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 relates[376]:
“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 delighted[377].
_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 _Constantine_[378] 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
_Zonaras_[379] by ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman), μαλακός (soft, effeminate),
and in Eustathius[380] 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 Regno_[382]
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 Empiricus_[383] 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 follows[384]:
“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.”
_Herodotus_[385] who tells the same story, calls the King Saulius and
the offending citizen Anarcharsis[386], but makes no mention, any more
than do _Diogenes Laertius_ and _Philo_[387], 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.