The Functional Role of Eunuchs in Late Imperial Roman Courts: With Reference to Norbert Elias

Adam Renner MA Ancient History Newcastle University A9921699 Approaches to Ancient History Research II Module CAH8010 Prof. Tony Spawforth Word Count: 2,808

A9921699 1

Norbert Elias reconceptualised for historians the structure, function, and purpose of courts following his study of Louis XIV and the nobles at Versailles. Taking his approach and methodology, scholars discussing the period of Late Antiquity can better understand the organization and principles of the imperial court. Though Elias, in The Court Society, is specifically concerned with the dialectic between nobility and the absolutist monarch, his approach can be appropriated to better understand other facets of court life during other times. In this study, the methods of Elias will be utilized in order to ascertain a more complete picture of the relation between eunuchs and the emperor during the Later Empire. To that end, the origin of eunuchs in political situations will first be addressed, followed by a description of their various functions at the court. The roles the eunuchs fill have been noted, generally with derision, by several primary sources. Finally, using Elias work as a lens, a picture of eunuchs and emperors will be put forward and analyzed. There are several key similarities between French court in the 17th century and the Roman court in the 4th-6th centuries. It should become evident that eunuchs are comparable to the nobility at Versailles, namely in their rhetoric, court titles, functions, impetus for influence, procurement of honour and wealth, and the relationship between them and the absolutist ruler they served. The origin of the eunuch is hinted at in several Latin and Greek sources, generally with statements of contempt. Originally, eunuchs were the possession and status symbols of Eastern rulers. They were typically (and in an ill-informed manner) associated solely with guarding harems of concubines. The Greeks associated the eunuchs with the East, and seem to have only procured eunuchs following the conquests of Alexander.1 Romans attributed eunuchs to the Persians, though Ammianus attributed their original creation with the Assyrians.2 The eunuchs were used in Greece when Alexander maintained a custom of eunuch throne attendants, and later found their way to Rome in various forms, such as
1 2

Tougher (2008), p. 9. Amm. Marc., 14.6.7.

A9921699 2

religious cults or imported slaves.3 What is noticeable is the likely common nature of eunuchs in Rome; there are at least ten separate ways to refer to a eunuch in the Latin.4 During the Republic, and continuing onwards into the early Principate, eunuchs were not commonly found in any political or court structure. At this time, should eunuchs be present, they were either religious zealots under the cult of Cybele, or household attendants and tutors for wealthier Romans. Even though Domitian himself had a eunuch cupbearer, there was no eunuch presence in the Roman political sphere during this era. In fact, he almost seemed to dislike the idea of a Roman eunuch to such an extent that he outlawed castration of Romans.5 Likewise, under Hadrian both the castrator and castrated were punished, unless it was self-emasculation for religious purposes.6 During the reforms under Diocletian, however, the eunuch presence at the court grew rapidly and continued well into the 12th century for the Byzantine courts.7 It is at this time that an increase in foreign, persuasive, and generally despised eunuchs held great influence at the Roman court. Two points should be noted here that will be discussed later: first, though eunuchs were discussed with scorn, they were both expensive and seen as a status symbol; secondly, as castrated (barbarian) men, they were commonly referred to by the pronoun she, which may be reflected in the discussions concerning the negative view on their political sway.8 However, it does not easily explain the relation between the cost of eunuchs and the way they were perceived as a status symbol. The prices given in Plinys Natural Histories seem to show that those who were eunuchs were much more expensive than those who were simply regular slaves. There were distinct positions in which eunuchs should fill, and these did not include the typical slave labour (e.g. mining, manufacturing, etc.) as that was considered an unfit role for the eunuch to have;
3 4

Arr. Anab., 7.24.1-3. Scholz (2001), p. 112. 5 Amm. Marc., 18.4.5. 6 Caner (1997), p. 398. 7 Tougher (2008), p. 11. 8 Scholz (2001), pp. 100ff; cf. Cat. Carm. 63.1-49. 9 Scholz (2001), p. 114.

A9921699 3

rather, they were to be an aesthetic pleasure. Scholz offers a view that is rather like Gibbons: The values reflected in [Plinys] account reveal certain trends in imperial Rome, the tendency towards excess...which permeated society, particularly the imperial court.9 One need only read of the price of the Praetorian prefect Sejanus eunuch, when sold, to infer the wealth, excess, and prestige associated with these slaves: an outstanding 50 million sesterces for one eunuch!10 As mentioned above, there were associations of status that accompanied eunuchs, and perhaps for good reasons. Eunuchs were generally young when acquired, and as such they typically became very close to and uniquely dependent on their masters (due to being scorned by society at large). Also, they tended to have (or acquire) a number of different disciplines which aided their advancement in the court. Aside from simply being status icons, this may be a further reason as to why the emperor would have wanted so many in his court; they were typically Greek educated as a veritable jack-of-all-trades.11 Josephus mentions that even Jews would have their children taught by emasculated slaves due to their wide breadth of knowledge.12 When combining the intellectual abilities, dependency on the master, and viewing eunuchs as status icons, one can begin to understand why Diocletian would have wanted to have his court filled with eunuchs. It is only after Diocletian, as MacMullen accurately remarks, that eunuchs gradually assumed prominence over free-born Romans in the imperial household and court.13 It is at this stage in the later empire that one can also attribute connotations of a distinct separation of emperor and subjects with eunuch intermediaries, as well as the use of eunuchs to balance out power struggles between the emperor and notable patricians.14
9

Scholz (2001), p. 114. Plin., HN, 7.39. 11 Scholz (2001), p. 115. 12 Joseph, Vit., 429. 13 MacMullen (1987), p. 380. 14 Scholz (2001), p. 122.
10

A9921699 4

Following the reforms of Diocletian, eunuchs began to be extremely common in the court structure. They were used as common slaves, but also began to hold positions of special privilege and bureaucratic power. In particular, the eunuchs began to hold two key roles, labelled the chamberlain (cubicularii) and the grand chamberlain (praepositus sacri cubiculi).15 This shift in the importance of eunuchs is clearly evident in Constantius IIs reign, and the response (of emptying the court of eunuchs) by his successor Julian in 361:16 [Julian] next turned his attention to the state of the imperial court... eunuchs more in number than flies around the flocks in spring.17 Many of the roles they began to take were the highest roles individuals could fill, especially the position of grand chamberlain. The term literally means the one who lies beside or keeps watch beside.18 These offices could be held by eunuchs alone, not their male (bearded) counterparts. Through these positions, most notably the position of the grand chamberlain, the eunuchs began to exercise a strong influence in court politics. For instance, after the emperor began to be removed from mere mortals by grand court ceremonies and the belief that he was sacred, the grand chamberlain became the sole intermediary position between the two sides; those who wanted to access the emperor, or indeed influence the emperor, had to go through the grand chamberlain first (usually by paying a bribe of some kind).19 These positions of such authority can perhaps aid in explaining, amongst other reasons, why contemporaries held such contempt for eunuchs. One should recall the passage of Catullus mentioned above that states eunuchs were seen as women instead of men; if this is indeed the case, then it seems Romans would have generally been upset to have women in a court, particularly in positions of power. For women to have such political influence is

15 16

Tougher, (2008), p. 36; cf. Hopkins (1978), pp. 182, 184, 189. Tougher (1997), pp. 169-170. 17 Lib. Orat., 18.130. 18 Tougher (1997), p. 171. 19 Hopkins (1978), pp. 177, 188.

A9921699 5

the scorn of the patriarchal Romans. Likewise, as one must remember, the eunuchs tended on the whole to be foreigners (barbarians). Again, there is a distinct reasons as to why the Romans would dislike barbarians in their political sphere, as Gibbon will later describe in vehement detail.20 Finally, eunuchs tended again to be slaves, utilized in both aristocratic Roman households, and the imperial household and court. Though this final status of servus did not apply to all eunuchs, the connotation between eunuch and slave seem firmly engraved in the Roman mind. Having constructed a brief narrative on the formation, function, and common conception of the eunuch, one can now apply Elias theory to the topic. First, it should be noted that for Elias, the absolutist monarch, or emperor, was not the sole authority as some would believe, but rather: The power of the individual ruler was by no means so unrestricted or absolute... [The ruler] could preserve his power only by a carefully calculated strategy by the peculiar structure of court society.21 Elias, of course, was referring to the dynamic power and prestige plays by the aristocrats and the king at Versailles. In relations to Rome, a parallel situation seems to exist between the emperor and the eunuchs. As mentioned above, the eunuchs filled valuable and influential positions at the court. They were appointed to these positions much the same way that Louis XIV would appoint nobles to various positions as a sign of prestige. Interestingly enough, it seems that some of the positions became devalued over time, and new positions were created in the imperial bureaucracy to substitute for the prestige inflation rate, as it were.22 At first, these positions at the later Roman court were simply an extension of the imperial household and filled by patricians, with regular slaves doing the menial tasks. However, this developed

20 21

Gibbon (1781), 2.19. Elias (1983), p. 3. 22 Hopkins (1978), p. 174.

A9921699 6

and transformed into a structure in which the eunuchs led the court and controlled the balance between the emperor and his subjects.23 In the early Principate, such eunuch positions did not exist; in fact, there are very few eunuchs in the chamberlain position at this time, though later under the Dominate it becomes normal to use emasculated men for the role.24 However, it seems that the utilization of eunuchs was another way to increase the ceremonial and surreal aspect of the emperors court, as well as create a power struggle underneath the emperor that would ensure the security (in theory) of his position. To add to the eunuchs strength even more, they even achieved a rank (early 5th century) in the political hierarchy that was equitable to that of a praetorian and city prefect.25 With such power (and possible influence as Ammianus notes26), eunuchs could be derided for many things; this is exactly the premise that Hopkins puts forward, stating that the eunuchs would both be utilized by the emperor to fulfil tasks, and also to be a buffer for any kind of criticism that emerged from below.27 Furthermore, there was an honour system that could be understood throughout the court and political sphere in Rome. It was structured to such an extent that everyone understood their place in the hierarchy and would continuously vie for increased power and prestige, similar to Versailles. In both models, the sovereignty of the ruler is preserved due to the power struggles and intrigue that occurred below him.28 However, it does not deny interdependence between the two spheres: the emperor needed the eunuchs just as much, if not more, than they needed him. This is the point of contention that writers such as Libanius and Ammianus have;

23 24

Hopkins (1978), p. 182. Millar (1977), pp. 74-80; cf. SHA, Gordiani III, 23.7. 25 Tougher (2001), p. 41. 26 Amm. Marc. 18.4.3-6. 27 Hopkins (1978), pp. 173-174. 28 Hopkins (1978), p. 185.

A9921699 7

eunuchs (that is to say foreign, effeminate slaves) should not exercise any level of influence over the emperor and his decisions, but rather be concerned with menial duties.29 Having given an overview of the eunuchs in the late Roman court structure, there are several parallels that can immediately be drawn from Elias work. First, the eunuchs acted in an interdependent way with the emperor: he utilized them for bureaucratic tasks, and also to absorb criticism, while they used him for prestige, wealth, and status. Secondly, the abundance of positions at court...for members of families of the nobility30 is comparable to the positions reserved for eunuchs specifically at court. The roles of grand chamberlain, chamberlain, treasurer, and several other titles, are restricted to eunuchs.31 Furthermore, in regards to the titles themselves, one can see a similarity between the grandiose language utilized at both Rome/Constantinople and Versailles. Finally, both the nobles of Louis XIV and the eunuchs of the emperor were similar in the sense that they could not rebel against their absolutist ruler. The nobles were entrenched with court intrigue, where one persons desire for status kept others vigilant.32 The eunuchs, on the other hand, rarely vied for power and prestige amongst themselves, but held intrigues and bribes against aristocrats, bishops, and governors.33 For both the nobles of France and the eunuchs of Rome, there was little hope of breaking out of the hierarchy underneath the emperor: for nobles to leave the court of Versailles was to lose privilege, status, and pride; for eunuchs, to leave the emperor was to enter a society hostile to their sex and ethnicity or join a religious monastic order.34 In both cases, the ruler had little to fear from these groups while the status quo of the hierarchical structure was maintained.

29 30

Lib. Orat., 18.150. Elias (1983), p. 73. 31 Hopkins (1978), p. 174. 32 Elias (1983), p. 88. 33 Hopkins (1978), p. 188. 34 Elias (1983), p. 88.

A9921699 8

Though there are indeed multiple similarities, one should note the key differences. Nobles at Versailles were respected, not derided, by fellow Frenchmen. Eunuchs, on the other hand, are constantly the object of ridicule and derision by Romans.35 Nobles in France vied for positions of influence and prestige, but needed to maintain a certain lifestyle in order to do this. Their rank and status in the court at Versailles depends on the ability to make the cost of maintaining ones household and ones expenditure match ones social rank, the status one possesses or aspires to.36 In contrast, the eunuchs did not have such a ranking structure in which increased consumption and excess necessitated an increase in social favour or prestige. Furthermore, the nobles at Versailles were carefully manoeuvred by Louis XIV in order to prevent power groups from emerging, and to prevent one family of nobles from becoming too powerful for too long. This delicate balance needed to be maintained in order for the structure at Versailles to work, and it is for this very reason that the court collapsed under Louis XVI.37 The Roman court did not have this issue with eunuchs: The corps of eunuch chamberlains could never be assimilated into the aristocracy. Their origin as slaves and barbarians, their physical deformity, and the emotions it aroused, their easy recognisability, were all against it. They were completely dependent on the emperor and had no natural allies in society, no other retreat than his protection.38 Though the eunuchs could always require bribes from those who wished to see the emperor, and could indeed use their position of intermediary against the emperor (as Maximus was concerned with), the risk tended to outweigh the benefit of serving him dutifully.39 This isolation and dependence on the emperor, coupled with the characteristic traits of education and trustworthiness, made the eunuchs seem to be the best choice for the court bureaucrats.40 As Scholz mentions, the only rank eunuchs could not achieve was that of emperor, so for an

35 36

Scholz (2001), p. 114. Elias (1983), p. 67. 37 Wick (1980), p. 269. 38 Hopkins (1978), p. 189; cf. Tougher (1997), p. 170. 39 Zos. New History, 4.37. 40 Hopkins (1978), pp. 187, 196.

A9921699 9

emperor to have a court full of eunuchs would have seemed to be safer than a court of patrician, senator, and equestrian ranked citizen.41 This wasnt entirely the case at Versailles; nobles constantly vied for prestige, and to let one group take hold for too long was a concern of the king. Elias theory of court structure is a helpful tool of historiography when attempting to understand the late Roman court structure as a whole. In reference to specific parts of this court structure, such as eunuchs, it is not so simply to make direct comparisons to each model. However, it seems evident that, like Versailles nobles, eunuchs played a critical role in maintaining the appearance and perception of a centralized court structure with an absolutist ruler. While the French aristocrats constantly struggled for prestige and influence amongst themselves, eunuchs remained content to simply increase their wealth and influence for their own status, without regards to others in the structure. In the French courts, the nobility were French men and women who earned their positions typically through nepotism or monarchical appointments.42 In the Roman structure, the eunuchs had no prerogative to procure positions for parental purposes, but rather, could be focused solely on the emperors wishes, and their own wealth (though not in a hedonistic sense). Furthermore, the emperor on several occasions dismissed eunuchs from the court due to accounts of influence, such as during Severus Alexanders reign.43 This same level of dismissal could not have been accomplished at Versailles. Therefore, it seems one can state that, while using Elias model, eunuchs can be understood better in relation to the emperor and imperial court structure, they are not completely concomitant in role and nature to the aristocrats at Versailles. Nevertheless, the views and insights from Elias historiography can help to illustrate the comparisons and contrasts between the slaves of Rome and the nobles of France.

41 42

Scholz (2001), p. ix. Wick (1980), p. 275. 43 SHA, Severus Alexander, 23.3-8.

A9921699 10

Bibliography Ammianus Marcellinus. John Rolfe, trans. History Vol. I, Loeb ed., 1963 Ammianus Marcellinus. John Rolfe, trans. History Vol. II, Loeb ed., 1972 Arrian. Anabasis. P.A. Brunt, trans. Loeb ed., 1976. Brown, Peter. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. Caner, Daniel. The Practice and Prohibition of Self-Castration in Early Christianity. Vigiliae Christianae. Vol. 51, No. 4, 1997. pp. 396-415. Catullus, Carmina, in Catullus, Tibullus and Pervigilium Veneri. Loeb ed. F. W. Cornish, trans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. Elias, Norbert. The Court Society. Oxford Press. 1983. Gibbon, Edward. David Womersley, ed. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1. London: Allen Lee, 1994 ed. Hopkins, Keith. Conquerors and Slaves. Cambridge, 1978. Josephus Flavius. H. Thackeray trans. Vita, in The Life; Against Apion, Vol. 1. Harvard University Press, 1956. Kuefler, Mathew. The Manly Eunuch. University of Chicago, 2001. Libanius, A.F. Norman, trans. Selected Works Vol. I, Loeb ed., 1969. MacMullen, Ramsay. Late Roman Slavery. Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1987. pp. 359-382. Millar, Fergus. The Emperor in the Roman World. London: Duckworth, 1977. Murison, Charles. "Cassius Dio on Nervan Legistlastion (68.2.4): Nieces and Eunuchs". Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschicte, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2004. pp. 343-355. Pliny. Naturalis Historia, vol. II. Loeb ed. H. Rackman trans. London: W. Heinemann, Ltd., 1938. Scholz, Piotr O. Eunuchs and Castrati: A Cultural History. Princeton: Marcus Wiener Publishers, 2001. Magie, David, trans. Scriptores Historiae Augustae Vol. II, Loeb ed., 1924 Stevenson, Walter. The Rise of Eunuchs in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Journal of the History of Sexuality. Vol. 5, No. 4, 1995. pp. 495-511. Tougher, Shaun. The Eunuch in Byzantine History and Society. London: Taylor and Francis, 2008.

A9921699 11

Tougher, Shaun. Byzantine Eunuchs: An Overview. In Liz James, ed. Women, Men, and Eunuchs. New York: Routledge, 1997. Wick, Daniel. The Court Nobility and the French Revolution: The Example of the Society of Thirty. Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1980. pp. 263-284. Zosimus. New History. Ronald Ridley, trans. Sydney: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1982.