(No! no! by heavens! Nicostratus, not a lover of guests (φιλόξενος) for our friend Philoxenus is a man given to unnatural lust,) where φιλόξενος and καταπύγων are explained as being synonymous. Now if paederastia had not been a disease, how should they have come to call a man φιλόξενος, when guessing the form his sickness took? For the rest there was a well-known cinaedus Philoxenus, to whom allusion is made. The scholiast quotes a very noteworthy line from Eupolis (in the “Urbes”) or else from Phrynichus (“in the Satyrs”) as follows:
ἔστι δέ τις θήλεια Φιλόξενος ἐκ Διομείων.
(And there is a certain female Philoxenus of Diomeia);
The healthy good sense of the Greeks could not possibly regard the vice of the Pathic otherwise than as a deviation from Nature, an unnatural appetite; and every unnatural appetite (ἀκολασία—“intemperance”) was a νόσος or πάθος (disease, or suffering, passion), or a consequence of these, as the passages quoted from Aristotle and elsewhere show conclusively. From the point of view of the paederast reasons perhaps were to be discovered, that appeared to justify his peculiar taste; and the mode in which he obtained the titillation of sensual pleasure was looked upon merely as one way of getting rid of the semen, as a figura Veneris (mode of Love) standing in close relationship with Onanism. The paederast was relegated to the category of voluptuaries, but without his incurring any special condemnation. On the other hand for the pathic who lent himself as subject of the vice, no excuse of this sort was forthcoming. His lust was not seen (this was impossible at the time) to have a bodily origin in “prurigo ani” (itching of the anus), and could only be regarded as springing from a depraved imagination (ἀνίατον νόσον ψυχῆς ἡγούμενος—deeming it an incurable disease of the soul); it must be that a demon had dragged him along irresistibly in his train, and drove his victim who was incapable of helping himself (ἀσθενής—“weak”) to degradation.
All men thus held in thrall by evil demons were supposed to have offended against the gods, to have roused their anger, and were avoided and shunned by their fellows. If in addition they showed any traces of mental aberration, madness, epileptic convulsions, or the like, rude peoples saw in these the manifestation of a god’s influence, and took the victim’s sayings and dreams for oracles. So Herodotus relates (IV. 67.) that the Scythians considered the ἐναρέες to have received the gift of prophecy from Aphrodité,—οἱ δὲ ἐναρέες οἱ ἀνδρόγυνοι, τὴν Ἀφροδίτην σφισι λέγουσι μαντικὴν δοῦναι (now the ἐναρέες, the men-women, declare that Venus brought madness on the object of her anger), and held the vice of the pathic to be due to the goddess’s wrath, or at a later time to be an (incurable) disease of the soul (ψυχή),—as is proved again by the passage of Caelius Aurelianus already quoted; but they did not ascribe to such men the power of prophecy, though in a certain sense every actual madman was supposed to possess it349. For the vice of the pathic was not in the eyes of the Greeks actual madness, but rather a vice (νόσος—disease) that robbed the sufferer of the power of governing himself350, in the same sense as they called sexual love a madness. From this point of view therefore the commentators who saw in the νοῦσος θήλεια a mental affliction, had some grounds for their view; but should not have lost sight of the fact of its being a vice at the same time.
But why did the νοῦσος (disease) receive the epithet θήλεια (feminine)? Taking the word to be used passively,—as obviously is done by those who make out the νοῦσος θήλεια to have been an affection similar in character to menstruation,—we might find its explanation in the dictum of Tiresias, who, as is well known, ascribed to the woman the greater pleasure in the act of coition. From this fact,—if it is a fact,—a greater longing on the part of the woman for coition may be deduced; for which reason Plato compared the uterus (womb) to a wild beast. Thus the νοῦσος θήλεια would be feminine concupiscence. Just as the woman longs intensely for natural coition with the man, in the same way and with a like intensity does the pathic long after unnatural351. Thus the punishment inflicted by Venus would have consisted in the goddess having implanted in the man the concupiscence of a woman.
If on the other hand θήλεια (feminine) is taken in an active sense, as it is by Stark and other interpreters,—and with greater correctness, then the νοῦσος θήλεια is a form of lust that transforms men into women,—and this can be said of paederastia in several senses, as is manifest from what has been said already on preceding pages. The Pathic becomes a woman, because he renounces his man’s prerogative, as being the stronger, to play the active part352, and assumes instead the passive rôle of the woman353, Entering into competition as he does with the ladies of pleasure in courting the favour of men, he has recourse to all the arts they invoke to gain their object; and seeks by artificial means to bring his body into as close a resemblance as possible to the female form. He dresses himself out like a woman of pleasure, adopts female dress, and lets the hair of the head grow long, whilst at the same time he carefully eradicates by the process of dropacismus (use of pitch-ointment as a depilatory) every trace of hair on other parts of the person, even sacrificing what was the chief ornament of a man in Ancient times,—his beard354. All this was done by the hero of Aristophanes’ “Thesmophoriazusae”, and without a doubt an underlying irony à propos of the pathics was at the bottom of the poet’s conception. Care of the skin, such as women adopt, by means of baths, friction with pumice-stone, etc. complete the feminine appearance355,—hence the expressions μάλακος, μαλθακός (soft or effeminate) for the pathic, μαλακία, μαλθακία (softness, effeminacy) for the pathic’s vice; and outraged Nature avenges herself by seconding his endeavours. In consequence of the stretching of the fundament, the buttocks become broader towards the lower part, and the space between them wider, causing the hips to take more the shape they have in a woman, the pelvis itself seems to be enlarged, while the legs lose their straightness and the knees bend more and more inwards (γονύκροτος—knock-kneed,)—in short the whole of the lower half of the body assumes the feminine type.
Deterioration of body is followed by deterioration of mind, and the character also grows womanish.356 The pathic despises intercourse with women, and will not enter into marriage, so long as he continues to find his lust satisfied. When this ceases to be the case as years advance, Nature herself forbids his propagating his race; the genital organs that have withered through disuse and refuse their office.357 Driven from the society of men, he takes refuge, neither woman nor man himself, with the women, who in contempt use him as a slave, and like Omphalé of old with Hercules, put the distaff into his hands! Thus from the νοῦσος θήλεια, the vice, an actual disease has sprung; and we can now see that Longinus358 was surely right in calling the expression of Herodotus ἀμίμητος,—an inimitable one, for certainly in no more concise or better way can the facts and the consequences of the vice of the Pathic be characterized.
However if any one should consider all this still insufficient to prove the case, and regard the indication given by Longinus as not explicit enough, he may learn from Tiberius the Rhetorician359 that as a matter of fact the Ancients understood the νοῦσος θήλεια in Herodotus in this and in no other sense. He says:
“Now a paraphrase is when authors alter a simple, straightforward statement of fact that is complete, for the sake of style or effect or sublimity of phrase, and express the matter in other words, and these more forcible and suitable; as e.g. in Herodotus, when he wrote ἐνέσκηψεν ἡ θεὸς θήλειαν νόσον (the goddess afflicted them with feminine disease) instead of “made them men-women or cinaedi”. The word ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman) is used here in the same way as in another passage where Herodotus says360, οἱ δὲ ἐνάρεες, οἱ ἀνδρόγυνοι (and the ἐνάρεες, the men-women). The false interpretation of this word has more than anything else led to misunderstanding as to the νοῦσος θήλεια, for it was supposed that by ἀνδρόγυνοι (men-women) actual eunuchs were intended, whereas pathics are meant and nothing more. How the case really stood might have been seen from Suidas, who tells us: ἀνδρόγυνος· ὁ Διόνυσος, ὡς καὶ τὰ ἀνδρῶν ποιῶν καὶ τὰ γυναικῶν πάσχων· ἢ ἄνανδρος καὶ Ἑρμαφρόδιτος· καὶ ἀνδρογύνων, ἀσθενῶν. γυναικῶν καρδίας ἐχόντων. (man-woman: Dionysus, as both performing a man’s part and suffering a woman’s. Synonyms, “unmanly”, and “Hermaphrodite”. Also of men-women, weakly men, having the hearts of women.) Dionysus361 then performed the act of coition as a man, and suffered himself to be used as a woman, and for this reason was called ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman). We find the word used in the same way in Plato362, in the passage of Dio Chrysostom quoted a little above, in various places in the Writers on Physiognomy, in Philo, loco citato, and in Artemidorus363. From the last we quote a passage highly interesting for our purpose:
“A man saw in a dream his penis covered with hair to the extreme tip, shaggy with very thick hair that grew all of a sudden on it. He was a notorious cinaedus, indulging in every abominable pleasure, effeminate and a man-woman; only never using his member as a man does. In this way it happened that that part was so little employed, that through not being rubbed against another body hair actually grew on it.” The same author relates in another place364: “A man saw in a dream the rôle365 of a man-woman played on the stage; his privy member fell sick. A man thought he saw a priest of Cybelé (a castrated man); his privy member fell sick. This happened in the first instance because of the name, in the second because of the coincidence of the fact with the spectator’s condition. And indeed you know what κωμῳδεῖν (to represent in comedy) signifies in dreams, and what it means to see a priest of Cybelé. You remember too that if any one dreams he sees a Comedy or Tragedy and remembers it afterwards, the event can be predicted according to the plot of the piece dreamed of.”
The passage affords us yet another proof as to the causes that were supposed in Antiquity to condition the rise of diseases of the genitals, and we need certainly feel no surprise if we find the ætiological relations of these complaints even in professional writers wrapped in all but impenetrable obscurity.
Now what is the word ἐναρέες? Some scholars take it to be Greek; and accordingly would read ἐναγέες (persons who have sinned against the godhead), as Bouhier did, and perhaps Caelius Rhodoginus even in his time, or else ανάριες (imbelles, ad luctum veneream inepti,—unwarlike, i.e. unfit for the struggle of love), which was Coray’s emendation. Stark does not believe in any corruption of the word, but thinks it should be derived from ἐναίρω (spolio,—I rob, spoil), ἔναρα (spolia,—spoils), making it signify virilitate spoliati,—men robbed of their virility. But ἐναίρω according to Buttmann’s Lexilogus, p. 276., means “to send down to Hades”, to slay, ἔναρα the spoils taken from the slain, and from this comes the idea of spoliation, deprivation. The word undoubtedly occurs (Homer, Iliad XXIV. 244.) in the sense of “to be slain”, but the meaning virilitate spoliari (to be deprived of virility) without the addition of some supplemental word can certainly not be authenticated in old Writers. Supposing this derivation to be correct, ἐναρέες might signify simply (Temple) robbers, and as a matter of fact the glosses give ὁπλίται (warriors) as an explanation. It is a surprising thing that those who make out the νοῦσος θήλεια to have been gonorrhœa (clap), should not have derived the word from ἐάρ, the sap, the seed, with inserted ν.
However a Greek origin of the word is rendered unlikely by one simple circumstance. Herodotus writes τοὺς καλέουσι Ἐναρέας οἱ Σκύθαι, (whom the Scythians call Ἐναρέες,—which is obviously the same thing as saying, “in the language of the Scythians they are called Ἐναρέες”. And again why should Herodotus have explained it by ἀνδρόγυνοι (men-women), if it was a word that every Greek could understand. In this view moreover Wesseling and Schweighäuser, scholars possessing a special, critical knowledge of their Herodotus, concur. We do not indeed know to what family of speech the Scythian belongs; but it may be assumed that the word signifying the disease took its origin from the same country where the νοῦσος θήλεια itself arose. We believe ἐναρέες366 to have been originally a Syrian word, which the Scythians, or more likely the Greeks367, first adopted into their own idiom. The Greeks were particularly good at the transformation or, if you please, distortion, of foreign names! The word which we think must be claimed as the original is the Semitic נַעֲרָה (naãrâ),—the girl, the woman in the abstract; and we conjecture Herodotus wrote ναρέες, a form which is actually found according to Coray in one Manuscript. The meaning then would be the womanish man, and this gives a complete correspondance with νοῦσος θήλεια and ἀνδρόγυνος. Another conjecture is based on the name of the Babylonish Praefect or Ἄνναρος, to which Coray calls attention, adding: mais qui pourroit bien être un surnom altéré par les copistes, et relatif à sa vie effeminée et au milieu des femmes. (but which might very possibly be a surname changed by the transcribers and referring to his effeminate life and his living surrounded by women.) In Athenaeus368 we read in fact: Κτησίας δ’ ἱστορεῖ, Ἀνναρον τὸν βασιλέως ὕπαρχον καὶ τῆς Βαβυλωνίας δυναστεύσαντα στολῇ χρῆσθαι γυναικείᾳ καὶ κόσμῳ· καὶ ὅτι βασιλέως δούλῳ ὄντι κ. τ. λ. (Ctesias relates in his History that Annarus, the King’s Praefect and Governor of Babylon wore a woman’s robes and ornaments; and that being a slave of the King, etc.) Still as a matter of fact it is difficult to see why the transcriber should have introduced the name as Ἄνναρος, the whole form of the sentence demanding a proper name. Coray refuses to admit that ἐναρέες is a foreign word at all, for he says, “cette manière de s’exprimer n’est souvent qu’une version littérale du mot étranger dans la langue de l’écrivain qui l’emploie”. (such a mode of expression is very often nothing more than a literal translation of the foreign word into the language of the writer using it). But if this were the case, and the word one that a Greek would have understood, why did Herodotus go out of his way to explain it by ἀνδρόγυνοι? Supposing a transcriber to have inserted Ἄνναρον into the text, yet even then the word must have been familiar to him in the sense of womanish, unmanly. But if it has this meaning, Coray’s conjecture,—to read ἀναρέες for ἐναρέες, should be unhesitatingly adopted,—if that is (a point to which Prof. Pott has drawn attention) the derivation is taken from Sanskrit or Zend.
In Zend in fact man is nara, woman narî; in Sanskrit nrî is the stem, nom. nâ, pl. nar-as,—or else nara the stem and nom. naras, from which has come the Greek ἀνήρ (man) by addition of the prosthetic, (not privative), α. Now from nara, by prefixing α privative, which exists both in Zend and Sanskrit, may be formed a-nara, with the meaning of not-man, unmanly,—a meaning which is preserved in the name Ἄναρος (the doubling of the ν is undoubtedly wrong); and so ἀναρέες would be literally the same by etymology with Hippocrates’ ἀνανδριεῖς (unmanly men), occurring in a passage to be presently discussed. This, and equally ἀνανδρία, ἀνάνδρος (unmanliness, unmanly) are all expressions for the pathic and his vice, as is shown again and again by passages quoted in the course of our investigation.
But again, if with Coray an actual verbal translation of a foreign word is supposed, then ἀνανέρες (ἀ-ν-ἀνέρες) might be read,—a word which though quite legitimately formed, was not in actual use by the Greeks, and for this reason Herodotus naturally enough explained it by ἀνδρόγυνοι. In any case the remarkable fact remains that no one of the ancient Lexicographers, Suidas for instance or Hesychius369, should have thought the word, in whatever form it may have been read, worthy of notice in his Dictionary.
§ 18.
We have now, we think, adequately discussed the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) in the preceding Sections, and proved that the oldest view of all, viz. that the vice of the Pathic must be understood by that term, may be justified from every point of view. It only remains to subject to examination passages from such other authors as have employed the expression. These Stark, §§ 11-18., has most carefully collected. In this way we shall see how far they may be brought into harmony with the view adopted.
Philo370 relates among a number of other evidences of the outspokenness of Diogenes the Philosopher, when he was a captive and exposed for sale as a slave, how his fellow-prisoners all stood sad and cast down, but he again and again gave free course to his witty humour. “For instance when he cast his eye on one of the buyers, who suffered from the feminine disease, he would seem to have gone up to the man, whose outward appearance announced him to be an unmanly man, and said: ‘Do you buy me, for you seem to be in want of a man!’ The buyer, conscious and ashamed, slunk away among the crowd, whilst the bystanders marvelled at Diogenes’ wit and boldness.”
In another place371 Philo says, after having spoken of the Laws of Moses against harlotry: “Yet another evil much more serious than the one mentioned, has crept into states, paederastia to wit, the bare naming of which was formerly an outrage. But now it is a matter of boast, not only with those who practise it, but also with the pathics, the men of whom it is customary to say,—They suffer from feminine disease. In fact they are effeminated in body and soul, and not one spark of manliness do they suffer to appear in them. They braid and deck their hair to look like women, they smear and paint their faces with ceruse and cosmetics and such like things, anoint their persons with fragrant ointments,—for a fragrant smell is an attraction much sought after by such. Expending every possible care on their outward adornment, they are not ashamed even to employ every device to change artificially their nature as men into that of women. Against such it is right to be bloodthirsty, obeying the Law, which commands: to slay,—and fear no penalty,—the man-woman who transgresses the law of nature, to let him live not a day, not an hour,—shaming as he does himself, his family, his country, nay! the whole race of mankind. The paederast must endure the same penalty, for he pursues after a pleasure that is contrary to Nature, and, so far as in him lies, makes States desert and empty of inhabitants, annihilating the begetting of children. More than this he endeavours to entice others and lead them away into two most abominable vices, unmanliness and effeminacy, bedizening youths (like women), and womanizing men in the vigour of their age, just at the time when they ought rather to be roused to aim at strength and hardihood. In a word, like a bad farmer, he lets the rich and fertile ploughland lie untilled, and makes it unfruitful, but labours day and night where he can expect no harvest whatever. Now this comes, I think, from the fact that in most States prizes are really offered for incontinence and effeminacy,—the vices of the paederast and the pathic. At any rate these men-women may be seen constantly strutting in the agora at the hour of high market, walking in procession at the sacred festivals, sharing, unholy as they are, in holy offices, participating in mysteries and sacrifices, even engaging in the rites of Demeter. Some of them have brought the charm of their youth to such a pass that craving a complete transformation into women, they have amputated their generative members; and now clad in purple robes, as if they had wrought some great benefit to their country, and surrounded by a body guard, they enter in state, all eyes fixed on them. Now if only such indignation as our Lawgiver has expressed, were generally entertained against those guilty of such effrontery, and if they were banished, as expiating the common guilt of their country, without appeal, this would do much to improve many of their companions. The punishment of such as had been condemned, if in no possible way to be shirked, would contribute no little to checking any imitation of these lusts on the part of others.”
In the third passage, Philo372 is speaking of the difference between the symposia (banquets) of his time and those of the Greeks, and says:—“The Platonic banquet has to do almost entirely with Love, but not the love of men for women, or of women for men,—for these are passions that are satisfied conformably with the law of Nature,—but the love of men whose affections are directed to youths. For all the noble things that are said besides about Eros (Love) and the heavenly Aphrodité are to be taken as mere fine talk. By far the most part in fact concerns Ἔρως κοινὸς and Ἔρως πάνδημος (Common Love, Public Love), which destroys all manliness, the virtue that is most needful in war and peace, infecting the mind with the “feminine disease”, and turning men into men-women, whereas they should be equipped with everything conducive to manly vigour. Instead of this it ruins young men’s manliness, and gives them the nature and character of a wanton; also inflicting injury on the Lover in the most important factors of life,—body, soul and property. For the thoughts of the paederast must needs be all centred on the boy he loves, and his gaze quick to see that object only: while for all other concerns, private or public, his eyes are blinded and useless, and this especially if he is unhappy in his love. His worldly condition takes hurt in two ways, partly through neglect, partly through expenditure on the loved one. Associated with this is yet another, and a greater because general, mischief. Such men bring about the depopulation of Cities, and cause a lack of a good, sound strain of men, producing barrenness and unfruitfulness. They resemble those that are unskilful in husbandry, etc.”
In a fourth passage again, one overlooked however by Stark, Philo373 says, speaking of the inhabitants of Sodom and their unbridled dissoluteness and vice:—
“For not only being mad after women did they form disgraceful unions with strange women, but actually, men as they were, they had intercourse with males: they that practised the vice had no shame for the sex they shared in common with those that suffered it, but were guilty of wasting their seed and disdaining the generation of offspring. But conviction of guilt was of no avail to restrain men mastered by an overpowering lust. Later, learning by degrees the custom for such as were born men yet to endure the treatment proper to women, they brought upon themselves feminine disease, a curse they could in no wise contend against. For not merely womanizing their bodies by effeminacy and wanton luxury, but utterly unsexing their very souls, they destroyed, so far as in them lay, all the manliness of their sex. In fact, if Greeks and Barbarians had been unanimous and had all been eager at once after such intercourse, the consequence would have been to make every city desolate, as though wasted by some pestilential sickness.”
In the fifth and last passage of all Philo374 is speaking of those whose entry into the sanctuary was interdicted by the Lawgiver: “He forbad all that were unworthy to frequent, the Temple, beginning with the men-women, those that are sick of the true (the feminine) disease, who transgressing the established law of Nature, annex the lust and looks of incontinent women. He expelled all eunuchs, those with strangled testicles and those with amputated, who carefully safeguard the bloom of youthfulness against decay, and transform the manly type into a womanish shape. He expelled not only harlots, but harlots’ children as well, etc.”
If we review systematically and in detail these passages of Philo, given by Stark only in fragments, any unprejudiced reader must see that there is not one of them that does not refer to the vice of the Pathic. As to the second and third passages Stark himself (pp. 13 and 22.) admits this, while as to the fourth we do not know what he thought, it having been unknown to him: thus it is only in relation to the first and fifth passages that we have to examine his reasons for supposing this not to be the case. After quoting the text and Mangey’s Latin translation, Stark remarks à propos of the first passage,—that dealing with Diogenes:—“Quin hic verum corporis, nec animi vitium seu morbum indicetur, quo laborantes virilitate orbarentur et hanc suam impotentiam corporis habitu atque oris specie proderent, nullus dubito. Nam hoc et verborum series aperte declarat et ex eo colligi potest, quod ille, qui hoc crimine tactum se sentiret, pudore movetur.... Si vero Pathicorum labes, quam ab interpretibus quibusdam hic suspicari video, ita intelligenda esset, haec neque ex vultu coniici poterat neque a Graecis tam turpi macula notabatur, ut huic vitio deditis causa esset, quam ab rem eius opprobrium effugerent. Tantum enim abfuit, ut Pathici dedecus suum occultarent, ut potius multo fastu atque pompa prae se ferrent.... Verum autem Eunuchum genitalium exsectione redditum his verbis significari, non crediderim, quia hi neque inter licitatores, sed potius inter vendendos reperiri, neque ob harum partium defectum pudore tangi solerent.” (I have no doubt whatever that a real fault of body, and not of mind, in other words a disease, is intended here,—a disease that robbed the sufferers of virility, who then betrayed this impotence by the condition and appearance of body and countenance. This indeed is fully shown by the context, from which it may also be gathered that the sufferer who felt himself touched by this vice, has a feeling of shame.... But if it is the taint of the pathics that is to be understood here, as I see is conjectured to be the case by some commentators, this taint could not be guessed at from the face; nor yet was it marked by the Greeks with so strong a stigma of disgrace, as to cause those who were given to it to strive to escape the opprobrium. For so far were pathics from wishing to conceal their shame, that they actually made a point of displaying it ostentatiously.... On the other hand I should not be inclined to suppose that a Eunuch, an actual Eunuch by amputation of the genitals, is meant by these words. These were hardly likely to be found among the bidders, but rather with the slaves for sale: nor were eunuchs accustomed to feel shame on account of the loss of these organs.)
In § 16 above it has been abundantly proved that the recognition of a pathic ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως, ex voltu, (by the look), was a simple and familiar thing with the Ancients, and especially so if we understand, as is only reasonable, by ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως not merely by the face, but by the whole appearance of the person as well. We can only wonder at Stark’s repeated denials of the existence of such external marks of recognition, and all the more so, as every Text-book of Medical Jurisprudence making any pretensions to complete detail (e.g. Masius, Mende) gives information on the point. Again, it is proved that paederastia was always regarded by the Greeks, till the time when they lost their independence, as a disgraceful vice,—the reason why the buyer spoken of slunk away with a blush. As for the ostentatious show of pathics, and particularly their importance and the power they acquired, to which Stark refers (p. 12. in his Note—28), this is only true for times as late as Philo’s own, (he lived 40 A.D.), whereas Diogenes appears in History in the middle of the 4th. Century B.C. Stark, again, cites as evidence the words from the second passage: Puerorum amor, de quo vel loqui olim probrum fuit maximum, nunc laudi ducitur, (The love of boys, merely to speak of which was formerly a deep disgrace, but which now is made a boast),—without observing that his contention as to paederastia not being held disgraceful in Antiquity is most obviously contradicted by it. Undoubtedly actual castrated eunuchs were not meant, but the reasons Stark brings forward to show this are without force, for he will hardly be able to prove that in Asia the Castrated never acquired importance and wealth, so as to be in a position to buy themselves slaves. Further it may be gathered that the man Diogenes addressed was rich or held an important station from the fact that the bystanders marvelled at Diogenes’ boldness and outspokenness, a point that Stark indeed has forgotten to mention. For Philo’s own times the second passage is evidence enough. Equally do we fail to see why a castrated eunuch would be unlikely to blush, when the fact is thrown in his face. Stark (p. 22) explains the νοῦσος θήλεια as vitium corporis or effeminatio interno morboso corporis statu procreata, (a fault of body, condition of effeminacy produced by an internal morbid state of body). Now if it were really this, how could he possibly speak of the sufferers as crimine tactos, (touched by his vice)? They had nothing to be ashamed of, unless indeed they had acquired the disease in a shameful way, but this was not the case according to his original assumption. This is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria.375
So far as the fifth passage is concerned, Stark declares castrated eunuchs to be certainly intended, and blames the editor of Philo (Mangey) for wishing to read for ἀπὸ τῶν νοσούντων τὴν ἀληθῆ νόσον ἀνδρογύνων (with the men-women, those that are sick of the true disease) τὴν θήλειαν νόσον (the feminine disease). He says in his note 30.: “Mangetius (a mistake for Mangey) reponit θήλειαν. Quare hoc fieri, non dicam debeat, sed ne oporteat quidem, non video. Nam νόσος ἀνδρογύνων idem est, quod νόσος θήλεια. Si igitur haec vox verbis superioribus adiiciatur, iners atque inutilis appareat et pleonasmum vanum efficiat, necesse est: τὸ ἀληθῆ contra, quod ille demit, non vacuum ceteris additur verbum, ut eo perspicue demonstraretur, hic verum morbum seu illud corporis vitium esse intelligendum, quod viros exsecando paritur, nec hanc animi labem, qua contaminati solum muliebria patiuntur, quaequae iisdem verbis nuncupatur, ut loci mox laudandi docebunt.” (Mangetius restores θήλειαν—feminine. I cannot see why he should do this; in fact he had no business to do so whatever. For νόσος ἀνδρογύνων (disease of men-women) is the same thing as νόσος θήλεια (feminine disease). So if this expression is added on to the preceding words, it can only appear redundant and useless and make a silly pleonasm. Τὸ ἀληθῆ (the word true disease) on the other hand is not otiose when added to the other words. It shows distinctly that the true disease or notorious vitiation of body was meant to be understood, that which arises from castrating men, and not merely the taint of mind that makes the men whom it affects endure the treatment proper to women, and which is called by the same name,—as will be shown in passages to be cited presently.)
These last words evidently refer to the third passage, where we read: Θήλειαν δὲ νόσον ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἀπεργαζόμενος καὶ ἀνδρογύνους κατασκευάζων (infecting the mind with feminine disease, and turning men into men-women), for Stark himself explains the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) as being identical with the ἀνδρογύνων νόσος (disease of men-women). So he is bound to explain this sentence too as a Pleonasmus vanus (silly, useless, pleonasm), for as a matter of fact those suffering from νοῦσος θήλεια are men-women (ἀνδρόγυνοι). But if a pleonasm is found in these latter words, it is difficult to see why there should not be one equally well in the fifth passage.
Yet for all he says, it is far from being demonstrated that this pleonasm is useless and silly. The sequence of thought is evidently this: Common Eros (Love) infects the soul (ψυχή) with the νοῦσος θήλεια, rousing the insatiable craving to play the part of the woman, to be pathic in fact; and then, this craving being indulged, the man becomes a man-woman (ἀνδρόγυνος). As long as he goes on practising the vice of the pathic, he is sick of the νοῦσος θήλεια, and so it is perfectly correct to speak of the νοῦσος θήλεια ἀνδρογύνων (feminine disease of men-women). A man-woman, that is a person who suffers coition to be consummated with him as with a woman, and concurrently also consummates coition with women as a man, or at any rate has the ability to do so,—this anyone may quite well be, without suffering for all that from the νοῦσος θήλεια. For instance he may be constrained by force to be a pathic, or may regard it as a way of earning money, like the male prostitutes of Greece and Rome; and in that case has no interest further in the vice of the pathic as such. On the other hand if he is urged to it by prurigo ani impudica (lascivious itch of the anus), this is sheer lubricity, not to be expected in a sensible, healthy-minded man. It can only be the consequence of a morbid condition of temperament and body. Such a man is the victim of νοῦσος θήλεια, the craving to be a woman! This is just the position taken in the fifth passage, as the subsequent words show quite plainly.
But granted that Philo actually wrote in this fifth passage τὴν ἀληθῆ νόσον ἀνδρογύνων (the true disease of men-women), would a bodily defect, castration, be signified by the expression? Certainly not. We could then take it in no other way but this, “he began with the men-women, who suffered from the true disease,” and should be constrained to ask, “what disease?”,—a definite disease being manifestly intended, as the addition of the definite article (τὴν) shows. But this would imply that men-women who were not suffering from this particular disease were not excluded from visiting the Temple. Yet most certainly Philo would never make any such statement. However Stark translates with Mangey: Exorsus a vero semivirorum morbo laborantibus that is, “he began with those suffering from the true disease of men-women”, from which it would follow that there were other persons who suffered from the apparent disease of the men-women, or no reason exists for the special emphasis the definite article gives.
Really the question all along is not of castrated persons at all, and cannot be, if the sense of the whole passage is taken into account; for these (castrated persons) are specially and separately forbidden access to the Temple in the next sentence,—a fact which nothing but the introduction into the text of the conjunction γὰρ (for) by Mangey, (following a MS. it is true), has obscured. The words as they stand are Θλαδιὰς [γὰρ] καὶ ἀποκεκομμένους τὰ γεννητικὰ ἐλαύνει, (he expells all eunuchs, those with strangled testicles, and those with amputated). So if the men-women who suffered from the νοῦσος θήλεια were actual eunuchs, this would indeed be a Pleonasmus vanus et ineptus (silly and idle pleonasm). Stark has evidently been led to maintain the opinion he does, and to blame Mangey’s emendation, which is in any case justified, by a mistake as to the construction of the sentence. Stark construed νοῦσον ἀνδρογύνων (disease of men-women), whereas the construction requires: τὴν ἄρχην ποιούμενος ἀπὸ ἀνδρογύνων, τῶν νοσούντων τὴν θήλειαν (ἀληθῆ) νόσον (beginning with men-women,—those that were sick of the feminine—true—disease), the latter words being simply in apposition to ἀνδρογύνων.
§ 19.
We now proceed to consider the passages from the historian Herodian (170-240 A.D.). He relates376:
“Now he (Antoninus) had two generals, of whom the one, an oldish man but stupid and quite unacquainted with state affairs, was yet held to be a good soldier; his name was Adventus. The other who was called Macrinus, was not inexperienced in forensic practice and possessed besides some knowledge of law. Now the latter Antoninus frequently assailed in public with gibes, saying he was neither a soldier nor a man, going so for as positive insult. For having heard that he led a somewhat free life, and abominated scanty, rough eating and drinking (in which Antoninus as a hardy soldier took a pride), and wore a woman’s cloak or other elegant raiment, he accused him of ἀνανδρία and θήλεια νοῦσος (unmanliness and feminine disease), and was constantly threatening to put him to death. Macrinus could not endure such treatment and was very much exasperated. And this was the result ... etc.” Here ἀνανδρία and θήλεια νοῦσος (unmanliness and feminine disease) are laid to Macrinus’ charge by Antoninus by way of insult, but it is not in any way stated that he had become actually impotent or Pathic. True ἀνανδρία (unmanliness) is frequently used of the Pathic, but here it refers simply to a womanish way of life in connexion with eating and drinking, whilst the θήλεια νοῦσος (feminine disease) is inferred from the female costume, a thing in which, as we have seen, the Pathics delighted377.
Stark indeed gives the following note on the passage: “Ego quidem impotentiam virilem et illam morbosam in sexum sequiorem degenerationem, quae per animi mollitiem aeque ac per corporis mutationem se prodit, hic accipiendam esse credo, nec video, cur interpres labem illam qua muliebris tolerantiae viri maculantur, intellectam velit.” (In fact I consider we must take to be here meant impotence and that morbid degeneration towards the inferior sex which betrays itself at once by effeminacy of mind and bodily deterioration; at the same time I see no reason for a commentator thinking that specific pollution to be signified whereby men are affected who suffer themselves to be treated as women.) However if only Stark had chanced to read through the succeeding 13th. chapter of Herodian as well, he would have found Antoninus only meant to put upon the man an ordinary coarse jest; for he there makes the very same reproach against the Centurion Martialis, whose brother he had had executed a few days previously; αὐτῷ τε τῷ Μαρτιαλίῳ ἐνύβρισεν, ἄνανδρον αὐτὸν καὶ ἀγεννῆ καλῶν καὶ Μακαρίνου φίλον, (And he insulted Martialis himself, calling him unmanly and ignoble and a friend of Macarinus.) In any case the passage shows that even at that period Paederastia was held to be dishonourable and the name of Pathic involved an insult.
The Church Historian Eusebius Pamphili (264-340 A.D.) relates in his Life of Constantine378 that on a part of the peak of Mount Lebanon stood a Temple of Venus: “Therein was a school of vice for licentious persons of every description, for all such as dishonoured their bodies in various ways; womanish men, that are no men at all, abrogated their natural dignity and propitiated the goddess by θήλεια νοῦσος (feminine disease); and again unlawful unions of women, lecherous embraces, abominable and abominated acts, were indulged in in this Temple, as in a spot where neither law nor religion held good. And there was no one to overlook their doings, for no respectable man dared go near the place.” Now to any one examining the whole drift of the passage, it cannot for a single moment remain doubtful that by θήλεια νοῦσος is here meant some particular form of vice; and the words of the text are such that, even if the expression only occurred here and nowhere else at all, absolutely no other meaning could be assigned to it but that of the vice of the Pathic. We have already shown that the words ἀκόλαστος (licentious person), πράξις, πράττειν (action, to act) are used of the Pathic, whilst the phrase τὸ σεμνὸν τῆς φύσεως (natural dignity) finds its explanation in the τὸ φύσεως νόμισμα (custom of nature) of Philo, and γύννιδες (womanish men) is interpreted in Zonaras379 by ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman), μαλακός (soft, effeminate), and in Eustathius380 by θηλυδρίας μὴ εὖ διακέιμενος πρὸς τὰ ἀφροδίσια (womanish man, one not properly behaved with regard to love),—meanings the real force of which we have elsewhere verified, but which most certainly are not to be taken as implying actual castration, as Stark (§ 16) thinks. Indeed the last named says, commenting on the passage of Eusebius: “Haec verba non solum de mera morum atque cultus mutatione muliebri rationi magis congrua, intelligi posse, sed etiam per veram evirationem genitalium truncatione confectam aptissime explicanda esse, cum verborum series et Eustathii, Hesychii ac Zonarae atque Valesii auctoritas me suadet, tum multo magis illud monet, quod in cultu Veneris virorum exsectionem solemnem fuisse compertum habemus. Sin autem contenderis, viros tales exsectos et effeminatos etiam muliebria passos esse, ego quidem non repugno, exploratam vero rem esse atque ratam, ex ipsis auctoris verbis non liquet.” (That these words may be understood not merely of a simple change of mode of life and habit to one more closely assimilated to the female type, but that they are most suitably to be explained as implying an actual effemination of the individual produced by amputation of the genitals, both the context of the passage and the authority of Eustathius, Hesychius, Zonaras and Valesius induces me to believe, and still more am I led to this view by the fact we already know, viz. that the castration of men was customary in connection with the cult of Venus. But if you further maintain that such men so castrated and effeminated submitted to the treatment proper to women, I do not deny it; I only say that this point is not duly ascertained and certified on the showing of the Author’s own words.)
Certainly we have already seen from the passage of Lucian and from Philo that Paederastia supplied a motive for the making of Eunuchs; but the passages quoted from Athanasius and other Authors have also taught us that the pollution of boys was carried out in honour of Venus in her temples. As for the auctoritas Valesii (authority of Valesius), Stark adds in his notes (49): “Eandem vim his verbis tribuit, ut ex interpretatione ejus Latina Eusebii videre est. Histor. scriptor. ecclesiast. Paris 1677. fol. p. 211. B.” (He assigns the same force to these words, as may be seen from his Latin translation of Eusebius). To our regret we are unable to refer to this edition,—which it appears to us would have been a highly desirable precaution; for the one which lies before us,381 a word for word, only more correct, re-impression of the Paris edition, gives the version of Valesius entirely in our sense: “Quippe effeminati quidam et feminae potius dicendi quam viri, abdicata sexus sui gravitate, muliebria patientes, daemonem placabant.” (Whereas certain effeminate men, that should rather be called women than men, abrogating the dignity of their sex, and suffering treatment proper to women, used in this way to propitiate their deity.) The same holds good of the translation given by Stark: “Viri effeminati et non viriles, naturae dignitatem ultro exuentes, morbo muliebri deam placabant.” (Effeminate men and unmanly, of their own will putting off their nature dignity, used to propitiate the goddess with feminine disease.) Ought this to be taken as implying a claim on his behalf to the translation generally as adduced by him or merely to the rendering of the word γύννιδες by viri effeminati? The previous authorities, Eustathius, Hesychius and Zonaras, at any rate refer only to γύννιδες, while Stark himself assigns it the meaning of the Vice of the Pathic in the last words quoted.
Bishop Synesius (378-431 A.D.) in his Speech De Regno382 addressed to the Emperor Arcadius exhorts the latter to set bounds to the insubordination in the army, and for the foreign subject peoples, that are continually meditating treason, to attack them and really conquer them, rather than wait till their hostile temper break out in open revolt. That the renown of the Romans stood fast, that they were victorious, wherever they came and marched through the countries of the world, like the gods, supervising men’s insolence and government. “But those Scythians, Herodotus tells us so, and we see it for ourselves, are all fallen under the νόσος θήλεια (feminine disease). And it is they of whom the subject peoples mainly consist, etc.” He goes on to say how they had submitted only in appearance, while secretly they laughed at the folly of the Romans, who took their submission seriously, etc. Now in the first place we must remember the fact that Synesius, like all Greek Orators and Fathers of later times, considered it his special duty to cite the Classical Greek authors as frequently as possible, and with this object made almost any peg do to hang a quotation on. He says of the Romans that they, ὡς Ὅμηρός φησι τοὺς θεούς
Ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίαν ἐφέποντες
(as Homer says of the gods, “visiting the insolence and good government of men”), and to explain this ὕβρις (insolence), he recalls the statement of Herodotus to the effect that the Scythians suffered from the νοῦσος θήλεια, a statement which, he adds, still holds good of them; that the vice had prevailed amongst them from the earliest times, that it was quite inveterate, and that accordingly men of such abandoned character could never be trusted, trained as they were to dissemble; all this Synesius is specially anxious to enforce strongly upon Arcadius! In this sequence of thought we find a sufficient explanation of the καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρῶμεν (and we see it for ourselves); this refers not so much to the ocular recognition of the νοῦσος θήλεια, the possibility of which however we have demonstrated elsewhere, as to the fact that the disease was still to be met with among the Scythians, in order to show which Synesius laid special stress on the phrase, and added—undoubtedly to the sacrifice of truth—the word ἅπαντας (all of them). Besides which, Dionysius Petavius reminds us in his notes on this passage that the name “Scythian” is used here, as it is in Strabo, in its widest signification, and includes Goths, Alani, Vandals, Germans, Huns, in fact all the Northern peoples. This is the more interesting as Sextus Empiricus383 relates of the Germans that they practised Paederastia, Prof. Meier (loco cit. p. 131. Note 20.), who cites the passage, doubted the truth of the statement, on the ground that Sextus Empiricus is the only author, and even he does so only as a matter of hearsay (ὡς φασιν—as men say), to lay this vice to the charge of the Germans, whose purity of morals is not impugned by any other Writers. But surely he did not take into consideration that Sextus Empiricus lived about 200 years after Christ, and is speaking of the Germans of his own times, not of the old Germans such as Tacitus and Caesar knew them. It is hardly likely the Germans of Sextus’ and Synesius’ day should have entirely escaped the universal degeneracy of all Nations; and again, with what object did German Emperors at a later date promulgate laws against the vice of Paederastia, Sodomy, etc., if it did not exist among their people?
Clement of Alexandria, after speaking of the objectionable character of the worship of the different gods of the Heathen, goes on to relate as follows384:
“All blessings befall that King of the Scythians, whatever his name may have been, who when one of his subjects copied the service of the Mother of the gods usual among the people of Cyrené, beating the drum and clashing the cymbals hung at his neck, and dedicating himself as a Menagyrtes (Priest of Cybelé), shot him dead, as a man who had been made no man (ἄνανδρος) among the Greeks, and as a teacher of the feminine disease (νόσος θήλεια) to the rest of the Scythians.” Herodotus385 who tells the same story, calls the King Saulius and the offending citizen Anarcharsis386, but makes no mention, any more than do Diogenes Laertius and Philo387, of the θήλεια νοῦσος (feminine disease). Accordingly we must evidently regard this as an addition on the part of Clement of Alexandria, who judging from his own times, when the Priests of Cybelé universally practised paederastia with each other, and in order to further lay stress on the fact that the Scythian king had done right in killing the man who was introducing a heathen, and besides an exceedingly licentious, form of worship, felt no hesitation in making the addition. And as a matter of fact, how widely paederastia prevailed in the time of Clement of Alexandria, and how intimately he was acquainted with it, is proved by the passages quoted on previous pages from his writings. Stark prefers here also to understand a vera eviratio (true effemination), i.e. that they were actually castrated, maintaining that this was the case with the priests of Cybelé, whilst Larcher considers merely the womanish cult of the Dea Mater (Goddess Mother) to be indicated.
The last passage in which the expression θήλεια νοῦσος (feminine disease) occurs, is a scholion on the word γαλλιαμβικὸν (viz. μέτρον—galliambic metre) in Hephaestion388. The Scholiast says: Γαλλιαμβικὸν δὲ ἐκλήθη, ἐπεὶ λελυμένον ἐστὶ τὸ μέτρον· οἱ δὲ Γάλλοι, διαβάλλονται ὡς θήλειαν νόσον ἔχοντες, διὸ καὶ σώματα φόρον ἐτέλουν Ῥωμαίοις εἰς τοῦτο· οἱ τοιοῦτοι δέ ἱερεῖς εἰσὶ Δήμητρος. (Now it was called galliambic, because the metre is loose; and the Galli are evil spoken of as having feminine disease. Wherefore also they used to pay their bodies as tribute to the Romans—or, their bodies used to pay tribute to the Romans—to this day; and such men are priests of Demeter.) Stark gives (p. 21.) the following translation of this. “Galliambicum vocabatur, quod solutum est metrum; Galli enim utpote morbo muliebri laborantes inculpantur, quod Romanis corpora ad hoc (tanquam) tributum persolverent,” (It was called galliambic, because the metre is loose; for the Galli are accused as suffering from feminine disease, inasmuch as they used to pay their bodies to the Romans to this day as it were a tribute),—but without committing himself to any more precise explanation of the words. The meaning of the first two sentences is plain enough: The metre is called the galliambic, because it is loose, resolved, i. e. instead of long syllables short are used, and so the metres changed from masculine to feminine. Now the Galli are charged with practising θήλεια νόσος (feminine disease) (as Homer, Odyssey I. 368., says: ὑπέρβιον ὕβριν ἔχοντες—having, practising very audacious insolence). But what do the words that follow mean: διὸ καὶ σώματα φόρον ἐτέλουν Ῥωμαίοις εἰς τοῦτο? The tanquam (as it were) added in the Latin translation shows that the translator took the sentence in a figurative sense. But what is the subject of the sentence? is it σώματα or Γάλλοι—ἔχοντες? The translator must necessarily have taken the latter as the subject: “wherefore they paid or offered up their bodies to the Romans as it were for tribute”; and this could imply nothing less than that the Galli gave themselves up to the Romans as Pathics. Now does the arrangement of the words admit of this? We think not; for in that case the Scholiast must needs have put ἑαυτῶν with σώματα or at any rate the article τὰ.
Therefore if we take the sentence literally and regard σώματα as being the subject, it reads: “wherefore also the bodies (of the Galli) were subject to tax to the Romans to this day.” We have seen already how the word τέλος signified among the Greeks the “prostitution tax,” and how the Septuagint translators rendered the Hebrew קְדֵשָׁה (Kêdeshah) and קָדֵשׁ (Kâdesh), by which names the Priests of Cybelé were understood, by τελεσφόρος and τελισκόμενος (subject to tax, paying tax), how the Priests of Cybelé are characterised by other writers as men who were Pathics in honour of their goddess, and how as a matter of fact the Cinaedi or Exoleti at Rome in the time of the Emperor Severus had to pay an impost similar to the prostitution-tax. The scholion then shows us that the Galli also were subjected to this impost payable to the State. Were it a question merely of Castrated persons or indeed of anything else but actual Paederastia, the whole scholion would be unintelligible; yet Stark maintains that simply Eunuchs are intended, and this because of the words that are appended, to the effect that the Galli were Priests of Demeter. No doubt they may have been castrated, but this is a side issue; the important point is, that they were Pathics.
Finally we have still a passage from Dio Chrysostom389 to mention, in which however the hitherto almost stereotyped expression θήλεια νόσος (feminine disease) is exchanged for γυναικεία νόσος (womanly disease). The author is here expounding how all acts are under the governance of a definite Genius or Spirit, and says: “for a weakling and faint-hearted Spirit of this sort leads readily to the γυναικεία νόσος (womanly disease) and other shames, to which is attached punishment and disgrace.” Then in the following sentences the life and appearance of one governed by this Spirit are more exactly described, in such a way that there can be no possibility of supposing anything else to be intended than the vice of the Pathic, and even Stark (p. 12.) admits this much.
On reviewing once again what has been said, we find that the Scythians in Asia became acquainted with paederastia, when Pathics returned from foreign lands, and henceforth practised the vice at home as well. Their fellow-countrymen could only suppose an evil demon animated them. So when at length as a natural result of their vice they fell sick in body and in mind, when nervous disorders and imbecility visited the unfortunates, they never for a moment ascribed this to the vice these men practised, but rather regarded their condition as a consequence of the avenging wrath of Venus, whose temple they had robbed, and thus brought into connection an earlier incident and a later.
When the Greek became acquainted with the vice, he of course shared at first the notion of the avenging action of a deity, but he directed his attention less to the consequences of this vice, which in Greece were generally slighter, than to the Vice itself, which robbed the man of his manly characteristics and normal activity, and drove him to take on him the rôle of the woman in exchange for that of the man. But to be a woman was invariably among all nations a disgrace for the man, whom Plato (Timaeus 42.) considered the γένος κρεῖττον (superior sex), while Aristotle not merely represents the woman as owing her existence to an ἀνάγκη (unavoidable necessity), but calls her an ἄῤῥεν πεπηρωμένον (crippled male), an ἀναπηρία φυσική (natural crippling), even a παρέκβασις τῆς φύσεως (aberration of nature)390. But no man of sound intellect could possibly suffer himself to be used as a woman; therefore he must needs be sick, be afflicted with a disease that assimilated him to a woman (θήλεια—feminine). When Herodotus wrote, the Greeks to be sure knew the vice which was practised with boys (Paederastia) or youths, who had not yet reached man’s estate, but these were always first corrupted by adults; they did not practise the vice of their own impulse and could not as a rule be held accountable. When however they saw adults, men who were already in possession of manly prerogatives, appear as Pathics—not merely boys and youths not yet capable of the procreative act,—they could in no way explain the phenomenon to their satisfaction except by supposing them to have been attacked by a disease that changed them into women391. This also gives the reason why the expression νοῦσος Θήλεια (feminine disease) occurs so seldom in the Greek writers, for it was the violation of boys, not the violation of men, that was a familiar fact to them. For in the fact that the beautiful form of a boy was capable of firing a sensual longing to enjoy it, the Greek saw nothing at all unnatural; and he found excuses for the momentary forgetfulness of self-respect on the part of the paederast, as he did in the case of the boy or youth. But if there had been seduction, then the offence was strongly reprobrated, unless the Pathic had been a slave.
Neither bodily nor psychical consequences of the vice of the Pathic ever attained in Greece, as has been said, any very high degree of development; and most of the characteristic marks of the Cinaedus were regarded as artificial, worn half intentionally by him for show. Even in his peculiar gait, voice and look, the Greeks saw more an invitation to the perpetration of the vice than anything else; and if Plato denies to this class of persons the wish for natural coition, this is rather a sign how completely the vice mastered them than a proof of the annihilation of their power to procreate at all.
Even when positive diseases did actually occur in consequence of the vice, public opinion was far from ascribing these to the vice itself; nervous and mental affections were regarded as a punishment from the gods, or else they were treated according to their several symptoms without any examination into the original cause. Bodily ailments, especially if they did not affect the posterior or penis, were set down to any cause but the true one, often to quite ridiculous ones. The νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) was invariably thought of merely as a form of vice dependent on a morbid imagination, while its consequences as such were left entirely out of consideration. Nam neque ulla curatio corporis depellendae passionis causa recte putatur adhibenda, sed potius animus coercendus, qui tanta peccatorum labe vexatur, (For the right opinion is this: no bodily treatment should be applied in order to expel the complaint, rather should the mind be disciplined that is vexed by so foul a stain of sinful indulgences), are the words of Coelius Aurelianus in the passage quoted on page 159.
From this it is evident the later enquirers quoted above could take the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) for a purely mental affection, and be right in a sense,—but a sense that certainly never entered into their heads to consider. For they looked upon the intellectual imbecility that resulted from the vice of the Pathic as being the essence of the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease), and the bodily derangements as merely secondary and dependent on the psychica disturbances. Thus to some extent they confounded cause and effect, putting one for the other; yet without hitting on the true explanation, against which the meritorious Stark has tried so hard not perhaps to shut his eyes, but rather to forcibly remove it in any possible way out of the range of his ideas. For this very reason it has pursued him from beginning to end of his investigations, and in spite of all his struggles has found at last a reluctant and partial recognition from him.
As to the remaining views cited above, no attentive reader surely needs any further confutation of these.
§ 20.
We have now, we think sufficiently, proved that Herodotus as well as the other writers who use the expression νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease), denoted by it merely a Vice, which lent a feminine character to the behaviour and indeed to the whole look and mode of life of a man, assimilating him equally in body and in mind to the woman. Throughout the enquiry we have kept our eyes fixed on the cause of this transformation; and we shall now find it easy to estimate the value of a passage of Hippocrates, originally brought forward by Mercurialis (loco citato, p. 143. Note 10.) later by Zwinger392 and others, but which Stark in particular has characterised as a more complete delineation of the disease, merely pointed out and named νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) by Herodotus. On the other hand Bouhier specially and strenuously denies the identity of the two, yet without accurately recognising the true relationship.
Hippocrates in his well-known Work on Air, Water and Environment, describes the country of the Scythians as a bare but well-watered tableland, with so cold and damp a climate that a heavy mist covered the fields all day long and only a short summer was enjoyed. The inhabitants he says are arrogant, puffed up and exceedingly idle creatures, in outward look and mode of life having little distinctly marked characteristics of sex, the men having only very moderate desire for coition, and the women, whose menstruation is less frequent, possessing little capacity for conception. Then he goes on393: “Moreover there are very many men amongst the Scythians resembling Eunuchs (εὐνουχίαι); these not only follow women’s occupations (show feminine inclinations, behave as women?—γυναικεῖα ἐργάζονται) just like the women, but also bear a name signifying this, for such men are called No-men (ἀνανδριεῖς). The natives ascribe the cause to a deity; they are afraid of these men, and show them a slavish respect (προσκυνέουσι394), though each individual dreads such a fate for himself. It seems to me that affections of this sort may be said to have come from a deity to exactly the same degree as all other diseases,—no single one is more than any other in a sense of divine origin. Each one of them has its own peculiar nature, and nothing happens outside its nature. Now how these affections arise in my opinion, I will proceed to state. From constant riding they get κέδματα395 (varicose dilatations), because their feet always hang away from the horse. Hence they become lame, and get, those that are seriously ill, ulcers on the hips (in the region of the ischium, festering of the cotyla or joint-socket?396). Then they treat themselves with a view to cure in the following fashion. So soon as the complaint breaks out, they open their veins on either side of the ear; then when the blood has flowed, they fall asleep from weakness, and go on sleeping till they wake, some of them cured and some of them not. But it appears to me that by such a treatment they ruin themselves397. For there lie near the ears certain veins, and when these are severed, the men so cut become seedless (unfruitful); and it is these veins that, as I think, they sever. But when subsequently they approach women, and find themselves in no condition to use them (to consummate coition with them), at the first they are not discouraged, but keep quiet. However later, after they have tried twice, three times, or oftener, with no better success, they believe themselves to have sinned against the deity, whom they hold to be to blame, put on a woman’s frock, and acknowledge their unmanliness (ἀνανδρίην), behave as women, and in company with the women perform the same tasks as they do. The like of this however happens only to the rich Scythians, not to the poor, in fact to the nobler classes and such as have attained to some considerable wealth, to a smaller degree to those of lesser position, because these latter do not ride.