Back to Blog Page

Was Favorinus the Orator really a congenital eunuch, or is it fiction?

Written by

brotherkarl

in

While researching eunuchs for my first novel about a 6th-century B.C. Ethiopian eunuch, I ran across a man named Favorinus, a 2nd-century orator famed in Athens and Rome. Wikipedia calls him a man of “great oratorical powers,” but Polemon of Laodicea, a famous physiognomist during that time and a bitter rival, seems to have erased that legacy by claiming that Favorinus was “born without testicles.” When he said it, people believed him and took it literally.


About 70 years after Favorinus’s death, another orator,
Philostratus, echoed Polemon sentiments, calling Favorinus
a “hermaphrodite.” Since that time, Favorinus has been
called a congenital eunuch and today is known as one of the
most famous intersex people to ever have lived on earth.
I don’t know though. Is it true that he really was a congenital
eunuch, or is that all just fiction fueled by rivalry? Did
Favorinus himself confirm this? Anyone close in his family?
Is there anything else from his time? Are there physician
records or contemporary documents to back it up?
Why does the only claim from his time come from an enemy,
and later accounts, like Philostratus’s, are from those who
never met him? Was it true or has a mean comment
elaborated on and written in history, overshadowed this
man’s entire legacy as a brilliant orator. As anybody else
ever talked this? Does anybody have anything that
substantiates Polemon’s claim. If anything documented from
his own time to verify this.

I really would like to hear from some folks on this.

*This blog and comments on this post are from a different source, if you would like to see the original sources, see below:


Comments

7 responses to “Was Favorinus the Orator really a congenital eunuch, or is it fiction?”

  1. Ryan

    Ryan comments on topic (July 2025): The Favorinus that lived in 80 – 160 CE? If someone say yes be a skeptic. If someone says no, be a skeptic. Who do you believe on matters like this? Was someone from the first century a eunuch? People really believe they know everything don’t they? Be a skeptic to everything you learn outside of you. I have to pose this to you: Have you ever heard something about someone that turned out to be a false rumor?Have you heard anything about a celebrity that turned out not true? Remember school? Remember the work place? If we can’t know something about someone in our own day and sometimes people we know… Then by golly we do not actually know the reality of a first century man’s genitals.This is what the world doesn’t get. Just because they heard it doesn’t make it true. What do you do when you can’t know the truth about another? You find the truth within.

    Like

    Reply
    1. J Karl Jackson

      Karl replies to the comment (July, 2025) : I’m with you 100%. Nobody living today was there to know the truth. We only have the evidence that was left. And I don’t know that we should automatically be skeptical though. I would think the first thing to do is study whats given to see in there is there something to make you skeptical. In this case it’s Polemon, the first source. If he was Favorinus’s physican, or parent or sibling, I probably wouldn’t be as skeptical. Only someone close to him, would know something like that. But the initial source was not someone close, but a known enemy. So now there’s big reason to doubt. If it was stated that it was rumored, as you mentioned, there would be reason to doubt. The thing about Favorinus’s , no one today is saying it was rumored. What was rumored has now turned out to be a fact in history. If you say it was rumored, then people can decide for themselves if it’s true. But when you make what was rumored a fact .. and don’t even consider the source at all …that is lunacy. In this case the initial person who said this , was a person that didn’t even like him. That’s something you would expect Poleman to say. And besides how would someone not close even know something like that.

      Like

      Reply
  2. Peter Banos

    Peter Banos comments to the reply: (July 2025) : You overestimate the power of history. History is mostly what was written and happened to survive. From the time in question the kinds of documentation you are hoping for simply do not exist. Some of it may have existed, but no one saw fit to copy it and recopy it. (Medical records? Really?) All we have, apparently, is Polemon and Philostratus. We can only credibly second-guess the only available sources if there is an inconsistency among them, or else something that seems inherently implausible. Wikipedia says some scholars suggest that the details presented in the sources are consistent with a condition known to modern medicine, Reifenstein’s syndrome; if true, that is a point in favor of the sources. But really, trying to do present-day detective work on the basis of ancient sources is an iffy proposition at best.

    Like

    Reply
    1. J Karl Jackson

      I trust history as long as you can make it make sense. Polemon is the only one who spoke of Favorinus in that mannner during his life time and he and Favorinus I understand were enemies. So the start off source is not a good one. Philostratus on the other hand, ever met him as he spoke of Favorinus after his death, He never met him and 9 times out of 10 he drew his information from what Polemon wrote which could very well be just a slur against his character not an observation of his anatomy. In the same way we say, “he doesnt have any balls” . We don’t mean physically. If Philostratus misundertood what Polemom meant, then everybody after Philostratus was wrong up untill today. And Flavorinus’s legacy as been overshadowed by a lie. One source from that time is not enough …especially from an enemy. Yet all historians drew from that one source,

      Like

      Reply
      1. Peter Banos

        Peter Banos comments to the reply (April, 2025) : It’s perfectly OK to be skeptical! Just be aware of the limits of the evidence. But anyway, you say you’re writing a novel, so go ahead and be creative! Look at “I, Claudius”!

        Like

  3. Ted

    Ted Comments on the topic (July 2025): Without diving into it, it looks like there’s a hostile source recording what could well be taken as a metaphorical personal insult, and then later sources took that one source seriously and added to it. Often with things like this, its really tough to tell what “The Truth” was at our remove, and we have to be humble and admit there are multiple possibilities for what really happened. 

    Like

    Reply
  4. Brian Z

    Brian Z. comments on the topic (July, 2025): If an article by Retief and Cilliers (2003) is as thorough as it seems, then we don’t have much evidence to go on beyond the statements of Polemon and Philostratus. There are a few statements from others describing his physical appearance and possible sexual functions but nothing decisive. Retief and Cilliers conclude that it is “perhaps more likely” then not that Favorinus had a congenital intersex condition.

    However: We would suggest that it is impossible to differentiate further, with the information at our disposal. Even in modern times sophisticated cytological and biochemical investigations are needed in the differential diagnosis of these rare conditions presenting as male hypogonadism.

    They dismiss the likelihood of certain conditions like Kkeinfelter’s and agree with Mason (1979) that there is “a strong possibility” that he had Reifenstein’s syndrome, also know as Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS)

    These patients characteristically have underdeveloped external genitalia, undescended testes (Polemon’s remark about Favorinus being born without testes, refers), decreased muscle mass, gynaecomastia and hair growth typical of androgen deficiency. At birth they present with variable degrees of apparent feminisation of the external genitalia, which could explain Philostratos’ claim that he was hermaphroditic.

    So no, the evidence you’re hoping for doesn’t exist and is unlikely to turn up.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to J Karl Jackson Cancel reply

More posts