Well said, and you have me voting with you in this. But when they had their fill of hard words, and their fill of caustic observations, Diocles at length said in conclusion that it was not at all permissible for Bagoas to lay claim to philosophy and the rewards of merit in it, since he was a eunuch; such people ought to be excluded, he thought, not simply from all that but even from temples and holy-water bowls and all the places of public assembly, and he declared it an ill-omened, ill-met sight if on first leaving home in the morning, one should set eyes on any such person. He had a great deal to say, too, on that score, observing that a eunuch was neither man nor woman but something composite, hybrid, and monstrous, alien to human nature.

The charge you tell of, Lycinus, is novel, anyhow, and now I too, my friend, am moved to laughter, hearing of this incredible accusation. Well, what of the other? Held his peace, did he not? Or did he venture to say something himself in reply to this?

At first, through shame and cowardice—for that sort of behaviour is natural to them—he remained silent a long while and blushed and was plainly in a sweat, but finally in a weak, effeminate voice he said that Diocles was acting unjustly in trying to exclude a eunuch from philosophy, in which even women had a part; and he brought in Aspasia, Diotima, and Thargelia

Thargelia of Miletus was a famous hetaera, mistress of the Antiochus who was king of Thessaly ca. 520-510 B.c. She outlived him for thirty years, and was active in the cause of Persia at the time of Xerxes’ invasion of Greece. Aeschines the Socratic wrote about her, the sophist Hippias spoke of her as beautiful and wise, and Aspasia is said to have taken her as a pattern. Diotima is the priestess of Mantinea to whom, in Plato’s Symposium, Socrates ascribes the discourse on love which he repeats.1o the company. Subsequent mention of her seems to derive from that passage, and it is possible that Plato invented her.

to support his also a certain Academic eunuch hailing from among the Pelasgians, who shortly before our time achieved a high reputation among the Greeks.

The allusion is to Favorinus of Arles, known to us from Philostratus and especially from Aulus Gellius. Part of his treatise on exile has been recovered recently from an Egyptian papyrus and poe ished by Medea Norea and Vitelli.

But if that person himself were alive and advanced similar claims, Diocles would (he said) have excluded him too, undismayed by his reputation among the common sort; and he repeated a number of humorous remarks made to the man by Stoics and Cynics regarding his physical imperfection.

Among the Cynics was Demonax; see Lucian’s Demonax, 12 and 13 (I, pp. 150 ff.).

That was what the judges dwelt upon, and the point thenceforward at issue was whether the seal of approval should be set upon a eunuch who was proposing himself for a career in philosophy and requesting that the governance of boys be committed to him. One said that presence and a fine physical endowment should be among the attributes of a philosopher, and that above all else he should have a long beard that would inspire confidence in those who visited him and sought to become his pupils, one that would befit the ten thousand drachmas which he was to receive from the Emperor, whereas a eunuch was in worse case than a cut priest, for the latter had at least known manhood once, but the former had been marred from the very first and was an ambiguous sort of creature like a crow, which cannot be reckoned either with doves or with ravens.

The other pleaded that this was not a physical examination; that there should be an investigation of soul and mind and knowledge of doctrines. Then Aristotle was cited as a witness to support his case, since he tremendously admired the eunuch Hermias, the tyrant of Atarneus, to the point of celebrating sacrifices to him in the same way as to the gods. Moreover, Bagoas ventured to add an observation to the effect that a eunuch was a far more suitable teacher for the young, since he could not incur any blame as regards them and would not incur that charge against Socrates of leading the youngsters astray. And as he had been ridiculed especially for his beardlessness, he despatched this shaft to good effect—he thought so, anyhow: “If it is by length of beard that philosophers are to be judged, a he-goat would with greater justice be given preference to all of them!”

At this juncture a third person who was present— his name may remain in obscurity—said:

The anonymous speaker may safely be considered the writer himself, as in the Peregrinus; cf. p. 8, n. 2.

“As a matter of fact, gentlemen, if this fellow, so smooth of jowl, effeminate in voice, and otherwise similar to a eunuch, should strip, you would find him very masculine. Unless those who talk about him are lying, he was once taken in adultery, commissis membris, as the table of the law says. At that time he secured his acquittal by resorting to the name of eunuch and finding sanctuary in it, since the judges on that occasion discredited the accusation from the very look of him. Now, however, he may recant, I suppose, for the sake of the pelf that is in view.”