The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical AntiquityRosenbaum, Julius
History
The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical Antiquity
Rosenbaum, Julius
Sexually transmitted diseases -- History
To leave on one side for the present the many inferences of various
sorts that this passage of _Caelius Aurelianus_ must necessarily lead
us to, as they will find a more suitable place later on, and to return
to our question,—the mere fact of Herodotus mentioning posterity at
all ought of itself to be sufficient to negative any idea of actual
eunuchs, of loss of the generative power. For had the Scythians
returning from Ascalon lost this power, they could have had no more
descendants, and therefore the νούσος θήλεια could not have passed on
to these, but must have become extinct with the original sufferers. On
the other hand children already begotten by them before that period
could have been in no way influenced by a disease communicable through
the act of generation. Accordingly the νοῦσος θήλεια cannot possibly
have affected _these_ Scythians so as to annihilate the power of
generation. Both must have co-existed side by side; and the contrary
can never be proved from anything _Herodotus_ says. As to another
passage of Herodotus that might seem to demand some notice here, where
the expression ἀνδρόγυνος (man-woman) is put side by side with ἐνάρεες,
we will speak subsequently.
§ 16.
_But_, it is maintained by those who take a different view,—the
individuals who suffered from the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease)
could be recognized as doing so by their looks; thus it cannot have
been a mere vice, it must have been an actual bodily complaint. We
will not say a word more insisting on the declarations general amongst
ancient writers, for example the words of _Ovid_: _Heu! quam difficile
est crimen non prodere vultu_ (Alas! how difficult it is not to betray
a vice by the look), but will simply ask the question,—_had the
Ancients really no bodily marks of identification_ by which they could
recognise in an individual the vice of the pathic or cinaedus? On this
point we must look to the Physiognomists for information, and as a
matter of fact they supply it in considerable completeness. First of
all Aristotle[329]:
“_Distinguishing Masks of the Cinaedus_:
“An eye broken-down, as it were, knees bent inwards, inclination of the
head to the right side; movements of the hands always back downwards
and flaccid, the gait double, as it were, one leg being crossed over
the other in walking, the gaze wandering; such a man for example was
the Sophist Dionysius.” Polemo enters into greater detail[330]:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account