This text is offered to my brother a eunuch, who is upset about those things that are openly said about eunuchs. It will silence those who, in general, slander eunuchism, say  that it is an  institution that engenders vice. It will examine carefully the evil and virtue present in each man and show that eunuchism clearly is not the cause of evil but  of a conscious choice, whether for the uncastrated or for eunuchs, so that when evil is produced in the latter it is less and not as powerful. It will cite as yet unwritten evidence for the clear facts regarding appearances in  each case. In like manner it will do something bold and discuss the sexual vigor of eunuchs and the charge that they have meddled in state affairs beyond what is lawful. In doing this I will not skim over the surface but sink beneath the surface to the depths of the mind and report whatever of worth I find there. For I do not know how they can fail to be condemned who judge by the appearance of things and fail to judge the truth of the matter. This work, which I have written for my brother, will follow the plan I have presented and constitute a  most treasured  gift for  him. If anyone else joins in taking council from this work this will bring no harm to my brother.

I found for you an unrewarded advocate for eunuchism. I had gone to Thessalonika  when the  emperor  was there. Two people were intelligently discussing eunuchism and I heard enough of their conversation to retell it for you. The one criticized the other, a eunuch, because he (the eunuch) had allowed his  nephew to be castrated, an action opposed by the Creator, who thought man better the way he had made him, and had (that is the eunuch, in supporting the castration) offended the laws of gods and men and broken the law of Moses, who would not allow those  born with deformed genitals or eunuchs to be a part of the church of Christ, and had (that is the eunuch) broken the laws of the apostles and the canons of the church  fathers and the civil law of Justinian which goes back to the oldest emperors who forbade the removal of testicles within the  Roman Empire. He (the first of the two in the discussion, the one who opposes castration) also offered the opinion that it would spoil the character of the child, making him morally weak, a  person who would easily yield to passions, both many and great. He said, for the greed and avarice which  exist in such persons and the miserliness and totally unsociable behavior, the thorny growth of licentiousness, the ambition, the envy, the love of petty quarrelling, the deceit and the   bad  disposition,  the irritation at trifles, the irascibility, by God, how they rule the hearts  of eunuchs like fortresses. And if they are able to connect themselves with the palace they  persuade themselves that they are the most magnificent of all and most fit to rule. And so I would say about those who assist the emperors in governance, those who fill up the quota of staff in the harem, alas, alas, eunuchism hollows out from  below reservoirs of all sorts of evils. And every eunuch, by however much he is separated from the company of men, becomes more like women because of the complete mingling of their bodies. For they have been born to be totally seized by the passions of mean-spirited women. For if the weakness of the soul is the strength of the passions, man is  in need of greatness of soul lest he be captured by his passions. If also women communicate, through their contact with men who have been made eunuchs, prudishness, two-facedness, slothfulness and stupidity, and model eunuchs in all effeminate traits, you can see the image that is thus formed. You can tell me if it is not the couple Astartén and Chamos (another name for Baal), or the abomination of Sidon. There is also another kind of eunuch, which the theater honors, and is worthy  the same notice, who warbles and trills. These, an evil act, have brought pornographic songs and pleasure seeking bubblings (lyrics,  perhaps?) into the church service.

If one seeks still another mark of the race of eunuchs, what do you think of their customs? They behave like actors.  They eat dainties of all sorts and are ever fond of drinking and their appearance is undignified and disorderly and their unbridled mouths speak filth. And they say that most of them pretend to be men with  their licentious pricks.  Many can testify to these things and most of all it  is true of those  who guard the harem and in any case it seems a reasonable idea that eunuchs would act this way.  Those who spend time with theater people always say, "Grapes always ripen around grapes."  Also songs are twisted by whores and the  word is the shadow of  the deed. Those who are always rubbing themselves up against women are kindling a fire on the altar of all whom draws near. What more can I say? Isn't it an evil augury that the eunuchs seem ill-omened and always cast down by countless outrages?"

So saying he left off for a moment, showing in his manner that he would like to continue the conversation. The eunuch gently smiled, for he was the most agreeable of men, and was very well educated, and, a living reproach to these charges, said, "It seems to me that you are making reference to the eunuchs who live among the Persians or Arabs, or elsewhere and attributing to us their worst faults (lacuna) we have been denied a serious regard as if we didn't have among us the Archbishops of Thessalonika, Pydna, Petra, Edessa in Bulgaria, and many others in different walks and ranks of  life. But I think that in this discussion of eunuchs you  would have turned aside the sword as easily if you had  shown us a  picture of  a goat and  called it Belerophon. One is led astray in a foreign land and hastens to bring the worst fruits from it. But do not do that, best of men, do not misjudge friends, and do not spend your time on trifles. Rather point out that which is antithetical to God and His laws and most hostile to what he holds most dear, and for these things prepare your passions.

If I, at least in your opinion, am at variance with the Creator, why isn’t he  also in  this category  who has elected  to remain celibate and guard  his  condition with  God's help.  A part of marriage is the procreation which results  from it. Therefore if the presence  of  genitals  are  not required  to  fulfill  this function, does it not oppose the logic of the supposition and fly in the face of the power of reason if a  man who has decided not to procreate children has gotten rid of reproductive organs that he doesn’t need anyway? Therefore it completely follows that it is not necessary to blame a castrated  man for his condition. In the same way a fig that doesn't give fruit is rightly cut back by the master of the house  in order to make  it fruitful. Likewiseone is not to be blamed for cutting off  a sixth finger which is superficial. Nobody says that this is unnatural (against nature). Those of you who pursue the ascetic life have changed the natural functions of the genitals. That is, the nature of the testicles is to produce sperm for the procreation of life, and yet you say that you deplore the  production of sperm because  you desire to remain virgin.  If you acted following the same sort of logic as the farmer who prunes his  fruit trees you would  admit that the genitals are  not of  use  for generation  and understand  their removal and, among  you, the  decision to  remove them  would be applauded, not criticized. Do you not waste away the body by not eating and  not bathing  and  all sorts  of spiritual  ascetics? Before you were well-fleshed and muscular, now you are soft. Before you were sun-tanned and now you are pale.  You have made yourself sickly when before you were well.  What if we said that this change in  your  flesh violated  the laws  of God  when you remake a healthy body into its opposite? If you censure me about the removal of the testicles, I  censure you for the destruction of your body and if you condemn me I don't need your company. The lips are a powerful  trap for you  and the eagle  will seize you under his wings and speed you to God who saves all from falling. A Greek would criticize such things for he puts nothing ahead of nature but lives his  whole life according to  nature's laws and considers it the goal of his present life. But to you who chose a life beyond nature and practice it and exercise yourselves in it and are successful in it, do not open your lips and speak against giving justice to eunuchs.

Regarding the frighteningly misleading information contained in the laws, and above all the law of Moses,  I marvel that you, as good a person  as you  are, can  accuse me of  transgressing theMoseic law in this matter but not all those laws which charity has abolished and fulfilled. By, my dear, the words of the law tell us what is in the law. But we must both perceive the spirit and shadow of things which will come to us, not just superficial appearances but what is  written within. Do not choose the deadword (of the law)  but rather that which is made  joyful by the living spirit.  Examine the bread of the law placed on the table before you, interpreting the law in a  way worthy of the eunuch. Didn't God accord the eunuch honor as is recorded in Isaiah? And what about the prophet Daniel? (In the Byzantine world Daniel and his three companions were assumed to be eunuchs). And what about Nehemias? And after him who was Abdemelech? Would you cut them off from the community of Christ? For they are neither barren nor fruitless in God’s sight and actions,  and also have descendants and family in Jerusalem. Of course they don't have descendants if you are talking about  the earthly Jerusalem  where men engender children for love,  but  it is  another matter  if you  mean the heavenly, resplendent Jerusalem into which no  one can enter who is disabled regarding the power  of the seeds of  reason that is within us, seeds which give us a natural disposition to do good,the heavenly Jerusalem where the eunuch's  condition is superior to that of the sons and  daughters of the faithful.  None of us, you, me, others, would wish that a virtuous  man who is a eunuch should be expelled from the company of the faithful. The Hebrews condemn the body. They mark out the boundaries of goodness interms of abundant fertility.  Given the way I have presented my case, I think you would agree with me.

I honor and venerate the laws of the apostles and the patriarchal canons since they are living laws, but I freely tell you that I will not be bound by them. Regarding those who come to manhood, and, having mutilated themselves so as to entirely  be a eunuch (there are adult men  in this society who  had surgeons castrate them - and this may have  been as simple a  surgery as a sort of vasectomy - as a contraceptive measure.  There were also men whohad their left testicle  removed because they  believed that the seed from the left  testicle produced female  offspring (that is the bad and unlucky side, after all) and the seed from the right testicle produced male offspring) from the moment of the act they are in danger of death and those who do this to them (that is the surgeons) are  in  danger  of becoming  their  murderers.  (Most ecclesiastical and sources consider adult castration to be a kind of murder  of  the  self,  yet  the castration  of  children  is acceptable.  The connotation here is not to the danger of the surgery, but to the  destruction of mature masculinity.) If you know someone from among us who has done such a thing, don't hold your tongue but express your displeasure against our mutilation. (That is, it is acceptable to criticize a eunuch who has hadhimself castrated  as  an  adult.)  But if the agent of his mutilation is far from  him, then  leave off your  nasty remarks about him. If you say that the act of removing testicles is forbidden in church law,  I have this  reply for you.  There are those, they say, who undergo castration as young men in order to seduce women. These are heaped in sin and pleasure seeking if they think that they  can thus  advance in society  because they have been castrated at the harshest age, when they are in danger from the surgery, just  to serve  their own passions  in safety, turning St. Paul’s rules upside down  and having women while not having them. That is why the law calls them enemies of the creation of  God. They have not used their members in accordance with the will of the Creator  and not considered ejaculation theobject of coitus. They are disabled in their contact with women even though they can please  the most wanton of  women. But they expose themselves to  obvious dangers,  including the  charge of being their own murderers.  But if anyone's testicles are cut off while still a child or an adolescent because  he is worthy of so much concern on the part of his parents who  desire to preserve his chastity and they join with him in selecting castration for him so that no danger can befall him, how can you still show the disapproving eye and express the bitterness that fills the church canons?

It is simple to forbid eunuchism and the Apostles interdiction is related to the abominable Simon (Simon the Magician, the first heretic) and  the church  fathers  later forbade  it because  of Marcion and Manes  (early heretics) who taught that one could become strong through the  removal of the testicles  and in like manner many, taught by them, defiled themselves in this way. Thus those who were fearful avoided marriage, teaching it was evil and an institution evilly established. Now, indeed, they say that if there was no heretical  teaching which supported  that belief wewould not act unlawfully, we who love purity and piety and altar our bodies, and would behave like the ones who practice celibacy and flee marriage and consider marriage  an abomination. But you are trying to make  laws for me without  carefully examining the intention of the law. I must tell you that you offend the laws of rhetoric and have become so overcome by the laws of rhetoric that you can't speak simply. You would beat your mother because she is the only one you have the power to beat and you completely forget to consider what the written word says and means in the politics of living.   But these matters can defend themselves.

I marvel that the writings of the Hebrews are held in great worth by you, while the knowledge and wisdom of Christ is held in low esteem, though they hold a treasure of wisdom and knowledge. ButI know that the church makes many administrative decisions which arise from earlier ways of doing things, which are outside church law as the wise administrators  of the  Logos established  and determined. These decisions are ones that I would not support by a simple word but  would extend, consider in  a larger framework under the  direction  of Christ.  In this discussion I have penetrated the darkness and will show the most hidden intent that lies deep within the law. Show me, you who impose these laws on us from the height of your  citadel, how it came  about that the fathers of the  Fourth Council  allowed the Egyptian  bishops to swear an oath (to civil authorities) even though Christ forbade that completely  (the swearing of civil oaths) so  that we would not owe a  debt  to civil  law where  oaths  are common,  we who glorify the Bible. How is it that we impose harsh penalties on women who fornicate, we divorce them, but don't punish men in the same way?  We don't end their marriages. And we do these things despite the fact that Our Lord forbade the breaking of marriages for both men and women, except in  the case of fornication, evenas the great St. Basil says. Is it not obvious that regarding the law of the commandments there is a second flowering and men bring forward a second level of interpretation, something that is part of the most  sacred  mysteries which  our mind  does  not easily understand and so they administer the  souls of members  of the church and they  and  their people  expect their  rulings to be obeyed? So no one can find fault with what I do when I explore the meanings of words and determine the time the laws were made, even as I have been taught.

Our interpretation of the law is not false, but faithful to the truth, long attested  by  conspicuous number  of eunuchs  in the state and church.  It is clear that the teachers of the New Testament, the initiators and teachers of the mysteries of God and the true bishops, had great faith and the strength that growsout of it, with the result that  they guarded their chastity and otherwise gave no thought to the condition of the body, awaiting the approach of the end of their time  on earth. During the time they were on earth they were struck by the front-line forces of the devil, forces which  tried to strengthen  their weakness and tempt them to stop preserving their  sexual purity, purity which is owed to  the blessed of  God and  to those chosen  as saints. Next, so that the number of eunuchs in the church should not decrease and most of all  to guard lest  they fall into sin,  as has been said, there  were  opened   the  gates  to  the  institution  of eunuchism, which contributed greatly and deeply to sanctity. And this solution indicates a  thoughtful solution that  most wisely adapted to a  need. I have noticed that doctors administer totoday's sick treatments that are different from those prescribed at an earlier age and if you ask the reason for this change they will answer that the strength and manner of the physical life ofthe body has greatly changed. In the same way the healers of the church have changed and  the methods of these  healers have been adjusted to a changing mode of living. For if it were not so, how could it be that this  very illegal act (that is castration) is seen by all the high churchmen but  it is not  mentioned. It is considered normal that the emperor should close his eyes to this practice, especially since it is in his interest to increase thenumbers of such men (eunuchs) since they are always "well minded" (a play on the Greek word for eunuch)  as the etymology of their name implies.  But we know that all the churchmen have not drunk the mandrake and so do not attack the enterprise, at least, if it makes our church pure and flawless.

But, you say, the emperor Justinian abolished eunuchism and, with a law, ended the practice. But he did so by a law of the blessed emperor that  was totally  laughable,  a law  which the  empress Theodora advised him to pass so that eunuchs would not increase in number or hold higher honors. After he had passed the law he couldn't change his mind  since the empress  considered him less than a slave (in other words it would  have made him look stupidin her eyes), and he even told Narses (his famous eunuch general) that he (Narses) could not be blessed. Justinian established laws against eunuchs, but how could such written laws be honored when people observed what was going on? It is like the web of spiders, which comes from the name Anacharsis, which the spider weaves tocatch wasps and hornets and moths. It seems to me also that thatlaw was a piece  of the handiwork  of the cunning  Tribonian who heard from an  old man that  such a  law had existed  in certain circumstances.  (Tribonian codified older Roman law into theJustinian Code) It was a way to slay many whom had already beencastrated. But consider the unnaturalness of this legislation. IF castration causes death where did the  palace eunuchs come from, or the general Narses who enlarged  the frontiers of the Romans? If the danger of the operation is slight, why not forbid the taking of drugs and the actions of doctors which sometimes cause harm? Prove to me that eunuchs were useless to the emperor who created this legislation  (abolishing the practice), or  if you cannot, prove that the idea of the great power of eunuchs is more than just a delusion. If you cannot do this then abolish those laws which legislate against  eunuchism. You must choose one of the two paths. Either abolish castration and stop employing eunuchs, or get rid of these laws and favor castration, recognizing that it is advantageous.

I will not accept your justification that castration is a sin, especially since, from  the moment  he is  made a eunuch,  he isuseful for  you.  You claim that eunuchs have been castrated because of a  disease, a  reason for  castration that  cannot be condemned.   (The legal penalties for those who performed castrations were very severe  - usually castration or death - but a surgeon could  legally  castrate a  man  if  it  were in  the interests of his health.)  For you don't have time to explore the origin of eunuchs. But I don't have to accept the arguments you have made.  For an emperor cannot overlook the sins of his subjects. When, dissembling, you overlook the manner of life that leads to the creation of eunuchs you are doing something that, it seems to me, neither Melitides nor Koroibos (characters known fortheir stupidity)  would do,  making  a joke  of legislation  and devising a trick  for us.  (That is, the "for the patients own good” argument) For  if truly Justinian's decree  had abolished castration it would have inspired fear  in doctors and all those who castrate so that this sin  would come to an  end. If you are right that those who are castrated  are aliens furnished for you from barbarian countries, first, indeed, you  have to prove that those who handle your affairs and those who handle the affairs ofthis country  are  not  the  same  people. Second, how can an intelligent man, using his brain, name administrators casually to rule barbarian nations in such a way as to not expose carrion but to bring about the ruin of everything good? Do you think you are getting the blessings of  the Roman  people? Yes, and don’t you also entrust the palace to that  worthy group of eunuchs because they are capable of receiving instruction who and are, by nature, gifted with freedom of thought and  un-slave-like mentality? For the stupidity and coarseness  of slaves if great  if you believethe words  of the  tragedian  who  says, "The slave is  nothing compared to the free man," or the lyric  muse who says, "The red fox and the roaring lion cannot exchange cleverness." So I have completely struck down your  beliefs and  shown that the  law is completely false and not as it seems. Therefore these laws should be completely  overthrown because  of  the  rottenness of  their fabrication, recognized as unfit and having no force in the civic state or in the church. They should be completely overthrown.

So now you see what I think of the new legislation of the good emperor Justinian. I have examined the oldest laws and have found a worldly and earthly explanation which, in its presentation, doesn't reflect well on the princes of the ages. In order to keep the empire well populated and support  a strong army and recruit many soldiers and furnish men of blood who made  their camp far from the laws of our blessed  Christ, these lionhearted emperors forbade eunuchism. And I am not announcing these things to you as a prophet would but so that you  might understand what is the truth. Another testimony to my opinion is a law which exists among the Romans which  deprives  those  who reach  the age  of marriage but do not marry of great privileges and profit in order that the state would  be well-peopled. Is it more just to half punish those who are  childless or  more inhuman to  punish them completely? (lacuna and textual corruption). But so the maker of all good, Constantine the  Great, banned the practice of castration within the empire (but allowed men who had been castrated outside the empire to be  brought into the empire). He brought virginity from the boundaries and settled it in the city and attacked the  law  of the  city as  too  harsh. For you who remain, don't remind me of the laws that favored the flesh which have been discussed on earth and the power of Hell, but know that these were made useless by another very severe law passed by that same Constantine saying that whoever acted (lacuna) ... and most of all the sons of  Constantine and their successors even up to this day (supported Constantine's legislation) with the exception of Julian the Apostate who greatly hated eunuchs which shows the general sympathy  in  which  they were  held. (Julian embraced paganism after being born a Christian) The Apostate dishonored both Christ and  the eunuchs, levying great taxes on them. We should not accept his reasons for that, otherwise we would have to accept his reasons for the persecutions of martyrs.

If you don't know how the canons of the Photian synod, which you said overlooked us, arranged things, I have already recounted the parts that are  appropriate  and shown  you the  mother  of this canon, a thing deformed and shameful, casting down the image for which the great and  most blessed  priest of God,  Ignatius, and others of the  church  suffered. (Ignatius the Patriarch was a eunuch). But you have not repealed the canon and I, given what it has become, will not  import it into  our midst, but  ardently I pray it can be carried off into the land of oblivion like leprosy to be seen from afar, a mutilation unworthy of the fair bride ofthe most beloved bridegroom.

Since you have testified to the many passions of eunuchs, which comes from their  being  totally crushed, reducing them  to the feminine state, I hesitate to reply to this since it is scarcely worthy of a reply.  But it is necessary that I speak openly so that you don't think I am blaming you for having such unsound and self-serving evidence. For you seem to be overly concerned about the dry twigs that we eunuchs have, while ignoring all the beams that many whole men have in their eyes.  You claim that a eunuch is small  minded  and, according to  your  testimony, weak  and feeble, like earth that  is sickly,  unable to support  a strong shoot.  But on the other hand you charge that eunuchs are too powerful in the state,  wrongly contending to  amass evil power. You claim that eunuchs have been pirates and robbers, cutpurses and plunderers,  that  they  have establish themselves  in  the highest political positions  and  roar like  lion cubs  and move things along with loud cries so that they  can carry off all the meat. You say that some are niggardly and unsocial. What examples do you have  of  this kind  of  behavior? Eunuchs take care of widows. They nourish and educate orphans and do everything for them in the name of philanthropy and friendship. Or would you say that they take over the estates of orphans and  slay widows and orphans?  There are men who are ambitious and filled with ill-temper and jealousy, who shed the blood of kinsmen or family members and have  confounded  all the  laws in  order  to defeat others using the law. When eunuchs do this you are confident in singling them out. And I will not enumerate the violations of virgins and women,  adulteries and  things too shocking  to talk about which men do.  It would be shameful to tell the truth, even as men count their victories.

If you want to continue to slander us, you haven't gotten to the worst of all. If you agree, let us examine the race of eunuchs who are considered the  lowest among the  Greeks and barbarians, whose evils surpass the height of the clouds and work a thousand evils.  (the eunuchs of  the  palace)  You don’t show me an individual eunuch among them, what you show me is a lizard before a Basilic. If you suggest to me that the eunuchs were employed in the palace as the  crowning glory of evil,  especially those who served the empresses, I would not hesitate to show you also thosewho served the most  exalted of empresses, wedded  to reason and guided by it, like the majority to whom this task was entrusted, for they modeled themselves upon those among whom they moved and lived for the glory  of the holy  icons and rendered  a pleasing ornament to the  Word, were  exceedingly decorous. If you don't know any such then Elias didn't know  the 5,000 men nourished by God.

If, as you say, all eunuchs, as a group, are evil, the argument against us doesn’t proceed  without stumbling. First, isn’t one group worse than another? Second, what about those who have never seen the palace,  those now in  the flock  of the mother  of thechurch, I mean those  in the church in  Constantinople, those indifferent monasteries who  avoid the  flesh and blood,  those inother churches, those who  are an ornament  to archbishoprics orthe priesthood? But most are evil, says the proverb, even though we are slandering Christianity, since most on earth are such. But if you count the large number of eunuchs and you notice how manyof them are base (that is, bad individuals) and compare it to the size of the whole group and you see the  same thing, (as you see in the general population)  it should  be apparent to  you, from these many examples, the injustices done to eunuchs. But in order that I should not  seem to you  to be asking  the impossible and fleeing  into the  unknown,  look at  one  or two  of the  eunuch priests,  from the  countless  available, from  your churches  or mine, and understand that  most of them live worthily, conforming to priestly  purity. You also have accused the singers of having been corrupted by the theater (that is introducing popular tunes) though I  haven't been able to  hear the difference between their chant singing and that of amateurs who sing chants with regard to how pleasing  they are.  Likewise I would suggest that all these singers can  be accused of the same  fault. Let us consider those whom  the theater  has elected  as its  directors. I find them a wondrous  lot. We must guard lest we speak ill of a national treasure. But I tell you many of these eunuchs are weak. I agree that they  are cunning  rogues, smart as  foxes, babblers without skill. What is the error of Demas with regard to Luke? What is the  relationship  of  those  who  abandoned Paul  to  those  who remained faithful? How does the relationship of Phygellus and Hermogene compare to that between Silvanus and Timothy? And what about  the  relationship between  Judas  and John  and the  other Apostles who cried and bowed down before their master?  I will offer  a  good example.  The pollution of Esau didn't dishonor Jacob.  The incest of Ruben didn't dishonor Joseph even though they were brothers. Consider this, and don't consider it lightly. If you accuse all eunuchs of making lascivious remarks, I would counter on the positive  side that it is much more just to praise eunuchism as a vessel  of chastity and these eunuchs, (the chaste ones) because of their number, will triumph. Are you truly ruling in  accordance  with the  judgment  of  God if  you condemn  the institution because  of ten  lewd or fornicating  individuals anddon't allow  us to change your  opinions because of the thousandsof holy  eunuchs who love chastity? If so you have voted for the tongue  of Momos which  is only directed at sinners  and greatly wounds  them with customary  remarks. But don't also do this to blameless eunuchs and wound  them. For he who destroys a man's soul slays him, as the Bible says. As far as I am concerned, most men have heard the  charges cast at eunuchs. I won't repeat them. For weren't those who made the golden calf honored by the Levites who held  them  before  Christ?  Weren't there thousands of mutterings about Chaleb  and Joshua?  They showed themselves as servants of  God. The calf worshippers were punished. They left their bones in the desert. Chaleb and Joseph were saved as saints and saved a new and well-minded people.

If, indeed, the eunuchs change the tunes of licentious songs into consecrated chants for the churches, what does it matter? Explain to  me who, before  the Holy  Spirit taught David  (holy chants), chose between the good  and bad (tunes) and made sweet the divine hymns for  our singers so that we  don't notice, soaking up their sweetness, the harsh and  bitter medicine they contain. And laterthere  was Ephrem  of  Osrhoene. It seems to me that Ignatius, inspired  by God,  arranged to  introduce antiphonal  chanting in Antioch since he had heard angels singing in this way. And then there is  Ephrem who  observed the Harmonius,  son of Bardesanes, composed pleasant  chants and  through them taught  his heresy to fools. Did he not adapt to the melodies of Harmodius, the pious chants  which have  been  composed for  us and  haven't  they been presented as delicious dishes  to the churches of Syria? And they say that John Chrysostom  saved Constantinople from the Arians by composing melodious  songs. Is anybody tougher than John? But he knew  how to  arrange  the words  in  Christ, like  David who  is glorified by  the Holy  Spirit. Therefore the old chants used inthe church  did not  triumph because of pleasure  but rather when chanted with good rhythm  and technique. Put in another way, they wrote about  these things  in the old  books. "and the scene was adorned  with Egyptian  richness,  coming from  the power  of the Lord." (a line of  a hymn now lost) Therefore, if we believe thatit is  necessary to remove such things from the churches, we arenot removing  them because  of the eunuchs but  because of tribal peoples of  another era who  gave these songs to  us and arranged them as chants.

Many criticize us and see us as a bad omen. Dull-witted men,worth  nothing, also treat  monks this  way. For the same things please the same sorts of people. Even if some of the fathers were critical of  powerful eunuchs of their time,  these same fathers wrote  the worst possible  things about  all the rulers  of their time. From what group come those leaders of the heresies againstwhom the  Fathers have said so much,  but which cannot compare towhat  is said  about eunuchs?  But we don't criticize whole men today because  of impious  leaders and founders  of heresies long ago. Instead we separate men according to their deeds. Also, weshouldn't say that eunuchs today are  evil because long ago theyshielded the  Arians. (the Arian heretics) Therefore why must Ibeat around the bush when I can say it in one line? Why do I have to go  around the edge of  the circle when I  can step across the center? What haven't I told you? The most winning ornaments ofeunuchs is  their great gravity (serious  demeanor, presence) andtheir good  bearing, worthy  of being made citizens  of the state for a  lifetime. Naturally they say that if anyone fails to pay his debt or slightly changes the terms agreed upon eunuchs become upset as if this  were a great defeat. Like stains which are most conspicuous on  brilliant clothing, so also  Christians, who have always  sought perfection  in the  New Testament,  when something doesn't work comfortably with  it (the strict construction of the N.T.) that thing falls prey to accusers. For the powerful draw upfor battle  with a strong force and  whoever attains a great deal finds  that a  great deal is  demanded  in return,  so that  the calumny of certain eunuchs is used to smother the good reputation of all their kind.

Count for me all the forces of Christ Jesus and you will find none of them lacking  in eunuchs. Among the Apostles, that is the heralds of  the Word, you note the  eunuch of Queen Candaces, who brought all  Ethiopia to Christ, not because  of the power of his authority  and  his role  as  guardian and  administrator of  the king's wealth,  but because he  was called the hands  of the Holy Spirit. Among  the martyrs  you find an Indian  who has presented himself to Christ (a  eunuch barber martyred under Maximian), and after him  Hyacinth and   Protea,  companions  of  the  blessed Eugenius, his fellow ascetics and athletes, and Thusthagades and Azades,  the friends of  Sapor who  started out as  supporters of earthly things  and became  supporters of heaven. In the time of Licinius there  is the valiant Theodore  who was confirmed in the love  of Christ  land whose  resolution was even  more celebrated than  those of his  companions. And many others whom anyone can enumerate who has the  time. You can say that all these are but a few and nothing compared  to the sum total of eunuchs. But if you compare  it to  the countless  number of  other men  it is  but a raindrop in a great sea. Equally eunuchs ornament the patriarchal throne  with their  teachings and  profession of faith,  and also archbishop's  thrones.  They indeed, by their word and life, distinguish  themselves among  churchmen, both  as abbots  and as priests.  Haven't you also seen those who are good deacons,earning for themselves the celestial ranks? I think you also made mention of  monks, whom  you don't say  much about, such  as they are, and, because they are discrete,  they remain hidden. One of these is Symeon of Athens, whom we know as a leader in this city. You know him as an old man, pleasant, agreeable, a good manager, who  commanded a  group of  eunuch monks  who lived  under strict observance on  Mt. Athos.  And the state, how often it shows us these men of such knowledge and wisdom and living the most worthy of lives.

I believe that freedom from wet dreams comes to all men who have purified  themselves  of  carnal love  and who have never  been stained by romantic attachments, involuntary and natural. We, who enjoy  this  advantage, avoid  the  splinter  which  pricks  the conscience, so  that for you, indeed,  even if the mind persuades you not to  fall  into such  defilement, don't  believe anything (lacuna) which is why  right vaunts itself, but it cannot fail to sting the conscience and  most of all if you allow yourself to be persuaded  by the  words  of the  great Basil.  (St. Basil hated eunuchs) it is not against our will that we are continent, indeed our goodness  is not repaid, even as I  hear many saying, but our chastity comes from our own choice, which is aided, of course, by the condition  of our  bodies and thus  we are repaid.  And I can personally  testify  to those  who  say that  many  eunuchs  act unchastely  that  among  eunuchs there  are  also  those who  act soberly and keep themselves pure of their own choice. Do you want me to say more?

"That is enough," the other said, "but you haven't persuaded me to become a eunuch this afternoon."

I replied, "But to an extent you have decided to agree with me. I will  not conclude  this discussion of eunuchism  without saying that  it is not  possible to  practice self-control in  any other way.  Celibacy is possible, with many struggles and rigorous tortures which very rarely,  according to those who have reported this to  me, is found among the priests.  I have shown the matter to be blameless, when it happens, and I silence those who want to cast it  down completely because  they are not worthy.  For to an impartial  judge those who  insult the  eunuchs do so  boldly and without examination, insulting them  either through lust or envy.

They embraced and kissed. The eunuch took in his arms the child, his nephew, who had been at his side and had listened with quick apprehension,and hugged and kissed him, rejoicing in the discussion about the child and its good outcome, how the truth had been demonstrated by him. And so they departed. I, thinking it would be good to retain the words of their discussion for you, didn't ask anyone where these men came from, for they didn't seem to  be from Thessalonika, and it is true that I have no way of finding that out, nor would I have had any business seeking them out to ask about their discussion. For they are seekers, as it seems, and didn't speak to me as one of the group but as one caught up in the moment.

So I give you this cargo of wares brought, with difficulty, from Thessalonika. For I am not Simonides (the lyric poet) nor Hippias (from Plato's dialogues) and my memory will not flourish in my old age.