Some commentary and historical facts on Byzantine eunuchs, such as age of castration, the why's, etc and the views on eunuchs of the time.
A - H I - P Q - Z Newest Files
Parts of Theophylaktos of Ohrid’s The Defence of Eunuchs with comments. * comments denoted with “*” The author is a bishop who wrote this text in the early 12th century. It was written as a gift for his brother, a eunuch who was a cleric at Hagia Sophia. *This places us in the Byzantine Era, the 1100’s. Decline had begun. 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. *There seem to be different views on this. One is that eunuchs of the era who kept their penises, still had sexual desire and that castration didn’t always eliminate this. Age was obviously a factor. The other opinion was that eunuchs had little to no sex drive, and since sex wasn’t a concern for them, they amused themselves by pursuing political power and attaining wealth. According to most sources, white Byzantine eunuchs lost only their testicles, with the black eunuchs who held servile posts being totalled nullified. It is interesting to note that much later on, the Ottomans claimed to have discovered the use of nullified black eunuchs from the Byzantine Christians. So they say. 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 enitals 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. *So what our Bishop is overhearing is a chat between a man and a eunuch. The eunuch has arranged for his nephew, a minor boy, to be castrated. This is not uncommon for the time period. Families often decided the careers of their children, with the children having little to no say in the matter. It was also customary and more common for the Mothers’ brothers to oversee the religious upbringing and some of the professional prospects of their nephews. Basically, if the maternal uncle(s) was/were eunuch(s), then chances were that some of the nephews were going to wind up as eunuchs as well. We also read that the man is debating the pros and cons of castration with the eunuch while the little eunuch is there listening to them discuss this. *Two examples from the book A HISTORY OF PRIVATE LIFE FROM PAGAN ROME TO BYZANTIUM are interesting, and apply to this case somewhat. One of the more high profile eunuchs of the time, John the Orphanotropus, was a very sly eunuch official who succeeded in putting not only a brother but later a nephew on the imperial throne of Byzantium. The Empress Zoe, in fact, knocked off her first husband and married John’s brother who became Michael IV. She also adopted John’s other nephew, who later became Michael V. John the eunuch had several siblings, but it is an interesting sidelight that there appears to be some avarice between he and Zoe and one wonders when John was castrated. It is also interesting to note that John was the firstborn son – yet he was still castrated. I have not yet found a source on John’s castration, as to time or reason. I can only assume it was a political ploy and a career choice made by his family. If anyone knows, please email me. *Another example is of Nicephorus of Melitus, who in the 9th century was a child while Romanus I was in office. Nicephorus later became a high ranking church official, thanks to his mother’s attention to his early education and choice of career FOR him. PRIVATE LIFE states that his mother dressed him in unusually long shirts while he was a baby and later accompanied him to school to see to his well-being. It is not stated at what time Nicephorus was castrated, only that it took place “at an early age for the sake of his career.” This also ties in with the aforementioned young eunuch and his uncle, upon whose conversation we are expanding here. Technically, the laws forbid castration except for medical reasons, but this does not seem to have slowed the practice much, if any. In keeping with the train of thought as to purity, castration taking place well before the onset of puberty is most likely. PRIVATE LIFE also mentions, however, that Nicephorus went to live with relatives/friends in the city before his mother could also make the trip. So the boy had a bit of time away from her. It is probably safe to assume that the boy was already a eunuch when he arrived in the city. 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. *Here we get a reference to what would soon run amok in Italy – castrated singers. Obviously opera of the time and theatre was considered as we might view an NC-17 rated movie nowadays. 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 … *Seems like a nice fellow – of course he doesn’t have the testosterone running through his system either. He probably also felt that his little nephew needed to hear more. 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? *So what the eunuch is saying here is that if you don’t plan on children, why keep the equipment for making them ? There are also several Biblical eunuchs, Daniel being the foremost to come to mind; however, there is some argument as to whether Daniel and his friends were actually made into eunuchs or simply cared for BY the eunuchs. In his book SEXY ORIGINS & INTIMATE THINGS, Charles Panatti tends to believe from his research that Daniel & Co. were indeed nullo’d eunuchs. So if Daniel and Co. were indeed eunuchs and God didn’t like eunuchs, then why would he have given Daniel such insight AND saved his 3 friends from the furnace ? Therefore it completely follows that it is not necessary to blame a castrated man for his condition. *It might or might not have been his own idea. As we read in PRIVATE LIFE, many a boy or young man had no choice. His family made it for him. Career changes were uncommon, but not unheard of. Take for example the case of Simeon the New Theologian as he came to be known. This boy, Nicetas, started off coming from a good prov- incial family, who had him castrated young and planned on him having a career in politics. Nicetas (another of those common names), at some time in adolescence, renounced this choice of career and was taken in by the monk Simeon the Studion. The latter took the young eunuch in, raised him to be a monk instead, and in doing so made sure that Nicetas became one of the paramount figures of Byzantine mysticism. 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 the Moseic laws 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 dead word (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 in terms of abundant fertility. Given the way I have presented my case, I think you would agree with me. *Our conversational eunuch seems to agree with Panatti and myself. 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 who had 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. *This is an interesting sidelight. One “urban legend” of the Era is of a man named Metrios, who had no sons and was finally rewarded by God late in life with a son. The first thing Metrios did was have the boy castrated and schooled at Court so that he might rise to high office, which he later did. So were both father and son rewarded. 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 had himself castrated as an adult.) *This is a bit confusing. I think the eunuch here is driving at the fact that it is ok to “flame” a grown eunuch, but leave the little ones alone in the matter ? 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. *This takes us back as to if John the Orphanotropus DID or didn’t have a fling(s) with Zoe before he got her married to his younger brother. Yes, his YOUNGER brother; John was a firstborn son, yet still a eunuch. They have not used their members in accordance with the will of the Creator and not considered ejaculation the object 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. *Sounds like this eunuch knew of some who did indeed still have the drive/ability to have sex with women and isn’t in high opinion of this. Of course, he’s working his way up the clerical scale too. 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? *Nicephorus’ mother obviously was of this school of thought. Not only the parents/family, but teachers and religious leaders as well often recommended apt pupils for castration and even helped to arrange it. Good report cards = castration ? Keep those grades up. 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 grows out 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. *One example of sainthood here is Ignatius, who started his life as the crown prince of Byzantium. His father was Michael I, who was deposed by Leo the Armenian. Leo had Nicetas, the Prince (his name was changed later) castrated and incarcerated at a monastery. Nicetas, later known as Ignatius, was 13-14 at the time. The laws said that anyone mutilated in any way could not serve as Emporer. This removed the possibility that the boy could come back later and lay claim to his father’s throne. So Leo had the Prince cut, sent away, his name changed to Ignatius by the monks, and the boy became a prominent church figure who very well could have altered the course of the Empire in his later life. Talk about shooting your own foot off. Next, so that the number of eunuchs (and here he may be using the term simply to mean celibate men - it is often used that way, especially in early Byzantium) 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 to today'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 of the 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 the numbers 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. *Perhaps there were those with a ‘castration racket’ going on ? They stood to lose too much, and eunuchs were in demand ? 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 stupid in her eyes), and he even told Narses (his famous eunuch general) that he (Narses) could not be blessed. *This is one hell of a way to say thanks to someone like Narses after all he did for the empire, having started life as a eunuch slave-boy who worked his way up the hard way. 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 to catch wasps and hornets and moths. It seems to me also that that law 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 the Justinian Code) It was a way to slay many whom had already been castrated. 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. *There were a LOT of eunuchs in this Era. Abolishing eunuchism on paper was one thing; in real life it was quite another as our eunuch observes. Even the Emporer Romanus I Lekapenos overlooked such. His very FIRST son was born of his favorite concubine. As soon as the little boy was old enough, Romanus – no doubt a doting father – had the young fellow castrated so that he could not, by law, try and take the throne in later life. The boy was named Basil, one of many Basils of the era. Although forcibily castrated as a boy, Basil went on to have a stunning political/military career and helped to eventually put a nephew on the throne and another in high office. I will not accept your justification that castration is a sin, especially since, from the moment he is made a eunuch, he is useful 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.) *Wouldn’t you like to hear the excuses of some of those parents who happily put their young sons under the knife, with reasons no better than ‘it will be for his own good’ or ‘it’s for his future career’ ? 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 for their stupidity) would do, making a joke of legislation and devising a trick for us. (That is, the "for the patients own good” argument). *Try and make this one stick for a minor boy with intelligence, looks, and the right parents / social contacts. 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 of this 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 believe the 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. *In other words, they’ve been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, so to say. The only barbarian eunuchs were the black eunuchs, who were imported on the belief that no white Byzantine woman would WANT to have sex with them AND that they were more hardy and could withstand the nullification surgery better than whites. They were also believed to be stronger and more intimidating. 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. *As with anything, there are good and bad ones in every group. No doubt some of the eunuchs were bitter about having been castrated. It is not unreasonable to believe that now and then there would be a boy who was forced into being a eunuch – or perhaps an older teen or young man castrated by force / punishment – who would turn evil and seek revenge. It is hard to imagine what it would be like, if you did NOT want to be castrated, no matter what you age, and you were. If sex was out, and you could have no sons ( a VERY important thing in this Era, remember ) then you might certainly turn to the acquisition of wealth and power at ANY cost. 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) … 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 the church, I mean those in the church in Constantinople, those in different monasteries who avoid the flesh and blood, those in other churches, those who are an ornament to archbishoprics or the priesthood? *There were certainly enough of these. Remember Origen ? His ideas were still going very strongly at this time. Eunuchs even had their OWN convents ( term is a slam ? ) in the monasteries, totally separate from the nuns and whole men who were priests. Alexis I Commenenus even rewarded the admiral Stephanos and his three ‘boys’ – for brilliant military service – to retire to a monastery and “quit the world” as it was called. Stephanos was a eunuch, as were his 3 “boys.” 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 many of 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. *Once again, the popularity of the priesthood and the opinion on music / entertainment. The pages which mention Nicephorus of Melitus and his well-planning mother also mentions the mother of Nicephorus of Medicion – Nicephorus seems to be as common a name as “Jack” is nowadays. Nic. Of Medicion’s mother is commended for raising her 3 sons in a very pious manner, keeping them away from such things that little boys delight in – such as races at the Hippodrome, the theatre, etc. Although PRIVATE LIFE does not mention which of the 3 boys were eunuchs, it is a safe bet that Nicephorus was. It also goes on to say that, “is is common to say that such a child behaves like an old man and shows no interest in childhood diversions, as though this were some sort of miracle.” Well, if one is raised in such a manner, castrated early, brought up on ‘hell fire and damnation,’ this IS the obvious result. 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. *It only took a few outstanding high profile eunuchs like John the Orphanotropus to ruin it for the rest of them, though. From this list, it appears that there was, despite the laws, a great many castrations still taking place. 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? *This pretty much tells us that our eunuch was very probably castrated at a young age and raised in a very pious manner. In following with custom, it is not surprising that he had arranged the castration of his young nephew and was responsible for the young eunuch’s upbringing and professional instruction here. "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. *Going back to Nicephorus of Melitus, eventually bishop and eunuch, we find an intersting aside in PRIVATE LIFE on this belief : “Male sexual desire also received attention from the doctors because of the need to suppress it for ascetic purposes. This obstacle in the way of any man seeking the holy life had always been a theme of biography. Our Nicephorus developed this theme in order to justify the presence in one particular biography of a person who had been castrated in his youth. The man’s purity was such that he never allowed himself to be touched or even looked at by members of his own family … “ The writer goes on to discuss carnal lusts and overcoming them, and how hard it is. In closing, he states that, “I hope that readers will not protest that removal of the testicles was responsible for this remarkable fortitude, for as psychologists are well aware, the drive for carnal union is stronger and fiercer in [eunuchs] than in those whose bodies are un- maimed and intact.” Niceophorus went on to expand this theme, no doubt, since he was castrated very young, and it must have been something that struck great interest with him. He and this young man in the biography appear to have much in common. 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. *One can only wonder about the sort of bond that this eunuch shared with his nephew, and the kind of hurt the boy must have felt at some of the accusations levelled at eunuchs in general which his uncle is fending off. It is, also, why Theophylaktos wrote this essay to defend his brother, a eunuch. We cannot know the kind of love they must have had for one another. Throughout history, however, there seem to always be two schools of thought on eunuchs. Even today, after some mainstream press, try and start a conversation like this one and see what happens.