A new article by historian Dominique Lenfant sets out to debunk the idea that eunuchs in the Persian Empire, and by extension elsewhere in the ancient world, were primarily guardians of someone else’s women.Lenfant goes through all of the extant writings contemporary with the Persian Empire and finds that the most eunuchs of the period were found working with the men. Some low-level eunuchs were, of course, servants for both men and women, but higher ranked eunuchs were primarily engaged with the males. They are more often depicted as advisers to the king than as guardians of his women.

Curtius Rufus (1st century CE) wrote a history of Alexander the Great where he “associates eunuchs and concubines, but without implying that the first are the guardians of the second. Instead he describes eunuchs as sexual slaves, saying that Alexander, like Darius, had 365 concubines, who were followed (sequebantur) by herds of eunuchs “who were also used to serve as women (i.e., sexual partners of the king) (et ipsi muliebria pati adsueti).” A description by Curtius of the order of travel of the Persian king Darius: “after the chariot carrying the King’s mother comes the chariot with his wife (coniunx), escorted by many women on horseback, then fifteen harmamaxai in which are the children (liberi) and the women who educate them (quae educabant eos) as well as a ‘herd of eunuchs’ (spadonumque grex), then the 360 royal concubines (regiae pelices), mules and camels carrying the King’s money....” One wife, 360 concubines and a “herd of eunuchs” who were not described as “guardians” of anyone or anything. (p.468)

In an earlier article about Persian polygamy she points out that there is little reference to Persian polygamy, even of the kings, until later “orientalists” beginning in the 17th century attributed it to them based on their interpretation of the Ottoman Empire and a projection back in time (Lenfant 2019). Persian kings tended to have either a single wife or a few additional wives married for political purpose (e.g., daughters of other kings). They did have many concubines and were expected to produce many children, but there was a clear distinction between wives and concubines. Eunuchs were described as servants, not guardians, and women were quite independent in their activities and do not appear to have been especially watched over.

Maybe it’s best to consider some low-level eunuchs as servants of women (as well as of men) and less as “guardians” of women in the ancient world. Higher ranked eunuchs were advisors and administrators. They were valued for loyalty and trustworthiness.

_______

Lenfant, Dominique. (2019). Polygamy in Greek Views of Persians. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 59:15-37.

Lenfant, Dominique. (2021). Eunuchs as Guardians of Women in Achaemenid Persia: Orientalism and Back Projection in Modern Scholarship. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 61:456–474.

I never understood the logic of having enunuch men as sex slaves. Wouldn't that still make you gay, or bisexual?

That depends totally upon the beliefs of the culture, and those partaking with said eunuchs. In many of these cultures, eunuchs were not considered men, but rather, a 3rd gender.

Paolo wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:19 pm That depends totally upon the beliefs of the culture, and those partaking with said eunuchs. In many of these cultures, eunuchs were not considered men, but rather, a 3rd gender.

When one thinks of Rome, it is slightly more nuanced, in the sense that they weren't homophobic in the way we would understand, but were bottom-phobic, or, reserved negative stereotypes for receptive male partners. Same sex sexual activity would not draw attention or censure unless it were as the passive partner... and the whole judgemental attitude was to do with social hierarchy in any case, so it may well have been highly positional.