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.)