So far as the _fifth_ passage is concerned, Stark declares castrated eunuchs to be certainly intended, and blames the editor of _Philo_ (_Mangey_) for wishing to read for ἀπὸ τῶν νοσούντων τὴν _ἀληθῆ_ νόσον ἀνδρογύνων (with the men-women, those that are sick of the _true_ disease) τὴν _θήλειαν_ νόσον (the _feminine_ disease). He says in his note 30.: “_Mangetius_ (a mistake for _Mangey_) reponit θήλειαν. Quare hoc fieri, non dicam debeat, sed ne oporteat quidem, non video. Nam νόσος ἀνδρογύνων idem est, quod νόσος θήλεια. Si igitur haec vox verbis superioribus adiiciatur, iners atque inutilis appareat et pleonasmum vanum efficiat, necesse est: τὸ ἀληθῆ contra, quod ille demit, non vacuum ceteris additur verbum, ut eo perspicue demonstraretur, hic _verum morbum_ seu _illud corporis vitium_ esse intelligendum, quod viros exsecando paritur, nec hanc animi labem, qua contaminati solum muliebria patiuntur, quaequae iisdem verbis nuncupatur, ut loci mox laudandi docebunt.” (Mangetius restores θήλειαν—feminine. I cannot see why he should do this; in fact he had no business to do so whatever. For νόσος ἀνδρογύνων (disease of men-women) is the same thing as νόσος θήλεια (feminine disease). So if this expression is added on to the preceding words, it can only appear redundant and useless and make a silly pleonasm. Τὸ ἀληθῆ (the word _true_ disease) on the other hand is not otiose when added to the other words. It shows distinctly that the _true disease or notorious vitiation of body_ was meant to be understood, that which arises from castrating men, and not merely the taint of mind that makes the men whom it affects endure the treatment proper to women, and which is called by the same name,—as will be shown in passages to be cited presently.)
These last words evidently refer to the third passage, where we read: Θήλειαν δὲ νόσον ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἀπεργαζόμενος καὶ ἀνδρογύνους κατασκευάζων (infecting the mind with feminine disease, and turning men into men-women), for _Stark_ himself explains the νοῦσος θήλεια (feminine disease) as being identical with the ἀνδρογύνων νόσος (disease of men-women). So he is bound to explain this sentence too as a _Pleonasmus vanus_ (silly, useless, pleonasm), for as a matter of fact those suffering from νοῦσος θήλεια _are_ men-women (ἀνδρόγυνοι). But if a pleonasm is found in these latter words, it is difficult to see why there should not be one equally well in the fifth passage.