This text is the conference paper version of this work, which is under revision for a journal article format.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

When one thinks of “eunuchs”, one often imagines them as asexual beings, with Varys from Game of
Thrones serving as a primary example. These men's reproductive capabilities and sex lives have been sacrificed
– either by the eunuch, his family, or his owner - in order to rise within a bureaucracy, retain a high singing
voice, or function as guards over other men’s' wives and concubines. Additionally, scholars of Greco-Roman
antiquity most often encounter religious eunuchs whose sexuality has been offered up to a deity; these eunuchs
are also, generally speaking, assumed to be asexual.  If a eunuch displays sexuality, it is a homoerotic,
feminized sexuality such as is seen in Apuleius' Golden Ass where the eunuchs refer to themselves as 'girls' and
direct their desires towards men.  In this case, the secondary sexual characteristics resulting from castration and
the loss of testosterone are interpreted sexually rather than asexually, but the alteration made to those male
bodies results in a person whose sexual desire is to be penetrated by a man; a virtual woman.  In this paper, I
will be discussing a third category of ancient eunuch whose very existence was taboo because of the use for
which he was intended: the masculine, penetrating eunuch. I choose to call such eunuchs “Heterosexualized”
because they are not agents in their own sexuality. Instead, the role of infertile heterosexual sex slave is imposed
upon them; their own sexual orientation and desires seem to be irrelevant.
This heterosexualized eunuch features in Juvenal's sixth satire, a poet of the late first and early second
century CE. Our eunuch appears as part of a longer discussion of the evils of women and is our clearest
reference to this sort of eunuch.  
1) Juvenal Satura 6.366 - 378
sunt quas eunuchi inbelles ac mollia semper
oscula delectent et desperatio barbae
et quod abortiuo non est opus. illa uoluptas
summa tamen, quom iam calida matura iuuenta
inguina traduntur medicis, iam pectine nigro. 370
ergo expectatos ac iussos crescere primum
testiculos, postquam coeperunt esse bilibres,
tonsoris tantum damno rapit Heliodorus.
mangonum pueros uera ac miserabilis urit
debilitas, follisque pudet cicerisque relicti 375
conspicuus longe cunctisque notabilis intrat
balnea nec dubie custodem uitis et horti
prouocat a domina factus spado. dormiat ille
cum domina...

There are those women whom unaggressive eunuchs and perpetually soft
kisses delight and the impossibility of a beard, and the fact that there is
no need for abortifacients. Moreover that pleasure is the highest, when they hand over
loins mature with the heat of youth to the doctors, when only just covered with dark hair. 370
Therefore they wait and order the testicles to grow first,
then after they begin to become two weights,
Heliodorus just steals them away like a barber takes hair.
A true and miserable maiming burns the boys of the slavemonger,
and he is ashamed of his scrotum and of his resulting scar. 375
He is easily spotted from afar and obvious to everyone he enters
the baths, and there is no doubt that he who has been made a spado by his mistress
calls forth the keeper of the vine and garden. Let that man sleep
with the mistress...
This passage sparks a number of questions.  Would it be possible to create a eunuch capable of sustaining an
erection?  If so, how?  And can we find evidence of this sort of eunuch elsewhere, or is this passage meant to be
read as a fabrication of the authorial persona's paranoid misogynistic speaker for comic effect?
If such eunuchs existed, the implications are intriguing because it suggests a sector of the Roman slave
market that catered solely to female buyers.  It is difficult to imagine a Roman man purchasing such a slave for
his female friends and relatives; it is hardly the sort of thing one would give one's mother for Saturnalia.  If such
a market existed, it was almost certainly driven by women's sexual needs and significant buying power.  For this
reason if for no other, it is worth exploring the possibilities of this specialized sector of the slave market.  In
addition, it is useful to be sensitive to the different categories of eunuchs who lived in the Roman empire and
the various functions they served depending on the method used to compromise their genitalia.  Not all eunuchs
are created equal.
We find our best contemporary definitions of the eunuchs of the Roman empire in two rather different
sources; Ulpian, a jurist of the third century CE, and the author of the book of Matthew.  Ulpian's definition in
handout 2 uses spado as a generic term for men with compromised genitalia, then includes a three (or so)
subcategories.  The inclusion of these subcategories indicates that his contemporaries also differentiated among
types of eunuchs and used the methodology of castration to make those distinctions rather than religious
affiliation or the purpose of the castration.  These echo somewhat the categories given by the author of Matthew
in handout 3, though of course the two authors write to make very different points.  Eunuchs both natural and
altered may very well have been relatively common in 1st and 2nd century Rome, and their experiences of
sexuality and agency would be similarly variable.
2) Ulpian c. 170 – 223 CE via the Digest 50.16.128
Ulpianus libro primo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam: Spadonum generalis appellatio est: quo nomine tam hi,
qui natura spadones sunt, item thlibiae thlasiae, sed et si quod aliud genus spadonum est, continentur.

Ulpian in his first book on the Julian and Papian law [says] the category of 'spado' is general: under that
term are included those who are spadones by nature, likewise thlibiae [and/ or] thlasiae, but even if there
is some other kind of spado, they are contained [under the term spado].

3) New Testament at Matthew 19:12

εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες
εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν
τῶν οὐρανῶν ...

There are some who were born eunuchs from their mothers’ wombs, and likewise there are eunuchs who
are made eunuchs by men and there are some eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake
of the kingdom of heaven.

Be that as it may, both authors give us a sense of the taxonomy of eunuchs within the Roman Empire.
Both list as a first category 'natural' eunuchs, presumably men whose genitalia failed to develop normally.
Undescended testicles may have been more common in antiquity since low birthweight, premature delivery, and
nutritional deficiencies are both contributing factors to the condition and would have been common in a
population in which many mothers were giving birth in their teens while beset with anemia.  Absent modern
surgical correction, such men would have formed a noticeable minority.  Indeed, we can count the Sophist
Favorinus among this group, and through his claim of having engaged in sexual activity despite his status as a
eunuch we can also class some of these men among heterosexually active eunuchs.  However, this does not
seem to be the sort of eunuch that Juvenal is primarily interested in.
While the author of Matthew lumps all surgically altered eunuchs under a single class, Ulpian divides
thlibiae and thlasiae from a catch-all “aliud genus spadonum”.  The latter category would include those with
complete genital removal including the penis and scrotum, but also less radical and dangerous operations such
as excision of the testicles.  In order to understand this division, one must understand the difference between
thlibiae/ thlasiae and other methods.
An investigation of ancient eunuchs is complicated by the fact that castration of humans was not only
illegal, but punishable under the Lex Cornelia concerning murderers and poisoners.  This is in handout 6, which
will be discussed later in the paper.   The clandestine circumstances under which such operations were
performed during the 1st- 3rd centuries CE accounts for the reticence of contemporary physicians to discuss the
procedures involved.  However, we can make educated speculations based on a comparison of contemporary
agricultural castrations and Paul of Aegina's 7th century description written during a time in which Christian
monks were taking Jesus's comment about “those who become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”
quite literally.
Paul of Aegina (handout 4) describes two methods: thlasia and ektome.
4) 6.68. Paul of Aegina, 625?–690? CE
 Περὶ εὐνουχισμοῦ.
σκοπὸν ἐχούσης τῆς ἡμετέρας τέχνης ἀπὸ τοῦ παρὰ φύσιν εἰς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἐπανάγειν τὰ σώματα τῆς
ἐναντίας ὁ εὐνουχισμὸς ἐπαγγελίας τετύχηκεν. ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἄκοντες πολλάκις ὑπό τινων
ὑπερεχόντων εὐνουχίζειν ἀναγκαζόμεθα, λεκτέον ὡς ἐν ἐπιτόμῳ τὸν τρόπον τῆς ἐγχειρήσεως· διττὸς
δέ ἐστιν οὗτος, ὁ μὲν κατὰ θλάσιν, ὁ δὲ κατ’ ἐκτομήν.

Although the purview of our art is to turn those things which are contrary to nature into that which is
according to nature, the making of eunuchs happens to have the very opposite purpose. But since,
even though we are unwilling, often we are compelled by certain of our superiors to make a eunuch,
the method of the undertaking must be discussed in brief: there are two methods, one being thlasia
(crushing), the other being ektome (excision).

ὁ μὲν κατὰ θλάσιν οὕτως ἐπιτελεῖται· ἔτι νήπια ὄντα τὰ παιδία ἐπικαθίζεται εἰς λεκάνην θερμοῦ
ὕδατος· ἔπειτα, ὅταν χαλασθῇ τὰ σώματα, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ λεκάνῃ τοῖς δακτύλοις θλᾶς τὰ διδύμια, ἕως οὗ
ἀφανισθῇ καὶ διαλυθέντα μηκέτι τῇ ἁφῇ συνεστῶτα ὑποπέσῃ. ὁ δὲ κατ’ ἐκτομὴν τρόπος τοιοῦτός
ἐστιν· ὕπτιος ἐσχηματίσθω ἐπὶ βάθρου ὁ εὐνουχιζόμενος, καὶ τοῖς δακτύλοις τῆς ἀριστερᾶς χειρὸς
πιεζέσθω ὁ ὄσχεος σὺν τοῖς διδύμοις καὶ διαταθεὶς ἐπ’ ὀρθὸν τεμνέσθω σμίλῃ δύο τομαῖς, μιᾷ καθ’
ἑκάτερον δίδυμον· ἐκπηδήσαντες δὲ οἱ δίδυμοι ἐκτεμνέσθωσαν διαδερόμενοι λεπτοτάτης μόνον
συνεχείας τῆς κατὰ τὴν πρόσφυσιν τῶν ἀγγείων καταλιμπανομένης. οὗτος ὁ τρόπος τοῦ κατὰ θλάσιν
προκέκριται· οἱ γὰρ τεθλασμένοι ποτὲ καὶ συνουσίας ὀρέγονται μέρους τινός, ὡς ἔοικε, τῶν διδύμων
ἐν τῇ θλάσει διαλανθάνοντος.

Thlasia is accomplished in this way: while still young the child is placed sitting in a basin of hot
water: then, when the parts are warmed, in that same basin you thlas (crush) the testicles with your
fingers, until they are made to disappear and succumbs, being dissolved no longer can be felt in your
grasp. The process of ektome goes something like this: let the person being made a eunuch be placed
prone on the table, and with the fingers of the left hand let the scrotum be stretched along with the
fingers and once they are stretched taught let two incisions be cut longitudinally, with one over each
testicle: then when the testicles pop out they are cut out once they have been dissected around, leaving
only the thinnest connections that normally bind the vessels together. This method is judged better
 than thlasia: for those who have been castrated by thlasia sometimes are also aroused for intercourse,
as it seems, because some portion of their testicles have survived in the process of thlasia.

Thlasia, as the text describes, involves inducing a testicular rupture by manually squeezes the testicles until they
burst.  This is fairly easy to accomplish accidentally with blunt trauma, and if left untreated, infertility results
along with a risk of disruptions to blood flow, bruising, and abcess.  It is hardly an innocuous procedure, but it
does carry less risk than those involving cutting.  When healed, the scrotum would appear contracted and
shriveled.  Needless to say, the procedure would be extremely painful, but (as Paul himself points out) enough
functioning testicular tissue would remain that testosterone could continue to be produced, since Leydig cells
continue to produce the hormone so long as they are present.
Ektome encompasses a more risky but less painful alternative that would be more effective in reducing
sexual drive.  As with Thalsia, the scrotum is left intact.  Even with such a procedure there is a possibility that
the man would continue to be able to produce an erection, particularly if the testicle were removed only
partially, leaving sufficient Leydig cells to augment the testosterone also produced by the adrenal glands.
However, it is unlikely that such a procedure would result in a man capable of erection unless performed on an
older subject.
Paul's description of human castration resonates strongly with our records of agricultural castration in
antiquity.  Interestingly, outside of Aristotle agricultural castration did not seem to employ the more commonly
used modern methods which tie off the scrotum tightly enough to interrupt the blood supply and cause the entire
scrotum to drop off.  Rather, they employ methods that preserve the scrotal sac, possibly for reasons both
cosmetic and practical; absent antibiotics, the less tissue removed, the less risk there is of losing valuable
livestock to infection.
Handout 5a includes a full list of sources for agricultural castration methods, and 5b provides the description
most contemporary to Juvenal.  
5a) Agricultural Castration
• Aristotle Historia Animalium 9.50 mentions the cutting off of the scrotum, not much more detail.
• Mago - Carthaginian writer on agriculture in Punic, written before 146 BCE and quoted in Columella
and Palladius. See below.
• Varro – 3.9 mentions the use of cautery on male fowl (116 BC – 27 BC)
• Columella – 6.26 (see 5b below) detailed account of crushing (thlibia?) and cutting/ ektome (AD 4 – ca.
AD 70)
• Palladius (4th c CE) also quotes Mago, then improves on Columella by suggesting hot iron shears so as
to cut and cauterize in the same stroke.
5b) Columella De Rebus Rusticis 6.26

Castrare vitulos Mago censet, dum adhuc teneri sunt; neque id ferro facere, sed fissa ferula
comprimere testiculos et paulatim confringere. Idque optimum genus castrationum putat, quod
adhibetur aetati tenere sine vulnere. Nam ubi iam induruit, melius bimus quam anniculus castratur. Idque
facere vere vel autumno luna decrescente praecipit, vitulumque ad machinam deligare; deinde prius
quam ferrum admoveas, duabus angustis ligneis regulis veluti forcipibus apprehendere testium nervos,
quos Graeci krematheras ab eo appellant, quod ex illis genitalis partes dependent. Comprehensos deinde
testes ferro reserare, et expressos ita recidere, ut extrema pars eorum adhaerens praedictis nervis
relinquatur. Nam hoc modo nec eruptione sanguinis periclitatur iuvencus, nec in totum effeminatur
adempta omni virilitate; formamque servat maris cum generandi vim deposuit; quam tamen ipsam non
protinus amittit. Nam si patiaris eum a recenti curatione feminam inire, constat ex eo posse generari.
(Then follow general notes for treating the incisions and feeding the ox as he recovers.)
 Mago recommends that one castrate calves while they are still young; and not do it with a knife, but to
crush the testicles together with a cleft fennel stalk and break them up gradually. And he thinks
that is the best kind of castrations, because it is performed at a young age and without an open wound.
For when it has already grown strong, it is better castrated as two year old rather than one year. And he
advises doing it in the spring or autumn while the moon is waning, and to tie the calf to the machine;
then before you apply the knife, grasping the sinews of the testicles (which the Greeks call 'suspenders'
because the genital parts hang down from them) with two slender wooden guides [cut] like forceps.
Then one should grasp and cut out the testicles with the knife, and once they have been pressed free
[of the scrotum] one should cut them free in such a way that the furthest part of them is left clinging to
the aforementioned sinews. For in this way the steer doesn't run the risk of hemorrhage, nor is it
rendered entirely effeminate due to the loss of all its manhood; and it retains the form of a male even
though it has lost its power of impregnation; although it does not lose that power right away. For if you
allow him to cover a cow fresh from a recent surgery, it is known that she is able to be impregnated by
him.
Both Columella and Palladius quote Mago, a Carthaginian authority of uncertain date whose work on
agriculture seems to have been a key reference for many aspects of agricultural science.  Although the
terminology is inconsistent with Rufus or the Digest, the methods described seem very close, particularly the
instructions for excision.  Excision in Paulus and Mago via Columella are virtually identical, with the exception
of the use of the wooden forcep-guides placed to crush the blood vessels and make it easier to extract the
testicles.  Palladius' account adds the innovation of cautery to the process in order to reduce the risk of bleeding.
This would also likewise reduce the risk of infection.
It is Mago's recommended procedure that deserves special attention because it very likely explains the
'thlibiae' in Ulpian that is paired so directly with thlasiae.  Kuefler in “The Manly Eunuch” identifies the term
with the verb “θλιβεῖν meaning “To press hard or confine”, with which I agree, but then goes on to suggest that
it refers to a process in which the scrotum was tied tightly in order to sever the vas deferens.  It is doubtful that
such a procedure would have resulted in a reliable vasectomy.  It could have cut off the blood supply to the
scrotum, thus causing it to drop off, but we have no evidence of such a castration procedure in the farming
manuals of antiquity, though it is done in modern agriculture.  However, Mago's procedure with the split reed
does fit quite well with the concept of “pressing hard” or “confining” since that is precisely what the split reed
does.  As with manual rupture of the testes in thlasia, the reed-squeezing procedure uses a mechanical method
to produce a similar result.  I think it likely that thlibia, then, does indeed refer to a mechanical procedure to
rupture the testes, and this is why it is coupled so closely with thlasia in Ulpian's definition.
One final method should be mentioned, and this is Varro's use of cautery to castrate fowl.  While
appropriate on smaller animals, it is unlikely (but possible) that a similar external application of hot iron could
damage a human testicle sufficiently to achieve infertility.  While heat can interfere with sperm production, it is
prolonged exposure to temperatures at or around a man's core body temperature that has this effect, and the
effect is temporary.  Heated irons would be useful in excision as mentioned earlier, but applied externally they
would be more likely to cause painful burns and the full removal of the scrotum.
And so what does this tell us about the procedure used on Juvenal's heterosexualized eunuch?  As in
Columella, age is a factor.  The man is castrated after his testosterone production has peaked and presumably
after he has experienced sexual arousal.  Although one would expect that thlibia or thlasia would be used to
create a eunuch most likely to achieve erection, Juvenal describes the removal of the testes and uses the verb
“urit” - he burns -, indicating the use of cautery.  Juvenal, however, is perhaps not a reliable source for medical
information and might have been confused about which procedure was being used.  If we do follow Juvenal and
accept an excision rather than a crushing, it is still possible that there would be sufficient testicular tissue and
peripheral testosterone production to allow the eunuch to produce an erection.  It is not unheard of in neutered
animals who undergo such a procedure in adulthood to maintain their sexual function and drive, and even
Columella points out that a bull castrated at two years will still engage in sexual activity and must be prevented
from doing so.  Certainly the scarring is described vaguely enough that it could encompass both a cauterized
excision on an empty scrotum or a hardened and contracted scrotum following a healed rupture of the testes.
It is this phenomenon of the heterosexualized eunuch that may account for the particularly negative
position that Roman law takes with reference to the making of eunuchs.  The relevant laws banning the creation
of eunuchs are included within the Lex Cornelia about murderers and poisoners; a law primarily aimed at
punishing premeditated and intentional murder.  I have included the relevant sections and some related passages
in handout 6.i  However, the bounds of the law expand also to cover women who procure abortions1 and Jews
who circumcise anyone who is not another Jew.  By this reasoning, genital mutilation is a kind of murder; it is
equivalent in the eyes of the law to actions deliberately taken with the intention of causing the death of a human
being, even though the victim is intended to survive the procedure.  The law clearly covers both voluntary and
involuntary castration,2 thus providing uncharacteristically strong protections against this particular bodily
injury that do not apply to other amputations.  Indeed, it is even possible to be punished more harshly for
voluntarily having one's self castrated than for accidentally killing another person.
It is possible that this results from an identification of male reproductive power with a man's very life;
the language of castration often includes phrasing about the loss of 'virilitas' – manliness - through the removal
or compromising of the testes.  It is labeled with iniuria in handout 6b, a technical term used to name a
deliberate action meant to cause significant and malicious harm.
Digest 48.8.4 Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis
2. Idem divus Hadrianus rescripsit: "Constitutum quidem est, ne spadones fierent, eos autem, qui hoc
crimine arguerentur, Corneliae legis poena teneri eorumque bona merito fisco meo vindicari debere, sed
et in servos, qui spadones fecerint, ultimo supplicio animadvertendum esse: et qui hoc crimine tenentur,
si non adfuerint, de absentibus quoque, tamquam lege Cornelia teneantur, pronuntiandum esse. Plane si
ipsi, qui hanc iniuriam passi sunt, proclamaverint, audire eos praeses provinciae debet, qui virilitatem
amiserunt: nemo enim liberum servumve invitum sinentemve castrare debet, neve quis se sponte
castrandum praebere debet. At si quis adversus edictum meum fecerit, medico quidem, qui exciderit,
capitale erit, item ipsi qui se sponte excidendum praebuit."
Likewise the divine Hadrian stated in a rescript: “It has indeed been decided that, in order to prevent the
existence of eunuchs, that those, who plead guilty to that crime, be held under the punishment of the Lex
Cornelia and their property for good reason ought to be turned over to my treasury, but also with
reference to slaves, who have made eunuchs, they must be turned over to capital punishment: also [as
for] any persons who are guilty of this crime, but do not appear in court, they also must be sentenced in
absentia as if they were held under the Lex Cornelia. Clearly if they themselves, who have suffered
this iniuria, should declare it, the governor of the province ought to hear their case, since they have lost
their manhood: for nobody should castrate a free person or a slave, either willing or unwilling, and
1
6f) Digest 48.8.8 Ulpianus libro 33 ad edictum
Si mulierem visceribus suis vim intulisse, quo partum abigeret, constiterit, eam in exilium praeses provinciae
exiget.
If a woman has decided to have brought force against her own internal organs in order to avoid giving birth, the
governor of the province ought to exile her.
2
6g) Digest 48.8.11 Modestinus libro sexto regularum
pr. Circumcidere iudaeis filios suos tantum rescripto divi Pii permittitur: in non eiusdem religionis qui hoc
fecerit, castrantis poena irrogatur.
In a rescript of the divine Pius it is permitted for Jews to circumcise their sons: those who will have done this
against those not of that same religion are liable under the punishment for castration.
 nobody should offer himself up willingly to be castrated. But if anyone will have acted against my edict,
it will be a capital crime even for the physician who excised [the testicles], and likewise those who
have offered themselves willingly for excision.”
For instance, one can accidentally run over a neighbor's best hat, or one can deliberately run over it. This
deliberate harm constitutes iniuria and increases the fines and punishments for the action. The shame and
ostracism experienced by Juvenal's eunuch illustrate exactly why castration was treated in such a way; it was a
kind of social death from which the castrated man could not recover.  The fact that Paulus specifically included
thlibiae in the kinds of eunuchs liable for punishment under the Lex Cornelia perhaps indicates that this method
that caused less scarring and did not involve cutting was used as a way to circumvent the law. 3 Since the more
‘virile’ eunuchs were produced by this method, perhaps some argued that they were sufficiently virile to escape
the kind of stigma associated with excision.
Without a doubt this is a large part of why castration was treated so seriously by Roman law, but there is
also an additional factor at play.  In handout 6a, Marcian attributes to his hypothetical castrator the motives of
libido and profit.  
6a) Digest 48.8.4 Marcianus libro 14 institutionum
Item is, cuius familia sciente eo apiscendae reciperandae possessionis causa arma sumpserit: item qui
auctor seditionis fuerit: et qui naufragium suppresserit: et qui falsa indicia confessus fuerit confitendave
curaverit, quo quis innocens circumveniretur: et qui hominem libidinis vel promercii causa
castraverit, ex senatus consulto poena legis Corneliae punitur.
Likewise he whose household has taken up arms for the purpose of gaining or recovering property with
his knowledge: likewise he who has been the instigator of sedition: and even he who has sacked a
shipwreck: and he who has given false testimony or has procured false confessions so that an innocent
person would be persecuted: also he who has castrated a person for sexual or mercantile motives, is
punished by the penalty of the Lex Cornelia by decree of the senate.
Taking into account the existence of this heterosexualized eunuch made for a female buyer, this extreme
reaction against castration takes on new meaning.  Although it seems some men preferred eunuchs as
homosexual partners due to their lack of body hair, it is heterosexual women who benefit most from a eunuch
acquired 'libidinis causa' – for the purpose of satisfying sexual desire - because it is heterosexual women who
risk death and disgrace from pregnancy.  The fact that libido is on the jurist's mind along with profit as rationale
for the making of eunuchs speaks to the situation he seeks to prevent in his legal ruling, namely a situation in
which ostensibly respectable women are able to use infertile men for consequence-free sex.  
And so we return to the slave in Juvenal, and the domina – that is, his female slave owner - who
carefully planned his alteration into the ideal sexual partner.  It is intriguing to have this window into a sector of
the slave trade that catered to the needs and sexual desires of wealthy women and was, apparently, common
enough that Roman jurists felt the need to put a stop to the practice.  But perhaps more tragic is the man whose
slavery involved surgical alteration as well as sexual exploitation.  When thinking of eunuchs in antiquity, we
should keep in mind that a range of experiences, both voluntary and involuntary, are encompassed, and that
these people of compromised gender filled many more roles than simply eunuch-priests of Cybele and asexual
court functionaries.

3
Digest 48.8.5 Paulus libro secundo de officio proconsulis
Hi quoque, qui thlibias faciunt, ex constitutione divi Hadriani ad Ninnium Hastam in eadem causa sunt, qua hi
qui castrant.
Also those who make thlibiae, by decree of the divine Hadrian to Ninnius Hasta are in the same class of
criminals as those who castrate.
i
6) Digest 48.8 on the Lex Cornelia about murderers and poisoners (Relevant sections)
6a) Digest 48.8.4 Marcianus libro 14 institutionum
Item is, cuius familia sciente eo apiscendae reciperandae possessionis causa arma sumpserit:
item qui auctor seditionis fuerit: et qui naufragium suppresserit: et qui falsa indicia confessus
fuerit confitendave curaverit, quo quis innocens circumveniretur: et qui hominem libidinis vel
promercii causa castraverit, ex senatus consulto poena legis Corneliae punitur.
Likewise he whose household has taken up arms for the purpose of gaining or recovering
property with his knowledge: likewise he who has been the instigator of sedition: and even he
who has sacked a shipwreck: and he who has given false testimony or has procured false
confessions so that an innocent person would be persecuted: also he who has castrated a person
for sexual or merchantile motives, is punished by the penalty of the Lex Cornelia by decree of
the senate.
6b) Digest 48.8.4 Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis
pr. Lege Cornelia de sicariis tenetur, qui, cum in magistratu esset, eorum quid fecerit contra
hominis necem, quod legibus permissum non sit.
He is held under the Lex Cornelia, who, although he was in public office, has done anything
regarding the killing of a person, which is not allowed him under the laws.

1. Cum quidam per lasciviam causam mortis praebuisset, comprobatum est factum Ignatii
Taurini proconsulis Baeticae a divo Hadriano, quod eum in quinquennium relegasset.
When someone has furnished the cause of death motivated by lust, the decision of Ignatius
Taurinus, proconsul of Baetica, to exile him for five years was upheld by the divine Hadrian.

2. Idem divus Hadrianus rescripsit: "Constitutum quidem est, ne spadones fierent, eos autem,
qui hoc crimine arguerentur, Corneliae legis poena teneri eorumque bona merito fisco meo
vindicari debere, sed et in servos, qui spadones fecerint, ultimo supplicio animadvertendum
esse: et qui hoc crimine tenentur, si non adfuerint, de absentibus quoque, tamquam lege
Cornelia teneantur, pronuntiandum esse. Plane si ipsi, qui hanc iniuriam passi sunt,
proclamaverint, audire eos praeses provinciae debet, qui virilitatem amiserunt: nemo enim
liberum servumve invitum sinentemve castrare debet, neve quis se sponte castrandum praebere
debet. At si quis adversus edictum meum fecerit, medico quidem, qui exciderit, capitale erit,
item ipsi qui se sponte excidendum praebuit."
Likewise the divine Hadrian stated in a rescript: “It has indeed been decided that, in order to
prevent the existence of eunuchs, that those, who plead guilty to that crime, be held under the
punishment of the Lex Cornelia and their property for good reason ought to be turned over to
my treasury, but also with reference to slaves, who have made eunuchs, they must be turned
over to capital punishment: also [as for] any persons who are guilty of this crime, but do not
appear in court, they also must be sentenced in absentia as if they were held under the Lex
Cornelia. Clearly if they themselves, who have suffered this iniuria, should declare it, the
governor of the province ought to hear their case, since they have lost their manhood: for
nobody should castrate a free person or a slave, either willing or unwilling, and nobody should
offer himself up willingly to be castrated. But if anyone will have acted against my edict, it will
be a capital crime even for the physician who excised [the testicles], and likewise those who
have offered themselves willingly for excision.”
6c) Digest 48.8.5 Paulus libro secundo de officio proconsulis
 Hi quoque, qui thlibias faciunt, ex constitutione divi Hadriani ad Ninnium Hastam in eadem
causa sunt, qua hi qui castrant.
Also those who make thlibiae, by decree of the divine Hadrian to Ninnius Hasta are in the same
class of criminals as those who castrate.
6d) Digest 48.8.6 Venonius libro primo de officio proconsulis
Is, qui servum castrandum tradiderit, pro parte dimidia bonorum multatur ex senatus consulto,
quod Neratio Prisco et Annio Vero consulibus factum est.
He who has given over his slave to be castrated should be fined for a half-portion of his
property by decree of the senate, which was enacted when Neratius Priscus and Annius Verus
were consuls.
6f) Digest 48.8.8 Ulpianus libro 33 ad edictum (for context)
Si mulierem visceribus suis vim intulisse, quo partum abigeret, constiterit, eam in exilium
praeses provinciae exiget.
If a woman has decided to have brought force against her own internal organs in order to avoid
giving birth, the governor of the province ought to exile her.
6g) Digest 48.8.11 Modestinus libro sexto regularum
pr. Circumcidere iudaeis filios suos tantum rescripto divi Pii permittitur: in non eiusdem
religionis qui hoc fecerit, castrantis poena irrogatur.
In a rescript of the divine Pius it is permitted for Jews to circumcise their sons: those who will
have done this against those not of that same religion are liable under the punishment for
castration.