Runciman on Byzantine eunuchs

[JesusA (imported)]

"For a boy to be really successful it might be wise to castrate him; for Byzantium was the eunuch’s paradise. Even the noblest parents were not above mutilating their sons to help their advancement, nor was there any disgrace in it. A eunuch could not wear the Imperial crown nor could he, from his nature, transfer hereditary rights; and therein lay his power. A boy born too close to the throne could thus be side-tracked and then be safely allowed to go forward as he pleased. Thus Nicetas, the young son of Michael I, was castrated [at age 14] when his father fell, and later, despite his dangerous birth, rose to be the Patriarch Ignatius [known today as SAINT Ignatius]. Thus Romanus I castrated not only his bastard Basil, who as Paracoemomenus, the Great Chamberlain, ruled the Empire for several decades, but also his youngest legitimate son, Theophylact, whom he intended to be Patriarch. A large proportion of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were eunuchs; and eunuchs were particularly encouraged in the Civil Service, where the castrated bearer of a title took precedence of his unmutilated compeer and where many high ranks were reserved for eunuchs alone. Even over the army and the navy a eunuch was often in command. Narses in the Sixth Century and Nicephorus Uranus in the Tenth were perhaps the most brilliant examples. Alexius I had a eunuch admiral, Eustathius Cymineanus: while after the disasters of the Manzikert campaign it was a eunuch, Nicephorus the Logthete, who managed to reform the army. A few posts such as the Prefecture of the City were traditionally closed to them; but it was only when Western notions of sex and chivalry began to infect Byzantium that any stigma was attached to castration. In reality it was the employ of eunuchs, of a strong bureaucracy controlled by eunuchs, that was Byzantium’s great weapon against the feudal tendency for power to be concentrated in the hands of an hereditary nobility, which provided so much trouble for the West. The significance of eunuchs in Byzantine life was that they gave the Emperor a governing class that he could trust. Nor is there any evidence that their physical limitations warped their characters. Throughout Byzantine history eunuchs appear no more corrupt nor intriguing, no less vigorous or patriotic than their completer fellows.<p> "In the lower classes eunuchs were rarer, though it might help a doctor’s practice if he were castrated, as in that case he could attend convents and women’s hospitals…." [In other words, the rich castrated their sons, the poor didn’t.]<p>———Runciman, Steven<br>1933. Byzantine Civilisation. London: Edward Arnold & Co., pp. 203–204

[JesusA (imported)]

"For a boy to be really successful it might be wise to castrate him; for Byzantium was the eunuch’s paradise. Even the noblest parents were not above mutilating their sons to help their advancement, nor was there any disgrace in it. A eunuch could not wear the Imperial crown nor could he, from his nature, transfer hereditary rights; and therein lay his power. A boy born too close to the throne could thus be side-tracked and then be safely allowed to go forward as he pleased. Thus Nicetas, the young son of Michael I, was castrated [at age 14] when his father fell, and later, despite his dangerous birth, rose to be the Patriarch Ignatius [known today as SAINT Ignatius]. Thus Romanus I castrated not only his bastard Basil, who as Paracoemomenus, the Great Chamberlain, ruled the Empire for several decades, but also his youngest legitimate son, Theophylact, whom he intended to be Patriarch. A large proportion of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were eunuchs; and eunuchs were particularly encouraged in the Civil Service, where the castrated bearer of a title took precedence of his unmutilated compeer and where many high ranks were reserved for eunuchs alone. Even over the army and the navy a eunuch was often in command. Narses in the Sixth Century and Nicephorus Uranus in the Tenth were perhaps the most brilliant examples. Alexius I had a eunuch admiral, Eustathius Cymineanus: while after the disasters of the Manzikert campaign it was a eunuch, Nicephorus the Logthete, who managed to reform the army. A few posts such as the Prefecture of the City were traditionally closed to them; but it was only when Western notions of sex and chivalry began to infect Byzantium that any stigma was attached to castration. In reality it was the employ of eunuchs, of a strong bureaucracy controlled by eunuchs, that was Byzantium’s great weapon against the feudal tendency for power to be concentrated in the hands of an hereditary nobility, which provided so much trouble for the West. The significance of eunuchs in Byzantine life was that they gave the Emperor a governing class that he could trust. Nor is there any evidence that their physical limitations warped their characters. Throughout Byzantine history eunuchs appear no more corrupt nor intriguing, no less vigorous or patriotic than their completer fellows.<p> "In the lower classes eunuchs were rarer, though it might help a doctor’s practice if he were castrated, as in that case he could attend convents and women’s hospitals…." [In other words, the rich castrated their sons, the poor didn’t.]<p>———Runciman, Steven<br>1933. Byzantine Civilisation. London: Edward Arnold & Co., pp. 203–204

[JesusA (imported)]

"For a boy to be really successful it might be wise to castrate him; for Byzantium was the eunuch’s paradise. Even the noblest parents were not above mutilating their sons to help their advancement, nor was there any disgrace in it. A eunuch could not wear the Imperial crown nor could he, from his nature, transfer hereditary rights; and therein lay his power. A boy born too close to the throne could thus be side-tracked and then be safely allowed to go forward as he pleased. Thus Nicetas, the young son of Michael I, was castrated [at age 14] when his father fell, and later, despite his dangerous birth, rose to be the Patriarch Ignatius [known today as SAINT Ignatius]. Thus Romanus I castrated not only his bastard Basil, who as Paracoemomenus, the Great Chamberlain, ruled the Empire for several decades, but also his youngest legitimate son, Theophylact, whom he intended to be Patriarch. A large proportion of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were eunuchs; and eunuchs were particularly encouraged in the Civil Service, where the castrated bearer of a title took precedence of his unmutilated compeer and where many high ranks were reserved for eunuchs alone. Even over the army and the navy a eunuch was often in command. Narses in the Sixth Century and Nicephorus Uranus in the Tenth were perhaps the most brilliant examples. Alexius I had a eunuch admiral, Eustathius Cymineanus: while after the disasters of the Manzikert campaign it was a eunuch, Nicephorus the Logthete, who managed to reform the army. A few posts such as the Prefecture of the City were traditionally closed to them; but it was only when Western notions of sex and chivalry began to infect Byzantium that any stigma was attached to castration. In reality it was the employ of eunuchs, of a strong bureaucracy controlled by eunuchs, that was Byzantium’s great weapon against the feudal tendency for power to be concentrated in the hands of an hereditary nobility, which provided so much trouble for the West. The significance of eunuchs in Byzantine life was that they gave the Emperor a governing class that he could trust. Nor is there any evidence that their physical limitations warped their characters. Throughout Byzantine history eunuchs appear no more corrupt nor intriguing, no less vigorous or patriotic than their completer fellows.<p> "In the lower classes eunuchs were rarer, though it might help a doctor’s practice if he were castrated, as in that case he could attend convents and women’s hospitals…." [In other words, the rich castrated their sons, the poor didn’t.]<p>———Runciman, Steven<br>1933. Byzantine Civilisation. London: Edward Arnold & Co., pp. 203–204

[JesusA (imported)]

"For a boy to be really successful it might be wise to castrate him; for Byzantium was the eunuch’s paradise. Even the noblest parents were not above mutilating their sons to help their advancement, nor was there any disgrace in it. A eunuch could not wear the Imperial crown nor could he, from his nature, transfer hereditary rights; and therein lay his power. A boy born too close to the throne could thus be side-tracked and then be safely allowed to go forward as he pleased. Thus Nicetas, the young son of Michael I, was castrated [at age 14] when his father fell, and later, despite his dangerous birth, rose to be the Patriarch Ignatius [known today as SAINT Ignatius]. Thus Romanus I castrated not only his bastard Basil, who as Paracoemomenus, the Great Chamberlain, ruled the Empire for several decades, but also his youngest legitimate son, Theophylact, whom he intended to be Patriarch. A large proportion of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were eunuchs; and eunuchs were particularly encouraged in the Civil Service, where the castrated bearer of a title took precedence of his unmutilated compeer and where many high ranks were reserved for eunuchs alone. Even over the army and the navy a eunuch was often in command. Narses in the Sixth Century and Nicephorus Uranus in the Tenth were perhaps the most brilliant examples. Alexius I had a eunuch admiral, Eustathius Cymineanus: while after the disasters of the Manzikert campaign it was a eunuch, Nicephorus the Logthete, who managed to reform the army. A few posts such as the Prefecture of the City were traditionally closed to them; but it was only when Western notions of sex and chivalry began to infect Byzantium that any stigma was attached to castration. In reality it was the employ of eunuchs, of a strong bureaucracy controlled by eunuchs, that was Byzantium’s great weapon against the feudal tendency for power to be concentrated in the hands of an hereditary nobility, which provided so much trouble for the West. The significance of eunuchs in Byzantine life was that they gave the Emperor a governing class that he could trust. Nor is there any evidence that their physical limitations warped their characters. Throughout Byzantine history eunuchs appear no more corrupt nor intriguing, no less vigorous or patriotic than their completer fellows.<p> "In the lower classes eunuchs were rarer, though it might help a doctor’s practice if he were castrated, as in that case he could attend convents and women’s hospitals…." [In other words, the rich castrated their sons, the poor didn’t.]<p>———Runciman, Steven<br>1933. Byzantine Civilisation. London: Edward Arnold & Co., pp. 203–204

[JesusA (imported)]

"For a boy to be really successful it might be wise to castrate him; for Byzantium was the eunuch’s paradise. Even the noblest parents were not above mutilating their sons to help their advancement, nor was there any disgrace in it. A eunuch could not wear the Imperial crown nor could he, from his nature, transfer hereditary rights; and therein lay his power. A boy born too close to the throne could thus be side-tracked and then be safely allowed to go forward as he pleased. Thus Nicetas, the young son of Michael I, was castrated [at age 14] when his father fell, and later, despite his dangerous birth, rose to be the Patriarch Ignatius [known today as SAINT Ignatius]. Thus Romanus I castrated not only his bastard Basil, who as Paracoemomenus, the Great Chamberlain, ruled the Empire for several decades, but also his youngest legitimate son, Theophylact, whom he intended to be Patriarch. A large proportion of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were eunuchs; and eunuchs were particularly encouraged in the Civil Service, where the castrated bearer of a title took precedence of his unmutilated compeer and where many high ranks were reserved for eunuchs alone. Even over the army and the navy a eunuch was often in command. Narses in the Sixth Century and Nicephorus Uranus in the Tenth were perhaps the most brilliant examples. Alexius I had a eunuch admiral, Eustathius Cymineanus: while after the disasters of the Manzikert campaign it was a eunuch, Nicephorus the Logthete, who managed to reform the army. A few posts such as the Prefecture of the City were traditionally closed to them; but it was only when Western notions of sex and chivalry began to infect Byzantium that any stigma was attached to castration. In reality it was the employ of eunuchs, of a strong bureaucracy controlled by eunuchs, that was Byzantium’s great weapon against the feudal tendency for power to be concentrated in the hands of an hereditary nobility, which provided so much trouble for the West. The significance of eunuchs in Byzantine life was that they gave the Emperor a governing class that he could trust. Nor is there any evidence that their physical limitations warped their characters. Throughout Byzantine history eunuchs appear no more corrupt nor intriguing, no less vigorous or patriotic than their completer fellows.<p> "In the lower classes eunuchs were rarer, though it might help a doctor’s practice if he were castrated, as in that case he could attend convents and women’s hospitals…." [In other words, the rich castrated their sons, the poor didn’t.]<p>———Runciman, Steven<br>1933. Byzantine Civilisation. London: Edward Arnold & Co., pp. 203–204