Зборник радова Византолошког института LIV, 2017

Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta LIV, 2017

UDC: 321.17/.18(495.02)„07/08“:343.25
https://doi.org/10.2298/ZRVI1754041K

BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ
Institute for Byzantine Studies, SASA
[email protected]

CASTRATION
AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE STRENGTHENING
OF THE DYNASTIC PRINCIPLE*

The paper discusses examples of corporal mutilation that accompanied intra-dynas-

tic conflicts or clashes with real or potential pretenders to the imperial throne. Castration
was a known but rarely applied measure in the political conflicts of the 7th and 8th century.
Hence the two consecutive cases of castration of all sons of the deposed emperor Michael I
Rhangabe (813) and the assassinated emperor Leo V the Armenian (820) deviated from the
previous Byzantine practice. The paper establishes that in these cases the choice of castration
as the most effective means of ensuring the future political disqualification of the princes
and their families was a result of the strengthening dynastic principle, which was particularly
noticeable in the cases of the descendents of Constantine V from his third marriage. It also
highlights that castration was never used on the deposed emperor autokratōr, but only on the
bearers of imperial dignities (co-emperors) or simply princes with no imperial title. In exam-
ples where castration was used to ensure political disqualification, it was not a sanction for an
individual wrongdoing (in other words, castration was not a penalty prescribed for a specific
transgression); if these cases were a matter of punishment at all, the penalty was meant to
sanction the entire bloodline (γένος) rather than the (innocent) individual.
Castration was a milder form of punishment compared to other forms of physical
mutilation (severing of the nose, tongue or ears; blinding). Due to the ambivalent attitude of
the Byzantine society towards eunuchs, castration did not necessarily lead to social margin-
alization. Hence, it was applied more frequently during the reign of the Macedonian dynasty,
but prominent castrates were incorporated into the official hierarchy as members of an order
of eunuchs (τάξεις τῶν εὐνούχων).
Keywords: corporal punishment, castration, legislation, eunuch, dynasty

* The paper was written as part of the project Tradition, Innovation and Identity in the Byzantine
World (cat. no. 177032) supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development
of the Republic of Serbia.
42 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

Legal irregularity in the succession of the imperial title in Byzantium, and

hence the line of succession within the ruling family, forced emperors to ensure their
potential successor by conferring the title of caesar and later co-emperor on the heir
apparent. Vacillation between the principles of seniority and primogeniture – partic-
ularly marked in the 7th century as well as later – led to conflicts between the members
of the emperor’s immediate family. In addition, the lack of laws on succession made
establishing a dynasty more difficult, despite the growing awareness of and need for
strengthening and adhering to the dynastic principle in the Byzantine society.
One of the facets of the struggle for the preservation of supreme power in the
hands of a single family or one of its branches was the mutilation of its members – po-
tential or real pretenders to the imperial throne. Physical maiming also had a symbol-
ic character and the severing of a certain body part corresponded to the transgression
of the victim. This is indicated in Byzantine criminal legislation, first of all in the
Ecloga issued by Leo III in 726.1 This new code of law presented the elaborate system
of physical punishment for the perpetrators of certain crimes, which had been in use
in Byzantium throughout the 7th century. In many cases mutilation was substituted
for the capital punishment prescribed in Roman legislation for certain crimes. The
introduction of various forms of corporal punishment was not merely a consequence
of Eastern (Persian) influences; it was also a reflection of the evolution of the legisla-
tion inherited by Christian Byzantium from classical Rome and of the changing social
understanding of corporal symbolism.2
In addition to the severing of the nose and tongue, amputating limbs, and blinding,
the Byzantine penal practice also used castration. In Byzantine criminal legislation the
penalty of castration was intended for those that violated the ban on implementing it
in the territory of the Empire, as prescribed by Justinian’s novel (JN 142), which was
lated included into the Basilica (Vas. LX, 51, 64). The Ecloga, however, prescribed genital
mutilation in only one case: the crime of bestiality (sodomy) was punishable by sever-
ing of the penis (καυλοκοπεῖν), which has sometimes been translated incorrectly and
interpreted as the penalty of castration.3 In view of the risks involved in the removal of
the penis, the end result of this brutal punishment was probably death.4
In political conflicts within the same ruling family or in the process of purging
its opponents – real or potential pretenders to the imperial throne – castration was

1 Ecloga (L. Burgmann) c. XVII.

2 Patlagean, Le blason pénal 405–427; cf. Maleon, Imposible return 32.
3 Ecloga XVII.39. See for example: Ecloga (L. Burgmann) p. 239: Sodomiten... sollen entmannt
werden. Cf. the Russian translation, Эклога. Византийский законодательный свод VIII века, ed. Е. Э.
Липшиц, Moscow 1965, 72: Скотоложество карается оскоплением. In contrast, Patlagean, Le blason
pénal 406, provides the correct translation: couper la verge.
4 The legislator’s intention was to punish the perpetrator of a criminal offense rather than to
make him a castrate. To ensure the survival of the punished individual, the penis removal surgery needed
to be performed by a trained person; in addition, the victim needed to receive adequate medical care after
his operation, as well as a medical device that would allow unimpeded urination (an artificial urethra).
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 43

not used nearly as frequently as other ways of mutilation. Hence two consecutive cas-
es of castration of Byzantine princes in the first half of the 9th century are particularly
interesting: in 813 the sons of Michael I Rhangabe were castrated on the orders of Leo
V the Armenian; in 820, Michael II the Amorian used the same method to mutilate
the sons of Leo V the Armenian. This raises the questions of the reasons behind this
act and of the meaning of castration in these cases.

*
Generally, there were three main reasons for castration in the Byzantine Em-
pire: punishment (of both the individual and his bloodline); political and/or heredi-
tary removal of an individual from the line of succession (in intra-dynastic conflicts
or in the case of illegitimate offspring); and finally lucrative reasons.5 The last case
could be said to have been a kind of voluntary castration, where parents or other rela-
tives had male children undergo castration to improve their chances of upward social
mobility, as the Byzantine court and church hierarchy was open to eunuchs.6
The reason for the less frequent use of castration compared to other forms of
mutilation should be sought in Byzantine ecclesiastical and secular legislation, which
generally condemned neutering, especially voluntary castration of an adult male.7 The
terminological definition of a eunuch – with sterility (inability to procreate)8 as his fun-
damental distinction – as well as his legal status depended on the reason behind his

5 Cf. Patlagean, Le blason pénal 421 sq.

6 So-called voluntary castration is discussed by Theophylact of Ohrid in: Defense of eunuchs,
Gautier I, 303.22–26; cf. Krsmanović – Todorović, O Teofilaktovoj Odbrani I, 96–97, 118–119. It should
be noted that so-called voluntary castration did not always involve the complete surgical removal of the
testicles (which is the literal meaning of the term castration); very often it was the result of the protracted
crushing of the testicles in warm baths before puberty (in boys aged 5–7), Krsmanović – Todorović, O Teo-
filaktovoj Odbrani I, 99.
The Byzantine church was particularly open to eunuchs (Messis, Les eunuques), as well as the
imperial court and state administration, primarily offices associated with the ruler’s person; for a general
overview, see Guilland, Les eunuques 165–380.
7 This is explicitly stated in the Apostolic Canon no. 22: Ὁ ἀκρωτηριάσας ἑαυτὸν μὴ γινέσθω
κληρικός· αὐτοφονευτὴς γάρ ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δημιουργίας ἐχθρός. The church did not
denounce individuals who had become eunuchs as the result of an illness, a medical intervention or a
thid-party violent act (Canon I of the First Ecumenical Council; Apostolic Canon no. 21). Secular leg-
islation generally condemned castration, particularly if the procedure had been performed on Roman
citizens or in the territory of the Roman Empire. Constantine I made the act punishable by death (CJ IV,
42,1). Castration was forbidden in the novel of Leo I (CJ IV, 42,2) as well as the famous novel of Justinian
I (JN 142). Leo VI improved the legal status of castrates and generally condemned castration (NL LX).
Ecclesiastical and secular legislation concerning castration were the subject of Theophylact’s treatise De-
fense of eunuchs; cf. D.Simon, Lobpreis des Eunuchen, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, Vorträge 24,
München 1994, 5–27; Krsmanović – Todorović, O Teofilaktovoj Odbrani I, 104–118.
8 Ringrose, Perfect Servant 13–14; Krsmanović – Todorović, O Teofilaktovoj Odbrani I, 98–99,
104–105. When discussing eunuchs in the Byzantine Empire, it should always be borne in mind that the
term does not only include castrates but also persons whose sterility might have been the result of less
drastic sterilization methods. In these cases the victims did not necessarily suffer impotence or display
features characteristic of eunuchs such as loss of body hair.
44 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

infertility.9 The Code of Justinian provides the terminological definitions formulated

by classical Roman jurists, which classify eunuchs (spadones as the generic term) into
three main categories: spadones (as a sub-type) – men whose infertility was caused by
a genital birth defect; thlibiae/thlasiae – eunuchs who had suffered testicular disfigure-
ment (such as application of pressure), usually in early childhood; the last group were
the castrati (Gr. ἐκτομίαι), whose sterility was the result of a surgical intervention (as
in the cases of the sons of Michael I Rhangabe and Leo V the Armenian). Legislation
was more benevolent towards the first two categories and allowed them adoption, with
the right to appoint an heir to their property.10 While it is easy to understand the more
liberal treatment of the sub-type of spadones,11 the ambivalence of the Byzantine soci-
ety towards eunuchs is clearly reflected in the legal treatment of thlibiae/thlasiae (those
who had been ‘pressed’ or ‘crushed’). Although their sterility was the result of violent
actions – usually the parent’s or other relative’s decision to make a male child sterile by
the protracted crushing of his testicles in warm baths – thlibiae/thlasiae were de facto
treated the same as men with a genital defect acquired at birth or late in life, so the per-
petrators of this act did not suffer any penal sanctions.12 In contrast, Roman and secular
Byzantine legislation generally forbade surgical castration (except for medical reasons),
with the intervention being punishable for both those who performed the operation
and those who voluntarily subjected themselves to it. Of course, Byzantine emperors
who had their subjects castrated suffered no sanctions except perhaps moral censure,
as evidenced in the Vita Ignatii, whose author describes the castration of the sons of
Michael I Rhangabe by Leo V the Armenian as ‘inhumane’ (ἀμείλικτος).13 On the other
hand, the Christian church was very tolerant of those who had become eunuchs as the
result of an illness, birth defect or a third-party violent act.
The castration of members of the imperial family or real/potential pretenders
to the throne was a known but infrequently practiced measure in Byzantium. It is im-
portant to note that in these cases castration was performed as a method of permanent

9 On the terminology for the typology of eunuchs and castration techniques, see Ringrose,
Perfect Servant 51–66, 219 n. 33; Tougher, Eunuch 26–35; Messis, Les eunuques 31–45.
10 Dig. XXIII, 3.39, 1; XXVIII, 2, 6.
11 Institutiones I, 11,9 = Basilicorum libri XXXIII, 1.59. The 13th-century compilation of laws
Synopsis minor (Jus Graeco-Romanum VI), E, ογ, p. 399 (which included older legal regulations from the
10th and 11th century, N. van der Wal, J. H. A. Lokin, Historiae Iuris Graeco-Romani Delineatio, Groningen
1985, 114), states that out of the three eunuch groups (σπάδωνες – those who were temporarily unable to
father children due to an illness, but could hope to have offspring once this defect was cured; καστράτοι –
those who had their genitals surgically removed; θλιβίαι – those who had their testicles crushed by their
mothers or wet nurses), only σπάδωνες were allowed to adopt children, as only they had any hope of fa-
thering offspring.
12 Cf. nn. 7; 11. Although Justinian forbade castration for commercial reasons/greed, this was
nonetheless a very widespread phenomenon in Byzantium, S. Papaioannou, Sicily, Constantinople, Mile-
tos: The Life of a Eunuch and the History of Byzantine Humanism, in: Myriobiblos. Essays on Byzantine
Literature and Culture, edd. Th. Antonopoulou– S. Kotzabassi – M. Loukaki, Boston–Berlin–Munich 2015,
261–284, 262. Cf. Patlagean, Le blason pénal 421–422; Scyl. 244.91–92: ὑπὸ τῶν γονέων μὲν εὐνουχισθείς
13 Vita Ignatii 8.9–10.
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 45

political disqualification and not as a penal sanction (although it was perceived as

such by the victim). Until the reign of Leo V the Armenian, castration was not seen as
a more effective means of political disqualification than other forms of physical muti-
lation. A survey of physical mutilation of members of the ruling family or opponents
to the throne from the Heraclian dynasty on indicates the evolution of the symbolism
of corporal maiming in Byzantium. This process altered the classification of penal
sanctions in terms of both their gravity and the effects entailed by them.14 Notably, the
ruling sovereign – emperor autokratōr – was never subjected to castration. Examples
contained in historical sources show that the ruler who wielded real power in the state
was spared castration, but not the bearers of the imperial title (his co-rulers) or princ-
es. Sources also reveal that in the best-case scenario a deposed autokratōr was forced
to take monastic vows and exiled (usually to a monastery removed from the capital);15
the worst-case scenario was execution, which could be accompanied by mutilating,
burning or throwing his corpse into the sea.16 Between these two possible endings of
a deposed emperor’s reign, there was a range of physical disfigurements intended to
prevent his return to the throne. However, although politically motivated, in these
cases corporal stigmatization often had a strong penal component – the intention of
punishing a dethroned political opponent.

MUTILATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE HERACLIAN DYNASTY

During the reign of the Heraclian dynasty (641–711), the severing of the nose
was the usual corporal punishment for deposed emperors along with the death penal-
ty. Castration was performed in no more than two or three cases.
Conflicts within the Heraclian dynasty stemmed from the fact that there was no
widely accepted principle of inheritance and members of the ruling family clashed in
their efforts to uphold either the principle of primogeniture (which gave the right of
succession to the firstborn son) or the principle of seniority, which favored the eldest
member of the family. These reasons led to ruthless conflicts between brothers or
nephews and uncles, as evidenced by other examples from the time of the Heraclian
dynasty as well as the period of the Syrian dynasty.
The first instance of physical mutilation with the intention of rendering an indi-
vidual incapable of performing imperial duties was inadvertently caused by Heraclius
himself after the emperor declared his two sons from two different marriages co-heirs
to the throne.17 Heraclius expressed his wish to be succeeded by his two sons as joint
emperors of equal rank (τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτὸν βασιλεῖς ἰσοτίμους εἶναι): his elder son

14 For an overview of the evolution of corporal punishment including examples from the later
period, see Maleon, Imposible return 31–49.
15 Idem, Political Exile 173–187.
16 Ibid. 175–177.
17 Heraclius was married twice: first to Eudokia and then to Martina (PmbZ # 4842) – the
daughter of his sister Maria.
46 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

from his first marriage Constantine III and Heraklonas, his son by his niece Martina.18
The conflict between the two branches of the family marked the period between Her-
aclius’s death (11 February 641) and the dethronement of Martina and Heraklonas
(January 642). During the same year, Constantine III suddenly died (June 641) and
Heraklonas was forced to accept his son Constans II as co-emperor (September 641).
In an effort to strengthen his own line of succession, Heraklonas promoted his young-
er brothers David Tiberios and Marinus to the rank of co-emperor (September or Oc-
tober 641).19 However, David Tiberios was entirely unsuitable for the role of co-ruler
and potential heir to the throne, as he was deaf-mute.20 Thus, until January 642, the
Empire had four bearers of the imperial title. Martina and her sons were toppled in
a revolt organized in favor of Constans II. In an effort to permanently eliminate this
problematic branch of the family from the line of succession, its members were sub-
jected to physical disfigurement. Martina’s tongue was cut out and Heraklonas’s nose
was slit.21 Martina’s youngest child Marinus was castrated. This is recounted only by
John, Bishop of Nikiu, who goes on to explain that castration was performed in fear
that he would attempt to claim the throne when he grew up. The same source informs
us that the wounds caused by the surgical operation of castration – evidently per-
formed incompetently – were too much for the child and that he immediately died.22
The only member of the family branch to be spared mutilation was the deaf-mute
David Tiberios, whose birth defect made him unsuitable for the imperial throne. In
this case, physical disfigurement was accompanied by the banishment of the imperial
family to the distant island of Rhodes, which meant that they suffered political and
social isolation in addition to physical disability.23
The treatment of Martina’s branch of Heraclius’s heirs established a clear grada-
tion of chosen corporal sanctions. In the 7th century the severing of the nose – the visible
disfigurement of the face as the most prominent and exposed body part – with tonsure
and exile, was entirely sufficient for the complete political and social elimination of Her-
aklonas. At this time as well as later, castration was seen as a kinder method of achieving
the political disqualification of a rival than rhinotomy and other forms of maiming.
Conflicts between the members of the Heraclian dynasty continued in the third
generation: Heraclius’s grandson Constans II (641–668) disqualified his own brother
Theodosius by forcing him to take monastic vows before murdering him in 659.24
In an effort to strengthen his line of succession, Constans crowned his three sons

18 Nikeph., Breviarium 76.10–13.

19 For prosopographical information and dating, see PmbZ # 2565 (Heraklonas); # 3691 (Con-
stans II); # 1241 (David Tiberios); # 4774 (Marinus).
20 The Cronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu (Charles) 197.
21 Theoph. 341; The Cronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu (Charles) 197.
22 Ibid. 197.
23 Ibid. 197–198.
24 Theoph. 347, 351. For prosopographical information see PmbZ # 7797.
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 47

– Constantine IV, Heraclius and Tiberios as co-emperors, passing on the dynastic

conflict to the fourth generation.25 Constantine IV (668–685) removed his brothers
from power by having their noses cut off in 681.26 However, neither Constans II nor
Constantine IV chose castration to eliminate their brothers. The only case of political
castration in this period was that of the future Patriarch Germanus I of Constantino-
ple (715–730). According to John Zonaras, after the assassination of Constans II in
Sicily, unrest broke out in the army. Constantine IV put down the revolt, sentencing
to death patrikios Justinian, the father of the future Patriarch Germanus, and had
Germanus castrated (ἐκτομίαν ἐποίησεν), although he was past the usual age for un-
dergoing the procedure (ἤδη παρηβηκότα καὶ ὑπερβεβηκότα τὴν ἡλικίαν, καθ᾽ ἣν
εὐνουχίζεσθαι δεδοκίμασται).27 The brutal punishment of patrikios Justinian and the
castration of his son could have been related to the assumption that they belonged to
a prominent family which had kinship ties to the former emperor Justinian I.28
The effectiveness of rhinotomy as a form of maiming that inevitably led to polit-
ical disqualification was challenged by Justinian II, the only son and heir of Constan-
tine IV. His first reign ended in 695, when he was deposed by Leontios, the strategos
of Hellas. Justinian’s tongue and nose were cut off and he was exiled to Cherson.29 The
severing of the nose was successful and the emperor was later nicknamed Rhinotme-
tos in literary tradition. However, his tongue seems not to have been cut out com-
pletely, as he retained his ability to speak.30 Against all odds and despite his handicap,
Justinian retook the throne in 705. Beginning his second reign, the emperor ruthlessly
dealt with the usurpers, executing Leontios (695–698) and his successor Tiberios Ap-
simaros (698–705).31 He did, however, spare Theodosios, the son of Tiberios II, and
allowed him to take monastic vows; he could have, it has been surmised, had Theodo-
sios castrated. This would have allowed him to show mercy and spare the son of the
deposed Apsimaros a more brutal physical disfigurement.32
The fact that no Byzantine emperor after Justinian II was disqualified by rhi-
notomy33 shows the impact of his remarkable and unexpected return to the throne in

25 For prosopographical information see ibid. # 3702 (Constantine IV); # 2556 (Heraclius); #
8484 (Tiberios).
26 Theoph. 352, 360.
27 Zonaras XIV, 222. Vie du patriarche Germain Ier, ed. Lamza, I 222.300–303. Cf. Messis, Les
eunuques, 128 n. 48.
28 PmbZ # 2298, p. 31.
29 Theoph. 369; Nikeph., Breviarium 96. Leontios spared Justinian’s life and instead punished him
with castration only out of respect for Justinian’s father Constantine IV.
30 Cf. Maleon, Imposible return 37.
31 Theoph. 375.
32 Treadgold, Seven Revolutions 214. Theodosios later became the Archbishop of Ephesus. He was
a proponent of iconoclasm and one of the close associates of Constantine V, himself a fervent iconoclast.
PmbZ # 7845.
33 Ostrogorski, Istorija 154–155.
48 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

705 on the changing view of the purpose and political effectiveness of a certain type
of physical maiming. The assassination of Justinian and his young son Tiberios in 711
marked the end of the Heraclian dynasty. After a few years of political turmoil and the
short-lived reigns of Philippikos Bardanes (711–713), Anastasios II (713–715) and
Theodosios III (715–717),34 Leo III ascended to the throne.

THE RISE OF THE DYNASTIC PRINCIPLE – THE PERIOD

OF THE SYRIAN DYNASTY
In the early days of the reign of Leo III (717–741) it seemed that the political sit-
uation had settled down: the new emperor made an agreement with his ally Artabas-
dos, awarding him the rank of kouropalates as well as his daughter’s hand in marriage.
The agreement was supposed to secure the succession of his only son Constantine V,
who was crowned co-emperor already in 720 without any resistance either in the ex-
tended imperial family or outside. Leo III’s long reign and the fact that he had secured
his son’s inheritance in time created the preconditions for the more lasting rule of a
single family. This was the beginning of the reign of the Syrian (incorrectly also called
Isaurian) dynasty (717–802).
The multidecadal reigns of the first Syrians, Leo III and Constantine V (741–
775), were accompanied by two opposing traditions: the negative, iconodule tradition
that did not favor them and the positive one, which was less iconoclastic than mili-
tary. Both traditions can be said to have been focused on Constantine V, the greatest
of iconoclastic emperors as well as emperors-military commanders.35 Capable and
well-educated, Constantine strove to strengthen his autocracy by using propaganda
and self-promotion. After his brother-in-law Artabasdos briefly threatened his posi-
tion, following the end of the civil war in 743 Constantine persistently and ruthlessly
proceeded to remove his political enemies. Blindings, executions and banishments
became an important element of his reign.36 However, there was another, more public
facet to this policy: the emperor never missed an opportunity to promote his success-
es in front of the Constantinopolitan masses, organizing public celebrations of his
political and military victories. This propaganda – which he oversaw personally, even
commissioning painters to eternalize his triumphs – contributed to the emergence of
his subsequent traditional image as a warrior-emperor and victorious ruler, and this
tradition was reflected in the strong political loyalty to his sons.37

34 Only Philippikos Bardanes (PmbZ # 6150) was blinded after being deposed. His successors
Anastasios II (ibid. # 236) and Theodosios III (ibid. # 7793) were forced to take the vow and exiled. The-
odosios was guaranteed safety by Leo III; he took the vow and withdrew together with his son, which
allowed him to spend the rest of his life in peace, Theoph. 390.
35 For a monographic account of the reign of Constantine V, see Rochow, Kaiser Konstantin V.
36 His treatment of twelve dignitaries in 766 is well-known. He first publically shamed them in the
Hippodrome; then he had two of their leaders decapitated and the rest blinded and exiled, Theoph. 438.
37 Rochow, Kaiser Konstantin V, 123–176; cf. McCormick, Eternal victory 134–137.
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 49

Constantine V was married three times: from his first marriage to the Khazar
princess Irene he had one son, Leo (IV); the sources provide no information about
any offspring he might have had from his second marriage; his third marriage to Eu-
dokia was remarkably prolific and bore him five sons and a daughter. The fact that
Constantine V had as many as six sons was enough to alleviate all fears in regard to
succession. However, intra-dynastic plots and conflicts would annul this advantage.38
In terms of dynastic policy, Constantine V adhered to the principle of primo-
geniture. He crowned his eldest son Leo co-emperor in 751, at the time when the boy
was barely two years of age.39 This gave Leo an advantage over his younger half-broth-
ers, Constantine’s sons from his third marriage. His sons by Eudokia did not receive
the imperial title, but were given the highest dignities in the Empire. In 769 the el-
dest two, Christopher and Nikephoros, were awarded the title of caesar, which put
them right behind Leo in both family hierarchy and the line of succession. Two of his
younger sons, Niketas and Anthimos, were awarded the title of nobelissimos.40
Although Constantine V clearly determined the line of succession, the two
branches of the ruling family clashed after his death. The conflict was not provoked
by the accession to the throne of Constantine’s eldest son, but by the fact that Leo IV
(775–780) hastened to secure the throne for his son Constantine VI and crowned him
co-emperor in April 776. The new emperor respected the ranks of the titles bestowed
by Constantine V on his younger sons and awarded his youngest half-brother Eudoki-
mos the title of nobelissimos. The family rift caused by the coronation of Leo’s son
Constantine VI as co-ruler in April 776 was revealed by the fact that in May 776 Cae-
sar Nikephoros was accused of conspiring against his half-brother Leo IV. Historical
sources mention that Nikephoros enjoyed the support of some ‘spatharioi, stratores
and others in imperial service.’
The sensitive position of the newly crowned Leo IV is also evidenced by the
fact that the emperor chose to punish the transgressors via a silentium rather than
personally. The Imperial Council was the body that demanded punishment for the
conspirators, although its members had sworn that after the death of Constantine V
they would not do anything to harm his children.41 The punishment seems to have
included not only Nikephoros and his accomplices, but all of Constantine’s and Eu-
dokia’s sons, although the sources are silent on any support Caesar Nikephoros might

38 The number of male offspring was remarkably important for the survival and development of
aristocratic families. In the case of imperial families, however, it is doubtful if this was truly an advantage:
on one hand, multiple potential heirs ensured the future of the dynasty; on the other, it usually led to in-
tra-dynastic conflicts.
39 PmbZ # 4243 (Lav IV). Rochow, Leon IV., in: Lilie, Eirene 1–33.
40 Theoph. 443–444, 449, 450. For prosopographical information on Constantine V’s sons
from his third marriage, see PmbZ # 1101 (Christopher); #5267 (Nikephoros); # 5403 (Niketas); # 487
(Anthimos); # 1635 (Eudokimos).
41 Theoph. 450–451.
50 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

have received from his four brothers. To protect the inheritance rights of Leo IV and
Constantine VI, the five sons of Constantine V had to be exiled from Constantinople.
It seems that they were stripped of their honorific dignities (Nikephoros is described
by Theophanes as a former caesar42), forced to take monastic vows and exiled to Cher-
son.43 The punishment was not particularly harsh, but it was enough to allow Leo IV
to continue his reign unhindered.
The death of Leo IV opened a new chapter of conflicts within the Syrian dy-
nasty. Another contributing factor was the fact that power was now concentrated in
the hands of a woman: Irene, the widow of Leo IV, ruled the Empire on behalf of her
ten-year-old son Constantine VI. Throughout her regency (780–790), Irene found
no support among the relatives of her late husband, who became her political op-
ponents. Barely forty days after the passing of Leo IV, Irene’s and Constantine’s rule
was challenged by the supporters of the former Caesar Nikephoros. This movement
seems to have been led by the Logothete of the Drome Gregory, with the support of
other dignitaries.44 As Theophanes does not mention the potential involvement of
the remaining four uncles of Constantine VI in the plot, little can be said of their po-
litical positions. It seems that the conspiracy involved dignitaries in the capital, who
challenged Irene with or without the knowledge of Constantine’s sons from his third
marriage. It also remains unknown if the remaining male offspring of Constantine V
received the news of the death of their half-brother Leo IV in exile in Cherson or if for
some unknown reason they had been brought back to the capital.
Although the conspiracy of 780 did not prove a more serious threat to Irene, it
did indicate that her position was vulnerable and intimate the potential turn of events
in the future. In a bid to strengthen her own and her son’s position at court, during the
Christmas procession in the capital Irene publically shamed the sons of Constantine
V and forced them to take monastic vows (again).45 It should be noted that Irene had
not dared take more drastic measures against the sons of Constantine V. Her position
was made more difficult by her intention to resume an iconodule policy, further com-
plicated by the fact that iconoclasts had been appointed to key positions in the state
during the First Iconoclasm and particularly under Constantine V. However, what
made Irene’s situation especially difficult was the fact that she could not personally
serve as a military commander, which was one of the most important prerogatives
of imperial power and one that had been so successfully performed by Leo III and

42 Theoph. 468.9: τὸν ἀπὸ καισάρων.

43 Crimea was one of the favored destinations for political exile in the 8th century; later on, islands
became the preferred choice due to their isolated location, Maleon, Political Exile 174sq; idem, Imposible
return 34–35.
44 Theoph. 454–455.
45 Tonsuring, especially if performed in public, was a form of political disqualification; however,
in comparison with physical maiming (blinding or severing of the nose, ears and tongue) it was the mild-
est of political sanctions, Patlagean, Le blason pénal 414–416.
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 51

Constantine V. Her efforts to establish control over military circles in the capital and
provinces would remain one of the most notable characteristics of her reign first as
her son’s regent (780–790) and then as basileus (797–802).46
The reign of Constantine VI (790–797) as sole emperor showed the importance
of a successful military policy for the stability of a ruler’s position. The emperor’s
military losses, especially his defeat at the hands of the Bulgarians in 792, revealed
the deep discontent simmering in military circles. Having returned from Bulgaria,
the members of Constantinopolitan tagmata (the scholai, the exkoubitoi) tried to find
a solution in the ruling family and publically declared support for the former caesar
Nikephoros, one of the sons of Constantine V. Although the sources do not mention if
the plot was inspired by the political ambitions and actions of any of Constantine VI’s
uncles, the emperor nonetheless ruthlessly dealt with them: Nikephoros was blinded,
while the remaining four – Christopher, Niketas, Anthimos and Eudokimos – had
their tongues cut out.47 Mutilation was meant to result in the permanent political dis-
qualification of the members of the secondary branch of the family, i.e. Constantine
V’s sons from his third marriage.
However, a new chapter in dynastic plots began with Irene’s decision to remove
her son Constantine VI from power. His blinding (which probably quickly led to his
death48) in August 797 delegitimized the line of Leo IV. But, as it turned out, this act
made Irene’s position on the throne very precarious. In October 797 a conspiracy
in favor of the imprisoned sons of Constantine V was organized. Its organizers re-
main unknown (Theophanes mentions only some instigators – τινὲς νεωτερισταί),
but there is little to suggest that Constantine V’s sons encouraged the plot in any way.
We know only that the conspirators’ plan was for the brothers to seek refuge in the
Great Church and request guarantees of their security; the capital’s population was
expected to rally to them and proclaim one of them emperor. The plot seems to have
originated in influential circles in the capital and probably clerical circles too. Irene’s
eunuch Aetios managed to thwart the attempt; the sons of Constantine V were exiled
to Irene’s native Athens and removed from the reach of dignitaries in the capital and
the army of Asia Minor.49
However, in March 799 the Sclavenes of ‘Belzetia’ rose in a rebellion led by their
archon Akameros, which found support among the population of the theme of Hellas.
The rebels’ aim was to liberate the sons of Constantine V who were imprisoned in
Athens and to declare one of them emperor. The rebellion was put down and Irene no

46 Irene’s reign was characterized by the marked influence of eunuchs on the military affairs of the
Empire. When appointing military commanders, Irene conspicuously chose to sideline official hierarchy, i.e.
professional soldiers. For a detailed account of Irene’s reign, see Lilie, Eirene; Herrin, Women in Purple 51–129.
47 Theoph. 469.
48 See n. 51.
49 Theoph. 473.
52 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

longer had any qualms about using corporal punishment on the sons of Constantine
V. Although they had already been maimed, Irene now had them blinded too.50
The plots against Irene and her son showed two things: first, previously per-
formed physical mutilations did not necessarily lead to political disqualification; and
second, the political support for the sons of Constantine V – regardless of whether
they had instigated it by their own actions or not (the latter seems more probable) –
indicated that the dynastic principle was strengthening in the Byzantine society. It was
precisely this change that would henceforth influence the use of physical maiming
with the aim of political and dynastic disqualification.

TRADITIONS OF THE SYRIAN DYNASTY AFTER 802

Irene’s deposition in 802 and the accession of Nikephoros I ended the reign
of the Syrian dynasty. However, the ruling traditions of this family were remarkably
strong and hence claiming continuity with them was seen as a confirmation of or
contributing factor to the legitimacy of subsequent emperors.
Nikephoros I (802–811) was the first to attempt to establish continuity with
the traditions of the Syrian dynasty. An edict by Emperor Nikephoros, whose con-
tents were related by Theodore the Studite in one of his letters, shows how much
the dynastic principle had strengthened during the reign of this dynasty. The edict
is believed to have been written sometime after the coronation of Nikephoros’s son
Staurakios as co-emperor (December 803) and before 808, when Studite probably
composed his letter. This edict proclaims the second marriage of (the blind and by
then probably deceased51) Constantine VI to Theodote illegal and states that a child
born from this adulterous relationship (τὸ μοιχογέννητον τέκνον) had no right of
succession (ἄκληρον) as it would be illegitimate (ὡς ἀθέμιτον καὶ ἀνομώτατον).52 The
referenced child could not have been Constantine’s son Leo, as he is known to have
died in 797. Leo was the only son Constantine VI is reliably known to have fathered;
however, Theodore the Studite’s letter allows the possibility that this emperor also had
a younger son,53 who was declared illegitimate in Nikephoros I’s edict. At the same
time Nikephoros I strengthened the legitimacy of his own family by evoking the Syr-
ian dynasty. The link was established indirectly, through Empress Irene. In violation
of church canons, Nikephoros I married his son Staurakios to Theophano, a relative
of Irene’s.

50 Ibid.473–474. The blinding could have been performed only on those sons of Constantine V
whose tongues had been cut out in 792. Since no names are mentioned, it remains unclear which of them
was alive in 799.
51 According to a tradition recounted in some sources, Constantine VI survived blinding and
Irene’s deposition in 802; for more details, see Lilie, Eirene 273–277.
52 Theod. Stud., Ep. 31 (Fatouros), p. 86.53–58. Constantine VI had two daughters from his first
marriage to Maria and son Leo by Theodote, PmbZ # 4351; 7899A.
53 Lilie, Eirene 274 ; PmbZ # 7899A, pp. 532– 533.
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 53

The dynastic policy of Nikephoros I secured the needed legitimacy for him and
his son Staurikios. However, in 811 conflicts with Krum’s Bulgarians, the death of Ni-
kephoros and the abdication of the severely injured Staurakios reopened the question
of succession. Nikephoros’s son-in-law Michael I Rhangabe (811–813) was appointed
emperor, but his legitimacy was soon challenged.
The Bulgarian offensive and the Empire’s failure to achieve a military break-
through to protect its Balkan provinces revived the traditions about Constantine V,
a military emperor who was renowned precisely for his victorious wars against the
Bulgarians. Some discontented subjects in the capital organized a plot in favor of the
‘blinded.’ The aim was to depose Michael Rhangabe and install one of the younger
sons of Constantine V on the throne (τυφλοὺς βουλόμενοι βασιλεύειν). At this time,
the last male representatives of the Syrian dynasty were imprisoned on Panormos in
the Prince Islands,54 where they had probably been moved from Athens. The sources
do not reveal which of Constantine’s sons from his third marriage were alive in 812.
We do know that Rhangabe foiled the plot and changed the location of their exile for
security reasons, sending them to Aphousia, south of the peninsula of Kizik.55
The plot of 812 was also the last report of the political movements organized in
favor of the living members of the Syrian dynasty. The sources provide no information
about the sons of Constantine V after 812 and henceforth evocations of the tradition
of the Syrian dynasty acquired a different form.
The supporters of the sons of the late Constantine V took action occasionally
but persistently throughout three decades (776–812), disregarding monastic vows,
persecutions and even physical mutilations of their favorites. This persistence can
only be explained by the strengthening of the principle of hereditary rule, which led
to the strong support for the members of a certain dynasty despite the lack of legis-
lation that would regulate succession. The dynastic program of the Syrians as well as
the political-ideological tradition centered on this dynasty, the central role was played
by Constantine V. Notably, loyalty to this ruling family was not expressed as strongly
towards Constantine VI, the son of Leo IV, as towards the sons of Constantine V from
his third marriage – Nikephoros, Christopher, Niketas, Anthimos and Eudokimos.
Historical sources are silent on the political ambitions that the five sons of Con-
stantine V might have harbored. However, there is no doubt that they symbolized the
ruling rights of the Syrian dynasty and represented a real threat to other emperors,
even if plots in their favor had been planned and executed without their knowledge.
This is evidenced by the need for the double physical disfiguration of Christopher,
Niketas, Anthimos and Eudokimos – the severing of their tongues under Constantine
VI and their blinding on Irene’s orders in 799. In addition, maiming was accompanied

54 On the importance of the Prince Islands for the system of political imprisonment, see R. Janin,
Les Iles des Princes. Étude historique et topographie, EO 23 (1924) 178–194; Maleon, Imposible return 35.
55 Theoph. 496.
54 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

by exile; the princes were forced to take monastic vows, constantly guarded and occa-
sionally relocated to various parts of the Empire based on the current needs and secu-
rity assessments (Cherson, Therapia palace on the shoreline of the Bosporus straight,
Athens, Prince Islands, Aphousia).
This political disqualification put an end to the Syrian dynasty, but not to the
ruling traditions of this house. In the 820s Constantine VI as the previously neglected
member of the dynasty received new significance. First the usurper Thomas the Slav,
who revolted against Michael II the Amorian, revived the memory of the long blind-
ed, deposed and already deceased emperor. A letter from Michael II the Amorian to
Louis the Pious (824) informs us that Thomas the Slav falsely claimed to be Constan-
tine VI, Irene’s son,56 in a bid to ‘win the support of the Rhomaioi.’57 It should be noted
that Thomas the Slav could not claim ties to some other dynastic tradition, precisely
because the princes from the houses of Nikephoros I and Michael I Rhangabe, as
well as the sons of Leo the Armenian (see below), had been subjected to castration.
Around the time he wrote his letter to the king of the Franks, Michael was himself try-
ing to strengthen his dynastic claim by establishing ties to the Syrian dynasty. After the
death of his first wife, he married Euphrosyne, the daughter of Constantine VI who
had been made a nun in her childhood and lived in a convent in the Prince Islands.58
The marriage probably took place around 823/824 and can be associated with the po-
litical effects of the revolt led by Thomas the Slav on Michael’s reign. The legitimacy of
Michael II the Amorian was blighted by the fact that he had risen to the throne by as-
sassinating Leo V the Armenian, his former colleague and benefactor. After he finally
quelled the revolt of Thomas the Slav, Michael II’s marriage to Euphrosyne established
ties to the very same dynasty previously evoked by his opponent Thomas the Slav. The
marriage of Michael II and Euphrosyne was met with strong disapproval in some ec-
clesiastical and particularly monastic circles, leading to the emperor’s conflict with the
influential Theodore the Studite.59 The report that Michael the Amorian tried to win
the support of the synkletos for this marriage could perhaps be indicative of his plans:
namely, Michael asked and received assurances from this body that it would protect
his wife and their potential offspring in the event of his death and that it would not be
deprive them of their imperial dignities.60 However, the marriage seems to have been
barren and therefore irrelevant for the fate of the Amorian dynasty. After his accession

56 Mansi XIV 417D.

57 Theoph. Cont. 78. Cf. Scyl. 29.
58 Theoph. Cont. 114–116; Scyl. 44. Euphrosyne (PmbZ # 1705) was Constantine’s daughter from
his first marriage to Maria. Herrin, Women in Purple 130–184.
59 PmbZ # 1705, p. 541.
60 Michael II probably had no issue from his second marriage. However, according to Eastern
tradition about the son of Michael II and Euphrosyne, the boy, who was supposedly born between 824 and
829, was killed by his mother either out of her fear that he might stain that branch of the imperial fami-
ly because his father was of Jewish origin, or out of fear that her son might be raised in the Jewish faith,
PmbZ # 1705А. At the time of her marriage to Michael II the Amorian, Euphrosyne was over thirty years
old and would have been considered past her child-bearing age.
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 55

to the throne, Michael’s successor Theophilos (829–842) sent Euphrosyne back to the
monastery, clearly demonstrating that he needed no connection to the Syrian dynasty
to bolster his legitimacy. Theophilos’s legitimacy was not challenged and all the new
emperor had to ensure in the future was a male heir.

THE CASTRATION OF THE SONS OF MICHAEL I RHANGABE

AND LEO V THE ARMENIAN
As we have seen, efforts to secure the ruling position of one family and establish
its legitimacy could involve various measures ranging from establishing marital ties
with a member of another ruling family (who in this case acted as the bearer or trans-
mitter of legitimacy) to drastic measures such as physical disfigurement of potential
or real opponents. In the latter case, the choice of the type of corporal punishment
depended on the assessment of its effectiveness as a means of political disqualifica-
tion. If the return of Justinian II to the throne in 705 revealed the ineffectiveness of
rhinotomy and put an end to the use of this type of disfigurement on deposed em-
perors,61 then the maiming of the five sons of Constantine V challenged the efficacy
of severing of the tongue and blinding – penal methods that did not necessarily lead
to the victim’s political disqualification. Although the movements in favor of Leo IV’s
half-brothers were neither large (except the revolt in Hellas, which initially had other
causes) nor well-organized and usually remained limited to the opposition actions of
dignitaries in the capital (whose names and offices are rarely reported in historical
sources), they nonetheless illustrated the importance ascribed to the Syrian dynasty.
The remarkable persistence of attempts to promote the claims of Constantine V’s sons
– ignoring their severe disabilities and possibly their political passivity – can only be
explained by the strengthening of the dynastic principle in the Byzantine society. The
decisions of two emperors from the first half of the 9th century – Leo V the Armenian
and Michael II the Amorian – to have the sons of their predecessors castrated need to
be considered in this context.
Reports of Byzantine authors on physical mutilation mostly pertain to deposed
bearers of the imperial title (emperor autokratōr and his co-emperors), usurpers or
to intra-dynastic conflicts among relatives. In very few cases, however, they provide
some information about the fate of the children of those who had been punished.
It seems that they were rarely subjected to maiming, although they certainly had to
endure the consequences of their parents’ political actions and were usually forced to
take monastic vows and exiled. Therefore the drastic decision to castrate the princes
of a deposed ruler, made consecutively by both Leo V and Michael II, deviates from
the previous Byzantine practice.
Leo V the Armenian acceded to the throne in July 813 after the voluntary ab-
dication of his predecessor Michael I Rhangabe. This change at the top of the pyra-
mid of power was preceded by the defeats of the Byzantine army at the hands of the

61 Острогорски, Историја 154–155.

56 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

Bulgarians, especially the disastrous Battle of Versinikia (22 June 813). The threat to
the capital forced Rhangabe to abdicate in favor of Leo the Armenian, the strategos
of the Anatolic theme. The new emperor exiled the members of the imperial fami-
ly to monasteries, tonsuring and castrating Rhangabe’s two sons.62 Rhangabe’s older
son Theophylact had been crowned co-emperor in December 811, which made him
the heir apparent. At the time of his castration, he was twenty years old – at an age
deemed risky for this kind of operation.63 His younger brother Niketas was fourteen
years old. He was also tonsured and castrated, although he had not been declared
co-emperor. Niketas took the monastic name Ignatios and went on to become the
Patriarch of Constantinople.64
Following in the footsteps of Leo V, in late 820 Michael II the Amorian subject-
ed the sons of his predecessor to the same treatment. After the assassination of Leo
V the Armenian, his four sons – Symbatios, Basil, Gregory and Theodosios – were
exiled to the island of Prote, where they were castrated and tonsured.65 As Leo’s eldest
son, Symbatios was crowned co-emperor and renamed Constantine; at the time of
castration, he was 13–15 years of age.66 Leo’s younger son Basil was also crowned his
father’s co-ruler, replacing his birth name Constantine by the name Basil. As he is
believed to have been born shortly before his father’s coronation (813), it would seem
that he was castrated in his boyhood and certainly before puberty.67 Gregory and the
youngest son Theodosios were also castrated; the latter died from complications of the
castration surgery and was buried with his father on the island of Prote.68
Despite the different circumstances of the dethronement of Michael Rhangabe
and Leo V, their male heirs suffered the same punishment. Rhangabe abdicated with-
out putting up any resistance to Leo the Armenian and there is nothing in the sourc-
es to suggest any conflicts between them before the defeat of the Byzantine army at
Versinikia.69 By contrast, Michael II the Amorian and Leo the Armenian began as al-
lies and close associates and ended as enemies; in this context, the assassination of Leo

62 Vita Ignatii 8; Gen. 6; Theoph. Cont. 32; Scyl 9.

63 Theoph. 494. Theophylact was born in 793 and died in January 849 as monk Eustratios, surviv-
ing his father Michael Rhangabe (monk Athanasios) by five years, PmbZ # 8336.
64 For an overview of prosopographical information on Patriarch Ignatios, see PmbZ # 2666; #
22712. Rhangabe’s middle son Staurikios (PmbZ # 6890) was also crowned co-emperor like Theophylact,
but died before his father’s abdication.
65 Theoph. Cont. 64, 72; Vita Ignatii 10; Scyl. 24.
66 PmbZ # 3925. The year of his birth was probably closer to 810, as he was still a boy at the time
of his father’s coronation, Scr. Inc. 346: ἔστεψεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ μικρὸν ὄντα.
67 PmbZ # 927.
68 Vita Ignatii 10; cf. PmbZ #7871. On Gregory see also ibid. # 4274.
69 The Byzantine defeat in the Battle of Versinikia was the subject of two contradictory narrative
traditions with Leo the Armenian, the strategos of the Anatolic theme, in the central role. While the first
portrays him as a brave military commander, the second sees him as a traitor who caused the defeat and
used the difficult situation to launch a coup and rise to the throne. Contrary to traditional opinions, Turn-
er argues for his rehabilitation, see Turner, Leo V 187–193.
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 57

V would have been the expected outcome of their conflict.70 Both Michael I Rhangabe
and Leo V the Armenian suffered one of the sanctions that had usually accompanied
changes on the throne in previous periods: tonsuring and exile or capital punishment.
It follows that the motive for the castration of their heirs – an uncommon type of mu-
tilation – had a deeper social and political meaning.
Markedly, in both cases castration involved all sons of the deposed ruler with
no distinction between the bearers of the imperial (co-ruling) title that made them
heirs apparent and others. In addition, castration was performed regardless of their
age and the fact that the risks increased as the victim grew older. Like in other cases of
mutilation in the previous period, castration was accompanied by exile and tonsuring.
The most important things that the sons of Michael Rhangabe and Leo the Armenian
were deprived of by their castration were any future claims to the throne. Therefore,
the primary social purpose of castration was to prevent the paternal line of succes-
sion, which could, in radical cases like these, lead to the extinction of a bloodline or
family name. Hence, the growing aristocratization of the Byzantine society and the
strengthening of the dynastic principle made castration the most efficient means for
the political elimination of an entire bloodline (γένος).
Leo V the Armenian resorted to castration under pressure from the strength-
ening idea of hereditary rule in the Byzantine society, as evidenced by the example of
the Syrian dynasty. The principle of familial rule prevailed once again in 811, when
the successor of Nikephoros I was sought within his immediate family and the ac-
cession of his son-in-law Michael Rhangabe remained unchallenged. To consolidate
his power, Leo the Armenian had to prevent any potential threats from Rhangabe’s
supporters and his male descendents, who could lay claim to the throne based on
both their paternal and maternal lineage. It should be noted that Michael Rhangabe
had not been an unpopular ruler.71 Had there not been for the aggressive Bulgarian
offensive that threatened the imperial capital, it is uncertain how the reign of this
emperor might have unfolded. Rhangabe certainly enjoyed the favor of ecclesiasti-
cal circles (his closest associates included Patriarch Nikephoros and Theodore the
Studite) as well as many dignitaries in the capital. However, military defeats and the
discontent of the eastern army, as well as the chaotic situation in European themes,
cost him the support in the Empire’s military circles. His popularity and voluntary ab-
dication spared the life of Michael Rhangabe, who spent the following three decades
as a monk imprisoned in a monastery.72 Although Leo V the Armenian treated his

70 Leo Armenian and Michael the Amorian both served in the army of Bardanes Tourkos and
later in the Anatolic theme. Having acceded to the throne, Leo V rewarded Michael by appointing him
first as his prōtostratōr and then Domestic of the Excubitors. Unhappy with the reign of Leo V, Michael
became the leader of the conspirators who assassinated Leo V on 25 December 820.
71 Byzantine authors describe him as a ‘man of peace’ (εἰρηνικός ... ἄνθρωπος) but ‘inept at handling
administrative affairs’ (περὶ δὲ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων διοικήσεως ἀκυβέρνητος), Scyl. 8; Theoph. 499–500.
72 It is assumed that Michael was born around 770. He was 43 at the time of abdication and died
in January 844, when he was over 70 years old, PmbZ # 4948.
58 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

deposed predecessor and his family with care (and even gave him an annual allow-
ance), the separation of the spouses,73 tonsuring and exile of his daughters and sons
and the castration of Theophylact and Niketas as well as the coronation of Leo’s own
two sons as co-emperors (Symbatios-Constantine and Constantine-Basil) indicates
that Leo was primarily driven by his intention to establish and ensure the hereditary
rule of his own family.
In a bid to secure both the future line of succession and his own legitimacy
(shaken by the fact that he had risen to the throne by assassinating his predeces-
sor74), Michael II castrated the four male heirs of Leo the Armenian to prevent poten-
tial turnarounds in their favor. Support for the sons of the murdered emperor could
have easily come from provincial military circles, which held Michael the Amorian
in much less regard than Leo the Armenian even before the former’s accession to the
throne.75 Although the decision to have Leo’s sons castrated could have had roots in
Michael’s personal desire for vengeance against the family of his detested predecessor,
its primary purpose was to prevent any future claims to the throne.76
The castration of the sons of Michael Rhangabe and Leo Armenian went be-
yond individual political disqualification. Preventing their children from having their
own offspring made these families unfit to claim the role of bearer/transmitter of le-
gitimacy. This was plainly evident in the case of the Rhangabe family: unlike Leo the
Armenian who had no female issue, Michael I fathered two daughters – Georgo and
Theophano, who were made nuns after his abdication and spent the remainder of
their lives in political and social isolation.77 However, Euphrosyne, the daughter of

73 Theoph. Cont. 32.

74 From the 9th century onwards, the Byzantine society increasingly disapproved of assassination in
the case of emperors autokratoroi. This is evidenced by the punishment of the murderers of Leo the Arme-
nian by Theophilos the Amorian, the ceremonial reburial of Michael III the Amorian organized by Leo VI
the Wise or the so-called ‘Walk to Canossa’ of John I Tzimiskes for the murder of Nikephoros II Phokas.
75 Regardless of whether we accept the narrative tradition which portrays Thomas the Slav as Leo
the Armenian’s comrade-in-arms (see J. Signes Codoñer, The Emperor Theophilos and the East, 829–842:
Court and Frontier in Byzantium during the Last Phase of Iconoclasm, VR, Burlington 2014), it should be
noted that Michael II faced a military revolt and civil war that made Thomas his opponent and a pretender
to the throne. Notably, this tradition recounts that Thomas, the tourmarchēs of the Foederati, rose in rebel-
lion ‘under the pretence of avenging his benefactor (Leo V), but driven by his own interests’ (ἐκδικῶν τάχα
τὸν εὐργέτην, ὁμοῦ δὲ καὶ θυμὸν ἴδιον ἐμπιπλάς), Scyl. 30; cf. Theoph. Cont. 78–80. Hence, the rebellion
of Thomas the Slav implicitly indicates the support that the sons of Leo the Armenian could have garnered
in thematic armies if they had not been castrated.
76 Michael II also showed mercy to the widow and children of Leo V and gave them a part of Leo the
Armenian’s confiscated personal property as an allowance, as well as a number of servants. He was particu-
larly considerate towards Leo’s widow Theodosia and ensured she could live safely at a monastery and even
keep some of her rights (ἐν ἀσφαλεία ζῆν κελεύσας αὐθεντικῶς), Theoph. Cont. 72. Theodosia might have
earned this kindness when she saved Michael the Amorian from certain death: Leo V had wanted to burn
Michael alive and ordered him thrown ‘like firewood’ into the furnace in the imperial bath, ibid. 54–56.
77 It has been surmised that Georgo could have been not only Rhangabe’s older daughter, but also
his eldest child born before Theophylact (before 770), PmbZ # 2290. This would have made her over twen-
ty years of age at the time of her father’s abdication. Both Georgo and Theophano (ibid. # 8164) were sent
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 59

Constantine VI, retained her relevance at least in the eyes of Michael II. She was taken
out of her convent against her will and married to an emperor who saw her as a sym-
bolic conduit of the Syrian dynastic tradition – the same family used by his opponent
Thomas the Slav to bolster his own political pretensions.

CASTRATION – PUNISHMENT AND SALVATION

From the social point of view, castration was the mildest form of maiming of
all types of mutilation. Unlike the victims of rhinotomy, severing of the tongue or
blinding, castrates were not necessarily destined for permanent social and political
marginalization. The reason for this was the ambivalent view of eunuchs in the Byz-
antine Empire: despite (often purely theoretical) condemnations, eunuchs were an
acceptable phenomenon in the religious and secular sphere of the Byzantine society.
The criterion for the gradation of corporal sanction was realistic and came
down to the degree of hampering or limiting the functionality of the mutilated per-
son. Since in these cases the state of being socially handicapped stemmed from phys-
ical disability, disfigurement carried a certain symbolism. As we have seen, the most
common method of political disqualification in the 7th century was the severing of
the nose. Although this sanction was symbolic and did not severely limit the vic-
tim’s physiological abilities, in the social sense it meant shaming. Disfigurement of
the face – the most prominent part of the human body – was a form of stigmatization
that could not be hidden (even with a golden nose which is traditionally believed to
have been made for Justinian II). The Ecloga informs us that it was precisely this pun-
ishment that severely disfigured and shamed the victim which was used to sanction
various types of heterosexual offenses.78 Unlike rhinotomy, punishments such as sev-
ering of the tongue and blinding caused real disability and limited the victim’s normal
functioning. The severing of the tongue represented a milder form of mutilation than
rhinotomy or blinding. In political disqualification, after Justinian II rhinotomy was
gradually abandoned in favor of blinding, a type of corporal punishment with strong
political and ideological symbolism which became the usual sanction for those who
dared rebel against imperial authority.79
Compared to the above-mentioned types of mutilation, castration had a more
complex social meaning, which stemmed from the ambivalent treatment of eunuchs
in the Byzantine society. This ambivalence was reflected in the openness of official
hierarchy for this category of subjects on one hand and their condemnation and de-
rision on the other. Categorizing officials into ‘the bearded’ and eunuchs led to the
classification of duties and honorific dignities intended for each of these categories,
which is detailed in the Klētorologion of Philotheos. Many offices and titles were not

to a monastery after 813. The sources provide no information on whether they were engaged or married
during their father’s reign.
78 See, for example, Ecloga (L. Burgmann) c. XVII.23–28, 30–34.
79 O. Lampsidis, Η ποινή της τυφλώσεως παρά Βυζαντινοίς, Athens 1949.
60 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

only available to eunuchs but reserved for them (τάξεις τῶν εὐνούχων).80 On the other
hand, eunuchs were explicitly banned from occupying certain positions.81 This insti-
tutionalized need for eunuchs in the Byzantine society encouraged not only the im-
port of castrates but also the expansion of so-called voluntary castration. There is no
doubt that many Rhomean families decided to ‘sacrifice’ a male child or even multiple
children. Mutilation of reproductive organs (whatever method may have been used
to effect it) became just another alternative choice that could ensure and accelerate
upward social mobility of the individual and his family. Hence the affirmative treat-
ment of eunuchs in the Byzantine society was equally apparent in the public sphere
– institutionalized positions occupied in Byzantine history by eunuchs at court, as
members of the emperor’s closest entourage; in state administration; and especially
in the church, as well as in the private sphere – in the households of aristocratic and
affluent families.82
On the other hand, the traditional Byzantine society also harbored a negative
view of eunuchs, which was based on three fundamental characteristics: sterility
(which is also the basic definition of a eunuch); physical and psychological resem-
blance to women; and eunuchs’ sexuality. The childlessness of eunuchs was the key
reason for their condemnation: due to their inability to father children, eunuchs were
considered useless in the socio-religious sense.83
The negative social view of eunuchs rested on the general censure of the act of
castration, as evidenced by Byzantine legislation. However, there was a marked diffe­
rence between genital mutilation and other forms of disfigurement. Firstly, castration
did not involve readily evident stigmatization of the victim, regardless of the changes
to the physical characteristics of the castrate (gaining weight, baldness, hairlessness,
wrinkly skin, elongated limbs etc.) or the changes in their behavior that reduced them
to the ‘female nature.’84 Secondly, institutional openness of the society towards eu-
nuchs meant that castration did not necessarily entail their social marginalization –
they did not suffer the isolation that inevitably accompanied other forms of physical
mutilation. Although the castration of members of imperial families was followed by
other security measures such as forcible tonsuring and imprisonment in monaste­
ries far from Constantinople (as demonstrated by the cases of Heraklonas’s brother
Marinus and the sons of Michael Rhangabe and Leo the Armenian), the castrates

80 Listes 125–135.
81 Eunuchs could not serve as eparch of the city or questor; in addition, they could not occupy the
positions of domestikoi, ibid. 135.9–10. In the last case, this rule was abandoned over time, as evidenced by
the example of the Domestic of the Schools.
82 The growing influx of domestic eunuchs can be traced to the 8th century, Ringrose, Perfect Ser-
vant 23. The social acceptability of eunuchs was also evident in the castration of aristocratic illegitimate
sons, which removed them from the family inheritance but at the same time opened the path for service
in official positions and advancing their careers (e.g. Basil Lekapenos).
83 Krsmanović – Todorović, Odbrana 98–101, 104–107.
84 Gautier I, 293–295; 317.8; Krsmanović – Todorović, Odbrana 101–102.
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 61

who managed to survive the surgery could achieve remarkable careers in the church
(Niketas-Ignatios Rhangabe became the Patriarch of Constantinople). Most impor-
tantly, in these cases castration was not a punishment intended to sanction the vic-
tim’s individual offense. Therefore, the meaning of castration did not rest on a specific
individual wrongdoing, but was directed at the family of the victim (innocent individ-
ual). Performed on the heirs of a ruler rather than the ruler himself (who was instead
forcibly tonsured, killed or subjected to other forms of mutilation – but not genital),
castration was meant to prevent a situation that could arise in the future. Since it
emerged under pressure of the dynastic principle, i.e. the need to preserve power in
the hands of one family (branch), this form of stigmatization was used to ensure the
permanent political disqualification of the members of a particular bloodline. Thus,
the castration of the sons of Michael I Rhangabe and Leo V the Armenian deprived
their families of the possibility of positioning themselves as bearers or transmitters of
dynastic legitimacy in the future.
Michael the Amorian was the last ruler to use castration as a means of political
disqualification of his predecessor’s family members. The ascendancy of the Mace-
donian dynasty created the preconditions for the evolution and consolidation of the
dynastic principle and the preservation of throne rights within one bloodline. How-
ever, the struggle of the Macedonians was not without obstacles, especially during
the reigns of the first rulers from this house. During the period of the Macedonian
dynasty, castration was used occasionally, but not as drastically as had been the case
between 813 and 820.85

85 A relatively similar and more radical example of castration pertains to the castration of the two
grandsons of Romanos I Lekapenos. In 945 Constantine VII ordered the castration of Romanos, the son
of Emperor Stephen Lekapenos, and Romanos, the son of Emperor Constantine Lekapenos, both in their
boyhood. However, they were not marginalized; instead they later received prestigious titles and were
thereby included into the τάξεις τῶν εὐνούχων. In addition, Manuel, the secondborn and only surviving
son of the late Emperor Christopher Lekapenos was not castrated and was only divested of his ‘red sandals’
and appointed a magister and a rector, Theoph. Cont VI, 438; Scyl. 238. Basil, the illegitimate son of
Romanos I Lekapenos who went on to become one of the most powerful eunuchs, was also castrated to
regulate the line of succession Psellos, Chron. I, 3. The case of Theophylaktos Lekapenos is debatable:
in my opinion, he seems to have become a eunuch as a result of a childhood illness or injury and not a
deliberate decision of Romanos I Lekapenos.
Emperor Alexander also considered castrating Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, but never
executed his plan, Theoph. Cont. VI, 379; Scyl. 194–195. After the rebellion of Constantine VII Doukas
was put down in 913 and the deaths of Constantine, Constantine’s son Gregory and his nephew Michael,
his youngest son Stephen was castrated and exiled to the family estate in Paphlagonia, Theoph. Cont. VI,
385; Scyl. 200. Nikephoros II Phokas reportedly also considered having Basil II and Constantine VIII
castrated, Psellos, Hist. Synt. 100; Zon. XVI, 516. A more drastic case of castrating members of one’s own
family is associated with Michael V Kalaphates, who allegedly had his male relatives neutered to secure the
throne for himself, Attal. 11–12. However, this example does not refer to the ruler‘s direct descendants.
62 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

ЛИСТА РЕФЕРЕНЦИ – LIST OF REFERENCES

Извори – Primary Sources
Basilicorum libri LX, edd. H. J. Scheltema, D. Holwerda et N. van der Wal, Groningen 1953–1988.
Codex Iustinianus, ed. P. Krueger, Berolini 1895.
Digesta, ed. T. Mommsen, Berolini 1899.
Ecloga. Das Gesetzbuch Leonis III. Und Konstantinos’ V., ed. L. Burgmann, Frankfurt am Main 1983.
Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed. I. Thurn, CFHB V, Series Berolinensis, Berlin – New York 1973.
Ioannis Zonarae Epitomae Historiarum, Libri XIII–XVIII, ed. T. Büttner-Wobst, Bonnae 1897.
Iosephi Genesii Regum Libri Quattuor, edd. A. Lesmueller–Werner et I. Thurn, CFHB XIV, Series Beroli-
nensis, Berlin – New York 1978.
Iustiniani Institutiones, ed. P. Krueger, Berolini 1908.
Jus Graeco-Romanum VI (Synopsis minor), edd. P. Zepi, J. Zepi, Aalen 1962 (repr.).
Lamza, L., Patriarch Germanos I. von Konstantinopel (715–730): Versuch einer endgültigen chronologi-
schen Fixierung des Lebens und Wirkens des Patriarchen: mit dem griechisch-deutschen Text der
Vita Germani am Schluss der Arbeit, Würzburg 1975.
Les Novelles de Léon VI le Sage, edd. P. Noailles et A. Dain, Paris 1944.
Michaelis Attaliatae Historiae, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB, Bonnae 1853.
Michael Psellos, Chronographie I, ed. E. Renauld, Paris 1926.
Michaelis Pselli Historia Syntomos, ed. W. J. Aerts, CFHB XXX, Series Berolinensis, Berlin – New York 1990.
Nikephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Breviarium Historicum, ed. C. Mango, CFHB XIII, Series Wa-
shingtoniensis, Washington, D.C. 1990.
Nicitae Davidis, Vita Ignatii Patriarchae, ed. A. Smithies, comm. J. M. Duffy, CFHB LI, Series Washington-
iensis, Washington, D.C. 2013.
Novelae, edd. R. Schoell – G. Kroll, Berolini 1928.
Oikonomidès, N., Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe еt Xe siècles, Paris 1972.
Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. G. D. Mansi, Venetiis 1769, XIV coll. 417–422.
Scriptor Incertus, Συγγραφὴ χρονογραφίου τὰ κατὰ Λέοντα υἱὸν Βάρδα τοῦ Ἀρμενίου περιέχουσα.
Historia de Leone Bardae Armenii filio, ed. I. Bekker, in: Leonis Grammatici Chronographia ex.
rec. I. Bekkeri, Bonnae 1842, 333–362.
The Cronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, transl. from Zotenberg’s text by R. H. Charles, Oxford 1916.
Theodori Studitae Epistulae I, ed. G. Fatouros, CFHB XXXI/1, Series Berolinensis, Berlin – New York 1991.
Theophanis Continuati Chronigraphiae, Libri I–IV, edd. Michael Featherstone et Juan Signes Codoñer,
Boston – Berlin 2015.
Theophanes Continuatus VI, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB, Bonnae 1838.
Theophylacti Achridensis Orationes, Tractatus, Carmina, ed. P. Gautier, CFHB XVI/1, Series Thessaloni-
censis, Thessalonicae 1980, VII: Apologie de l’eunuchisme, pp. 287–331.
Эклога. Византийский законодательный свод VIII века, ed. Е. Э. Липшиц, Москва 1965. [Ekloga.
Vizantijskij zakonodateljnij svod VIII veka, ed. E. E. Lipšic, Moskow 1965.]

Литература – Secondary Works

Guilland, R., Les eunuques dans l’Empire byzantin, in: Recherches sur les institutions byzantines I, Berlin–
Amsterdam 1967, 165–380.
Herrin, J., Women in Purple. Rulers of Medieval Byzantium, Oxford 2001.
Janin, R., Les Iles des Princes. Étude historique et topographie, Échos d’Orient 23 (1924) 178–194.
 BOJANA KRSMANOVIĆ: Castration as a Consequence of the Strengthening... 63

Lampsidis, O., Η ποινή της τυφλώσεως παρά Βυζαντινοίς, Athens 1949.

Lilie, R.–J., Byzanz unter Eirene und Konstantin VI. (780–802). Mit einem Kapitel uber Leon VI. (775–
780) von I. Rochow, Frankfurt am Main etc. 1996.
Maleon, B.–P., An Introduction to Byzantine Political Exil, Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii Ovidius
Constanţa. Seria Filologie”, XXI, 2010, 173–187.
Maleon, B.–P., The impossible return. About the status of deposed and mutilated emperors, Medieval and
Early Modern Studies for Central and Eastern Europe, III (2011) 31–49.
Messis, Ch., Les eunuques à Byzance, entre réalité et imaginaire, Dossiers Byzantins 14, Paris 2014.
Papaioannou, S., Sicily, Constantinople, Miletos: The Life of a Eunuch and the History of Byzantine
Humanism, in: Myriobiblos. Essays on Byzantine Literature and Culture, edd. Th. Antonopoulou –
S. Kotzabassi – M. Loukaki, Boston–Berlin–Munich 2015, 261–284.
Patlagean, E., Byzance et le blason pénal du corps, in: Du châtiment dans la cité. Supplices corporels et
peine de mort dans le monde antique. Table ronde de Rome (9–11 novembre 1982) Rome : École
française de Rome, 1984, 405–427.
Prosopographie der mittel-byzantinischen Zeit I (641–867), Berlin – New York 2000–2002.
Ringrose, K. M., The Perfect Servant. Eunuchs and the Social Construction of Gender in Byzantium,
Chicago–London 2003.
Rochow, I., Kaiser Konstantin V. (741–775). Materialien zu seinem Leben und Nachleben. Mit einem
prosopographischen Anhang von C. Ludvig, I. Rochow und R.-J. Lilie, Frankfurt am Main etc. 1994.
Signes Codoñer, J., The Emperor Theophilos and the East, 829–842: Court and Frontier in Byzantium
during the Last Phase of Iconoclasm, VR, Burlington 2014.
Simon, D., Lobpreis des Eunuchen, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, Vorträge 24, München 1994, 5–27.
Tougher, S. The Eunuch in Byzantine History and Society, London–New York 2008.
Treadgold, W., Seven Byzantine Revolutions and the Chronology of Theophanes, Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Studies 31/2 (1990) 203–227.
Turner, D., The Origins and Accession of Leo V (813–820), Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik
40 (1990) 171–203.
N. van der Wal, N. van der – Lokin, J. H. A., Historiae Iuris Graeco-Romani Delineatio, Groningen 1985.
Крсмановић, Б. – Тодоровић, Д., О Теофилактовој Oдбрани евнуштва I, Зборник радова Византо-
лошког института 52 (2015) 91–133. [Krsmanović, B. – Todorović, D., O Teofilaktovoj Odbrani
evnuštva, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 52 (2015) 91–133]
Острогорски, Г., Историја Византије, Београд 1969. [Ostrogorski, G., Istorija Vizantije, Beograd 1969]

Бојана Крсмановић
Византолошки институт САНУ
[email protected]

КАСТРАЦИЈА
КАО ПОСЛЕДИЦА ЈАЧАЊА ДИНАСТИЧКОГ ПРИНЦИПА
У раду се разматрају примери телесног сакаћења који су пратили обра-
чуне унутар династија или обрачуне са претендентима – потенцијалним или
стварним – на царску власт. Уочљиво је да је кастрација била позната али рет-
ко примењивана мера у политичким превирањима током 7. и 8. века. Зато је
одлука о кастрирању свих синова свргнутог цара Михаила I Рангабеа (813), а
затим и синова Лава V Јерменина (820) одударала од дотадашње уобичајене
64 ЗРВИ LIV (2017) 41–64

византијске праксе. Установљено је да је у наведеним случајевима избор кастра-

ције као најефикаснијег средства за будућу политичку дисквалификацију прин-
чева и њихових породица био последица јачања династичког принципа у ви-
зантијском друшту, што је било врло изражено у случају потомака Константина
V из трећег брака. Истакнуто је, такође, да се кастрацији никад не подвргава
свргнути цар автократор, већ носиоци царске титуле (цареви савладари) или,
једноставно, принчеви без царског звања. Нотирано је да се у примерима при-
мене кастрације у циљу политичке дисквалификације није радило о санкцији за
индивидуалну кривицу (дакле, није реч била о казни која је пратила конкретан
преступ); ако се у тим случајевима говори о казни, она је била намењена поро-
дици, тј. роду (γένος) а не (невином) појединцу.
У односу на друге начине телесног сакаћења (сечење носа, језика, ушију,
ослепљење) кастрација је спадала у блажи вид санкција. Због амбивалентног
односа византијског друштва према евнусима, кастрација није водила обавез-
ној друштвеној маргинализацији жртве. Зато је у време владавине Македонске
династије чешће примењивана, али су угледни кастрирани појединци укључи-
вани у службену хијерархију, у евнушки ред (τάξεις τῶν εὐνούχων).