. Supporters and opponents of these options jostled to influence policy and practice, which varied across the different theatres, and which generally saw a reluctance to adopt prophylaxis and preventative measures in favour of the more moralistic and politically expedient first two approaches.12 In an earlier article, Beardsley argued that the dominance of the moralistic views in Britain hampered efforts to effectively fight against venereal diseases, until the last year of the war, when, under American influence, the more medical approaches, including prophylaxis, were adopted.13 In 1916 and immediately after the war in 1919, two competing pressure groups formed in Britain that supported different programmes to combat venereal diseases. The former, the National Council for Combatting Venereal Disease, focused on moral education, and was a direct outgrowth of the 1916 Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases, although there had been discussions about forming such a group from November 1914. In October 1919 the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease was formed to counter the moralistic arguments of other group, and to promote prophylaxis. In 1921 Lord Trevethin, an experienced juror, was charged with heading a Committee of Inquiry on Venereal Disease, which produced a report, with recommendations, on the ‘Medical Measures for Prevention of Venereal Disease’, in 1923. The report was ambiguous enough for both groups to claim that it endorsed their programme, such as when preventative disinfection was acknowledged as effective but too costly. Even though it was endorsed as part of the general treatment programme, it was not considered as part of the preventative programme. When Labour came to power in 1924, the government decided that it wanted to reconcile the two groups by having the Unionist Sir Auckland Geddes, recently British Ambassador to the United States and who became the president of the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease in July, to also become the president of the National Council for Combatting Venereal Disease.14 This did not happen until after the National Council for Combatting Venereal Disease adopted a new name in 1925: the British Social Hygiene Council. In explaining why he had decided to become president of both groups, Geddes argued against the fusion of the two because they continued to place their emphasis on different approaches to venereal diseases. As president of both, he would enable their cooperation, to work together for the same ends.15 What is important in understanding the Cypriot case, is that it was the British Social Hygiene Council, and not the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, which was invited to Cyprus, thus clearly indicating the approach preferred by the mayor of Larnaca. Sexual Activity, Venereal Disease and Cyprus Sexual activity in Cyprus was no less or more prevalent than in Singapore, Kenya, Australia, or the Caribbean, despite the perception of a socially conservative society. Before the mid-1920 s the British authorities did little to stem the prevalence of venereal diseases, except during the war when outbreaks had threatened the Cypriot Mule Corps,. Keeping more in line with British metropolitan law rather than colonial law, even brothels, often blamed for venereal diseases, were largely unregulated. The only relevant law was the Nuisances (Brothels) Law 12 of 1899, which stipulated that a person who kept or assisted in the keeping of a brothel, or an owner of a property who knowingly allowed the keeping of a brothel on their property, would be liable to a fine and/or imprisonment.16 Sex before or outside marriage in Cyprus was controlled (or at least there were attempts to control it) by the two major religions, Cypriot Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Islam. Like most religions, neither permitted sex outside marriage. According to Cypriot Orthodoxy, an engagement was as good as a marriage, as a religious service was conducted. However, the couple was still not permitted to live together, let alone sleep together. This was reserved for the wedding night, when, it was hoped, the love-making would show (literally through the blood on the bed sheets, which would be paraded through the streets the next morning) that the wife was a virgin.17 The virginity of the Cypriot groom, Christian or Muslim, was not as prized. Cypriot society was patriarchal, cloistering women behind their fathers and then their husbands, while the men were more or less free to explore their sexual appetites.18 There were restrictions: it was not considered honourable to sleep with a virgin or with another man’s wife. Yet this of course still occurred. More prevalent was to seek out local prostitutes before and after marriage. Such a practice was not considered unacceptable, unless the man wanted to enter the church. Compounding the male-orientated society were the laws governing sexual activity. When the British arrived in 1878 and until the law was changed in 1928, the age of consent remained as it had been during Ottoman times, at 13, even though debates on raising the age in the British metropole and in the colonies were intense, Cyprus, perhaps because it still remained under Ottoman sovereignty, did not have such a debate.19 This meant that the groom, who would usually be older than the bride, sometimes considerably so, had power, not unlike that of an imperial authority over colonials, to control a woman’s sexual activity from an early age. Before the visit of the British Social Hygiene Council in 1926 and its reportage in the Annual Report for Cyprus for that year (discussed later), little mention was made of venereal diseases. No mention of them was made in the annual reports or in studies, such as that by Magda Ohnefalsch-Richter produced (in 1913) on Cypriot society and culture.20 This does not mean that venereal diseases did not exist or were not prevalent; it could simply mean that the Cypriot colonial authorities (and European observers) did not document them because they were not considered as serious as other diseases (especially malaria and tuberculosis); or because venereal diseases were too controversial to discuss openly, because this necessitated discussing promiscuity and prostitution.21 For whatever reason, venereal diseases appear in few published official reports (or unofficial sources) for Cyprus until 1926. One of these is the Military Report on Cyprus for 1913, which claims that venereal diseases were ‘common everywhere’, but gonorrhoea and syphilis were of a mild type.22 Venereal Disease in the Cypriot Mule Corps Documents show that the problem of venereal diseases became a concern from 1916 when infected members of the Cypriot Mule Corps were repatriated from the Salonica Front. In his 1930 report for the Cypriot government on rural life in Cyprus, Brewster Joseph Surridge, who had been in the Cypriot colonial service for decades, claimed that it was … well known that during 1918 and 1919 a large proportion of Cyprus muleteers drawn from villages all over the island were returned from the Salonica Expeditionary Force suffering from venereal disease and infection must have spread.23 Surridge had an intimate knowledge of the crisis in 1917. As the local commandant of police in Larnaca during the war he had prepared the lists of muleteers with venereal diseases at the quarantine station. It was well-known by the Cypriot authorities and public that numerous muleteers returned with venereal diseases and spread the infection throughout the island. The Cypriot Mule Corps In summer 1916, the British Salonica Army and the Cypriot authorities established the Cypriot Mule Corps in order to provide vital logistical support in carrying supplies and wounded at the Macedonian front and, after the armistice, service continued in Constantinople.24 Although sometimes referred to as the ‘Macedonian’ Mule Corps, it was almost exclusively Cypriot in composition, with a staggering enlistment of about 12,000 Cypriots (including those who re-enlisted for a second and sometimes a third time), meaning that about 25 per cent of the male population aged 18–35 served at one time or another. Of the Cypriot element, 90.4 per cent were Eastern Orthodox Christians, 8.5 per cent were Cypriot Muslims, and 0.77 per cent were Maronite Christians, with smaller numbers of Armenians and others. This compares to the population distribution in the 1911 Census as follows: Eastern Orthodox Christians 78.2 per cent, Muslims 20.6 per cent and Maronites 0.4 per cent.25 Many men came forward to enlist (the screening process rejected a large proportion) because of the excellent money offered by the British and the allotment payments (up to 40 per cent of pay) which the British promised to dependants back in Cyprus.26 Recruits came from all parts of Cyprus, but especially from rural areas, such as the less urbanised district of Kyrenia (Table 1). Since more Greek Cypriots lived in rural areas than Turkish Cypriots (Table 2), this explains the smaller representation of Muslims compared to their demographic size. Most recruits (almost 60 per cent) came from rural areas (Table 3) and therefore were mainly peasants or rural labourers. These statistics allow for an analysis of the incidence of venereal disease across the urban and rural spectra of society and shows why it spread to all parts of the island. Table 1. Enlistment numbers and percentages across Cyprus District 1911 Census—males 15–39 Cyprus Mule Corps % of males 15–39 Nicosia 15,366 2,909 18.93 Famagusta 10,658 1,570 14.73 Limassol 9,343 1,451 15.53 Paphos 6,842 1,274 18.62 Larnaca 5,669 737 13.00 Kyrenia 3,382 1,178 34.83 Total 51,260 9,119 17.79 District 1911 Census—males 15–39 Cyprus Mule Corps % of males 15–39 Nicosia 15,366 2,909 18.93 Famagusta 10,658 1,570 14.73 Limassol 9,343 1,451 15.53 Paphos 6,842 1,274 18.62 Larnaca 5,669 737 13.00 Kyrenia 3,382 1,178 34.83 Total 51,260 9,119 17.79 Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Table 1. Enlistment numbers and percentages across Cyprus District 1911 Census—males 15–39 Cyprus Mule Corps % of males 15–39 Nicosia 15,366 2,909 18.93 Famagusta 10,658 1,570 14.73 Limassol 9,343 1,451 15.53 Paphos 6,842 1,274 18.62 Larnaca 5,669 737 13.00 Kyrenia 3,382 1,178 34.83 Total 51,260 9,119 17.79 District 1911 Census—males 15–39 Cyprus Mule Corps % of males 15–39 Nicosia 15,366 2,909 18.93 Famagusta 10,658 1,570 14.73 Limassol 9,343 1,451 15.53 Paphos 6,842 1,274 18.62 Larnaca 5,669 737 13.00 Kyrenia 3,382 1,178 34.83 Total 51,260 9,119 17.79 Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Table 2. Distribution of population in urban centres, 1911 Municipality Orthodox Christians (%) Muslims (%) Other (%) Nicosia 58.0 37.6 4.4 Famagusta 77.6 20.7 1.6 Limassol 75.0 23.0 2.1 Paphos 51.4 47.9 0.7 Larnaca 68.3 25.4 6.3 Kyrenia 65.0 33.0 2.0 Municipality Orthodox Christians (%) Muslims (%) Other (%) Nicosia 58.0 37.6 4.4 Famagusta 77.6 20.7 1.6 Limassol 75.0 23.0 2.1 Paphos 51.4 47.9 0.7 Larnaca 68.3 25.4 6.3 Kyrenia 65.0 33.0 2.0 Source: Census 1911. Table 2. Distribution of population in urban centres, 1911 Municipality Orthodox Christians (%) Muslims (%) Other (%) Nicosia 58.0 37.6 4.4 Famagusta 77.6 20.7 1.6 Limassol 75.0 23.0 2.1 Paphos 51.4 47.9 0.7 Larnaca 68.3 25.4 6.3 Kyrenia 65.0 33.0 2.0 Municipality Orthodox Christians (%) Muslims (%) Other (%) Nicosia 58.0 37.6 4.4 Famagusta 77.6 20.7 1.6 Limassol 75.0 23.0 2.1 Paphos 51.4 47.9 0.7 Larnaca 68.3 25.4 6.3 Kyrenia 65.0 33.0 2.0 Source: Census 1911. Table 3. Urban–rural spread in Cypriot Mule Corps Urban–rural spread No. Percentage Urban 1,409 15.45 Semi-urban 306 3.36 Regional centre > 2,000 683 7.49 Village—large 900-1,999 1,401 15.37 Village < 899 5,240 57.47 N/A 79 0.87 Total 9,118 Urban–rural spread No. Percentage Urban 1,409 15.45 Semi-urban 306 3.36 Regional centre > 2,000 683 7.49 Village—large 900-1,999 1,401 15.37 Village < 899 5,240 57.47 N/A 79 0.87 Total 9,118 Source: Using WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Table 3. Urban–rural spread in Cypriot Mule Corps Urban–rural spread No. Percentage Urban 1,409 15.45 Semi-urban 306 3.36 Regional centre > 2,000 683 7.49 Village—large 900-1,999 1,401 15.37 Village < 899 5,240 57.47 N/A 79 0.87 Total 9,118 Urban–rural spread No. Percentage Urban 1,409 15.45 Semi-urban 306 3.36 Regional centre > 2,000 683 7.49 Village—large 900-1,999 1,401 15.37 Village < 899 5,240 57.47 N/A 79 0.87 Total 9,118 Source: Using WO405/1 & WO329/2357. The marital status of the men in the Cypriot Mule Corps reveals much about age and their position within society. Most men were single, but many were or had been married. There was next of kin information for 9,578 of them, an excellent basis for analysis (Table 4). The breakdown shown in the next two tables reveals that 30.77 per cent of the men put their father as next of kin, followed by their wife at 24.96 per cent and then their mothers at 22.98 per cent. Overall, at least 27.53 per cent of the men were married, had been married or were engaged (Table 5).27 The enlistment rate of married men was high even if it was short of the 40.36 per cent of men (from age 15) in the 1911 Census that were married in Cyprus (Table 6). Most of these men had children and therefore greater financial responsibility. Furthermore, Cypriots often lived in extended families, taking care of parents and grandparents, with males, especially the first born, contributing towards dowries for their sister(s). This reinforces the argument that the need for money and the wages on offer (as well as free clothes and food) attracted the men. Malcolm Stevenson, who replaced John Clauson as high commissioner after Clauson’s untimely death in office on 31 December 1918, reporting on the economic resources of the island in March 1920, pointed out that a much larger amount of land was under cultivation from 1918 than before the war. This indicates that peasants were investing the wages of muleteers into their land.28 Overall the statistics on those enlisting reveal an even spread across the age groups 18–39, although there must have been a greater number of men between 18 and 25 because there were more single men. Table 4. Next of kin results for Cypriot Mule Corps Members Next of kin No. % Father 2,947 30.77 Wife 2,391 24.96 Mother 2,201 22.98 Brother 640 6.68 Sister 613 6.40 Uncle 194 2.03 Friend 89 0.93 Brother-in-law 76 0.79 Son 65 0.68 Cousin 54 0.54 Fiancée 46 0.48 Godfather 34 0.35 Aunt 32 0.33 Cypriot Government 32 0.33 Daughter 29 0.30 Nephew 28 0.29 Grandmother 14 0.15 Church 13 0.14 Father-in-law 11 0.11 Niece 9 0.09 Sister-in-law 9 0.09 Grandfather 6 0.06 Master 6 0.06 Best man 5 0.05 Father (Allotted) 5 0.05 Mother-in-law 5 0.05 Relative 4 0.04 Step-mother 3 0.03 Godmother 2 0.02 Guardian 2 0.02 Next of kin 2 0.02 Poor asylum 2 0.02 Step-father 2 0.02 Godbrother 1 0.01 Godsister 1 0.01 Guardian (allotted) 1 0.01 Merchant 1 0.01 Mother (allotted) 1 0.01 Red Cross 1 0.01 Representative 1 0.01 Total 9,578 Next of kin No. % Father 2,947 30.77 Wife 2,391 24.96 Mother 2,201 22.98 Brother 640 6.68 Sister 613 6.40 Uncle 194 2.03 Friend 89 0.93 Brother-in-law 76 0.79 Son 65 0.68 Cousin 54 0.54 Fiancée 46 0.48 Godfather 34 0.35 Aunt 32 0.33 Cypriot Government 32 0.33 Daughter 29 0.30 Nephew 28 0.29 Grandmother 14 0.15 Church 13 0.14 Father-in-law 11 0.11 Niece 9 0.09 Sister-in-law 9 0.09 Grandfather 6 0.06 Master 6 0.06 Best man 5 0.05 Father (Allotted) 5 0.05 Mother-in-law 5 0.05 Relative 4 0.04 Step-mother 3 0.03 Godmother 2 0.02 Guardian 2 0.02 Next of kin 2 0.02 Poor asylum 2 0.02 Step-father 2 0.02 Godbrother 1 0.01 Godsister 1 0.01 Guardian (allotted) 1 0.01 Merchant 1 0.01 Mother (allotted) 1 0.01 Red Cross 1 0.01 Representative 1 0.01 Total 9,578 Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Table 4. Next of kin results for Cypriot Mule Corps Members Next of kin No. % Father 2,947 30.77 Wife 2,391 24.96 Mother 2,201 22.98 Brother 640 6.68 Sister 613 6.40 Uncle 194 2.03 Friend 89 0.93 Brother-in-law 76 0.79 Son 65 0.68 Cousin 54 0.54 Fiancée 46 0.48 Godfather 34 0.35 Aunt 32 0.33 Cypriot Government 32 0.33 Daughter 29 0.30 Nephew 28 0.29 Grandmother 14 0.15 Church 13 0.14 Father-in-law 11 0.11 Niece 9 0.09 Sister-in-law 9 0.09 Grandfather 6 0.06 Master 6 0.06 Best man 5 0.05 Father (Allotted) 5 0.05 Mother-in-law 5 0.05 Relative 4 0.04 Step-mother 3 0.03 Godmother 2 0.02 Guardian 2 0.02 Next of kin 2 0.02 Poor asylum 2 0.02 Step-father 2 0.02 Godbrother 1 0.01 Godsister 1 0.01 Guardian (allotted) 1 0.01 Merchant 1 0.01 Mother (allotted) 1 0.01 Red Cross 1 0.01 Representative 1 0.01 Total 9,578 Next of kin No. % Father 2,947 30.77 Wife 2,391 24.96 Mother 2,201 22.98 Brother 640 6.68 Sister 613 6.40 Uncle 194 2.03 Friend 89 0.93 Brother-in-law 76 0.79 Son 65 0.68 Cousin 54 0.54 Fiancée 46 0.48 Godfather 34 0.35 Aunt 32 0.33 Cypriot Government 32 0.33 Daughter 29 0.30 Nephew 28 0.29 Grandmother 14 0.15 Church 13 0.14 Father-in-law 11 0.11 Niece 9 0.09 Sister-in-law 9 0.09 Grandfather 6 0.06 Master 6 0.06 Best man 5 0.05 Father (Allotted) 5 0.05 Mother-in-law 5 0.05 Relative 4 0.04 Step-mother 3 0.03 Godmother 2 0.02 Guardian 2 0.02 Next of kin 2 0.02 Poor asylum 2 0.02 Step-father 2 0.02 Godbrother 1 0.01 Godsister 1 0.01 Guardian (allotted) 1 0.01 Merchant 1 0.01 Mother (allotted) 1 0.01 Red Cross 1 0.01 Representative 1 0.01 Total 9,578 Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Table 5. Next of kin breakdown of married men Next of kin No. % Total 2,637/9,578 27.53 Wife 2,391 24.96 Brother-in-law 76 0.79 Son 65 0.68 Fiancée 46 0.48 Daughter 29 0.30 Father-in-law 11 0.11 Sister-in-law 9 0.09 Best man 5 0.05 Mother-in-law 5 0.05 Next of kin No. % Total 2,637/9,578 27.53 Wife 2,391 24.96 Brother-in-law 76 0.79 Son 65 0.68 Fiancée 46 0.48 Daughter 29 0.30 Father-in-law 11 0.11 Sister-in-law 9 0.09 Best man 5 0.05 Mother-in-law 5 0.05 Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Table 5. Next of kin breakdown of married men Next of kin No. % Total 2,637/9,578 27.53 Wife 2,391 24.96 Brother-in-law 76 0.79 Son 65 0.68 Fiancée 46 0.48 Daughter 29 0.30 Father-in-law 11 0.11 Sister-in-law 9 0.09 Best man 5 0.05 Mother-in-law 5 0.05 Next of kin No. % Total 2,637/9,578 27.53 Wife 2,391 24.96 Brother-in-law 76 0.79 Son 65 0.68 Fiancée 46 0.48 Daughter 29 0.30 Father-in-law 11 0.11 Sister-in-law 9 0.09 Best man 5 0.05 Mother-in-law 5 0.05 Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Table 6. Civil status of men, 1911 census Unmarried Married Widowed Divorced Total Males aged 15+ 1911 Census 83,122 52,340 3,899 22 139,383 Percentage 59.64 37.55 2.80 0.02 Unmarried Married Widowed Divorced Total Males aged 15+ 1911 Census 83,122 52,340 3,899 22 139,383 Percentage 59.64 37.55 2.80 0.02 Source: Census 1911. Table 6. Civil status of men, 1911 census Unmarried Married Widowed Divorced Total Males aged 15+ 1911 Census 83,122 52,340 3,899 22 139,383 Percentage 59.64 37.55 2.80 0.02 Unmarried Married Widowed Divorced Total Males aged 15+ 1911 Census 83,122 52,340 3,899 22 139,383 Percentage 59.64 37.55 2.80 0.02 Source: Census 1911. Tables 1–5 and accompanying statistics allow for an analysis of the incidence of venereal diseases across a number of typologies, from the various Cypriot religious communities, the civil status of Cypriots and the urban–rural divide. This allows a study on venereal disease for a substantial cross-section of Cypriot society and points to why it so easily spread throughout the island to become a serious problem in the 1920 s. The Venereal Disease Problem in the Cypriot Mule Corps A muleteer’s health was pivotal to the success of the corps. Sick muleteers could not work, impacting on the work of a unit, the welfare of mules (muleteers were to look after three mules each), and those back on the island dealing with allotment payments.29 As early as 20 September 1916 Brigadier-General Arthur Long, the Director of Supply and Transport at Salonica, circulated a note that there were arrangements for discharging muleteers with venereal diseases and other diseases that were likely to be long-lasting.30 It was not until November 1916 that it was decided to establish a system of monitoring discharged muleteers because of disease or other incapacity in order to suspend allotments by having the Cypriot police at Famagusta take their names, numbers and addresses.31 Indeed in January 1917 it was decided that Salonica would provide Cypriot authorities with a list of muleteers with venereal diseases.32 As soon as muleteers had arrived in Salonica some were deemed unfit and repatriated. L. Sisman, who was in charge of muleteer recruiting at Famagusta, informed Long as early as 24 November 1916 that about 100 had already been repatriated.33 The first such muleteers for which there were records were the 410 on the HMS Verbera on 11 March 1917. Sisman prepared a list of the reasons (Table 7), showing that although there were many reasons to discharge muleteers, the majority, 66 per cent, had gonorrhoea.34 Full information on who they were and where they came from was unavailable, making a full analysis impossible. Table 7. Reason for discharging muleteers on HMS Verbera, 11 March 1917 Reason for discharge No. Gonorrhoea 270 Vermin 29 Rheumatism 12 Hernia 10 Venereal sores 12 Debility 12 Weak eyes 9 Spleen trouble 8 Syphilis 8 Epilepsy 8 Old age 4 No disease 4 Senility 3 Old fractures 3 Dislocated elbow 2 Bronchitis 2 Old wounds 2 Mental deficiency 2 Orchitis 1 Pleuresy 1 Conjunct 1 Epidymitis 1 Muscular astrophy 1 Urethritis 1 Neuritis 1 Migraine 1 Hydrocele 1 Mule kick 1 Total 410 Reason for discharge No. Gonorrhoea 270 Vermin 29 Rheumatism 12 Hernia 10 Venereal sores 12 Debility 12 Weak eyes 9 Spleen trouble 8 Syphilis 8 Epilepsy 8 Old age 4 No disease 4 Senility 3 Old fractures 3 Dislocated elbow 2 Bronchitis 2 Old wounds 2 Mental deficiency 2 Orchitis 1 Pleuresy 1 Conjunct 1 Epidymitis 1 Muscular astrophy 1 Urethritis 1 Neuritis 1 Migraine 1 Hydrocele 1 Mule kick 1 Total 410 Source: SA1/722/1916/1, Sisman to CSC, 13 March 1917. Table 7. Reason for discharging muleteers on HMS Verbera, 11 March 1917 Reason for discharge No. Gonorrhoea 270 Vermin 29 Rheumatism 12 Hernia 10 Venereal sores 12 Debility 12 Weak eyes 9 Spleen trouble 8 Syphilis 8 Epilepsy 8 Old age 4 No disease 4 Senility 3 Old fractures 3 Dislocated elbow 2 Bronchitis 2 Old wounds 2 Mental deficiency 2 Orchitis 1 Pleuresy 1 Conjunct 1 Epidymitis 1 Muscular astrophy 1 Urethritis 1 Neuritis 1 Migraine 1 Hydrocele 1 Mule kick 1 Total 410 Reason for discharge No. Gonorrhoea 270 Vermin 29 Rheumatism 12 Hernia 10 Venereal sores 12 Debility 12 Weak eyes 9 Spleen trouble 8 Syphilis 8 Epilepsy 8 Old age 4 No disease 4 Senility 3 Old fractures 3 Dislocated elbow 2 Bronchitis 2 Old wounds 2 Mental deficiency 2 Orchitis 1 Pleuresy 1 Conjunct 1 Epidymitis 1 Muscular astrophy 1 Urethritis 1 Neuritis 1 Migraine 1 Hydrocele 1 Mule kick 1 Total 410 Source: SA1/722/1916/1, Sisman to CSC, 13 March 1917. By February 1917 the arrival in Salonica of unhealthy Cypriot muleteers was irritating Long. He wrote to Major-General Sir William Rycroft, the Deputy Quarter-Master General at Salonica and General Sir George Milne, the Commander-in-Chief, that 90 of the 600 Cypriot muleteers were unfit and would be returned. He was annoyed because this had happened before and he had wanted an army medical officer to replace the local medical officers. Long thought they were not doing a good job and it was costing Salonica too much money, since these unfit men were being paid their wages, given food, and repatriated for free. The issue, however, was not whether an army or civilian medical officer was examining the men, since venereal diseases may not have been detectable until on the ship or arrival at Salonica.35 By June 1917 Long was fed-up with the slow pace of repatriating the medically unfit (mostly venereal diseased) Cypriots. There were 386 awaiting repatriation (they arrived at Famagusta on the Umballa on 13 July 1917) and eating rations, and he was ‘having considerable trouble with them’. He was informed that that it was difficult to find a ship to take them because of the risk of infection.36 Page two of the list (of those arriving on the Umballa) was missing from the original document, but most of those men suffering from venereal diseases were on another list, and so 51 of the 66 names missing were identified. A total of 495 muleteers were repatriated on the Umballa, 100 were time-expired and 395 were deemed medically unfit and discharged. Of the 66 discharged muleteers on the missing page, 51 were added, while a further five could not be found on the Honour Roll because their numbers were not given, therefore the data presented and analysed below is for 375 muleteers, with 20 missing.37 Table 8 shows that most muleteers were deemed unfit because of venereal disease. The percentage of men suffering from gonorrhoea from both cohorts compares well: 66 per cent on the Verbera and 70 per cent on the Umballa. The overall incidence of venereal diseases was higher given the cases of syphilis and other venereal diseases. Table 8. Reasons for discharge of muleteers on HMS Umballa, 13 July 1917 Reason for discharge No. Gonorrhoea 262 Debility 20 Bronchitis / bronchitis & debility 10 Mentally deficient 8 Myalgi— chronic 7 Senility 7 Sight defect / sight defect & debility / night blindness 6 Rheumatism 5 Age & debility 5 Hearing defect / deaf / deaf & debility 4 Soft chancre 4 Anaemia 2 Liver 2 Conjunctivitis 2 Tuberculosis 2 Other 28 Total 375 Reason for discharge No. Gonorrhoea 262 Debility 20 Bronchitis / bronchitis & debility 10 Mentally deficient 8 Myalgi— chronic 7 Senility 7 Sight defect / sight defect & debility / night blindness 6 Rheumatism 5 Age & debility 5 Hearing defect / deaf / deaf & debility 4 Soft chancre 4 Anaemia 2 Liver 2 Conjunctivitis 2 Tuberculosis 2 Other 28 Total 375 Source: SA1/722/1916/1, Sisman to Orr, 13 March 1917. Table 8. Reasons for discharge of muleteers on HMS Umballa, 13 July 1917 Reason for discharge No. Gonorrhoea 262 Debility 20 Bronchitis / bronchitis & debility 10 Mentally deficient 8 Myalgi— chronic 7 Senility 7 Sight defect / sight defect & debility / night blindness 6 Rheumatism 5 Age & debility 5 Hearing defect / deaf / deaf & debility 4 Soft chancre 4 Anaemia 2 Liver 2 Conjunctivitis 2 Tuberculosis 2 Other 28 Total 375 Reason for discharge No. Gonorrhoea 262 Debility 20 Bronchitis / bronchitis & debility 10 Mentally deficient 8 Myalgi— chronic 7 Senility 7 Sight defect / sight defect & debility / night blindness 6 Rheumatism 5 Age & debility 5 Hearing defect / deaf / deaf & debility 4 Soft chancre 4 Anaemia 2 Liver 2 Conjunctivitis 2 Tuberculosis 2 Other 28 Total 375 Source: SA1/722/1916/1, Sisman to Orr, 13 March 1917. The demographic distribution of those muleteers discharged with gonorrhoea closely corresponds to the total enlistment (Table 9). This indicates that no one was religious group more likely to contract venereal diseases than another. Table 9. Ethno-religious composition of gonorrhoea muleteers on Umballa Ethnicity/religion No. % Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC Orthodox Cypriots 237 90.50 90.40 Muslim Cypriots 24 9.16 8.45 Maronite Cypriots 1 0.38 0.77 Total 262 Ethnicity/religion No. % Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC Orthodox Cypriots 237 90.50 90.40 Muslim Cypriots 24 9.16 8.45 Maronite Cypriots 1 0.38 0.77 Total 262 Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Table 9. Ethno-religious composition of gonorrhoea muleteers on Umballa Ethnicity/religion No. % Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC Orthodox Cypriots 237 90.50 90.40 Muslim Cypriots 24 9.16 8.45 Maronite Cypriots 1 0.38 0.77 Total 262 Ethnicity/religion No. % Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC Orthodox Cypriots 237 90.50 90.40 Muslim Cypriots 24 9.16 8.45 Maronite Cypriots 1 0.38 0.77 Total 262 Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. The urban and rural composition of those discharged with gonorrhoea reveals little difference compared to overall enlistment percentages (Table 10). There was a slightly larger number of men from urban, semi-urban and large villages, indicating that they may have been a little more experienced with brothels. Nevertheless, generally across the island there was a lack of knowledge of venereal diseases. Table 10. List detailing urban–rural composition of VD muleteers on Umballa No. Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC % Urban 44 16.86 15.45 Semi-urban 10 3.83 3.36 Regional centre > 2,000 25 9.60 7.49 Village—large 900-1,999 41 15.71 15.37 Village < 899 141 54.02 57.47 Total 261 No. Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC % Urban 44 16.86 15.45 Semi-urban 10 3.83 3.36 Regional centre > 2,000 25 9.60 7.49 Village—large 900-1,999 41 15.71 15.37 Village < 899 141 54.02 57.47 Total 261 Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Table 10. List detailing urban–rural composition of VD muleteers on Umballa No. Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC % Urban 44 16.86 15.45 Semi-urban 10 3.83 3.36 Regional centre > 2,000 25 9.60 7.49 Village—large 900-1,999 41 15.71 15.37 Village < 899 141 54.02 57.47 Total 261 No. Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC % Urban 44 16.86 15.45 Semi-urban 10 3.83 3.36 Regional centre > 2,000 25 9.60 7.49 Village—large 900-1,999 41 15.71 15.37 Village < 899 141 54.02 57.47 Total 261 Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. As regards the civil condition of the population, the figures indicate that a married muleteer was more likely to contract gonorrhoea than an unmarried one, given the higher rate of married men who contracted venereal diseases than their overall numbers (Table 11). This suggests that the younger men were more timid than the married men, who, as will be shown, visited brothels even after they were married. Table 11. Next of kin of gonorrhoea muleteers on Umballa Next of kin No. Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC % Wife 68 28.10 24.96 Mother 64 26.45 22.98 Father 57 23.56 30.77 Brother 14 5.79 6.68 Sister 8 3.31 6.40 Uncle 7 2.89 2.03 Friend 4 1.65 0.93 Bride/Fiancée 4 1.65 0.48 Cousin 4 1.65 0.54 Aunt 3 1.24 0.33 Brother-in-law 2 0.83 0.79 Daughter 2 0.83 0.30 Nephew 2 0.83 0.29 Grandmother 1 0.41 0.15 Godfather 1 0.41 0.06 Step-father 1 0.41 0.02 Total 242 Next of kin No. Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC % Wife 68 28.10 24.96 Mother 64 26.45 22.98 Father 57 23.56 30.77 Brother 14 5.79 6.68 Sister 8 3.31 6.40 Uncle 7 2.89 2.03 Friend 4 1.65 0.93 Bride/Fiancée 4 1.65 0.48 Cousin 4 1.65 0.54 Aunt 3 1.24 0.33 Brother-in-law 2 0.83 0.79 Daughter 2 0.83 0.30 Nephew 2 0.83 0.29 Grandmother 1 0.41 0.15 Godfather 1 0.41 0.06 Step-father 1 0.41 0.02 Total 242 Note: The total drops to 242 because there is no information on the status of 20 of the men. Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Table 11. Next of kin of gonorrhoea muleteers on Umballa Next of kin No. Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC % Wife 68 28.10 24.96 Mother 64 26.45 22.98 Father 57 23.56 30.77 Brother 14 5.79 6.68 Sister 8 3.31 6.40 Uncle 7 2.89 2.03 Friend 4 1.65 0.93 Bride/Fiancée 4 1.65 0.48 Cousin 4 1.65 0.54 Aunt 3 1.24 0.33 Brother-in-law 2 0.83 0.79 Daughter 2 0.83 0.30 Nephew 2 0.83 0.29 Grandmother 1 0.41 0.15 Godfather 1 0.41 0.06 Step-father 1 0.41 0.02 Total 242 Next of kin No. Gonorrhoea % Overall CMC % Wife 68 28.10 24.96 Mother 64 26.45 22.98 Father 57 23.56 30.77 Brother 14 5.79 6.68 Sister 8 3.31 6.40 Uncle 7 2.89 2.03 Friend 4 1.65 0.93 Bride/Fiancée 4 1.65 0.48 Cousin 4 1.65 0.54 Aunt 3 1.24 0.33 Brother-in-law 2 0.83 0.79 Daughter 2 0.83 0.30 Nephew 2 0.83 0.29 Grandmother 1 0.41 0.15 Godfather 1 0.41 0.06 Step-father 1 0.41 0.02 Total 242 Note: The total drops to 242 because there is no information on the status of 20 of the men. Source: WO405/1 & WO329/2357. Treating muleteers with venereal disease was a drain on the resources of the Cypriot government, with medical, financial and security aspects. Based on the experience of those returned in March 1917, the government informed the chief of police that 300 or so discharged muleteers were expected at Famagusta, of whom it was ‘probable that a large number will be suffering from venereal disease or vermin’. Clauson authorised, under martial law, to have them conveyed to the Larnaca quarantine station until the health officer at Larnaca recommended their release. All funds on them were seized and placed on deposit at the district treasury at Larnaca, and all expenses including transport from Famagusta to Larnaca, quarantine fees, cost of drugs, food allowance, and other expenses incurred, would be defrayed from the amount taken or from pay withheld.38 It is not clear how they were treated. The Cypriot government decided that it would not be financially liable unless the muleteer returned with little or no money. The chief of police reported that upon landing at Famagusta the men with venereal disease had been searched, their money taken, clothes fumigated, hair cropped, and they made to bathe in the sea. Their pay had not been settled and so most had little if any money (many lost some or all of it gambling on the ship). He arranged for each man to receive one okka of bread, some cheese or olives, and some fruit and vegetables daily for 5 cp or 6 cp.39 Those with money were given 3 cp per day for extras from their confiscated funds and an outside grocer could sell them more produce. The local police inspector, A. J. Wilson, took charge of them, opening a ledger account for each showing the exact amount expended on him. A police guard was placed over the quarantine station and the muleteers were cautioned not to escape or they would be dealt with under martial law.40 Many muleteers who did not have money to cover their quarantine costs were covered by the Cypriot government through ‘vote 27 war expenditure’. On 17 April 1917 £26.3.3 was charged to that vote, while in July 1919, £5.2.6 was charged to it.41 For as long as men returned with venereal diseases, the Cypriot colonial authorities maintained lists of those quarantined, the money they carried and how much their stay had cost. Numerous men often had less than £1, which, depending on the length of their stay, might not have been enough to cover them.42 For those repatriated on the Umballa, detailed lists were made on how much money each individual had, with particular focus on those whose funds proved insufficient to cover their quarantine.43 Milne and Clauson agreed to deduct money from outstanding pay and allotments in May 1917 and that muleteers should be re-examined upon arrival at Famagusta.44 Indeed the Chief Medical Officer detected several men upon their arrival at Famagusta. Clauson informed Milne that he had taken drastic action in placing in confinement at their own expense the large numbers of Cypriots already returned … suffering from venereal disease (self-induced in many cases, it is said) and I will continue to take such action against offenders as may be calculated to deter others without discouraging further recruiting.45 Therefore, in order to cover the costs of treatment and to limit the stress for all concerned, he asked Milne that any balance of pay due to muleteers discharged at Salonica be given to the Cypriot government so that the costs of treatment at the quarantine station could be defrayed, before final payment was made.46 It was not until the end of 1917, when the contracts the muleteers signed upon enlistment were amended, that venereal disease came under misconduct and muleteers would be financial liable: The cost of my passage shall be borne by me if such termination is due to my misconduct (including the contraction of venereal disease) but by the British Government if such termination is due to any other cause. During any such period as may elapse between the termination of this agreement and my repatriation, I agree to continue in the service of the British Government upon the terms of this agreement …47 Another problem for the Cypriot authorities was security arising from muleteers resisting quarantine. On the afternoon of 5 April 1917 the 188 repatriated muleteers at the quarantine station became restless. That night they were pacified, but in the morning ‘a very large percentage of them broke through the guard and forced the door and broke quarantine’. Police forced them back and the District Commissioner of Larnaca threatened to punish them under martial law. After this, it was reported, ‘the men now appear very quiet’.48 Another incident occurred on 2 September 1917, when nearly 1,000 muleteers returned. The District Commissioner of Famagusta reported that the police tried to remove 223 muleteers (corrected to 207) with venereal disease into lighters to convey them to the Larnaca quarantine station, but the men knew what was happening and resisted. The 12 police were powerless, as the other ex-muleteers were sympathetic and ‘a big disturbance [was] brewing’. When the infected men could not be separated, the names of the others, nearly 700 time-expired and 75 on furlough were called and landed. They were medically examined and another 20 cases (corrected later to 14) of venereal disease were added to the others. By 1:30am the infected men were loaded and towed off to the Larnaca quarantine station.49 Until October 1917 the discharging of large numbers of Cypriot muleteers because of venereal disease was a serious problem, but thereafter the problem virtually disappeared. As early as August 1917, when 1,017 muleteers were repatriated on the HMT Huntsgreen, not one had venereal disease.50 In March 1918 the chief of police reported that from 31 October 1917 to 1 March 1918 only six men had returned with venereal disease.51 The significant reduction continued. From 1 August 1918 to April 1920, when the Cypriot Mule Corps was disbanded, a mere 19 were admitted to the Larnaca quarantine station with venereal disease.52 In April 1920 Stevenson ordered that repatriated muleteers were not to be detained under Martial Law for quarantine purposes against venereal disease or vermin, and that no further charges should be incurred in this connection under vote 28 ‘war expenditure’.53 Finally, on 30 December 1920 the HMT Huntscastle repatriated 181 muleteers, only two with venereal disease.54 The Solution and the Origins of the Problem The answer for why there was such a sharp decrease in venereal disease amongst Cypriot muleteers lies in where they contracted it and what action was taken there. According to Wakefield and Moody, venereal diseases were not a major issue on the Macedonian front. This is questionable given the Cypriot case and venereal disease was serious enough for the British to establish a venereal disease hospital near Karaissi village. It is true however, that the problem did not originate in Macedonia because the disease had been contracted before men arrived there.55 The reason for the dramatic reduction of venereal disease in the Cypriot Mule Corps was that it was contracted at Famagusta. In May 1919 the Cypriot government informed the military authorities that only eight men were found with venereal disease with a corps number above 7,600.56 Thus the muleteers found with venereal disease were the earliest to enlist. So what was the source of the venereal disease problem at Famagusta and what was done to remedy it? Before and during the war, numerous advancements were made in the prevention and treatment of venereal diseases. As previously mentioned, prevention usually revolved around education and abstinence, with prophylaxis mostly frowned upon, while treatment usually involved isolating those diagnosed.57 In the venereal disease hospital in Macedonia members of the Cypriot Mule Corps were not treated. Limiting the incidence of venereal disease amongst members of the Cypriot Mule Corps was vital for the success of the corps, yet the policy to deal with the problem was left to the Cypriot government. The problem was first brought to the attention of the Cypriot government by Dr O. Pavlides, the district medical officer at Famagusta, who supported the option of treating the prostitutes. On 19 September 1916 he suggested to Francis Baxendale, then the district commissioner of Famagusta, a solution to the threat posed to the war effort by prostitution at Famagusta. Pavlides observed that this was an important question in peace time, but even more important in war-time, with the frequent visits of British and French war ships to Famagusta resulting in the accumulation of prostitutes. In September 1916 there were about 30, which was proportionate to the amount of sailors and soldiers, but if the number of soldiers and sailors increased, the number of prostitutes would too. Pavlides claimed that few of these women were free from venereal diseases and the Municipality of Varosha wanted the industry regulated. Pavlides told Baxendale that he was committed to doing something, on the condition that those infected were isolated and treated. But after two months of discussions the municipality was powerless to implement his proposals. He asked Baxendale if the government proposed to allow these women to infect people and undermine public health, or treat them to clean up the industry? He recognised that the traditional solution was to send the women away, but this only exported the disease elsewhere.58 Pavlides was not proposing a new approach, since his method had been used in the British army for 50 years under the various contagious diseases acts from the 1860 s, which were quickly introduced throughout most of the British Empire: Corfu (1861), Malta (1861), Canada (1865), Ceylon (1867), Jamaica (1867), India (1868), Cape Colony (1868), Barbados (1868), New Zealand (1869), Malacca (1873) and Labuan (1877).59 However, by the twentieth century, after heated debate, this approach had been abandoned and therefore the conservative Cypriot government was unwilling to adopt it. Baxendale sent Pavlides’ report to Captain G. A. Williamson, the senior medical officer at the Ottoman Prisoner of War Camp, informing him that several men of the 22nd Battalion of the Rifle Brigade and 30 men under Lieutenant-Commander de Rubet, who was commanding the French Syrian patrol, had contracted venereal disease when stationed at Famagusta.60 In addition to British and French troops, Baxendale reminded Williamson of the 3,000 muleteers currently training at Famagusta and ‘a large number of these men have developed venereal disease on the way to, or after arrival at Salonica, showing that the disease was contracted here’.61 Baxendale was worried about the muleteers and the Ottoman Prisoner of War Camp since there were many ways of entering the old city: ‘it seems to me that some drastic measure is necessary’.62 Williamson sent the letters from Pavlides and Baxendale to his superior, the Officer Commanding the Cyprus Troops. He argued that the disease could not be stopped because Baxendale was sending the infected women away, spreading the disease to the wider district. Consequently, Williamson had been forced to place the town of Famagusta out of bounds to all troops. Only if women were treated in a civil hospital, in the way Pavlides recommended, could venereal disease be restricted.63 The Officer Commanding the Troops warned Clauson that it was ‘imperative that drastic steps should be taken to prevent the disease increasing amongst the Soldiers and Sailors of our Army and those of our Allies’.64 He knew that in Egypt ‘lock hospitals’ had been created to deal with the problem, where women were examined by civil doctors and regulated.65 This was needed at Famagusta. It is useless to shut one’s eyes to the fact that unless women are kept in certain houses which are under constant Medical supervision and control, and all other public women’s houses closed by Police, a very serious situation will arise here.66 Clauson, who blamed the men for contracting venereal disease (that it was ‘self-induced’, likely a moral view on the problem), acknowledged that it could impact upon recruiting.67 He sought advice from Egypt, where there had been a vigorous crackdown on prostitution.68 Lieutenant-General Sir E. A. Altham, Inspector-General Lines of Communication, Egyptian Expeditionary Force, replied that there was much venereal disease in Egypt and he was on a committee with the Bishop in Jerusalem, an army doctor, two civil doctors, the commandant of civil police and General Watson, commander of the Cairo District, to deal with the matter.69 Egyptian law required compulsory registration and examination, but the committee decided that examination was ineffective without more time and the system deluded young men into thinking that these women were fine. It was finally decided to treat venereal diseases like other infectious diseases, freely providing examination followed by medical treatment. There was no doubt, Altham opined, that ‘abstinence from immorality is the only real physical safeguard from disease’, therefore, he opined, the moral standard of the men must be lifted.70 All advice pointed to treating the women, a preferred method over prophylaxis measures during the Great War. However, Clauson accepted the even more moralistic recommendations of Wilfred Bolton, Limassol’s commissioner, which arrived on 20 December. In the winter, Bolton had decided to act on the venereal disease amongst the garrison and young townspeople.71 He placed the brothels out of bounds and arranged, with the mayor, for examinations at the cost of one shilling for each woman. A notice in red ink was placed on every infected house. Also, all prostitutes had an identity booklet, which contained their photo and examination notes. According to the supporters of this policy, venereal disease fell off. Clauson told Baxendale to follow Bolton’s approach and to banish all infected women from the town.72 The regulations meant that prostitutes could not leave their district without police permission and upon arrival at a new district they had to present for examination.73 The police would keep a copy of the identity booklet, with a spare photo sent to another district if they moved. Additionally, doctors were to report if a woman gave ‘a disease to any of their patients’.74 This clearly placed the blame on prostitutes, who were not even treated, and showed an even more highly moralistic approach than usual. The instructions were accordingly sent to all parties.75 However, there were still naysayers. Williamson and Thompson argued that there would still be a problem because infected women would not be treated and would spread the disease.76 Baxendale disagreed, informing Clauson that the adopted system had improved the situation and it was unnecessary to go further.77 The debate annoyed Clauson. He bluntly instructed Baxendale to verbally warn Thompson that the subject was not one to get onto paper and that he had better shut up. I also told the mayor that however praiseworthy his hygienic efforts were the subject was one which British public opinion was very touchy about, and that the next thing would be an article in English giving photographs of his hospital placard and his ‘public house’ notices with a question in the House of Commons on the top of it.78 Clauson saw the matter in moralistic and policing terms. He did not want to end prostitution, because it served an important purpose in ‘satisfying the soldiers’ masculine ‘needs’ and maintaining the ‘manliness’ of the army, as Ballhatchet argued.79 Yet he did not want to treat the women because he assumed that this would lead to a backlash back home, after the legislation in the UK and the British Empire that had allowed for ‘lock hospitals’ had been repealed. This solved the problem in so far as military personnel (British, French, Cypriot or Armenian) could not come into contact with infected women, but it exported the problem throughout the rural countryside. Surridge blamed this on the ex-muleteers, but the system adopted to prevent venereal diseases must also be blamed. Also, when the war ended and few prostitutes were needed at Famagusta, the women out of work must have spread the disease when moving to other parts of the island. It was also likely to have spread because the treatment was ineffective. Therefore, venereal disease spread so rapidly during the interwar period to necessitate the involvement of the British Social Hygiene Council. The British Social Hygiene Council Report The report by the British Social Hygiene Council, presented to the Cypriot government towards the end of 1926, contained 15 pages of much detail, especially on treatment and education. The British Social Hygiene Council was invited to Cyprus by the Mayor of Larnaca (1922–32 and 1943–6), Demetrios Demetriou, who visited its London offices in the first week of August 1926.80 Demetriou suggested to the Colonial Office that the council visit Cyprus en route to its more publicised trip to India and in due course the council received an invitation from the Cypriot government, which paid for the mission.81 The decision to approach the British Social Hygiene Council was telling, since it reflected the continued conservative moralistic arguments of the Cypriot government. In 1925 the National Council for Combatting Venereal Diseases, which had been founded in 1914 and became operational in 1916, changed its name to the British Social Hygiene Council. In a statement issued after its first annual meeting under its new name, the council emphasised that the altered name reflected its expanded attack on venereal diseases, now waged on social as well as medical grounds. The council was to now give increased prominence to ‘the elimination of those conditions of life which tend to foster promiscuous intercourse and spread the disease’ and therefore greater efforts were to be made to foster character training in the young and uphold the integrity of family life.82 This new direction was reflected in the composition of the delegation to Cyprus, which included a medical and an educational delegate, and the report which focused on both the medical and social aspects of reducing prevalence.83 The delegates visited all the districts on the island, except Paphos, consulting and observing widely, especially at hospitals, brothel areas and with municipal authorities. As a result the delegation concluded that syphilis and gonorrhoea were extremely prevalent throughout the Island; that the existing social conditions contribute to the dissemination of the disease; that scarcely any effective treatment is now available; and that social effort to check the spread of the disease is almost entirely absent.84 The delegates made four broad recommendations: That, in the interests of public health, the government should provide facilities for free diagnosis and treatment of venereal disease. That the government should take steps to enlighten the public as to the dangers of, and the facilities for treatment of, venereal diseases through the health and educational departments and in cooperation with the Cypriot Social Hygiene Council. That hostels should be established for the accommodation of infected individuals undergoing treatment, when such treatment makes their usual occupation undesirable in the interests of public health. That all possible steps should be taken to suppress professional prostitution and that any existing system of control and medical examination should cease.85 These proposals succinctly, yet comprehensively offered a solution that reflected the views of the British Social Hygiene Council: social education, medical treatment and eliminating the cause of the problem—prostitution—and no prophylaxis. Educating the poor uneducated masses on the dangers of venereal diseases and promiscuity was the cornerstone of the social education campaign. Treatment would be free and take place in hostels, which were less threatening than ‘lock hospitals’ in order to encourage more sufferers to seek treatment. As for the prostitutes, they would be eradicated by removing any existing system(s) of regulation and medical examination. This last proposal clearly risked prostitution going underground. On the issue of prevalence, the delegation established that venereal disease was widespread after consulting over 100 medical personnel and municipal and other government authorities. The report also emphasised that rural doctors were ‘of opinion that these diseases are common in the rural districts as well as in the towns’. The unpublished health report statistics between 1913 and 1925 showed that in those twelve years there was an average of 318 cases of gonorrhoea and 292 of syphilis seen annually at the hospitals or dispensaries. These numbers were very low because venereal diseases were only treated free in the dispensaries on presenting a certificate of pauperism. In reality, venereal diseases were much higher.86 The delegation did not comprehensively explore the issue of why venereal diseases were so widespread. Their focus was on medical reasons for the prevalence, arguing that there was a lack of skilled treatment of acquired or hereditary syphilis, that the types of medical examinations of prostitutes were inadequate and that certain doctors were advising young male patients that frequent sexual intercourse was essential to their health.87 Although consulting widely, the delegation did not mention the problems of venereal disease in the Cypriot Mule Corps, even though they were informed of the successful methods in dealing with the problem in Famagusta and Limassol during the war.88 The treatment of venereal diseases in the island was unacceptable, according to the delegation. Preventative treatment, led by the initiatives of the municipalities, namely having a doctor examine prostitutes, was futile and did not ensure against the spreading of the disease.89 There was no diagnostic treatment (for bacteriological, cultural and serological tests) on the island, which was a setback to treatment. Finally, as regards curative treatment, private doctors were too expensive for most patients, while there were no facilities in any of the six hospitals for treating syphilis or gonorrhoea. At the out-patient departments of these hospitals and at the 18 rural dispensaries, an injection of salvarsan might be given for syphilis and occasionally a bottle of medicine to a male patient suffering gonorrhoea, but female patients were rarely examined, let alone treated.90 The delegation found the following extract from a letter by Dr K. H. Lachlan, the surgeon at the Skouriotissa Mines, most illustrative of the problems. With regard to women, abortion and sterility are extremely common. The treatment of gynaecological complaints is in the hands of the midwives; the doctor is called in as a last resort only. Their troubles are the result of gonorrhoea or child birth and the ratio is about five to one. Salpingitis and pyo-salpinx are very common. With regard to syphilis I can give you no facts except that repeated abortions are occasionally met with. In my obstetric practise, I have been called into only one case of syphilis, but then I only see desperate cases. My experience here is that venereal disease is undoubtedly spreading to the villages from the towns, and the reason for this is that not one case in fifty ever receives efficient treatment.91 The issue of maternity and child welfare was very serious. The report disclosed that venereal diseases seriously influenced the health of pregnant women and their unborn and that syphilis was particularly responsible for large numbers of miscarriages and stillbirths, and ‘that these complications of labour’ were ‘prevalent in Cyprus’. Moreover, there was evidence that there were numerous cases of serious gonorrhoea in pregnant women; in fact the ratio of those with gonorrhoea to those without was five to one. The infant mortality rate was 145 per thousand and while there were many causes for this high rate (it was of course high across the British Empire), syphilis was the main cause. Meanwhile, a large number of children died within the first week or the first year because of complications arising from parents being infected by syphilis. Those with gonorrhoea were also causing problems for their newborns, with a high prevalence of blindness and eye complications on the island largely the result of this. For these reasons the delegation emphasised that any recommendations to deal with venereal disease had to take into account the treatment of women and particularly pregnant women.92 Ultimately the delegation made 16 specific recommendations. In summary they were: Accommodation for in- and-out-patients at hospitals in Nicosia, Limassol and Larnaca. Accommodation for out-patients at hospitals in Famagusta, Paphos and Kyrenia. Ablution centres in six of the 18 rural dispensaries, for which construction was necessary. Appointment of a specialist officer with experience in diagnosing and treating venereal diseases. Appointment of a medical bacteriologist with experience in the laboratory methods of venereal disease diagnosis to carry out bacteriological and serological tests and general bacteriological work for the government and general private practitioners. Appointment of a female doctor with experience with venereal diseases and infant care to assist the specialist venereal disease officer in treating women and children; to organise the child welfare centres; to assist in the training of nurses and midwives; and to give lectures on venereal disease and social hygiene to nurses, midwives and school teachers. Appointment of three female and three male nurses to assist the medical staff with venereal disease in the hospitals and the training of other nurses and midwives. Appointment of a trained female to organise the educational and sociological work of the Cyprus Social Hygiene Council and coordinate it with the work of the medical staff. Enlistment of the local medical profession to combat venereal diseases by forming the Cyprus Medical Society, with Chief Medical Officer as the Honorary President; providing postgraduate training for private practitioners; appointing doctors in various districts to help the specialists; to work together with the Cyprus Social Hygiene Council in promoting awareness of venereal diseases. Enforcement of the existing act of 1917 to abolish unqualified medical practices. Tougher standards in accepting medical degrees from overseas for those wishing to practise on the island. Enforcement of the Venereal Disease Act, 1917, which prohibits the prescribing for venereal disease by chemists and quacks. Enforcement of the Women and Girls Protection Act of 1918. Introduction of legislation to penalise the exploitation of juvenile labour. Introduction of legislation to raise the age of consent to 16 years (it was 13 at the time). The introduction of sex-hygiene into the education curriculum.93 Here was a comprehensive plan to tackle the problem head-on through a change in attitude to sexual activity and venereal diseases, yet prophylaxis was not mentioned. The Cypriot government took action accordingly. The Cypriot Government Acts In its 1926 Annual Report the Cypriot government claimed that ‘the most important event of the year from the point of view of public health was the visit in October of a deputation from the British Social Hygiene Council, which resulted in the formation of the Social Hygiene Council in Cyprus’. The report emphasised the information sessions that the deputation held, where, with the use of the cinematograph, they discussed the importance of preventing diseases, especially venereal, which would now form the work of the Social Hygiene Council. Additionally, the report added that a specialist would be appointed to deal with venereal diseases.94 The 1927 report revealed that a venereal disease clinic, providing free treatment, had been opened in Nicosia and a specialist, Reginald Edward Hopton, had been appointed to deal with the problem throughout the island.95 Other appointments were also made: a welfare worker, Phyllis Mary Lyall, was appointed on 29 September 1927, and she also served as the secretary to the Cypriot Social Hygiene Council.96 A bacteriologist, Minnie Gosden, was appointed on 16 February 1929.97 The clinic in Nicosia functioned throughout 1927 with such good results that others were opened in 1928 at Larnaca and Limassol, which altogether for that year saw over 3,500 patients treated.98 In 1929 new clinics were opened at Famagusta and the Central Prison, Nicosia, while arrangements were also made for intermediate treatment at four regional centres. Hopton and Lyall represented the Cypriot government at the 4th Imperial Social Hygiene Congress in September 1929, while Lyall also attended the English-speaking Conference on Maternity and Child Welfare in the same month.99 The annual report for 1929 stated that there were 3,435 new patients treated.100 Five junior appointments (assistant medical officers, 2nd grade) were also made at the venereal disease clinics: Neophytos Christodoulou Michaelides (30 January 1928); Michael Ioannou Fterakis (21 May 1928); Socrates Savas Pastides (1 August 1928); Constantinos Photiou Cronides (1 March 1929); and Hassan Atta Hikmet (1 October 1929).101 In 1929 Hopton produced a report reviewing the work done in 1928. He confirmed the findings of the British Social Hygiene Council that venereal disease in Cyprus was ‘a serious menace, and must have hitherto to a large extent sapped the vitality of the people’ and the campaign to rectify the situation would be long. He summarised the first years’ work by detailing the establishment of the three free treatment centres in Nicosia, Larnaca and Limassol (and at the depot of the Cypriot Military Police to treat British troops), which were modelled on the clinics in London; the training of the staff (mostly Cypriots); and the propaganda campaign, which included posters, lectures and film screenings to the public, school children and teachers. Hopton revealed that most of the patients treated in 1928 were from the ‘poorer classes’ and many did not come to the clinics, preferring to see a private practitioner. He detailed that there were 3,545 new patients, 2,278 (64.3 per cent) were men and 1,267 (35.7 per cent) women. Of the men, there were 1,560 (68.5 per cent) cases of gonorrhoea and 838 (36.8) of syphilis, including 467 (24.1 per cent) who had both. Those with gonorrhoea included 616 with acute gonorrhoea, the rest were chronic, while 75 of the syphilis patients had late syphilis affecting their nervous system. Of the women, 679 (53.6 per cent) had gonorrhoea and 587 (46.3 per cent) had syphilis, with 213 (20.2 per cent) diagnosed with both. There were 62 cases who had late syphilis affecting their nervous system. As many as 131 (10.3 per cent) admitted that they were prostitutes and 80 per cent were married (140 were sent to the clinics by their husbands undergoing treatment), most of whom ‘could definitely fix the date of the onset of symptoms as coinciding with the date of their marriage’. Hopton was struck with the number of married women attending the clinic who state they are fully aware that their husbands frequented brothels but they do not seem to consider it as anything very extraordinary. Of male patients, 90 per cent answered that they had visited prostitutes. It was a problem that 75 per cent of the 131 prostitutes visiting one of the clinics did not continue their treatment. Hopton concluded that prostitutes in brothels were the ‘main source’ of venereal disease and they were ‘indifferent’ to being treated. He argued that the once strong views in Cyprus against banning brothels was wavering and that a ban, though not abolishing prostitution, would ‘lessen the opportunities of men coming into contact with them’.102 The government pushed ahead with the ban on brothels in April 1931 to much opposition in the Legislative Council and in the Cyprus News, edited by Pr. Giles. The opponents cited statistics from other places to argue that it would not decrease venereal disease, while the proposed law left these women out on the street and it did not consider a brothel an immoral place to which people were invited.103 The law passed, but it is unclear if it had the desired effect. In addition to the activities of new staff at the venereal disease clinics and the legislation to ban brothels, there was also the work of the Cypriot Social Hygiene Council led by Lyall.104 Initially the Cypriot Council, with the governor as chairman, consisted of the heads of the Health, Education, Law and Police departments, the mayors of the leading towns and local representatives, with Lyall acting as the secretary. Its brief was ‘to make recommendations to the Government for action for social welfare and hygiene, legislative, financial and administrative’. To achieve this it created various committees, such as medical, education, propaganda, infant welfare and the girls’ hostel committee. Indeed, the first major issue the council attempted was the protection of young domestic servants. School not being compulsory, many peasant and rural labouring families sent their girls into service as young as seven years of age. Many were discarded by employers, some after being sexually abused, and many of these moved into prostitution. In 1928 the ‘Protection of Female Domestic Servants Law, 1928’ was passed under which employers had to register all female domestic servants under 18 and report to the district commissioner and the police if she left their employment. Also in 1928 a hostel was opened in Nicosia for girls who left domestic service until such time as they found employment elsewhere.105 By 1932, 181 girls had stayed at the hostel for anywhere between a day to several months, and in 1932 a further 63 had done so. In the other districts, lodgings were provided for such girls for several days until more suitable arrangements were made for them.106 The hostel was closed in 1933 because it was deemed that other arrangements would attain better results.107 Propaganda was an important part of the work of the Social Hygiene Council in Cyprus. It organised short courses or lectures, mainly for teachers and secondary school students, on health matters, including venereal diseases. In Nicosia the lectures were accompanied by films provided by the League of Red Cross Societies and the British Social Hygiene Council.108 In 1931 a series of lectures were held during the Bairan holidays for Turkish-speaking teachers and pupils in Nicosia to audiences of 500 and more; similar numbers of Greek-speakers attended the same lectures in Limassol. By 1931 the films were shown at screenings in the towns across the island and would soon be taken to rural areas with the aid of a projector.109 Initiatives started before the arrival of the British Social Hygiene Council continued and improved. An infant welfare centre had existed in Nicosia since 1926 and although now affiliated to the Council and received government aid, it was still staffed by volunteers and received private donations. A similar centre was started in 1927 in Larnaca by mayor Demetriou.110 The initial work of the local community developed further as the work of Hopton and Lyall progressed. Indeed by 1933 the progress made was deemed sufficient to dispense with Hopton and Lyall. Trained Cypriot staff (assistant medical officers, 2nd grade) ran the veneral disease clinics and various volunteer women took over Lyall’s work.111 A delegate of the Cypriot Social Hygiene Council spoke about the situation in Cyprus at the Seventh Imperial Congress in London.112 Between 1934 and 1939 the fight against venereal diseases in Cyprus continued with the same vigour as it had the six years before. In the Annual Medical & Sanitary Report 1934 the report on venereal diseases showed that the education campaign may not have been working since many old and new patients were visiting the clinics. The report disclosed that since the first clinic was established seven years prior, 25,581 (17,087 males and 8,494 females) patients had attended the five clinics, with the number of treatments for gonorrhoea being 980,615 and the number of injections for syphilis being 106,243. Thus far the campaign had cost £27,446. In 1934 254,180 treatments were performed, a large number representing a quarter of total treatments over the seven year period, indicating that some people were being treated and continuing a lifestyle that was not conducive to being cured (i.e. visiting infected prostitutes). Also in 1934 there had been 3,444 (2,352 male and 1,092 female) new cases. For males, gonorrhoea was the most prevalent venereal disease (46 per cent), while for women it was mainly syphilis (59 per cent of women had syphilis or both gonorrhoea and syphilis). The report also commented that the prophylactic centres had seen an increase in visitors, yet this was only the case for centres in Nicosia (1934 had 9,173 visitors, up from 6,286 in 1933 and 1,426 in 1932) and Limassol (6,625 visitors in 1934, up from 4,138 in 1933), with Larnaca dropping (4,781 visitors in 1934, down on the 6,844 in 1931).113 By 1937 the situation had improved, as the incidence of venereal diseases, still high, was nonetheless dropping. Annual reports from 1931 to 1938 claimed that venereal disease was still prevalent, but syphilis was on the decrease.114 Dr Neophytos Christodoulou Michaelides, the medical officer in charge of the venereal disease clinics, reported that ten years had ‘lapsed since the establishment of Venereal Diseases Clinics in the Colony and during this period a systematic campaign has been waged against the Diseases’. The number of treatments given to new and old patients had fallen to 179,993. The number of patients had also fallen: 4,252 patients (2,547 men and 1,705 women) visited one of the five clinics; 2,636 were new (1,609 men and 1,027 women). Not only had the numbers decreased, but more women were comfortable to present for treatment (of the 1,027 presenting, 567 were infected while married) and there were fewer new cases than 1934.115 The 1938 report showed a significant decrease in the number of treatments to 130,954, a slight increase in the patients seen to 4,348 (2,524 men and 1,824 women) and a slight decrease in new suffers attending to 2,502. Thus the campaign was starting to work, since more people (especially women) were comfortable to present and treatment seemed to be helping.116 This treatment was specifically Sulphanilamide P. and M & B. 693, one of the first generation of sulphonamide antibiotics (to be later superseded by penicillin) and first used in 1937, and in 1939 the results in Cyprus showed success. Indeed there was a massive decrease in the number of treatments to 76,419, a slight increase in the patients seen to 4,613 and in new sufferers attending to 2,791, again due to the propaganda campaign.117 Conclusion During the inter-war years Cyprus developed a serious problem with venereal diseases. Although venereal diseases existed before the Great War, the post-war problem grew out of the wartime formation of the Cypriot Mule Corps. The Cypriot authorities, in trying to stop enlisted muleteers serving with venereal disease, opted to banish infected prostitutes, which spread the disease throughout the island. This went against the advice of the medical authorities to treat the women. Additionally, the men returning discharged with venereal disease were treated, but were not cured, thus they also spread the disease. Roughly a decade later, once the British Social Hygiene Council had identified that a serious problem existed—although showing no interest in how the problem had become so bad—the Cypriot government became interested in doing something about it and implemented the various recommendations. Over time the campaign resulted in a reduction in the number of treatments administered. The campaign revolved around a combination of modernity and social conservatism, with morality and modern medicine, especially, although not exclusively, focused on treatment. A sophisticated education campaign, using modern communication techniques, and modern medical practices were used to, on the one hand, ‘educate’ the colonial masses and, on the other, to treat the diseases. The medical treatments were effective, although they pre-date penicillin. The propaganda campaign was socially conservative, constructed around discouraging single and married men from visiting prostitutes, who were proscribed. In this sense the authorities aimed to regulate the sexual practices of single and married men and force them into a socially conservative and less promiscuous lifestyle. There was resistance towards this, even if the overall campaign to combat venereal diseases had proved moderately successful by 1939. The British Empire had the means and resources to tackle the problem of venereal diseases in Cyprus and took the same approach as that taken before the Great War in other parts of the British Empire, by attempting to control sexual practices through education and regulation of the body, with less emphasis on prophylaxis, as was the policy of the British Social Hygiene Council. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor Philippa Levine and Dr Evan Smith for reading an earlier draft of this article as well as the two anonymous reviewers. Footnotes Andrekos Varnava, FRHistS, is an Associate Professor in Imperial and Military History at Flinders University, Adelaide, and an Honorary Professor in History at De Montfort University, Leicester, UK. He was born (1979) and raised in Melbourne to Cypriot-born parents, obtained a BA (Honours) from Monash University (2001) and his PhD from the University of Melbourne (2006). He is the author of two monographs: Serving the Empire in the Great War: The Cypriot Mule Corps, Imperial Loyalty and Memory (Manchester University Press, 2017) and British Imperialism in Cyprus, 1878–1915: The Inconsequential Possession (Manchester University Press, 2009, paperback 2012). He is the editor/co-editor of six volumes: The Great War and the British Empire: Culture and Society (Routledge, 2017); Australia and the Great War: Identity, Memory, Mythology (Melbourne University Press, 2016); Imperial Expectations and Realities: El Dorados, Utopias and Dystopias (Manchester University Press, 2015); The Archbishops of Cyprus in the Modern Age: The Changing Role of the Archbishop-Ethnarch, their Identities and Politics (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013); The Minorities of Cyprus: Development Patterns and the Identity of the Internal-Exclusion (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009); and Reunifying Cyprus: The Annan Plan and Beyond (I. B. Tauris, 2009; paperback 2011). He has published numerous book chapters and peer-reviewed articles, including in English Historical Review, The Historical Journal, Historical Research, War in History, Itinerario, Britain and the World, First World War Studies and forthcoming in Journal of Modern History and Social History of Medicine. 1 CO67/220/5, Advanced Report presented by the Delegation of the British Social Hygiene Council to His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government of Cyprus, signed by C. Neville-Rolfe, Secretary-General of the British Social Hygiene Council and Dr David Lees, published by the Government Printing Press, Nicosia, 1926, 5. Hereafter, CO67/220/5, British Social Hygiene Council report to Cypriot Government, 1926. 2 The Cyprus Civil List 1929, Government Printing Office, Nicosia, 1929, 39. 3 Ronald Hyam, ‘Empire and Sexual Opportunity’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 1986, 14, 34–90; Ronald Hyam, Empire and Sexuality: The British Experience (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990). 4 See for example: M. T. Berger, ‘Imperialism and Sexual Exploitation: A Response to Ronald Hyam’s “Empire and Sexual Opportunity”’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 1988,17, 83–9; Philippa Levine, ‘Venereal Disease, Prostitution, and the Politics of Empire: The Case of British India’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 1994, 4, 579–602; Mark Harrison, Public Health in British India: Anglo-Indian Preventive Medicine, 1859–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 73; A. Stoler, ‘Educating Desire in Colonial South-East Asia: Foucault, Freud, and Imperial Sexualities’, in Lenore Manderson and Margaret Jolly, eds, Sites of Desire / Economies of Pleasure: Sexualities in Asia and the Pacific (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), 27–47. 5 Daniel J. Walther, ‘Sex, Public Health and Colonial Control: The Campaign Against Venereal Diseases in Germany’s Overseas Possessions, 1884–1914’, Social History of Medicine, 2013, 26, 182–203; Daniela Baratieri, ‘Italy’s sexual El Dorado in Africa’, in Andrekos Varnava, ed., Imperial Expectations and Realities: El Dorados, Utopias and Dystopias (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015), 166–90. 6 Philippa Levine, Prostitution, Race, and Politics: Policing Venereal Disease in the British Empire (London: Routledge, 2003). 7 On Germany, see Walther, ‘Sex, Public Health and Colonial Control’. 8 On India, see Kenneth Ballhatchet, Race, Sex and Class under the Raj: Imperial Attitudes and Policies and their Critics, 1793–1905 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980); Levine, Prostitution, Race, and Politics. On Malaya, see Lenore Manderson, ‘Migration, Prostitution, and Medical Surveillance in Early Twentieth Century Malaya’, in Lara Marks and Michael Worboys, eds, Migrants, Minorities and Health: Historical and Contemporary Studies (London: Routledge, 1997), 49–69; Lenore Manderson, Sickness and the State: Health and Illness in Colonial Malaya, 1870–1940 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 166–200. On Singapore, see Lai Ah Eng, Peasants, Proletarians, and Prostitutes: A Preliminary Investigation into the Work of Chinese Women in Colonial Malaya (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1986); James Francis Warren, Ah ku and Karayuki-san: Prostitution in Singapore, 1870–1940 (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1993); Levine, Prostitution, Race, and Politics. On Hong Kong, see Levine, Prostitution, Race, and Politics; Philip Howell, Geographies of Regulation: Policing Prostitution in Nineteenth-Century Britain and the Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 9 On earlier times, see Trevor Burnard and Richard Follett, ‘Caribbean Slavery, British Anti-Slavery, and the Cultural Politics of Venereal Disease’, The Historical Journal, 2012, 55, 427–51. On Kenya, see Luise White, The Comforts of Home: Prostitution in Colonial Nairobi (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). On Egypt, see Suzanne Brugger, Australians and Egypt, 1914–1919 (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1980); Mark Harrison, ‘The British Army and the Problem of Venereal Disease in France and Egypt during the First World War’, Medical History, 1995, 39, 133–58. On Gibraltar, see Howell, Geographies of Regulation. 10 Levine, Prostitution, Race, and Politics. 11 Howell, Geographies of Regulation. 12 Harrison, ‘The British Army and the Problem of Venereal Disease’. 13 Edward H. Beardsley, ‘Allied against Sin: American and British Responses to Venereal Disease in World War I’, Medical History, 1976, 20, 189–202. 14 Bridget A. Towers, ‘Health Education Policy 1916–1926: Venereal Disease and the Prophylaxis Dilemma’, Medical History, 1980, 24, 70–87. 15 The British Medical Journal, 25 July 1925, 167. 16 Sir Stanley Fisher, The Statute Laws of Cyprus, 1878–1923 (London: Waterlow & Sons, 1923), 647–8. 17 Vassos Argyrou, Tradition and Modernity in the Mediterranean: The Wedding as Symbolic Struggle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 18 Magda Ohnefalsch-Richter, Greek Customs and Traditions in Cyprus (Nicosia, Popular Bank Cultural Centre, 1994; German original, 1913), 157–8; J. G. Peristiany, ‘Honour and Shame in a Cypriot Highland Village’, in J. G. Peristiany, ed., Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966; repr. Midway, 1974). 19 CO67/220/5, British Social Hygiene Council report to Cypriot Government, 1926. 20 Ohnefalsch-Richter, Greek Customs and Traditions in Cyprus. 21 Cyprus: Annual Report for 1913–14, cd. 7643 London: HMSO, 1914), 16–21; Cyprus: Report for 1914–15, no. 865, cd. 7622 (London: HMSO, 1915), 15–18; Cyprus: Report for 1915–16, no. 903, cd. 8172 (London: HMSO, 1916), 10–13; Cyprus: Report for 1916–17, no. 941, cd. 8434–28 (London: HMSO, 1917), 8–10; Cyprus: Report for 1917–18, no. 986, cmd. 1–9 (London: HMSO, 1919), 6–8; Cyprus: Report for 1918–19, no. 1025, cmd. 508–9 (London: HMSO, 1920), 6–8; Cyprus: Report for 1919–20, no. 1046, cmd. 508–29 (London: HMSO, 1920), 3–4; Cyprus: Report for 1920, no. 1093 (London: HMSO, 1921), 4–5; Cyprus: Report for 1921, no. 1117 (London: HMSO, 1922), 5; Cyprus: Report for 1922, no. 1159 (London: HMSO, 1923), 6–7; Cyprus: Report for 1923, no. 1206 (London: HMSO, 1924), 6–7; Cyprus: Report for 1925, no. 1253 (London: HMSO, 1926), 10–13. 22 General Staff, War Office, Military Report on Cyprus, War Office, London, 1913, 71. 23 B. J. Surridge, A Survey of Rural Life in Cyprus (Nicosia: Government Printing Office, 1930), 16. 24 See Andrekos Varnava, Serving the Empire in the Great War: The Cypriot Mule Corps, Imperial Identity and Memory (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017); Andrekos Varnava, ‘European Subaltern War Asses: “Service” or “Employment” in the Cypriot Mule Corps during the Great War?’, Britain and the World, 2017, 10; Andrekos Varnava, ‘Fighting Asses: Procuring Mules in Cyprus and their Condition at the Salonica Front’, War in History, 2016, 23, 489-515; Andrekos Varnava, ‘Recruitment and Volunteerism for the Cypriot Mule Corps, 1916–1919’, Itinerario, 2014, 38, 79–101. 25 See tables in Varnava, Serving the Empire in the Great War, 86–7. 26 Varnava, ‘Recruitment and Volunteerism for the Cypriot Mule Corps, 1916–1919’. 27 As discussed before, in Cyprus being engaged meant that a religious ceremony had been administered and it was ‘as good’ as being married. 28 CO67/197/17873, Stevenson to Milner, 26 March 1920. 29 On the duties of muleteers, see WO95/4809, WDSA, 854th Auxiliary Pack Company, part of 27th Division Train before November 1917, 18 February and 29 March 1918. 30 WO95/4790, WDSA, Long, DSTS, 20 September 1916. 31 SA1/722/1916/1, Lethbridge to CSC, 16 November 1916 and Fenn to CCP, 18 November 1916. 32 WO95/4790, WDSA, Long, DSTS, 16 January 1917. 33 Ibid., 24 November 1916. 34 Sisman’s reasons can be found at SA1/722/1916/1, Sisman to CSC, 13 March 1917. 35 Ibid., 27 February 1917; WO95/4791, WDSA, Long, DSTS, 21 February 1918. 36 WO95/4790, WDSA, Long, DSTS, 3 June 1917. 37 Including seven foremen. 38 SA1/607/1917, Confidential, ACSC to CCPC, 2 April 1917. 39 Okka (often Oke) was an Ottoman measure of mass between 1.2 and 1.3 kilograms. 40 SA1/607/1917, ACCPC to Orr, 5 April 1917; SA1/607/1917/a, ACCPC to Orr, 17 July 1917. 41 Figures for 1917 can be found at SA1/607/1917, Woodhouse to Orr, 17 April 1917; those for 1919 at ibid., Surridge, LCCMP, to Chief CP, 22 July 1919; ACSC to CCPC, 19 August 1919. 42 Ibid., confidential, ACCPC to Orr, 10 April 1917; ACSC to Sisman, 28 April 1917. 43 SA1/607/1917/a, ACCPC to Stevenson, 24 July 1917; 8 August 1917; 9 August 1917; Stevenson to ADPC, 29 August 1917. 44 SA1/722/1916/1, Milne to Clauson, 6 May 1917. 45 SA1/607/1917, Clauson to Milne, 25 May 1917. 46 Ibid. 47 SA1/722/1916/1, 388, Agreement. 48 SA1/607/1917, confidential, Wilson, LCCMP, to CCPC, 7 April 1917. 49 SA1/607/1917/b, Baxendale, DCFa, to Stevenson, 3 September 1917; Also, ibid., A. M. Fleury, LCCMP, to CCPC, 3 September 1917; For corrected numbers see, ibid., ACCPC to Stevenson, 19 September 1917. 50 WO95/4766, WDSA, 14 August 1917. 51 SA1/607/1917, CCPC to Stevenson, 9 March 1918. 52 SA1/607/1917/c, F. Braggiotti, I/C Police, to CCPC, 8 May 1919; ibid., Surridge, LCCMP, Larnaca, to CCPC, 4 June 1919; ibid., M. Ahmed, for LCCMP, to CCPC, 31 July 1919; ibid., S. Pavlou, NO for I/C of Police, Famagusta, to CCPC, 28 February 1920. 53 Ibid., Fenn to CCPC, 1 April 1920. 54 Ibid., Y. M. Tilliro, LCCMP, to CCPC, 31 December 1919. 55 Alan Wakefield & Simon Moody, Under the Devil's Eye: The British Military Experience in Macedonia 1915–18, (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military, 2011) (orig. 2004), 174–5. 56 SA1/607/1917, Fenn to Parry, 20 May 1919. 57 See Towers, ‘Health Education Policy 1916–1926’; David Evans, ‘Tackling the “Hideous Scourge”: The Creation of the Venereal Disease Treatment Centres in Early Twentieth-Century Britain’, Social History of Medicine, 1992, 5, 413–33; Levine, Prostitution, Race, and Politics. 58 SA1/979/1916, Pavlides to Baxendale, 19 September 1916. 59 Levine, Prostitution, Race, and Politics, 40–1, 92. The legislation allowed police officers to force prostitutes in certain ports and army towns to be medically examined. Infected women were confined in ‘lock hospital’ and treated. But this system was progressively repealed before the twentiethcentury as the debates became socially regressive. 60 For Pavlides’ report, see Andrekos Varnava, ‘British Military Intelligence in Cyprus during the Great War’, War in History, 2012, 19, 353–78. 61 SA1/979/1916, Baxendale to Williamson, RAMC, SMO, POW Camp, 22 September 1916. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid., Williamson, SMO, to the OCTC, 19 November 1916. 64 Ibid., OCTC to Orr, 20 November 1916. 65 Brugger, Australians and Egypt, 1914–1919. 66 SA1/979/1916, OCTC to Orr, 20 November 1916. 67 SA1/607/1917, Clauson to Milne, 25 May 1917. 68 Harrison, ‘The British Army and the Problem of Venereal Disease’, 149–56. 69 SA1/979/1916, Lieutenant-General Sir E. A. Altham, Inspector-General Lines of Communication, EEF, to Clauson, 5 October 1916. 70 Ibid; Also Brugger, Australians and Egypt, 1914–1919. 71 The British garrison in the island was based at Polymedia, near Limassol town, before being marched to the Troodos Hill Station for the summer months. See Andrekos Varnava, ‘Recreating Rural Britain and Maintaining Britishness in the Mediterranean: The Troodos Hill Station in Early British Cyprus’, The Cyprus Review, 2005, XVII, 47–80. 72 SA1/979/1916, OCTC to Orr, 14 December 1916; Orr to OCTC, 17 December 1916; Bolton, DCLi, to Orr, 20 December 1916; confidential, ACSC to all Commissioners (except Famagusta), 27 December 1916; confidential, ACSC to Baxendale, 27 December 1916. 73 Ibid., Instructions as to Brothels and Prostitutes. 74 Ibid., confidential, Bolton to Orr, 4 January 1917. 75 Ibid., ACSC to Commissioners (except Limassol), 16 January 1917; confidential, Orr to OCTC, H. G. Dixon, 16 January 1917; ADCLa to Orr, 18 January 1917. 76 Ibid., Williamson to Dixon, 17 January 1917; ibid., Thompson, to Baxendale, 28 May 1917. 77 Ibid., Baxendale to Stevenson, 6 June 1917. 78 Ibid., Clauson to Stevenson, 1 September 1917. 79 Ballhatchet, Race, Sex and Class under the Raj, 20. 80 Aristedis Coudounaris, Βιογραφικόν Λεξικόν Κυπρίων, 1800–1920 (Biographical Lexicon of Cypriots, 1800–1920) (Nicosia, 2001), 70–1. 81 CO67/220/5, British Social Hygiene Council report to Cypriot Government, 1926. 82 British Medical Journal, 2(3369), 25 July 1925, 166. 83 CO67/220/5, British Social Hygiene Council report to Cypriot Government, 1926. 84 Ibid., 3. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid., 4. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid., 6. 89 Ibid., 4–5. 90 Ibid., 5. 91 Ibid., 5. 92 Ibid., 12. 93 Ibid., 13–14. 94 Cyprus: Report for 1926, no. 1366 (London: HMSO, 1928), 36. 95 Cyprus: Report for 1927, no. 1406 (London: HMSO, 1928), 33; The Cyprus Civil List 1929 (Nicosia: Government Printing Office, 1929), 39. 96 Ibid. 97 The Cyprus Civil List, 1931 (Nicosia: Government Printing Office, 1931), 81. 98 Cyprus: Report for 1928, no. 1471 (London: HMSO, 1930), 29. 99 The Cyprus Civil List, 1931 (Nicosia: Government Printing Office, 1931), 81; The Age, 27 August 1929, 7. 100 Cyprus: Report for 1929, no. 1513 (London: HMSO, 1930), 30. 101 The Cyprus Civil List, 1934 (Nicosia: Government Printing Office, 1934), 64. 102 3AMS/D/11, Cyprus: Dr Reginald E. Hopton, The Campaign against Venereal Disease in Cyprus: Review of the First Year’s Work (hereafter Hopton Report) (Nicosia: Government Printing Office, 1929), The Women’s Library, London School of Economics, London University. The report included a description of the clinics, including maps, and the method of handling patients. 103 3AMS/D/11, Dr K. M. Chapman to British Social Hygiene Council, 9 March 1931; secretary of British Social Council to Dr Chapman, 18 March 1931; articles from Cyprus News, 7 March 1931 and 26 April 1931, which also detailed the debates in the Legislative Council. 104 3AMS/D/11, Cyprus: ‘Report on Social Work in Cyprus’ by Lyall (hereafter ‘Lyall Report’), The Women’s Library, London School of Economics, London University. 105 Lyall Report. 106 Cyprus: Report for 1931, no. 1574 (London: HMSO, 1932), 7, 33–4. Voluntary funds, and some government and municipal aid, funded the hospital. Cyprus: Report for 1932, no. 1618 (London: HMSO, 1933), 34. 107 Cyprus: Report for 1935, no. 1778 (London: HMSO, 1936), 37. 108 Lyall Report. 109 Cyprus: Report for 1931, no. 1574 (London: HMSO, 1932), 34. 110 Lyall Report. 111 Cyprus: Report for 1933, no. 1663 (London: HMSO, 1934), 35; Cyprus: Report for 1935, no. 1778, HMSO, London, 1936, 37; Cyprus: Annual Medical & Sanitary Report, 1934 (Nicosia: Cyprus Government Printing Office, 1935), 62–3. 112 Cyprus: Report for 1935, no. 1778 (London: HMSO, 1936), 37. 113 Cyprus: Annual Medical & Sanitary Report, 1934 (Nicosia: Cyprus Government Printing Office, 1935), 62. 114 Cyprus: Report for 1931, no. 1574 (London: HMSO, 1932), 7; Cyprus: Report for 1932, no. 1618 (London: HMSO, 1933), 7; Cyprus: Report for 1933, no. 1663 (London: HMSO, 1934), 7; Cyprus: Report for 1934, no. 1741 (London: HMSO, 1936), 7; Cyprus: Report for 1935, no. 1778 (London: HMSO, 1936), 7; Cyprus: Report for 1936, no. 1803, (London: HMSO, 1937), 7; Cyprus: Report for 1937, no. 1849 (London: HMSO, 1938), 8; Cyprus: Report for 1938, no. 1895 (London: HMSO, 1939), 11. 115 Cyprus: Annual Medical & Sanitary Report, 1937(Nicosia: Cyprus Government Printing Office, 1938), 89–92. 116 Cyprus: Annual Medical & Sanitary Report, 1938 (Nicosia: Cyprus Government Printing Office, 1939), 21–2. 117 Cyprus: Annual Medical & Sanitary Report, 1939 (Nicosia: Cyprus Government Printing Office, 1940), 4–5. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Social History of Medicine. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
Social History of Medicine – Oxford University Press
Published: Apr 26, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera