so thats a later thing in the catholic church, but you can also find people that referred to themselves as women or a ‘third gender’ in that context. some however were also forced because the catholic church is problematic. in this catholic idea, eunuchs are sexless and do not have sex, but this was obviously not the case in so many instances.
eunuchs also had various roles in different cultures. there was a jewish king for example that had a eunuch in his harem was implied to be treated as a woman as a result (re: fucked like a woman). theres also some theories that Puyi was in love with his ‘eunuch’, and they lived together after the revolution in China (was told this by chinese friends) and might have been a big part of why he was spared (no progeny)
The big thing with being a eunuch is that the idea was that because you gave up having direct descendents, it meant that you could more easily be trusted to run bureaucratic tasks for the good of the royal line. Whether or not this works is one of those oft-debated ancient and medieval political science topics of the time (particularly in China) with most petty lords that would lead revolts against kings/emperors blaming the bad government on the influence of eunuchs. If this was true or not is unknown, but the ones that won were the victors so their histories survive.
As far as I am aware though, you are correct that the only culture that believed eunuchs to be ‘sexless’ is the Catholic Church.
Interesting, I didn’t know the term had such a wide definition. I remembered it in the context of the Ottoman sultans, who used eunuchs to guard their harems.
The wider definition is becoming more common with recent scholarship, a lot of historians ommitted source materials on eunuchs demanding to be referred as women or otherwise, and some of this source material is even first person due to many eunuchs being clergy and literate
There’s a lot of work being done on the restudy of history without chauvinism these days
Bear in mind this is kind of underselling the whole deal. If you live in a patrimonial state then the royal household is equivalent to the center of government. Relatives and close aides to the monarch are all influential, often serve in the administration and have the opportunity to accrue real power. Eunuchs guarding the harem means they are individuals who have access to all wings of the royal household, which is why they didn’t just serve as guards or messengers or aides. Since the Ottomans often bought Eunuchs in the red sea, the chief black eunuchs were often in charge of religious endowments or vaqifs. Which means that they were in charge of some of the most important financial instruments in the empire.
It’s like if the king of norway racistly believed that black ethiopians were the most courtly of peoples and bought an eunuch to administer a part of the country’s sovereign wealth fund.
so thats a later thing in the catholic church, but you can also find people that referred to themselves as women or a ‘third gender’ in that context. some however were also forced because the catholic church is problematic. in this catholic idea, eunuchs are sexless and do not have sex, but this was obviously not the case in so many instances.
eunuchs also had various roles in different cultures. there was a jewish king for example that had a eunuch in his harem was implied to be treated as a woman as a result (re: fucked like a woman). theres also some theories that Puyi was in love with his ‘eunuch’, and they lived together after the revolution in China (was told this by chinese friends) and might have been a big part of why he was spared (no progeny)
The big thing with being a eunuch is that the idea was that because you gave up having direct descendents, it meant that you could more easily be trusted to run bureaucratic tasks for the good of the royal line. Whether or not this works is one of those oft-debated ancient and medieval political science topics of the time (particularly in China) with most petty lords that would lead revolts against kings/emperors blaming the bad government on the influence of eunuchs. If this was true or not is unknown, but the ones that won were the victors so their histories survive.
As far as I am aware though, you are correct that the only culture that believed eunuchs to be ‘sexless’ is the Catholic Church.
Interesting, I didn’t know the term had such a wide definition. I remembered it in the context of the Ottoman sultans, who used eunuchs to guard their harems.
The wider definition is becoming more common with recent scholarship, a lot of historians ommitted source materials on eunuchs demanding to be referred as women or otherwise, and some of this source material is even first person due to many eunuchs being clergy and literate
There’s a lot of work being done on the restudy of history without chauvinism these days
Bear in mind this is kind of underselling the whole deal. If you live in a patrimonial state then the royal household is equivalent to the center of government. Relatives and close aides to the monarch are all influential, often serve in the administration and have the opportunity to accrue real power. Eunuchs guarding the harem means they are individuals who have access to all wings of the royal household, which is why they didn’t just serve as guards or messengers or aides. Since the Ottomans often bought Eunuchs in the red sea, the chief black eunuchs were often in charge of religious endowments or vaqifs. Which means that they were in charge of some of the most important financial instruments in the empire.
It’s like if the king of norway racistly believed that black ethiopians were the most courtly of peoples and bought an eunuch to administer a part of the country’s sovereign wealth fund.