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]