Castration in ancient times

[germar (imported)]

Rich Roman ladies usualy prefered castrated slaves in their households. Does anybody know how a castration was medically performed in these ancient times? Who performed it?

[Dave (imported)]

There's a picture of a Roman castration device that appears on the Archives home page.

Roman castration wasn't pretty. They tied the balls up and cut them off with a knife. No painkiller, no anesthetic, just a knife. Sometimes they took both the cock and balls and the day or two later, they overloaded the new eunuch with water so he would pee a new hole. If he didn't, he died. Hopefully the slave wouldn't die of infection, too.

[Bagoas (imported)]

Many of the domestic eunuchs in ancient Rome, especially those who were used as sterile sexual partners by Roman women, were either thlibiae or thladiae. In both cases, the testicles were squeezed. For a thlibias, the pressure was just sufficient to soften the testicles and cause them to atrophy. For a thladias, the testicles were thoroughly crushed, but preferably without breaking tunica albuginea testis. Atrophy in this case was total whereas, the testes of a thlibias, though much reduced in volume. were still functional as endocrine glands.

[germar (imported)]

It is hard to believe with a castration clamp as shown on the website of the EA such variations of pressure could have been achived. Just to soften a testical and not to crush it would probably need a longterm procedure. And if the testical is completly crushed, what will happen medically to it during the next months? Will the tissue die off? Can a man die because of the shock of having his testicals crushed? In ancient Rome, had the testicals been crushed one by one or all together?

[Paolo]

According to "The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices" by Brenda K. Love, the Roman clamp was used, while locked in place, in conjunction with a knife. The testicles and scrotum were cut away and then the cut edges were either sewn up or cauterized. The loop at the top was to keep the penis out of the way, so the clamp/cut would have been in a vertical direction with the handles facing down towards the knees. Love states that the clamp also must have reduced the mortality rate from bleeding to death.

As for the crushing method, according to what I have read, this was usually done in the case of very young boys, even babies. The entired testicle and cord was crushed into pulp, which was eventually reabsorbed fully or partially, by the body. The result, of course, was supposed to be a eunuch made in a much safer manner, lower mortality of the age group, and retention of sexual sensitivity. I can't remember which book I read that in, though.

[Pueros]

If anyone wants to read a marvellous episodic story during which reference to the creation of a thlibias eunuch, in the form of the character of Hylas [chapter 4], and use of the castration clamp by 'gallae' adherents of the goddess of Cybele [chapter 14], plus other versions of castration in ancient Rome, look no further than that excellent on-going work entitled 'Nero' by that superb writer, Pueros.

My recoomendation might, however, be somewhat biased .

PUEROS

[clapner (imported)]

biased?---naaaah

[germar (imported)]

I do not understand the technical need of the castration clamp fully. It seems to be a convenience gear, useful to position the testicals just before the cut?

[JeffEunuch (imported)]

Many of the domestic eunuchs in ancient Rome, especially those who were used as sterile sexual partners by Roman women, were either thlibiae or thladiae. In both cases, the testicles were squeezed. For a thlibias, the pressure was just sufficient to soften the testicles and cause them to atrophy. For a thladias, the testicles were thoroughly crushed, but preferably without breaking tunica albuginea testis. Atrophy in this case was total whereas, the testes of a thlibias, though much reduced in volume. were still functional as endocrine glands.

I've often wondered about my left testicle. It was severely damaged when I was still prepuscent in a massive inguinal hernia that saw a bunch of intestine gravitate into my sac. Immediate surgery to put me back together was required. When I returned to the doc's office several days after leaving hospital to have the sutures from the 10 cm incision removed - the first time I'd seen him since a couple of days following the surgery when he checked in on me, he said that he'd had to remove the internal sac, but that the organ had been saved and would continue to at least minimally function. I was later aware that it'd atrophied considerably. When it was surgically removed many years later, it was indeed much smaller than the right one, but quite wrinkled - indeed ugly! Perhaps it endured the thlibias procedure just from the pressure put on it by the intestines inside the sac?

That and the recommendation by a urologist at the teaching hospital connected to the university I was attending in my early 20s that I might consider having the other removed as a result of a number of infections of the epididymis stemming from its being only semi-descended. He explained that a congenital defect that saw incomplete formation of the muscles in my abdomen, as well as almost no cords - testicles more or less attached directly to the inguinal canals, meant that I'd experience growing testicular pain and an increasingly tight package with ageing. He said that I was fertile, and if I was committed to siring children, it'd be OK to do it following that. I wasn't ready to be a eunuch then, but at a time and stage of life following the birth of my 2nd child and son when many men consider whether to have their cords snipped, I thought about being castrated. I approached the procedure more positively than most men, but in a way that most on this board can identify with. One of the best decisions I ever made.