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.”