Definition
A male person who has been castrated. In legal contexts, the term arose primarily in the law of persons, marriage, and civil capacity, where castration was recognized as bearing on legal rights and disabilities — particularly the capacity to contract marriage and the ability to produce legitimate heirs.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A castrated man; historically, such a man employed as a harem guard or court official in Eastern monarchies; more loosely, a man disinclined to marry, or figuratively, one who is ineffectual.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A male of the human species castrated; commonly, one of a class of such persons in Oriental countries having charge of the women's apartments, some of whom in former times gained high official rank.
The legal meaning is narrower than the historical common meaning. Where popular and historical usage emphasized the social role of eunuchs — palace functionaries, harem guardians, court officials — legal usage stripped away those cultural dimensions and defined the term strictly by physical condition. The legal relevance was not status or occupation but the biological fact of castration, which triggered specific consequences in marriage law and the law of persons.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The term appears rarely in Anglo-American common law sources but surfaces with greater frequency in civil law traditions and in treatises drawing on Roman law and continental authorities. Researchers working in early American or English ecclesiastical law may encounter the term in the context of canonical impediments to marriage, where impotence and castration were grounds for annulment or for declaring a marriage void. The Kansas case cited in Black's 2nd edition — Eckert v. Van Pelt — is a notable American instance where the legal status of a eunuch bore directly on a contested legal question, and it is one of the few reported American decisions to engage the term directly.
Researchers should be alert to the distinction between impotence and castration in historical sources. Ecclesiastical and civil law treated these as related but not identical conditions, and the legal consequences sometimes differed. A castrated male was not necessarily legally impotent in every jurisdiction's framework, and conflation of the two in older sources can mislead.
The reference to Domat (Jean Domat, the 17th-century French jurist) in both editions of Black's signals that this definition was drawn from civilian rather than common law sources. Domat's Lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel was a foundational text for civil law jurisdictions, and his treatment of legal capacity informed how the term entered American legal dictionaries. Researchers working in Louisiana or other mixed-jurisdiction states will find the civilian pedigree of this definition particularly relevant.
Historical sources generally treat eunuchs as a category of persons with diminished or modified legal capacity — incapable of contracting valid marriage in some frameworks, ineligible for certain offices in others. These disabilities were not uniform, and researchers should not assume that any single source reflects a universal rule.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both editions of Black's Law Dictionary offer identical substantive definitions: "A male of the human species who has been castrated." Both cite Domat as authority. The 2nd edition adds the citation to Eckert v. Van Pelt, 69 Kan. 357, 76 Pac. 909 (1904), which grounds the definition in reported American case law.
The definition is notably spare. Black's makes no attempt to address the legal consequences of being a eunuch — the disabilities, incapacities, or modified rights that gave the term legal relevance in the first place. That context must be recovered from the underlying sources Black's cites, particularly Domat, and from ecclesiastical and civil law treatises that deal with marriage impediments.
What historical dictionaries miss: there is no discussion of the civilian tradition's nuanced treatment of castration as distinct from natural impotence, no engagement with the canonical law framework, and no acknowledgment that the term's legal significance varied substantially between common law, civil law, and ecclesiastical law systems. The dictionary entries function as identifiers, not as doctrinal guides.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The term's legal significance is most pronounced in civil law and ecclesiastical law jurisdictions, where it figured in the law of marriage impediments and legal capacity. In common law jurisdictions, the term appeared infrequently and almost entirely in the context of marriage law challenges. Researchers in Louisiana should consult civilian sources alongside common law materials given the state's mixed legal heritage.
---