One of my favorite topics
So, in one of limyaael's fantasy rants, eunuchs came up. And, well, you know me and eunuchs. And some people asked for more information. And if there's one topic I can go on and on about, it's eunuchs. Oh, and ancient sexuality is in there, too.
So...
First off, I'd like to say that there is a tendency to believe that the way our culture conceives of sexuality is "the way it is". That is to say, that we feel that our way of thinking is the natural way and therefore the only way. This is not so, as becomes obvious when one looks at different cultures and different eras.
In modern, western society, we define sexuality by object desired. If a person expresses desire for persons the same sex, we label them homosexual; if a person expresses desire for persons of the opposite sex, we label them heterosexual. Someone who expresses desire for both is labeled bisexual. This is the paradigm we all know and live in. (Note, however, that it starts to break down when you start questioning the definitions of "sex" and "gender". People who are intersexed or transsexual don't fit well into the paradigm, since they challenge the ideas of "same" and "opposite".)
In contrast, sexuality as the ancient Greeks and Romans understood it was defined by sexual action. In other words, sexuality was defined on whether one was the penetrating partner or the penetrated. Free, adult, male citizens were expected to be the penetrators. Everyone else (women, slaves of both sexes, etc.) was potentially available for penetration.
So a statement like "The Greeks were totally OK with homosexuality" (a statement I've come across many times) is a false one. First, because the very term "homosexuality" imposes a concept that simply didn't exist in that culture, and second, because although certain types of homoerotic activity was culturally sanctioned (i.e. pederasty in 5th cen. Athens), the role of the penetrated was associated with those who were socially inferior (by age or by class or whatever). A man could penetrate another man without sigma, but an adult man who chose to be penetrated was in for trouble. (And the idea of the penetrated partner being the "inferior" or "the woman" is one that seems to insidiously persist up to this day, much to my disquiet.)
So, on to the Romans. The Romans, like the Greeks, defined sexuality by sexual action. And they were obsessed with the idea of the inviolate male body. That is to say, for a male body to retain its masculinity, it must remain unpenetrated. The idea of a man, a free Roman citizen male, choosing to be sexually penetrated was horrific to the Roman mind. And the Romans had a term for such a man. That term was cinaedus (The word was borrowed from the Greeks, but the concept became a bit of an obsession to the Romans.)
Cinaedus (cinaedi in the plural) is NOT a Roman word meaning "homosexual". This is important, so I'll say it again. A cinaedus is not a homosexual. A cinaedus is a man who enjoys being penetrated, but a cinaedus could also be easily imagined by the Romans as conducting affairs with other men's wives and pleasuring women. A cinaedus is a man who is not manly. A "girly-man" as Governor Schwarzenegger might say. A penchant for penetration is part of his overall unmanliness. So a real Roman manly man can engage in sexual acts with other men-but only if he's the one penetrating. If he is being penetrated, he's a cinaedus.
Now, on to my favorite part. Eunuchs.
Roman eunuchs (for the purposes of this essay) come in two categories. There are eunuch priests, who castrated themselves at some point after puberty. And there are eunuch slaves (or former slaves) who were forcibly castrated at some point before puberty.
Eunuch priests were closely associated with the concept of the cinaedus. Eunuchs priests were often called cinaedi, and cinaedi were often compared to eunuch priests. This implies that eunuch priests were conceptualized as male. But, like the cinaedi, they were men who rejected their masculinity. (On an interesting side note, self-control, including sexual self-control, was considered a manly virtue. Therefore, cinaedi, naturally, were thought to have none. And since eunuch priest were like cinaedi, you get this stereotype of the sex-crazed eunuch, which to us is rather incomprehensible).
Eunuch slaves, however, are never called cinaedi. Not once in all of the extant classical literature. Eunuch slaves were certainly written as being (and enjoying being) sexually penetrated, and they were certainly depicted as girly. But they are never cinaedi. From this we (or rather, I, since it was part of my thesis) can infer that eunuch slaves were not thought of as male. They were some other sex. A third sex. They never had a male identity to reject and therefore can not be cinaedi.
Eunuchs slaves, therefore, were ambiguous in their sex and gender. And ambiguous, in almost any culture, equals potentially threatening. Eunuchs are attributed with pretty much every negative quality you can think of. They're greedy, scheming, ugly, cowardly....the list goes on and on. Also, things that are ambiguous often get attributed with preternatural or magical qualities. Thus, it should come as no surprise to us that eunuch slaves were often thought to possess preternatural powers.
To end on a fantasy note (since this did, after all, come from a limyaael fantasy rant), I find it interesting that, with only one exception, eunuchs in fantasy fall under one of two basic stereotypes. Either they are harem attendants (usually nameless, and just thrown in as part of the standard harem decoration or to thwart the escape of the heroine trapped in the harem), or they are scheming court eunuchs that could have stepped out of the pages of Ammianus Marcellinus, with all the same negative stereotypes that existed 1,500 years ago regarding the Roman and early Byzantine court eunuchs. The one exception: The Unsullied from George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. So even if there were no other reason to admire that series, I would love him for going past the stereotypes and creating an elite force of warrior eunuchs.
So please, if you are writing a fantasy and you have a eunuch character, rethink the stereotypes. Eunuchs are people too.
The End.
I feel like this is a paltry summary of a huge topic. (I mean, I could go on for chapters about eunuchs alone!) For more info on ancient sexuality I recommend Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture by Marilyn Skinner. Because she was my thesis advisor. Because it's very newly published and was written to be an undergraduate textbook, so it's up to date and comprehensible. Most of the eunuch info came from my thesis. There does not exist a layman's text on Classical Eunuchs. (Though in my opinion there should.)
Oh, and if I made any errors, feel free to correct me. I've read much more on Roman sexuality than Greek (and as someone in the original post mentioned, Greek sexuality can vary depending on time and place).
So...
First off, I'd like to say that there is a tendency to believe that the way our culture conceives of sexuality is "the way it is". That is to say, that we feel that our way of thinking is the natural way and therefore the only way. This is not so, as becomes obvious when one looks at different cultures and different eras.
In modern, western society, we define sexuality by object desired. If a person expresses desire for persons the same sex, we label them homosexual; if a person expresses desire for persons of the opposite sex, we label them heterosexual. Someone who expresses desire for both is labeled bisexual. This is the paradigm we all know and live in. (Note, however, that it starts to break down when you start questioning the definitions of "sex" and "gender". People who are intersexed or transsexual don't fit well into the paradigm, since they challenge the ideas of "same" and "opposite".)
In contrast, sexuality as the ancient Greeks and Romans understood it was defined by sexual action. In other words, sexuality was defined on whether one was the penetrating partner or the penetrated. Free, adult, male citizens were expected to be the penetrators. Everyone else (women, slaves of both sexes, etc.) was potentially available for penetration.
So a statement like "The Greeks were totally OK with homosexuality" (a statement I've come across many times) is a false one. First, because the very term "homosexuality" imposes a concept that simply didn't exist in that culture, and second, because although certain types of homoerotic activity was culturally sanctioned (i.e. pederasty in 5th cen. Athens), the role of the penetrated was associated with those who were socially inferior (by age or by class or whatever). A man could penetrate another man without sigma, but an adult man who chose to be penetrated was in for trouble. (And the idea of the penetrated partner being the "inferior" or "the woman" is one that seems to insidiously persist up to this day, much to my disquiet.)
So, on to the Romans. The Romans, like the Greeks, defined sexuality by sexual action. And they were obsessed with the idea of the inviolate male body. That is to say, for a male body to retain its masculinity, it must remain unpenetrated. The idea of a man, a free Roman citizen male, choosing to be sexually penetrated was horrific to the Roman mind. And the Romans had a term for such a man. That term was cinaedus (The word was borrowed from the Greeks, but the concept became a bit of an obsession to the Romans.)
Cinaedus (cinaedi in the plural) is NOT a Roman word meaning "homosexual". This is important, so I'll say it again. A cinaedus is not a homosexual. A cinaedus is a man who enjoys being penetrated, but a cinaedus could also be easily imagined by the Romans as conducting affairs with other men's wives and pleasuring women. A cinaedus is a man who is not manly. A "girly-man" as Governor Schwarzenegger might say. A penchant for penetration is part of his overall unmanliness. So a real Roman manly man can engage in sexual acts with other men-but only if he's the one penetrating. If he is being penetrated, he's a cinaedus.
Now, on to my favorite part. Eunuchs.
Roman eunuchs (for the purposes of this essay) come in two categories. There are eunuch priests, who castrated themselves at some point after puberty. And there are eunuch slaves (or former slaves) who were forcibly castrated at some point before puberty.
Eunuch priests were closely associated with the concept of the cinaedus. Eunuchs priests were often called cinaedi, and cinaedi were often compared to eunuch priests. This implies that eunuch priests were conceptualized as male. But, like the cinaedi, they were men who rejected their masculinity. (On an interesting side note, self-control, including sexual self-control, was considered a manly virtue. Therefore, cinaedi, naturally, were thought to have none. And since eunuch priest were like cinaedi, you get this stereotype of the sex-crazed eunuch, which to us is rather incomprehensible).
Eunuch slaves, however, are never called cinaedi. Not once in all of the extant classical literature. Eunuch slaves were certainly written as being (and enjoying being) sexually penetrated, and they were certainly depicted as girly. But they are never cinaedi. From this we (or rather, I, since it was part of my thesis) can infer that eunuch slaves were not thought of as male. They were some other sex. A third sex. They never had a male identity to reject and therefore can not be cinaedi.
Eunuchs slaves, therefore, were ambiguous in their sex and gender. And ambiguous, in almost any culture, equals potentially threatening. Eunuchs are attributed with pretty much every negative quality you can think of. They're greedy, scheming, ugly, cowardly....the list goes on and on. Also, things that are ambiguous often get attributed with preternatural or magical qualities. Thus, it should come as no surprise to us that eunuch slaves were often thought to possess preternatural powers.
To end on a fantasy note (since this did, after all, come from a limyaael fantasy rant), I find it interesting that, with only one exception, eunuchs in fantasy fall under one of two basic stereotypes. Either they are harem attendants (usually nameless, and just thrown in as part of the standard harem decoration or to thwart the escape of the heroine trapped in the harem), or they are scheming court eunuchs that could have stepped out of the pages of Ammianus Marcellinus, with all the same negative stereotypes that existed 1,500 years ago regarding the Roman and early Byzantine court eunuchs. The one exception: The Unsullied from George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. So even if there were no other reason to admire that series, I would love him for going past the stereotypes and creating an elite force of warrior eunuchs.
So please, if you are writing a fantasy and you have a eunuch character, rethink the stereotypes. Eunuchs are people too.
The End.
I feel like this is a paltry summary of a huge topic. (I mean, I could go on for chapters about eunuchs alone!) For more info on ancient sexuality I recommend Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture by Marilyn Skinner. Because she was my thesis advisor. Because it's very newly published and was written to be an undergraduate textbook, so it's up to date and comprehensible. Most of the eunuch info came from my thesis. There does not exist a layman's text on Classical Eunuchs. (Though in my opinion there should.)
Oh, and if I made any errors, feel free to correct me. I've read much more on Roman sexuality than Greek (and as someone in the original post mentioned, Greek sexuality can vary depending on time and place).