However a Greek origin of the word is rendered unlikely by one simple circumstance. _Herodotus_ writes τοὺς καλέουσι Ἐναρέας οἱ Σκύθαι, (whom the Scythians call Ἐναρέες,—which is obviously the same thing as saying, “in the language of the Scythians they are called Ἐναρέες”. And again why should _Herodotus_ have explained it by ἀνδρόγυνοι (men-women), if it was a word that every Greek could understand. In this view moreover _Wesseling_ and _Schweighäuser_, scholars possessing a special, critical knowledge of their Herodotus, concur. We do not indeed know to what family of speech the Scythian belongs; but it may be assumed that the word signifying the disease took its origin from the same country where the νοῦσος θήλεια itself arose. We believe ἐναρέες[366] to have been originally a Syrian word, which the Scythians, or more likely the Greeks[367], first adopted into their own idiom. The Greeks were particularly good at the transformation or, if you please, distortion, of foreign names! The word which we think must be claimed as the original is the Semitic נַעֲרָה (_naãrâ_),—the _girl_, the _woman_ in the abstract; and we conjecture _Herodotus_ wrote ναρέες, a form which is actually found according to _Coray_ in one Manuscript. The meaning then would be the _womanish_ man, and this gives a complete correspondance with νοῦσος θήλεια and ἀνδρόγυνος. Another conjecture is based on the name of the Babylonish Praefect or Ἄνναρος, to which _Coray_ calls attention, adding: _mais qui pourroit bien être un surnom altéré par les copistes, et relatif à sa vie effeminée et au milieu des femmes_. (but which might very possibly be a surname changed by the transcribers and referring to his effeminate life and his living surrounded by women.) In _Athenaeus_[368] we read in fact: Κτησίας δ’ ἱστορεῖ, _Ἀνναρον_ τὸν βασιλέως ὕπαρχον καὶ τῆς Βαβυλωνίας δυναστεύσαντα στολῇ χρῆσθαι γυναικείᾳ καὶ κόσμῳ· καὶ ὅτι βασιλέως δούλῳ ὄντι κ. τ. λ. (Ctesias relates in his History that Annarus, the King’s Praefect and Governor of Babylon wore a woman’s robes and ornaments; and that being a slave of the King, etc.) Still as a matter of fact it is difficult to see _why_ the transcriber should have introduced the name as Ἄνναρος, the whole form of the sentence demanding a proper name. _Coray_ refuses to admit that ἐναρέες is a foreign word at all, for he says, “cette manière de s’exprimer n’est souvent qu’une version littérale du mot étranger dans la langue de l’écrivain qui l’emploie”. (such a mode of expression is very often nothing more than a literal translation of the foreign word into the language of the writer using it). But if this were the case, and the word one that a Greek would have understood, why did _Herodotus_ go out of his way to explain it by ἀνδρόγυνοι? Supposing a transcriber to have inserted Ἄνναρον into the text, yet even then the word must have been familiar to him in the sense of _womanish, unmanly_. But if it _has_