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 it[349]. 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 himself[350], 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 unnatural[351].
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_ part[352], and assumes instead
the _passive_ rôle of the woman[353], 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 beard[354]. 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 appearance[355],—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 _Longinus_[358] 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 Rhetorician_[359]
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_ says[360], 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.) Dionysus[361] 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 _Plato_[362], in the passage of _Dio Chrysostom_ quoted a little
above, in various places in the _Writers on Physiognomy_, in _Philo_,
loco citato, and in Artemidorus[363]. 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 place[364]: “A man saw in a dream the
rôle[365] 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 ἐναρέες[366] to have been originally a Syrian word, which the
Scythians, or more likely the Greeks[367], 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 _Athenaeus_[368] 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 _Hesychius_[369],
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.
_Philo_[370] 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 place[371] _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, _Philo_[372] 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_,
_Philo_[373] 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 _Philo_[374] 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.”