Chemists Investigate Casanova’s Clap

In his memoirs, the womanizing writer Giacomo Casanova described suffering several bouts of gonorrhea—but researchers found no trace of the microbe on his handwritten journals. Karen Hopkin reports.

Cinnabar.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Casanova. The name is synonymous with a reputation for romantic—let’s say excess. But a new study suggests that the real Giacomo Casanova may have exaggerated his sexual exploits—not in terms of their sheer volume, but in their infectious aftermath. Because though Casanova claimed to have suffered several bouts of gonorrhea, researchers could find no trace of the responsible microbe on the pages of the womanizer’s handwritten memoir. The findings will appear in the journal Electrophoresis.

[Gleb Zilberstein et al.Il n'y a pas d'amour heureux pour Casanova: Chemical- and bio-analysis of his Memoirs]

Casanova’s memoir, completed in 1798, fills 12 volumes, and its English translation runs to 3,500 pages. In this tell-all, Casanova tallies some 122 lovers and confesses to recurring gonorrheal relapses. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


To investigate these claims, researchers turned to a technique they had previously used to positively identify the bacterium that causes plague on the pages of death registries from 17th century Milan. 

“Thus we thought we would be able to detect the gonococcus on Casanova’s pages, since he candidly admitted, in his memoirs, having been infected by gonorrhea in his first sex intercourse at the age of 18 and having suffered from relapses of this sex pathology along his lifetime as a gallant lover.”

Pier Giorgio Righetti, professor emeritus at Milan Polytechnic. 

Righetti and his colleague Gleb Zilberstein, who heads a company called Spectrophon in Israel, developed a handheld device that allows them to capture and characterize protein fragments and other macromolecules from the surface of historical documents. Such biological materials can get stuck to a manuscript when, say, someone licks his fingers to more easily turn the book’s pages, leaving behind traces of potentially infected saliva.

But in the case of Casanova, “as luck goes, no traces of gonococcus could be detected."

They did, however, find traces of cinnabar, a red pigment containing mercury sulfide. At the time, that chemical was used to treat the sexually transmitted diseases du jour, including syphilis and gonorrhea. 

“It is thus quite likely that Casanova had been using mercury sulfide to cure a relapse of his pathology.”

So it could be that his infection was in remission when Casanova penned the three or four pages of Chapters 1 and 2 that the researchers were able to examine—and that in addition to his way with women, Casanova also had a deft hand with 18th century pharmaceuticals.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe