STB Law 4, pt.5

NONE ENTERED BY AUTHOR

back to index

STB Law 4
Part 5



Research Materials and Bibliography

	The STB Law series is part of a long tradition of alternative 
history and future history.  George Orwell’s _1984_ is certainly the 
most important and influential of these stories and is the model to 
which I aspire.  To be effective, such alternative histories must be 
internally consistent and be logically projected from "real" 
history.  They need to seem possible (or even probable) in the light 
of the present.  



	Probably the most important such alternative history for 
readers of the Eunuch Archive would be _The_Alteration_ by Kingsley 
Amis.  It is probably Amis’ poorest novel.  It is basically an anti-
Catholic polemic where his venom gets in the way of the story--though 
I’m sure it was therapeutic for him to write it, as these stories 
have been for me.  The novel is the first person account of a young 
castrato-to-be. In the novel he comes to terms with his impending 
emasculation.  His Catholic priest is pushing for his castration in 
order to save his beautiful voice to better praise the Lord in a 
twentieth century world where the Protestant Reformation never took 
place.  



	A first question to ask in producing "histories" of this sort 
is "What is history?"  Historians debate whether "history" is 
supposed to be an accurate description of what "really" happened at 
some time and place in the past OR a good story, based on data from 
the past, to help us understand the present.  The Board of Education 
of the state of California has clearly come down on the side of "good 
story" in its framework for public school history.  Accuracy is not 
even mentioned as important for public school history!  As long as it 
is "a good story, well told" it is sufficiently historical for school 
kids!  In "STB Law 4" I have tried to be far more accurate than most 
high school history texts currently approved for use in California.  
I have taken a few small liberties with the best data I have found, 
but I am enough of a historian of the first type to feel 
uncomfortable about them.  



	The key question for the STB series is whether or not any 
country would agree to voluntary castration of most of its males for 
religious (or any other) purpose.  There are certainly enough items 
on the news today about the length to which "true believers" will go 
for their faith.  Suicide bombers are clearly at least one step 
beyond what the STB Law story line proposes.  The recent trends in a 
number of countries have been toward "fundamentalist" religion (of 
whatever stripe--there is even fundamentalist Buddhism!).  Millions 
of people across the world put faith ahead of all else, logic or self 
preservation most definitely included.  Also, in a number of current 
wars in the third world, many of the soldiers are 12 to 15 year 
olds.  They take orders well and have full faith in authority.  They 
believe and act on whatever they are told to, even marching off to 
certain death.  Joining the "Army of God" certainly does not seem out 
of the question.  (There is a contemporary "Christian" terrorist 
group by that name which aims to bomb abortion clinics and kill 
abortion providing doctors.  James Kopp, who is suspected of killing 
Dr. Barnett Slepian, is reputed to be a member, as is Eric Rudolph of 
Atlanta fame.)    



	Would "true believers" accept castration for the Kingdom of 
Heaven’s sake?  It has certainly happened before in Christian 
history.  The Skoptzky are the best known group.  At their peak, they 
probably had at least a quarter million members in Russia and 
Romania.  After they were suppressed, the number of NEW recruits 
dropped quickly, though there are rumors that the sect still exists.  
They certainly did as late as 1970 when a study on a community of 150 
of them was published in Russian.  After their faith was outlawed, 
most of the Skoptzky rejoined the Orthodox Church and a number of 
them were early converts to the new "true faith" of Communism.  
Georgi Malenkov, Stalin’s successor as premier of the Soviet Union 
(1953-55) was probably a converted Skopt who had been castrated as a 
small boy. 



	The note in "Ryan’s Story 2" about testicles being later 
additions to Adam is derived from Skoptzky theology.  They believe(d) 
that God does not have testicles (why would he need them???) and 
neither did Adam when he was first created in God’s image.  After 
Adam and Eve tasted the apple of the Tree of Knowledge, God created 
testicles as a punishment.  Cutting them off made the Skoptzky more 
in God’s image and more as Adam originally was.  The Skoptzky 
believed that Judgement Day would arrive when 144,000 faithful had 
castrated themselves for the Lord.  They probably came close to that 
number.  (The 144,000 shows up in a number of Christian sects, e.g., 
Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe it to be the total number of those 
who will be "saved".)  



	The Skoptzky are only the most recent large manifestation of 
what has been a long-standing Christian fascination with Matthew 
19:12.  Origen was the most famous theologian to interpret it 
literally (and to act on it), but the Valesii, a Christian sect which 
flourished in the area around modern day Amman, Jordan, not only 
practiced castration of all sect members, but also believed that it 
was their Christian duty to castrate anyone else they could--by 
force, if necessary.  They were one of the earliest Christian 
communities and had clear knowledge of Jesus and his teachings from 
only a few miles away and well within memory of the oldest members of 
their community.  



	While Matthew 19:12 is the passage most commonly cited from 
the Bible as favoring castration, Matthew 5:27–30 is far more 
emphatic.  It could be taken as strong evidence to indicate that 
19:12 is intended to be taken literally:  



	"27    YE have heard that it was said by them of old time, 
Thou shalt not commit adultery:

	"28    But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman 
to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his 
heart.

	"29    And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and 
cast it from thee:  for it is profitable for thee that one of thy 
members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast 
into hell.

	"30    And if they right hand offend thee, cut it off, and 
cast it from thee:  for it is profitable for thee that one of thy 
members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast 
into hell."



	The exact words of Christ, as quoted by Matthew, clearly 
indicate the Christian virtue of sacrificing the part for the sake of 
the soul.  Castrating oneself to remain celibate is clearly a 
Christian act.  



	Even more so than the Gospels, the writings of St. Paul argue 
for total chastity for all true Christians.  Nowhere is there a 
short, clear, and succinct statement of his views to quote in a line 
or two, but anyone who reads through the entire New Testament cannot 
help but be struck by his tone.  



	Personally, I find it very interesting that the modern 
day "Christian" fundamentalists, who proclaim loudly the literal 
truth of several passages of the King James translation of the Bible, 
prefer to ignore any passages that they don’t like.  Especially any 
passages that might directly effect their lives.  They want the first 
chapters of Genesis to be LITERALLY true, rather than a wonderfully 
poetic statement of the centrality of God in Creation.  (Could God 
have told Moses about the Big Bang and about it happening 15 billion 
years ago and been understood by an uneducated shepherd of that 
time???)  



	The "true" passages in Leviticus are carefully selected and 
most of that book is ignored.  The requirement of death both for 
adulterers and for disobedient children is conveniently forgotten in 
favor of the IMMEDIATELY following passage condemning homosexuality, 
for example.  (Though at least one fundamentalist group has recently 
called for death by stoning for disobedient teenagers.  They are 
willing to exempt younger children though.)  How many "Christians" 
perform the required blood sacrifice at the church altar after the 
birth of a child?  I have visited a great many churches in my 
travels, yet I have never seen the dove carcasses, nor the blood 
stains.  



	It certainly does not strain credulity to believe that these 
fundamentalists could decide to accept as true additional passages in 
a book which they continually claim is ENTIRELY true and the word of 
God.  This despite the vast fundamentalist (and mainstream) Christian 
literature which works very hard to explain away the relevant passage 
in Matthew.  The mainstream theologians are at least working within a 
tradition of metaphorical and unfolding interpretation of the Bible.  
The fundamentalist theologians seem almost embarrassed by the lengths 
to which they go to dismiss the "exact and true words of Christ," as 
quoted by Saint Matthew.  



	Looking around the world today and in the recent past, we see 
self-sacrifice for religious and secular causes which are no greater 
than what is described in the STB series.  Suicide bombings, children 
marching into war, etc. argue that true believers would certainly be 
willing to be castrated for the glory of God.  



	Do I believe that the scenario in the stories is possible as 
future history?  Yes!  I’ve been careful in my extrapolation from the 
past and present.  Do I believe it to be probable?  Absolutely NOT!  
The United States may be the most Christian country in the world.  
Only Northern Ireland has a higher percentage of PRACTICING, as 
opposed to nominal, Christians, and Ulster brings the average for 
Great Britain up to well under half the U.S. rate.  Adding in the 
faithful of other religions found in the U.S., we are, by far, the 
most religious of the developed countries.  It is the diversity which 
serves to protect us from the fanatics.  Christianity ranges from 
the "true believer" fundamentalists (of many competing groups) to 
the "organized agnosticism" of the Unitarians.  The mix of other 
faiths helps to protect us from the true believers as well.  



	Though it is apparently a less obvious invention than many 
have claimed, human castration has a long history.  The current 
thinking is that animal castration preceded human by a long while.  
The beginning of human castration was probably by the time of ancient 
Sumeria, and possibly a bit sooner.  Sumeria was a fairly rigid 
theocratic city-state which maintained strict control over most of 
its citizens.  There is an emerging consensus among historians of the 
period that Sumerian shepherds (who were slaves with a great deal of 
freedom of travel and of association) were eunuchs.  The presence of 
other eunuchs as early as Sumeria is problematic.  (Kazuya Maekawa, a 
professor in the Dept. of Occidental Studies at Kyoto University 
(Japan)  devoted several years and a number of articles (in both 
English and Japanese) to an attempt to explain the uses of the 
Sumerian word "amr-KUD".  The work is a brilliant, but highly 
technical, study of both animal and human castration in Sumeria.)



	The use of eunuchs took off in the successor states to 
Sumeria and probably hit its peak (other than Ming Dynasty China) in 
the Persian Empire.  It became the Assyrian, Babylonian, and later 
the Persian, custom to take intelligent and good-looking boys from 
newly subjugated areas, castrate them and train them for government 
service.  The most capable of these eunuchs were posted as 
administrators to various provinces far from their original 
homelands.  It was thought that since they were twice removed from 
their subjects--once as foreigners from a distant province not 
speaking the local language and second as eunuchs--they could be 
trusted to be loyal to the center as their only source of support. 
This practice became common throughout the Persian influenced culture 
area and lingered well into the Nineteenth Century.  To the amazement 
of the British colonialists, the last Omani government officials in 
their province of Zanzibar were eunuchs.  The French even discovered 
eunuch government officials used in this same Persian manner by 
vassal kings in French West African colonies as late as 1914.  



	There are, of course, a great many references to eunuchs in 
the Persian culture area scattered through the vast historical 
literature (in many languages).  There is no book or article of which 
I am aware that pulls the information together in one place.  Of 
greatest interest to readers of the Archive are probably the 
fictional accounts _The_Persian_Boy_ by Mary Renault and _Creation_ 
by Gore Vidal.  Both novels are easy to read and reasonably accurate 
in their history.  



	Human castration in most areas where it has been found may 
have spread from the Sumerian center as a single invention.  The only 
clear pre-Colombian instance in the New World was a limited use of 
eunuchs in the Inca empire.  There is a questionable report 
indicating that the Carib Indians sometimes castrated captive Arawak 
boys to more easily fatten them for the dinner table.  Since it is 
now doubted that the Caribs were actually cannibals, the report is 
very doubtful.  The Chinese use of eunuchs began late enough that it 
may have begun as an influence from the west.  The South and 
Southeast Asian cases seem clearly to derive from Persia.  Egypt 
began using eunuchs much later than their appearance in the Fertile 
Crescent and at a time of clear influence from that region.  The 
practice probably spread in a very limited fashion to parts of sub-
Saharan Africa from Egypt.  Most of the African custom seems to come 
from the much later Roman, Christian, and Moslem influences.  



	This means that the idea of human castration may have been 
invented only twice in human history.  The very limited Inca case 
became extinct with the Spanish conquest.  All other cases in the 
world may well have come from a single invention in the ancient Near 
East--Sumeria or a bit earlier in the same region.  The Chinese use 
of eunuchs is the best case for a third invention, but the evidence 
is scanty.  



	The two books which I have found in English on the history of 
castration, _The_Eunch_and_the_Virgin_, by Peter Tompkins (New York: 
Clarkson N. Potter, 1962) and The_Keeper_of_the_Bed_, by Charles 
Humana (London: Arlington Books, 1973), are both of the "golly, gee 
whiz" school of history.  A collection of interesting bits and 
pieces, uncritically accepted.  There is no attempt to evaluate the 
accuracy of the information, nor to analyze it in any significant 
way.  Readers of the Archive may find them fun to read, but they are 
essentially useless as history.  



	_Eunuchs_and_Castrati_ by Piotr Scholz (due out in late 1999 
from Markus Wiener Publishers) may turn out to be much better.  
Scholz is a respected historian of ancient Egypt, though this book is 
well beyond his field of expertise.  



	What follows will be a point by point set of references and 
background observations for the themes laid out in STB Law 4.  They 
will be in roughly the order that they are used in the text of that 
story and will not, necessarily, be logically connected here.  



	The Great Depression and the subsequent election of FDR and a 
Democratic congress is the model for the World Economic Collapse of 
the first paragraph.  The New Deal was only a little less 
revolutionary than what is proposed here.  Gary Bauer has declared 
his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president in the 2000 
election and would be young enough to try again in 2004.  His stated 
goal is to produce a fundamentalist "Christian" nation.  One major 
goal which he has clearly articulated is the abolition and 
criminalizing of ALL abortion and contraception as "un-Christian."  



	It is, of course, not only the Protestant fundamentalists who 
are strongly opposed to any form of birth control.  Just last year, 
Cardinal Sin (one of my favorite names of all time), the Catholic 
Archbishop of Manila, reminded Catholics that condoms are NEVER 
permitted to true Christians, even to prevent disease.  The sole 
purpose of sexual activity is procreation, and anything that prevents 
procreation makes sexual activity a sin.  He went on to note that any 
Christians who have had a vasectomy or tubal ligation should, of 
course, totally abstain from sexual activity forever after.  They 
were still sexual beings but, since they were unable to procreate, 
ALL sexual activity was sinful for them.  



	The question of "sexual" activity of, or with, non-sexual 
beings has been left unanswered by the Catholic Church.  During the 
period when castrati were prominent in church choirs and opera in 
Italy, they were forbidden to marry because they could not 
procreate.  And procreation was the sole Christian purpose for 
marriage.  (Those who are known to be sterile are still not supposed 
to marry within the Catholic church.)  But, the "sexual" activity of 
castrati (more correctly "non-sexual," since they were now sexless) 
does not seem to be addressed.  There are rumors of at least a couple 
of popes and a number of other high church officials  having 
castrati "lovers" at various times.  Recent church history is so far 
out of my field and such a rats’ nest of conflicting statements that 
I have no intention of ever trying to follow up on this.  It would, 
however, provide a Christian precedent for what is suggested in the 
stories.  



	That a normal, healthy woman could be expected to have 
fifteen to sixteen children with modern public health and without 
birth control is well attested in the medical literature.  If each 
fertile couple is replaced by 15 to 16 children, the population would 
multiply by five or six times (or more) in each generation.  The U.S. 
would surpass China in population in less than 30 years!  It would 
pass the current total world population in 50--if starvation and 
disease didn’t end the process sooner.



	The Biblical eunuchs mentioned in the story are all (except 
the Ethiopian eunuch) disputed by theologians.  The literature is 
large and contentious.  Nehemiah, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and 
Abednego all held positions which were reserved for eunuchs in 
government administration.  The theologians who dispute their 
castrated state all argue that the Bible would clearly state that 
they WERE castrated if they actually were.  A few others (more 
properly) note that, since the castrated state of all such government 
officials was very well known at the time of the writing of these 
books, if they were NOT castrated that would have been clearly 
noted.  Having read much of the historical and theological literature 
on the time and place for my other work, I am 99% convinced that all 
five were eunuchs.  It would take a time machine and physical 
examination of all of them to convince me 100%!  



	The Byzantine case is slightly (but not much) overstated for 
the purposes of the story line.  It has been modified far less than 
is true of much schoolbook history.  Steven Runciman, the founder of 
modern Byzantine historical studies, probably stated it best (and 
very balanced for an English male historian of the early 1930s).  (I 
apologize for the long quote.)  



	"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 when his father fell, and later, despite his 
dangerous birth, rose to be the Patriarch 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.



	"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…."



               Runciman, Steven

1933. Byzantine Civilisation.  London: Edward Arnold 

& Co., pp. 203–204



	Runiciman is one of the historians whom I read in high school 
that convinced me that I wanted to become one.  He is the only one of 
that group whose work I still respect.  (Wells, Durant and Toynbee 
were the principal others.)



	Most later Byzantine historians have devoted some space to 
the question of eunuchs.  Keith Hopkins book _Conquerors_and_Slaves_ 
devotes two chapters to the role of eunuchs in government 
administration  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).  
Rodolphe Guilland has written a number of fascinating articles on 
Byzantine eunuchs (all in French).  "Living in the Shadows: Eunuchs 
and Gender in Byzantium" by Kathryn Ringrose (in 
_Third_Sex_Third_Gender_, edited by Gilbert Herdt.  New York: Zone 
Books, 1996) gives an excellent account of Byzantine attitudes toward 
gender.  She also gives the best English discussion of Theophylaktos’ 
_Defence_of_Eunuchs_ that I have yet read.  



	Shaun Tougher’s article "Byzantine Eunuchs: An Overview, With 
Special Reference to Their Creation and Origin" (in 
_Women,_Men_and_Eunuchs_, edited by Liz James.  London: Routledge, 
1997) is the best contemporary overview and has an outstanding 
bibliography.  Tougher also teaches a class, "Eunuchs in Greek and 
Roman Society", at Queen’s College, Belfast.  The current academic 
interest in gender studies should lead to further interest and 
publication in the field over the next few years.  I may even add to 
it, though I doubt it.



	_Narses:_Hammer_of_the_Goths_, by L. H. Fauber (New York: St. 
Martin’s Press, 1990) is an excellent biography.  While Fauber is not 
a professional historian, that may be for the best.  He writes well, 
but still covers all the essential academic bases despite his lack of 
pedantry.  Also of interest to readers here might be Robert Graves’ 
novel _Count_Belisarius_ which I well remember from my Graves period 
in high school.  The story is told through the words of his wife’s 
eunuch servant and Narses is an important character in it.  (I don’t 
own a copy of it and have not bothered to track down the date and 
publisher, but I remember the high school library copy of the book 
being old and worn when I read it in the 1950s.)  



	The stages of sexual maturity are mostly quoted directly from 
J. M. Tanner’s _Growth_at_Adolescence_ (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific 
Publications, 1962).  The only changes from the original are in Stage 
3, where I have added ages (one year older than factual, in order to 
meet other story requirements) and the breaking voice, which properly 
should be placed with Stage 4 (for those boys whose voices actually 
break, instead of slowly changing--also added for plot purposes).  
Tanner is probably the best contemporary expert on adolescent 
development.  Older works by Greulich and Krogman are also valuable 
for this topic.  I well remember Wilton Krogman from my own 
childhood.  Dr. Krogman may be the most memorable person I have EVER 
met!  I can still see his face (and scars) clearly and I can still 
hear the gentleness of his voice.  



	In a later paragraph, I mention the Prader Orchidometer.  
Prader was a Zurich physician who pioneered the field of adolescent 
medicine and his orchidometer to measure testicle growth is still a 
standard in the field.  Any physician with a large adolescent 
clientele ought to have one.  The orchidometer consists of testicle-
shaped beads of 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, and 25 cc sizes.  
The doctor can interpolate between them when necessary.   Boys (and 
men) have testicles of very different sizes at different stages, 
though growth to 4 cc would certainly indicate Stage 2.  The stages 
are judged by a number of criteria, but a boy’s testicles are usually 
7 to 16 cc when he begins Stage 3.  Most normal adult men end up with 
testicles between 16 and 27 cc.  (About 10% will be smaller than 16 
cc and about 10% larger than 27cc.)  



	That girls prefer dating eunuchs to intact boys is derived in 
this story from Anne Rice’s novel _Cry_To_Heaven_, but is also in 
line with current feminist arguments.  (I think of Rice as good 
bedtime reading as soon as they come out in cheap paperback, but I 
never save them and, thus, don’t know date or publisher).  A 
supporting argument would be the famous epigram of Martial: "You ask, 
Pannychus, while your Celia has so many eunuchs? Celia wants to have 
sex without appearing to." (Latin: "Cur tantum eunuchos habeat tua 
Caelia quaeritis, Pannyche? Futui velut Caelia nec parere."  Martial 
VI 67)  Juvenal also alluded to the practice in his Satires: "There 
are women who like the ineffective eunuchs because their kisses are 
always soft and they don't have beards and because abortives are not 
necessary." (Latin: "Sunt quas eunuchi inbelles ac mollia semper 
oscula delectent et desperatio barbae et quod abortivo non est opus." 
Satires VI 366-380)   



	The number of androgynous entertainers over the past couple 
of decades would also point toward this conclusion.  I wonder how 
many wondered whether Wayne Newton or Michael Jackson were castrati 
when they were at their most popular.  



	The Mormon section is the result of a visit by two dedicated 
young Mormon missionaries shortly before I wrote the original story.  
It is consonant with my reading of the Book of Mormon (only once 
through it, though, and several years ago) and the time that I have 
spent in Utah.  I considered dropping it from version 4 since it 
really doesn’t advance the story line.  



	The section on the choir directors’ request for earlier 
castration seems reasonable once the rest of the plot is accepted.  
Consider the Vienna Boys’ Choir, the Texas Boys’ Choir, or the San 
Francisco Boys’ Choir if the "boys" had thirty additional years to 
study and improve their voices.  The recent growth in popularity of 
counter-tenors (such as Alfred Deller and others much younger than 
he) shows a contemporary interest in the higher ranges of the male 
voice.  The film "Farinelli," very loosely based on the life of the 
famous castrato, should also be viewed by anyone interested in the 
subject.  The immense popularity of "boyish" voices in pop music can 
also be seen in examples such as Donny Osmond, Wayne Newton, Michael 
Jackson, Menudo, etc.  (I’ve dated myself and my kids by not knowing 
any more recent examples, though I know they exist on the radio dial 
between the news and classical music stations.)  



	The testimonials by "Zachariah Jordan" and "Jeremy Keaton" 
are based on a health article about infant circumcision by Vicki 
Iovine in the Los Angeles Times of April 18, 1999:  



	"I can’t help but suspect that all it would take for the next 
generation of little boys to hold on to their foreskins would be for 
some popular hero such as Kobe Bryant to appear on "Inside Stuff" and 
suggest his athletic prowess was a direct result of his parents’ 
disbelief in circumcision.  (Can’t you just see the line snaking out 
from the local plastic surgeon’s office as grown men with hoop dreams 
submit to expensive and painful foreskin restoration?)"



	Though I used Admiral Nimitz Middle School in the story, it 
is nowhere large enough to support a full-time castrator.  It IS one 
of the largest middle schools in the United States, with about 3000 
students in its three grades.  At the rate of 10 or 12 boys per day, 
it would need a population of about 15,000 students and a full-time 
clinic with one doctor would need a community population base of 
about 400,000 people--far bigger than the Kelseyville site for the 
main story line could ever grow to.  



	I consciously used a mostly Mexican American middle school 
and mention Black, Chinese American, and (formerly) Jewish boys in 
the story.  (Think "Jews for Jesus.")  I want to be certain that the 
horror is well distributed.  



	For the father of 23, I nearly used the real name of the 
person whom I believe to be "Silver," the author of the original STB 
Law story which inspired my therapeutic writing.  I hope that he 
decides to put his name in when he prints out a copy of his rewritten 
and expanded plot.  



	While I certainly helped castrate cattle on the family ranch, 
my next younger brother insisted on being the one with the knife when 
we got old enough to do more than herd them into the squeeze chute.  
I have observed, but never actually castrated.  I do have personal 
knowledge of the speed and simplicity of the animal operation (on 
sheep and goats as well as cattle).  The only reference that I have 
found for speed and the human version is from the Nazi period:



	"By order of Reichsleiter Bouhler I submit to you as an 
enclosure a work of Dr. Horst Schumann on the influence of X-rays on 
human genital glands. 



	"Previously you have asked Oberfuehrer Brack to perform this 
work, and you supported it by providing the adequate material in the 
concentration camp Auschwitz. I point especially to the second part 
of this work, which shows that by those means castration of males is 
almost impossible or requires an effort which does not pay. As I have 
convinced myself, operative castration requires not more than 6 to 7 
minutes, and therefore can be performed more reliably and quicker 
than castration by X-rays." 

  

------Letter from Blankenburg to Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler, April 29, 
1944 (Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military 
Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. I, 
723): 



	Blankenburg claims to be able to castrate young Jewish or 
Polish men in 6 or 7 minutes each, though this is without anesthesia 
nor any care whether they suffer pain (or mostly even survive).  With 
animals, speed is certainly important to reduce suffering, but 
anesthesia works far better, and it allows great care in the 
surgery.  We certainly care too much about our dogs and cats to allow 
veterinarians to castrate them without anesthesia.  



	The minor note about Chinese eunuchs needing to be buried 
with a set of testicles may not be a custom of such long standing.  
The earliest mention I know of is late Ming Dynasty--though this is 
far enough from my own field that I really don’t know for certain.  A 
new eunuch’s testicles (and penis) were carefully preserved and 
needed to be shown to government officials on various occasions as he 
changed jobs within the palace.  They also needed to be buried with 
him to prevent his rebirth as a female ass, though a pair on loan 
from another eunuch could be used, if necessary, to prevent that 
fate.  



	I understand that Carolina Biological Supply used to carry 
freeze-dryed human testicles in their catalog, but the most recent 
edition carries only human testicles preserved in "Carosafe"  
(an "odorless" shipping and holding fluid).  It is item  D8–P3178C 
($55.10 each) and the testicles are probably from India.  



	The story assumes improvement in Androderm with its greater 
use.  Once-a-month patches are certainly not available today, but are 
well within the scope of current research on time-release medications 
with dermal patches.  



	That the penises of boys castrated at the time of greatest 
penis growth would grow larger with massive use of artificial 
steroids is nowhere mentioned in any literature that I have found.  I 
hope that experiments are never carried out to discover whether or 
not it is true.  That adult penises shrink slightly after medically 
required castration and loss of androgens is well attested in the 
literature as is the slight shrinkage which comes with old age and 
lowered testosterone level.  It should also be noted, adolescent 
locker room stories to the contrary, that they do not shrink back to 
the size of early childhood.  



	I’m certain that there were a great many other sources which 
I have read over the years and which found their way into my thinking 
and writing.  But these were the ones which came immediately to mind 
as I reread the story for posting, or which I read as part of my 
immediate research.  The Chinese sources, for example, are long gone 
from memory, except for Mitamura’s _Chinese_Eunuchs_, which I know 
that I read for a seminar paper on Ming Bureaucracy.  (Though I 
certainly can’t remember his personal name after all these years, nor 
did I save a copy of the paper.)  I read them while I was in graduate 
school and would have no idea where to find them today.  I am 
continually surprised by the trivia which I dredge up in my head 
after 30, or more, years.  



	I want to thank the several librarians at UCLA who aided with 
this research and the interlibrary loan office of my own college 
library which tracked down a couple of the items.