# Circumcision In Ancient Rome



## sanity rules (Mar 1, 2008)

I have been reading Caesar's Women, the fourth novel in Colleen McCullough's magnificent series on ancient Rome, and in this book there was a sub-plot in one chapter regarding a Roman man, apparently based on an actual historical personage and incident, who is abducted while off on a campaign in the Near East, and circumcised against his will by his Arab captors.

This Roman makes his way home but is so deeply ashamed of being circumcised that he decides he will never again be able to bathe publicly and will have to be very careful when using the city lavatories lest this humiliating defect be discovered. So deeply ran his shame that he even resolves that he will never be able to wed and reveal his disfigurement to his wife, and never again be able to have sexual relations with any woman except perhaps one acquired for money, who would not see his face in a darkened bedchamber.

All this because in ancient Rome of 2100 years ago, circumcision was utterly reviled among the citizenry. I couldn't help but contrast that with our own society and how so often as an intactivist I'll hear that decrepit old line about "oh, everyone will make fun of him if he DOESN'T get circumcised."

Not that I'm saying a man victimized by circumcision should feel shame over his bodily state or that I support the severe ancient Roman view on the subject, but it just goes to show you how one extreme view can be exchanged for another. What is the norm in one place marks one as an outcast someplace else.

History is life's master teacher, and it makes for some interesting revelations.

PS By the way, this ancient Roman, Clodius, his name, did eventually find true love and acceptance with a woman in whom he confided his "injured state" and who looked past it because of her feelings for him.


----------



## Nandi (Jul 12, 2008)

Yes for a long time it was the mark of a slave...


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sanity rules* 
I have been reading Caesar's Women, the fourth novel in Colleen McCullough's magnificent series on ancient Rome, and in this book there was a sub-plot in one chapter regarding a Roman man, apparently based on an actual historical personage and incident, who is abducted while off on a campaign in the Near East, and circumcised against his will by his Arab captors.

This Roman makes his way home but is so deeply ashamed of being circumcised that he decides he will never again be able to bathe publicly and will have to be very careful when using the city lavatories lest this humiliating defect be discovered. So deeply ran his shame that he even resolves that he will never be able to wed and reveal his disfigurement to his wife, and never again be able to have sexual relations with any woman except perhaps one acquired for money, who would not see his face in a darkened bedchamber.

All this because in ancient Rome of 2100 years ago, circumcision was utterly reviled among the citizenry. I couldn't help but contrast that with our own society and how so often as an intactivist I'll hear that decrepit old line about "oh, everyone will make fun of him if he DOESN'T get circumcised."

Not that I'm saying a man victimized by circumcision should feel shame over his bodily state or that I support the severe ancient Roman view on the subject, but it just goes to show you how one extreme view can be exchanged for another. What is the norm in one place marks one as an outcast someplace else.

History is life's master teacher, and it makes for some interesting revelations.

PS By the way, this ancient Roman, Clodius, his name, did eventually find true love and acceptance with a woman in whom he confided his "injured state" and who looked past it because of her feelings for him.

Well you have to understand, one of the main reasons for this was that the foreskin was seen in "pre-circ" western society as the main symbol of male sexuality. In pre Victorian England the foreskin was the symbol of manhood. (which makes sense because its the part of the penis a guy interacts with first and most whenever they deal with their penis)

So removing the foreskin removed everything it represented in those societies for those men.


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

This is interesting. It just shows that the cosmetic aspect of circumcision is purely subjective.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tennisdude23* 
This is interesting. It just shows that the cosmetic aspect of circumcision is purely subjective.

Yeah, its an important point to understand because this issue is not as simple as "everyone wants to be intact and the ones that are not, are angry and guilty so continue the tradition"

There some men and women who are truly happy with their circed state, and want to pass that to their children. And this is because of the culture they grew up in. The problem is you never know how children will actually feel themselves, not everyone absorbs all parts of the culture they live in.

To give an example, in a book I am currently reading they are talking about English opinion of circ in the 1700's : "If a doctor had suggested to an eighteenth-century Englishman that he get himself or his son circumcised, the response would be a punch in the face."

Now compare that to today, even in England, there is enough "respect" put into the "option" of circumcision that a father would certainly not punch a doctor in the face for making such a suggestion.

This is how the Victorian Era has drastically changed the way men look at their bodies and their sexuality even those that are intact.


----------



## tlh (Oct 10, 2007)

Foreskin restoration must have been pretty common at that time in Rome.

http://www.mmdtkw.org/VRomanMedicine2002.html

Roman surgeons were also adept at several forms of minor plastic surgery. They did facial and other repairs, removed growths, etc. The most common operation appears to have been male de-circumcision. Reversal of genital mutilation, which might have been the result of religious observance or mischance, was an important procedure which one would seek in order to avoid embarrassment when appearing naked at the baths or in the gymnasia.


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tlh* 
Foreskin restoration must have been pretty common at that time in Rome.

http://www.mmdtkw.org/VRomanMedicine2002.html

Roman surgeons were also adept at several forms of minor plastic surgery. They did facial and other repairs, removed growths, etc. The most common operation appears to have been male de-circumcision. Reversal of genital mutilation, which might have been the result of religious observance or mischance, was an important procedure which one would seek in order to avoid embarrassment when appearing naked at the baths or in the gymnasia.

That web page gives a bibliography, but the article is not exactly footnoted.

I do not believe surgical reconstruction was common BCE. The first few patients, whose penises surely fell off, would have ensured that.

I think the article makes the assertion based on a common mis-interpretation of Maccabees. "They made themselves prepuces" sounds like a Kynodesme and some clay forms (with or without weights) to me, not surgery. To some modern translators who have no knowledge of non-surgical restoration, the passage comes out like "they grafted skin to undo their circumcisions" which is just pulled out of thin air.


----------

