Below are two pieces on the methods of castration actually used in the Eastern Roman Empire (commonly known as Byzantium or the Byzantine Empire). The first is from the work of Paulus Aegineta, a 7th century surgeon and the second is from a recent scholarly work on the surgery of the period.
Paulus Aegineta has been widely cited, though the most recent translation of his work into English was published in 1844-47 and has long been out of print. The Wikipedia article on him places him nicely into historical context:
Paul of Aegina (c.625 in Aegina - c.690) (Latin: Paulus Aegineta) was a 7th century Greek physician best known for writing the medical encyclopedia Epitomes iatrikes biblio hepta (Latin: Epitomae medicae libri septem, English: Medical Compendium in Seven Books). For many years in the Byzantine Empire, this work contained the sum of all Western medical knowledge and was unrivalled in its accuracy and completeness. The book on surgery in particular was referenced in Europe and the Arab World throughout the Middle Ages.
The quotation below is from The Seven Books of Paulus Aegineta. Translated from the Greek. With a Commentary Embracing a Complete View of the Knowledge Possessed by the Greeks, Romans, and Arabians on All Subjects Connected with Medicine and Surgery. By Francis Adams. In Three Volumes. London. Printed for the Sydenham Society. I love Victorian book titles!
SECT. LXVIII. - ON CASTRATION
The object of our art being to restore those parts which are in a preternatural state to their natural, the operation of castration professes just the reverse. But since we are sometimes compelled against our will by persons of high rank to perform the operation, we shall briefly describe the mode of doing it. There are two ways of performing it, the one by compression, and the other by excision. That by compression is the performed: children, still of a tender age, are placed in a vessel of hot water, and then when the parts are softened in the bath, the testicles are to be squeezed with the fingers until they disappear, and, being dissolved, can no longer be felt. The method by excision is as follows: let the person to be castrated be placed upon a bench, and the scrotum with the testicles grasped by the fingers of the left hand, and stretched; two straight incisions are then to be made with a scalpel, on in each testicle; and when the testicles start up they are to be dissected around and cut out, having merely left the very thin bond of connexion between the vessels in their natural state. This method is preferred to that of compression; for those who have had them squeezed sometimes have venereal desires, a certain part, as it would appear, of the testicles having escaped the compression.
COMMENTARY We have given Celsus's description of the operation in the 64th section of this Book. Albucasis describes the operations by compression and by excision. In the former the testicle is squeezed by the operator while the patient is seated in hot water. In the other the spermatic cord is to be first secured with a ligature and then the testicle cut out. (Chirurg. ii, 69.)
They are likewise described in nearly the same terms by Haly Abbas. (Pract. ix, 54.) The castration of the inferior animals is mentioned by Aristotle (Hist. Animal. ix, 50); by Varro (De Re Rustica, iii, 9); by Columella (De R. R. vi, 26); and by Palladius (De R. R. vi, 7.) Varro informs us that it was customary to make capons by burning the testicles of cocks with a red-hot iron. It appears from Juvenal that the surgeons in his time were often called upon to perform castration. (Sat. vi, 1. 370.) Abulpharagius likewise mentions that the performance of this operation constituted at one time an important part of the surgical practice in Baghdad. (Dynast. ix.) But the Emperor Justinian condemned the operation as being dangerous and often fatal.
Sprengel gives an interesting history of castration. One of the most important points in this operation is the mode of tying the cord. Some modern authorities affirm that no bad effects result from putting a ligature round the whole cord, but others condemn this practice as bringing on convulsions and tetanus. All admit the difficulty of securing the artery separately.
FROM: vol. 2 (1846), pages 379-80
Byzantine Castration
-
JesusA (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 6:37 pm
-
Posting Rank
-
JesusA (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 6:37 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Byzantine Castration
Below are some excerpts from Operations on Hermaphrodites and Castration in Byzantine Times (324-1453 AD), by John Lascaratos and Athanasios Kostakopoulos. Urologia Internationalis, vol. 58 (1997), pp. 232-35.
Introduction
Surgery appears highly developed from the early Byzantine period, with its most significant figure Oribasius from Pergamus (325-403 AD), who described numerous important operations. The knowledge of Byzantine surgeons was based on the physicians of antiquity but also on acquired personal experience which improved their techniques. Byzantine surgery was so greatly developed that skilful surgeons dared to proceed to successful lithotripsy in the bladder (9th century) or to undertake the separation of Siamese twins (10th century).
A great number of special chapters of Byzantine surgery devoted to operations on the genitals are known today from the text of the celebrated physician Paul of Aegina (7th century), who studied medicine in the famous school of Alexandria and dealt especially with urological problems. In his sixth book, the most noteworthy of his seven books, constituting his work 'On medicine', special chapters with the titles 'Concerning hermaphrodites' and 'On castrations' were included .
Castration
Before describing the techniques of castration, it is of interest to note that Paul of Aeginta felt the need to justify and explain the reasons why he made reference to these techniques, something that he omitted to do in his chapter 'Concerning hermaphrodites'. He writes that: 'Our art has the aim of restoring the natural from the unnatural in the body but castration happens to have the opposite purpose. Because, however, we are frequently obliged against our will by those in high places to castrate someone, we must briefly refer to the techniques of this operation'. The castration, continues the writer, takes place in two ways: the first is crushing and the second is the excision of the testicles. In the case of crushing, the youngest infants are put in a sitting position on a container of hot water to relax their body. In the container the testicles are crushed with the fingers until they have dissolved and disappeared and are no longer tangible. In the case of excision, the candidate for castration is place on a platform, with the fingers of the left hand the scrotum with its contents (the testicles) is pulled and when it is at its maximum tension, two vertical incisions, one at each testicle, are made with a lancet ('smili' in Greek). When the testicles pop out from the incision, they are exposed from their sheaths and removed leaving only the vascural pedicle. the writer prefers the latter of these two techniques since castration by crushing sometimes leaves an appetite for intercourse because, as it appears, some areas of the testicles escape the crushing process.
The method of crushing is very old and is referred to by Soranus (early 2nd century) who writes that in the case of young infants of 4 months 'we must avoid lifting them upon the shoulders and moving about, since the testicles, if bruised, sometimes retract into the upper parts and sometimes dissolve; thus, some boys become cryptorchics, others eunuchs'. Still earlier, Celsus (1st century) shows knowledge of the two methods of castration and writes that he prefers the one by excision as being more effective. The Byzantine eunuchs, according to the method used in their castration, are called 'thlibiae or spadones' and 'castrati'.
Discussion
.Paul of Aegina refers to the techniques of castration. The reservations expressed by him may explain why those descriptions are not mentioned by other writers. Castration or self-castration was a widely applied method from the early times of the Byzantine Empire because eunuchs constituted a higher social class; many of them held the real power behind the throne and the emperors the nominal. Furthermore, eunuchs could become generals and patriarchs; many of them were outstanding in such roles. Their only disadvantage was the inability to become emperors because they did not possess the required prerequisite of 'perfection of the body', a term ethically imperative for accession to the Byzantine throne. Paul of Aegina refers to the techniques of castration, as he himself declares, as a result of obligation because many surgeons were often under pressure from those in power to proceed to such an operation. In reality, castration frequently constituted a punishment for slaves, prisoners of war and members of the imperial family in the event of its overthrow - the purpose being that all members would thus be disqualified form all hopes of again acceding the throne. In relation to the last category, it is worth noting the castration of all the male children of the Emperor Leo V, the Armenian (813-820), by his successor Michael II, the Travlos, who overthrew him. Of his four children, the castration of one immediately caused death, obviously from unstemmable haemorrhage, and another suffered from transient psychogenic aphonia. It is not known if this type of mutilation was always carried out by physicians as the text of Paul of Aegina suggests. Further, Paul of Aegina perhaps means compulsory castration on the insistence of the higher authorities for their own boys to give them the opportunity of pursuing a military, ecclesiastical or political career. Certainly the operation was forbidden by the official law, and carrying it out constituted a ground for punishment of the physician by the legislation of Byzantium. Justinian (527-565 AD) forbade castration by his Novella 142 and all subsequent legislation provided for punishment of a physician in the same manner (namely castration of the surgeon himself) or his decapitation by sword or being thrown to wild beasts. Castration was permitted only in the case of an incurable condition of the testicles which was certified by a physician and had to carried out only by a surgeon .
Introduction
Surgery appears highly developed from the early Byzantine period, with its most significant figure Oribasius from Pergamus (325-403 AD), who described numerous important operations. The knowledge of Byzantine surgeons was based on the physicians of antiquity but also on acquired personal experience which improved their techniques. Byzantine surgery was so greatly developed that skilful surgeons dared to proceed to successful lithotripsy in the bladder (9th century) or to undertake the separation of Siamese twins (10th century).
A great number of special chapters of Byzantine surgery devoted to operations on the genitals are known today from the text of the celebrated physician Paul of Aegina (7th century), who studied medicine in the famous school of Alexandria and dealt especially with urological problems. In his sixth book, the most noteworthy of his seven books, constituting his work 'On medicine', special chapters with the titles 'Concerning hermaphrodites' and 'On castrations' were included .
Castration
Before describing the techniques of castration, it is of interest to note that Paul of Aeginta felt the need to justify and explain the reasons why he made reference to these techniques, something that he omitted to do in his chapter 'Concerning hermaphrodites'. He writes that: 'Our art has the aim of restoring the natural from the unnatural in the body but castration happens to have the opposite purpose. Because, however, we are frequently obliged against our will by those in high places to castrate someone, we must briefly refer to the techniques of this operation'. The castration, continues the writer, takes place in two ways: the first is crushing and the second is the excision of the testicles. In the case of crushing, the youngest infants are put in a sitting position on a container of hot water to relax their body. In the container the testicles are crushed with the fingers until they have dissolved and disappeared and are no longer tangible. In the case of excision, the candidate for castration is place on a platform, with the fingers of the left hand the scrotum with its contents (the testicles) is pulled and when it is at its maximum tension, two vertical incisions, one at each testicle, are made with a lancet ('smili' in Greek). When the testicles pop out from the incision, they are exposed from their sheaths and removed leaving only the vascural pedicle. the writer prefers the latter of these two techniques since castration by crushing sometimes leaves an appetite for intercourse because, as it appears, some areas of the testicles escape the crushing process.
The method of crushing is very old and is referred to by Soranus (early 2nd century) who writes that in the case of young infants of 4 months 'we must avoid lifting them upon the shoulders and moving about, since the testicles, if bruised, sometimes retract into the upper parts and sometimes dissolve; thus, some boys become cryptorchics, others eunuchs'. Still earlier, Celsus (1st century) shows knowledge of the two methods of castration and writes that he prefers the one by excision as being more effective. The Byzantine eunuchs, according to the method used in their castration, are called 'thlibiae or spadones' and 'castrati'.
Discussion
.Paul of Aegina refers to the techniques of castration. The reservations expressed by him may explain why those descriptions are not mentioned by other writers. Castration or self-castration was a widely applied method from the early times of the Byzantine Empire because eunuchs constituted a higher social class; many of them held the real power behind the throne and the emperors the nominal. Furthermore, eunuchs could become generals and patriarchs; many of them were outstanding in such roles. Their only disadvantage was the inability to become emperors because they did not possess the required prerequisite of 'perfection of the body', a term ethically imperative for accession to the Byzantine throne. Paul of Aegina refers to the techniques of castration, as he himself declares, as a result of obligation because many surgeons were often under pressure from those in power to proceed to such an operation. In reality, castration frequently constituted a punishment for slaves, prisoners of war and members of the imperial family in the event of its overthrow - the purpose being that all members would thus be disqualified form all hopes of again acceding the throne. In relation to the last category, it is worth noting the castration of all the male children of the Emperor Leo V, the Armenian (813-820), by his successor Michael II, the Travlos, who overthrew him. Of his four children, the castration of one immediately caused death, obviously from unstemmable haemorrhage, and another suffered from transient psychogenic aphonia. It is not known if this type of mutilation was always carried out by physicians as the text of Paul of Aegina suggests. Further, Paul of Aegina perhaps means compulsory castration on the insistence of the higher authorities for their own boys to give them the opportunity of pursuing a military, ecclesiastical or political career. Certainly the operation was forbidden by the official law, and carrying it out constituted a ground for punishment of the physician by the legislation of Byzantium. Justinian (527-565 AD) forbade castration by his Novella 142 and all subsequent legislation provided for punishment of a physician in the same manner (namely castration of the surgeon himself) or his decapitation by sword or being thrown to wild beasts. Castration was permitted only in the case of an incurable condition of the testicles which was certified by a physician and had to carried out only by a surgeon .
-
HistoryResearch (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:54 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Byzantine Castration
The acceptability or otherwise of castration, particularly the castration of slaves, appears to have varied during different periods and parts of the Ancient World. I believe the Persians were rather fond of castrating slaves and think the Athenians were threatened with this fate for their sons if they resisted the might of Persia!
One of the things that interests me is the actual procedure used in ancient times because the cutters were obviously skilled and experienced. Haemorrhaging and bleeding, shock and infection being obvious risks, yet with animals this operation is often successfully and routinely performed by relatively non-expert farm workers.
With animals, the testis are sometimes crushed or the blood supply stopped so that they wither and die, but at other times the scrotum and testis are surgically removed and the wound stitched, or maybe in the past cauterised with a hot iron. I wondered if this was the method used in Ancient times to castrate prisoners after a battle as, I believe, sometimes happened. That is to say, severing the testicles in one swift cut and cauterising the wound.
In several stories in the story archive, we hear of a different procedure. After having tied the testicles tightly to reduce bleeding, the scrotum is slit open and each testis is removed in turn, then the scrotum is sewn up again, or alternatively, having removed the testis, the empty bag (scrotum) is then severed, making this a two stage operation. I was initially puzzled as to why this was such a long drawn out procedure; was it just to prolong the pain? If the testicles are bound at the top, why was it necessary to remove each testis separately from the scrotum if afterwards that was also to be severed.
In the stories, the slave in question, frequently has an involuntary orgasm at this point (at the cutting of the vas deferens) and I also wondered whether this just a common theme of the fiction, or whether it has a basis in physical response; in a similar way that pressure on the prostate can cause ejaculation.
I know that medicine in classical times was very well developed and I am sure they had perfected the procedure to a fine art, so as to minimise fatalities.
One of the things that interests me is the actual procedure used in ancient times because the cutters were obviously skilled and experienced. Haemorrhaging and bleeding, shock and infection being obvious risks, yet with animals this operation is often successfully and routinely performed by relatively non-expert farm workers.
With animals, the testis are sometimes crushed or the blood supply stopped so that they wither and die, but at other times the scrotum and testis are surgically removed and the wound stitched, or maybe in the past cauterised with a hot iron. I wondered if this was the method used in Ancient times to castrate prisoners after a battle as, I believe, sometimes happened. That is to say, severing the testicles in one swift cut and cauterising the wound.
In several stories in the story archive, we hear of a different procedure. After having tied the testicles tightly to reduce bleeding, the scrotum is slit open and each testis is removed in turn, then the scrotum is sewn up again, or alternatively, having removed the testis, the empty bag (scrotum) is then severed, making this a two stage operation. I was initially puzzled as to why this was such a long drawn out procedure; was it just to prolong the pain? If the testicles are bound at the top, why was it necessary to remove each testis separately from the scrotum if afterwards that was also to be severed.
In the stories, the slave in question, frequently has an involuntary orgasm at this point (at the cutting of the vas deferens) and I also wondered whether this just a common theme of the fiction, or whether it has a basis in physical response; in a similar way that pressure on the prostate can cause ejaculation.
I know that medicine in classical times was very well developed and I am sure they had perfected the procedure to a fine art, so as to minimise fatalities.
Re: Byzantine Castration
HistoryResearch (imported) wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:16 am In the stories, the slave in question, frequently has an involuntary orgasm at this point (at the cutting of the vas deferens) and I also wondered whether this just a common theme of the fiction, or whether it has a basis in physical response; in a similar way that pressure on the prostate can cause ejaculation.
This is very much a fictional affectation. Think about it seriously - even if one were heavily into the fantasy of orgasmic castration - how is this realisticly going to happen, or even be likely? Of course, one always has to make allowance for the exception, but after that ... not at all very likely...
-
An Onymus (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:48 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Byzantine Castration
Just curious--
Since it appears that surgery was quite common in Byzantine times, it seems natural to wonder whether some means of desensitizing the area operated on, or of dulling the awareness of the person who was undergoing surgery, was developed by the Byzantines. I would guess that the hot bath used in castration by compression, might have reduced awareness of pain by "preemption" or "deflection" of the sensation, but, of course, the effect would have limited and would have been practical only for a few types of surgery.
Since it appears that surgery was quite common in Byzantine times, it seems natural to wonder whether some means of desensitizing the area operated on, or of dulling the awareness of the person who was undergoing surgery, was developed by the Byzantines. I would guess that the hot bath used in castration by compression, might have reduced awareness of pain by "preemption" or "deflection" of the sensation, but, of course, the effect would have limited and would have been practical only for a few types of surgery.
-
JesusA (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 6:37 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Byzantine Castration
A number of historians of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire have noted that the great potential for power and influence that eunuchs exerted made it a useful investment for many families to castrate a young son and send him to serve in the imperial court. I have finally found an example that clearly illustrates this point.
In one of the versions of the Synaxarion of Constantinople (a collection of abbreviated saints' lives) there is the story of a virtuous, but childless, man named Metrios from the countryside of northern Asia Minor. It is told that God rewarded him for an exemplary act of virtue by blessing him with a son. Metrios promptly castrates his young son and sends him to Constantinople where he rises high in the imperial service and becomes parakoimomenos ('Keeper of the Imperial Bedchamber') and patrikios ('Keeper of the Imperial Seal'). Thus does Metrios make his fortune, and so his virtue is rewarded. (Whether his son feels that being castrated so that he can support his father in his old age is a reward or not is unstated!)
Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantiopolitanae, edited by Hippolyte Dellehaye (Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1902), pp. 721-723.
[I'd like to thank Paolo for discovering this reference for me.]
In one of the versions of the Synaxarion of Constantinople (a collection of abbreviated saints' lives) there is the story of a virtuous, but childless, man named Metrios from the countryside of northern Asia Minor. It is told that God rewarded him for an exemplary act of virtue by blessing him with a son. Metrios promptly castrates his young son and sends him to Constantinople where he rises high in the imperial service and becomes parakoimomenos ('Keeper of the Imperial Bedchamber') and patrikios ('Keeper of the Imperial Seal'). Thus does Metrios make his fortune, and so his virtue is rewarded. (Whether his son feels that being castrated so that he can support his father in his old age is a reward or not is unstated!)
Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantiopolitanae, edited by Hippolyte Dellehaye (Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1902), pp. 721-723.
[I'd like to thank Paolo for discovering this reference for me.]
-
vesal_mas (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 6:19 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Byzantine Castration
Regarding to erection and even ejaculation during castration:
I think somone already told us that animals do not express that kind of behaviour.
Until my late teens I often assisted castration of animals, pets. None of them expressed that behaviour either. I has to be said: dogs were operated under general anesthesia (ketamine), but we did cats without any form of anesthesia. The only side effect that was seen, during extirpation of the testes, was uncontrolled peeing of some cats. It is remarkable that the screams during extirpation of the first testicle was totally different than during the removal of the second. As if these cats were then only half males anymore. Quid?
I can imagine one cannot achieve an erection during the agony of castration. These pains give an enormous adrenergic respons with vasoconstriction. Therefore, in spite of many fantasies, I cannot imagine any erotic behaviour during these actions. Of course fantasy castration scenes in CBT are totally different.
I think somone already told us that animals do not express that kind of behaviour.
Until my late teens I often assisted castration of animals, pets. None of them expressed that behaviour either. I has to be said: dogs were operated under general anesthesia (ketamine), but we did cats without any form of anesthesia. The only side effect that was seen, during extirpation of the testes, was uncontrolled peeing of some cats. It is remarkable that the screams during extirpation of the first testicle was totally different than during the removal of the second. As if these cats were then only half males anymore. Quid?
I can imagine one cannot achieve an erection during the agony of castration. These pains give an enormous adrenergic respons with vasoconstriction. Therefore, in spite of many fantasies, I cannot imagine any erotic behaviour during these actions. Of course fantasy castration scenes in CBT are totally different.
-
JesusA (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 6:37 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Byzantine Castration
The piece below is quoted from The Social World of the Byzantine Court, by Alexander Kahzdan and Michael McCormick (in Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, edited by Henry Maguire. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1997, pp. 167-97). The footnotes are my own to help to explicate the text.
___________
4. Some Subgroups at Court
.It seems typical of Byzantine civilization in this era that those subgroups that do stand out at court are, first and foremost, institutional in nature rather than social or economic. Again the imperial banquet invitations provide an easy approach to them. One essential group apparent from the banquet invitations was the elite, the emperor's closest associates. The emperor's friends, his philoi, rank among the few privileged mortals who were consistently by his side in public. They were there, at the imperial high table during banquets and when the emperor breakfasted in church on great feasts, or when he boarded the imperial yacht. A ninth-century biographer found no detail more revealing of the prestige of his hero's father-in-law than the fact that the patrician Leo daily shared the emperor's table .
Another [and the second to be discussed] very high ranking and more sharply circumscribed socio-institutional group was the koubouklion, the corps of palace eunuchs. Court eunuchs had been around since the Roman Empire, but those of the tenth century differed in several respects. Although some, like Samonas, were still foreign-born, now native Byzantines were also castrated more commonly[1]. The chief reason lay in the unique career opportunities open to eunuchs. Nothing makes this clearer than the edifying story of a Paphlagonian farmer named Metrios[2], who seeing the success of his neighbors whose eunuch children were making careers in the capital, prayed for the birth of a son. He hoped to emasculate the child and have someone to support him in his old age. After a remarkable good deed, his wish was granted by an angel; the boy entered the service of the empress, who placed him with the emperor. Ultimately the boy Constantine climbed the eunuch ladder to wind up as Leo VI's patrician and parakoimomenos. As his father had hoped, the eunuch son brought innumerable benefits to his entire genos. A little later, a castrated imperial bastard, Basil the Nothos, outlasted his own lineage at the center of power, came to head the koubouklion, and even to steer the ship of state[3].
Notwithstanding their ambivalent gender and sometimes base origins, local eunuchs were now more fully integrated into Byzantine society, as these stories suggest and as the appearance of eunuch patriarchs confirms[4]. Leo VI in fact recognized eunuch's social position and ambition by allowing them to form kinship groups through adoption. And Basil II who knew their influence from firsthand experience, notably of Basil the Nothos, reacted against the extent of their assimilation when he acted to curtail their inheritance rights[5].
Nothing shows better the social integration of this group than the fact that by ca. 800 a eunuch was scheming to win the purple for his own family and that, two centuries later, another eunuch, John Orphanotrophos[6], actually realized this objective. And there is no more typical indicator of their influence than the conclusion that, by the ninth century, they controlled the details of imperial ceremonial. Indeed, the punctilious attention of the Book of Ceremonies to the special perks of eunuchs hints at their role in compiling or revising that bible of Byzantine court life .
_____________
1) Paul Magdalino, in a discussion of why the Byzantines never developed the tradition of chivalry and courtly love that was so prominent in contemporary western European courts, wrote Byzantine society, at least in Constantinople, was not conducive to the male bonding between lord and knight, and between companions in arms, which was so vital to the growth of chivalry in the West. The imperial court was too vast, and protocol too elaborate, for that kind of intimacy. Most uncastrated males who attended on the emperor returned at night to their own homes, to domestic bliss or, as in the comic scenes portrayed by Ptochoprodromos, to a nagging wife. The absence of primogeniture and the social acceptance of castration meant that there was not a large pool of landless younger sons seeking a cause to fight for; on the other hand, there were many eunuchs. All this may also help to explain why the bonding between male and female in the imperial palace was not the stuff of romantic fiction. Fulcher of Chartres estimated that there were 20,000 eunuchs in Constantinople at the time of the First Crusade.
2) Metrios later became Saint Metrios in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It's unclear whether his castration of his only son played any role in his later sanctification.
3) Basil the Nothos was the eldest son of the emperor Romanos I, and the result of his liaison with a slave woman. He was castrated at age three to prevent him from ever contesting the throne. There was a requirement in Byzantium that the emperor had to be complete and perfect in body to hold the imperial office. Basil outlived his uncastrated younger brothers and became, for a time, the center of imperial power. His proper name (also found in the literature) was Basil Lekapenos. Nothos is a title indicating that he is an illegitimate son. I doubt that he would have been publically called Basil the Bastard during the time that he was one of the most powerful people in the Byzantine Empire.
4) For example, Niketas I (766-780) was most certainly a eunuch, as was Ignatios, a very powerful and well-known 9th-century patriarch who has been canonized as St. Ignatius in both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches. Ignatios was the younger son of the emperor Michael Rangabe and was castrated at age 14 when his father was deposed, so as to make him ineligible to ever contest the throne himself. Methodios I, another extremely powerful and important patriarch, was probably a eunuch, but the record is not absolutely clear. There were other clearly eunuch patriarchs, bishops, and other high church officials, but these three are among the most important patriarchs during the Byzantine Empire.
5) Basil II eventually took the power of the throne from Basil the Nothos, but only after a significant struggle.
6) John Orphanotrophos was castrated by his parents, along with two others of his four brothers, in order to advance the family fortunes. John was eventually able to place his uncastrated nephew on the throne as Michael V (reigned 1041-1042). Michael V immediately returned the favor by having all of his male relatives castrated.
___________
4. Some Subgroups at Court
.It seems typical of Byzantine civilization in this era that those subgroups that do stand out at court are, first and foremost, institutional in nature rather than social or economic. Again the imperial banquet invitations provide an easy approach to them. One essential group apparent from the banquet invitations was the elite, the emperor's closest associates. The emperor's friends, his philoi, rank among the few privileged mortals who were consistently by his side in public. They were there, at the imperial high table during banquets and when the emperor breakfasted in church on great feasts, or when he boarded the imperial yacht. A ninth-century biographer found no detail more revealing of the prestige of his hero's father-in-law than the fact that the patrician Leo daily shared the emperor's table .
Another [and the second to be discussed] very high ranking and more sharply circumscribed socio-institutional group was the koubouklion, the corps of palace eunuchs. Court eunuchs had been around since the Roman Empire, but those of the tenth century differed in several respects. Although some, like Samonas, were still foreign-born, now native Byzantines were also castrated more commonly[1]. The chief reason lay in the unique career opportunities open to eunuchs. Nothing makes this clearer than the edifying story of a Paphlagonian farmer named Metrios[2], who seeing the success of his neighbors whose eunuch children were making careers in the capital, prayed for the birth of a son. He hoped to emasculate the child and have someone to support him in his old age. After a remarkable good deed, his wish was granted by an angel; the boy entered the service of the empress, who placed him with the emperor. Ultimately the boy Constantine climbed the eunuch ladder to wind up as Leo VI's patrician and parakoimomenos. As his father had hoped, the eunuch son brought innumerable benefits to his entire genos. A little later, a castrated imperial bastard, Basil the Nothos, outlasted his own lineage at the center of power, came to head the koubouklion, and even to steer the ship of state[3].
Notwithstanding their ambivalent gender and sometimes base origins, local eunuchs were now more fully integrated into Byzantine society, as these stories suggest and as the appearance of eunuch patriarchs confirms[4]. Leo VI in fact recognized eunuch's social position and ambition by allowing them to form kinship groups through adoption. And Basil II who knew their influence from firsthand experience, notably of Basil the Nothos, reacted against the extent of their assimilation when he acted to curtail their inheritance rights[5].
Nothing shows better the social integration of this group than the fact that by ca. 800 a eunuch was scheming to win the purple for his own family and that, two centuries later, another eunuch, John Orphanotrophos[6], actually realized this objective. And there is no more typical indicator of their influence than the conclusion that, by the ninth century, they controlled the details of imperial ceremonial. Indeed, the punctilious attention of the Book of Ceremonies to the special perks of eunuchs hints at their role in compiling or revising that bible of Byzantine court life .
_____________
1) Paul Magdalino, in a discussion of why the Byzantines never developed the tradition of chivalry and courtly love that was so prominent in contemporary western European courts, wrote Byzantine society, at least in Constantinople, was not conducive to the male bonding between lord and knight, and between companions in arms, which was so vital to the growth of chivalry in the West. The imperial court was too vast, and protocol too elaborate, for that kind of intimacy. Most uncastrated males who attended on the emperor returned at night to their own homes, to domestic bliss or, as in the comic scenes portrayed by Ptochoprodromos, to a nagging wife. The absence of primogeniture and the social acceptance of castration meant that there was not a large pool of landless younger sons seeking a cause to fight for; on the other hand, there were many eunuchs. All this may also help to explain why the bonding between male and female in the imperial palace was not the stuff of romantic fiction. Fulcher of Chartres estimated that there were 20,000 eunuchs in Constantinople at the time of the First Crusade.
2) Metrios later became Saint Metrios in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It's unclear whether his castration of his only son played any role in his later sanctification.
3) Basil the Nothos was the eldest son of the emperor Romanos I, and the result of his liaison with a slave woman. He was castrated at age three to prevent him from ever contesting the throne. There was a requirement in Byzantium that the emperor had to be complete and perfect in body to hold the imperial office. Basil outlived his uncastrated younger brothers and became, for a time, the center of imperial power. His proper name (also found in the literature) was Basil Lekapenos. Nothos is a title indicating that he is an illegitimate son. I doubt that he would have been publically called Basil the Bastard during the time that he was one of the most powerful people in the Byzantine Empire.
4) For example, Niketas I (766-780) was most certainly a eunuch, as was Ignatios, a very powerful and well-known 9th-century patriarch who has been canonized as St. Ignatius in both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches. Ignatios was the younger son of the emperor Michael Rangabe and was castrated at age 14 when his father was deposed, so as to make him ineligible to ever contest the throne himself. Methodios I, another extremely powerful and important patriarch, was probably a eunuch, but the record is not absolutely clear. There were other clearly eunuch patriarchs, bishops, and other high church officials, but these three are among the most important patriarchs during the Byzantine Empire.
5) Basil II eventually took the power of the throne from Basil the Nothos, but only after a significant struggle.
6) John Orphanotrophos was castrated by his parents, along with two others of his four brothers, in order to advance the family fortunes. John was eventually able to place his uncastrated nephew on the throne as Michael V (reigned 1041-1042). Michael V immediately returned the favor by having all of his male relatives castrated.