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.”