How the Eunuch Works: Eunuchs as a Narrative Device in Greek and Roman Literature Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Christopher Michael Erlinger, B.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, Advisor Carolina Lopez-Ruiz, Co-Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Copyright by Christopher Michael Erlinger 2016 Abstract Until now, eunuchs in early Greek and Roman literature have been ignored by classical scholars, but this dissertation rectifies that omission. In the ensuing chapters, eunuchs in literature ranging from the Classical to the early Christian period are subjected to a scholarly analysis, many of them for the first time. This comprehensive analysis reveals that eunuchs’ presence indicates a breakdown in the rules of physiognomy and, consequently, a breakdown of major categories of identity, such as ethnicity or gender. Significantly, this broader pattern manifests itself in a distinct way, within each chronological and geographical period. ii Dedication Pro Cognationibus Amicisque iii Acknowledgements Every faculty member of the Classics Department of the Ohio State University has contributed in some way to this dissertation. During my time at Ohio State University, each has furthered my intellectual growth in their own unique way, and my debt to them is immeasurable. I owe especial thanks to Tom Hawkins and my dissertation committee: Carolina Lopez-Ruiz, Anthony Kaldellis, and Benjamin Acosta-Hughes. iv Vita 2005............................................................ Webb School of California 2009............................................................ B.A. Classics, Northwestern University 2010............................................................ Postbaccalaureate Program, University of California, Los Angeles 2010 to present........................................... Doctoral Program, Department of Classics The Ohio State University Field of Study Major Field: Greek and Latin v Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii Dedication ......................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iv Vita ..................................................................................................................................... v Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Eunuchs in Classical Greek Literature ........................................................... 40 Chapter 3: Alexander and the Eunuchs ............................................................................ 89 Chapter 4: Eunuchs in the Roman Republic .................................................................. 129 Chapter 5: Eunuchs in Lucian and Favorinus ................................................................ 187 Chapter 6: Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven ........................................................... 243 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 247 vi Chapter 1: Introduction For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who were castrated by men, and there are eunuchs who castrate themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever is able to do this, may he do so. εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας µητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως, καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνουχίσθησαν ὕπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. ὁ δυνάµενος χωρεῖν χωρείτω. Matt. 19:12 Jesus' commandment for every man who can castrate himself to do so seems a rather radical exhortation. His sentiment here, however, draws on a conception of eunuchs whose origins stretch back to at least the fifth century BC. Classical Greek authors such as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Ctesias write about eunuchs, as do authors of the Roman Republic— who also pre-date the New Testament—such as Terence and Catullus. To date, no one has examined how eunuchs work in these earlier works, and my goal is to rectify that omission. Eunuchs, by their very nature, seem to be an ideal medium for blurring the boundary between male and female, but in Greek literature they erode distinctions between ethnicities, not genders. In this dissertation, I argue that eunuchs in Greek literature draw into question the hard and fast division between “Greek” and “barbarian.” Literature of the Roman Republic, on the other hand, does focus on eunuchs' destabilizing impact on gender. Moreover, I will show that, in both cases, this destabilization of ethnicity or gender often impacts characters who are not eunuchs. In many instances, in fact, eunuchs are irrelevant to the action at hand, and could be 1 removed from the texts entirely, without any disruption of the narratives. Their presence is still significant in itself, however, as they signal to an audience that a text is grappling with the definitions and boundaries of ethnicity or gender. The later second sophistic authors Lucian and Favorinus merge and manipulate these two literary traditions for their own ends. Favorinus is especially significant for understanding the quote from Matthew above, as he gives himself a unique and nearly unimpeachable form of authority, using the ethnic and gender ambiguity that eunuchs had come to represent by his time. After one considers these earlier literary traditions concerning eunuchs, it becomes apparent that the quotation above is not a radical sentiment, but a logical and nearly expected evolution of a long running pattern. Scholarship and Models Although no scholarship focuses on eunuchs in Classical Greek and Roman Republic literature, there is certainly no dearth of references to these eunuchs in scholarly works. They are never, however, the main concern. Despite this imperfect overlap, a review of modern scholarship on eunuchs is still beneficial, as it reveals the nature of the broader interrogation into eunuchs and how that interrogation has developed over time. And just as my focus differs from that of other eunuch scholars, so too does the nature of my investigation. That having been said, my approach—which I describe in more detail below—is a natural continuation of the development that the extant scholarship displays. Broadly speaking, scholarship on eunuchs falls into one of two categories: the first focuses on eunuchs in the Byzantium empire; and the second strives to imbue eunuchs with universally applicable symbolic value. Both branches of scholarship often cite eunuchs from earlier literature, but they 2 are not the foci of the arguments.1 Rather, they are brought up as tangential evidence for claims about eunuchs in the Byzantine empire or about the significance of the category of eunuch. In The Eunuch in Byzantine History and Society, for example, Shaun Tougher refers to eunuchs in Xenophon as corroborating evidence for an argument about Samonas the Arab—chief eunuch of emperor Leo VI (886-912)—and other Byzantine eunuchs.2 In his defense, Tougher is meticulous about acknowledging the geographic and chronological chasm involved in such claims. Contrary to Tougher's carefulness, there is a tendency amongst scholars focused on the overarching symbolic meaning of eunuchs to wholly collapse space and time, without any concern. Gary Taylor, for example, marshals the Hebrew Bible book Wisdom of Solomon; unspecified “Mesopotamian, Persian, Egyptian, and Greek cults;” a eunuch in Catullus; a twelfth century bishop named Theophylact of Ochrid; and Thomas Middleston—a seventeenth century English playwright—to explain that eunuchs are barren and “barrenness is virtue's grace.”3 Piotr Scholz draws upon a similarly wide- ranging field of evidence, and also has a tendency to misrepresent that evidence. For example, he says that “Zeus was both the son and grandson of castrated gods” and that “Dionysos, who emerged from either Zeus' hip or his thigh, suffered 'sparagmos,' the loss of his penis while he was being torn asunder.”4 There is no evidence, however, that both Zeus’ grandfather and father were castrated or that Dionysus' phallus was severed when 1 Hopkins (1978), Ringrose (2003), Tougher (2008) & (2013) on Byzantine empire; Taylor 2 Tougher (2008) 44. 3 Taylor (2000) 200-208. 4 Scholz (2001) both quotes on 49. 3 he emerged from Zeus.5 On the contrary, Dionysiac worship often centered on the god's marvelous penis.6 The penchant for treating geographically and chronologically far-flung events as synchronic and coterminous severely undermines this branch of eunuch scholarship.7 While each work that attempts to explain the universal symbolism of eunuchs largely ignores its predecessors, scholars who focus on eunuchs in the Byzantine empire are engaged with each others' works. Consequently, there is a more conventional dialogue about the merits and demerits of particular points. One of the major questions that such scholarship aims to answer is why eunuchs acquired such powerful roles in the Byzantine empire.8 Keith Hopkins, in his book Conquerors and Slaves, was one of the first modern scholars to put forth a possible explanation.