Castrati

[Twinsenboy (imported)]

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discove ... -video.htm

"In Italy alone, over 4000 boys lost their testicles EVERY YEAR"!

OMG, that can't be true? If so many became unsuccessful and not really great opera singers, why were THAT many castrated?? You'd think the PTB did it for other prerverted reasons. Taking away someone's balls ends that person's 'eternal life'.

[JesusA (imported)]

The linked video is not a very good or informative short piece on the castrati.

1) It was acknowledged in Alessandro Moreschi’s lifetime that his voice was not very good, even when he was younger. The recording that is played during the segment was made on a wire recorder (poor fidelity) when he was quite old, and what little power he had was long gone.

2) His voice is compared to that of a mediocre mezzo-soprano, rather than to one of the very good sopranos whose voice might better represent the possibilities of a true castrato voice.

3) While it is usually claimed that Moreschi was the LAST of the castrati, many scholars believe that Domenico Mancini was an unacknowledged castrato in the Vatican as late as 1959. Officially he was a falsettist, not a castrato, though the director of the Vatican Choir spoke of him as a castrato.

4) Even though the castrati existed until fairly recently in European history, I have found no scholar who has given a comprehensive view of them. Each seems to work on a small piece of the puzzle. There is little about their early lives or, except for a very few individuals, about the reasons for the decision to castrate them. Below are a few small pieces of the puzzle. Full citations for the books and articles mentioned can be found in the Bibliography (http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=17583) on the Non-Fiction Articles board.

Mary Frandsen (2005) does not begin her history of castrati with the castrated praise-singers to the gods of ancient Sumer, or even with the castrati of Byzantium, but rather begins her discussion of the line of descent that led to the Italian church castrati and the castrati of the opera with the Spanish castrati who were the earliest to be recruited to the Vatican choir. She attributes them, and the early French castrati (who seldom appear in the historical record, though there were apparently quite a number of early ones) to the use of eunuchs in Moslem Spain. Many of the Spanish eunuchs were Slavic slaves, captured in Eastern Europe and castrated in Verdun (France), before being sold into the Moslem world. There were plenty of eunuchs still around in Spain after the Reconquista in 1492 and frequent castration apparently continued locally well into the 16th century, though she gives no reasons for the practice. The 1587 papal brief of Pope Sixtus V, Cum frequenter, which forbid the marriage of castrati was written to end the common practice of married eunuchs in Spain. The brief was apparently controversial at the time and was sometimes ignored by local bishops.

Valeria Finucci (2003) focuses on Southern Italy as the source for most of the early Italian castrati. She discusses two intersecting causal threads. The earlier Byzantine, followed by Moslem, rulers of Sicily and the southern part of the peninsula used many eunuchs, including singers in the Byzantine era. Hence castration and castrati were familiar in the region. During the early period of Italian church castrati, Southern Italy was sunk in poverty and disease. Finucci claims, based on church parish records, that orphans were often disposed of by relatives such that they could not return to claim their parents’ lands. Girls were sent to convents and young boys were castrated by their extended families and sent to the church as potential clerics or singers (musical talent not required).

John Rosselli (1988) points to the early 17th century as a period of “deindustrialization” and of “war and plague” throughout Italy. Families became concerned about the division of wealth among multiple sons. Entry into the celibacy of the church or castration became a way to reduce the number of claimants to the family fortune. This, together with the early modern theory of sex as a hierarchy from female at the bottom to male at the top, left prepubescent boys and eunuchs in the middle ground, with castrati frozen on the journey to manhood. As much as 10% of the male population in some parts of Northern Italy were entered into the clergy. Some families placed their young sons with music teachers who, as part of their contractual obligations, were to pay for the castration of the boy when he reached the appropriate age. Rosselli quotes from several such contracts, including one contract relating to an 8 year-old boy, which explained that the boy’s father had “resolved, for the greater benefit of [himself], of his family, and of [his son] to have him perfectly taught the profession or art of canto figurato, and in due time to have him castrated,” but that castration was to be paid for by the singing teacher. Other contracts required the family to pay for the surgery when the time came. Some local rulers, such as the dukes of Mantua and Modena paid for the castration of promising young singers when their families were unable to afford the surgery.

Roger Freitas (2003; 2009) builds on Rosselli to emphasize the early modern ideal of Christian chastity and abstinence from sexual activity. Even intact males, if not the family heir, were expected to remain celibate and the sexual activity to produce heirs was considered a burden. Freitas’ biography of Atto Melani notes that he was one of seven boys in his family – at least four of whom were castrated in childhood to become church castrati. One more never married and took an occupation usually reserved for eunuchs at the time, though there is nothing in the historical record to prove that he, too, had been castrated. One more son, who was definitely not castrated, never produced children, so that only one of seven produced heirs to the family line.

Another author (though I can’t remember who, nor find his article in a quick scan of the 12 feet of catalogued books and articles on my shelves) noted that castration was a common treatment for many ailments in the 16th and 17th centuries. It was considered minor surgery with a very short recovery time and folk practitioners often performed it. He quotes the memoirs of one folk surgeon who wrote that he castrated about 200 males per year during his career. Most of them would, of course, have been adults, but many would have been children. Eunuchs and castrati were not all that rare in society.

All of this would indicate that 4,000 boys castrated per year in the early years of the castrato boom seems perfectly reasonable. By the late 18th and 19th centuries, however, there seems to have been a change in attitude and the numbers began dropping.

.

[tugon (imported)]

A young man by the name of Michael Maniaci sings in the soprano range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Maniaci

Michael Maniaci (born 1976) is an American opera singer who has appeared at many of the world's best opera houses. Possessing a unique male soprano voice, Maniaci is noted for his unusual ability to sing into the upper soprano register without using falsetto. Most men who possess this ability have it as a result of a hormonal imbalance, but for some unknown reason Maniaci's larynx did not develop causing his voice to not "break" in the usual manner. This physical particularity has given Maniaci the ability to sing in the soprano register without sounding like a typical countertenor or a woman singer.[1] For this reason, professional vocal pedagogists consider Maniaci's voice to be unique among countertenors, and compare his vocal quality to the castrato voice of the past.[2]

I have his recording of "Mozart Arias for Male Soprano". Anyone interested in what a castrati might have sounded like I recommend this cd.

Check out this youtube clip where he talks about his voice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2liGFJFuGk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGqpA450 ... re=related

Enjoy!

[Sweetpickle (imported)]

Since much of this took place before the invention of

anesthetics or antiseptics what I want to know is

exactly how did they do this?

Who held em down?

What was the death rate from infection?

We seem highly concerned about something that

was apparently routine 200 years ago.

[Twinsenboy (imported)]

Thanks for great answers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4853432.stm

"

We seem highly concerned about something that

was apparently routine 200 years ago.

"

Well, call me paranoid, but what has ever disappeared? Globally speaking, there is 500 000 times more slavery today than there ever has been throughout history, more wars, corruption, etc. So... I bet there's still castration going on as well, only more hidden. It's not like "Hey, let us neuter your son so that he can sing sweet music into our precious ears" anymore. Example:

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28155

[DeaconBlues (imported)]

Since much of this took place before the invention of

anesthetics or antiseptics what I want to know is

exactly how did they do this?

Who held em down?

What was the death rate from infection?

We seem highly concerned about something that

was apparently routine 200 years ago.

I read it here at EA somewhere... the boys were first given opium, and sat in a warm bath. When the opium had taken effect, they were cut, and I don't remember how many died or lived. Either way, we do know that castration has been happening since recorded human history, long before they had any anesthetics or antiseptics, and even in these horrid conditions, some eunuchs survived the operation. With every operation, I suppose the castrators were learning more and more about how to do it without losing the eunuch.

[Twinsenboy (imported)]

Wouldn't more bloodless methods work better then, being less likely to cause death, like banding or burdizzo? Why didn't they just do that?

[tugon (imported)]

Wouldn't more bloodless methods work better then, being less likely to cause death, like banding or burdizzo? Why didn't they just do that?

Banding and burdizzo are designed for animals and still carry some risk for animals. Banding can cause the tissue under the band to die and gangrene to set in. Banding can also cause clots that of course that can break loose and travel to the heart, lungs and brain and cause death. Clamping is not very effective and can cause internal bleeding and death.

I am not sure how society at the time valued these young lives. Was there even concern if some did not make it? Thinking back to the short life expectancy of those times and high infant mortality would the death of a child create much sadness as it does today? Just thinking.

[Il Musico (imported)]

When you get old and wise (if you ever do!), you will notice that in any place and any age, things are more alike OUR time and age than you thought possible!

This applies to the making of castrati too.

It's interesting to note that none of the Italian castrati left any report on how it was done to him. Even when a few were asked directly, they all told that they couldn't remember exactly when and how it had been done. It had faded into the mist, just like a flu, a small accident, or any other temporarily painful happening of childhood. From this we can conclude that castration in Renaissance Italy wasn't a terrible, horrible, traumatizing experience.

Anesthesia? Yes, they had it: Wine, strong booze, opium, ice (snow), and physical methods such as compressing the carotid arteries to make the patient loose conscience for a while. Sure, they didn't have lidocaine, but they knew quite well how to use what they had.

Antiseptics? Yes, they had them too! Wine, strong booze... They didn't know about microbes, but they knew very well that they had to work VERY clean, or the wound would "go bad" and the patient would become very sick. So they boiled the tools, used spirits (alcohol) to clean the skin, and also some surgeons were taking advantage of the antiseptic properties of some plants.

Surely there were cases when the surgery went wrong, and the poor boy died. But I find it totally ridiculous when someone writes that "90% of the boys died from the surgery". You can find that statement on the web... Nobody in his right mind would have subjected boys to such danger! Least of all the teachers, who had already invested quite some time and money in them!

Have you seen farmers castrate pigs? Despite very basic hygiene, only very few die. Humans are quite similar to pigs regarding their immune systems. With basic hygiene during the surgery, and spending the next few days in a clean bed instead of a pig pen, the risk should be really low. And do take into account that a few hundred years back, people had much stronger immunity than today, because there were no vaccines, antibiotics, chemical food additives, chlorinated drinking water, or all those other immune-depressing things we modern humans get exposed to. A modern boy in the hands of an 17th century surgeon would be in much more danger than a 17th century boy!

So I think it's safe to say that the typical average Italian castrato of a few hundred years ago didn't feel any pain during the surgery, had some significant pain the days after, but no more than after an accident or during an illness, was in relatively little danger from the procedure, and would soon forget about it. At some later age he would then "discover" the true depth of what had been done to him, with the good and the bad sides.

Surely there were good surgeons, who almost never lost a patient, and quacks, who lost most of them. But Italians love to gossip, then as much as now! Reputations spread very quickly, and a quack who used a rusty kitchen knife and caused infection would soon be out of customers. So it's likely that the better, safer, gentler surgeons got the most patients.

Has anybody here found a contemporary report of any Italian boy that died due to the procedure? I haven't. If it had been a very common outcome, there ought to be reports of it! But no. We have lots of reports about castrati, some of them successful singers, others not so successful, but NOT ONE report about the son of so-and-so who lost his young life in a botched castration! There could certainly be some cover-up, but not as much as to make ALL such reports disappear, if there had been significant numbers of fatal cases!

I'm quite convinced that the surgey was a lot less terrible than many people assume nowadays. Much worse than the castration was surely the fact that the boys were often essentially locked up in a singing school, for ten years, with a heavy load of VERY boring practice sessions! If the castrati were social freaks, I'm sure their spending their youth in such a weird place, secluded from normal society, is the real reason, much more than the fact that when they were kids they had a little surgery!

[SplitDik (imported)]

I agree that there does seem to be a lack of information to support claims of high mortality.

However, for the Chinese eunuchs there is evidence that the mortality was high. And you also have to remember that many people didn't value children that much even into the 1800s. The parents were willing to take a gamble -- if their child's operation was successful they could be rich and if the child died then it was one less child to feed.

But I agree that it is better to say "we don't know", rather than make up statements about high mortality.