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.
_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]:
“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]: