Historical account, Byzantine era, from a bishop to his brother who was a cleric and eunuch at the time. Sorta dry reading that I intend to expand on later.
A - H I - P Q - Z Newest Files
Theophylaktos of Ohrid
The Defence of Eunuchs
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 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 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. 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. Likewise
one 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 the
Moseic 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 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.
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. 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.) 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 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. 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 evily established. Now, indeed, they say that if
there was no heretical teaching which supported that belief we
would 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 land knowledge. But
I 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, even
as 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 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.) 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) 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.
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 of
the 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 those
who 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 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? 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. 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 judgement of God if you condemn the
institution because of ten lewd or fornicating individuals and
don't allow us to change your opinions because of the thousands
of 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 later
there 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' 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 tougherthan 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 in
the 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 that
it is necessary to remove such things from the churches, we are
not 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 against
whom the Fathers have said so much, but which cannot compare to
what 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, we
shouldn't say that eunuchs today are evil because long ago they
shielded the Arians. (the Arian heretics) Therefore why must I
beat 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 of
eunuchs is their great gravity (serious demeanor, presence) and
their 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 up
for 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.